Printer Friendly

Mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions from the agriculture and agri-food sector in Canada: a regional perspective *.

Abstracts: "Mitigation of Greenhouse Gas Emissions from the Agriculture and Agri-Food Sector in Canada: A Regional Perspective". The agriculture and agri-food sector (AAFS) is a major contributor to the total Canadian greenhouse gas emissions, accounting for about 15 % of the total. In agriculture, emissions of methane and nitrous oxide constitute more than two-thirds of the total. In this study, homogeneity of various Canadian regions for contributions made by the AAFS to greenhouse gas emissions is examined. Results suggest that almost two-thirds of the total Canadian greenhouse gas emissions from farm level activities are produced in the Prairies. Different strategies with potential for mitigating greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture were examined. Ontario is estimated to have the largest relative potential for reducing emissions from primary agriculture. However, some gaps in meeting the commitments made under the Kyoto Protocol may remain in almost all provinces. This study also suggests that development of mitigation strategies would, by necessity, have to be designed at the local (regional) level rather than at national level. Consideration of the spillover effects of the strategies on off-farm economic activities should also be an important consideration in the final selection of mitigation measures for agriculture.


Pour l'agriculture, des emissions de methane et d'oxyde nitreuse constituent plus des deux-tiers du total. Dans cette etude, l'homogeneite de differentes regions canadiennes est analysee quant a la contribution du SAAA aux emissions de gaz a effet de serre. Les resultats suggerent que presque les deux tiers du total des emissions de gaz a effet de serre produites par des activites a l'echelle de l'exploitation agricole au Canada proviennent des Prairies. Des strategies differentes pour reduire les emissions de gaz a effet de serre furent analysees. La province qui semble avoir le plus grand potentiel relatif pour reduire les emissions provenant de l'agriculture meme est l'Ontario. Toutefois, certains ecarts quant a l'atteinte des engagements pris selon le Protocole de Kyoto semblent rester dans presque toutes les provinces. Cette etude suggere egalement que l'elaboration de strategies de mitigation doivent, par necessite, etre concues a l'echelle locale (regionale) plutot qu'a l'echelle nationale. Tenir compte aussi des effets secondaires de ces strategies sur les activites economiques hors ferme devrait etre une consideration importante dans le choix final de mesures de mitigation pour l'agriculture.

The World Commission on Environment and Development (1987), in its pioneering report on world affairs, brought to the attention of the global society the damage mankind has done to the environment, and through that to the future sustainabilicy of the socio-economic systems all over the world. Through the complex interactions between the environment and economic systems, anthropogenic activities have limited the capacity of the ecosystem to sustain economic and social activities at levels presently enjoyed by masses of people. This message was re-confirmed by the first and the second assessments of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which pointed out that "the balance of evidence suggests that there is a discernible human influence on global climate" (Houghton et al 1996).

In 1992, 176 countries met in Rio de Janeiro to review global change and related issues. At this juncture, some 111 countries, including Canada, signed the Framework Convention on Climate Change (FCCC). A good description of the activities envisaged under the Agreement are described by Mintzer and Leonard (1994); its major thrust was for various countries to develop (and maintain) an inventory of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, along with an attempt to search for mitigative strategies to curb the harmful effect of these gases. For Canada, this inventory has been reported by Environment Canada (see Jaques et al 1997). Based on these estimates, GHG emissions have increased since the signing of the FCCC. As shown in Figure 1, in 1990, the base emission level was 601 megatonnes [Mt or one million tonnes], which increased to 682 Mt by 1997, an increase of 13.5 % over the 1990 level.

The signatories to the FCCC met again in Kyoto, Japan, in December 1997 to review the progress made by signatory countries in reducing GHG emissions. Since under the FCCC, no firm commitments to reduce GHG emissions were set, at this Conference of the Parties various countries agreed to set firm reduction targets for reducing GHG emissions. Under this agreement, called the Kyoto Protocol, Canada agreed to reduce its GHG emissions during the commitment period (2008 - 2012) by 6 % below the 1990 levels.

Since the signing of the Kyoto Protocol, a major effort has been underway in Canada by the federal and some provincial governments on identifying appropriate mitigation strategies, accompanied by developing related measures and policies that will enable Canada to meet its commitment under the Protocol. To this effect, steps have been undertaken to put together a mechanism for developing a "National Implementation Strategy". However, in order to develop such a strategy, information is needed on several fronts, including the regional nature of emissions from various economic sectors, including the agriculture and agrifood sector.

Need for the Study

The agriculture industry is one of the major economic sectors in Canada. In 1995, primary agricultural production activities employed 453,300 FTE (full-time equivalent) workers, and by 1998 had total product sales worth $28.5 billion, and export sales of $11.9 billion annually. Although the contribution made by the industry to the Canadian GDP was only 2.1 %, in terms of social significance and export earnings, its contribution is unmatched by any other sector in Canada. Total contributions of the agriculture and agri-food sector (AAFS), which includes primary agriculture, farm input industries, transportation related to agricultural products, and agricultural processing industries, would exceed these levels. In some regions, such as the Prairies, prominence of agriculture is even higher and is one of the major driving forces in the economy.

In the context of GHG emissions, this sector has a unique feature--although it is a part of the problem, it could also be a part of the solution. Over the last century many changes have taken place that have led to increases in the emissions of GHGs. One such change is the opening up of the land that was previously under natural habitat, and removing trees and shrubs (including wetlands) in order to expand production. Continuous tilling and the practice of summer fallowing, that has been very common in the drier parts of the Prairie provinces, has led to depletion of soil carbon.

Since some agricultural practices could lead to increasing carbon stored in the soils, agriculture can help reduce the level of [CO.sub.2] in the atmosphere as well as future GHG emissions, and thereby become a part of the solution. However, some regions of Canada may not be well-suited for making such a contribution. Furthermore, attempts to increase carbon sequestration in some regions through agricultural practices may have some detrimental effects on other regions. This requires information on the nature of GHG emissions from agricultural production and related activities, and their geographical distribution. In addition, since regional food production patterns in Canada are so diverse, it is equally important to determine differences in the pattern of GHG emissions in various regions -both in terms of nature and composition of emissions, as well as in terms of their respective levels.

In the context of meeting the commitments made under the Kyoto Protocol, identification of actions that could lead to reduced GHG emissions from the AAFS is necessary. This may include identifying the most cost-effective strategies with a regional perspective, since the sector is so diverse regionally across Canada. Included here may be strategies that have both a positive effect on economic returns from farming and lead to a reduction in the GHG emissions at the same time. It is equally plausible that under certain strategies, producers would be affected adversely. This cost to the sector of meeting the commitments under the Protocol need to be estimated before ratifying it. Another related aspect of agricultural (primary production level) mitigation measures is their effect on off-farm economic activities. Strategies that increase off-farm GHG emissions would be less desirable from a national point of view than those that lead to a decrease in both agricultural and off-farm GHG emissions.

In the context of the Kyoto Protocol, there is one aspect of negotiations that has a special significance for Canadian agriculture. At the time of signing the Protocol, soil carbon sequestration was not recognised as a measure for reducing GHG emissions from agriculture. This means that although release of soil carbon, in the form of carbon dioxide ([CO.sub.2]), is included as a part of agriculture's emissions, any further efforts to reduce [CO.sub.2] emissions beyond the state, when soils become a net carbon sequester, are not recognised. This may have implications for some regions of Canadian agriculture. The present study was intended to provide answers to these and related questions.

Objectives and Scope of the Study

The primary objective of this study is to examine the pattern of GHG emissions from the agriculture and agri-food sector in various regions of Canada, and to identify mitigation strategies for adoption by agricultural producers. This objective is divided into the following sub-objectives:

* To estimate the nature of regional GHG emissions in Canada in the base period (1990) and in the Protocol reference period (2008-2012) represented by the year 2010;

* To examine the effect of selected GHG emission mitigation strategies in various regions of Canada; and,

* To estimate the short-run cost to producers in various regions of Canada resulting from adopting selected mitigation measures.

The methodology used is that developed for the Canadian GHG inventory, which in turn, was based on the IPCC (see Houghton et al 1997) methodology, with some adjustments to Canadian conditions. The selection of mitigation strategies in this study was limited to those which were considered promising by the Agriculture and Agri-Food Climate Change Issue Table.

Study Hypotheses

This study is guided by the hypothesis that agriculture in various regions of Canada, by virtue of being heterogeneous with respect to natural resource endowments, economic conditions facing them, and different policy regimes, portray significantly different regional patterns of GHG emissions. Furthermore, if this hypothesis is accepted, available and cost-effective mitigation options in Canada would also differ from region to region. In effect, it is hypothesized that in some regions, reductions of the magnitude specified under the Kyoto Protocol may be relatively easy, while in others more difficult to achieve.

Study Model

Scope of Analysis

A comprehensive analysis of greenhouse gas emissions mitigation strategy development must include all GHGs that are emitted from agricultural production and related activities. However, emissions of many GHGs, such as hydroflurocarbons (HFCs), perfiurocarbons (PFCs) and sulphur hexafluoride ([SF.sub.6]), are primarily related to industrial activities (aluminum and magnesium production) and production of solvents. For these reasons, only three GHGs were included in the analysis: carbon dioxide ([CO.sub.2]); methane ([CH.sub.4]); and nitrous oxide ([N.sub.2]O).

Regional disaggregation of the model was based on the notion of regional differences in policy regimes resulting in adoption of production technologies, and in natural resource endowments, including ecosystem based factors, on the one hand, and availability of data, on the other. As a result, for livestock and crop production, this disaggregation was based on provincial boundaries. The exception to this was the crop production in the three Prairie provinces, which were further disaggregated into 22 regions using crop district boundaries. This included 6 regions for Manitoba, 9 regions for Saskatchewan, and 7 regions for Alberta. A map of Canada showing the 29 regions of the model is shown in Figure 2. Although within Ontario and Quebec regions a certain degree of heterogeneity exists, at this pont in time no attempt was made to disaggregate these provinces further. (1)

In this study, results for the 29 study regions were aggregated over five regions: British Columbia, Prairies, Ontario, Quebec and Atlantic Canada. This choice was made on two grounds:

* The size of agriculture in individual Atlantic Canada provinces is relatively small; and

* The three Prairie provinces were aggregated into a single region since they are relatively more homogenous in production mix and technology of production.

GHG Emissions from Agriculture

In this study, the accounting of GHG emissions was undertaken at two levels: the Direct Farm Level and the AAFS level. The latter set of emissions include direct farm level emissions plus those from other sectors through activities induced by agricultural production. Induced activities include manufacturing of farm inputs, processing of agricultural products, and transportation of crop and livestock products beyond the primary collection points. (2)

Links between various agricultural activities and GHG emissions were based on available scientific knowledge as outlined by Janzen et al (1999). At each level of accounting, different combinations of activities linked to these emissions were identified (Table 1).

The Direct Farm level emissions were categorised into six categories:

* Crop Production, which included activities such as application of fertilisers, and production of nitrogen fixing crops;

* Livestock Production, which included emissions from the farm animals and from their excretions;

* Indirect Emissions, accounting for emissions from various forms of nitrogen added to the crop lands, leading to leaching and atmospheric deposition of nitrous oxide;

* Energy-use, which accounted for energy based emissions from performing various on-farm activities;

* Soil Carbon Sequestration, accounting for changes in soil carbon resulting from changes in tillage system; and

* Change in Land Use, which included agro-forestry, change in land use and wetlands.

One should note that soil carbon is accounted for in two separate categories. If the crop lands are losing soil carbon, thereby becoming a source of carbon dioxide, they are accounted under Crop Production. However, if the soils become a sequester of soil carbon, thereby becoming a net sink of carbon, these emissions are accounted under Soil Carbon Sequestration. The major reason for this type of accounting is the manner in which soils as sinks are considered under the Kyoto Protocol. As noted above, soil sinks are excluded from accounting for credits for reduction in GHG emissions, whether these are direct or indirect in nature.

Indirect emissions are generated by certain agricultural practices, such as application of fertiliser and manure to crop and pasture lands, as well as emissions from cultivated and wooded soils (histosols). In addition, in this study model, emissions (sequestration) from the practice of agro-forestry were also included.

The AAFS emissions include the Direct Farm level emissions plus three blocks accounting for the agri-food sector. These were farm input manufacturing (including storage and transportation), off-farm transportation of crop and livestock products and food industries. In all these blocks, the major source of GHG emissions is from the use of energy inputs.

Estimation of Regional Agricultural GHG Emissions

In order to estimate GHG emissions at the two levels of accounting as indicated above, a systems approach was considered necessary. Since actions and decisions taken by agricultural producers are linked to other economic activities at the AAFS level, a full accounting of the sectoral emissions, particularly under a selected mitigation strategy, was necessary. This required development of an integrated model of farm level agricultural activities and those induced by them at the off-farm level. This involved integration of the producers' decision making process along with the science of GHG emissions into the accounting of the GHG emissions. The resulting model was called CEEMA--Canadian Economic and Emissions Model for Agriculture. More details of the model are provided by Kulshreshtha et al (2000). An overview of this model is shown in Figure 3.

There are three major components in the model:

* Economic Optimisation sub-model;

* Review of Science of GHG emissions for agricultural activities, which included estimation of GHG emission coefficients using the current scientific knowledge; and

* Greenhouse Gas Emissions sub-model, which yielded total GHG emissions from agriculture.

In order to have the capability of simulating the impact of a change in policy or imposition of a mitigation strategy, it was necessary to link GHG emissions with an Economic Optimisation sub-model. This is because change in an economic policy (or a mitigation strategy) could possibly change economic conditions facing farmers, which in turn would lead to a change in their resource allocation decisions. These changes may further lead to changes in enterprise mix, adoption of different cultural and agronomic practices, and/or new technologies. The net result could be a different level of crop and livestock production in various regions of Canada, resulting in a different level and composition of GHG emissions.

This Economic Optimisation sub-model is a static, spatial, partial equilibrium mathematical programming model. The objective function maximises the level of Canadian society's consumer and producer surplus through production of crop and livestock products. The producer surplus is a proxy for economic returns to producers in the short-run. It is the area under the price line and above the short-run cost curve. The consumer surplus is the area under the demand curve and above the price line. It measures the unclaimed utility from the purchase of that good by consumers. A more detailed description of the model is presented in Appendix A.

The economic optimisation of agricultural activities is undertaken at the national level. This was considered appropriate for the following reasons:

* For most commodities, agricultural production is sold in a North American and / or international markets, with producers in all regions being price takers. Goods of agricultural origin move freely from one region to the others. Thus, prices are determined in a national setting.

* Although some commodities are regulated, through supply management agencies, the regulated level of production is incorporated in the objective function, and its effect on the rest of resources available in the region is taken into account.

* Some bulky products, such as hay and forages, are sold in a local market, these are considered at the regional level in determining livestock production activities. However, the value of these products is a derived value, using the national livestock market based prices.

The output of the economic optimisation sub-model included the level and nature of crop and livestock products produced in different regions, level of farm inputs demands, and level of economic welfare (measured as producer and consumer surplus). The first two items from the economic optimisation are subsequently used for estimating GHG emissions. However, before this can be accomplished, emissions coefficients for various GHG emitting processes are required (Table 1).

Estimation of emission coefficients in the model was disaggregated by regions, by crop and livestock enterprises, and by technology of production, where necessary. As noted above, these coefficients are based on the available scientific evidence. This required a review of the IPCC methodology (Houghton et al 1997) as well as Canadian literature, particularly for various regions. (3)

The third component of the model was to develop the GHG Emissions submodel, which combined the output of the previous two components. In all situations, these were estimated as follows:

Total Emission = Emission Coefficient X Scale of Economic Activity (1)

The physical scale of economic activities (such as area under different crops and production level of various livestock) were obtained from the Economic Optimisation sub-model. The activity levels, along with emissions coefficients, as estimated under the second component, were used to obtain total emissions.

In this study, two indicators provided by CEEMA are of interest:

* Level of GHG emissions from a region, and

* The corresponding value of producer surplus (PS).

The latter indicator was used in evaluating the cost-effectiveness of various mitigation strategies.


Base GHG Emissions from Agriculture

Direct farm level production activities in Canada were responsible for emissions of about 65 Mt of carbon dioxide equivalent ([CO.sub.2]-Eq) GHGs in 1990 (Table 2). The [CO.sub.2]-Eq quantity is an aggregate of [CO.sub.2], [CH.sub.4] and [N.sub.2]O emitted into the atmosphere. This is undertaken by converting emissions of each gas in terms of its global warming potential relative to that of [CO.sub.2] over a 100-year time horizon. The respective conversion factors were relative to [CO.sub.2] and their values were 21 for methane, and 310 for nitrous oxide.

When one extends the view of agriculture to the entire agri-food system, emissions increase to about 90 Mt in [CO.sub.2]-Eq. Thus, farm level activities constitute roughly 72 % of the total AAFS emissions. The remaining 28 % percent of emissions, although not generated by agricultural activities directly, are linked to the decisions made at the farm level. Relative to the total Canadian GHG emissions, agriculture's contribution at the direct farm level is estimated at about 11 %, whereas at the AAFS level it is at about 15 % of the total.

At the farm level, the largest share of GHG emissions is from livestock production. In 1990, these activities emitted about 30 Mt of [CO.sub.2]-Eq. Crop production related activities are the next higher contributor to the farm level emissions. Production, storage and transportation of farm inputs is the major emitter of off-farm activities, contributing about 19 Mt of [CO.sub.2]-Eq.

The agriculture industry is unique in one respect from many of the other economic sectors in Canada. Although it generates emissions of three GHGs--carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide, the composition is significantly different compared to other sectors (Figure 4). The largest share is that of nitrous oxide, particularly at the primary production level, where it constitutes 48 % of the total. At the entire AAFS level, although nitrous oxide is important, its contribution is reduced to 37 % of the total. This is because the other non-farm sectors use energy-based inputs, that produce more [CO.sub.2] than the other two GHGs. In contrast for all economic sectors in Canada, CO2 emissions dominate. These emissions constitute over three-quarters of the total. Although methane and nitrous oxide emissions are present their contribution is around 10 % each.

The emissions for 2010 were estimated by first extrapolating the projections from the Medium Term Baseline (see AAFC 1996) to estimate activity levels for agriculture in various regions of Canada, and then applying the appropriate emission coefficients. The projected levels of emissions are shown in Table 2 for various sources, and in Table 3, by type of gas. The largest absolute increase in GHG emissions is contributed by livestock production activities and indirect emissions. Two major trends in the emission levels are noticed with respect to individual gases. First, the level of CO, emissions is declining over time. This is caused by changes in tillage practices and cropping practices such as the reduction of summer fallow in the Prairies. This causes some of these soils to change from a carbon source to carbon sinks. Second, emissions of methane and nitrous oxide are forecasted to increase by 15 and 30 %, respectively over their 1990 level.

By the year 2010, at the Direct Farm level, Canadian agriculture will experience a very small increase in GHG emissions. This increase is estimated to be only 2.46% of the 1990 level (Table 3). If one accounts for the emissions at the AAFS level, increase in the emissions is slightly higher, estimated at 8.35% of the 1990 level. Much of these increases will be as a result of changes in crop and livestock transportation and storage systems, and through further processing of bulk agricultural commodities to create more value-added products and employment.

Regional Distribution of 1990 and 2010 GHG Emissions

Canadian agriculture exhibits large regional differences in terms of GHG emissions. Furthermore, on account of changes in enterprise mix and technology of production, regional differences are expected to become amplified by 2010. Regional distribution of 1990 GHG emissions in [CO.sub.2]-Eq levels is shown in Figure 5. As expected based on the area involved, the Prairie provinces are the largest contributor to the total Direct Farm level emissions, and the picture is not that different at the AAFS level. Almost two-thirds (64 %) of the national GHG emissions at the farm level are from the agricultural activities in the three Prairie provinces. The next largest contributor is the province of Ontario, contributing 17 % of the farm level emissions. The Atlantic provinces and British Columbia are minor players in terms of contributing GHG from agriculture. Their contributions are within 3 - 4 % respectively of the total Direct Farm level emissions.

Relative to 1990 (Table 4), the major percentage increases in emissions in 2010 are expected to be in Western Canada, particularly in British Columbia. Even the Prairies, in spite of declines in crop-based emissions, are expected to increase overall emissions by 4 %. For Ontario, 2010 GHG emissions are expected to decline by 4 %, while the rest of eastern Canada is expected to show very little change or a small increase (less than 1 %). A partial explanation of these trends is the availability of cheaper feed grains in the Prairies due to the abolishment of the transportation subsidy and low world prices, which helped to trigger a major expansion in livestock production, sometimes at the cost of a decline in eastern Canada. However, eastern Canada maintains, and even improves on the manufacturing of farm inputs and agricultural processing (most of which are located in eastern Canada).

Since inclusion of soils as sinks is still in the process of negotiation, growth in the GHG emissions in 2010 is estimated with and without including soil C sinks. For all regions, except Quebec, growth is higher under the condition when soil C sinks are excluded. For Canada as a whole, without soil C sinks, 2010 emissions are 11 % and 14 % higher than those in 1990 at the farm level and the AAFS level, respectively. In terms of various regions, the largest increases are for the Prairies, where without soil C sinks emissions increase by 18 % of the 1990 level.

Changes in the composition of GHG emissions at the direct farm level for various regions are shown in Figure 6. In all regions, emissions of N20 are expected to increase by 2010. This is partially a result of increasing livestock activities, and in part due to reduction in emissions of [CO.sub.2] through soil carbon sequestration.

Mitigation of G.H.G. Emissions under Selected Strategies

Emissions Reduction Targets

Under the Kyoto Protocol, Canada committed to reduce its 2010 GHG emissions (or those during the commitment period of 2008 - 2012) to 6 % below those of 1990. Assuming that all regions and all economic sectors would be expected to reduce their respective GHG emissions by this magnitude, the Kyoto Gap at various levels of accounting can be estimated. This Gap is estimated as follows:

KYOTO GAP = [EMISSIONS.sup.2010] - (0.94 X [EMISSIONS.sub.1990] (2)

This Gap is estimated for both the Direct Farm and the AAFS level under two situations: when soil sinks are included and when these are excluded. For the latter case, the appropriate category of emissions is used for 1990 and 2010. Results are shown in Table 5. For Canada as a whole, the Kyoto Gap for the direct farm level is estimated to be between 5.5 to 11.3 Mt, depending upon whether soil sinks are either included or excluded. At the AAFS level, the Gap is estimated to be between 12.9 and 18.7 Mt under similar situations.

Regionally the largest Kyoto Gap is for the Prairies, particularly when soil sinks are excluded. For eastern Canada the role of soil sinks is minimal, since here, most of these soils are still a net source. These results suggest that under business as usual (BAU), Canadian agriculture would not be able to meet the GHG reduction commitments made, and that further adoption of GHG emission mitigation measures will be required.

Mitigation Strategies to Reduce GHG Emissions

Mitigation strategies for reducing GHG emissions could either be adoption of best management / improved management practices or those of improved technology. Farmers have a choice of several management practices, some of which have already been adopted by farmers in some regions of Canada. Improved technology may come either through new engineering designs or by pursuing new research angles, or some combination of the two.

Selection of mitigation strategies (practices) in this study was based on the availability and certainty of scientific knowledge related to GHG emissions coefficients. This was done in consultation with the members of the Agriculture and Agri-Food Climate Change Issue Table, established by the Climate Change Secretariat of the Government of Canada. In light of the composition of GHG emissions from the sector, more emphasis was placed on reducing methane and nitrous oxide emissions. Six broad types were selected where potential strategies could be found. These were:

* Soil Nutrient Management Strategies;

* Soil Management Strategies;

* Grazing Strategies;

* Feeding Strategies;

* Manure Management Strategies, and

* Agro-forestry Strategies.

Although a number of strategies were tested, in the final analysis nine strategies were retained. The criteria for retaining a strategy for further consideration was the nature of change in Canadian Direct Farm level GHG emissions. If the strategy did not lead to a net reduction in GHG emissions, it was excluded.

The Soil Nutrient Management, Grazing Management and Development of Agro-forestry types contained a single strategy each. The other three types had two strategies each. A complete list of selected strategies is provided in Table 6. Each is described below.

Mitigation Strategy 1: SNM--Soil Nutrient Management:

In this strategy, the focus is on reducing [N.sub.2]O emissions. This would be accomplished through a better management of nitrogen fertiliser applied on crops in all regions of Canada. On average, farmers were assumed to apply the quantity of fertiliser as recommended by various provincial agencies after taking into account available nitrogen in the soil. (4) The latter was accomplished through a soil test. The use of fall application of manure was also reduced for the Prairies. In addition, nitrogen content of the manure was assumed to remain unaffected in this strategy, and was also considered in the estimation of level of fertilizer added.

Mitigation Strategy 2: SLM1--Adoption of zero and minimum tillage on farms

Conservation tillage includes reduced tillage operations and leaving crop residues on the surface. This results in a lower loss of soil organic carbon, thereby increasing additions to the pool of soil carbon, and causes the soil carbon to increase until a new equilibrium level is reached. In this study, farmers in the Prairies and in the Peace River region of British Columbia were hypothesized to adopt the zero and minimum till systems by magnitudes shown in Table 7. Under this strategy, about half of the total cropped area of the region would be under no-till.

Mitigation Strategy 3: SLM2 - Permanent Cover program with Adjusted

Cattle Herds

Converting some marginal cropland to permanent grass cover was the aim of this mitigation strategy. This measure would reduce the soil disturbance and organic matter decomposition, thereby resulting in higher levels of stored organic soil carbon. However, to be realistic, cattle herds were increased to the level of utilising pasture lands to the same level as existed in the 2010 BAU.

Mitigation Strategy 4: GRZ - Grazing Strategy

The grazing strategy was developed to improve the quality of forage to be grazed by cattle on one side, and increase the carbon sequestration potential of native and improved pastures in various regions of Canada, on the other. These practices included reduced stocking rates, rotational grazing, and complementary grazing. Under this strategy, the cattle stocking rates on the Prairie pasture lands was reduced by 50 % of the level in 2010 BAU. Cattle that could not be handled through the pasture lands were fed through feedlots. Under complementary grazing, pasture land together with crested wheat grass was grazed. Rotational grazing involved moving the cattle periodically to different parts of the pasture.

Mitigation Strategy 5: FDG1 - Feeding Strategy through Changed Dietary Protein Intake

This strategy focused on the dietary protein intake by hogs, dairy and poultry and on inclusion of amino acids (such as phytase) in the diets. These measures result in reduction in nitrogen content of manure and reduction in methane emissions.

Mitigation Strategy 6: FDG2 - Improved Feed / Forage Quality for Beef Cattle

In this strategy, farmers are expected to undertake nutrient testing and improve the feed efficiency of beef cattle by 15 %. This would lead to a reduction in nitrogen content of manure and a reduction in methane emissions from beef cattle.

Mitigation Strategy 7: MNM1 - Manure Management through Eliminating Fall Applications

Improved timing of manure application was the focus of this strategy. Application of manure in spring, when crops use the nutrients, is more cost-effective and reduces GHG emissions. Fall applications of manure result in more denitrification and leaching, resulting in greater [N.sub.2]O emissions.

Mitigation Strategy 8: MNM2 - Manure Management through Covering Manure Tanks

This strategy focused on covering the liquid manure storage tanks. Two types of covers were included: Floating straw cover suitable for large lagoons on larger operations; and Balloon-type covers for circular lagoons on small to medium sized farms. Adoption of this strategy was limited to dairy and swine farms.

Mitigation Strategy 9: AGF -- Agro-forestry

In this strategy, mitigation of GHG emissions was achieved though planting of shelterbelts on farms. This programme is undertaken only on the Prairies where wind erosion is a major problem. The magnitude of such a planting was such that it would occupy 1% of the total cropped area in each of the three Prairie provinces.

National and Regional Perspectives on GHG Reduction Measures

As noted above, nine different mitigation strategies were tested using the CEEMA. Results were noted for Canada as a whole and for each of the five regions. These results are presented in Table 8, under the assumption of soil sinks being included, and excluded.

All nine strategies lead to some potential reduction in GHG emissions from Canadian agriculture. However, some mitigation measures, such as adoption of soil conservation tillage, and agro-forestry, were restricted to the Prairie provinces. In spite of this regional adoption bias, for Canada as a whole, Soil Management, Grazing, and Agro-forestry strategies offer the largest potential. (5) Each of these could reduce GHG emissions in the neighbourhood of 2 Mt. However, the emission reduction effectiveness of various strategies is reduced if soil sinks are not included in the total GHG emissions. This applies particularly for the two soil management strategies.

For various regions, the effectiveness of mitigation strategies varies considerably. However, the soil nutrient management, manure management, and first feeding strategies provided a reduction in emissions in all regions. Such was not the case with the soil management and agro-forestry strategies, since the assumed adoption of these practices was limited to Western Canada. However, results suggest an important spill-over effect of such strategies on the rest of Canada. When some cropland is taken out of production, this leads to increase in production in other regions, thereby increasing their GHG emissions. Thus, regional endorsement of mitigation strategy considerations must take into account such spill over effects, and the way to compensate the farmers in these regions.

To test for the effectiveness of the mitigation strategies that were selected for this study, it was assumed that producers in each of the five regions adopt all the noted strategies. Results suggest that Ontario and Quebec would have no difficulty in achieving the Kyoto Gap, regardless of whether soil sinks are recognised. However, this is not the case with other regions. The Prairies would be able to reduce their respective GHG emissions to the Kyoto target level only if soil sinks are recognised. British Columbia and Atlantic Canada would have problems in meeting the reduction target under any of the study strategies. Canada as a whole is similar to the Prairies.

Under the assumption that soil sinks are recognised, and further assuming that all nine mitigation strategies are implemented, agriculture in some regions would not only be able to meet the challenge of reducing its 2010 Direct Farm level emissions to 6 % below those of 1990, but would also have some surplus that could be shared with other sectors. This may lead to a situation favourable to development of emissions trading mechanisms within Canada as well as internationally.

The effects of adopting the above noted strategies also apply to the GHG emissions for the entire AAFS (Table 9). For Canada as a whole, with soil sinks recognised, 86 % of the Kyoto Gap at the AAFS level can be met by adopting the study strategies. This is reduced to 27 % if soil sinks are not recognised. The Prairies could only meet 89 % of the target under the more favourable assumption that soil sinks are included as a part of the GHG emission reduction. This suggests the need for additional mitigative strategies aimed at the farm input manufacturing, processing and transportation sectors. Although no particular strategies to reduce GHG emissions in the agri-food sector are being proposed here, it is believed that this sector has some potential in further decreasing its future emission level.

Spill-Over Effects of Mitigation Strategies at the Farm Level

Adoption of various mitigation strategies may also affect emissions from off-farm (agri-food) sector activities that are induced by agricultural production. To test this hypothesis, GHG emissions at the agri-food sector level were estimated using CEEMA. The hypothesis that different strategies would have a varied effect on the agri-food sector level emissions is supported. For example, the SLM1 (adoption of zero or minimum tillage) and GRZ (grazing strategies) increase the demand for farm inputs, thereby increasing the agri-food sector emissions in all regions (Table 10). The SNM (soil nutrient management) and AGF (agro-forestry) decrease the demand for inputs and the need for processing and transportation, thereby resulting in lower agri-food sector GHG emissions. If all strategies were to be adopted by producers, GHG emissions in Canada would increase by an additional 196 kilotonnes of [CO.sub.2]-Eq. The main increases are estimated for the province of Ontario.

Impact of Mitigation Strategies on Regional

Economic Welfare of Producers

Regional differences in the ability of farmers to reduce GHG emissions from agriculture, as exemplified in the previous section, raise questions related to their economic implications--both for the producers themselves and for the agri-food sector. To examine this aspect of GHG emission mitigation, change in the regional producer surplus was estimated for each of the nine strategies for the five regions. This analysis was limited to Direct Farm level emissions, since the measure of welfare from the economic component of CEEMA only reflects the farm situation. For each region, strategies were ranked using the average cost per tonne of reducing GHG emissions. Cost was equated to the loss of producer surplus per tonne of reduction in GHG emissions (in [CO.sub.2]-Eq units). Since longterm investment costs required to undertake the needed change in the technology and / or enterprise mix of farms, as envisaged under these strategies, are excluded these figures should be interpreted with caution.

Inmost regions, some strategies offer a "win-win" situation. Here, not only the GHG emissions are reduced, but the producer surplus is also higher (Table 11). This is shown as a negative cost (in other words, a benefit) of adopting the mitigation strategy. However, such situations are fewer in all the five regions if soil sinks are not included. The SLM2 (converting marginal croplands into forage crop, with appropriate changes in cattle herd) is one strategy that provides a win-Win situation in all regions.

On the other hand, some of the strategies are inefficient. An inefficient strategy is defined as one that does not lead to a reduction in the GHG emissions at the direct farm level in the region. The SLM1--Adoption of conservation tillage system, is one such example for all regions except the Prairies when soil sinks are considered.

Implications of the Study

Canadian agriculture is a diverse industry when one views it from a regional perspective. Differences exist not only in terms of resource endowments, but also how those resources are allocated to various economic activities. Consequently, the distribution of GHG emissions from primary agricultural activities is very different between regions. In addition, growth in the industry for the commitment period (2008-2012) is also expected to be different, which causes the expected rate of increase in GHG emissions in various regions to differ as well.

Analysis of the potential GHG emission mitigation strategies indicates significant differences in eastern and western Canadian agriculture. In the west, strategies that accentuate the role of soils as carbon sinks have the highest payoff. However, these strategies do not provide a "win-win" situation for eastern Canadian farmers. Here, higher GHG emission reduction potential is provided by those related to livestock feeding, manure management and grazing management. This suggests that mitigation strategies should be region specific, as their adoption would likely be different in light of the potential cost (benefits) to the farmers. Furthermore, if a national strategy is adopted, its spill-over effects from one region to the other regions should also be taken into account. Such a situation was depicted by SLM1--Adoption of zero till system, SLM2--Permanent cover programme, and by AGF--agro-forestry strategies. These strategies were applied only to the Prairies; however, the model predicted some impacts in Eastern Canada as well. Differences in the mitigation cost also has implications for regional competitiveness of food production systems.

The present analysis indicates that recognition of soil sinks is very important from a Canadian perspective. Without soil sinks, Canadian agriculture would find it harder to meet the Kyoto commitment. The two soil management strategies (SLM1 and SLM2) included here lead to significant reduction in emissions, a major part of which is through the soil carbon sequestration. If soil C sequestration is not accepted internationally as a measure to reduce GHG emissions, western Canada would have to look for alternative ways to reduce emissions from food production. Since most of the strategies included in this study are those for which scientific knowledge exists with relatively more certainty, this implies that development of newer strategies would require a more vigorous effort in terms of research and development.

The spill-over effect of agricultural strategies on the agri-food sector is another consideration that should be taken into account in the development of the agricultural mitigation policy. Strategies that lead to an increase in agri-food sector GHG emissions are not as desirable from a national perspective as those that lead to a reduction is such emissions.

The overriding question in the development of a GHG emission mitigation policy for Canadian agriculture revolves around the question of whether Canadian agriculture would be required to reduce its emissions by the same percentage as the national Kyoto commitment. Related to this is the issue of whether agriculture in each region would be expected to contribute in an identical manner. An alternative manner to select the target for agriculture would be that based on relative cost of mitigation to producers in various regions. If all regions are not treated in an identical manner, the questions related to regional equity would surface, and adoption of some compensation principle may have to be implemented. Furthermore, development of a mechanism to reward agricultural producers for reducing national GHG emissions through adoption of best management practices for agriculture needs careful consideration.

These results are based on simulations of the expected response of farmers under an assumed set of conditions. What is needed is an investigation of ways and means that might be needed to bring about the desired change. Designing appropriate regional policies and an assessment of the cost-effectiveness of such policies, in addition to reducing the uncertainties of the estimates is the natural progression of activities for future researchers in this area.

Appendix A

Description of Main Features of the Economic Optimisation Sub-Model

General Features

* Sub-Model included both supply and demand for all major agricultural products. Supply is primarily from Canadian sources, whereas the demand includes domestic as well as export demand for various crop and livestock products;

* Domestic demand in represented by a non-linear demand function, which is bounded by the import price ceiling, and an export price floor;

* Trade activities respond to export and import prices;

Elasticity estimates were based on review of literature for the supply and demand function, incorporating both own-price, cross-price (for demand functions), and input-price effects (for supply functions);

* All major crops and livestock products were included, with the smaller categories of crops captured under "other" crops;

* Fairly detailed production input relationships were included allowing for an assessment of direct and indirect effects of changes in policies, and adoption of different technological practices or management systems;

* Canada is assumed to be a price taker. In other words, Canadian trade is assumed not to affect world prices.

Crop Production Block Features

* All farm lands are divided into four types: Crop land, Hay land, Improved pasture land and Unimproved pasture land.

* Crops included in the sub-model are: wheat, barley (including other coarse grains), flax, canola, corn, soybeans, hay, pasture and other crops;

* Crops grown can be used domestically for processing, or for feeding livestock, or exported;

* In western Canada, crops can be grown on fallowed lands or on stubble lands (continuous cropping system);

* Crops were produced using one of three types of tillage systems: Conventional (or intensive) tillage, Medium (or minimum) tillage, and No (or zero) tillage.

Livestock Production Block Features

* Beef, pork and dairy production are included and modeled in details;

* Poultry production is modeled as a single activities for broiler, egg, and turkey production;

* Sheep and lambs are included as exogenous activities;

* Livestock inventories and prices are set at a certain historic period's level and the demand functions are calibrated to replicate these prices along with consumption.

Government Programs

* Expected payout under various government programmes are included as supplementing producer net returns;

* Model assumes that producers view government program receipts equivalent to market receipts;

* Benefits of supply management for dairy and poultry sectors are captured.

Operationalising the Sub-Model

* The 29 region crop and livestock production blocks are operationalised using the GAMS program.





Distribution of Total Direct Farm Level Emissions of GhGs, 1990

Ontario 17%
Quebec 12%
Atlantic 3%
B.C. 4%
Prairies 64%

Note: Table made from pie chart


List of Agricultural Activities and GHG Emissions at Various Levels of

Accounting Blocks Agri. Activities [CO.sub.2]


Crop Production Crop Residues
 Fertiliser Application
 Production of Nitrogen
 Fixing Crops
 Tillage Practices and Crop X
 Rotations and Soil Carbon
Livestock Production Farm Animals
 Grazing of Cattle
 Animal Excretion
 Manure Handling System
Indirect Emissions Manure and Fertiliser
 Human Sewage
 Agricultural Soils and
 Waterlogged lands
Energy Use Energy Use for Machinery X
 Farm Level Transportation X
 and Storage of Crops
 Farm Level Transportation X
 of Livestock
Soil Carbon sequestration Tillage Systems and Crop X
 Rotations and Soil Carbon
Agro-Forestry Use of Shelterbelts X


Farm Input Manufacturing Fertiliser, Fuel, X
 Pesticides, and Farm
Off-Farm Transportation Energy Used for X
 Transportation and
 Storage of Crops
 and for Transportation
 of Livestock
Food Processing Processing of Meat and X
 Poultry, Dairy Products,
 Vegetable Oil Mills,
 Fruits and Vegetables.
 Breweries, and Other
 Food and Beverage Products

Accounting Blocks Agri. Activities [CH.sub.4]


Crop Production Crop Residues
 Fertiliser Application
 Production of Nitrogen
 Fixing Crops
 Tillage Practices and Crop
 Rotations and Soil Carbon
Livestock Production Farm Animals X
 Grazing of Cattle
 Animal Excretion X
 Manure Handling System
Indirect Emissions Manure and Fertiliser
 Human Sewage
 Agricultural Soils and X
 Waterlogged lands
Energy Use Energy Use for Machinery
 Farm Level Transportation O
 and Storage of Crops
 Farm Level Transportation O
 of Livestock
Soil Carbon sequestration Tillage Systems and Crop
 Rotations and Soil Carbon
Agro-Forestry Use of Shelterbelts


Farm Input Manufacturing Fertiliser, Fuel, O
 Pesticides, and Farm
Off-Farm Transportation Energy Used for O
 Transportation and
 Storage of Crops
 and for Transportation
 of Livestock
Food Processing Processing of Meat and O
 Poultry, Dairy Products,
 Vegetable Oil Mills,
 Fruits and Vegetables.
 Breweries, and Other
 Food and Beverage Products

Accounting Blocks Agri. Activities [N.sub.2]O


Crop Production Crop Residues X
 Fertiliser Application X
 Production of Nitrogen X
 Fixing Crops
 Tillage Practices and Crop
 Rotations and Soil Carbon
Livestock Production Farm Animals
 Grazing of Cattle X
 Animal Excretion X
 Manure Handling System X
Indirect Emissions Manure and Fertiliser X
 Histosol X
 Human Sewage X
 Agricultural Soils and
 Waterlogged lands
Energy Use Energy Use for Machinery
 Farm Level Transportation O
 and Storage of Crops
 Farm Level Transportation O
 of Livestock
Soil Carbon sequestration Tillage Systems and Crop
 Rotations and Soil Carbon
Agro-Forestry Use of Shelterbelts


Farm Input Manufacturing Fertiliser, Fuel, O
 Pesticides, and Farm
Off-Farm Transportation Energy Used for O
 Transportation and
 Storage of Crops
 and for Transportation
 of Livestock
Food Processing Processing of Meat and O
 Poultry, Dairy Products,
 Vegetable Oil Mills,
 Fruits and Vegetables.
 Breweries, and Other
 Food and Beverage Products

Note: (1.) X = Major emissions and O = Minor emissions

Estimated Emissions from the Agriculture and Agriculture and Agri-Food
Sector, 1990 and 2010, by Type Emission Activities, Canada

 Level in 1990
Emissions Source ([CO.sub.2]-Eq Mt)

Crop Production 17.3
Livestock Production 30.3
Indirect Emissions 9.6
Farm Level Energy Use 8.1
Soil Carbon Sequestration --
Agro-forestry (1) and Other Agroecosystems -0.3
Farm Level Emissions 65.0
Farm Inputs 19.0
Off-farm Transportation and Storage 1.3
Food Processing 4.6
Total Agriculture and Agri-Food Sector 89.8

 Level in 2010
Emissions Source ([CO.sub.2]-Eq Mt)

Crop Production 15.4
Livestock Production 35.6
Indirect Emissions 13.7
Farm Level Energy Use 8.1
Soil Carbon Sequestration -5.8
Agro-forestry (1) and Other Agroecosystems -0.4
Farm Level Emissions 66.6
Farm Inputs 21.6
Off-farm Transportation and Storage 2.0
Food Processing 7.1
Total Agriculture and Agri-Food Sector 97.3

 % Change
Emissions Source over 1990

Crop Production 11.0
Livestock Production 17.5
Indirect Emissions 42.7
Farm Level Energy Use 0
Soil Carbon Sequestration --
Agro-forestry (1) and Other Agroecosystems --
Farm Level Emissions 2.5
Farm Inputs 13.7
Off-farm Transportation and Storage 53.8
Food Processing 54.3
Total Agriculture and Agri-Food Sector 8.4

Note: (1.) Shelterbelts.

Source: CEEMA Estimates

Distribution of Major Gases in [CO.sub.2]-Eq Quantity at Various Levels
of Accounting, Canada, 1990 and 2010

Level of Aggregation Unit [CO.sub.2] [CH.sub.4]

1990 levels

Direct Farm MT * 13.0 20.9
 % of Total 20.0 32.1
AAFS MT * 29.5 26.6
 % of Total 32.8 29.6

2010 Levels

Direct Farm MT * 1.8 23.9
 % of Total 2.6 35.9
AAFS MT * 23.3 30.1
 % of Total 23.9 30.9

Relative Change in 2010

Direct Farm % of 1990 (86.5) 14.6
AAFS % of 1990 (20.9) 13.2

Level of Aggregation [N.sub.2]O Total

1990 levels

Direct Farm 31.1 65.0
 47.9 100.0
AAFS 33.8 89.8
 37.6 100.0

2010 Levels

Direct Farm 41.0 66.6
 61.5 100.0
AAFS 44.0 97.3
 45.2 100.0

Relative Change in 2010

Direct Farm 31.6 2.5
AAFS 30.1 8.4

Note: (1.) * = Megatonnes.

Source: CEEM Estimates.

Regional Distribution of GHG Emissions in 2010 and Changes since 1990

 Level of [CO.sub.2]-Eq. GHG Emissions
 in Megatonnes (1)

 Direct Farm Level AAFS
 With Without With Without
 Soil Sinks Soil Sinks Soil Sinks Soil Sinks

Atlantic 1.7 1.7 2.9 2.9
Quebec 7.7 7.7 9.1 9.1
Ontario 10.8 11.0 15.4 15.7
Prairies 43.6 49.1 66.7 71.2
BC 2.9 2.9 4.2 4.3
Canada (2) 66.6 72.5 97.3 103.2

 Change in 2010 over 1990 (%)
 Direct Farm
 Emissions AAFS
 With Without With Without
 Soil Sinks Soil Sinks Soil Sinks Soil Sinks

Atlantic 0.9 1.2 1.0 1.6
Quebec 0.4 0.5 5.2 5.2
Ontario -4.2 -2.2 6.6 8.0
Prairies 4.1 17.2 10.2 18.1
BC 12.4 15.4 15.8 17.8
Canada (2) 2.5 11.4 8.4 14.0

Note: (1.) A megatonne is one million tonne or one teragrams.

(2.) Numbers may not add due to rounding.

Source: CEEMA Estimates.

Estimated Kyoto Gap for the Direct Farm Level GHG Emissions, 2010, by

 Kyoto Gap in Kilotonnes of Kyoto Gap in
 Kilotonnes of
 GHSs in [CO.sub.2]-eq GHSs in
 at Farm Level under at AAFS Level under

 With Without With
Region Soil Sinks Soil Sinks Soil Sinks

Atlantic 114 125 200
Quebec 498 498 969
Ontario 202 417 1,815
Prairies 4,221 9,737 9,150
BC 467 542 799
Canada (1) 5,503 11,319 12,933

 Kyoto Gap in
 Kilotonnes of
 GHSs in
 at AAFS Level

Region Soil Sinks

Atlantic 181
Quebec 969
Ontario 2,031
Prairies 14,665
BC 874
Canada (1) 18,749

Note: (1.) Numbers may not add due to rounding

List of Study Mitigation Strategies by Areas

Area Strategy Acronym

Soil Nutrient Management 1. Matching fertiliser application SNM
 based on soil testing and reducing
 fall applications in the prairies
Soil Management 2. Adoption of zero and minimum SLM1
 till on farms
 3. Permanent cover program on the SLM2
 Prairies with adjustment in cattle
Grazing 4. Rotational and Complementary GRZ
 grazing; Reduced stocking rates
 on pastures
Feeding 5. Change diets for pigs, poultry FDG1
 and dairy cattle
 6. Improve forage quality for beef FDG2
Manure Management 7. Remove fall application of manur MNM1
 8. Cover manure tanks MNM2
Agro-Forestry 9. Increase shelterhelts to 1 % of AGF
 crop area in the Prairies

Assumptions Regarding the Change in the Tillage Systems in the Prairies
and Peace River region of B.C. under Strategy SLM1

 % of the Total Cropped Area for
Tillage System 2010 BAU Strategy SLM1

Zero Till 31 52
Minimum Till 37 25
Conventional Till 32 23

Total 100 100

Estimated Regional Changes in 2010 GHG Emissions at the Direct Farm
Level under Selected Mitigation Strategies (Kilotonnes [CO.sub.2]-Eq.)

 Atlantic Quebec
 With Without With Without
Mitigation Strategy Soil Sinks Soil Sinks Soil Sinks Soil Sinks

SNM -15 -13 0 0
SLM1 +1 +1 +2 +2
SLM2 -14 -15 -50 -50
GRZ -20 -2 -527 -527
FDG1 -30 -30 -224 -224
FDG2 +3 0 -5 -5
MNM1 -1 -1 -2 -2
MNM2 -40 -40 -393 -393
AGF +1 +1 +1 +1
Total of Strategies (2) -115 -99 -1,198 -1,198
% of the Kyoto Gap 101 79 240 240

 Ontario Prairies
 With Without With Without
Mitigation Strategy Soil Sinks Soil Sinks Soil Sinks Soil Sinks

SNM -151 -137 -734 -782
SLM1 -7 -7 -2,057 +204
SLM2 -25 -20 -19 +676
GRZ -332 -59 -1,434 +339
FDG1 -208 -213 -255 -247
FDG2 +91 +36 -140 -266
MNM1 -7 -12 -85 -86
MNM2 -331 -333 -543 -541
AGF +44 +54 -2,094 -2,220
Total of Strategies (2) -926 -691 -7,361 -2,923
% of the Kyoto Gap 458 166 174 30

 BC Canada
 With Without With Without
Mitigation Strategy Soil Sinks Soil Sinks Soil Sinks Soil Sinks

SNM -22 -20 -923 -954
SLM1 0 0 -2,061 +199
SLM2 -28 -31 -136 +559
GRZ -308 +80 -2,621 -170
FDG1 -25 -25 -742 -739
FDG2 +4 -2 -47 -237
MNM1 -1 -1 -97 -103
MNM2 -29 -29 -1,337 -1,337
AGF -15 -24 -2,063 -2,187
Total of Strategies (2) -424 -52 -10,028 -4,969
% of the Kyoto Gap 91 10 182 44

Note: (1.) A negative sign indicates that the strategy results in a
decrease in the regional GHG emissions relative to the 2010 BAU. In
contrast, a positive sign suggests an increase.

(2.) Numbers may not add up due to rounding.

Estimated Regional Changes in 2010 GHG Emissions at the AAFS Level

 Cumulative Change in
 Emissions (1) (Kilotonnes [CO.sub.2]-Eq.)
 With Without
Region Soil Sinks Soil Sinks

Atlantic -95 -79
Quebec -578 -578
Ontario -695 -461
Prairies -7,552 -3,115
BC -394 -21
Canada -9.314 -4.254

 Percent of the Kyoto Gap
 With Without
Region Soil Sinks Soil Sinks

Atlantic 56 44
Quebec 65 65
Ontario 42 24
Prairies 89 22
BC 52 3
Canada 86 27

Note: (1.) Assumes that all strategies have been adopted by farmers in
the region.

Effect of Adoption of Selected Mitigation Strategies on Emission from
the Agri-Food Activities, 2010

 Change in GHG Emissions in Kilotonnes
 [CO.sub.2] -Eq
Mitigation Strategy Atlantic Quebec Ontario

SNM -16 0 -57
SLM1 29 62 220
SLM2 7 28 56
GRZ 1 0 30
FDG1 1 11 16
FDG2 -1 -2 -5
MNR1 0 0 -2
MNR2 -1 -1 2
AGF -1 -3 -27

Total of Strategies 19 95 232

 Change in GHG Emissions in Kilotonnes
 [CO.sub.2] -Eq
Mitigation Strategy Prairies BC Canada

SNM -228 -11 -313
SLM1 210 48 569
SLM2 -96 -2 -7
GRZ 60 13 103
FDG1 6 0 33
FDG2 -3 1 -9
MNR1 -26 -1 -31
MNR2 -3 0 -2
AGF -109 -7 -147

Total of Strategies -189 40 196

Regional Mitigation Strategies for 2010 Categorised by the Cost per
tonne of GHG Reduction at the Direct Farm Level

 Strategies with Cost
 Win-win Strategies to the Producers

Strategy With Without With Without
Type Sinks Sinks Sinks Sinks

BC SLM2 (-$40) SNM (-$42) MNR2 ($7) MNR2 ($7)
 SNM (-$38) SLM2 (-$36) FDG1 ($146) AGF ($147)
 GRZ (-$2) AGF ($171) FDG1 ($152)
 MNR1 ($525) MNR1 ($552)
 FDG2 ($2072)

Prairies SLM2 (-$12815) SNM (-$78) MNR2 ($4) MNR2 ($4)
 SNM (-$84) AGF ($6) AGF ($5)
 GRZ (-$16) FDG1 ($56) FDG1 ($57)
 SLM1 ($74) FDG2 ($148)
 MNR1 ($242) MNR1 ($237)
 FDG2 ($282)

Ontario -- -- GRZ ($1) MNR2 ($6)
 MNR2 ($6) GRZ ($7)
 SNM ($34) SNM ($37)
 SLM2 ($40) SLM2 ($50)
 SLM1 ($56) SLM1 ($56)
 FDG1 ($57) FDG1 ($56)
 MNR1 ($143) MNR1 ($90)

Quebec SNM (-$3286) SNM (-$3286) GRZ ($2) GRZ ($4)
 SLM2 (-$199) SLM2 (-$199) MNR2 ($5) MNR2 ($5)
 FDG1 ($43) FDG1 ($43)
 MNR1 ($89) MNR1 ($89)
 FDG2 ($1243) FDG2 ($1243)

Atlantic SLM2 (-$176) SLM2 (-$155) MNR2 ($5) MNR2 ($5)
 GRZ (-$10) GRZ (-$102) FDG1 ($85) FDG1 ($ 85)
 SNM ($207) SNM ($207)

Canada SLM2 (-$1887) GRZ (-127) MNR2 ($5) MNR2 ($5)
 SNM (-$59) SNM (-$57) AGF ($6) AGF ($6)
 GRZ (-$8) FDG1 ($56) FDG1 ($57)
 SLM1 ($74) MNR1 ($215)
 MNR1 ($229) FDG2 ($238)
 FDG2 ($1194)


Strategy With Without
Type Sinks Sinks


Prairies -- SLM1

Ontario AGF AGF

Quebec SLM1 SLM1

Atlantic SLM1 SLM1

Canada -- SLM1

* Any policy views, whether explicitly stated, inferred or interpreted from the contents of this paper, should not be represented as reflecting the views of Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada.

Authors would like to express their gratitude to O. Bussler, C. Dauncey, R. Gill, and S. Waseen for their help in estimating components of the study model, and for performing simulations of study strategies. Thanks also due to Bob MacGregor for his timely advice on the directions of this project. Comments on an earlier draft of the paper received from Frank Millerd of the Wilfrid Laurier University are greatly appreciated.

(1.) An attempt is underway to divide Ontario into 10 regions. However, this process is not expected to be completed until 2002.

(2.) For crops, a primary collection point is a grain elevator. whereas for livestock products, such a point might be a local collection or processing point.

(3.) Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada initiated a series of research projects under the Green Plan. A summary of these projects can be found in Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (1997).

(4.) The assumption of uniform quantity of fertiliser application was translated into actual dose by adjusting actual fertiliser dose for each crop and each sub-region of the study by the level recommended by crop specialists. Adjustments were made on a region-specific basis for a given crop, following a certain rotation, and a tillage system. Thus, the uniform rate of fertilisation does not mean that all farmers in the region would apply an identical level of fertiliser.

(5.) These results should therefore be interpreted as minimum. If some of these measures were applied to the rest of Canada, reduction in GHG emissions would exceed the level shown here.


AAFC (Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada). 1996. Medium Term Baseline. Ottawa: Economic and Policy Analysis Directorate, Policy Branch.

Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada. 1997. Workshop on Greenhouse Gas Research in Agriculture. Proceedings of a Conference held at St. Foy, March 12-14. Ottawa.

Houghton, J.T., L.G. Meira Filho, B. A. Callander, N. Harris, A. Kittenberg and K. Maskell. 1996. Climate Change 1995: The Science of Climate Change. Contributions of Working Group I to the Second Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Houghton, J.T., L.G. Meira Filho, B. Lin, K. Treanton, I. Manaty, Y. Bonduki, D.G.J. Griggs and B.A. Callander. 1997. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Greenhouse Gas Inventory Reporting Instructions. Bracknell: IPCC WGI Technical Support Unit.

Jansen, H., R.L. Desjardins, R. Asselin and B. Grace. 1999. The Health of Our Air: Toward Sustainable Agriculture in Canada. Catalogue No. A53-1981/ 1998E. Ottawa: Research Branch, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada.

Jaques, A., F. Neitzert and P. Boileau. 1997. Trends in Canada's Greenhouse Gas Emissions (1990-1995). Ottawa: Pollution Data Branch, Air Pollution Prevention Directorate, Environment Canada.

Kulshreshtha, S.N., Bruce Junkins, J. C. Giraldez and R. L. Desjardins. 2000. "A Systems Approach to Estimation of Greenhouse Gas Emissions from the Canadian Agriculture and Agri-Food Sector". World Resources Review, 12: 321-337.

Mintzer, J.M. and J.A. Leonard. 1994. Negotiating Climate Change: The Inside Story of the Rio Convention. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Neitzert, F., K. Olsen and P. Collas. 1999. Canada's Greenhouse Gas Inventory: 1997 Emissions and Removals with Trends. Ottawa: Greenhouse Gas Division, Pollution Data Branch, Air Pollution Prevention Directorate, Environment Canada.

World Commission on Environment and Development. 1987. Our Common Future. New York: Oxford University Press.

KULSHRESHTHA, S.N., B. JUNKINS et R. DESJARDINS: La mitigation des emissions de gaz a effet de serre du secteur agricole et agro-alimentaire au Canada: une perspective regionale [Mitigation of Greenhouse Gas Emissions from the Agriculture and Agri-Food Sector in Canada: A Regional Perspective]. Le secteur agricole et agro-alimentaire (SAAA) contribue grandement aux emissions totales des gaz a effet de serre au Canada, avec environ 15 % du total.

[c] Canadian Journal of Regional Science/Revue canadienne des sciences regionales.
COPYRIGHT 2001 Canadian Journal of Regional Science
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2001 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Author:Kulshreshtha, S.N.; Junkins, B.; Desjardins, Ray
Publication:Canadian Journal of Regional Science
Geographic Code:1CANA
Date:Jun 22, 2001
Previous Article:Implicit prices for resource quality investments in Quebec's agricultural land market.
Next Article:Commercial Alternative Dispute Resolution in Cascadia *.

Related Articles
Agriculture has potential to reduce greenhouse gases. (Update).
Farmers must deal with gas emissions.
Integrating science to support sustainable agriculture.
Sector welcomes breathing space on greenhouse gas; Farming.
Converting to organic can 'help save world'.

Terms of use | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2019 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters