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?