Transcript PPT
GHG EMISSIONS FROM AGRICULTURE Climate Change Workshop December 12, 2000 Background Kyoto Protocol - created need to estimate GHG emissions National GHG inventory Annual account of GHG emissions by sector Canadian Economic and Emissions Model for Agriculture (CEEMA) Emissions projections to the first commitment period (2008 - 2012) and beyond Related systems - different function 2 Modelling Framework Canadian Regional Agricultural Model - CRAM existing policy analysis model predicts level of agricultural activities Greenhouse Gas Emissions module links agricultural activities to emission coefficients Canadian Economic Emissions Model for Agriculture (CEEMA) integrated model incorporates science with policy analysis Primary agriculture based on IPCC accounting and forward and backward linkages 3 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Module Estimates emissions of CO2, CH4 and N2O on a 100 year Global Warming Equivalent basis Emission coefficients based on: IPCC coefficients empirical information biophysical models (i.e., Century) Disaggregate approach by region, crop and livestock production activities source of GHG emissions CO2, CH4 and N2O GHG 5 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Module Estimated emissions = emission coefficient * production activity level Flexibility in method of summation: IPCC agriculture IPCC agriculture minus sinks total agriculture and agri-food sector 6 IPCC Accounting of the Agriculture and Agri-Food Sector Activity IPCC Agr. IPCC Land Use Changes IPCC — Energy Energy Use Transportation Manufacturing Sinks Farm — Direct Production Emissions — Crops Crop Residues N2O Fertilizer Use N2O CO2 CH4 N2O Fuel Use Manure Application N2O CH4 Nitrogen Fixing Crops N2O Soil Organic Matter CO2 CO2 Farm — Direct Production Emissions — Livestock Animals CH4 Stationary Combustion Manure Handling CO2 CH4 N2O N2O CH4 7 IPCC Accounting of the Agriculture and Agri-Food Sector Activity IPCC Land Use Changes IPCC — Energy IPCC Agr. Energy Use Transportation (cont’d) Manufacturing Sinks Other Sub-Sectors Indirect Emissions N2O CO2 CH4 N2O Transportation/Storage Food Processing CO2 CH4 N2O Prod. Related Services CO2 CH4 N2O Farm Inputs CO2 CH4 N2O Other Agroecosystem Components N2O CO2 CH4 CO2 8 Canadian Submission to the UNFCCC Proposals related to Kyoto Protocol Articles 3.3 & 3.4 Estimate scale of sink potential 1990 - assigned amount (94%) 1996 1999 2008 to 2012 (1st commitment period) 10 Canadian Submission to the UNFCCC (continued) Land based accounting cropland management frequency of zero tillage frequency of summerfallow grazing land management conversion of cropland to permanent cover intensity of pasture and grazing land management shelterbelts Low, medium, and high adoption rates 11 2008 - 2012 Key Assumptions Low adoption rate General - relative to 1996 Land Base constant Increase crop and hay yields on trend Costs increase based on FIPI Cropland management Zero tillage: held constant (17% of cropland) Prairie N Fertilizer use: increase 25% Summerfallow: 5 million ha Grazing land management Beef cows increase: west - 10%; east - 2% Hogs increase: west - 31%; east - 8% Reduced stocking rates and complimentary grazing on 25% of grazing land Shelterbelts - 2,880 ha/yr from 2000 to 2012 12 2008 - 2012 Key Assumptions Medium adoption rate Relative to low adoption scenario Cropland management Summerfallow: 3 million ha Zero tillage: increased on trend (30% of cropland) Prairie N Fertilizer use: increase of 10% on new ZT land Grazing land management Permanent cover increased by 1 million ha - Prairies Beef cows increase: west - 4.2%; east - 2% Reduced stocking rates on 35% of native land in west Complimentary grazing on 35% of grazing land in west Rotational grazing ranged from 10% in west to 5% in east 13 2008 - 2012 Key Assumptions High adoption rate Relative to low adoption scenario Cropland management Zero tillage: increased to 50% of cropland on Prairies Prairie N Fertilizer use: increase of 10% on new ZT land Summerfallow: 3 million ha Shelterbelts 7,000 ha per year from 2000 to 2012 14 Change in Activity Levels 1996 Cropland (m ha) Summerfallow (m ha) Zero tillage (m ha) Hayland (m ha) Pasture (m ha) Rangeland (m ha) Beef cows (m head) 34.7 6.2 5 6.2 4.3 15.6 4.7 2010 L 34.2 5 5 6.4 4.7 15.6 5.1 2010 M 33.4 5 8.9 6.8 5.1 15.1 5.3 2010 H 33.3 3 15 6.8 5.1 15.1 5.3 15 GHG Emissions- Cropland 15 Tg CO2e/year 10 5 0 CO2 Non-CO2 -5 -10 -15 -20 -25 1996 2010L 2010M 2010H 16 GHG Emissions- Grazing land 10 Tg CO2e/year 0 -10 CO2 non-CO2 -20 -30 -40 -50 1996 2010L 2010M 17 CO2e Emissions Relative to 2010 BAU Mitigation Scenarios 20 IPCC IPCC + sinks 15 5 0 -5 -10 -15 ing Gr az SF ill No -T Mg t2 Nu t. Mg t. Nu t. HE G rg e t -20 Ta % change 10 18 Key Messages Importance of soil sinks GHG reduction targets may be achievable through a series of actions based on existing technology Trade-off between GHG reduction scenarios Measures to promote adoption of mitigation practices Uncertainty of GHG coefficients 19 Acknowledgements Suren Kulshreshtha, Department of Agricultural Economics, U. of S. Bruce Junkins, Policy Branch, AAFC Ray Desjardins, Brian McConkey, Research Branch, AAFC 20 GHG Modeling Workshop December 9-10, 2000 Hosted by Centre for Studies in Agriculture, Law and the Environment, U. of S Sponsored by Prairie Adaptation Cooperative ~90 participants 21 GHG Modeling Workshop GHG/climate change modeling in agriculture great deal of activity important because agriculture is biologically based - does not fit general energy-based models of most other sectors (Hanly - AMG work) inventory work (Desjardins) Policy Branch - recognized early the need for predictive capability, mitigation studies 22 GHG Modeling Workshop Take-home messages Current focus - need to continue work on emission measurement reduce uncertainty better coefficients scaling-up from point/site measures to landscape and region refinement of process models 23 GHG Modeling Workshop Road ahead Link mitigation and adaptation scenarios to emission research Link climate change scenarios to mitigation research Develop measurement, verification and monitoring protocols for regional and national assessments Quantify uncertainty 24