Rewetting Drained Temperate Peatlands Verified Carbon Standard (VCS) Methodology: Additionality and Alternative Baseline Scenarios
Mitigation Partners, Inc. (MPI) is aiming to restore thousands upon thousands of acres of drained and ditched Northern Minnesota peatlands. In a, nature-based solution, effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) through carbon sequestration. In that process, MPI has found the Verified Carbon Standard (VCS) program to be the best guideline for these peatland projects. Read below to understand how VCS determines additionality and alternative baseline scenarios for rewetting drained peatlands.
Definitions
Baseline scenario- Representation of the land use and GHG emissions from a project area if the carbon offset project were not to occur
Additionality- Demonstration that results in emission removals and reductions from a carbon offset project are in excess of the baseline scenario
Also, the project would not have developed without the incentive from carbon markets
VCS Methodology
A huge part of the VCS program is determining additionality and exploring alternative baseline scenarios. In MPI’s baseline scenario article (Internal link to baseline scenario article) the criteria for the most plausible baseline scenario for rewetting drained peatlands is established. However, there may be a multitude of alternative baseline scenarios that do not meet this criteria, thus forcing the need for a procedure to determine the baseline scenario which should be used.
VCS’s methodology on rewetting drained peatlands (found here) endorses the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) tool. That is the combined tool to identify the baseline scenario and demonstrate additionality in A/R CDM project activities (found here). This tool is meant for CDM projects dealing with afforestation and reforestation (A/R) but can be applied to rewetting peatlands through use of a table in the VCS methodology referenced earlier (table shown at end of article). The tool outlines a procedure to identify and choose the most plausible baseline scenario while simultaneously determining additionality. This post will do a quick overview of the tool and the steps within it, if you are interested in a more detailed explanation MPI recommends you visit the link to the tool provided earlier.
Breakdown of A/R CDM Tool
Note: Of the four steps in this tool not every step or substep may be applicable to the alternative land use scenarios derived. It is helpful to reference the diagram at the end of this section.
Step One: The first step of this tool is to identify alternative scenarios which may be the baseline scenario. These are credible land use activities that may have occurred in the project boundary if peatland rewetting were not to happen. It is best to look at national and sectoral policies while also considering historical land uses and economic trends of the area. For example, most historical/potential land uses of peatland project areas would be agriculture, forestry, or peat extraction. Once alternative land use scenarios are derived they should be checked to be in compliance with applicable laws and regulations.
It is important to note that if the alternative land uses are zero or one after going through the process of step one, then the proposed rewetting of peatland for this project are is not additional
Step Two: The following step in this tool focuses on potential barriers to the alternative land use scenarios. Essentially, issues which would prevent these land scenarios from occurring. Some examples of these are,
Technology barriers
Limited access to materials needed
Required infrastructure for implementation not available
Ecological conditions
Degraded or waterlogged soil
Ecological succession in opposition of alternative land use
Local Tradition Barriers
Lack of traditional knowledge/customs/laws
Once barriers are identified and matched to alternative land use scenarios, the land use that can not overcome these barriers are eliminated. There must be substantiated reasoning for why the barriers to the land use alternative is insurmountable. This leaves a list of alternative land uses that are not prevented by barriers.
Step Three: This step works out which of the land use scenarios remaining from step two, are the most economically feasible. Essentially, the land use scenarios are either put through simple cost analysis, investment comparison analysis, or benchmark analysis. This is a more complex and involved step in which more detail on how to choose which analysis for what land scenario can be found on the tools webpage. However, if the baseline was not already found through the first two steps, after step three the most plausible baseline scenario for the proposed project area will be known.
Step Four: The final step is the determining factor in telling if a peatland restoration, or carbon offset, project is additional. This step analyzes if there are similar peatland rewetting activities, similar in the way of,
Scale
Environment
Relevant geographical area
If similar activities are observed, the proposed peatland rewetting must have essential distinctions from the similar activities. These distinctions can include,
Barriers
Laws and regulations
Subsidies/financial flows
If there are no distinctions to similar activities then the proposed peatland rewetting and restoration project is not additional. If there are distinctions or no similar activities then the proposed project is additional.
Flowchart of Combined Tool
This tool can be quite complex and hard to follow, the above flowchart is a good visual representation of the steps and their outcomes. As this tool was developed for A/R CDM project a few tweaks have to be made to apply to rewetting peatlands. These tweaks can be seen from the table below, derived from the VCS methodology on rewetting peatlands in temperate climates:
MPI has have a vision for a healthier, cleaner, and economically sound Minnesota. Establishing the most plausible baseline scenario and determining additionality through the VCS program/peatland methodology are small, but necessary, pieces to MPI’s vision.
Mitigation Partners, Inc. Founders Dax Dickson & Tory Christensen
