A Comparison of No Till Protocols for Agricultural Carbon Offset Projects in Canada Dennis Haak, Agriculture & Agri-Food Canada October 29, 2008.

A Comparison of No Till Protocols for Agricultural Carbon Offset Projects

in Canada 

Dennis Haak, Agriculture & Agri-Food CanadaOctober 29, 2008.

No Till Protocol Development

1. Pilot Emission Reductions, Removals, and Learnings (PERRL) Initiative, Environment Canada (EC), Saskatchewan Soil Conservation Association, 2003 – 2005

2. Environment Canada Offset System Development, 2005 – 2006

ISO 14064 based draft by Soil Management Technical Working Group (SMTWG)

3. C-Green (CCX) 2006, Canadian Prairies4. Alberta’s Specified Gas Emitters Regulation, 20075. Various initiatives currently in development stage

(provincial and federal)

Important Note

This comparison not part of a formal review process

Common Elements of Regional Coefficient Approach

• Coefficient(s) based on model output, developed and validated with research data (eg. Century for soil carbon)

• Tillage activity definitions • Monitoring and verification of activity• Minimize administration costs

- treat large groups of farmers the same

- cheaper to monitor/verify activity than direct

GHG impacts

Scientific Basis for Raw Coefficients

Method Key Features

SMTWG Draft

Soil organic carbon and N2O same as Canada’s inventory reporting under UNFCCC (IPCC Tier II type methodology)

-Century 4.0 model output for SOC

-soil N2O based on rate of N addition plus

other factors, including tillage

-energy coefficients based on GHGFarm model

Alberta

C-Green 20 years of research coordinated by AAFC, Swift Current (similar to above, but not quite as recent)

No Till Activity Definitions

Specific Activity C-Green Alberta SMTWG Draft

Tillage Systems 2 (full & minimum) 3 (full, reduced, and no till)

One pass soil disturbance < 34 % < 47 % < 41 %

Chemical fallow ineligible for year yes

Discretionary Tillage 2 % 10 %

Harrows, land rollers yes

Low disturbance fertilizer or manure injection yes

Fall seeded crops ? yes

No Till Activity Definitions (cont’d)

Specific Activity C-Green Alberta SMTWG Draft

Irrigation ? Use parkland coefficient

Transition to / from perennials yes

Crop failure, cover crops, reseeding hail yes, as long as no tillage

Biomass removalCrop residue burning

no ? yes

Inter row tillage ? no

Livestock grazing swathgrazing ? most

Baseline Approach

Method Key Features

SMTWGDraft

Discount based on Adoption Rate of Practice for Baseline Year

- Key Data Source: Census of Agriculture,

Statistics Canada

- Static during registration period

Alberta

2001

C-Green No Baseline Discount

Non-Permanence of Soil Carbon Beyond Crediting Period

Method Key Features

SMTWGDraft

1. Liability Period (length not decided)

- reversal coefficient for SOC

- rate of reversal = rate of accumulation

2. One year temporary credits

Alberta Assurance Factors

- 87.5 to 92.5 % depending on tillage system and region

- based on expert opinion predictions

C-Green None, however complete ineligibility from any reversals during crediting period

No Till Example: Dry Prairie Region

Variable C- Green Alberta SMTWG Draft

Raw Coefficient (MT CO2 equiv / ac / yr) 0.20 0.195

Baseline Discount no 52 % ?

Assurance Factor Discount no 7.5 % no

Net Coefficient 0.20 0.0875 ?

Liability Costs (monitoring, reversals) no yes

Price ($ / MT) 4.00 ? 15.00 ? ?

Gross Revenue ($ / ac / yr) 0.80 ? 1.31 ? ?

Baseline and Crediting Period

Variable C- Green Alberta SMTWGDraft

Baseline Year for 1st Crediting Period none 2001 ? 2001 +

Project Start 2006 2007 ? 2008 +

Start of Crediting Period 2003 2002 ? 2008 +

Retroactivity yes ? no

Length of Crediting Period (years) 2003 – 062006 – 102008 - 11

11 ? 1 to 8

Baseline Reassessment no yes

No Till

ReducedTill

Tillage Activity Monitoring & Verification

Variable C- Green Alberta SMTWGDraft

Level of Assurance

Signed Adherence yes low

Specific Field Practice Records some likely yes moderate

Field Inspection (verify small %) - soil disturbance (stubble) - mulch layer (retroactive) - equipment & invoice

yesyesyes

???

yesnoyes

highmoderatemoderate

Remote Sensing - unable to assess stubble orientation

? likelysome

no low

Relative Rating of Protocol ElementsNote: Ratings reflect author’s opinion, not a formal review process

Protocol Element C- Green Alberta SMTWG Draft

Science Basis moderate high

Practice Guidance – Tillage Definitions

mod -high high very high

Baseline or Additionality low mod - high high

Non-permanence of Soil Carbon low mod - high high

Monitoring and Verification mod - high low - mod high

Protocol Documentation low moderate high

Overall Adherence to ISO 14064 low - mod mod - high high

Project Feasibility moderate moderate lowFeasibility Constraint low price baseline, non-permanence

The Future

1. Proposed Environment Canada Offset System

- will not lead but rather review / approve protocol development

- Alberta protocol placed on fast track list for early consideration

2. Other provinces considering Alberta protocol for their own system

3. Standardized approach would reduce uncertainty

4. In Canada no till adoption is high

- hard to have both additionality and project feasibility

- need to focus more on policy to support maintenance of practice (eg. EG&S that includes other environmental benefits)

Thank you

Questions and Discussion