Policy options to streamline the carbon market for agricultural nitrous oxide emissions

ABSTRACT

The majority of emissions of nitrous oxide – a potent greenhouse gas (GHG) – are from agricultural sources, particularly nitrogen fertilizer applications. A growing focus on these emission sources has led to the development in the United States of GHG offset protocols that could enable payment to farmers for reducing fertilizer use or implementing other nitrogen management strategies. Despite the development of several protocols, the current regional scope is narrow, adoption by farmers is low, and policy implementation of protocols has a significant time lag. Here we utilize existing research and policy structures to propose an ‘umbrella’ approach for nitrogen management GHG emissions protocols that has the potential to streamline the policy implementation and acceptance of such protocols. We suggest that the umbrella protocol could set forth standard definitions common across multiple protocol options, and then modules could be further developed as scientific evidence advances. Modules could be developed for specific crops, regions, and practices. We identify a policy process that could facilitate this development in concert with emerging scientific research and conclude by acknowledging potential benefits and limitations of the approach.

Key policy insights

• Agricultural greenhouse gas market options are growing, but are still underutilized

• Streamlining protocol development through an umbrella process could enable quicker development of protocols across new crops, regions, and practices

• Effective protocol development must not compromise best available science and should follow a rigorous pathway to ensure appropriate implementation

KEYWORDS:

• GHG emissions
• offset protocol
• climate policy
• agriculture
• Nitrous Oxide

Acknowledgements

This project was supported by the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Natural Resource Conservation Service through a Conservation Innovation Grant overseen by the Environmental Defense Fund. We thank Amy Hughes for her review and helpful feedback on our manuscript. Additional technical support was provided by Peter Woodbury and Christine Tonitto of Cornell University.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Notes

1 For example, through the Climate Action Reserve and American Carbon Registry databases of projects, only two have been listed for N₂O reduction from agriculture (both at American Carbon Registry) despite protocols having been adopted since November 2010.

2 The first technical working group meeting of the rice protocol was held on 10 May 2013 (https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/capandtrade/protocols/riceprotocol.htm). The Board voted on the final protocol on 25 June 2015 (https://www.arb.ca.gov/board/ma/2015/ma062515.pdf)

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by U.S. Department of Agriculture [Conservation Innovation Grant].