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

2. 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 Prairies 4. Alberta’s Specified Gas Emitters Regulation, 2007 5. Various initiatives currently in development stage (provincial and federal)

3. Important Note This comparison not part of a formal review process

4. 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

5. Scientific Basis for Raw Coefficients MethodKey Features SMTWG Draft Soil organic carbon and N 2 O same as Canada’s inventory reporting under UNFCCC (IPCC Tier II type methodology) -Century 4.0 model output for SOC -soil N 2 O 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)

6. No Till Activity Definitions Specific ActivityC-GreenAlberta SMTWG Draft Tillage Systems2 (full & minimum)3 (full, reduced, and no till) One pass soil disturbance< 34 %< 47 %< 41 % Chemical fallowineligible for yearyes Discretionary Tillage2 %10 % Harrows, land rollersyes Low disturbance fertilizer or manure injection yes Fall seeded crops?yes

7. No Till Activity Definitions (cont’d) Specific ActivityC-GreenAlberta SMTWG Draft Irrigation ?Use parkland coefficient Transition to / from perennials yes Crop failure, cover crops, reseeding hailyes, as long as no tillage Biomass removal Crop residue burning no?yes Inter row tillage ?no Livestock grazing swathgrazing?most

8. Baseline Approach MethodKey Features SMTWG Draft 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

9. Non-Permanence of Soil Carbon Beyond Crediting Period MethodKey Features SMTWG Draft 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

10. No Till Example: Dry Prairie Region VariableC- GreenAlbertaSMTWG Draft Raw Coefficient (MT CO 2 equiv / ac / yr)0.200.195 Baseline Discountno52 %? Assurance Factor Discountno7.5 %no Net Coefficient0.200.0875? Liability Costs (monitoring, reversals)noyes Price ($ / MT)4.00 ?15.00 ?? Gross Revenue ($ / ac / yr)0.80 ?1.31 ??

11. Baseline and Crediting Period VariableC- GreenAlbertaSMTWG Draft Baseline Year for 1 st Crediting Periodnone2001? 2001 + Project Start20062007? 2008 + Start of Crediting Period20032002? 2008 + Retroactivityyes? no Length of Crediting Period (years)2003 – 06 2006 – 10 2008 - 11 11? 1 to 8 Baseline Reassessmentnoyes

12. No Till Reduced Till

13. Tillage Activity Monitoring & Verification VariableC- GreenAlbertaSMTWG Draft Level of Assurance Signed Adherenceyeslow Specific Field Practice Recordssomelikelyyesmoderate Field Inspection (verify small %) - soil disturbance (stubble) - mulch layer (retroactive) - equipment & invoice yes yes yes ?????? yes no yes high moderate moderate Remote Sensing - unable to assess stubble orientation ?likely some nolow

14. Relative Rating of Protocol Elements Note: Ratings reflect author’s opinion, not a formal review process Protocol ElementC- GreenAlbertaSMTWG Draft Science Basismoderatehigh Practice Guidance – Tillage Definitions mod -highhighvery high Baseline or Additionalitylowmod - highhigh Non-permanence of Soil Carbonlowmod - highhigh Monitoring and Verificationmod - highlow - modhigh Protocol Documentationlowmoderatehigh Overall Adherence to ISO 14064low - modmod - highhigh Project Feasibilitymoderate low Feasibility Constraintlow pricebaseline, non-permanence

15. 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)

16. Thank you Questions and Discussion