Daniel Martino makes the point – emphatically – that the worldwide effort to reduce greenhouse gases will fail if it continues to overlook agriculture.
“We cannot afford to ignore the land-use sectors in the global mitigation efforts…. Neglecting that would be very negative for the environment,” said Martino, a greenhouse gas reduction expert who helped write the agriculture chapter of the fourth assessment report for the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
Martino, who lives in Uruguay, recently spoke in Winnipeg at a forum hosted by the International Institute for Sustainable Development.
Read Also
Red lentils priced higher than large greens
Red lentil prices have eclipsed large green lentil prices for the first time since 2014.
The forum examined the potential of agriculture and forestry to reduce GHG emissions around the planet. As well, those at the forum were considering Canada’s position at a December meeting in Copenhagen, Denmark, of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.
Martino said the Copenhagen convention may determine the world’s rules for climate change mitigation after the first commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol ends in 2012.
Mandatory accounting of agricultural GHG emissions and mitigation from agricultural practices like zero tillage were not included in the Kyoto deal, which was agreed upon in 1997.
Martino said he hopes that countries will see the light in Denmark, because agriculture’s potential for GHG sequestration is vast.
While estimates vary, the third IPCC assessment report said during a period of 50 years (2000-2050), 100 billion tonnes of carbon could be sequestered through tree planting, forest preservation and management of agricultural lands.
That figure represents 10 to 20 percent of the world’s projected fossil fuel emissions.
“It’s something the negotiators, leading into Copenhagen, should take very seriously,” he said.
Groups like the International Food Policy Research Institute, a U.S. anti-hunger and poverty group, are also lobbying to get agriculture front and centre in Denmark.
“Including agriculture in the international climate change negotiations leading up to the meeting… is essential if fundamental mitigation and adaptation goals are to be met,” the organization said in a March report.
The attitudes of European negotiators may prevent agriculture mitigation from being part of a new protocol, Martino said.
Including mitigations beyond industrial smokestacks would alter the market for emissions.
“I tend to agree with the view that the Europeans are more interested in promoting renewable energy technologies,” said Martino, who studied at the University of Manitoba.
“And for doing that, it is very important to have a high price of carbon.”
However, the Europeans’ power may now be lessened, Martino added, because the Americans are now more involved in the climate change discussions.
The politics and complexities of these kinds of global agreements can be tiresome for producers and grassroots organizations in Canada because people want to know what it means for them, said a representative of the Soil Conservation Council of Canada (SCCC).
“From the farm sector side, we’ve been chasing this dog since 1994 at the Soil Conservation Council of Canada,” said Don McCabe, the group’s vice-president. “Where’s the market signal? Tell me what you want me to do. I will then decide if this fits or not.”
In spite of the frustration, McCabe is encouraged that players on the world stage, like Martino, are working to get agriculture on the table at climate change discussions.
Nonetheless, Canada needs to send the message to the rest of the world that farmers here have the knowledge and the willingness to alter their practices, to mitigate the problem of climate change, McCabe said.
