Tony Brunello

1. REDD Offset Working Group
Overview of Recommendations
Tony Brunello
tony@greentechleaderhsip.org
February 5, 2013

2. Key Points for Today
1. Your perspective is important and we need your help.
2. Today’s focus is to discuss how to link Acre and
Chiapas’s REDD+ efforts through California’s cap and
trade program and the use of carbon offsets.
3. Today’s focus is NOT on entire document, but mainly on
(1) Reference Levels, Additionality and Own Effort (2.2),
and (2) Monitoring, Reporting & Verification (2.3.4).

3. KEY POINT – California context
1. Why California?
– Could send significant signals regarding potential pathway
– Could potentially provide low cost, high quality offsets to regulated
entities in California’s cap and trade compliance program.
– California’s actions can show the importance of state action on REDD+
and how comprehensive jurisdictional REDD+ models of success
2. What has California done on REDD+?
– Passed cap and trade program allowing the possibility for REDD offsets
to be used in the system.
– Approved the use of U.S. forest carbon offsets in cap and trade
program demonstrating confidence in forest conservation as
mitigation option
– Helped Create the world’s first provincial level REDD+ task force (GCF)
– Created the ROW to help develop a REDD+ blue print

4. ROW Process
February 2011 Beginning of ROW process with multiple meetings
ROW PROCESS
Draft report released, 3 public workshops to
Jan-April 2013 be held at Stanford, UCLA and UC Davis
Final report released with changes based on
May 2013 public comment - end of ROW
ROW Process
States Formal Processes
Formal Regulatory Processes
(Dates not determined)
California Acre Chiapas

5. ROW Participants
• IPAM – Amazon Institute for Environmental Research
• Climate Action Reserve
• Environmental Defense Fund
• Stanford University/Carnegie Institution for Science
• The Ford Foundation
• The Nature Conservancy
• University of Colorado Boulder Law School
• Conservation International
• ProNatura Sur
• Green Technology Leadership Group

6. ROW Focus
1. What legal and institutional mechanisms are required to
enable cap and trade programs like California to recognize
international REDD-based offsets for compliance purposes?
2. What are the key policy considerations a REDD+ program
should address to achieve the level of performance needed
for California to recognize the REDD-based offsets for
compliance purposes?
3. What should be the basis for judging the performance of
the states in reducing carbon emissions from deforestation
and forest degradation or increasing carbon removals by
forests?

7. KEY POINT - Jurisdictional REDD+
• Reductions achieved across an entire state or
province
• Individual REDD+ projects incorporated in, and
accounted for, under jurisdictional REDD+ program
• Jurisdictional REDD+ seeks large-scale changes in
rural development through policy alignment,
institutional innovation, and through mechanisms
for attracting private sector investment

8. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
READ FULL REPORT FOR DETAILS

9. Recommendation 2.1 - Scope
Background: What types of forest carbon emissions
and atmospheric removals will be required and/or
allowed as offsets? Deforestation (RED), forest
degradation (REDD), and/or enhancement of
carbon stocks (REDD+)?
Recommendation: Include deforestation and forest
degradation (i.e., REDD). Add removals through
carbon stock enhancement when appropriate ( “+”)

10. Recommendation 2.2 -
Reference Levels and “Own Effort”
Background: A Reference Level (RL) represents the best
estimate of future forest carbon emissions and removals
in the absence of a REDD+ program. Measured emissions
that fall below the RL, and measured removals that fall
above the RL, are considered additional.
Recommendation:
• Base RL on a ten-year average of annual emissions
during 1995–2010, using the best available data
• RL could be adjusted under limited circumstances
• Jurisdictions should outline their own effort at reducing
emissions without compensation

11. Recommendation 2.3.1 -
Crediting Pathway & Nested Crediting
Background: Jurisdictions need to determine how credits are issued
& tracked
Recommendations:
• Performance and credit issuance are assessed at jurisdiction level
• Jurisdictions should decide what will be eligible for crediting
(state-wide efforts only, nested projects only, or both scales of
policies and measures)
• California sets requirements for credits, and recognizes and
converts credits issued by Jurisdictions or approved third-party
programs that meet those requirements
• Jurisdictions design and establish their own carbon accounting
and registry systems that meet criteria established by California

12. Recommendation 2.3.3 –
Accounting
Background: REDD+ reductions must be above and beyond what
would have happened in the absence of a REDD+ program. Thus, a
REDD+ Program must account and control for leakage, reversals, and
double-counting
Recommendations:
• Jurisdictions should reduce the risk of leakage by maintaining
commodity production levels as deforestation levels decline
• Jurisdictions should manage, mitigate and account for any residual
inter- and intra-state leakage
• Jurisdictions should have mechanisms for managing performance
reversal risk, and for emissions from major natural disturbances
• Jurisdictions should avoid double counting by defining who can
legally own credits, and developing linked accounting frameworks

13. Recommendation 2.3.4–Measurement,
Monitoring, Reporting & Verification
Background: MMRV systems ensure all parties involved are only
credited for the actual emissions reductions they achieve
Recommendations:
• CA should establish a threshold level of uncertainty in
measuring and monitoring REDD above which a state’s
program would be ineligible, and include incentives to further
decrease uncertainty over time
• Validation of measuring and reporting methodologies should
occur at beginning of program, and periodically thereafter
• Independent, 3rd-party verification of GHG reductions should
occur as a precondition of crediting and at intervals of no
more than five years thereafter

14. Recommendation 2.4 – Safeguards
Background: : Environmental and social safeguards are necessary pre-
conditions for the implementation and ultimate success of REDD+
programs
Recommendations—Safeguards should
• Ensure emissions reductions are achieved in a manner that protects
and enhances the rights and interests of local, forest-dependent
communities (including indigenous peoples), supports rural
livelihoods, and does not damage ecological systems
• Use the safeguard guidance developed under the UNFCCC Cancun
Agreement and emerging best-practice standards , such as the
REDD+ Social & Environmental Standards (SES)
• Jurisdictions should define their own benchmarks and performance
indicators when implementing SES

15. Recommendation 3.1.1 –
Linkage Options
Background: A formal agreement linking partner jurisdictions is
necessary before any carbon offsets can be traded. However,
jurisdictions must work within their national governments laws
and regulations.
Recommendations
• Avoid any “binding” treaty like arrangements as defined
under international law
• Develop an agreement consistent with those being developed
under the Western Climate Initiative
• Consider adopting a non-binding MOU that recognizes each
partner jurisdictions laws and regulations such as California’s
sector-based offset provisions

16. Recommendation 3.1.2 –
Enforceability
Background: Partner Jurisdictions wanting to link with California
need laws to ensure their domestic programs are enforceable
and meet “linkage findings” made by California Governor
Recommendations
• California should use its “buyer liability” provision for offsets
to further ensure enforceability of sector-based offsets
• Consider innovative public/private partnerships, such as
Acre’s Company, to allow players to share relevant liabilities