AGFO - Standing Committee

Agriculture and Forestry

Past Session: Past Session:
37-2 37th Parliament, 2nd Session (September 30, 2002 - November 12, 2003)
Select a different session
 

CLIMATE CHANGE: WE ARE AT RISK

Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry

INTERIM REPORT

CHAPTER 2:

BACKGROUND ON CLIMATE CHANGE 

“The general public now has the impression that the science of climate change is swinging like a pendulum, from being real to not real, depending on which issue of Nature came out. Of course, this is not what climate science is about. […] climate science is on very firm footing […] and it is not something that we are going to solve overnight with one policy like Kyoto. It will require much more extensive policy options in the future.”

Dr. Andrew Weaver, Professor,

School of Earth and Ocean Sciences, University of Victoria.[1]

 

The Committee heard from many researchers from across Canada, the United States, and the United Kingdom. Much of their scientific evidence was very technical, but essential for this study. Their evidence is summarized in this chapter; although much of this chapter is technical, it provides important background for later chapters and recommendations. 

The Committee was presented with the evidence that shows our climate is changing. One of the main indicators is the global trend of warming temperature. The predicted increase in the earth’s average temperature is between 1.4oC and 5.8oC over the next 100 years. While this may not seem to be a big change, it is actually extremely large. Between the last Ice Age and today, the average global temperature has changed only 3.5 oC. These human-induced changes to our climate will have an effect on our agriculture, our forests, and our rural communities. For example, the changing climate does not just mean temperatures will change, but so will precipitation patterns. Thus, by no means is temperature the only issue – water resources may become the most important concern for Canadians and humanity.  

There are things we can do to slow this change – essentially we need to reduce our emissions of greenhouse gases, gases like carbon dioxide (CO2). While this reduction is required, it will not be sufficient. Since the Industrial Revolution in the latter half of the 1800s, we have set in motion this change in climate. Circumpolar countries like Canada will be more dramatically affected than other parts of the earth, thus it is all the more essential that Canadians develop strategies to adapt to this new climate regime.

 

A. Our Climate is Changing…

Evidence from a variety of sources, such as Antarctic ice cores, provide us with data going back thousands of years. These data strongly suggest that the concentration of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere affects global temperatures and our climate.

Climate, which refers to a region’s average weather conditions (temperature, precipitation, wind, etc.), changes over time. Changes are readily detectable over long periods, including shifts between glacial and interglacial periods.  Policy makers, however, are more concerned with changes occurring over much shorter periods of several decades.  It is generally accepted that since the late 1800s, the average surface temperature of the globe has increased about 0.6oC over sea and land.  Climate models suggest that this warming trend is likely to continue at a rate unprecedented in human history: the predicted increase in the earth’s average temperature is between 1.4oC and 5.8oC over the next 100 years. 

For the past several decades, researchers have tried to explain this phenomenon, looking at the possible causes and implications of a warming climate.  Virtually all the witnesses who appeared before the Committee emphasized the importance of the work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in improving our understanding of the climate change issue.  Established in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organisation and the United Nations Environment Programme, the IPCC’s role is to assess the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of climate change, its potential effects, and options for adaptation and mitigation.   

In 1996, the IPCC issued the following statement: “The balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on global climate.” As this statement was made in a Summary for Policy Makers, it was subject to UN regulations:  it required word-for-word approval by every UN member state.  Only two countries, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, objected.  In its third assessment report in 2001, the IPCC statement was far stronger and received far less opposition:  “There is now new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities.”   

Mr. Henry Hengeveld, chief science advisor at Environment Canada, summarized the IPCC findings.  Naturally occurring gases, including carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane, play a role in keeping our planet warm enough to support life as we know it.  These gases are referred to as greenhouse gases (GHG).  The greenhouse effect was first theorized in 1824 by a French mathematician, Jean Fourier.  Greenhouse gases allow the incoming solar energy to reach the atmosphere and the earth’s surface, but block outgoing heat energy and re-radiate it in all directions, including back to the surface.  Without this effect, the earth’s temperature would be 33 degrees colder than it is today and our planet would be unliveable.  

Observations of Antarctic ice cores yield data on climate and atmospheric composition from millennia ago.  Evidence from these ice cores strongly suggests that atmospheric CO2 concentrations have historically affected global temperatures.

 

Figure 1: Correlation Between Greenhouse Gases and Temperature

 

Source: Andrew Weaver, brief submitted to the Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry, Vancouver, February 28, 2003.

 

Variations in the concentration of atmospheric CO2 and methane as recorded in Antarctic ice cores over the last 400,000 years coincide with variations of the temperature over the same period.  When GHG levels were high, the climate was warm; when GHG levels were low, the climate was cold (Figure 1 ).  

Studies of atmospheric carbon dioxide levels show that over the last 400,000 years, they have never exceeded about 300 parts per million. At the time of the last Ice Age – around 21,000 years ago – atmospheric carbon dioxide levels were at about 190 parts per million, and over the following 19,000-plus years they rose; by the time of the Industrial Revolution in the last half of the 1800s, atmospheric carbon dioxide levels had risen to about 280 parts per million. Therefore, in this span of over 19,000 years, the level rose about 90 parts per million (90 = 280 – 190 parts per million). Since the Industrial Revolution the level has increased from 280 million parts per million to the current level of 370 parts per million, the difference of which is also 90 parts per million (90 = 370 – 280 parts per million). Thus, humanity has caused the same increase in 150 years as what had been caused by natural forces over a period of over 19,000 years.  

As mentioned above, an increase of about 0.6oC in the average surface temperature has been observed since the late 1800s, over sea and land.[2]  In exploring the reasons for this warming trend, researchers have considered various factors affecting the global climate, including solar output and volcanic emission of aerosols.  Scientists have examined these two factors over the last 140 years and assessed, based on model projections, how the earth’s climate system should have responded to these natural forces.  Some of the changes in the first part of the 20th century could be explained by solar and volcanic eruptions, both because solar intensity increased and the number of volcanic eruptions decreased, putting less dust in the air.  

In the last 50 years, however, the reverse is true.  A higher number of volcanic eruptions added more dust to the air, while solar activity did not vary much; based on those two factors alone, the climate system should have cooled.  Instead, it warmed quite rapidly.  When scientists included the increased GHG concentrations in the models, the results closely reproduced actual observed conditions.  In effect, the observed increase in temperature could not be modelled without including GHG in the equation. 

 

B. …And the Changes Will Affect Us  

The changes in climate will have a profound effect on Canadians – the way we produce our food, use our natural resources, and live our daily lives. There are uncertainties but while researchers are trying to improve our knowledge and understanding of climate change, Canadians in our north are already witnessing many changes.  

As mentioned above, models developed around the world have predicted an increase in the earth’s average temperature of between 1.4oC and 5.8oC over the next century.  This range reflects the uncertainties in climate change projections.  The uncertainties arise from several assumptions that are embedded in the models: assumptions with respect to human behaviour and our GHG emissions, with respect to the response of the carbon cycle to changes in climate, and with respect to biophysical factors such as clouds.  There is likely little uncertainty with respect to the lower limit, while there is great uncertainty with respect to the upper limit.  The Committee was told that an increase of 1.4oC in the earth’s average temperature would be unprecedented in human history.   

An increase in the earth’s average temperature does not mean an even increase in every part of the world.  The evidence the Committee received suggests that the warming will be amplified at high latitudes because of the snow or ice albedo feedback: when the land surface changes from white (snow or ice cover) to dark (soil and vegetation), it absorbs more solar radiation and warms further.  Warming will also occur more in the interior of continents (regions that are away from the ocean) relative to the exterior of continents, and more in winter relative to summer, and night relative to day.  

With an uneven distribution of temperature increases, the circulation of air masses and ocean currents will be affected and will influence local climates.  Different parts of the globe will feel a variety of effects including changes in the timing and distribution of precipitation, and changes in temperature fluctuations.  The IPCC has acknowledged that climate change encompasses more than changes in temperature.  It indicated that we can also expect changes in the frequency of anomalous years; that is, some extreme conditions will become less frequent, while others will become more frequent.  It was mentioned many times that Canada can expect more frequent and widespread droughts, particularly in the Prairies.   

These changes are already visible in Canada’s North.  Both the Yukon and Mackenzie regions have warmed by 1.5oC over the past 100 years, which is close to three times the global average increase.  Discussions with Yukon communities were initiated by the Northern Climate ExChange in 2000 to get a sense of the level of concern about climate change.  From these discussions, it quickly became evident that climate change is no longer an abstract idea in the Yukon, and has emerged as a major public issue.   

Many northerners are making firsthand observations of climate change, and this local knowledge is adding an important dimension to our understanding of the issue.  Ms. Aynslie Ogden, Manager of the North Region of the Canadian Climate Impacts and Adaptation Research Network (C-CIARN), mentioned reports that elders in Nunavut are hearing frogs and crickets and seeing thunderstorms, events that have not occurred there before. Indeed, increasingly there are insects, birds, wildlife and climate occurrences that have never been observed, and the people do not have a word for them in their traditional language; for example, in Sachs Harbour on Banks Island, people saw robins but did not have a word for “robin” because the species had never been seen there before.  Such stories are starting to abound across northern Canada.  

A major concern of residents is in the absence of predictability; people can no longer rely on past experience and traditional knowledge to predict when seasons will change; nor can they predict hunting conditions as ice conditions change wildlife patterns (migration, etc.).  These changing ice conditions may result in there being no polar bears in the Hudson Bay area within about 50 years. Mr. George Quintal of the Metis Nation of Alberta told the Committee that water levels in lakes and rivers have decreased in the northern part of Alberta, affecting spawning sites and fish populations on which the Metis rely for their diet.  

“Are our northern populations the messengers for the rest of the world?”[3]  How great will the impact of climate change be?  It appears from the testimony that some regions and sectors might benefit from climate change while others might lose.  In both cases, climate change will have significant environmental, social, and economic effects on Canada and Canadians. Our ability to adapt will enable us to capture the opportunities and reduce the negative impact.

 

C. The Solution is to Reduce Emissions…  

Although the Committee’s mandate was to examine the impact of climate change and the potential adaptation options, many witnesses addressed the issue of reducing greenhouse gas emissions.  This was not surprising, since current national and international efforts to tackle the issue of climate change primarily target the reduction of GHG emissions.  Three emission-reducing instruments were suggested to the Committee: the Kyoto Protocol – a critical first step in our long-term strategy to reduce emissions – an emissions trading system that can help to minimise our reduction costs, and a longer goal of decarbonizing our energy sources.

 

1. The Kyoto Protocol  

In 1997, the Kyoto Protocol was developed through the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.  The Kyoto Protocol binds the industrialized countries that ratify the Protocol to reduce their GHG emissions.  It is widely accepted, however, that even after introducing significant measures to reduce GHG emissions, some additional degree of climate change is inevitable.  All witnesses agreed that because the climate system will take centuries to respond to the existing GHG levels, the Kyoto Protocol will have little effect on the climate in the next century. 

To illustrate this point, Dr. Andrew Weaver from the School of Earth and Ocean Sciences, University of Victoria, compared scenarios using one particular model: if nothing is done to reduce GHG emissions, the model predicts an increase of 2.08ºC in the global temperature and a sea-level rise of 50 cm.  If every country, including the United States, were to meet its Kyoto target, the increase in temperature would be 2ºC and the sea-level rise would be 48.5 cm.  If these countries were to go beyond Kyoto targets and make a further 1%-per-year reduction after 2010 through the end of the century, this model predicts an increase in temperature of 1.8ºC with a sea-level rise of 45.5 cm.   

The Kyoto Protocol is the critical first step in a long‑term strategy to deal with our changing climate. By itself, the Protocol will not solve the problem; but it will buy a little time to adapt to the changes.  Compliance with the Protocol will delay by 10 years (from 2060 to 2070) the point at which carbon dioxide double from current levels. But as Environment Canada pointed out, the ultimate objective of the Framework Convention on Climate Change is to stabilize concentrations at a level that will avoid dangerous consequences for humanity.

 

2. The Emissions Trading System  

In the Climate Change Plan for Canada (CCPC) released in 2002, the federal government presented measures and policies to meet its Kyoto target and tackle climate change.  One of the cornerstones of the strategy to cut GHG emissions from large emitters will be an emissions trading system that will generate a monetary value for carbon.  The details are under discussion, but according to the CCPC, companies would be required to have permits for their emissions.  A large proportion of the required permits would be provided free to companies, based on their historical level of production and their emission intensity.  With respect to their remaining permits, companies would have a choice of investing in emissions reductions or purchasing additional permits or “offsets.” 

When properly managed, forests and agricultural soils can remove carbon from the atmosphere and store it in the soil or trees; in this sense, they are referred to as terrestrial sinks.  Each equivalent unit of CO2 that has been removed and stored in agricultural soils or forest would create a carbon credit that could then be sold to those GHG emitters for whom the cost of emission reductions would be greater than the price at which the credits are being sold.  The CCPC proposes to establish a framework by which carbon credits could be sold as offsets within the emissions trading system (Box 2).

Many witnesses pointed out that Canada has great potential to store carbon, and that these sinks will help Canada meet its target under the Kyoto Protocol.  On the other hand, Dr. G. Cornelis van Kooten, a forestry economist at the University of Victoria, suggested that a carbon tax would be a cheaper way to address emission reductions.

His studies indicate that the cost of creating forest sinks through afforestation would be too expensive even when carbon uptake benefits are taken into account.  Furthermore, there are still some scientific uncertainties regarding the benefits of agricultural soil sinks (Box 3), and they may not be a long-term solution due to their ephemeral nature: soils release CO2 very quickly when cropping practices change.   

Nevertheless, a consensus does exist when it comes to sustainable long-term solutions to climate change:  witnesses agreed that they require significant reductions in GHG emissions many times beyond the Kyoto commitments, and it cannot be done without focusing on energy systems.   

 

3. The Decarbonization of Global Energy Systems  

In order to significantly affect energy systems and GHG emissions, we need to develop primary energy sources that do not emit carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, and that reduce end-use energy demand.  Yet, the Committee was told that most of the approaches taken so far are essentially transitional, incremental improvements of mostly existing technologies.  What is necessary is the “decarbonization of the energy system,” that is, a shift from high-carbon-content to low-carbon-content fuels.  

In fact, our society has been naturally evolving toward this decarbonization.  An examination of the primary sources of energy over the last centuries indicates a clear evolution from wood to coal, then oil, and finally gas as the dominant primary fuel.  In Canada, natural gas has now overtaken oil as the primary fossil fuel source.  

The key factor in decarbonization is to reduce the number of carbon atoms in any fuel and increase the number of hydrogen atoms: for example fewer CO2 emissions are associated with natural gas or methane than with coal.  The ultimate evolution is to go to pure hydrogen, which creates no CO2 emissions.[4]

Dr. Ned Djilali of the Institute for Integrated Energy Systems at the University of Victoria illustrated our ability to introduce zero CO2 emissions technology with two examples.  He examined two services that society needs, and their energy sources.  Harvesting, the first example, currently has essentially only one possible source of energy, crude oil (processed into diesel fuel, which is used in a combine).  This energy system is very difficult to wean from fossil fuels, and therefore from GHG-emitting technology.  

On the other hand, the second service, potable water, can be obtained through a number of possible primary energy sources and pathways.  There are fossil fuel paths, through the use of diesel fuels to run water treatment plants, or through electricity and a generating power plant that uses coal or natural gas as its primary source.  There is, however, an alternative path that uses electricity obtained via renewable energy, such as wind turbines, hydro, or generating stations powered by geothermal or nuclear power.  

The example of potable water highlights the fact that there is a sector of energy systems, the stationary sector, that is primarily fed via the electricity grid. The electricity carried by the grid is generated by a variety of sources, some renewable, some non-GHG emitting, and some non-renewable.  It is here that zero CO2 emission technology can be introduced.  

Separate from this main grid is the mobile sector, including transportation, which is largely dependent upon fossil fuels.  The challenge will be to translate zero CO2 emission primary energies into fuel for the mobile sector.  One possible way to achieve this objective would be to transform any additional power from renewable sources, which are not always available due to the transient nature of the sun, winds, and tides, into hydrogen production.  The extra hydrogen could then be either stored or fed into fuel cell energy transformation technology.  By using hydrogen as a fuel, the mobile sector could be liberated from its dependence on fossil fuels.  A hydrogen electricity-based system could be flexible and adaptable.  Furthermore, since it could be adapted to local availability, it would not be a “one solution fits all” approach.  

A number of problems must be solved before we can move to a completely decarbonized society.  Major issues include reducing hydrogen production costs, converting hydrogen into electricity via fuel cell technology, and the development of storage and distribution systems.  One often-noted problem concerns investment in the supply of hydrogen:  there will be no systematic deployment of a hydrogen infrastructure until there is sufficient demand to make it cost-effective, yet sufficient demand will not exist until the infrastructure is in place.  

To overcome this chicken-and-egg situation, targeted policy measures will have to be taken.  While it is not within this Committee’s mandate to recommend these policies, the Committee does believe that a clear vision is required of the government – a vision that recognizes the environmental and economic benefits of this approach.  Canada is a world leader in some energy-related technologies, and we should take advantage of this expertise.

Much to the Committee’s surprise, Dr. Djilali said that currently, the only feasible path to a systematic GHG-free hydrogen economy – whereby we would supply 80 to 90% of our energy requirements through a hydrogen energy system – is by the widespread introduction of nuclear power.  Some witnesses also suggested that technological development that should have occurred in the nuclear energy field over the last several decades has been thwarted since it has limited appeal to Canadians.  

These advocates see a clear need to reassess the option of nuclear energy, given the needs of Canada and the world into the 21st century and beyond.  A proper risk analysis should include the issue of waste management in 50 years’ or 100 years’ time.  In addition, the uncertainty regarding the direct effects of climate change must be measured against the certainty of some negative effects if no radical steps are taken to address the GHG emission issue. 

The Committee wants to stress, however, that renewable energy sources have a crucial role to play in Canada’s future energy system.  During its trip through western Canada, the Committee witnessed efforts in this area, notably the Vision Quest wind turbine facility near Pincher Creek (Alberta).  The Committee also visited a hog operation near Viking, Alberta, that uses liquid manure to produce electricity (Box 4) a powerful opportunity for farmers to reduce pollution and odours, and address climate change at the same time.  

 

As the climate system will take centuries to respond to the levels of GHG already emitted by human (industrial) activity, only future generations will be able to concretely measure the success of our current mitigation efforts.  In the meantime, we will need to adapt to new climatic conditions.

 

D. …And Adapt to the Effects  

To say that the mitigation of climate change has received the lion’s share of media and public attention as well as government funding around the world is an understatement. Discussion of the Kyoto Protocol has diverted so much attention from adaptation both in Canada and internationally that the debate is decidedly skewed.  This is especially disappointing for Canadians since the Canadian government is officially committed to promoting adaptation. The Committee was commended for focusing on the issue of adaptation to climate change and for providing a forum to discuss this important matter.  The Committee tried to answer the following questions: is research on adaptation strategies being done in Canada? What is being done? Who is doing it?  

Adaptation to climate change also lacks the attention it deserves because it is a long-term need – which is exactly why a Senate Committee has a role, as suggested by Dr. Mohammed H.I. Dore, Department of Economics, Brock University:  

“perhaps the Senate is the only body that has a long‑term view of the well‑being of Canadians […] I think that […] the impacts of climate change really are long‑term issues.”[5]  

Similarly, Mr. Peter N. Duinker, Manager of C-CIARN’s Atlantic Region, stated that:   

“It is high time that we moved ahead on this topic of impacts and adaptation.  Your work and our work at C‑CIARN are vital parts of that agenda.”[6]  

Although the impacts of climate change, and adaptation to those impacts, require further attention and funding, the intensity and passion showed by all witnesses illustrate a vibrant research community that has been examining this issue. Their efforts deserve wider recognition.  For example, few Canadians are aware of the Canada Country Study completed in 1998.  This study was the first-ever assessment of the social, biological, and economic impacts of climate change on the different regions of Canada.  Climate experts from government, industry, academia, and non-government organizations were brought together to review existing knowledge on climate change impacts and adaptation, identify gaps in research, and suggest priority areas where new knowledge was urgently needed.

 

Since then, the Government of Canada’s Climate Change Impacts and Adaptation Program, a sub-component of the Climate Change Action Fund (CCAF), has been providing funding for research and activities to improve our knowledge of Canada’s vulnerability to climate change, to better assess the risks and benefits posed by climate change, and to build the foundation for well-informed decisions on adaptation.  Canadian research on impacts and adaptation carried out since 1997 is currently being synthesized by Natural Resources Canada into a comprehensive report entitled Climate Change Impacts and Adaptation: A Canadian Perspective.  This report will provide information on various sectors such as water resources, agriculture, forestry, fisheries, coastal zones and health, as well as general information on impacts and adaptation, advances in research techniques and remaining knowledge gaps.  Sector-specific chapters on agriculture and forestry were published in 2002.

In addition, federal, provincial, and territorial governments have supported the creation of the Canadian Climate Impacts and Adaptation Research Network to link researchers and stakeholders. C-CIARN comprises six regions (British Columbia, Prairies, Ontario, Quebec, Atlantic, and North) and seven national sectors (Agriculture, Water Resources, Coastal Zone, Health, Forest, Landscape Hazards, and Fisheries) connecting researchers and stakeholders across the country.  C-CIARN regions and sectors work together to increase our understanding of climate change impacts and adaptation, identify knowledge gaps, and define research priorities.  A national coordination office housed at Natural Resources Canada manages the C-CIARN’s operations.  Two research groups, OURANOS in Quebec and the Prairie Adaptation Research Cooperative (PARC), have been created to enhance research efforts. 

 

Released in December 2002, the Climate Change Plan for Canada deals mostly with GHG emission controls, not adaptation strategies.  It does, however, identify four key areas of necessary collaboration between government, academia, and the private sector to advance adaptation efforts:

 

1.       development and research approaches to adaptation planning and tools development;

2.       expansion of the assessment of vulnerability to climate change impacts to all areas of Canada;

3.       identification of priority areas/regions where there is a need to consider future actions; and

4.       development of increased awareness of the impacts of climate change and the need to address them through adaptation.  

Where do these actions fit into the whole Canadian strategy on climate change?  Of the $1.6 billion the government has invested in climate change action since 1998, government officials who appeared before the Committee estimated that approximately $100 million had been spent on various aspects of the science of impacts and adaptation. From the Climate Change Action Fund’s annual budget of $50 million, $2.5 million per year have been allocated to impacts and adaptation research.  

This lack of attention is rather disappointing, because Canada is officially committed to promoting adaptation.  While the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, upon which the Kyoto Protocol is based, is concerned with reducing emissions, it also explicitly promotes adaptation. Specifically, Article 4 says that:  

All Parties […] shall […] formulate, implement, publish and regularly update national and, where appropriate, regional programmes containing […] measures to facilitate adequate adaptation to climate change…[7]

 

Summary  

Scientific evidence indicates that our climate is changing. This change in climate will affect humanity, and the effects will be most profound in circumpolar countries like Canada. We have to reduce our emissions to try to minimize the negative effects of our changing climate – that is we will have to mitigate our emissions – but we also will have to adapt. While the Committee recognizes that mitigation and adaptation to climate change do go hand-in-hand, funding for adaptation efforts needs to be dramatically increased to help our country prepare for the future. There is also a need for a long-term commitment to support, fund, and monitor progress toward adaptation; the Government of Canada should take a leadership role on this issue.  The federal and provincial ministers of Environment and Energy met in May 2002 and supported the development and implementation of a national adaptation framework.  To the Committee’s knowledge, this framework is still only a very crude structure, but it could provide the institutional hooks necessary to promote adaptation to climate change.

CHAPTER 3:

EFFECTS OF CLIMATE CHANGE ON AGRICULTURE: WHAT DO WE KNOW?

“Assuming that this climatic change phenomenon will be with us for quite a while, we have to recognize that the way people react, adapt, or do not react or adapt, is going to probably make the difference between whether or not the final impacts are okay or really bad.”  [emphasis added]

Dr. Christopher Bryant, Professor,
Department of Geography,Université de Montréal[8]

Although the exact effects of a changing climate on Canada’s agricultural sector are unknown, some trends are distinguishable. These effects can be divided into two categories. The first group of effects are biophysical in nature – effects on crops due to warmer temperatures, changing levels of carbon dioxide, and changing precipitation patterns. The second category of effects relate to the economics of the agriculture industry – the effect of changing productivity in Canada and international markets on the profitability of agriculture. 

Canadian research on impact and adaptation in agriculture carried out since 1997 has been synthesized into a comprehensive report entitled Climate Change Impacts and Adaptation: A Canadian Perspective, published in October 2002 by Natural Resources Canada.  Some of the evidence that the Committee heard regarding the potential effects of climate change on agriculture is already contained in this report.  This section highlights some key points of our current knowledge of this issue.

 

A. Biophysical Effects of Climate Change on Canadian Agriculture 

Resource economists from Canada and the United States predict that Canada’s agriculture will benefit from climate change.  Some regions within Canada might expect net gain while other will lose; but, by and large, Canada’s agriculture could be a net beneficiary.  Some of the factors that explain this optimism are grounded in two basic predictions from research on climate change:  temperatures will increase, particularly in regions closer to the pole, such as Canada; and atmospheric CO2, the primary nutrient for plants, will rise.  These two factors could have the following effects on crops and forage:

·        an increase in plant productivity,
·        a longer growing season, and 
·        accelerated maturation rates.

The effect of higher temperature on plants is expected to be positive in ecosystems where the current annual mean temperature is below 15oC, as is the case for Canada. It is expected to be neutral or even negative in ecosystems within zones that have an annual mean temperature above 15oC.  Therefore, consequences for agriculture in Canada could be improved yields for existing crops, the possibility of growing new crops, and a northward shift of favourable cropping conditions.  Dr. Robert Grant of the University of Alberta mentioned that as much as 60 million new hectares could become available for agricultural production, because of the northward expansion of cropping conditions.  This gain could offset the possible loss of agricultural land in other parts of the world such as Africa, northeastern Brazil, and Australia. 

There are several important caveats, however, to this optimism, relating to soil productivity, temperature, water availability, soil erosion, and pests  It was mentioned several times that soil conditions in the north of Canada may not be adequate to sustain any agricultural production.  In the three Prairie provinces, only 1.44 million hectares could become available if climate conditions move 550 to 650 km northward (the figure is based on the most suitable soil for agriculture production north of the 55th parallel [class 4 soils]).  There are, indeed, limitations to these positive projections. 

Another moderating factor on the positive projections for agriculture is temperature itself. Although higher average temperatures might result in greater productivity, higher temperatures can also negatively affect agricultural production: extreme heat increases crop damage and influences animal health.  For example, Mr. Gilles Bélanger from AAFC concluded from his research that warmer winters could negatively affect some perennial crops in eastern Canada, notably by reducing cold hardening in the fall and an increase in the number of winter thaw events.   

The availability of water for agricultural production will become a major issue and may limit the positive effects of higher temperatures.  Yet, how changes in precipitation patterns will exactly play out, is currently unknown. The Committee was however assured that precipitation patterns will change. Indeed, several witnesses told the Committee that precipitation patterns are the most difficult variable to predict. For example, precipitation may increase, but this may not be beneficial if it falls at the wrong time for crops. Or, the amount of rain that used to fall over a two day period may fall in three hours.  

Compounding this uncertainty are two opposing facts.  Higher temperatures mean higher evapotranspiration rates (loss of water from plants and soil), increasing the amount of water crops will need.  On the other hand, higher concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere reduce transpiration rates and therefore would increase water use efficiency by plants.  Ultimately, the effect of climate change on water availability is unknown, thereby potentially limiting the positive projections of climate change on agriculture (see Box 5 for regional details).  It is apparent in the face of this uncertainty, farmers may have to actively manage their water resources more than they have had to in the past, perhaps by storing it. Water is discussed in greater detail in Chapter 5.  

Soil erosion may also become of greater concern with changing precipitation patterns.  More soil erosion may occur if there is an increased intensity of rainfall (such as short deluges) and changes in wind patterns.  Flooding and drought, two extreme climatic events that are commonly projected to increase, are major factors that aggravate the risks of agricultural soil erosion, and temper projections of productivity increases.  

Temperature and precipitation affect not only crops and livestock – insects, weeds and disease also respond to temperature and moisture levels.  Grasshoppers, for instance, can serve as indicators of climate trends.  Dan L. Johnson, a research scientist at AAFC’s Lethbridge Research Centre, presented evidence that climate change is likely to benefit invasive species and increase the threats of insect outbreaks.  For example, research on grasshopper population in Alberta and Saskatchewan showed that grasshopper reproduction and survival are enhanced by warm, dry conditions; such conditions are likely to occur under current climate change scenarios.  

Carbon dioxide also affects weeds. Mr. Daniel Archambault, a research scientist at the Alberta Research Council, mentioned that there have been changes in the weeds found in Alberta, and that enhanced CO2 may increase their growth.  He also mentioned that herbicide and pesticide efficiency could decrease because of increased CO2.  

Aside from the effects of these individual variables – temperature, soil, and water – the combined effects of temperature, enhanced atmospheric CO2, and moisture availability also leads to seemingly contradictory results that vary by region.  For example, Mr. Samuel Gameda, a research scientist at AAFC, showed a possible extension of corn and soybean areas in Atlantic Canada, and a potential for corn and soybean yields in Quebec and Ontario to be as high as those currently seen in the Midwest of the United States.  Mr. McGinn, from AAFC’s Lethbridge Research Centre, presented results from research conducted at AAFC’s Eastern Cereal and Oilseed Research Centre that showed no changes in yield in the Prairies for spring crops such as barley, canola, and wheat as a result of earlier seeding dates and better water use efficiency made possible through enhanced CO2 in the atmosphere.  

The exact outcome on agriculture from changes to these individual variables nor their combined effects is unknown at this time. It is known that climate change will cause the past patterns to change. But the projections are really only well understood on a global basis, not on a national let alone provincial basis. The Committee realizes that these biophysical effects will be localized, and that more research is needed to improve our understanding of them.  

Picture 1: Soil drifting near Oyen, Alberta, May 5, 2002

Source: Dave Sauchyn, brief submitted to the Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry, Ottawa, February 4, 2003.

As mentioned by Mr. Ed Tyrchniewicz, President of the Agricultural Institute of Canada, climate change is about temperature, precipitation and variability – the latter being, in his view, the most important factor from agriculture’s perspective.  Dr. Barry Smit from the University of Guelph emphasized that “we hardly ever get average climate.  We get the variation from year to year.”  It seems obvious that the farmers can manage the conditions that occur in an average year.  Indeed, most agricultural systems can accommodate minor deviations from the average within what is called the coping range (Figure 2).

With climate change, however, all of these conditions will shift.  The average year may still be within the coping range but it is important to note that, even without a change in magnitude of the extremes, a change in the mean will bring a change in the frequency of some extremes.  An example relevant to agriculture would be more frequent and more serious droughts.  In scientific terms, the probability of an extreme year may increase from one in ten to one in three.

 

Figure 2:  Climate Change Includes Changes in Extremes

Source: Barry Smit, brief submitted to the Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry, Ottawa, March 20, 2003.

 

B. Economic Effects of Climate Change on Canadian Agriculture  

All witnesses agreed that changes in year to year variation in temperature and precipitation will be far more significant for the agricultural sector than changes in the average conditions.  As stated by the President of the Agricultural Institute of Canada, the issue ultimately relates to risk management at the farm level.

In addition to changes in agricultural production, changes in climate will result in changes in market variables such as market prices and input prices.  Although production is determined locally by local weather conditions, international markets determine many market prices.  What will be important for Canadian farmers is how their productivity changes relative to the rest of the world.  If our competitors experience sharp declines in some of the crops that Canada might be relatively more capable of producing under a changed climate scenario, this situation could be beneficial for our farmers.

Nevertheless high yields may not be financially beneficial for farmers, if they are coupled with low prices.  Conversely, if Canadian farmers experience low yields but nonetheless produce better than the rest of the world, they may benefit from high prices.

In previous studies of Canada, Dr. Siân Mooney from the University of Wyoming found that overall net revenues from the Prairie provinces could be increased by climate change. Dr. Mendelsohn, a natural resources economist from the Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, also expects to see fairly large benefits for Canada’s agricultural sector.  Such findings are, however, very dependent upon the number of assumptions that underlie the different models and studies. For example, some of these optimistic predictions do not account for soil and water limitations in northern latitudes.

 

C. Adaptation Options for Agriculture

The net impact of climate change on Canadian agriculture will largely depend on the adaptation measures that farmers take.  In the context of climate change, adaptation means adjusting farm management techniques to the expected effects of climate change in order to reduce risks or realize opportunities.   

Farmers are already innovative and adapt to various stresses, including variations in weather, trade policies, and commodity prices.  For example, farmers in Western Canada are adopting or expanding certain practices, such as not tilling their soil, in order to protect their topsoil during droughts, keep moisture in the soil, and reduce the amount of greenhouse gases being released into the atmosphere.   

Historically, a range of adaptation options has been available to farmers to cope with various risks and conditions, and these will continue to help them in the future.  Dr. Barry Smit, one of the leaders in research on adaptation in Canada, classified these options into four categories:  

  • technological development, including the development of new crop varieties, feed rations, and weather information systems;

  • farm financial management, including crop insurance, income stabilization programs, and diversification of household income;

  • farm production practices, including diversification, irrigation, changes in the timing of farm operations (such as earlier seeding), conservation tillage, and agroforestry; and

  • government programs, including support programs and taxation. (See Box 6 for an example of a government support program.)

Dr. Michael Brklacich, a professor at Carleton University, advised the Committee that these options will have to be evaluated to see whether they will work in the future, since uncertainty remains with respect to climate conditions in the second part of this century.  Research efforts have tried to model the technical feasibility and efficiency of crop systems, notably through a variety of crop models developed and applied in the Canadian context.  These models try to estimate how changes in climate and adaptation options might dampen the potential negative effects of climate change.  

Dr. Roger Cohen from the University of Saskatchewan developed a decision support tool for farmers called Grassgro that can be used to review adaptation strategies on the Prairies.  Grassgro assesses how weather, soils, and management practices combine to affect pastoral production, profitability, and risk.  Based on various climate change scenarios and adaptation options, this model can determine what sort of strategies are likely to ensure that cattle producers can remain viable.  

Beyond the technical and practical aspects of the different options, farmers will ultimately have to make adaptation choices.  Dr. Michael Mehta, a sociologist from the University of Saskatchewan, defined adaptive capacity as the ability of a system or an individual to adjust to climatic variability, often by minimizing the likelihood and consequences of adverse outcomes.  As such, adaptive capacity is similar to risk management, and farmers’ attitude toward climate change will be the key to successful adaptation.  Dr. Smit mentioned that farmers already face two choices: wait until the effects are felt and then do the best they can, including giving up farming; or be aware that some risks exist, and be proactive in reducing their vulnerability.  

Few researchers addressed adaptation in analyzing the decision-making process at the farm level.  Although limited, their research has provided some useful insights: 

·        Adaptation in agriculture is driven more by the vulnerabilities associated with extremes.  Farmers are concerned about responding to climatic extremes rather than responding to long‑term changes in climatic averages.  If an area becomes more suitable for a specific crop, they can cope with this type of change as they have done in the past – the extension of canola and chickpeas in Western Canada serve as examples. 

·        Adapting in a reactive way could be costly.  For example, a representative of Alberta Agriculture, Food and Rural Development mentioned that the provincial government has spent $1.8 billion on ad hoc drought relief in Alberta since 1984.  In western Canada, the Committee heard from Mr. Bart Guyon, a rancher in a region of Alberta that had never previously been concerned about a lack of water.  When drought hit his region in 2002 and he ran out of water and pasture for his elks and bison, he was forced into making “panic decisions.”

·        Adaptation strategies are specific to locations and settings.  They will vary from place to place and from farm to farm. 

·        Adaptation to climate change is one component of risk management strategies for producers.  Climate is not looked at in isolation; farmers put it in a broader context that includes trade policy, input costs, world prices, changing environmental regulations in Canada, and a whole suite of other factors that they must face and adjust to on a day‑to‑day basis.  Adaptation is a farm-level strategy, and it must be understood in the context of the broader decision-making process. 

 

Farmers will have to build on their strengths and identify where their farm operations are vulnerable.  Dr. David Burton, who holds the first Chair in Climate Change at the Nova Scotia Agricultural College, identified some of these strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats for the agricultural sector in Atlantic Canada.  Low profit margins, for example, limit farmers’ ability to respond to changes such as new environmental regulations.  The diversity of production systems in Atlantic Canada, however, increases the stability of the sector since a farmer is able to generate revenue from several activities on the farm, offsetting negative outcomes from any one of them.  

Technological development, and improvements in agricultural practices, will have an important role in enabling adaptation to climate change.  But it is crucial that farmers also improve their capacity to deal with the risks that currently exist, in order to enhance their ability to deal with future risks, including those associated with climate change.  

Summary  

The overall outcome of climate change on agriculture will be determined by both biophysical and economic conditions. What will happen exactly as temperatures increase, water availability changes, soil conditions are altered, and more atmospheric carbon dioxide is available is unclear. But, farmers have a tremendous capacity to adapt to changing circumstances.  If climate change were to occur gradually, farmers would have time to adapt to new circumstances. Yet, this is not what the research predicts. The Committee was repeatedly told that changes in climate change will cause increased variability and more extreme weather events; for example, there will likely be more floods and more droughts. Adaptation strategies will have to be refined as more is known about the exact changes in climate. Adaptation to increased severity in localized conditions will be an increasingly important component of risk management strategies for producers.

CHAPTER 4:

EFFECTS OF CLIMATE CHANGE ON FORESTS: WHAT DO WE KNOW?  

As mentioned earlier with regard to the agriculture sector, most of the Canadian research on impact and adaptation in forestry has been summarized into a comprehensive report entitled Climate Change Impacts and Adaptation: A Canadian Perspective – Forestry, published in October 2002 by Natural Resources Canada (NRCan).  This report focuses on the impacts of climate change on forests in Canada, the consequences of these changes for the forestry sector, and potential adaptation options.  While only forestry issues are considered in this section, it must be recognized that the effects of climate change, as well as adaptation decisions in the forestry sector, will be influenced by, and have implications for, other sectors such as tourism and recreation, and water resources.  

The effects of climate change on Canada’s forests could be numerous and include:

·        major changes in future forest growth and survival;

·        tree species migration and ecosystem shifts;

·        increased shoot damage and tree dieback due to winter thaws;

·        increased risk of forest fires and insect outbreaks; and

·        increased damage to forests due to extreme weather events.

 

Such biophysical impacts of climate change on forests are likely to affect Canadian society and the economy through forest companies, landowners, consumers, governments, and the tourism industry.  For instance, socio-economic effects may include:

·        changes in timber supply and rent value;

·        loss of forest stock and non-market goods and services;

·        changes in land values, land use options, and non-market values; and

·        dislocation of parks and natural areas and increased land use conflicts.

 

The effects of climate change on forests will require appropriate anticipatory adaptation from the forest sector.  In order to encourage the inclusion of climate change in forestry management decision-making, some suggest the use of model simulations; others advocate increased communication between researchers and forest managers.  To date, however, climate change research in Canada related to forestry has focused primarily on biophysical impacts, such as growth rates, disturbance regimes, and ecosystem dynamics. Much less attention has been devoted to socio-economic effects and the ability of forest managers to adapt to climate change.  NRCan’s report identifies many knowledge gaps and research needs concerning both the effects of, and adaptation to, climate change.  

During its hearings the Committee heard from many experts who have been key players in research on the impact of, and adaptation to, climate change in the forest sector.  Much of this research has focused on expected changes in forest fire frequency and intensity, and expected increases in pests and diseases.

 

A. Biophysical Effects of Climate Change on Canada’s Forests

As with agriculture, there are two sides to climate change with respect to forests.  Canada's forests will be affected by climate change; at the same time, they offer opportunities to partially mitigate climate change.  Forest ecosystems will likely experience a variety of impacts, both positive and negative, as climate changes occur (Box 7).  As well, forests have the ability to take up carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere through photosynthesis, making them an effective tool in partially mitigating climate change.  

Witnesses told the Committee that there will be impacts on tree growth, as well as on other factors such as nutrients in the soil and particular conditions that are required for some species to regenerate.  In theory, warmer climates and a longer growing season should encourage tree growth.  Milder winters and longer growing seasons may also affect the hardening process of trees, which ensures that the buds do not break out prematurely. Productivity may be enhanced by more carbon dioxide, since plants require CO2 for photosynthesis – although nutrients will have to be available to optimize the potential benefit of the additional CO2.  

It is assumed that climate change will result in an increased intensity of natural disturbances such as fires, insects and disease, as well as more extreme weather events such as ice storms and droughts.  Changes in forest and species composition are likely to result from natural disturbances such as fire and insects, and from climactic conditions, such as the length of the growing season and the precipitation regime.  In some situations, increased pest infestation may exacerbate fire occurrence or frequency; in the past, for example, mountain pine beetle infestations have resulted in hundreds of thousands of hectares of dead trees that are a real fire threat.  Some experienced researchers now believe that the boreal forest is about to become not a sink for carbon dioxide but a source of carbon dioxide because of forest fires.  

The Canadian Forest Service (CFS) is expecting a northern movement of temperate forests and of the boreal forest as a result of increased temperatures.  Nevertheless, there are other factors that come into play.  Soil nutrients are one key factor that may seriously limit how far certain species will move, because they are not evenly distributed across the landscape.  Other factors such as quantity and quality of light are also important and may have a direct influence on the small size of trees that would grow in a northward-expanded boreal forest.  Moreover, some specialists fear that insects may migrate north more rapidly than tree species.  Dr. Jay Malcolm from the University of Toronto mentioned that in order to follow the climatic conditions northward, plant species will have to migrate at unprecedented speed.  Therefore, if tree migration does not keep up with the rate of warming, we could potentially lose species – notably the slower, late‑successional species that are often of interest to the forest industry – and we might end up with weedy and less vigorous forests.  An additional concern exists for Atlantic Canada since there is no land south of that region; therefore, new plant communities may emerge if plant species are unable to migrate from the south. 

From a regional perspective, major changes are expected, particularly in the North. Ms. Ogden, of C-CIARN North, noted that in the Yukon and Northwest Territories, forestry is a small but important and growing contributor to the economy.  Data for Yukon indicate that the number of forest fires and hectares burned has been increasing since the 1960s.  This trend is expected to continue as temperatures warm and lightning storms become more frequent.  Predicted increases in summer precipitation may not be enough to offset the projected warmer temperatures.  Studies conducted in the Mackenzie Basin show that, without changes in fire management, the number and severity of forest fires is projected to increase, and the average number of hectares burned annually is expected to double by 2050.  Climate change will also have an impact on populations of forest pests, such as spruce bark beetle and white pine weevil. For example, spruce bark beetles killed almost all the mature white spruce over some 200,000 hectares in Kluane National Park in southwest Yukon between 1994 and 1999. A series of mild winters and springs provided good breeding conditions for the beetles, which allowed them to multiply rapidly.  Similarly, the distribution of white pine weevil, which attacks Jack pine and white spruce, is strongly related to temperatures; this pest is expected to expand its range both northward in latitude and upward in elevation.  

Dr. Dave Sauchyn, of C-CIARN Prairies, stated that the dominant impact of climate change in the Prairies is expected to be an expansion of dry grassland areas and a reduction in the damper land that supports trees.  In terms of forestry, the major impact of climate change will be a change in forest productivity, but results from studies vary greatly depending on the factors considered. Productivity could be initially enhanced by more carbon dioxide, because plants require carbon dioxide for respiration and productivity.  Ultimately, however, forest productivity could decline as a result of lack of soil moisture, and the drying out of the forest will lead to a greater frequency of fires and insect infestations.  The changing climactic conditions will also affect the occurrence of commercially important tree species. Such uncertainty stresses the importance of research at the local level where these factors can be put together to reach more meaningful conclusions.


In British Columbia specifically, the Committee was told that projected impacts of future climate change include continued lengthening of the growing season, increased crop water demand and increased risk of fire and pest infestations.  Concerns focus on reduced forest productivity and risks to forest growth in northeastern British Columbia, while forest pests and fire risks will likely increase in the B.C. interior and expand to higher elevations and latitudes.  The expected changes in climate and their impact on B.C. forests will have to translate into new management approaches and decisions in forestry. Some research has already been undertaken into the possible relationship between the elevation at which certain species of seed are planted, and the eventual yield.  Results appear to indicate that planting at higher elevations may maintain or increase the yield in the future, because temperatures cool with elevation.  Similarly, the catastrophic example of mountain pine beetle may prompt foresters to reconsider the use of lodgepole pine in Western Canada when it is necessary to reforest an area (Box 8).  According to Dr. Stewart Cohen, from C‑CIARN B.C., the experiments with lodgepole pine seedlings demonstrate that reforestation plans will need to consider climate changes over the lifetime of newly planted trees.   These considerations raise still further questions that will require more research: how will future harvest levels be affected? What will be the impacts on communities that depend on the forest industry?  

Researchers are not certain whether Canadian forests will experience increased or decreased productivity as a result of climate change.  In theory, warmer climates and a longer growing season should result in more growth; on the other hand, more fires and more insects will inhibit growth.  If forest productivity decreases as a result of climate change, Canada’s competitiveness in the export of forest products is likely to be affected relative to that of other countries.  The Committee was somewhat reassured, however, by the evidence of some experts who believe that forestry opportunities will remain.  For instance, there could be significant increases in tree growth in Eastern Canada.   

Picture 2: 2001 Mountain Pine Beetle Damage  
(Red areas show insect infestations)

  Source: Stewart Cohen, brief submitted to the Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry, Ottawa, February 4, 2003.

In some studies of the Canadian forest sector, Dr. Perez-Garcia, from the University of Washington, found that consumers of forest products will benefit from climate change through more supply and lower prices, but timber producers are likely to see lower wood prices and fewer economic benefits unless they are in a position to expand market share. Dr. Mendelsohn, from the Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, also expects to see benefits for consumers and decreasing global prices.  Like economic projections for the agriculture sector, these results are very dependent upon the number of assumptions that underlie the different models and studies.  For example, some of these scenarios do not account for soil and water limitations in northern latitudes. Many witnesses suggested, however, that climate change will probably not be the main driver of Canada’s competitiveness; rather, economic factors such as trade issues (such as the softwood lumber dispute) and trade barriers will likely continue to determine whether the country remains competitive. 

Moreover, as Dr. Gordon Miller, Director General of the CFS, pointed out, climate change will affect not only trees but all the major services and benefits Canadians receive from their forests.  Representatives of the Canadian forest industry, like other witnesses, insisted on the fact that climate change was not only a scientific issue but a social issue as well: “When we talk about the impact of climate change on the forest industry, we are talking about the impact of climate change on the livelihood of a million Canadians.”[9] 

 

B. Adaptation Options for Forestry

Since ratifying the Kyoto Protocol, Canada has focused most of its efforts on the mitigation of climate change.  Obviously, both agriculture and forestry can play a key role as sinks for carbon sequestration, thus helping Canada to reach its commitment under the Protocol.  But climate change is already happening and will continue to happen, forcing Canadians to adapt in every aspect of their life.  Clearly the forest industry is interested in both mitigation and adaptation.  Forestry companies claim that they are already planting the right trees, given the predicted future conditions.  The reality is that they must also manage our forests in a way that continues to support the large number of job generated by the forestry sector, while protecting the quality of Canada’s environment.

 

Representatives of the Canadian forest industry appearing before the Committee claimed that government should dramatically increase research into the effects of climate change on ecosystems, and strategies for adaptation.  In the industry’s view, a preoccupation with implementing the Kyoto Protocol must be balanced by an equally strong preoccupation with the effects of climate change on Canadian rural communities.  

With regard to adapting to those effects, the industry is already taking steps to minimize losses due to forest fires by improving fire protection activities.  For example, NRCan researchers have collaborated with provinces, the forest industry, and universities to develop and evaluate a concept known as “FireSmart forest management.”  This involves strategically integrating fire and forest-management activities to reduce the overall flammability of forest landscapes through actions such as harvest scheduling, cut-block design, reforestation, and stand tending.  In cooperation with municipal, provincial, and federal organizations, the most recent scientific information on this subject has been synthesized into a guidebook that can be used to reduce fire risks to homes and communities.  Likewise, the industry can operate in a way to minimize losses due to insects and disease by applying appropriate silvicultural practices or innovative pest-management techniques wherever possible. 

Moreover, forests are widely believed to help reduce atmospheric CO2 through sequestering it in trees.  More intensive silviculture leads to more sequestration.  Even when the timber is cut, the benefits remain: when trees are used to build a house, the carbon is still sequestered in that house.  It should be noted, however, that not all forest specialists share the same views on sinks and reservoirs.  The Sierra Club stated that Canada’s forests are currently emitting more carbon into the atmosphere than they are sequestering, due to the increase incidence of insect attacks and even more of wild fires over the entire national forest landscape since the 1970s.

Private woodlot owners can also play a significant role in the CO2 sequestration part of the climate change equation.  Provinces such as New Brunswick and Quebec have implemented programs that include large afforestation components for planting trees where forests did not previously exist, or had not for more than 20 years. In several other provinces, woodlot owners are also doing significant work in planting on marginal and abandoned farmland.  It has been estimated that the potential for planting on private land is about 35,000 hectares a year over a period of 10 years.  In this regard, the choice of species is key.  For instance, although hybrid poplar can grow quickly and sequester a large amount of carbon over 20 to 25 years, the species does not do as well in the East as it does in the Prairies. White spruce, on the other hand, is frequently used on old fields in eastern Canada.  Private woodlot owners therefore require considerable flexibility in the design of any such tree-planting program. 

There are some uncertainties with respect to plantations.  Richard Betts, a senior ecosystem modeller at the Hadley Centre, mentioned that afforestation in snowy regions such as Eastern Canada may actually warm the climate because of the albedo feedback i.e. if open land were replaced with forests, the land surface would be darker, particularly in regions with a long period of snow cover; it would therefore absorb more solar radiation and warm further, creating an additional warming effect on the climate. 

The Committee also heard that a major problem with afforestation or any form of plantation is the large degree of uncertainty about which species to plant and where.  In effect, while we can guess what climatic zone might be suitable for a tree in 50 years' time, that does not necessarily mean that a seedling planted in that area now would be well suited to it.  According to the Sierra Club, this uncertainty is one factor that is delaying the forest industry in implementing adaptation measures.

In fact, the Committee noticed from some presentations that the forest industry seems to be adopting a somewhat “wait and see” approach towards adaptation to climate change. The Committee certainly commends the industry for having taken early action and succeeded in reducing its global GHG emissions by 26% since 1990.  However, notwithstanding the uncertainty about the impact of climate change on forest ecosystems over the next decades, several witnesses strongly believe that the Canadian forest industry must rapidly apply current knowledge on forest fires, insects and diseases in its long-term planning of forest operations.  It is true that planning now for what the climate in Canada will be like in 100 years is difficult, but the industry can count on the help of science undertaken within the Canadian Forest Service and Canadian universities to ensure it has the capacity to plan for the future.

One good example for the forest sector to consider is the issue of forest fires in the eastern part of Canada’s boreal forest.  As indicated in Box 10, the burned area threshold is at approximately 1% of the total forestland base.  Since the total annual area harvested also corresponds to 1% of the land base, this means that any increase in forest fire frequency (that is, the area burned, not the number or occurrence of fires) towards the 1% threshold may translate into a decrease in the timber supply that can be used for forestry.  This in turn raises the issue of harvesting methods.  In the boreal forest, the industry has been clear-cutting the forest as a means of mimicking the ecological role of fire in maintaining the age structure of the forest.  With future changes in fire patterns and with continuing social pressure for preserving more old-growth forest, it might be necessary to increase the rotation period to 200 or 300 years, or to cut part of the land base in such a way to mimic the ecological dynamic of old-growth forests.  

Details such as these are technical, but they show the importance of understanding what is happening in Canada’s forests.  In this regard, it is essential to have a good inventory and monitoring system that will help keep track of the changes currently taking place in forest ecosystems and provide a sound basis for developing mitigation and adaptation measures.  

Some witnesses insisted before the Committee on the importance of implementing large protected areas for providing north/south corridors along which species can migrate to new habitat.  Such natural corridors could allow species to migrate 50, 100 or 200 kilometres north.  Canada has the opportunity to ensure those possibilities exist in some northern landscapes and forests that have not yet been fragmented by extensive road networks and other developments.  To the extent that protected areas can limit fragmentation, they can be an extremely valuable tool to allow for species adaptation.  

The uncertain impact of climate change on the Canadian forest industry and on the rural communities that depend on healthy forests for their well-being may represent a good opportunity for all forestry stakeholders to undertake a profound reflection about forest management of the future.  Some witnesses brought forward ideas about forest tenure, intensive forestry, protected forests and corridors, etc.  The Model Forest Program offers field laboratories for testing new approaches to forest management.  More and more people seem to believe that part of the solution to adapting to climate change in the forestry sector could be to undertake more intensive forest management in forested areas closer to populations and where the land tenure would be different.  Perhaps the land base could be leased for a longer period to individuals, or private woodlot owners could produce timber for a company.  Measures such as these would reduce the pressure on forest Crown lands in the north.  

Canada’s forests are more extensive and varied than those in most other countries, including the Scandinavian nations.  As it was put forward in this Committee’s report on boreal forest,[10] Canada can afford the luxury of combining intensive forestry and high-yield plantations with the use of virgin and second-rotation forests for timber production. We have the flexibility to include more of our forest resources in conservation areas, and we have the ability to sequester carbon in both the working and the standing forest.  How we choose to manage our forests will determine whether they can continue to create wealth for Canada and sustain the communities and society that depend on them.  If we fail to manage them properly, all Canadians will pay the price.  

Summary

Climate change is likely to affect Canada’s forests in different ways.  Researchers are not yet certain whether Canadian forests will experience increased or decreased productivity as a result of climate change, but it is expected to see the temperate forests and the boreal forest move northward as a result of increased temperatures. Such impacts of climate change on forests are likely to affect Canadian society and the economy. Notwithstanding the uncertainty about the impact of climate change on forest ecosystems over the next decades, appropriate anticipatory adaptation from the forest sector will be required, and this may represent a good opportunity for all forestry stakeholders to undertake a profound reflection about forest management of the future.  

[1] Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry, Issue No. 12, 2nd Session, 37th Parliament, Vancouver, February 28, 2003, Afternoon session.

[2] The actual range lies between 0.4oC and 0.8oC; a range is specified due to the uncertainty caused by potential error in the data.

[3] Sila Alangotok: Inuit Observations on Climate Change, video document realized and produced by the International Institute for Sustainable Development, 2000.

[4] Coal has a carbon to hydrogen ratio of 2, natural gas has a ratio of 0.25, and pure hydrogen that has a ratio of 0.  Energy sources with higher carbon to hydrogen ratios have larger CO2 emissions associated with their use.

[5] Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry, Issue No. 14, 2nd Session, 37th Parliament, Ottawa, March 27, 2003.

[6] Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry, Issue No. 5, 2nd Session, 37th Parliament, Ottawa, December 12, 2002.

[7] United Nations, United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, 1992.

[8] Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry, Issue No. 16, 2nd Session, 37th Parliament, Ottawa, May 6, 2003.

[9] Mr. Avrim Lazar, Forest Product Association of Canada, Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry, Issue No. 7, 2nd Session, 37th Parliament, Ottawa, February 11, 2003.

[10] Competing Realities: The Boreal Forest at Risk, Report of the Sub-Committee on Boreal Forest of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Forestry, June 1999, 1st Session, 36th Parliament.