CarbonPlus Grasslands: Difference between revisions
Florez4747 (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
|||
| (One intermediate revision by one other user not shown) | |||
| Line 52: | Line 52: | ||
* RIGOR (1/3): "SOC crediting is not empirical and can rely entirely on modeling. Direct sampling is required, but the sampling approach is not adequately rigorous and the sampling depth of 15cm is insufficient to capture the full effects of a range of agricultural practices. There is insufficient guidance provided to ensure an appropriate modeling approach is applied, and the lack of modeling validation raises concerns about quantification rigor. The possibility of enhancing local soil carbon gains – by importing organic matter into the project area, for example – is not precluded by the SOC accounting framework. Projects credited under this protocol have exhibited significant deviations from the nominally required sampling regime, both by taking fewer samples and by estimating rather than directly measuring bulk density." | * RIGOR (1/3): "SOC crediting is not empirical and can rely entirely on modeling. Direct sampling is required, but the sampling approach is not adequately rigorous and the sampling depth of 15cm is insufficient to capture the full effects of a range of agricultural practices. There is insufficient guidance provided to ensure an appropriate modeling approach is applied, and the lack of modeling validation raises concerns about quantification rigor. The possibility of enhancing local soil carbon gains – by importing organic matter into the project area, for example – is not precluded by the SOC accounting framework. Projects credited under this protocol have exhibited significant deviations from the nominally required sampling regime, both by taking fewer samples and by estimating rather than directly measuring bulk density." | ||
* ADDITIONALITY (1/3): "The protocol does not include any additionality screens. Activity adoption may occur up to 10 years prior to project registration. The crediting period begins anytime a baseline measurement is performed after the activity adoption. | * ADDITIONALITY (1/3): "The protocol does not include any additionality screens. Activity adoption may occur up to 10 years prior to project registration. The crediting period begins anytime a baseline measurement is performed after the activity adoption. Protocol appears to allow up to ten years of back-crediting, given access to a ten year old baseline measurement. This raises additionality concerns." | ||
* SAFEGUARDS (1/3): The protocol does not address any safeguards; or include or require any landowner protections, data privacy, or community engagement (requirements to work with local communities to ensure project benefits are shared beyond the specific project). | |||
CarbonPlan was funded by [[Microsoft]] to conduct this review of Regen Network as part of a broader assessment and comparison of different soil carbon accreditation protocols. Earlier in the year Microsoft had purchased ~$1 million worth of credits accredited under this method. | |||
= Sources & Notes = | |||
Latest revision as of 22:23, 30 May 2023
Credit Class
<https://app.regen.network/credit-classes/carbonplus-grasslands>
Benefits Claimed
Primary: Soil Organic Carbon
Co-Benefits:
- Animal Welfare;
- Ecosystem Health;
- Soil Health;
Methodology
Overview: <https://app.regen.network/methodologies/carbonplus-grasslands>
Documentation (v1): <https://library.regen.network/v/methodology-library/published-methodologies/methodology-for-ghg-and-co-benefits-in-grazing-systems/version-1.0>
Development
With Impact Ag and Wilmot Cattle Company (as currently described on the Regen Network page.
Scientific Critique
Australian Scientists
In 2021, Regen Network Development sold its first batch of these credits issued by the Murdoch family ranches in Australia managed by the Wilmot Cattle Company.
For an analysis of these credits + their underlying practices by nine professors, scientists + researchers: <https://theconversation.com/us-scheme-used-by-australian-farmers-reveals-the-dangers-of-trading-soil-carbon-to-tackle-climate-change-161358>
Some key flaws these scientists identified:
1. They only looked for SOC increase, not the GHG in and out of the whole system (such as methane and nitrous oxide)
2. "The dry weight of soil in a known volume, also known as “bulk density”, is a key factor in calculating soil carbon stocks. Rather than bulk density being measured from field samples, it was calculated using an equation. We examined this method and determined it was far less reliable than field sampling"
3. "Estimates of soil carbon were not adjusted for gravel content. Because gravel contains no carbon, carbon stock may have been overestimated"
4. The remote sensing used by Regen Network involved assessment of vegetation cover via satellite imagery, from which soil carbon levels were estimated. However, vegetation cover obscures soil, and research has found predictions of soil carbon using this method are highly uncertain.[1]
5. "Wilmot increased soil carbon, or 'sequestration', through changes to grazing and pasture management. The resulting rates of carbon storage calculated by Regen Network were extremely high – 7,660 tonnes of carbon over 1,094 hectares. This amounts to 7 tonnes of carbon per hectare from 2018 to 2019.... These results are not consistent with our experience of what is possible through pasture management. For example, the CSIRO has documented soil carbon increases of 0.1 to 0.3 tonnes of carbon per hectare per year in Australia from a range of methods to increase pasture production.[2][3]
6. RND's additionality, double counting, and permanence standards are less stringent than even legacy registries with major issues such as Verra
CarbonPlan
In July of 2021, CarbonPlan gave Regen Network's soil carbon protocol the lowest possible rating (1/3) for rigor, additionality, and safeguards.[4]
- RIGOR (1/3): "SOC crediting is not empirical and can rely entirely on modeling. Direct sampling is required, but the sampling approach is not adequately rigorous and the sampling depth of 15cm is insufficient to capture the full effects of a range of agricultural practices. There is insufficient guidance provided to ensure an appropriate modeling approach is applied, and the lack of modeling validation raises concerns about quantification rigor. The possibility of enhancing local soil carbon gains – by importing organic matter into the project area, for example – is not precluded by the SOC accounting framework. Projects credited under this protocol have exhibited significant deviations from the nominally required sampling regime, both by taking fewer samples and by estimating rather than directly measuring bulk density."
- ADDITIONALITY (1/3): "The protocol does not include any additionality screens. Activity adoption may occur up to 10 years prior to project registration. The crediting period begins anytime a baseline measurement is performed after the activity adoption. Protocol appears to allow up to ten years of back-crediting, given access to a ten year old baseline measurement. This raises additionality concerns."
- SAFEGUARDS (1/3): The protocol does not address any safeguards; or include or require any landowner protections, data privacy, or community engagement (requirements to work with local communities to ensure project benefits are shared beyond the specific project).
CarbonPlan was funded by Microsoft to conduct this review of Regen Network as part of a broader assessment and comparison of different soil carbon accreditation protocols. Earlier in the year Microsoft had purchased ~$1 million worth of credits accredited under this method.
Sources & Notes
- ↑ https://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/11/14/1683/htm
- ↑ https://publications.csiro.au/publications/publication/PIcsiro:EP10121
- ↑ That makes their estimates a massive outlier, storing 20-70x more soil carbon than has observed in similar case studies
- ↑ https://carbonplan.org/research/soil-protocols-explainer