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

2. 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

3. 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

4. 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

5. Zero Tillage and SF Scenarios: C Sequestration Coefficients
ACTIVITY PRAIRIES NON-PRAIRIES
BRN D BRN BLK
Zero Tillage
Reduce SF
Increase forage
Permanent cover
Expert opinion based on measures
Modeled - Century
SF coefficients for 1990

6. 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

7. Benefit distribution Increase zero tillage
Net BAU
emissions (Mt):
1.1 Mt
3.1 Mt
0.7 Mt
Relative to BAU

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

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

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