Carbon management practices and quantification Marie Boehm AAFC February 11, 2003

Carbon management and quantification Removals > Emissions Rate of carbon sequestration > rate of non CO2 emissions (net sequestration) Economically feasible relative to conventional practices (positive adoption rate) Need to understand “whole system” Quantification adoption rate X net C sink

Carbon management practices Practices for which emissions and removals quantified Increase zero tillage Reduced summerfallow Increase permanent cover Increase forages in crop rotation Improved grazing land management To identify opportunities ... Quantify and project to 2008

Adoption Rates 20000 H 15000 M L ZT 10000 Hectares ('000) BAU 5000 SF I tend to add this slide to remind audiences that some cost may be inevitable - some people think that investing in mitigation is choice we can make about whether to spend money on the climate change problem. However, it may not be optional - it may be that we will have to spend on adaptation if we do not choose to spend on mitigation (and likely we will have to spend on both). However, the mitigation strategies tend to be based on practices that reduce emissions, but also make sense economically and offer other environmental benefits - If we have to adapt, we may not have the flexibility to choose responses that have other benefits, and we do not know what adaptation costs will be, so it is risky. M H 1991 1996 2001 2008 Year

Zero Tillage and SF Scenarios: C Sequestration Coefficients ACTIVITY PRAIRIES NON-PRAIRIES BRN D BRN BLK Zero Tillage 0.73 0.73 1.34 0.54 Reduce SF 0.15 0.16 0.08 Increase forage 0.94 2.44 2.44 Permanent cover 0.88 1.15 3.3 3.3 Expert opinion based on measures Modeled - Century SF coefficients for 1990

Moderate Adoption Rates National Results: Moderate Adoption Rates % change from BAU I tend to add this slide to remind audiences that some cost may be inevitable - some people think that investing in mitigation is choice we can make about whether to spend money on the climate change problem. However, it may not be optional - it may be that we will have to spend on adaptation if we do not choose to spend on mitigation (and likely we will have to spend on both). However, the mitigation strategies tend to be based on practices that reduce emissions, but also make sense economically and offer other environmental benefits - If we have to adapt, we may not have the flexibility to choose responses that have other benefits, and we do not know what adaptation costs will be, so it is risky. ZT SF Forage

Benefit distribution Increase zero tillage Net BAU emissions (Mt): 1.1 Mt 3.1 Mt 0.7 Mt 20.2 10.4 9.1 Relative to BAU

Benefit distribution Decrease summerfallow -15% -10% -5% 0% 5% BC AB SK MB Net BAU emissions (Mt): 20.2 10.4 9.1 Relative to BAU

Benefit distribution Increase forages 15% 10% Relative to BAU 5% 0% BC AB SK QC NS -5% Net BAU emissions (Mt): 20.2 10.4

Summary Best practices have GHG benefits economically and technically viable - adopted have other environmental benefits BMP