GHG EMISSIONS FROM AGRICULTURE Climate Change Workshop December 12, 2000

2 Background ã Kyoto Protocol - created need to estimate GHG emissions ã National GHG inventory ã Annual account of GHG emissions by sector ã Canadian Economic and Emissions Model for Agriculture (CEEMA) ã Emissions projections to the first commitment period ( ) and beyond ã Related systems - different function

3 Modelling Framework âCanadian Regional Agricultural Model - CRAM ãexisting policy analysis model ãpredicts level of agricultural activities âGreenhouse Gas Emissions module ã links agricultural activities to emission coefficients âCanadian Economic Emissions Model for Agriculture (CEEMA) ãintegrated model ãincorporates science with policy analysis âPrimary agriculture based on IPCC accounting and forward and backward linkages

4 Structure of CEEMA Canadian Regional Agriculture Model Economic Parameters Physical Conditions Technology Management Practices Greenhouse Gases Emissions Module Current Scientific Knowledge Economic Indicators Crop and Livestock Production Activities Emissions of Greenhouse Gases

5 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Module ãEstimates emissions of CO 2, CH 4 and N 2 O on a 100 year Global Warming Equivalent basis ãEmission coefficients based on: ã IPCC coefficients ã empirical information ã biophysical models (i.e., Century) ãDisaggregate approach ã by region, crop and livestock production activities ã source of GHG emissions ã CO 2, CH 4 and N 2 O GHG

6 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Module ãEstimated emissions = emission coefficient * production activity level ãFlexibility in method of summation: ãIPCC agriculture ãIPCC agriculture minus sinks ãtotal agriculture and agri-food sector

7 IPCC Accounting of the Agriculture and Agri-Food Sector

8 (cont’d)

9 Components of Greenhouse Gas Emissions Model Livestock Production Food Processing Other Agro-Ecosystem Emissions Crop Production Indirect Emissions Other Services Farm Inputs Transportation and Storage

10 Canadian Submission to the UNFCCC Proposals related to Kyoto Protocol Articles 3.3 & 3.4 ã Estimate scale of sink potential ã assigned amount (94%) ã 1996 ã 1999 ã 2008 to 2012 (1 st commitment period)

11 Canadian Submission to the UNFCCC (continued) ã Land based accounting ã cropland management ãfrequency of zero tillage ã frequency of summerfallow ã grazing land management ãconversion of cropland to permanent cover ã intensity of pasture and grazing land management ã shelterbelts âLow, medium, and high adoption rates

Key Assumptions Low adoption rate ãGeneral - relative to 1996 ãLand Base constant ãIncrease crop and hay yields on trend ãCosts increase based on FIPI ãCropland management ãZero tillage: held constant (17% of cropland) ãPrairie N Fertilizer use: increase 25% ãSummerfallow: 5 million ha ãGrazing land management ãBeef cows increase: west - 10%; east - 2% ãHogs increase: west - 31%; east - 8% ãReduced stocking rates and complimentary grazing on 25% of grazing land ã Shelterbelts - 2,880 ha/yr from 2000 to 2012

Key Assumptions Medium adoption rate ãRelative to low adoption scenario ãCropland management ãSummerfallow: 3 million ha ãZero tillage: increased on trend (30% of cropland) ãPrairie N Fertilizer use: increase of 10% on new ZT land ãGrazing land management ãPermanent cover increased by 1 million ha - Prairies ãBeef cows increase: west - 4.2%; east - 2% ãReduced stocking rates on 35% of native land in west ãComplimentary grazing on 35% of grazing land in west ã Rotational grazing ranged from 10% in west to 5% in east

Key Assumptions High adoption rate ãRelative to low adoption scenario ãCropland management ãZero tillage: increased to 50% of cropland on Prairies ãPrairie N Fertilizer use: increase of 10% on new ZT land ãSummerfallow: 3 million ha ãShelterbelts ã7,000 ha per year from 2000 to 2012

15 Change in Activity Levels

16 GHG Emissions- Cropland

17 GHG Emissions- Grazing land

18 CO 2 e Emissions Relative to 2010 BAU - Mitigation Scenarios

19 Key Messages ãImportance of soil sinks ãGHG reduction targets may be achievable through a series of actions based on existing technology ãTrade-off between GHG reduction scenarios ãMeasures to promote adoption of mitigation practices ãUncertainty of GHG coefficients

20 Acknowledgements ãSuren Kulshreshtha, Department of Agricultural Economics, U. of S. ãBruce Junkins, Policy Branch, AAFC ãRay Desjardins, Brian McConkey, Research Branch, AAFC

21 GHG Modeling Workshop ãDecember 9-10, 2000 ãHosted by Centre for Studies in Agriculture, Law and the Environment, U. of S ãSponsored by Prairie Adaptation Cooperative ã~90 participants

22 GHG Modeling Workshop ãGHG/climate change modeling in agriculture ãgreat deal of activity ãimportant because agriculture is biologically based - does not fit general energy-based models of most other sectors (Hanly - AMG work) ãinventory work (Desjardins) ãPolicy Branch - recognized early the need for predictive capability, mitigation studies

23 GHG Modeling Workshop ãTake-home messages ã Current focus - need to continue work on ã emission measurement ã reduce uncertainty ã better coefficients ã scaling-up from point/site measures to landscape and region ã refinement of process models

24 GHG Modeling Workshop ã Road ahead ã Link mitigation and adaptation scenarios to emission research ã Link climate change scenarios to mitigation research ã Develop measurement, verification and monitoring protocols for regional and national assessments ã Quantify uncertainty