A Short Note on the Social Side of
the Modalities and Procedures for Afforestation and
Reforestation Projects under the CDM
by Claudio Forner
To finalize this short note, the present paper highlights the fact that simplified M&P have been made available in order to incentive the development of CDM projects by small holders and communities who, given the general M&P, may not be able to compete due to high costs of developing methodologies, dealing with DOAs and others. Small-scale afforestation or reforestation projects were defined by Decision 19/ CP.9 as those that are expected to result in net anthropogenic greenhouse gas removals by sinks of less than 8 kilotonnes of CO2 per year; in other words, small-scale projects should not remove carbon under the mentioned values, thus having a limit of how many tCERs or lCERs can be generated by project per year. A second characteristic of these projects is that they have to be developed by low-income communities or individuals as defined by the host Party. Again, the dichotomy between national and international issues is refl ected here by the fact that the definition of “low-income”, which is related to poverty and indexes of development, is left to the host Party, while the definition of the maximum absorbed carbon has been established at the international level.
In practice, to prove that the project will indeed be implemented by low-income communities, project participants will need to include a letter from the host government (e.g. the DNA), which affi rms this is the case. Depending on how countries decide to design their procedures, this may imply that the country needs to establish criteria on what are “low-income” communities and individuals. If a project meets both sides of the definition for small-scale, it will be entitled to use simplified modalities and procedures, which are summarized as follows:
++ Project activities can be bundled (e.g. several projects can be joined).
++ Projects are exempt from the share of proceeds and will be subject to reduced administrative fees.
++ Documentation has been simplified.
++ Projects may use simplifi ed methodologies that are to be developed by the executive board.
++ The same DOE can perform registration and verifi cation.
It is worth highlighting the fact that the development of methodologies will be undertaken by the board, which means that small projects will not need to invest in their development nor in the process of approval. The procedures for selecting a methodology are explained in Appendix B. Some of the following are:
++ The baseline can be assumed constant if project proponents demonstrate that no signifi cant changes are expected to occur within the project boundary in the absence of a project.
++ If significant changes are expected, they will be allowed to apply a simplifi ed methodology for baselines.
++ No monitoring of the baseline is required and, for the monitoring of other variables, project participants may also use simplifi ed methodologies.
++ Finally, a leakage estimation will not be required if information provided by project participants shows that a displacement of activities or people that increases emissions outside the project boundary will not occur.