Evidence of meeting #84 for Agriculture and Agri-Food in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was change.
A recording is available from Parliament.
December 7th, 2017 / 4:40 p.m.
Professor Stewart Rood Professor, University of Lethbridge
Thank you very much.
I do have a slide deck, and I wonder if it's up.
4:40 p.m.
Prof. Stewart Rood
That's even better. That's great.
Thank you very much for the invitation. It's interesting. I also listened to the first two presenters as well as David, so I'm pleased to follow them.
In the first slide, I have a picture that represents a landscape very familiar to John Barlow, whom I would particularly like to thank for the invitation. This is the iconic Foothills region near the Rocky Mountains in southern Alberta. This is the landscape that generates the primary water source for the rivers that flow across the Prairies.
In the next slide I have a summary, and this is the only data slide I will show you. This is called a hydrograph or a water graph. It represents the amount of water that's been flowing, in this case in the Waterton River, but it's pretty typical of the rivers that drain the Rocky Mountains. The darker plot, which is black if you have a coloured version, represents the conditions over the last century. The red plot represents the anticipated conditions into the next century.
You will see there is likely to be a gradual decline. Even though we're getting more rain, we're getting more drying from evaporation, but most critically, we have reduced flows late in the summer, in July but especially in August and September. Also on this plot I have the green dash line, which represents crop water use, in this case for potatoes. We have a temporal problem in that we have abundant water in the spring, but demand for water for irrigation and other uses happens later in the summer.
The obvious strategy to deal with this situation is to impose dams to create reservoirs to store and subsequently release the water. This has been done, and it involves pretty much all the streams in the South Saskatchewan River basin, with the water from southern Alberta as well as northern Montana that flows to Saskatchewan and Manitoba.
The problem with this approach is shown in the next slide. This is a photograph of the river valley in Lethbridge in July, when typically there would be high flows. You can literally walk across and not get your gumboots wet. As indicated in the plot in the lower left corner, we have a damming and diversion of the vast majority of the flow.
A challenge we face relative to climate change is that we've already pretty well fully allocated our river systems in the western prairies, but unfortunately things are becoming drier because things are becoming warmer.
The first problem relative to this in terms of irrigation is that agriculture relates to water quantity, and in particular to sufficient water quantity to allow for the existing commitments, and this will limit further expansion.
The other problem follows, because as we lose the water in the river, any contaminants, whether from agricultural, industrial, or municipal sources, become more concentrated. We have this interaction between declining water quantity and degrading water quality. Both are likely to increase with climate change.
Over the past month or so I have asked people who know more than I do about policies and practices what they think might be done to prepare Canada for this future. I will briefly describe five points relative to what the federal government might do.
The first point was raised by an individual from Alberta Innovates. His suggestion relates to a number of federal government programs referred to as clean technology programs. These are primarily aimed at oil and gas and energy, but many of the principles would also apply to agriculture. Thus, there should be a widening of the eligibility for this group of programs.
This next opportunity is perhaps the one that was most commonly suggested. It suggests that for agricultural research, as we try to cope with the compound problems of increasing population globally and climate change, we match the research program that is common in biomedicine.
In the medical field, we have a cluster of research programs that support basic research, cell biology, and genetics, but there's a long way from that to the hospital. In the biomedical field there is this intermediate category of research called translational research, and the view is that this should be increased relative to agriculture.
I'm sure people in the room and others will have better examples than mine, but mine dealt with the prospect of effective timing and scheduling relative to irrigation.
The next suggestion invites a paradigm shift, a change in the way we're thinking about things. In the past century, the view was that we should maximize crop production, and the way this was done with the green revolution was to maximize inputs: more water and fertilizer equals more yield. The problem is that this might not be the optimal use relative to efficiency. Let's imagine that we could cut back on the inputs, but not as strongly cut back on the yield. If we provide lower levels of water and fertilizer and still retain reasonable productivity, this might be a more optimal way to manage our resource. It would also reduce the environmental consequences.
Following from that, I chatted with a number of scientists in Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, and some of them have expressed concern about the increasing requirement that they have formal funded links with industry for their research programs. I think this is great in moderation, but these same very sharp scientists should also have some independent programs, programs that are not hindered by the constraints that industrial partners might bring. In fact, some of those constraints might provide a bias that could in fact challenge some of the environmental objectives and might also limit what we could refer to as “visionary” research, research that doesn't have any near-future benefit but might help in the long run. This could be especially relevant for climate change as we think about broadening the germplasm for drought response of our crops.
Finally, as my own area of focus, in southern Alberta and elsewhere in the Prairies we've invested a lot of money on infrastructure related to agriculture, but we've generally done it primarily for agriculture. In terms of thinking about the impacts on the landscapes in western Canada, the next slide shows an aerial photograph taken while flying into Lethbridge. The circles are irrigation pivot crop circles. You'd have a similar view in Regina, Calgary, or Winnipeg. As you fly over this landscape, you can see that it has been cultivated. This is a much bigger impact than oil sands, pipelines, and many other things that are in the public media.
I would argue that we should think more broadly about agriculture, not only as providing a challenge for our environment but also as providing opportunities. There's one example in the slide. While we convey water for irrigation, let's use stream channels instead of canals, thus allowing for the secondary benefits. In fact, this relates to the prospect of riparian buffers and agroforestry that was talked about earlier.
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Pat Finnigan
Thank you, Mr. Rood. I'm going to have to stop you there because we're a little extended on time.
4:50 p.m.
Prof. Stewart Rood
It's perfect timing, because that was the end of my presentation.
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Pat Finnigan
Thank you very much.
Now we'll go to our questions. I would ask everyone to specify who you would like to have answer your question, because we have a person on video.
We will begin with Mr. Berthold.
You have seven minutes, or rather six, forgive me.
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
Luc Berthold Conservative Mégantic—L'Érable, QC
Six or seven minutes, either is fine, Mr. Chair; you can stop me when I'm done.
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
Luc Berthold Conservative Mégantic—L'Érable, QC
Thank you.
I want to sincerely thank both witnesses for being here with us today.
The more witnesses we hear tell us about climate change, about the quality of soil and water, the more we realize that there are as many problems as there are solutions. You both work on some very specific elements.
I'll begin with you, Mr. Sauchyn. You said that according to your analyses, people expect farmers and producers to absorb the majority of costs due to climate change.
Do you have any specific examples that show that things have been different over the past few years, as compared to normal adaptation? In other words, what are the additional costs? Farmers have always had to adapt to all sorts of things. How has this been accelerated, in your opinion, Mr. Sauchyn?
4:50 p.m.
Professor, Prairie Adaptation Research Collaborative, University of Regina, As an Individual
I was referring to the practice of not maximizing the productive capacity of the fields. In fact, Professor Rood also referred to that in his third point, regarding optimization versus maximization. It's entirely possible that this is occurring. There's an industrial scale of agriculture whereby the soil is used to its maximum capacity in the short term but becomes exhausted over time. That's as opposed to conservation farming and some practices that are fairly well documented and established, whereby farming is practised in such a way as to leave behind carbon that could have been extracted and exported, as well as some soil, and to leave behind some water, even though it could have led to a marginal increase in productivity.
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
Luc Berthold Conservative Mégantic—L'Érable, QC
According to what I understand, you deplore the fact that the government has withdrawn from programs designed to help farmers adapt to climate change. Is that correct?
4:50 p.m.
Professor, Prairie Adaptation Research Collaborative, University of Regina, As an Individual
Yes. As I said, we had a fairly major five-year study completed recently. We were fortunate to have been given millions of dollars by the federal government. We concluded that the major problem was them. I presented the results at a conference in Ottawa last spring. There were representatives of Agriculture Canada in the audience, and they were willing to speak to me. They weren't willing to respond during the event, but they were willing to speak to me in private. They said that given the financial constraints over a period of time, they chose to retract the activities of Agriculture Canada and preserve the core research activities, including the traditional activities, such as the experimental farms and the research program on crop genetics and crop trials. Anything that was considered soft science, such as adaptation, soil conservation, and water conservation, was trimmed from Agriculture Canada.
4:55 p.m.
Conservative
Luc Berthold Conservative Mégantic—L'Érable, QC
So this is what I understand: because Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada is less present and there are fewer programs to help farmers, farmers themselves have to pay for the costs of adapting and preserving their soil. In addition, there is now a carbon tax. So farmers have to pay twice to try to preserve their soil for the long term. That is my perception, in short.
Thank you very much, Mr. Sauchyn.
I will now address Mr. Rood.
I think that Mr. Barlow was very happy to see the images you showed at the beginning of your presentation.
I'd like to go back to a point you made in your presentation. You said that “cultivation, not pipelines or oil sands, has the biggest impact on the environment [...]”. However, you also said that the situation presents opportunities. I did not understand, unfortunately, what those opportunities are for agriculture. Could you expand on that? I think this could be interesting.
I know that the environment and the preservation of soils has always been at the heart of farmers' concerns. I'd like to know what the opportunities are for them, specifically.
4:55 p.m.
Stewart Rood
Fine.
Thank you for the question.
An example of this might relate to shelterbelts. Again, this was a topic with Naresh's presentation earlier.
From the point of view of the farmer, as David indicated, it's most convenient to get rid of them because of the large machinery, but in so doing, we're losing not only something that captures carbon but also something that provides habitat. If we can provide a mechanism to allow the farmer to effectively cultivate and manage that property and at the same time allow for.... For example, there might be margin shelterbelts and things like that. These are the sorts of things that collectively I think could help. We don't want there to be an expense for agriculture, but instead, while we're managing our landscapes, we can think about whether there are certain environmental opportunities.
4:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Pat Finnigan
Thank you, Mr. Berthold.
Mr. Peschisolido, you have the floor for six minutes.
4:55 p.m.
Liberal
Joe Peschisolido Liberal Steveston—Richmond East, BC
Mr. Chair, thank you.
Dr. Sauchyn, you implied in your testimony that climate change is real, that government needs a comprehensive approach to it, and that part of that comprehensive approach was conserving soil and water. That was the key. Can you elaborate a bit on that?
4:55 p.m.
Professor, Prairie Adaptation Research Collaborative, University of Regina, As an Individual
I hope I more than implied that, because I've studied climate change for 30 years and I like to think it's real. Otherwise, I may have just wasted 30 years of my life.
I'm sorry. Was the second part of your question about how it relates to soil and water conservation?
4:55 p.m.
Liberal
Joe Peschisolido Liberal Steveston—Richmond East, BC
You had mentioned that one of the key elements of any governmental approach to climate change would be dealing with conserving soil and water. Can you elaborate a bit on that?
4:55 p.m.
Professor, Prairie Adaptation Research Collaborative, University of Regina, As an Individual
I certainly can. In fact, there is a strong correlation between what are called sustainable agricultural practices and adaptation to climate change. If you read any literature, even the general literature on sustainable agriculture and adaptation to climate change, you see that they have the same underlying principles, so you could argue that if an agriculture producer farms in a sustainable way, they are relatively well prepared for a changing climate. In particular, with regard to the types of climate changes we anticipate, all of the climate models forecast more water in winter, but winter is not when we grow crops. Therefore, if you have practices and technology that enable you to store the water on the farm, and in the soil in particular, then you're much better prepared for a changing climate.
5 p.m.
Liberal
Joe Peschisolido Liberal Steveston—Richmond East, BC
You also mentioned the “demise” of the institutional integrity of our system. You talked briefly about the previous government closing down an agency, the PFRA. Can you talk about the importance of that agency and in part about how a government can strengthen that institutional integrity?
5 p.m.
Professor, Prairie Adaptation Research Collaborative, University of Regina, As an Individual
Certainly. The PFRA is a famous institution, at least in western Canada. That includes parts of British Columbia, such as the Peace country and the Okanagan, which the PFRA was responsible for. The PFRA was probably the most respected government agency that you could imagine, including in the rural Prairies.
It was created in response to the drought of the 1930s, so scholars often refer to the PFRA as perhaps the best example in the entire world of an institutional adaptation to climate change. It existed to rehabilitate prairie farms and it succeeded, and, like a good government agency, it found another mandate. Once they had rehabilitated prairie farming, they expanded into water, infrastructure, irrigation, and rural development in general. As I said, it was an iconic institution on the Prairies and was shut down about five years ago.
5 p.m.
Liberal
Joe Peschisolido Liberal Steveston—Richmond East, BC
Thank you, Professor.
Professor Rood, you briefly discussed possible strategies to deal with water management. Can you elaborate on your approach?
5 p.m.
Prof. Stewart Rood
This is an opportunity and also a challenge. Partly it's a challenge because we've gone so far down one particular pathway, and that pathway is to commit as much water as possible for as much land as possible.
Relative to changing that, instead of thinking about.... There are some mechanisms. For example, one in particular that we might think about changing is a policy known as “first in time is first in right”. What it means is that the water user who commenced the irrigation back in 1900 gets the highest priority during a drought interval. In fact, it's likely that the user may have been in the Foothills area and not in that area in the Prairies, in the Taber area or something. What it means, then, is that instead of growing potatoes, we're going to end up in a drought cycle growing hay. This is the type of unfortunate historic legacy that we have to rethink.
5 p.m.
Liberal
Joe Peschisolido Liberal Steveston—Richmond East, BC
Also, Professor, can you talk a little more about your paradigm shift? You were discussing water and fertilizer and saying that perhaps we should be going the other way. Can you elaborate on that?
5 p.m.
Prof. Stewart Rood
Yes.
The Green Revolution was regarded as a huge success, and I think there were elements of it that indeed were; there was a Nobel Prize for Borlaug. What that did is develop types of wheat and rice that were able to cope with high levels of water and fertilizer without toppling over, without lodging.
That was great if your objective was yield, but if you start to think about the use of that water as opposed to alternate uses, and also if you start to think about the costs, including the energy cost, the carbon cost, of producing that nitrogen fertilizer, you may rethink that business.
As David mentioned briefly, I think, the function of yield versus input is not linear, so you get a big return for your first application of water and your first application of fertilizer, but the response tapers off. I suggested as a hypothetical example that you might end up with 75% with only 50% input.
There's a problem with this. There are a number of complexities, but one is that the farmer invests in the infrastructure of the pumps, the sprinklers, etc., so they're going to want to use them to the utmost.
Anyway, that's the nature of that perspective paradigm shift. I think people worldwide are moving in this direction.