Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Agriculture and Forestry
Issue No. 43 - Evidence - Meeting of February 27, 2018
OTTAWA, Tuesday, February 27, 2018
The Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry met this day at 6 p.m. to study the potential impact of the effects of climate change on the agriculture, agri-food and forestry sectors.
Senator Diane F. Griffin (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Honourable senators, I welcome you to this meeting of the Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry.
I’m Senator Diane Griffin, from P.E.I., and chair of the committee, and I would ask the senators to introduce themselves, starting with the deputy chair.
[Translation]
Senator Maltais: Senator Ghislain Maltais, from Quebec.
[English]
Senator Oh: Victor Oh, Mississauga.
[Translation]
Senator Gagné: Raymonde Gagné, from Manitoba.
Senator Pratte: André Pratte, from Quebec.
[English]
Senator Gold: Marc Gold, Quebec.
Senator Mercer: Terry Mercer, Nova Scotia.
The Chair: Thank you, folks.
For our first witness, we welcome, by video conference, from Wellington, New Zealand, Hayden Montgomery, Special Representative, Global Research Alliance on Agricultural Greenhouse Gases. Thank you, Mr. Montgomery.
I now invite you to make your presentation and remind you, as I think the clerk would have told you, that we’re looking at something in the order of 7 to 10 minutes for your presentation and then we will have questions for you afterward from the senators. Please proceed.
Hayden Montgomery, Special Representative, Global Research Alliance on Agricultural Greenhouse Gases: Thank you very much, senators for the invitation to appear before you today. I will quickly cover the nature of my function, and then provide context for the GRA, as we call in short, the Global Research Alliance on Agricultural Greenhouse Gases.
I will provide some international policy context for why such an initiative exists, then I will talk about the structure, how it operates and then comment on Canada’s role within the GRA.
So, to be very open and transparent, I am an employee of the New Zealand government. I work for the Ministry for Primary Industries, which covers agriculture, forestry, fisheries, biosecurity and food safety. I am employed by the New Zealand government to act as the special representative for the Global Research Alliance on Agricultural Greenhouse Gases. So my function is clearly a representation of the GRA while being an employee of the New Zealand government.
The reason is the New Zealand government has acted as the secretariat for the Global Research Alliance on Agricultural Greenhouse Gases since its inception and that has been renewed by the members of the GRA until 2019.
My function is new within the structure of the GRA. It was established late in 2015, and filled by me in the middle of 2016, to address what the members of the GRA saw as a weakness in terms of being a global player in coordinating research in this area.
My function is, first of all, to speak for the GRA. I represent the members of the GRA, which I will come to in a moment. I have responsibilities for liaising with international and regional organizations who are the partners of the GRA and to try to maintain a continuity of activity to address some of the ebb and flow that can occur as countries assume the chair and vice-chair responsibilities, which rotates annually. It’s a more executive function to try to keep up momentum.
In terms of the context for the GRA, this was established following the Copenhagen Climate Change Conference in December 2009. When it was established, it was the only example of a global platform to coordinate research in agricultural greenhouse gas emissions. It was established because there was that gap in the international system.
We knew there were countries with quite significant research programs domestically. We knew there were different regional initiatives looking at the topic to some extent but nothing global, so that was the motivation for it.
The context for it is both climate change and global food security. It’s explicitly recognizing there was a growing global demand for food, and we can have a long conversation about how much demand there needs to be given the loss and waste in the system. Nonetheless, demand is there and if agriculture is to contribute to addressing climate change, it needs to also reduce its impact on the environment in terms of greenhouse gas emissions. We’re explicitly trying to address that nexus between food production, sustainability and greenhouse gases.
In that context its objectives are to basically create a space for countries’ national agricultural research systems to be better coordinated, better resourced and more efficient by virtue of avoiding duplication, creating collaborative research activities where it makes sense to do so and then creating a critical mass of the members who can be more attractive to partner organizations, whether they be international, regional or from private sector players.
In terms of its governance and structure, the GRA comprises 49 governments to date and we, of course, would like to increase that. All regions of the world are represented in the GRA. For a long time, the African region was underrepresented but we have seen in the last year much more interest from African countries in taking part.
The structure is all participating members are represented on a council that physically meets annually. That council is chaired by a member country, and vice-chaired by another member country. The chair of the council hosts that council meeting and is chair for a year, more or less, and the vice-chair will take on the chairing and host the next council meeting and so it goes.
In terms of the activities of the GRA, it is organized through research groups comprising scientists from member countries and partner organizations. The research groups are organized by broadly speaking commodities: livestock, rice, crops and then a fourth group that tries to address the cross-cutting issues that relate to all of those other three groups. For example, soil carbon sequestration, the issue of measurement and estimation of greenhouse gases, greenhouse gas inventories, and so on.
Like the council, the research groups are chaired by member countries, although not on a rotational basis. So we have more or less permanent co-chairs of research groups, but they can be replaced and changed over time.
I can name the countries that have those active leadership roles. Currently Japan is the chair of the council and Germany is vice-chair of the council. In terms of our research groups, New Zealand and the Netherlands chair the livestock group. Brazil, Spain and the United States chair the croplands group. Japan and Uruguay chair the rice group. Canada, Australia and France chair the integrated research group.
The role of the research groups, again like the council, is to meet once a year but operate virtually, remotely. They attempt to organize the efforts of the members and their partner organizations in those themes and develop a work plan. They also identify key priorities for those research group areas. Then they work to mobilize the resources from within the membership and from outside the membership to actually implement the priorities that are agreed by the member countries and partner organizations.
We have 17 partner organizations at the moment. The number is not important, but the mix of the partners is important. There is a mixture of development institutions, such as the World Bank, the Inter-American Development Bank, the African Development Bank, as well as research providers such as CGIAR, which is the Consultative Group on International Agriculture Research which is a global network of research centres funded by donor countries. It’s primarily focused on agriculture in developing countries.
We have other initiatives we partner with. In specific thematic areas or in regional areas you have initiatives trying to address the same topic. We try to co-ordinate activities to whatever extent possible. We partner with those organizations.
My role is to support the research groups toward meeting their visions and working with partners to help with resources.
Canada has been an active member since the beginning of the GRA. Once the division for the GRA was launched, Canada took on the responsibility of chairing a working group on governance and presided over the discussions on the charter, the founding document of the GRA that all members sign up to. Canada then assumed chair of the GRA council in 2012, hosted the meeting in Saskatoon and was chair between 2012 and 2013 as well as being a co-chair of that cross-cutting group that I mentioned. The entity from Canada, the competent authority as we refer to it, is Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada. The research directorate and research centres or stations that are part of that system are complemented by universities. Universities receive funding through a national grants program run by Agriculture Canada; the most recent was $27 million for research in agriculture and climate change. That’s a significant contribution in terms of the leadership of the GRA, but also in terms of the resources to undertake the work.
The challenge is how to make best use of the domestic resources Canada invests in through Ministry of Agricultural research facilities and universities and to connect this to other countries’ systems in the most efficient way possible. It is a challenge because the GRA is not an organization like the FAO or other such partners. It doesn’t have a legal entity. It’s not a brick and mortar institution. It’s a network of governments and it has always had the intention to operate very lightly, very efficiently. This relies on the contributions of members to make it work. That’s my role, to act as a cheerleader and encourage countries to contribute more than perhaps they are at the moment and to provide examples from other countries or other situations that could apply in their country and help facilitate connectivity between the various systems involved.
[Translation]
Senator Maltais: Thank you very much for being with us this evening. Your participation in our work is very important, and your opinion is as well.
New Zealand and Canada have agricultural land that is recognized throughout the world. Your country produces a lot of sheep. In Canada, it’s beef production. What has your research with universities shown regarding the impact of greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs) emitted by farm animals, as compared to emissions from urban pollution? Let’s take Ottawa as an example. How do emissions from the city of Ottawa compare to those emitted by crop production located on the other side of the river?
[English]
Mr. Montgomery: I cannot respond precisely to that question, but I can provide more general ideas.
We have some idea of greenhouse gas emissions based on estimates and modelling of agriculture globally. We know that in terms of direct global greenhouse gas emissions it is in the order of between 12 and 15 per cent. The overwhelming majority of greenhouse gas emissions globally come from energy and they are carbon dioxide. In the case of agriculture direct emissions, the emissions are from methane and nitrous oxide from food production.
When you take it to a national level, the percentage will change depending on the structure of that country’s economy, the population, its energy matrix and so on.
If you take New Zealand as an example, approaching 5 million people, the total energy demand is not significant. There is a large agricultural sector with a significant amount of exports. In the case of our domestic energy matrix, we have a significant proportion from renewables. New Zealand’s emissions profile looks nothing like the global average.
We have 50 per cent from agriculture and the remainder from energy, manufacturing and other sectors. In the case of Canada, nationally, it’s my understanding that agriculture is hovering around 10 per cent or maybe just under for national greenhouse gas emissions. You have a larger population. You have more industry than New Zealand. I don’t know but your energy matrix is probably not as high in terms of renewables, and you have a significant agricultural sector that exports but you have a large domestic population. At a national level, I know you’re at about 10 per cent from agriculture, which is a mixture of livestock and cropping, and the rest would come from other sectors, such as energy, buildings, households, waste.
In the case of Ottawa, I cannot possibly answer what contribution of — agriculture.
[Translation]
Senator Maltais: I gave that as an example because the city of Ottawa is not agricultural, but the region is.
Furthermore, we know that over the next 15 years, certain agricultural producing countries such as New Zealand, Australia, Canada, Argentina and Brazil, as well as a few European countries, will have to significantly increase production to feed the planet. How will we succeed in doing so while avoiding GHG emissions as much as possible? By then, will science be able to capture carbon safely, competitively and economically? Will we be able to reach this objective about 15 years from now?
[English]
Mr. Montgomery: Not without significant difficulty; that is my honest opinion. You’re quite right that production of agriculture will need to increase in a number of countries in the world, and those countries are very well placed to do that.
We also know in order to achieve or to avoid dangerous climate change, we must reduce greenhouse gases. We know it’s impossible to achieve avoiding dangerous climate change without agriculture playing a part. And we know without addressing the global food system in a comprehensive way, it’s going to be impossible to achieve. With the increase of production, we must increase that in the most efficient manner possible. That means lifting levels of productivity everywhere. That means new technologies that don’t exist today being implemented as widely as possible. That means harnessing the potential for soils to sequester carbon, which is not easy.
There is lots of potential, but it’s not easy, and it means addressing food losses and wastes in the supply chains. Production increase is one part of the story, but there is also the demand side and the supply chain story that needs to be addressed simultaneously. It’s a significant challenge to achieve the levels of production we need and diminishing the sector’s contribution to greenhouse gases. We need implementation of everything we know now of the best practices and we need a lot of new research.
Senator Pratte: Thank you for being with us. I have a couple of questions. What is the GRA’s budget and what part of the budget is devoted to financing research?
Mr. Montgomery: The GRA doesn’t have its own budget. It relies on the contributions of the member countries and organizations we partner with. Some countries have provided funding that they have dedicated to support the GRA. Others have their national research programs that they try to align with the objectives of the GRA.
Other contributions would come from in-kind, where international organizations are undertaking research in an area that we are also undertaking so they will connect that to what we’re doing. There is no cash as such. It’s a very difficult question to answer. I know the details of the New Zealand budget that supports the GRA. That’s probably not so interesting to you. I can say because of the decentralized and bottom-up nature of the GRA, the vast majority of the funding or the resources we have is for research. We’re not counting administration because we have no administration as we’re not an organization like other organizations.
So the permanent staff of the GRA or those people that have their entire function devoted to the GRA are, in the case of New Zealand, the secretariat, two people. And I’m one of them. It’s a very small administrative budget. The vast majority of the resource is for building capability of member country scientists, scholarships and training,which we need to have high-quality research. And then the rest will be devoted to the actual research. It’s not a GRA budget. It’s the contribution of members.
Senator Pratte: How do you ensure over the years the results of the research you coordinate will be disseminated? That’s crucial, of course. If we want these efforts to reduce GHG emissions, producers will have to be informed of the best practices and so on.
So does the GRA play a role in this dissemination of research coordinated by your group?
Mr. Montgomery: It plays a role, but it’s not the primary role. It can’t possibly be the situation that the GRA is the entity responsible for knowledge transfer to farmers. The role the GRA plays is catalyzing the activities of the members. Many of those members in their own right have responsibilities for extension. Not all ministries of agriculture necessarily have that responsibility today — maybe in the past — but those that do will have that responsibility and work with funds.
At the GRA level, we have the role of the function to transfer what we know and what we can say as a consensus of the global scientific community to other similar organizations from other sectors, such as the farmers’ organizations, the agriculture and agribusiness community, the global policy community. That is the transfer of knowledge from the GRA community to other communities. Those communities have their own ways of transferring knowledge to their own members. The primary function of the GRA is the generation of momentum and catalyzing activity that generates new information, most of which will be transferred by members. Then the GRA has that global level communications and outreach function with our members, and they take that information and utilize it.
Senator Pratte: Just briefly, in closing, when the GRA was created in 2009, was that envisaged as it is now or has it become something different? Is it bigger? Is it smaller? Have there been some difficulties in creating it?
Mr. Montgomery: The vision outlined in the charter is the same. The charter outlines the need to transfer knowledge and information to farmers. Of course, it’s not the role of the GRA as an organization to do that but to provide information and work with members so that they do that.
It has been easy in some respects because it is a voluntary initiative where it doesn’t impose any legally binding obligations on its members, so that’s an easy selling point in a way. Why not join? It makes sense to join. It’s great because you can expand your members and everyone is engaged in a constructive and cooperative way.
The weakness of the model is how do you ensure that people really engage? That’s my goal, to address that, and it’s an ongoing challenge. How do we ensure not only the scale of resources but the type of resources or the flexibility of resources that enable us to connect sufficiently different countries’ research systems, and so on. It’s often not the big millions and millions of dollars we need. It’s the few tens of thousands we need to have the right sort of flexibility to link national programs that have different timing and rules, and so on. That’s the challenge.
Senator Mercer: Thank you for being here. It’s an interesting subject. When you discuss this, many countries being involved in one organization to look at greenhouse gases as it relates to agriculture, it creates a fascinating study. Some of us know — and you would know as a New Zealander — that one of the major sources of greenhouse gases in New Zealand is the dairy industry. In Canada, it’s industry and the automobiles we all drive around.
Across the alliance, has there been a study to compare what the major sources of greenhouse gases are from country to country and a comparison of those?
Mr. Montgomery: Yes and no. Regarding the information or the knowledge or the expertise on how to calculate or estimate greenhouse gases, we absolutely do that in the GRA. How do you estimate methane from an animal which is eating grass, or by-products, or corn, or whatever? How do you estimate emissions from rice paddies, and so on? We have significant attention on that research area so that the coefficients or the emissions factors are accurate, precise and representative of the different farming systems in the GRA.
When it comes to national emissions, that is a process that countries have to undertake through their obligations to the climate change convention. In the case of developed countries, they have to prepare an annual report of greenhouse gases across the whole economy. That’s how we know in the case of New Zealand almost 50 per cent come from agriculture. In Uruguay’s case, about 80 per cent come from agriculture. In the case of Canada, it’s under 10 per cent. In the case of France, it’s probably 15 per cent, and so on. That’s a process whereby countries must undertake that reporting as part of their obligations.
The role of the GRA is supporting countries to have better and more accurate information in that context.
Senator Mercer: We get so preoccupied with greenhouse gases and measuring that for good reason, but in agriculture we also have to measure one other thing, namely, output. At the end of the day, is there a correlation between what gets produced as we’re also generating greenhouse gases? For example, New Zealand creates so much greenhouse gas because of their dairy industry, but you’ve got to measure the output of your dairy industry and what it contributes, not just to your own GDP but to the economic well being of Southeast Asia because you export so much of your product there.
Is there someone doing the correlation there? You would hate to see someone condemning someone for having high greenhouse gas output because they are helping to feed their population and the region in which they live.
Mr. Montgomery: Absolutely, and the charter of the GRA acknowledges that explicitly. The objective of the GRA is to address this challenge by reducing the greenhouse gas intensity of food production. The correlation between emissions and output of food. From the research activities I’m aware of through the Global Research Alliance, the question of output is always a major consideration. When you take it to a farm, there’s absolutely no way a farmer will adopt a technology or a practice to reduce greenhouse gases if the yield is impacted. It would be bad business. The research is always evaluated for its positive, or negative, or negligible impact on yield or output.
Furthermore, if we were to implement practices that would increase the intensity of emissions per unit of output, from a global perspective that would be going backwards. We need to feed a growing world population and we need to reduce the impact of doing that. Food security will always be a priority. We must accept that we need to feed people. We can’t feed people in the name of reducing emissions. The question is how do we feed them as efficiently as possible? That’s explicit in the GRA charter.
Senator Mercer: I think that’s an angle worth exploring, chair, namely, food security. If you’re going to have food security, you’re going to generate greenhouse gas. Somehow, you have to measure whether it is worth it to feed the world.
The Chair: We hope it’s worth it.
Senator Oh: Thank you for being here with us, professor.
What is Canada’s role as the co-chair of the integrated research group in the alliance? Has its research findings been applied in the agricultural sector in Canada or in other member countries?
Mr. Montgomery: The role of Canada as one of the three cochairs of the integrative research group is to facilitate that group operating efficiently; that is, chairing meetings and ensuring the work plan of the group is followed and implemented. Within the context of that work program, there is a very important role in coordinating the work we do on greenhouse gas inventories for agriculture. This is what we discussed about emissions for agricultural systems so we have more accurate, precise and transparent information on emissions associated with agricultural production. That’s the function of Canada. I know from experience Canada has a huge amount to offer there.
Not many countries have for many years invested significant resources in getting better estimates of their emissions.
[Translation]
Senator Dagenais: To come back to the topic of our discussion, if we consider food safety and transportation as sectors of activity, we send foods today from one end of the planet to the other. We sometimes do so to meet a population’s needs, or to ensure an annual supply in countries where there is no risk of famine. Let us agree here that transportation is a significant source of greenhouse gas emissions.
Could you talk to us more specifically about actions or efforts that could be made to reduce transportation, and, consequently, help to achieve greenhouse gas reduction targets? Have you had discussions along those lines within your organisation?
[English]
Mr. Montgomery: No, but I’m aware of actions being taken in the international transportation sector. I think international transportation emissions are about two per cent of global greenhouse gas emissions today, somewhere of that magnitude, but are projected to increase, particularly with aviation and transportation. That’s kind of the state of play.
In terms of the actions being taken, I know the International Maritime Organization and the International Civil Aviation Organization have picked up the question of mitigation of greenhouse gases from their respective transportation modalities. They are, in their own way, discussing the best way to address those, given the particular circumstances of the international maritime sector and international aviation sector where they have quite unique characteristics in terms of the ownership and the flagging of vessels.
So quite specific sectors have been carefully considered in terms of the most globally effective way to reduce emissions. We haven’t discussed it with the GRA, but there are activities globally to work out the best way to minimize those.
I would say for some food products, although they have travelled significant distances, the contribution in terms of its overall footprint is relatively minor. In most food products, particularly from livestock, the vast majority of greenhouse gases are at the farm level. That’s where we have a significant role to play as Global Research Alliance to improve the level of productivity and efficiency at the farm level.
[Translation]
Senator Dagenais: Mr. Montgomery, after nine years of existence, can you name the main accomplishment or discovery of your alliance, and your main objectives for the next two years?
[English]
Mr. Montgomery: This sounds like a bit of a deflection, but I don’t think it should be underestimated that creating an institution of this nature with 49 member countries and 17 partnership organizations that are growing in visibility and scale is an achievement in itself, given the sensitivity of the global food security question and as it relates to climate change. Politically, it’s not an easy area. I’m sure you’re well aware of trade being another factor that’s complex.
So I think establishing a strong global effort on addressing agricultural greenhouse gases is a pretty big achievement in itself. From then I would say, in terms of the capability side of things, I think we made good progress in streamlining the approaches taken to measure greenhouse gases. It doesn’t sound like much, but it’s fundamentally important if you’re talking about global research efforts. You need to have the same language, so to speak. The protocols around measurement and estimation, the GRA has produced definitive guidelines on how to do that for the main sources of greenhouse gases. Livestock, rice and soil carbon is another area we’re currently investing in.
I would say building the capability of our member countries. It’s true to say many of the countries where agricultural emissions are projected to increase into the future, there’s very limited capability in this area in terms of understanding greenhouse gases. There’s a very important effort to try to make sure the global community’s capability is developed.
From a scientific perspective, I can think of a few examples. In the livestock sector, with respect to methane emissions from ruminant livestock, there’s been important work to draw on the strength of the GRA, many countries, many partners, to try and understand exactly what we’re dealing with in terms of the microbes inside the animals that actually produce methane. We now know what we didn’t know before and that is, irrespective of the species of ruminant animal and its environment, we know the community of microbes living inside are broadly similar everywhere, which is very important information. It means there’s potential for globally applicable technologies that involve manipulation of the ruminant ecosystem. So that is new. There was no knowledge of that prior to the GRA. It’s a direct consequence of the GRA’s activities.
When you consider livestock’s contribution to agricultural greenhouse gases emissions and the spotlight put on livestock, I think it’s important the GRA exists and can do this sort of work. We also know livestock plays a fundamentally important role in the global food system in terms of developing countries and in some developed countries like Canada and New Zealand.
Senator Gold: Thank you for being with us. If I understand correctly, you’re one of the founders of the network that predated this network and you’ve been at this for a long time. So allow us to take advantage of your presence.
I have two questions. The first is rather technical. In terms of the research the alliance has overseen and done, could you give us some advice on best practices to sequester carbon dioxide in our lands and our forests? It’s hard to do, I gather, and I think you alluded to it in your remarks. It’s referred to in our government’s carbon policy. What have you learned that would help us and other countries in using that tool, if I may, to capture the gases?
Mr. Montgomery: There’s probably not much I can tell Canada about this question, because you have some of the best expertise on this topic. What I would say is that it’s highly context specific. The potential to solve carbon sequestration, both in terms of the biophysical conditions, so the main drivers being — there’s geology, temperature and humidity, and then historical management practice would be probably the next most significant.
I know that for Canada, having been in Saskatchewan and hearing from your farmers there when we had the council meeting, activities that had been undertaken in the past have heavily degraded the soils in the plains. There is significant potential for restoring those soils to their former state, which is where I know Canada has focused significant energy. That research area and the experience of Canada is of huge benefit to countries that have a similar situation, where soils have been heavily degraded through previous management practice.
There are things we can do to restore soil health. We know minimum tillage or conservation agriculture or direct drilling — or whatever the terminology is in your location — has an important role to play. Then it gets complex, because you have varying states of climate and soil characteristics, coupled with different historical management practices, and that plays into the current potential for sequestration and for how long we can expect to sequester more carbon stock in the soil.
We know that soil carbon reaches an equilibrium, and that equilibrium is determined by the biophysical and management practice. There is always a point where soil stops storing more carbon, and so that also has to be understood. That presents challenges in the policy context when there might be expectations for soil carbon as an ongoing tool, but it may not be ongoing. It may reach a point where it no longer delivers the reductions, and therefore we need to think of other things.
There is an additional complexity, which is that we cannot see carbon in isolation from nitrogen. We know that carbon and nitrogen are linked; and to increase carbon, you generally need more nitrogen in the environment. What are the implications of that for other emissions, such as nitrous oxide? As I say, Canada has a lot of experience in this and there’s a lot you can provide to the global community. But that’s the broad framing of the challenge globally, from my perspective, anyway.
Senator Gold: If I understand correctly, you’re now towards the end of a pilot project perhaps — would that be correct? — where at least one of your roles is to not only enhance the visibility of the network with member states but also to help secure funding for research projects. How are you doing? And if you could wave your magic wand, what would you hope to accomplish? It’s a bit like my colleague’s question about your objectives for the next few years, but specifically in terms of the research you believe needs to be done and isn’t being done adequately.
Mr. Montgomery: You’re right; my function was established for a two-year pilot phase to give the council members that were members of the GRA time to evaluate whether or not it added value to the GRA. We’ll see what they say at the next council meeting. I think I’ve added some value. I hope I have.
The mobilization of resources is an ongoing challenge. We are seeing positive signals, but it’s a very slow process. It takes a long time to shift national systems, with all their own specificity and complexity around budget allocations, programming, priorities, and so on, which occur at different times, and try to bring that together in some sort of organized manner. Then you have the specific rules that apply to national funding where, more often than not, national funding is for national scientists and not for other scientists. So the challenge is how, within that context, we can try to find ways to connect the national systems. That’s why I referred earlier to this small money that is flexible.
I think, in the Canadian context, that is starting to be addressed through what’s referred to as twinning, where there are small funding amounts available through Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada to help twin national programs to Global Research Alliance priorities. That, for me, is very important.
The other is the European context, where they have significant research budgets and the Horizon 2020 programming or the joint programming initiatives of Europe. We have attempted to link to that. New Zealand, Canada and the U.S. have tried to link to that. It is not easy because of their own rules they have as well, but there is at least a commitment from the GRA and those other entities to try to do better.
There was another question you asked.
Senator Gold: What is the most pressing research area that needs attention?
Mr. Montgomery: If we say that we need to roll out best practice everywhere, and widely, that is taken as a given. In terms of research, I think the soil carbon area is of significant importance. There is a lot of discussion about it. It’s very faith-based, and there needs to be more science there. It is highly context specific. There are different approaches for measurement. We need a big effort to try to coordinate and get clarity. When we talk about carbon sequestration, how deep are we talking about? What carbon? We need clarity on that because it’s not totally clear.
In the case of livestock, as a large and growing contributor to agricultural greenhouse gases, the biggest gains we can make in livestock are actually in feeding animals better — healthier, well-fed, more productive animals. We know that now. We know it makes sense to farmers everywhere, more or less. We also know in many places it hasn’t happened and it’s difficult to make happen. The cultural and social dimension is hard to overcome.
There is promise in some of the breakthrough technologies around vaccines to reduce — from livestock. Right now it’s that low-hanging fruit, or perceived to be low-hanging fruit, around productivity, but that’s really hard stuff to get. That’s sub-Saharan Africa lifting its levels of productivity, just general efficiency of the livestock production system. If it was that obvious, it would have been done already. It’s not so much a research question as a policy research interface, probably.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Montgomery, for appearing here today. We really appreciate that.
Mr. Montgomery: Thank you.
The Chair: Senators, I would like to have a brief in camera session.
(The committee continued in camera.)