How do we scale up Land-based Mitigation in Canada?
In a new report, we explore how our portfolio of land-based mitigation technologies and practices (LMTs for short) for Canada could become widely adopted. We call these scaling scenarios.
The report analyses five LMTs for Canada. These are:
Wetlands management and restoration
Forest Management and afforestation
Soil Carbon
Bio-energy carbon capture and storage (BECCS)
Biochar
Here are some possible co-benefits associated with scaling up each LMT that policymakers should be aware of – as well as some of the possible risks and barriers.
Wetlands management and restoration
Canada’s wetlands (also known as peatlands) cover as much as 119 million ha – around 24% of all the wetlands in the world. The majority of these are in one province, Alberta, making that province especially rich in soil carbon storage.
But approximately 15,000 ha of wetlands are converted to crop land every year in Canada – releasing that stored carbon back into the atmosphere. As a result, it’s important for Canada generally and Alberta more narrowly is to properly manage and reclaim these wetlands lands so to limit the destruction of peatland ecosystems.
Pros
Canada’s wetlands aren’t just an important carbon sink. They are also natural habitats of a large number of important Canadian wildlife species such as moose, muskrats, beavers and woodland caribou. Wetlands are also deeply connected to the Aboriginal way of life due to the cultural significance of the flora and fauna of wetlands. Wetlands also provide ecological benefits such as water storage, groundwater regeneration, storm runoff generation and shoreline stabilization.
Possible cons
Restoring wetlands is expensive, and would likely cost Alberta’s farmers, who would rather use the land for crops, around $5,200/ha.
There are also technical challenges to restoring wetlands. There is some doubt about whether the soil in a reclaimed wetland retains the same permeability, and stakeholders warn that seedlings and trees being brought from outside areas are not growing successfully.
In addition, local stakeholders tell us that restoration efforts need to take Traditional Environmental Knowledge into consideration, otherwise these efforts won’t restore the spiritual value that local communities have traditionally attached to the wetlands – an important issue for the local community.
Forest management and afforestation
Canada also has a lot of forest cover. More specifically, it has 348 million hectares (ha) of forest — approximately 7% of global forest cover.
And, importantly, deforestation rates in Canada remain very low, and has been declining since 1990. In 2018, for example, Canada lost 35,000 ha for forest to deforestation — which is only around 0,01% of it’s total forest cover.
The deforestation that does happen, is mostly due to oil and gas, agriculture, and urban development. Hydroelectric developments have shown significant peaks in deforestation.
Improved forest management has great potential
Recent studies suggest that improving Canada’s forest management , and even afforestation could be beneficial. Recent studies have identified a potential 139 million ha for improved forest management and afforestation.
Crucially, this is land that isn’t a candidate for food production or urban development, and it could potentially mitigate around 8 MtCO2e/y. Of this 139 million ha, 4.34 million ha are a good prospect for afforestation with an expected mitigation potential of approximately 0.05 MtCO2e/y.
Pros
Good forest management practices have a lot of co-benefits. For example, good forest management is good for ozone abatement and air filtration. It can avoid air quality impacts as a result of slash burning, contribute to the restoration of habitat for other dependent species, and create wildlife corridors and buffer areas. They can also reduce soil erosion and nitrogen loss, improve the availability of water for irrigation. Finally, they can also increase employment opportunities and socio-economic benefits for local communities.
Risks and barriers
Afforestation and forest management is vulnerable to climate risks. Canada is already experiencing an increase in the frequency and severity of fires,droughts, severe storms, damaging insects and disease attacks in its forests — which are bad not just for the forests, but for the entire region around them.
Afforestation also competes with other possible land-uses – for example, with agriculture and with other land-based mitigation measures. As a result, its possible that spending money on afforestation could end up reducing incentives to invest in something more expensive but also important -- like decarbonizing the energy sector.
Soil carbon
Another LMT we looked at for Canada is increasing the amount of soil organic carbon – the amount of carbon in Canada’s soil.
There are around 55.2 million hectares (Mha) of agricultural land in Canada, These lands should contain about 4,140 Mt of C in the top 30 cm of soil and 5,500 Mt to a depth of 100 cm. Studies suggest that agricultural land in Canada could sequester 22 MtCO2e/y – which amounts to 11% of Canada’s total emissions.
Much of this potential would materialize in the Prairie provinces which account for 80% of Canada’s agricultural land.
Pros
Increasing the Canada’s soil organic carbon involves adopting slightly different agricultural practices, like conservation tillage (which means no mechanical soil intervention) or using more fertilizers and manures. Importantly, studies suggest adopting these practices doesn’t seem to have any negative effect on crop economics for farmers. In addition, conservation tillage is already increasingly popular in the Prairies – so it wouldn’t require a big change from what is
Cons
But there are downside to these practices. They can lead to an increase in nitrous oxide emissions, and an increase in the use of pesticides and herbicides – which is bad for biodiversity. There is also a chance that they contaminate the ground water with pathogens such as viruses, bacteria, and protozoa.
BECCS
Bio-energy carbon capture and storage (or BECCS) is the process of converting biomass into bioenergy – in the form of heat, electricity, or liquid or gas fuels. Its also the process of capturing and storing the carbon in the ground, thereby removing it from the atmosphere.
This is a promising option for Canada, particularly in the provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan, with their combination of high bioenergy potential and vast underground storage capacity.
Pros
It also could be economically viable. With carbon prices above $65 USD, the value of carbon removal from biomass exceeds the energy value of oil. With a carbon price of $170 USD by 2030 as proposed by the federal government, revenue from atmospheric carbon removal would ensure competitive electricity costs. Some studies project that if BECCS is deployed, revenues from biomass trade could be as higher as 6-10% of Canada’s GDP.
Possible Cons
As with all land-based mitigation measures, the major trade off when it comes to implementing BECCS at scale in Canada is that this rules out other ways of using the land, that also have their own advantages and disadvantages.
But because Canada is such a large country with low population-density, these problems are much less pronounced than they are in other places. In general, BECCS often ends up using land that would otherwise be used to grow crops. But in Canada, because there is so much more space available, it could easily be implemented so it only uses forest and agricultural residue as its source of bioenergy, and doesn’t have impact of food production.
But all the same, developing BECCS might well mean losing some wetlands and grasslands, which can also serve as significant carbon sinks, and be bad for biodiversity. Policymakers will have to weigh the benefits of these different ways of using land against their risks.
Biochar
Biochar, a form of charcoal, is produced through thermal degradation of biomass in the absence of oxygen. This method sequesters carbon by transforming it to its elemental form so it cannot be degraded into carbon emissions through soil bacteria respiration processes.
When biochar is added to the soil, this stabilized form of carbon can permanently increase soil carbon content. It can also improve soil quality by increasing soil water retention.
But…
Studies are not conclusive about biochar’s potential and feasibility in Canada. For instance, soil quality varies significantly within and across regions in Canada, and soil quality impacts biochar’s decomposition and efficiency biochar to increase soil carbon in agricultural land or decrease emissions from manure when provided as a feed supplement to cattle. This evidences the