Carolyn: August 2008 Archives
August 1, 2008
On Tuesday, the California Climate Action Registry held a public meeting to discuss the latest version of the Urban Forest GHG Project Reporting Protocol. We had a very good turnout, both in person and online with the Webcast. A number of excellent suggestions were made and noted by the Registry representatives. We think that it would be helpful to reiterate those comments in writing to strengthen the case and provide support in the future should it be necessary.
Subject: Urban Forest GHG Project Reporting Protocol
Performance Threshold
In the Protocol version released July 8, the performance thresholds required of municipal, campus, and utility entities were 0.72% annual net tree gain, 0.58% annual net tree gain, and 0.004 trees planted annually per residential customer, respectively. We believe these levels are too high and would be a significant barrier to participation.
At the public meeting, the Registry indicated that it was considering setting the performance threshold for municipalities and campuses at a level that would require the existing urban forest to be maintained at least at its current population. All project trees that exceeded this level could be registered for credit. The threshold for utilities would be reduced to zero as it is not common practice for these entities to offer tree planting programs.
We support setting the performance thresholds at these reduced levels as we believe they properly represent better-than-average performance.
Co-Benefits: Greenhouse Gases, Energy Production
Although we recognize that for reasons of accounting and accuracy, the Registry cannot verify GHG benefits associated with reductions in energy use due to strategic tree planting or with the use of tree residue for bioenergy, we feel these benefits add significant value to tree planting projects in comparison to other GHG reduction measures.
We therefore urge the Registry to emphasize the value of these benefits in the reporting process and to provide a place on the reporting forms for their estimated value to be entered.
Benefits of Trees
In addition, trees provide many other benefits, some of which can be quantified, such as
and others that can be described qualitatively, such as
These additional benefits also add significant value to tree planting projects.
We therefore request that the Registry emphasize the value of these benefits in the reporting process and provide a place on the reporting forms where their estimated value can be entered and a qualitative description can be provided.
Other Types of Entities
Currently, the Protocol only allows for projects undertaken by municipalities, utility companies, and educational campuses to be registered. Often, however, other entities, in particular nonprofit tree advocacy groups, take the lead in spearheading tree planting projects.
At the public meeting, two potential concerns for including other entities were mentioned: the questionable longevity of other entities, especially nonprofit organizations, and the lack of available data for setting a performance threshold. We note first that the entire premise of the Registry relies on assuming the longevity of the nonprofit Registry itself. Therefore, we consider this concern to be shared equally between those doing the reporting and those accepting and verifying the reports. We encourage the Registry to determine whether sufficient historic data exist and whether a suitable matrix can be developed to create a performance threshold before deciding to exclude other entities.
We therefore encourage the Registry to consider adding other entities, in particular nonprofit tree advocacy groups, to the list of participating entities.
SOURCE: California Releaf
On Tuesday, the California Climate Action Registry held a public meeting to discuss the latest version of the Urban Forest GHG Project Reporting Protocol. We had a very good turnout, both in person and online with the Webcast. A number of excellent suggestions were made and noted by the Registry representatives. We think that it would be helpful to reiterate those comments in writing to strengthen the case and provide support in the future should it be necessary.
Subject: Urban Forest GHG Project Reporting Protocol
Performance Threshold
In the Protocol version released July 8, the performance thresholds required of municipal, campus, and utility entities were 0.72% annual net tree gain, 0.58% annual net tree gain, and 0.004 trees planted annually per residential customer, respectively. We believe these levels are too high and would be a significant barrier to participation.
At the public meeting, the Registry indicated that it was considering setting the performance threshold for municipalities and campuses at a level that would require the existing urban forest to be maintained at least at its current population. All project trees that exceeded this level could be registered for credit. The threshold for utilities would be reduced to zero as it is not common practice for these entities to offer tree planting programs.
We support setting the performance thresholds at these reduced levels as we believe they properly represent better-than-average performance.
Co-Benefits: Greenhouse Gases, Energy Production
Although we recognize that for reasons of accounting and accuracy, the Registry cannot verify GHG benefits associated with reductions in energy use due to strategic tree planting or with the use of tree residue for bioenergy, we feel these benefits add significant value to tree planting projects in comparison to other GHG reduction measures.
We therefore urge the Registry to emphasize the value of these benefits in the reporting process and to provide a place on the reporting forms for their estimated value to be entered.
Benefits of Trees
In addition, trees provide many other benefits, some of which can be quantified, such as
- reduced energy costs,
- stormwater runoff reduction, and
- air quality improvement,
and others that can be described qualitatively, such as
- conservation education,
- improved human health,
- neighborhood revitalization,
- job training, and
- recycling green waste.
These additional benefits also add significant value to tree planting projects.
We therefore request that the Registry emphasize the value of these benefits in the reporting process and provide a place on the reporting forms where their estimated value can be entered and a qualitative description can be provided.
Other Types of Entities
Currently, the Protocol only allows for projects undertaken by municipalities, utility companies, and educational campuses to be registered. Often, however, other entities, in particular nonprofit tree advocacy groups, take the lead in spearheading tree planting projects.
At the public meeting, two potential concerns for including other entities were mentioned: the questionable longevity of other entities, especially nonprofit organizations, and the lack of available data for setting a performance threshold. We note first that the entire premise of the Registry relies on assuming the longevity of the nonprofit Registry itself. Therefore, we consider this concern to be shared equally between those doing the reporting and those accepting and verifying the reports. We encourage the Registry to determine whether sufficient historic data exist and whether a suitable matrix can be developed to create a performance threshold before deciding to exclude other entities.
We therefore encourage the Registry to consider adding other entities, in particular nonprofit tree advocacy groups, to the list of participating entities.
SOURCE: California Releaf
