This presentation was given by Paul Luu, 4Per100, in the Soil Carbon Finance for MRV Hackathon on 24 September 2020. Find out more: https://soilcarbon.weebly.com/

1. Twin-Regions
-
International solidarity to unlock
potentials for achieving carbon
neutrality
MRV-Hackathon
24.09.2020

2. Outline
1. Twin Regions as concept
2. Possible C-sequestration projects to be
realized under the Twin Regions concept
3. Setting the scene for suitable MRV
4. Carbon accounting approach
5. Short introduction to Twin-Regions pilot
project
6. Questions to the experts

3. Twin Regions as concept
The Twin Regions concept is proposed as civil societal
engagement towards climate-neutrality
1. Communities with high
emissions but low
biological carbon
sequestration potential
(~ industrialized country)
2. Communities with low
emissions but high
biological carbon
sequestration potential
(~ developing country)
partner with
to achieve
carbon
neutrality.
Worldwide CO2 emissions (2016; by region; per capita)

4. Twin Regions as concept
1. Communities in industrialized countries focus on
the reduction of own emissions and the
mobilization of support for increased carbon
sequestration in partnering communities
2. Communities in developing countries are enabled
to realize carbon sequestration / carbon farming
projects ( LULUCF sector)
3. For 4p1000 soil heath is the entry point and the
basis for improved ecosystem productivity and
build-up of carbon stocks (aboveground &
belowground)

5. Possible agricultural C-sequestration
projects to be realized under Twin Regions
1. Reduction of nutrient deficiencies (N and
especially P)
2. Water harvesting techniques
3. Introduction of fodder legumes (N)
4. Introduction of deep rooting woody perennials =
fodder and timber species
5. Introduction of grazing management techniques
(recovery of overgrazed areas)
6. Soil restoration practices, e.g. syntropic
agricultural / holistic grazing.

6. • Different C sequestration approaches conceivable
• Both above- and belowground carbon yields should be
considered
• Scaling up of the Twin-Regions concept would probably
yield a large number of comparatively small projects,
many of them to be realized in remote rural areas with
poor infrastructure  simple but reliable MRV scheme
required
Setting the scene for a suitable MRV
• Carbon yields have to be monitored
sufficiently accurate to justify the investments
of financing communities (but maybe not as
accurate as it is required for carbon trading
between anonymous parties)

7. 1. Aboveground biomass:
1. Manual assessment of woody biomass (local
evaluators)
2. Ground-cover evaluation through satellite imaging
2. SOC:
1. Activity based protocol (are models sufficiently
calibrated for the tropics?)
Carbon accounting approach

8. Proof of concept: Twin-Regions concept and
clarify open questions
Verification of potential: Verification of
emission reduction and C-sequestration
potential and assessment of co-benefits and
associated risks
Development of solutions: Participatory development of
GAFOLUP solutions for achieving carbon neutrality (Starting 2021)
Up-scaling: Promotion of large-scale implementation (Starting
2022)
• Establish Twin-Regions as concept of global solidarity and collaboration for the
sustainable and equitable use of resources
• Improve soil health in SSA for food security and CO2 sequestration at the Gt level
GoalsObjectives
• 12 Pilot Twin Regions established
• Restore soil health on 4800 ha and quantify
C-sequestration potential
• Costs: 1.5 Mio €
• Thousands of Twin Regions (Europe –
SSA) till 2025
• Soil health restoration on 900 Mio ha
(SSA) till 2030
• Sequestration of 4-18 Gt CO2 till 2040
• Costs: 60-200 Bio. € ~ 3-50 € per t CO2
Phase 1 Phase 2

9. 1. Which C accounting approach would best fit the project?
2. Can carbon yields be used to offset GHG emissions of the
financing community (industrialized countries) or will it be
accounted to the NDC in the developing country?
3. Does the fact that donors and beneficiaries know each
other offer possibilities to reduce the complexity of MRV
(MRV seen as internal evaluation rather then external
auditing)?
4. How accurate does our MRV scheme have to be? Do we at
all need an external certification?
5. Would it be possible to reduce MRV costs by involving the
local community in the monitoring process?
Questions to the experts