View
4
Download
0
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………........
Sequestering Carbon in Soils in
Grazing Systems
Dr Thakur Bhattarai
Research Fellow, CQUniversity Australia
Email: t.bhattarai@cqu.edu.au:
Phone: 07 49309171, M: 0413600088
Mr Mick Alexander
Director, Grazing BestPrac, CQ Australia
Email: mick@grazingbestprac.com.au
Phone: 0749383919, M: 0438395255
Presentation outline
• Methodology introduction
• Process
• Results
• Bulk density, soil C
• Costs of C - Base measurement
• Issues and challenges
2
Background
• Drrrr Thakkkurr ??? I am a farmer.
• What is C Credit – tree…soil????
• Can you help me out???
• What about $ ????
• My grazing business was
in loss for so many years
Do you think this is the options?????3
Let’s start what is C and Credits???
• Grazing systems
• Measurement-based
Methodology determination 2014
• one or more
activities
allowed
• At least one
activity must
be new
• Must increase
biomass
inputs or
reduce soil
organic matter
losses
The process: how approved method works?
How to participate?
• Choose appropriate methodology determination
• Follow the guidelines and tools
• Check the Clean Energy Regulator website
7
Mapping and sampling design
• Property boundary
• Carbon estimation areas (CEAs)
• Homogenous strata
• Number of sampling intensity
• Soil profile (depth) – min 30 cm
• Locating sampling point for coring
8
Process soil C measurement
Stratification - CEAs
9
• Land use types/diversity• Soil types• Management systems• History
Risk and challenges
10
Bindaree farm boundary 1400 ha
11
12
13
Soil Sample Collection, Preparation and Analysis
• Min 30cm, sampling to
greater depth allowed
• Soil Sampling and
Analysis Method and
Guidelines
‒ Minimum standards
‒ Additional guidance
‒ Skills sets for technicians
‒ Can be updated as new
sampling techniques are
developed
Address the health and safetyissues ……….• Filling the risk
assessment form
• Make required equipment and safety gears ready
• Training/induction for field assistance and lab personnel
Navigating and soil coring
16
Composites
17
Contd.
18
Soil processing and sample preparation
19
Contd.
20
LECO CNS Analyser for measuring C
21
Results
• Density increase as depth increases
• Soil carbon decreases in deeper depths 0.48
0.34
0.20
0.94
0.43
0.28
0.00
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
1.00
1.20
0-30 30-60 60-100
Pe
rce
nta
ge o
f SO
C
Depth (cm)
Percentage of SOC
Sand Ridge Flood Plain
1.50
1.90 1.96
1.351.55
1.71
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
0-30 30-60 60-100
Soil
bu
lk d
ensi
ty (
g/cm
3)
Depths (cm)
Bulk density in different soil profiles
Sand Ridge Flood Plain
Costs of C in the literature
SN Author/institution and year ProjectsProject scale or costs
typesCost per unit
1 (Wunder 2007) Pimampiro PES watershed level US$ 69 per ha
2 (Wunder 2007)Pimampiro PES project set up and running cost
watershed level & Set up & Running costs US$ 17 & US$ 6 Per ha/year
respectively
3(van Kooten, Laaksonen-Craig & Wang 2007; van Kooten & Sohngen 2007)
Meta-analysis of 58 forest carbon projects
- US$ 12.71 – 70.99 per tCO2
4Stern; 2007 cited in Bhaskar and Skutsch, 2010
Cost for reducing deforestation of world’s forests
Total costsUS$ 2/ha to stop deforestation of 65% in world forests
5 (Antinori & Sathaye 2007) Forestry and renewable energy projects Transaction cost Per tCO2 US$ 0.03 – 4.46
6 Nepstad et al; 2007Implementation cost and opportunity cost
Implementation and opportunity costs
Per tCO2 US$ 0.58 and 1.49 respectively
7 (Olsen & Bishop 2009)Cattle ranching and soybean production in Brazil
Opportunity cost Per tCO2e US$ 2 and US$ 2-5-3.4
8 (Olsen & Bishop 2009)Project for reducing deforestation by 94% in Brazil
Opportunity and implementation
Per tCO2e US$ 1.49 and 0.76 respectively
9 (Olsen & Bishop 2009)Conversion of forest into palm oil in Sumatra
Opportunity cost Per tCO2e US$ 19.6
10 (Olsen & Bishop 2009) Small scale farmer project Opportunity cost Per tCO2e US$ 0.49
11 (Karky & Skutsch 2010) Forest carbon projectCarbon measurement cost
Per ha US$ 3 and 2 (first year and second year onwards respectively)
Costs of C in different levels-case study from Nepal
Cost categories
Average fixed and varible costs for three years in Watershed Level carbon project
Average fixed and variable cost for three years in CFUG level carbon project
1 Yr 2 Yr 3 Yr 1 Yr 2 Yr 3 Yr
Fixed Variable Fixed Variable Fixed Variable FixedVariab
leFixed
Variable
Fixed Variable
Set up cost/establishment cost
1.53 0.31 1.5 0.05 1.24 0.05 1.87 2.79 1.78 0.91 1.74 0.86
Carbon measurement/monitoring cost
2.16 2.65 0.38 0.69 0.38 0.79 4.89 0 2.17 0.13 1.93 0.12
Implementation cost 0 3.54 0 2.5 0 2.18 1.1 7.22 0.24 5.76 0.23 4.81
Transaction cost 1.7 0.06 0.4 0.73 1.16 0 2.68 0 1.65 0 1.45 0
Opportunity cost 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total fixed and variable cost 5.39 6.56 2.28 3.97 2.78 3.02 10.5 10.01 5.84 6.8 5.35 5.79
Percentage of Fixed and Variable Cost (%)
45.1 54.90 36.5 63.52 47.93 52.07 51.3 48.71 46.2 53.8 48 51.98
Total cost $11.95 &6.25 $5.8 $20.55 $12.64 $11.14
Cost of carbon
• Infrastructure development/improvement
• Field measurement/testing
• Auditing
• Technical/expert cost
• Opportunity cost
• Other: taxation or if any obligation costs
25
Measurement costs
• Mapping: – Project boundary,
stratification (CEAs with equal strata)
– Sampling locations
• Soil coring: soil rig, GPS, travel, labour costs
• Soil processing
• Lab analysis
Per ha costs of C measurement in three different scenarios in 200 ha CEA
Scenarios 0-30 cm
0-60cm
0-100 cm
10 strata and 4 composites
$16 $20 $24
6 strata and 4 composites
$12 $15 $17.5
3 strata and 3 composites
$8 $11 $13
Issues
• Measurement
– Too technical and complicated
• Expensive, time taking and requires special laboratories and equipment.
• Vary with size of property
• Needs better knowledge while selecting CEAs/ boundary
• Need to improve methods
– May be NIR/MIR/Remote Sensing
27
Many thanks for your attention&
28
welcome for questions please!!!
Recommended