Transcript CLF - World Resources Institute

Biosequestration through GHG offsets:
An overview of activity in Canadian federal
departments of forestry and agriculture
April 28, 2009. Washington, DC.
Outline of presentation
 Status of Canadian federal offset system
 Development of offset quantification protocols
 Forestry and Agriculture
 Link to UNFCCC negotiations
 Closing remarks
Status of Federal Offset System
 March 2008: Regulatory Framework for Industrial
GHG Emissions announced, including Domestic
Offset system.
 Offset system administered under the Canadian
Environmental Protection Act (CEPA) and
implemented by Environment Canada.
 Draft regulatory framework and associated
guidance document for quantification protocol
developers were released for public review.
 Results of review have not yet been released but
expected soon.
Offset Protocols: Forestry (1/3)
 Role of federal agencies in protocol development
has changed over time.
 Key role is providing high quality scientific and
technical advice and tools, nationally.
 Canadian Council of Forest Ministers developing
a Forest Carbon Management Quantification
Framework.
 Industry Provincial Offsets Group (IPOG)
working on a protocol for Forest Management.
 Canadian stakeholders well represented on the
Forest Carbon Standards Committee.
Offset Protocols: Forestry (2/3)
 Afforestation:
 CFS began leading the development of this
protocol in 2005, in collaboration with provincial
government experts, private sector stakeholders
and universities. The draft protocol was based on
preliminary policy guidance available at that time.
 Avoided Deforestation:
 Lower priority based on level of interest and
degree of forest sector control.
Offset Protocols: Forestry (3/3)
 Forest Management:
 Early investigation of project-specific methods.
 Main problems: uncertainty in validity of
baseline projection, high transaction costs,
leakage.
 Recent assessment of potential of WRI’s regional
performance standard method.
 Main problems: data and modelling
requirements, defining the boundaries
(homogeneity of age class distributions and
productivity), requires high degree of
cooperation.
Offset Protocols: Agriculture (1/3)
 Government (federal & provincial) involvement
and investment has been essential to protocol
development.
 No protocols developed by private sector
exclusively.
 Alberta’s offset protocols were based on draft
developments for a national Federal offset
system in 2004-05, following ISO 14064-2.
 Most advanced protocol involving soil sinks =
adoption of reduced tillage.
Offset Protocols: Agriculture (2/3)
 Under the “default coefficient” method for no-till practice,
all farmers using practice in project area are eligible.
 However, offset is only for C sequestered from the
proportion above the level of adoption in the base year.
 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.
Offset Protocols: Agriculture (3/3)
 AAFC continues to provide scientific and technical advice
related to other potential biosequestration activities,
including:










Summerfallow Reduction
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)
Links to UNFCCC negotiations
 From a federal government perspective, quantification
protocols for forestry and agriculture offsets need to be
consistent with the measurement, monitoring and
accounting rules for LULUCF under the UNFCCC.
 Domestic approaches and experiences have relevance to
the current UNFCCC negotiations of a post-2012
agreement:
 improving the treatment of LULUCF (including HWP),
 improving the rules and expanding the scope of LULUCF
projects in the CDM, and
 addressing of developing country deforestation and forest
management.
Concluding remarks: Agriculture
 Offsets provide large opportunity for
agricultural sector in Canada.
 Good experience with several emissions reduction
and removals practices in agriculture sector.
 All major farm groups aware of the issue and
opportunities for farmers.
 Anticipated offset values will never drive
agricultural practices.
Concluding remarks: Forestry
 Economic potential of offsets in the forestry sector
remains highly uncertain due to uncertain policy
environment and major issues in protocol
development.
 Interest is increasing and tools for incorporating carbon into
forest management planning are available and improving
(e.g. CFS CBM).
 The issue of ownership or right to claim offsets from
land-based offsets on Crown (provincial) land
remains largely unresolved.
Final Concluding remarks
 For bio-sequestration projects, differences in
how each system addresses the following issues
can have significant impacts on the comparability
of potential offset credits:
 Baseline or base year
 Timing of recalculation of baseline
 Liability for reversal of credited sequestration
 Treatment of natural disturbances
 Standards for measurement, monitoring and
verification
THANK YOU! MERCI!
Peter Graham, Canadian Forest Service, NRCan
Brian McConkey, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada