Carbon Footprint of Canadian Agriculture

1. We begin by examining the challenges in determining the starting point on both emissions and sequestration in Canadian agriculture.

   We identify several reasons why simply examining Chapter 5 on emissions by sector is insufficient to reveal a complete picture on agricultural emissions.

   We also identify numerous gaps in the reporting of on-farm sequestration and the lack of disclosure of existing sequestration by province.

2. In our previous report, Enteric Emissions are Carbon Neutral, we established that livestock-related emissions are biogenic. Since they are presented as emissions in Chapter 5 of the National Inventory of GHG, we ask why is the net carbon removal from this biogenic cycle not reported in Chapter 6?

   When we asked Environment Canada this question, the response was that they did not have the resources to determine these biogenic removals at a national level given that this was not a requirement for UNCC reporting.

   When we re-tablulate emissions to better reflect the net impact of biogenic removals, we reveal that net emissions by Canadian agriculture, fishing and forestry is actually 25 MT CO2e/year as opposed to the 69 MT CO2e/yr reported in the 2022 version of the national inventory of GHG.

   We note that the actual emissions is agriculture is lower because fishing and forestry do not have biogenic removals of carbon and their emissions are co-mingled with agriculture.

3. We then examine the missing sequestration from perennial vegetation.

   This is vegetation that grows in the unfarmed areas of farms (ravines, woodlots, wind-breaks, riparian buffers, etc.)

   Our starting point is 2021 data from Statistics Canada on farm land use that breaks out cropland, pasture and fallow lands. As the Remaining areas of farms are comprised of roads, built-areas, wetlands, and perennial vegetation, we use data from case studies to establish an estimate for perennial vegetation of 12.5 M Ha.

   This the mix of perennial vegetation (trees, woody perennials, grasslands) varies by Eco-District across Canada, we use the best avialable data to establish an estimate by province, reulting in national totals of 3.3, 5.5, and 3.8 M Ha respectively.

4. We then estimated the annual sequestration for each type of perennial vegetation to reveal that it produces net annual sequestration of 49 MT CO2e / yr.

   When we asked Environment Canada why carbon removal by trees on farms is not reflected in Chapter 6 of the National Inventory of GHG, the response was that the methods used previously were not fine-grain enough to detect farm-trees other than in very large prairie shelterbelts.

   Consequently, it was believed that the amount of sequestration by farm trees presented a smaller margin of error in their estimates than seems to be the case. Environment Canada identified that improving this uncertainty in their prior estimates will be a priority for subsequent inventory reports.

5. Adding in the missing sequestration results in an annual net carbon footprint of -24 MT CO2e/yr.

   In other words, Canadian agriculture is already sequestering 24 MT of CO2e every year.

   This implies that Canadian Agriculture is already meeting 2050 targets and can still generate significant excess sequestration that would offset emissions in other sectors if farmers were properly incented.

6. If we use the social cost of carbon in Canada (established by the federal carbon tax) as the basis for incentive payments to farms, the current value of unpaid existing sequestration services by farms is $3.2 B / year.

   As this varies by province, we calculated that Ontario (which has the most farms, but not the highest agricultural output) is producing $155 M of value in unpaid sequestration services per year.

7. We calibrated against top-down analysis with 3 farm-level case studies in Ontario which yielded similar results.

   Our 3 case studes were a 200-acre poultry farm with 12,000 egg-laying hens, a 1300-acre dairy farm with 200 head of cattle, and an energy-intensive 150-acre maple syrup producer generating over 10,000 L of syrup per year.

   All farms were found to have a net-zero of better footprint, even when enteric and livestock emmissions were calculated using GWP100 weights (i.e. as if they were non-biogenic).

   The main reason for this was that the annual sequestration from existing farm trees is significant.

8. While 3 case studies are not necessarily conclusive, the fact that they all align with our top down analysis highlights the importance of digging into this further via future studies. These studies should ideally reflect agricultural products in other provinces, accross eco-districts, and by agriculatural product sector.

   It is also evident that Agriculture Canada should establish an official view of the net carbon footprint of Canadian agriculture that addresses current gaps in national reporting of GHG, as well as reframe its narrative on the sustainability of Canadian agriculture.

   We believe that the current level of social resistance to climate action initiatives on farms would vanish if farms were paid for their excess sequestration services. Doing so would make it more feasible for farms to invest in both emissions reduction as well as increased sequestration (e.g. via agroforestry).

Hopefully this analysis will be the first of many other studies that lift the fog so that we can better develope the necessary sequestration services that underpin Canada's 2030 Carbon Plan.

You can download further details in the full report or return to the overview of the 4-part series.