Measuring and Monitoring Carbon in the
Agricultural and Forestry Sectors
Ross W. Gorte
Specialist in Natural Resources Policy
Renée Johnson
Specialist in Agricultural Policy
August 6, 2009
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
RS22964
CRS Report for Congress
P
repared for Members and Committees of Congress

---

Measuring and Monitoring Carbon in the Agricultural and Forestry Sectors

Summary
Proposals to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases often include the use
of forestry and agricultural practices and lands for carbon sequestration. However, uncertainty
about the accuracy of measuring carbon from these activities has led some to question this
potential. Basic approaches for measuring forest and agricultural carbon include on-site
measurement; indirect measurement from off-site tools; and estimation using models or
inferences. Because of challenges associated with balancing the cost and accuracy of these
measurement tools, any practicable system for measuring forest and agricultural carbon might
require a mix of these approaches.


Congressional Research Service

---

Measuring and Monitoring Carbon in the Agricultural and Forestry Sectors

Contents
Purpose of Measuring Forest and Agricultural Carbon................................................................. 1
Decisions Needed in Setting Measurement Requirements............................................................ 2
Scale and Baseline ................................................................................................................ 2
Periodicity ............................................................................................................................ 3
Verification ........................................................................................................................... 3
Measurement Techniques ...................................................................................................... 4
On-Site Measurement...................................................................................................... 4
Indirect Measurement with Off-Site Tools ....................................................................... 5
Estimation Using Process Models or Inferences .............................................................. 5
Considerations for Congress........................................................................................................ 6

Appendixes
Appendix. Forestry and Agricultural Activities for Carbon Sequestration and/or Emission
Reduction ................................................................................................................................ 8

Contacts
Author Contact Information ...................................................................................................... 18

Congressional Research Service

---

Measuring and Monitoring Carbon in the Agricultural and Forestry Sectors

oncerns about global climate change and its impacts on the environment and the economy
are encouraging policy-makers and stakeholders to explore a range of options to reduce
C emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) and other greenhouse gases (GHGs).1 Congress is
considering legislation that would, among other things, provide incentives for parties to reduce or
mitigate GHG emissions or to sequester (store) additional CO2.2 The possible use of forestry and
agricultural practices and lands to mitigate or sequester CO2 is part of the debate. However,
substantial uncertainty exists about current ability to accurately quantify, monitor, and verify the
amount of carbon sequestered by various agricultural and forestry practices. By comparison,
measuring the carbon from a discrete point source, such as a power plant, is relatively easy and
precise. Incorporating the agriculture and forestry sectors in an emissions reduction program will
likely require a firm basis for measuring carbon inventories and change for forestry and
agricultural practices and lands.
Purpose of Measuring Forest and Agricultural
Carbon
Farm and forest activities can be both a source and a sink of GHGs, releasing GHGs through
plant and animal respiration and decomposition and removing CO2 through photosynthesis,
storing it in vegetation and soils (a process known as sequestration). A range of land management,
agricultural conservation, and other farmland practices can reduce or abate emissions and/or
sequester carbon. These include tree planting, soil conservation, manure and grazing
management, and land retirement, conversion, and restoration.3 Many of these activities,
however, may be impracticable for an emission trading program because they might not meet
credible standards for quantifying, monitoring, and verifying emission reduction or carbon
storage.
Reliable tools and techniques are needed for carbon inventories and carbon change on forests and
agricultural lands. The ability to measure carbon levels allows countries that have committed to
reducing GHG emissions to measure their current annual emissions and carbon storage (and
changes in carbon stocks).4 Current estimates show that forests account for a significant share of
estimated existing carbon stocks globally; agricultural lands account for a small share of stored
carbon. Also, the ability to measure carbon levels provides the means to estimate the mitigation
potential of forest or agriculture activities that sequester additional carbon in soils or vegetation
(i.e., result in a net reduction compared to estimated baseline conditions or current sequestration).

1 Under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCC), GHGs include CO2, methane (CH4),
nitrous oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6). Because
various GHGs have different climatic consequences, they are typically converted to a standard measure, usually metric
tons of CO2-equivalents (CO2-Eq.).
2 CRS Report RL33846, Greenhouse Gas Reduction: Cap-and-Trade Bills in the 110th Congress, by Larry Parker,
Brent D. Yacobucci, and Jonathan L. Ramseur.
3 See CRS Report RL33898, Climate Change: The Role of the U.S. Agriculture Sector and Congressional Action, by
Renée Johnson.
4 The official U.S. estimates of current national GHG emissions and carbon uptake, including agriculture and forestry
estimates, are those published by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in its annual Inventory of U.S.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks.
Congressional Research Service
1

---

Measuring and Monitoring Carbon in the Agricultural and Forestry Sectors

This may allow a farm or forestry activity to be recognized as a way to mitigate or offset5
emissions—through voluntary action, an emissions trading market, or a regulatory program.
For an emissions trading program to be credible, a participating entity is usually required to meet
a series of established protocols that specify what, when, where, and how to measure changes in
carbon. Protocols provide technical guidelines or standardized rules for quantifying, monitoring,
and verifying the mitigation of an activity. They specify requirements on project eligibility, scale
and baseline measurements, measurement frequency, and verification. The difficulty is
developing credible protocols that are quantitatively defensible and readily applicable across
areas with differing land uses, weather, and other site-specific conditions. Protocols also address,
to varying degrees, concerns about the validity of activities, such as additionality, leakage, and
permanence.6
Protocols may be either voluntary or set by regulation. In one voluntary market, the Chicago
Climate Exchange (CCX) has protocols for a range of soil and land management projects,
including agricultural methane, soil carbon, rangeland soil carbon management, and tree planting
projects.7 The Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI)—the first regional mandatory, market-
based effort to reduce GHG emissions—is developing technical standards for a narrower set of
offset projects from the agricultural and forestry sectors, providing for afforestation and methane
reduction from livestock operations.8 Individual requirements of current protocols and standards
can vary widely by program.
Decisions Needed in Setting Measurement
Requirements
Numerous methods exist to measure forest and agricultural carbon. The appropriate measure to
use in specific circumstances depends on several variables, including the purpose for measuring
the carbon, the scale and basis to be measured, the frequency of the measurement, and how the
measurement is to be verified.
Scale and Baseline
Two geographic scales are commonly used for measuring GHG emissions—the national/regional
level to report GHG emissions and participate in broad efforts to reduce emissions; and the
local/site-specific level for projects to offset emissions. Regardless of scale, the emission
reduction or carbon sequestration is compared to a baseline—the historic GHG emissions or

5 In this report, offset refers to any action that reduces or mitigates GHG emissions, usually from an unrelated source
(e.g., increased carbon storage on forest or farmlands to offset emissions from automobiles). The term offsets may also
be used to refer to approved carbon reduction or sequestration projects under specific regulatory or voluntary GHG
reduction programs. See CRS Report RL34560, Forest Carbon Markets: Potential and Drawbacks, by Ross W. Gorte
and Jonathan L. Ramseur.
6 See CRS Report RL34436, The Role of Offsets in a Greenhouse Gas Emissions Cap-and-Trade Program:
Potential Benefits and Concerns, by Jonathan L. Ramseur, Sourcebook for Land Use, Land-Use Change, and Forestry
Projects, Winrock International, 2005.
7 CCX, “CCX Offsets Program,” at http://www.chicagoclimatex.com/content.jsf?id=23.
8 RGGI, Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative Model Rule, 1/5/07 Final, at http://rggi.org/docs/
model_rule_corrected_1_5_07.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
2

---

Measuring and Monitoring Carbon in the Agricultural and Forestry Sectors

carbon stocks at a specified point in time. The scale and baseline timing are typically specified in
the protocol of the reporting, marketing, or regulating organization. Sometimes, for projects with
multiple land uses, the land is stratified into the various land uses (e.g., cropland, pasture, sapling
forest, mature forest), with a different baseline established for each use.9
Periodicity
Protocols typically identify when GHG emissions must be measured. An initial measurement is
needed to establish the baseline. This must be done prior to the onset of a project, to allow for
measuring the change that results from the action. Occasionally, a historic baseline is specified;
for example, the Kyoto Protocol identified 1990 emissions as the baseline for measuring emission
reductions. Other options include a current level, or other level whereby a project is compared to
“business as usual.” The protocols also identify the frequency and timing of measurements. For
example, CCX contracts for agricultural projects require annual measurements to assure that the
emission reduction or carbon sequestration is actually occurring.
Frequency of measurement also depends on the rate of change in carbon storage. Some carbon
pools, such as forest soils, change relatively slowly (unless the forest is disturbed), and
measurement once a decade may be sufficient. For other carbon pools, such as pastures or
managed lands, differences within and across years can be substantial, and may require more
frequent measurement. Timing can be critical, and alternative measurements may vary widely.
The amount of carbon stored in vegetation, in particular, varies over the course of a year, with
carbon sequestered during the spring, carbon stored in foliage at its maximum in late summer, and
carbon released during the winter as the deciduous leaves decompose. Thus, consistent timing for
annual measures is an important element for agricultural and forestry carbon projects.
Verification
Verifying the emission reduction or carbon sequestration is critical in efforts to mitigate climate
change. It is particularly important for agriculture and forestry projects, as these activities are
harder to measure reliably than other types of GHG offsets. One question is who will be
responsible for verifying changes in carbon, which raises questions about the role of a regulatory
agency for accrediting claimed changes in carbon levels from an activity.
Existing programs typically recommend or require that the carbon offset be verified by an
independent entity. Independent verification may be an auditing function, to assure the reality and
accuracy of the carbon offset for markets (buyers and sellers), regulations (emitters and
regulators), and reports (emitters and reporting organizations).10 One source has prescribed
several qualities for independent verification: an “independent, qualified, third-party verifier”
using “approved methodologies and regulations” and “whose compensation is not in any way
dependent on the outcomes of their decisions” and who follows set procedures to avoid conflicts
of interest.11

9 See Suzie Greenhalgh et al., The Greenhouse Gas Protocol: The Land Use, Land-Use Change, and Forestry
Guidance for GHG Project Accounting, World Resources Institute, Oct. 2006.
10 Zach Willey and Bill Chameides, eds., Harnessing Farms and Forests in the Low-Carbon Economy: How to Create,
Measure, and Verify Greenhouse Gas Offsets, Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions, 2007.
11 Offset Quality Initiative, Ensuring Offset Quality (July 2008), at http://www.pewclimate.org/.
Congressional Research Service
3

---

Measuring and Monitoring Carbon in the Agricultural and Forestry Sectors

As voluntary and regulated markets for GHG emissions offsets develop, qualified, independent
organizations to verify carbon offsets will be needed. Entities qualified to verify agriculture and
forest carbon offsets must be proven to be knowledgeable about carbon measurement. One source
notes: “To provide good quality and trustworthy oversight, a sufficiently rigorous accreditation
process will be necessary to ensure that the verifiers have the needed expertise.”12 This process
could parallel the development of independent auditors for certifying sustainable forestry
programs.13
Measurement Techniques
Basic approaches for measuring agricultural and forest carbon inventories and change include on-
site measurement, indirect measurement from off-site tools, and estimation using process models
or inferences. A hybrid approach involving a combination of approaches (e.g., combining
modeling with on-site sampling and independent verification) might improve the accuracy
enough to be useful while still containing costs. Because of the inherent challenges associated
with balancing the cost of measuring carbon and the accuracy of these measurements, any
practicable system for measuring forest and agricultural carbon might require a mix of these
different methods and approaches, rather than a single approach.
On-Site Measurement
Direct measurement of the carbon content of agricultural and forestry soils and vegetation
through field sampling and site-specific laboratory estimates is perhaps the most accurate way to
measure carbon levels and changes. However, this is time-consuming, costly, and often requires
continuous sampling and replication via a census of soil and vegetation carbon for all agriculture
and forestry projects, and may be infeasible. Also, it cannot cover large areas. Samples can be
taken and the results extrapolated, based on soil survey, land cover, climate, and other spatial
data. Sampling patterns (e.g., a grid, random, or stratified random), intensity (e.g., the area to be
sampled), and frequency are likely to be specified in the protocols, and many sources discuss
sampling methods for agriculture and forestry projects.14 The more intensive and frequent the
sampling, the greater the cost, but the higher the likely accuracy of the data. Most experts suggest
some sampling to ensure the accuracy of models or off-site measures, especially performed
consistently over time.
As with verification, the entity that measures the on-site carbon can affect perceptions of the
accuracy of the measurement. Landowners or other offset sellers can perform the measurement—
both at the outset of the project (for the baseline) and periodically during the life of the project.
This could reduce costs, because they are commonly on the site, but raises questions of
credibility, since they have an interest in the reported carbon levels. Ensuring that verification is
conducted by independent verifiers might be sufficient to assuage market concerns over
credibility, but could involve high project verification costs.

12 Lydia Olander et al., Designing Offsets Policy for the U.S.: Principles, Challenges, and Options for Encouraging
Domestic and International Emissions Reductions and Sequestration from Uncapped Entities as Part of a Federal Cap-
and-Trade for Greenhouse Gases, Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions, May 2008.
13 For more information on forest certification, see http://www.pinchot.org/project/59.
14 For examples of the latter, see Harnessing Forest and Farm Carbon; GHG Project Accounting; and Sourcebook for
LULUCF Projects.
Congressional Research Service
4

---

Measuring and Monitoring Carbon in the Agricultural and Forestry Sectors

Indirect Measurement with Off-Site Tools
Tools exist to calculate carbon content without actually being on the site. Remote sensing—using
photographic and other images from aircraft or satellites—can be used to measure carbon-related
factors. For example, infrared imagery can detect live biomass, with variations in the image
reflecting variations in the type and level of biomass. Remote sensing has long been used in
forestry for calculating commercial timber volumes of forest stands.
The principal advantage of remote sensing is coverage, given its ability to assess a wide area
relatively quickly. Another advantage is that the remote sensing and the analysis of the results are
generally performed by experts, improving the credibility of the results and probably lowering the
cost of verification. It can provide highly accurate information for some types of carbon-related
measures, such as activities with readily visible results (e.g., deforestation and afforestation) or
measurable carbon pools (e.g., live above-ground biomass). One disadvantage is the high fixed
cost of providing remote coverage; satellites are very expensive to launch and maintain. Aircraft
may be less expensive but may cover less area. Once the satellites are in place, extending satellite
coverage to additional areas is relatively inexpensive. For some carbon-related measures, such as
activities with less visible impacts (e.g., sustainable forestry) or less readily measurable carbon
pools (e.g., soil carbon), remote sensing is problematic. Also, in some areas, cloud cover can
interrupt regular measurements. Methods for consistently and reliably interpreting remote
imagery are still under development, and are usually recommended to be used in conjunction with
other techniques.
Estimation Using Process Models or Inferences
Another indirect approach is to estimate agricultural and forestry carbon with models or other
analytical tools. Models are available to estimate a variety of ecosystem processes, and are used
to depict site-specific conditions. Models, especially computer models, are typically built from
extensive research and data sets, and provide average or archetypical estimates of physical area,
temperature, precipitation, forest or soil type, slope, plant diversity, and microbial activity. The
accuracy of the results depends in large part on the validity and measurement of the input
variables for the model. Data may be presented in tabular form, called “look-up tables” because
estimates can be looked up in the table based on a few key variables, such as forest type and tree
age or soil type.15 A related simpler approach might use inferences or generalized input data
scaled up to the size of the farm or forested area to approximate the sequestration for an activity.16
Such an approach may reduce costs, but provide a relatively low level of precision, and possibly
high verification costs.
The advantage of a modeling approach is that it is relatively simple and low-cost, and often
provides consistent estimates. However, it may not reflect actual differences within and across
sites and activities, since it relies on archetypical or average carbon estimates and not site-specific
carbon measurements. Model proponents often suggest using occasional site-specific sampling to
assure the validity of the model chosen for the project and site, and some suggest adjusting the

15James E. Smith et al., Methods for Calculating Forest Ecosystem and Harvested Carbon with Standard Estimates for
Forest Types of the United States, Gen. Tech. Rept. NE-343, April 2006.
16 See, e.g., U.S. Dept. of Energy, Technical Guidelines Voluntary Reporting of Greenhouse Gases (1605(b)) Program,
January 2007, http://www.pi.energy.gov/enhancingGHGregistry/documents/
January2007_1605bTechnicalGuidelines.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
5

---

Measuring and Monitoring Carbon in the Agricultural and Forestry Sectors

estimates based on the samples. This introduces the potential for bias in reporting carbon, and
significantly increases the difficulty of verification. In addition, for most situations and project
types, numerous models exist. These competing models may yield quite different estimates for
the same site, because of the different data sets and assumptions used in constructing the models.
One model may yield the most accurate estimates in certain circumstances, while another model
may yield more accurate estimates in other circumstances.
Considerations for Congress
Congress has already taken steps to address some of the challenges associated with measuring
carbon changes from forested and agricultural lands and practices. The 2008 farm bill (P.L. 110-
246, the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008) includes a provision (Sec. 2709) directing
USDA to “establish technical guidelines that outline science-based methods to measure the
environmental services benefits,” including carbon storage, from forests and agricultural
activities. This includes developing measurement procedures and a reporting protocol and
registry.17 The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (P.L. 110-140, Sec. 712) directs the
Secretary of the Interior to develop a methodology to assess carbon sequestration and emissions
from ecosystems. This methodology is to cover measuring, monitoring, and quantifying GHG
emissions and reductions, and provide estimates of sequestration capacity and the mitigation
potential of different ecosystem management practices.

Agricultural/Forestry Offsets and Allowances: Areas of Concern
• “Measurement”/Accounting—measurement is difficult and estimates can vary;
actual uptake depends on site-specific factors (e.g., location, climate, soil type,
crop/vegetation, tillage practices, farm management, etc.); and effectiveness
depends on the type of practice, how well implemented, and length of time
practice is undertaken.
• Validation/Verification—reduction/storage activity must be real and measurable.
• Monitoring/Enforcement—reduction/storage activity must be monitored and
enforced by authorities or through contracts.
• “Additionality”/“Double counting”—some activities generating offsets would
have occurred anyway under a pre-existing program or practice, and may not go
“beyond business as usual” (BAU); and reductions may be double-counted or
attributable to other environmental goal/ programs.
• “Permanence”/Duration—land uses can change over time (e.g., forest lands to
urban development, natural events such as fires or pests); and benefits may
accrue over time; some contracts shorter-term.
• “Leakage”—reductions one place may cause additional emissions elsewhere.

17 For more information on this farm bill provision, see CRS Report RL34042, Provisions Supporting Ecosystem
Services Markets in U.S. Farm Bill Legislation, by Renée Johnson.
Congressional Research Service
6

---

Measuring and Monitoring Carbon in the Agricultural and Forestry Sectors

Congress continues to face the question of whether its current authorized activities provide
adequate and sufficient guidelines for accurately measuring carbon levels from forest and
agricultural activities.
The Appendix provides an annotated assessment of a range of agricultural and forestry activities,
describing potential considerations according to measurement (quantification, verification, and
monitoring), additionality, permanence, and leakage. The text box below provides a brief
description of these different criteria. For more background information, see CRS Report
RL34241, Voluntary Carbon Offsets: Overview and Assessment, by Jonathan L. Ramseur.
Congressional Research Service
7

---

Appendix. Forestry and Agricultural Activities for Carbon Sequestration
and/or Emission Reduction
Practice Quantification
Verification Monitoring Additionality
Permanence
Leakage
Forestry Activities





Afforestation/Reforestation





Afforestation
Fairly complicated;
Relatively easy via
Fairly complicated;
Relatively easy; must
Long term—20 to 200 years
No problem.
acreage treated is
remote sensing with must track growth
account for losses from land or more—but not permanent.
easy, but most
some on-site
[of all biomass]
conversion to forest, if any.
models measure
inspection. Can be
periodically. Must
only commercial
difficult to
account for losses
products, not al
distinguish from
to fire, insects.
biomass.
reforestation.
Reforestation Fairly complicated;
Relatively easy via
Fairly complicated;
Complicated; must account
Long term—20 to 200 years
No problem.
acreage treated is
remote sensing with must track growth
for carbon release from
or more—but not permanent.
easy, but most
some on-site
periodically. Must
logging. (See long-term
models measure
inspection. Can be
account for losses
wood products and reduced
only commercial
difficult to
to fire, insects.
impact logging, below).
products, not al
distinguish from
biomass.
afforestation.
Forest Management





Harvesting
Complicated;
Fairly complicated;
Complicated; must
Possibly no additionality.
Possibly permanent, but most
No problem.
for Long-
production is easy;
long-term use must
track long-term end Unclear whether harvest for wood products eventual y
Term Wood
quantifying unused
be verified by end
use.
long-term use is additional
deteriorate.
Products
woods is difficult.
users.
to business-as-usual.
Delayed
Fairly complicated;
Relatively easy via
Fairly complicated;
Possibly no additionality.
Variable; could be very long-
Significant
Timber
treated area is easy,
remote sensing with must track growth
Unless harvest is scheduled,
term (200 years or more), but
problem.
Harvesting
but carbon capture
some on-site
periodically. Must
may not be additional to
could be very short-term (days Harvest could
is difficult to
inspection.
account for losses
business-as-usual.
or weeks)
shift to other
quantify.
to fire, insects.
areas.
Reduced
Complicated;
Complicated;
Easy: ongoing
Relatively easy; must
Long term—20 to 200 years
Complicated;
Impact
treated area is
requires on-site
treatment with
account for change in
or more—but not permanent.
added costs
Logging
relatively easy, but
inspection.
third-party
carbon release from
could shift
impacts [reduced
verification.
standard logging.
harvest sites.
waste] are difficult
to quantify .
CRS-8

---

Practice Quantification
Verification Monitoring Additionality
Permanence
Leakage
Certified
Complicated;
Easy; independent
Easy; independent
Fairly complicated; must
Possibly permanent, but
Complicated;
Sustainable
treated area is easy,
third-party
third-party
account for change in
landowner could terminate at
added costs to
Forestry
but carbon capture
verification already
verification already
carbon release from
any time.
get certified
is difficult to
required.
required.
standard forest
could lead to
quantify.
management.
shifting more
logging to
other areas.
Thinning/
Fairly complicated;
Relatively easy via
Fairly complicated;
Possibly no additionality.
One-time treatment with
No problem.
Release—
treated area is easy,
remote sensing with must track growth
Unclear whether thinning is
continuing long-term effects.
Mechanical
but carbon capture
some on-site
periodically.
additional to business-as-
& release are
inspection.
usual.
difficult to quantify.
Thinning/
Fairly complicated;
Fairly complicated;
Fairly complicated;
Possibly no additionality.
One-time treatment with
No problem.
Release—
treated area is easy,
requires on-site
must track growth
Unclear whether thinning is
continuing long-term effects.
Chemical
but carbon capture
inspection.
periodically.
additional to business-as-
& release are
usual.
difficult to quantify.
Thinning—
Fairly complicated;
Relatively easy via
Fairly complicated;
Possibly no additionality.
One-time treatment with
No problem.
Prescribed
treated area is easy,
remote sensing with must track growth
Unclear whether prescribed
continuing long-term effects.
Burning
but carbon capture
some on-site
periodically.
burning is additional to
& release are
inspection.
business-as-usual.
difficult to quantify.
Pruning
Complicated;
Fairly complicated;
Complicated; must
Possibly no additionality.
One-time treatment with
No problem.
treated area is easy,
requires on-site
track growth
Unclear whether pruning is
continuing long-term effects.
but carbon capture
inspection.
periodically.
additional to business-as-
& release are
usual.
difficult to quantify.
Fertilization
Fairly complicated;
Fairly complicated;
Complicated; must
Possibly no additionality.
One-time treatment with
No problem.
treated area is easy,
requires on-site
track growth
Unclear whether
continuing long-term effects.
but carbon capture
inspection.
periodically.
fertilization is additional to
is difficult to
business-as-usual.
quantify.
CRS-9

---

Practice Quantification
Verification Monitoring Additionality
Permanence
Leakage
Reduced Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD)



Avoided
Relatively easy; total
Relatively easy via
Fairly complicated;
Unclear; other programs
Could be permanent, but
Significant
Deforestation biomass carbon in
remote sensing with must track growth
exist to preserve forest
could also be very short term.
problem.
tropical forests is
some on-site
periodically.
lands.
Harvest can be
easier to measure.
inspection.
shifted to
unprotected
areas.
Avoided
Complicated;
Complicated;
Fairly complicated;
Unclear; other programs
Could be permanent, but
Significant
Forest
treated area can be
requires on-site
must track growth
exist to preserve forest
could also be very short term.
problem.
Degradation
measured, but
inspection.
periodically.
lands.
Harvest can be
carbon capture &
shifted to
release is difficult to
unprotected
quantify.
areas.
Agricultural Activities





Land Retirement, Conversion, and Restoration




Land
Relatively easy, given Relatively easy,
Relatively easy,
Complicated. If getting
Somewhat long term, but
Not expected
Retirement
an established
given an established
since land is idle,
payments or benefits under
contract terms vary from 10-
to be a
knowledge-base on
knowledge-base.
and disturbance is
CRP and CREP, might not
to 15-years. Favorable market
problem
how to measure and May require on-site
relatively easy to
be “beyond BAU” (but
prices for crops may
(although land
generate benefits
sampling.
detect.
could encourage
encourage some farmers to
use changes
using certain
environmental stewardship
exit contracts early or not to
could have
management
that may not happen
re-enroll.
possible
techniques/practices.
otherwise).
spillover
effects, e.g.,
land taken out
of production
will be
replaced
elsewhere,
either
domestically or
internationally).
CRS-10

---

Practice Quantification
Verification Monitoring Additionality
Permanence
Leakage
Conversion
Relatively easy, given Fairly complicated
Fairly complicated,
Complicated. If getting
Somewhat long term, but
Not expected
to
an established
since land is still
given certain
payments or benefits under
contract terms vary depending
to be a
Grasslands,
knowledge-base on
actively used. May
complicating
GRP, might not be “beyond
on whether an easement or
problem
Rangelands,
how to measure and be complicating
factors, and need
BAU” (but could encourage
rental (10-, 15-, 30-year,
(although land
or
generate benefits
factors, such as
for specific
environmental stewardship
permanent) or if a restoration
use changes
Pastureland;
using certain
endangered species,
expertise in
that may not happen
project. High market prices for could have
also
management
overgrazing issues,
oversight issues.
otherwise).
crops may encourage early exit possible
Grasslands
techniques/practices. etc. May require
or not to re-enroll.
spillover
Restoration
additional field
effects, e.g.,
management and
land taken out
on-site sampling.
of production
will be
replaced
elsewhere,
either
domestically or
internationally).
Other
Difficult to quantify,
Difficult. Credible
Fairly complicated,
Complicated. If installed
May or may not be long term.
Not expected
Cropland
given the need to
standards/protocols
given the possible
under existing USDA
Depends on how long farmer
to be a
Changes
account for site-
need to be designed range of practices,
financial/technical “working
maintains practice, whether
problem
(e.g., shifting
specific conditions
and adopted. These
and need for
lands” assistance programs
leases/owns land, or if chooses
(although land
between crops; based on the type of need to account for
specific expertise in
(EQIP, CSP, AMA), may not
to respond to other market
use changes
transitioning to
production change.
differences in site-
oversight issues.
be “beyond BAU” (but
conditions. Most cost-share
could have
organic
specific conditions.
could encourage environ-
contracts are <5 yrs. Could be
possible
production or
May require
mental stewardship that may easy to discontinue practice in
spillover
improved
additional field
not happen otherwise).
some cases.
effects, e.g.,
pasture)
management and
land taken out
on-site sampling.
of production
will be
replaced
elsewhere,
either
domestically or
internationally).
CRS-11

---

Practice Quantification
Verification Monitoring Additionality
Permanence
Leakage
Wetlands
Difficult to quantify,
Fairly complicated,
Fairly complicated,
Complicated. If getting
Somewhat long term, but
Not expected
Restoration
given the number of
given differences
given differences in
payments and benefits under contract terms vary depending
to be a
recognized wetlands based on multiple
multiple standards
WRP, may not be “beyond
on easement terms (30-year,
problem
attributes/functions. standards/protocols. and site—specific
BAU” (but could encourage
or permanent) or if a
(although land
May require
conditions.
environ-mental stewardship
restoration project (generally
use changes
additional field
that may not happen
10-year minimum).
could have
management and
otherwise).
possible
on-site sampling.
spillover
effects, e.g.,
land taken out
of production
will be
replaced
elsewhere,
either
domestically or
internationally).
Selected
Relatively easy, given Relatively easy,
Fairly complicated,
Complicated. If installed
Typical y a one-time treatment
Not expected
Structural
established
given established
given the possible
under existing USDA
with possible continuing long-
to be a
Barriers
standards/practices. standards/practices.
range of practices,
financial/technical “working
term effects, assuming
problem
(vegetative,
May require on-site
and the need to
lands” assistance programs
structure is properly
(although land
riparian buffers,
sampling.
account for site-
(EQIP, CSP, AMA, WHIP),
maintained. In case of set-
use changes
windbreaks),
specific conditions.
may not be “beyond BAU”
backs, land may be put into
could have
Set-backs
Could require
(may encourage environ-
back into production, and
possible
specific expertise in
mental stewardship that may discontinue practice.
spillover
oversight issues.
not happen otherwise).
effects, e.g.,
land taken out
of production
will be
replaced
elsewhere,
either
domestically or
internationally).
CRS-12

---

Practice Quantification
Verification Monitoring Additionality
Permanence
Leakage
Cropping Practices and Soil Management




Tillage
Difficult, given need
Fairly complicated.
Difficult. Because it
Complicated. If installed
May or may not be long term.
Land use
practice:
to account for site-
There are
is a relatively cheap
under existing USDA
Depends on how long farmer
changes could
Conventional
specific conditions
established
and simple practice
financial/technical “working
maintains practice, whether
have possible
versus
(soil, slope, rainfall,
standards, but
to implement, many
lands” assistance programs
farmer leases or owns the
spillover effects
Conservation
temperature, crop
differences in how
farmers would likely (EQIP, CSP, AMA), may not
land, whether farmer chooses
in the short-
Tillage
type, microclimate,
implemented and
participate (based
be “beyond BAU” (but may
to respond to market
term, e.g., if
(no-till,
microbial activity,
managed. Since land
on high
encourage environ-mental
conditions, or whether able to
yields are
reduced-till,
etc.) for each type
is still actively used,
participation rates
stewardship that may not
withstand lower yields in near-
reduced,
medium- till,
of tillage practice.
could complicate an
in voluntary
happen otherwise).
term. Easy to discontinue.
additional
strip/ridge-till)
Requires the use of
assessment. May
markets). Volume of
Most cost-share contracts are
production is
complex, integrated
need to consider
projects could
<5 yrs.
needed
modeling (ongoing
differences in site-
complicate
elsewhere,
debate about best
specific conditions,
oversight and
either
model and available
which could require independent
domestically or
default factors).
field management
verification.
internationally).
and site sampling.
Soil
Fairly complicated.
Difficult. Credible
Fairly complicated,
Complicated. If installed
Somewhat long term, but may
Not expected
Supplements/ Some technologies
standards/protocols
given the possible
under existing USDA
rely on financial assistance
to be a
Amendments remain an emerging
need to be designed range of practices,
financial/technical “working
under USDA financial/technical problem.
(e.g., biochar,
technology. Others
and adopted. These
and the need to
lands” assistance programs,
“working lands” assistance
lime)
require the need to
need to account for
account for site-
may not be “beyond BAU”
programs.
account for site-
differences in site-
specific conditions.
(but may encourage
Most cost-share contracts are
specific conditions
specific conditions.
Could require
environ-mental stewardship
<5 yrs. Easy to discontinue
May require
specific expertise in
that may not happen
practice.
additional field
oversight issues.
otherwise).
management and
on-site sampling.
Precision
Fairly complicated.
Difficult. Common
Fairly complicated,
Complicated. If
Somewhat long term, but may
Not expected
Agriculture
An established
standards/protocols
given the possible
implemented under existing
rely on financial assistance
to be a
Practices,
knowledge-base
need to be designed range of practices,
USDA financial/technical
under USDA financial/technical problem.
BMPs
exists, but remains
and adopted. These
and the need to
“working lands” assistance
“working lands” assistance
(fertilizer,
an emerging
need to account for
account for site-
programs (EQIP, CSP,
programs
nutrient, and
technology.
differences in site-
specific conditions.
AMA), may not be “beyond
Most cost-share contracts are
chemical
specific conditions.
Could require
BAU” (but may encourage
<5 yrs. Could be easy to
application)
May require
specific expertise in
environ-mental stewardship
discontinue practice in some
additional field
oversight issues.
that may not happen
cases.
management and
otherwise).
on-site sampling.
CRS-13

---

Practice Quantification
Verification Monitoring Additionality
Permanence
Leakage
Soil Erosion
Fairly complicated.
Fairly complicated.
Fairly complicated,
Complicated. If
Somewhat long term, if farmer
Not expected
Controls (incl. An established
Standards/protocols given the possible
implemented under existing
maintains practice as part of
to be a
cover cropping) knowledge-base
exist, but vary by
range of practices,
USDA financial/technical
ongoing operations. May
problem.
exists, but needs to
type of practice and
and the need to
“working lands” assistance
require financial assistance
account for site-
by land type (and
account for site-
programs (EQIP, CSP,
under USDA “working lands”
specific conditions
other site-specific
specific conditions.
AMA), may not be “beyond
assistance programs. Most
(soil, slope, rainfall,
conditions). May
Could require
BAU” (but may encourage
cost-share contracts are <5
temperature, crop
require additional
specific expertise in
environ-mental stewardship
years. Could be easy to
type, microclimate,
field management
oversight issues.
that may not happen
discontinue practice.
microbial activity,
and on-site
otherwise).
etc.).
sampling.
Animal Manure and Feed Practices




Livestock
Relatively easy, but
Relatively easy,
Relatively easy.
Complicated. If
One-time treatment with
Manure from
Manure
depends on type of
given established
Typically the cost of implemented under existing
continuing long-term effects
these types of
Management
system (lagoon, pit,
standards/practices
installing most high-
USDA financial/technical
(typical y high-end technology
systems is
and Storage,
digester), type of
under most tested,
end systems means
“working lands” assistance
with high fixed startup and
mostly treated.
Anaerobic
animal, and waste
engineered systems. there are few in
programs or using USDA
construction costs, with high
If, however,
Systems
stream (dry, solid,
operation, which
loans/grants, may not be
annual operating costs).
untreated
(e.g, digesters,
liquid, slurry,
simplifies overall
“beyond BAU” (but may
manure from
closed poultry
bedding).
enforcement.
encourage environ-mental
these systems
houses, CH4
stewardship that may not
is land-applied
recovery)
happen otherwise).
and used in
crop
production,
this could
exacerbate
local methane
emissions in
some cases.
CRS-14

---

Practice Quantification
Verification Monitoring Additionality
Permanence
Leakage
Livestock or
Relatively easy, but
Fairly complicated.
Fairly complicated,
Complicated. If
Usual y a one-time treatment
Manure from
Poultry
depends on type of
Standards exist, but
given the possible
implemented under existing
with continuing long-term
these types of
Manure
system (lagoon, pit,
vary by type of
range of practices,
USDA financial/technical
effects (typically fixed
systems is
Management
digester), type of
system, type of
and the need to
“working lands” assistance
construction, startup and
mostly
and Storage,
animal, and waste
animal, and waste
account for site-
programs or using USDA
operating costs, although some untreated. If
Aerobic
stream (dry, solid,
stream. May require specific conditions.
loans/grants, may not be
farmers may decide to
manure is land-
Systems
liquid, slurry,
additional field
“beyond BAU” (but may
transition to a higher-end
applied for use
(e.g, open-air
bedding).
management and
encourage environ-mental
system to manage waste).
as nutrients for
lagoons, pits)
on-site sampling.
stewardship that may not
crop
happen otherwise).
production,
this could
exacerbate
local methane
emissions
under some
cropping
systems.
Poultry
Relatively easy, but
Relatively easy,
Relatively easy,
Complicated. If
One-time treatment with
Not expected
Manure
may depend on type
given established
given established
implemented under existing
continuing long-term effects
to be a
Management
of housing and
standards/practices
standards/practices
USDA financial/technical
(typical y high-end technology
problem, since
and Storage
ventilation system.
under most tested,
under most tested,
“working lands” assistance
with high fixed startup and
manure is
(e.g,. closed
Might vary by size of engineered systems. engineered systems. programs or using USDA
construction costs, with high
mostly treated
housing
unit and bird type.
loans/grants, may not be
annual operating costs).
and often has
systems)
“beyond BAU” (but may
value as a soil
encourage environ-mental
amendment.
stewardship that may not
happen otherwise).
Livestock
Relatively easy,
Fairly complicated.
Fairly complicated,
Complicated. If
Depends on whether farmer
Not expected
Feed
based on recognized Standards/protocols given the possible
implemented under existing
maintains practice as part of
to be a
Management
emissions factors
exist, but vary by
range of practices.
USDA financial/technical
ongoing operations. Could be
problem.
(improved feed
and data (animal
type of practice and
Could require
“working lands” assistance
easy to discontinue practice in
efficiency,
numbers and feed
animal, and the
specific expertise in
programs, may not be
some cases. May require
dietary
conversion
precision how the
oversight issues.
“beyond BAU” (but may
financial assistance under
supplements to
efficiency). Varies by practice is applied
encourage environ-mental
USDA programs. Most cost-
reduce CH4
age and type of
and managed. May
stewardship that may not
share contracts are <5 yrs.
emissions
animal, and by
require sampling.
happen otherwise).
(byproduct of
production region.
animal digestion
through enteric
fermentation)
CRS-15

---

Practice Quantification
Verification Monitoring Additionality
Permanence
Leakage
Grazing Feed Fairly complicated,
Fairly complicated.
Fairly complicated,
Complicated. If
Depends on whether farmer
Not expected
Management
based on recognized Standards/protocols given the lack of
implemented under existing
maintains practice as part of
to be a
(improved
emissions factors
need to be designed standards/protocols. USDA financial/technical
ongoing operations. Could be
problem
forage practices and data (animal
and adopted, and
Could require the
“working lands” assistance
easy to discontinue practice in
to control for
numbers and feed
need to account for
need for specific
programs, may not be
some cases. May require
enteric
conversion
differences in site-
expertise in
“beyond BAU” (but may
financial assistance under
fermentation
efficiency). Varies by specific conditions.
oversight issues.
encourage environ-mental
USDA programs. Most cost-
animal type and by
May require
stewardship that may not
share contracts are <5 yrs.
production region.
additional field
happen otherwise).
Field studies using a
management and
tracer technique
on-site sampling.
may allow for
estimation at the
herd level.
Grazing
Difficult to quantify,
Fairly complicated.
Difficult, given the
Complicated. If
Somewhat long term, if farmer
Land use
Manure
given the need to
Standards/protocols lack of standards
implemented under existing
maintains practice as part of
changes could
Management
account for site-
need to be designed and protocols.
USDA financial/technical
ongoing operations. Could be
have possible
(rotational
specific conditions
and adopted, and
Could require the
“working lands” assistance
easy to discontinue practice in
spillover effects
grazing to
(soil, slope, rainfall,
need to account for
need for specific
programs, may not be
some cases. May require
in the short-
control direct
temperature, crop
differences in site-
expertise in
“beyond BAU” (but may
financial assistance under
term, e.g.,
manure
type, microclimate,
specific conditions.
oversight issues.
encourage environ-mental
USDA programs. Most cost-
exacerbate
deposits on
microbial activity,
May require
stewardship that may not
share contracts are <5 yrs.
local methane
pasture and
etc.).
additional field
happen otherwise).
emissions if
rangelands
management and
deposited
on-site sampling.
waste is not
well-managed).
Energy Use, Substitution, and Efficiency




Biofuels
Relatively easy.
Fairly complicated,
Fairly complicated,
Complicated. If
Somewhat long term, if farmer
Competition
Production/
An established
given the need for a
given the lack of
implemented under existing
maintains practice as part of
between food
Substitution
knowledge-base
ful accounting of
standards/protocols. USDA financial/technical
ongoing operations. . May
production
(replacing fossil
exists, but standards farm-level energy
“working lands” assistance
require financial assistance
and biofuel
fuels with
and a ful accounting
use. Standards and
programs or using USDA
under USDA “working lands”
feedstocks
renewable
of farm-level energy
protocols need to
loans/grants, may not be
assistance programs. Most
production
energy sources) use is needed.
be designed and
“beyond BAU” (but may
cost-share contracts are <5
could increase
adopted.
encourage environ-mental
yrs.
production
stewardship that may not
elsewhere,
happen otherwise).
either
domestically
or inter-
nationally.
CRS-16

---

Practice Quantification
Verification Monitoring Additionality
Permanence
Leakage
Diverting
more land
toward
biofuels
production,
away from
other uses
(and land
retirement)
and the use of
intensive
cultivation to
raise yields
could have
unintended
consequences.
Energy
Relatively easy.
Fairly complicated,
Fairly complicated,
Complicated. If
Somewhat long term, if farmer
Not expected
Efficiency
An established
given the need for a
given the lack of
implemented under existing
maintains practice as part of
to be a
(on farm)
knowledge-base
ful accounting of
standards/protocols. USDA financial/technical
ongoing operations. . May
problem.
exists, but standards farm-level energy
“working lands” assistance
require financial assistance
and a ful accounting
use. Standards and
programs, may not be
under USDA “working lands”
of farm-level energy
protocols need to
“beyond BAU” (but may
assistance programs. Most
use is needed.
be designed and
encourage environ-mental
cost-share contracts are <5
adopted.
stewardship that may not
yrs.
happen otherwise).
Source: Compiled by CRS.


CRS-17

---

Measuring and Monitoring Carbon in the Agricultural and Forestry Sectors


Author Contact Information

Ross W. Gorte
Renée Johnson
Specialist in Natural Resources Policy
Specialist in Agricultural Policy
rgorte@crs.loc.gov, 7-7266
rjohnson@crs.loc.gov, 7-9588




Congressional Research Service
18

---