Search

Canada's agricultural business risk management (BRM) programs require significant public expenditure, with unclear consequences related to climate change adaptation and mitigation through the adoption of beneficial management practices (BMPs). This study examines the relationship between Canada's current suite of BRM programs and the adoption of practices that mitigate GHG emissions in crop agriculture. We review the impacts of agricultural insurance on climate adaptation and mitigation, identifying impacts on both the intensive and extensive margins of production. We consider five potential program modifications, including: (1) changes in producer insurance premiums in AgriInsurance for the adoption of practices that would decrease the actuarially fair insurance rate if they were properly incorporated in the calculation; (2) dedicated insurance products related to trials of specific BMPs; (3) adjustments to current programs to allow more whole‐farm considerations and intercropping; (4) cross‐compliance measures on AgriInvest tied to environmental education; and (5) reduced insurance coverage for unfavorable environmental practices. While the effects of these potential modifications remain uncertain, they will drive the data collection process necessary to ensure that Canada's BRM programs play an appropriate role in greenhouse‐gas reducing BMP adoption and climate change adaptation and mitigation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

To authenticate to the full-text of this article, please visit this link: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-7976.2009.01161.x Byline: Aaron De Laporte (1), Alfons Weersink (2), Wanhong Yang (3) Abstract: Canada's multilayered wetland policies promote the preservation of 'significant' wetlands, but the criteria for identifying these wetlands are not clearly defined partially because wetlands are a source of multiple ecological outputs, such as abating sediment and providing wildlife habitat. This study adapts a GIS-based, hydrologic, and economic model to examine the trade-offs between agricultural interests and ecological benefits in the Eramosa Watershed, located in southwestern Ontario, Canada. While preserving a wetland enhances both water quality and wildlife habitat goals, and the costs of preservation increase at an increasing rate as expected, the ranking of wetlands, and so the choice of 'significant' wetlands, varies considerably depending upon the wetland benefit chosen as the policy goal. The trade-off between wetland benefits and drainage is diminished if there is an alternative means to abate sediment. Since conservation tillage is a lower cost means of improving water quality than wetland preservation, its inclusion can achieve comparable environmental benefits at decreased agricultural cost. La politique canadienne multicouche sur les zones humides preconise la preservation des zones humides 'd'importance', mais les criteres d'identification de ces zones ne sont pas clairement definis, en partie parce que les zones humides offrent une foule d'avantages ecologiques tels que la reduction des sediments et la constitution d'habitats fauniques. Dans la presente etude, nous avons adapte un modele economique et hydrologique fonde sur un systeme d'information geographique (SIG) pour analyser les compromis entre les interets agricoles et les avantages ecologiques dans le bassin hydrographique de la riviere Eramosa, situe dans le sud-ouest de la province d'Ontario, au Canada. Bien que la preservation des zones humides ameliore la qualite de l'eau et les habitats fauniques, et que les couts lies a la preservation ne cessent d'augmenter, le classement des zones humides et, par consequent, le choix des zones humides 'd'importance' varient considerablement en fonction de l'avantage retenu comme objectif politique. Le compromis entre les avantages des zones humides et le drainage est diminue s'il existe une solution de rechange pour reduire les sediments. Etant donne que, pour ameliorer la qualite de l'eau, le travail de conservation du sol est un moyen plus economique que la preservation des zones humides, il peut permettre d'obtenir des avantages environnementaux comparables a des couts agricoles moins eleves. Author Affiliation: (1)PhD Student, Department of Food, Agricultural and Resource Economics, University of Guelph, 50 Stone Road East, Guelph, ON N1G 2W1 (corresponding author: phone: 519-824-4120, ext. 53662; fax: 519-767-1510; e-mail:adelapor@uoguelph.ca). (2)Professor, Department of Food, Agricultural and Resource Economics, University of Guelph, 50 Stone Road East, Guelph, ON N1G 2W1 (phone: 519-824-4120, ext. 52766; fax: 519-767-1510; e-mail:aweersin@uoguelph.ca). (3)Associate Professor, Department of Geography, University of Guelph, 50 Stone Road East, Guelph, ON, N1G 2W1 (phone: 519-824-4120, ext. 53090; fax: 519-837-2940; e-mail:wayang@uoguelph.ca).

Agriculture is a large source of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions but changing management practices to those more beneficial to the environment could help mitigate climate change as long as they are economically and environmentally viable. This study examines the environmental (public) and economic (private) effects of adopting ten different beneficial management practices on a representative corn farm in Ontario, Canada. The study integrates changes in GHG emissions in carbon equivalents (CO2e) and changes in profit from changes in costs and revenues in two dimensions to reveal the scope and scale of different kinds of practices. 4R nitrogen management practices are smaller in scale compared to cropping practices and, therefore, have smaller potential costs and benefits. Land use changes, from practices including biomass, afforestation, crop rotation and cover cropping, have larger impacts on soil sequestration and carbon-equivalent GHG reduction, but with significantly greater costs. Seven practices were found to, at least partially, be economically and environmentally beneficial. The adoption of no-till and N-rate reduction is firmly positive, whereas the production of biomass has the largest potential economic and environmental gains. Crop rotation and diversification and cover cropping can be mutually beneficial, as can changing N-application practices. The use of inhibitors may be economically beneficial if yield gains outweigh purchase costs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]