Research Session n 1. How could the agricultural sector become more conducive towards climate change mitigation and adaptation?

Transcription

1 Research Session n 1 How could the agricultural sector become more conducive towards climate change mitigation and adaptation? Paper written by the Canadian delegation Sean Lemon (University of Toronto) Camille Parrod (University of Ottawa) February 28th 2012

2 CANADIAN DELEGATION "How could the agricultural sector become more conducive towards climate change mitigation and adaptation?" 1. State of Agricultural Sector in Canada The Agricultural sector in the economy The agriculture and agri-food system continues to play an important role in the federal and provincial economies, making a significant contribution to Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and employment. In 2008, it directly provided one in eight jobs and accounted for 8.1% of total GDP. While primary agriculture accounts for a small share of the total economy, it is at the heart of the agriculture and agri-food system. Any changes in commodity markets can therefore have impacts on the performance of primary agriculture and the whole supply chain 1. Repartition of agricultural lands Canada s total land mass covers 9,093,507 square kilometers, however not all of it is farmable land because of the soil and climate conditions. Only approximately 7 % of the land (636,545 square kilometers) can be farmed with current technologies, most of it in the western region with 82 % across the southern part of the three Prairie Provinces. Most of the agricultural lands of the Prairie Provinces are dominated by primary agricultural production including bulk grains and oilseeds such as wheat, barley, and canola; livestock such as cattle, pigs and horses; and hay production for animal feed. The other significant region is situated in eastern Canada, and though there is substantially less agricultural land, it has a higher number of individual farm operations engaged in value-added" agri-food production such as the processing of milk from dairy cows into cheese and yogurt, and the processing of fruits and vegetables into canned and frozen foods, jams, juices and wines 2. 1 Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Government of Canada, Overview of the Canadian Agriculture and Agri-Food System 2009, online: < 2 Government of Canada, Fifth National Communication on Climate Change, Actions to Meet Commitments Under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, Submitted to the UNFCCC Secretariat on February 12th, 2010, online: < 2

3 2. Canadian Agriculture s Contributions to Climate Change Source: Environment Canada 3 The national GHG emissions inventory 4 The legislative authority for Environment Canada responsible for establishing the national system and to designate Environment Canada s Greenhouse Gas Division is The Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 (CEPA 1999). The Greenhouse Gas Division is the single national entity with responsibility for the preparation and submission of the national inventory to the UNFCCC. In 2007, the agricultural GHG emissions had increased of 11 Mt since 1990 with a total of 60 Mt; this amount represented approximately 8 % of total 2007 GHG emissions for Canada. All these emissions are from non-energy sources, and can be listed as follows: Livestock emissions (i.e. enteric fermentation from domestic animals and manure management) accounted for 51% of the Agriculture Sector s total GHG emissions in 2007; Direct and indirect N2O emissions (agricultural soil emissions) accounted for about 49% of the Agriculture Sector s total GHG emissions in 2007; CH4 accounted for about 43% of sectoral 2007 emissions. Also, the trends in the period from 1990 to 2007 can be listed as follows: CH4 emissions from enteric fermentation increased by approximately 34%; Emissions from manure management systems 32%; Soil N2O emissions by approximately 14%. 3 Environment Canada, Government of Canada, A Climate Change Plan for the Purposes of the Kyoto Protocol Implementation Act, May 2010, online: < D11C62D954FD/KPIA_2010.pdf>. 4 Government of Canada, Fifth National Communication on Climate Change, Actions to Meet Commitments Under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, Submitted to the UNFCCC Secretariat on February 12th, 2010, online: < 3

4 The cause for such increases was linked to the expansion of the beef cattle and swine populations, combined with an increase in the consumption of synthetic nitrogen fertilizer. Additionally, Desjardins & al. (2005) also identifies the main Canadian agriculture emissions 5 : For carbon dioxide (CO2): breakdown of soil organic carbon, consumption of fossil fuels, use of synthetic pesticides and fertilizers; For methane (CH4): liquid manure tanks, livestock; For nitrous oxide (N2O): inefficient, ineffective or inappropriate use of nitrogen fertilizers resulting in significant nitrogen release to water and air. N2O and CH4 are priorities for reduction, since agricultural soils are now thought to be net CO2 sinks but N2O and CH4 emissions continue to rise (Desjardins et al., 2005). Forty-two percent of GHG emissions were associated with the livestock sector (Agriculture and Agrifood Climate Change Table, 2000), particularly, most CH4 emissions, which are associated with animal digestion (almost all of it from beef and dairy) and manure management (also N2O and CO2 emissions). The most significant emissions from the cropping sector are associated with synthetic nitrogen fertilizer (12 Mt CO2e in 1996 and now higher) Agricultural Sector s Mitigation Strategies for GHG Emissions In Canada, the agriculture sector contributes about 10% to national emissions, excluding GHG emissions from the use of fossil fuels or from fertilizer production 7. This fact pushes the necessity and importance of mitigation measures in the agricultural sector, in order for Canada to comply with its international commitment of achieving Kyoto targets (reducing its GHG emissions) 8 and more generally, its commitment to act in the fight against climate change effects and promote a sustainable development. Under the Kyoto Protocol Implementation Act (KPIA) 9, the government is required to prepare and publish annual plans on climate change that state its levels of GHG emissions and the actions it is prepared to take in order to mitigate climate change effects. The objective of the Act is to ensure that Canada meets its obligations as stated under the Kyoto Protocol. It also requires that the government provide information on its national GHG emissions inventory, and monitors the effects of policies and measures to reduce emissions as described in its plans. The monitoring procedure includes information on the amount of emission reductions that have resulted or are expected to result for each year up to including 2012, compared to the levels in the most recently available emission inventory. Further mitigation measures undertaken by the federal government include mitigation policies, financial aid for research programs, and economic incentives. Respectively, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (AAFC) has a Mitigation program which encourages voluntary adoption of GHG Mitigation practices on farms; research programs on ways to 5 R.J. Macrae & al., Improving Energy Efficiency and GHG Mitigation Potentials in Canadian Organic Farming Systems (2010) 34 Journal of Sustainable Agriculture , at p Ibid. 7 Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Government of Canada, Climate Change, online: < 8 Note: the fact that Canada is withdrawing from the Kyoto Protocol at the end of the first commitment period (2012) does not mean that the obligations for the first commitment period do not apply to Canada. Also, the Kyoto Protocol Implementation Act (2007) is a national law passed by the Parliament, thus it is legally binding and will apply even when Canada will not be part of the Kyoto Protocol anymore. 9 Kyoto Protocol Implementation Act, SC 2007, c

5 reduce GHG emissions from the agricultural sector (reduce the energy intensity from crop production systems, enhance biological sinks and bio-energy capacity such as methane capture) receive financial aid from the government; and a domestic offset trading system was designed to encourage soil C sequestration and emission reductions 10. These will be exposed in the following sections, which resumes information from the government s Fifth National Communication on Climate Change to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change secretary, and from AAFC. Federal Sectoral Policies and measures (agriculture, forest and waste management) The Government of Canada s Fifth National Communication of Climate Change reports the following initiatives (Government of Canada, 2010): Biofuels Capital Initiative Provides repayable contributions for the construction or expansion of transportation biofuel production facilities. Funding is conditional upon agricultural producer investment in the biofuel projects, and the use of agricultural feedstock to produce the biofuel. 8 projects approved totalling $46M. Biofuels Opportunities for Producers Initiative Helped farmers and rural communities hire experts to assist in developing business proposals and feasibility and other studies that were necessary to create and expand biofuels production capacity by agricultural producers. Program closed in $18.7M provided to 120 projects. Agriculture Bioproducts Innovation Program Seeks to mobilize Canada s creative talent in academia and in the private and public sectors and to integrate resources to build greater research capacity in agricultural bioproducts and bioprocesses. 9 research networks have received funding totaling $68.3M. The National Carbon and Greenhouse Gas Accounting and Verification System (NCGAVS) NCGAVS provides an increased ability to assess and report on the agricultural sector s environmental performance with respect to soil carbon and greenhouse gases. The purpose of this is to provide and improve the scientific basis for performance measurement and reporting of the Canadian agricultural sector s greenhouse gas footprint. BIMAT Biomass Inventory Mapping and Analysis Tool Provides producers of bio-products with the types, quantities and qualities of biomass available by location to make effective use of this material. Accessible over the Internet, it offers interactive queries and thematic maps that can guide users to sources in Canada of precisely the kinds and amounts of feedstocks they need for their processing plants. 11 Moreover, AAFC identified the following key sectors for a sustainable agriculture, and designed a Mitigation program as follows 12 : 10 P. Smith & al., Policy and technological constraints to implementation of greenhouse gas mitigation options in agriculture (2007) 118 Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 6 28, at p Government of Canada, Fifth National Communication on Climate Change, Actions to Meet Commitments Under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, Submitted to the UNFCCC Secretariat on February 12th, 2010, online: < 12 Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Government of Canada, Climate Change, online: < 5

6 Soil Conservation (through adequate tillage and seeding, forage) Land Use Conversion and Land Use Enhancements Tree planting on Agricultural Lands Fertilizer Management Irrigation Practices Grazing Management Manure and Nutrient Management Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada s Mitigation Program 13 Initiatives led by AAFC include the following: Understanding nitrogen and carbon dynamics in relation to GHG emissions and removals in agricultural systems; Understanding and evaluating the influence of agricultural land management on soil carbon reservoirs; Mitigation of methane emissions in ruminants using dietary and management strategies; Understanding the nitrous oxide mitigation potential of legumes in no-till cropping systems; Research, development and implementation of measurement technologies of enteric methane production from cattle to develop emission factors; Modeling climate impacts on crop biomass production and net GHG emissions and removals; Modeling of global change impacts to understand how drivers, such as bioenergy policy and climate change will influence agricultural land use and land management systems; Examination of the impacts of climate change, climate variability and water resources on annual crop production potential; Development of ecological models to determine risks and benefits of woody perennial crops under climate change; Assessment of water and nutrient management in an era of scare resources; and Identifying climate trends and their relationship to changes in land use and land management Ibid. 14 Ibid. 6

7 Programs/tools Actions/recommendations National Carbon and Greenhouse Gas Accounting and Verification System (NCGAVS) Research and development for annual reporting of greenhouse gas emissions and removals from agriculture (funded by AAFC s Growing Forward initiative) Holos (farm-level tool) Estimation of the mitigation potential of changes in agricultural practices Information for users on the ways changes to a farming system can influence carbon and GHG costs and benefits Publication of Better Farming, Better Air: A scientific analysis of farming practice and greenhouse gases in Canada (Janzen et al, eds.) 15, provides a summary of agriculture GHG mitigation and adaptation information resulting from climate change research programs since 2000 Growing Forward (AAFC s new policy framework) Funding of the NCGAVS Includes the program Sustainable Agriculture Environmental Systems (SAGES) that focuses on agriculture s contribution to clean water and clean air, by: o supporting development of science required to maintain effective environmental programs and policies and to address crosscutting issues such as climate change, water management, and geospatial technology development o seeking to improve understanding of processes and mechanisms by which agricultural practices affect water quality (nutrients, contaminants), and affect or is affected by climate change drivers and outcomes 15 Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Better Farming, Better Air: A scientific analysis of farming practice and greenhouse gases in Canada, Janzen et al, eds.: March 2008, online: < 7

8 Further Mitigation Possibilities Canadian governments, like many others around the world, have recently embraced biofuels as a seemingly win-win opportunity to address policy challenges, including climate change, rural development, and diversification of energy supply. The Canadian government has a 5 % biofuel target by 2010, and 2 % for diesel fuel and heating oil by 2012 (Environment Canada, 2009). However, much has yet to be considered in order to effectively reduce GHG emissions, such as: a life-cycle analysis of all GHG emitted during the production cycle of biofuels that are not compensated in other ways; a global land-use change analysis; transportation distances and the costs associated with this; the cost-effectiveness of public financing; etc. Desjardins & al. (2001) 16 examine seven options (potential of agricultural soils to sequester carbon based on agricultural practices such as reduced tillage, reduced summer fallow, increased use of forage crops; impact of management strategies to reduce N2O emissions; strategies to reduce CH4 emissions from livestock; increased animal and crop production efficiency) and their potential to contribute to the reduction of GHG emissions from the agricultural sector. From their study, it appears that agricultural soils could be a sink for about 17.6 Tg CO2/y by This would be enough for the sector to meet its commitment to reduce greenhouse gas emissions if sinks were included in the Kyoto Accord. However, if we also consider N2O and CH4 emissions, it appears that the options examined would only allow the Agriculture and Agri-Food sector to meet its greenhouse gas reduction commitment for on- farm emissions but not the commitment for the whole agricultural sector. There are, however, many options that have not been fully explored. Smith & al. (2007) believe that global sharing of innovative technologies for efficient use of land resources and agricultural chemicals, to eliminate poverty and malnutrition, will significantly mitigate GHG emissions from agriculture 17. The IISD (Murphy et al, 2010) summarizes key issues for the agricultural sector that are to be considered for a sustainable agriculture in Canada: Achieving emission reduction potential in the Canadian agricultural sector will require policies to encourage carbon soil sequestration and reductions in the livestock sector. A national emission trading system could stimulate beneficial management practices for carbon sinks and emission reductions by offering economic return through the sale of offsets. An effective regulatory policy, including a cap-and-trade system, is needed to stimulate reductions in the agricultural sector. The design of a national emissions trading system will impact the agricultural sector. Agricultural offsets are likely to be included and would require robust standards and protocols to ensure the integrity of credits, highlighting the need for research and development programs. Leaving the operation of the carbon market to the private sector might lessen the perception that offset mechanisms are a subsidy under WTO rules. Options to address the 25-year liability issue, a concern of many in the agricultural sector, include the VCS and Alberta protocols that create permanent credits and thus no buyer or seller liability, and the establishment of an insurance or risk-sharing scheme by the Canadian private sector. 16 R. Desjardins & al., Canadian greenhouse gas mitigation options in agriculture (2001) 60 Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems , at p P. Smith & al., Policy and technological constraints to implementation of greenhouse gas mitigation options in agriculture (2007) 118 Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 6 28, at p. 6. 8

9 The Canadian system should allow access to international credits from developing countries in the LULUCF sector through the CDM or other market mechanisms that may be agreed to under a new international climate change agreement. This will encourage private sector financial flows to developing countries in sectors that generate significant co-benefits. International agreement on stringent targets should generate sufficient demand for both Canadian and international agricultural offsets. Offsets should be constrained through robust standards for projects, not by having lax standards and then limiting through arbitrary caps (such as allowing no offsets from CDM projects in the LULUCF sector). Linkages with the American system are an important consideration in Canadian policy design, but foremost for the agricultural sector should be the development of effective and efficient policies that achieve Canadian goals. The impact of the technology fund and an emissions-intensity target for oil sands producers on agricultural offsets needs study. The fund and intensity target potentially could limit options for linking and lessen demand for agricultural offsets, but this requires further analysis. The bioenergy sector has considerable potential in Canada, especially for cellulosic ethanol, and can provide economic return to the Canadian agricultural sector. Welldesigned policy should consider impacts of food security as well as cost effectiveness and promote those biofuels that provide the greatest GHG reductions at the lowest cost. The design of Canadian policy to encourage emission reductions in the agricultural sector will need to account for WTO rules and potential conflicts. As long as Canadian policies combine best practice promotion with subsidy systems that encourage positive change, they should be consistent with WTO rules. The most likely area of conflict is subsidies for biofuels, where the interaction between biofuel subsidies and other emission reduction incentives could create a trade-distorting impact. Careful policy design is needed to avoid interference with global market access and development. Support for research and development and awareness-raising for farmers is important. Some gaps in the research identified in this paper include: biofuels life-cycle assessment, specific climate change impacts on Canadian agriculture to identify opportunities and threats to competitiveness, impacts of linked emission trading systems on the agricultural sector, and the economic impacts of GHG regulations on farmers Impact of Climate Change on Agricultural Sector The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) projects mean global temperatures to rise between 1.4 C and 5.8 C during the current century 19. Based on Canada s high latitude, the warming effect will likely be more pronounced. While the impacts will vary at a regional scale, northern Canada and the southern and central Prairies will likely experience the greatest temperature increases. Climate change is expected to result in warmer temperatures, an increased frequency of extreme climatic events (i.e. droughts, floods, and storms), enhanced atmospheric concentrations of CO 2, reduced snow cover, greater ultraviolet radiation, strong winds, and wetter or drier conditions (depending on the region). Of these projected changes, an increase in the frequency and intensity of extreme events, poses the greatest threat to Canada s agricultural sector. Box 1 highlights the impact of the Canadian drought that 18 D. Murphy, M. McCandless & J. Drexhage, The emerging international climate change regime: opportunities and challenges for the Canadian agricultural sector, Winnipeg, Man. : International Institute for Sustainable Development, May 2010, at pp Lemmen, D.S., Warren, F.J., editors (2004). Climate change impacts and adaptation: A Canadian perspective. Government of Canada, Ottawa ON. 9

10 occurred in ; an example of the devastating consequences such events can have on the provincial agriculture industry. Box 1: Case Study The Impact of Drought in Canada 20 The first coast-to-coast Canadian drought on record occurred in It was concentrated in the West (particularly Alberta and Saskatchewan), but also affected parts of Eastern Canada and the northern agricultural prairies, which were less accustomed to dealing with droughts. The economic, social, and environmental impacts were staggering. Over the two-year period, agricultural production dropped an estimated $3.6 billion, GDP fell $5.8 billion, and employment losses exceeded 41,000 jobs. For the first time in 25 years, net farm income was negative or zero for several provinces. Crop production losses were devastating for a wide variety of crops and livestock production became difficult due to the scarcity of feed and water resources. Other long-term impacts included soil damage by wind erosion, deterioration of grasslands, and herd reductions. Climate change will have positive and negative impacts on the Canadian agriculture industry. The net impact will vary by region and will ultimately depend on a range of factors, including the nature of climate change, the characteristics of the farming system, the adaptation measures adopted, and the response of different groups. Table 1 outlines the major biophysical changes that are projected to occur in Canada over the next 50 years as a result of climate change. For each change, the associated benefits and challenges to the agriculture sector are noted. Table 1: Impacts of Climate Change on Canadian Agriculture 21 Biophysical Changes Positive Impacts Negative Impacts Increased mean More crop options temperatures More crops per year Improved crop quality Shifts to earlier spring and later fall growth pesticide efficacy Increased frequency and duration of hot spells (drought) Increased frequency of cold spells Accelerated maturation rates and lower yields Increased insect activity Reduced herbicide and Decreased heating costs Increased ventilation for barns More cooling shelters and air conditioning Heat stress to plants and animals Increased transpiration rates can reduce yields Increased need for water for cooling and drinking Risk of desertification Decreased heat stress to animals Increased winter kill potential 20 Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Government of Canada. Lessons learned from the Canadian drought years 2011 and , online: < &lang=eng>. 21 Lemmen, D.S., Warren, F.J., Lacroix, J., and Bush, E., editors (2008). From impacts to adaptation: Canada in a changing climate Government of Canada, Ottawa ON. 10

11 Reduced moisture soil Increased frequency of extreme precipitation events Reduced snow cover Increased speeds wind Changes in solar radiation Increased dioxide carbon Decreased snow plowing Longer grazing season Greater dispersion of air pollution Decreased radiation may partially offset heat stress Increased plant productivity (depending on other limits) Increased moisture stress to crops Decreased water availability More flooding and erosion More difficult planning for extremes Decreased quantity and quality of water supplies Reduced stream flow in summer (high demand) Loss of small bodies of surface water Greater soil erosion of exposed soils Damage to plants and animals Increased radiation may reduce plant growth if thresholds are exceeded Possible reduced quality of yield 5. Agricultural Sector s Adaptation Strategies There are a variety of adaptation options the Canadian agriculture industry can adopt to help minimize the costs of climate change and maximize the potential benefits. Generally, these adaptation strategies can be organized into four broad categories: technological developments, government programs and insurance, farm production practices and farm financial management. Table 2-5 highlight key adaptation options for each strategy and their associated benefits drawn from Dolan & al. (2001). 22 (See Table 2 next page) 22 Dolan A.H. & al. (2001). Adaptation to climate change in agriculture: evaluation of options. University of Guelph, Department of Geography, Occasional Paper

12 Table 2: Technological Developments Strategy Design and introduce hybrid crop species Use biotechnology and soil organisms to enhance soil resilience Use windbreaks to modify wind flow, control the distribution and position of snow accumulation and improve snow management Increase equipment maintenance Develop weather and climate information systems Develop regional-level water management innovations Develop farm-level resource management innovations to address the risk associated with changing temperature, moisture and other relevant climatic conditions Benefits Development of new heat- and drought-resistant crop varieties will help adapt to warmer temperatures Improved soil resilience can mitigate the impact of soil erosion during drought-like conditions Low density windbreaks spread snow across crop fields, providing additional moisture for the soil and increasing productivity High density windbreaks positioned on the windward side of stock ponds deposit snow in the pond area, providing significant amounts of water for summer use by livestock High density windbreaks can also provide protection for livestock (reducing mortality of newborns) Improved snow management can offset moisture losses due to climate change and increase available water supplies Living snow fences (trees, shrubs) provide additional benefits in the form of soil erosion control, habitats for wildlife, and sinks for carbon Investing in the maintenance and upkeep of equipment (i.e. water pipes, irrigation equipment) reduces water waste, helping to offset potential shortages during arid summer conditions Early warning systems that provide daily or weekly weather predictions can help farmers coordinate the timing of their operations (planting, spraying, harvesting) more efficiently Seasonal forecasts (i.e. estimates of the likelihood of conditions associated with drought or El Nino) can help improve risk assessment, production decisions, and financial management The development and modification of irrigation systems, water transfers, water diversions, and desalinization technologies can help farmers adapt to changing regional precipitation patterns Mechanical innovations (i.e. integrated drainage systems, land contouring, reservoirs and recharge areas, alternative tillage systems) can address the risk of moisture deficiencies or surpluses in the face of changing climatic patterns and more frequent extreme weather events 12

13 Table 3: Government Programs and Insurance Strategy Modify agricultural subsidy and support programs Increase private insurance options Develop and implement resource management programs Benefits Modifying crop insurance programs to cover climate-related losses can help improve farm-level risk management Increased investment in established income stabilization programs can mitigate climate-related income loss Provision of subsidy, support and incentives can encourage farmers to adopt farm-level adaptations Developing private insurance to reduce climaterelated risks associated with farm-level production, infrastructure and income can help offset income losses and facilitate investment in adaptation strategies Soil and water conservation programs can help farmers reduce the impact of droughts and water shortages on their production activities Table 4: Farm Production Practices Strategy Diversify types and varieties of crops and livestock Benefits Allows farmers to substitute crops and livestock to address the environmental variations and economic risks associated with climate change Adjust land use patterns Changing the location of crop and livestock production can mitigate against variations in temperature, precipitation, wind and snow cover Using alternative fallow and tillage practices can help address moisture and nutrient deficiencies Changing land topography can reduce moisture deficiencies and reduce the risk of income loss due to recurring drought Adjust irrigation and water management systems Change timing of farm operations Implementing centre-pivot irrigation systems and low-pressure application devices can improve efficiency and reduce water loss Off-stream reservoirs can help adapt to seasonal variations in supply and demand of water Adapting the timing of farm operations to match the changing duration of growing seasons and associated changes in temperature and moisture can help maximize optimal growing conditions and minimize adverse impacts of drought 13

14 Table 5: Farm Financial Management Strategy Invest in financial instruments (i.e. crop insurance, weather derivatives, and income stabilization programs) Benefits The use of financial instruments can help hedge against unexpected variations in climatic conditions Diversify household income Diversifying household income can help hedge against climate-related income losses Criteria for Evaluating Agricultural Adaptation Options As Tables 2-5 show, adaptation in the agricultural sector will require cooperation and collaboration between a variety of actors (i.e. farmers, local, provincial and federal governments, regional agencies and cooperatives, and insurance providers). For these actors, there is a range of mitigation options and strategies available to address the climatic variability posed by climate change. In order to prioritize these strategies and develop an effective action plan, adaptation measures should be compared using a set of evaluation criteria. Below is a list of six key criteria that Dolan & al. (2001) suggest governments should consider when weighing policy decisions regarding agricultural adaptation. 23 Effectiveness an adaptation option is more favourable if it is more effective at reducing vulnerability to climate change risks. Economic efficiency an adaptation option is more favourable if the economic benefits exceed the economic costs (or if the implementation costs are less than the potential damages avoided). Flexibility an adaptation option is more favourable if it reduces vulnerability to risks of climate change under a range of projected climate scenarios. Institutional capacity an adaptation option is more favourable if it is consistent with existing laws, regulations and institutional structures. Farmer implementability an adaptation option is more favourable if it is more feasible to implement, given farmer decision-making, technical and managerial ease, and acceptability within existing social norms. Independent benefits an adaptation option is more favourable if it generates greater spinoff benefits (benefits independent of reducing risk associated with climate change). Examples of Canadian Adaptation Initiatives Droughts have been a serious concern for Canadian farmers for the past century. To help farmers mitigate the impacts of high temperatures, water shortages and soil erosion, and adapt their production activities to a more arid climate, several provincial and federal programs have been established. Below is a list of some of the more influential programs and a brief description of their activities. Rural Water Development Program 24 The Rural Water Development Program was initiated as a co-operative venture between The Manitoba Water Services Board (MWSB) and Federal Agriculture and Agri-Food, during the droughts of the 1980s. Regional water systems, with rural water pipelines, offer a safe, cost effective solution to drought proofing agro-manitoba. The rural water systems provide 23 Dolan A.H. & al. (2001). Adaptation to climate change in agriculture: evaluation of options. University of Guelph, Department of Geography, Occasional Paper Manitoba Water Services Board, Rural Water Development Program, January 2010, online: < 14

15 potable water to farmers, rural residents and small communities, to meet their domestic and livestock needs. National Water Supply Expansion Program (NWSEP) 25 The NWSEP was a federal initiative under the Agriculture Policy Framework (APF). The program supported the Environment element of the APF through development, enhancement and protection of vital water resources to help address water constraints in agricultural areas of Canada. A national program, the goal of the NWSEP was to provide technical and financial assistance to Canadian producers to help develop, protect and enhance long-term agricultural water supplies. Canadian Agricultural Income Stabilization (CAIS) Program 26 As specified in the CAIS Program Handbook, the CAIS Program provides agricultural producers with income protection against both large and small declines in farm income by offering them funding in years where their production margin falls below their reference margin. The CAIS program is part of the Business Risk Management section of the APF. CAIS combines income stabilization assistance and disaster assistance into one comprehensive program. CAIS is built on the philosophy that governments and producers share in the cost of replacing lost income. Producers share the cost by paying an annual participation fee and by absorbing a portion of their lost income themselves. For smaller losses, governments and producers shoulder the loss equally. As losses deepen, the percentage of the government s share increases to four times the producer share. CAIS measures lost income by comparing the current or program year income of a farm to its historic income. Program year income is measured using a production margin, which is the result of deducting direct production expenses from farm sales. Historic income, known as the reference margin, is based on the previous five-year production margin history. When a producer s program year income falls below his/her historic income, benefits are triggered. Benefits are based on the magnitude of the margin decline and the producer s selected coverage level. Agri-Environment Services Branch (AESB) 27 According to the AESB website, the AESB is an integration of three existing components Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Administration (PFRA), National Land and Water Information Service (NLWIS) and Agri-Environmental Policy Bureau (AEPB) to address Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (AAFC)'s agri-environmental issues. The AESB has a commitment to an integrated approach to sustainable agriculture in Canada, which recognizes that environmentally responsible agriculture and competitive agriculture are part of an integrated system. The Branch brings ideas to the table and solutions to the sector, helping the sector make the best possible decisions for the environment. This includes finding new opportunities and enabling innovation, favoring a voluntary stewardship approach, and improving the public image of the sector. 25 Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Government of Canada. National water supply expansion program. 2009, online: < 26 Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Government of Canada. Canadian agricultural income stabilization (CAIS) program handbook. 2011, online: < 27 Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Government of Canada. Agri-environment services branch online: < 15

16 National Soil Conservation Program (NSCP) 28 The NSCP was a three-year federal initiative that ran from According to the NSCP Final Report released in 1996, the overall purpose of the program was to encourage the implementation of appropriate soil resource management practices to maximize societal benefits and sustain the long-term productivity of the soil within practical economic limits and according to the soil's capability. Economic diversification was enhanced, where applicable, within the context of soil conservation activities. In Ontario, the NSCP had several components. Permanent Cover Component was developed to assist in the implementation of on-farm conservation measures by providing financial incentives for farmers to retire sensitive land. The "awareness" program fulfilled a much-needed educational aspect. The research and monitoring provided a much-needed feedback on the results of current practices and developmental methodologies to provide new ones. The program was a national initiative resulting from an increased awareness of the necessity of a coordinated approach from all levels of government to address the issue of soil conservation. This process resulted in an overall national review and consultations with provincial governments and farm organizations that were coordinated by the PFRA. Programs were outlined on a provincial basis according to individual requirements. Permanent Cover Program (PCP) 29 As specified in the NSCP Final Report, the PCP was developed to assist in the implementation of on-farm conservation measures by funding buffer strips along water courses, tree plantings on fragile land, and retirement of flood plains. There are three parts to this section of the program: education through demonstration sites, administration, and financial incentives for permanent cover. Up to $10,000 per farmer was available under this three-year program. Producers could receive funds for retiring and protecting fragile land, especially farmland adjacent to streams and open ditches. This protected land acts as a shield from land that is under agricultural production and helps reduce erosion and chemical runoff. Eligible projects included a number of program components, including 8 to 20 foot buffer strips with permanent grass and/or trees, enhanced buffers, block plantings of trees up to 20 acres on highly erodible and/or fragile land, and flood plains. Long-term agreements of 5, 10, 15 years were signed with recipients and over 90% of these were for 15 years. 28, 29 Government of Ontario. National soil conservation program in Ontario: Final report. 1996, online: < 16

17 Bibliography: The Kyoto Protocol Implementation Act, SC 2007, c. 30 Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Government of Canada, Climate Change, online: < Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Better Farming, Better Air: A scientific analysis of farming practice and greenhouse gases in Canada, Janzen et al, eds.: March 2008, online: < Environment Canada, Government of Canada, A Climate Change Plan for the Purposes of the Kyoto Protocol Implementation Act, May 2010, online: < D11C62D954FD/KPIA_2010.pdf> Environment Canada, Government of Canada, A Climate Change Plan for the Purposes of the Kyoto Protocol Implementation Act, May 2011, online: < D11C62D954FD/COM1410_KPIA%202011_e%20-%20May%2031%20v2.pdf> Government of Canada, Fifth National Communication on Climate Change, Actions to Meet Commitments Under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, Submitted to the UNFCCC Secretariat on February 12th, 2010, online: < R. Desjardins & al., Canadian greenhouse gas mitigation options in agriculture (2001) 60 Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems R.J. Macrae & al., Improving Energy Efficiency and GHG Mitigation Potentials in Canadian Organic Farming Systems (2010) 34 Journal of Sustainable Agriculture D. Murphy, M. McCandless & J. Drexhage, The emerging international climate change regime: opportunities and challenges for the Canadian agricultural sector, Winnipeg, Man. : International Institute for Sustainable Development, May 2010, 23 p. P. Smith & al., Policy and technological constraints to implementation of greenhouse gas mitigation options in agriculture (2007) 118 Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 6 28 Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Government of Canada. Lessons learned from the Canadian drought years 2011 and , online: < AAC/display-afficher.do?id= &lang=eng>. Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Government of Canada. National water supply expansion program. 2009, online: < Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Government of Canada. Canadian agricultural income stabilization (CAIS) program handbook. 2011, online: < AAC/display-afficher.do?id= &lang=eng>. Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Government of Canada. Agri-environment services branch online: < 17

18 Dolan A.H. et al. (2001). Adaptation to climate change in agriculture: evaluation of options. University of Guelph, Department of Geography, Occasional Paper 26. Government of Ontario. National soil conservation program in Ontario: Final report. 1996, online: < Lemmen, D.S., Warren, F.J., Lacroix, J., and Bush, E., editors (2008). From impacts to adaptation: Canada in a changing climate Government of Canada, Ottawa ON. Lemmen, D.S., Warren, F.J., editors (2004). Climate change impacts and adaptation: A Canadian perspective. Government of Canada, Ottawa ON. Manitoba Water Services Board, Rural Water Development Program, January 2010, online: < Smit B., Skinner M.W. (2002). Adaptation options in agriculture to climate change: A typography. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Climate Change. 7: