Agriculture – Offsets Brian McConkey Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada Sector is engaged –All major farm groups aware of the issue and opportunities for.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Developing Offset Projects in a U.S. Pre-Compliance Market: Smart Investment or Unwise Policy Gamble Potential Carbon Markets & Utah Agriculture Utah.
Advertisements

Economic Analysis of Carbon Sequestration. Hypothesis: By adopting more sustainable practices, farmers can sequester C in soil at a cost competitive with.
S E R V I N G C A N A D I A N S A U S E R V I C E D E S C A N A D I E N S This may not necessarily represent the view of the Government CBA/Justice Annual.
Carbon Emissions. Increasing atmospheric CO2 concentration Atmospheric increase = Emissions from fossil fuels + Net emissions from changes in land use.
ALBERTA: NORTH AMERICA’S FIRST COMPLIANCE OFFSET CARBON MARKET Carbon Consultation, October, 2008 Tom Goddard, Alberta Agriculture and Food Karen Haugen-Kozyra,
Corbin Devlin McLennan Ross LLP October 19, 2007 ALBERTA’S CLIMATE: A Comparison to Canada’s Approach to Managing Greenhouse Gas Emissions.
Agricultural Protocols within the Alberta Offset System Tom Goddard, Agriculture & Rural Development June 17, 2010, Washington DC.
The Pathway to Market for Agricultural Carbon Offsets: Science – Policy - Commodity Karen Haugen-Kozyra, M.Sc. P.Ag. Principal, KHK Consulting June 17,
Climate Change Plan for Canada Senate Standing Committee on Agriculture and Forestry November 26, 2002.
Implementing Conservation Practices that Increase Carbon Sequestration and Reduce GHG Emission Dr. Adam S. Chambers Air Quality Scientist West National.
Canada’s Offset System for Greenhouse Gases Dean Stinson O’Gorman New Brunswick Climate Change Hub meeting October 7, 2009.
This may not represent the view of the Government 1 Canada’s Climate Change Plan Large Final Emitters Regime and Domestic Offsets Regime Stéphane Roberge,
Agriculture and Greenhouse Gases Jill Heemstra, University of Nebraska - Lincoln Building Environmental Leaders in Animal Agriculture (BELAA)
Canadian producer perspectives on agricultural soil offsets: Issues, Opportunities and Risks Blair McClinton, PAg Saskatchewan Soil Conservation Association.
The Case for Early Action Pew Center Early Action Conference September 13-14, 1999 Dale Landgren Asst. Vice President, Business Planning.
Climate Change Farm Impacts and Farm Solutions North American-European Union Conference North American Perspective Don McCabe October 21, 2009.
Have most North Americans already met their Kyoto Obligations? - Trends in the CO 2 content of Expenditure and the role of Income Inequality. Lars Osberg.
Agricultural Productivity, Climate Change, Adaption and Mitigation Policies: A Canadian Perspective Paul J. Thomassin McGill University OECD Workshop:
Carbon Trading: The Challenges and Risks John Drexhage Director, Climate Change and Energy International Institute for Sustainable Development Agriculture.
Presented by Dean Current, PhD Center for Integrated Natural Resources and Agricultural Management (CINRAM) Department of Forest Resources University of.
Building Market Access Tools: Practices and Quantification Review Karen Haugen-Kozyra, M.Sc. P.Ag. Principal, KHK Consulting June 17, 2010 Agriculture.
Expertise everyday, everywhere Verifying Sinks and Bio-energy Projects Irma Lubrecht Société Générale de Surveillance.
Agriculture Industry Views on Climate Legislation and Markets David Miller Chief Science Officer AgraGate Climate Credits Corp & Director of Research Iowa.
LULUCF Concepts Training Seminar for BioCarbon Fund Projects February 8 th 2008 Timothy Pearson and Sarah Walker Winrock International.
Opportunities for Methane Capture in the Intensive Livestock Industry.
Climate Change Mitigation Policy for Agriculture in Canada: Horizontal Policy Integration June 19, 2004 UNFCCC Workshop, Bonn, Germany Dr. Robert J. MacGregor.
Case Study 1 Canadian Prairies: Soil C management Biophysical information M. Boehm, B. McConkey & H. Janzen Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada How can we.
Assessment of Different Quantification Approaches and Application of Multiple Practices for a Single Farm Unit Dennis Haak, Agriculture & Agri-Food Canada.
A Comparison of No Till Protocols for Agricultural Carbon Offset Projects in Canada Dennis Haak, Agriculture & Agri-Food Canada October 29, 2008.
Doing Their Bit: Ensuring Large Industrial Emitters Contribute Adequately to Canada’s Implementation of the Kyoto Protocol Matthew Bramley / Robert Hornung.
Aggregator Perspective on Carbon Credits Presented by AgraGate Climate Credits Corp David Miller, Chief Science Officer July 18, 2007.
The Climate Change Challenge for Agriculture Presentation to the Kyoto Mechanisms Seminar March 14, 2003 by Dr. R. J. MacGregor Agriculture and Agri-Food.
Implementation of the Kyoto Protocol: what does it mean for bioenergy and C sequestration? Implementation of the Kyoto Protocol: what does it mean for.
How Canada is dealing with key issues in Agriculture and Forestry in a Federal Offsets System: Guidelines for Protocols Ian Campbell Agri-Environmental.
Sequestering and Measuring Soil Carbon: Prairie Soil Carbon Balance Project Brian McConkey 1 *, Chang Liang 2,, Glenn Padbury 1, Arlan Frick 3,Wayne Lindwall.
Agriculture’s Role in Climate Change Mitigation July 18, 2007 (revised) Daniel A. Lashof, Ph.D. Science Director Climate Center Natural Resources Defense.
1 Impact of uncertainty of land management practices on carbon sequestration Brian McConkey April 8, 2009.
Developing a Framework for Offset Use in RGGI Opportunities and Risks Dale Bryk, NRDC and Brian Jones, MJB&A – Northeast Regional GHG Coalition RGGI Stakeholder.
Presented at: Saskatchewan Agriculture and Food Agriculture and Greenhouse Gas/Climate Change Workshop Saskatoon December 11, 2000 Llewellyn Matthews and.
“STEWARDSHIP IN FORESTRY” Forestry Projects for Terrestrial Sequestration -- Regulatory and Public Acceptance Issues -- Jim Cathcart, Ph.D. Oregon Department.
Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative RGGI John Marschilok, P.E. Environmental Engineer Department New York State Department of Environmental Conservation.
Presentation “Green Investment Schemes – greenhouse gas emissions quotas trading mechanisms in Ukraine according to the Kyoto Protocol to the Convention.
Biosequestration through GHG offsets: An overview of activity in Canadian federal departments of forestry and agriculture April 28, Washington, DC.
Oregon Ag Carbon Work Group. Introduction Agriculture represents a small percentage of greenhouse gas emissions Ag likely won’t be regulated under a greenhouse.
Large Industrial Emitters Emissions Trading Natural Resources Canada March 14, 2003.
Offsets as Common Currency: U.S. and Canadian Offset Programs World Resources Institute Exploring the Challenges and Opportunities for Establishing a North.
Manitoba Perspectives on Emissions Trading Bryan Gray Manitoba Energy Science and Technology March 14, 2003.
© 2008 Goldman Environmental Consultants Greenhouse Gas Reductions: Challenges in Determining What is Real Henry Balikov Vice President Goldman Environmental.
Presentation to RGGI Stakeholder Group September 21, 2005.
Michigan Commission of Agriculture September 16, 2009 Climate Change and the Farm.
Seite 1 Stand: Article 3.4 and CDM outcomes: implications for wood based industries / bioenergy Bernhard Schlamadinger IEA Bioenergy Task 38,
Introduction to Domestic Emissions Trading Warren Bell Associate, IIISD Kyoto Mechanisms Seminar for the Manitoba Business Sector March 14, 2003.
 Cap and Trade Application: Global Warming 6. 2.
Greening Canada’s International Purchases Climate Law Symposium December 3, 2005 Warren Bell, IISD.
Harry Klodowski, Esq. Betts, Hull & Klodowski LLC Betts, Hull & Klodowski LLC.
Linkages Workshop November 14/ Outline Alberta context Regulatory framework Compliance options Carbon connections.
Agricultural Carbon Credits: Marketing a 21st Century Commodity from Our Farms or Ranches Robert Carlson, NDFU President NFU Carbon Credit Program April.
Keystone Agricultural Producers of Manitoba Carbon pricing: Making it work for Manitoba farmers Presented by: James Battershill, General Manager Sean Goertzen,
Policies for GHG Emission Reduction in Canadian Agriculture
Entergy’s GHG Stabilization Commitment
Livestock – compelling figures
IMPLEMENTATION ISSUES FOR THE CREATION OF OFFSETS IN THE AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY SECTORS FOR USE IN A POTENTIAL CANADIAN DOMESTIC EMISSION TRADING.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Data
DOE 1605(b) Voluntary Greenhouse Gas Registry and
Regional Climate Alliances Spring 2008
Carbon Offset Markets and Utah’s Opportunity
Canada’s Regulatory Framework for Greenhouse Gas Emissions
WRI/WBCSD GHG Protocol: Project Module
Dairy Subgroup #1: Fostering Markets for Non-Digester Projects
Presentation transcript:

Agriculture – Offsets Brian McConkey Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada Sector is engaged –All major farm groups aware of the issue and opportunities for farmers Successful model of offset system in Province of Alberta –Alberta protocols fast-tracked in future Canadian Federal System?

Alberta Offset System ( First jurisdiction in North America to have hard caps on emissions Applies to all facilities that produce over 100,000 tonnes of CO 2 e –Baselines established from average emissions intensity from –Targets -12% off of baseline Facilities meet targets through: –Emission intensity gains from own operations –Invest in offsets –Pay (“invest in”) the government-managed Climate Change and Emissions Management Fund at CDN$15/tonne CO 2 e Funds used to develop or invest in Alberta-based technologies, programs, and other priority areas Effective cap on value of offsets.

Alberta Offset System Offset Protocols were based heavily on draft developments for a national Federal offset system in –Be real, demonstrable, quantifiable; –Not be required by law or paid by public funds; –Have clearly established ownership; –Be counted once for compliance purposes; –Be verified by a qualified third party Offset Protocols must follow ISO part b –Life cycle-like analysis –Requires that all GHG sources and sinks controlled, related, or affected by the project be considered –Reductions are all relative to baseline established as part of protocol

Alberta Offsets- Agriculture Protocols have been established for several agricultural activities –Edible oil in beef diets –Reduced slaughter age of beef cattle –Improved hog feeding –Improved handling and spreading of hog manure –Biogas production from animal manures –Adoption of reduced tillage (only protocol involving soil sinks)

Alberta Offsets- Agriculture Protocols being developed (where knowledge good and life-cycle reasonably simple) for: –Summerfallow Reduction Protocols being considered (where knowledge not so good and/or life cycle relatively complex) for –Conversion to Perennial Forages –Residue Management –Rangeland Management –Beef - Residual Feed Intake –Pasture Management –Soil Amendment –Beef grazing/forage system improvements –Nitrogen Use Efficiency –Wetlands Management (restoration)

Offset Implementation Government involvement and investment has been essential to protocol development –No protocols developed by private sector exclusively Non C-sequestering practices follow the “industrial model” –Documenting start of practice relatively simple –No permanency issues However, C sequestration by no-till has been most successful in terms of delivering offsets to market –Over half of total offsets –Large area so attractive business for aggregators –All have used the so-called “default coefficient method”

Eligibility- No-till Under the “default coefficient” method, all farmers using practice in project area are eligible –Approach adapted from draft Federal offset system protocol of 2005 However offset is only for C sequestered from the proportion above baseline of adoption at time of project eligibility (2002 in Alberta, 2000 in federal system?) –E.g. if 30% of land in no-till in 2002 then only 70% (i.e %) of the C sequestered under no-till is included for crediting (i.e. assume 30% of land in project was in no-till at start of project) –Crediting period >= 2002 in Alberta (>=2008 in Federal system?)

“Default Coefficient” Method Addresses problem of practical infeasibility of determining tillage history Provides incentive for maintenance of C sequestering practice Rewards early adopters –Partially penalizes late adopters Removes perverse incentive to stop C- sequestering practice in hope of being able to make land eligible at later date

Verification Have been much experience with verification under Alberta, CCX, and Federal trial systems –Third-party verification always been supplemental activity to existing businesses (e.g. financial accounting, crop insurance) No-till verification hierarchical –Desktop verification (general) Area farmed, documentation of eligible machinery, etc. –Farm visit (audit) check machinery, fuel purchases, etc. –In-season field (exceptional audit) Field inspection to determine if no-till was practiced (No penalty/no reward for voluntary reporting that no-till was not practiced has been proven successful)

Permanence and Liability Alberta system –Government of Alberta has discounted the amount of the offset ( %) and accepted liability for any future reversals. –Discount includes the permanent reductions (reduced N 2 O and fossil fuel emissions) and C sequestration –“Breakthrough” that makes C sequestering offsets economically feasible –No monitoring after project so no plan to know if there has been reversals in specific projects Canadian Federal System ? –This was stopper for initial development of C- sequestration protocols in mid 2000s

Relationship to Inventory Need for “bottom line” that determines if Government targets have been met –Captures “leakage” within country Trading with under Kyoto Protocol requires any emission reduction be assigned to RMU or AAU Alberta used national inventory GHG quantification methods where possible –Federal system?

Summary Offsets provide large opportunity for agricultural sector –Have good experience with several offsets –Anticipated offset values will never drive agricultural practices If left to private sector alone to develop protocols there will likely be few agricultural offsets C-sequestrating offsets will require government underwriting of liability for reversals –Too complex and unknown risk to expect this to be accomplished through private sector