Agriculture and Kyoto

Agriculture and Kyoto - an Update
By Terry Daynard, OCPA Executive Vice-President

Canada agreed in December 1997 in Kyoto, Japan to reduce net greenhouse gas emissions by six per cent by 2008-2012, compared to 1990. While the agreement has not been formally endorsed by the Government of Canada, or any other country, intensive activity exists on how to meet the commitment.

The Climate Change Secretariat was created soon after Kyoto led by Davis Oulton, former assistant deputy minister of both Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (AAFC) and Natural Resources Canada (NRCan), to oversee the process. A large number of “tables” were created involving federal and provincial government reps, plus appointees from the private sector.

I serve on the “Sink Table,” created to consider how forests and agricultural soils could help meet Kyoto commitments by storing carbon as soil organic matter. Other important tables, from an OCPA perspective, are the Transportation Table and the Agriculture Table.

Fuel Ethanol
The Transportation Table considers vehicle emissions from fossil fuel combustion – representing a large percentage of Canadian carbon dioxide emissions – and is supposed to include renewable fuels in its deliberations. But despite requests from the Canadian Renewable Fuels Association, OCPA and Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, there is no representative for renewable fuels at this table, and references to renewable fuels in information provided by the table, to date, have been minimal.

Fortunately, other activities are in place to document the contribution of fuel ethanol to the Canadian objective. These include a major study in progress by Vancouver-based Levelton Engineering Ltd., funded by AAFC and NRCan. Previous studies have suggested a net benefit in the range of 25- to 60 per cent when a litre of corn-based ethanol replaces a litre of gasoline. Results of the current study – which will be much more specific to Canadian corn, ethanol, and the Canadian gasoline industry – should be completed in late summer. Hopefully, the present inattention by the Transportation Table not withstanding, fuel ethanol will figure significantly in the Canadian Kyoto strategy expected to be completed in late 1999 or 2000.

Agriculture Table
The Agriculture Table has been very busy. Its activities have involved limited consultation with farmers or farm groups not represented directly at the table. (The Canadian Federation of Agriculture representative at the table, also the table co-chair, has provided little information to other farm organizations. However, Dr. Les Haley from AAFC, the other co-chair, and the Canadian Cattlemen’s Association representative have provided more.) Despite communication problems, the Agriculture Table appears to be doing a good job in identifying sources and potential solutions.

The mandate of the Agriculture Table omits direct fossil fuel usage, for example, for farm tractor usage, heating of farm buildings, dryers, greenhouses, etc., and for transportation to and from farms. It also does not include the use of fossil energy for fertilizer manufacture. Fortunately, AAFC has gone beyond this and examined the broader agricultural picture; the results are presented in its top-rate publication, Health of our Atmosphere, released earlier in 1999 and reviewed in the Ontario Corn Producer. (For a free copy contact AAFC at telephone 613-759-6610, fax 613-759-6726, e-mail comeauu@em.agr.ca.)

Analyses by AAFC in Health of our Atmosphere show the agricultural greenhouse gas emission of greatest concern is nitrous oxide (from manure, legume crops, nitrogen fertilizers, and natural farm soil emissions) followed by methane (from manure and ruminant animals) and carbon dioxide. This partly stems from the fact that nitrous oxide and methane molecules have about 310 and 21 times (respectively) the greenhouse warming potential of carbon dioxide. Expressed in “carbon dioxide equivalents,” approximately half of the 92 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalents emitted by Canadian agriculture in 1996 was nitrous oxide and about one-quarter was each of methane and carbon dioxide. These estimates include fossil fuel usage on the farm and in manufacture of inputs. The corresponding numbers from the Agriculture Table, with its restricted mandate, show emissions being about two-thirds nitrous oxide and one-third methane – and negligible amounts of carbon dioxide.

Options being considered by the Agriculture Table for reductions include:

Increased usage of slow release nitrogen fertilizers, more research on other forms of N fertilizer (preliminary data suggest anhydrous ammonia may be worst and urea best of common ingredients), and more efficient fertilizing techniques (global positioning systems and better soil testing, as examples),
Better ground cover in winter/early spring (data from the universities of Guelph and Alberta show that most of the yearly nitrous oxide loss from soils occurs in early spring and is reduced with more ground cover), • More efficient ruminant feeding (data suggest methane loss is less from grain versus high-fibre rations; per cent of feed intake lost as methane is lower, though total daily losses are higher, with high-intake, high rate-of-gain rations), and ruminant additives, and,
Different manure handling techniques, though more research is needed before firm conclusions can be made (well-aerated composting, for example, means more loss of carbon dioxide but less methane, with one molecule of methane equaling 21 molecules of carbon dioxide in greenhouse heating potential).

The Agriculture Table is also looking at means to reduce fossil fuel usage, increase annual crop photosynthesis, increase perennial forage production (forages transfer more organic matter to roots than annual crops), increase the use of renewable fuels (making up, perhaps, for the lack of attention by the Transportation Table), and soil carbon sequestration (an overlapping area of interest with the Sink Table – see below).

Soil Carbon Sequestration
The Sink Table has been hampered by the fact that agricultural soil carbon sequestration was not part of the original Kyoto agreement. Canadian officials led by AAFC, with some support from Environment Canada, have been trying to correct this oversight. They’ve had limited success. The U.S. has provided good support lately, although this was not initially the case, but the Europeans, who are not into reduced tillage like North American farmers – and who see this as a ploy to give Canada and the U.S. an advantage – have been opposed. Countries have the right to include any activities which reduce/eliminate net carbon dioxide emissions from soils, but the opportunities are limited in Canada because organic matter levels in most Canadian soils are now believed to be at equilibrium after years of decline. Although forestry is recognized as a sink, most Canadian forests are excluded due to the way the agreement is written; the Kyoto emphasis is on reforestation or afforestation of lands not now growing trees. And the opportunities here for substantial sequestration are limited.

Another difficulty for agricultural soils is the paucity of research data from long-term tests – comparing conventional and no tillage for example – and the uncertainty of predictions about the potential for gains on various soil types. But there is optimism that agricultural soil sequestration will eventually be part of any long-term international agreement for reductions in net greenhouse gas emissions. Plans are being made accordingly.

The most exciting of these plans, from an Ontario perspective, involves reduced tillage. Reduced (no) tillage offers opportunities to increase soil organic matter and improve crop productivity, reduce soil erosion and save fuel and money.

According to current Sink Table calculations, soil carbon sequestration could be equivalent to about 20 million tonnes of carbon dioxide per year by about 2010, or about 22 per cent of present Canadian agriculture net emissions (see above). Soil sequestration associated with no tillage, alone, could be sufficient for Canadian agriculture to meet and surpass the Kyoto commitment – provided, of course, agricultural soil carbon sequestration is part of the deal.

Kyoto activities may represent a means of securing money for needed research on reduced tillage – just as is already occurring in Western Canada. How, for example, can we get corn to respond as well to no tillage as soybeans and winter wheat?

There is also interest in some quarters in opportunities for farmers to sell “carbon credits” associated with no tillage, though I personally am not enthusiastic about this since the amount of money is not likely to be large, and it may come with a lot of bureaucratic rules and procedures. And what happens if farmers are forced to till their ground for some reason, or can’t get it planted? Will the credits need to be repaid?

Nevertheless, if carbon credit trading becomes a reality and money changes hands as a result, farmers should have their opportunity to be on the receiving end. The downside is that a carbon credit trading regime may mean other farmers could have to pay for credits – for example, for expansion of livestock or fossil fuel consuming initiatives.

Canadian Strategy
The Government of Canada committed $150 million for Kyoto operations. Much is being used in funding the tables and for paying the myriad consultants which they have hired. But some of the money is available for “early action” initiatives. For example, Kyoto funds were used to help fund the Iogen ethanol-from-cellulose pilot plant at Ottawa, a $25-million venture ($10 million from Ottawa) designed to make ethanol from materials like corn stover. (Apparently Iogen has also contracted for the production of about 200 acres of switchgrass this summer, as feedstock for ethanol production. That should be interesting.)

Agriculture and food (including ethanol and sink activities) will likely be a small part of any future Canadian Kyoto strategy. The big issue is fossil fuel usage for transportation and other purposes. The debate in this area rages around higher taxes (the environmentalists’ first choice) or other approaches involving superior technology (fuel cells, for example). But agriculture will be a player, and there are good opportunities for these to be exploited in concert with other improvements which we should do anyway (better manure and fertilizer management, greater energy efficiency, no tillage, fuel ethanol, as examples).

The greenhouse gas debate will likely heat up (pun intended) later this fall or next year when the Canadian government announces its strategy...likely to a chorus of environmentalists’ screaming “Not enough!” and energy companies predicting excessive hardships for us all. Stay tuned.