2 results
15 - Synthesis
- from Part III - MRV at offset project scale
-
- By Valentin Bellassen, Institut National pour la Recherche Agronomique (INRA), Nicolas Stephan, CDC Climat, Marion Afriat, CDC Climat, Emilie Alberola, CDC Climat, Alexandra Barker, NPL, Jean-Pierre Chang, UNFCCC, Caspar Chiquet, MRV practice of South Pole Carbon, Ian Cochran, CDC Climat, Mariana Deheza, CDC Climat, Chris Dimopoulos, NPL, Claudine Foucherot, CDC Climat, Guillaume Jacquier, CITEPA, Romain Morel, CDC Climat, Roderick Robinson, NPL, Igor Shishlov, CDC Climat
- Edited by Valentin Bellassen, Nicolas Stephan
-
- Book:
- Accounting for Carbon
- Published online:
- 05 March 2015
- Print publication:
- 19 March 2015, pp 510-537
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
This chapter brings together all the previous ones. Based on the detailed presentation and analysis of the MRV requirements of so many different carbon pricing and management mechanisms – hereafter “carbon pricing mechanisms,” it synthesizes and compares how they answered to the five cross-cutting questions identified in the general introduction to the book:
• What are the MRV requirements?
• What are the costs for entities to meet these requirements?
• Is a flexible trade-off between requirements and costs allowed?
• Is requirements stringency adapted to the amount of emissions at stake (materiality)?
• What is the balance between comparability and information relevance?
MRV requirements across schemes
The first cross-cutting question – what are the MRV requirements? – is too large to be answered in a synthetic way. This section thus focuses on two components of this question that have a major impact on MRV costs: requirements pertaining to third-party verification and those pertaining to monitoring uncertainty.
Verification requirements are broadly similar across the board
Most carbon pricing mechanisms impose a verification of the reports by an independent third party. Verification requirements are broadly similar across carbon pricing mechanisms:
• the third party must be accredited by a regulator for GHG emissions audits and this accreditation tends to be sector-specific;
• the third party must assess whether the methods used and the reporting format comply with the relevant guidelines;
• the third party must assess the accuracy, i.e., the absence of bias, of the reported figures;
• the regulator is allowed to question the opinion of the auditor, but seldom does so;• the third party tends to be paid directly by the verified entity. Although this creates a potential conflict of interest, the risk of losing the accreditation is a much stronger incentive and keeps auditors from being complacent with their client (Cormier and Bellassen, 2013).
12 - Case study 1: monitoring requirements for projects reducing N2O emissions from fertilizer use across standards
- from Part III - MRV at offset project scale
-
- By Claudine Foucherot, CDC Climat
- Edited by Valentin Bellassen, Nicolas Stephan
-
- Book:
- Accounting for Carbon
- Published online:
- 05 March 2015
- Print publication:
- 19 March 2015, pp 390-422
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
Context
Agriculture is the fourth largest sector in terms of global anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions (GHG). It accounts for 14 percent of global emissions, i.e., 6.6 GtCO2e/year (Bernstein et al., 2007). Three types of gas are involved: nitrous oxide (N2O), methane (CH4) and to a lesser extent carbon dioxide (CO2). In fact, agriculture is the largest sector when it comes to emitting gases other than carbon dioxide, and accounts for 60 percent and 50 percent of global N2O and CH4 emissions respectively.
N2O agricultural emissions correspond to cropland and pasture N2O emissions linked to the use of organic and mineral nitrogen fertilizers. It results from microbial processes of nitrification and denitrification which occur in soils. Cropland and pasture account for almost 40 percent of agricultural emissions worldwide. This figure only accounts for “with in farm” emissions. Upstream emissions, from the manufacture and transport of agricultural inputs, are not included. N2O and CO2 emissions due to nitrogen fertilizer production would add about 20 percent to the 2.3 GtCO2e/year from cropland and pasture (Figure 12.1). One of the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) methodologies is precisely focused on these upstream emissions.
One way of reducing nitrous oxide emissions is to limit the use of nitrogen fertilizers (sustainable use of fertilizers, planting legumes, avoiding bare soils, changing the kinds of nitrogen fertilizers used, etc.). Water management also has an impact on the denitrification process, which can be defined as an alternative breathing mechanism: for example, soil drainage enables improved aeration, and therefore reduces denitrification and the associated N2O emissions. However, it is difficult to estimate its impact on N2O emissions.
As of September 2013, seven methodologies are available across all carbon offset standards to assess N2O emissions reductions from cropland agricultural projects (Table 12.1). Three of them (1 VCS, 1 ACR, 1 CAR) are almost identical and cover N2O emissions reductions from reduced use of nitrogen fertilizer on agricultural crops.