What is a PDD?

A Project Design Document (PDD) is the central component in an emissions reduction project. It outlines the project activity, calculates the resulting emissions reduction and considers environmental impacts and stakeholder comments. It will be used by the host country, investors, third party evaluators and stakeholders (local, national and international) to evaluate the project’s potential and judge its merit.

Specifically, Rainforest Management Alliance Project Design Documents are developed to Climate, Community and Biodiversity Project Design Standards. By doing so, RMA PDDs identify land-based projects that can simultaneously deliver compelling climate, biodiversity and community benefits.

The CCB Standards are primarily designed for climate change mitigation projects and were developed by the Climate, Community & Biodiversity Alliance (CCBA). The CCBA is a global partnership of research institutions, corporations and environmental groups, with a mission to develop and promote voluntary standards for multiple-benefit land-use projects. The Standards can be used in developing, developed or emerging economies, and can be used for projects funded with private and/or public investment.

CCB Standards

The CCB Standards evaluate projects in the planning or early stage of project implementation. For a project to be evaluated, the project proponents must first compile specific information about their proposed project. A third-party evaluator will then use this information to determine whether the project satisfies indicators associated with given criterion.

The CCB Standards rely on informed and impartial third-party evaluators to determine if a project merits approval. Thus, the credibility of the evaluators is critical to the overall credibility of the Standards. Independent evaluation raises the credibility of projects but also increases project design costs.

Each of the twenty-three criteria (consisting of fifteen required criteria and eight optional “point scoring” criteria) will be evaluated. To earn CCB Standards approval, projects must satisfy all fifteen required criteria. Exceptional projects that go beyond basic approval may earn a Silver or Gold rating, depending on the number of points scored. The 23 criteria are as follows:

G1. Original Conditions at Project Site

The original conditions at the project site before the project commences must be described. This description, along with projections (G2), will help determine the likely impacts of the project.

G2. Baseline Projections

An analysis of projected land-use trends is necessary to predict likely on-site changes without implementation of a project. This “without-project” future land-use scenario enables comparison of the project’s likely impacts with what would otherwise have occurred.

G3. Project Design & Goals

The project must be described in sufficient detail so that a third-party can adequately evaluate it. Projects that operate in a transparent manner enable stakeholders and outside parties to contribute more effectively to the project.

G4. Management Capacity

The success of a project depends upon the competence of the implementing management team.

G5. Land Tenure

There should be no significant land tenure disputes in the project area, or the project should fundamentally help to resolve these tenure issues.

G6. Legal Status

The project must be based on a solid legal framework (e.g., appropriate contracts are likely to be in place) and the project must seek to satisfy applicable planning and regulatory requirements. During the project design phase, the project proponents should communicate early on with relevant local, regional and national authorities and allow adequate time to earn necessary approvals. The project design should be flexible to accommodate potential modifications that may arise to secure regulatory approval.

G7. Adaptive Management for Sustainability

Adaptive management is a formal, systematic, and rigorous approach to learning from the outcomes of management actions, accommodating change and improving management. It involves synthesizing existing knowledge, exploring alternative actions and making forecasts about their outcomes. Adaptive management is based upon the premise that ecosystems and social systems are complex and inherently unpredictable. Adaptive management views land management actions as learning opportunities and as potential experiments for systematically testing assumptions and identifying adjustments that could benefit the project. It enables a project to evolve to meet changing or unanticipated needs, and can help ensure that the project realizes its goals over the long term.

G8. Knowledge Dissemination

Field-based knowledge can be of value to other projects. If actively disseminated, this information can accelerate the adoption of innovative practices that bring benefits both globally and locally

CL1. Net Positive Climate Impacts

The project must generate net positive impacts on atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases (GHGs) within the project boundaries and over the project lifetime. Indicators

CL2. Offsite Climate Impacts (“Leakage”)

The project proponents must quantify and mitigate likely negative offsite climate impacts; namely, decreased carbon stocks or increased emissions of non-CO2 GHGs outside the project boundary, resulting from project activities (referred to as “leakage” in climate change policy).

CL3. Climate Impact Monitoring

Before a project begins, the project proponents must have an initial monitoring plan in place to quantify and document changes in project-related carbon pools, and non-CO2 GHG emissions if appropriate, (within and outside the project boundaries). The monitoring plan should state which measurements will be taken and which sampling strategy will be used. Since developing a full carbon-monitoring plan can be costly, it is accepted that some of the plan details may not be fully defined at the design stage, when projects are being evaluated by the CCB Standards. This will be especially true for small-scale projects.

CL4. Adapting to Climate Change and Climate Variability

Projects designed to anticipate and adapt to probable impacts of climate change and climate variability are more likely to sustain the benefits generated by the project over the long term.

CL5. Carbon Benefits Withheld from Regulatory Markets

When some carbon benefits generated by a project are not sold to satisfy regulatory requirements, additional mitigation action will be required elsewhere to meet these requirements. Therefore, withholding a portion of the project’s carbon benefits from being used in capped markets will result in greater overall climate change mitigation. Moreover, projects that do not sell all their carbon benefits in regulated regimes have the opportunity to experiment with climate change mitigation activities other than the ones eligible under these regimes (such as avoided deforestation, which is not currently creditable under the Clean Development Mechanism). Such experimentation may generate new knowledge that is of value to carbon rule makers and other project developers.

CM1. Net Positive Community Impacts

The project must generate net positive impacts on the social and economic wellbeing of communities within the project boundaries and within the project lifetime. In addition, local communities and other stakeholders should be engaged early on so that the project design can be revised based on their input. Finally, projects should ensure that stakeholders can express concerns and grievances to project proponents and that these concerns are responded to in a timely manner.

CM2. Offsite Community Impacts

The project proponents must quantify and mitigate likely negative social and economic offsite impacts; namely, the decreased social and economic wellbeing of communities or people living outside the project boundary, resulting from project activities.

CM3. Community Impact Monitoring

The project proponents must have an initial monitoring plan to quantify and document changes in social and economic wellbeing resulting from the project activities (within and outside the project boundaries). The monitoring plan should indicate which measurements will likely be taken and which sampling strategy will be used to determine how the project affects social and economic wellbeing. Since developing a full community-monitoring plan can be costly, it is accepted that some of the plan details may not be fully defined at the design stage, when projects are being evaluated by the CCB Standards. This will especially be true for small-scale projects.

CM4. Capacity Building

Projects that include a significant capacity-building (training, skill building, etc) component are more likely to sustain the positive outcomes generated by the project and have them replicated elsewhere. The project proponents must include a plan to provide orientation and training for the project’s employees and relevant community members with an eye to building locally relevant skills and knowledge over time.

CM5. Best Practices in Community Involvement

Projects that use best practices for community involvement are more likely to benefit communities. Best practices include: respect for local customs, local stakeholder employment, worker rights and worker safety.

B1. Net Positive Biodiversity Impacts

The project must generate net positive impacts on biodiversity within the project boundaries and within the project lifetime, measured against the baseline conditions. Projects should have no negative effects on species included in the IUCN Red List of threatened species (which encompasses endangered and vulnerable species) or species on a nationally recognized list (where applicable). Invasive species must not be planted by the project.

Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs), as a relatively new form of technology, raise a host of ethical, scientific and socio-economic issues. Some GMO attributes may result in invasive genes or species. In the future, certain GMOs may be proven safe. However, given the currently unresolved issues surrounding GMOs, projects cannot use genetically modified organisms to generate carbon credits.

B2. Offsite Biodiversity Impacts

The project proponents must quantify and mitigate likely negative offsite biodiversity impacts; namely, decreased biodiversity outside the project boundary resulting from project activities.

B3. Biodiversity Impact Monitoring

The project proponents must have an initial monitoring plan to quantify and document the changes in biodiversity resulting from the project activities (within and outside the project boundaries). The monitoring plan should state which measurements will likely be taken and which sampling strategy used. Since developing a full biodiversity-monitoring plan can be costly, it is accepted that some of the plan details may not be fully defined at the design stage, when projects are being evaluated by the CCB Standards. This will especially be true for small-scale projects.

B4. Native Species Use

In most cases, species that are native to a region will have a higher biodiversity benefit than non-native species. In other cases, non-native species can be more effective than native species for rehabilitating degraded areas or providing fast growing biomass, timber, fruits and other beneficial products. For instance a project may need to use non-native species on severely degraded land to achieve ecological restoration before native species can be reintroduced.

B5. Water and Soil Resource Enhancement

Climate change and other factors may stress and degrade water and soil resources at the project site over time. Projects should enhance the quality and quantity of water and soil resources.