70403 TOOLKIT ENHANCING CARBON STOCKS AND REDUCING CO 2 EMISSIONS IN AGRICULTURE AND NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PROJECTS FEBRUARY 2012 TOOLKIT ENHANCING CARBON STOCKS AND REDUCING CO2 EMISSIONS IN AGRICULTURE AND NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PROJECTS © 2012 The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/The World Bank 1818 H Street, NW Washington, DC 20433 Telephone: 202-473-1000 Internet: www.worldbank.org All rights reserved. This volume is a product of the staff of the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/The World Bank. The �ndings, interpretations, and conclusions expressed in this paper do not necessarily reflect the views of the Executive Directors of The World Bank or the governments they represent. The World Bank does not guarantee the accuracy of the data included in this work. The boundaries, colors, denominations, and other information shown on any map in this work do not imply any judgment on the part of The World Bank concerning the legal status of any territory or the endorsement or acceptance of such boundaries. Rights and Permissions The material in this publication is copyrighted. Copying and/or transmitting portions or all of this work without permission may be a violation of applicable law. The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/The World Bank encour- ages dissemination of its work and will normally grant permission to reproduce portions of the work promptly. All the queries on rights and licenses, including subsidiary rights, should be addressed to the Of�ce of the Publisher, The World Bank, 1818 H Street NW, Washington, DC 20433, USA; fax: 202-522-2422; e-mail pubrights@worldbank.org. Cover Photo: Authors. CONTENTS III Table of CONTENTS List of Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v List of Figures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii List of Acronyms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ix Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xi Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xiii Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xv Part A: Approach and Methods for Enhancing Carbon Stocks and Reducing CO2 Emissions in Land-Based Projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 A.1. Rationale, Approach, and Methods for Enhancing Carbon Bene�ts (C-Bene�ts) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 A.2. Guidelines for Enhancing C-Bene�ts from Land-Based Projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 A.3. Implications of CEMs and CEPs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 Part B: CEMs, CEPs, and C-Enhancement Technologies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 B.1. Descriptions of CEMs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 B.2. Descriptions of CEPs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 Part C: Carbon Estimation and Monitoring Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71 C.1. Carbon-Monitoring Methods and Practical Guidance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71 C.2. Methods for Different Carbon Pools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75 C.3. Carbon Inventory for Watershed and Agriculture Projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76 C.4. Data Recording, Compilation, and Calculation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82 C.5. Modeling for Estimation and Projection of Carbon Stocks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86 C.6. Reporting of C-Bene�ts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88 Part D: Practical Guidance on Sampling, Field Studies, Baseline Development, and Modeling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89 D.1. Field Methods for Estimating Carbon Stocks in Land-Based Projects—Practical Guidance. . . . . . . . . 89 D.2. Estimation of Baseline or Reference Carbon Stocks and CO2 Emissions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95 D.3. Application of Models for Projecting C-Bene�ts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100 Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114 TOOLKIT L I S T O F TA B L E S V LIST OF TABLES Table A.1: Roadmap for C-Enhancement and Monitoring Guidelines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Table A.2: Mitigation Potential of Forest Sector Activities at the Global Level . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Table A.3: Examples of Land-Based Projects in Different Sectors of the World Bank with Potential for C-Enhancement. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Table A.4: Potential Opportunities for Deriving C-Bene�ts from Land-Based Projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Table A.5: World Bank Themes and Subsectors Relevant to C-Bene�t Enhancement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Table A.6: Examples of World Bank Projects Involving Multiple Land Categories Subjected to Interventions . . . . . . . 19 Table A.7: Features of C-Enhancement Modules for Projects Related to Agriculture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Table A.8: Features of C-Enhancement Modules for Forestlands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Table A.9: Features of C-Enhancement Modules for Multiple Land Categories. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 Table A.10: Impact of C-Enhancement Modules on Biomass Carbon Stocks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Table A.11: Impact of C-Enhancement Modules on Soil Carbon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Table A.12: Impact of C-Enhancement Practices on Soil Carbon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Table A.13: Features of Mulching . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 Table A.14: Illustration of Outputs, Activities, and Implications for Carbon Under the Community Managed Sustainable Agriculture Project of the World Bank . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 Table A.15: Illustration of Potential Costs of CEMs/CEPs and Activities for an Afforestation and Watershed Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 Table A.16: Examples of Socio-Economic and Environmental Bene�ts of Activities Implemented for C-Enhancement with Potential Implications for Reducing Vulnerability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 Table A.17: Economic, Environmental, and Social Bene�ts from Selected World Bank Projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 Table A.18: Implications of Economic and Environmental Bene�ts of C-Enhancement Modules and Practices for Adaptation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 Table B.1: Shelterbelts. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 Table B.2: Agro-Forestry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 Table B.3: Soil Conservation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 Table B.4: Water Conservation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 Table B.5: Watershed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 Table B.6: Sustainable Agriculture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 Table B.7: Land Reclamation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 Table B.8: PA Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 Table B.9: Afforestation and Forest Regeneration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 Table B.10: Biodiversity Conservation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 Table B.11: Community Forestry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 Table B.12: Orchards and Gardens . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 Table B.13: Irrigation (Minor or Major) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 Table B.14: Fuelwood Conservation Devices (Biogas and Ef�cient Cookstoves) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 TOOLKIT VI L I S T O F TA B LE S Table B.15: Mulching . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 Table B.16: Organic Manure/Green Manure/Crop Residue Incorporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 Table B.17: Reduced Tillage or No Tillage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 Table B.18: Contour Bunding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 Table B.19: Farm Ponds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 Table B.20: Application of Tank Silt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 Table B.21: Cropping Systems: Intercropping, Multiple Cropping, Mixed Cropping, and Relay Cropping. . . . . . . . . . 66 Table B.22: Cover Cropping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67 Table B.23: Silvi-pasture and Horti-pasture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68 Table C.1: Features of Key Guidelines for Estimating and Monitoring C-Bene�ts. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73 Table C.2: Generic Steps and Description of Methods Common to All the Carbon Pools for Ex Ante and Ex Post Phases. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75 Table C.3: Project Typology, Features, and Project Activities for Measuring and Monitoring C-Bene�ts . . . . . . . . . . 76 Table C.4: Summary of Steps and Procedures for Estimating/Monitoring Carbon in a Tree AGB Pool . . . . . . . . . . . 77 Table C.5: Summary Steps for Nontree or Shrub Biomass Pool. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78 Table C.6: Summary Steps for BGB or Root Biomass Pool . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78 Table C.7: Summary Steps for Soil Organic Pool . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79 Table C.8: Some Generic Equations for Estimating Biomass . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84 Table C.9: Some Species-Speci�c Biomass Equations Based on GBH Values . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84 Table C.10: Regression Equations for Estimating Root Biomass of Forests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85 Table C.11: Comparative Features and Application of Three Carbon Estimation and Projection Models for Forestry Projects. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87 Table D.1: Sampling Strategy for Different Project Types and Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92 Table D.2: Project Type, Relevant Carbon Pools, and Baseline Features . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99 Table D.3: Average AGB and BGD (Dry Tons) and SOC Stocks Under Baseline Condition in Different Land Categories of Himachal Pradesh, India . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100 ENHANCING CARBON STOCKS AND REDUCING CO 2 EMISSIONS IN AGRICULTURE AND NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PROJECTS LIST OF FIGURES V II LIST OF FIGURES Figure A.1: Share of Different Sectors in Total Anthropogenic GHG Emissions (CO2-eq) in 2004 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Figure A.2: Estimated Mitigation Potential of Cropland, Rangeland, Grassland, and Restoration of Degraded and Deserti�ed Soils . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Figure A.3: Approach to Enhancing C-Bene�ts in Agriculture and NRM Projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Figure A.4: Steps in Measurement and Estimation of Carbon Stocks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 Figure B.1: Low Plant Population in Any Agriculture Practice Will Not Give Desired Carbon Enhancement . . . . . . . . 42 Figure B.2: Cratewire Check Dam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 Figure B.3: River Bank Protection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 Figure B.4: Forest Plantation Being Raised . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 Figure B.5: Forest Nursery. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 Figure B.6: Irrigation Tank . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 Figure B.7: Biogas Plant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 Figure B.8: Crop Residue Shredded (top photo) and Applied (bottom photo) as Mulch in Adilabad, Andhra Pradesh . . . 60 Figure B.9: In Situ Rainwater Harvesting Along the Bunds in Trenches (left) and in a Field (right) Ploughed by a Ridger in Mahabubnagar, Andhra Pradesh . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 Figure B.10: Farm Ponds for Harvesting Runoff and Recycling During Midterm Droughts in Adilabad, Andhra Pradesh, and a Village Pond in Uttaranchal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 Figure B.11: Tank Silt Applied to Enhance Soil Fertility and Increase Water Harvesting Capacity of Tanks in Kadapa, Andhra Pradesh . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 Figure B.12: Promotion of Horti-Pastures in Degraded Lands in Kadapa, Andhra Pradesh . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69 Figure C.1: Steps in Carbon Estimation and Monitoring. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73 Figure D.1: Strati�cation Procedure for a Multi-Activity Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90 Figure D.2: Methods to Measure GBH for Different Shapes and Types of Trees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94 TOOLKIT LIST OF ACRONYMS IX LIST OF ACRONYMS AFOLU agriculture, forest, and other land-use GEF Global Environment Facility A/R afforestation and reforestation GEO Global Environmental Outlook AGB above-ground biomass GHG greenhouse gases BCEF biomass conversion and expansion factor ha hectare BEF biomass expansion factor IPCC-GNGGI Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Guidelines for National BGB below-ground biomass Greenhouse Gas Inventories BLS baseline strata MAI mean annual increment C-bene�ts carbon bene�ts MRV monitoring, reporting, and veri�cation CDM Clean Development Mechanism NRM natural resource management CEMs carbon enhancement modules NTFP nontimber forest product C-enhancement carbon enhancement PA protected area CEPs carbon enhancement practices REDD Reducing Emissions from Deforestation CFM community forest management and Forest Degradation DBH diameter at breast height SOC soil organic carbon EX-ACT ex ante carbon-balance tool t tons FAO Food and Agriculture Organization tC tonnes of carbon FYM farm yard manure UNFCCC United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change GBH girth at breast height VCS Veri�ed Carbon Standards TOOLKIT P R E FA C E XI PREFACE Climate change is the biggest environmental and developmental challenge facing humanity. Projected climate change is likely to impact all natural resources, agriculture, and food security systems in the coming decades. There is realization at the global and national levels on the need for mitigation and adaptation to address the impending climate change. Land- use sectors (agriculture, forests, and grasslands) are critical to mitigating climate change in a cost-effective way along with providing multiple socio-economic and environmental cobene�ts. Mitigation in land-use sectors or carbon stock enhancement could be realized synergistically with the enhancement of agriculture productivity. C-bene�ts (C-bene�ts), such as carbon stock enhancement or CO2 emission reduction, in most natural resource management and agriculture projects could be realized as cobene�ts. Further, enhancement of carbon stocks in soil and vegetation could contribute to soil and water conservation, enhanced soil fertility, increased crop yields, and provision of wood and nonwood tree (forest) products as additional sources of revenue and employment. Enhancement of C-bene�ts could contribute to reduction in vulnerability to climate risks and adaptation to climate change risks through enhanced and stabilized crop yields and diversi�cation of income sources. Finally, most carbon enhancement (C-enhancement) interventions are likely to have positive socio-economic and environmental implications. There is a need for guidelines or toolkits for enhancing carbon stocks in land-based projects for assisting project develop- ers, managers, evaluators, and funding agencies. In this guideline or toolkit, approaches, methods, and detailed practical steps for enhancing C-bene�ts in land-based projects are provided for use by different stakeholders at different stages of the project cycle. Further, the toolkit also provides potential C-enhancement modules and practices for agriculture, watershed, and other land-based projects along with details of the practices and potential carbon stock enhancement. The project developer or manager can use these details along with information available from agriculture-, forestry-, and water-related research institutions. Carbon stock enhancement interventions could be incorporated at the project planning and designing, post-project approval, or project implementation stage. Reliable estimation and monitoring of carbon stock enhancement (including CO2 emission reduction) is necessary and feasible for all land-based projects. Quanti�cation and estimation of the carbon stock enhance- ment is required at ex ante (during project proposal preparation) and ex post (periodically during project implementation and postproject) stages. Practical guidance on sampling, �eld studies, baseline development, and calculation of carbon stocks and modeling is provided for both ex ante and ex post phases. I expect this toolkit will become a key reference document for many years to come for all sector partners involved in agricul- ture and land-use development projects, bene�ting not only World Bank colleagues, but also government partners grappling with climate change impacts. Simeon K. Ehui Sector Manager, SASDA The World Bank TOOLKIT AC K N O W L E D G E M E N T S X III ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This report was prepared under the Trust Fund for Environmentally & Socially Sustainable Development–TFESSD (TF58308) by a team lead by Norman B. Piccioni (Lead Specialist, SASDA/World Bank). The report was written by Prof. N. H. Ravindranath (Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore), Indu K. Murthy (Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore), and Ranjan Samantaray (SASDA/World Bank). Peer reviewer comments were received from Ademola Braimoh (Senior Specialist, ARD/World Bank) and Erick Fernandes (Advisor, LCSAR/World Bank). Additional comments for this report were received from Charles Cormier (Lead Specialist, SASDI/World Bank), Madhur Gautam (Lead Specialist, SASDA/World Bank), Simeon K. Ehui (Sector Manager, SASDA/ World Bank), Prof. Ramakrishna Parama (University of Agriculture, Bangalore), and Prof. G. Bala (Centre for Climate Change, Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore). The �nal draft was presented and discussed in two brainstorming ses- sions in Delhi (August 2, 2011) and in Bangalore (December 22, 2011). Melissa Williams (Senior Rural Development Specialist, SASDA/World Bank), Sanjiva Cooke (ARD/World Bank), Kaisa Antikainen (ARD/World Bank), and Miki Terasawa (SASDS/World Bank) contributed to the revisions and publishing process. This toolkit is available in print and on the Internet (http://www.worldbank.org/ard). Subject to its demonstrated value and user feedback, it may be updated periodically, especially as an input for ongoing projects and related training activities. ABOUT THE AUTHORS Ravindranath. N.H is a Professor at Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore. A recognized authority on climate change, he has published nearly 50 scienti�c papers and three books on climate change (Oxford University Press, Cambridge University Press and Springer Publishers). Professor Ravindranath is an author for eight IPCC reports on agriculture, forests and other land use sectors – greenhouse gas emission guidelines and mitigation strategies. Prof. Ravindranath has worked on forestry CDM projects, and he is a member of Scienti�c and Technical Advisory Panel of the Global Environmental Facility for climate change focal area. He is also a member of several national and international expert committees on climate change. Indu K Murthy is a researcher at the Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore. She has 16 years of experience working on com- munity forestry and climate change issues. Her current areas of interest include climate change and forestry mitigation and adaptation, clean development mechanism and REDD. She has the credit of working on two registered CDM forestry projects in India. She is a contributing author to the IPCC Third Assessment Report and has published extensively in peer reviewed national and international journals. Ranjan Samantaray is a Senior Natural Resource Management Specialist with SASDA, World Bank. His experience spans over 20 years with different multi-bilateral agencies. His main area of expertise has been in the natural resource manage- ment sector with strategic planning and implementation experience in the �eld of watershed development, water resource development and climate change mitigation. He leads the team of two recently registered Carbon Sequestration Projects in India under the CDM, Kyoto Protocol. He has nine publications, which include United Nations publication, SIDA publication, SAGE and Ashish Publishers. TOOLKIT E X E C U T I V E S U M M A RY XV EXECUTIVE SUMMARY There is global interest in promoting mitigation and adaptation in agriculture, forest, and other land-use (AFOLU) sectors to address the twin goals of climate change and sustainable development. Agriculture production in different regions is facing complex challenges such as the impact of climate variability and change, land degradation, increased competition for water, increasing labor and input costs, and loss of carbon stocks in agricultural lands. While there is adequate literature and information on these issues, the impact on crop production due to loss of carbon stock and how to enhance crop production through increased carbon stocks have been ignored in most analyses. However, sustainable agriculture, low-carbon farming, and climate-smart agriculture initiatives that incorporate conservation agriculture, soil nutrient management, agro-forestry, etc., promote enhancement of carbon stocks as a cobene�t. This guideline deals with how to enhance carbon stocks in general in all land-based projects and its speci�c relationship with agriculture productivity. It outlines speci�c steps and procedures that need to be followed by project proponents and managers of land-based projects to enhance carbon stocks synergistically with increasing crop productivity. This guideline for carbon stock enhancement or CO2 emission reduction in agriculture and natural resource management (NRM) projects covering all land-use sectors presents two approaches. The �rst approach is a generic one covering all the land categories and interventions aimed at promoting the economic bene�ts (crop, timber, and non-timber wood product production, and employ- ment or livelihood generation) and environmental bene�ts (soil and water conservation, land reclamation, and biodiversity protec- tion) of a project, synergistically optimizing carbon stock enhancement as a cobene�t. The second approach provides guidelines for project developers to maximize project C-bene�ts along with promoting high-value cropping systems and production practices appropriate for a given agro-ecological region as well as to meet the needs of the local stakeholders, such as farmers or landless la- borers. An illustration of the two approaches is presented at the end of the Executive Summary. The guidelines provide methods for selection and incorporation of carbon stock enhancement modules and practices along with methods for estimation and monitoring of carbon stock changes as well as assessment of social and economic implications of carbon enhance- ment (C-enhancement) interventions. The guideline consists of the following chapters: PART A: APPROACH AND METHODS FOR ENHANCING CARBON STOCKS AND REDUCING CO2 EMISSIONS IN LAND-BASED PROJECTS A.1. Enhancement and monitoring of C-bene�ts from land-based projects presents the rationale for carbon stock enhancement, mitigation potential of land-use sectors, synergy between mitigation and adaptation, modes of realization of C-bene�ts, synergistic linkages between project developmental goals and carbon stock enhancement, and the need for monitoring C-bene�ts. A.2. Approaches for carbon stock enhancement and CO2 emission reduction describes a detailed, step-by-step approach to select, incorporate, and enhance C-bene�ts (carbon stock enhancement and CO2 emissions reduction). Firstly, a generic approach covering all the land categories and interventions aimed at promoting the economic and envi- ronmental objectives of a project, synergistically optimizing the carbon stock enhancement as a cobene�t. Secondly, the guidelines enable project developers to manage project carbon scenarios for promoting high-value cropping systems and production practices appropriate for a given agro-ecological region as well as to meet the needs of the local stakeholders. TOOLKIT XV I E X E C U T I V E S U MMA RY A.3. Implications of C-bene�t enhancement presents the implications of C-bene�t enhancement for the project cycle; costs and bene�ts; institutional and technical capacity needed; and methods of monitoring C-bene�ts, socio-economic and environmental impacts, vulnerability reduction to climate risks, and adaptation and promotion of mitigation-adaptation synergy. PART B: C-ENHANCEMENT METHODS (CEMS), C-ENHANCEMENT PRACTICES (CEPS), AND C-ENHANCEMENT TECHNOLOGIES B.1. Description of CEMs includes goals, activities, and features (including inputs required, physical structures, silvi- cultural or agricultural practices, timing of interventions, etc.) and the extent of C-bene�ts from the identi�ed modules. B.2. Description of CEPs presents goals, activities, and features of identi�ed practices. PART C: CARBON ESTIMATION, AND MONITORING METHODS C.1. Methods for carbon monitoring C.2. Methods for different carbon pools C.3. Carbon inventory for agro-forestry, shelterbelts, grassland management, and soil conservation activities C.4. Data recording, compilation, calculation, and estimation of carbon stocks and CO2 emissions and modeling C.5. Reporting of C-bene�ts PART D: PRACTICAL GUIDANCE ON SAMPLING, FIELD STUDIES, BASELINE DEVELOPMENT, AND MODELING D.1. Field methods for estimating carbon stocks in land-based projects D.2. Estimation of baseline or reference carbon stocks and CO2 emissions D.3. Application of models for projecting C-bene�ts (carbon stock changes and CO2 emissions) Land-use sectors (agriculture, forests, and grasslands) are critical to mitigating climate change in a cost-effective way along with providing multiple socio-economic and environmental cobene�ts. Land-use sectors contribute to about 20 per- cent of the global CO2 emissions. According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) (2007), the annual economic mitigation potential of forests and agriculture is estimated at 2.7 to 13.8 G-tonnes of carbon (tC)-O2 and 3.87 GtCO2, respectively. Agriculture soils alone have a mitigation potential of 1.5 to 4.4 GtCO2. Further, land-use sectors are critical in achieving stabilization of global warming at 2°C. According to UNEP (2011), agriculture and forestry sectors together could contribute to about 24 to 36 percent of the mitigation scenario required to bridge the emissions gap and stabilize warming at 2°C. Mitigation in land-use sectors or carbon stock enhancement could be realized synergistically with the main NRM or developmental objectives of land-based projects. C-bene�ts (carbon stock enhancement or CO2 emission reduction) in most NRM and environmental and developmental projects could be realized as cobene�ts. Further, enhancement of carbon stocks in soil and vegetation could contribute to soil and water conservation, enhanced soil fertility, increased crop yields, and provision of wood and nonwood tree (forest) products as additional sources of revenue and employment. Enhancement of C-bene�ts could contribute to reduction in vulnerability to climate risks and adaptation to climate change risks through en- hanced and stabilized crop yields (through soil fertility enhancement and conservation) and diversi�cation of income sources, such as agro-forestry. The guideline clearly demonstrates the synergy between carbon stock enhancement and NRM and other developmental bene�ts. ENHANCING CARBON STOCKS AND REDUCING CO 2 EMISSIONS IN AGRICULTURE AND NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PROJECTS E X E C U T I V E S U M M A RY X V II Guidelines and toolkits for enhancing carbon stocks in land-based projects for project developers, managers, evalua- tors, and funding agencies. In this guideline, approaches, methods, and detailed practical steps for enhancing C-bene�ts in land-based projects are provided for use by different stakeholders at different stages of the project cycle. Land-based projects broadly aim at increasing crop production, NRM, environmental conservation, and sustainable devel- opment. These projects include agriculture and watershed development, poverty alleviation and livelihood improvement, irrigation and water conservation, biodiversity conservation, land reclamation, halting deserti�cation, adaptation to climate change, and miti- gation of climate change through Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation and afforestation/reforestation through the Clean Development Mechanism. All the projects have the potential to generate C-bene�ts. A large number of C-enhancement modules and practices are available to enhance carbon stocks as cobene�ts of land-based projects. Land-based projects provide multiple opportunities for incorporating the carbon stock enhancement modules and practices. Approach to carbon stock enhancement in land-based projects. Enhancement of carbon stocks from mainstream NRM and developmental projects would require a systematic approach to ensure optimized delivery of project goals and outputs along with enhanced C-bene�ts in a synergistic manner. The following step-by-step approach is provided in the guideline for enhancing carbon stocks along with the broad goals of any typical land-based project: Selection of land-based projects Identi�cation and selection of land categories and subcategories for inclusion in the project Identi�cation of broad outcomes or outputs of the project relevant to land categories and interventions C-enhancement modules and practices for C-bene�ts: features of and approach to selection Carbon implications of C-enhancement modules and practices Implications of C-enhancement goals, modules, and activities for the project cycle Implications of C-enhancement activities for monitoring Implications of C-enhancement interventions for cost, institutional and technical capacity, and socio-economic and environmental aspects C-enhancement and mitigation and adaptation: synergy and trade-offs. Carbon stock enhancement interventions could be incorporated at the project planning and designing, postproject approval, or project implementation stage. The guideline could be used at the planning, designing, project proposal evalu- ation and approval, or implementation phase. The �nal decision-making authority for selection and incorporation could be the project developer, project funder, project evaluator, or project manager. C-enhancement modules and C-enhancement practices for C-bene�ts.There are two broad categories of interventions for enhancing carbon stocks, namely C-enhancement modules and C-enhancement practices or technologies: CEMs are subprojects consisting of a single or, more often, multiple components or a package of activities or tech- nologies aimed at enhancing C-bene�ts from any land-based developmental or environmental projects. The potential CEMs are watershed, agro-forestry, soil conservation, water conservation, soil and water conservation, shelterbelts, protected area (PA) management, land reclamation, sustainable agriculture, afforestation and forest regeneration, biodiversity conservation, community forestry, irrigation (minor or major), fruit orchards, and gardens. CEPs consist of a single technology or practice aimed at conserving or enhancing carbon stock in selected land cat- egories. Potential CEPs are mulching, organic manure application, green manure application, reduced or zero tillage, contour bunding, farm ponds, tank silt application, intercropping or multiple cropping, and cover cropping. The approach to selection of CEMs and CEPs would include identi�cation of activities that are compatible with the broader objectives of the project and have the potential to deliver enhanced C-bene�ts. The approach could involve the following steps: Identi�cation of outputs of the project Identi�cation of the CEMs and CEPs to be incorporated into the project that may directly or indirectly contribute to C-bene�ts TOOLKIT XV I I I E X E C U T I V E S U MMA RY Selection of CEMs or additional activities could be based on the potential to positively contribute to the main out- puts of the project, suitability for the land category and the region, and its cost-effectiveness The selected C-enhancement interventions (CEMs or CEPs) should be cost-effective to the extent that the additional investment cost due to the intervention has positive �nancial implications for the project outputs. However, it is likely that sometimes positive �nancial bene�ts may occur in the long term. The procedure could involve selection of the CEMs/ CEPs and estimation of the costs of inputs, labor, and technical expertise required. Often, it is possible to assess even the incremental crop productivity or biomass productivity due to a CEM or CEP. Most C-enhancement interventions are likely to have positive socio-economic and environmental implications. C-enhancement interventions contribute to soil and water conservation and improved soil fertility, which contribute to in- creased crop production, grass and fuelwood production, and nonwood product availability, potentially leading to increased employment and income. Similarly, C-enhancement interventions contribute to conservation of natural resources, such as soil, water, and biodiversity; land reclamation; groundwater recharge; and forest conservation. C-enhancement in land-based projects contributes to reducing the vulnerability to climate risks and demonstrating the synergy between mitigation and adaptation. Most interventions (CEMs and CEPs) in agricultural lands lead to soil and moisture conservation and improved soil fertility, contributing to improved soil moisture availability and thus enhancing resilience to soil moisture stress and droughts. Similarly, interventions such as agro-forestry, community forestry, and PA management contribute to diversifying the sources of income and employment, especially during drought years. It is neces- sary to recognize and increase the resilience enhancement potential of the C-enhancement interventions. Information on the C-enhancement modules, practices, and technologies is necessary for project developers or managers to assist them in selecting such interventions and incorporating them into a project. The information required includes description of the practice, bene�ts accruing from the practice, applicability to a given region and land category, steps involved in implementing the practice, inputs required, impacts on crop or biomass productivity, and implications for biomass and soil carbon stock enhance- ment. These aspects are described in Part B of this guideline for most of the CEMs and CEPs based on literature. Reliable estimation and monitoring of carbon stock enhancement (including CO2 emission reduction) is necessary and feasible for all land-based projects. Quanti�cation and estimation of the carbon stock enhancement is required at ex ante (during project proposal preparation) and ex post (periodically during project implementation and postproject) stages. Estimation and monitoring is necessary to assess the mitigation potential of projects and payment for C-bene�ts and to identify opportunities for increasing carbon stocks. Practical methods are available and are provided in Part C of this guideline. Broadly, estimating C-bene�ts involves the following steps: Select a land-use category or project activity, de�ne the project boundary and map the land-use category or project area subjected to C-enhancement interventions, stratify the project area or land-use category, select the plot method or farms, select carbon pools and frequency of measurement, identify indicator parameters to be measured, select a sampling method and sample size, prepare for �eld work and data recording, decide on sampling design, locate and lay sample plots, measure the indicator parameters in �eld and conduct laboratory analysis, analyze data, and estimate changes in C-stocks/CO2 emissions The estimates of C-bene�ts in agriculture and forestry projects are likely to be associated with uncertainties that could be estimated and minimized. Practical guidance on sampling, �eld studies, baseline development, and calculation of carbon stocks and modeling is necessary for ex ante estimation and ex post monitoring. Part D of this guideline describes these details with illustrations. Land-based projects provide a large opportunity for carbon stock enhancement or CO2 emission reduction synergistically with the goals and objectives of NRM and agricultural developmental projects. This guideline provides practical steps for identi�ca- tion and incorporation of C-enhancement modules and activities as well as monitoring and estimation approaches and meth- ods. There is a need for exploring cost-effective interventions that provide signi�cant C-bene�ts in addition to enhancing the economic or environmental bene�ts from the projects. Most C-enhancement projects provide positive socio-economic and ENHANCING CARBON STOCKS AND REDUCING CO 2 EMISSIONS IN AGRICULTURE AND NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PROJECTS E X E C U T I V E S U M M A RY X IX environmental bene�ts as well as enhance resilience to adverse effects of climate change. Thus, there is a need to identify, incorporate, implement, estimate, and monitor C-bene�ts in land-based projects. The following illustration presents two approaches: (1) a generic approach aimed at promoting C-enhancement as a cobene�t of agriculture and NRM projects and (2) a project carbon maximization approach aimed at maximizing carbon stocks along with crop production. Approaches for carbon stock enhancement/CO2 emission reduction and monitoring Selection of land-based projects Identification and selection of land categories and subcategories for inclusion in the project Generic steps for carbon stock Steps for maximizing carbon stocks along enhancement in land-use projects with crop production Identification of broad outcomes/outputs of Development of project the project relevant to land categories and baseline carbon scenario interventions Selection of C-enhancement modules and Assessment of the potential for maximizing practices for carbon stock enhancement/CO2 the carbon stocks of the project area emission reduction Selection of Selection of cropping systems/ agronomic pattern for a high- practices, soil and carbon scenario water conservation and maximized measures for a crop production high-carbon scenario, and maximized crop production Estimation of carbon stock changes or CO2 emission reduction due to C-enhancement modules and practices Implications of carbon stock enhancement goals, modules, and activities for the project cycle Monitoring and estimation of carbon stock enhancement due to project interventions Implications of carbon stock enhancement interventions for cost, institutional and technical capacity, and socio-economic and environmental aspects C-enhancement and mitigation and adaptation; synergy and trade-offs TOOLKIT PA RT A — A P P R O A C H A N D M E T H O D S F O R E N H A N C I N G C A R B O N S T O C K S A N D R E D U C I N G C O 2 E M I S S I O N S 1 Part A: APPROACH AND METHODS FOR ENHANCING CARBON STOCKS AND REDUCING CO 2 EMISSIONS IN LAND-BASED PROJECTS A.1. RATIONALE, APPROACH, AND METHODS countries due to the projected magnitude of climate change FOR ENHANCING CARBON BENEFITS and the inability to cope with it. A recent study by MoEF (2010) (C-BENEFITS) in India highlights the severe impact of climate change on food Land-use sectors (agriculture, forests, and grasslands) are production, availability of water, forest biodiversity, and coastal critical to mitigating climate change by enhancing the stock zones as early as 2030. To address climate change and to hold of carbon in biomass and in soil or by reducing CO2 emis- the global warming below the 2°C threshold, global GHG sions. Most land-based developmental projects have the emissions need to be reduced by 25 to 40 percent by 2030 potential to deliver C-bene�ts (carbon stock enhancement from their 1990 levels (IPCC 2007). The IPCC highlighted the or CO2 emission reduction) as a cobene�t of projects that need for mitigation and adaptation measures that are synergis- have socio-economic development or improved manage- tic, particularly in land-use sectors (Ravindranath 2007), and for ment of natural resources as their main goals. This toolkit promoting sustainable development to cope successfully with provides a set of practical guidelines that describe in adverse effects of climate change and to reduce emissions detail how to incorporate potential carbon enhancement and vulnerability to climate change. (C-enhancement) modules and practices into land-based projects during the project design and implementation Mitigation potential of land-use sectors: The land-use sec- stages. Further, the guidelines provide methods for tors (agriculture, forests, and grasslands) contribute to nearly measurement, estimation, modeling, and monitoring of a third of the global GHG emissions (�gure A.1), with agricul- changes in carbon stock or CO2 emissions for the ex ante ture contributing to 13.5 percent and forests contributing to and ex post phases. In these guidelines, the term C-bene�t 17.4 percent (IPCC 2007). The land-use sectors therefore of- is used to indicate carbon stock enhancement and/or CO2 fer a large mitigation opportunity to address climate change. emission reduction. Often, carbon stock enhancement also The IPCC (2007) estimates that by 2030, the annual econom- includes reduction in CO2 emissions. C-bene�ts from land- ic mitigation potential of forests and agriculture will be 2.7 to based projects could be enhanced synergistically while 13.8 GtCO2 and 3.87 GtCO2, respectively, at less than $100 simultaneously pursuing the main aims of the projects as per tCO2. The most prominent mitigation opportunity in the well as making the sector less vulnerable to adverse effects agriculture sector relates to enhancing carbon sinks through of climate change. The Guidelines for Land-Based Projects sequestration of carbon in the soil by better management of to Enhance and Monitor C-Bene�ts are organized into four cropland and grazing land. Thus, the annual carbon mitigation parts. potential in agriculture and forest sector together, excluding bioenergy, is estimated at 6.57 to 17.6 GtCO2 up to 2030 at Climate change and mitigation: Climate change is one of less than $100 per tCO2 (IPCC 2007). Agricultural practices the most serious global environmental challenges facing hu- collectively can make a signi�cant contribution at low costs, manity. Climate change driven by the increasing concentration particularly by increasing the soil carbon sink, which has of greenhouse gases (GHG) is projected to impact natural strong synergies with sustainable agriculture and reduces ecosystems and socio-economic systems. Assessments vulnerability to climate change. of the impact, such as the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC 2001), indi- Lal (2004) puts the annual mitigation potential of agricul- cate that developing countries are likely to be highly vulnerable tural soils at 1.5 to 4.4 GtCO2. Forest-related mitigation ac- to climate change. The Fourth Assessment Report of the IPCC tivities can also considerably reduce emissions from sources (2007) also clearly indicates the vulnerability of developing (reducing deforestation and degradation) and increase CO2 TOOLKIT 2 PA RT A — A P P R O A C H A N D M E T H O D S F O R E N H A N C I N G C A R B O N S T O C K S A N D R E D U C I N G C O 2 E MIS S IO N S PART A: APPROACH AND METHODS FOR PART B: C-ENHANCEMENT MODULES (CEMs), ENHANCING CARBON STOCKS AND C-ENHANCEMENT PRACTICES (CEPs), REDUCING CO2 EMISSIONS IN AND C-ENHANCEMENT LAND-BASED PROJECTS TECHNOLOGIES A.1. Enhancement and monitoring of C-bene�ts B.1. The description of CEMs includes goals, activi- from land-based projects: This section presents the ties, and features (including inputs required, physical rationale for carbon stock enhancement, mitigation po- structures, silvicultural or agricultural practices, timing tential of land-use sectors, synergy between mitigation of interventions, etc.) and the extent of C-bene�ts from and adaptation, modes of realization of C-bene�ts, syn- the identi�ed modules ergistic linkages between project developmental goals B.2. The description of C-enhancement practices and carbon stock enhancement, and the need for moni- presents goals, activities, and features of identi�ed toring C-bene�ts. practices. A.2. Approaches for carbon stock enhancement and CO2 emission reduction: This section presents a de- PART C: CARBON MEASUREMENT, ESTIMATION, tailed, step-by-step approach to select, incorporate, and MODELING, AND MONITORING METHODS enhance C-bene�ts (carbon stock enhancement and C.1. Methods for carbon monitoring CO2 emissions reduction). Firstly, a generic approach will be presented covering all the land categories and C.2. Methods for different carbon pools interventions aimed at promoting the economic and en- C.3. Carbon inventory for agro-forestry, shelter- vironmental objectives of a project, synergistically opti- belts, grassland management, and soil conserva- mizing the carbon stock enhancement as a cobene�t. tion activities Secondly, the guidelines will enable project develop- ers to manage project carbon scenarios for promoting C.4. Data recording, compilation, calculation, and high-value cropping systems and production practices estimation of carbon stocks and CO2 emissions and appropriate for a given agro-ecological region as well as modeling for meeting the needs of the local stakeholders. C.5. Reporting of C-bene�ts A.3. Implications of C-bene�t enhancement: This section presents the implications of C-bene�t enhance- PART D: PRACTICAL GUIDANCE ON ment for the project cycle; costs and bene�ts; institu- SAMPLING, FIELD STUDIES, BASELINE DEVELOPMENT, AND MODELING tional and technical capacity needed; and methods of monitoring C-bene�ts, socio-economic and environ- D.1. Field methods for estimating carbon stocks in mental impacts, vulnerability reduction to climate risks, land-based projects and adaptation and promotion of mitigation-adaptation D.2. Estimation of baseline or reference carbon synergy. stocks and CO2 emissions D.3. Application of models for projecting C-bene�ts (carbon stock changes and CO2 emissions) removals by sinks (through afforestation and reforestation (A/R) and sustainable forest management) at low costs. Despite the realization of the large potential of land-use Together, mitigation opportunities in agriculture and forests sectors, practical mainstreaming and implementation of can also be designed to create synergies with adaptation and carbon stock enhancement in agriculture and natural re- sustainable development. source management programs and projects are yet to be realized. One of the barriers could be the absence of Agriculture, forest, grassland, and multi-land component practical guidelines or toolkits for enhancing C-bene�ts watershed programs for climate change mitigation: in land-based projects. ENHANCING CARBON STOCKS AND REDUCING CO 2 EMISSIONS IN AGRICULTURE AND NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PROJECTS PA RT A — A P P R O A C H A N D M E T H O D S F O R E N H A N C I N G C A R B O N S T O C K S A N D R E D U C I N G C O 2 E M I S S I O N S 3 FIGURE A.1: Share of Different Sectors in Total Anthropogenic GHG Emissions (CO2-eq) in 2004 Residential and commercial buildings, 7.90% Energy supply, 25.90% Industry, 19.40% Transport, 13.10% Agriculture, 13.50% Waste and wastewater, 2.80% Forestry, 17.40% Source: IPCC 2007. Globally, mitigation efforts in the land-use sectors have fo- (IPCC 2007). Thus, CO2 is the predominant component of cused largely on forests, particularly on reducing emissions GHG from land-use sectors, and deforestation and land-use from deforestation and forest degradation (REDD) and on change are the main contributors of that CO2. Enhancing car- A/R. It is important to also consider nonforest land categories bon stocks of agricultural, forest, and grassland soils not only in mitigating climate change. In this context, watersheds, ag- contributes to enhanced biomass production including that ricultural soils, grasslands, and wastelands or marginal lands of food, �ber, grass, fuelwood, and timber, but also has asso- could provide signi�cant opportunities for mitigating climate ciated bene�ts in the form of reduced vulnerability to climate change. Land-based mitigation activities offer signi�cant change—hence the focus of these guidelines on CO2. economic and environmental bene�ts such as increased soil organic carbon (SOC) content, which could increase and Integrating C-enhancement in natural resource manage- stabilize crop productivity and reduce deforestation, which ment (NRM) and developmental projects: Developing could, in turn, promote biodiversity conservation. Therefore, countries have been implementing a large number of land- these guidelines focus on land-use sectors such as agri- based developmental and NRM projects as part of the na- culture, forests, grasslands, and multi-land-component tional development goals with domestic funding as well as watersheds and provide a menu of technologies and prac- funding from multilateral agencies such as the World Bank tices aimed at enhancing carbon stocks or reducing CO2 and the United Nations Development Program and from emissions in land-based projects. The guidelines also global mechanisms such as the Adaptation Fund, the Green explain and illustrate simple methods to estimate and Climate Fund, the Global Environment Facility (GEF), and monitor the C-bene�ts from such projects. several bilateral programs. The goal of securing C-bene�ts could be synergistically integrated into most land-based Why focus on carbon/CO2: In 2004, CO2 accounted for 76.7 NRM and developmental programs and projects. This re- percent of the CO2-equivalent global GHG emissions, and fur- quires mainstreaming carbon mitigation into projects aimed ther deforestation, decay of biomass, land use, and land-use at socio-economic and environmental bene�ts. Identi�cation change accounted for 17.4 percent of the global emissions and incorporation of CEMs and CEPs in land-based projects TOOLKIT 4 PA RT A — A P P R O A C H A N D M E T H O D S F O R E N H A N C I N G C A R B O N S T O C K S A N D R E D U C I N G C O 2 E MIS S IO N S can bene�t from appropriate guidelines and additional institu- Why carbon implications of developmental projects tional and technical capacity. are often ignored: Most NRM, environment conservation, and developmental programs and projects could lead to Promoting synergy between C-enhancement and adap- enhancement of carbon stocks or reduction of CO2 emis- tation: The IPCC has concluded that positive synergies exist sions. However, these bene�ts, although known, are neither between climate change mitigation and adaptation. Land-use recognized nor monitored at present. Further, most projects sectors not only offer signi�cant opportunities to promote do not explicitly incorporate C-bene�ts among the objectives agriculture development, conserve biodiversity, and improve despite the potential for synergy between C-enhancement livelihoods through C-enhancement projects, but they also and increased crop productivity, soil and moisture conserva- contribute to making agriculture, biodiversity, and livelihoods tion, biodiversity conservation, etc. C-enhancement is often less vulnerable to climate change. Projects related to soil ignored in developmental or NRM projects, probably because and water conservation, soil fertility improvement, and forest of these reasons: conservation are some examples of synergy between miti- gation and adaptation. Integration of C-enhancement with environmental and developmental goals and with adaptation to climate change is also critical to sustainable development. Why C-enhancement and monitoring of C-bene�ts: Globally, the need to mitigate climate change is well recog- Enhancing or monitoring and reporting of nized—the Kyoto Protocol was implemented as part of the C-bene�ts from land-based projects attract United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change no special incentives other than Clean (UNFCCC), and the Cancun Agreement was reached post- Development Mechanism (CDM) and, in the Kyoto. However, efforts to explore the potential for mitigation future, REDD of climate change in different sectors have been limited, and No guidelines or toolkits are available to assist further understanding of the implications of developmental a project developer or manager to identify the and NRM programs and projects on the carbon stock gains potential of carbon gains or even to recognize or losses is limited. them as a cobene�t Data on the stocks, growth rates, and gains The focus of these guidelines is on land-based projects and and losses of carbon or CO2 from different their potential for enhancing carbon stocks. Although the po- land categories resulting from different project tential of most land-based projects to enhance C-bene�ts and activities are not available, a lacuna that limits contribute to climate change mitigation is well recognized, that the ability of project developers or managers to recognition has not been matched by practical approaches consider C-enhancement as an integral part of and guidance for mainstreaming climate change mitigation in the project developmental and NRM projects. If C-enhancement and its A technical capacity to take into account and to monitoring are to be mainstreamed in all land-based develop- monitor carbon stock changes or CO2 emissions ment projects, it is essential to do the following: resulting from project activities may not be available Enhancing C-bene�ts and even monitoring Recognize that most land-based projects can carbon stock changes are additional activities, deliver C-bene�ts and in exceptional cases may and project managers often regard these as ad- lead to net CO2 emissions ditional expenses and burden Explore opportunities for synergistically enhanc- C-enhancement and monitoring are not part of ing C-bene�ts in all land-based projects with the the environmental and social safety guidelines broader environmental or resource conservation drawn up by most multilateral and bilateral agen- and developmental goals of such projects cies; therefore, it is not mandatory for project Ensure that all projects measure and monitor managers or funding agencies to consider the implications of project activities for carbon carbon stocks and monitoring changes in carbon stock changes or CO2 emissions stocks as an integral project activity ENHANCING CARBON STOCKS AND REDUCING CO 2 EMISSIONS IN AGRICULTURE AND NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PROJECTS PA RT A — A P P R O A C H A N D M E T H O D S F O R E N H A N C I N G C A R B O N S T O C K S A N D R E D U C I N G C O 2 E M I S S I O N S 5 The World Bank focus for the guidelines: The World Bank Step-by-step guidelines for identi�cation, incorpora- is the biggest multilateral funding agency in areas such as tion, and monitoring of CEMs and CEPs in all land- energy, climate change mitigation and adaptation, forestry based projects in an integrated manner and environmental conservation, agricultural development, Description of the CEMs and CEPs for different land and social and economic development. The Bank has also categories pioneered many initiatives related to climate change, particu- Quanti�cation of the C-bene�ts of different CEMs and larly in the land-use sectors. The Bank was the �rst agency CEPs from limited literature available to launch “The BioCarbon Fund,� which piloted innovative Consideration and recognition of opportunities for carbon payments in the land-use sector. Further, the Bank C-bene�ts enhancement at the project planning stage was one of the �rst agencies to launch a large program on (ex ante), the evaluation stage, and even at the project REDD, namely the Forest Carbon Partnership Facility. The implementation stage (ex post) Bank also hosts GEF, which has a dedicated program on REDD and sustainable forest management. Therefore, these In the agriculture and forestry sector, a set of carbon-foot guidelines for enhancing C-bene�ts from land-based projects printing methodologies and decision support tools are avail- focus on land-based projects funded by the Bank, although able. The EX-Ante Carbon-Balance Tool (EX-ACT) is a Food the guidelines, CEMs, and CEPs could be applied or adopted and Agriculture Organization (FAO )tool that provides ex ante by other multilateral or bilateral agencies that support land- measurements of the mitigation impact of agriculture and based NRM and developmental projects. forestry development projects by estimating net carbon bal- ance from GHG emissions and carbon sequestration. It is a Target groups for the C-enhancement and monitoring land-based accounting system to measure carbon stocks guidelines: Carbon, its enhancement, and its monitoring in and stock changes per unit of land; the CH4 and N2O emis- developmental and NRM projects will be of interest to proj- sions are expressed in tCO2-eq per hectare (ha) per year. The ect developers, managers, �nancing agencies, and project main output of the EX-ACT tool is an estimation of the evaluators. In any typical land-based project, guidelines are carbon balance associated with the adoption of improved required for the following agencies or personnel: land management options compared to that with a business- as-usual scenario. Thus, EX-ACT allows for the carbon- Project developers and local stakeholders—to balance appraisal of new investment programs by consider and evaluate various options available for ensuring that an appropriate method is available to donors enhancing carbon stocks and their socio-economic and planning of�cers, project designers, and decision mak- implications ers within agriculture and forestry sectors in developing Project proposal evaluators—to assess the need countries (FAO 2011). Models such as TARAM, CATIE, and for considering C-enhancement and its monitoring, PROCOMAP are available for assessing the C-bene�ts from options to enhance C-bene�ts synergistically with forestry projects during project proposal preparation or ex the main project goals, and recommendations on ante. These models are described in Part D. monitoring Funding agencies—to assist and guide project The present guidelines are, however, not without limita- developers and managers in considering options for tions. C-bene�ts from project interventions per unit area enhancing C-bene�ts as cobene�ts and in monitoring are critical for decisions on incorporation of C-enhancement the impacts of project activities and assessing cost interventions. However, there is very limited literature on implications the C-bene�ts of different CEPs and CEMs in quantitative Project managers—to assist in selecting appropriate terms, and information on CEM- and CEP-speci�c costs and project activities for enhancing C-bene�ts and institu- bene�ts at the regional level is equally limited. The technical tions and technical capacity for monitoring C-bene�ts details of CEMs and CEPs are not provided in the guidelines and in making periodic assessment of impacts for as they can be obtained from package of practices, literature, midcourse correction textbooks, and guidelines on watershed and sustainable ag- riculture and forest management at the regional level. Finally, Unique features of the guidelines: These guidelines are BioCarbon, A/R under CDM, and REDD+ projects are not among the few that exist to assist project developers, �nan- the focus of these guidelines since dedicated methodolo- ciers, and implementers. The unique features of the guide- gies exist or will become available for these mechanisms. lines are as follows: However, projects under these mechanisms could also TOOLKIT 6 PA RT A — A P P R O A C H A N D M E T H O D S F O R E N H A N C I N G C A R B O N S T O C K S A N D R E D U C I N G C O 2 E MIS S IO N S TABLE A.1: Roadmap for C-Enhancement and Monitoring Guidelines TOPIC DETAILS SECTION Carbon stock enhancement and monitoring in land-based Need and rationale for C-enhancement and A.1 projects C-monitoring Guidelines for enhancing carbon stocks Principles and approaches for carbon stock enhance- A.2 ment in land-based projects Identi�cation of project outputs for C-enhancement Approach to identifying existing or new outputs A.2.3.5 relevant to C-enhancement in projects CEMs and CEPs Examples of CEMs/CEPs A.2.4 Features of CEMs/CEPs Approach to selection of CEMs/CEPs Criteria for selection of CEMs/CEPs A.2.4.4 Quanti�cation of C-bene�ts per ha Carbon implications of CEMs/CEPs Factors determining C-bene�t A.2.4.6 How C-bene�ts are realized Implications for monitoring Approach and process for estimation and monitoring A.3.2 C-bene�ts Cost implications of C-enhancement interventions Importance of costs and bene�ts A.3.3 Approach for estimating costs Socio-economic and environmental implications of Determining the socio-economic and environmental A.3.5 C-enhancement interventions impacts Broad approach to identi�cation and consideration C-enhancement implications for adaptation Approach to reduce vulnerability to climate change A.3.6.1 Mitigation and adaptation synergy A.3.6.2 Technical details of CEMs/CEPs Description of CEMs/CEPs B.1 and B.2 C-bene�ts from CEMs/CEPs Carbon monitoring methods and practical guidance Approaches and methods for estimating and monitoring C.1.2 C-bene�ts Generic steps for estimation and monitoring C.1.3 Methods for carbon inventory of forestry and other tree- Methods for different carbon pools for forests, planta- C.2 based projects tions, orchards Methods for carbon inventory of nonforestry projects Agro-forestry, shelterbelts, grassland management, and C.3 soil conservation activities Practical guidance for carbon estimation and monitoring Field studies D.1 to D.3 Baseline carbon stocks Application of models Source: Authors. bene�t from these guidelines on approaches for enhancing A.1.1.1. Agriculture C-bene�ts. A road map for use of the C-enhancement and A variety of options exist for reducing CO2 emissions in ag- monitoring guidelines is provided in Table A.1. riculture, the most prominent among them being improved A.1.1. Mitigation Potential of Land-Based Sectors and management of cropland and grazing land (for example, bet- Activities ter agronomic practices including application of fertilizers, Forests and agriculture are critical to stabilizing CO2 con- tillage, and incorporation of crop residues into soil), restora- centration in the atmosphere for mitigating climate change tion of organic matter, and amelioration of degraded lands. because both offer a large mitigation potential besides pro- Other options that offer lower but nevertheless signi�cant viding multiple sustainable development. mitigation potential include improved water management ENHANCING CARBON STOCKS AND REDUCING CO 2 EMISSIONS IN AGRICULTURE AND NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PROJECTS PA RT A — A P P R O A C H A N D M E T H O D S F O R E N H A N C I N G C A R B O N S T O C K S A N D R E D U C I N G C O 2 E M I S S I O N S 7 (especially in rice cultivation), set-asides, incorporating a water conservation and harvesting, ef�cient irrigation, agro- fallow period in crop rotations, change in land use (such as forestry, and growing energy crops on spare land. Estimates conversion of cropland to grassland), agro-forestry, and im- made by Lal (2004) indicate that, globally, soil C-enhancement proved livestock and manure management. alone could contribute 0.4 to 1.2 GtC annually. Figure A.2 shows the mitigation potential of different land categories and different The mitigation potential of the sector is dominated by carbon mitigation interventions. Cropland soils dominate the mitiga- sink enhancement of agricultural soils; the potential of carbon tion potential by contributing 0.4 to 0.8 GtC per year, followed sequestration in soils is estimated to account for 90 percent by restoration of degraded soils (0.2 to 0.4 GtC per year). of the total mitigation potential of agriculture and involves the following measures (IPCC 2007): Crop intensi�cation: Most land-based developmental projects in agriculture aim at higher crop production through Restoration of cultivated organic soils (1260 MtCO2) irrigation, increased inputs of nutrients (inorganic fertilizer Improved cropland management (including agronomic application), and multiple cropping. Some of the activities practices, nutrient management, tillage, and residue that promote intensi�cation may lead to increased CO2 management), water management, and agro-forestry emissions, whereas sustainable agricultural practices could contributing to 1110 MtCO2) lead to increased carbon stocks or reduced CO2 emissions. Improved grazing land management (including grazing According to estimates by Burney et al. (2010), while emis- intensity, increased productivity, nutrient and �re man- sions from fertilizer production and application have in- agement, and suitable species introduction) contribut- creased, the net effect of higher yields as a result of crop ing to about 810 MtCO2 intensi�cation has avoided emissions of up to 590 GtCO2-eq Restoration of degraded lands (using erosion control since 1961. and organic and nutrient amendments) contributing to Multiple and mixed cropping: Projects aimed at changing about 690 MtCO2) only the crop varieties or shifting from one crop to another crop may not lead to any signi�cant changes in carbon stocks According to the IPCC (2007), the annual global technical or CO2 emissions. However, changes in cropping pattern mitigation potential of agriculture (excluding fossil fuel off- incorporating multiple or mixed cropping, accompanied by sets from biomass-based fuels) could be as high as 5.5 to improved agricultural practices, such as soil and water con- 6 GtCO2-eq by 2030, of which approximately 1.5 GtCO2-eq servation and sustainable agriculture technologies, may lead is from grazing land management, over 0.6 GtCO2-eq is to enhanced C-bene�ts. from restoration of degraded land (that is directly linked to grassland and rangeland management), and more than 1.5 Sustainable agriculture practices: Sustainable agriculture GtCO2-eq is from cropland management (of which pasture aims at deriving continued higher crop yields without lower- management has an important share). Approximately 30 per- ing soil fertility or depleting water resources. Incorporation cent of this potential can be achieved in developed countries of such practices may not only sustain crop yields, but may and 70 percent in developing countries. also provide C-bene�ts as cobene�ts and even reduce vul- nerability to climate change. Sustainable agriculture practices Tennigkeit and Wilkes (2008) have estimated that improved could be incorporated into any agricultural development or rangeland management has the biophysical potential to watershed project. sequester 1.3 to 2 GtCO2-eq annually worldwide by 2030. Therefore, grasslands (including grazing land management A.1.1.2. Forests and some contribution from restoration of degraded lands Forest-related mitigation activities can considerably reduce and better management of croplands) have a high potential CO2 emissions as well as enhance carbon sinks at low cost. to promote build-up of carbon if appropriate management Tropical countries dominate the mitigation potential of forests, practices are adopted. particularly through REDD. The broad mitigation options in the forest sector include the following measures (IPCC 2007): Mitigation potential estimates from cropland, rangeland, Maintaining or increasing forest area through REDD grassland, and restoration of degraded and deserti�ed and through A/R soils: Strategies to increase soil carbon pool include soil res- toration and woodland regeneration, no-tillage farming, cover Maintaining or increasing the stand-level carbon crops, nutrient management, manuring, controlled grazing, density (tC per ha) through reduction of forest deg- radation and through planting, site preparation, tree TOOLKIT 8 PA RT A — A P P R O A C H A N D M E T H O D S F O R E N H A N C I N G C A R B O N S T O C K S A N D R E D U C I N G C O 2 E MIS S IO N S FIGURE A.2: Estimated Mitigation Potential of Cropland, Rangeland, Grassland, and Restoration of Degraded and Deserti�ed Soils Cropland Soils: 1350 Mha [0.4 to 0.8 Gt C per year] Range Lands and Grass Lands: Restoration of Degraded and [0.01 to 0.03 Gt C per year?]* Desertified Soils: 1.1 billion ha [0.2 to 0.4 Gt C per year] 3.7 billion ha in semi-arid and sub- Potential of Carbon humid regions Sequestration in World Soils [0.4–1.2 Gt C per year] Af s Wa *Both SOC and SIC are sequestered Irrigated Soils: 275 Mha [0.01 to 0.03 Gt C per year]* *Both SOC and SIC are sequestered Source: Lal 2004. improvement, fertilization, management of stands of Table A.2 presents estimates of mitigation potential. The trees of uneven age, and other appropriate silviculture total global mitigation potential ranges from 4.2 GtCO2 to 7.8 techniques GtCO2 annually. Reducing tropical deforestation dominates Maintaining or increasing the landscape-level carbon the mitigation options. density using forest conservation, longer forest rotations, A.1.1.3. REDD Potential �re management, and protection against insects Increasing off-site carbon stocks in wood products, Globally, the total forest area is about 4.06 billion ha (FAO enhancing product and fuel substitution using forest- 2010), with tropical forests accounting for about 47 per- derived biomass to replace products with high fossil cent (Global Environmental Outlook [GEO]-3 2002). In the fuel requirements, and increasing the use of biomass- �rst decade of the 21st century, the gross annual rate of derived energy to replace fossil fuels deforestation in the tropics was 13 Mha. Gross tropical de- forestation during the 1990s was about 13.1 Mha per year, According to the IPCC (2007), the annual economic mitiga- largely in South America, Africa, and South-East Asia (FAO tion potential of forests by 2030 will be 1.6 to 5 GtCO2 at less 2009). Estimates of carbon emissions from land-use change than $20 per tCO2; however, at mitigation costs of less than range from 0.5 to 2.7 GtC for the 1990s with a mean of $100 per tCO2, the potential rises to 2.7 to 13.8 GtCO2 annu- about 1.6 GtC, indicating high levels of uncertainty. If tropi- ally. It is important to note the wide range of the estimates, cal deforestation continues at high rates in South America, which reflects considerable uncertainty. Among the mitiga- under a business-as-usual scenario, 40 percent of the cur- tion options in the forest sector, avoided deforestation offers rent 540 Mha of Amazon rain forests are projected to be the maximum potential. lost, releasing 117±30 GtCO2 (IPCC 2007). Reducing tropical ENHANCING CARBON STOCKS AND REDUCING CO 2 EMISSIONS IN AGRICULTURE AND NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PROJECTS PA RT A — A P P R O A C H A N D M E T H O D S F O R E N H A N C I N G C A R B O N S T O C K S A N D R E D U C I N G C O 2 E M I S S I O N S 9 TABLE A.2: Mitigation Potential of Forest Sector Activities at the Global Level MITIGATION POTENTIAL (MT OF REGION ACTIVITY CO2 PER YEAR) PERIOD Tropical;1 carbon price assumed to be constant REDD: Reduced deforestation and forest degradation 2827 2020–2050 at $30 per tCO2 Afforestation 1070 Forest management 698 1 Temperate Afforestation 777 Forest management 1378 Total 6750 2 Global total REDD 5100 By 2030 A/R 2400 Forest management 300 Total 7800 Global total3 REDD 3666 Up to 2050 RED by 50% and after reaching 50% of current area stopping RED Global4 A/R 586–4033 Up to 2100 Total 4252–7699 Source: 1Sohngen 2008; 2McKinsey and Co. 2009; 3Gullison et al. 2007; 4Canadell and Raupach 2008. deforestation is thus a high-priority mitigation option and the by 2050, with major contributions from avoided deforesta- basis for including forest-related climate actions in interna- tion in countries rich in tropical forests. However, the IPCC tional agreements. (2007) estimates that 35 percent of the mitigation potential by 2030 could be realized through REDD. According to esti- Analysis done by the World Resources Institute shows that mates made by the Elaisch Review (2008), the global cost the emission reduction pledges made by Annex I countries of climate change caused by deforestation could reach $1 under the Copenhagen Accord translate to cumulative reduc- trillion a year by 2100. The review suggested that including tions of 13 to 19 percent below the 1990 levels, falling far REDD and additional action on sustainable management in short of the lower limit or the 25 percent cut by 2020 recom- a well-designed carbon trading system could provide the mended by the IPCC (Levin and Bradley 2010). In a compre- �nance and incentives to reduce deforestation rates up to hensive study conducted by the Netherlands Environmental 75 percent in 2030, and the addition of A/R and restoration Assessment Agency (den Elzen et al. 2010), current emission would make the forest sector carbon neutral. The review also reduction pledges are estimated to reduce global emissions estimated that the �nance required to halve the emissions of GHG to about 50 GtCO2-eq by 2020, about 4 GtCO2-eq from the sector by 2030 could be about $17 to 33 billion a short of the level needed to meet the target of limiting global year. Nonetheless, even taking the costs into account, the warming to less than 2°C by 2050. The study suggests that by net bene�ts of halving deforestation could amount to $3.7 reducing emissions from deforestation by 50 percent below trillion over the long term. the 1995 levels, the global community could begin to close this emissions gap and be along the pathway to meeting the A.1.1.4. Afforestation and Reforestation (A/R) Under the 2°C target by 2020. The Cancun Agreement fully recognizes Clean Development Mechanism this, and the REDD+ mechanism is an important component of mitigation strategy under this agreement. Under Article 12 of the Kyoto Protocol, A/R activities are in- cluded under the CDM. Although CDM was included under Tavoni et al. (2007), using an integrated energy-economy- the Kyoto Protocol in 1997, the �rst A/R CDM project was climate model with a forestry module, estimate that global registered only in 2006, and as of September 2011, only forest sinks can contribute a third of the total abatement 31 projects have been registered, compared to 3,377 CDM TOOLKIT 10 PA RT A — A P P R O A C H A N D M E T H O D S F O R E N H A N C I N G C A R B O N S T O C K S A N D R E D U C I N G C O 2 E MIS S IO N S projects covering all sectors, mainly the fossil-fuel sectors. environment and natural resources management, �nancial The poor response of A/R CDM projects is largely due to and private sector management, human development, public complex methodologies, guidelines, and procedures. Critical sector governance, rural development, social development issues in planning, designing, and implementing A/R CDM including gender issues, social protection and risk manage- projects are related to the development of a baseline scenario ment, trade and integration, and urban development. These of carbon stocks and changes, establishment of additionality themes are subdivided into sectors, and some examples of of a CDM project, and measurement, monitoring, reporting, sectors currently in existence under project operations are and veri�cation (MRV) of C-bene�ts. Even after nearly 15 as follows: years of including A/R under CDM, very little progress has been made due to methodological complexities and capac- Land-related sectors—agriculture, �shing, and for- ity limitations in many tropical countries. This tardy progress estry, water, sanitation, and flood protection emphasizes the need for developing simpli�ed yet scienti�- Energy sector—energy and mining cally valid and reliable methods and guidelines for measuring Finance, education, health, industry and others— C-bene�t and for building technical and institutional capacity public administration, law and justice, information and in developing countries. communications, education, �nance, health and other social services, industry and trade, and transportation A.1.1.5. Watershed Watershed development is one of the major programs aimed These guidelines focus on C-bene�t enhancement in all at multiple economic and environmental objectives such as programs and projects related to land, which may include the development of agriculture, forest, and grassland; im- agriculture, forestry, grassland and desert development, provement of livelihoods; and reduction in vulnerability to and irrigation and watershed programs. Further, these broad climate change. A watershed is the land that drains to a par- sectors include programs that encompass agricultural exten- ticular point along a stream. Each stream has its own water- sion and research, crops, irrigation and drainage, forestry, shed. Topography is the key element governing the total area general agriculture, �shing, and forestry. Examples of Bank of a watershed: The boundary of a watershed is de�ned by land-based projects with potential for C-enhancement are the highest elevations surrounding the stream. A watershed given in table A.3. encompasses multiple land categories (such as cropland, Table A.3 is an illustrative list of projects in the agriculture, grassland, forest, and catchment areas) and water resources forestry, and water supply sectors that can have implications (irrigation tanks, streams, etc.). Potential watershed project for carbon, underscoring the need to assess the potential in- activities that contribute to enhancing C-bene�ts include af- terventions aimed at C-enhancement in each of the sectoral forestation of catchment area, construction of farm ponds projects linked to land-based activities. This is attempted in and check dams for water conservation and storage, soil the following chapters. The broad sectors and themes of the conservation, grassland reclamation, desilting of water bod- World Bank projects relevant to providing C-bene�ts are as ies, and multiple cropping. Each of the land categories and follows: watershed activities offers an opportunity to enhance carbon in biomass and soil. Further, soil and water conservation Sectors—general agriculture, forestry, and water practices could enhance annual and perennial biomass pro- supply duction and litter turnover, contributing to increased biomass Themes—biodiversity, agriculture, forestry, environ- and soil carbon stocks. ment and NRM, and irrigation A.1.2. World Bank Projects with Direct or Indirect A.1.3. Broad Goals of Typical World Bank Projects Implications for Carbon Relevant to C-Bene�ts The World Bank is one of the largest multilateral �nancial Generally, most land-based agriculture and NRM projects are institutions providing technical and �nancial assistance to assumed to be carbon positive, leading to net C-bene�ts. developing and transitional countries. The broad vision of the However, it is necessary to estimate and monitor the carbon World Bank is a world free of poverty and the achievement of stock changes, �rst to understand the carbon impacts and the Millennium Development Goals. The broad themes sup- secondly to ensure that the C-bene�ts are not negative or that ported by the World Bank include economic management, there is no net increase in CO2 emission. These guidelines ENHANCING CARBON STOCKS AND REDUCING CO 2 EMISSIONS IN AGRICULTURE AND NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PROJECTS PA RT A — A P P R O A C H A N D M E T H O D S F O R E N H A N C I N G C A R B O N S T O C K S A N D R E D U C I N G C O 2 E M I S S I O N S 11 TABLE A.3: Examples of Land-Based Projects in Different Sectors of the World Bank with Potential for C-Enhancement SECTOR SUBSECTOR TITLE OF THE PROJECT PROJECT NO. Agriculture Agriculture and crop production Assam Agriculture Competitive Project P084792 Biodiversity conservation Sustainable Land and Ecosystem Project P11060 Water Resources Watershed, hydrology, and natural resource Uttar Pradesh Water Sector Restructuring Project P050647 management Mid Himalaya Watershed Development Project P093720 Uttarakhand Decentralized Watershed Development Project P078550 Tank irrigation Andhra Pradesh Tank Project P100789 Livelihood Micro�nance Andhra Pradesh Livelihoods Project P071272 Forestry Community-based forest management Andhra Pradesh Forestry Project P073094 Carbon sequestration Himachal Pradesh BioCarbon Forest Carbon Sequestration P104901 Source: http://www.worldbank.org.in/external/default/main?menuPK=295615&pagePK=1411155&piPK=141124&theSitePK-295584 describe simpli�ed methods for estimation and monitoring sustainable management of forests and of carbon footprints of land-based projects. Typical World grasslands. Bank projects in the land-use sectors could broadly seek to Irrigation and water conservation—Projects related achieve one or more of the following objectives synergisti- to irrigation and water conservation aim at increasing cally with enhanced C-bene�ts: the area under irrigation, enhancing water supply for rain-fed crops, improving water-use ef�ciency, and Agricultural and watershed development—The World promoting conjunctive use of water. These activities Bank has a large portfolio of agricultural development lead to increased biomass production and turnover projects with a goal to increase and/or sustain crop of root and crop residue, increasing the soil carbon (and animal husbandry) production. All activities stocks. leading to increased or sustained agricultural production Biodiversity conservation—Projects on biodiversity lead to enhanced carbon stocks in soils and vegetation. conservation focus mainly on forests, grasslands, and Watershed and irrigation projects also aim at increas- wetlands; C-bene�t is a cobene�t of such projects. ing and stabilizing crop yield, indirectly contributing to The key projects that contribute to biodiversity conser- enhanced biomass production and accumulation of soil vation include management of protected areas (PAs) carbon. Some examples of potential goals of World and REDD. Bank projects could be as follows: Land reclamation and halting deserti�cation—Projects Promotion of sustainable agriculture related to land reclamation and halting deserti�cation Increased crop production not only improve soil fertility, but also add to biomass Crop intensi�cation in the form of vegetation barriers erected to check the Watershed conservation and development spread of deserts. Poverty alleviation and livelihood improvement—The Adaptation—Adaptation is an emerging program in main goal of projects that aim at poverty allevia- the World Bank portfolio, which is projected to grow tion and improved livelihoods would be to increase in the coming years. The goal of adaptation projects and sustain income from crop production, livestock is to reduce vulnerability of crop and forest production management, and forestry, and most such projects to climate variability and climate change. Adaptation provide indirect C-bene�ts. All activities aimed at projects, particularly in the agriculture sector, lead increasing and sustaining incomes and employment to enhanced soil fertility and soil carbon as well as generally involve improving soil fertility (and carbon increased biomass stocks, such as agro-forestry and stock), increased tree diversity and density, and shelterbelts. TOOLKIT 12 PA RT A — A P P R O A C H A N D M E T H O D S F O R E N H A N C I N G C A R B O N S T O C K S A N D R E D U C I N G C O 2 E MIS S IO N S Climate change mitigation—The main goal of mitiga- carbon stock enhancement as a cobene�t. The second is a tion projects is to directly aim at generating C-bene�ts the management of project carbon scenarios for high-value through technical, �nancial, and institutional interven- cropping systems and production practices appropriate for a tions. The best examples of climate change mitiga- given agro-ecological region and meeting the needs of the tion projects include REDD and projects under the local stakeholders such as farmers or landless laborers. The BioCarbon Fund. In these projects, carbon stock guideline provides methods for selection and incorporation of enhancement or CO2 emission reduction is a direct carbon stock enhancement modules and practices and meth- project bene�t. ods for estimation and monitoring of carbon stock changes as well as assessment of social and economic implications Thus, a large number of categories or types of projects of C-enhancement interventions. The steps for these two ap- typically funded by the World Bank to advance its major proaches are presented in �gure A.3. themes will all provide multiple bene�ts including environ- ment conservation, enhanced food production and security, and economic development as well as offering C-bene�ts, A.2.1. Principles for Carbon Stock Enhancement in typically as cobene�ts. Apart from the above types of NRM Land-Based Projects and development-oriented projects, there could be dedicated Carbon stock enhancement in land-based projects should land-based C-bene�t–enhancing projects related to: also meet other socio-economic and environmental require- ments and objectives. Reducing deforestation and forest degradation Sustainable forest management A.2.1.1. Goals of Land-Based Projects and Carbon BioCarbon fund and CDM projects Mitigation The objective of these guidelines is to promote climate Thus, typical land-based developmental projects have the change mitigation or C-bene�t enhancement in World Bank’s potential to provide C-bene�t as a cobene�t in bulk of the land-based developmental projects as cobene�ts along with mainstream project types as well as dedicated C-bene�t the following potential goals or objectives of the projects: projects. Even land-based adaptation projects can provide mitigation bene�ts. Thus, there is a need to recognize and Food production enhancement and stabilization plus enhance the importance of most or all land-based projects in carbon stock enhancement providing enhanced C-bene�ts. Promotion of sustainable agriculture production plus carbon stock enhancement Section A.2 presents an approach and guidelines to rec- Watershed development or soil and water conserva- ognize, enhance, and monitor C-bene�ts to assist project tion plus carbon stock enhancement developers and managers in designing, implementing, and Biodiversity conservation plus carbon stock mainte- monitoring land-based projects. Section A.3 dwells on the nance or enhancement implications of incorporating C-enhancement modules or practices, Part B describes the technologies and practices for Afforestation or community forestry plus carbon stock enhancing C-bene�ts, and Part C gives details of the meth- enhancement ods for estimating and monitoring C-bene�ts. Adaptation to climate change impacts plus carbon stock enhancement These guidelines are practical in that the emphasis is on how A.2. GUIDELINES FOR ENHANCING C-BENEFITS to incorporate and/or enhance C-bene�ts in the World Bank FROM LAND-BASED PROJECTS land-based projects in agriculture, watersheds, and forests. This guideline for carbon stock enhancement or CO2 emis- sion reduction in land-use sectors presents two approaches. A.2.1.2. Modes of C-Bene�ts Through Land-Based Projects The �rst is a generic approach covering all the land categories Land-based projects can provide C-bene�ts directly or indi- and interventions aimed at promoting the economic (crop, rectly. The bene�ts could be in the form of conserving (PA timber, and non-timber wood product production, employ- management) or enhancing existing carbon stocks (agro- ment, or livelihood generation) and environmental (soil and forestry, sustainable agriculture, afforestation, and shelter- water conservation, biodiversity protection, and land recla- belts), reducing CO2 emissions (such as REDD), and replac- mation) objectives of a project, synergistically optimizing the ing fossil fuels (with biofuels and bioenergy). ENHANCING CARBON STOCKS AND REDUCING CO 2 EMISSIONS IN AGRICULTURE AND NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PROJECTS PA RT A — A P P R O A C H A N D M E T H O D S F O R E N H A N C I N G C A R B O N S T O C K S A N D R E D U C I N G C O 2 E M I S S I O N S 13 FIGURE A.3: Approach to Enhancing C-Bene�ts in Agriculture and NRM Projects Approaches for carbon stock enhancement/CO2 emission reduction and monitoring Selection of land-based projects Identification and selection of land categories and subcategories for inclusion in the project Generic steps for carbon stock Steps for maximizing carbon stocks along enhancement in land-use projects with crop production Identification of broad outcomes/outputs of Development of project the project relevant to land categories and baseline carbon scenario interventions Selection of C-enhancement modules and Assessment of the potential for maximizing practices for carbon stock enhancement/CO2 the carbon stocks of the project area emission reduction Selection of Selection of cropping systems/ agronomic pattern for a high- practices, soil and carbon scenario water conservation and maximized measures for a crop production high-carbon scenario, and maximized crop production Estimation of carbon stock changes or CO2 emission reduction due to C-enhancement modules and practices Implications of carbon stock enhancement goals, modules, and activities for the project cycle Monitoring and estimation of carbon stock enhancement due to project interventions Implications of carbon stock enhancement interventions for cost, institutional and technical capacity, and socio-economic and environmental aspects C-enhancement and mitigation and adaptation; synergy and trade-offs Source: Authors. TOOLKIT 14 PA RT A — A P P R O A C H A N D M E T H O D S F O R E N H A N C I N G C A R B O N S T O C K S A N D R E D U C I N G C O 2 E MIS S IO N S 1. Carbon conservation: There are many land-based sys- land-based projects come under this category. The REDD+ tems with high-carbon density, which may have to be con- mechanism includes carbon stock enhancement as one of served and their carbon stocks maintained at the current the plus activities. level. Many of the land-based systems such as forests, grasslands, and wetlands are subjected to anthropogenic 3. CO2 emission reduction: According to the IPCC, reduc- pressures, leading to reduction in carbon stocks without ing emissions from deforestation and degradation provides changing the land use. An illustrative list of projects aimed at the largest opportunity to mitigate climate change. There carbon conservation is given in table A.4. Carbon conserva- are global efforts under the UNFCCC to reduce emissions tion projects could be on forest land (involving native forests), from deforestation and forest degradation. The World Bank grasslands (natural grasslands), and wetlands. The projects and other international agencies have dedicated programs under this category are characterized by high-carbon stocks, aimed at reducing CO2 emissions from forests. The focus of which need to be maintained by improved management and the world community, including the World Bank, would be reduced anthropogenic pressures. The plus component of on REDD as a priority activity in its effort to address climate the REDD+ mechanism includes forest conservation as one change. The other major option aims at reducing CO2 emis- of the activities. There could be two options for carbon con- sions from land degradation, particularly from croplands, servation in such projects: developing new projects aimed grasslands, and wetlands. Other opportunities for reducing at carbon conservation and incorporating practices aimed at CO2 emissions include reduced tillage in agriculture, improved effective carbon conservation in existing projects or projects grassland management, sustainable forest management, and in the pipeline. fuelwood conservation and substitution programs. 2. Carbon stock enhancement: The carbon stock of forests, 4. CO2 emission reduction through fossil fuel substitu- grasslands, and croplands are subjected to degradation and tion: Several land-based technologies offer opportunities loss. Globally, about 910 Mha is subjected to degradation to produce biofuels as transportation fuels and biomass (GEO-3 2002) and loss; in India, over 50 percent of the land is feedstock for power generation to replace fossil fuels. The subjected to degradation, leading to loss of carbon. Projects major opportunities for CO2 emission reduction through such in this category cover all the land categories subjected to substitution are as follows: anthropogenic stress or degradation. C-enhancement in Biofuels substituting fossil fuels in transportation land-based projects could be a direct bene�t or a cobene�t. Biomass power substituting fossil fuel power Practices focused on enhancing carbon stocks in croplands, Biogas substituting fuelwood and fossil fuels (kero- grasslands, and forests aim at enhancing biomass produc- sene and LPG) used for cooking tivity of crops, grasses, and trees. Potentially, all land-based projects are likely to lead to enhanced carbon stocks. Biofuel production is a controversial topic in the context of C-enhancement projects could encompass agricultural de- climate change mitigation because of potential CO2 emis- velopment (including watershed and sustainable agriculture), sions resulting from conversion of high-carbon density for- grassland management, and A/R. The bulk of the World Bank ests, grasslands, wetlands, and peat. Biofuel production in- volving such land-use conversion may lead to no net negative CO2 emission reduction and indeed may lead to increased TABLE A.4: Potential Opportunities for Deriving emissions from land, which could be far higher than the C-Bene�ts from Land-Based Projects CO2 bene�ts from fossil fuel substitution (UNEP 2010). The CONSERVING ENHANCING REDUCING biofuel option is not considered in these guidelines because CARBON STOCKS CARBON STOCKS EMISSIONS the potential C-bene�ts, especially those arising out of land 1. PA management 1. Agro-forestry and 1. Reducing 2. Wetland shelterbelts deforestation conversion and land use practices, are debatable. conservation 2. A/R, community 2. Reducing forest 3. Biodiversity forestry degradation A.2.1.3. Opportunity for Promoting Synergy: conservation 3. Watershed projects 3. Reduced tillage Environment and Developmental Goals and 4. Irrigation 4. Halting land management degradation Climate Change Mitigation (minor irrigation) Carbon mitigation is a global and long-term bene�t—the 5. Sustainable agriculture bene�t to local communities or the environment is neither 6. Land reclamation signi�cant nor immediate. Therefore, any intervention aimed Source: Authors. at enhancing C-bene�t should also aim at ensuring that the ENHANCING CARBON STOCKS AND REDUCING CO 2 EMISSIONS IN AGRICULTURE AND NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PROJECTS PA RT A — A P P R O A C H A N D M E T H O D S F O R E N H A N C I N G C A R B O N S T O C K S A N D R E D U C I N G C O 2 E M I S S I O N S 15 intervention also leads to some local economic or environ- of an understanding of the project baseline carbon stocks, mental bene�ts. Carbon mitigation in the land-use sector of- (2) assessment of its crop production potential, (3) identi�- fers the means to ensure synergy between local and global cation of the maximum carbon stocks that can be achieved bene�ts. The interventions for enhancing C-bene�ts, to be in a project area along with maximizing the crop production acceptable to local communities, farmers, or agriculture/for- potential, and (4) selection of appropriate cropping system est departments, must be cost-effective, leading to tangible and production practices. This approach helps to maximize and preferably economic bene�ts (such as an increase in crop C-bene�ts from a project synergistically with maximizing crop yield or water availability) and also environmental bene�ts production. There is adequate scienti�c evidence to show (reduced soil erosion and increased soil fertility, biodiversity that the soil organic matter or carbon stock is one of the key conservation), if possible. Thus, all efforts and approaches to indicators of crop production potential, especially in rain-fed enhancing C-bene�ts in NRM and developmental projects or or dry land agriculture. This approach could be adopted along in mainstreaming climate change mitigation must preferably with the generic approach described in section A.2.2.2. This adhere to the principles given below: approach is different from the generic approach described in this guideline since it aims at maximizing project carbon stocks as the starting objective followed by increasing crop production potential. In the generic approach, predominantly, project outcomes and outputs are the focus of the project, 1. C-bene�t enhancement should be a cobene�t of and carbon is considered as a cobene�t. Steps for maximiz- mainstream developmental projects ing C-bene�ts in crop production systems are as follows: 2. Potential must exist for synergy between the main project objective/goal and C-bene�ts Step A: Develop project baseline carbon scenario—In 3. The interventions for C-enhancement must provide this step, baseline carbon stocks of all the land categories economic or environmental bene�ts and the total project area is estimated at the beginning of the project ex ante. It is assumed that in most cases, the 4. C-enhancement interventions should be carbon density of the project land categories at the beginning cost-effective of the project would be low, potentially leading to low crop 5. C-bene�t should be measurable or amenable to production. Estimation of baseline carbon stocks (in tons per monitoring ha) provides opportunity for assessing the potential for maxi- mizing the carbon stocks and crop production potential. It may also help in selecting cropping systems and production practices to increase C-bene�ts. The main steps for estimat- A.2.2. Approaches for Carbon Stock Enhancement and ing the baseline carbon scenario are detailed in section D.2. CO2 Emission Reduction A detailed, step-by-step approach to select, incorporate, and Step B: Development of high-carbon scenario for the enhance C-bene�ts (carbon stock enhancement and CO2 project area—This involves estimating maximum potential emissions reduction) is presented in this section. The two ap- carbon stocks that could be achieved in the project area for proaches are presented in �gure A.3. The �rst approach pro- the given agro-climatic and soil conditions. This potential vides guidelines for project developers to manage project car- could be termed as a high-carbon scenario. This could be bon scenarios for promoting high-value cropping systems and different for annual crops and tree or forest-based interven- production practices, appropriate for a given agro-ecological tions. Here the focus is largely on crop-based interventions region as well as to meet the needs of the local stakeholders. to maximize the carbon stocks. Estimation of the high-carbon The second approach is a generic one covering all the land scenario involves obtaining maximum carbon density values categories and interventions aimed at promoting the econom- from one or more of the following sources: ic and environmental objectives of a project, synergistically Experimental plots in local agricultural research optimizing the carbon stock enhancement as a cobene�t. stations A.2.2.1. The “Carbon Baseline Scenario� and the Well-managed or undisturbed grasslands “High-Carbon Scenario� Approach for Well-managed agro-forestry systems Maximizing Crop Production Potential Literature values for well-managed or high-yielding Maximization of C-bene�t in a land-based project focused on cropping systems crop production systems can be achieved by (1) development Natural forests or grasslands in the region TOOLKIT 16 PA RT A — A P P R O A C H A N D M E T H O D S F O R E N H A N C I N G C A R B O N S T O C K S A N D R E D U C I N G C O 2 E MIS S IO N S The net potential for maximizing C-bene�ts in a project All the other aspects of the C-enhancement guidelines such area can be estimated on the baseline carbon scenario and as procedures for selecting the CEMs/CEPs, estimating the high-carbon scenario stocks. However, it has to be noted carbon implications, assessing the socio-economic and en- that maximum carbon density recorded for a given land use vironmental impacts, and measurement and monitoring of or cropping system could vary from region to region, soil carbon stock changes are described in section A.3. types, cultivation practices, rainfall, and irrigation availability. Thus, high-carbon scenario stocks will only give a crude A.2.2.2. Generic Approach to Enhancing C-Bene�ts in estimate of the potential available for maximizing the Environmental and Developmental Projects C-bene�ts. Enhancement of C-bene�ts from mainstream World Bank NRM and developmental projects would require a system- Step C: Assessment of crop production potential under a atic approach to ensure optimized delivery of project goals high-carbon scenario—One of the factors determining crop and outputs along with C-bene�ts in a synergistic manner. yield is the soil organic matter or carbon stock density of the No clearly identi�ed guidelines are currently available for land. It is assumed that under the baseline or preproject sce- mainstreaming C-bene�ts in typical World Bank projects. The nario, SOC density as well as the crop yield is likely to be low, approach should encompass not just technical interventions and the project aims to increase and sustain crop production. or inputs compatible with the project outputs/outcomes, but Maximum crop production potential under a high-carbon sce- should also include the following aspects: nario could be obtained from agricultural research institutes or universities. However, it has to be noted that SOC is only Development of the baseline status of carbon stock one of the contributing factors for increasing the crop yield, changes or CO2 emissions the other factors being the crop grown, crop variety, cultiva- Selection and incorporation of CEMs and CEPs tion practices, fertilizer application rates, soil type, rainfall, Assessment of the impact of dedicated interventions and irrigation availability. The information needed for linking on carbon stock changes crop production potential to soil organic matter/carbon may Monitoring of C-enhancement and socio-economic be limited in literature for a given project region. bene�ts Assessment of the incremental institutional and tech- Step D: Selection of cropping systems or practices for a nical capacity needs high-carbon scenario—One of the main goals of any agri- Cost implications of the dedicated interventions cultural development or intensi�cation project is to maximize and sustain crop productivity. Maximization of crop produc- Assessment of the economic and environmental impli- tion would involve selection of the following: cations of C-enhancement interventions Understanding any trade-offs between project goals Alternate crops or cropping systems and C-enhancement and potential for synergy High-yielding varieties Potential for adaptation to climate change as a Multiple cropping cobene�t Mixed cropping A step-by-step approach to promoting the concept of Crop-intensi�cation practices. C-enhancement is presented in �gure A.4. These steps are described in detail in the following sections. Selection of a cropping system is critical to maximizing the crop yields. However, it is only one of the factors determin- Incorporating the interventions cost-effectively and synergis- ing crop yields (the others are presented above). Selection of tically potentially requires modi�cation of the project design, a cropping system is also one of the factors contributing to implementation and monitoring, and incremental technical increasing carbon stocks in the croplands. and institutional capacity for certain categories of proj- ects. However, this need not be true for many projects in Step E: Selection of CEMs/CEPs for a high-carbon which the activities to realize or enhance C-bene�ts may scenario—Selection of agronomic, soil, and water manage- not involve any signi�cant incremental investment or tech- ment practices in addition to cropping systems is critical to nical capacity. For example, afforestation and PA manage- maximizing C-bene�ts. These could be termed as CEMs and ment for biodiversity conservation are likely to generate CEPs. The approach and methods for selecting CEMs/CEPs C-bene�ts without any incremental investment except that is described in section A.2.3. on monitoring. ENHANCING CARBON STOCKS AND REDUCING CO 2 EMISSIONS IN AGRICULTURE AND NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PROJECTS PA RT A — A P P R O A C H A N D M E T H O D S F O R E N H A N C I N G C A R B O N S T O C K S A N D R E D U C I N G C O 2 E M I S S I O N S 17 A.2.3. Guidelines for Consideration and Enhancement Direct C-bene�ts of C-Bene�ts Watershed and sustainable agriculture projects The approach to and methods for identifying and selecting enhancing biomass and soil carbon suitable CEMs and CEPs for enhancing C-bene�ts are pre- A/R projects enhancing biomass and soil carbon sented here, along with the features and potential C-bene�ts. PA management conserving biomass and soil However, description and technical details of all the CEMs carbon stocks and CEPs are given in Part B. Desert development programs enhancing soil and tree biomass carbon stocks A.2.3.1. Criteria for Selecting Projects for C-Enhancement Agricultural intensi�cation projects enhancing soil Selection of projects with potential for C-bene�ts is the carbon �rst step. The main criteria for selecting projects for Minor irrigation projects increasing biomass produc- C-enhancement are as follows: tion and turnover leading to enhanced soil carbon Projects should have land as one of the components Indirect C-bene�ts for intervention directly (such as forestry and biodiver- Soil and water conservation projects leading to sity projects) or indirectly (such as water conservation increased biomass production and residue turnover and livelihood projects) Sustainable livelihood projects depending on non- Projects should offer the potential to conserve/en- timber forest products (NTFP) and animal husbandry hance carbon stocks or reduce CO2 emission directly Fuelwood conservation programs leading to re- (such as afforestation) or indirectly (such as soil or duced pressure on forests and tree resources water conservation) Practices, such as application of organic manure, C-bene�t enhancement should be synergistic with the leading to reduction in fertilizer use, indirectly re- project’s socio-economic or environmental goals ducing emissions of GHGs such as N2O According to the World Bank’s Global and India Country A.2.3.2. Project Cycle Stages for C-Enhancement Strategy, the following categories of projects are likely to Interventions be eligible for delivering and enhancing C-bene�ts among The potential stages in the project cycle at which interven- the land-based projects. The broad themes and subsectors tions to enhance C-bene�ts could be considered include the of the World Bank projects in agriculture and NRM directly following: relevant to C-enhancement are listed in table A.5. The project planning and designing stage is the Most of the projects in the subsectors or themes (table A.5) ideal stage to identify potential interventions leading where land is an integral component of project activities will to enhanced C-bene�ts since it is possible to develop be relevant to C-enhancement. Direct and indirect C-bene�ts a package of interventions optimizing NRM or devel- from land-based projects are as follows: opmental bene�ts along with the C-bene�ts, such as agro-forestry activity incorporated into a watershed or an agricultural development project. The post project-approval stage is another possibility. If a project has been approved without TABLE A.5: World Bank Themes and Subsectors any planned interventions dedicated to enhancing Relevant to C-Bene�t Enhancement C-bene�ts but provides an opportunity to incorporate appropriate practices or technologies THEMES SUBSECTORS to enhance C-bene�ts synergistically with project goals Biodiversity Agricultural extension and research Climate change Animal production (such as incorporating fuelwood conservation into a PA Land administration and Crops management project), it is possible to introduce those management Irrigation and drainage practices or technologies into the project. Other environment and natural Forestry resource management The implementation stage is probably the last stage General agriculture and forestry Water resource management Environment and natural resource at which appropriate interventions can be introduced. management Although the project has started, it may be possible Source: Authors. to incorporate a few practices to enhance C-bene�ts TOOLKIT 18 PA RT A — A P P R O A C H A N D M E T H O D S F O R E N H A N C I N G C A R B O N S T O C K S A N D R E D U C I N G C O 2 E MIS S IO N S so long as the practices are synergistic with the main goal of the project (such as incorporating mulching, Step 1: Identify all the land categories considered in organic manure application, or agro-forestry into an the project ongoing watershed project). Cropland (irrigated and rain fed), grassland, A.2.3.3. Decision Makers for Incorporation of C-Bene�ts catchment or watershed, degraded lands, The �nal decision on incorporating the interventions related settlement area, etc. to C-bene�ts and their enhancement is a critical issue and Step 2: Identify the land categories directly targeted in one or more of the following could take the decision: the project since all land categories in a village or wa- tershed or landscape may not be included for treatment Project developer—The project proponent or devel- oper will be the ideal decision maker given her or his Water catchment in a watershed project, crop- �rst-hand knowledge of the project goals and objec- land in agro-forestry projects, and grazing land tives, land categories involved, socio-economic and in grassland management projects environmental implications, and different stakeholders Step 3: Identify the current land use, which may include likely to be affected by the project. single or multiple uses. Project funder—A funding agency could also alert the project developer to the potential for synergy Wasteland or degraded forest land used for between the project goals and C-enhancement. In grazing and fuelwood collection apart from serv- fact, the funding agency is more likely to convince ing as a catchment area the project developer that most interventions aimed Forest land used for grazing, fuelwood collec- at C-enhancement also enhance or sustain NRM and tion, and as a source of green leaf manure developmental bene�ts. Cropland for crop or grass production Project evaluator—Technical experts who review Step 4: Identify all the interlinkages between the land and evaluate the project proposal could also suggest categories directly targeted for intervention and other potential interventions to C-enhancement. land categories in the project area Project manager—Because C-enhancement Agricultural development project requiring activities could be incorporated or modi�ed at various catchment area treatment or wasteland for rais- stages including the postproject sanction or proj- ing leaf biomass for organic manure application ect implementation stage, the project manager can also decide whether additional activities could be Step 5: Select all the land categories that have direct or undertaken. indirect linkage with the project objectives with respect to water flow, biomass production, grazing, etc. A.2.3.4. Selection of Land Categories Step 6: Develop different interventions for enhancing The land category chosen for intervention could include C-bene�ts in different land categories linked to one an- single or multiple land categories: other (described in later sections). A single land category such as grassland or de- graded forestland or cropland is targeted for project Selection of land categories as described above makes it pos- intervention. sible to select speci�c areas, interventions, and technologies Multiple land categories will feature in most or practices. The land category selected in the project will projects since intervention in one land category have implications for C-enhancement potential, as shown as (such as PA management) may require interventions follows: in other land categories (such as grazing land outside Forestland: Reducing deforestation will have the high- the PA). Similarly, a watershed project would involve est C-bene�t per unit area treatment of water catchment area, grazing land, and Degraded land: Afforestation could have a large cropland. C-bene�t potential Identi�cation of land categories for the desired interventions Cropland: Sustainable agricultural practices could have could involve the following steps: a large potential for soil C-bene�t ENHANCING CARBON STOCKS AND REDUCING CO 2 EMISSIONS IN AGRICULTURE AND NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PROJECTS PA RT A — A P P R O A C H A N D M E T H O D S F O R E N H A N C I N G C A R B O N S T O C K S A N D R E D U C I N G C O 2 E M I S S I O N S 19 TABLE A.6: Examples of World Bank Projects Involving Multiple Land Categories Subjected to Interventions LAND CATEGORY FOR PROJECT TITLE INTERVENTIONS ACTIVITIES OUTCOMES Community Management of Cropland Conservative or deep furrows every four meters Promotion of sustainable agriculture Sustainable Agriculture Trench around the �eld, farm ponds practices and production systems Tank silt application Raising fruit gardens Reduced dose of synthetic (inorganic) fertilizers and their eventual replacement with biofertilizers Increased diversity and intensity of crops Identi�cation of appropriate cropping systems: intercropping, multicropping, and crop rotations Enhancing and maintaining soil health through mulching, green manure, and vermicompost Mid Himalayan Watershed Agricultural land, common lands, 60% of available treatable area of nonarable Reversal of the process of degradation Development Project wasteland within village bound- land is treated with forestry interventions of the natural resource base, improved aries, forest department lands 60% of available treatable area of arable land productive potential of natural resources, Undemarcated degraded is treated and increased incomes of rural house- forest land 20% increase in fodder over baseline holds in the project area through various water conservation techniques and 20% increase over baseline in area under high- plantation activities. In brief, value crops enhancement of carbon sinks (through 30% of farmers adopt new technologies comprehensive catchment treatment 4003 ha of carbon sink created interventions) Sustainable Land, Water and Degraded reserve forest land, 20 to 30% of the area in selected micro- Restoration and sustenance of ecosystem Biodiversity Conservation common wasteland, agriculture watershed under improved sustainable land and functions and biodiversity while simulta- Management for Improved wasteland, degraded grazing ecosystem management techniques neously enhancing income and livelihood Livelihoods in Uttarakhand land Increase in availability of water in dry season by functions and generating lessons learned Watershed Sector 5% in the treated micro-watersheds in these respects that can be upscaled 10% increase in tree and other vegetative cover and mainstreamed at state and national in 20 micro watersheds levels. In brief, reducing vulnerability to climate risks 50% reduction in incidents of �re in treated micro-watersheds Cultivation of at least 5 local medicinal and aromatic plants by communities in 20 micro watersheds Andhra Pradesh Community Forest land, including open forest Area covered: teak forests, nonteak hardwoods, Reduction in rural poverty through Forest Management Project and scrub, degraded forest land, bamboo forests, red sanders forest, teak and improved forest management with com- degraded demarcated forest bamboo mixed forests, nonteak and bamboo munity participation land, degraded undemarcated mixed forests, NTFP, medicinal plantations, and forest land, village common land, NTFP and fodder grasses and revenue wasteland within Number of seedlings planted through farm forest area forestry Increase in the extent of forest cover Source: Authors. Cropland: Water conservation projects could have a A.2.3.5. Identi�cation of Broad Outcomes/Outputs of moderate potential for C-bene�t the Project Grassland: Livestock and grazing management could Each project will have broader project outcomes as well as have a low potential for C-bene�t more project-speci�c outputs. Most projects are likely to have multiple outputs related to objectives that are physi- For example, PA management may require only protection cal (such as reducing soil erosion and water conservation), from extraction or grazing, while an afforestation project biological (increased biomass production or crop productivity could require raising a nursery, land preparation, planting, and biodiversity conservation), socio-economic (increasing protection, and management. Table A.6 provides examples incomes and employment), and institutional (capacity de- of land categories to be subjected to direct interventions, velopment). A good understanding of the outputs is critical land categories likely to be impacted by project interventions, for decisions on interventions for C-enhancement since the and project outcomes. interventions will have direct or indirect implications for the TOOLKIT 20 PA RT A — A P P R O A C H A N D M E T H O D S F O R E N H A N C I N G C A R B O N S T O C K S A N D R E D U C I N G C O 2 E MIS S IO N S project outputs. Table A.6 provides examples of outcomes/ CEMs are subprojects consisting of a single or, more often, outputs of projects that have direct or indirect linkage to multiple components or a package of activities or technolo- C-bene�ts. The carbon-bene�t component of the outputs for gies aimed at enhancing C-bene�ts from any land-based the bulk of agricultural and NRM projects will be a cobene�t. project. These modules synergistically contribute to the main socio-economic or environmental goals of the project while Most land-based projects may not require any drastic altera- providing C-enhancement as a cobene�t. Agro-forestry, wa- tion or modi�cation of the outputs to obtain C-bene�ts. Thus, tershed management, sustainable agriculture, and afforesta- it is possible to incorporate the objective of C-enhancement tion are examples of CEMs. even at postapproval stages of the project prior to implementation. The following approach could be adopted for identifying and se- CEMs lecting outputs for considering and enhancing the C-bene�ts: Watershed development Agro-forestry Soil conservation Step 1: Identify all the outputs of the project—eco- Water conservation nomic, environmental, capacity building, etc. Soil and water conservation Step 2: Categorize the outputs into those linked to land- Shelterbelts based interventions such as increasing soil fertility, tree PA management cover and grass production, and biodiversity conserva- Land reclamation tion, and those that are not land based Sustainable agriculture Step 3: Identify whether the outputs deliver direct or Afforestation and forest regeneration indirect C-bene�ts—most land-based projects may de- Biodiversity conservation liver carbon as a direct bene�t of interventions aimed at Community forestry delivering the project outputs Irrigation (minor or major) Step 4: Explore and identify the possibility of including Fuelwood conservation devices additional outputs; it is desirable to add additional out- Fruit orchards and gardens puts aimed at enhancing the C-bene�ts synergistically with other project outputs, which may require potentially incremental interventions CEPs are technologies, activities, or practices aimed at monitoring of the C-bene�ts conserving or enhancing carbon in selected land categories. Reduced tillage, mulching, organic manuring, etc., are ex- Step 5: Identify the activities or practices required for amples of CEPs. each of the outputs leading to direct or indirect implica- tions for carbon. CEPs A.2.4. CEMs and CEPs for C-Bene�ts Mulching These guidelines seek to obtain higher levels of C-bene�ts Organic manure application in terms of enhanced carbon stocks or reduced CO2 emis- Green manure application sions from a given area of land. Obtaining higher levels of Reduced or zero tillage carbon stocks or reduced emissions of CO2 requires a pack- Contour bunding age of activities or interventions to be incorporated into any Farm ponds land-based project. These interventions could be considered at two levels, namely CEMs and CEPs or C-enhancement Tank silt application technologies. Although an attempt is made to distinguish Intercropping/multiple cropping between CEMs and CEPs, the two often overlap and could Cover cropping be used interchangeably. ENHANCING CARBON STOCKS AND REDUCING CO 2 EMISSIONS IN AGRICULTURE AND NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PROJECTS PA RT A — A P P R O A C H A N D M E T H O D S F O R E N H A N C I N G C A R B O N S T O C K S A N D R E D U C I N G C O 2 E M I S S I O N S 21 Practices leading to negative C-bene�ts Baseline carbon stock or CO2 emissions—The land selected for the project activity could have high-carbon It is necessary to avoid certain land management practices density (such as well-managed grassland or forest) or that could potentially lead to increased emissions of CO2 or low-carbon density (such as an eroded, rain-fed crop- reduced carbon stocks. Examples of such practices are: land). In a typical afforestation project on degraded lands, the baseline carbon stock, particularly biomass Disturbance of soil, leading to enhanced oxidation of SOC carbon, is generally low and the project interventions Harvesting and burning of trees, tree branches, crop could lead to enhanced soil and biomass carbon. residue, and weeds Region—The C-bene�t per unit of investment would Conversion of carbon-rich forests and grasslands to be high in high-rainfall zones and in valleys and low- croplands or managed grasslands lying agricultural lands. The C-bene�ts per ha from A.2.4.1. Categories of Projects for Developing CEMs or project intervention would be low in arid lands or on CEPs sloping lands in hilly areas subjected to erosion. CEMs or CEPs—An agricultural development project Any NRM or developmental projects involving different land may include multiple practices (mulching, organic categories could fall into one of the following three catego- manure application, and soil conservation), providing ries in which CEMs or CEPs could be integrated: higher levels of C-bene�ts. Similarly, afforestation of Projects in which C-enhancement is an integral part degraded lands may provide higher C-bene�ts. On the of the project delivering socio-economic or environ- other hand, a soil conservation project may provide mental bene�ts but C-bene�t is neither recognized nor lower per ha C-bene�ts. monitored Intensity of activity—The greater or more intense Projects in which C-enhancement is not an integral the level of activity, the greater the bene�ts. The level component of the project delivering socio-economic can be expressed in such measures as tons of mulch or environmental bene�ts; however, potential exists or organic manure applied per ha, the number of irriga- for incorporation of cost-effective CEMs aimed at tions, the depth of tillage, and the density of planting. generating C-bene�ts synergistically with the project goals and outputs Types of interventions: The types of interventions could be grouped into the following categories: Projects in which C-bene�t is one of the main outputs and would include activities directly aimed at enhanc- Biological interventions include enhancing vegeta- ing C-bene�ts tion cover (agro-forestry) and incorporating organic Projects in which additional activities or interventions matter into soil (application of compost or mulch), could further enhance C-bene�ts where carbon accumulation occurs in perennial trees, shrubs, and soil. It is assumed here that the bulk of the World Bank projects belong to one of the �rst two categories mentioned above Physical interventions include construction of physi- and will have the potential for additional or incremental inter- cal structures for soil and water conservation such as ventions/activities that could enhance C-bene�ts. farm ponds, contour bunds, and check dams where C-bene�t accrues indirectly in the form of enhanced A.2.4.2. Factors Determining C-Bene�ts growth of crops or trees. The extent of C-bene�ts in terms of tC stock enhanced or Institutional and capacity-building interventions CO2 emissions avoided could depend on various factors: such as selection of appropriate cropping patterns, a watershed plan, improved PA management, and Land category—A project may have a single land improved monitoring of deforestation areas could category, such as degraded community land for contribute indirectly by reducing degradation and the afforestation, or multiple land categories, such as a resulting CO2 emissions or by maintaining or improv- watershed project involving cropland, catchment area, ing biomass stocks. grazing land, forest land, etc. The C-bene�t would be high for an afforestation program in degraded lands A.2.4.3. Features of CEMs or CEPs for Enhancing C-Bene�ts or low for arid land reclamation in terms of tons of CEMs and CEPs could be considered at any of the three C-bene�t per ha. phases of a project cycle, namely project design, postapproval, TOOLKIT 22 PA RT A — A P P R O A C H A N D M E T H O D S F O R E N H A N C I N G C A R B O N S T O C K S A N D R E D U C I N G C O 2 E MIS S IO N S and implementation (see section A.3.1.), and may belong to Could generate or enhance C-bene�ts in typical land- any of the following types: based projects such as increasing SOC in a watershed or land reclamation projects Project activities involving direct interventions on Could involve a single practice or technology (such as the land category selected, such as land preparation, mulching) or multiple practices (such as soil and water planting of trees, and manuring. conservation and afforestation in watershed projects) Project activities involving indirect interventions Could be incorporated into an ongoing project or at the where C-enhancement is an unintended bene�t, such design stage of a new project as shifting of grazing, soil moisture conservation, Enables estimation and monitoring of C-bene�ts increased irrigation, and alternative livelihoods in a PA project. A large number of CEMs could be envisaged for land-based Project activities involving improved monitoring of, for projects. The CEMs could be broadly categorized based on example, soil fertility, crop productivity, forest area, the overall goal or sector or land category as given below and deforestation rate, biodiversity, and plantation bio- explained in tables A.7 to A.9: mass growth rates and capacity building for improved management. Agriculture intensi�cation, watershed development, Project activities involving fuelwood conservation, and sustainable agriculture: A major sector of develop- promotion of stall-feeding of livestock, reducing water mental projects comprises intensi�cation or develop- losses, etc. ment of agriculture aimed at increasing, diversifying, and sustaining crop and livestock production in all re- In this section, an attempt is made to develop generic gions including arid, semi-arid, and humid regions. The modules or models for land-based activities for enhancing activities aim at increasing and stabilizing crop yields C-bene�ts. These CEMs could be incorporated into any on- through soil and moisture conservation, irrigation, going or proposed projects to enhance the C-bene�ts syner- increasing soil fertility, changes in cropping systems gistically with the project’s main goals. Potential examples of (mixed and multiple cropping), agro-forestry, sustain- CEMs for land-based projects are given in tables A.7 to A.9, able agriculture practices, and so on. Generally, most keeping in mind the broad sectors, themes, or categories of watershed projects aim at agricultural development World Bank projects. These modules may or may not directly through soil and moisture conservation, soil fertility match with the World Bank’s sectors or themes but could enhancement, and afforestation of catchment areas. be incorporated into NRM and developmental projects under C-bene�t accrues �rst through increased biomass different sectoral or thematic areas. A project may consider production and litter or residue turnover, leading to one or multiple modules. Further, a module may involve a increased soil organic matter or carbon content, and single activity or multiple activities, and a project developer secondly through tree or perennial crop growth, lead- or manager should select relevant activities compatible with ing to increased biomass carbon stock. the project goals and the region. Although the features of a Forest conservation and afforestation: The set of CEM or CEP may vary from one agro-climatic region to an- CEMs applicable to forest conservation and afforesta- other, typical CEMs/CEPs could have the following features: tion projects aims at restoration of degraded forests, afforestation of degraded lands, conservation of Applicable to land-based projects where potential ex- biodiversity, and production of fuelwood and timber. ists for enhancing biomass and/or soil carbon stocks These projects could lead to enhanced carbon stocks or reducing CO2 emissions (biomass and soil carbon) through forest regeneration Contributes to the goals of typical land-based World and tree planting. Further, protection and sustainable Bank projects, such as management practices may contribute to mainte- increasing economic bene�ts through increasing nance of carbon stocks. CO2 emission reduction could crop yields, livestock production, timber production, also be achieved by regulating biomass extraction and grass production, NTFP availability, and employ- grazing practices. ment generation Livelihood improvement and poverty alleviation: environmental bene�ts such as biodiversity conser- Agriculture is the dominant livelihood activity for vation, groundwater recharge, and improvement of those with and without land in rural areas, followed soil fertility by livestock rearing and exploiting forest produce. All ENHANCING CARBON STOCKS AND REDUCING CO 2 EMISSIONS IN AGRICULTURE AND NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PROJECTS PA RT A — A P P R O A C H A N D M E T H O D S F O R E N H A N C I N G C A R B O N S T O C K S A N D R E D U C I N G C O 2 E M I S S I O N S 23 TABLE A.7: Features of C-Enhancement Modules for Projects Related to Agriculture MODULE FEATURES AND IMPLICATIONS FOR CARBON AND OTHER BENEFITS Agro-forestry Feature: Agro-forestry is a collective name for land-use systems and technologies where woody perennials (trees, shrubs, palms, bamboos, etc.) are deliberately used on the same land-management units as agricultural crops and/or animals in some form of spatial arrangement or temporal sequence. Agro-forestry systems involve mixing or intercropping of rows of trees and annual crops, where there could be synergy between trees and crops and also diversi�cation of biomass products and incomes. Outputs/Bene�ts: Agro-forestry contributes to enhancing crop yields through soil improvement and provides tree-based products contributing to increased incomes and improved livelihoods, thereby enhancing resilience to climate risks. Growth of trees and litter turnover lead to enhanced biomass and soil carbon stocks. Shelterbelts Feature: Shelterbelts or windbreaks consisting of trees, shrubs, and grass strips of varying width are established in arid or desert areas to control soil erosion due to water and particularly due to wind. Tree rows are established at right angles to the prevailing wind direction. Outputs/Bene�ts: Windbreaks reduce wind velocity by 65 to 87%, reduce soil erosion by as much as 50%, increase crop yields ranging from 10 to 74% (Pimentel et al. 1997), and provide fuelwood and fodder. Growth of trees and litter turnover lead to enhanced biomass and soil carbon stocks. Irrigation (minor or major) Feature: Irrigation involves providing supplementary water to rain-fed cropland and bringing new area under cultivation. Outputs/Bene�ts: Irrigation leads to greater cropping intensity, increased crop productivity, and higher biomass production. In croplands, increased crop residue biomass production and turnover lead to soil carbon accumulation. Sustainable agriculture Feature: Sustainable agriculture is a form of agriculture aimed at meeting the needs of the present generation without endanger- ing the resource base of future generations and involves a package of practices covering replacement of inorganic fertilizers with organic manures and of pesticides with integrated pest management, soil and water conservation, promotion of agro-forestry or shelterbelts, multiple cropping systems, etc. Integrated pest and nutrient Outputs/Bene�ts: Sustainable agriculture and integrated management lead to stable crop yields, increased soil fertility, and management reduction in the use of fertilizers and pesticides. Increased crop residue biomass production and turnover lead to increased soil carbon stocks. Orchards Feature: Orchards include cultivation of fruit trees such as mango, tamarind, sapota, guava, and Zizyphus, particularly on marginal croplands as block plantations. Outputs/Bene�ts: Orchards supply economically valuable fruits for the market and also protect the growers from failures of the annual crop. Growth of perennial fruit trees contributes to increased tree biomass carbon stock as well as SOC due to increased leaf litter turnover. Source: Authors. TABLE A.8: Features of C-Enhancement Modules for Forestlands MODULE FEATURES AND IMPLICATIONS FOR CARBON AND OTHER BENEFITS Management of PAs Feature: Management of PAs involves a package of practices covering banning or regulating grazing and the extraction of biomass and forest products, provision of alternative livelihoods, promotion of natural regeneration, and forest succession. Outputs/Bene�ts: Conservation of plant and animal biodiversity and regeneration of native species. Conservation of plant biomass, its accumulation, and litter turnover lead to enhanced biomass and soil carbon stocks. Reducing deforestation Feature: Reducing deforestation involves halting the conversion of forest land to nonforest purposes such as agriculture, infrastruc- ture, and livestock farming. This may involve increasing the productivity of existing croplands, fodder production, provision of alterna- tive livelihoods, and growing industrial wood plantations (as a substitute for industrial wood from forests). Outputs/Bene�ts: Conservation of forests, biodiversity, and watershed services and sustained supply of NTFP. Reducing deforesta- tion is one of the most important carbon-bene�t–enhancing mechanisms; it reduces CO2 emissions by reducing the combustion of biomass and decomposition of organic matter in soil and litter. Reducing forest degradation Feature: Reducing forest degradation involves harvesting forest products such as timber and fuelwood sustainably and reducing pressure on forests by providing improved cookstoves and alternative cooking fuels such as biogas and LPG. Improved �re manage- ment can also contribute to reducing forest degradation. Outputs/Bene�ts: Practices aimed at reducing forest degradation lead to forest regeneration, conservation of biodiversity, and sustainable production of NTFP. Carbon stock enhancement occurs because of improved management of forest lands, reduced or sustainable extraction of wood, and provision of alternative cooking fuels. Community forestry Feature: Community forestry is similar to A/R with a focus on participation of local communities and meeting their diverse needs. Outputs/Bene�ts: Biodiversity conservation, such as increasing forest cover, production of timber, fuelwood, and NTFP for meeting local needs. Increased tree and nontree biomass growth and litter turnover lead to biomass and soil carbon stock enhancement. Source: Authors. TOOLKIT 24 PA RT A — A P P R O A C H A N D M E T H O D S F O R E N H A N C I N G C A R B O N S T O C K S A N D R E D U C I N G C O 2 E MIS S IO N S TABLE A.9: Features of C-Enhancement Modules for Multiple Land Categories MODULE LAND CATEGORY FEATURES AND IMPLICATIONS FOR CARBON AND OTHER BENEFITS Soil conservation Cropland, grassland, forest land Feature: Soil conservation involves a package of practices aimed at reducing soil erosion due to wind and water and enhancing the water-holding capacity of soil and soil fertility, ultimately increasing biomass production through better growth of crops and forests. Outputs/Bene�ts: Prevention of the erosion of fertile topsoil and thereby reducing the loss of nutrients and sedimentation of water bodies. Soil conservation practices lead to increased biomass growth, litter turnover, and carbon stock enhancement. Water conservation Cropland, grassland, forest land Feature: Water conservation involves a package of practices aimed at conserving moisture, reduc- ing runoff and evaporation, and increasing groundwater recharge. Water conservation would lead to enhanced productivity of crops, grasses, and forests. Outputs/Bene�ts: Increased soil moisture favors growth of vegetation, thereby increasing crop/ grass/tree biomass productivity and groundwater recharge. Increased biomass production and litter turnover lead to enhanced biomass and soil carbon stocks. Soil and water Cropland, grassland, forest land Feature: Soil and water conservation consists of a package of practices aimed at conserving soil conservation and moisture by building suitable physical structures, applying organic amendments, and introduc- ing agro-forestry and appropriate cropping systems. Outputs/Bene�ts: Soil fertility improvement, soil moisture conservation, increased crop/grass/tree growth, reduced vulnerability to droughts and moisture stress. Increased biomass production and litter turnover lead to enhanced biomass and soil carbon stocks. Watershed Cropland, grassland, forest land Feature: Watershed development includes a package of practices aimed at catchment area treat- ment, soil and moisture conservation, improved cropping systems, and grassland management. Outputs/Bene�ts: Increased cropping intensity and productivity, reclamation of degraded lands, production of biomass in catchment area, afforestation, diversi�ed income to farmers, and reduction of vulnerability to climate variability and moisture stress. Increase in perennial crop/tree biomass and soil carbon stocks. Biodiversity conservation Grassland, forest land Feature: Biodiversity conservation involves preservation and protection of biological diversity through scienti�c management to maintain ecological balance and reduction of anthropogenic pressure on forests. Further, it could include a package of practices such as banning or regulating extraction of biomass and grazing. Outputs/Bene�ts: Maintenance of ecological balance, preservation of species, and genetic diversity. Preservation and enhancement of plant biomass and soil carbon stock and reduction in CO2 emissions as a result of controlling extraction. Afforestation and Degraded forestland, wasteland, Feature: Afforestation involves growing forest or plantation species on degraded grassland, reforestation and grazing land cropland, or wasteland to produce fuelwood, timber, and NTFP and indirectly contributing to forest biodiversity conservation. It could involve planting of single or multiple tree species. Reforestation involves growing trees for production of wood and other forest produce on lands originally covered with forests but degraded owing to biotic interference. Outputs/Bene�ts: Increased forest or plantation tree cover, biodiversity conservation, production of timber, fuelwood, and NTFP for meeting local as well as industrial needs. Increased tree and nontree biomass growth and litter turnover lead to biomass and soil carbon stock enhancement under both afforestation and reforestation and could also contribute to reducing CO2 emissions by reducing pressure on natural forests. Silvi-pasture/ Grassland or grazing land Features: Silvi-pasture is where woody perennials, preferably of fodder value, are planted and horti-pasture raised on grazing land to optimize land productivity, conserving species, soils, and nutrients and producing mainly forage, along with timber and fuelwood. Horti-pasture involves raising perennial horticultural crops such as mango, tamarind, guava, and sapota. Outputs/Bene�ts: Higher productivity of grass and trees leading to increased leaf-based forage productivity in the silvi-pasture system; fruits serve as additional produce in the horti-pasture system as a hedge against crop failure. Increased biomass carbon stocks under both the systems due to planting of trees (forage or fruit). In addition, enhanced stock of SOC following improved management of land and growth of trees, leaf litter, and root biomass turnover. Land reclamation Arid and semi-arid land, grazing Feature: Land reclamation involves a package of practices covering enhanced vegetation cover land, degraded forest land (trees and grasses), soil moisture conservation, afforestation, agro-forestry, and shelterbelts. Outputs/Bene�ts: Reclamation of degraded land, increased vegetation cover, improved soil fertility, and reduced soil erosion. Increased tree and grass cover, biomass productivity, and litter turnover enhance biomass and soil carbon stocks. Source: Authors. ENHANCING CARBON STOCKS AND REDUCING CO 2 EMISSIONS IN AGRICULTURE AND NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PROJECTS PA RT A — A P P R O A C H A N D M E T H O D S F O R E N H A N C I N G C A R B O N S T O C K S A N D R E D U C I N G C O 2 E M I S S I O N S 25 land-based projects aimed at improvement of liveli- biomass and soil carbon stocks indirectly through hoods will target increasing and stabilizing crop yields increasing crop production, litter and residue turn- and forest conservation and regeneration, in turn lead- over, and conservation of forest biodiversity. ing to C-bene�ts as described above for agriculture The modules described in tables A.7 to A.9 are speci�c to and forestry projects. particular land categories. The technical details of each of the Land reclamation and arid land development: Land activities and practices are described in Part B. degradation and deserti�cation are major environmen- tal challenges to global agricultural production. A large A.2.4.4. Approach to Selection of CEMs and CEPs number of CEMs, which aim at halting degradation C-enhancement could be achieved in all land categories such of cropland, grazing land, and forest land as well as as cropland, grassland, forestland, and degraded forestland reclaiming marginal lands to achieve higher growth as well as arid, irrigated, and rain-fed croplands. Different of crops, grasses, and trees, could be considered. All CEMs are relevant to different land categories—some CEMs under this category lead to improved manage- CEMs may be relevant to only one land category (such as ment of land through soil and water conservation, shelterbelts for arid croplands), whereas others may be rel- afforestation, shelterbelts, and agro-forestry. These evant to multiple land categories (such as soil conservation activities contribute to enhanced C-bene�ts through for watershed catchment areas, degraded forestlands, and increased soil organic matter or carbon and tree grasslands). Land categories relevant to different modules growth. are presented in tables A.7 to A.9 to help project developers Water conservation and irrigation: Projects aimed at and managers to select the relevant CEMs while designing water conservation and minor irrigation incorporate a project. construction of various types of structures to conserve water, recharge groundwater, and increase the capac- The following steps could be used in identifying potential ity to store water for irrigation. Largely, minor irriga- CEMs and CEPs for enhancing C-bene�ts: tion and water conservation projects aim at providing increased and reliable water supply, particularly for enhancing crop production. Additional CEMs such as agro-forestry and soil conservation could be incorpo- Step 1: Identi�cation of outputs—Identify outputs and rated into these projects to further increase crop or interventions relevant to each land category tree growth through water conservation and irrigation activities, leading to increased biomass production Step 2: Assessment of CEMs and activities to be in- and litter turnover, thereby contributing to enhanced cluded in the project—Identify the CEMs and CEPs to carbon stocks, particularly soil carbon stocks as well be incorporated into the project that may directly or indi- as biomass carbon stocks through tree growth (such rectly contribute to C-bene�ts (grassland improvement, as restoration of traditional water bodies). agro-forestry, soil conservation, mulching, shelterbelts, Climate change mitigation: IPCC (2007) has high- afforestation, etc.) lighted the large mitigation potential of land-based Step 3: Selection of CEMs or additional activities—A projects in the forestry and agricultural soil sectors. given outcome (such as increased and stable crop yields The dominant climate change mitigation project in rain-fed lands) could be achieved through multiple activi- opportunities or CEMs include REDD in addition to ties; all activities that could potentially increase crop yields afforestation, reforestation, and bioenergy projects. and enhance C-bene�ts cannot be adopted in any one proj- Climate change adaptation: Agricultural production, ect owing to constraints of costs and labor so appropriate forests, and biodiversity are projected to be ad- criteria are necessary to select the activities to be adopted versely impacted by climate change in the coming in a project. Such criteria could include following: decades (IPCC 2007). Therefore, it is necessary to Potential to contribute to the main outputs of the reduce vulnerability to climate change and enhance project, such as implications of a module or an the resilience of crop production and forest sys- activity for enhancing crop yields (Refer to Part B) tems to climate risks. Adaptation projects in the ag- ricultural and forest sector could lead to enhanced (continued) TOOLKIT 26 PA RT A — A P P R O A C H A N D M E T H O D S F O R E N H A N C I N G C A R B O N S T O C K S A N D R E D U C I N G C O 2 E MIS S IO N S Suitability for the region or project and the For estimating the cost-effectiveness of incor- output, such as agro-forestry species to be poration of CEMs and CEPs (dollars per ton of selected for a given set of rainfall, soil, and crop carbon) conditions The source of information on potential C-bene�ts at the Cost implications and bene�t-cost ratio, such as project preparation stage will have to be literature, ex- cost per ha and the likely increase in crop yield; periments, and previous projects implemented in the limited data availability is the norm region. Examples of potential C-bene�ts from different Potential to enhance carbon stocks (for exam- project activities are given in tables A.10 to A.12, and ple, choice of agro-forestry species and plant- the details are given in Part B for each CEM or CEP ing density will determine the biomass carbon growth rate [tons per ha per year]) or to reduce Step 5: Features of the CEM or activity—The features CO2 emissions (for example, reduced tillage of each intervention or practice aimed at enhancing leading to reduced loss of SOC [in tCO2]) (See C-bene�ts include the following: tables A.10 to A.12). Applicability to a land category (such as a water catchment area or rain-fed cropland) Step 4: Seeking information on CEMs and CEPs— Time of implementation (immediately after the Identify CEMs or additional activities or practices monsoon rains, at sowing, or at the time of land relevant to land categories that may contribute to preparation) increasing carbon stocks or reducing CO2 emis- Input or material required (such as green manure) sions based on recommendations of local agricultural universities or research institutes or traditional Labor required (person days per ha for the knowledge. Selection of activities for incorporation activity) could be based on the following sources of information: Method of application (spreading of mulch or incorporation of green manure) The package of practices recommended by local Machinery or equipment required (tractor or agricultural universities, forest departments, or plough) watershed authorities Preparation of physical structures (such as con- Expert consultations with, for example, agri- tour bund or farm pond) cultural extension of�cers, scientists, irrigation Practice—planting (trees or grasses) and incor- engineers, and foresters poration into soil (manure application) Traditional knowledge from, for example, The details of relevant activities or practices could be farmers obtained from local agricultural, forestry institutions, ex- Information on the C-bene�t potential (in tons of C or perts, published literature, or experienced practitioners CO2) of each activity is required at project preparation (traditional or modern). Details are provided for each ac- phase for a number of purposes tivity in Part B, and an example is provided in table A.13. For selecting activities with high C-bene�ts Step 6: Carbon pools to be impacted—Identi�cation potential per ha of the carbon pools likely to be impacted by the activity/ For estimating the C-bene�t per unit area (such practice proposed for enhancing C-bene�ts: as a ha) over different periods (such as annually Single carbon pool such as soil carbon (due or periodically) using models to application of mulch or organic manure and For estimating potential carbon revenue from above-ground biomass [AGB]) the project based on the quantity of C-bene�t Multiple carbon pools including biomass and soil per ha carbon (afforestation or agro-forestry) ENHANCING CARBON STOCKS AND REDUCING CO 2 EMISSIONS IN AGRICULTURE AND NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PROJECTS PA RT A — A P P R O A C H A N D M E T H O D S F O R E N H A N C I N G C A R B O N S T O C K S A N D R E D U C I N G C O 2 E M I S S I O N S 27 Based on an extensive literature search, tables A.10 to A.12 agro-climatic conditions of the project area. An illustration were prepared. There are serious gaps in literature on the of matching CEMs and CEPs to World Bank projects is pre- rates of change in different carbon pools (biomass and Soil sented in table A.14. The following approach is to be adopted Organic Carbon (SOC)) in lands subjected to different CEMs for matching or selecting appropriate modules: and CEPs. Further, the values of rates of change in carbon pools could vary from region to region, even for a given CEM/ CEP. It was also not possible to convert all values into tC or tCO2 per ha per year. The values in tables A.10 to A.12 mainly illustrate the positive impact of CEMs and CEPs on Step 1: Select the project and identify project goals and C-bene�ts. Project developers will have to seek region- outputs speci�c C-enhancement values for a given CEM/CEP. Step 2: Select the module or modules relevant to the Estimation of the C-bene�t per unit area and for the total proj- project goals and outputs ect is critical for decisions on incorporation of C-enhancement Identify the output relevant to land-based project interventions. This requires carbon stock changes or CO2 activities emissions reduction (in tons per ha of biomass and soil) for Identify the land category to be subjected to different CEMs/CEPs at the regional level. However, there is project interventions very limited literature on the C-bene�ts of different CEPs and CEMs in quantitative terms. This is one of the limitations of Step 3: Select the CEM/CEP relevant to a land category the efforts aimed at enhancing C-bene�ts. and project output Step 4: Identify the carbon pools that will be impacted as A.2.4.5. Matching Generic CEMs and CEPs to a result of incorporation of the CEM and CEP World Bank Projects The project designer or manger has to identify the CEM Step 5: Refer to literature for default values or or CEPs relevant to the project goals, land category, and consult local experts for potential increments in C-bene�ts due to the proposed activities (refer to tables A.7 to A.9 for examples of estimated poten- TABLE A.10: Impact of C-Enhancement Modules on tials); average soil carbon stock values (tC per ha) Biomass Carbon Stocks in different land categories and for different practices BIOMASS are the following (Jha et al. 2001): STOCK C-ENHANCEMENT LAND ENHANCEMENT Barren land: 20.0 MODULE CATEGORY TREATMENT (T/HA/YEAR) Pasture: 40 Degraded Control 1.79 Agro-forestry Agriculture: 66 forestland Agri-silviculture 3.9–6.72 Plantations: 80.5 Control 0.02 Farmland/ Agro-forestry: 83.6 Orchards1 Multi-species 3.10 cropland Natural forest: 120 orchard Control 0.007 Step 6: Estimate the incremental biomass and/or soil Degraded forestland Mixed species 4.2–4.6 C-bene�t, such as 59.5 tC per ha if barren land is con- forestry verted into plantations (80.5 tC per ha – 20 tC per ha = Degraded Control 0.007 59.5 tC per ha) and 17.6 tC per ha if agricultural land is Afforestation2 community Mixed species 4.2–4.6 converted to agro-forestry (83.6 tC per ha – 66 tC per ha land forestry = 17.6 tC per ha) Long-term Control 0.007 fallow Step 7: The module may have multiple activities; if Mixed species 4.4–5.2 cropland forestry so, aggregate the C-bene�t from each activity or the com- Source: 1Ravindranath et al. 2007; 2http://cdm.unfccc.int/Projects/DB/TUEV- bined effect and its impact on different carbon pools. SUED1291278527.37/view. TOOLKIT 28 PA RT A — A P P R O A C H A N D M E T H O D S F O R E N H A N C I N G C A R B O N S T O C K S A N D R E D U C I N G C O 2 E MIS S IO N S TABLE A.11: Impact of C-Enhancement Modules on Soil Carbon C-ENHANCEMENT CARBON STOCK ENHANCEMENT (tC/ MODULE PRODUCTION SYSTEM TREATMENT HA/YEAR) OR % INCREASE IN SOC Agri-silviculture 32%/year Agri-horticulture 30%/year Agro-forestry1 General Silvi-pastoral 111%/year Boundary plantation 11.5%/year Alley cropping 5%/year Control 0.29% Leucaena leucocephala 0.68% (after 5 years) Silvi-pastoral2 Semi-arid pasture system Stylosanthes hamata Leucaena leucocephala 0.52% (after 5 years) Cenchrus ciliaris Marginal cropland 0.71–1.1% Orchards and gardens Coconut and cashew Orchard/Garden 1.4–1.8% Control (10 × tree height) 0.04% 0 × tree height 0.08% Dalbergia sissoo row-based system 1 × tree height 0.06% 2 × tree height 0.05% Shelterbelt Control (10 × tree height) 0.12% 0 × height of the tree 0.28% Acacia tortilis 1 × tree height 0.17% 2 × tree height 0.13% Control 0.530 Stylosanthes hamata 0.720% 3 Cover cropping General Lucerne 0.740% Centrosema 0.695% Calapagonium 0.720% Year 0 3.5 tC/ha Year 5 5.0 tC/ha Afforestation in sodic soils4 Prosopis juliflora Year 7 14.3 tC/ha Year 30 21.5 tC/ha Leucaena leucocephala Year 8 0.65% Sesbania grandiflora 0.63% Afforestation5 W. exserta 0.58% Control 0.30% 1 2 3 4 5 Source: Solanki et al. 1999; Venkateswarlu 2010; Basavanagouda et al. 2000; Bhojvaid and Timmer 1998; Das et al. 2008. A.2.4.6. Carbon Implications of CEMs and CEPs The main objective of the CEMs and CEPs chosen will be to described in tables A.10 to A.12 and table A.13 contribute enhance carbon stocks or reduce CO2 emissions in all land- directly or indirectly to carbon stock enhancement or CO2 based projects where C-bene�t is likely to be a cobene�t of emission reduction. This section presents an approach to as- mainstream NRM and developmental projects. The activities sessment and estimation of C-bene�ts. ENHANCING CARBON STOCKS AND REDUCING CO 2 EMISSIONS IN AGRICULTURE AND NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PROJECTS PA RT A — A P P R O A C H A N D M E T H O D S F O R E N H A N C I N G C A R B O N S T O C K S A N D R E D U C I N G C O 2 E M I S S I O N S 29 TABLE A.12: Impact of C-Enhancement Practices on Soil Carbon CARBON STOCK ENHANCEMENT (tC/HA/ YEAR) OR % INCREASE CEP PRODUCTION SYSTEM TREATMENT CARBON POOL IMPACTED IN SOC 1 Mulching (10 t/ha) Corn Control Soil 1.90% Flemingia macrophylla 2.05% Indigofera tinctoria 2.28% Tephrosia candida 2.21% Alnus nepalensis 1.96% Organic manuring/ Rice Control Soil –0.014 tC/ha/year Farmyard manure (FYM) application2 100% nutrients from organic 0.128 tC/ha/year manure/FYM 100% nutrients from fertilizer 0.005 tC/ha/year Sorghum Control Soil 0.10% 50% of nutrients from crop 0.26% residue, rest from fertilizer 50% of nutrients from FYM, 0.29% rest from fertilizer Soybean Control Soil –0.22% FYM (6t/ha)+ fertilizer 0.34% Soybean residue (5t/ha) 0.28% +fertilizer Mulching with crop Corn stover Control (0 t/ha) Soil 19.7 g/kg of soil residue3 2.5t/ha 28.7 g/kg of soil 5t/ha 29.6 g/kg of soil 10t/ha 32.1 g/kg of soil Green manuring4 Green manure–rice–wheat Before treatment Soil 0.50% Incorporation of sun hemp 0.58% Green manure-wheat Before treatment 0.50% Incorporation of sun hemp 0.60% Zero tillage5 Corn Conventional tillage Soil 5.8 g/kg SOC Zero tillage 5.7 g/kg SOC Zero tillage+residue 6.7 g/kg SOC incorporation Mustard Conventional tillage 6.4 g/kg SOC Zero tillage 6.6 g/kg SOC Zero tillage+residue 6.9 g/kg SOC incorporation Reduced tillage6 General Soil (at 30 cm) 0.59–1.30 t/ha 7 Tank silt application General Control Soil 0.22–0.56% Cropland 0.58–1.07% Cropland+silt 1.02–3.18% Intercropping8 Coconut+guava Control Soil 3.4 g/kg SOC Intercropped 7.8 g/kg SOC 1 2 3 Source: Laxminarayana et al. 2009; Rao et al. 2009 (Central Research Institute for Dryland Agriculture, Hyderabad); Blanco Canqui et al. 2006; 4 Sharada et al. 2001; 5Saha et al. 2010; 6Fleige and Baeume 1974; 7NREGA report 2010; 8Manna and Singh 2001. TOOLKIT 30 PA RT A — A P P R O A C H A N D M E T H O D S F O R E N H A N C I N G C A R B O N S T O C K S A N D R E D U C I N G C O 2 E MIS S IO N S TABLE A.13: Features of Mulching FEATURE EXPLANATION Explanation of the practice Mulching is a soil and moisture conservation practice, particularly in arid and semi-arid regions It involves spreading of organic matter (straw, leaf litter, weeds, etc.) on the soil surface. Bene�ts of the practice Mulching leads to soil and moisture conservation, ultimately improving crop yields Suitable regions Arid and semi-arid regions Land category Cropland, rain fed Cropping system Rain-fed annual crops and orchards or perennial crops Description of the practice Selection of organic material such as tree leaves or weeds or straw, harvesting and transportation to the crop �elds, spreading of the mulch on land or between crop rows Mulch for �eld crops is applied after land preparation Quantity required 1.5 to 2.5 dry tons (or 7.5 to 10 fresh tons) of mulch per ha (tree leaves or crop residue) Impact on crop yields Crop yields are increased by 178% for green gram, 200% for the moth bean, 16% for the cluster bean, 57% for the cowpea, and 19% for pearl millet1 Corn yield is doubled with application of 10 t/ha of dry mulch2 Impact on SOC SOC is increased by 12% over the control plot on mulch application in corn2 Source: 1Venkateswarlu 2010; 2Laxminarayana et al. 2009. The details of C-bene�ts for each of the activities are pre- in the project outputs or may enhance the C-bene�ts already sented in Part B. The approach to and methods for estimating envisaged in the project. C-bene�ts for different CEMs are C-bene�ts of CEMs or project activities are described in Part C. explained in tables A.10 to A.12, and the methods of esti- mating and monitoring C-bene�ts are described in Part C. Approach to estimation and monitoring of C-bene�ts The approach to assessing the carbon implications of CEMs from CEMs and CEPs: C-bene�ts will have to be estimated involves the following steps: ex ante at the time of preparing the project proposal as well as postimplementation. In both the phases, there is a need to estimate the baseline (without a project scenario) carbon stock changes or CO2 Step 1: Select the CEM/CEP for the identi�ed region emissions for the base year as well as the period selected where the project is proposed to be implemented (such as 5, 10, or 20 years). Further, carbon stock enhance- Step 2: Identify the land categories relevant to the pro- ment/CO2 emissions reduction achieved due to project imple- posed project mentation needs to be estimated. To obtain the net C-bene�ts due to project interventions, use the following equation: Step 3: Identify and select the activities or practices for the chosen CEMs Net C-bene�t (in tC or tCO2) Step 4: Understand how C-bene�t would accrue from = [Gross carbon stock growth realized (or CO2 the activities incorporated in the module, such as soil emission reduced/avoided) due to project organic matter improvement due to mulching or organic intervention] –[Baseline/reference carbon stock manure application change or CO2 emissions] Step 5: During the ex ante phase, use the literature or default values to estimate the potential C-bene�ts per Methods of estimating the baseline and project scenario car- ha of each activity incorporated in the CEM and for the bon stock changes/CO2 emissions are presented in Part C. whole project area over different periods (refer to ex- amples in tables A.10 to A.12) Estimation of C-bene�ts in the project scenario requires the Step 6: Monitor and estimate the C-bene�ts during the quanti�cation of C-bene�ts realized for each of the CEMs or project implementation and postimplementation phas- CEPs on a per-ha basis (tC per ha) and at the project level es (refer to Part C for the estimation and monitoring (tC) for the period selected. C-enhancement modules and methods) practices are expected to provide C-bene�ts not envisaged ENHANCING CARBON STOCKS AND REDUCING CO 2 EMISSIONS IN AGRICULTURE AND NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PROJECTS PA RT A — A P P R O A C H A N D M E T H O D S F O R E N H A N C I N G C A R B O N S T O C K S A N D R E D U C I N G C O 2 E M I S S I O N S 31 TABLE A.14: Illustration of Outputs, Activities, and Implications for Carbon Under the Community Managed Sustainable Agriculture Project of the World Bank OUTPUTS ACTIVITIES OR PRACTICES IMPLICATIONS FOR CARBON Community-managed sustainable Conservative or deep furrows every four meters Checks the erosion of fertile soil, conserving or enhancing soil carbon agriculture Organic farming Trench around the �eld Prevents soil erosion and improves groundwater recharge, leading to increased biomass production and litter turnover, enhancing SOC Fruit-bearing trees planted in and around the trenches protect the natural fertility of soil and conserve water, leading to biomass and soil carbon accumulation Farm ponds Moisture conservation, improved water availability for crop growth, and increased biomass growth Tank silt application Improved soil fertility, increased crop biomass production leading to increased SOC stocks Raising fruit gardens Improved biomass growth, residue turnover, and SOC improvement Increased diversity and cropping intensity Appropriate cropping systems—intercropping, mul- tiple cropping, and crop rotations Enhancement and maintenance of soil health through Improved soil fertility or soil organic matter status mulching, green manuring, and vermicomposting Source: Authors. A.3. IMPLICATIONS OF CEMs AND CEPs have to be identi�ed and incorporated into the project design Implications of C-enhancement modules for the project and plan. The proposed additional interventions may involve cycle, monitoring, cost of interventions, capacity required, the following tasks: socio-economic, and environmental aspects are presented in Selection of appropriate CEMs and package of prac- this section. tices, soil moisture conservation devices, land prepa- ration practices, appropriate tree species, etc. A.3.1. Implications for the Project Cycle Seeking information on the CEMs and practices from Incorporation of a C-enhancement goal, CEMs, and CEPs experts or from literature, such as selection of ap- may happen largely at the project planning/designing stage propriate species for agro-forestry or shelterbelts and and, in a few cases, at the project implementation stage. estimation of the quantity of mulch or organic manure A project cycle involves conceptualizing the problem and to be added and the time of application identifying broad goals to address the identi�ed problem, de- Estimation of the additional inputs required, such as signing the interventions, implementing the activities, moni- the number of seedlings of selected tree species, toring, evaluation, and reporting. Incorporation of additional tons of organic manure or mulch material, labor re- activities related to C-enhancement in a project may have quired for incorporating the mulch or organic manure implications for different phases of the project cycle. It is and for constructing any physical structures for soil likely that some of the proposed interventions have minimal and water conservation or no additional implications—whether technical, institution- Estimation of the incremental cost of procuring the al, or �nancial—for the project cycle. However, other project inputs, hiring labor, implementation, seeking technical interventions may have incremental technical, institutional, expertise, etc., for securing additional C-bene�ts and �nancial implications for the project. In the project cycle, Identi�cation of the additional human effort and capacity after identifying the problem, project goals, and outputs to required for implementation of the proposed activities address the problem, the following steps are necessary. Human labor for activities such as land prepara- The project design and planning phase: Appropriate tion, organic manure preparation, planting, and soil CEMs/CEPs and any additional activities for the project may sampling TOOLKIT 32 PA RT A — A P P R O A C H A N D M E T H O D S F O R E N H A N C I N G C A R B O N S T O C K S A N D R E D U C I N G C O 2 E MIS S IO N S Access to technical experts such as agriculture ex- Rigorous monitoring is essential if the project stakeholders tension of�cers or forest of�cers for assisting in the are claiming �nancial incentives for the C-bene�ts derived implementation of the proposed project activities due to project interventions. A/R CDM projects require in- Technical personnel for measurement and monitor- tensive monitoring arrangements because of the payments ing of the carbon stocks/CO2 emissions for incremental carbon credits, and REDD+ projects are likely to demand even greater rigor in monitoring. There is limited The project implementation phase: Implementing a project debate on the methods of monitoring for agricultural soils involves procuring the required inputs, engaging the labor to and grasslands. carry out the CEM and the package of practices based on the technical advice of experts or recommendations made for The monitoring process and activities: As evident in the the region, and so on. These broad activities in turn involve following steps, monitoring involves �eld and laboratory establishing soil and water conservation structures, raising measurements, modeling, calculations or estimation, record- nurseries, preparing the land, preparing the compost, applica- ing, and reporting of the carbon stock changes and CO2 emis- tion of organic mulch, etc. The implications of incorporating sion reductions. CEMs and CEPs at the implementation phase may involve: No signi�cant additional inputs or technical expertise, such as incorporating additional soil conservation and fertility enhancement activities in a watershed project Step 1: Development of a monitoring plan involves the Procurement of inputs and implementation of the following tasks or activities: practices Selection of project area, activities implemented, Additional technical expertise to guide and super- and the land categories involved; strati�cation of vise implementation and monitoring of the CEMs or the land categories; and marking of the project activities boundary and selection of the sample plots The project-monitoring phase: All projects aimed at en- Identi�cation of the carbon pools likely to be hancing C-bene�t would require �eld and laboratory mea- impacted by the project activities and selection surements, estimation, modeling, monitoring, and reporting of appropriate frequency for monitoring of each of the carbon stock enhanced or CO2 emissions avoided for carbon pool the baseline scenario as well as for the project scenario. A biomass carbon pool is measured every 2 Further details of implications of incorporation of CEMs/ to 3 or even 5 years since biomass growth CEPs for monitoring are discussed in the following section, may not be large enough to be measured and methods are given in Part C. annually A soil carbon pool is measured once every 5 to 10 years A.3.2. Implications for Monitoring of Carbon Stocks Identi�cation of the methods of estimating the Monitoring of C-bene�ts from land-based projects has been a selected carbon pools, measurements in the subject of large scienti�c interest and debate under the climate �eld and laboratory analysis, and estimation of convention, especially to arrive at a reliable and cost-effective the carbon stocks or CO2 emissions under the monitoring process and methodology. A/R CDM projects baseline or no-project scenario as well as during require elaborate, rigorous, and expensive carbon-monitoring and after the implementation phase arrangements. Further, under the emerging REDD+ mecha- Estimation of the net C-bene�ts, considering the nism, MRV of C-bene�ts has been a contentious and complex baseline as well as the project scenario carbon issue. Monitoring is required for the following: stock changes or CO2 emission reductions To assess the carbon stock enhancement or CO2 Step 2: Assessment of the technical expertise and in- emissions reduction achieved under a project because strumentation required for implementing the monitoring of implementation of the CEM and relevant activities plan To estimate the net C-bene�t due to the project interventions over no-project or baseline scenario conditions (continued) ENHANCING CARBON STOCKS AND REDUCING CO 2 EMISSIONS IN AGRICULTURE AND NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PROJECTS PA RT A — A P P R O A C H A N D M E T H O D S F O R E N H A N C I N G C A R B O N S T O C K S A N D R E D U C I N G C O 2 E M I S S I O N S 33 FIGURE A.4: Steps in Measurement and Estimation of Step 3: Training and capacity building of the monitoring Carbon Stocks personnel Select a land-use category or Step 1 Step 4: Field measurements, laboratory estimations, project activity calculations, and modeling of the carbon stock changes and CO2 emission reductions Define the project boundary Step 2 and map the land-use Step 5: Recording and reporting of the carbon stock category or project area changes and CO2 emission reductions Stratify the project area or Step 3 land-use category The steps involved in monitoring are presented in �gure A.4. For details of the methodology, refer to Ravindranath and Select the plot method or Step 4 Ostwald (2008) and GOFC-GOLD and IPCC GHG Inventory agricultural farms Guidelines (2006). Select carbon pools and Step 5 frequency of measurement A.3.3. Cost Implications of C-Enhancement Interventions Enhancement of C-bene�ts from a land-based project could Identify indicator parameters involve modi�cations to the activities already included in the Step 6 to be measured project or new activities and practices may have to be incor- porated. These interventions may require additional inputs Select sampling method and and technical and institutional capacity. This could include Step 7 sample size the cost of procurement of inputs such as organic manure, mulch material, or seedlings for planting or employment of labor and technical expertise for monitoring. Three scenarios Prepare for field work and Step 8 data recording of C-enhancement in land-based projects with cost implica- tions could be considered: Step 9 Decide on sampling design Projects in which no additional C-enhancement practices are required: Most watershed, afforesta- Step 10 Locate and lay sample plots tion, and biodiversity projects, such as biodiversity conservation or community forestry, include many Measure the indicator activities that contribute to C-bene�ts without any in- Step 11 parameters in field and cremental investment required; thus, the incorporation conduct laboratory analysis of CEMs/CEPs in many of the projects may not have any signi�cant incremental cost implications except Analyze data and estimate C- the costs of monitoring. Step 12 stocks/CO2 emissions Projects in which additional C-enhancement activi- Source: Authors. ties are required: In some projects, C-enhancement activities are an integral part of the project goals; however, these projects offer some opportunities to incorporate additional activities for advancing the addition to socio-economic goals of the project, such as project goals as well as for C-enhancement. These ad- those related to sustainable agriculture, will have signi�- ditional activities, such as agro-forestry, mulching, or cant cost implications for all the C-enhancement activi- low-tillage agriculture in watershed projects, have cost ties incorporated into the project including monitoring. implications in addition to the cost of monitoring. Projects in which dedicated C-enhancement activi- The cost of realizing enhanced C-bene�ts from a project ties are to be incorporated: Projects that require would need to be assessed at the following stages and for incorporation of activities that will lead to C-bene�ts in different purposes: TOOLKIT 34 PA RT A — A P P R O A C H A N D M E T H O D S F O R E N H A N C I N G C A R B O N S T O C K S A N D R E D U C I N G C O 2 E MIS S IO N S Project design and planning phase: Cost estimate of TABLE A.15: Illustration of Potential Costs of CEMs/ incremental activities for C-enhancement is required CEPs and Activities for an Afforestation and to seek budget allocation for the proposed CEM and Watershed Project activities. The incremental cost estimate would also ACTIVITY COST/hA (INR): 1US$ = INR 45 assist in calculating the cost of C-bene�t ($/tCO2) ex Agro-forestry/social forestry 3,100 ante. Silvi-pasture plantation 26,700 Project implementation phase: Cost estimates are Shelterbelt 25,000 to 50,000 required to seek the release of funds for different Grassland reclamation 35,000 activities during the implementation phase. Project monitoring and evaluation phase: The project Plantation, catchment treatment, 22,000 to 25,000 and land preparation monitoring and evaluation phase is particularly critical Fuelwood plantation 36,500 to obtaining �nancial payments for the carbon credits obtained for the stakeholders such as farmers. The Densi�cation 30,800 funding agency would also be interested in the cost- Medicinal and aromatic plants 32,000 effectiveness ($/tCO2) of the derived C-bene�ts in Afforestation 30,500 different land-based projects. Source: Authors. The additional activities and practices may or may not have a signi�cant impact on the project costs. The potential costs The incremental activities required for enhancing C-bene�ts of modules and activities for a few projects are given in may or may not be signi�cantly different from the normal table A.15 as an illustration. The following approach could be activities in any land-based project. All the proposed CEMs adopted for assessing cost implications at project prepara- and CEPs described in the earlier sections are all generally tion, implementation, and monitoring stages. part of different World Bank NRM and developmental proj- ects related to forests, agriculture, biodiversity, watershed development, and livelihoods improvement. However, addi- tional technical and institutional capacity may be required in a Step 1: Select the CEM and the associated activities in- C-bene�ts enhancement project for the following: cluding monitoring Identifying appropriate additional CEMs and activities Step 2: Identify the inputs, labor, and technical exper- to maximize C-bene�ts (such as agro-forestry for im- tise required for the additional activities identi�ed for proving crop productivity and livelihoods) compatible C-enhancement, such as tons of organic manure, the with the project goal and agro-climatic conditions number of seedlings of different tree species, labor for Promoting synergy between the project’s develop- land preparation, and monitoring staff mental or environmental outputs and CEMs and prac- Step 3: Determine the quantities of the inputs required tices (such as C-bene�ts in a watershed project) for the project on a per-ha basis and for the whole proj- Designing a cost-effective package of practices to ect area and the number of technical staff for supervi- enhance C-bene�ts (such as land preparation, species sion and monitoring choice, density of planting, etc., for an agro-forestry Step 4: Estimate the cost of each of the inputs and staff module) for the total project along with the monitoring costs Assessing the technical capacity needed for supervi- sion of implementation of the project activities accord- ing to technical speci�cations given in the package of practices A.3.4. Institutional and Technical Capacity Implications Monitoring of carbon stock enhancement and CO2 of CEMs/CEPs emission reductions under baseline and postproject The modules and activities aimed at enhancing C-bene�ts implementation could have implications for institutional and technical ca- pacity. Generally, any typical land-based NRM and develop- The incremental technical and institutional capacity required mental project would involve activities aimed at increasing for the above activities would generally be available for crop production, conserving biodiversity, land reclamation, most NRM and agriculture development projects. However, watershed protection, and afforestation of degraded lands. the technical capacity required for rigorous and intensive ENHANCING CARBON STOCKS AND REDUCING CO 2 EMISSIONS IN AGRICULTURE AND NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PROJECTS PA RT A — A P P R O A C H A N D M E T H O D S F O R E N H A N C I N G C A R B O N S T O C K S A N D R E D U C I N G C O 2 E M I S S I O N S 35 monitoring may not be the norm in typical developmental and NRM projects, requiring signi�cant additional technical Step 1: Identify the main focus or goals of the project, expertise. If the required capacity is not available in-house the focus of these guidelines: for any project, experts could be hired for speci�c activities. Social or economic development or natural The technical capacity required may be available at the local resource management agricultural university or departments of agriculture, water- Climate change mitigation (such as BioCarbon, shed, forests, etc. CDM and REDD+ projects) A.3.5. Socio-Economic and Environmental Implications Step 2: Identify the economic, environmental, and so- of C-Enhancement Interventions cial bene�ts or outputs incorporated in the project All projects aim at delivering economic, environmental, or that could include enhancing crop yields, increasing social bene�ts or a combination of these bene�ts. Most proj- water availability, enhancing NTFP supply, and livelihood ects will have multiple goals. The main objective of these improvement C-bene�t enhancement guidelines is to promote C-bene�ts Step 3: Identify any new or additional economic, envi- synergistically with the environmental or developmental ronmental, and social bene�ts that may accrue from goals of the projects. Two types of projects can bene�t from activities leading to C-bene�t enhancement in the pro- the guidelines: posed project, which could include enhanced soil fertility due to mulching or organic manure application, control Projects in which C-bene�t is a cobene�t of socio- of wind and water erosion due to shelterbelts, or agro- economic development or NRM, such as watershed forestry practices development, biodiversity conservation, and agricul- ture development projects, which are the focus of Step 4: Measure, monitor, and estimate the econom- these guidelines ic, environmental, and social impacts or bene�ts us- Projects in which carbon is the main bene�t and socio- ing standard methods in agriculture, forestry, or social economic and environmental bene�ts are cobene�ts, sciences such as BioCarbon, A/R CDM projects, and REDD+ projects All the CEMs and CEPs not only enhance C-bene�ts, but also have social, economic, and environmental aspects including A matrix of socio-economic and environmental bene�ts, the following: including reduced vulnerability to climate change that could potentially accrue from incorporation of CEMs, is given in Increased crop yields through soil fertility improve- table A.16. ment and water conservation or irrigation measures Supply of tree-based products through agro-forestry or Table A.17 gives examples of potential economic, environ- afforestation mental, and social bene�ts from a BioCarbon project and Improved livestock productivity through grassland from a sustainable land, water, and biodiversity management management and increased fodder production project. It can be observed that both types of projects funded Enhanced resilience to climate change through agro- by the World Bank offer multiple economic, social, and lo- forestry, shelterbelts, and greater water-holding capac- cal environmental bene�ts apart from the C-enhancement ity of soils and improved soil fertility bene�ts. Employment generation for activities such as raising a nursery, building soil conservation structures, process- A.3.6. Implications of C-Enhancement to Climate ing of increased food and tree biomass, etc. Change Adaptation Increased and diversi�ed income through agro-forestry, This section assesses the implications of CEMs and CEPs NTFP, and increased availability of grass for adaptation and discusses the opportunities for enhanc- ing the resilience of socio-economic systems and natural The following approach could be adopted for identifying and ecosystems, both of which—as well as such environmental quantifying the potential economic, social, and environmen- services as food production, water availability, and biodiver- tal bene�ts: sity—are likely to be affected by climate change (IPCC 2007). TOOLKIT 36 PA RT A — A P P R O A C H A N D M E T H O D S F O R E N H A N C I N G C A R B O N S T O C K S A N D R E D U C I N G C O 2 E MIS S IO N S TABLE A.16: Examples of Socio-Economic and Environmental Bene�ts of Activities Implemented for C-Enhancement with Potential Implications for Reducing Vulnerability BENEFITS C-ENHANCEMENT MODULES/ REDUCTION IN VULNERABILITY TO ACTIVITIES SOCIO-ECONOMIC ENVIRONMENTAL CLIMATE CHANGE Agro-forestry shelterbelts Increased crop yield Erosion control Supply of tree products (fodder and fruits) Fuelwood, timber, and NTFP supply Greater moisture retention even during crop failures Leaves as livestock fodder, mulch, or Biodiversity conservation organic manure Soil conservation Increased water availability for irrigation Improved soil fertility Stabilized crop yields even during water Water conservation Increased crop yield Greater moisture retention stress and droughts Watershed protection Increased tree growth Land reclamation Increased crop yields Improved soil fertility Stable yields due to improved soil fertility Improved tree growth Erosion control and greater water-holding capacity Greater soil moisture retention Sustainable agriculture Increased and stabilized crop yield Increased vegetation cover Substitution of high-cost fertilizers Improved tree growth and grass production Management of PA Increased NTFP supply Biodiversity conservation Forests richer in biodiversity and there- fore more resilient Afforestation and forest Increased fuelwood and timber production Forest conservation Increased availability of nontimber forest regeneration Increased NTFP supply Improved biodiversity products to augment income Community forestry Soil conservation Biodiversity conservation Increased supply of NTFP Forests richer in biodiversity and therefore more resilient Increased availability of NTFP to augment income Irrigation (minor or major) Increased crop yield Groundwater recharge Stable crop yields despite moisture stress Increased fodder supply Improved water availability and de�cit rainfall Source: Authors. Evidence exists to show that the observed climate change in moderates harm or exploits bene�cial opportunities. Various the recent decades (warming and precipitation changes) have types of adaptation actions can be distinguished including reduced the yields of global maize and wheat production by anticipatory and reactive adaptation, private and public adap- 3.8 and 5.5 percent, respectively, relative to a counterfactual tation, and autonomous and planned adaptation (IPCC 2002). without climate trends (Lobell 2011). Global efforts to ad- Adaptation measures can occur at different levels: popula- dress climate change include two basic responses—mitiga- tion, community, personal, or production system (food, for- tion and adaptation; C-enhancement, the main objective of estry, and �sheries). It is very important to note, especially these guidelines, is aimed at mitigation. from a developing country perspective, that mitigation strate- gies will have a long-term global impact on greenhouse dam- Mitigation is de�ned as an anthropogenic intervention to age, whereas adaptation measures generally have a positive, reduce the sources and emissions of GHG or to enhance direct, and immediate impact on countries and regions that carbon sinks. Actions that stabilize CO2 emissions or reduce implement them. net CO2, the dominant GHG, reduce the projected magnitude and rate of climate change and thereby lessen the risk of Implications of C-enhancement projects for adaptation: climate change to natural and human systems. Therefore, Land-based projects offer many opportunities to incorporate mitigation actions are expected to delay and reduce dam- adaptation objectives. C-enhancement modules and prac- ages caused by climate change, providing environmental and tices provide or enhance multiple economic, environmental, socio-economic bene�ts (IPCC 2002). and social bene�ts (table A.16). These bene�ts resulting from activities aimed at C-enhancement could make food Adaptation is an adjustment in natural or human systems production, water availability, biodiversity conservation, im- in response to actual or expected climatic stimuli and their provement of livelihoods, etc., more resilient to climate risks impacts on natural and socio-economic systems, which or impacts (table A.18). ENHANCING CARBON STOCKS AND REDUCING CO 2 EMISSIONS IN AGRICULTURE AND NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PROJECTS PA RT A — A P P R O A C H A N D M E T H O D S F O R E N H A N C I N G C A R B O N S T O C K S A N D R E D U C I N G C O 2 E M I S S I O N S 37 TABLE A.17: Economic, Environmental, and Social Bene�ts from Selected World Bank Projects PROJECT TITLE ACTIVITIES/OUTCOME ECONOMIC BENEFITS ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFITS SOCIAL BENEFITS Mid Himalayan Watershed 60% of available treatable Additional income from un- Reversal of land degradation through Increased equity, Development Project area of nonarable land is productive, nonagricultural, catchment treatment inclusiveness of the vul- treated degraded lands through nerable, the landless, and selling carbon credits Increased availability of soil moisture women and of water in sources such as springs and streams Carbon sequestration 4003 ha of carbon sink Availability of NTFP, Land reclamation Increased access to created through restoration, fuelwood, and grass for fuelwood and grass for Watershed protection community and farm forestry livestock the poor Carbon revenue from Carbon sequestration enhanced carbon sinks 60% of available treatable Increased net income from Reversal of land degradation through Increased incomes area of arable land is treated farm production, retrieved catchment treatment leading to reduction in lands, horticulture produc- poverty, greater buying tion, and farm forestry Increased soil moisture power, and increased availability of food Sustainable Land, Water and 20 to 30% of the area in se- Improved crop and grass Reduced watershed degradation Reduction in poverty Biodiversity Conservation lected micro-watershed under production Carbon sequestration Management for Improved improved sustainable land Livelihoods in Uttarakhand and ecosystem management Watershed Sector techniques Increase in availability of Increased availability of Increased biomass production and Reduction in poverty water in dry season by 5% in water for agriculture result- litter turnover leading to enhanced the treated micro-watershed ing in higher crop yields carbon sinks and incomes 10% increase in tree and Increased availability of Reduction in watershed degradation Increased availability other vegetative cover in 20 NTFP of fodder and �rewood micro-watersheds Carbon sequestration within the project area, thus reducing time and effort spent on collection Source: Authors. A.3.6.1. C-Enhancement and Reduction of Vulnerability to Climate Risks and Adaptation to Climate Change Step 3: Assess the implications of the CEMs and CEPs in the context of the identi�ed climate risks and vulnerabilities Table A.18 shows that the majority of social, economic, and environmental bene�ts resulting from CEMs and relevant CEPs Step 4: Assess the social, economic, and environmental are likely to contribute to reducing the vulnerability of agriculture, implications of the proposed CEMs and CEPs and their forestry, and livelihood systems. The following approach could linkage with the identi�ed climate risks be adopted to recognize and enhance the adaptation bene�ts: Step 5: Assess the potential of social, economic, and environmental impacts of CEMs and CEPs relevant to reducing vulnerability (table A.18): If the identi�ed CEMs and CEPs and their impli- cations or impacts are inadequate to address the Step 1: Identify the appropriate CEMs and CEPs for identi�ed climate risks and vulnerabilities, incor- enhancing C-bene�ts for a given project or given outputs porate additional activities based on published literature or in consultation with agriculture, Step 2: Identify the climate risks and vulnerability of the watershed, and forestry experts project outputs and the region to current climate vari- ability. This information could be obtained from reports Step 6: Incorporate the identi�ed CEMs and CEPs into of IPCC (2007), World Bank ADAPT studies, National the proposed project Communications of the countries (http://www.unfccc Step 7: Monitor the impacts of CEMs and CEPs with .org/), and published literature respect to the identi�ed climate risks TOOLKIT 38 PA RT A — A P P R O A C H A N D M E T H O D S F O R E N H A N C I N G C A R B O N S T O C K S A N D R E D U C I N G C O 2 E MIS S IO N S TABLE A.18: Implications of Economic and Environmental Bene�ts of C-Enhancement Modules and Practices for Adaptation ADAPTATION IMPLICATIONS OR ENHANCEMENT OF CATEGORY OF BENEFITS BENEFITS FROM CEMs AND CEPs RESILIENCE TO CLIMATE RISKS Economic Increased crop yields due to soil and water conservation and soil Stabilized crop yields and greater drought tolerance fertility improvement Increased fuelwood, timber, and pole production from afforesta- Additional and diversi�ed sources of income tion and agro-forestry Greater production of NTFP due to forest conservation, PA Additional and diversi�ed sources of income and livelihoods management, and reduction in deforestation Availability of nutritious fruits and vegetables Increased grass production due to soil and water conservation, Increased milk and meat production as an additional diversi�ed soil fertility improvement, and grazing management source of income Increased employment generation from afforestation and soil and Additional income from diverse activities water conservation measures Environmental Increased soil fertility due to mulching, organic manure Stable and higher crop yields application, soil conservation, etc. Multiple cropping ensures stable crop yield and income Reduced soil erosion due to shelterbelts More stable crop yields Improved water conservation due to mulching, shelterbelts, etc. Reduced moisture stress Enhanced resilience to moisture stress, crop failures, and Groundwater recharge due to construction of water conservation droughts structures Forest and biodiversity conservation due to agro-forestry Increased NTFP supply to supplement income from crop produc- tion and wages, increasing resilience to crop failures Forests richer in biodiversity and therefore more resilient Source: Authors. A.3.6.2. Mitigation and Adaptation Synergy and or negative consequences for mitigation. To avoid trade-offs, Trade-Offs in Land-Based Projects it is important to explore options to adapt to new climatic The goal of UNFCCC is to achieve stabilization of GHG con- circumstances at an early stage through anticipatory adapta- centration in the atmosphere at levels that would prevent tion (Robledo et al. 2007). As the linkage between mitigation dangerous anthropogenic interference with climate and food and adaptation becomes clearer (Ravindranath 2007), the im- production system. It is well known that even with the most plications of climate change for the mitigation potential need ambitious mitigation policy, climate change seems likely to to be assessed, at national and subnational levels to assist occur. Even under the most aggressive mitigation scenario, policymakers. climate change is likely to leave an impact, particularly given the long life of different GHGs in the atmosphere (Bruce et Synergy between mitigation and adaptation: Oppor- al. 1996). Thus, adaptation is essential to complement miti- tunities to promote synergy between mitigation and adapta- gation efforts. The Cancun Agreement has suggested devel- tion need to be explored and recognized and any trade-off opment of an adaptation framework and program, and the between mitigation and adaptation needs to be reduced or Cancun Green Fund has been established to promote adap- avoided, especially in land-based projects. Such an effort tation and mitigation. Adaptation can complement mitigation would lead to the following advantages: cost-effectively in lowering the risks from climate change. Adaptation becomes a cobene�t of a mitigation proj- Mitigation and adaptation are generally considered sepa- ect and vice versa rately in global negotiations, in the literature, and for proj- A single project can deliver the twin objectives of ect funding. However, both are intricately linked; many mitigation and adaptation mitigation-driven actions could have positive (such as agro- The mitigation-adaptation synergy helps in convincing forestry and biodiversity conservation) or negative (such as policymakers to promote both the strategies to ad- increase in pest and �res) consequences for adaptation. dress climate change, since adaptation provides local Similarly, adaptation-driven actions could also have positive bene�ts, particularly for land-based projects ENHANCING CARBON STOCKS AND REDUCING CO 2 EMISSIONS IN AGRICULTURE AND NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PROJECTS PA RT A — A P P R O A C H A N D M E T H O D S F O R E N H A N C I N G C A R B O N S T O C K S A N D R E D U C I N G C O 2 E M I S S I O N S 39 Incorporation of an adaptation component in land-based Promoting high-yielding varieties alone may make crop mitigation projects through CEMs could improve the production more vulnerable bene�t-to-cost ratio of the project and the cost-effec- Approach to enhancing the mitigation–adaptation syn- tiveness of obtaining mitigation and adaptation bene�ts ergy: The approach to enhancing the synergy between Incorporation of an adaptation component in mitiga- mitigation and adaptation is the same as that described in tion projects would assist in securing the participation section A.4.1 aimed at recognition and incorporation of an of stakeholders, particularly farmers, agricultural labor, adaptation component in land-based mitigation projects in and forest dwellers, in the mitigation projects a cost-effective way. The approach involves the following Mitigation and adaptation trade-offs: Projects aimed components: at enhancing C-bene�ts or mitigation should not enhance Identifying the linkage between CEMs or CEPs and vulnerability or reduce adaptive capacity. A few mitigation vulnerability reduction or adaptation potential actions can potentially make systems such as agriculture Incorporating the CEMs and CEPs that provide social, and forestry more vulnerable. A few examples of trade-offs economic, and environmental bene�ts, which, in turn, between mitigation and adaptation are as follows: make the crop production or forestry systems less Monoculture plantations for carbon stock enhance- vulnerable (table A.16) ment could make them more vulnerable (through Ensuring that the trade-offs, if any, are identi�ed and increased pest or �re incidence, for example) addressed TOOLKIT PA RT B — C E M s, C E P s , A N D C - E N H A N C E M E N T T E C H N O L O G I E S 41 Part B: CEMs, CEPs, AND C-ENHANCEMENT TECHNOLOGIES The present guidelines focus on promoting the modules, practices, and technologies that enhance C-bene�ts (in- CEMs creasing carbon stocks or reducing CO2 emissions) from 1. Shelterbelts land-based projects as cobene�ts of environmental and 2. Agro-forestry developmental projects. The land-based projects encom- 3. Soil conservation pass cropland, forest land, grassland, and wetlands. Part 4. Water conservation A presents the rationale, approach, methods, and impacts of these CEMs and CEPs, whereas Part B gives the details 5. Watershed and features of each CEM and CEP as drawn from technical 6. Sustainable agriculture literature. Features of the CEM/CEPs are described briefly 7. Land reclamation in this section; further details are available from standard 8. Management of PAs texts on agronomy, soil science, forestry, and watershed 9. Afforestation and forest regeneration management as well as from the packages of practices and 10. Biodiversity conservation extension literature available from departments or research 11. Community forestry institutes dealing with agriculture, forestry, grassland recla- 12. Orchards and gardens mation, and watershed management. An attempt is made to 13. Irrigation (minor or major) provide the C-enhancement bene�ts in quantitative terms. However, it should be noted that literature on the quantita- 14. Fuelwood conservation devices tive estimates of C-bene�ts from a large number of CEMs CEPs and CEPs is limited. 1. Mulching The following details are presented for each CEM/CEP: 2. Organic manure/green manure/crop residue Explanation of the practice incorporation Bene�ts of the practice (economic, environmental, 3. Reduced tillage or no tillage and carbon related) 4. Contour bunding Applicability to a region (arid, semi-arid, and humid 5. Farm ponds agro-ecological zones) 6. Tank silt application Suitable land category (cropland, grassland, grazing 7. Intercropping/ multiple cropping land, catchment area, etc.) 8. Cover cropping Steps involved in implementing the module or 9. Silvi-pasture and horti-pasture practice Inputs required (quantity of raw material, labor, or other inputs) The following sections present the descriptions and details Impact on crop or biomass productivity of each of the CEMs and CEPs and their implications for Impact on biomass and SOC C-bene�ts. These technologies and practices may have to be adapted to local conditions depending on rainfall, soil, topog- The explanation is provided for the following CEMs and raphy, land use, crop, plantation or forest types, cultivation CEPs: practices, and socio-economic conditions. TOOLKIT 42 PA RT B — C E M s , C E P s , A N D C - E N H A N C E M E N T T E C HN O LO G IE S FIGURE B.1: Low Plant Population in Any Agriculture Practice Will Not Give Desired Carbon Enhancement Source: Authors. ENHANCING CARBON STOCKS AND REDUCING CO 2 EMISSIONS IN AGRICULTURE AND NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PROJECTS PA RT B — C E M s, C E P s , A N D C - E N H A N C E M E N T T E C H N O L O G I E S 43 B.1. DESCRIPTIONS OF CEMs TABLE B.1: Shelterbelts DESCRIPTION FEATURES Explanation of the practice Shelterbelts are wide strips of trees, shrubs, and grasses planted at right angles to the wind direction to deflect air cur- rents, to reduce wind velocity, and generally to protect roads, canals, and agricultural �elds (Singh 1997). Shelterbelts are generally established in agricultural �elds in arid or desert areas to control erosion, particularly wind erosion. Bene�ts of the practice Shelterbelts provide the following direct and indirect bene�ts: Reduce wind velocity by 65 to 87% (Puri and Panwar 2007) Reduce soil erosion by as much as 50% Increase crop yields ranging from 10 to 74% (Pimentel et al. 1997) Increase carbon stocks in standing trees and SOC Provide fuelwood and fodder Suitable regions Mainly arid regions and some semi-arid regions with high-velocity winds Land category Desert areas, croplands, and grasslands Description of practice The practice involves the following steps: Step 1: Select the location and estimate the area required for establishing the shelterbelts Step 2: Select the type of shelterbelt Choose from tree rows, shrub rows, or both Fix the width of the shelterbelt Step 3: Select the tree and shrub species Step 4: Raise a nursery, prepare the land, and plant the seedlings Step 5: Protect and maintain the shelterbelt Quantity required Number of plants of different tree and shrub species, depending on the area to be brought under shelterbelts and the distance between the belt and the �eld Number of rows and density of planting Impact on crop yields Crop yields could increase by 6 to 98% for different crops (Kort 1998). The response of different crops varies with the region. INCREASE IN YIELD, % CROP (WEIGHTED MEAN) Spring wheat 8 Winter wheat 23 Barley 23 Oats 6 Rye 19 Millet 44 Corn 12 Alfalfa 99 Impact on soil organic matter or SOC Soil C-enhancement due to shelterbelt establishment occurs through: and biomass The ratio of biomass growth and stock of trees in the shelterbelt rows to root and shoot biomass Higher crop yield due to increased soil moisture conservation and incorporation of crop, root, and shoot biomass into soil Shelterbelts also have a long-term impact on soil properties in a region. A study carried out by Prasad et al. (2009) in Western Rajasthan highlights the effect of a 15-year-old Dalbergia sissoo shelterbelt on soil properties. SOC (%) UNDER SHELTERBELTS INDICATING HIGHER SOC NEAR THE SHELTERBELT ROWS SOIL DEPTH (CM) DISTANCE FROM SHELTERBELT AS A MULTIPLE OF ITS HEIGHT (H IN M) 0H 1H 2H 5H 10H 15 0.11 0.08 0.05 0.04 0.04 30 0.07 0.06 0.07 0.05 0.05 60 0.07 0.05 0.04 0.04 0.03 Source: Authors. TOOLKIT 44 PA RT B — C E M s , C E P s , A N D C - E N H A N C E M E N T T E C HN O LO G IE S TABLE B.2: Agro-Forestry DESCRIPTION FEATURES Explanation of the practice Agro-forestry, as the term implies, is a combination of agriculture and forestry; it is a collective name for land-use systems and technologies in which woody perennials (trees, shrubs, palms, bamboos, etc.) are grown on the same land- management unit as crops and/or animals in some form of spatial arrangement or temporal sequence. Agro-forestry is thus a land-use planning system following the principle of generating multiple resources from the same unit of land. The main method involves planting rows of trees and perennial shrubs interspersed with annual crop rows. Bene�ts of the practice Agro-forestry practice provides the following bene�ts: Reduces soil erosion and enhances soil fertility and water-use ef�ciency Reduces the chances of total crop failure and increases crop yield Provides fodder and fuelwood Provides greater and more diversi�ed income to farmers Reduces vulnerability to climate risks and rainfall failures Maintains biodiversity Acts as a means of biological pest control Increases carbon stock in standing trees and SOC Suitable regions Agro-forestry is practiced in a variety of climatic locations although the species of trees and the crops vary from one region to another Land category The land categories suitable for agro-forestry involve annual crop land (crop �elds) Cropping or forestry system Arid and semi-arid cropping systems Description of practice Agro-forestry practice includes the following steps: Step 1: Identi�cation of land area for agro-forestry Step 2: Selection of the type of agro-forestry system—agri-silviculture, agri-horticulture, agri-silvi-pastoral, etc. Step 3: Selection/identi�cation of the crop and tree/shrub species to be grown in combination along with spacing and density Step 4: Distribution and demarcation of land for different plant species Step 5: Planting of trees, shrubs, crop, etc. Step 6: Protection and maintenance of the agro-forestry system Quantity required The number of trees of different species depends on the tree species selected, spacing, and the total area being brought under agro-forestry bund or block plantation. Density of planting could be 50 to 100 trees (mango or coconut) per ha with 10-meter spacing. Impact on crop yields Agro-forestry systems could increase crop yield. For example, millet and sorghum varieties grown within a 5- to 10-meter radius around Prosopis cineraria doubled or tripled their yield. Impact on soil organic matter or SOC Agro-forestry systems lead to enhanced carbon stocks through standing tree biomass as well as enhanced SOC due to leaf production and turnover. IMPACT OF AGRO-FORESTRY ON SOC TREATMENT SOC (g/kg OF SOIL) 0–15 cm 0–30 cm Sole cropping 4.2 3.9 Agro-forestry 7.1 7.2 Agri-horticulture 7.3 7.3 Agri-siliviculture 3.8 4.7 Source: Authors; Nair 1993; Lungdrean and Raintree 1982; Sinha 1985; Puri and Panwar 2007; Tejwani 1994; Newaj and Dhayani 2010. ENHANCING CARBON STOCKS AND REDUCING CO 2 EMISSIONS IN AGRICULTURE AND NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PROJECTS PA RT B — C E M s, C E P s , A N D C - E N H A N C E M E N T T E C H N O L O G I E S 45 TABLE B.3: Soil Conservation DESCRIPTION FEATURES Explanation of the practice Soil conservation involves a set of management strategies that prevent soil erosion. Soil conservation thus implies reducing risks of soil erosion to an acceptable level and also means improving soil quality through controlling erosion, enhancing SOC content, improving soil structure, encouraging the activity of soil fauna, etc. Bene�ts of the practice Bene�ts of soil conservation include: Increases water-holding capacity, thereby conserving water Raises water table levels in the area Increases crop yields Increases biodiversity (soil biota, animal and plants) Prevents land degradation Region Different soil conservation measures are applicable to different ecological zones and regions Land category Cropland, grassland, and degraded forest land Description of practice Various kinds of soil conservation measures are available including: Cover cropping Conservation tillage Contour bunding Terracing Biological methods of soil conservation Multiple cropping Strip planting Stubble planting Also refer to respective CEPs described in this section Impact on crop yields Refer to respective CEPs Impact on soil organic matter or SOC Reduction of soil erosion contributes to halting land degradation and conserving soil moisture, leading to increased biomass production and leaf litter turnover. This increases the soil organic matter and carbon stock in soils. Refer to different CEPs described in this section Source: Authors; Lal 1998. TABLE B.4: Water Conservation DESCRIPTION FEATURES Explanation of the practice Water conservation involves strategies to increase the water stored in the soil pro�le of an area. The water from rainfall or surface runoff can be conserved and used as a source of irrigation. Two broad methods of water conservation are: Internal catchments, in which the catchment areas are within the cropped area External catchments, in which the catchment areas are outside the cropped area Water conservation includes a package of practices including physical structures (such as contour bunding, check dams, and farm ponds), measures (such as plowing), and crop production practices (such as mulching, organic manuring, and agro-forestry). Most soil conservation practices also lead to moisture conservation. Bene�ts of the practice Bene�ts of water conservation include: Higher water tables and increased water availability for crops and even irrigation Enhanced soil fertility Greater crop yields Greater opportunities for crop diversi�cation Region Arid and semi-arid regions Land category Cropland, grassland, and degraded forest land, but more frequently practiced in croplands Description of practice Several measures can be adopted for water conservation: Mulching Check dams Contour furrows Farm ponds Quantity required (of raw material or input) Refer to respective CEPs described in this section, watershed manuals, and agronomy textbooks Impact on crop yields Impact on soil organic matter or SOC All water conservation measures lead to increased crop and tree growth and crop residue turnover. Enhanced carbon stock in soil and standing trees contributes to C-bene�t. Source: Authors. TOOLKIT 46 PA RT B — C E M s , C E P s , A N D C - E N H A N C E M E N T T E C HN O LO G IE S TABLE B.5: Watershed DESCRIPTION FEATURES Explanation of the practice A watershed can be described as a geo-hydrological unit bounded by a drainage divide within which the surface runoff col- lects and flows out of the watershed through a single outlet into a larger river or a lake. Watershed management involves the formulation and implementation of programs and strategies to ensure the sustenance and enhancement of watershed resources and functions. Watershed projects could involve multiple activities such as soil and moisture conservation, water harvesting, catchment area treatment, agro-forestry, and livestock management aimed at increasing and stabilizing agricultural production and incomes of the farmers. Bene�ts of the practice Bene�ts of a watershed include: Soil and water conservation and water for irrigation More irrigation for crops and therefore greater cropping intensity Increased and stable crop yields due to improved cropping systems, soil conservation, and irrigation Improved and diversi�ed sources of farm income Region Suitable to all arid and particularly semi-arid regions Land category Multiple land categories such as water catchment area, cropland, and grassland Description of practice Generally, the following steps are involved in watershed management: Step 1: Delineate the watershed boundary and prepare a map of the land components, land-use pattern, and cropping systems Step 2: Identify soil and water conservation practices, water harvesting devices, and catchment area treatment practices Step 3: Develop cropping systems, irrigation, and cultivation practices Step 4: Assess the proposed watershed activities for their linkage with and implications for enhancing C-bene�ts and quantify the bene�ts Step 5: Identify additional CEMS or CEPs for enhancing the C-bene�ts of the watershed project synergistically with the broad goals of the project, such as increasing crop yields sustainably Step 6: Develop participatory institutions for managing water resources, forests, and grazing land and build institutional capacity to manage the resources Step 7: Implement the land- and water-related activities in the watershed Step 8: Monitor the environmental, social, and economic impacts, particularly carbon stock enhancement and CO2 emission reduction Quantity required A watershed project would consist of multiple land categories and multiple practices, requiring diverse inputs. Impact on crop yields Refer to relevant CEPs described in this section: Farm ponds Soil conservation practices Desilting Catchment afforestation Impact on SOC and biomass Refer to relevant CEPs described in this section carbon stocks Source: Authors. ENHANCING CARBON STOCKS AND REDUCING CO 2 EMISSIONS IN AGRICULTURE AND NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PROJECTS PA RT B — C E M s, C E P s , A N D C - E N H A N C E M E N T T E C H N O L O G I E S 47 FIGURE B.2: Cratewire Check Dam Source: Authors. FIGURE B.3: River Bank Protection Source: Authors. TOOLKIT 48 PA RT B — C E M s , C E P s , A N D C - E N H A N C E M E N T T E C HN O LO G IE S TABLE B.6: Sustainable Agriculture DESCRIPTION FEATURES Explanation of the practice Sustainable agriculture involves farming systems that are environmentally sound, pro�table, productive, and compatible with socio-economic conditions. Sustainable agriculture production includes a package of practices: soil and water conser- vation, organic manuring, mulching, cover crops, agro-forestry, mixed and multiple cropping, etc. Bene�ts of the practice Sustainable agriculture can yield the following long-term bene�ts (FAO 1995): Meet the nutritional requirements of present and future generations and in addition provide a number of other agricul- tural products Increase crop productivity in a sustainable way by enhancing soil fertility Provide steady employment, suf�cient income, and decent living and working conditions for all those involved in agricul- tural production Maintain and enhance the productive capacity of the natural resource base as a whole and the regenerative capacity of renewable resources without disrupting the functioning of basic ecological cycles and natural balances, destroying the socio-cultural attributes of rural communities, or contaminating the environment Reduce vulnerability of the agricultural sector to adverse natural and socio-economic factors and climate risks Region Different sustainable agricultural practices can be followed in different regions based on the cropping systems and local climatic, ecological, and socio-economic conditions Land category Mostly in croplands Description of practice A package of practices, including those listed below, can be included under sustainable agriculture: Organic farming/green manuring Zero/reduced tillage Mulching/cover crops Intercropping/multiple cropping Impact on crop productivity Sustainable increase in crop productivity (refer to respective CEPs in this section and to land reclamation and watershed manuals) Impact on biomass and soil carbon Refer to respective CEPs in this section and to land reclamation and watershed manuals. Impacts include the following: Organic manuring/cover crop/mulching/agro-forestry practices directly lead to increased SOC and biomass carbon Soil and water conservation practices indirectly contribute to increased biomass and SOC due to increased crop biomass production and turnover Source: Authors. TABLE B.7: Land Reclamation DESCRIPTION FEATURES Explanation of the practice Land reclamation involves restoring its lost productivity and generally involves conversion of the unproductive land into arable land. Land reclamation includes a package of practices aimed at revegetation, soil and water conservation, and regulated grazing and biomass extraction. Bene�ts of the practice Bene�ts of land reclamation include the following: Increases land availability for crop production Enhances local natural resources and ecosystem services (water table, flood control, climate regulation, etc.) Improves soil fertility Increases crop, grass, and tree biomass productivity Region Arid and semi-arid Land category Cropland, grazing land, and degraded forest land Description of practice Refer to respective CEPs in this section and to land reclamation and watershed manuals. Different measures can be used for land reclamation, such as the following: Revegetation (afforestation, grass cultivation, shelterbelts, and agro-forestry) Soil and water conservation Soil fertility improvement through mulching, organic manuring, etc. Impact on biomass and SOC Refer to respective CEPs in this section and to land reclamation and watershed manuals. Impacts include the following: Reclamation of land results in improved soil fertility as well as increased biomass growth as a result of improved soil structure, status, and water-retention capacity Increased vegetation cover, biomass growth, and turnover lead to increased tree biomass and SOC stocks Source: Authors. ENHANCING CARBON STOCKS AND REDUCING CO 2 EMISSIONS IN AGRICULTURE AND NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PROJECTS PA RT B — C E M s, C E P s , A N D C - E N H A N C E M E N T T E C H N O L O G I E S 49 TABLE B.8: PA Management DESCRIPTION FEATURES Explanation of the practice A PA is de�ned as an area of land especially dedicated to the protection of biological diversity and of natural and associated cultural resources and managed through legal and other effective means. It can also be described as a “clearly de�ned geographical space, recognized, dedicated and managed, through legal or other effective means, to achieve long-term conservation of nature with associ- ated ecosystem services and cultural values.�1 In the context of these guidelines, PA management includes improved management practices to conserve and enhance biodiversity of forests (and also of wetlands and grasslands), including halting (or regulating) biomass extraction and grazing and adopting sustainable forest management practices. The main aim is to conserve the flora and fauna of forests and other ecosystems. Bene�ts of the practice Bene�ts of PA management include the following: Conserves biological and cultural diversity, particularly that of plants and animals Regenerates native species Protects watersheds, soil resources, and coastlines Increases plant biomass accumulation and soil carbon stock Increases availability of NTFP and livelihoods Region and land category Forests present in all ecological zones: evergreen forests to arid land forests to scrub forests. Wetlands and grasslands rich in biodi- versity also need protection and management. Description of practice PA management involves a package of practices covering banning or regulating extraction of biomass and forest products, banning grazing and extraction of fuelwood and timber, promotion of natural regeneration and forest succession, and creation of alternative livelihoods. Impact on livelihoods and Forest productivity increases with increased biomass accumulation through protection and sustainable management. Biodiversity-rich biomass forests generate a range of NTFPs, which could be sustainably harvested creating livelihoods for local communities. Impact on biomass and SOC Increased plant biomass accumulation as a result of protection and conservation and litter turnover leads to conservation and enhancement of biomass soil carbon stock. Source: Authors; IUCN 1994. 1IUCN 2008. TOOLKIT 50 PA RT B — C E M s , C E P s , A N D C - E N H A N C E M E N T T E C HN O LO G IE S TABLE B.9: Afforestation and Forest Regeneration DESCRIPTION FEATURES Explanation of the practice Afforestation is the process of converting wasteland, degraded forests, or marginal croplands into forests, plantations, or woodland and chiefly involves planting trees on nonforest land to transform it into a forest. Forest regeneration is the process of restoring the lost tree cover, mainly through protection and promotion of natural regeneration or forest succession. Bene�ts of the practice Bene�ts of afforestation include the following: Land reclamation Water and soil conservation Biodiversity and natural resource conservation Maintenance of local ecosystem services Increased supply of fuelwood, timber, and NTFP Increased biomass and soil carbon stocks Region All regions: humid, semi-arid, and arid Land category Wasteland, grazing land, marginal cropland, and other land categories Description of practice The practice of afforestation involves the following steps: Step 1: Identi�cation of location and total area Step 2: Choice of species suitable for the land category, status, and biomass needs (fuelwood, timber, or NTFP or a combination of these) Step 3: Establishment of a nursery Step 4: Land preparation Step 5: Decisions on spacing and density of planting Step 6: Planting and establishment of the forest or plantation Step 7: Protection, management, and aftercare Quantity required Depending on the total area, species chosen, and density of planting, the number of seedlings would vary; usually it is 1,000 to 4,000 seedlings per ha Impact on biomass Impact includes increased biomass production, increased availability of NTFP including grass and fuelwood. production Final reports of the IWDP in Kandy in Uttarakhand1 indicate doubling of grass productivity with afforestation and protection. Similarly, studies by Ravindranath and Sudha (2004)2 on the spread, performance, and impact of joint forest management in India report increased yields of fuelwood and grass in the areas afforested or regenerated and protected under the program. Impact on biomass and soil The C-bene�t depends on the agro-ecological zone, rainfall, and soil quality apart from the species and silvicultural practices (density, carbon protection, etc.). The Greening India Mission document reports an increment of 0.84 t per ha per year under urban forestry to 3.56 t per ha per year when degraded open forests are afforested. Source: Authors; 1http://agriharyana.nic.in/kandi_iwdp.htm; 2Ravindranath and Sudha 2004. ENHANCING CARBON STOCKS AND REDUCING CO 2 EMISSIONS IN AGRICULTURE AND NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PROJECTS PA RT B — C E M s, C E P s , A N D C - E N H A N C E M E N T T E C H N O L O G I E S 51 FIGURE B.4: Forest Plantation Being Raised Source: Authors. FIGURE B.5: Forest Nursery Source: Authors. TOOLKIT 52 PA RT B — C E M s , C E P s , A N D C - E N H A N C E M E N T T E C HN O LO G IE S TABLE B.10: Biodiversity Conservation DESCRIPTION FEATURES Explanation of the practice Biodiversity (biological diversity) includes diversity of life in all its forms: plants, animals, and microorganisms. Biodiversity encompasses genetic diversity within and between species and of ecosystems, and biodiversity conserva- tion involves formulating and implementing the methods, strategies, and plans to protect, prevent the depletion of, and enhance biodiversity. Bene�ts of the practice Bene�ts of biodiversity include the following: Conservation of natural and genetic resources: plants, animals, and microorganisms present in the area Provision of food and other natural products (�ber, timber, etc.) Provision of different ecosystem services: Soil conservation Water conservation Waste recycling and disposal Climate regulation Buffering and prevention of such extreme events as floods and droughts Region All forests, particularly biodiversity-rich forests or those that harbor endemic or threatened species, and grasslands Land category Forests, grasslands, wetlands, and biodiversity hotspots Description of practice Biodiversity includes the following steps: Step 1: Assess the biodiversity status Step 2: Identify and quantify the dependence on biodiversity for the selected forests Step 3: Identify the drivers of degradation or loss of biodiversity through household surveys and �eld ecological studies Step 4: Develop alternative sources of livelihood, fuelwood, grass, timber, etc. Step 5: Develop programs to reduce pressure on forest biodiversity Step 6: Implement the plans after involving local communities in the protection and management of forests or other ecosystems Step 7: Develop and enforce sustainable extraction and grazing practices Step 8: Monitor the biodiversity status Impact on biodiversity and NTFP The biodiversity conserved depends on the original biodiversity of the land category, the rate of degradation, and the factors that are driving the degradation. Conservation of biodiversity leads to signi�cantly enhanced availability of NTFP, leading to enhanced incomes and improved livelihoods. Impact on biomass and SOC Protection of forests, reduction in extraction and grazing, and sustainable harvest of products will all contribute to: Conserving the existing stock of biomass carbon Carbon sequestration in trees due to regeneration and growth of the degraded forests or grasslands Normally SOC is marginally impacted, unless soil was being disturbed during the preproject period Source: Authors. ENHANCING CARBON STOCKS AND REDUCING CO 2 EMISSIONS IN AGRICULTURE AND NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PROJECTS PA RT B — C E M s, C E P s , A N D C - E N H A N C E M E N T T E C H N O L O G I E S 53 TABLE B.11: Community Forestry DESCRIPTION FEATURES Explanation of the practice Community forestry is a type of forest management that involves local communities in all decisions on forest planning, designing, planting, protection, and harvesting. Local communities receive socio-economic and ecological bene�ts in re- turn. This kind of approach ensures ecological well-being of the forest and sustainability of local forest communities. An example of large-scale Community Forest Management (CFM) is the Joint Forest Management program implemented in India, in which local communities and the forest department jointly protect and manage the forests and derive economic and ecological bene�ts. Bene�ts of the practice Bene�ts of community forestry include the following: Production of fuelwood, grass, and NTFP for the local communities Socio-economic development and enhancement of self-reliance of local rural communities Conservation of forest resources and maintenance of ecosystem services Reduced pressure on natural forests and grasslands Maintenance of watersheds and landscapes Region Applicable to all regions Land category Forests and degraded forests, community lands Description of practice Community forestry management includes the following steps: Step 1: Identi�cation of the location and area for community forestry Step 2: Selection of natural regeneration or plantation approach Step 3: Selection of species through public consultations taking into account the land category, community biomass needs, and soil status Step 4: Establishment of a nursery Step 5: Land preparation, decisions on spacing and density of planting, and planting Step 6: Protection, management, and aftercare Step 7: Adoption of sustainable harvesting and grazing practices Quantity required Depending on the total area, species chosen, and the density of planting, the number of seedlings would vary, but it is usually 500 to 2,000 seedlings per ha. Impact on biomass production Increased biomass production and increased availability of NTFP including grass and fuelwood The �nal reports of the IWDP in Kandi in Uttarakhand indicate a doubling of grass productivity with afforestation and protection. Similarly, studies by Ravindranath and Sudha (2004) on the spread, performance, and impact of Joint Forest Management in India report increased yields of fuelwood and grass in the areas afforested or regenerated and protected under the program. Impact on biomass and SOC The C-bene�t depends on the agro-ecological zone, rainfall, and soil quality apart from the species and silvicultural practices (density, protection, etc.). Illustrative examples are provided below PRACTICE BIOMASS (t/ha/YEAR) SOC (tC/ha/YEAR) Planting short-rotation species 6 Planting long-rotation species 3.56 0.22 Natural regeneration 1.5 Source: Authors; Ravindranath and Sudha 2004; Greening Mission document 2010. TOOLKIT 54 PA RT B — C E M s , C E P s , A N D C - E N H A N C E M E N T T E C HN O LO G IE S TABLE B.12: Orchards and Gardens DESCRIPTION FEATURES Explanation of the practice Traditionally, farmers grow fruit trees along the borders or dedicate a small patch of land for growing fruit trees for home con- sumption as well as for generating marketable surplus. Some of the common fruit trees grown in orchards include coconut, mango, tamarind, sapota, guava, and pomegranate. These fruit orchards could be grown as block orchards on small patches of cropland belonging to the farmers to supplement their income as well as an insurance against crop failures. Orchards present a large op- portunity to enhance C-bene�ts synergistically with increasing incomes. Bene�ts of the practice Fruit orchards provide fruits more or less throughout the year as a supplementary source of income. Fruit trees act as an insurance against crop failures, providing fruits for marketing. If grown on marginal croplands, such trees may contribute to soil and water conservation. The standing trees contribute to biomass carbon accumulation along with increased SOC. Region In all agro-ecological or rainfall zones Land category Mainly croplands of farmers but can also be grown on grassland or degraded forest lands Description of practice Establishing orchards and gardens requires the following steps: Step 1: Select the area to be devoted to fruit orchards, preferably marginal croplands Step 2: Select suitable fruit tree species Step 3: Estimate the required number of seedlings of the selected fruit tree species and either raise a nursery or procure the seedlings from elsewhere Step 4: Prepare the land incorporating soil and water conservation measures, plant the trees, and look after them Quantity required The number of seedlings of the selected tree species depends on the spacing and the density of planting, e.g., 150 to 200 trees per ha for coconut and 80 to 100 trees per ha for mango Impact on incomes All fruit orchards are potentially commercial ventures that provide signi�cant income to farmers Impact on biomass and SOC Orchards raised on marginal lands or croplands lead to: Enhanced biomass carbon stock in the standing perennial trees compared to marginal lands or croplands without trees Enhanced SOC due to protection, root biomass accumulation, litter, and root biomass turnover SOC enhancement due to fruit orchards in the Uttara Kannada district in the Western Ghats and in Tamil Nadu are provided below LAND CATEGORY SOC (%) WESTERN GHATS Marginal cropland 1.1 Agriculture (paddy) 0.7 Coconut 1.8 Cashew 1.4 TAMIL NADU Marginal cropland 0.71 Paddy 0.83 Sugarcane 0.66 Corn as fodder 0.54 Coconut 1.74 Source: Authors. ENHANCING CARBON STOCKS AND REDUCING CO 2 EMISSIONS IN AGRICULTURE AND NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PROJECTS PA RT B — C E M s, C E P s , A N D C - E N H A N C E M E N T T E C H N O L O G I E S 55 TABLE B.13: Irrigation (Minor or Major) DESCRIPTION FEATURES Explanation of the practice Irrigation involves supplying water to land (cropland, grassland, etc.) by arti�cial means in case adequate water is not avail- able naturally. Minor irrigation projects involve conserving, collecting, storing, and providing water for irrigating crops and are generally small-scale projects extending from a few ha up to perhaps a few hundred ha. The techniques deployed for irrigation include digging small storage tanks, pumping water from flowing rivers and streams, farm ponds, desilting of water storage bodies to increase water storage, etc. Bene�ts of the practice Bene�ts of irrigation include the following: Increased agricultural production Increased utilization of land for cropping Reduced risk of crop failure Greater crop diversi�cation Soil and water conservation Region Arid and semi-arid regions Land category Croplands Description of practice The implementation of irrigation includes the following steps: Step 1: Select the approach and technology /practices Step 2: Consult civil or agricultural engineers, prepare a design, and plan the relevant activities Step 3: Implement the practices Step 4: Develop a management system for sharing water Step 5: Suggest cropping and cultivation practices to maximize water-use ef�ciency (grain yield per unit of water) Impact on crop yields Irrigation could double or triple the crop yield in arid and semi-arid regions; in some situations, irrigation stands between total crop failure and high yields Impact on soil and biomass carbon Generally, increased biomass production and root and crop residue turnover would lead to increased SOC Source: Authors. FIGURE B.6: Irrigation Tank Source: Authors. TOOLKIT 56 PA RT B — C E M s , C E P s , A N D C - E N H A N C E M E N T T E C HN O LO G IE S TABLE B.14: Fuelwood Conservation Devices (Biogas and Ef�cient Cookstoves) DESCRIPTION FEATURES Explanation of the practice Biogas is chiefly methane and carbon dioxide with small amounts of carbon monoxide and nitrogen. Biogas is pro- duced by microbial conversion of biomass or organic matter into methane involving anaerobic digestion. The biomass includes the following kinds of material: Animal dung, industrial and municipal wastes Mill and farm residues Fast-growing trees and other leaf litter Biogas is produced, especially in rural India, for meeting the energy needs of local people and is primarily used as a cooking fuel. Biogas replaces fuelwood or cattle dung as fuel and improves the quality of life of women. Ef�cient cookstoves or chulhas are two to three times as ef�cient (conversion ef�ciencies of 20 to 30% and 8 to 15%, respectively) as traditional stoves, which have low thermal ef�ciencies, requiring more fuelwood for cooking. Bene�ts of the practice (economic, Bene�ts of using biogas: environmental, and carbon) Clean fuel with high calori�c value Renewable source of energy Recycling of waste material (agricultural, municipal, livestock) The waste residue produced from biogas plants is good manure Substitution and conservation of fuelwood and trees Improved quality of life for women Bene�ts of using ef�cient cookstoves: Conservation of fuelwood and trees Reduction of smoke in rural kitchens, enhancing women’s health Region All regions Description of practice Using biogas depends on the availability of cattle dung, space for the plant, access to biogas builders, and the capacity to invest. Only families with adequate cattle (sheep and goats; normally one cow/bullock/buffalo per person is the norm, but the number depends on dung yield) have this option. It is necessary to consult the biogas builder and determine the feasibility of the biogas option for the family depending on the number of cattle, dung yield, size of the family, land available for the plant, etc. Using an improved cookstove is recommended only if biogas is not feasible, as biogas is the �rst option. The design of the improved cookstove is based on the cooking practice. The cookstoves are either built at the site or bought from the market. Impact on CO2 emissions Biogas: The shift to biogas leads to total substitution of fuelwood combustion, thereby avoiding the emissions of CO2 and other GHGs. The level of CO2 emission avoided depends on the quantity of fuelwood and the proportion coming from nonsustainable extraction of wood or felling of trees. Quantity of CO2 emission avoided in kg/household/year = [(Quantity of fuelwood consumed in kg/household/day) × 365 days × (fraction of fuelwood saved by shifting to biogas)] × proportion of fuelwood obtained from felling of trees × 0.5 × 3.667 Ravindranath et al. (2000) estimated the fuelwood conservation potential of 17 million biogas plants (at 80% capacity utilization) at 25 million tons, which is equivalent to conserving 79,365 ha of forests or plantations Ef�cient cookstoves: When ef�cient cookstoves are considered, normally the saving in fuelwood ranges from 10 to 50%. The CO2 emission avoided depends on the quantity of fuelwood saved and the proportion of nonsustainable extraction of wood or felling of trees. The following formula can be used to calculate the CO2 emission avoided. Quantity of CO2 emission avoided in kg/household/year = [(Quantity of fuelwood consumed in kg/household/day) × 365 days × (fraction of fuelwood saved by using ef�cient stove)] × proportion of fuelwood obtained from felling of trees × 0.5 × 3.667 Ravindranath et al. (2000) estimated the fuelwood conservation potential of 70 million stoves at 99 million tons, which is equivalent to conserving 314,275 ha of forests and plantations Source: Authors; Ravindranath et al. 2000. ENHANCING CARBON STOCKS AND REDUCING CO 2 EMISSIONS IN AGRICULTURE AND NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PROJECTS PA RT B — C E M s, C E P s , A N D C - E N H A N C E M E N T T E C H N O L O G I E S 57 FIGURE B.7: Biogas Plant Source: Authors. TOOLKIT 58 PA RT B — C E M s , C E P s , A N D C - E N H A N C E M E N T T E C HN O LO G IE S B.2. DESCRIPTIONS OF CEPs TABLE B.15: Mulching DESCRIPTION FEATURES Explanation of the Mulching is a moisture conservation practice for croplands. It involves spreading organic matter or other materials on the soil surface to practice reduce the loss of soil moisture and also to prevent soil erosion. Mulches could be of various kinds, such as crop residue, leaf litter, weeds, and tank silt. Bene�ts of the The bene�ts of mulching include the following: practice Soil moisture conservation and reduction of soil erosion Increased in�ltration Enhanced germination of seedlings Greater root density in the top layer due to favorable soil moisture Moderation of soil temperature Weed control Improved crop growth and higher yields Increased carbon stock due to the addition of organic mulches Suitable regions Mulching is particularly suitable for arid and semi-arid regions Land category The land categories suitable for mulching are those that support annual crops, horticultural crops, or plantations Description of Mulching involves the following steps: practice Step 1: Selection of area and estimation of the quantity of mulch required Step 2: Identi�cation of the source of mulch (e.g., crop residue, tree leaves, organic manure, and tank silt) Step 3: Procurement of the mulch and transportation to the �eld Step 4: Application of mulch at the appropriate stage of crop production such as after sowing or after transplanting Quantity required Varies from 5 to 10 tons per ha Impact on crop yields Mulching, by reducing soil erosion and increasing in�ltration, causes increased moisture retention, thereby enhancing germination of seedlings and deeper rooting and ultimately better growth and crop yield. Impact of mulch application on yield of a few crops under rain-fed conditions is shown below1 GRAIN YIELD (t/ha) CROP NO MULCH MULCH Green gram 0.14 0.39 Moth bean 0.21 0.4 Cluster bean 0.56 0.65 Cowpea 0.42 0.66 Pearl millet 1.39 1.66 Wheat 2.33–2.86 2.93–3.51 Tobacco 1.33 1.84 Sorghum 0.53 0.94 Barley 1.75 1.91 Impact on SOC Application of mulch leads to increased crop or plantation biomass production, including root biomass production. This increased root and shoot biomass production and incorporation into soil leads to increased SOC.2 QUANTITY OF MULCH SOIL ORGANIC (t/ha) C (g/kg OF SOIL) 0 (control or no mulch) 19.7 2.5 28.7 5 29.6 10 32.1 Source: Authors; 1Venkateswarlu 2004; 2Blanco Canqui et al. 2006. ENHANCING CARBON STOCKS AND REDUCING CO 2 EMISSIONS IN AGRICULTURE AND NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PROJECTS PA RT B — C E M s, C E P s , A N D C - E N H A N C E M E N T T E C H N O L O G I E S 59 TABLE B.16: Organic Manure/Green Manure/Crop Residue Incorporation DESCRIPTION FEATURES Explanation of the practice Organic manuring involves application of organic matter such as FYM or compost or leaf litter into the soil in annual cropland and orchards to increase nutrient supply as well as soil moisture. Green manuring includes cultivation of short-duration green manuring crops such as Sesbania, horse gram, or sun hemp and incorporating the standing crop into soil before sowing or transplanting the main crop. Residue of the previous crop is also incorporated into the soil before raising the next crop to increase crop yields, particularly in rain-fed agriculture. Bene�ts of the practice Application of organic/green manure leads to increased availability of nitrogen as well as other nutrients to crops and increases soil moisture availability in rain-fed croplands, enhancing crop productivity Suitable regions Suitable for all regions: arid, semi-arid, and humid Land category Annual croplands, perennial croplands, orchards, and plantations Description of practice Implementation of organic manuring includes the following steps: Step 1: Preparation of compost or FYM, which involves collection of livestock dung, kitchen waste, weeds, and crop residue regularly and storing the material in compost pits for decomposition Step 2: Transportation of manure to the �elds Step 3: Incorporation of organic manure into soil during plowing prior to sowing or transplanting the main crop Implementation of green manuring includes the following steps: Step 1: Sowing a green manure crop such as Sesbania, sun hemp, or horse gram a few weeks before transplanting the main crop such as rice Step 2: Plowing the green manure crop at a tender stage into the soil before sowing or transplanting the main crop In some regions, leaves of trees such as Gliricidia and Pongamia are harvested while they are still green and worked into the soil during plowing. Quantity required Organic manure application could be in the range of 2 to 10 t per ha Impact on crop yields Application of organic or green manure contributes to increased soil fertility as well as availability of nutrients in addition to enhancing the moisture-holding capacity of soil, thereby contributing to increased crop productivity The impact of organic manuring on production of maize and chickpea is described below MANURE AND QUANTITY/ha GRAIN YIELD (kg/ha) CORN CHICKPEA Control (no manure) 1389 540 FYM, 10 t 2037 1,173 Vermicompost, 3 t 2006 1,018 FYM, 5 t 2253 926 Impact on SOC Incorporation of organic or green manure leads to increased stock of soil organic matter or SOC directly as well as indirectly through increased crop and root biomass production and turnover. TREATMENT SOC (%) GREEN MANURING Before treatment 0.50 Incorporation of sun hemp (green manuring crop) 0.60 ORGANIC MANURING Control (no organic manure application) 0.10 50% of nutrients from crop residue, rest from fertilizers 0.26 50% of nutrients from FYM, rest from fertilizers 0.29 Source: Authors; Annual Report 2009/10. TOOLKIT 60 PA RT B — C E M s , C E P s , A N D C - E N H A N C E M E N T T E C HN O LO G IE S FIGURE B.8: Crop Residue Shredded (top photo) and applied (bottom photo) as mulch in Adilabad, Andhra Pradesh Source: Authors. ENHANCING CARBON STOCKS AND REDUCING CO 2 EMISSIONS IN AGRICULTURE AND NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PROJECTS PA RT B — C E M s, C E P s , A N D C - E N H A N C E M E N T T E C H N O L O G I E S 61 TABLE B.17: Reduced Tillage or No Tillage DESCRIPTION FEATURES Explanation of the Reduced tillage or no tillage is one of a set of techniques used in conservation agriculture that aims to enhance and sustain farm practice production by conserving and improving soil, water, and biological resources. Essentially, it maintains a permanent or semiper- manent organic soil cover (e.g., a growing crop or dead mulch) that protects the soil from the sun, rain, and wind and allows soil microorganisms and other fauna to take on the task of “tilling� and balancing soil nutrients through natural processes disturbed by mechanical tillage. Reduced tillage is more relevant to tropical regions. Bene�ts of the practice Bene�ts of reduced or no tillage include the following: Reduction in soil erosion (to as much as 1/15 of that under normal tillage) Fuel saving since land preparation is greatly reduced Flexibility in planting and harvest Reduced requirement of labor and equipment Improved water retention and reduced evaporation Improved nutrient cycling Increased availability of plant nutrients Improved soil organic matter status and increased carbon sequestration Suitable regions Arid and semi-arid regions Land category Cropland, rain fed Description of practice With no tillage, there is little or no preparation of land before sowing. The practice is also called slot planting, zero tillage, or direct drilling. It often involves the use of herbicides to kill weeds. Impact on crop yields Reduced tillage or no tillage helps to increase the amount of water in the soil and decrease soil erosion and may also increase the number and variety of life forms in and on the soil, which increases soil fertility and thereby crop yields The impact of conventional and no tillage on wheat is described below TILLAGE CROP RESIDUE GRAIN YIELD SYSTEM (t/ha) (t/ha) Conventional 1.65 1.18 No tillage 2.85 1.42 Impact on SOC Conventional farming practices that rely on tillage remove carbon from the soil ecosystem by removing crop residues. Further tillage disturbs topsoil and exposes it to heat, leading to enhanced oxidation of soil organic matter and loss of CO2. By eliminating tillage, crop residues are left to decompose in the �eld and carbon loss can be slowed and eventually reversed. Soil carbon sinks are increased by the increased biomass due to increased yields as well as by decreased losses of organic carbon from soil erosion. Stocks and accumulation rates of carbon and carbon sequestration rates in conventional tillage and no-tillage systems in the 0- to 30-cm and 0- to 100-cm soil layers are shown below TREATMENT SOC (g/kg) Conventional tillage 5.8 Zero tillage 5.7 Zero tillage + residue incorporation 6.7 Source: Authors; Saha et al. 2010. TOOLKIT 62 PA RT B — C E M s , C E P s , A N D C - E N H A N C E M E N T T E C HN O LO G IE S TABLE B.18: Contour Bunding DESCRIPTION FEATURES Explanation of the practice Contour bunding is one of the most common methods of soil and water conservation and involves the construction of trap- ezoidal bunds with a narrow base along the contour lines to impound runoff water, so that all the water stored is absorbed gradually in the soil pro�le for crop use. Bene�ts of the practice Bene�ts of contour bunding include the following: Soil and water conservation Increased crop yields Carbon sequestration in soils Suitable regions Contour bunding is recommended for low-rainfall areas ( less than 600 mm) and for permeable soils up to slopes of about 6% in agricultural lands Land category Agricultural lands, plantations, and afforestation sites Cropping system Rain-fed crops Description of practice Building contour bunds involves the following steps: Step 1: Determining the cross-section and spacing between the bunds (height and width of bunds) Step 2: Marking the contour lines Step 3: Constructing the bunds along the contours Impact on crop yields Conservation of soil and moisture leading to increased crop yields Impact on soil organic mat- Reduced water erosion and increased availability of soil moisture for crops, leading to increased biomass production and root ter or SOC biomass and crop residue turnover, which in turn contribute to enhanced SOC Source: Authors; Narayana 2002. FIGURE B.9: In Situ Rainwater Harvesting Along the Bunds in Trenches (left) and in a Field (right) Ploughed by a Ridger in Mahabubnagar, Andhra Pradesh Source: Authors. ENHANCING CARBON STOCKS AND REDUCING CO 2 EMISSIONS IN AGRICULTURE AND NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PROJECTS PA RT B — C E M s, C E P s , A N D C - E N H A N C E M E N T T E C H N O L O G I E S 63 TABLE B.19: Farm Ponds DESCRIPTION FEATURES Explanation of the practice Farm ponds are constructed to hold the runoff water from cropland or other catchment areas. The water col- lected is used for providing supplemental irrigation to crops at critical periods of crop growth. Farm ponds are usually small, constructed to provide water for areas ranging from a fraction of a ha to a few ha. Bene�ts of the practice Bene�ts of farm ponds include the following: Conservation of water A water supply as supplementary or life-saving irrigation to rain-fed crops Overcoming moisture stress due to droughts or delayed rains Farm ponds can save a crop from total failure or increase and stabilize crop yields. Region Arid and semi-arid Land category Cropland Description of practice Establishing a farm pond includes the following steps: Step 1: Estimate the catchment area Step 2: Estimate the runoff based on the pattern of rainfall Step 3: Estimate the capacity of the pond The depth of the pond should be 5 m or less to avoid seepage losses The length and the breadth depend on the volume of runoff water Step 4: Estimate the area to be irrigated Step 5: Modify the land to facilitate water flow into the ponds naturally Select low-lying areas to minimize the cost of excavation Ensure that the soil at the selected site is impermeable so as to minimize percolation losses Step 6: Provide proper inlet and outlet to the farm pond Step 7: Construct a silt trap (pit) in the inlet region Step 8: Line the insides with impervious material to control seepage loss Step 9: Use the stored water for life-saving or critical irrigation Farm pond capacity Farm pond capacity is determined based on the steps mentioned above. Usually, a farm pond for one ha of land is 250 cubic meters. Impact on crop yields Farm ponds can supply critical life-saving irrigation to overcome moisture stress in rain-fed agriculture and increase yields by 15 to 40%. The impact of farm pond on productivity of major crops is described below YIELD (kg/ha) WITH FARM WITHOUT FARM % CHANGE IN CROP POND POND YIELD Paddy 2,482 2,022 22.74 Cotton 1,195 988 20.95 Sorghum 1,168 953 22.56 Corn 3,203 2,460 30.20 Soybean 1,575 1,312 20.04 Peanut 1,722 1,492 16.15 Winter sorghum 1,017 832 22.23 Green gram 380 269 41.26 Impact on SOC Irrigating rain-fed croplands leads to increased biomass production, root biomass and turnover, all contributing to increased SOC Source: Authors; Rajeshwari et al. 2007. TOOLKIT 64 PA RT B — C E M s , C E P s , A N D C - E N H A N C E M E N T T E C HN O LO G IE S FIGURE B.10: Farm Ponds for Harvesting Runoff and Recycling During Midterm Droughts in Adilabad, Andhra Pradesh, and a Village Pond in Uttaranchal Source: Authors. ENHANCING CARBON STOCKS AND REDUCING CO 2 EMISSIONS IN AGRICULTURE AND NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PROJECTS PA RT B — C E M s, C E P s , A N D C - E N H A N C E M E N T T E C H N O L O G I E S 65 TABLE B.20: Application of Tank Silt DESCRIPTION FEATURES Explanation of the practice Poor management of catchment areas has resulted in silting of most water bodies and signi�cant reduction in their storage capacity. Good practices such as desilting of water storage bodies and application of silt to agricultural �elds provides a win-win situation by restoring the lost storage capacity as well as by improving soil health. This is traditionally practiced in irrigation tanks or minor irrigation water storage systems. Bene�ts of the practice Desilting increases the storage capacity of tanks, leading to increased water availability for irrigation, thereby contributing to increased crop yields. The application of tank silt improves the water-holding capacity, cation exchange capacity, and fertility of the soil as the silt contains both major nutrients and micronutrients, which boost crop growth and yield. Region Arid and semi-arid Land category Cropland Description of practice Desilting involves the following steps: Step 1: Identify the tank to be desilted Step 2: Desilt the tank by removing the accumulated silt from the floor of the tank either manually or by using appropriate machinery Step 3: Determine the quantity of silt to be applied per ha Step 4: Use the silt thus extracted as a soil amendment, especially for rain-fed cropland subjected to topsoil erosion Impact on biomass and SOC With silt application, moisture retention capacity of soil goes up by 4 to 7 days, which plays an important role during the period of prolonged dry spells. It was con�rmed through gravimetric studies that the available water content in the root zone increased from its normal level of 6 to 7 percent after addition of 100 trolley loads of silt per ha. Further, the physical and chemical properties of soil changed permanently (the clay con- tent in the root zone went up from 20 to 40 percent and sand and �ne sand was decreased). Such an increase in clay content helps retain more moisture and also reduces the loss of nutrients through leaching because of improved cation exchange capacity. All these lead to improved soil fertility and increased crop growth and litter turnover, contributing to increased SOC. The impact of tank silt application on SOC of croplands of Chitradurga, Karnataka is decribed below TREATMENT SOC (%) Wasteland 0.22–0.56 Cropland 0.58–1.07 Cropland+silt 1.02–3.18 Source: Authors; Tiwari et al. 2010. FIGURE B.11: Tank Silt Applied to Enhance Soil Fertility and Increase Water Harvesting Capacity of Tanks in Kadapa, Andhra Pradesh Source: Authors. TOOLKIT 66 PA RT B — C E M s , C E P s , A N D C - E N H A N C E M E N T T E C HN O LO G IE S TABLE B.21: Cropping Systems: Intercropping, Multiple Cropping, Mixed Cropping, and Relay Cropping DESCRIPTION FEATURES Explanation of the practice Intercropping involves growing two or more crops on the same piece of land. Multiple cropping involves growing multiple crops in a year (three crops in a year instead of one). Mixed cropping involves mixing seeds of several crop species and sowing the mix in the same plot. Intercropping includes several subcategories such as strip cropping and relay cropping. Multiple cropping is one such common form of intercropping and can be described as the intensi�cation of land use by increasing the number of crops grown on the same piece of land, thus ensuring more ef�cient use of time and other resources. Normally, cereals or millets are mixed with pulses, oil seeds, and vegetables. Bene�ts of the practice Bene�ts of cropping systems include the following: Reduced risk of crop failure: The risk that all crops will fail is rare; if one crop fails, the other could survive and yield Variety of produce: A variety of produce could be obtained from a single piece of land to meet the varied requirements of a family for cereals, pulses, vegetables, etc. Increased yield: Component crops could have a complementary effect on one another (e.g., legume crops, by �xing nitrogen in the soil, have a bene�cial effect on cereals and other nonlegume crops) Improved soil fertility: Cereal crops deplete the soil of nutrients, whereas growing legumes will help increase the nitrogen content of the soil. Thus, soil fertility is improved by the right choice of component crops Reduced pest damage: Crops of a particular species are more prone to particular types of pests (weed, insects, and diseases); when different types of crops are grown together, chances of pest infestation are reduced Greater biodiversity: Floral and faunal biodiversity in the �eld is enriched by the presence of a range of crops Weed control: Since the land is under crop cover for longer periods, weeds are kept in check Suitable regions Arid and semi-arid regions Land category Cropland Description of practice There following criteria and steps could be adopted for intercropping or mixed cropping: Step 1: Decide on the form of intercropping (multiple cropping, mixed cropping, etc.) Step 2: Identify the appropriate combination of crops: Long and short duration Different height and spread (tall/short and spreading/nonspreading) Different products (cereals or millets and pulses or vegetables) Step 3: Identify the appropriate cultivation practices—density, spacing, number of rows of different crops or the mixing pat- tern for different crops, land preparation, time of sowing, manure or fertilizer application, etc. Step 4: Implement the selected crop combination and cultivation practices Intercropping helps in matching crop demands to available sunlight, water, nutrients, and labor. The advantage of intercropping over sole cropping is that competition for resources between species is less than that within the same species, thus resulting in better yields. The effect of mixed cropping on the yield of wheat and gram at Kota is described below1 CROPPING SYSTEM MEAN YIELD (kg/ha) Wheat (pure crop) 315 Gram (pure crop) 315 Wheat + gram (in alternate rows) 440 The impact of intercropping with different crops on coconut yield is decribed below2 YIELD INTERCROP (NO. OF COCONUTS/ha/YEAR) Control (no intercrop) 5,172 Clove 5,549 Black pepper 5,466 Cinnamon 7,080 Coffee 7,318 Annuals in rotation 6,825 Impact on crop yields Impact on SOC Continued cultivation of a single crop results in depletion of certain soil nutrients. With intercropping and crop rotation, soil fertility is promoted through alternate planting of crops having different nutrient needs, which prevents depletion of any one essential element present in the soil. Leguminous plants, because of their ability to accumulate nitrogen by �xing it from the air in association with Rhizobium bacteria, also improve soil fertility. SOC would increase due to increased biomass production and root or residue turnover. Source: Authors; 1Aryan 2002; 2Singh 1997. ENHANCING CARBON STOCKS AND REDUCING CO 2 EMISSIONS IN AGRICULTURE AND NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PROJECTS PA RT B — C E M s, C E P s , A N D C - E N H A N C E M E N T T E C H N O L O G I E S 67 TABLE B.22: Cover Cropping DESCRIPTION FEATURES Explanation of the practice Cover crops contribute to restoration and maintenance of SOC and soil fertility, leading to improved crop yields. Cover crops provide an onsite source of plant biomass for incorporation into soil to restore and increase SOC and density. Bene�ts of the practice Cover crop incorporation into soil improves soil aggregation and in�ltration capacity and maintains the physi- cal and chemical properties of soil. Cover crops also reduce land degradation by wind and water erosion. Biological measures of erosion control involving use of cover crops provide ground cover to protect the soil from the impact of raindrops and decrease the velocity and carrying capacity of overland flow. Incorporation of cover crops enhances SOC. Region Irrigated crops (such as wheat and rice) and semi-arid croplands Land category Cropland Description of practice Planting cover crops involves the following steps: Step 1: Select the main crop and the season in which the main crop is to be grown Step 2: Select a cover crop, preferably a leguminous crop with low lignin content, for cultivation and incorporation into the soil Dedicated manure crop (e.g., Sesbania) Grain and manure crops (e.g., cowpea, horse gram, and pigeon pea) Step 3: Cultivate the cover crop before sowing or transplanting the main crop; in some cases, cover crops could also be grown after the harvest of the main crop using the residual soil moisture Step 4: Harvest the grain of the cover crop at maturity and then incorporate the crop residue into soil; if a dedicated cover crop is grown, the whole plant is plowed and incorporated into soil a few weeks before transplanting the main crop Impact on crop yields and soil fertility Incorporation of a large quantity of plant biomass, especially of leguminous crops, leads to increased soil fertility, leading to decreased use of inorganic fertilizers and increased yield of the crop. If a gain-yielding crop is grown as the additional crop, the grain yield will contribute to the income. Impact on biomass and SOC Cultivation and incorporation of leaves or whole-plant biomass, particularly of leguminous crops, lead to increased SOC. Further, the increased soil fertility leads to increased main crop biomass, and its turnover leads to enhanced SOC. COVER CROP SOC (%) Control (no cover crop) 0.530 Stylosanthes hamata 0.720 Lucerne 0.740 Centrosema 0.695 Calapagonium 0.720 Source: Authors. TOOLKIT 68 PA RT B — C E M s , C E P s , A N D C - E N H A N C E M E N T T E C HN O LO G IE S TABLE B.23: Silvi-pasture and Horti-pasture DESCRIPTION FEATURES Explanation of the practice Silvi-pasture is when woody perennials, preferably of fodder value, are planted and raised on grazing lands to optimize land productivity, conserving species, soils, and nutrients and producing mainly forage along with timber and fuelwood. The main purpose of silvi-pasture is to produce grass and fodder through annuals as well as perennials (fodder-yielding trees). Horti-pasture is when perennial horticultural crops such as mango, tamarind, guava, and sapota are cultivated. The main purpose of horti-pasture is to produce economically valuable fruits in addition to grass or fodder. Bene�ts of the practice The bene�ts of a good silvi-pasture system include the following: Could increase land productivity from about 1 t per ha per year to about 10 t per ha per year (for a 10-year rotation) Produces additional tree-based fodder for livestock and fuelwood for households Tree leaves as fodder are available year round Has potential for grassland reclamation and biodiversity conservation The bene�ts of a horti-pasture system include the following: Fruits are produced in addition to grass Fruit production acts as a hedge against crop failures Both silvi- and horti-pasture contribute to soil conservation. Biomass carbon stocks would increase due to planting of trees (forage or fruit). In addition, with improved management of land and growth of trees, SOC stock could increase due to leaf litter and root biomass turnover. Region Arid and semi-arid Land category Grassland, grazing land, degraded forest, or community land Description of practice Establishment of a silvi- or horti-pasture system includes the following steps: Step 1: Selection of location (e.g., degraded grassland or grazing land) Step 2: Selection of fodder-yielding or horticultural tree species Step 3: Development of planting design including the number of rows, distance between the rows, and spacing of trees within rows Step 4: Raising the seedlings of the tree species or procuring them from elsewhere Step 5: Land preparation and planting Step 6: Aftercare, regulated grazing, and grass harvesting Quantity required The number of trees of different species depends on the tree species selected, which in turn governs the spacing, both between rows and within a row. Impact on grass produc- Leaf production as fodder and fruit production depends on the tree species, density per ha, and soil and water conditions. A tion and leaf, fodder, fruit good silvi-pasture system could increase land productivity from about 1 t per ha per year to about 10 t per ha per year (for a production 10-year rotation). Impact on biomass and SOC Biomass carbon stock is enhanced because of planting and growth of perennial trees and shrubs since only leaves or fruits are extracted. SOC stock is enhanced due to growth of tree root biomass and litter turnover as well as improved grass production. LAND CATEGORY SOC (%) Control 0.29 Leucaena leucocephala and 0.68 (after 5 years) Stylosanthes hamata Leucaena leucocephala and Cenchrus 0.52 (after 5 years) ciliaris Source: Authors. ENHANCING CARBON STOCKS AND REDUCING CO 2 EMISSIONS IN AGRICULTURE AND NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PROJECTS PA RT B — C E M s, C E P s , A N D C - E N H A N C E M E N T T E C H N O L O G I E S 69 FIGURE B.12: Promotion of Horti-Pastures in Degraded Lands in Kadapa, Andhra Pradesh Source: Authors. TOOLKIT PA RT C — C A R B O N E S T I M AT I O N A N D M O N I T O R I N G M E T H O D S 71 Part C: CARBON ESTIMATION AND MONITORING METHODS C.1. CARBON-MONITORING METHODS AND reduction resulting from project implementation: PRACTICAL GUIDANCE Estimation of net C-bene�ts requires estimation and projection There is need for methods and guidance on estimation and of baseline or reference-scenario carbon stocks and changes monitoring of carbon bene�ts at different phases. (or CO2 emissions) as well as of changes in carbon stocks or CO2 emissions resulting from project implementation. C.1.1. Monitoring of C-Bene�ts C-bene�t estimation is required during two phases: Land-use sectors, particularly forest lands and agricultural lands, play a critical role in addressing climate change miti- The ex ante or project proposal preparation phase: gation. Addressing climate change through land-use sectors During the phase of preparing a project proposal, involves reducing CO2 emissions from forest and agricultural C-bene�ts from the proposed project interventions land use and land-use change as well as enhancing the car- need to be estimated. Ex ante estimates, including bon stocks of both the land categories. According to FAO projections of potential C-bene�ts, are required by the (2010), carbon stocks in forests are declining, and according project developer to assess the potential C-bene�ts to IPCC (2007), land use and land-use change contributed and by project evaluators and funding agencies to approximately 17.4 percent of the global CO2 equivalent to decide on funding C-enhancement activities or of GHG emissions in 2004. Further, IPCC (2007) has shown interventions. The proposal preparation phase involves the large mitigation potential available in the land-use sectors identifying project interventions or activities, determin- for stabilizing CO2 concentration in the atmosphere. Many ing the area under each activity, estimating the efforts are under way from the global to the local level to likely C-bene�ts per unit area, and modeling those explore the land-use sectors for mitigating climate change. bene�ts. These efforts include A/R under the CDM, the REDD+ Ex post or project implementation phase: Periodical mechanism under the Cancun Agreement, and bilateral and and long-term monitoring of C-bene�ts is required multilateral programs as well as efforts at the national level during the postimplementation phase, and guidelines to reduce deforestation and degradation and promote A/R. are required for project managers to develop and The potential of agricultural soils to mitigate climate change implement carbon-monitoring arrangements. The is very high; it is being recognized and may become a part of postimplementation phase involves laying out perma- future UNFCCC mechanisms. nent plots for long-term monitoring, �eld and labora- tory studies, calculations, and modeling of carbon In addition to the traditional approaches of REDD and A/R, stock changes. agricultural land, grassland, and degraded forest land offer many opportunities to enhance carbon stocks and reduce To estimate the incremental carbon stocks due to project CO2 emissions. A variety of NRM, agricultural development, activities, carbon stocks or CO2 emissions have to be mea- land reclamation, and livelihood improvement programs are sured and estimated for two scenarios: being implemented in developing countries. These programs Baseline scenario (or control plots): The parameters provide opportunities to generate C-bene�ts synergisti- required for estimating carbon stocks are measured cally with the socio-economic goals of the programs, and the in plots that are not subjected to project activities present guidelines describe approaches to and methods of but have land and soil features similar to those plots enhancing C-bene�ts from all land-based NRM and develop- proposed to be subjected to project activities. mental projects. Project scenario: The parameters required for estimat- Monitoring C-bene�ts includes measurement, estimation, ing carbon stocks are measured in representative and projection of carbon stock changes or CO2 emissions sample plots subjected to project activities. TOOLKIT 72 PA RT C — C A R B O N E S T I M AT I O N A N D M O N I T O R I N G ME T H O D S Reasons for estimating or monitoring carbon in land-based Practice Guidance 2003, the IPCC 2006 AFOLU Guidelines, projects: Project developers, managers, evaluators, and CDM methodologies, Veri�ed Carbon Standards funding agencies require the estimation, projection, and mon- (VCS) methodologies, GOFC Gold 2009, Winrock 2006, itoring of C-bene�ts to decide on funding C-enhancement Ravindranath and Ostwald 2008, and CIFOR 2010. projects, evaluating the impacts of the projects, making pay- ments for the C-bene�ts derived from projects, and reporting This part of the guidelines provides practical guidance and carbon mitigation at the national level. Quantitative estimates simpli�ed methods of carbon estimation and monitoring, of C-bene�ts also assist in quantifying the cost-effectiveness applicable mainly to typical land-based agriculture and NRM of different land-based project interventions in mitigating cli- projects. For more detailed description of methods and mate change. Such estimates are also useful while deciding models, one could refer to the sources mentioned above. on whether to incorporate any additional activities or to mod- The present guidelines focus on projects aimed at main- ify the implementation arrangements to enhance C-bene�ts. streaming C-bene�t enhancement in agriculture and NRM projects and not on projects dedicated to climate Scope of the guidance: Monitoring of C-bene�ts involves change mitigation such as A/R under CDM and REDD estimating changes in carbon stocks of or CO2 emissions mechanisms, although the basic methods can be applied for from �ve carbon pools: AGB, below-ground biomass (BGB), these projects as well. deadwood, litter, and soil carbon. Measurement, estimation, and projection of C-bene�ts require methods, models, and Categories of projects requiring carbon estimation and �eld and laboratory studies to estimate changes in all these monitoring: �ve carbon pools or a subset of these pools periodically. Watershed projects including soil and water conserva- These guidelines provide practical methods applicable to all tion and tree planting components land-based projects focusing on biomass and soil carbon. The Agriculture development projects including sustain- importance of these two pools varies from agriculture to for- able agriculture, crop intensi�cation, irrigation, etc. est to grassland categories. Grassland, arid land, and wasteland reclamation projects Land-based livelihood improvement and poverty al- leviation projects In agriculture, watershed, and grassland devel- Forest regeneration, forest conservation, and affores- opment projects, the focus is on soil carbon. tation projects Projects in these three sectors could also include REDD and CDM projects as well as VCS (not the focus tree-based interventions such as agro-forestry, of these guidelines) orchards, cultivation of green manuring trees, silvi-pasture, and shelterbelts. Thus, agriculture C.1.1.1. Comparison of Different Methods and and watershed projects also require monitoring Guidelines Available for Estimating and tree biomass carbon pools and require methods Monitoring C-Bene�ts for measuring trees. Several methods and guidelines are available for estima- Biomass and soil carbon pools are important in tion and monitoring of C-bene�ts from land-based projects. forestry projects, requiring monitoring of both. Table C.1 presents the features of a few key guidelines. The handbook by Ravindranath and Ostwald (2008) provides de- Thus, the methods described for measuring trees in tailed step-by-step procedures and methods for developing forests and plantations are also applicable to agriculture baseline carbon stock estimates, ex ante estimation, and ex and watershed projects with tree-based interventions. post monitoring of C-bene�ts; �eld and laboratory guidance Further, the methods described for measuring soil car- on measurement of different carbon pools; modeling; calcula- bon in forestry or tree-based projects can be applied to tion; and estimation of uncertainty. agriculture and watershed projects. C.1.2. Broad Approaches to and Methods of A number of approaches to and methods of measuring, esti- Estimating and Monitoring C-Bene�ts mating, monitoring, and reporting C-bene�ts at the project lev- The approach to estimating and monitoring C-bene�ts is el as well as at the national level are available. Sources of such presented in �gure C.1. It can be observed that both base- methods and guidelines include the following, which provide line and project-scenario estimates are required, �rst during detailed steps, procedures, and explanations: the IPCC Good the project proposal preparation phase to make and project ENHANCING CARBON STOCKS AND REDUCING CO 2 EMISSIONS IN AGRICULTURE AND NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PROJECTS PA RT C — C A R B O N E S T I M AT I O N A N D M O N I T O R I N G M E T H O D S 73 TABLE C.1: Features of Key Guidelines for Estimating and Monitoring C-Bene�ts PRACTICAL UTILITY FOR UTILITY FOR GUIDANCE EX ANTE EX POST FOR FIELD AND CARBON CARBON BASELINE LABORATORY GUIDELINES C-POOLS ESTIMATION MONITORING METHODS MODELING METHODS IPCC GPG 2003 All 5 pools Yes Yes No Yes No IPCC AFOLU 2006 All 5 pools Yes Yes Yes No No Consolidated CDM All 5 pools, Yes Yes Yes No No methodologies optional GOFC-GOLD AGB, BGB, SOC Yes Yes Yes Yes No Ravindranath and Ostwald 2008 All 5 pools Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Winrock sourcebook 2005 All 5 pools Yes Yes Yes No Yes VCS—REDD All 5 pools Yes Yes Yes No No Nicholas Institute All 5 pools Yes Yes Yes No Yes Source: Authors. the assessment of C-bene�ts likely to accrue from project and Stock-Difference. Making a carbon inventory requires es- activities and secondly during the postproject implementa- timation of carbon stocks at two points in time or of carbon tion phase to periodically monitor the net C-bene�ts. The gain and loss for a given year. Carbon stock change is the sum approach involves some generic steps as well as some car- of changes in stocks of all the carbon pools in a given area bon-pool-speci�c steps; both are presented in �gure C.1. over time, which could be averaged to annual stock changes. The methods are described as follows (Ravindranath and IPCC methods for estimating carbon stock changes: The Ostwald 2008, IPCC 2006). IPCC provides two methods of carbon inventory, Gain-Loss FIGURE C.1: Steps in Carbon Estimation and Monitoring Ex ante estimation Ex post monitoring Baseline scenario Project scenario Baseline scenario Project scenario estimation estimation monitoring monitoring Steps Generic C-pool specific guidance guidance Refer to tables C.3 and C.4 for above-ground mass; refer to table C.5 for below-ground mass; refer to Box C.6 for soil carbon Refer to Table C.2 Source: Authors. TOOLKIT 74 PA RT C — C A R B O N E S T I M AT I O N A N D M O N I T O R I N G ME T H O D S A generic equation for estimating the changes in carbon where stock for a given land-use category or project is given below. ΔC is the annual carbon stock change in the pool, Ct is the carbon stock in the pool at time t1, and 1 Annual carbon stock change for a land-use category is Ct is the carbon stock in the same pool at time t2. the sum of changes in all carbon pools 2 As discussed in section A.3.2.1, the frequency of measure- ΔCLUi = ΔCAB + ΔCBB + ΔCDW + ΔCLI + ΔCSC ment of most of the carbon pools is once in several years—5 years, for example, for soil carbon. Thus, the estimated stock where at t2 needs to be deducted from the estimated stock at t1, and the difference needs to be divided by the number of ΔCLUi = carbon stock change for a land-use category, AB = years between the two periods (t2 – t1). The stock difference above-ground biomass, BB = below-ground biomass, DW = must be estimated separately for each carbon pool. deadwood, LI = litter, and SC = soil carbon. Changes in carbon stock using this method are estimated for The Gain-Loss method involves estimating gains in carbon a given land-use category or project area as follows. stock of the pools due to growth and transfer of carbon from one pool to another, such as transfer of carbon from the live- Step 1: Estimate the stock of a pool at time t1 and repeat biomass pool to the dead organic matter pool due to harvest or the measurement to estimate the stock at time t2 disturbance. The method also involves deducting losses in car- bon stocks due to harvest, decay, burning, and transfer from Step 2: Estimate the change in the stock of the selected one pool to another as described in the following equation: carbon pool by deducting the stock at time t1 from that at t2 Step 3: Divide the difference in stocks by the duration Annual carbon stock change in a given pool as a function (t2 – t1) in years to obtain the annual change in stock of gains and losses Step 4: Extrapolate to a per-ha basis if the estimates ΔC = ΔCG – ΔCL were made for sample plots where Step 5: Extrapolate the per-ha estimate to the total proj- ect or land-use category area to obtain the total for the ΔC is annual carbon stock change in the pool and ΔCG and ΔCL project area are the annual gain and loss of carbon, respectively. The Gain-Loss method requires estimation of gain in the C.1.3. Generic Steps for Estimating and Monitoring stock of each relevant carbon pool during the year or over a C-Bene�ts period under consideration in a given area. Similarly, losses in Generic steps include the methods to be adopted for estima- the stock of each pool need to be separately estimated and tion and monitoring of C-bene�ts during the ex ante and ex aggregated for a given area over a given period. The differ- post phases of a project for the selected carbon pools. The ence between carbon gain and loss will give an estimate of broad generic steps and approach for both the phases are net carbon emission or removal. presented in table C.2. The Stock-Difference method includes all processes that bring about changes in a given carbon pool. Carbon stocks C.1.4. Project Typology for Estimating Carbon Pools are estimated for each pool at two points in time, t1 and t2. The carbon pools to be estimated or monitored and the The duration between the two points could be 1 year or sev- method to be adopted for �eld measurements will depend eral years, such as 5, 7, or 10 years. on the feature or type of the project activity or CEMs and CEPs. For example, afforestation would require the plot Carbon stock change in a given pool as an annual method for measuring tree biomass, whereas soil conserva- average difference between estimates at two points in time tion on cropland may require selection of farms to estimate the stocks of SOC. A broad typology of project activities ΔC = (Ct2 − Ct1 ) (CEMs and CEPs), which may require different methods for (t 2 − t1) sampling and measurement of parameters relevant to the carbon pools selected, is presented in table C.3. ENHANCING CARBON STOCKS AND REDUCING CO 2 EMISSIONS IN AGRICULTURE AND NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PROJECTS PA RT C — C A R B O N E S T I M AT I O N A N D M O N I T O R I N G M E T H O D S 75 TABLE C.2: Generic Steps and Description of Methods Common to All the Carbon Pools for Ex Ante and Ex Post Phases STEP METHOD Selection of project area Select the project area including the types of land and extent. The land categories could include agricultural land, grazing land, community lands, degraded forestland, forestland, etc. Selection of project activities Select the project activities included in the project. The activities are selected according to the land category and objectives of the project Activities could include CEMs (agro-forestry, watershed management, sustainable agriculture, etc.) and CEPs (mulching, reduced tillage, organic or green manuring, etc.) Stratify the project area based on Stratify the project area according to activities (CEMs/CEPs) and land category and features of the land category project activities and land features (refer to �gure D.1). Activities: according to CEMs/CEPs Land category: according to land type (grazing land, cropland, catchment area for water body, degraded forestland, etc.) Features of land category: based on slope or topography of the land, extent of degradation, soil fertility status, irrigation, etc. Estimation of area under different Estimate the area according to land strati�cation and project activities. project activities Area according to CEM/CEP and any other land feature such as slope, soil fertility, irrigation, or cropping system De�ne project boundary Select the land category and project activity along with the area for different land parcels or plots since the total area under an activity could be in multiple parcels or plots, with area ranging from a few ha to hundreds of ha Prepare a map of the project area, clearly demarcating the land category, project activity (CEM/CEP), and features of the land Record the GPS coordinates of each parcel of land and provide an ID to each plot/parcel Select carbon pools Identify the carbon pools likely to be impacted the most by the project activities. Among the pools to be impacted, select the pools that would be impacted the most. AGB is the most important pool for all project activities; that is, CEMs and CEPs involving planting, protection, or manage- ment of trees (such as agro-forestry, shelterbelts, afforestation, and PA management). BGB is the pool relevant to all activities (CEMs and CEPs) that impact the AGB involving trees as mentioned above. The BGB can be measured only through destructive sampling involving uprooting of the trees and is therefore normally not measured. SOC is the pool relevant to all activities involving both tree-based and, particularly, nontree-based interventions. Tree-based interventions such as agro-forestry, shelterbelts, and PA management and nontree-based or soil-based interventions or activities such as mulching, reduced tillage, organic manuring, soil conservation, and sustainable agriculture would impact this pool. Deadwood and litter are the pools relevant only to tree-based project activities. Even for tree-based project activities, the magnitude of impact is marginal on a per-ha basis compared to the other three pools and involves signi�cant additional cost and efforts. Therefore, these two pools need not be measured in majority of land-based projects. Determining the frequency of The frequency of monitoring of different carbon pools is determined by the rate of change in the stock of a carbon pool as well monitoring of carbon pools as the effort required. Normally, in tree-based projects, the AGB is the pool subjected to higher rate of growth on an annual basis compared to SOC. The rate of change of soil carbon is very low on an annual basis. The AGB for tree-based projects could be monitored once in 3 to 5 years, depending on the rate of growth of the tree biomass The BGB can be measured only through a destructive method involving felling or uprooting of trees and is therefore esti- mated, using a default value, as a proportion of the AGB SOC is normally measured once in 5 to 10 years since the rate of change of SOC is very slow Source: Authors. C.2. METHODS FOR DIFFERENT CARBON POOLS PRESENTATION OF METHODS FOR ESTIMATION This section describes the methods to estimate SOC, AGB, AND MONITORING OF DIFFERENT CARBON POOLS and BGB. Among the carbon pools, SOC is relevant to 1. Generic steps for forestry and tree-based agricultural all land-based projects, in particular agricultural projects. projects Only the key steps and features of the methods are present- AGB: Tree-based projects including agro- ed in tables C.4 to C.7; for more details, refer to guidelines forestry, shelterbelt, watershed, and forestry such as Ravindranath and Ostwald (2008), Nicholas Institute BGB: Tree-based projects including agro- (2009), Winrock (2005), and GOFC GOLD (2009). The forestry, shelterbelt, watersheds and forestry order of presentation of methods is as follows, consider- SOC: Agriculture, watershed, and forestry ing the pools as well as C-enhancement activities and practices. (continued) TOOLKIT 76 PA RT C — C A R B O N E S T I M AT I O N A N D M O N I T O R I N G ME T H O D S TABLE C.3: Project Typology, Features, and Project Activities for Measuring and Monitoring C-Bene�ts PROJECT ACTIVITIES PROJECT TYPOLOGY FEATURES (CEMs/CEPs) CARBON POOLS MEASURED ESTIMATED Soil-based projects Interventions aimed at improving Mulching, reduced tillage, soil SOC – soil fertility, reducing soil erosion, conservation, contour bunding, improving water-holding capacity of tank silt application, cover soils, moisture conservation, etc. cropping, multiple cropping, etc. Agro-forestry Row planting of trees interspersed Agro-forestry, shelterbelts, AGB, BGB with annual crops silvi-pasture, horti-pasture, SOC orchards Watershed or multi-component Multiple types of project activities; Watershed, land reclamation, AGB for activities involving trees, BGB projects e.g., a watershed project could sustainable agriculture, agricul- SOC for all other activities include afforestation in water ture intensi�cation catchment area, agro-forestry, and soil/water conservation measures Such projects may require estima- tion of carbon pools separately for the forest or plantation component, agro-forestry, and soil-based components Forest and tree-plantation Tree planting as a primary activity Afforestation, community AGB, BGB carried out following the block forestry, management of PA, litter and deadwood, method – captive plantations orchards, watershed catchment SOC area planting, silvi-horti and silvi-pasture Source: Authors. Shrub biomass is relevant only for forest-based projects, and 2. CEM/CEP-speci�c steps the steps are described in table C.5. Field measurement pro- Agro-forestry cedures for shrubs are given in Part D. Shelterbelt Root biomass is estimated for all interventions involving tree Soil and water conservation practices planting in all land categories. Table C.6 provides the steps Grassland management for estimating root biomass of trees in forestry, agriculture, agro-forestry, silvi-pasture, and other projects with tree- based interventions. SOC estimation for agricultural soils and forestry proj- ects: SOC is relevant to all land-based projects, particularly to AGB consists of trees and shrubs—the two categories are agriculture and watershed development projects. Table C.7 differentiated based on how thick their stems are, measured describes methods for measuring soil carbon for agriculture, typically at a point 130 cm from the ground, a measurement forestry, watershed, and grassland development projects. usually referred to as diameter at breast height (DBH): Trees: DBH greater than 5 cm C.3. CARBON INVENTORY FOR WATERSHED Shrubs: DBH of 5 cm or less and all perennial shrubs AND AGRICULTURE PROJECTS Table C.4 provides the steps for measuring and monitoring This section presents the sampling methods and procedures trees in forestry, agro-forestry, silvi-pasture, shelterbelt, and for �eld measurements for watershed and agriculture proj- other projects with tree-based interventions. The �eld proce- ects incorporating agro-forestry, shelterbelts, and soil and dures for measuring trees are given in Part D. water conservation measures and activities. ENHANCING CARBON STOCKS AND REDUCING CO 2 EMISSIONS IN AGRICULTURE AND NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PROJECTS PA RT C — C A R B O N E S T I M AT I O N A N D M O N I T O R I N G M E T H O D S 77 TABLE C.4: Summary of Steps and Procedures for Estimating/Monitoring Carbon in a Tree AGB Pool TASK/STEP DETAILS/PROCEDURE Selection of the The plot method for tree-based project activities involves selecting adequate number of plots of appropriate size at random within the method selected strata, measuring the indicator parameters such as tree height and diameter, calculating the biomass, and extrapolating the values to per-ha estimates and for the entire project area. Normally rectangular or square plots are used. Tree-based projects such as afforestation, management of PA, and community forestry require the plot method, which is therefore suitable for forests, degraded forests, and block planta- tions of timber, fuelwood, and fruit trees. Agro-forestry and shelterbelts involve planting of trees in single or multiple rows along the boundary or interspersed with annual crops (such as cereals). Suitable methods for these types of projects involve selecting whole farms after categorizing them as large or small farms and irrigated or rain-fed farms. If the farms are very large, one-ha plots could be selected as samples. Sampling The number of plots and their size should be determined with statistical rigor to get a valid assessment of the carbon stocks and changes. The number of plots depends on the desired precision, size of the project area, variation in the vegetation parameters (heterogeneity), budget available, and the cost of measurement. Standard statistical equations are available for estimating the size of the sample (or number of plots). These equations require data on the desired precision level, an estimate of the variance, the cost of monitoring, the con�dence interval, and the number of strata and could be used to arrive at an appropriate sample size.1, 2, 3 More detail is provided in Part D, section D.1.2. Plot size for tree-based activities: The larger the plot, the lower the variability between two samples. Plot size depends on the extent of variation among plots and the cost of measurement. Statistical equations are available for estimating the size of the plots (refer to Part D for details). Standard sample size: If the required data as inputs for the sampling equations are not available, project managers could, as a rule of thumb, use the following recommendations on plot size and the number of plots for each stratum. 1. A/R, PA, community forestry projects If project activity includes heterogeneous vegetation with multiple tree species, Size of the plots: 50 m × 40 m Number of sample plots: 5 (equivalent to 10,000 m² each) If the project activity includes homogeneous vegetation or monoculture or is dominated by single tree species, Size of the plots: 25 m × 20 m Number of sample plots: 5 (equivalent to 2500 m² each) 2. Agro-forestry/shelterbelts For activities involving row planting of trees in crop lands, whole farms could be selected. If the farms are very large, a 1-ha plot could be sampled. Sample size for farm-based activities such as agro-forestry and shelterbelts could also be determined using the sampling equation sug- gested for estimating the sample size for tree biomass estimation. Sample size for each project activity (refer to Part D, section D.1.2): As a rule of thumb, a minimum of 30 farms could be selected. However, if the farm is larger than about 2 ha, select a 0.5 to 1 ha plot as a subplot for each farm. Permanent plots Permanent plots enable changes in carbon stocks in biomass as well as soil carbon to be measured periodically. Permanent plots are required because trees grow for decades and soil carbon accumulation occurs over decades and because they are also suitable for most land-based projects such as afforestation, community forestry, agro-forestry, and shelterbelts. Selection/laying of The selected number of plots is to be located and laid in an unbiased manner in the project area. Laying of plots could be through simple ran- plots dom sampling or strati�ed random sampling or systematic sampling (for details, refer to Ravindranath and Ostwald 2008 or Winrock 2005). Marking permanent plots in the �eld for tree-based activities Using project area maps with sample plots marked along with geographic coordinates, locate sample plots on the ground using GPS points from the map Mark the corners of the sample plots on ground with stones or pegs for long-term periodic monitoring Agro-forestry and shelterbelts The number of farms for the sample should be selected randomly for each stratum of project activity and land features. If one-ha plots are selected from each farm, they could be randomly located within the farm. Measure indicator Estimating AGB in land-based projects involves the following preparatory steps: parameters Locate sample plots on the ground Select parameters for measurement and measure the parameters for trees, namely species, girth, height, and other features (further details of measuring the above parameters are provided in Ravindranath and Ostwald 2008 and Winrock 2005) Identify the species with the help of local community members; record both local names and the botanical names (seeking help from plant taxonomists) Procure the material required for �eld studies such as GPS devices, ropes, measuring tapes, slide calipers, and pegs; refer to Part D for details of procedures for measuring the parameters (continued) TOOLKIT 78 PA RT C — C A R B O N E S T I M AT I O N A N D M O N I T O R I N G ME T H O D S TABLE C.4: Summary of Steps and Procedures for Estimating/Monitoring Carbon in a Tree AGB Pool (continued) TASK/STEP DETAILS/PROCEDURE Record and compile Standard formats are available for recording the parameters measured in the �eld data The data recorded in the standard formats in the �eld are fed into a computer to make a database Care should be taken to ensure the units, the plot number, location, date of measurement, and other strata features are recorded Analyze the data The objective of �eld measurements of trees is to estimate the AGB stocks in terms of tons per ha. Parameters such as girth and height recorded in the �eld could be used in allometric equations for estimating the biomass of each tree. Allometric equations are available for a large number of tree species. If not available for a given species, use generic biomass equations available for the region. Volume (m3/ha) of a tree also could be calculated using girth, height, and the tree form factor. The volume could be converted to biomass (t per ha) using species-speci�c wood density values available. Source: Authors; 1IPCC 2003; 2Ravindranath and Ostwald 2008; 3Winrock 2005. TABLE C.5: Summary Steps for Nontree or Shrub Biomass Pool TASK/STEP PROCEDURE/DETAILS Select and mark the shrub plots Mark the shrub quadrats within each of the tree quadrats, normally at two opposite corners, keeping two shrub plots per tree quadrat or plot. Measure indicator parameters Step 1: Locate the shrub plots in each of the tree plots Step 2: Start from one corner of the shrub plot and record indicator parameters Step 3: Record the species and the number of shrub plants under each species Step 4: Measure the height of the shrub (include all stems less than 5 cm DBH as well as perennial shrubs) Step 5: Measure the DBH of all stems taller than 1.5 m in the shrub plot; if multiple shoots are present, record DBH for all the shoots. Refer to Part D for the measurement procedure. Record and compile data Record the name, height, DBH, and other features for each shrub plant in the format provided. Refer to Part D for the format. Analyze the data The objective of �eld measurements of trees is to estimate the AGB stocks in terms of tons per ha. Parameters such as girth and height recorded in the �eld could be used in allometric equations for estimating the biomass of each tree. Allometric equations are available for a large number of tree species. If not available for a given species, use generic biomass equations available for the region. Volume (m3 per ha) of a tree also could be calculated using girth, height, and the tree form factor. The volume could be con- verted to biomass (t per ha) using species-speci�c wood density values available. Source: Authors. TABLE C.6: Summary Steps for BGB or Root Biomass Pool TASK/STEP PROCEDURE/DETAILS Estimate AGB Use the methods described in tables C.2 and C.3 and express the mass in terms of tons of dry biomass per ha BGB could be estimated on per ha basis or per tree basis (kg per tree) Selection of root-to-shoot ratio There is an established relationship between the volume or weight of the AGB of forests/plantations and BGB or root biomass The root-to-shoot ratios or conversion factors are available in the literature for many forest and plantation types as well as for a few tree species Due to the limitations of data as well as low variability across forest types and species, a generic default value of 0.26 could be used, based on the recommendation of IPCC (2006) Calculate BGB BGB (tons per ha) could be calculated by multiplying the AGB (in t per ha) with the root-to-shoot ratio (0.26) Source: Authors; IPCC 2006. C.3.1. Agro-Forestry Agro-forestry activity is often a component of watershed Carbon pools to be monitored: Above-ground tree biomass projects, involving a large number of farms. Agro-forestry is the most important carbon pool. In some situations, soil projects aim to enhance the density and diversity of trees carbon and BGB may also be estimated. and carbon stock in soil and vegetation, flow of tree-based products and incomes, and crop productivity. Crop produc- Tree biomass: The following sampling procedure can be tion will remain the dominant activity, with rows of trees in adopted for agro-forestry projects for the baseline and proj- the middle or along the bunds or boundaries. ect scenarios: ENHANCING CARBON STOCKS AND REDUCING CO 2 EMISSIONS IN AGRICULTURE AND NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PROJECTS PA RT C — C A R B O N E S T I M AT I O N A N D M O N I T O R I N G M E T H O D S 79 TABLE C.7: Summary Steps for Soil Organic Pool TASK/STEP PROCEDURE/DETAILS Selection of project area Refer to table C.4 for approach and methods Selection of project activities Strati�cation of project area based on project activities and land features Estimation of area under different project activities De�nition of project boundary Sample size Tree-based activities: The number of plots selected for tree biomass estimation could also be adopted for estimating the SOC for each of the project activity stratum The sample size would be the same as the number of tree plots selected Agro-forestry and shelterbelts: Select the farms subjected to the project activity randomly from the list of farms where a particular project activity is to be implemented. Nontree-based activities—agriculture and watershed: SOC estimation is critical to all interventions on grasslands and croplands Obtain a list of farms subjected to the project activity in a given project area Select the number of farms using equation suggested for tree biomass estimation Selection of plots Tree-based activities: Select plots marked for nontree biomass (shrub plots of 5 × 5 m) Mark any point in the shrub plot of 5 × 5 m at random Farm-based and nontree-based activities—agriculture and watershed: Select at random the required number of sample farms from the list of farms subjected to a project activity using simple random sampling, strati�ed random sampling, or systematic sampling Mark any point randomly within the selected farm plot subjected to the project activity for collecting soil samples. The sample plot can remain constant for future measurements Depth for soil sampling SOC is largely concentrated in the top 30 cm for most land categories Normally, soil carbon stock is estimated for two depths, 0 to 15 cm and 15 to 30 cm, and the carbon stock values from both the depths are aggregated to obtain the SOC stock per ha Collection of soil samples Using a soil auger, drill soil to a depth of 0 to 15 and 15 to 30 cm and collect samples To reduce variability, collect and aggregate the samples from multiple points after removing plant debris, if any Collect about 0.5 kg of fresh soil into a plastic bag for laboratory analysis Clearly label the samples giving details of the land category, project activity, stratum, and depth Air-dry the soil samples prior to laboratory analysis Laboratory analysis SOC can be estimated using several methods ranging from simple laboratory estimation to diffuse reflectance spectroscopy The most widely used and cost-effective method is wet digestion or titrimetric determination (the Walkley and Black method). For details, refer to any standard soil science or soil chemistry textbook.1 Calculation procedure Calculate the SOC in terms of Tc per ha with the following two equations using data on SOC concentration (as a percentage) estimated from laboratory analysis and bulk density for the two depths: SOC (tons/ha) = [Soil mass in 0–30 cm layer × SOC concentration (%)] / 100 Soil mass (tons/ha) = [area (10,000 m2/ha) × depth (0.3 m) × bulk density (t/m3)] Bulk density estimation Multiple methods are available for estimating bulk density. A simpli�ed procedure is given as follows: Step 1: Weigh an empty bottle or a metal can Step 2: Collect soil into this container from one of the marked plots; �ll the container to the brim but tap it often to compact the soil (the degree of compaction should be comparable to that in the �eld) Step 3: Weigh the container �lled with soil Step 4: Empty the container and �ll it to the brim (or to the same level as that used while �lling the soil) with water Step 5: Note the volume of water using a measuring cylinder Weight of soil in can Bulkdensity (g/cc) = Volume of water in can Step 6: Using multiple samples, calculate the mean bulk density 1 Source: Authors; Ravindranath and Ostwald 2008. TOOLKIT 80 PA RT C — C A R B O N E S T I M AT I O N A N D M O N I T O R I N G ME T H O D S could decide to measure soil carbon only if the agro-forestry Step 1: Obtain a map of the project area where the agro- activity is likely to make a signi�cant and, more important, forestry activity is planned measurable impact on soil carbon stock (tC per ha). In most Step 2: Mark the boundaries of all the farms where agro- agro-forestry situations, soil carbon need not estimated. forestry is proposed and number each farm However, if agro-forestry is combined with soil and water conservation measures, measure or monitor soil carbon Step 3: Obtain the area of each farm subjected to agro- using the following steps: forestry activity Step 4: Tabulate the farms according to size (0 to 5 ha, Step 1: Select the farms that have been selected for AGB 5 to 10 ha, etc.) measurement or those treated for soil improvement Step 5: Further stratify the farms if necessary and if clear Step 2: Locate sampling points variations can be observed with respect to soil type, Obtain the proposed tree planting pattern, in availability of irrigation, etc. most cases rows of trees with annual crops Determine the sample size using the equation between the rows given for the tree plots. If the use of equations Select two rows of trees, preferably in the is not feasible, use the following guideline of middle of the farm sampling at least 30 farms for each project activ- Locate two points in the middle of the plot dedi- ity stratum cated to crops between the rows of trees, and Step 6: Select �ve whole farms in each class of farm two points along the tree rows size (depending on the total number of farms) and if nec- Step 3: Collect soil samples, estimate bulk density in the essary from substrata of the farms to represent different �eld and soil carbon content (percentage) in the laboratory, conditions as mentioned in Step 5 and calculate carbon density per ha as described in table C.7 If the number of farms is less than 100, select 5 sample farms C.3.2. Shelterbelts If the number is from 100 to 200, select 10 sample farms Shelterbelts involve planting rows of trees at the boundary of a village or boundary of a block of farms to prevent wind If the number is greater than 200, select 20 erosion, to halt deserti�cation, enhance carbon stock, possi- sample farms bly increase biomass (fuelwood and nonwood tree products) The total should be more than 30 farms supply, and ultimately increase crop productivity. Step 7: Measure the DBH and height of all trees using the format given in Part D Carbon pools to be monitored: Tree AGB is the only criti- cal carbon pool to be measured or monitored. BGB can be Consider the whole farm as a “tree plot� and estimated using the appropriate root-to-shoot ratio. Due to measure all trees the low planting density of trees, other carbon pools may not Shrub and herb plots are not needed be relevant. Step 8: Estimate the AGB and BGB using the procedure Sampling for tree biomass estimation: Trees are planted given for tree biomass in multiple rows closely spaced along the boundary of a block of farms or of the village ecosystems to reduce soil erosion. Sampling and biomass estimation procedure involve the fol- lowing steps: Soil carbon estimation: SOC needs to be measured only if the agro-forestry activity involves planting a large number Step 1: Obtain a map of the project area of trees or rows of trees spaced densely. Although it is dif- �cult to specify an exact number, generally if fewer than 250 Step 2: Mark the shelterbelt proposed or planted trees are planted per ha, the impact on soil carbon stock is Step 3: Measure the length and breadth of the shelterbelt likely to be small and dif�cult to measure and hence could be ignored. The agency developing or implementing the project (continued) ENHANCING CARBON STOCKS AND REDUCING CO 2 EMISSIONS IN AGRICULTURE AND NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PROJECTS PA RT C — C A R B O N E S T I M AT I O N A N D M O N I T O R I N G M E T H O D S 81 Step 4: Calculate the land area under the shelterbelt us- Farm and nonfarm land, irrigated or rain-fed ing the length and breadth data Different soil types Step 5: Divide the shelterbelt length into, for example, Different levels of degradation or topography 20 or 40 blocks depending on the length and mark them Step 3: Overlay the substrata on a grid map of the proj- on the map ect area Step 6: Select 4 or 5 blocks or belt-transects systemati- Step 4: Select four to �ve grids randomly for each sub- cally, such as the 4th, 8th, 12th, and 16th block out of stratum of the project intervention and land-use system 20 blocks or the 8th, 16th, 24th, and 32nd out of 40 and mark a point randomly in the grid or cell for soil sam- blocks ple collection Step 7: Measure and record the height and DBH of trees Step 5: Select control plots adjacent to the treated plots using the format given for trees (Part D) with similar soil and topography Step 8: Estimate AGB using the methods given in Part Step 6: Collect soil samples from control plots D, using tree-speci�c or generic biomass equations and Step 7: Estimate the SOC using the procedure given in using the DBH and height data table C.7 Step 9: Extrapolate the estimated AGB from sample belt blocks to the whole shelterbelt area Estimate soil carbon for control plots in areas not subjected Step 10: Estimate root or BGB of trees by using the root- to soil conservation practices under the baseline scenario us- to-shoot ratio. ing the same approach as that used for the project scenario. Step 11: Estimate the total biomass of the shelterbelt C.3.4. Grassland Management Practices Management practices for grassland, pastures, or range- land involving soil and water conservation, planting grasses, A similar procedure can be adopted for the baseline and proj- regulation of grazing or harvesting, and �re control could lead ect scenarios. to increased grass productivity and increased soil carbon density. The most important carbon pool to be measured or C.3.3. Soil and Water Conservation Practices monitored is soil carbon, which will be impacted most by Soil and water conservation is one of the critical objectives of grassland management practices. The procedure for estimat- most watershed projects. Watershed protection is achieved ing soil carbon and root biomass is as follows: by soil and water conservation practices such as mulching, cover cropping, multiple cropping, contour bunding, gully Step 1: Obtain a map of the project area plugging, and check dams. Soil conservation measures also increase the soil organic matter concentration and crop or Step 2: Mark the areas of grasslands subjected to im- grass productivity. proved management practice on the grid map Step 3: Stratify the areas if any visible variation exists, Carbon pools to be monitored: The only carbon pool that such as that in soil type, grazing pressure (high or low), will be impacted is soil carbon. topography, and levels of degradation Soil sampling and carbon estimation procedure: The Step 4: Overlay the substrata subjected to project activ- following steps could be adopted for sampling and carbon ity on the grid map estimation: Step 5: Mark on the map four to �ve grids at random for each strata and mark a point at random for soil sampling Step 1: Mark the area or land-use systems or farms sub- Step 6: Select control plots adjacent to the treated plots jected to soil or water conservation practices on a map for sampling of the project area Step 7: Adopt the procedure given in table C.7 to collect Step 2: Stratify the project area subjected to soil conser- soil samples, estimate bulk density, estimate SOC con- vation practices into centration, and calculate soil carbon density (tC per ha) TOOLKIT 82 PA RT C — C A R B O N E S T I M AT I O N A N D M O N I T O R I N G ME T H O D S The same procedure can be adopted for control plots under tree productivity. Therefore, these guidelines focus on the the baseline scenario as well as for lands subjected to grass- above three pools and do not consider deadwood and litter. land management practices. The transaction costs of measurement and monitoring of these two pools are also very high. However, if any project C.4. DATA RECORDING, COMPILATION, AND manager requires estimation of deadwood and litter, several CALCULATION studies are available that provide methods and guidelines The data on biomass and soil carbon–related parameters for estimating these pools (Ravindranath and Ostwald 2008, obtained from �eld and laboratory studies need to be fed Winrock 2005, Nicholas Institute 2010). into a computerized database, compiled, synthesized, and analyzed for generating the estimates of changes in biomass Estimating AGB of trees—agriculture, watershed, and and soil carbon stock. Data veri�cation and quality control forestry projects: AGB of trees includes commercial (or are very critical to ensuring that data are properly collected merchantable) timber and total tree biomass, which includes and fed into the analytical procedures and models. The data not only commercial timber, but also twigs, branches, and gathered from the �eld and from the laboratory should also bark, expressed as tons of oven-dried biomass. The two be archived since monitoring of carbon stock changes could commonly used methods for estimating AGB for trees in happen over a project life or over decades. Some critical forests or in agro-forestry plots are as follows: measures to ensure data quality are as follows: Estimating tree volume using height and DBH values Use the appropriate formats for recording data in the and the tree form factor �eld Estimating tree biomass using allometric equations Record such information as the name of the location, where biomass of a tree is estimated using the DBH GPS readings, strata features, project activity, date, and height values and the investigator’s name Ensure that correct units are used, especially while Estimating tree volume and biomass: The plot method pro- feeding the data into the database vides values for tree parameters such as DBH and height. These values could be used to estimate the volume of the Formats for data recording in the �eld for trees, shrubs, and trees, which can be converted into weight using wood den- soil carbon are given in Part D. sity. This method involves the following steps: Calculation and estimation of carbon stocks and CO2 emissions: Methods for measuring different indicator pa- rameters from which carbon stocks in different carbon pools can be estimated are described in the previous sections. The Step 1: Measure the height and DBH of all the trees in next step is to estimate carbon stocks and changes using the the sample plots (as described in Part D) parameters measured and monitored in the �eld and in the Step 2: Tabulate the values of height and DBH by spe- laboratory. The analysis and calculation of carbon stocks and cies and by plot changes involve conversion of �eld and laboratory estimates Step 3: Estimate the volume of each tree in the sample of various parameters from sample plots, such as DBH, plots using the following formulae depending on the height, and soil organic matter into tC per ha per year or over shape of the tree, whether cylindrical or conical: several years using different methods and models. The car- bon pools for which the stocks are to be estimated are: V = π × r2 × H (for cylindrical trees) AGB V = (π × r2 × H)/3 (for conical trees) BGB where SOC V = volume of the tree in cubic centimeters or cubic Deadwood and litter: The majority of the project activities meters considered in these guidelines, apart from forestry proj- r = radius of the tree at a point 130 cm above the ground ects, may not require monitoring of deadwood and litter = DBH/2 since these projects deal with enhancing soil carbon and H = height of the tree in centimeters or meters conserving soil and moisture for increasing crop or grass or ENHANCING CARBON STOCKS AND REDUCING CO 2 EMISSIONS IN AGRICULTURE AND NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PROJECTS PA RT C — C A R B O N E S T I M AT I O N A N D M O N I T O R I N G M E T H O D S 83 Step 4: Obtain the wood density value for each of the Step 2: Select the biomass volume estimation equation tree species from literature, at least for the dominant for the dominant tree species or for all the species for species (IPCC, 2003-GPG): which species-speci�c equations are available if the density value for any dominant tree spe- If no species-speci�c equations (table C.8) are cies is not available in the literature, select the available, use generic equations or those speci�c species most closely related to the species pres- to a given forest or plantation type (table C.9) ent on the site Step 3: Enter the DBH, height, and the biomass volume Step 5: Multiply the volume of the tree with the respec- equation into a software package such as Excel tive wood density to obtain the dry weight of that tree Step 4: Calculate the volume of each tree based on the and convert the weight from grams to kilograms or tons. DBH and height using the software Weight of tree (in grams) = volume of the tree (in Step 5: Aggregate the volume of all the sample trees by cm3) × density (g/cm3) species if species-speci�c equations are used to obtain Step 6: Add up the weights of all trees of each species in the total volume of the trees (m3) the selected sample plots or farms in case of agro-forest- Step 6: Convert the volume of the trees in the sample ry or shelterbelts (in kilograms or tons for each species) plots or farms to biomass in tons using the density of Step 7: Add up the weight of all the trees of all tree biomass for the selected species species for all the sample plots or farms, based on the If species-speci�c density values are not avail- weight calculated for each plot (in kilograms or tons) able or cannot be derived for all the species, Step 8: Extrapolate the weight of each species from the use the density of the dominant tree species for total sample area (sum of all the plots or farms) to a per- converting the whole forest or plantation volume ha value (tons of biomass per ha for each species) to biomass Step 9: Add up the biomass of each species to obtain the If the equation provides only the merchantable total biomass of all the trees in tons per ha (dry matter) volume, use the biomass conversion and expan- sion factor (BCEF) to obtain total biomass in kg per ha or tons per ha Estimation of biomass using equations: Biomass of a tree Step 7: Extrapolate the biomass from the sample plot or can be estimated using the DBH and height data of trees. farm area to tons of biomass per ha Biomass equations can be linear, quadratic, cubic, logarith- mic, and exponential. Species-speci�c and generic biomass estimation equations are available in the literature. Often BCEF: The data on biomass volume and the default biomass generic biomass equations are used for estimating the AGB. stock as well as growth rates are often estimated consider- In addition to biomass equations for individual trees, they are ing only the merchantable or commercial volume. Estimating also available for estimating biomass in per-ha terms. Usually only the commercial component of the tree biomass, only the volume of a tree is measured, since measuring the which is largely the main tree trunk, may be adequate for weight, particularly of large trees, in the �eld is dif�cult. Many estimating industrial roundwood. However, for estimating biomass equations are indeed biomass volume equations. carbon stocks and changes, all the AGB, including twigs and Tree volume is related to parameters such as DBH and height. branches and even leaves, needs to be estimated. To con- The volume (m3) estimated using the equations needs to be vert the merchantable tree volume into total biomass, BCEF converted to biomass in tons per tree or per ha using the are used (IPCC 2006). Biomass expansion factors (BEF) density of the species. The following steps are adopted for could be used if a biomass equation provides the merchant- estimating the volume as well as the biomass of the trees: able biomass (tons per ha) directly. BEF expands the dry weight of the merchantable volume of the growing stock to Step 1: Select the project area, activities, and sample account for nonmerchantable components of trees. Total bio- plots, and measure the DBH and height of all the trees mass can be estimated in two ways depending on the units in the sample plots of merchantable biomass estimates (as volume in m3 or in tons per ha): TOOLKIT 84 PA RT C — C A R B O N E S T I M AT I O N A N D M O N I T O R I N G ME T H O D S TABLE C.8: Some Generic Equations for Estimating Biomass FOREST TYPE EQUATION R2/ SAMPLE SIZE DBH RANGE (CM) Tropical moist hardwoods Y = EXP{–2.289 + 2.694 LN [DBH] – 0.021 [LN (DBH)]} 0.98/226 5–148 Tropical wet hardwoods Y = 21.297 – 6.953 (DBH) + 0.740 (DBH) 0.92/176 4–112 Temperate/tropical pines Y = 0.887 + [10486 (DBH) 2.84/(DBH 2.84) + 376907] 0.98/137 0.6–56 Temperate U.S. Eastern hardwoods Y = 0.5 + [(25000 (DBH) 2.5/(DBH 2.5) + 246872 0.99/454 1.3–83.2 Y = dry biomass in kg/tree, DBH = diameter at breast height, LN = natural log; EXP = “e raised to the power of.� Source: Brown 1997; Brown and Schroeder 1999; Schroeder et al. 1997; Delaney et al. 1999. TABLE C.9: Some Species-Speci�c Biomass Equations Based on Girth-at-Breast Height (GBH) Values STANDARD SPECIES MODEL A B R2 ERROR (SE) Bauhinia racemosa Y = a + b*X 0.0431 0.0025 0.97 3.17 (X = GBH2*height) Zizyphus xylopyra log10 Y = a + b*logX(X = GBH) –3.20 2.87 0.94 0.12 Tectona grandis Log Y = a + b*logX(X = GBH) –2.85 2.655 0.98 0.075 Lannea coromandelica Y = a + b*X –1.84 0.002 0.98 14.49 (X = GBH2*height) Miliusa tomentosa Y= a + b*X –0.68 0.0024 0.99 1.33 (X = GBH2*height) Source: Kale et al. 2004. Total biomass (t/ha) = Total merchantable biomass (t/ha) If there are young regenerating valuable tree × BEF plants and any economically valuable peren- nial shrubs, harvesting such plants may not be desirable Total biomass (t/ha) = volume of merchantable biomass A few representative plants could be harvested (m3/ha) × BCEF (t/m3) and weighed and the height and spread of each of these plants recorded along with the name of the species These data could be used for estimating the Estimating AGB of young trees or shrubs: Shrub biomass weight of plants that cannot be harvested is relevant only for forestry projects or activities such as affor- Alternatively, some of the perennial or economi- estation, management of PA, and biodiversity conservation cally valuable shrub species could be ignored if projects. Shrub biomass could be ignored if the quantities they cover only a small proportion of the ground involved are small compared to tree biomass. Shrub biomass area (less than 10%, for example) is expressed as tons of dry biomass production per ha per year and is estimated separately, since the sample plot size Step 2: Estimate the biomass of young trees (less than as well as the form of the plants is different. Biomass for 5 cm DBH) using the steps described for estimating tree shrubs is estimated through the harvest method: AGB Step 3: Pool all the biomass harvested from different shrub plots to obtain the total dry shrub biomass for the total area of the sample plots Step 1: Record the fresh and dry weight of the shrub Step 4: Extrapolate the sample area biomass to a per-ha biomass harvested from sample plots (kilograms per plot) value (dry tons per ha) ENHANCING CARBON STOCKS AND REDUCING CO 2 EMISSIONS IN AGRICULTURE AND NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PROJECTS PA RT C — C A R B O N E S T I M AT I O N A N D M O N I T O R I N G M E T H O D S 85 Estimating BGB or root biomass: Methods for measuring using data on AGB. The method involves estimating the AGB root biomass are not practical in most situations because using the methods described in earlier sections, selecting the of high cost and the dif�culty in uprooting or digging within appropriate biomass equation, and substituting the AGB value a forest, a plantation, or agro-forestry plots. Therefore, the in the equation to obtain root biomass in tons of dry root bio- two most common and feasible approaches for root biomass mass per ha. Allometric equations for estimating root biomass estimation are: using AGB are given in table C.10. Standard root-to-shoot ratios Allometric equations Calculation of SOC: Estimation of soil carbon density (tC per ha) involves estimation of bulk density of the soil and soil Root-to-shoot ratio: Using root-to-shoot ratios to estimate organic matter content (percentage). The steps involved in root biomass involves the following steps: calculating soil carbon density are as follows: Step 1: Estimate the tree AGB in terms of tons of dry Step 1: Select the land-use category, project activity, and biomass per ha as explained in earlier sections stratum Step 2: Select the appropriate root-to-shoot ratio Step 2: Conduct �eld and laboratory studies and esti- from the literature. A review by Cairns et al. (1997), mate the bulk density and soil organic matter or carbon covering more than 160 studies from tropical, temperate, content (as described earlier) and boreal forests, estimated a mean root-to-shoot ratio of 0.26 with a range of 0.18 to 0.30. Thus, for most projects, a root-to-shoot ratio of 0.26 could be used Bulk density: Estimate bulk density using the steps de- Step 3: Calculate the root biomass using the data on tree scribed earlier and using the following formula: AGB and the root-to-shoot ratio selected with the follow- ing formula: Root biomass (in dry tons/ha) = 0.26 × Bulk density (g/ml) = (weight of soil and the container – above-ground tree biomass weight of the empty container)/ (dry tons/ha) volume of the container or Allometric equations for root biomass estimation: Biomass Weight of soil clod/volume of the soil clod equations have been developed to estimate root biomass TABLE C.10: Regression Equations for Estimating Root Biomass of Forests CONDITIONS AND INDEPENDENT VARIABLES EQUATION Y = ROOT BIOMASS (IN TONS) SAMPLE SIZE R2 All forests, AGB Y = Exp[–1.085 + 0.9256*LN (AGB)] 151 0.83 All forests, AGB and age (years) Y = Exp[–1.3267 + 0.8877*LN(AGB) + 0.1045*LN(AGE)] 109 0.84 Tropical forests, AGB Y = Exp[–1.0587 + 0.8836*LN(AGB)] 151 0.84 Temperate forests, AGB Y = Exp[–1.0587 + 0.8836*LN(AGB) + 0.2840] 151 0.84 Boreal forests, AGB Y = Exp[–1.0587 + 0.8836*LN(AGB) + 0.1874] 151 0.84 LN = natural log, Exp = “e to the power of,� AGB = AGB in tons, R = coef�cient of determination. 2 Source: Cairns et al. 1997. TOOLKIT 86 PA RT C — C A R B O N E S T I M AT I O N A N D M O N I T O R I N G ME T H O D S An illustrative example of the calculation procedure for SOC is given below. LAND-USE PROJECT BULK DENSITY SOC % IN 2002 SOC % IN 2012 WEIGHT OF SOC (tC/ha) SYSTEM ACTIVITY (GR/CC) SOIL (t/ha) 2002 2012 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) Moderately Assisted natural 1.39 1.29 2.29 4,170 54 95 degraded regeneration Highly degraded Mixed-species 1.25 0.9 1.90 3,750 34 71 forestry Cropland Agro-forestry 1.48 0.4 0.87 4,440 18 39 Grassland Improved grassland 1.22 1.05 2.05 3,660 38 75 management Column (3): Bulk density in grams/cc of soil, estimated by using data on weight / volume of soil. Columns (4) and (5): SOC in % from laboratory analysis. Column (6): Weight of soil (t/ha) = [Bulk density (in gr/cc)] × [Volume of soil (Area × Depth)]. E.g., (1.39 (gr/cc) × 10000 (m2) × 0.3 (m)) / 1000,000 gr/t = t of soil/ha. Columns (7) and (8): SOC (tC/ha) = [SOC (%)] × [Weight of soil (t/ha)]. E.g., 1.29/100 × 4170 = 54 tC/ha. Soil carbon density: The content of organic carbon in soil esti- a system. Models are used to make projections of carbon mated in percentage terms needs to be converted to tons per stocks in forests, plantations, grasslands, and cropping sys- ha using bulk density, depth of the soil, and area (10,000 m2): tems. Models could be used to make separate projections for biomass and soil carbon stocks. Further, models are also SOC (tons/ha) = [Soil mass ln 0–30 cm layer available to project AGB and BGB separately. Models are × SOC concentration (%)]/100 often based on several assumptions about data and quantita- tive relationship between input variables and output values. Thus, model outputs are often characterized by uncertainty Soil mass (tons/ha) = [Area (10,000 m2/ha) due to the assumptions made about the relationships be- × depth (0.3 m) × bulk density (t/m3)] tween variables. Types of models: Several categories of models are available C.5. MODELING FOR ESTIMATION AND for projecting C-bene�ts. These models can project carbon PROJECTION OF CARBON STOCKS stocks for the next 5 to 60 years using input data on diam- The methods for estimating the stocks of different carbon eter, height, density, rotation period, biomass productivity, pools described in section C.2 provide estimates of carbon and rates of change in soil carbon, baseline carbon stocks, stocks at a given point of time or for a given year. If the etc. Some of the models used for making projections are as period of intervention or activity is known, annual rates of follows (Ravindranath and Ostwald 2008): change could be calculated. Projections of carbon stocks PROCOMAP for project-level carbon stock projections over 5 to 30 or 60 years will be required for land-based proj- for forestry projects ects. Projections will be required during two phases: TARAM for project-level carbon stock projections for The project proposal preparation phase to estimate forestry projects and project potential C-bene�ts from the proposed CATIE for project-level carbon stock projections for interventions for dedicated C-enhancement projects forestry projects as well as projects with carbon as a cobene�t. CO2FIX for estimating biomass and changes in The postproject implementation phase where soil carbon stocks for forestry and agriculture C-bene�ts may have to be projected periodically projects to plan for release of carbon revenue payments or CENTURY and ROTH for dynamics of soil carbon advance payments and to assess the projected carbon stocks for agriculture and forestry projects implications of project activities. These models vary in data requirements, process adopted, Models are simpli�ed versions of a system used to esti- outputs generated, and their application. In general, all the mate and project certain features or functions or outputs of following models can be used for determining the stocks ENHANCING CARBON STOCKS AND REDUCING CO 2 EMISSIONS IN AGRICULTURE AND NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PROJECTS PA RT C — C A R B O N E S T I M AT I O N A N D M O N I T O R I N G M E T H O D S 87 TABLE C.11: Comparative Features and Application of Three Carbon Estimation and Projection Models for Forestry Projects MODEL KEY INPUTS KEY OUTPUTS APPLICATION PROCOMAP Area dedicated to activity Total carbon stock per ha and total project Projection of carbon stocks in forestry Planting rate and vegetation carbon stock area mitigation: A/R and avoided deforestation in base year Biomass and SOC stock projects Rotation period Incremental carbon stocks Mean annual increment (MAI) in biomass Cost effectiveness and soil carbon TARAM* Species to be planted Net anthropogenic CO2 removal by sinks Projection of carbon stocks in A/R projects Wood density of species Leakage estimates including leakage for A/R under CDM BEF Average net anthropogenic CO2 removal by Root-to-shoot ratio sinks over the crediting period Existing vegetation and its volume Average net anthropogenic CO2 removal by Area planted under different strata sinks per ha and per year Phasing of planting Cost-to-bene�t analysis Growth rate of species CATIE* Baseline information of stratum Total carbon stocks in planted trees and CO2 accounting tool that follows the CDM Project details such as area planted, pre-existing trees approach to CO2 accounting of afforesta- phasing, rotation period, woody biomass Sum of changes in carbon stocks tion and reforestation projects per stratum, root-to-shoot ratio, carbon Total anthropogenic sum of carbon fraction, and wood density changes in carbon stocks Leakage-related information Actual net CO2 removals by sinks Project management details * TARAM and CATIE include CO2 and other GHGs such as N2O and CH4. Source: Authors. of carbon pools. Three of the models, namely PROCOMAP, Access to model and suitability of the model to the TARAM, and CATIE, are already in use for projecting location, land category, or project activity C-bene�ts, and their features and applications are summa- Input data available and needed for the model rized in table C.11. CENTURY, CO2FIX, and ROTH models are highly data intensive and require modeling capability and Once a model is chosen, the broad steps to be adopted for therefore are not generally applied for project-level carbon estimating carbon stock changes in the baseline and miti- stock projections, which is why they have been excluded gation scenarios and the incremental carbon stocks are as from table C.11. follows: Selection and steps in applying the models: The models Step 1: De�ne land-use categories relevant to the base- estimate the changes in carbon stock annually under line and project scenarios baseline and mitigation scenarios. Projection of C-bene�ts Step 2: De�ne the baseline area under different land cat- for a given future year would require estimates of carbon egories for a selected base year and project the area stocks under the baseline scenario in the absence of project under this category annually for future years up to, for activities and under the project scenario for the same year example, 2020, 2030, or 2050 selected. Step 3: Identify and estimate the area proposed to be The selection of a carbon estimation model or tool is de- brought or already brought under different project activi- termined by many factors including technical expertise and ties over different years skills available within a team. Some of the determining fac- Step 4: Generate the data needed for the model to pro- tors in selection of models include the following: ject carbon stocks under the baseline and project sce- Objective of the program, such as estimation or narios for each activity projection of changes in carbon stock due to project Step 5: Run the model and generate outputs of carbon activities, estimation of CO2 emissions and remov- stocks for the baseline and project scenarios and incre- als due to project activities, and assessment of the mental C-bene�ts carbon dynamics TOOLKIT 88 PA RT C — C A R B O N E S T I M AT I O N A N D M O N I T O R I N G ME T H O D S Application of models for projecting C-bene�ts: All the from different categories of land-based projects, particularly CDM A/R and BioCarbon projects as well as all carbon miti- those aimed at enhancing soil carbon stocks alone. gation projects currently use one of the models for project- ing incremental C-bene�ts as well as carbon revenues. The C.6. REPORTING OF C-BENEFITS three models presented in table C.11 are largely applicable C-bene�ts can be estimated ex ante during the prepara- to forestry projects incorporating methods for estimating tion of a project proposal as well as ex post; that is, after a changes in biomass stocks: project is implemented. C-bene�ts could be estimated for PROCOMAP: biomass and soil carbon estimates different carbon pools over different periods. The quantity of for afforestation and reforestation (including natural C-bene�ts estimated for different pools, through direct mea- regeneration), agro-forestry, and shelterbelt projects surements or derived indirectly using equations and conver- (for soil C-enhancement practices, the change in sion factors available, could be aggregated and expressed biomass carbon stocks could be assumed to as tC at a given age or as a MAI. C-bene�ts in terms of tC be zero) per ha can be estimated and presented in terms of gross or TARAM: biomass estimates for A/R (including net carbon stock changes. Generally, most project managers natural regeneration) projects and soil carbon stock would prefer an estimate of the incremental carbon stock changes change or bene�ts. C-bene�ts could be presented in terms CATIE: biomass estimates for A/R (including natural of tC or tons of CO2 per ha or for the whole project area. regeneration) projects C-bene�ts can also be modeled to make a projection over different periods such as 20, 50, and 100 years. The baseline Thus, there is a need for developing simpli�ed models for and project scenario carbon stocks and changes need to be estimation and projection of biomass as well as soil C-bene�ts reported periodically to all the stakeholders. ENHANCING CARBON STOCKS AND REDUCING CO 2 EMISSIONS IN AGRICULTURE AND NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PROJECTS PA RT D — P R A C T I C A L G U I D A N C E O N S A M P L I N G , FI E L D S T U D I E S , B A S E L I N E D E V E L O P M E N T, A N D M O D E L I N G 89 Part D: PRACTICAL GUIDANCE ON SAMPLING, FIELD STUDIES, BASELINE DEVELOPMENT, AND MODELING In Part D, practical guidance is provided �rst on the ap- The stratum to be sampled is the last stage in disaggregat- proaches to and methods of strati�cation of project area, ing a large area and represents a homogeneous land area or sampling design, and �eld measurements, secondly on project activity (�gure D.1). developing baseline scenario carbon stocks and changes, and thirdly on the application of models for estimating and Strati�cation is required for the baseline as well as project projecting C-bene�ts. Methods and models are described scenario and involves the following steps (Ravindranath and only briefly; for further details, refer to IPCC (2003 and 2006), Ostwald 2008): Ravindranath and Ostwald (2008), GOFC GOLD (2009), Nicholas Institute (2010), and Winrock (2007). Practical guid- ance is provided along the following lines: Step 1: De�ne the project boundary Step 2: Obtain a map of the project area and overlay on D.1. Field studies on C-bene�ts in land-based it the different maps of the same area, each represent- projects ing, for example, land-use systems, soil, and topography D.2. Estimation of baseline or reference carbon under the baseline scenario stocks and CO2 emissions Step 3: Overlay on the land-use systems in the baseline D.3. Application of models for projecting scenario a map showing areas of project activities, such C-bene�ts (carbon stock changes and CO2 as agro-forestry plus soil conservation on rain-fed crop- emissions) land, silvi-pasture on grazing land, and afforestation of catchment area D.1. FIELD METHODS FOR ESTIMATING CARBON Step 4: Identify the key differentiating features for strati- STOCKS IN LAND-BASED PROJECTS— �cation of land-use systems in the baseline scenario that PRACTICAL GUIDANCE are likely to impact carbon stocks: Section D.2 provides guidelines on selecting CEMs and Current land-use such as open access grazing, CEPs and incorporating them into projects, estimating controlled grazing, fuelwood extraction, or rain- C-bene�ts, and monitoring carbon pools. This section offers fed cropping practical step-by-step guidance on measuring and monitoring Soil quality: good, moderate, or poor C-bene�ts and on conducting �eld studies. Topography: level land, slope, or hilly terrain D.1.1. Strati�cation Step 5: Collect all the information available from sec- ondary sources as well as through participatory rural Strati�cation is required because of variations or heterogene- appraisal ity in soil, topography, water availability, project activities, and management practices. Strati�cation makes measurements Step 6: Stratify the area under the baseline scenario: more accurate and estimates more reliable and involves di- Delineate areas under different project activities viding land area into homogeneous subunits. Strati�cation Overlay the delineated areas with key features reduces sampling error and sampling effort by aggregating of land-use systems that are critical to estimat- those spatial components that are homogeneous. Multistage ing baseline carbon stocks strati�cation may be required to account for variations in land categories, topography, soil fertility, and project activities. (continued) TOOLKIT 90 PA RT D — P R A C T I C A L G U I D A N C E O N S A M P L I N G , F I E L D S T U D I E S , B A S E L I N E D E V E L O P M E N T, A N D MO D E LIN G project activities at different periods in the project area Mark the strata to be brought under different although project managers tend to ignore a statistically project activities spatially on the project map valid sampling strategy. Strati�ed random sampling is the Step 7: Stratify the area under the project scenario: most commonly adopted strategy. Sampling involves two common statistical concepts, namely accuracy and Locate the project activities on the baseline precision. Accuracy is a measure of how close the sample scenario strata spatially measurements are to actual values, whereas precision is a Mark spatially the different strata representing measure of how well a value has been de�ned. Decisions different project activities, land-use systems, on the type, shape, and number of plots need to be made and other features; however, ensure that each while sampling. stratum is homogeneous within itself Permanent plots: For long-term monitoring of biomass growth in perennial vegetation, permanent plots are required and are suitable for all land-based projects on cropland, forest The sampling strategy will be different for each of the stra- land, and grassland. tum depending on the land category to which it belongs. The spatial maps of the strati�cation adopted should be main- Shape of the plots: Rectangular, square, circular, or long- tained with the project. Sampling plots will be laid separately strip plots are adopted for monitoring carbon stock changes. in each of the strata. Rectangular or square plots are largely adopted for most land-based projects. D.1.2. Sampling Design Number of plots: The number of plots to be sampled deter- Sampling is a strategy for collecting information about an mines the reliability of the estimates of carbon stocks and entire project area by observing only a part of it. A sampling is determined by various factors such as heterogeneity of strategy speci�es the size of a sample plot, the number land, topography, soil fertility, project activity, management of such plots to be selected, and the location of the sam- practices, cost of sampling, and the desired precision level. pling plots in the project area. Sampling is critical to ob- The following steps could be adopted to determine the size taining reliable estimates of carbon stocks under different of the sample (Ravindranath and Ostwald 2008): FIGURE D.1: Strati�cation Procedure for a Multi-Activity Project Project area E.g. Watershed Grazing land Catchment area Cropland Agro-forestry Agro-forestry + Soil conservation Grazing land development Silvipasture Afforestation ENHANCING CARBON STOCKS AND REDUCING CO 2 EMISSIONS IN AGRICULTURE AND NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PROJECTS PA RT D — P R A C T I C A L G U I D A N C E O N S A M P L I N G , FI E L D S T U D I E S , B A S E L I N E D E V E L O P M E N T, A N D M O D E L I N G 91 Step 1: De�ne the desired precision level; typically, to Calculate the mean and variance from the estimate the number of plots needed for measuring and data collected from the pilot study using monitoring at a given con�dence level, it is necessary to methods described for estimating tree bio- �rst estimate the variance of the variable (such as car- mass and soil carbon bon stock of the main pools, trees in an afforestation or Step 3: Obtain cost estimates for monitoring; data on reforestation project, or soil in a cropland management the cost of conducting �eld studies are necessary, which project) in each stratum (IPCC 2003): could include travel, laying plots, labor for making mea- This can be accomplished either by using exist- surements, laboratory soil analysis and calculations, and ing data from a project similar to the one yet to any other expenses (the cost of sampling a plot can be be implemented (such as a forest or soil inven- determined based on pilot studies or could be obtained tory in an area representative of the proposed from similar studies) project) or by conducting a pilot study in an area Step 4: Estimate the permissible error in the mean car- representative of the proposed project. bon stock value estimates, which is usually taken as Carbon inventory requires reliable estimates, plus-or-minus 10 percent of the expected mean value which means the values are both precise and Step 5: Choose a con�dence interval of 95 percent accurate; the higher the level of precision, the larger the sample size and the higher the cost. Step 6: Select the number of strata for the project activity The level of precision should be determined Step 7: Calculate the number of plots required using the at the beginning of a project and could vary following statistical sampling formula: from plus-or-minus 5 to 20 percent of the popu- lation mean. A precision level within plus-or- 2 ⎛ t α/2 ⎞ ⎛ Ni ⎞ ⎛ Ns ⎞ minus 10 percent of the true value of the n ⎜ ⎟ ⎜ ∑Wi Si ⎟ ⎜ ∑Wi Si ⎟ � A ⎠ � i =1 ⎠ � i =1 ⎠ mean at a con�dence interval of 95 percent is normally adequate, although a range of plus- where or-minus 5 or even 20 percent is also often employed. n = sample size (the number of sample plots required for monitoring) Step 2: Estimate the variance; an estimate of variance of the carbon stocks is required for each stratum, which tα = value of student’s t statistic for alpha = 0.05 could be obtained from studies conducted in a region (implying a 95% con�dence level) with conditions similar to those for each proposed proj- Ns = total number of strata designed ect activity Ni = number of potential sample units If such estimates are not available, pilot studies (permanent sample plots in the stratum level) may be required in locations close to the project area Si = standard deviation in stratum i Such a study involves the following steps: A = permissible error in the mean Identify an area near the project area with Ci = cost of selecting a sample plot in stratum i conditions similar to those for the proposed project activities (such as tree plantation, Wi = Ni / Ns agro-forestry, soil conservation, or water conservation) Conduct �eld studies by selecting a few small sample plots in the selected land-use category and measure the relevant tree The number of plots shall be allocated among the strata. or nontree parameters such as DBH, tree ⎛ Ns ⎞ height, weight of shrub biomass, and soil ni = n − pi ( pi = WSi Ci i ) ⎜ ∑WS � i =1 i i Ci ⎟ ⎠ carbon content where ni is the number of samples to be allocated in stratum i. TOOLKIT 92 PA RT D — P R A C T I C A L G U I D A N C E O N S A M P L I N G , F I E L D S T U D I E S , B A S E L I N E D E V E L O P M E N T, A N D MO D E LIN G TABLE D.1: Sampling Strategy for Different Project Types and Activities PROJECT TYPOLOGY PROJECT ACTIVITIES SAMPLING METHOD AND SIZE Soil and moisture conservation Mulching, reduced tillage, soil conservation, Statistical sampling formulae used to determine the sample size. contour bunding, tank silt application, cover cropping, etc. Watershed or multi-land component Watershed, land reclamation, Sustainable Statistical sampling formulae for forest and plantation-based activities agriculture as well as soil-based project activities Farm-based sampling for agro-forestry and shelterbelts Agro-forestry Agro-forestry, shelterbelts Size of the sample For agro-forestry/shelter belts: For activities involving row planting of trees on cropland, whole farms could be selected. If the farms are very large, a one-ha plot could be sampled. For farms: For farm-based agro-forestry and shelterbelts, use the same equation as that suggested for estimating forest tree biomass Forest and plantations Afforestation, community forestry, manage- Plot method and statistical sampling formulae ment of PA, orchards, watershed catchment area planting, silvi-horti and silvi-pasture Source: Authors. D.1.3. Plot Size ensure reliable carbon estimates. The equipment used for The plot size is relevant only for the project activities that in- �eldwork should be accurate, rugged, and durable to with- volve planting trees. The size of the sample plot is a trade-off stand the rigors of use under adverse conditions. The type between accuracy, precision, and the cost of measurement of equipment required will depend on the type of measure- (IPCC GPG 2003). The size of a plot is also related to the type ments, but the following list covers most of what is typically of activity (for example, agro-forestry or afforestation), the used. number of trees, their diameter, and variance of the carbon Soil studies: The following items are needed for soil sam- stock among plots. The size typical for different project activi- pling in the �eld for estimating soil carbon content and bulk ties is determined as follows: density: Heterogeneous tree vegetation or soil features: 50 × Auger or core sampler for taking soil sample at 0- to 40 m or 50 × 50 m or 100 × 100 m 15-cm and 15- to 30-cm depths Homogeneous tree vegetation or soil features: 25 × Containers (usually tins or bottles) for bulk density 20 m or 20 × 20 m measurement Agro-forestry and shelterbelts: the number of farms Polythene and cloth bags for soil samples is determined using statistical sampling formulae or, as a rule of thumb, by selecting more than 30 sample Biomass studies: Some of the materials needed for bio- farms for each stratum mass carbon inventory are listed below: D.1.4. Applicability of Sampling Methods Long measuring tape (30 m or 50 m long) The category of projects considered for C-enhancement in Fine measuring tape (1 to 1.5 m long) for DBH these guidelines includes a large diversity of C-enhancement measurements modules and practices with diverse features. The project Rope and pegs for marking boundary and corner activities could include soil and water conservation, cropping points systems, tillage practices, planting trees in blocks or in rows, Paint and brush for marking the point at which to etc., and are therefore too diverse to be amenable to a ge- measure the DBH neric sampling strategy applicable to all categories of CEMs/ Instrument for measuring the height of a tree CEPs. However, the following general guidelines could be Slide calipers considered while drawing up a sampling strategy (table D.1). Balance for weighing shrub and woody litter biomass D.1.5. Field Measurements Cloth bags for samples of harvested biomass or litter Preparation for �eld work: Ef�cient planning is essential biomass for dry weight estimation to reduce unnecessary labor costs, avoid safety risks, and Data-recording formats and pencil ENHANCING CARBON STOCKS AND REDUCING CO 2 EMISSIONS IN AGRICULTURE AND NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PROJECTS PA RT D — P R A C T I C A L G U I D A N C E O N S A M P L I N G , FI E L D S T U D I E S , B A S E L I N E D E V E L O P M E N T, A N D M O D E L I N G 93 Preliminary information: It is very important to collect and �eld investigators can produce fairly reliable estimates); or record all the past and current information available for the (3) using an equation based on the DBH. Appropriate equa- project area, each land-use system, and each sample plot. tions can be developed by actually measuring the two param- This information includes the following items: eters for, say, at least 30 trees of the dominant tree species. Although placing a tree in its appropriate height class based Map of the project location with latitude and longi- on visual observation is adequate at the project development tude, topographic map, soil map, etc. phase, the other two methods may also be used in that Names of land-use systems, location, and area phase. Elevation, topography, and broad soil type Periodic monitoring of the DBH and height: Periodic moni- Proximity to road and human settlements (village, toring of tree biomass requires permanent plots. Height, urban center, market, etc.) DBH, and other data should be recorded from the same Land tenure or ownership permanent plot marked on the ground, using the same data Livestock population and grazing locations format periodically, such as once in 2 or 3 years. The trees Past land-use changes and features could be numbered for repeated measurements. Data on A/R, soil and water conservation, etc., activities implemented and proposed Biomass measurement and monitoring for shrubs and Socio-economic and demographic features tree saplings: Shrubs and younger trees or saplings shorter than 1.5 m with a DBH smaller than 5 cm are included in Field measurements shrub plots. The DBH of young trees and perennial shrubs is measured as described for tree plots, and height could Trees: A tree plot includes all trees taller than 1.5 m and with be measured using a 5-m-long graduated pole. If the shrub the DBH above 5 cm (or a girth of approximately 15 cm or vegetation is bushy with no clear stems and dominates the larger); in arid zones, where trees grow slowly, the minimum plot, the vegetation could be harvested, especially if the DBH can be as small as 2.5 cm (or a girth of approximately shrub species are not ecologically or economically valuable 8 cm). The parameters to be measured and recorded include (rare or threatened species), and the fresh weight recorded DBH, height, mode of regeneration, damage to the tree if any in the �eld and a small sample kept aside for dry weight and, if dead, whether standing or fallen, etc. estimation in the laboratory later. Using the weight of dry DBH: This is the most critical parameter as an indicator of matter as a percentage of fresh weight from the sample biomass of a standing tree, its growth rate, and even the plots, total dry biomass of shrubs can be estimated per plot height of a tree. The parameter is also easy to measure and and per ha. verify and requires only a measuring tape, paint, and a brush. To measure the DBH, �rst paint a ring around the trunk 1.3 m Periodic monitoring of shrub-tree biomass: Periodic above the ground. Place the tape along the painted circle to monitoring of shrub biomass could be through the harvest measure the GBH to calculate the DBH. If a tree has mul- approach described above, collecting the sample from the tiple shoots, measure the GBH for all of them. The format permanent plot. However, select plots adjacent to the pre- for recording such data is given in section D.1.6, and �gure viously harvested plot for harvesting in successive years to D.2 shows how to record the measurements under a variety avoid the impact of previous harvest so that the measure- of circumstances (the trunk growing at an angle, trees on a ments are comparable. slope, and so on). Woody litter biomass including fallen deadwood: Woody Height: Measuring the height of a tree is dif�cult, unlike litter biomass includes coarse and �ne woody litter fallen measuring the DBH, especially in a dense forest or planta- on the ground and dead trees and branches lying on the tion with dense tree stems and overlapping tree crowns. The ground. The standing dead trees will be measured as part height is an indicator of biomass and growth rate and can be of the tree biomass inventory in the data-recording format measured in several ways: (1) using an instrument, which for trees. Estimating annual woody litter biomass production gives very precise measurements; (2) using height classes, is a complex process and involves �xing litter traps in all the which gives an approximate estimate wherein trees are shrub plots and collecting and weighing litter every month. observed and categorized into height classes such as less This requires protecting the litter traps and preventing the than 5 m to 10 m, 10 m to 15 m, 15 m to 20 m, 20 m to 30 m, removal of litter in the �eld. A practical method of estimating and greater than 30 m (with a little practice and experience, standing woody litter biomass is as follows: TOOLKIT 94 PA RT D — P R A C T I C A L G U I D A N C E O N S A M P L I N G , F I E L D S T U D I E S , B A S E L I N E D E V E L O P M E N T, A N D MO D E LIN G Step 1: Select and use the shrub plots marked in the �eld Step 5: Take a sample, such as 1 kg, for dry weight esti- mation later in the laboratory Step 2: Based on local experience, determine the month in which litter fall is maximum Step 6: Record the dry weight as a percentage of fresh weight Step 3: Collect all the woody litter from all the shrub plots and pool it into a single heap Step 7: Calculate the weight of the dry woody litter per ha using the data on fresh and dry weight and the area Step 4: Estimate the fresh weight of the woody litter of the shrub plots FIGURE D.2: Methods to Measure GBH for Different Shapes and Types of Trees Source: Authors. ENHANCING CARBON STOCKS AND REDUCING CO 2 EMISSIONS IN AGRICULTURE AND NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PROJECTS PA RT D — P R A C T I C A L G U I D A N C E O N S A M P L I N G , FI E L D S T U D I E S , B A S E L I N E D E V E L O P M E N T, A N D M O D E L I N G 95 Format for Recording Tree Data: Applicable for Agro-Forestry, Shelterbelts, Orchards, Silvi-pasture, Plantations, and Forests LOCATION: LAND-USE SYSTEM: PLOT NO.: INVESTIGATORS: GPS READING: STRATUM: SIZE OF THE PLOT: DATE: GBH OF STEM (CM) SERIAL NO. SPECIES NAME TREE NUMBER 1 2 3 4 5 PLANTED OR REGENERATED HEIGHT (M) STATUS OF CROWN1 1 1 Indicate the percentage crown cover present or damaged. Format for Recording Shrub Data for Forests and Plantations TREE PLOT NO.: LOCATION: LAND-USE SYSTEM: SHRUB PLOT NO.: INVESTIGATORS: GPS READING: STRATUM: SIZE OF THE PLOT: DATE: DIAMETER (CM) SERIAL NO. SPECIES DBH1 DBH2 DBH3 HEIGHT (M) BIOMASS: FRESH WEIGHT (KG) 1 Format for Recording Soil Data: Applicable for all Agriculture, Soil Conservation, Watershed, Land Reclamation, and Forestry Projects Dimensions of the core Length (cm): Diameter (cm): Weight of the empty container kg Weight of the tin �lled with dried soil kg Above-ground vegetation/land use Status Location Latitude and longitude D.1.6. Data Entry Formats for Trees, Shrubs, D.2. ESTIMATION OF BASELINE OR REFERENCE and Soil Sampling CARBON STOCKS AND CO2 EMISSIONS A format for recording the data in the �eld for trees, shrubs, A baseline is de�ned as “the scenario that reasonably rep- and soil is provided in this section. It is very important to collect resents anthropogenic emissions by sources and removal and record the data, check the entries for the units; location by sinks that would occur in the absence of the proposed and, if feasible, the GPS coordinates; and archive the data. project activity� (UNFCCC 2002). The baseline scenario is TOOLKIT 96 PA RT D — P R A C T I C A L G U I D A N C E O N S A M P L I N G , F I E L D S T U D I E S , B A S E L I N E D E V E L O P M E N T, A N D MO D E LIN G also often referred to as the reference scenario or business- in land-use or management practices or even in the intensity as-usual scenario. Development of baseline is one of the of use and management practices (grazing, fuelwood extrac- critical and complex steps in estimating net C-bene�ts from tion, and land preparation). Carbon stocks or CO2 emissions land-based projects involving CEMs/CEPs. Thus, additional could change drastically because of practices such as land guidance is presented in this section on baseline scenario preparation that disturb the topsoil. development. Speci�c methodologies are available for A/R CDM projects and will become available for REDD+ projects. D.2.2. Selection of a Baseline Why baseline carbon stock or emission estimates: Selecting a baseline is the �rst step in estimating carbon Baseline or reference-level carbon stocks and projected stocks or CO2 emissions and projecting changes in them baseline changes in carbon stocks or CO2 emissions for under the baseline scenario. The selection of the type of the project period are necessary for estimating the incre- baseline has implications for carbon inventory estimation mental or additional C-bene�ts that are the result of project methods and the costs. The selection could be based on interventions. expert judgment of the likely changes in carbon stocks in the future under baseline scenario conditions. If land-use or D.2.1. Types of Baselines management practices are expected to change, impacting A carbon inventory for developing a baseline scenario in- carbon stocks, an adjustable baseline should be adopted. If volves estimation and projection of changes in stocks of dif- an adjustable baseline is selected, the carbon stocks or CO2 ferent carbon pools (or emission of CO2) in the project area at emissions will have to be measured or estimated periodically. the project proposal phase, project development phase, and If the land-use system or management practices have stabi- project-monitoring phase. It is possible to visualize three situ- lized or if the land is so degraded that no changes in carbon ations with respect to baseline carbon stock changes with stocks are likely in the future, adopt a �xed baseline, requir- implications for the carbon inventory: ing estimation only once at the beginning of the project. A �xed baseline may be adequate for most projects, especially The carbon stock may decline (or CO2 emissions may since changes in soil carbon stocks are slow and small and increase) under the baseline scenario or therefore dif�cult to detect through measurements for short The carbon stock (or CO2 emissions) may remain periods of 5 or 10 years. stable over the period under consideration or The carbon stock may increase (or CO2 emissions may Broad steps in developing a baseline for land-based pro- decline) marginally over the period under consideration jects: The methods for estimating baseline carbon stocks or CO2 emissions may vary for different climate change miti- Fixed carbon stocks under baseline scenario: The carbon gation mechanisms such as CDM and REDD. For example, stock in the baseline scenario may have stabilized over the CDM in A/R projects has different methods recommended years and is unlikely to change signi�cantly during the proj- by the CDM Executive Board (http://www.unfccc.int/CDM), ect period. For example, the land use or management prac- and the emerging REDD+ mechanism may stipulate speci�c tices on degraded forests, grasslands, and croplands may and multiple methods to be adopted. Therefore, only a ge- not have changed over the years, leading to stabilization of neric approach is presented here: carbon stocks. Thus, the carbon stock needs to be mea- sured only for the project base-year, the assumption being that the stocks would remain stable or decline marginally Step 1: De�ne the project area, identify the current land over a given period in the future. Adoption of this approach uses and management practices, demarcate the bound- reduces the cost of measuring carbon stock changes peri- ary, and stratify the project area into homogenous strata odically over the years. The change, particularly in the soil Step 2: Select the method for establishing the baseline carbon stock, may also be negligible for a given period of carbon stocks or CO2 emissions 5 or 10 years. Many CDM A/R methodologies make this assumption. Even the IPCC GHG Inventory Methodology Step 3: Select the carbon pools to be impacted under Guidelines for land-use sectors under Tier-1 methodology baseline scenario make this assumption (IPCC 2006). Step 4: Estimate carbon stocks in all the land-use strata for the base year and for at least one more point prior to Dynamic or adjustable carbon stocks or CO2 emissions the base year based on cross-sectional �eld studies; if under the baseline scenario: Carbon stocks or CO2 emis- sion rates could change over the years because of changes (continued) ENHANCING CARBON STOCKS AND REDUCING CO 2 EMISSIONS IN AGRICULTURE AND NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PROJECTS PA RT D — P R A C T I C A L G U I D A N C E O N S A M P L I N G , FI E L D S T U D I E S , B A S E L I N E D E V E L O P M E N T, A N D M O D E L I N G 97 Approach based on default values: The approach based on data on carbon stocks from any previous study or mea- default values is relevant at the project development phase. surements are available for similar land conditions, such Default values for carbon stocks or CO2 emissions available data could also be used to estimate the rate of change in literature for the selected land categories and land-use over a period practices could be used. IPCC (2006 and 2003) provides Step 5: Project the future land-use scenario and carbon exhaustive default values. The Emission Factor Database stocks or CO2 emissions using models or simple linear (http://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/EFDB/main.php) of IPCC projections also provides the default values. The steps to be adopted for ex ante calculation of changes in carbon stock or CO2 emis- sion in the baseline scenario are as follows: Project boundary: The project boundary is a geographically delineated area dedicated to the project activity. Projects can vary in size from hundreds of ha to hundreds of thousands of Step 1: De�ne the project boundary covering all the ha, either as a contiguous unit or distributed as multiple par- parcels of land to be brought under different project cels under a single project management. The spatial boundar- activities ies of the land parcels need to be clearly de�ned and properly Step 2: Stratify the project area into homogeneous land documented for measurements and monitoring. A project classes based on tenure, soil, topography, and baseline area can have a primary boundary and a secondary boundary. agricultural or forestry practices prior to the implementa- A primary project boundary is the geographic boundary tion of the project, representing the baseline scenario restricted to areas, locations, and land-use systems conditions directly proposed to be subjected to project interventions or Step 3: Stratify the project area by overlaying the homo- activities. geneous land classes obtained in Step 2 with the pro- A secondary project boundary may have to be delineated posed project activities (such as crop cultivation prac- and marked to include locations and land-use systems out- tices, planting of different species, improved grazing side the project boundary that are projected to be impacted practices and new forest management practices) or likely to experience leakage because of shifting land con- Step 4: De�ne and demarcate the strata dedicated to version, biomass extraction, livestock grazing, etc. different project activities based on Step 3 for the base Scale of the project: The size of a project determines the year (t0), incorporating the current land-use status (Step methods to be used for carbon inventory. Carbon stock 2) and proposed project activities (Step 3), and estimate changes in small-scale projects could be monitored using the area under each stratum, such as: �eld measurements, whereas large-scale projects may re- Stratum 1 comprising cropland proposed for quire adoption of remote sensing and modeling techniques. agro-forestry Small-scale projects are likely to be more homogeneous with Stratum 2 comprising cropland proposed for soil respect to soil, topography, and agricultural practices than conservation measures large-scale projects, which are likely to be heterogeneous, Stratum 3 comprising cropland proposed for requiring multistage strati�cation. The heterogeneity or ho- organic manure application mogeneity of a project also determines the methods to be adopted for boundary determination, strati�cation, sampling, Step 5: Select the carbon pools relevant to each of the and selection of carbon pools. land stratum de�ned in Step 4 Step 6: Estimate the carbon stocks for all the selected D.2.3. Method for Estimating Carbon Stocks strata under the baseline conditions for the base year Three broad approaches to estimating carbon stocks or t0 based on �eld measurements or using default values CO2 emission and changes under baseline and project sce- available from other studies, reports, and programs in narios during ex ante stage are as follows (Ravindranath and the region or from a published database Ostwald 2008): Step 7: Select one of the following two approaches for Default value estimation and projection of carbon stock change under Cross-sectional �eld studies the baseline scenario, namely Modeling (continued) TOOLKIT 98 PA RT D — P R A C T I C A L G U I D A N C E O N S A M P L I N G , F I E L D S T U D I E S , B A S E L I N E D E V E L O P M E N T, A N D MO D E LIN G Approach based on cross-sectional studies: The approach Fixed carbon stock based on cross-sectional studies can be used during the proj- Adjustable carbon stock ect development phase to estimate baseline carbon stocks Step 8: or CO2 emissions and for making projections. The approach is likely to provide more reliable estimates of carbon stocks If the �xed-carbon-stock approach is used, or CO2 emissions than those provided by the default-value– estimate the stocks of different carbon pools based approach. Carbon stocks for the base year as well as only once for the base year t0, assuming that the future years could be estimated using this approach. stocks may not change or change only margin- ally over the project period Base year estimates: Carbon stocks for the base year t0 could be estimated using the following steps during the project de- or velopment or ex ante phase: If the adjustable-carbon-stock approach is used, estimate the carbon stocks at different selected periods for different pools using default values Steps 1 to 5 are identical to those described earlier in the for changes in carbon stocks from literature default value method to identify and demarcate different Step 9: Based on current and historical land-use data and land strata any ongoing or proposed programs for the project area, Step 6: Estimate the total carbon stock for year t0 for project future land-use systems for different periods; for each land stratum for different carbon pools in the proj- example 5, 10, 15, and 20 years for each stratum ect area based on measurements using the plot method Step 10: Use the future land-use pattern for a selected year (for example, t5, t10, and t15) and use the default val- ues for carbon stocks Future year estimates: Carbon stocks for the future year tn could be estimated using the following steps during the proj- Step 11: Estimate the carbon stocks for a future period ect development phase. This approach is necessary only if of 5 or 10 or 20 years (t5, t10, or t20, respectively) for all the changes in land use or management practices are projected land strata de�ned in Step 4 using default data for the under the baseline scenario, which may include degraded soil carbon and AGB carbon pools. forest or grassland converted to cropland or cropland left Step 12: Calculate the difference between the carbon fallow. stocks, taking into consideration all project land-use sys- tems and areas for year tn (projected period) and year t0 (base year, the project starting date) using the following Step 1: Derive the future land-use system and areas for formula: each of the stratum under the baseline scenario based Change in carbon stock in the baseline on historical data, participatory rural appraisal, and any or without-project scenario (ΔC) ongoing or proposed program for the time period se- ΔC = Ctn − Ct0 lected (t5, t10, t15, tn) Step 2: Select the relevant carbon pools for the future where land-use systems, which may be similar to or different ΔC = change in carbon stock in tC/ha from the pools for the current land-use system strata Ctn= carbon stock in year tn (tC/ha) Step 3: Obtain future carbon stock data for each project- ed land-use system by identifying land areas subjected Ct0 = carbon stock in base year t0 (tC/ha) to conditions leading to the new land-use system for the ΔC could be positive or negative but is likely to period tn: be negative for most projects, indicating marginal Locate areas that have experienced the project- reduction in carbon stocks or increased CO2 emissions, ed land-use changes (such as forest land con- especially SOC verted to grassland or cropland) or changes in (continued) ENHANCING CARBON STOCKS AND REDUCING CO 2 EMISSIONS IN AGRICULTURE AND NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PROJECTS PA RT D — P R A C T I C A L G U I D A N C E O N S A M P L I N G , FI E L D S T U D I E S , B A S E L I N E D E V E L O P M E N T, A N D M O D E L I N G 99 the model and adopt the following steps to make projections management practices (such as grazing) within of carbon stock changes (refer to section C.5 for details of the project boundary or nearby areas outside the the models and application). project boundary Estimate carbon stocks in areas subjected to the changes in land-use or management practices Calculate total carbon stocks taking into account Step 1: Select the baseline land strata and land-use the projected land-use systems and area systems Step 2: Select a model suitable for the project activities Step 4: Estimate the change in carbon stocks using the following procedure: Step 3: Identify the input parameters required for mak- ing projections, such as baseline biomass and soil car- Estimate the total carbon stock for base year (t0) bon stock, rate of change under the baseline conditions, Estimate the total carbon stock for a future and area of the stratum project-year such as t5, t10, or t20 using the steps Step 4: Generate the input parameters by adopting the described above default value approach or conducting cross-sectional Estimate the change in carbon stock between �eld studies the future project year and the base year using the equation provided in the previous section for Step 5: Input the parameters into the model and gener- the approach using default values ate future carbon stocks or incremental gain or loss for a given project activity and area Approach based on modeling: Models are particularly rel- evant to making projections during the project development Table D.2 outlines the relevant carbon pools and baseline phase for the project activities. Adoption of models such as features for broad project types. Refer to section C.5 for PRO-COMAP, CO2-FIX, TARAM, and CATIE requires gen- details of models and procedures for adopting the models. eration of input data for making the projections using default Table D.3 provides biomass and soil carbon values for de- data or those obtained from cross-sectional studies. Select graded forests, community lands, and abandoned private TABLE D.2: Project Type, Relevant Carbon Pools, and Baseline Features PROJECT TYPE CARBON POOLS BASELINE FEATURES Agriculture SOC Soil carbon in agricultural lands in the absence of project interventions may be subjected to increment or reduction due to agricultural practices such as plowing or fertilizer application or organic manuring. In most project scenarios, baseline SOC stock may have stabilized or may change only marginally. AGB Croplands may support perennials, which, in the absence of project intervention, may be subjected to growth or extraction, leading to increment or reduction in biomass stock, respectively. Generally, very limited tree biomass or AGB stock may exist, and it may have stabilized, except in a few agro-forestry systems. Forestry AGB In the proposed project area, AGB carbon stocks may increase or decrease without project interventions. Existing forests proposed for a PA project where signi�cant carbon stock exists may be declining due to extraction, grazing, �re, etc. Degraded lands proposed for afforestation are characterized by low carbon density: a few trees and shrubs may be sub- jected to loss of carbon due to biomass extraction and grazing or marginal increase in carbon density as a result of increase in AGB due to growth. SOC In the absence of project interventions, soil carbon could be subjected to marginal increment or reduction. Generally, in most situations under the baseline, SOC stock may not change signi�cantly or change only marginally over short periods (5 years or 10 years). Degraded or fal- AGB These lands may support low perennial plant biomass stock where the AGB could be subjected to extraction and decline in low lands (forest the absence of project intervention. land, cropland, or Generally, very limited tree biomass stock or AGB may exist, and it may have stabilized under most baseline scenarios. grassland) SOC Soil carbon in the absence of project activities may be subjected to increment or reduction due to soil disturbance and grazing. Generally, in most baseline scenarios SOC stock may be low and may have stabilized. Source: Authors. TOOLKIT 100 PA RT D — P R A C T I C A L G U I D A N C E O N S A M P L I N G , F I E L D S T U D I E S , B A S E L I N E D E V E L O P M E N T, A N D MO D E LIN G TABLE D.3: Average AGB and BGB (Dry Tons) and SOC Stocks Under Baseline Condition in Different Land Categories of Himachal Pradesh, India BASELINE LAND AGB BGB SOC# TOTAL CARBON STRATUM ALTITUDE (t/ha) (t/ha) (t/ha) (tC/ha) Degraded forestland High 1.80 0.43 26.98 29.21 (0.00–7.30) (7.40–56.48) SE-0.79 SE-1.51 Medium 1.60 0.38 28.96 (0.01–3.95) SE-0.69 Low 1.24 0.30 28.52 (0.00–5.57) SE-0.52 Degraded community land High 2.73 0.65 30.21 33.59 (0.00-5.65) (22.20–45.01) SE-1.15 SE-3.01 Medium 1.00 0.24 31.45 (0.00–4.05) SE-0.55 Low 0.75 0.18 31.14 (0.00–2.74) SE-0.51 Degraded and abandoned High 0.79 0.19 27.74 28.72 private land (0.00–2.96) (13.39–49.88) SE-0.56 SE-1.14 Medium 1.59 0.38 29.71 (0.00–3.61) SE-0.38 Low 2.89 0.69 31.33 (0.00–3.94) SE-0.69 # Figures in parentheses indicate SOC range; SE is standard error. Source: http://cdm.unfccc.int/Projects/DB/TUEV-SUED1291278527.37/view. lands, indicating the degraded nature of such lands manifest cost-effectiveness of different forest protection measures in their low carbon content. as mitigation options; and (3) REFOREST, for assessing the potential and cost-effectiveness of reforestation as a mitiga- tion option. This section describes the use of the REFOREST D.3. APPLICATION OF MODELS FOR model, which can be used for all tree-based CEMs/CEPs PROJECTING C-BENEFITS such as agro-forestry, shelterbelts, silvi-pasture, orchards, Section C.5 describes the features of some mitigation as- plantations, and forests. Models such as CENTURY and sessment models used extensively for projecting C-bene�ts ROTH C are available for soil carbon modeling. However, the from projects. This section describes, step by step, how use of these models for estimation and projections is limited three such models, namely COMAP, CATIE, and TARAM, are due to data and model limitations. applied in estimating C-bene�ts (carbon stock changes and CO2 emissions) from tree biomass. Reforestation is one of the well-known and popular options for sequestering carbon and generating sustainable biomass COMAP, or the Comprehensive Mitigation Analysis Process, as a substitute for fossil fuels. Majority of the carbon abate- is a set of models currently used in many countries for devel- ment projects in forestry sector are reforestation projects, oping and assessing tree-based mitigation options (Sathaye and REFOREST enables one to assess their potential for and Makundi 1995). The model comprises three modules, carbon sequestration or woody biomass production and their namely (1) BIOMASS, for assessing biomass supply and cost-effectiveness for carbon sequestration or emission re- demand; (2) FOR-PROT, for assessing the potential and duction. The model uses data on area under different land ENHANCING CARBON STOCKS AND REDUCING CO 2 EMISSIONS IN AGRICULTURE AND NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PROJECTS PA RT D — P R A C T I C A L G U I D A N C E O N S A M P L I N G , FI E L D S T U D I E S , B A S E L I N E D E V E L O P M E N T, A N D M O D E L I N G 101 categories, carbon �xation rates, and costs and bene�ts un- Steps in using REFOREST and data inputs: Data input to der Baseline and Mitigation scenarios to estimate: REFOREST includes changes in area under forests and de- graded lands in the baseline scenario, the area proposed for Annual changes in carbon stock reforestation under the mitigation scenario, carbon densities NPV of bene�ts of mitigation options for vegetation and soil, rates of carbon sequestration, and Cost-effectiveness indicators such as costs and bene�ts. Cost in $/tC sequestered Cost in $/ha NPV in $ /tC sequestered or emission avoided Step 1: De�ne land-use categories De�ne land categories relevant to the BASELINE as well as MITIGATION scenario; for example, forest, degraded land, or plantation Step 2: De�ne baseline area under different For the land categories selected, give the area, for example for the year 2011, and project the area under these land categories categories annually for the future years up to, say, 2050 Normally, the degraded land area is assumed to remain stable or increase Step 3: De�ne the area under reforestation The rate of reforestation depends on the land area available, investment, funding, infrastructure support, organiza- (including agro-forestry, silvi-pasture, tional capacity, etc. etc.) The area to be reforested has to be entered yearly from 2011 to, say, 2020 or 2050. It could be constant or at vary- ing rates STEPS 1, 2, AND 3: WORKSHEET FOR DATA ENTRY REFORESTATION 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 From Steps 2 and 3: Land Area (ha) Baseline scenario Wasteland (degraded land) Mitigation scenario Wasteland (degraded land) Reforested land Step 4.1: Aggregate carbon densities in soil Estimate carbon densities of vegetation (above-ground woody biomass) and soil in t per ha and vegetation under the baseline Carbon density data are available in literature for vegetation as well as soil scenario Normally, vegetation carbon densities are expected to decline under the BASELINE scenario because of anthropo- genic pressures; similarly, soil carbon densities are likely to decline from year to year depending on the end-use of land Add the soil and vegetation carbon densities to get total carbon density/ha STEP 4.2: BASELINE SCENARIO—WASTELANDS 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Vegetation carbon Dry weight (t/ha) Carbon density (%) Soil carbon Amount of carbon stored in soil (tC/ha) Step 4.2: Calculate carbon density under the Carbon density is projected to increase annually because of natural regeneration plus carbon accumulation in Mitigation scenario—Vegetation vegetation as a result of planting and protection The rate of carbon accumulation depends on a number of factors such as tree species, density, rainfall, nutrient supplements, and rotation period The rotation period could be different for different reforestation options: Short rotation forestry: 6 to 10 years Long rotation forestry (for sawn wood): 30 to 50 years Carbon sequestration storage projects: inde�nite length (continued) TOOLKIT 102 PA RT D — P R A C T I C A L G U I D A N C E O N S A M P L I N G , F I E L D S T U D I E S , B A S E L I N E D E V E L O P M E N T, A N D MO D E LIN G Step 4.3: Calculate carbon density under the Soil carbon density is normally low in degraded soils Mitigation scenario—Soil Under reforestation options, which involve planting trees, soil carbon density increases because of litter fall and decomposition The rate of carbon accumulation is normally low and linear and continues to increase over a long period; for example, it could increase by 1 to 2 tC per ha per year Step 4.4: Calculate carbon density under the The forest and/or plantation litter consists of woody and nonwoody plant biomass. The nonwoody biomass Mitigation scenario—Carbon from gets decomposed quickly in a year or two. The woody litter stays on the forest floor for many years, often decomposing matter beyond 10 years Carbon density of the decomposing matter could vary from 5 t per ha to 25 t per ha at different periods These data may have to be obtained from literature Step 4.5: Carbon density under the Mitigation The woody biomass sequestered and harvested has diverse end uses, where carbon emissions occur at different scenario—Product carbon periods STEP 4.2: MITIGATION SCENARIO: REFORESTATION 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 1. Vegetation carbon Rotation period (years) Annual yield (t/year/ha) Carbon density (%) 2. Soil carbon Rotation period (years) Amount of carbon stored in soil (tC/ha) 3. Decomposing matter carbon Decomposition period (years) Amount of decomposing carbon (tC/ha) 4. Product carbon Average age (years) Amount of carbon stored in product (tC/ha) Outputs of the Model includes carbon stored in soil, vegetation, and storage prod- The model generates outputs on potential mitigation options, ucts. The annual incremental carbon sequestered or stored the cost-effectiveness of different options, and net �nancial in different carbon pools in addition to total stocks is also bene�ts. The model also generates total carbon sequestered generated. The model also generates total costs and bene- and stored in the Baseline scenario and in the Mitigation �ts of carbon sequestration and cost-effectiveness indicators options for the area de�ned under these options. The total such as NPV in $/t carbon sequestered or stored, NPV in $/ha ENHANCING CARBON STOCKS AND REDUCING CO 2 EMISSIONS IN AGRICULTURE AND NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PROJECTS PA RT D — P R A C T I C A L G U I D A N C E O N S A M P L I N G , FI E L D S T U D I E S , B A S E L I N E D E V E L O P M E N T, A N D M O D E L I N G 103 STEP 6.1: TOTAL CARBON POOL (tC) 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Annual incremental carbon projected Baseline scenario Wasteland (degraded land) Mitigation scenario Wasteland (degraded land) Reforested land reforested, initial cost in $/t C sequestered or stored, and life Sum of changes in carbon stocks—above- and below- cycle costs in $/tC sequestered and $/ha. ground (changes since project inception) Total anthropogenic sum of changes in carbon stocks CATIE, the carbon assessment tool for afforestation re- (sum of above- and below-ground stocks and sum of forestation (CAT-AR) developed by CATIE, or the Centro changes in carbon stocks) Agronómico Tropical de Investigación y Enseñanza, in Costa Actual net GHG removals by sinks, de�ned as the sum Rica for the World Bank, is a simpli�ed version of TARAM. of changes in carbon stocks minus GHG emissions The tool closely follows the CDM approach to accounting of GHG in A/R projects, providing a transparent, conservative, CATIE is an Excel-based tool comprising eight spreadsheets and simple, yet credible assessment. The tool also provides (Start, Main, Stand Models Current Annual Increment [SM default values from the 2003 IPCC Good Practice Guidance CAI], Baseline Strata [BLS], AR-Project, Leakage, Net, and for Land Use, Land-Use Change and Forestry (IPCC-GPP Tables): LULUCF), and the 2006 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories The Start sheet provides general instructions on how (IPCC-GNGGI). Data inputs for CATIE include the following to use the tool. The Main and SM (CAI) sheets are for items: the user to input data Results of the baseline net anthropogenic GHG re- Baseline: general information regarding a stratum— movals by sinks are provided in the BLS sheet land-use category, biomass stocks (both tree, such Project net anthropogenic GHG removals by sinks are as woody, and nontree, such as nonwoody), root-to- included in the AR-Project sheet shoot ratio, carbon fraction The Net sheet provides the �nal results of the AR proj- Project Area: planted, phasing of planting, and area ect carbon footprint in the form of net anthropogenic planted per year, rotation period, woody biomass per GHG removals by sinks stratum, wood density of species, root-to-shoot ratio, IPCC default values used in the tool are provided in carbon fraction the tables sheet Leakage of CO2 Project management details: site preparation, fertilizer The main sheet requires inputs from the user to calcu- application, thinning, harvesting, and consumption of late GHG emissions and removals in the baseline and fossil fuels AR-Project scenarios and leakage. The necessary inputs could be regrouped into five groups: baseline, project The model readily provides project-level changes in carbon activity, leakage, strata, and key default values. Each of stocks and GHG emissions and removals as well as the fol- these groups and the data input needed are described lowing values: below. Total carbon stocks in planted trees and pre-existing trees, in woody and nonwoody vegetation, and total Baseline: Fill in general information on the baseline. The pa- carbon stocks rameters to be �lled in include the following. TOOLKIT 104 PA RT D — P R A C T I C A L G U I D A N C E O N S A M P L I N G , F I E L D S T U D I E S , B A S E L I N E D E V E L O P M E N T, A N D MO D E LIN G Peak biomass: the UNIT BLS1 BLS2 BLS3 maximum biomass that can be achieved Area of the baseline stratum ha in a stratum. This is Stratum name descriptive to be �lled in by the user or defaults could Land-use category of stratum descriptive be chosen. Root-to-shoot ratio: Nonwoody biomass if this parameter is Peak biomass (t dm. ha–1) unknown, the tool t dm.ha–1 will guide to a list of default values. Carbon fraction: use a Root-to-shoot ratio t dm / tdm site-speci�c value or choose a default. Carbon fraction tC / t dm Woody biomass Is there pre-existing woody vegetation on the BLSx? Living stand volume at the beginning of the project beginning m3.ha–1 Living stand volume at the end of the project m3.ha–1 Living AGB at the project beginning t dm.ha–1 Living AGB at the end of the project t dm.ha–1 Wood density of existing trees t dm. m–3 BEF dimensionless Root-to-shoot ratio t dm / t dm Carbon fraction tC / t dm Woody biomass: Is there pre-existing woody vegetation on the BLSx? yes / no Specify data unit for woody vegetation, either volume (m3.ha–1) or biomass (tdm.ha–1). Default data are also available. If input data is in m3/ha Living stand volume at the project beginning (m3.ha–1) Living stand volume at the end of the project (m3.ha–1) Wood density of existing trees (tdm.m–3) BEF (dimensionless) If input data is in t/ha Living AGB at the project beginning (tdm.ha–1) Living AGB at the end of the project (tdm.ha–1) Inputs required for both volume and mass units Root-to-shoot ratio (tdm/tdm) Carbon fraction (ton of carbon/tdm) ENHANCING CARBON STOCKS AND REDUCING CO 2 EMISSIONS IN AGRICULTURE AND NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PROJECTS PA RT D — P R A C T I C A L G U I D A N C E O N S A M P L I N G , FI E L D S T U D I E S , B A S E L I N E D E V E L O P M E N T, A N D M O D E L I N G 105 Woody biomass Is there pre-existing woody vegetation on the BLSx? Living stand volume at the project beginning m3.ha–1 Living stand volume at the end of the project m3.ha–1 Living AGB at the project beginning t dm.ha–1 Living AGB at the end of the project t dm.ha–1 Wood density of existing trees t dm. m–3 BEF dimensionless Root-to-shoot ratio t dm/t dm Carbon fraction tC/t dm TOOLKIT 106 PA RT D — P R A C T I C A L G U I D A N C E O N S A M P L I N G , F I E L D S T U D I E S , B A S E L I N E D E V E L O P M E N T, A N D MO D E LIN G Project Activity General information How many stand models or activity types does your project activity have? What type of growth and yield data are available? None: default values will be used. MAI: site-speci�c information must be entered. CAI: the user has to �ll out the SM_(CAI) spreadsheet, with year by year information on stand volume, current annual increment, and thinning and harvest. Area to be planted Specify the area in ha. Name or code used in the project It can be a name or a description of the stand model or activity. Woody vegetation Number of years to complete planting Refers to phasing of activities and the number of years to complete planting of the total project area. Calendar year of the �rst planting For example, 2011 Rotation The number of years of a rotation cycle, such as 6 years for eucalyptus and 40 years for teak. MAI (m3.ha–1.year–1) None: default values will be used MAI: site-speci�c information must be entered for the MAI CAI: the user is invited to �ll out the SM_(CAI) spreadsheet Wood density of main species (tdm.m-3) If the parameter is unknown, default values are available. Drop-down list includes a “Not available in this list� option, which is the arithmetic average of all the values in this list. BEF BEF of main species is to be entered here to extrapolate the bole or commercial biomass to whole tree biomass. Defaults available for different climatic zones and forest types. Root-to-shoot ratio of main species Defaults available as a drop-down list. Carbon fraction of main species (tC/tdm) Default available. The project activity is the sum of changes in carbon stock and in greenhouse gas emissions/removals that occur due to sustainable forest management (the project activity). Different types of plantations may have different rates of carbon stock change, and therefore, the SFM project activity must be strati�ed in Stand Models (SMx). One stand model is different from another when its expected carbon stock change rate (tC.ha–1.year–1) is different from that of other stand models. How many stand models does your project activity have? What type of growth and yield data do you have? Unit SM1 SM2 SM3 Area to be planted ha Name or code used in the project descriptive Woody vegetation Number of years to complete planting year Calendar year of the �rst planting (e.g. 2010) Rotation year MAI m3 ha–1 year–1 Wood density of main species t dm.m–3 BEF of main species dimensionless Root-to-shoot ratio of main species t dm / t dm Carbon fraction of main species tC / t dm ENHANCING CARBON STOCKS AND REDUCING CO 2 EMISSIONS IN AGRICULTURE AND NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PROJECTS PA RT D — P R A C T I C A L G U I D A N C E O N S A M P L I N G , FI E L D S T U D I E S , B A S E L I N E D E V E L O P M E N T, A N D M O D E L I N G 107 Management Activities provided here by the user. The calculation takes into account Information on site preparation that would help account for the values for nonwoody and woody vegetation. Further, de- emissions resulting from the treatment of pre-existing veg- tails of fertilizer application, liming, thinning, and harvest are etation, harvest, or burning of pre-existing biomass is to be also to be provided by the user. 1. Site preparation Treatment of pre-existing woody biomass descriptive Treatment of pre-existing nonwoody biomass descriptive 2. Fertilizer application Will fertilizers be applied? descriptive Number of years with inorganic fertilizers years Tons of nitrogen applied through inorganic fertilizers t N.ha–1 Number of years with organic manures years Tons of organic nitrogen applied through organic t N.ha–1 manures 3. Liming Will there be liming? descriptive Number of years with CaCO3 application years Tons of CaCO3 applied t CaCO3 .ha–1 Number of years with CaMg (CO3)2 application years Tons of CaMg (CO3)2 applied t CaMg (CO3)2 .ha–1 4. Thinning and harvesting Will there be thinning? descriptive Will there be �nal harvesting? descriptive First thinning Age age Volume extracted m3.ha–1 Second thinning Age age Volume extracted m3.ha–1 Third thinning Age age Volume extracted m3.ha–1 Fourth thinning Age age Volume extracted m3.ha–1 Final harvest Age age Volume extracted m3.ha–1 5. Fossil fuel consumption within the forest stand Liters of gasoline consumed per m3 harvested l.m–3 Liters of diesel consumed per m3 harvested l.m–3 Net Sheet or Outputs Baseline net GHG removals by sinks The Net sheet presents the annual cumulative carbon foot- Actual net GHG removals by sinks print of the project in the form of net anthropogenic GHG Leakage of CO2 removals by sinks, in tCO2e. The outputs include: Net anthropogenic GHG removals by sinks, including yearly increment TOOLKIT 108 PA RT D — P R A C T I C A L G U I D A N C E O N S A M P L I N G , F I E L D S T U D I E S , B A S E L I N E D E V E L O P M E N T, A N D MO D E LIN G NET NET ANTHROPOGENIC PROJECT BASELINE NET ACTUAL NET GREENHOUSE NET ANTHROPOGENIC YEAR GREENHOUSE GREENHOUSE GAS REMOVALS GREENHOUSE GAS GAS REMOVALS GAS REMOVALS BY SINKS REMOVALS BY SINKS t* BY SINKS BY SINKS LEAKAGE CUMULATIVE YEARLY INCREMENT YEAR tCO2e tCO2e tCO2e tCO2e tCO2e 2002 0.00 −570,999.19 0.00 −570,999.19 −570,999.19 2003 0.00 −1,141,998.38 0.00 −1,141,998.38 −570,999.19 2004 0.00 −1,712,997.57 0.00 −1,712,997.57 −570,999.19 2005 0.00 −2,283,996.77 0.00 −2,283,996.77 −570,999.19 2006 0.00 –2,854,995.96 0.00 –2,854,995.96 −570,999.19 2007 0.00 –3,425,995.15 0.00 –3,425,995.15 −570,999.19 2008 0.00 –3,425,995.15 0.00 –3,425,995.15 0.00 2009 0.00 –3,425,995.15 0.00 –3,425,995.15 0.00 2010 0.00 –3,425,995.15 0.00 –3,425,995.15 0.00 2011 0.00 –3,425,995.15 0.00 –3,425,995.15 0.00 2012 0.00 –3,425,995.15 0.00 –3,425,995.15 0.00 2013 0.00 –3,425,995.15 0.00 –3,425,995.15 0.00 2014 0.00 –3,425,995.15 0.00 –3,425,995.15 0.00 2015 0.00 –3,425,995.15 0.00 –3,425,995.15 0.00 2016 0.00 –3,425,995.15 0.00 –3,425,995.15 0.00 2017 0.00 –3,425,995.15 0.00 –3,425,995.15 0.00 2018 0.00 –3,425,995.15 0.00 –3,425,995.15 0.00 2019 0.00 –3,425,995.15 0.00 –3,425,995.15 0.00 2020 0.00 –3,425,995.15 0.00 –3,425,995.15 0.00 2021 0.00 –3,425,995.15 0.00 –3,425,995.15 0.00 2022 0.00 –3,425,995.15 0.00 –3,425,995.15 0.00 2023 0.00 –3,425,995.15 0.00 –3,425,995.15 0.00 2024 0.00 –3,425,995.15 0.00 –3,425,995.15 0.00 2025 0.00 –3,425,995.15 0.00 –3,425,995.15 0.00 2026 0.00 –3,425,995.15 0.00 –3,425,995.15 0.00 2027 0.00 –3,425,995.15 0.00 –3,425,995.15 0.00 2028 0.00 –3,425,995.15 0.00 –3,425,995.15 0.00 2029 0.00 –3,425,995.15 0.00 –3,425,995.15 0.00 2030 0.00 –3,425,995.15 0.00 –3,425,995.15 0.00 2031 0.00 –3,425,995.15 0.00 –3,425,995.15 0.00 TOTAL –3,425,995.15 TARAM, the tool for ex ante estimation of forestry CERs, is not include a routine for uncertainty analysis in its current an Excel-based tool jointly developed by the BioCarbon Fund version. The data needs for TARAM include basic informa- of the World Bank and CATIE to facilitate the application of tion such as species or group of species to be planted, wood approved methodologies to project activities related to af- density of species, BEF, and root-to-shoot ratio. forestation and reforestation under the CDM. TARAM does ENHANCING CARBON STOCKS AND REDUCING CO 2 EMISSIONS IN AGRICULTURE AND NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PROJECTS TOOLKIT Input Spreadsheet for Tree Species SPECIES For each species or group of species that you have in the baseline and project scenario specify the appropriate parameter values. Choose conservative values. When using IPCC default values for BEFj and Rj specify the upper value for species in the baseline and the lower one for species in the project scenario. If the same species exist in both scenarios, specify the parameter values for each scenarios separately. SPECIES BIOMASS APPLICABILLTY OF Rj OR GROUP NITROGEN WOOD CARBON EXPANSION ROOT SHOOT RATIO ACCORDING TO ABOVE-GROUND BIOMASS OF SPECIES SPECIES ID FIXING? DENSITY FRACTION FACTOR (AGB) Species may be grouped if they have similar growth BEFj-2 Use Rj-1 Use Rj-2 Use Rj-3 behavior and if the IDj Dj CFj BEFj-1 (Method 2) parameters on the (Method 1) Recomended Rj-1 Rj-2 Rj-3 when AGB is when AGB is when AGB is right are similar for less than between above each species include in the group. Dimensionless 1, 2, 3, . . . td.m.m-3 tC(td.m.)-1 dimensionless dimensionless td.m.ha-1 td.m.ha-1 td.m.ha-1 PA RT D — P R A C T I C A L G U I D A N C E O N S A M P L I N G , FI E L D S T U D I E S , B A S E L I N E D E V E L O P M E N T, A N D M O D E L I N G 109 110 PA RT D — P R A C T I C A L G U I D A N C E O N S A M P L I N G , F I E L D S T U D I E S , B A S E L I N E D E V E L O P M E N T, A N D MO D E LIN G Input Data on Baseline Information on land cover, land use, presence of pre-existing vegetation (both nonwoody and woody), if any, and its growth. BASELINE STRATUM 1 IDi,b A Description Degraded forest land a) no growing trees or woody perennials exist, and b) no trees or other woody perennials will start to Land cover a grow at any time during the crediting period c) growing trees or woody perennials exist (but will not reach the thresholds for the national de�ni- Land use a tion of forests) a) abandoned b) grazing yes PRE-EXISTING VEGETATION Non-woody vegetation Bpre,i td.m.ha-1 Pre-existing average above-ground living non-woody biomass CFpre tC(td.m.)-1 Average carbon fraction of dry biomass in pre-existing non-woody vegetation RbPre,i dimensionless Root to shoot ratio TREE SPECIES OR GROUP OF TREE SPECIES IN THIS BASELINE STRATUM (AS SPECIFIED IN THE WORKSHEET SPECIES) PROJECT 010 YEAR BASELINE SPECIES STAND STAND STAND STAND STAND STAND STAND STAND STAND STAND VOLUME VOLUME VOLUME VOLUME VOLUME VOLUME VOLUME VOLUME VOLUME VOLUME t* Vijt Vijt Vijt Vijt Vijt Vijt Vijt Vijt Vijt Vijt YEAR m3ha-1 m3ha-1 m3ha-1 m3ha-1 m3ha-1 m3ha-1 m3ha-1 m3ha-1 m3ha-1 m3ha-1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 ENHANCING CARBON STOCKS AND REDUCING CO 2 EMISSIONS IN AGRICULTURE AND NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PROJECTS PA RT D — P R A C T I C A L G U I D A N C E O N S A M P L I N G , FI E L D S T U D I E S , B A S E L I N E D E V E L O P M E N T, A N D M O D E L I N G 111 Input data on Project Activities area planted under different strata, A/R plan (phasing of Input data include project-speci�c information such as exist- planting), and growth rate or MAI of species to be planted ing vegetation if any and its volume in m3 per ha per year, under different strata in t per ha per year. Input Data Sheet on Stand Volume of Trees Stand model 1 IDk 1 Description Restoration foresty model high years (The tool assumes replanting. If this is not the case, choose 30 years’ rotation and �ll with “0� the Rotation 40 growth data after the �nal harvesting) Planting density 1100 trees per hectare (if assisted natural regeneration is used, �ll with “0�) Replanting expected 35.0% % of planted trees to be replanted due to mortality in the �rst year Fertilization no Treatment of pre-existing vegetation for site preparation Woody vegetation PBB1 100.00% % biomass left standing and not burned (carbon stock remains) 0.00% % biomass harvested and not burned (carbon stock decreases) % biomass burned (carbon stock decreases and burning produces) Non-woody vegetation PBB1 1.70% % biomass burned (always produces a 100% carbon stock decrease; non-CO2 emission are calcu- lated only from the burned fraction) Fuel consumption within the stand Soil carbon pool Csoc yes (yes or no) Available data of changes in soil organic carbon Fuel consump- tion per unit Activity liters Unit Fuel type Site Change 0.5 Carbon stock change in soil organic matter tC ha-1 yr-1 preparation 0.00 ha diesel Tfor 20 Time period required for transition from SOC Non-For to SOC For, in years 0.00 ha gasoline Planting Csoc_n_f Soil organic carbon stock of non-forested degraded lands in tC ha-1 0.00 ha diesel or 0.00 ha gasoline Csoc_for Soil organic carbon stock of A/R or F area in tC ha-1 Thinning and Csoc_ref Reference soil organic carbon stock under native forests in tC ha-1 (See IPCC 0.00 ha diesel harvesting GPG-LULUCF Table) f Adjustment factor for the effect of management intensity, dimensionless 0.00 ha gasoline (Between 0–1, default values) Fuelwood- 0.00 ha diesel To download the IPCC Tool for Estimation of Changes in Soil Carbon Stocks, click here collection 0.00 ha gasoline Nitrogen content of fertilizer Synthetic NCSF Nitrogen content of synthetic fertilizer applied, dimensionless Organic NCOF Nitrogen content of organic fertilizer applied, dimensionless Species Tree species or group of tree species in IDj species name Selection 001 Reforestation_High alt 001 Reforestation_High alt Method 2 1) Carbon gain-loss method 0 2) Stock change method (recommended) 0 0 0 Data type b a) Stand volume data 0 a) Allometric equations (biomass data) 0 TOOLKIT 112 Outputs of the Model THE SPECIES OR GROUP OF TREE SPECIES IN THIS STAND MODEL (AS SPECIFIED IN THE WORKSHEET “SPECIES�) STAND 001 AGE REFORESTATION HIGH ALT ABOVE- ABOVE- ABOVE- ABOVE- ABOVE- ABOVE- ABOVE- ABOVE- ABOVE- ABOVE- GROUND GROUND GROUND GROUND GROUND GROUND GROUND GROUND GROUND GROUND t BIOMASS BIOMASS BIOMASS BIOMASS BIOMASS BIOMASS BIOMASS BIOMASS BIOMASS BIOMASS Bijt Bijt Bijt Bijt Bijt Bijt Bijt Bijt Bijt Bijt AGE T d.m. ha-1 T d.m. ha-1 T d.m. ha-1 T d.m. ha-1 T d.m. ha-1 T d.m. ha-1 T d.m. ha-1 T d.m. ha-1 T d.m. ha-1 T d.m. ha-1 1 4.68 2 9.36 3 14.04 4 18.72 5 23.40 6 28.08 7 32.76 8 37.44 9 42.12 10 46.80 11 51.48 12 56.16 13 60.84 14 65.52 15 70.20 16 74.88 17 79.56 18 84.24 19 88.92 20 93.60 21 98.28 22 102.96 23 107.64 24 112.32 25 117.00 26 121.68 27 126.36 28 131.04 29 135.72 30 140.40 ENHANCING CARBON STOCKS AND REDUCING CO 2 EMISSIONS IN AGRICULTURE AND NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PROJECTS PA RT D — P R A C T I C A L G U I D A N C E O N S A M P L I N G , F I E L D S T U D I E S , B A S E L I N E D E V E L O P M E N T, A N D MO D E LIN G Ex ante estimation of net anthropogenic greenhouse gas removals by sinks Starting year of the AR-CDM project activity 2006 Calendar year TOOLKIT Project year of the �rst veri�cation 4 CDM crediting period 20 No further inputs are required below this line - go to Financial (optional) Total net anthropogenic greenhouse gas removal by sinks 749,614 tCO2e Average net anthropogenic greenhouse gas removal by sinks over the crediting period 37,480.7 tCO2e yr-1 Average net anthropogenic greenhouse gas removal by sinks per hectare and year 10.80 tCO2e yr-1 ha-1 PROJECT YEAR CALENDAR BASELINE NET ACTUAL NET LEAKAGE NET ICERS ICERS LIFETIME OF YEAR GREENHOUSE GREENHOUSE ANTHROPOGENIC (WITH (WITHOUT ICERS t* GAS REMOVALS GAS REMOVALS GREENHOUSE GAS TCERS REVERSAL) REVERSAL) BY SINKS BY SINKS REMOVALS BY SINKS YEAR YEAR tCO2e tCO2e tCO2e tCO2e UNITS UNITS UNITS YEAR 1 2,006 – 2,114 – 2,114 19 2 2,007 – 6,802 – 6,802 18 3 2,008 – 18,017 – 18,017 17 4 2,009 – 43,716 – 43,716 43,716 43,716 43,716 16 5 2,010 – 80,926 – 80,926 15 6 2,011 – 125,505 – 125,505 14 7 2,012 – 170,085 – 170,085 13 8 2,013 – 214,664 – 214,664 12 9 2,014 – 259,243 – 259,243 259,243 215,527 215,527 11 10 2,015 – 303,822 – 303,822 10 11 2,016 – 348,402 – 348,402 9 12 2,017 – 392,981 – 392,981 8 13 2,018 – 437,560 – 437,560 7 14 2,019 – 482,139 – 482,139 482,139 222,896 222,896 6 15 2,020 – 526,718 – 526,718 5 16 2,021 – 571,298 – 571,298 4 17 2,022 – 615,877 – 615,877 3 18 2,023 – 660,456 – 660,456 2 19 2,024 – 705,035 – 705,035 705,035 222,896 222,896 1 20 2,025 – 749,614 – 749,614 – 21 2,026 – 793,892 – 793,892 – 22 2,027 – 837,807 – 837,807 – PA RT D — P R A C T I C A L G U I D A N C E O N S A M P L I N G , FI E L D S T U D I E S , B A S E L I N E D E V E L O P M E N T, A N D M O D E L I N G 23 2,028 – 880,790 – 880,790 – 24 2,029 – 921,716 – 921,716 – 25 2,030 – 960,988 – 960,988 – 26 2,031 – 999,205 – 999,205 – 27 2,032 – 1,037,423 – 1,037,423 – 28 2,033 – 1,075,641 – 1,075,641 – 29 2,034 – 1,113,858 – 1,113,858 – 30 2,035 – 1,152,076 – 1,152,076 – Total 1,490,134 705,035 705,035 113 114 PA RT D — P R A C T I C A L G U I D A N C E O N S A M P L I N G , F I E L D S T U D I E S , B A S E L I N E D E V E L O P M E N T, A N D MO D E LIN G The model estimates the following values under baseline 7. den Elzen, M. G. J., D. P. van Vuuren and J. van Vliet. 2010. and mitigation scenarios: “Postponing emission reductions from 2020 to 2030 increases climate risks and long-term costs.� Clim. Change 99: 313–320. Total net anthropogenic greenhouse gas removal by sinks 8. Eliasch Review. 2008. Climate Change: Financing Global Forests. London: Earthscan Publications. Ltd. ISBN: Carbon leakage estimates 9780108507632. Average net anthropogenic greenhouse gas removal 9. FAO, 1995. State of the World’s Forest. Food and Agriculture by sinks over the crediting period Organization, Rome. Average net anthropogenic greenhouse gas removal 10. FAO, 2009. State of the World’s Forest. Food and Agriculture by sinks per ha and year Organization, Rome. Cost-bene�t analysis 11. FAO, 2010. State of the World’s Forest. Food and Agriculture Organization, Rome. 12. FAO, 2011. Mainstreaming Carbon Balance Appraisal in ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Agriculture: EX-ACT: A Tool to Measure the Carbon-Balance. We thank our colleagues, Niharika Krishna, Tashina Esteves, Food and Agriculture Organization, Rome. and Vani Satyanarayana, at the Indian Institute of Science, and 13. Fleige, H. and K. Baeume. 1974. “Effect of zero-tillage on or- Moho Chaturvedi, at the World Bank, for their assistance in ganic carbon and total nitrogen content, and their distribution in different N-fractions in loessial soils.� Agro-Ecosystems compiling these guidelines; Professor Ramakrishna Parama 1: 19–29. and Professor G. Bala for their input on C-enhancement prac- 14. GEO-3. 2002. Global Environment Outlook 3: Past, present and tices; and ICAR and its research institutes for providing the future perspectives. data required for compiling the C-bene�ts. 15. http://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/EFDB/main.php 16. http://www.natcomindia.org/natcomreport.htm REFERENCES 17. IPCC. 2002. “Climate and biodiversity.� IPCC Technical Paper 1. Achard F., S. Brown, R. DeFries, G. Grassi, M. Herold, D. V. Habiba G., Avelino S., and Robert T. (eds.). Watson and David Mollicone, D. Pandey, and C. Souza (eds.). 2009. “A source- Jon Dokken, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, book of methods and procedures for monitoring, measuring Geneva, Switzerland. and reporting anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions and 18. IPCC. 2006. “Guidelines for national greenhouse gas invento- removals caused by deforestation, gains and losses of carbon ries.� Agriculture, Forestry, and Other Land Use (AFLOLU) 4. stocks in forest remaining forests, and forestation.� GOFC- Institute for Global Environmental Strategies, Hayama, Japan. GOLD Report version COP15, 197. GOFC-GOLD Project Of�ce, Natural Resources Canada, Alberta, Canada. 19. IPCC. 2007. Climate Change 2007: Working Group II, Climate Change Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability, Technical 2. Bhojvaid, P. P. and V. R. Timmer. “Soil dynamics in an age sequence Summary. IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland. of Prosopis juliflora planted for sodic soil restoration in India.� 20. IPCC. 2001. Climate Change 2001: Mitigation, Contribution of For. Ecol. Manage. 106: 181–193. doi:10.1016/ Working Group III to the third assessment report of the inter- S03781127(97)00310-1. governmental panel on climate change. Cambridge University 3. Blanco-Canqui H., R. Lal, W. M. Post and L. B. Owens. 2006. Press. “Corn growth, and grain and biomass yield shortly after stover 21. IUCN. 1994. Guidelines for Protected Area Management removal from no-till in Ohio.� Agron. J. 98: 1128–1136. Categories. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN. 4. Bruce, J. P., H. Lee and E. F. Haites (eds.) 1996. “Climate 22. IUCN. 2008. “UNEP–WCMC about protected areas,� Dudley change 1995: Economic and social dimensions of climate N. (ed.) Guidelines for Applying Protected Areas Management change.� Contribution of Working Group III to the Second Categories. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN, 8–9. Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press. 23. Jha, M. N., M. K. Gupta and A. K. Raina. 2001. “Carbon se- questration: Forest soil and land use management.� Annals of 5. Burney, Jennifer A., Steven J. Davis and David B. Lobell. 2010. Forestry 9: 249–256. “Greenhouse gas mitigation by agricultural intensi�cation.� http://www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.0914216107. 24. Lal, R. 1998. “Soil erosion impact on agronomic productivity and environment quality.� Critical review in Plant Sciences 17: 6. Das, D. K., M. S. Ali, M. P. Mandal and Rajeev Kumar. 2008. 319–464. “Residual effect of some tree species on soil productivity and fertility in north-west alluvial plain in Bihar.� Indian Journal of 25. Lal, R. 2004. “Soil carbon sequestration in India.� Climatic Forestry 31(2): 187–192. Change 65: 277–296. Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers. ENHANCING CARBON STOCKS AND REDUCING CO 2 EMISSIONS IN AGRICULTURE AND NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PROJECTS PA RT D — P R A C T I C A L G U I D A N C E O N S A M P L I N G , FI E L D S T U D I E S , B A S E L I N E D E V E L O P M E N T, A N D M O D E L I N G 115 26. Laxminarayana, K., B. P. Bhatt and M. Sewer. 2009. “Effect of 42. Robledo, C. et al. 2007. “Climate change and governance in mulching on soil fertility, biomass production and nutrient uptake the forest sector: Summary.� Inter-cooperation, Berne, of maize in a degraded land.� Indian Journal of Agro-forestry Switzerland. 11(1): 12–15. 43. Saha, S., D. Chakraborty, A. R. Sharma, R. K. Tomar, S. 27. Levin, K. and R. Bradley. 2010. “Comparability of annex I emis- Bhadraray, U. Sen, U. K. Behera, T. J. Purakayastha, R. N. Garg sion reduction pledges.� WRI Working Paper, Washington, DC: and N. Kalra. 2010. “Effect of tillage and residue manage- World Resources Institute. ment on soil physical properties and crop productivity in maize (Zea mays)–Indian mustard (Brassica juncea) system.� Indian 28. Lobell, David B., Wolfram Schlenker and Justin Costa-Roberts. Journal of Agricultural Sciences 80(8): 679–685. 2011. “Climate trends and global crop production since 1980.� Science 333 (29 July 2011): 616–620. 44. Singh, G. B. 1997. “Agro-forestry systems from Indian subcontinent to the analogous eco-zones of Africa.� New Delhi: 29. Lundgren, B. O. and J. B. Raintree. 1982. “Sustained agrofor- ICAR. estry.� In Agricultural Research for Development: Potentials and Challenges in Asia. B. Nestel (ed.). 37–49. The Hague: 45. Sinha, B. N. 1985. “Role of agroforestry in soil and water con- International Service for National Agricultural Research. servation.� In Proc. Social Forestry Workshop, Muhammad S. (ed.). B.A.U., 99. 30. Manna, M. C. and M. V. Singh. 2001. “Long-term effects of in- tercropping and bio-litter recycling on soil biological activity and 46. Solanki, G. S., C. P. S. Chauhan and R. B. Singh. 1999. fertility status of sub-tropical soils.� Bioresour. Technol. 76(2): “Performance of Acacia nilotica in different agro-forestry sys- 143–150. tems, grown in saline water.� Indian Journal Forestry 22(2): 295–298. 31. MoEF. 2010. “Climate change and India: A 4x4 assessment; A sectoral and regional analysis for 2030s.� Ministry of 47. Tavoni, M., B. Sohngen and V. Bosetti. 2007. “Forestry and the Environment and Forests, Government of India, New Delhi. carbon market response to stabilize climate.� Energy Policy 35(11): 5346–5353. 32. Nair P. K. R. 1993. An Introduction to Agro-forestry. Springer (India) Private Limited, New Delhi, 499. 48. Tejwani, K. G. 1994. Agroforestry in India. Oxford and IBH Publishing Co. Pvt. Ltd. New Delhi. ISBN 8120409205. 33. Narayana, V. V. D. 2002. Soil and Water Conservation Research in India. New Delhi: Indian Council of Agricultural Research. 49. Tennigkeit, Timm and Andreas Wilkes. 2008. “An assessment of the potential for carbon �nance in rangelands.� World Agro- 34. Newaj, R. and S. K. Dhayani. 2008. Agroforestry systems for forestry Centre—Southeast Asia Programme. carbon dequestration: Present status and scope. Indian J. Agroforestry 10(1) :1–9. 50. Tiwari, Rakesh, H. I. Somashekhar, V. R. Ramakrishna Parama, Indu K. Murthy, M. S. Mohan Kumar, B. K. Mohan Kumar, 35. Pimentel, D., J. Houser, E. Preiss, O. White, H. Fang, L. Harshad Parate, Murari Varma, Sumedha Malaviya, S. Ananya, Mesnick, T. Barsky, S. Tariche, J. Schreck and S. Alpert. 1997. Asmita Sengupta Rao, Ruth Kattumuri and N. H. Ravindranath. ``Water resources: Agriculture, the environment, and society.’’ 2011. “MGNREGA for environmental service enhancement and BioScience 47(2): 97–106. vulnerability reduction: Rapid appraisal in Chitradurga District, 36. Prasad, R., R. S. Mertia, R. N. Kumawat and J. S. Samra. 2009. Karnataka.� Economic and Political Weekly XLVI(20): May 14, “Shelter ef�ciency of Dalbergiasissoo shelterbelt in IGNP com- 2011. mand area in arid Western Rajasthan, India.� Indian Journal of 51. UNEP. 2010. “Towards sustainable production and use of Agroforestry 11(1): 41–43. resources: Assessing biofuels.� United Nations Environment 37. Puri, S. and P. Panwar (eds.). 2007. Agroforestry Systems and Programme, Division of Technology Industry and Economics, Practices. New Delhi: New India Publishing Agency. 15 rue de Milan, 75441 Paris CEDEX 09, France. 38. Rajeshwari, Desai, B. L. Patil, L. B. Kunnal, H. Jayashree and 52. UNEP. 2011. “Bridging the emissions gap: A UNEP synthe- H. Basavaraj. 2007. “Impact assessment of farm-ponds in sis report.� Published by the United Nations Environment Dharwad district of Karnataka.� Karnataka Journal of Agricultural Programme (UNEP), November 2011. Sciences 20(2): 426–427. 53. UNFCCC. 2002. “Methodological issues land use, land-use 39. Ravindranath, N. H. 2007. “Mitigation and adaptation synergy in change and forestry: De�nitions and modalities for including forest sector.� Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global afforestation and reforestation activities under Article 12 of the Change 12(5): 843–853. Kyoto Protocol in the �rst commitment period: Options paper on modalities for addressing baselines, additionality and leak- 40. Ravindranath, N. H. and I. K. Murthy. 2010. “Greening India age.� Bonn. Mission.� Current Science 99(4): 444–449. 54. Venkateswarlu, J. 2010. Rainfed Agriculture in India: Research 41. Ravindranath, N. H. and M. Ostwald. 2008. “Carbon inventory and Development Scenario. New Delhi: Indian Council of methods – Handbook for greenhouse gas inventory, carbon Agricultural Research. mitigation and roundwood production projects.� In Springer Verlag, Advances in Global Change Research. 304. ISBN 978-1-4020-6546-0. TOOLKIT A G R I C U L T U R E A N D R U R A L D E V E L O P M E N T Agriculture and Rural Development (ARD) 1818 H Street, NW Washington, D.C. 20433 USA Telephone: 202-477-1000 Internet: www.worldbank.org/ard