IPCC GHG Accounting and Agriculture

IPCC GHG Accounting and Agriculture (Andre Hucq)

Thank you,............

Good morning ladies and gentlemen. I have been charged by the authors to present this paper on their behalf. If there are any inaccuracies in my presentation, they are mine and not those of the authors.

This talk has been divided into three main headings (Overhead #1): The Institutions, GHG accounting and Implications for agriculture.

Firstly, I have an overhead that sets agricultural GHG emissions in the context of global emissions (overhead #2).

Some of the international organizations involved here are represented on this overhead (overhead #3). These are only some of the groups associated with the United Nations. There are an infinite number of other organizations worldwide working on this issue and on accounting procedures.

Established in 1988 by United Nations Environment Program and World Meteorological Organization, the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was given a mandate to assess the state of existing knowledge about the climate system and climate change; the environmental, economic, and social impacts of climate change; and the possible response strategies. The IPCC released its First Assessment Report in 1990 and the Guidelines on GHG Inventories were released in 1996 (show guidelines). In 1992, the United Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) was signed, where the principles relating to climate change were agreed to.

The supreme body of the Convention is the Conference of the Parties (COP). The COP comprises all the states that have ratified the Convention (over 170 countries by January 1998). The COP's role is to promote and review the implementation of the Convention. It periodically reviews existing commitments in light of the Convention's objective, new scientific findings, and the effectiveness of national climate change programs. The COP can adopt new commitments through amendments and protocols. In December 1997 it adopted the Kyoto Protocol containing stronger emissions-related commitments for developed countries in the post-2000 period. CoP 4 was held in Buenos Aires last week. Nothing new can be added from the decision held at CoP4 to the accounting that had not been committed to earlier (overhead 4).

The Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice (SBSTA) provides the COP with timely information and advice on scientific and technological matters relating to the Convention. The Subsidiary Body for Implementation (SBI) helps with the assessment and review of the Convention's implementation.

On the Canadian side there are many private, industry and governments departments involved in some form or another in providing input on accounting. We have Natural Resources Canada; the Department of Foreign Affairs, Industry and Trade (DFAIT); Agriculture Canada, each of the provinces and territories etc.; the Climate Change Secretariat; the Conference Board of Canada; the Issues Tables; the Sierra Club etc. all providing some input into the process.

Three international bodies and their documents describe accounting protocols for national GHG inventories (overhead #5): 1. The Revised 1996 IPCC Guidelines which will be mentioned a little later; 2. The 1997 Kyoto Protocol and 3. The eighth report of the Subsidiary Body on Scientific and Technological Advice (SBSTA #8 and #9) to the CoP in 1998. Inconsistencies among these groups have made accounting for GHG emissions and removals a confusing and uncertain process. Differences between the IPCC guidelines and the Kyoto Protocol regarding the potential for carbon sequestration and CO₂ removals in agricultural soils have created particular uncertainty about GHG accounting for agriculture.

The Revised 1996 IPCC Guidelines for national GHG inventories are organized by sector (overhead #6): energy, industrial processes, solvent and other product use, agriculture, land-use change and forestry (LUCF), and waste.

Agricultural soils are currently considered to be a net source of carbon dioxide - but they could be made into a net sink. As much as 400 800 million tonnes of carbon could be taken up by agricultural soils every year through improved management practices designed to increase agricultural productivity. The question is how does one account for these.

As we have recently seen in the CoP4 meetings in Buenos Aires, these negotiations are a minefield. Nothing is easy. Negotiations on some simple issue drag on forever. To give you an example, five different definitions have been provided on how to define a "forest". Hassling can go on forever on how the word "planting" should be defined (for example, should one include or exclude natural vegetation?). Do the words "since 1990" mean the beginning of 1991 or should it include 1990? Obviously issues over what constitutes "sinks" and "sources" and "carbon pools" may be very difficult to resolve. Before any accounting can be done, the accepted meaning of words and terms need to be understood. Worst of all, not all scientists are agreed on global warming is a real threat.

I certainly do not profess to understand much of what's going on. There are just too many countries, too many negotiators, too many hidden agenda's, too many fallback positions, too many terms to understand, too many set positions, simply too many options and, of course, too many politicians involved.

Of all the problems that have been and will be encountered, the issue of accounting will probably be one of the thorniest.

We firstly need to review briefly what's involved as far as agriculture is concerned. We are faced basically with different physical or biological effects. There are cycles, stocks (pools), flows, sinks and sources (overhead #7). Plants and trees take up carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and through the process of photosynthesis absorb the carbon and release the oxygen back into the atmosphere. In turns, the plants die and decay or are eaten and in the process of respiration the carbon is returned to the atmosphere. Through this process, a huge cycle of carbon "give and take" develops. This cycle is excluded from consideration in GHG terminology.

Then there are stocks of carbon, mainly as pools of Oil and Gas deep underground and Soil Organic Matter Carbon contained in the soil for a few meters below the surface. Large quantities of the oil and gas is brought up to the surface and added to the cycle through the use of tractors, combines, farm trucks, fertilizers and chemicals. What's more, when a farmer plows the land, some of the carbon in the soil is released to the atmosphere. Theoretically, we could grow trees and plants that would take care of extracting the carbon released this way - carbon that has simply joined the cycle. We could promote farming practices that reduce the use of tractors, trucks etc. We can also try to promote less tillage and soil disturbance farming practices so that less Soil Organic Matter Carbon is released into the atmosphere.

Fertilizers also release Nitrous Oxide when used in the soil. Cows and other ruminant animals produce large quantities of Methane gas. Nitrous Oxide and Methane have tremendous Global Warming Potential. There are very few "sink pools" available to get rid of these gases, except for chemical reactions high in the troposphere. Nitrous Oxide and Methane are the major problems and threat since they do not form part of a "give and take" cycle.

The IPCC accounting for agriculture is based on emissions of methane and/or nitrous oxide from: 1. Enteric fermentation and manure management associated with domestic livestock production; 2. Field burning of agricultural residues; 3. Agricultural soils from nitrogen fertilizers, animal wastes, and nitrogen fixing crops, crop residues; cultivation of organic soils; deposition of nitrogen with precipitation and; 4. Rice cultivation and prescribed burning of savannas, which do not apply to Canadian agriculture.

To summarize, on-farm crop production activities are a source of methane and nitrous oxide (most of it included in GHG emission accounting). Emissions or removals of carbon dioxide from crop production are assumed to occur as part of the carbon cycle (photosynthesis or respiration) rather than from a change in carbon stocks. As such net emissions of CO₂ from crops are assumed to be zero.

The IPCC emissions guidelines are based on sectoral analyses which makes it difficult to do whole system analysis for a cross-sectoral activity like agriculture. Since emissions from the manufacture of crop production inputs (fertilizer, pesticides, machinery) are counted in the industrial sector, and emissions from fossil fuels used in crop production or transportation are counted in the energy and transportation sectors, the IPCC framework does not account for GHG emissions from a whole farming system and cannot be used for comparisons among systems.

The IPCC accounting system provides estimates of gross emissions for each sector, which are suitable for their inventory purpose. However, gross estimates provide incomplete and misleading information about the net differences among systems.

For example, emissions from systems of livestock production and grain production will differ, depending on whether only on farm emissions are included (agriculture sector accounting) or if total system emissions (from on-farm crop production and the manufacture and transport of inputs) are included. The large amount of methane produced by livestock puts cattle production at a disadvantage compared to grain production, if only on-farm emissions are counted. However, if emissions from the energy required to produce and transport fertilizer and pesticide inputs are included in the calculation, the relative difference between grain and livestock production is reduced.

The issue for agriculture and the accounting of Canadian agricultural GHG emissions that Canada has to present in the international fora mentioned earlier is not necessarily that we can't reduce our emissions or account for them.

We can easily promote "Green Agriculture" - provide incentives to do all the good things to promote environmentally healthy practices. Conservation tillage; reduced land degradation practices; promoting organic farming; making more efficient use of tractors and trucks; planting rotations that include legumes and exclude summerfallow; feeding animals the diets that reduce or eliminate methane emissions. Methane emissions from livestock could be cut with new feed mixtures and advancing rangeland practices; making sure that farmers "turn out the light" when they leave the barns. We can promote taking marginal land out of production. Nitrous oxide emissions from agriculture can be minimized with new fertilizers and practices. Fertilizing soils with mineral nitrogen and with animal manure releases N₂O into the atmosphere. By increasing the efficiency with which crops use nitrogen, it is possible to reduce the amount of nitrogen needed to produce a given quantity of food. One idea is to grow fast growing trees on the hundred of miles or rail tracks abandoned by the railways. Agriculture has also a tremendous part to play in, for example, the biofuels industry that could reduce national emissions considerably. Some of these changes could be done costlessly and in some cases, farmers could make a buck out of it (of course, leaving aside the issue of taxing input as a means of achieving ones aim.)

As a source, we can now (or have the means to, in the future) measure most of our emissions. We can easily calculate how much less or more gasoline, diesel, chemical, fertilizer etc. is being bought by farmers. Calculations have been done on the energy reduction effects of no-till farming and these can be quite considerable. Scientists know, or will have the means to calculate, how much carbon can be or remain stored by eliminating summerfallow and growing an "environmentally friendly" crop. The Prairie Soil Carbon Balance (PSCB) Project which was launched November 12th will provide scientifically acceptable means of measuring and verifying the changes in soil carbon. The four-year, $2-million project involves measuring the uptake of carbon at about 200 locations located across the Prairies where farmers have recently adopted more sustainable land management practices such as continuous cropping and direct seeding.

In all these calculations we will need, of course, to look at the "whole farming system". Reducing use of diesel is good, but if we increase the use of fertilizer in the process, the benefit may be negated altogether.

Agriculture can limit its GHG emissions and play its part in achieving Canada's commitment. In fact, on the prairies, it may well be a good thing if we were to move from growing wheat and barley in huge quantities and exporting it at great cost so that GHG reduction initiatives may well lead to more commercially viable enterprises. The Kyoto agreement recognizes agriculture as being a source (carbon emitter) and we can do our part to get our house in order.

Everybody is agreed on one thing. The accounting should be transparent and easy to understand. It should incorporate measuring methods acceptable to the scientific community etc.

Canada's main problem then arises in the question of accounting for sinks. Some members of the CoP questioned current ability to measure changes in carbon stocks in agricultural soils (the amount of organic carbon in soils is large and variable, and its rate of change under agricultural land uses is slow). As a result, the CoP limited sink activities to forestry in the Kyoto Protocol, a decision which has created uncertainty about accounting for, changes in carbon in agricultural soils.

As we have seen, carbon can be considered to be stored in two main agricultural pools (aside from trees etc.); "Above and below ground biomass" and "soils". There are three basic viewpoints at play: The science; the economics and finally the politics (overhead #8).

The science is relatively straightforward. The technology exists to do the calculations and scientists are generally aware (though not necessarily in full agreement) on the formula's and the effects at work.

The economics are going to be somewhat tricky. Canada is probably one of the few countries around with such a tremendous potential to sink carbon. Enormous areas are available for forestation and the Prairies, for example, provide vast potential as GHG sinks. Forest sinks (as Reforestation, Afforestation and Deforestation - RAD) are incorporated in the Kyoto protocol (article 3.3 - Overhead #9). In terms of forest sinks, some limitations seem to have already being incorporated through the interpretation of the Kyoto text - stocks in 2012 minus stocks in 2008 for RAD activities undertaken after 1990. Increases in carbon stocks from net CO₂ removals from 2008 to 2012 from RAD are to be subtracted from emissions over the same period whereas a decrease in stocks must be added to the emissions total.

I should at this stage remind everyone that all of what is said today is very much still in the open. Studies are being conducted to determine exactly what is known, what is possible, and what can or should be done regarding the issues of sinks and sources. Although agriculture is currently off the table, it is still recognized that it has large sink potential. A report is currently being compiled by an eminent group of scientists who are required to report back to the CoP for their year 2000 meeting (overhead #10).

As I mentioned, the economics will probably provide some degree of difficulty. If Canada is allowed to account for sinks to its full potential, we could, to some extent, carry on business as usual by using our huge GHG sinks capabilities to reduce much of our net GHG emissions. This could provide Canada with a competitive advantage over countries with limited sink potential. Foreign negotiators recognize this fact. So even if the science is on our side, the economics and world trade aspects may place some limits on our ability to fully account for sinks in a general accounting system.

The politics may also provide some stumbling blocks. Much of the scientific efforts may be negated for some strategic or geopolitical reason that need not be reviewed here save to say that some governments have large environmental constituencies that want reduction to be the sole means of dealing with the issue and consider "sinks" as untrustworthy of serious consideration.

If agriculture is currently excluded as a sink in the Kyoto protocol, it is still accounted for in the Land Use change and Forestry issue being examined by the Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice (SBSTA) (overhead 11). In keeping with Article 3.4 of the Kyoto Protocol, negotiations about the inclusion of additional sinks activities were continued at the SBSTA meetings in Bonn, Germany in June, 1998. Although no firm decisions about the inclusion of agricultural sinks were made (the sinks issue is still out in the open), SBSTA did conclude that Land Use change and Forestry actually represents three categories: land-use, land use change, and forestry (SBSTA, 1998). The explicit inclusion of land-use acknowledges that activities, other than forestry and RAD (i.e., agriculture and agricultural soils), can have both a source and a sink term.

There is uncertainty about whether and how changes in carbon stocks in agricultural soils will be counted. Removals of CO₂ in agricultural soils cannot be counted as sinks, but it is not clear whether agricultural soils are to be counted as a source of CO₂ in the baseline year. If changes in carbon stocks (emissions or removals) from land use and management are limited to RAD activities in Article 3.3 of the Kyoto Protocol, it would follow that changes in carbon stocks from other activities, such as agriculture, would not be included. However, if the limitations are assumed only to apply to removals (positive changes in carbon stocks), then emissions (negative changes in carbon stocks) from agricultural soils would be included with other sources. (overhead #12 ).The rules that apply now to forestry provide no incentive for GHG sinks in agriculture and no incentives for early adoption.

The interpretation is important because if agricultural soils are a source of CO₂ in the base year, any activities that reduce emissions of CO₂ (i.e, carbon sequestration associated with farming practices such as zero-tillage or forage production) during the first commitment period (2008 to 2010) will contribute to Canada’s reduction target, whether or not agricultural sink activities were recognized in the Kyoto Protocol. Alternatively, if agricultural sinks are allowed, CO₂ removals associated with agricultural activities undertaken after 1990 could be used to offset emissions in the first commitment period (2008 and 2012).

The worst case scenario for Canada, where adoption of carbon-sequestering farming practices is on-going and could increase in the future, would be the total exclusion of agricultural soils, as sources or sinks, from the LUCF sector. If soils are excluded, carbon sequestration and the associated emission reductions from soil conservation farming practices that occur after 1990 could not be counted. Although this is only a problem in terms of target reduction and GHG accounting (the environmental and production benefits of increased soil organic matter would be real) it could act as a disincentive for adoption of conservation practices by farmers and in domestic agricultural policy.

If removals in agricultural soils are allowed, the extent to which agricultural activities that could act as sinks would be limited (as the forestry sector is limited to reforestation, afforestation and deforestation activities) is unclear (overhead #13). For example, would agricultural activities that could act as sinks be limited to changes in land management (i.e., from conventional tillage to zero-tillage or permanent cover) after 1990? The limitation of sink activities to specific practices adopted after 1990 could create the "Kyoto Farm", which represents the agricultural lands on which sink activities are being practiced. Carbon sequestered on the "Kyoto Farm" during the commitment period could be subtracted from emissions for that period.

If carbon sinks in agricultural soils are to be accepted internationally, countries that want agricultural sinks included, like Canada, need to show that it is possible to measure changes in the carbon stock of agricultural soils in a transparent, reliable and verifiable way. It could be argued that if emissions from agricultural soils are to be counted as a source in the 1990 base year, it does not make sense to exclude removals in soils for measurement and verification reasons. Methods for measurement of CO₂ flux from agricultural soils should apply equally to emissions and removals.

The IPCC accounting system cannot be used to determine net emissions from farming systems (overhead #14). Net emission accounting has to include emissions associated with activities in the agriculture, transportation, energy, and industrial sectors that are associated with crop production. Without information about net emissions, policy makers cannot know which systems produce the least GHG emissions or sequester the most carbon.

It is also important to recognize that policy analysis requires, not only whole system data, but complex systems modeling. (overhead #15) A 10 percent reduction in the livestock herd cannot be assumed to result in a 10 percent reduction in methane and GHG production. A change in the size of the livestock herd will cause other changes throughout the agricultural system, perhaps an increase in crop production and nitrous oxide emissions from fertilizers, that offset the reduction in methane production from the smaller livestock herd. The IPCC guidelines will provide adequate inventory data, but are not adequate for development of domestic agricultural policy (overhead #16).

The implications for agriculture then are as follows (overhead #17): GHG accounting for agriculture unclear. Are carbon stocks in agricultural soils counted? What is the situation for carbon stored before 2008 if the same rules as apply to the forestry sector are to be applied to agriculture? How do we apply whole system accounting? How does accounting methodology affect policy development?

Thank you