GREENHOUSE GASES
Agricultural Soils and Kyoto Commitments
By Terry Daynard, OCPA Executive Vice President

The international agreement to reduce net emissions of greenhouse gases, reached in Kyoto, Japan, in December 1997, effectively prevents countries from including the ability of agricultural soils to store increased amounts of carbon (i.e., as organic matter) in their national strategies to meet net greenhouse gas emission reduction targets by the year 2010. The agreement does allow the inclusion of forest “sink” capacity.

The reasons for this omission are several. They include opposition from European countries (who see this as “unfair advantage” for countries such as Canada and the U.S., with large agricultural land bases) and environmentalists (who see this as a means of reducing pressure on fossil fuel companies and users to reduce emissions), and, perhaps, some lack of aggressiveness on this issue by Canadian and American negotiators at Kyoto.

Canadian officials have cited difficulties in measuring current and future net emissions of carbon dioxide from agricultural soils as a reason for not including them in the international agreement on net emission reductions. However, there appear to be ways of doing this, and, in any case, the problem is no larger than in the case of other sinks (forests) or other greenhouse emission sources, such as landfill sites and emissions of methane from ruminant animals and of nitrous oxide from soils.

Farm and other agricultural groups have written many letters to Ottawa asking that this error be corrected, and more letters should be sent. In addition, we are getting support from other sources. A high-level, two-day conference was held on this subject in Calgary in late May 1998, organized by the Soil and Water Conservation Society (headquartered in Maryland), and co-funded by the Government of Alberta. Those in attendance included soil researchers in both Canada and the U.S., government, agriculture and environmental officials from both countries, and several Canadian farm leaders.

The message at Calgary was very clear: The potential exists for Canadian and U.S. soils to store additional carbon, equivalent to 25 per cent or more of Canada/U.S. Kyoto commitments for reductions. A conservative target is at least 10 per cent. The increased storage will come from no tillage and other practices including reduced summer-fallowing, different cropping practices, and higher crop yields. Researchers at the conference said there were reasonable methods for estimating annual gains in soil carbon levels from the use of these practices. There was considerable discussion on means for getting this potential recognized in the international agreement.

Another international meeting on greenhouse gas emissions occurred in Bonn, Germany in mid June. A more important meeting occurs this autumn. Hopefully this time, Canadian and U.S. negotiators will be more aggressive on the agricultural soil sink issue, and government agricultural officials in both countries will play a more prominent role.

While the rate of growth in usage of no tillage is similar in both Ontario and the Canadian Prairies, there is a much higher awareness of its relationship to net greenhouse gas emissions in the West. This is largely because of the efforts of TransAlta, an Alberta-based utility company. TransAlta has formed a cooperative effort with other Canadian utility companies, called GEMCo, and has initiated efforts, in cooperation with the Government of Alberta, soil conservation organizations in Saskatchewan and Alberta, and research stations of Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (AAFC) located at Lethbridge, Swift Current and Brandon, to promote no tillage and to estimate the amount of annual soil carbon storage associated with this technology across the Canadian Prairies.

Although Ontario Hydro is a member of GEMCo – and Ontario is a major net emitter of greenhouse gases – there has been no similar activity, or leadership, in this province. AAFC activities on soil and carbon storage seem to be focused primarily on Western Canada, as well. It is true that the acreage of farm soils is highest on the Canadian Prairies. But the potential annual per-acre production and storage of organic matter is much higher in southern Ontario. Efforts have begun to initiate “TransAlta”-type research and developmental work in Ontario, hopefully with the support of the governments of Ontario and Canada.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture was represented at the Calgary conference by the deputy undersecretary for policy (equivalent to an assistant deputy minister in Canada). He announced that the department considers this issue to be so important that it has created a special office on agriculture climate change, led by Dr. Margot Anderson who reports directly to the secretary and undersecretary (equivalent to minister and deputy minister). AAFC has recently appointed Dr. Les Haley, former principal of the Nova Scotia Agricultural College and former deputy minister of agriculture in Nova Scotia, on an interim basis, to coordinate departmental activities in this area. Members of a new national “table” on agriculture and climate change may be appointed by late June.

Further, from Ottawa comes news that the $150 million announced in the 1998 federal budget for greenhouse gas related initiatives will go to the departments of Environment and Natural Resources. We had hoped that the government would see fit to allocate some to AAFC, especially if agriculture can represent at least 10 per cent of the “solution.” (Federal data suggest that agriculture might also represent up to 10 per cent of the “problem” through the use of fossil fuels, and emissions of methane and nitrous oxide.)

In all of the above, it should be noted that the drive is not coming from any widespread fear that global warming will cause major damage to Canadian (and U.S.) agriculture. Rather, if countries have made commitments for longer-term reductions, then agricultural soils – and other changes in agricultural technology which could reduce net emissions and improve the efficiency of input usage – represent a cost-effective means of helping to meet these international commitments.

Stay tuned. And keep those letters flowing to Ottawa!

1