Public Consultation Webinar

November 10, 2020

C– SequDevelopment of LCA guidelines for the calculation of

Carbon Sequestration for the cattle sector

C– Sequ

IntroductionThanks for Engaging!

• Partners investing

• 2 webinars

• Constructive feedback crucial to progress

• Purpose of this webinar

• Questions – Only on Consultation process

C– Sequ

Agenda

1. Introduction to Webinar

2. Partner introduction to C-Sequ

3. Content overview – Quantis

4. Questions (Typed in Chat)

5. Next steps

6. Close

WhyC-sequ isimportanttoDMI

• Dairy Management Inc. and its related organizations work to increase sales and demand for dairy through research, education and innovation, and to maintain confidence in dairy foods, farms and businesses. DMI manages National Dairy Council and the American Dairy Association, and founded the U.S. Dairy Export Council and the Innovation Center for U.S. Dairy.

• The Innovation Center for U.S. Dairy has set aggressive new environmental sustainability goals to achieve carbon neutrality or better, optimize water usage and improve water quality by 2050.

• Carbon sequestration is not included so far – but have been challenged on that (not least by farmers).

• Want to ensure that the advices given to farmers includes the ‘full picture’ and also promotes carbon sequestration and thereby mitigate climate change.

C A R B O N N E U T R A L I T Y W A T E R Q U A L I T Y P R O G R E S S T O W A R D G O A L SW A T E R Q U A N T I T Y

%

• All companies/organisations in the project have climate strategies/goals and have worked with carbon assessments at farm level for several years.

• To date there is no consensus on how to include carbon sequestration, but there are different methods (which can provide very different results).

• As a result, the companies/organisations got together to find a scientifically & feasible method, and engaged with soil & LCA experts.

PURPOSE OF THE C-SEQU PROJECTEstablish a carbon sequestration calculation method

to be used in Carbon Footprint assessments at farm level.

The ultimate outcome is to have a method that will support and encourage farmers to implement activities and practices that

promote carbon sequestration and thereby mitigate climate change.

BackgroundfortheC-sequ project

C– Sequ

The draft Guidance process

Multi stakeholder engagement for 1+ year, about a dozen

group calls.

Literature review and informal peer review

Ongoing debate and evolving

conversation

Key take away: Today, we present the draft of the Guidance as an outcome of this multi-stakeholder process. The purpose is to equip you with the knowledge and perspective needed to provide critical feedback on the Guidance.

Draft Guidance now available for your critical feedback.

C– Sequ

Glossary

• CO2 removal: The process of capturing carbon from atmospheric CO2and keeping it from being re-emitted by storing it in any form.

• Carbon sequestration: The process where CO2 is removed from that atmosphere and stored in organic stocks (e.g. soil, trees). Gains in sequestered carbon are meant to be long-standing but are still considered reversable out of precaution.

• Carbon stock: Carbon in soils, trees, or other biomass on a farm.• Climate benefit: For the purpose of the Guidance the phrase “climate

benefit” refers to a negative emission of CO2, i.e. a removal, while acknowledging that negative emissions associated with any given system is not equal to a global climate benefit.

• Climate impact: For the purpose of the Guidance the phrase “climate impact” refers to a climate relevant emission of CO2, while acknowledging that emissions for any given system is not equal to a global climate impact.

C– Sequ

Two fundamental gaps in GHG accounting practice

Inventory (Flows)EmissionsRemovals

Characterization (Impact)Global warming potential (GWP)

CO2 emissions and removals are not necessarily climate relevant as it is the “atmospheric perspective” that matters.

Key take away: Carbon stock changes that influence atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gas, and subsequent warming potential, over a time period are relevant to consider for both removed CO2 and emitted CO2.

Inventory flow * characterization factor = impact indicatorX tCO2 stored-year * Y tCO2equivalent / tCO2 stored-year = Z tCO2equivalent

Many LCA methods available, however are not used in practice

Many methods available outside of LCA community and are not used in practice

Microbial respiration from decomposition

Soil organiccarbon lost via

erosion

Erosion

O HORIZON (DECOMPOSING ORGANIC MATTER)

ABOVE GROUND VEGETATION

DEAD ORGANIC MATTER (LEAF LITTER/PLANT DEBRIS)

A HORIZON (TOPSOIL)

Photosynthesis (removal)

0cm

10cm

30cm

Carbon lost via leaching

100cm

C horizon (Substratum – Mostly rocks, not soil)

Soil organic carbon (SOC)

B HORIZON (SUBSOIL)

Belowground biomass

(in plant roots)

CH4Emissions

Fundamentals for inventory: Carbon cycle

Animal enteric emissions, manure emissions and respiration

C– Sequ

CO2 removals and emissions can be climate relevant inventory, example: deforestation

Biogenic CO2 emitted through deforestation would not be in the atmosphere if the forest continued toexist, thus is climate relevant.

CO2 exchanges due to the forest however, can be carbon neutral depending on the characteristics of theforest (temperature, rainfall), mortality etc. (To note local weather patterns can be influenced by forest.)

Key take away: Deforestation is a well known example of a climate relevant emission of biogenic CO2 . Land use change Guidance has been previously developed to account for this.

C– Sequ

Most carbon applied to soils or captured by trees is released back to the atmosphere at some point in the near future.

What is climate relevant when applying carbon to soil?

Key take away: Carbon added to the soil is inherently reversible and re-emitted through time, the same for trees. It is the amount and time period for which the carbon is removed that has a climate benefit.

Carbon returning to the atmosphere due to application of organic carbon is not climate relevant, as it is just returning to its previous atmospheric pool.

0 50

1

Carbon applied

Years since original carbon application

100

carbon in soil

carbon that returns to atmosphere

Carbon that stays out of the atmosphere over a period of time is climate relevant.

Carbon that is emitted exceeding what was applied, is also climate relevant.

C– Sequ

Relevant CO2 removals through change of equilibrium e.g. Tier I/II empirical models.

Carbon stock

Time

Initiation event

Stock saturation

New sustained stock levelequilibrium steady-state

Key take away: A build in carbon stock (biomass or soil) to a new equilibrium state can also be climate relevant, however land use change methods may not cover this if it is due to a land management change. Various models and measurements can be

used to determine change of overall carbon stock.

Inventory is a net change in stock. In the Guidance we don’t suggest a single method for obtaining inventory, and like most LCA frameworks, we don’t suggest needs for monitoring or validation.

Tier I/II IPCC models are currently used in land use change accounting. Site-specific measurements or Tier III models are more precise. Satellite imagery may also become possible.

Please review the table of “initiation events” (land management change) in the Guidance.

C– Sequ

CO2 removals from atmospheric perspective

Key take away: A build in carbon stock (biomass or soil) to a new equilibrium state is considered to be a CO2 removal and its climate relevance is dependent on the quantity removed (inventory) and the time frame it is removed for (characterization).

The climate benefit is related to the amount of CO2 removed over a time period of 100 years.Atmospheric

CO2

Removed CO2

Initiation event

Stock saturation

Sustained stock

Time

The climate benefit is related to the amount of CO2 removed over a time period of 100 years – so temporary removals, or removals where the future fate is unknown, can also have climate benefit when removed.

C– Sequ

Characterizing reversible removals

Key take away: GWP100 for a CO2 removal is also the ratio of the change of radiative forcing of the removal over 100 years in comparison to a CO2 pulse emission, even if that removal is temporary and reversible.

Atmospheric CO2

Time

Removed CO2

Initiation event

Reversal event

Microbial respiration from decomposition

Soil organiccarbon lost via

erosion

Erosion

O HORIZON (DECOMPOSING ORGANIC MATTER)

ABOVE GROUND VEGETATION

DEAD ORGANIC MATTER (LEAF LITTER/PLANT DEBRIS)

A HORIZON (TOPSOIL)

Photosynthesis (removal)

0cm

10cm

30cm

Carbon lost via leaching

100cm

C horizon (Substratum – Mostly rocks, not soil)

Soil organic carbon (SOC)

B HORIZON (SUBSOIL)

Belowground biomass

(in plant roots)

CH4Emissions

Fundamentals for characterization: Carbon cycle

Animal enteric emissions, manure emissions and respiration

C– Sequ

Fundamentals of characterization: Global warming potential in a 100 year time horizon

https://www.fcrn.org.uk/fcrn-blogs/livestock%E2%80%99s-carbon-footprint-importance-comparing-greenhouse-gases

CO2 radiative forcing over 100 years after a pulse emission

CH4 radiative forcing over 100 years after a pulse emission

Key take away: GWP100 for any greenhouse gas is the ratio of the radiative forcing due to emission of that gas in comparison to a reference pulse emission of CO2 over 100 years. This is the fundamental science behind of the GWP factors by IPCC AR5.

Bern Carbon Cycle captures dynamics in the atmosphere

C– Sequ

Methods to consider removals given GWP100

Brandão et al 2018. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/gcbb.12593

1. Method to chose for the characterization factor for CO2 removal2. Reference state to chose

Different methods

Different results

https://www.worldwildlife.org/projects/biogenic-carbon-footprint-calculator-for-harvested-wood-products

Key take away: Many different methods for removal accounting from the forestry and bioenergy sectors. Two main challenges are which characterization approach and which reference state? We face these challenges for the dairy and beef sector.

Challenges!

C– Sequ

Solving the challenge with the simple ILCD linear approach for characterization of removals

Dynamic accounting is conceptually and computationally challenging and requires predictions of the future (ex-ante) storage, and is based on the arbitrary assumption of a 100 year time horizon. Thus “precision” is an illusion, and the conceptual challenge of shifting the Bern Curve is not essential, especially when future dynamics are uncertain. For systems that produce fast-consumable goods (e.g. food) and don’t have tree planting cycles, the dynamic accounting methods don’t add a lot of value.

Example of dynamic modelling à GWP of a CO2 removal Model comparison (Brandão & Levasseur)

Key take away: Using the ILCD linear method, where each year of CO2 removal gets 1% “credit” in a 100 year time horizon, is a simple approach to a complicated concept.

For each year of CO2 removed from the atmosphere over a 100 time horizon for GWP100, there is a 1% “credit”, a static characterization factor of -0.01 kg CO2eq/kg CO2 removed-year

Bern Carbon Cycle captures dynamics in the atmosphere A straight line, is not far off.

C– Sequ

Current state

Improved state

Benefit e.g. carbon removal

Natural state

How to chose a reference state?

Key take away: Depending on what a removal due to a gain (or loss) of carbon stock is compared to, it can either be a net removal (benefit) or a filling of a carbon debt (a less bad impact).

Filing a carbon debt

Net removal

Reference? Reference?

C– Sequ

Looking at previous consensus to solve the challenge for the choice of reference state

Key take away: Years of stakeholder engagement has defined rules for assessing carbon stock (soil or biomass) changes due to land use change. These rules are now widespread in GHG accounting.

Reference state

C– Sequ

Aligning with Land Use Change (LUC) Guidance

• In LUC, the 20 year look-back period is equal to the 20 year amortization period of impacts in order to have accounting symmetry. Symmetry is recommended in the Guidance.

• In LUC, the 20 year period is to ensure carried responsibility of an event, hence the term “responsibility window” in the draft Guidance is presented as a new term to describe the period of time previously referred to as the “look back” and “amortization” period.

• In LUC, the reference state is historical, e.g. just prior to an event, which is also recommended in the Guidance.

• LUC methods can be used in attributional (snapshot) or consequential (market-dynamics). We do not discuss this larger LCA framework and application issue in the Guidance.

This stock change is amortized over a responsibility window of 20 years which is equivalent to the look-back period.

EventHistorical stock Farm stock

Key take away: Years of stakeholder engagement has defined rules for assessing carbon stock (soil or biomass) changes due to land use change. These rules are now widespread in GHG accounting, and the draft Guidance builds on these.

C– Sequ

Aligning with Land Use Change (LUC) Guidance, a new challenge of amortization and look-back

• Events that can lead to gains and losses of sequestered carbon are not land use changes – but can be related to land management change or continuous land management; thus in the draft Guidance we focus on land management change.

• However, when considering “removals” due to stock gain with a GWP100 framework, poses an accounting challenge if needing to distribute the entire benefit over 20 years.

• Thus if the equivalent of an amortization period of impacts is performed for benefits (where 100% of the benefit can be received in 20 years), this would lead to an adjusted characterization factor of 5% (0.05 kg CO2eq/kg CO2) for either sequestration or emission. Other responsibility windows could be chosen for various value choices.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VEZvF68sytc

Key take away: The draft Guidance builds on LUC accounting rules, and extends to Land Management Change, however this requires adjusting characterization factors.

C– Sequ

Responsibility windows: your input needed

We invite your feedback in order to chose 1 of the 3 different responsibility windows and corresponding adjusted characterization factors for the final guidance.

Responsibility

window

(Years)

Adjusted characterization factor

(kg CO2eq/kg CO2 stored)Advantages Disadvantages

20 5% -Aligned with LUC accounting

-Realistic time period for agricultural land management

-Feasible time period to find data on past changes

-Overestimates benefits of carbon sequestration if reversed in the future

(i.e. adjusts the characterization factor of 0.01 to be 0.05 kg CO2eq/kg

CO2 stored)

-Would not capture changes in practices occurring prior to 20 years

before the assessment year

50 2% -Somewhat realistic time period for agricultural land

management

-Offers a per-year benefit of carbon sequestration aligned

with some scientific evidence (e.g. Moura-Costa method)

-Not aligned with LUC accounting

-Difficult to find data to document the past

100 1% -Offers a time period aligned with GWP100

-Captures practices that have occurred within the past 100

years

-Not aligned with LUC accounting

-Is a time period too long to be relevant for inspiring changes in land

management

-Difficult to find data to document past changes

-Impacts and benefits are small per year which discourages changes

C– Sequ

In all the Guideline outlines how to 1) obtain inventory and 2) multiply by adjusted characterization factor (ACF)

C– Sequ

Reporting and bigger picture

• We recommend to report the value of removals separately from greenhouse gas emissions.

• A negative or neutral carbon footprint for a farm, a product, a company, or even a country does not mean that society is on track for a 1.5 °C scenarios as laid out by the IPCC and several peer reviewed publications.

C– Sequ

After major fossil CO2 reductions, and stopping emission through land management and use, removals are required to neutralize residual emissions.

Inspired by IPCC, 2018

For any further information: Alexi.Ernstoff@quantis-intl.com

40

20

0

-202020 2050 2100

Billion tonnes CO2per year

Fossil carbon

Land use

Technological carbon capture

Removals through land management

Emissions through land management and use

C– Sequ

Next Steps

• Public consultation close –December 9

• Review of feedback December / January

• Revised document Q2 2021 (aspirational)

• Pilots – Practical application