Écocrédit (9328-7423 québec inc.) · Écocrédit (9328-7423 québec inc.) Écocrédit (9328-7423...

Fournier Toupin CPA Inc. Cabinet Comptable

Écocrédit (9328-7423 Québec Inc.)

Initial Certification report on a Greenhouse Gas (‘’GHG’’)

sequestration project – Afforestation in the South of the province

of Quebec. March 3, 2017

March 3, 2017

M. Yves Legault VP and General Manager Écocrédit (9328-7423 Québec Inc.) 71 Baril West, Blvd Princeville, Québec, G6L 3V4

Dear Mr. Legault:

Subject: Initial Certification report on a greenhouse gas (“GHG”) sequestration project

Please find enclosed our Initial Certification report on a GHG sequestration project performed in the South of the Province of Quebec.

The quantification report that is subject to our Initial Certification is included in Appendix 5.

Please do not hesitate to contact us for any additional information you may require.

Yours truly,

Roger Fournier CPA, CA

GHG Lead Verifier


Mr. Legault:

We have been engaged by Écocrédit (9328-7423 Québec Inc.) to perform the Initial Certification of a

GHG sequestration project performed in the South of the Province of Quebec as an independent third

party verifier.

We have verified the accompanying greenhouse gas (“GHG”) sequestration quantification report entitled “Afforestation in the South of the Province of Quebec; Initial Greenhouse Gas Project Report Period June 1st, 2014 to May 31st, 2063. (the“quantification report”). This quantification report dated October 28, 2016 is included in Appendix 5 of our report which is intended to be posted on CSA’s GHG CleanProject TM registry. Management is responsible for the relevance, consistency, transparency, conservativeness, completeness,

accuracy and method of presentation of the quantification report. This responsibility includes the design,

implementation and maintenance of internal controls relevant to the preparation of a GHG emissions

sequestration quantification report that is free from material misstatements. Our responsibility is to

express an opinion based on our Initial Certification

Écocrédit (9328-7423 Québec Inc.)

Écocrédit (9328-7423 Québec Inc.), formely known as National Écocrédit, is a firm specialized in climate financing. The company developed a specific expertise on the carbon market. It stands out by its offer of services which are diversified and complete. It goes from consulting services to production of GHG reports and can include the sales of carbon credit. GHG reports can be GHG inventory reports as well as GHG reduction project reports.

The GHG sequestration project

The project includes different sites in the south part of the province of Quebec.

You will find below the information about the location of each site:

1- Site A: Lots 11 and 13, rang 4, Township of Garthby, reforested on 8,8 hectares Latitude: 45°53'21.44"N Longitude: 71°25'6.25"W

2- Site B: Lots 12 and 14, rang 4, Township of Garthby, reforested on 5,3 hectares Latitude: 45°53'16.19"N Longitude: 71°25'11.09"W

8

23

1

3- Site C: Lot 9, rang C, Township of Auckland, reforested on 7.0 hectares. Latitude: 45°10'58.07"N Longitude: 71°25'24.98"W

4- Site D: Lots 24-P and 25 9, rang C, Township of Auckland, reforested on 7,0 hectares

Latitude: 45°13'29.00"N Longitude: 71°25'41.75"W

5- Site E: Lot 16B.1 part of 16B-P, rang 5, Township of Wolfestown, reforested on 6.4 hectares.


6- Site F: Lots 25A, 25B, 25C and 25D, rang 10, Township of Wolfestown, reforested

on 2,8 hectares Latitude: 45°53'12.49"N Longitude: 71°32'22.65"W

7- Site G: Lots 22A, rang 11, Township of Wolfestown, reforested on 1.3 hectare. Latitude:45°52'52.15"N Longitude: 71°34'41.29"W

8- Site H: Lots 12A and 13A-P, rang 3, Township of Wolfestown, reforested on 7,7 hectares


9- Site I: Lot 4 602 414, Township of Québec, reforested on 14,9 hectares Latitude: 46°7'38.11"N Longitude: 71°15'5.11"W

10- Site J: Lot 180-P, rang 3, Township of Ireland, reforested on 14.7 hectares. Latitude: 46°3'10.14"N Longitude: 71°28'10.47"W

11- Site K: Lot 11, rang 4, Township of Garthby, reforested on 3,33 hectares Latitude: 45°52'54.32"N Longitude: 71°24'40.91"W

12- Site L: Lot 12, rang 4, Township of Garthby, reforested on 6.62 hectares. Latitude: 45°52'58.07"N Longitude: 71°24'35.74"W

13- Site M: Lot 24-3 part of 24-P, rang 8, Township of Wolfestown, reforested on 4.68 hectares.


14- Site N: Lots 5261594 and 5262258 (formely known as lot 7 and lot 6-P on rang B), Township

of Coleraine, reforested on 8.67 hectares. Latitude: 46° 1'19.80"N Longitude: 71°15'41.62"W

15- Site O: Lots 10C-P 10D, 11A, 11B-P and 13A-P, rang 3, Township of Wolfestown, reforested

on 5.34 hectares. Latitude: 46° 0'11.89"N Longitude: 71°33'5.25"W

This is an afforestation/ reforestation type of project.

All the above described locations belong to different owners and they all have signed an agreement with

Écocredit (9328-7423 Québec Inc.) where they have ceased all their rights on carbon credits to Écocrédit

(9328-7423 Québec inc.).

Arbosilva Inc. is also involved in the project and is responsible for the project implementation and

data monitoring. Arbosilva is a forestry engineering firm that brings the specific expertise in forestry

and is there to perform onsite tasks (contact with landowners, site preparation, plantation, and so on).

By planting trees and doing forest conservation activities, Écocrédit (9328-7423 Québec Inc.) allows

forests to grow and to fixate CO2 inside them with the natural photosynthesis process for at least 50 years.

Emission removals (sequestration) take into account CO2 fixation made by the trees but also emissions

emitted throughout the lifetime of the project (50 years) for various activities such as preparing the area,

planting, taking care of the forest over the years, and so on.

The sites prior to the project initiation were unproductive and unable to be regenerated naturally. None of

them were becoming productive forest naturally.

The project is additional to a baseline scenario which is the status quo which means that the lands would

have been covered by shrubs or invaded by semi-ligneous species and none of the sites would have had a

productive forest.

The project start date is June 1st, 2014.

You will find below the different actions taken over the years:

June 2014 Site F: Site preparation and planting

August 2014 Sites A, B, C, D, and H: Site preparation

May 2015 Sites I and J: Site preparation

June 2015 Site E: Site preparation and planting

Sites A, B, C, D, E, G, H, I, and J: Planting

July 2015 Site O: Site preparation

August 2015 Sites K and L: Site preparation

Sept. 2015 Site N: Site preparation

May 2016 Site M: Site preparation

June 2016 Sites K, L, M, N and O: Planting

This is the first Initial Certification report for this project. The reader must understand that the GHG

sequestration have been calculated for the entire crediting period which is from June 1st, 2014 to May 31st,

2063.

This quantification have been performed by using as a guideline the Gold Standard Foundation

Afforestation/Reforestation Requirements (August 2013), Version 0.9.

This methodology have also been chosen to identify and select the GHG sources, sinks and reservoirs.

For the calculation of the sequestered gas the main GHG sources involved for the baseline scenario are

from the trees biomass aboveground (stem, branches, bark) and underground (tree roots). Other

emissions from the site preparation, combustion of fossil fuels have also been included as a GHG

sources.

The main GHG sources for the project come from the CO2 fixation following the planting of the trees

The various gases involved in the project are carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), and nitrous oxide

(N2O).

The project was under the responsibility of Mr. Benoit Gendron CEO at Écrocrédit (9328-7423 Québec

Inc.) and Mr. Yves Legault, VP, General Manager at Écocrédit (9328-7423 Québec Inc.). Mrs.Joséanne

Bélanger-Gravel, who is an Advisor in Environment & Climate Change was responsible for the attached

quantification report and Mr. Rémi Morin from Arbosilva Inc. was responsible for the data collection and

monitoring and on sites tasks.

The quantification report

The quantification report was prepared by Écocrédit (9328-7423 Québec Inc.), in accordance with

ISO 14064-2 “Specification with guidance at the project level for quantification, monitoring and reporting of greenhouse gas

emission reductions or removal enhancement (2006)”.

The quantification is done in accordance with a methodology from the Gold Standard Foundation. This

methodology entitled: Afforestation/Reforestation (A/R) Requirements, (August 2013), Version 0.9 has been

used as a guideline and is the most appropriate one given that the applicability conditions included in this

methodology apply to the project and is also one of the most renowned standards in forestry.

As per this standard all sequestered GHG related to the project are from the CO2 fixation from the trees planted. The quantifier has applied all parameters required by the Gold Standard for the project emissions sequestration, baseline emissions, other emissions and leakage emissions. There is one deviation to the Standard from the baseline attribution. The Gold Standard require that all baseline emissions been deducted the first year of the project. The quantifier has applied those baseline emissions over the 50 years evenly. For the assessment of the additionality, the quantifier has followed and applied the Gold Standard Requirements. The quantifier has used the appropriate emissions factors for the calculation of ‘’other emissions’’ in the baseline emissions. The approach that was used for the quantification of the GHG emissions removals was one of comparing

the GHG emissions removed from the project scenario with the various sources of emissions included in

the baseline emissions, other emissions and other emissions.

The emission factors (for other emissions) have been chosen from the National Inventory Report 1990-

2013, Greenhouse Gas Sources and Sinks in Canada.

The Initial Certification team

Before undertaking this assignment we ensured there were no conflicts of interest that could impair our

ability to express an opinion and the conflict of interest form was completed and is included in Appendix

2 to this report. We also ensured that we had the skills, competencies and appropriate training to perform

this specific assignment

The Verifier assigned to this audit work was:

Roger Fournier CPA, CA, Lead verifier.

Roger Fournier has received the CSA ISO 14064-3 training. Over the last nine years, Mr. Fournier has

been involved in the audit of more than 100 projects and most of them as a Lead Verifier.

The Initial Certification work

Standards:

Our Initial Certification was conducted under ISO 14064-3 International Standard, entitled: Specification

with guidance for the validation and verification of greenhouse gas assertions (2006). This standard requires that we

plan and perform the verification (Initial Certification for this project) to obtain either a reasonable

assurance or a limited assurance about whether the GHG emission sequestered declaration that is

contained in the attached quantification report is fairly stated, is free of material misstatements, is an

appropriate representation of the data and GHG information of Client and the materiality threshold has

not been reached or exceeded

Scope:

A reasonable assurance engagement with respect to a GHG statement involves performing procedures to

obtain evidence about the quantification of emissions, and about the other information disclosed as part

of the statement. Our Initial Certification procedures were selected based on professional judgment,

including the assessment of the risks of material misstatement in the GHG statement. In making those

risk assessments, we considered internal control relevant to the entity’s preparation of the GHG

statement.

Our engagement also included:

Assessing processes and control over data.

Evaluating the appropriateness of quantification methods and reporting policies used and the

reasonableness of necessary estimates made by Écocrédit (9328-7423 Quebec Inc.)

Identifying GHG sources sinks and reservoirs, types of GHG involved and time periods when

emissions sequestration will occurred.

4

Establishing quantitative materiality thresholds and assessing compliance of results to these

thresholds.

Ensuring ownership of the project by observing that all GHG emissions sequestered are obtained

directly by the client.

Level of assurance:

It was agreed with Écocrédit (9328-7423 Québec Inc.) representatives that a reasonable assurance level of

opinion would be issued and we planned and executed our work accordingly. Consequently, our Initial

Certification included those procedures we considered necessary in the circumstances to obtain a

reasonable basis for our opinion.

Planning:

At the planning phase of this Initial Certification assignment, we assessed the quantification report in

order to understand a good comprehension of 9328-7423 Québec Inc. and Arbosilva Inc.’s operations

with the purpose of assessing the complexity of the project. We then made a first assessment of the

inherent risk.

We also got information at the site visit on Arbosilva Inc.’s internal control with the purpose of assessing

our first evaluation of control risk and detection risk for this assignment. We also assessed the emission

sources and GHG involved.

A verification plan and sampling plan have been prepared and designed to mitigate the detection risk

Our verification plan establishes, among others, the terms of the engagement, level of assurance,

objectives, criteria, scope and materiality threshold. Various other steps are also described in our

verification plan as the first documents necessary for the conduct of the audit. These documents allow us

to corroborate various elements of different monitoring systems. The audit plan also includes discussions

with various stakeholders at Écocrédit (9328-7423 Québec Inc.) and at Arbosilva inc. to ensure that

different controls are in place.

Assessing Materiality:

Materiality is an amount that, if omitted or misstated, will influence the reader of the report in his decision

making. Materiality is defined by the lead verifier in accordance with the agreed level of assurance. This

materiality is also based on professional judgment and risk assessment.

The materiality for this project is 5% of declared emission sequestered.

The inherent risk, control risk and detection risk were assessed at an acceptable level for Initial

Certification purposes.

4

Sampling Plan:

Our sampling plan included, among others, the verification of the number of trees planted and areas

declared. The areas were verified at the site visit and number of trees planted were verified by reviewing

invoices from the company that planted the trees. During our Initial Certification, our sampling plan was

not modified.

Execution:

A draft of the quantification report was submitted to us on August 22nd, 2016. Our initial review of the documentation was undertaken on September 7, 2016 and a verification plan was prepared (See Appendix 4). We also toured six of the 15 premises on October 18, 2016 (See Appendix 3 for the sites visited). In doing so we interviewed Mr. Rémi Morin, President of Arbosilva Inc. who was responsible for the project implementation and data monitoring. Arbosilva is the forestry engineering firm that brought the specific expertise in forestry and was also there to perform onsite tasks (contact with

landowners, site preparation, plantation, and so on).

This visit allowed us, among others, to reassess our audit risks, to get a good comprehension of the

different stages of the project. During the visit we have not seen any soil disturbance caused by the

planted trees. The final quantification report is dated October 28, 2016.

We have identified each monitoring system that may have an effect on the data used for the calculation of emissions sequestered. During the course of our audit, we have received all requested available information from the staff responsible for data input and reporting out of these systems (Mrs. Joséanne Bélanger-Gravel, Mr. Yves Legault and Mr. Rémi Morin) and the control procedures were described and assessed. All reports used in the calculation were reconciled to the calculations. We have assessed, among others the appropriateness of using the methodology from the Gold Standard Foundation entitled: ‘’Afforestation/Reforestation (A/R) Requirements, (August 2013), Version0.9’’ We also assessed the appropriateness of using the National Inventory Report 1990-2013 for emissions

factors.

The materiality level, which has been established at 5% of the declared emissions reductions has not been exceeded. All findings were listed, valued and compared to the established materiality level.

Restricted usage and confidentiality

This Initial Certification report is produced to be used by the management of Écocrédit (9328-7423

Québec Inc.) and parties interested in the above described GHG sequestration project. Reliance on the

conclusions of this Initial Certification report for any other usage may not be suitable.

The quantification report entitled: “Afforestation in the South of the Province of Quebec; Initial Greenhouse Gas

Project Report Period June 1st, 2014 to May 31st, 2063 and dated October 28, 2016 is an integral part of this

Initial Certification report and should in no circumstances be separated from it.

This Initial Certification report and the supporting work files are kept confidential and are available to the client on request and will not be disclosed to anyone else unless compelled by law. They will be safeguarded for 10 years after which period they will be safely destroyed

Appendix 1

Report to:


Object and objectives of the Initial Certification

We have proceeded with the Initial Certification of the attached quantification report entitled: “Afforestation in the South of the Province of Quebec; Initial Greenhouse Gas Project Report Period June 1st, 2014 to May 31st, 2063’’. The objective of the Initial Certification is to assess data, controls and process that are supporting the GHG sequestered calculations presented in the attached quantification report (Appendix 5).

Criteria :

1. The attached quantification report is in conformance with the requirements and principles of ISO 14064-

2

2. The approach and methodologies used for the quantification are appropriate.

3. The baseline scenario is appropriate

4. The supporting data available are subject to sufficient controls to be considered fair and accurate and

should not cause any material discrepancy

5. The calculation supporting the GHG assertion are sufficiently accurate to be considered fair and accurate

and should not cause any material discrepancy

6. The quantification report has a low degree of uncertainty and the materiality threshold has not been

reached or exceeded

7. There are no competing claims to the ownership of the GHG project and the resulting emission

reductions or removals.

8. The project start date is accurate and the lifetime of the project is well stated

22

Reasonable assurance opinion

Our Initial Certification was conducted under ISO 14064-3 International Standard, entitled: Specification with

guidance for the validation and Initial Certification of greenhouse gas assertions (2006).

In our opinion:

1. The quantification report is prepared in accordance with ISO 14064-2 standard: Specification with guidance at

the project level for quantification, monitoring and reporting of greenhouse gas emission reductions or removal enhancements

(2006), and the principles of relevance, completeness, consistency, accuracy, transparency and

conservativeness have been respected.

2. The approach and methodologies used for the quantification are appropriate.

3. The baseline scenario is appropriate.

4. The client’s data controls management system is appropriate.

5. The quantification report and the GHG assertion are free of material misstatements and are an

appropriate representation of the data and GHG information of Client.

6. The quantification report has a low degree of uncertainty and the materiality threshold has not been

reached or exceeded.

7. To our knowledge, there are no competing claims to the ownership of the GHG project and the

resulting emission reductions or removals

8. The project start date is accurate and the lifetime estimation of the project is fairly stated

9. The GHG emission sequestration presented in the quantification report entitled: “Afforestation in the South

of the Province of Quebec; Initial Greenhouse Gas Project Report Period June 1st, 2014 to May 31st, 2063’’ and dated

October 28, 2016 are, in all material respect, fairly stated at 57299 tCO2e for the years 2014 to 2063 and

are additional to what would have occurred in the baseline scenario.

10. The next tables present c r e d i t s ( i n c l u d i n g e x - a n t e c r e d i t s ) a n d the emissions detailed

per site for the project scenario ( CO2 fixation), the baseline scenario and the other emissions. No

PFCs, HFCs or SF6 are emitted during the project.

10.1 Credits and Ex-ante Credits per Site

Credits Ex-Ante credits

Sites tCO2e Sites tCO2e

A 3808 A 3427

B 2353 B 2117

C 5360 C 4824

D 5263 D 4736

E 4554 E 4098

F 1167 F 1050

G 1031 G 927

H 5233 H 4709

I 1878 I 1690

J 9393 J 8453

K 2439 K 2195

L 4912 L 4420

M 2338 M 2104

N 3979 N 3581

O 3591 O 3231

TOTAL 57299 TOTAL 51562

10.2 Project CO2-Fixation, Baseline emissions and Other Emissions per Site

LTCO2-

fixation-

GM

Emissions Baseline Emissions Other

Emissions

Emissions

Sites tCO2 tCO2e Sites tCO2 tCO2e Sites tCO2e

A 4787 4787 A 973 973 A 6

B 2836 2836 B 479 479 B 4

C 5373 5373 C 9 9 C 4

D 5277 5277 D 10 10 D 4

E 4566 4566 E 9 9 E 3

F 1505 1505 F 335 335 F 3

G 1035 1035 G 3 3 G 1

H 6182 6182 H 943 943 H 6

I 3799 3799 I 1918 1918 I 3

J 11236 11236 J 1835 1835 J 8

K 2831 2831 K 389 389 K 3

L 5628 5628 L 712 712 L 4

M 2884 2884 M 541 541 M 5

N 5090 5090 N 1105 1105 N 6

O 4220 4220 O 624 624 O 5

TOTAL 67249 67249 TOTAL 9885 9885 TOTAL 65

10.3 Other emissions - Emissions for Site Preparation

Emissions CO2 CH4 N2O TOTAL

Site Preparation tCO2 tCH4 tN2O tCO2e tCO2e tCO2e tCO2e

A 1.233 0.000 0.000 1.233 0.010 0.119 1.363

B 0.774 0.000 0.000 0.774 0.010 0.119 0.903

C 0.883 0.000 0.000 0.883 0.005 0.060 0.947

D 0.883 0.000 0.000 0.883 0.005 0.060 0.947

E 0.430 0.000 0.000 0.430 0.010 0.119 0.559

F 0.412 0.000 0.000 0.412 0.008 0.089 0.509

G 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

H 1.377 0.000 0.000 1.377 0.010 0.119 1.506

I 0.324 0.000 0.000 0.324 0.005 0.060 0.389

J 2.027 0.000 0.001 2.027 0.010 0.149 2.186

K 0.513 0.000 0.000 0.513 0.010 0.119 0.642

L 0.946 0.000 0.000 0.946 0.010 0.119 1.076

M 1.270 0.000 0.001 1.270 0.010 0.149 1.429

N 1.247 0.000 0.000 1.247 0.010 0.119 1.376

O 0.988 0.000 0.000 0.988 0.010 0.119 1.117

TOTAL 13.305 0.005 0.005 13.305 0.123 1.520 14.948

10.4 Other emissions - Emissions for Planting


Planting tCO2 tCH4 tN2O tCO2e tCO2e tCO2e tCO2e

A 0.262 0.000 0.000 0.262 0.005 0.060 0.327

B 0.158 0.000 0.000 0.158 0.005 0.060 0.223

C 0.209 0.000 0.000 0.209 0.005 0.060 0.273

D 0.209 0.000 0.000 0.209 0.005 0.060 0.273

E 0.260 0.000 0.000 0.260 0.005 0.060 0.324

F 0.127 0.000 0.000 0.127 0.003 0.030 0.160

G 0.070 0.000 0.000 0.070 0.003 0.030 0.102

H 0.186 0.000 0.000 0.186 0.005 0.060 0.251

I 0.416 0.000 0.000 0.416 0.005 0.060 0.480

J 0.416 0.000 0.000 0.416 0.005 0.060 0.480

K 0.262 0.000 0.000 0.262 0.005 0.060 0.327

L 0.158 0.000 0.000 0.158 0.005 0.060 0.223

M 0.168 0.000 0.000 0.168 0.005 0.060 0.233

N 0.297 0.000 0.000 0.297 0.005 0.060 0.361

O 0.186 0.000 0.000 0.186 0.005 0.060 0.251

TOTAL 3.384 0.003 0.003 3.384 0.070 0.834 4.288

10.5 Other emissions - Emissions for Thinning

Number of times for

thinning

2


Thinning tCO2 tCH4 tN2O tCO2e tCO2e tCO2e tCO2e

A 2.9908 0.0012 0.0012 2.9908 0.03 0.3576 3.3784

B 1.8646 0.0012 0.0012 1.8646 0.03 0.3576 2.2522

C 2.1826 0.0008 0.0008 2.1826 0.02 0.2384 2.441

D 2.1826 0.0008 0.0008 2.1826 0.02 0.2384 2.441

E 1.3788 0.0012 0.0012 1.3788 0.03 0.3576 1.7664

F 1.0786 0.0008 0.0008 1.0786 0.02 0.2384 1.337

G 0.139 0.0002 0.0002 0.139 0.005 0.0596 0.2036

H 3.1258 0.0012 0.0012 3.1258 0.03 0.3576 3.5134

I 1.4802 0.0008 0.0008 1.4802 0.02 0.2384 1.7386

J 4.8846 0.0012 0.0014 4.8846 0.03 0.4172 5.3318

K 1.55 0.0012 0.0012 1.55 0.03 0.3576 1.9376

L 2.209 0.0012 0.0012 2.209 0.03 0.3576 2.5966

M 2.8756 0.0012 0.0014 2.8756 0.03 0.4172 3.3228

N 3.0868 0.0012 0.0012 3.0868 0.03 0.3576 3.4744

O 2.3484 0.0012 0.0012 2.3484 0.03 0.3576 2.736

TOTAL 33.3774 0.0154 0.0158 33.3774 0.385 4.7084 38.4708

10.6 Other Emissions per Site


Other emissions tCO2 tCH4 tN2O tCO2e tCO2e tCO2e tCO2e

A 4.486 0.002 0.002 4.486 0.045 0.536 5.068

B 2.797 0.002 0.002 2.797 0.045 0.536 3.378

C 3.274 0.001 0.001 3.274 0.030 0.358 3.662

D 3.274 0.001 0.001 3.274 0.030 0.358 3.662

E 2.068 0.002 0.002 2.068 0.045 0.536 2.650

F 1.618 0.001 0.001 1.618 0.030 0.358 2.006

G 0.209 0.000 0.000 0.209 0.008 0.089 0.305

H 4.689 0.002 0.002 4.689 0.045 0.536 5.270

I 2.220 0.001 0.001 2.220 0.030 0.358 2.608

J 7.327 0.002 0.002 7.327 0.045 0.626 7.998

K 2.325 0.002 0.002 2.325 0.045 0.536 2.906

L 3.314 0.002 0.002 3.314 0.045 0.536 3.895

M 4.313 0.002 0.002 4.313 0.045 0.626 4.984

N 4.630 0.002 0.002 4.630 0.045 0.536 5.212

O 3.523 0.002 0.002 3.523 0.045 0.536 4.104

TOTAL 50.066 0.023 0.024 50.066 0.578 7.063 57.706

Roger Fournier, CPA, CA

Lead Verifier

Greenfield Park, March 3, 2017

Appendix 2

Conflict of Interest Review

Client Name: Écocrédit – (9328-7423 Québec Inc.)

Report Identification: Initial Certification Report on a GHG sequestration project entitled: “Afforestation in the South of the Province of Quebec; Initial Greenhouse Gas Project Report Period June 1st, 2014 to May 31st, 2063’’ Date of report: March 3, 2017 Professional: Roger Fournier CPA, CA, Lead Verifier

I confirm the following: Independence I remained independent of the activity being verified, and free from bias and conflict of interest and I maintained objectivity throughout the Initial Certification to ensure that the findings and conclusions will be based on objective evidence generated during the Initial Certification Ethical conduct I have demonstrated ethical conduct through trust, integrity, confidentiality and discretion throughout the Initial Certification process

Fair presentation I have reflected truthfully and accurately Initial Certification activities, findings, conclusions and reports. I have reported significant obstacles encountered during the Initial Certification process, as well as unresolved, diverging opinion with the responsible party and the client

Due professional care I have exercised due professional care and judgment in accordance with the importance of the task performed and the confidence placed by clients and intended users. I have the necessary skills and competences to undertake the Initial Certification

March 3, 2017

------------------------------------- -----------------------------

Appendix 3

Sites visited

1- Site E: Lot 16B.1 part of 16B-P, rang 5, Township of Wolfestown, reforested on 6.4 hectares.


2- Site G: Lots 22A, rang 11, Township of Wolfestown, reforested on 1.3 hectare. Latitude:45°52'52.15"N Longitude: 71°34'41.29"W

3- Site H: Lots 12A and 13A-P, rang 3, Township of Wolfestown, reforested on 7,7 hectares


4- Site K: Lot 11, rang 4, Township of Garthby, reforested on 3,33 hectares Latitude: 45°52'54.32"N Longitude: 71°24'40.91"W

5- Site L: Lot 12, rang 4, Township of Garthby, reforested on 6.62 hectares. Latitude: 45°52'58.07"N Longitude: 71°24'35.74"W

6- Site M: Lot 24-3 part of 24-P, rang 8, Township of Wolfestown, reforested on 4.68 hectares. Latitude:

45°54'44.45"N Longitude: 71°31'10.98"W

APPENDIX 4 (Verification Plan)

PLAN DE VÉRIFICATION PROJET DE RÉDUCTION DES ÉMISSIONS DE GAZ À EFFET DE SERRE

Page 1 de 4

Note importante : L’entreprise est priée d’aviser l’auditeur responsable de Fournier Toupin CPA Inc. avant la tenue de la vérification de tout problème relatif à la mise à disposition des ressources requises. OBJECTIFS DE L’AUDIT ET NIVEAU D’ASSURANCE

DATE(S) DE LA VISITE DES LIEUX

Fournir un Avis de Vérification concernant un projet de réduction des gaz à effet de serre mise en place par 9328-7423 Québec Inc. 71 Boul. Baril Ouest, Princeville, Québec G6L 3V4

À Confirmer

REFERENTIEL D’AUDIT DOCUMENTS DE RÉFÉRENCE IMPORTANCE RELATIVE EQUIPE D’AUDIT ISO 14064-3 : 2006 Le rapport de quantification a été reçu le 22 Août 2016 L’importance relative est fixée à 5%

Équipe d’audit : Roger Fournier, CPA, CA Vérificateur en charge

DOMAINE D’APPLICATION DE L’AUDIT ET PÉRIODE COUVERTE PAR LES RÉDUCTIONS Reforestation - Plantation d’arbres ADRESSE DES SITES QUI SERONT VISITÉS Il y a 15 sites sur lesquels des activités de reforestation ont été entreprises (À confirmer pour les sites qui seront visités) ACTIVITÉS DE SUIVI DE L’AUDIT

Le rapport de vérification sera transmis pour la semaine du 17 Octobre 2016 si tous les documents nécessaires pour notre vérification nous ont été remis. CONFIDENTIALITÉ

Fournier Toupin CPA Inc. assure la confidentialité des renseignements qui lui seront communiqués au cours de l’audit et des documents fournis par l’entreprise qu’il conservera dans ses dossiers par la suite.

Plan préparé par : …Roger Fournier CPA, CA 514-891-6799……………………………………………………………………….. Date : 09-09-2016 Version : 1


Page 2 de 4

Planification de la vérification de GES pour 9328-7423 Québec Inc. 1-Prise de connaissance de la documentation avant la visite des lieux

1.1 Prise d’information sur le domaine de reforestation 1.2 Connaissance du projet et des scénarios utilisés; 1.3 Sources d’émissions et type de GES concernés; 1.4 Méthodologie pour le calcul des réductions; 1.5 Estimer de façon préliminaire le risque de vérification; 1.6 Planification de la visite des lieux; 1.7 Premières mesures d’actions correctives pour le quantificateur.

2- Visite des lieux et activités à être conduites par le vérificateur en charge. (Date de la visite à confirmer)

2.1 Visite des installations du client et demande des informations au point b) : a) Prise de photos; b) Documents à recevoir pour la vérification du projet (avant la visite)

- Documents de support démontrant le nombre d’arbres plantés sur chacun des sites ainsi que les variétés - Tous les contrats confirmant la propriété de chacun des sites sujets au projet. - Tous les contrats démontrant l’appartenance des réductions (Séquestration)


Page 3 de 4

- Entente de services avec Arbosilva - Documents de support démontrant l’intérêt du propriétaire dans le projet confirmant ainsi le fait que les arbres plantés seront

conservés

2.2 Entente et discussion avec le représentant du client sur les points qui se trouvent ci-dessous.

Note : les points ci-dessous seront discutés à la visite des lieux (s’il y a lieu) : 2.2.1 Objectifs de la vérification; 2.2.2 Niveau d’assurance de la vérification; 2.2.3 Référentiel utilisé pour la vérification; 2.2.4 Information sur le contrôle interne, incluant la gestion des données pour mettre à jour notre connaissance des activités et des contrôles. 2.2.4 Confirmation de l’importance relative à 5%

3- Suite du travail de vérification (avant et après la réalisation de la visite des lieux)

3.1) Confirmation du risque relié à la vérification; 3.2) Processus d’échantillonnage des données; 3.3) Vérification du rapport de quantification et de ses annexes 3.4) Présentation des mesures d’actions correctives pour le quantificateur et client 3.5) Toutes autres mesures de vérifications jugées nécessaires.


Page 4 de 4

4- Préparation du rapport de vérification 5- Émission du rapport de vérification par le vérificateur en charge, M. Roger Fournier, CPA, CA

(Cédulé pour la semaine du : 17 Octobre 2016) Note : Les activités de vérification pendant la visite des lieux et d'autres procédés de vérification à effectuer pendant notre vérification en raison de notre plan d’échantillonnage pourraient prolonger le calendrier de vérification si nous rencontrons des problèmes qui seraient dus à la collecte de données, à la portée géographique, au secteur d’activité, aux défaillances du système de données, etc. Les détails des procédés de vérification supplémentaires et ses cédules respectives seront soumis au client avant de commencer les activités de vérification.

APPENDIX 5

Afforestation in the South of the province of Quebec

Initial Greenhouse Gas Project ReportPeriod June 1st 2014 to May 31st 2063

Project proponent: Écocrédit Inc.71, Baril West Bvd.Princeville (Québec)

G6L 3V4, Canada

Prepared by: Écocrédit Inc.71, Baril West Bvd.Princeville (Québec)

G6L 3V4, Canada

October 28, 2016

iÉcocrédit Inc.Initial GHG Report 2014-2063

SOMMAIRE EXÉCUTIF

(Please note that the rest of the document is in English)

Écocrédit Inc. (9328-7423 Québec Inc.), anciennement connue sous le nom de NationalÉcocrédit, est une firme spécialisée dans la finance climatique. L’entreprise a développéune expertise pointue notamment dans le domaine du marché du carbone. Elle se démarquepar ses services diversifiés et complets qui passent par le service-conseil, la vente de créditscarbone ainsi que la production de rapports de gaz à effet de serre (GES) : des inventairesde GES ou des rapports de projet de réduction de GES ou encore pour la production dedocuments ou déclarations exigés par la réglementation. Écocrédit offre du service-conseilsur les différents marchés existants, la réglementation ainsi que sur les divers standards etregistres auxquels un projet peut être présenté.

Les sites reboisés étaient improductifs et dans l’incapacité de se régénérer convenablementnaturellement. Aucun de ces sites ne serait devenu une forêt productive sans l’interventionhumaine dans le cadre de ce projet.

Le projet et les réductions d’émissions de GES seront enregistrés au Registre des GESÉcoProjets®. Ces réductions sont quantifiées conformément aux principes et lignesdirectrices de la norme ISO 14064 tel que stipulé par le Registre des GES ÉcoProjets®. Lestandard Gold Standard v0.9 “Afforestation/Reforestation (A/R) Requirements” 1 a étésélectionné afin de suivre les exigences d’un des standards mondialement réputés enforesterie. Il offre les exigences pour le déroulement du projet en entier incluant les sources,puits et réservoirs de GES à inclure dans la quantification ainsi que les calculs desémissions de projets. Seule différence, les crédits seront des crédits ex-ante similairement àl’ancien standard Carbonfix. Une réserve de 10% est donc mise de côté afin de pallier à desproblèmes au niveau du projet.

Les réductions d’émission sont évaluées pour la période créditrice entière soit pour lesannées 2014 à 2063 sont au nombre de :

Période Réductionsd’émission (tCO2e)

2014-2063 57299

Période Crédits ex-ante(tCO2e)

Réserve 5737

2014-2063 51562

1 The Gold Standard Foundation. Afforestation/Reforestation (A/R) Requirements, (August 2013), Version 0.9(Road-Test), Internet link: http://www.goldstandard.org/resources/afforestation-reforestation-requirements

iiÉcocrédit Inc.Initial GHG Report 2014-2063

TABLE OF CONTENT

SOMMAIRE EXÉCUTIF ................................................................................................................................... I

TABLE OF CONTENT ..................................................................................................................................... II

LIST OF TABLES ........................................................................................................................................... III

ABBREVIATIONS .........................................................................................................................................IV

1. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................. 5

2. PROJECT DESCRIPTION........................................................................................................................ 7

3. SUSTAINABILITY................................................................................................................................ 21

4. SELECTION OF THE BASELINE SCENARIO AND ASSESSMENT OF ADDITIONALITY............................... 22

5. IDENTIFICATION AND SELECTION OF GHG SOURCES, SINKS AND RESERVOIRS.................................. 26

6. QUANTIFICATION OF GHG EMISSIONS AND REMOVALS ................................................................... 30

7. DATA MONITORING AND CONTROL ................................................................................................. 38

8. REPORTING AND VERIFICATION DETAILS .......................................................................................... 39

APPENDIX I - COVER LETTER....................................................................................................................... 46

APPENDIX II - KEY PROJET INFORMATION.................................................................................................. 49

APPENDIX III - LOCATION PLANS ................................................................................................................ 50

APPENDIX IV - TREE SPECIES ...................................................................................................................... 66

APPENDIX V - LANDOWNERS ..................................................................................................................... 68

APPENDIX VI - DO-NO-HARM ASSESSMENT GS TEMPLATE ........................................................................ 69

APPENDIX VII - RISK REGISTER ................................................................................................................... 87

APPENDIX VIII - SPECIFIC DATA PER REGION.............................................................................................. 89

APPENDIX IX - CALCULATIONS, EXAMPLES, AND RESULTS ......................................................................... 93

iiiÉcocrédit Inc.Initial GHG Report 2014-2063

LIST OF TABLES

Table 2.1: Longitude and Latitude of Reforested Units ......................................................... 8

Table 2.2 Planting Area and Eligible Planting Area .............................................................. 9

Table 2.3 Number of trees by species .................................................................................. 13

Table 2.4: Expected and Achieved Emission Reductions (t CO2e) ..................................... 15

Table 2.5: Chronological Plan .............................................................................................. 19

Table 4.1: Pre-Project Scenarios for each Units Reforested ................................................ 23

Table 4.2: Barrier Assessment : Financial Barrier ............................................................... 24

Table 5.1: SSR’s Baseline Scenario Inventory..................................................................... 26

Table 5.2: SSR’s Inventory for CO2 fixation....................................................................... 27

Table 5.3: Leakage ............................................................................................................... 28

Table 5.4: Other emissions ................................................................................................... 29

Table 6.1: Emission Factors Summary and Global Warming Potentials (GWP)................. 33

Table 6.2: Parameters Summary from Gold Standard Requirements .................................. 34

Table 6.3: Tabulated and Calculated Parameters needed for Gold Standard Model............ 35

Table 6.4: Biomass Model equivalent to each Baseline Scenarios ...................................... 36

Table 6.5: Biomass Model equivalent to Project Scenario................................................... 36

Table 6.6: Biomass Model Data ........................................................................................... 37

Table 7.1: Data monitoring summary................................................................................... 38

Table 8.1: GHG Emission Removals for 2014 to 2063 (t CO2e) ......................................... 39

Table 8.2: Ex-ante credits available (t CO2e) ....................................................................... 39

Table 8.3 Credits and Ex-ante Credits per Site .................................................................... 40

Table 8.4 Project CO2-Fixation, Baseline Scenario and Other Emissions per Site ............. 41

Table 8.5 Emissions for Site Preparation ............................................................................. 42

Table 8.6 Emissions for Planting.......................................................................................... 43

Table 8.7 Emissions for Thinning ........................................................................................ 44

Table 8.8 Other Emissions per Site ...................................................................................... 45

ivÉcocrédit Inc.Initial GHG Report 2014-2063

ABBREVIATIONS

A/R Afforestation / Reforestation

BS Baseline Scenario (GHG Emission Source)

CDM Clean Development Mechanism

CH4 Methane

CO2 Carbon dioxide

CO2e Carbon dioxide equivalent (usually expressed in metric tons)

CSA Canadian Standards Association

EF Emission Factor

EPA Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA)

HDD Heating degree day

GHG Greenhouse gases

GS Gold Standard

ISO International Organization for Standardization

IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

kWh Kilowatt hour

N2O Nitrous oxide

PS Project Scenario (GHG emission source)

SSR Source, Sink and Reservoir

t Ton (metric)

VERR Verified Emission Reduction s-Removals

5Écocrédit Inc.Initial GHG Report 2014-2063

1. INTRODUCTION

Écocrédit (9328-7423 Québec Inc.), formely known as National Écocrédit, is a firmspecialized in climate financing. The company developed a specific expertise on the carbonmarket. It stands out by its offer of services which are diversified and complete. It goesfrom consulting services to production of GHG reports and can include the sales of carboncredit. GHG reports can be GHG inventory reports as well as GHG reduction projectreports. Any other GHG documents or GHG related declarations required by regulation canbe produced. Écocrédit offers consulting services on carbon markets, regulation, and on thevarious GHG standards and registries.

The sites prior to project initiation were unproductive and unable to be regeneratednaturally. None of them were becoming productive forests naturally. More details areavailable in Section 2.6 of this report.

The Gold Standard “Afforestation/Reforestation (A/R) Requirements” 2 is selected toidentify the sources, sinks and reservoirs (SSRs) to be included in the quantification andchosen to offer a guideline for the calculation of emission reductions. This methodology isdeemed to be the most appropriate one given that the applicability conditions it stipulatesapply to the project and it is one of the most renowned standards in forestry. The creditswill be ex-ante credits with a buffer of 10% to account for potential problems to the project.In section 3, the selection of the baseline scenario and the assessment of additionality wereperformed according to the Gold Standard requirements. A barrier analysis is performedand used to confirm the most plausible scenario and to provide a solid argument on whichto base the additionality assessment.

This GHG report meets the requirements of the CSA’s GHG CleanProjects® Registry andthe ISO 14064-2 guidelines and principles:

RelevanceAll relevant GHG sources are meticulously selected and presented in section 4. A precisemethodology is used along with project specific parameter values.

CompletenessA complete assessment of GHG sources is made and all GHG types are considered in theapplied quantification methodology. Complete information regarding projectimplementation, activities and GHG quantification is given through this GHG report.

ConsistencyChosen quantification methodology is appropriate for Écocrédit’s project. The establishedbaseline scenario, as described in section 4, is consistent with the project level of activityrelated to a forestry project.

AccuracyCalculation uncertainties are kept as small as possible.

2 The Gold Standard Foundation. Afforestation/Reforestation (A/R) Requirements, (August 2013), Version 0.9(Road-Test), Internet link: http://www.goldstandard.org/resources/afforestation-reforestation-requirements


TransparencyProject related information is transparently communicated throughout this document so thatthe intended user can identify important data, how they are collected, and how the projectactually leads to GHG emissions reduction. Data monitoring and GHG emission reductionscalculation are clearly detailed in order to provide the reader sufficient information to allowthe user to confidently make decisions.

ConservativenessGHG emission reductions are not overestimated. When accuracy is jeopardized because ofassumptions, conservative choices are made to make sure that GHG reductions are notoverestimated.

This report will be made available for public consultation. It is intended to serve as atransparent reference document to support the prospection of potential verified emissionreductions (VER) buyers.

The equivalent letter to the cover letter of the Gold Standard is available in Appendix I.


2. PROJECT DESCRIPTION

This section is the equivalent of the Key Information Project Section in the Gold Standard.In Appendix II, there is a list of the Key Information Project required and the section of thisreport in which it is covered.

2.1. Project Title


2.2. Objectives

The main objective is to reforest lands that were degraded and had a low chance ofbecoming a forest again by natural regeneration.

2.3. Project Lifetime

The project lifetime for this project is equivalent to the crediting period. The creditingperiod starts with the planting in June 2014; therefore the start date is set on June 1st 2014.The crediting period is 50 years; therefore the ending date is May 31st 2063.

Expected removals are presented considering the whole crediting period, annual andperformance reports will be done periodically to insure the veracity of the removalscredited.

2.4. Type of GHG Project

This is an afforestation / reforestation type of project.

By planting trees and doing forest conservation activities, the project proponent allowsforests to grow and to fixate CO2 inside them with the natural photosynthesis process for atleast 50 years. Emission removals take into account CO2 fixation made by the trees but alsoemissions emitted throughout the lifetime of the project for various activities such aspreparing the area, planting, taking care of the forest over the years, and so on.

2.5. Location

This project is located in the South of the province of Quebec in Canada, east ofMetropolitan Montreal Area. The specific locations are presented below for each unitreforested.


2.5.1 Longitudes and Latitudes

The following table indicates the latitude and the longitude for each site reforested.

Table 2.1: Longitude and Latitude of Reforested Units

UnitReforested

Latitude Longitude

A 45°53'21.44"N 71°25'6.25"WB 45°53'16.19"N 71°25'11.09"WC 45°10'58.07"N 71°25'24.98"WD 45°13'29.00"N 71°25'41.75"WE 45°58'18.02"N 71°32'3.74"WF 45°53'12.49"N 71°32'22.65"WG 45°52'52.15"N 71°34'41.29"WH 45°59'50.52"N 71°32'17.94"WI 46°7'38.11"N 71°15'5.11"WJ 46°3'10.14"N 71°28'10.47"WK 45°52'54.32"N 71°24'40.91"WL 45°52'58.07"N 71°24'35.74"WM 45°54'44.45"N 71°31'10.98"WN 46° 1'19.80"N 71°15'41.62"WO 46° 0'11.89"N 71°33'5.25"W

Further information on the lots reforested is stated in the contracts with landowners. Thoseare made available to the verifiers.

2.5.2 Location Plans

To lighten the reading of this report, location plans are presented in Appendix III. Thelocations of the sites are presented and the information given works as the equivalent of the“shapefiles” required by Gold Standard.


2.5.3 Planting Area and Eligible Planting Area

The next table presents the total area of the planting sites and the eligible planting area forthe project.

Table 2.2 Planting Area and Eligible Planting Area

UnitReforested

PlantingArea(ha)

ProjectArea(ha)

A 8.8 7.22

B 5.3 4.51

C 7.0 6.5

D 7.0 7.0

E 6.4 6.4

F 2.8 2.52

G 1.3 1.3

H 7.7 7.1

I 14.9 14.45

J 14.7 13.82

K 3.33 2.93

L 6.62 5.36

M 4.68 4.07

N 8.67 8.32

O 5.34 4.70

TOTAL 104.51 96.2

2.6. Conditions prior to Project Initiation

In the next sections, the status of the land prior to project initiation is described for eachunit reforested. A brief socio-economic history and the current socio-economic situation ofthe project are done in the next paragraph.

Landowners are often searching for revenues for their lands. Some rent the land foragriculture; others use it for the wood industry. More often, they are cutting trees to usethem as fuel for their own needs in the winter. Unfortunately, when the site was simplyabandoned after agriculture or not properly taking care of as a forest, the forest cannot beregenerated by itself and the price of the proper reforestation is often prohibitive.Moreover, the reforestation (location, right trees species, and so on) requires theinvolvement of experts such as forestry engineers to plan the reforestation to ensure thesuccess of the reforestation.


2.6.1 Unit reforested: Sites A and B

A clear cut of the site was done in 2004. The site was not properly regenerated and wasunproductive. The regeneration of the right species was inadequate and was stronglyinsufficient; therefore the reforestation was necessary to make the site become productiveagain. Without human intervention, the site wouldn’t have been able to be regeneratednaturally.

2.6.2 Unit reforested: Site C

The site had a clear cut 2 years prior to the project. The tree population was mature andwasting away furthermore it was not regenerated. The owner wanted to change the landpurpose from forest land to agricultural land because of the high fees of reforestation. Thecarbon credits offered for CO2 fixation of an afforestation project helped to make thedecision to go forward with the reforestation.

2.6.3 Unit reforested: Site D

The site had a clear cut 2 years prior to the project. The tree population was mature andwasting away furthermore it was not regenerated. The owner wanted to change the landpurpose from forest land to agricultural land because of the high fees of reforestation. Thecarbon credits offered for CO2 fixation of an afforestation project helped to make thedecision to go forward with the reforestation.

2.6.4 Unit reforested: Site E

The site was used for grazing activities and was abandoned. No agricultural activities havebeen done on the site for the 10 years prior to the project. The site was not regeneratednaturally and some semi-ligneous species took over the land. A reforestation was necessaryto make it become a productive site again. Without human intervention, the site wouldn’thave been able to be regenerated naturally and wouldn’t have become a forest.

2.6.5 Unit reforested: Site F

A clear cut of the site was done around 15 years prior to the project. The site was notproperly regenerated and was unproductive. The regeneration of the right species wasinadequate and was strongly insufficient; therefore the reforestation was necessary to makethe site become productive again. Without human intervention, the site wouldn’t have beenable to be regenerated naturally. On top of that, beavers had flooded the site in somespecific places.

2.6.6 Unit reforested: Site G

The site was an abandoned agricultural land. No agricultural activities have been done forat least 2 or 3 years and the owner didn’t want to use it anymore because he considered itunproductive. The site wouldn’t have been able to regenerate itself naturally because therewas a high risk of being took over by invasive semi-ligneous species in the years to come.


The reforestation was necessary to make the site become productive again. Without humanintervention, the site wouldn’t have been able to be regenerated naturally and wouldn’thave become a forest.

2.6.7 Unit reforested: Site H

A clear cut was done before 2006. The site was not properly regenerated and wasunproductive. The regeneration of the right species was inadequate and was stronglyinsufficient; therefore the reforestation was necessary to make the site become productiveagain. Without human intervention, the site wouldn’t have been able to be regeneratednaturally.

2.6.8 Unit reforested: Site I

The site is located on a former mining site. Nothing is done on the land for at least 10 yearsprior to the project and the site wasn’t regenerated naturally. The herbaceous plants werevery dense and didn’t let any chance to trees to grow naturally. A reforestation wasnecessary to make it become a productive site again. Without human intervention, the sitewouldn’t have been able to be regenerated naturally.

2.6.9 Unit reforested: Site J

The site is located in the Salaberry cervidae runs. A progressive cut for seeding has beendone on that site 10 years before the project initiation to open the forest cover to let thenatural regeneration to take over before the population of trees needs to be cut completelybecause trees became mature. The forest population grew back naturally in balsam firs andred maple trees. The stems are eaten periodically by whitetailed deers (Virginia deers)during winters. Because of the presence of deers on that site during winters, the naturalregeneration cannot be done and become a viable forest again. A reforestation with speciesnot eaten by whitetailed deers is necessary.

2.6.10 Unit reforested: Site K


2.6.11 Unit reforested: Site L

A clear cut was done in 2004. The site was not properly regenerated and was unproductive.The regeneration of the right species was inadequate and was strongly insufficient;therefore the reforestation was necessary to make the site become productive again.Without human intervention, the site wouldn’t have been able to be regenerated naturally.


2.6.12 Unit reforested: Site M


2.6.13 Unit reforested: Site N


2.6.14 Unit reforested: Site O


2.7. Description of how the Project will achieve GHG Emission Reductions orRemoval Enhancements

The sites were unproductive sites unable to be regenerated naturally. With the project inplace, productive forests will grow on those sites using CO2 as a fuel for the growth. Thetrees will fixate CO2 by the photosynthesis process. In short, the sites prior to thereforestation would have been unable to fixate as much CO2 compared to this actualafforestation project.

2.7.1 Forest Management Applied

None of the site had an appropriate forest management applied to make the growth of theforest possible. The forest management foreseen is conservation forest for all of the sites.One or two release cutting will be done over the years to help the growth of the trees.

2.7.2 Forest Characteristics

The species planted are indigenous species to the region. The next table presents the speciesplanted on each site and the number of trees planted. More information on the species isprovided in Appendix IV.


Table 2.3 Number of trees by species

UnitReforested

WhiteSpruce

BlackSrpuce

RedSpruce

RedPine

Whitepine

Tamarack Number of treesplanted

A 10232 3979 --- --- --- --- 14211

B 6062 2358 --- --- --- --- 8420

C 14000 --- --- --- --- --- 14000

D 13000 2000 --- --- --- --- 15000

E 9800 --- --- 1800 --- --- 11600

F 2860 1660 1080 --- --- --- 5600

G 2600 --- --- --- --- --- 2600

H 14000 2100 --- --- --- --- 16100

I 2000 20990 --- 1800 1800 1200 27790

J 24300 2000 --- 3000 --- 1600 30900

K 6627 --- --- --- --- --- 6627

L 13173 --- --- --- --- --- 13173

M 6212 2298 --- --- --- --- 8510

N 9400 4950 --- --- 2400 1280 18030

O 9880 --- --- --- --- --- 9880

TOTAL 144146 42335 1080 6600 4200 4080 202441

2.8. Project Technologies, Products, Services and Expected Level of Activity

In the case of the scenario without the project implementation, the lands would have beencovered by shrubs or invaded by semi-ligneous species. Some sites had trees but notenough to ensure the regeneration. None of the sites would have had a productive forest.

There is no shift of activities due to the project; the lands weren’t used for agriculturalpurposes neither for wood industry.

The project scenario include normal forestry project activities such as preparing the sites,planting, taking care of the forest and protecting it over the years.


2.9. Aggregate GHG Emission Reductions and Removal Enhancements likely tooccur from the GHG Project

This is the Initial GHG Report for the crediting period starting June 1st 2014 and endingMay 31st 2063. Emissions have been calculated for the entire crediting period and dividedover the years at the same rate which not reflects the natural growth of the trees. GoldStandard requires removing the baseline emissions, other emissions and leakage from year1 of the project but in this case, the credits will be ex-ante; therefore the emissions frombaseline scenario, other emissions and leakage are removed from the overall total and theremovals are divided over the years evenly. The amount of credits is shown in the nexttable.


Table 2.4: Expected and Achieved Emission Reductions (t CO2e)

Year Expected EmissionReductions

(t CO2e)

Achieved EmissionReductions

(t CO2e)

…Year Expected EmissionReductions

(t CO2e)

Achieved EmissionReductions

(t CO2e)2014 1145.98 --- 2039 1145.98 ---

2015 1145.98 --- 2040 1145.98 ---

2016 1145.98 --- 2041 1145.98 ---

2017 1145.98 --- 2042 1145.98 ---

2018 1145.98 --- 2043 1145.98 ---

2019 1145.98 --- 2044 1145.98 ---

2020 1145.98 --- 2045 1145.98 ---

2021 1145.98 --- 2046 1145.98 ---

2022 1145.98 --- 2047 1145.98 ---

2023 1145.98 --- 2048 1145.98 ---

2024 1145.98 --- 2049 1145.98 ---

2025 1145.98 --- 2050 1145.98 ---

2026 1145.98 --- 2051 1145.98 ---

2027 1145.98 --- 2052 1145.98 ---

2028 1145.98 --- 2053 1145.98 ---

2029 1145.98 --- 2054 1145.98 ---

2030 1145.98 --- 2055 1145.98 ---

2031 1145.98 --- 2056 1145.98 ---

2032 1145.98 --- 2057 1145.98 ---

2033 1145.98 --- 2058 1145.98 ---

2034 1145.98 --- 2059 1145.98 ---

2035 1145.98 --- 2060 1145.98 ---

2036 1145.98 --- 2061 1145.98 ---

2037 1145.98 --- 2062 1145.98 ---

2038 1145.98 --- 2063 1145.98 ---

TOTAL 2014-2063 57299

2.10. Identification of Risks

2.10.1 Risk of Project Area and Project Activities Modification

There is a medium risk of the project areas to change and a very low risk for the projectactivities to change during the crediting period. Some owners might want to rethink theirlands and modify the conservation areas; if that happens, an equivalent area of land will bemade into a conservation area. A potential risk is a change in the forest management fromconservation to rotation forestry for partial areas but this risk is low.


If the areas are modified or if the forest management changes, the calculation for theremovals will represent the actual situation. The potential risks don’t comprise the projectitself but can lead to a lower amount of GHG removals.

2.10.2 Risks : General Statement

This emission reductions report was written according to ISO 14064-2 SpecificationsRequirements for quantification, monitoring and reporting of greenhouse gas emissionreductions and removal enhancements assertions. In order to minimize risks, themethodology, data, growth model and GHG emission factors were selected based on theircompleteness and their international or national recognition. Risks are further discussed inthe sustainability section.

2.11. Roles and Responsibilities

Écocrédit, Distnet, Arbosilva and landowners are part of this project. This section providesthe roles and responsibilities of every party. This section, along with 2.17 Ownership andFinancial Structure, is the equivalent of the template “Project participants and securedtitles” from Gold Standard.

2.11.1 Project Proponent and Representative

Yves Legault, VP and General Manager

Écocrédit Inc.

71, Baril West Bvd.Princeville (Québec)G6L 3V4, [email protected]

2.11.1 Financing Entity

Distnet offers the financing for this project.

Luc Richard, President5005, rue Hugues-Randin, Bureau 200Québec (Québec) G2C [email protected] : 819 352-4658Téléphone : 418 915-9090

2.11.2 Forestry Expertise, Monitoring and Data Collection

Arbosilva is responsible for the project implementation and data monitoring. Data areprovided by Rémi Morin, forestry engineer. Arbosilva is the forestry engineering firm thatbrings the specific expertise in forestry and is there to perform onsite tasks (contact withlandowners, site preparation, plantation, and so on).


Rémi Morin, President

Arbosilva

1120 rue LallierThetford Mines (Québec)G6H2M6 [email protected](418) 281-0716

2.11.3 Forest Conservation

The landowners are bound by contract to protect the forest for a period of a minimum of 50years. Detailed information is in the contracts made with Écocrédit and can be madeavailable to the verifiers. The list of the landowners is available in Appendix V.

2.11.4 Quantification and Reporting Responsible Entity

Écocrédit is a firm specialized in non-traditional corporate financing. An expertise hasbeen developed in the quantification of GHG emissions. Services are offered for GHGinventory, GHG emissions reduction project implementation, GHG markets advising,regulatory requirements and much more.

Joséanne Bélanger-Gravel works at Écocrédit as advisor of environment and climatechange. She has a mechanical engineering degree from Université de Sherbrooke and EPF-École d’ingénieurs de Sceaux in France. She also completed an engineering master degreein renewable energies and a second master in environment with a specialization insustainable development. She is responsible for this report.

Joséanne Bélanger-Gravel, B.Eng, M.A.Sc, M.Env.Advisor, Environment & Climate changeÉcocrédit [email protected]

2.11.5 Authorized Project Contact

Yves Legault has the signing authority for Écocrédit. He is authorized by the projectproponent to perform requests, administrative tasks regarding the project registration andacts as team leader in this project.

Yves Legault, BAA, C.AdmnVP and General ManagerÉcocrédit [email protected]

2.12. Communities Involvement

The community involvement is limited since the project is located on private lands. Landowners have agreed to participate to the project and to protect the forest for the next 50years.


2.13. Project eligibility under the GHG Program

The project is eligible under the GHG CleanProjects® Registry. It is implemented followingthe ISO 14064-2 guidelines and principles, is not attempted to be registered under anotherGHG program and does not create any other environmental credit.

2.14. Main Social Impacts

Jobs have been created for the time of the site preparation and the planting, up to 10 per sitedepending on the site. A contract exists between the project proponent and the expertsArbosilva for the first five years to replant trees to replace the ones that died and to replacethem with trees the same height which gives occasional jobs. The impact on the communityis limited since the forests are on private lands. The benefits will be for the panorama and tohave a better quality of air which can improve the overall health quality. The project takesplace in small villages and it helps to ensure the heritage for future generations. A moredetailed assessment is done in the Sustainability section.

2.15. Main Environmental Impacts

The nature of the project requires no specific authorization or certificates by law. Theproject helps to promote indigenous biodiversity by offering migratory corridors for thefauna for example as well as helping to have a better quality of soil (less erosion, nofertilizers or biological agents used). A more detailed assessment is done in theSustainability section.

2.16. Detailed Chronological Plan

The project started in June 2014 and will end in May 31st 2063. GHG emission reductionsare presented in this report for years 2014 to 2063. A GHG report will be issued annuallyafter the initial report and performance verification will be done every 5 years.


Table 2.5: Chronological Plan

Date Steps in Process

Before this Project

Implementation

--- ---

Project Implementation

(Sites preparation and

planting)

June 1st 2014 Project start date

June 2014 Site F: Site preparation and planting

August 2014 Sites A, B, C, D, and H: Site preparation

May 2015 Sites I and J: Site preparation

June 2015 Site E: Site preparation and planting

Sites A, B, C, D, E, G, H, I, and J: Planting

July 2015 Site O: Site preparation

August 2015 Sites K and L: Site preparation

Sept. 2015 Site N: Site preparation

May 2016 Site M: Site preparation

June 2016 Sites K, L, M, N and O: Planting

After Project

Implementation

2014 to 2063 Conservation, Annual Reports, Regular

Cycle Performance Verification (every 5

years)

2016 1st Report: Initial GHG Report


2.17. Ownership and Financial Structure

Écocrédit is the rightful owner of the removals achieved by this project. The owner of thelands signed a contract with Écocrédit to set the terms of the agreement. Écocrédit also hasan agreement with Arbosilva for their expertise and project implementation. Contracts canbe made available to the verifiers.

Écocrédit provide the GHG expertise, the entire financial support and is the entity thatregroups the data and performs administrative tasks to make the project happened.Écocrédit is also the project proponent and will act as the administrative project managerthroughout the project lifetime to provide necessary reports.

In the next figure, it shows that Distnet financed the project for Écocrédit. Écocrédit hiredthe engineering firm Arbosilva to be in charge of the planting. The project will lead tocarbon credits which can be sold. Once the carbon credits are sold, the money goes back toÉcocrédit and Distnet; they pay Arbosilva and they are giving back the amount to thelandowners participating to the project.

Écocrédit andDistnet Arbosilva Planting Carbon

credits

Carboncreditssales

Écocréditand Distnet

Arbosilva Landowners


3. SUSTAINABILITY

3.1. Environmental Impact Assessment

More details are available in the Gold Standard template “Do-No-Harm Assessment” inAppendix VI.

3.2. Socio-Economic Impact Assessment

More details are available in the Gold Standard template “Do-No-Harm Assessment” inAppendix VI.

3.3. Mechanism for on-going Communication, Stakeholder Consultations andSustainable Development Assessment

Yves Legault, VP and general manager of Écocrédit is responsible for the communicationswith the quantifier, the verifier and with all relevant stakeholders within and outside thecompany.

Stakeholder consultation was limited to the land owners since the planting occurred on theirlands. No permit was necessary since the project area on each site is still considered smallcomparing to major areas that can be reforested. Since the impact is limited to the lands ofthe lands owners no official local stakeholder consultation is necessary.

3.4. Input and Grievance Mechanism

For the Initial Certification, there is no need of completing the “Input and GrievanceMechanism” template.

3.5. Sustainability Monitoring Plan

There is no need of the “Sustainability Monitoring Plan” since no element in the “Do-no-harm assessment” template presents a risk medium or high of no compliance.

3.6. Legal Rights

The information has been already discussed in a previous section and the informationneeded in the template “Project Participants and Secured Titles” is presented in section 2.11and 2.17.

3.7. Risk Register

Further information is provided in the Appendix VII related to Risk Register.


4. SELECTION OF THE BASELINE SCENARIO AND ASSESSMENT

OF ADDITIONALITY

4.1. Applicability

The sites of the project are not on wetlands. The areas of the sites have not been drained orirrigated except if it was needed during the planting. Some soil disturbance happened forthe site preparation to prepare the land: removals of branches and trees and the soildisturbance is estimated to be less than 10% of the project area. During the planting phase,the workers were working with light equipment such as shovels and their equipment forprotection; therefore the soil disturbance is minimal. For the duration of the project, the soildisturbance will be negligible. The most likely scenario without the project is defined foreach site. The baseline selected is based on what would have happened without the projectand therefore the baseline scenario doesn’t show any significant increase in the baselinebiomass.

4.2. Baseline Scenario

The baseline scenario is selected among alternative scenarios representing what would havehappened in the absence of this project for each site. The alternative scenario that is mostlikely to occur is selected as the baseline scenario. The information needed for the GSBaseline Template is presented in Appendix VIII and IX.

4.3. Additionality

The concept of addionality is there to ensure that the project goes beyond normal practicesand that project wouldn’t have been made without carbon credits to help financing it.

4.3.1 A/R CDM Tool

For the assessment of additionality of the project scenario, the Clean DevelopmentMechanism (CDM) A/R additionality tool is used to elaborate the potential baselinescenarios for each unit reforested. The following table shows the pre-project scenario foreach site. The Gold Standard Template is not directly presented since the tool methodologyfor the selection of the baseline scenario is done for each unit reforested.


Table 4.1: Pre-Project Scenarios for each Units Reforested

UnitReforested

Maturetrees, forest

notregenerated

Agriculture No forest,herbs, semi-

ligneousspecies

No forest, afew trees

Trees eaten /damaged byanimals, no

forestA, B X

C, D X

E X

F X

G X

H X

I X

J X

K X

L X

M X

N X

O X

For the assessment of additionality of the project scenario, a barrier analysis has beenperformed as suggested in the CDM A/R additionality tool. The legal requirements,financial barrier, technical barrier and the common practice are discussed.

Legal Requirements. Firstly, no regulation imposes or rules out a specific scenario for anyunit.

Financial Barrier. The first potential scenario is a forest of mature trees with noregeneration. There is no barrier to this scenario but no financial advantage. The secondscenario is to use the land for agriculture, either for the culture of the land owner or to rentthe land for agriculture. There is no financial barrier for this scenario. The landowner caneven have revenues from the conversion for agriculture. For the third scenario, there is noforest, only herbs or semi-ligneous species. There is no financial barrier and no financialadvantage. In the forth scenario, there are a few trees but no forest. For this scenario, thereis no financial barrier but no financial advantage either. The fifth option is a damaged andnot a viable forest. The trees are eaten by wild animals and the forest cannot be viable.Finally, the last option is to have a viable forest by planting trees. There is a significant


financial barrier; to reforest the area, an important investment is needed. The forest couldbe use for wood industry and revenues can be made or can be kept intact for conservation.

Table 4.2: Barrier Assessment : Financial Barrier

1-Maturetrees,

forest, notregenerated

2-Agriculture

3-No forest,

herbs,semi-

ligneousspecies

4-No forest,

a fewtrees

5-Treeseaten /

damagedby

animals,no viable

forest

6-ViableForest

No financialbarrier. Nofinancial

advantage.

No financialbarrier.

Landownercan be paid

or haverevenues forthe use of the

land.

Nofinancial

barrier. Nofinancial

advantage.

Nofinancial

barrier. Nofinancial

advantage.

Nofinancialbarrier.

Nofinancial

advantage.

Financialbarrier. Toreforest,

animportant

investmentis needed.

If it isused for

woodindustry,revenuescan bemaid.

Technical Barrier. For scenarios 1, 3, 4 and 5, there is no technical or feasibility barrier.For scenario 2, if the land is used for agriculture, there is a certain know-how needed andtechnology is needed; therefore there is a technical barrier. For scenario 6, there is atechnical barrier to ensure the growth of a viable forest. A plan is needed to choose the rightspecies to plant. A lot of technical aspects need to be mastered like the appropriate density,the type of soil, wild animals passing by, and so on. This know-how leads to the necessityto hire experts like forest engineers to take care of all the technical aspects.

Common practice. In this case, there is not only one option than can represent thecommon practice; all of them except the scenario 6 can be common practice. Thereforestation is probably the less likely option to be chosen.

Summary. The project scenario is reforestation for all of them; it is the option with thehigher number of barriers and that wouldn’t have happened without carbon credits. Thebaseline scenario will be the pre-project scenario or the equivalent (option that would havebeen chosen if the project wouldn’t have taken place).


4.3.2 Retroactive Submission

According to unexpected complications leading to unanticipated delays, the submission ofthe project to the CSA has been made after the planting. The project answers to theconditions stipulate in A/R Gold Standard: the revenues from the CO2 carbon credits wereseriously considered to implement the project and there was a continuous interest in thecarbon credits for the project in parallel of its implementation. The project was made withthe intention of applying to a standard or a registry for carbon credits.

4.3.3 No deforestation

All sites answer to one or the other of the conditions stated in the A/R Gold Standard: thesite shall not have been a forest for at least 10 years prior to the planting start or evidenceneeds to be presented to prove that the deforestation wasn’t linked to the project.


5. IDENTIFICATION AND SELECTION OF GHG SOURCES, SINKS

AND RESERVOIRS

The SSRs for the baseline, the leakage, CO2 fixation, other emissions are identified in thetable below which also indicates whether they are included or excluded from thequantification and whether they are controlled, related, or affected. The“Afforestation/Reforestation (A/R) Requirements”3 methodology has been chosen for theselection of GHG sources, sinks, and reservoirs to take into account for the quantification.In Gold standard, the SSR’s are related to the carbon pools.

Table 5.1: SSR’s Baseline Scenario Inventory

SSR - Baseline Included /Excluded

Controlled/Related /Affected

GHG Explanation

Tree biomass aboveground(stem, branches, bark)

Included Controlled CO2 There can be a control over thetrees planted and how they aretaking care of.

Tree biomass underground(tree roots)

Included Related CO2 The underground tree biomasscan be related to the care of thetree but the project proponentdoesn’t have a control on theroots of the tree.

Non-tree biomassaboveground (grass, herbs,etc.)

Included Controlled CO2 There can be a control from thelandowner on the vegetationaboveground.

Non-tree biomassunderground (Roots ofgrass, herbs)

Included Related CO2 The non-tree biomassunderground is related to theaboveground vegetation.

Soil (organic material) Excluded Related --- Organic material in soil can becontrolled if substance areadded to the soil but if it’srelated to the natural growth,than it is related to the project.

Harvested wood (timber andenergy wood- furniture,construction material, etc.)

Excluded Controlled --- There is a direct control on thewood harvested or not.

Litter and lying dead wood(leaves, small fallenbranches, lying dead wood)

Excluded Related --- The control of the land owner isvery limited. It is more relatedto the site, right choice of trees,etc.

3 The Gold Standard Foundation. Afforestation/Reforestation (A/R) Requirements, (August 2013), Version 0.9(Road-Test), p.31, Internet link: http://www.goldstandard.org/resources/afforestation-reforestation-requirements


Table 5.2: SSR’s Inventory for CO2 fixation

SSR - Project Included /Excluded


GHG Explanation

Tree biomassaboveground (stem,branches, bark)

Included Controlled CO2 There can be a control overthe trees planted and howthey are taking car of.

Tree biomassunderground (tree roots)

Included Related CO2 The underground treebiomass can be related to thecare of the tree but theproject proponent doesn’thave a control on the roots ofthe tree.

Non-tree biomassaboveground (grass,herbs, etc.)

Excluded Controlled --- There can be a control fromthe landowner on thevegetation aboveground.


Excluded Related --- The non-tree biomassunderground is related to theaboveground vegetation.

Soil (organic material) Excluded Related --- Organic material in soil canbe controlled if substance areadded to the soil but if it’srelated to the natural growth,than it is related to theproject.

Harvested wood (timberand energy wood-furniture, constructionmaterial, etc.)

Excluded Controlled --- There is a direct control onthe wood harvested or not.

Litter and lying deadwood (leaves, smallfallen branches, lyingdead wood)

Excluded Related --- The control of the landowner is very limited. It ismore related to the site, rightchoice of trees, etc.


Table 5.3: Leakage



GHG Explanation

Tree biomassaboveground (stem,branches, bark)

Included Controlled CO2 There can be a control overthe trees planted and howthey are taking car of.

Tree biomassunderground (tree roots)

Included Related CO2 The underground treebiomass can be related to thecare of the tree but theproject proponent doesn’thave a control on the roots ofthe tree.

Non-tree biomassaboveground (grass,herbs, etc.)

Excluded Controlled --- There can be a control fromthe landowner on thevegetation aboveground.


Excluded Related --- The non-tree biomassunderground is related to theaboveground vegetation.

Soil (organic material) Excluded Related --- Organic material in soil canbe controlled if substance areadded to the soil but if it’srelated to the natural growth,than it is related to theproject.

Harvested wood (timberand energy wood-furniture, constructionmaterial, etc.)

Excluded Controlled --- There is a direct control onthe wood harvested or not.

Litter and lying deadwood (leaves, smallfallen branches, lyingdead wood)

Excluded Related --- The control of the landowner is very limited. It ismore related to the site, rightchoice of trees, etc.


Table 5.4: Other emissions



GHG Explanation

Site preparation byburning

Excluded

Included

Included

Controlled CO2bio

CH4

N2O

To account for the non-CO2 greenhouse gasemissions (CH4 and CO2)that are released during theburning process. (GS)

Fertilizer Included Controlled CO2 0.005tCO2/kg of nitrogenfertilizer shall be deducted.No differentiation is madebetween synthetic andorganic fertilizer. (GS)

Combustion of fossil fuel Included

Included

Included

Controlled CO2

CH4

N2O

Non-CO2 greenhouse gasemissions caused by thefossil fuel from projectactivities are insignificantand may therefore beneglected. (GS)

N-fixing trees Included

Excluded

Excluded

Controlled CO2

CH4

N2O

Non-CO2 greenhouse gasemissions caused by the N-fixing species may beconservatively assumed tobe zero.


6. QUANTIFICATION OF GHG EMISSIONS AND REMOVALS

The calculation of carbon credits is calculated from the CO2 fixation amount sequesteredby the trees from their growth. From that amount, the baseline scenario emissions orremovals are deduced, the leakage and other emissions, if it’s the case. Normally, thisinformation is provided in tCO2/ha, so in the end, the result has to be multiplied by theeligible planting area.

CO2 carbon credits = (CO2 fixation - Baseline - Leakage - Other Emissions) * Area

For both the baseline scenario and the project scenario (CO2 fixation), the aboveground andbelowground tree biomass need to be calculated from onsite data and tabulated data.

As explained in the previous section, CO2, CH4 and N2O are calculated in thequantification for both baseline and project emissions.

Calculation examples are available in Appendix IX.

For ex-ante credits, a buffer of 10% is kept to account for potential problematic that canoccur over the years. In this case, 10% is deemed appropriate since all trees that would diedwithin the 5 first years will be replaced by live trees of a similar size.

6.1. CO2 Fixation

For CO2 fixation, according with the site location, the “tarif” number and the site index aredefined. Site index is the height at 50 years for a specific region which corresponds to thequality of the site. In Quebec the site index is called IQS (indice de qualité de station). The“tarif” number is a site specific model that is applied for a region and developed fromonsite data. With this “tarif”, it is possible to have the merchantable volume for a speciesand for this region by knowing only one data, the height or the diameter of the tree.Therefore with the site index, the species planted and the “tarif” number, the grossmerchantable volume per stem is found in a volume table. This table is available from opendata from the government of Quebec.4

4 Government of Quebec. Données Québec. (2016). Visited on August 15, 2016. Internet link:https://www.donneesquebec.ca/recherche/fr/dataset/tarif-de-cubage


Figure 6.1 Data needed leading to Gross Merchantable Volume per Stem

From the gross merchantable volume per stem (volume marchand brut par tige), the grossmerchantable volume per hectare (volume marchand par hectare) can be calculated withthe density of the plantation. With the gross merchantable volume in m3 per ha, the model5

is used to find the appropriate equations to use according to the site location and thespecies. Once the equations are applied, the conversion from the volume to the biomassquantity is completed. The biomass quantity is expressed in metric tons of biomass perhectare.

Figure 6.2 Gross Merchantable Volume to Biomass

From the quantity of biomass found, the equations from the Gold Standard can be used andwill lead to a quantity of carbon per hectare that composes the trees. This amount can beconverted in the CO2 quantity sequestered per hectare.

AG = Stem Volume * BEF * Wood Density * Carbon Fraction * C to CO2 factor

where AG represents the CO2 fixation for the aboveground tree biomass (tCO2 / ha) andBEF represents the biomass expansion factor (no unit).

BG = AG * Root-to-Shoot ratio

where BG represents the CO2 fixation for the belowground tree biomass (tCO2/ha).

5 Boudewyn, Song & al., Model-based, volume-to-biomass conversion for forested and vegetated land inCanada, (2007). Internet link: http://cfs.nrcan.gc.ca/pubwarehouse/pdfs/27434.pdf

"Tarif" number

Species

Height ordiameter at 50

years

GrossMerchantable

Volume perstem

GrossMerchantableVolume per ha

(m3/ha)

Model"volume to

biomassconversion"

Biomass perha

(t biomass/ha)


More details on the parameters are provided in the “Emission Factors and otherParameters” section of this report.

The model use for the conversion of from volume to biomass gives directly the quantity ofbiomass by hectare (metric ton by ha). The data found in the tables from the modelrepresents “Stem Volume * BEF * Wood Density” for the CO2 fixation of the projectscenario; therefore it replaces this expression in the Gold Standard CO2-fixation equation.Gold Standard dictates that if national or regional data are available, those data should beuse instead of the default values. In the case of this project, regional data are available andare used.

6.2. Baseline

For the baseline scenario, the methodology used for the project CO2-fixation can be usedbut instead of using the data for trees, the data for non-tree biomass can be used dependingon the baseline scenario chosen for the unit reforested.

6.3. Leakage

No shift of activities happens for this project; therefore no leakage needs to be calculated.

6.4. Other emissions

No site preparation by burning is done. The calculation of emissions related to fertilizer useis already described in the standard; therefore a quantity of CO2 per kg of fertilizer isaccounted for, no matter if it is organic or synthetic (in this case, no fertilizer is used). Thecombustion of fossil fuels is calculated using emission factors. The quantity of the fuel ismultiply by the emission factors for CO2, CH4 and N2O for the appropriate fuel and thequantity of greenhouse gas calculated using the appropriate global warming potential foreach gas. For site preparation, the quantity of fuel is taken from data but the emissions forthe maintenance of the forest are estimated using the data for site preparation for eachthinning of the site. Two thinning are considered for the project lifetime. There are no N-fixing trees involved in the project.


6.5. Emission Factors and other Parameters

The emission factors used for the calculation of “other emissions” are presented below.

Table 6.1: Emission Factors Summary and Global Warming Potentials (GWP)

Factor Gas Value Unit Source

Diesel -mobile

combustion

CO2 2690 g/L National Inventory Report 1990-2013,Greenhouse Gas Source and Sinks in Canada,Part 2, p.195-199CH4 0.15 g/L

N2O 0.075 g/L

Diesel -equipment

CO2 2690 g/L National Inventory Report 1990-2013,Greenhouse Gas Source and Sinks in Canada,Part 2, p.195-199CH4 0.133 g/L

N2O 0.4 g/L

Gasoline -mobilecombustion

CO2 2316 g/L National Inventory Report 1990-2013,Greenhouse Gas Sources and Sinks in Canada,Part 2, p.195-199CH4 0.49 g/L

N2O 0.084 g/L

Gasoline -equipment

CO2 2316 g/L National Inventory Report 1990-2013,Greenhouse Gas Sources and Sinks in Canada,Part 2, p.195-199CH4 0.14 g/L

N2O 0.02 g/L

GWP

CO2 1 tCO2e/tCO2 National Inventory Report 1990-2013,Greenhouse Gas Sources and Sinks in Canada,Part 1, p. 30CH4 25 tCO2e/tCH4

N2O 298 tCO2e/tN2O

The parameters proposed in the Gold Standard Requirements are shown in the next table. Itis followed by another table presenting tabulated and calculated parameters. Specific dataused per region are presented in Appendix VIII.


Table 6.2: Parameters Summary from Gold Standard Requirements

Parameter Value Unit Definition SourceCarbonFraction,treebiomass

0.5 tC / tDM The fraction of carbon contentof the dry mass of the biomassfor tree biomass.

Gold StandardRequirements

CarbonFraction,non-treebiomass

0.4 tC / tDM The fraction of carbon contentof the dry mass of the biomassfor non-tree biomass.


C to CO2factor

44/12 tCO2 / tC Factor corresponding to theweight of the CO2 moleculeon the weight of the carbonelement.

General knowledge andGold StandardRequirements

WoodDensity(Project)

0.3 tDM / m3 Wood density for the CO2fixation of the project.


WoodDensity

(Baseline)

0.7 tDM / m3 Wood density for the baselinescenario calculation.


BEF

(Project)

1.1 no unit Biomass Expansion Factor forCO2 fixation of the project.


BEF

(Baseline)

3.5 no unit Biomass Expansion Factor forbaseline scenario calculation.


Root-to-Shoot ratio,treebiomass(Project)

0.2 no unit Root-to-Shoot ratio for treebiomass for CO2 fixation ofthe project.


Root-to-Shoot ratio,treebiomass(Baseline)

0.8 no unit Root-to-Shoot ratio for treebiomass for baseline scenariocalculation.


Root-to-Shoot ratio,non-treebiomass(Baseline)

4.0 no unit Root-to-Shoot ratio for non-tree biomass for baselinescenario calculation.



Table 6.3: Tabulated and Calculated Parameters needed for Gold Standard Model

Parameter Value Unit Definition SourceAG,p N/A tCO2 / ha CO2 fixation for the

aboveground tree biomass forthe project

Calculated

AG,b N/A tCO2 / ha CO2 fixation for theaboveground tree biomass forthe baseline

Calculated

BG,p N/A tCO2 / ha CO2 fixation for theaboveground tree biomass forthe project

Calculated

AG,b N/A tCO2 / ha CO2 fixation for theaboveground tree biomass forthe baseline

Calculated

StemVolume pertree

valueperspeciesandregion

m3 / tree Volume of the stem of thetree

Tabulated. “tarif decubage” from“Données Québec”

StemVolume perha

N/A m3 / ha Volume of the stem of thetrees by ha considering1800trees / ha

Calculated

IQS valueperspeciesandregion

m Height of the tree at 50 yearsof age (site index in Canada,IQS in Québec)

“Guide sylvicole duQuébec”


The “volume to biomass” model described previously6 is used to gather the specific data forthe region where the sites are. The two following tables indicate to which scenariodescribed in the model correspond each baseline and the project scenarios.

Table 6.4: Biomass Model equivalent to each Baseline Scenarios

BaselineScenario

BiomassModel

Unit Explanation

1- Maturetrees, forest,notregenerated

Scenario 3 A, B Scenario 3 represents a site with trees that are notmerchantable. A forest that cannot beregenerated has trees but the trees cannot assurethe regeneration of the site. In this case theclosest scenario that can represent the situation isscenario 3.

2-Agriculture

Scenario 4 C,D Scenario 4 represents an area vegetated with notree. If the site would have been used foragriculture, it can be related to vegetation withno tree.

3- No forest,herbs, semi-ligneousspecies

Scenario 4 E,G,I Scenario 4 represents an area vegetated with notree. The scenario 4 represents perfectly the sites.

4- No forest,a few trees

Scenario 3 F,H,K,L,M,N,O

Scenario 3 represents a site with trees that are notmerchantable. On those sites, not enough treesexist to regenerate the forest. In this case theclosest scenario that can represent the situation isscenario 3.

5- Treeseaten /damaged byanimals, noviable forest

Scenario 3 J Scenario 3 represents a site with trees that are notmerchantable. A forest that cannot beregenerated has trees but the trees cannot assurethe regeneration of the site because the trees areeaten by animals. In this case the closest scenariothat can represent the situation is scenario 3.

Table 6.5: Biomass Model equivalent to Project Scenario

Baseline Scenario Biomass Model Explanation6- Viable Forest Scenario 1 or 2 CO2 fixation for the aboveground tree

biomass for the project



Table 6.6: Biomass Model Data

ModelScenarios

Value Unit Explanation Source

Scenario 1and 2:dependingon the zoneand species

N/A t biomass /ha

Each combination of “tarif”,tree species and ecozone havetheir related model withdifferent parameters. Theyare presented in the AppendixVIII.

Parameters needed:

“tarif”, ecozone,trees species,province

table 3 and table 4 ofthe “volume tobiomass” model7

Scenario 3 73622 kg ofbiomass /ha (live)

General data for AtlanticMaritime Ecozone (meanvalue) for forest. This data isextremely conservative sincethe reality to the situationwould have been “scattered”category but data doesn’texist for this ecozone.

Parameter needed:

ecozone

Table 11 of the“volume to biomass”model

1236 kg ofbiomass /ha (dead)

Scenario 4 2774.8 kg ofbiomass /ha (live)

General data for naturallyvegetated non-treed.Landclass: other /grassland/meadow

Parameter needed:

landclass

Table 13 of the“volume to biomass”model

1652.7 kg ofbiomass /ha (live)



7. DATA MONITORING AND CONTROL

7.1. Data Management and Backups

Data are filed by project and backups are made regularly. The reference of the data is keptso the source of the data can be retraced; emails, documentation, spreadsheets, and so on.Arbosilva is in charge of the data and information related to the plantation.

7.2. Data Control and Procedures

For the Initial Certification, only a few data are needed. The control can be done byreviewing the expenses of the company Arbosilva for the fuel consumption and treesbought and planted.

For the forest inventories, the guidelines of BioCarbun Fund will be followed to insure theuse of the best practices. Onsite verification will be done periodically to confirm the dataand results from the inventories. Arbosilva will be in charge of the data for the inventories.

Table 7.1: Data monitoring summary

Data/Parameters

Units Description Measurementmethod; Source of

data to be used

QA/QCprocedures

Number oftrees

trees Number of treesplanted on each unitand of each species.

Counted; Arbosilvarecords - Plantingreports.

Arbosilva bills.

ForestInventories.

fuelconsumption

L Quantity of fuelconsumed

Estimated; Arbosilvarecords for km.

Arbosilvarecords.


8. REPORTING AND VERIFICATION DETAILS

The project plan and report is prepared in accordance with ISO 14064-2 standard and theGHG CleanProjects® Registry requirements. The methodology that is used, the choice ofregion specific emission factors and a rigorous monitoring plan allow for a reasonably lowlevel of uncertainty. Écocrédit is confident that the emission reductions are notoverestimated and that the numbers of emission reductions that are reported here are realand reflect the actual impacts of the project.

The GHG report is prepared in accordance with ISO 14064-2 and GHG CleanProjects®

Registry requirements. Emission reductions will be verified by an independent third partyto a reasonable level of assurance. Emission reductions are reported here for years 2014 to2063.

Detailed results are presented in Appendix IX.

8.1. GHG Emission Removals General Summary

Table 8.1: GHG Emission Removals for 2014 to 2063 (t CO2e)

EmissionsTotal Quantity Emission Removals

t CO2eProject CO2 fixation 67249

Baseline Emissions (9885)

Other Emissions (65)

TOTAL 57299

Table 8.2: Ex-ante credits available (t CO2e)

EmissionsEx-ante credits available

t CO2eCO2 Emissions Removals 57299

10% Buffer (Project specific) (5737)

Credits ex-ante available 51562


8.2. GHG Emission Removals detailed per site

The next tables present the emissions detailed per site for the project scenario for CO2fixation, the baseline scenario and the other emissions. The CO2 fixation for the projectscenario and for the baseline scenario is expressed in CO2. Other emissions are shown forCO2, CH4 and N2O and in CO2e. No PFCs, HFCs or SF6 are emitted during the project.

8.2.1 Credits and Ex-ante Credits per Site

Table 8.3 Credits and Ex-ante Credits per Site

Credits Ex-Ante credits

Sites tCO2e Sites tCO2e

A 3808 A 3427

B 2353 B 2117

C 5360 C 4824

D 5263 D 4736

E 4554 E 4098

F 1167 F 1050

G 1031 G 927

H 5233 H 4709

I 1878 I 1690

J 9393 J 8453

K 2439 K 2195

L 4912 L 4420

M 2338 M 2104

N 3979 N 3581

O 3591 O 3231



8.2.2 Project CO2-Fixation, Baseline Scenario and Other Emissions per Site

Table 8.4 Project CO2-Fixation, Baseline Scenario and Other Emissions per Site

LTCO2-fixation-GM

Emissions Baseline Emissions OtherEmissions

Emissions

Sites tCO2 tCO2e Sites tCO2 tCO2e Sites tCO2e

A 4787 4787 A 973 973 A 6

B 2836 2836 B 479 479 B 4

C 5373 5373 C 9 9 C 4

D 5277 5277 D 10 10 D 4

E 4566 4566 E 9 9 E 3

F 1505 1505 F 335 335 F 3

G 1035 1035 G 3 3 G 1

H 6182 6182 H 943 943 H 6

I 3799 3799 I 1918 1918 I 3

J 11236 11236 J 1835 1835 J 8

K 2831 2831 K 389 389 K 3

L 5628 5628 L 712 712 L 4

M 2884 2884 M 541 541 M 5

N 5090 5090 N 1105 1105 N 6

O 4220 4220 O 624 624 O 5



8.2.3 Other Emissions detailed for Site Preparation, Planting and Thinning per Site

Table 8.5 Emissions for Site Preparation



A 1.233 0.000 0.000 1.233 0.010 0.119 1.363

B 0.774 0.000 0.000 0.774 0.010 0.119 0.903

C 0.883 0.000 0.000 0.883 0.005 0.060 0.947

D 0.883 0.000 0.000 0.883 0.005 0.060 0.947

E 0.430 0.000 0.000 0.430 0.010 0.119 0.559

F 0.412 0.000 0.000 0.412 0.008 0.089 0.509

G 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

H 1.377 0.000 0.000 1.377 0.010 0.119 1.506

I 0.324 0.000 0.000 0.324 0.005 0.060 0.389

J 2.027 0.000 0.001 2.027 0.010 0.149 2.186

K 0.513 0.000 0.000 0.513 0.010 0.119 0.642

L 0.946 0.000 0.000 0.946 0.010 0.119 1.076

M 1.270 0.000 0.001 1.270 0.010 0.149 1.429

N 1.247 0.000 0.000 1.247 0.010 0.119 1.376

O 0.988 0.000 0.000 0.988 0.010 0.119 1.117

TOTAL 13.305 0.005 0.005 13.305 0.123 1.520 14.948


Table 8.6 Emissions for Planting



A 0.262 0.000 0.000 0.262 0.005 0.060 0.327

B 0.158 0.000 0.000 0.158 0.005 0.060 0.223

C 0.209 0.000 0.000 0.209 0.005 0.060 0.273

D 0.209 0.000 0.000 0.209 0.005 0.060 0.273

E 0.260 0.000 0.000 0.260 0.005 0.060 0.324

F 0.127 0.000 0.000 0.127 0.003 0.030 0.160

G 0.070 0.000 0.000 0.070 0.003 0.030 0.102

H 0.186 0.000 0.000 0.186 0.005 0.060 0.251

I 0.416 0.000 0.000 0.416 0.005 0.060 0.480

J 0.416 0.000 0.000 0.416 0.005 0.060 0.480

K 0.262 0.000 0.000 0.262 0.005 0.060 0.327

L 0.158 0.000 0.000 0.158 0.005 0.060 0.223

M 0.168 0.000 0.000 0.168 0.005 0.060 0.233

N 0.297 0.000 0.000 0.297 0.005 0.060 0.361

O 0.186 0.000 0.000 0.186 0.005 0.060 0.251

TOTAL 3.384 0.003 0.003 3.384 0.070 0.834 4.288


Table 8.7 Emissions for Thinning

Thinning

Number of times forthinning

2


Thinning tCO2 tCH4 tN2O tCO2e tCO2e tCO2e tCO2e

A 2.9908 0.0012 0.0012 2.9908 0.03 0.3576 3.3784

B 1.8646 0.0012 0.0012 1.8646 0.03 0.3576 2.2522

C 2.1826 0.0008 0.0008 2.1826 0.02 0.2384 2.441

D 2.1826 0.0008 0.0008 2.1826 0.02 0.2384 2.441

E 1.3788 0.0012 0.0012 1.3788 0.03 0.3576 1.7664

F 1.0786 0.0008 0.0008 1.0786 0.02 0.2384 1.337

G 0.139 0.0002 0.0002 0.139 0.005 0.0596 0.2036

H 3.1258 0.0012 0.0012 3.1258 0.03 0.3576 3.5134

I 1.4802 0.0008 0.0008 1.4802 0.02 0.2384 1.7386

J 4.8846 0.0012 0.0014 4.8846 0.03 0.4172 5.3318

K 1.55 0.0012 0.0012 1.55 0.03 0.3576 1.9376

L 2.209 0.0012 0.0012 2.209 0.03 0.3576 2.5966

M 2.8756 0.0012 0.0014 2.8756 0.03 0.4172 3.3228

N 3.0868 0.0012 0.0012 3.0868 0.03 0.3576 3.4744

O 2.3484 0.0012 0.0012 2.3484 0.03 0.3576 2.736

TOTAL 33.3774 0.0154 0.0158 33.3774 0.385 4.7084 38.4708


Table 8.8 Other Emissions per Site



A 4.486 0.002 0.002 4.486 0.045 0.536 5.068

B 2.797 0.002 0.002 2.797 0.045 0.536 3.378

C 3.274 0.001 0.001 3.274 0.030 0.358 3.662

D 3.274 0.001 0.001 3.274 0.030 0.358 3.662

E 2.068 0.002 0.002 2.068 0.045 0.536 2.650

F 1.618 0.001 0.001 1.618 0.030 0.358 2.006

G 0.209 0.000 0.000 0.209 0.008 0.089 0.305

H 4.689 0.002 0.002 4.689 0.045 0.536 5.270

I 2.220 0.001 0.001 2.220 0.030 0.358 2.608

J 7.327 0.002 0.002 7.327 0.045 0.626 7.998

K 2.325 0.002 0.002 2.325 0.045 0.536 2.906

L 3.314 0.002 0.002 3.314 0.045 0.536 3.895

M 4.313 0.002 0.002 4.313 0.045 0.626 4.984

N 4.630 0.002 0.002 4.630 0.045 0.536 5.212

O 3.523 0.002 0.002 3.523 0.045 0.536 4.104

TOTAL 50.066 0.023 0.024 50.066 0.578 7.063 57.706


APPENDIX I - COVER LETTER


APPENDIX II - KEY PROJET INFORMATION

Key Project Information (Based on the Gold Standard Requirements)

Ref. Key Project Information Sections in the report

a Project activities 2.4 and 2.8

b Organizations that are involved 2.11

c Communities involved in the project 2.12

d Location of the area planted and the planting area 2.5

e Size of the project area and planting area 2.5

f Risk of the project area to change (during the creditingperiod)

2.10

g Risk of the project activities to change (during thecrediting period)

2.10

h Timeframe for the project activities 2.3, 2.6 and 2.16

i Number of predicted CO2 credits 2.9

j Land-use history 2.6

k Socio-economic history and current situation of theproject

2.6

l Forest management applied (past and future) 2.7

m Forest characteristics (including main tree speciesplanted)

2.7

n Main social impacts (risks and benefits) 2.14

o Main environmental impacts 2.15

p Financial structure 2.17


APPENDIX III - LOCATION PLANS

Location plans

Project area (eligible planting area) and total planting area differ depending on the site. Theeligible planting area doesn’t take into account the area where trees, planted before theproject, were kept.

For each site: project area = eligible planting area.

Modeling units were defined not geographically but for each site by species, eachcombination of site and species has its own modeling unit.

Infrastructure and water bodies are shown on every map directly.

There was no site with special significant or indigenous people or local communities on thesites.


SITE A

Site location: on lots 11 and 13, rang 4, Township of Garthby, reforested on 8,8 hectares

Latitude: 45°53'21.44"N Longitude: 71°25'6.25"O


SITE B

Site location: on lots 12 and 14, rang 4, Township of Garthby, reforested on 5,3 hectares



SITE C

Site location: on lot 9, rang C, Township of Auckland, reforested on 7,0 hectares



SITE D

Site location: on lots 24-P and 25 9, rang C, Township of Auckland, reforested on 7,0hectares



SITE E

Site location: on lot 16B.1 part of 16B-P, rang 5, Township of Wolfestown, reforested on6,4 hectares



SITE F

Site location: on lots 25A, 25B, 25C and 25D, rang 10, Township of Wolfestown,reforested on 2,8 hectares



SITE G

Site location: on lots 22A, rang 11, Township of Wolfestown, reforested on 1,3 hectare



SITE H

Site location: on lots 12A and 13A-P, rang 3, Township of Wolfestown, reforested on 7,7hectares



SITE I

Site location: on lot 4 602 414, Township of Québec, reforested on 14,9 hectares



SITE J

Site location: on lot 180-P, rang 3, Township of Ireland, reforested on 14,7 hectares



SITE K

Site location: on lot 11, rang 4, Township of Garthby, reforested on 3,33 hectares



SITE L

Site location: on lot 12, rang 4, Township of Garthby, reforested on 6,62 hectares



SITE M

Site location: on lot 24-3 part of 24-P, rang 8, Township of Wolfestown, reforested on 4,68hectares



SITE N

Site location: on lots 5261594 et 5262258 (formely known as lot 7 and lot 6-P on rang B),Township of Coleraine, reforested on 8,67 hectares

Latitude: 46° 1'19.80"N Longitude: 71°15'41.62"O


SITE O

Site location: on lots 10C-P 10D, 11A, 11B-P et 13A-P, rang 3, Township of Wolfestown,reforested on 5,34 hectares

Latitude: 46° 0'11.89"N Longitude: 71°33'5.25"O


APPENDIX IV - TREE SPECIES

Tree Species

Species and Codes

Codes French Names English Names CanFI20018

Number

EPB Épinette blanche White Spruce 105

EPN Épinette noire Black Spruce 101

EPR Épinette rouge Red Spruce 102

PIR Pin rouge Red Pine 209

PIB Pin blanc EasternWhite Pine 202

MEL Mélèze laricin Tamarack 602

8Power and Gillis. Canada’s Forest Inventory (CanFI2001). 2006. p.119


General Information on Species in Natural Forest in Quebec

Codes Longevity

(years)

Averagematurityheight(m)

Maximalheight(m)

Averagediameter atmaturity(cm)

Other information

EPB more than200

(250 to300possible)

18-23 28.8 30-50 Coniferous. Availablein all Quebecbioclimatic domains.Dominant species.

EPN 175-200(max:250)

N/A 24.3 20 Coniferous. Availablein all Quebecbioclimatic domainsexcept domain 1.Dominant species.

EPR More than200

(up to 400possible)

18-26 25.8 30-60 Coniferous. Availablein Quebec bioclimaticdomains: 2, 3, 4 and 5east, marginal in 1 and5 west. CompanionSpecies.

PIR 200 (up tomore than300)

23-30 32 90 Coniferous. Availablein Quebec bioclimaticdomains: 2, 3 and 4.

PIB 200 (up tomore than450)

30 andmore

35.3 90-100 Coniferous. Availablein Quebec bioclimaticdomains: 1, 2, 3, 4 and5 east. Companionspecies.

MEL 150 (up to180)

15-23 27.4 36-51 Coniferous. Availablein all Quebecbioclimatic domains.Companion species.

Source:http://www2.publicationsduquebec.gouv.qc.ca/essences/essence.php?e=commerciale


APPENDIX V - LANDOWNERS

Site Landowner Address of the landowner Representative

A René Morin Inc. 254 chemin Quirion à Lambton,Québec G0M 1H0

René Morin

B Foresterie R. MorinInc.

254 chemin Quirion à Lambton,Québec G0M 1H0

René Morin

C Jean-Paul Roy 116 rue principale à Saint-Malo,Québec J0B 2Y0

Jean-Paul Roy

D Jean-Paul Roy 116 rue principale à Saint-Malo,Québec J0B 2Y0

Jean-Paul Roy

E Jasmin Dubois 1335 chemin Dubois à St-Jacques-le-Majeur, Québec, G0P 1G0

Jasmin Dubois

F Serge Caron etgestion immobilièreM.A.C. Inc. (Marc-André Caron)

40 rue Hébert à Princeville,Québec, G6L 3Y8

Serge Caron

G Jules Lehoux 1351 route 161 à Ham-Nord,Québec, G0P 1A0

Jules Lehoux

H Immeuble MéganticInc.

1122, boulevard Ouellet à ThetfordMines, Québec G6G 4X8

Maurice Delisle

I 2858-0702 Québecinc.

0 route 112, C.P. 456, succursaleBureau chef, Thetford Mines,Québec, G6G 5T3

Simon Dupéré

J 2858-0702 Québecinc.

0 route 112, C.P. 456, succursaleBureau chef, Thetford Mines,Québec, G6G 5T3

Simon Dupéré

K René Morin Inc. 254 chemin Quirion à Lambton,Québec G0M 1H0

René Morin

L Foresterie R. MorinInc.

254 chemin Quirion à Lambton,Québec G0M 1H0

René Morin

M René Morin Inc. 254 chemin Quirion à Lambton,Québec G0M 1H0

René Morin

N 9023-3347 Québecinc.

718 route 263, Lambton, Qc, GOM1HO

Gaby Baillargeon

O Immeuble MéganticInc.

1122, boulevard Ouellet à ThetfordMines, Québec G6G 4X8

Maurice Delisle


APPENDIX VI - DO-NO-HARM ASSESSMENT GS TEMPLATE

Do-No-Harm Assessment GS template

1 of 17 | Do-No-Harm Assessment

Certificates

Do-No-Harm AssessmentThe Gold Standard Template is used as a guideline for the “Do-No-Harm Assessment Section”.Project Title


Type of Certification

Initial Certification Performance Certification New Area Certification

Dual Certification

FSC - Dual certification

If the project is certified according the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC), the certification status replaces thecompletion of this template. Please provide the ‘FSC Audit Report’ in the supporting documents of section ‘3.Sustainability’ and provide a reference to this supporting document in this template:...

Guidelines applied for this certification

A/R Guidelines - Mangroves

These guidelines alter the ‘A/R Requirements’ and thus have an effect on this documentation.

Please outline how your project meets each of the following requirements, referring to any supportingdocumentation where necessary. The formatting requirements provided in chapter 7.4 must be followed.

Social

Indigenous People and Local Communities

1. Sites with legal and customary rights of indigenous people and local communities shall be identified,known and respected by the workers.

Relevant Not relevant

N/A

Future risk of non-compliance: Low Medium High not applicable, as not relevant

If the risk is ‘medium’ or ‘high’ describe the mitigation measure and add it to the ‘Sustainability MonitoringPlan’.

...

2. Sites for special cultural, ecological, economic, religious or spiritual significance to the indigenous peopleand local communities shall be identified, known and respected by the workers.


...




2. Sites for special cultural, ecological, economic, religious or spiritual significance to the indigenous peopleand local communities shall be identified, known and respected by the workers.

N/A

3. The transfer of control of any activities from indigenous people and local communities to the projectowner shall be documented.


...



...

4. The project shall not involve and shall not be complicit in the involuntary relocation of people.


...



...

5. On sites with significant disputes, all operations should be stopped until the disputes are resolved.


...



...

Working Conditions

6. Workers shall be able to establish and join labour organisations.


Workers on the site for site preparation and planting are free to join a labour organisation but in this case,they are not part of one. Some workers are entrepreneurs (power shovel operator and supervisor). Theworkers that are not entrepreneurs are seasonal workers used for planting and for site preparation.




6. Workers shall be able to establish and join labour organisations.

...

7. Workers and labour organisations shall be generally satisfied with their working agreements.


Workers are satisfied with their working agreement.



...

8. Working agreements with all individual workers shall be documented and implemented.


Every worker and entrepreneur has an agreement with Arbosilva.



...

9. There shall not be forced labour, as defined by the ILO Forced Labour Convention1.


Canadian and Quebec laws don’t allow forced labour.



...

10. There shall not be child labour, as defined by the ILO Minimum Age Convention2.


Canadian and Quebec laws don’t allow child labour.



...

1 ILO Forced Labour Convention Link2 ILO Minimum Age Convention Link


11. If the host country did not ratify one or more of the 8 ILO Fundamental Conventions1, the project ownershall provide a written affirmation to uphold them.


...



...

12. Copies of the 8 ILO Fundamental Conventions shall be available for workers.


...



...

No Discrimination

13. The project owner shall not be involved, and shall not be complicit, in any form of:(a) sexual harassment, AND(b) discrimination based on gender, race, religion, sexual orientation or any other basis.

(a) Relevant Not relevant

Canadian and Quebec laws include the topics of sexual harassment and discrimination and prohibit them.



...

(b) Relevant Not relevant

Canadian and Quebec laws include the topics of sexual harassment and discrimination and prohibit them.



...

Anti-Corruption

14. The project owner shall not be involved and shall not be complicit in corruption. The project owner shallpublicise a commitment not to offer or receive bribes in money or any other form of corruption. Theproject owner shall comply with anti-corruption legislation where this exists.

1 ILO Fundamental Conventions Link


14. The project owner shall not be involved and shall not be complicit in corruption. The project owner shallpublicise a commitment not to offer or receive bribes in money or any other form of corruption. Theproject owner shall comply with anti-corruption legislation where this exists.


Corruption is not legal in Canada and Quebec.



...

Occupational Health & Safety

15. There shall be a ‘Health & Safety Policy’ that is documented, implemented and regularly updated. Thispolicy shall include at a minimum:(a) provisions for first aid, AND(b) provisions for the safe transport of workers, AND(c) provisions for timely evacuation of workers to an adequately equipped medical facility in case of

serious accident, AND(d) a health insurance scheme for workers who are impacted by workplace accidents AND(e) if workers stay in camps for a longer period of time, measures shall to provided to ensure that

conditions for accommodation and nutrition comply at least with those specified in the ILO Code ofPractice on Safety & Health in Forestry1.


The Quebec CSST law and practices are implemented on site.



...


The Quebec CSST law and practices are implemented on site.



...

(c) Relevant Not relevant

...



...

(d) Relevant Not relevant

1 ILO Safety & Health in Forestry Link - criteria 226 to 229


15. There shall be a ‘Health & Safety Policy’ that is documented, implemented and regularly updated. Thispolicy shall include at a minimum:(a) provisions for first aid, AND(b) provisions for the safe transport of workers, AND(c) provisions for timely evacuation of workers to an adequately equipped medical facility in case of

serious accident, AND(d) a health insurance scheme for workers who are impacted by workplace accidents AND(e) if workers stay in camps for a longer period of time, measures shall to provided to ensure that

conditions for accommodation and nutrition comply at least with those specified in the ILO Code ofPractice on Safety & Health in Forestry1.

...



...

(e) Relevant Not relevant

...



...

16. An individual shall be appointed to have overall responsibility for ‘Health & Safety’ at the worksite.


There is no one directly responsible onsite but the CSST can come at anytime to ensure that the regulationand recommended practices are followed.



...

17. Workers shall have job-specific training and supervision to safely implement the project.


The new workers are paired with one with experience to learn the work. In this case, all the workers wereexperienced.



...

18. Workers shall have safe protective equipment, tools and machinery appropriate for their work.


Certificates

18. Workers shall have safe protective equipment, tools and machinery appropriate for their work.


Standard equipment is provided: shovel, helmet, goggles, boots, epipen (wasp bites) and water.



...

Environmental

Tree species

19. The genotypes of the tree species planted shall be well-adapted to the site.


The tree species were selected by experts (forest engineers). Those forest engineers are used to this area andknow it very well, so they are well placed to choose the right species.



...

20. Exotic tree species1 shall not be used, unless direct experience, or scientific research, demonstrate thatthere is, or can be, no invasiveness and no adverse impacts.


...



...

Habitat connectivity

21. Through a smart mosaic of the planting areas, buffer zones and infrastructure habitat connectivity forflora and fauna should be enhanced.

1 Exotic tree species (Source: FSC) A species, subspecies or lower taxon, introduced outside its natural past or present distribution;includes any part, gametes, seeds, eggs, or propagules of such species that might survive and subsequentlyreproduce.


21. Through a smart mosaic of the planting areas, buffer zones and infrastructure habitat connectivity forflora and fauna should be enhanced.


Planting areas are not big enough to allow mosaic planting.



...

GMOs

22. Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs)1 as defined by FSC shall not be used.


...



...

Biodiversity

23. Minimum 10% of the project area shall be identified and managed to protect or enhance the biologicaldiversity2 of native ecosystems3. For this, the HCV4 approach should be followed.


All the areas planted aim for this purpose.



...

24. (a) Existing patches of trees or single solitary stems of native tree species1, AND(b) habitats of endangered species2shall always be identified and managed to protect or enhance the biological diversity3

1 GMO (Source: FSC) An organism in which the genetic material has been altered in a way that does not occur naturally bymating and/or natural recombination. See ‘FSC Interpretation on GMO - FSC-POL-30-602’:https://ic.fsc.org/policies.338.htm

2 Biological diversity (Source: FSC) The variability among living organisms from all sources including, inter alia, terrestrial, marine andother aquatic ecosystems and the ecological complexes of which they are a part; this includes diversity withinspecies, between species and of ecosystems.

3 Native ecosystem (Adapted from FSC) Sites to favour or restore native species and associations of native species that are typical ofthe locality, and for managing these associations and other environmental values so that they form ecosystemstypical of the locality.

4 HCV High Conservation Value - www.HCVnetwork.org


24. (a) Existing patches of trees or single solitary stems of native tree species1, AND(b) habitats of endangered species2shall always be identified and managed to protect or enhance the biological diversity3


...



...


...



...

Erosion

25. To ensure healthy soils the following aspects shall be identified and appropriate measures shall be put inplace to protect them:(a) soil types, AND(b) biota, AND(c) erosion, AND(d) compaction.


...



...


...



...


1 Native tree species (Source: FSC) Species, subspecies, or lower taxon, occurring within its natural range (past or present) and dispersalpotential (that is, within the range it occupies naturally or could occupy without direct or indirect introduction orcare by humans.

2 Endangered species All endangered and critically endangered species as defined by the IUCN Red List - www.IUCNredlist.org


25. To ensure healthy soils the following aspects shall be identified and appropriate measures shall be put inplace to protect them:(a) soil types, AND(b) biota, AND(c) erosion, AND(d) compaction.

The risk is negligible for reforested area.



...


The risk is negligible for reforested area.



...

26. Ploughing on slopes with a gradient greater than 10% (5°) shall follow the land contour.


...



...

Fertilizers

27. Fertilizers shall be avoided, or their use shall be minimised and justified.


...



...

28. If the aerial application of fertilizer is used, then measures shall be put in place to prevent drift.



28. If the aerial application of fertilizer is used, then measures shall be put in place to prevent drift.

...



...

Chemical pesticides

29. Chemical pesticides shall be avoided, or their use shall be minimised and justified.


...



...

30. Chemical pesticides shall be used in accordance with the FSC Pesticides Policy1.


...



...

31. There shall be a ‘Chemical Pesticides Policy’ that is documented, implemented and regularly updated.This policy shall include at a minimum:(a) provisions for safe transport, storage, handling and application, AND(b) provisions for emergency situations.


...



...


...

1 FSC Pesticides Policy See guideline FSC-GUI-30-001 on www.pesticides.fsc.org


31. There shall be a ‘Chemical Pesticides Policy’ that is documented, implemented and regularly updated.This policy shall include at a minimum:(a) provisions for safe transport, storage, handling and application, AND(b) provisions for emergency situations.



...

32. In the case that chemical pesticides are used and two or more different chemical pesticides are equallyeffective, the least hazardous chemical pesticide shall be used.


...



...

Biological control agents

33. Biological control agents1 shall be avoided, or their use shall be minimised and justified.


...



...

Water resources

34. On both sides of permanent or temporary water bodies (lakes, streams, rivers, wetlands, etc.) riparianbuffer zones of 15 meters shall be implemented on each site. In these riparian buffer zones:(a) only native tree species2 may be planted, AND(b) invasive species3 shall be removed, AND(c) all existing vegetation shall be kept, AND(d) no timber harvesting activities shall take place, AND(e) no use of fertilizer or chemical pesticides.

1 Biological control agents (Source: FSC) Organisms used to eliminate or regulate the population of other organisms.2 Native tree species (Source: FSC) Species, subspecies, or lower taxon, occurring within its natural range (past or present) and

dispersal potential (that is, within the range it occupies naturally or could occupy without direct or indirectintroduction or care by humans).

3 Invasive species (Source: FSC) Species that are rapidly expanding outside of their native range. Invasive species can alterecological relationships among native species and can affect ecosystem function and human health.


34. On both sides of permanent or temporary water bodies (lakes, streams, rivers, wetlands, etc.) riparianbuffer zones of 15 meters shall be implemented on each site. In these riparian buffer zones:(a) only native tree species2 may be planted, AND(b) invasive species3 shall be removed, AND(c) all existing vegetation shall be kept, AND(d) no timber harvesting activities shall take place, AND(e) no use of fertilizer or chemical pesticides.


...



...


...



...


...



...


...



...


...



...

35. The flows of water bodies shall not be blocked.



35. The flows of water bodies shall not be blocked.

...



...

36. The groundwater in and around the planting area shall not be negatively affected by the project.


...



...

Waste

37. All sources of waste and waste products shall be identified and classified. Waste products includeamongst others:(a) chemical wastes, AND(b) containers, AND(c) fuels and oils, AND(d) human waste, AND(e) rubbish (including metals, plastics, organic and paper products), AND(f) abandoned buildings, machinery or equipment.


...



...


Containers for the plants are collected and reused.



37. All sources of waste and waste products shall be identified and classified. Waste products includeamongst others:(a) chemical wastes, AND(b) containers, AND(c) fuels and oils, AND(d) human waste, AND(e) rubbish (including metals, plastics, organic and paper products), AND(f) abandoned buildings, machinery or equipment.


...


...



...


...



...




...


All the rubbish is collected, brought back to the cars and then properly disposed.



...

(f) Relevant Not relevant

...



...


38. Measures for waste products and their spillage shall be put in place for safe and environmentallyappropriate:

(a) collection, AND(b) transport, AND(c) storage, AND(d) handling, AND(e) disposal.


All the rubbish is collected, brought back to the cars and then properly disposed.



...


...



...


...



...


...



...


...



...


...


Certificates

38. Measures for waste products and their spillage shall be put in place for safe and environmentallyappropriate:

(a) collection, AND(b) transport, AND(c) storage, AND(d) handling, AND(e) disposal.



...

Mangroves

1. 90% of the planting area shall be planted with mangrove species1.

Applicable, as the ‘A/R Guidelines – Mangroves’ will be followed.

...



...

1 Mangrove species Mangrove species are defined by the “World Atlas of Mangroves” - Link


APPENDIX VII - RISK REGISTER

Risk Register equivalent to GS template

Risk (low, medium, high, notrelevant)

Mitigation measure formedium and high rating

Managementqualifications

-forestry

-operations

-financial

-legal

Low risk. The project is alreadyin a well-advanced stage.Planting is done. Expert incarbon credits and experts inforestry joined their effort forthis project. The trees arealready paid. On the legal side,contracts exist between thelandowners and the projectproponent. Agreements existbetween Arbosilva and theproject proponent for theplanting and the maintenance ofthe forest. Distnet is ashareholder and offers thefinancing for the projet.

None

Workersqualifications

Low risk. The Arbosilva forestengineering firm is hired for itsexpertise in this field. Thecompany hired the workers.

None

Technicalequipement

Low risk. The Arbosilva forestengineering firm is hired for itsexpertise in this field. Thecompany managed the technicalequipement.

None

Financialmeans

Low risk. The trees are paid andplanted.

None

Water Low risk. For flooding, only onesite has a water body.Appropriate species have beenplanted to ensure their growth.

None

Wind Low risk. High wind canhappen. This is not a regionknown for tornados orhurricanes; therefore it has to bevery site-specific to causedamage. Also, high wind cancause branches to fall, and it isoften older or sick trees that aremore likely to fall.

None.


Animals Low risk. One site wasparticularly at risk andappropriate species, not eaten bythe deers have been planted.

None.

Fire Low risk. Natural fires canhappen in all regions in Quebec.It depends on the weather, soextreme conditions like droughtcan lead to fires. Fires caused byhuman are not likely to happensince it is on private lands andlandowners have a control overtheir lands.

None.

Disease Low risk. The forest engineerschose appropriate species for thearea and considering thepotential problematics.

None.

Temperature Low risk. The temperatures canbe very low during winter andvery high during summer, butappropriate indigenous specieshave been planted.

None.

Irregularresettlementor illicit cropproduction

Not relevant.

Exploitationofundergroundresources

Low risk. On private land,unless Governments expropriatethe owners, there is a very lowrisk of mining. Usually water isused for the needs of the peopleliving on the land but it isusually close the homes and it isnot for commercial purposes.

None.


APPENDIX VIII - SPECIFIC DATA PER REGION

Specific Data per region

The starting specific data per region is shown in two different tables. The first is the regiondefinition for each unit reforested. The second one details the species and number of stemsfor each modeling unit. Those data were provided by the forest engineer Rémi Morin fromArbosilva.

Region definition for each unit reforested

UnitReforested

“Tarif”Number

TerrestrialEcozone

"Domainebioclimatique"

"Sousdomaine"

"Typeécologique"

A A121 7. AtlanticMaritime

3. Érablière àbouleau jaune 3d MJ25

B A121 7. AtlanticMaritime


C A051 7. AtlanticMaritime


D A051 7. AtlanticMaritime


E A121 7. AtlanticMaritime

3. Érablière àbouleau jaune 3d FE35

F A171 7. AtlanticMaritime


G A171 7. AtlanticMaritime


H A121 7. AtlanticMaritime


I A121 7. AtlanticMaritime


J A121 7. AtlanticMaritime


K A121 7. AtlanticMaritime


L A1217. AtlanticMaritime



M A1217. AtlanticMaritime


N A1217. AtlanticMaritime

3. Érablière àbouleau jaune 3d RS37

O A1217. AtlanticMaritime



Species for each Modeling Unit

UnitReforested

Total Area(ha)

ProjectArea (ha)

Stemsquantity

AverageDensity for thesite (stems / ha)

ModelingUnit

EPB EPN EPR PIR PIB MEL

A 8.8 7.22 14211 1968 MUA01 10232

MUA02 3979

B 5.3 4.51 8420 1867 MUB01 6062

MUB02 2358

C 7.0 6.5 14000 2154 MUC01 14000

D 7.0 7.0 15000 2143 MUD01 13000

MUD02 2000

E 6.4 6.4 11600 1813 MUE01 9800

MUE02 1800

F 2.8 2.52 5600 2222 MUF01 2860

MUF02 1660

MUF03 1080

G 1.3 1.3 2600 2000 MUG01 2600

H 7.7 7.1 16100 2268 MUH01 14000

MUH02 2100

J 14.7 13.82 30900 2236 MUJ01 24300

MUJ02 2000

MUJ03 3000

MUJ04 1600

I 14.9 14.45 27790 1923 MUI01 2000

MUI02 20990


MUI03 1800

MUI04 1800

MUI05 1200

K 3.33 2.93 6627 2262 MUK01 6627

L 6.62 5.36 13173 2458 MUL01 13173

M 4.68 4.07 8510 2091 MUM01 6212

MUM02 2298

N 8.67 8.32 18030 2167 MUN01 9400

MUN02 4950

MUN03 2400

MUN04 1280

O 5.34 4.7 9880 2102 MUO01 9880

TOTAL 104.54 96.2 202441 2112* --- 144146 42335 1080 6600 4200 4080

*average


APPENDIX IX - CALCULATIONS, EXAMPLES, AND RESULTS

Data and Parameters used, calculation examples, detailed results

The ease the comprehension of the sequence of the calculations done, the data andparameters used, the calculation examples and the detailed results are done in the order thethey were actually done. They are not presented separately but in sequence so for each stepthe following sequence will be done when it applies.

STEP 1: Height at 50 years

The IQS station at 50 years for natural forest is used since the data don’t exist yet for theIQS Station at 50 years in Quebec for plantations. The plantations in Quebec are too young.Some data exist for 15, 25 and 40 years but not for all species and not by region. The heightin a natural forest is usually lower than the one in the plantations; therefore it isconservative to use those data.

Species “Tarif”Number

Height(m)

Explanation, calculation, source

EPB A051 17.525 Average IQS Station 3d

The average is used since only 2 out of 5 of the “typeecologique” are available and only for this species. None ofthe other species has their specific “type ecologique”represented in the data offered. Therefore, the average of“sous domaine” 3d is done.

17.525=(16.8+18.5+18.4+16.4)/4

http://www2.publicationsduquebec.gouv.qc.ca/essences/arbre.php?id=5

EPN A051 15.12 Average IQS Station 4

The “Domaine bioclimatique” is not represented in the data;therefore the closest domain is taken. Domain 4 is more upnorth than 3, it is considered conservative since normally thetrees are smaller when you go in a northern region. Usingonly the sub-domain 4f is too penalizing and doesn’trepresent the reality. All the sites are closed to domain 2. Inthe sub domain 4f, there are also more mountains. In domain3, there are hills but they are not mountains yet.

15.12=(15.3+15.4+15.2+16.1+17.2+16.4+17.5+15.2+14.2+8.7)/10


A171

A121 12.54 Average IQS Station 4 + adjustment

Data and parametersused

Equations andcalculation examples Detailed Results


An adjustment is done to account for the fact that the A121zone is more east and can start to have bigger hills which canlead to smaller trees. An adjustment has been madeconsidering the maximal heights registered of region A051and A171 (17 and 17.1 m) and the one for A121 (14.1m).

12.54=(15.12/17)*14.1

EPR A171 15.21 The value of IQS station 3d is used (15.21m)


PIR A121 N/A No data available for the site index at 50 years. A data forthe merchantable volume will be used directly for the modeland will be detailed later in this section.

PIB A121 15.47 Average IQS station 3a: 15.56 et 3b:15.38 m.

Average from the data available for the other sub-domains ofdomain 3 is used.

15.47=(15.56+15.38)/2

MEL A121 15.1 No specific IQS data is available in the same data sourcethan the other species. The data is taken from “RapportInventaires Plantation Annexes”, p. 15; The IQS station isthe IQS Station at 25 years for plantations.

http://afbf.qc.ca/DbImages/Bulletins/Rapport_InventairePlantations_Annexes.pdf


STEP 2 Gross Merchantable Volume per stem

Species “tarif”Number

Height (m) Gross Merchantable Volumedm3 per stem

Explanation

EPB A051 Lower

Higher

IQS

17.51

18.04

17.525

526.23

611.65

528.6475

Data

Data

Calculated

A121 Lower

Higher

IQS

17.46

17.91

17.525

576.15

660.95

588.3989

Data

Data

Calculated

A171 Lower

Higher

IQS

17.21

17.83

17.525

505.25

590.29

548.4558

Data

Data

Calculated

EPN A051 Lower

Higher

IQS

15.11

15.83

15.12

197.53

250.03

198.2592

Data

Data

Calculated

A121 Lower

Higher

IQS

11.89

12.86

12.54

69.74

102.75

91.8601

Data

Data

Calculated

A171 Lower

Higher

IQS

14.44

15.31

15.12

148.77

195.32

185.1539

Data

Data

Calculated

EPR A171 Lower

Higher

IQS

14.25

15.51

15.21

117.5

166.49

154.8257

Data

Data

Calculated

PIR A121 Lower

Higher

IQS

---

---

N/A

---

---

---

Direct value for the merchantablevolume per ha is taking.

Value: 412.5m3/ha

Guide sur les grands pins duQuébec, p.19, 8.25m3/ha x 50 ans

http://www.foretprivee.ca/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/Guide_pins_du_Qu%C3%A9bec.pdf

PIB A121 Lower

Higher

IQS

15.21

16.77

15.47

260.63

328.43

278.9925

Data

Data

Calculated

MEL A121 Lower

Higher

IQS

14.28

15.66

15.1

80.24

119.16

103.3664

Data

Data

Calculated


The merchantable volume per stem is calculated by linear interpolation. From the nextequation, you can find the GMVS.

(H,h-IQS)/(H,h-H,l)= (GMVS,h-GMVS)/(GMVS,h-GMVS,l)

(12.86-12.54)/(12.86/11.86)=(102.75-GMVS)/(102.75-69.74)

GMVS= 91.8601dm3/ha

GMVS= gross merchantable volume per stem (dm3/ha)

H,h= higher value of height (m)

H,l= lower value of height (m)

IQS= IQS station at 50 years (m)

GMVS,h= higher value of GMVS

GMVS,l= lower value of GMVS


STEP 3: Gross merchantable volume per ha

UnitsReforested

No tarif MU Species Grossmerchantablevolume(dm3/stem)

Density(stem/ha)

Grossmerchantablevolume (m3/ha)

Model

A A121 MUA01 EPB 588.3989 1968 1157.97 GS

MUA02 EPN 91.8601 1968 180.78 GM

B A121 MUB01 EPB 588.3989 1867 1098.54 GS

MUB02 EPN 91.8601 1867 171.50 GM

C A051 MUC01 EPB 528.6475 2154 1138.71 GS

D A051 MUD01 EPB 528.6475 2143 1132.89 GS

MUD02 EPN 198.2592 2143 424.87 GS

E A121 MUE01 EPB 588.3989 1813 1066.77 GS

MUE02 PIR --- 1813 412.50 GM

F A171 MUF01 EPB 548.4558 2222 1218.67 GS

MUF02 EPN 185.1539 2222 411.41 GS

MUF03 EPR 154.8257 2222 344.02 GM

G A171 MUG01 EPB 548.4558 2000 1096.91 GS

H A121 MUH01 EPB 588.3989 2268 1334.49 GS

MUH02 EPN 91.8601 2268 208.34 GM

J A121 MUJ01 EPB 588.3989 2236 1315.66 GS

MUJ02 EPN 91.8601 2236 205.40 GM

MUJ03 PIR --- 2236 412.50 GM

MUJ04 MEL 103.3664 2236 231.13 GM

I A121 MUI01 EPB 588.3989 1923 1131.49 GS

MUI02 EPN 91.8601 1923 176.65 GM

MUI03 PIR --- 1923 412.50 GM

MUI04 PIB 278.9925 1923 536.50 GS

MUI05 MEL 103.3664 1923 198.77 GM

K A121 MUK01 EPB 588.3989 2262 1330.96 GS

L A121 MUL01 EPB 588.3989 2458 1446.28 GS

M A121 MUM01 EPB 588.3989 2091 1230.34 GS

MUM02 EPN 91.8601 2091 192.08 GM

N A121 MUN01 EPB 588.3989 2167 1275.06 GS

MUN02 EPN 91.8601 2167 199.06 GM

MUN03 PIB 278.9925 2167 604.58 GS

MUN04 MEL 103.3664 2167 223.99 GM

O A121 MUO01 EPB 588.3989 2102 1236.81 GS


GS stands for equations from Gold Standard model and GM stands for the growth modelfrom the “volume to biomass” model.

The gross merchantable volume per hectare is calculated from the gross merchantablevolume per stem. The average density of each site is used.

GMVHa = GMVS * SD * Conversion

1157.97/ha= 588.3989… dm3/stem * 1968 stems/ha * 1m3/1000dm3

(example for MUA01)

GMVHa = Gross merchantable volume per hectare (m3/ha)

SD= Stem density (stems/ha)

Conversion= conversion from dm3 to m3


STEP 4: Biomass Quantity for CO2 fixation

Model used

Species Calculation Model Explanation

EPB 105 Generic Gold StandardModel

The gross merchantable volume perhectare is out of the boundaries of the“volume to biomass” model for bothEcozone 7 and 8.

EPN 101 A051 and A121: GenericGold Standard Model

A121: Volume to biomassmodel

Out of boundaries for both Ecozone 7and 8.

The sites in zone A121 zone are at thelimit of Ecozone 7 and 8; therefore itcould be acceptable to take theparameters of zone 8. Furthermore,Ecozone 7 is vast and the sites are closerto the entire Ecozone 8.

EPR 102 Volume to biomass model Within boundaries Ecozone 7

PIR 209 Volume to biomass model Within boundaries Ecozone 7

PIB 202 Generic Gold StandardModel

Out of boundaries for both Ecozone 7and 8.

MEL 602 Volume to biomass model Within boundaries Ecozone 7


Parameters - Model table 3

Species Ecozonesfor thecalculation

a b

EPN 101 - A121 8 1.11856 0.82961

EPR 102 7 0.91250 0.85425

PIR 209 7 0.79119 0.88870

MEL 602 7 1.02507 0.82924

b_m = a * volume^b

83.409 = 1.11856* 180.78^0.82961 (example for unit MUA02)

volume = GMVha

b_m = total stem wood biomass of merchantable-sized live trees (t/ha)

a and b = non-linear model parameters (table 3)

Results

Species Ecozonesfor thecalculation

Sites b_m

EPN 101 - A121 8 A

B

H

I

J

M

N

83.409

79.842

93.828

81.824

92.729

90.348

88.094

EPR 102 7 F 134.002

PIR 209 7 E, I, J 166.958

MEL 602 7 I

J

N

82.536

93.531

88.858



Species Ecozones forthe calculation

a b k

EPN 101 - A121 8 16.02972 -1.09825 0.93694

EPR 102 7 8.48021 -0.91997 0.88455

PIR 209 7 1.21635 -0.03072 0

MEL 602 7 4.86612 -0.38884 0.19561

nonmerchfactor = k + a * b_m^b

nonmerchfactor= b_nm/b_m

b_nm= b_m+b_n

nonmerchfactor= 0.82598+ 16.02972* 83.409… ^-1.09825=1.0614

b_nm= nonmerchfactor * b_m = 1.0614*83.409… = 88.52889664 …

b_n= b_nm - b_m = 88.52889664 …- 83.409… = 5.119

(example for unit MUA02)

b_n= stem wood biomass of live nonmerchantable-sized trees (t/ha)

k, a, b = non-linear model parameters (table 4)

Results


Sites Nonmerchfactor b_nm b_n

EPN 101 - A121 8 A

B

H

I

J

M

N

1.0614

1.0675

1.0463

1.0640

1.0477

1.0509

1.0541

88.52889664

85.23137625

98.17144862

87.06309201

97.15306819

94.94920802

92.86285747

5.119

5.389

4.343

5.239

4.424

4.601

4.768

EPR 102 7 F 1.0006 134.0793739 0.077

PIR 209 7 E, I, J 1.0394 173.5354061 6.577

MEL 602 7 I

J

N

1.0704

1.0289

1.0457

88.34857233

96.23377799

92.91663802

5.812

2.703

4.058




a b k

EPN 101 - A121 NB 7 4.63023 -1.16502 0.98025

EPR 102 NB 7 0 0 1

PIR 209 NB 7 0 0 1

MEL 602 NB 7 0 0 1

saplingfactor = k + a * b_nm^b

saplingfactor = b_snm/b_nm

b_snm = b_nm + b_s

b_s = stem wood of live biomass sapling sized-trees

k, a, b = non-linear model parameters (table 5)

saplingfactor = 0.98025 + 4.63023 * 88.52889664…^-1.16502 = 1.005207986…

b_snm = saplingfactor * b_nm = 1.005207986…*88.52889664… = 88.9899539…

b_s = b_snm-b_nm = 88.9899539… - 88.52889664… = 0.46105726…

(example for unit MUA02)

Results


Sites saplingfactor b_snm b_s

EPN 101 - A121 NB 7 A

B

H

I

J

M

N

1.005207986

1.006336483

1.00237585

1.005698199

1.002646284

1.003253059

1.003856262

88.9899539

85.77144343

98.40468927

87.55919485

97.41016281

95.25808341

93.220961

0.46105726

0.54006718

0.233240654

0.496102846

0.257094624

0.308875388

0.358103531

EPR 102 NB 7 F 0 134.0793739 0

PIR 209 NB 7 E, I, J 0 173.5354061 0

MEL 602 NB 7 I

J

N

0

0

0

88.34857233

96.23377799

92.91663802

0

0

0


Growth Model Summary, Biomass, CO2-fixation-Project

Parameters and Results

UnitsReforested

Notarif

MU Species

Grossmerchantablevolume(dm3/stem)

Density(stem/ha)

Grossmerchantablevolume(m3/ha)

Model AG tbiomasse/ha

BG tbiomass/ ha

AG andBG

PlantingArea (ha)

t C / ha t CO2 /ha

t CO2

A A121 MUA01 EPB 588.3989 1968 1157.97 GS 382.13 76.43 458.56 5.198441 229.28 840.69 4370.2538

MUA02 EPN 91.8601 1968 180.78 GM 88.99 17.80 106.79 2.13127 53.39 195.78 417.2555

B A121 MUB01 EPB 588.3989 1867 1098.54 GS 362.52 72.50 435.02 3.246986 217.51 797.54 2589.6029

MUB02 EPN 91.8601 1867 171.50 GM 88.99 17.80 106.79 1.263014 53.39 195.78 247.2703

C A051 MUC01 EPB 528.6475 2154 1138.71 GS 375.77 75.15 450.93 6.5 225.46 826.70 5373.5570

D A051 MUD01 EPB 528.6475 2143 1132.89 GS 373.85 74.77 448.63 6.066667 224.31 822.48 4989.7077

MUD02 EPN 198.2592 2143 424.87 GS 140.21 28.04 168.25 0.933333 84.12 308.46 287.8915

E A121 MUE01 EPB 588.3989 1813 1066.77 GS 352.03 70.41 422.44 5.406897 211.22 774.47 4187.4953

MUE02 PIR --- 1813 412.50 GM 173.54 34.71 208.24 0.993103 104.12 381.78 379.1449

F A171 MUF01 EPB 548.4558 2222 1218.67 GS 402.16 80.43 482.59 1.287 241.30 884.75 1138.6778

MUF02 EPN 185.1539 2222 411.41 GS 135.77 27.15 162.92 0.747 81.46 298.69 223.1178

MUF03 EPR 154.8257 2222 344.02 GM 134.08 26.82 160.90 0.486 80.45 294.97 143.3577

G A171 MUG01 EPB 548.4558 2000 1096.91 GS 361.98 72.40 434.38 1.3 217.19 796.36 1035.2652

H A121 MUH01 EPB 588.3989 2268 1334.49 GS 440.38 88.08 528.46 6.173913 264.23 968.84 5981.5265

MUH02 EPN 91.8601 2268 208.34 GM 98.40 19.68 118.09 0.926087 59.04 216.49 200.4889

J A121 MUJ01 EPB 588.3989 2236 1315.66 GS 434.17 86.83 521.00 10.86816 260.50 955.17 10380.9263

MUJ02 EPN 91.8601 2236 205.40 GM 97.41 19.48 116.89 0.894498 58.45 214.30 191.6931

MUJ03 PIR --- 2236 412.50 GM 173.54 34.71 208.24 1.341748 104.12 381.78 512.2496

MUJ04 MEL 103.3664 2236 231.13 GM 96.23 19.25 115.48 0.715599 57.74 211.71 151.5025


I A121 MUI01 EPB 588.3989 1923 1131.49 GS 373.39 74.68 448.07 1.039942 224.04 821.46 854.2737

MUI02 EPN 91.8601 1923 176.65 GM 87.56 17.51 105.07 10.9142 52.54 192.63 2102.4040

MUI03 PIR --- 1923 412.50 GM 173.54 34.71 208.24 0.935948 104.12 381.78 357.3243

MUI04 PIB 278.9925 1923 536.50 GS 177.05 35.41 212.46 0.935948 106.23 389.50 364.5526

MUI05 MEL 103.3664 1923 198.77 GM 88.35 17.67 106.02 0.623965 53.01 194.37 121.2782

K A121 MUK01 EPB 588.3989 2262 1330.96 GS 439.22 87.84 527.06 2.93 263.53 966.28 2831.1879

L A121 MUL01 EPB 588.3989 2458 1446.28 GS 477.27 95.45 572.73 5.36 286.36 1050.00 5628.0136

M A121 MUM01 EPB 588.3989 2091 1230.34 GS 406.01 81.20 487.22 2.970957 243.61 893.23 2653.7426

MUM02 EPN 91.8601 2091 192.08 GM 95.26 19.05 114.31 1.099043 57.15 209.57 230.3241

N A121 MUN01 EPB 588.3989 2167 1275.06 GS 420.77 84.15 504.92 4.337659 252.46 925.69 4015.3447

MUN02 EPN 91.8601 2167 199.06 GM 93.22 18.64 111.87 2.284193 55.93 205.09 468.4563

MUN03 PIB 278.9925 2167 604.58 GS 199.51 39.90 239.41 1.107488 119.71 438.92 486.1014

MUN04 MEL 103.3664 2167 223.99 GM 92.92 18.58 111.50 0.59066 55.75 204.42 120.7407

O A121 MUO01 EPB 588.3989 2102 1236.81 GS 408.15 81.63 489.78 4.7 244.89 897.93 4220.2584

AG, biomass= Aboveground biomass (t/ha)

BG,biomass= Belowground biomass (t/ha)

For Gold Standard model (GS): AG, biomass (t/ha) = Stem Volume * BEF * Wood Density

(Example MUA01) AG, biomass = 1157.9690 m3/ha * 1.1 * 0.3 t/m3 = 382.1297816160… t/ha (metric tons of drymatter)

the values in the table are rounded (ex: 382.13) but the whole number is taken into account (ex: 382.1297816160…)

For “Volume to biomass” model (GM): AG, biomass = b_snm


Both models BG, biomass (t/ha) = AG, biomass * Root-to-Shoot ratio

(Example MUA01) BG, biomass = 382.1297816160 … t/ha * 0.2 = 76.4260… t/ha

Total biomass (t/ha) = AG, biomass + BG, biomass

Total biomass = 382.1297816160 … t/ha + 76.4260… t/ha = 458.5557… t/ha

C (tC/ha) = Total biomass * Carbon fraction

C = 458.5557… t biomass / ha * 0.5 tC / t biomass = 229.2778690… tC/ha

CO2fixation, ha (tCO2/ha) = C (tC/ha) * C to CO2 factor (tCO2/tC)

CO2fixation, ha (tCO2/ha) = 229.2778690… tC/ha * 44/12 tCO2/tC = 840.68552… tCO2 / ha

CO2 fixation,MU (tCO2) = CO2fixation, ha (tCO2/ha) * Area,MU

CO2 fixation,MU (tCO2) = 840.68552…tCO2 / ha * (10232/14211*7.22) ha = 4370.25377…tCO2 = 4370 tCO2 (rounded down)

CO2 fixation,site (tCO2) = SUM of all CO2fixation, MU for that site

CO2 fixation,site (tCO2) = 4370.25… + 417.255… = 4787 tCO2 (rounded down)

CO2 fixation project (tCO2) = Sum of all MU rounded down = 67249 tCO2 = 67249 tCO2e


Growth Model Summary, Biomass, Baseline

Parameters and Results

UnitsReforested

MU Tree /Non-tree

total tbiomasse/ha

dead t biomass /ha

totalbiomasselive t / ha

ha t C / ha t CO2 /ha

t CO2

A MUA01 T 73.6220 1.2360 72.39 5.198 36.19 132.71 689.8729

MUA02 T 73.6220 1.2360 72.39 2.131 36.19 132.71 282.8358

B MUB01 T 73.6220 1.2360 72.39 3.247 28.95 106.17 344.7199

MUB02 T 73.6220 1.2360 72.39 1.263 28.95 106.17 134.0893

C MUC01 NT 2.5748 1.6527 0.92 6.500 0.37 1.35 8.7907

D MUD01 NT 2.5748 1.6527 0.92 6.067 0.37 1.35 8.2046

MUD02 NT 2.5748 1.6527 0.92 0.933 0.37 1.35 1.2623

E MUE01 NT 2.5748 1.6527 0.92 5.407 0.37 1.35 7.3124

MUE02 NT 2.5748 1.6527 0.92 0.993 0.37 1.35 1.3431

F MUF01 T 73.6220 1.2360 72.39 1.287 36.19 132.71 170.7948

MUF02 T 73.6220 1.2360 72.39 0.747 36.19 132.71 99.1326

MUF03 T 73.6220 1.2360 72.39 0.486 36.19 132.71 64.4959

G MUG01 N-T 2.5748 1.6527 0.92 1.300 0.46 1.69 2.1977

H MUH01 T 73.6220 1.2360 72.39 6.174 36.19 132.71 819.3256

MUH02 T 73.6220 1.2360 72.39 0.926 36.19 132.71 122.8988

J MUJ01 T 73.6220 1.2360 72.39 10.868 36.19 132.71 1442.2875

MUJ02 T 73.6220 1.2360 72.39 0.894 36.19 132.71 118.7068

MUJ03 T 73.6220 1.2360 72.39 1.342 36.19 132.71 178.0602

MUJ04 T 73.6220 1.2360 72.39 0.716 36.19 132.71 94.9654

I MUI01 T 73.6220 1.2360 72.39 1.040 36.19 132.71 138.0083

MUI02 T 73.6220 1.2360 72.39 10.914 36.19 132.71 1448.3975


MUI03 T 73.6220 1.2360 72.39 0.936 36.19 132.71 124.2075

MUI04 T 73.6220 1.2360 72.39 0.936 36.19 132.71 124.2075

MUI05 T 73.6220 1.2360 72.39 0.624 36.19 132.71 82.8050

K MUK01 T 73.6220 1.2360 72.39 2.930 36.19 132.71 388.8335

L MUL01 T 73.6220 1.2360 72.39 5.360 36.19 132.71 711.3131

M MUM01 T 73.6220 1.2360 72.39 2.971 36.19 132.71 394.2687

MUM02 T 73.6220 1.2360 72.39 1.099 36.19 132.71 145.8515

N MUN01 T 73.6220 1.2360 72.39 4.338 36.19 132.71 575.6407

MUN02 T 73.6220 1.2360 72.39 2.284 36.19 132.71 303.1299

MUN03 T 73.6220 1.2360 72.39 1.107 36.19 132.71 146.9721

MUN04 T 73.6220 1.2360 72.39 0.591 36.19 132.71 78.3851

O MUO01 T 73.6220 1.2360 72.39 4.700 36.19 132.71 623.7260

Example done with MUA01

Total biomass,ha (t/ha) = live biomass,ha (t/ha) + dead biomass,ha (t/ha)

Live biomass,ha = Total biomass, ha - dead biomass,ha

Live biomass, ha = AG, biomass + BG,biomass

Live biomass,ha = 73.6220 t/ha - 1.2360 t/ha = 72.386 t/ha (72.39 in the table but 72.386 considered)

C,baseline = Live biomass,ha * Carbon Fraction tC/ha

C,baseline = 72.386 t/ha * 0.5 tC/ha = 39.193 tC/ha

CO2, baseline = C, baseline * C to CO2


CO2, baseline = 39.193 tC/ha * 44/12 tCO2/tC = 132.7076666… tCO2/ha

CO2, baseline,MU = CO2, baseline * Area,MU

CO2, baseline,MU = 132.7076666… tCO2/ha * 7.22 ha = 689.872… tCO2

CO2, baseline, site = SUM of CO2, baseline,MU of the site

CO2, baseline, site A = 689.872… tCO2 + 282.83 …. tCO2 = 973 tCO2 (rounded up)

Total baseline CO2 = sum of all sites = 9885 tCO2


STEP 5 : Other Emissions

Data, Emissions Factors and Results

SITE PREPARATION

Dieselmobile

FE CO2 FE CH4 FE N2O Emissions per gas Emissions in CO2e for each gas TOTAL

L gCO2/L gCH4/L gN2O/L tCO2 tCH4 tN2O tCO2e(CO2)

tCO2e (CH4) tCO2e (N2O) tCO2e

A 30 2690 0.15 0.075 0.0807 0.0001 0.0001 0.0807 0.0025 0.0298 0.1130

B 30 2690 0.15 0.075 0.0807 0.0001 0.0001 0.0807 0.0025 0.0298 0.1130

C 75 2690 0.15 0.075 0.2018 0.0001 0.0001 0.2018 0.0025 0.0298 0.2341

D 75 2690 0.15 0.075 0.2018 0.0001 0.0001 0.2018 0.0025 0.0298 0.2341

E 10 2690 0.15 0.075 0.0269 0.0001 0.0001 0.0269 0.0025 0.0298 0.0592

F 0 2690 0.15 0.075 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

G 0 2690 0.15 0.075 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

H 30 2690 0.15 0.075 0.0807 0.0001 0.0001 0.0807 0.0025 0.0298 0.1130

I 0 2690 0.15 0.075 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

J 30 2690 0.15 0.075 0.0807 0.0001 0.0001 0.0807 0.0025 0.0298 0.1130

K 30 2690 0.15 0.075 0.0807 0.0001 0.0001 0.0807 0.0025 0.0298 0.1130

L 30 2690 0.15 0.075 0.0807 0.0001 0.0001 0.0807 0.0025 0.0298 0.1130

M 30 2690 0.15 0.075 0.0807 0.0001 0.0001 0.0807 0.0025 0.0298 0.1130

N 85 2690 0.15 0.075 0.2287 0.0001 0.0001 0.2287 0.0025 0.0298 0.2610

O 30 2690 0.15 0.075 0.0807 0.0001 0.0001 0.0807 0.0025 0.0298 0.1130

TOTAL 1.305 0.001 0.001 1.305 0.030 0.358 1.6924

Dieselequipment

FE CO2 FE CH4 FE N2O Emissions per gas Emissions inCO2e foreach gas

TOTAL


L gCO2/L gCH4/L gN2O/L tCO2 tCH4 tN2O tCO2e (CO2) tCO2e (CH4) tCO2e (N2O) tCO2e

A 200 2960 0.133 0.4 0.5920 0.0001 0.0001 0.5920 0.0025 0.0298 0.6243

B 120 2960 0.133 0.4 0.3552 0.0001 0.0001 0.3552 0.0025 0.0298 0.3875

C 230 2960 0.133 0.4 0.6808 0.0001 0.0001 0.6808 0.0025 0.0298 0.7131

D 230 2960 0.133 0.4 0.6808 0.0001 0.0001 0.6808 0.0025 0.0298 0.7131

E 50 2960 0.133 0.4 0.1480 0.0001 0.0001 0.1480 0.0025 0.0298 0.1803

F 100 2960 0.133 0.4 0.2960 0.0001 0.0001 0.2960 0.0025 0.0298 0.3283

G 0 2960 0.133 0.4 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

H 250 2960 0.133 0.4 0.7400 0.0001 0.0001 0.7400 0.0025 0.0298 0.7723

I 0 2960 0.133 0.4 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

J 450 2960 0.133 0.4 1.3320 0.0001 0.0002 1.3320 0.0025 0.0596 1.3941

K 74 2960 0.133 0.4 0.2191 0.0001 0.0001 0.2191 0.0025 0.0298 0.2514

L 150 2960 0.133 0.4 0.4440 0.0001 0.0001 0.4440 0.0025 0.0298 0.4763

M 300 2960 0.133 0.4 0.8880 0.0001 0.0002 0.8880 0.0025 0.0596 0.9501

N 160 2960 0.133 0.4 0.4736 0.0001 0.0001 0.4736 0.0025 0.0298 0.5059

O 175 2960 0.133 0.4 0.5180 0.0001 0.0001 0.5180 0.0025 0.0298 0.5503

TOTAL 7.368 0.001 0.002 7.368 0.033 0.447 7.8470

Gasolinemobile


TOTAL


A 110 2316 0.49 0.084 0.2548 0.0001 0.0001 0.2548 0.0025 0.0298 0.2871

B 66 2316 0.49 0.084 0.1529 0.0001 0.0001 0.1529 0.0025 0.0298 0.1852

C 0 2316 0.49 0.084 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

D 0 2316 0.49 0.084 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000


E 50 2316 0.49 0.084 0.1158 0.0001 0.0001 0.1158 0.0025 0.0298 0.1481

F 40 2316 0.49 0.084 0.0927 0.0001 0.0001 0.0927 0.0025 0.0298 0.1250

G 0 2316 0.49 0.084 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

H 125 2316 0.49 0.084 0.2895 0.0001 0.0001 0.2895 0.0025 0.0298 0.3218

I 85 2316 0.49 0.084 0.1969 0.0001 0.0001 0.1969 0.0025 0.0298 0.2292

J 100 2316 0.49 0.084 0.2316 0.0001 0.0001 0.2316 0.0025 0.0298 0.2639

K 42 2316 0.49 0.084 0.0973 0.0001 0.0001 0.0973 0.0025 0.0298 0.1296

L 82 2316 0.49 0.084 0.1900 0.0001 0.0001 0.1900 0.0025 0.0298 0.2223

M 60 2316 0.49 0.084 0.1390 0.0001 0.0001 0.1390 0.0025 0.0298 0.1713

N 105 2316 0.49 0.084 0.2432 0.0001 0.0001 0.2432 0.0025 0.0298 0.2755

O 88 2316 0.49 0.084 0.2039 0.0001 0.0001 0.2039 0.0025 0.0298 0.2362

TOTAL 2.208 0.001 0.001 2.208 0.030 0.358 2.5952

Gasolineequipment


TOTAL


A 132 2316 0.14 0.02 0.3058 0.0001 0.0001 0.3058 0.0025 0.0298 0.3381

B 80 2316 0.14 0.02 0.1853 0.0001 0.0001 0.1853 0.0025 0.0298 0.2176

C 0 2316 0.14 0.02 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

D 0 2316 0.14 0.02 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

E 60 2316 0.14 0.02 0.1390 0.0001 0.0001 0.1390 0.0025 0.0298 0.1713

F 10 2316 0.14 0.02 0.0232 0.0001 0.0001 0.0232 0.0025 0.0298 0.0555

G 0 2316 0.14 0.02 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

H 115 2316 0.14 0.02 0.2664 0.0001 0.0001 0.2664 0.0025 0.0298 0.2987

I 55 2316 0.14 0.02 0.1274 0.0001 0.0001 0.1274 0.0025 0.0298 0.1597


J 165 2316 0.14 0.02 0.3822 0.0001 0.0001 0.3822 0.0025 0.0298 0.4145

K 50 2316 0.14 0.02 0.1158 0.0001 0.0001 0.1158 0.0025 0.0298 0.1481

L 100 2316 0.14 0.02 0.2316 0.0001 0.0001 0.2316 0.0025 0.0298 0.2639

M 70 2316 0.14 0.02 0.1622 0.0001 0.0001 0.1622 0.0025 0.0298 0.1945

N 130 2316 0.14 0.02 0.3011 0.0001 0.0001 0.3011 0.0025 0.0298 0.3334

O 80 2316 0.14 0.02 0.1853 0.0001 0.0001 0.1853 0.0025 0.0298 0.2176

TOTAL 2.425 0.001 0.001 2.425 0.030 0.358 2.8129

PLANTING

Dieselmobile


TOTAL


A 75 2690 0.15 0.075 0.2018 0.0001 0.0001 0.2018 0.0025 0.0298 0.2341

B 45 2690 0.15 0.075 0.1211 0.0001 0.0001 0.1211 0.0025 0.0298 0.1534

C 50 2690 0.15 0.075 0.1345 0.0001 0.0001 0.1345 0.0025 0.0298 0.1668

D 50 2690 0.15 0.075 0.1345 0.0001 0.0001 0.1345 0.0025 0.0298 0.1668

E 75 2690 0.15 0.075 0.2018 0.0001 0.0001 0.2018 0.0025 0.0298 0.2341

F 0 2690 0.15 0.075 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

G 0 2690 0.15 0.075 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

H 52 2690 0.15 0.075 0.1399 0.0001 0.0001 0.1399 0.0025 0.0298 0.1722

I 65 2690 0.15 0.075 0.1749 0.0001 0.0001 0.1749 0.0025 0.0298 0.2072

J 65 2690 0.15 0.075 0.1749 0.0001 0.0001 0.1749 0.0025 0.0298 0.2072

K 75 2690 0.15 0.075 0.2018 0.0001 0.0001 0.2018 0.0025 0.0298 0.2341

L 45 2690 0.15 0.075 0.1211 0.0001 0.0001 0.1211 0.0025 0.0298 0.1534


M 40 2690 0.15 0.075 0.1076 0.0001 0.0001 0.1076 0.0025 0.0298 0.1399

N 75 2690 0.15 0.075 0.2018 0.0001 0.0001 0.2018 0.0025 0.0298 0.2341

O 52 2690 0.15 0.075 0.1399 0.0001 0.0001 0.1399 0.0025 0.0298 0.1722

TOTAL 2.056 0.001 0.001 2.056 0.033 0.387 2.4755

Gasolinemobile


TOTAL


A 26 2316 0.49 0.084 0.0603 0.0001 0.0001 0.0603 0.0025 0.0298 0.0926

B 16 2316 0.49 0.084 0.0371 0.0001 0.0001 0.0371 0.0025 0.0298 0.0694

C 32 2316 0.49 0.084 0.0742 0.0001 0.0001 0.0742 0.0025 0.0298 0.1065

D 32 2316 0.49 0.084 0.0742 0.0001 0.0001 0.0742 0.0025 0.0298 0.1065

E 25 2316 0.49 0.084 0.0579 0.0001 0.0001 0.0579 0.0025 0.0298 0.0902

F 55 2316 0.49 0.084 0.1274 0.0001 0.0001 0.1274 0.0025 0.0298 0.1597

G 30 2316 0.49 0.084 0.0695 0.0001 0.0001 0.0695 0.0025 0.0298 0.1018

H 20 2316 0.49 0.084 0.0464 0.0001 0.0001 0.0464 0.0025 0.0298 0.0787

I 104 2316 0.49 0.084 0.2409 0.0001 0.0001 0.2409 0.0025 0.0298 0.2732

J 104 2316 0.49 0.084 0.2409 0.0001 0.0001 0.2409 0.0025 0.0298 0.2732

K 26 2316 0.49 0.084 0.0603 0.0001 0.0001 0.0603 0.0025 0.0298 0.0926

L 16 2316 0.49 0.084 0.0371 0.0001 0.0001 0.0371 0.0025 0.0298 0.0694

M 26 2316 0.49 0.084 0.0603 0.0001 0.0001 0.0603 0.0025 0.0298 0.0926

N 41 2316 0.49 0.084 0.0950 0.0001 0.0001 0.0950 0.0025 0.0298 0.1273

O 20 2316 0.49 0.084 0.0464 0.0001 0.0001 0.0464 0.0025 0.0298 0.0787

TOTAL 1.328 0.002 0.002 1.328 0.038 0.447 1.8124


Emissions for Fuel Combustion (tCO2 or tCH4 or tN2O) = Quantity of fuel (l) * EF (gCO2/l or gCH4/l or gN2O/l) * conversion

Emissions for Fuel Combustion (tCO2e) = Emissions (tCO2 or tCH4 or tN2O) * GWP (CO2, CH4 or N2O) = tCO2e

Example for Emissions for site preparation, diesel mobile combustion, site A

Fuel Combustion, CO2 = 30 l * 2690 gCO2/l * 1/(1000*1000) = 0.0807 tCO2 (rounded up 4 digits)

Fuel Combustion, CH4 = 30 l * 0.15 gCO2/l * 1/(1000*1000) = 0.0001 tCH4 (rounded up 4 digits)

Fuel Combustion, N2O = 30 l * 0.075 gCO2/l * 1/(1000*1000) = 0.0001 tN2O (rounded up 4 digits)

Fuel combustion, CO2 = 0.0807 tCO2 * 1 tCO2e / tCO2 = 0.0807 tCO2e

Fuel combustion, CH4 = 0.0001 tCO2 * 25 tCO2e / tCH4 = 0.0025 tCO2e

Fuel combustion, N2O = 0.0001 tCO2 * 298 tCO2e / tN2O = 0.0298 tCO2e

Fuel combustion, tCO2e = 0.0807 tCO2e + 0.0025 tCO2e + 0.0298tCO2e = 0.1130 tCO2e




A 1.233 0.000 0.000 1.233 0.010 0.119 1.363

B 0.774 0.000 0.000 0.774 0.010 0.119 0.903

C 0.883 0.000 0.000 0.883 0.005 0.060 0.947

D 0.883 0.000 0.000 0.883 0.005 0.060 0.947

E 0.430 0.000 0.000 0.430 0.010 0.119 0.559

F 0.412 0.000 0.000 0.412 0.008 0.089 0.509

G 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

H 1.377 0.000 0.000 1.377 0.010 0.119 1.506

I 0.324 0.000 0.000 0.324 0.005 0.060 0.389

J 2.027 0.000 0.001 2.027 0.010 0.149 2.186

K 0.513 0.000 0.000 0.513 0.010 0.119 0.642

L 0.946 0.000 0.000 0.946 0.010 0.119 1.076

M 1.270 0.000 0.001 1.270 0.010 0.149 1.429

N 1.247 0.000 0.000 1.247 0.010 0.119 1.376

O 0.988 0.000 0.000 0.988 0.010 0.119 1.117

TOTAL 13.305 0.005 0.005 13.305 0.123 1.520 14.948




A 0.262 0.000 0.000 0.262 0.005 0.060 0.327

B 0.158 0.000 0.000 0.158 0.005 0.060 0.223

C 0.209 0.000 0.000 0.209 0.005 0.060 0.273

D 0.209 0.000 0.000 0.209 0.005 0.060 0.273

E 0.260 0.000 0.000 0.260 0.005 0.060 0.324

F 0.127 0.000 0.000 0.127 0.003 0.030 0.160

G 0.070 0.000 0.000 0.070 0.003 0.030 0.102

H 0.186 0.000 0.000 0.186 0.005 0.060 0.251

I 0.416 0.000 0.000 0.416 0.005 0.060 0.480

J 0.416 0.000 0.000 0.416 0.005 0.060 0.480

K 0.262 0.000 0.000 0.262 0.005 0.060 0.327

L 0.158 0.000 0.000 0.158 0.005 0.060 0.223

M 0.168 0.000 0.000 0.168 0.005 0.060 0.233

N 0.297 0.000 0.000 0.297 0.005 0.060 0.361

O 0.186 0.000 0.000 0.186 0.005 0.060 0.251

TOTAL 3.384 0.003 0.003 3.384 0.070 0.834 4.288

Other emissions for site preparation (t gas) par site = SUM (Diesel mobile emissions, Diesel equipment emissions, Gasoline mobileemissions, Gasoline equipment emissions) for each site

Other emissions for planting (t gas) per site = SUM (Diesel mobile emissions, Gasoline mobile emissions) for each site

Other emissions for thinning = 2 * (other emissions for site preparation + other emissions for planting)


Example

Other emissions for site preparation, site A, for CO2 in tCO2 = 0.0807 + 0.5920+ 0.2548+0.3058 = 1.2333 tCO2

Other emissions for planting, site A, for CO2 in tCO2 = 0.2018 + 0.0603 = 0.2620

Other emissions for thinning = 2 * (1.233 + 0.262) = 2.99… tCO2

Thinnings

Number of thinnings 2


Thinnings tCO2 tCH4 tN2O tCO2e tCO2e tCO2e tCO2e

A 2.9908 0.0012 0.0012 2.9908 0.03 0.3576 3.3784

B 1.8646 0.0012 0.0012 1.8646 0.03 0.3576 2.2522

C 2.1826 0.0008 0.0008 2.1826 0.02 0.2384 2.441

D 2.1826 0.0008 0.0008 2.1826 0.02 0.2384 2.441

E 1.3788 0.0012 0.0012 1.3788 0.03 0.3576 1.7664

F 1.0786 0.0008 0.0008 1.0786 0.02 0.2384 1.337

G 0.139 0.0002 0.0002 0.139 0.005 0.0596 0.2036

H 3.1258 0.0012 0.0012 3.1258 0.03 0.3576 3.5134

I 1.4802 0.0008 0.0008 1.4802 0.02 0.2384 1.7386

J 4.8846 0.0012 0.0014 4.8846 0.03 0.4172 5.3318

K 1.55 0.0012 0.0012 1.55 0.03 0.3576 1.9376

L 2.209 0.0012 0.0012 2.209 0.03 0.3576 2.5966

M 2.8756 0.0012 0.0014 2.8756 0.03 0.4172 3.3228

N 3.0868 0.0012 0.0012 3.0868 0.03 0.3576 3.4744

O 2.3484 0.0012 0.0012 2.3484 0.03 0.3576 2.736

TOTAL 33.3774 0.0154 0.0158 33.3774 0.385 4.7084 38.4708




A 4.486 0.002 0.002 4.486 0.045 0.536 5.068

B 2.797 0.002 0.002 2.797 0.045 0.536 3.378

C 3.274 0.001 0.001 3.274 0.030 0.358 3.662

D 3.274 0.001 0.001 3.274 0.030 0.358 3.662

E 2.068 0.002 0.002 2.068 0.045 0.536 2.650

F 1.618 0.001 0.001 1.618 0.030 0.358 2.006

G 0.209 0.000 0.000 0.209 0.008 0.089 0.305

H 4.689 0.002 0.002 4.689 0.045 0.536 5.270

I 2.220 0.001 0.001 2.220 0.030 0.358 2.608

J 7.327 0.002 0.002 7.327 0.045 0.626 7.998

K 2.325 0.002 0.002 2.325 0.045 0.536 2.906

L 3.314 0.002 0.002 3.314 0.045 0.536 3.895

M 4.313 0.002 0.002 4.313 0.045 0.626 4.984

N 4.630 0.002 0.002 4.630 0.045 0.536 5.212

O 3.523 0.002 0.002 3.523 0.045 0.536 4.104

TOTAL 50.066 0.023 0.024 50.066 0.578 7.063 57.706

Total Other emissions per site = other emissions for site preparation + other emissions for planting + thinning

Example for site A

Total other emissions for site A, for CO2 in tCO2 = 1.233… + 0.262… + 2.99 … = 4.486 tCO2


STEP 6 : Carbon Credits

Here is the summary for emissions. Numbers are rounded down to the unit for project emissions (long term CO2 fixation), rounded upto the unit for baseline emissions and rounded up for other emissions.

LTCO2-fixation-GM

Emissions Baseline Emissions OtherEmissions

Emissions

tCO2 tCO2e tCO2 tCO2e tCO2e

A 4787 4787 A 973 973 A 6

B 2836 2836 B 479 479 B 4

C 5373 5373 C 9 9 C 4

D 5277 5277 D 10 10 D 4

E 4566 4566 E 9 9 E 3

F 1505 1505 F 335 335 F 3

G 1035 1035 G 3 3 G 1

H 6182 6182 H 943 943 H 6

I 3799 3799 I 1918 1918 I 3

J 11236 11236 J 1835 1835 J 8

K 2831 2831 K 389 389 K 3

L 5628 5628 L 712 712 L 4

M 2884 2884 M 541 541 M 5

N 5090 5090 N 1105 1105 N 6

O 4220 4220 O 624 624 O 5



Here are presented the number of credits and ex-ante credits for each site.

Credits Ex-antecredits

tCO2e tCO2e

A 3808 A 3427

B 2353 B 2117

C 5360 C 4824

D 5263 D 4736

E 4554 E 4098

F 1167 F 1050

G 1031 G 927

H 5233 H 4709

I 1878 I 1690

J 9393 J 8453

K 2439 K 2195

L 4912 L 4420

M 2338 M 2104

N 3979 N 3581

O 3591 O 3231



Carbon credits per site = CO2fixation, project - Baseline - Other emissions

Carbon credits per site = 4787 - 973 - 6 = 3808 tCO2 (example for site A)

Ex-ante credits per site = (1-0.1)*Carbon credits rounded down= 0.9* 3808 = 3427 tCO2

Carbon credits = SUM of carbon credits for all sites = 57299 tCO2e

Ex-ante credits = SUM of ex-ante credits for all sites = 51 562 tCO2e

Buffer = Carbons credits - ex-ante credits = 5737 tCO2e