Policies for GHG Emission Reduction in Canadian Agriculture
Richard Gray
Centre for Studies in Agriculture, Law and the Environment
University of Saskatchewan
Objectives
• give some indication of the major sources of GHG emissions from agriculture
• illustrate some of the challenges that reducing these sources will create for policy
• provide some the economic rational for the policy recommendations contained in the AFFCC Table report
• seek your input
Concentration Trends of CO2, CH4, and N2O
Carbon Dioxide
260280300320340360380
1750 1800 1850 1900 1950 2000Year
CO
2 co
nce
ntr
atio
n
(pp
mv)
Methane
600800
10001200140016001800
1750 1800 1850 1900 1950 2000Year
CH
4 co
nce
ntr
atio
n
(pp
bv)
Nitrous Oxide
280285290295300305310315
1750 1800 1850 1900 1950 2000Year
N2O
co
nce
ntr
atio
n
(pp
bv)
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1975 2000 2025 2050 2075 2100
Year
CO
2 c
on
cen
trat
ion
sp
arts
per
mill
ion
by
volu
me
Projected CO2 Concentrations (to 2100)
High Estimate
Low Estimate
Intermediate Estimate
Projected Temperature Change between 1910 and 2040 AD
Combined Effect of Projected Greenhouse Gas and Sulfate Aerosol Increases.- Canadian Model
Questions about climate change
• Are GHG gases accumulating? √√
• Will GHG cause climate change?√
• Will Kyoto stop climate change? x
• Will the changes be bad? ???– For world, – for Canada, – for agriculture?
The FCCC and the Kyoto Accord• Canada commitment- 6% below 1990 for the
2008- 2012 period (25% below BAU)
• Has to be signed and ratified by countries with 55% of emissions to take effect
• Agricultural soils counted as a source but not as a sink
• No penalties for non-compliance but any country ratifying the agreement might force others into compliance
Canada’s Response to Kyoto(www.nccp.ca)
• Goal to develop an implementation strategy by fall 1999.
• 16 Tables set up to deal with sector or inter-sectoral issues
• an integrative table looks at all sectors and makes recommendations
• Climate Change Secretariat must report to Ministers
• One for agriculture and one for forestry/agricultural sinks
• Representatives from producers, industry, NGOs, fed/prov. government, universities
• Foundation papers -science
• Options papers - policy
Canadian GHG Emissions 1991
0
100
200
300
400
500
All Sources
Direct Ag. Indirect Ag. Total Ag.
CO2
Methane
Nitrous Oxide
Canadian AG GHG Emissions 1991
0
10
20
30
40
Direct Ag. Indirect Ag. Total Ag.
CO2
Methane
Nitrous Oxide
Canadian Livestock Related GHG Emissions (1996 Mt CO2 eq.)
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
Dairy cattle non-dairyCattle
Swine Poultry Other
Enteric CH4
Man. CH4
Man. N2O
Canadian Livestock Related GHG Emissions (Mt CO2 Eq.)
Dairy cattle
non-dairy Cattle
Swine
Poultry
Other
CO2
Soil organic matter
Product
Energy
Ecosystemboundary
8
90
130
130
300
520
Net Annual Exchange of CO2 by Crops (Mt/yr)
1910 1930 1950 1970 1990 20103000
3500
4000
4500
5000
1975 1985 1995 20053250
3275
3300
3325
Year
Soi
l Org
anic
Car
bon
(G
g)Change in Organic C Content in
Agricultural Soils (0-30 cm)
-120
-100
-80
-60
-40
-20
0
20
40
60
1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015
Year
Ra
te o
f c
han
ge
of
so
il C
(kg
/ha)
Eastern ProvincesManitobaSaskatchewanAlbertaBritish ColumbiaCanada
Change in Agricultural Soil Carbon for Various Provinces in Canada
Measurement of Soil C Gain
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Initial
Increase with improved management
VariabilityAnalytical Spatial
So
il C
(M
g C
ha-1
)
Direct emissionsof N2O from
agriculturalsoils
1991:17.9 Tg1996: 21.5 Tg
N2O emissions for 1991 and 1996(CO2 equivalent*)
Direct emissionsof N2O in
animalproduction
systems1991:6.7 Tg1996: 7.6 Tg
Indirect emissions
of N2Ofrom agricultural
systems1991: 9.6 Tg
1996: 11.8 Tg
Total N2Oemissions from
agriculture 1991: 34.3Tg1996:40.9 Tg
* using a 100 year time horizon
Canadian Soil Related GHG Emissions (Mt CO2 eq.)
0
10
20
30
40
50
"1990" "1996"
Mt
N2O
CO2
Use of soil sinks
• net effects ?– CO2 N2O – short term long term
• can only use once - option value?
• The form/costs of contract to ensure maintenance of sink
GHG Emissions from Canada’s Agroecosystems Including Inputs
(100 Year Time Horizon) (Mt of CO2 equivalents)
1981 1986 1991 1996 CO 2 33 31 29 27CH4 22 20 20 23N2 O 32 33 34 41Total 87 84 83 91
Implications science for control of Ag GHG emissions
• Nitrous oxide and Methane are new problems• Farming systems/ technologies to reduce GHG are
still unclear• it may be possible to develop low cost mitigation
options simply has not been explored
large scale measurement of emissions is expensive
• 250,000 farms, over 50 million hectares, hundreds of products
• large spatial and temporal variations
• systems and interactions are complex
• Fixed proportion (eg. fossil fuel /GHG) can be managed with higher prices (taxes) anywhere in the system
• in agriculture emissions are not proportional fossil fuel use - not even monotonic– e.g.. N fertilizer - soil carbon
– less grain more cows
Indirect measures - based on reduced input use or product output may be ineffective
• the latest technologies may be cleaner- output expansion required to replace the old. Expansion may reduce emissions
• reduced production in Canada may encourage dirty production elsewhere
Related issues
Agriculture most directly affected by climate change
• technologies have to make sense within changing climates
Policy options
• Regulations - regulate what?• Taxation - tax what?• Subsidize - subsidize what?• Create emission markets - for what? Carbon only?• Do nothing- leave agriculture out
The AAFCC Table’s Knowledge Based Approach
• spend resources to create technologies that will be voluntarily adopted by the sector– basic research
– applied research in GHG mitigation
– research in measurement and verification technologies
– policy / carbon trading research
– industry involvement extension and education
Table Recommendations:
1. Governments should provide resources to assist the extension of knowledge required to foster the adoption of proven technologies.
2. In recognition of the public benefits where cost-effective technologies are well known, and an economic incentive is required for their adoption, governments should provide public incentives for the adoption of GHG-reducing technologies.
3. The federal government should continue to insist on the inclusion of soil, forestry and industrial sinks in the international protocol and to ensure that the guidelines of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reflect Canadian conditions.
4.Governments should create research funds managed by the agricultural sector to assist in research and development of applied technologies for GHG reduction.
5. Governments should provide public resources to support basic research activities for net GHG reduction.
6. As part of a national strategy, governments should work with the agricultural sector to refine national inventory, measurement and verification systems for net GHG emissions and to reflect improvements in technology.
7. GHG emission trends in all sectors of agriculture in all provinces should be monitored and published.
8. Governments should work with the agricultural sector to develop targets for the reduction of GHG emissions along with incentives for meeting the targets.
9. Governments should assist the agricultural sector in the development and refinement of “best management practices” for the reduction of GHG emissions.
10. Governments should provide resources to assist policy research, market research, legal research and other public infrastructure to facilitate the development of trading mechanisms that reward reductions in net agricultural GHG emissions.
11. Governments should co-operate with private sector partners to develop a strategy that will enhance the agricultural sector’s ability to adapt to climate change using sustainable farming systems.
SummaryA. Many sources of uncertainty
- effects of GHG
- ratification of international agreements
-compliance with international agreements
-inclusion of sinks
- overall domestic policy
- technologies for reduction in agriculture
B: Difficult to monitor and or indirectly control emissions in agriculture
Best policies?
- spend resources on learning (research)
-wait for more information before spending large sums
Questions? Comments?