Changes to the US Renewable Fuel Standard Program: 

Petition for an Aggregate Compliance Approach 

for Canadian Crops and Crop Residues 

Data Comparability, Analysis and Justification 

January 21, 2011 

Prepared by 

Agriculture Division, Statistics Canada 

for Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada 
1

Changes to the US Renewable Fuel Standard Program: 

Petition for an Aggregate Compliance Approach 

for Canadian Crops and Crop Residues 

Data Comparability, Analysis and Justification 

1.0 Background 

1.1 The United States established a Renewable Fuel Standard program in 2005 through the 

passage of the Energy Policy Act of 2005. The Energy Independence and Security Act 

of 2007 (EISA) expanded the program and included, among other things, a definition of 

“renewable biomass” that includes “planted crops and crop residue harvested from 

agricultural land cleared or cultivated at any time prior to [December 19, 2007] that is 

either actively managed or fallow, and nonforested” (42 U.S.C. §7545(o)(1)(I)). The 

United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) promulgated regulations 

implementing these amendments on March 26, 2010, defining certain agricultural lands 

as “existing agricultural land” eligible to meet this definition (75 Fed. Reg., No. 58, p. 

14,692-3, March 26, 2010). EPA’s regulations included provisions for establishing 

compliance with the renewable biomass definition. Among the compliance provisions is 

an “aggregate compliance approach” for planted crops and crop residues grown in the 

United States. On December 9, 2010, EPA promulgated additional regulations (75 Fed. 

Reg., No. 236, §80.1457) that laid out conditions for a similar approach for planted 

crops and crop residues grown outside the United States. 

1.2 The regulatory provision of the Renewable Fuel Standard program (RFS2) rule of the 

EPA, published on December 9, 2010, establishes criteria and a petition process for 

application of the aggregate compliance approach for planted crops and crop residue in 

foreign countries. A foreign country submitting a petition for an aggregate compliance 

approach is required to provide EPA with reasonable assurance that specified renewable 

fuel feedstocks from the foreign country meet the definition of renewable biomass and 

will continue to meet the definition of renewable biomass, based on the submission of 

credible, reliable and verifiable data. In determining whether these requirements have 

been met, EPA will consider the following specific factors: 

(a) A reasonable identification of the aggregate amount of agricultural land in the 

foreign country as of December 19, 2007 that was available for the production of 

eligible feedstocks (i.e., feedstocks that satisfy the definition of renewable 

biomass); 

(b) Information from years preceding and following 2007 showing that the 

identified aggregate amount of land, termed as the 2007 baseline area of land 

(also referred to herein as 2007 baseline acreage), is not likely to be exceeded in 

the future; 

(c) Historical land use, agricultural practices, economic considerations, legal 

constraints and other factors showing that in future, producers of the feedstocks 
2

will likely continue to use agricultural land within the identified baseline acreage 

as opposed to clearing and cultivating land not eligible under the 2007 baseline; 

(d) A reliable method to evaluate on a continuing basis whether the 2007 baseline 

area of land is being or has been exceeded; and 

(e) A credible and reliable entity has been identified to conduct data gathering and 

analysis needed for an annual EPA evaluation of the aggregate compliance 

approach. 

1.3 In the final RFS2 rule of December 9, 2010, EPA noted that in developing the 

regulations for the aggregate compliance approach for foreign countries, the agency 

relied substantially on the approach it used for the United States (75 Fed. Reg., No. 236, 

page 76,819). The petition process for an aggregate compliance approach for foreign 

countries, as outlined in paragraph (b) of §80.1457 (75 Fed. Reg., No. 236), requires 

that a petition must include all of the following or an explanation of why it is not needed 

for EPA to consider the petition: 

(a) Maps or electronic data identifying the boundaries of the land for which the 

petitioner seeks approval of an aggregate compliance approach; 

(b) The total amount of land that is cropland, pastureland, or land equivalent to U.S. 

Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) land that was cleared or cultivated prior to 

December 19, 2007 and that was actively managed or fallow and nonforested on 

that date; 

(c) Land use data that demonstrates that the identified land is cropland, pastureland 

or land equivalent to U.S. CRP land that was cleared or cultivated prior to 

December 19, 2007, and that was actively managed or fallow and nonforested on 

that date; 

(d) Historical land use data for the land within the specified geographic boundaries 

up to the current year; 

(e) A description of any applicable laws, agricultural practices, economic 

considerations, or other relevant factors that had or may have an effect on the use 

of agricultural land within the specified geographic boundaries, including 

information regarding the efficacy and enforcement of relevant laws and 

regulations; and 

(f) A plan describing how the petitioner will identify a credible and reliable entity 

who will, on a continuing basis, conduct data gathering, analysis, and submittal 

to assist EPA in making an annual determination of whether the criteria for an 

aggregate compliance approach remain satisfied. 

The petition addresses each of these requirements, all of which support the approval of 

an aggregate approach for Canada, as is provided for the United States.1

 

1

 Pursuant to §80.1457(b)(7) of the final RFS2 rule dated December 9, 2010, the petition is submitted by 

Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada on behalf of the Government of Canada. 
3

1.4 To determine the total acreage of existing agricultural land in the United States on the 

date of EISA enactment, EPA obtained from the USDA data representing total cropland 

(including summer fallow), pastureland, and CRP land in 2007. The CRP program lands 

considered by EPA include the general CRP, the Conservation Reserve Enhancement 

Program (CREP), and the Farmable Wetlands Program (FWP). EPA relied on two main 

sources for these data: the Farm Service Agency (FSA) Crop History Data and the 

USDA Census of Agriculture (2007). 

II. SUPPORT FOR AN AGGREGATE COMPLIANCE APPROACH FOR CANADA 

A. Canada has credible, reliable and verifiable data similar to that for the U.S. 

Similar to the U.S. data sources relied on by EPA, there are two Canadian data sources 

that EPA can access for a reliable estimate of existing agricultural land in Canada2. The 

first is the Census of Agriculture (taken every five years) and the second is the annual 

survey data on cropland collected and published by Statistics Canada. For the data on 

Canadian agricultural lands that are similar to U.S. CRP lands, EPA can rely on 

Statistics Canada’s estimates based on the agency’s Farm Environmental Management 

Survey data collected every five years after the census year. 

2.0 The Census of Agriculture 

2.1 Canada has been collecting agricultural data through a census since 1871. Until 1951, 

the frequency of collection was every 10 years. By 1956, the Census was conducted 

every five years covering the entire country. The Census of Agriculture data provide 

comprehensive information on agricultural land use which includes data on cropland 

area, summer fallow, seeded pasture, natural land for pasture, woodlands and wetlands 

and all other land, and some information on land management practices. The Census 

data are also used to update the national Farm Register3

 from which samples are drawn 

for other agricultural surveys. 

2.2 After collection of Census of Agriculture data, Statistics Canada conducts a thorough 

data analysis and validation. This includes comparing the data with previous census 

results, current agricultural surveys and administrative sources. Errors are identified and 

corrected, and where necessary, respondents are contacted to verify their responses. A 

committee reviews certification reports, containing results of the analysis and 

recommendations for publication. These procedures are imposed to ensure the quality of 

 

2

 The United States and Canada already share information on technical aspects of collection and processing of 

agricultural statistics on a bilateral basis and through the North American Tripartite Committee on Agriculture 

Statistics. Both countries benefit from such information sharing as collection and processing systems are often 

adjusted to evolving processes and technologies subject to individual limitations. 

3

 The Farm Register is the repository of information for all Canadian agricultural operations. It is the primary 

source and control for the collection and coverage of the Agriculture Division’s survey programs and the Census 

of Agriculture. 
4

the published census data. In addition, follow up surveys are conducted for farms that 

may have been missed. The 2006 Census had a 3.4% undercoverage rate for farms, 

which accounted for about 1.3% for the total farm area (about 1.6 million acres). 

2.3 Specific details regarding the 2006 Census of Agriculture concepts, methodology and 

data quality can be found at http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/95-629-x/2007000/4123850-

eng.htm. Selected historical data from the Census of Agriculture can be extracted at no 

cost from Statistics Canada’s website (http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/95-632-

x/2007000/t/4185570-eng.htm). Copies of the Census of Agriculture questionnaires can 

be found at http://www.statcan.gc.ca/ca-ra2006/q-eng.htm. 

2.4 For the United States, EPA has used in its measurement of existing agricultural land 

under the RFS2 the sum of cropland, summer fallow, pastureland, and CRP lands. With 

the exception of CRP lands, which are part of a USDA program for U.S. agricultural 

lands,4 these data categories are collected and tracked in Canada through the Census of 

Agriculture. These data are available in the public domain and are reliable to determine 

the total acreage of existing agricultural land similar to that determined by EPA for the 

United States and consistent with the requirements of EISA. 

2.5 In Canada, these data are collected, analyzed and disseminated under the authority of the 

Statistics Act by the country’s national statistical agency, Statistics Canada. In both 

countries, the Census of Agriculture is the leading source of facts and figures about 

agriculture. Both the USDA Census of Agriculture and the Canadian Census of 

Agriculture are conducted every five years5, and participation is required by law in both 

countries. Table 1 in Appendix 1 contains a list of the terms used by EPA to determine 

the total acreage of existing agricultural land, the relevant land usages as categorized in 

the USDA Census of Agriculture and their equivalents in the Canadian Census of 

Agriculture. 

3.0 Annual Data on Cropland Collected through Surveys 

3.1 In addition to the Census of Agriculture, the Canadian agriculture statistics program 

includes surveys of field crops and hays, fruits and vegetables, potatoes, and 

greenhouse, sod and nursery products. Among these, a Farm Survey for field crops 

(including hay) is conducted six times per year to collect information on seeding 

intentions, area actually seeded, area harvested, yield, production and stocks of grains. 

For the Atlantic Provinces, a farm survey is conducted twice a year which contains both 

 

4

 While Canadian lands are not part of the CRP, cropland used by farmers for similar conservation purposes are 

tracked and reported separately and, as described further below, should also be included as “existing agricultural 

lands.” Binary (yes or no) data on conservation practices are collected during the Census of Agriculture. In 2006, 

about 36.9% Canadian farms reported maintaining windbreaks or shelterbelts, about 19.6% farms reported

having buffer zones around water bodies and about 10.5% reported green manure practices where green crops 

were plowed down (available at: http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/95-629-x/2007000/4182415-eng.htm). 

5

 The Canadian Census of Agriculture is conducted in years ending in 1 and 6, while the USDA Census of

Agriculture is conducted in years ending in 2 and 7. 
5

crop (including hay) and livestock components. The Survey of Fruits and Vegetables is 

conducted twice a year and the other surveys, once a year. 

3.2 The samples for the surveys are drawn from the national Farm Register (FR). Until July 

2008, the Register used to be updated annually using information from the Census of 

Agriculture and the annual Farm Update Survey (FUS) conducted between the censuses. 

In July 2008, the FUS and the Enquête administrative du Registre (ENAR) were 

combined under the umbrella of the Continuous Frame Update (CFU), which enabled 

updating the FR every three months. 

3.3 A stratified sampling procedure is applied in drawing the samples and the estimates are 

validated by comparing with the Census of Agriculture data and the results of the 

previous surveys, and in a number of cases, through data validation agreements with the 

provincial agricultural statistics departments. Data quality is measured by the coefficient 

of variation (CV), which is calculated as the square root of the variance of an estimate 

divided by the estimate itself. A 95% confidence interval (meaning that 95% of the time 

one could expect a sample of the same size to give an interval that contains the true 

population value and 5% of the time the true population value would be outside of these 

bounds) is also created. 

3.4 Estimates for field crops, specialty crops, hay and forage, root crops (potatoes and sugar 

beets), fruits, vegetables, and summer fallow areas are derived from the surveys 

mentioned above and are published on Statistics Canada’s website.6 The estimates are 

also published on CANSIM, the agency’s key socioeconomic database.7

 

4.0 Data on Agricultural Land under Conservation Practices 

4.1 Canada does not have any federally funded program for conservation of agricultural 

land directly comparable to the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP)8 and the Farmable 

Wetlands Program (FWP)9 or any province-federal initiative comparable to the 

 

6

 The data are published on Statistics Canada’s website in PDF format, which can be accessed free of charge 

from the links at: http://cansim2.statcan.gc.ca/cgi-win/cnsmcgi.pgm?Lang=E&ResultTemplate=/Stu-Etu/StuEtu3&ChunkSize=25&AS_Theme=920&ChunkStart=1&AS_Date=.&AS_Ser=.&AS_Auth=.&AS_Srch=&AS_

SORT=0&AS_UNIV=3&Version=2&AS_Mode=2. 

7

 The data on CANSIM are available in various database formats at: http://cansim2.statcan.ca/cgiwin/CNSMCGI.EXE?LANG=E&RootDir=CII/&CANSIMFILE=CII/CII_1_E.htm. These data can be accessed 

for a nominal charge. 

8

 The CRP is a voluntary program for agricultural landowners who establish long-term, resource conserving 

covers on eligible farmland. USDA Farm Service Agency, Conservation Reserve Program, 

http://www.fsa.usda.gov/FSA/webapp?area=home&subject=copr&topic=crp. It is intended to protect topsoil

from erosion, reduce water runoff and sedimentation, and provide wildlife habitat. Id. 

9

 The FWP “is a voluntary program to restore up to one million acres of farmable wetlands and associated 

buffers by improving the land’s hydrology and vegetation.” USDA Farm Service Agency, Farmable Wetlands 

Program, http://www.fsa.usda.gov/FSA/webapp?area=home&subject=copr&topic=fwp. Eligible producers in all 

states can enroll eligible land in the FWP through the CRP. Id.
6

Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP)10 in the United States. However, 

Canadian farmers follow conservation practices on lands available for crop production 

similar to those promoted by these programs for long-term environmental benefits such 

as soil erosion reduction, wildlife habitat conservation, water quality maintenance etc., 

which are tracked and reported separately in both survey and census data. The 

conservation practices followed by Canadian farmers include growing windbreaks or 

shelterbelts, leaving seasonal and temporary wetlands out of cultivation, keeping buffer 

zones around water bodies and maintaining grassed waterways, which are essentially 

equivalent to lands under the CRP and the FWP. 

4.2 Statistics Canada collects data on agricultural land under conservation practices through 

the Farm Environmental Management Survey (FEMS). The survey is conducted every 

five years after the census year and the data are collected for the census year. The 

sampling and estimation procedures for the FEMS are similar to those for annual 

surveys as mentioned in the previous section. Copies of the FEMS questionnaires can be 

found by following the links at Statistics Canada’s website: http://www.statcan.gc.ca/cgibin/imdb/p2SV.pl?Function=displayInstrBySubTheme&themeid=350&parentid=349&la

ng=en&db=imdb&adm=8&dis=2. So far, two FEMS have been conducted – one in 2002 

for the reference year 2001 and the other in 2007 for the reference year 2006. The next 

FEMS is scheduled for 2012. 

4.3 Similar to annual crop surveys in the Canadian agriculture statistics program, samples 

for the FEMS are drawn from the national Farm Register following a stratified sampling 

procedure. Stratum-specific and observation-specific weights are applied to the data to 

derive estimates. The estimates are validated by comparing with the Census of 

Agriculture data and the results of other surveys, and through data validation agreements 

with the provincial agricultural statistics departments. Data quality is measured by the 

coefficient of variation (CV). 

4.4 The data collected by FEMS include, among others, information on wetlands, buffer 

zones around water bodies (riparian buffer11), field shelterbelts or windbreaks and 

grassed waterways. Data for two types of wetlands are collected: (i) seasonal or 

temporary wetlands that are often cultivated, and (ii) permanent wetlands that are 

flooded year-round except for extreme drought periods. Seasonal wetlands are in 

general comparable to the eligible FWP lands, while permanent wetlands can be 

compared to lands under the Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP), which EPA did not 

include as part of the existing agricultural lands for the United States. Similarly, only 

seasonal wetlands, not permanent wetlands, are included in setting the 2007 baseline 

acreage for Canada discussed further below. Lands in riparian buffer, field shelterbelts 

 

10 The Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP) supports increased conservation practices such as 

filter strips and forested buffers, development and restoration of wetlands through the planting of appropriate 

groundcover etc. with project-specific environmental objectives. 

11 In some cases, strips of riparian buffers may be planted with shrubs and trees. However, those strips are 

usually less than 120 feet (or 36.6 m) wide, and therefore, do not qualify as forestland as defined in the EPA 

report “Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990–2008,” which is consistent with the

definitions in the RFS2 final rule. 
7

and grassed waterways are equivalent to the general CRP lands in the United States (see 

Table 2 in Appendix 1 for land comparison). None of these lands constitutes 

“forestland,” which are tracked and reported separately. 

B. A reasonable identification of the aggregate amount of existing agricultural land in 

Canada can be made.

5.0 Identification of the 2007 Baseline of Existing Agricultural Land and Trigger for 

Further Investigation to Determine if Baseline has been Exceeded 

5.1 The following analysis of the total amount of “existing agricultural land”12 is to 

determine the 2007 baseline for the aggregate compliance approach for crops and crop 

residues grown in Canada. The analysis applies for the whole of Canada covering all 

geographical regions that produce annual, perennial and horticultural crops (see Figure 1 

for map). 

5.2 In the final RFS2 rule dated March 26, 2010, “existing agricultural land” has been 

defined as cropland, pastureland and land enrolled in the CRP that was cleared or 

cultivated prior to December 19, 2007, and that was nonforested and actively managed 

as agricultural land or fallow on that date. EPA identified three types of agricultural land 

eligible for inclusion in the baseline, which include cropland, pastureland and CRP 

lands. Each of these is analyzed to support a 2007 baseline of 124 million acres of 

“existing agricultural land” in Canada for purposes of the RFS2. 

5.3 EPA defines cropland as “land used for production of crops for harvest and includes 

cultivated cropland, such as for row crops or close-grown crops, and non-cultivated 

cropland, such as for horticultural or aquatic crops.” Based on these definitions, the total 

cropland area, identified for purposes of the RFS2, is the sum of areas for annual, 

perennial and horticultural crops plus the summer fallow area. 

5.4 The land area data collected through Statistics Canada’s annual crop survey for all 

annual, perennial and horticultural crops, except those for Christmas tree, sod and 

nursery

13, constitute an annual time series. Therefore, the land areas for Christmas tree, 

sod and nursery are taken from the Censuses of Agriculture and trended over the years 

between the censuses. These land area data are added together to derive annual 

estimates of the total cropland area for a 16-year period from 1995 to 2010. The total 

cropland area including summer fallow in Canada thus estimated stood at 99.0 million 

acres in 2007. 

 

12 “Existing agricultural land” includes cropland, pastureland and land enrolled in the CRP in the U.S. Since 

Canada does not have any program for conservation of agricultural land directly comparable to the CRP,

agricultural lands under conservation practices that are equivalent to the eligible CRP lands are included in the 

analysis. 

13 While collected annually, data on Christmas tree, nursery and sod areas have not been published each year. 

The data is not published if it is insufficient under the data quality standards. 
8

5.5 The annual surveys mentioned in Section 3 of this document do not collect information 

on land area segregated for tame or seeded pasture (pastureland)14. The census data on 

tame or seeded pasture acreage are therefore analyzed for trend and the results are used 

to estimate the land area for tame or seeded pasture for the years between the censuses. 

Based on the estimate, the total area for tame or seeded pasture in Canada was 14.4 

million acres in 2007. 

5.6 The total area for cropland and pastureland in Canada in 2007, as evident in the above 

estimates, was 113.4 million acres. The mean of this total area for a 16-year period from 

1995 to 2010 is 113.2 million acres with a standard deviation of 1.0 million acres. Table 

3 in Appendix 1 shows the mean, standard deviation, the minimum and the maximum 

for the total of cropland and pastureland (data are provided in Table 5, Appendix 2). 

5.7 Estimates for agricultural lands under conservation are obtained from the FEMS data. 

As noted earlier, the FEMS is conducted every five years and the last FEMS was 

conducted in 2007 (data were collected for 2006).15 While data for 2007 is not available, 

the FEMS data that are available can be used to estimate eligible lands for 2007. An 

analysis of the FEMS data shows that in 2006 Canadian farms had an estimated 9.8 

million acres of agricultural lands under conservation practices that are comparable to 

eligible lands under CRP and FWP in the United States (Table 4, Appendix 1). The 

amount of agricultural lands under the same conservation practices in 2001 was 

estimated to be 8.5 million acres. Since the area of agricultural lands under conservation 

practices tended to increase between 2001 and 2006, it can be rationally assumed that 

the amount of agricultural lands under conservation practices in 2007 was also 

approximately 9.8 million acres, the estimate for 2006, if not higher. 

5.8 Based on the above estimates, the total amount of existing agricultural land in Canada 

for purposes of the RFS2 in 2007 was (113.4 + 9.8 = 123.2) 123.2 million acres. The 

baseline acreage for total eligible agricultural land (i.e., the sum of cropland, summer 

fallow, tame/seeded pasture and land under conservation practices) in Canada can be set 

at 124 million acres. This baseline accounts for the year-to-year fluctuations by 

accounting for one standard deviation16 (1.0 million acres) to the total acreage of 

cropland, summer fallow, and tame/seeded pasture (113.4 million acres, as outlined in 

Table 3) plus 9.8 million acres of farmland in conservation practices (as mentioned in 

paragraph 5.7 and Table 4 in Appendix 1). 

 

14 Annual crop survey data on land for pasture, which includes several categories of land in pasture (such as 

tame/seeded pasture and rangeland), does not segregate pastures by type. See Appendix 1, Table 1. 

15 Data for two quinquennial periods may not be adequate for trending over the years. Also, the 2001 and 2006 

FEMS data are not fully comparable due to survey redesign in 2006. However, estimates have been compared 

and adjustments have been made to the extent possible. 

16 In any statistical estimate, it is appropriate to include a measure of variability to account for statistical 

variations. In addition to expressing the variability of the data, standard deviation is commonly used to calculate 

the confidence interval of statistical estimates. In the Canadian total agricultural land data from 1995 to 2010, the 

standard deviation is very small (less than 0.9%) suggesting a narrow band for the confidence interval estimates 

over the 16-year period. This also indicates that the overall trend of agricultural land use in Canada is stable with 

very low year-to-year fluctuations. 
9

5.9 As explained above and further described below, the above quantification of cropland, 

pastureland, and lands under conservation practices from survey and census data of 

Statistics Canada represents a reasonable assessment of the total agricultural land area in 

Canada available for the production of crops and crop residues that satisfy EPA’s 

definition of renewable biomass and existing agricultural land. The proposed baseline 

acreage also meets the statutory requirement that the land had been cleared or cultivated 

and actively-managed or fallowed prior to December 19, 2007. The data used in the 

analysis and quantification are as credible, reliable and verifiable as the USDA data 

used by EPA to determine the amount of U.S. agricultural land. 

5.10 The aggregate compliance determination mechanism for the United States calls for 

action if EPA finds that the total land in use for the production of crops, including crops 

for grazing and forage, is greater than 397 million acres (i.e. within 5 million acres of 

EPA’s established 402 million acre baseline). In such cases, EPA will conduct 

investigations to evaluate the presumption for the aggregate compliance approach. If 

EPA finds that the 2007 aggregate baseline acreage has been exceeded, EPA will 

publish a finding to that effect in the Federal Register and additional requirements will 

be triggered for renewable fuel producers. A similar mechanism for compliance 

determination can be identified and applied for Canada as well. 

5.11 Similar to EPA’s approach for the United States, it is proposed that if the acreage of the 

total land in use for the production of crops in Canada, including crops for grazing and 

forage, is greater than 122 million acres (i.e., within 2 million acres of the 124 million 

acres baseline), then EPA and Statistics Canada will launch an investigation to evaluate 

the presumption regarding the aggregate compliance approach for Canada. It is further 

proposed that if EPA, in consultation with Statistics Canada, finds that the 2007 baseline 

area of land (i.e., 124 million acres) has been exceeded, then the Agency will notify 

Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (AAFC) of its finding and enter into discussions 

with AAFC prior to publication of the findings in the Federal Register. 

C. Land use trends before 2007 and after support application of an aggregate compliance 

approach for Canada. 

6.0 The Overall Trend of Agricultural Land Use in Canada has been Stable Since 1991

6.1 According to the Canadian Census of Agriculture data, the acreage of cropland and 

summer fallow plus the acreage of seeded pasture in Canada has been stable since 1991 

with an overall downward trend (Figure 2, Appendix 1). The results of an analysis using 

the relevant annual survey data from 1995 to 2010 (Table 3 and Figure 3, Appendix 1) 

corroborate the census results. As evident in Table 3, the acreage of cropland and 

summer fallow plus the acreage of seeded pasture in Canada has trended downward 

since 1995 with a mean value of 113.2 million acres and a standard deviation of 1.0 

million acres. The average intensity of farming (acres of lands in crops as a percent of 

acreage in farmland) during the period has been 67.5%. The Census of Agriculture data 
10

from 1991 to 2006 produce similar statistics (112.5 million acres on average plus an 

estimated average of 2.1 million acres for land area undercoverage, with a standard 

deviation of 1.2 and a cropping intensity of 67.2%).

6.2 From 1995 to 2010, the peak acreage of agricultural land that would be eligible as 

cropland and pastureland, as defined by EPA, was approximately 115.2 million acres in 

2000. In 2007, the acreage was approximately 113.4 million acres, which remained 

unchanged in 2008 and 2009. In 2010, the acreage has decreased to 112.7 million acres. 

It may be mentioned here that the above numbers do not include the areas for cropland 

under conservation practices and idle cropland. The underlying Statistics Canada data 

along with notes on their sources are provided in Table 5 (Appendix 2). 

6.3 As with the United States,17 there have been some year-to-year fluctuations in the total 

agricultural land, but the trend (slightly downward) has been fairly constant (Figure 3, 

Appendix 1). Two important recent trends are noticeable in the Canadian Census of 

Agriculture data. Since 1991, the acreage of seeded pasture is increasing while the 

acreage for crops and summer fallow is declining. The overall trend of the total 

agricultural land is not affected as the increase in seeded pasture area is offset by a 

decrease in crops and summer fallow area. As further described below, this trend is 

largely due to changes in farming practices that increase yields, eliminating the need for 

new cropland, and that increase sustainable farming practices, such as increased use of 

rotational crops (e.g., rotating canola with wheat). 

D. Historical land use, agricultural practices, economic considerations, legal constraints and 

other factors showing that producers of the feedstocks will likely continue to use 

existing agricultural land.

7.0 Producers will continue to Use Land within Identified Agricultural Land Area 

7.1 EPA has used a lifecycle analysis to determine that there will be little need for new 

lands in the United States to meet the increased volumes of renewable fuel that will be 

produced under the RFS2. In that analysis, EPA has found little contribution of biofuels 

from Canada, and mentioned that any imports of biofuels into the United States for the 

RFS2 program would likely come from Brazil.18 More importantly, EPA’s modeling 

from the Regulatory Impact Analysis for the RFS2 Rule using FAPRI-CARD19 shows 

little to no harvested crop area changes in Canada for the fuels analyzed.20 Another 

 

17 Natural Trends Agricultural Lands (EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-3057). 

18 RFS2 Regulatory Impact Analysis, p.164. EPA noted that “trace” amounts of ethanol have entered the United 

States from Canada, Id. at p.162. EPA has identified several cellulosic demonstration plants in Canada in the 

Regulatory Impact Analysis for the RFS2 Rule. Id. at pp.173-80. 

19 Food and Agricultural Policy and Research Institute international models, as maintained by the Center for 

Agricultural and Rural Development (FAPRI–CARD), Iowa State University. 

20 RFS2 RIA, at §2.4.4.2.2. While EPA’s lifecycle analysis can provide support for EPA’s choice of an 

aggregate compliance approach, it should be noted that FAPRI/CARD recognizes that the magnitude of land use 

changes from biofuels is uncertain and largely unattributable. See Presentation of Bruce Babcock, Center for 
11

analysis of land use impacts of the RFS2 has shown that changes in land areas in 

Canada are not associated with increased biofuel demand in the United States.21

7.2 There are two forces at work that will allow for ample production of biofuels in Canada 

without the need to cultivate new land. Again, these are similar to the situation in the 

United States that was examined for the purposes of determining if the aggregate 

analysis approach was appropriate. 

7.3 The first force at work is the long term trend towards reduction of summer fallow in 

Canada. Summer fallow along with the accompanying tillage has not contributed to soil 

conservation and improved soil quality. Over the past 30 years, a concerted effort aimed 

at continuous cropping coupled with conservation or zero tillage has moved more and 

more acres out of summer fallow and into sustainable production. In 1995, there were 

about 16.8 million acres of summer fallow. This figure has been reduced almost steadily 

over the years to reach 6.2 million acres in 2009, which is about a third of what it was in 

1995. In 2010, however, many prairie farmers could not seed their croplands because of 

unfavorable weather conditions, and consequently, the summer fallow acreage in 2010 

has increased to 11.6 million acres. All of these summer fallow acres could be converted 

to sustainable production with proper crop rotations over time. 

7.4 The second force at work in aid of additional production of biofuels is the advent of 

biotechnology. The introduction of genetically engineered varieties has contributed to 

increased yields in the medium term. For example, average yields of canola – one of the 

major crops used in the biofuel industry – have increased by 46% since the early 1990s. 

All of this growth in yield has been realized since 1996, the year genetically engineered 

varieties were first commercially introduced. More recent breakthroughs in the 

technology will drive crop yields up further and the increases in yield will help provide 

biofuels without additional stress on Canada’s land base. 

7.5 New agricultural land is not expected to be brought into production in order to fulfill 

Canada’s federal biofuels mandate. The results of the Regulatory Impact Analysis 

conducted for Canada’s biofuels mandate, as required by the Canadian Environmental 

Protection Act, reveal no significant changes in land use.22 This mandate is expected to 

be met with increased domestic production from the existing land base achieved through 

changes in cropping practices and productivity gains described above, as well as imports 

mainly from the United States. In addition, a number of Canadian provinces already 

have biofuel mandates in place, which have not had any noticeable impact on 

agricultural land use in Canada. 

 

Agricultural and Rural Development, Iowa State University Presentation, The CARD/FAPRI Modeling System 

and Indirect Land Use, Nov. 2009, available at: http://rsb.epfl.ch/page-42475.html. 

21 Thomas L. Darlington, Air Improvement Resource, Inc., Land Use Effects of U.S. Corn-Based Ethanol, at 

p.31 (Feb. 24, 2009), available at: http://www.ethanolrfa.org/pages/reports-and-studies. 

22 The Regulatory Impact Analysis Statement for Canada’s federal biofuels mandate can be accessed at: 

http://www.gazette.gc.ca/rp-pr/p1/2010/2010-04-10/html/reg1-eng.html. 
12

7.6 As in the United States, existing economic and market factors in Canada favor 

sustainable agricultural practices, increasing crop yields and more efficient use of 

existing land rather than converting non-agricultural land to crop production. Falling net 

returns from crops, rising net returns from timber along with an accelerated expansion 

of urban areas leave no incentive for farmers to bring non-agricultural land in crop 

production.23 Farmers rather rely on yield-enhancing technologies which often come 

hand-in-hand with sustainable cropping practices. Federal and provincial government 

policies also promote sustainable agricultural practices. 

7.7 Almost all of Canada’s agricultural lands are in the southern part of the country and 

away from the major forestland. Because of weather, geographic and geological factors, 

there is virtually no incentive to convert non-agricultural and forest lands in the country 

to agricultural land. Moreover, the vast majority of Canada’s forestland (over 90%) is 

under governmental control, and Canada has strong national and provincial policies 

against deforestation. Since 1990, Canada has had no significant change in forest cover. 

7.8 The vast majority of land in Canada has significant limitations that restrict the ability of 

the land to be used for agricultural purposes; “Only about 5 percent of [Canadian] land 

is free from severe constraints on crop production.”

24 The limitations on agricultural 

production include climate and soil quality. The vast majority of forestland in Canada is 

in areas where the climate restricts the length of growing season, making it infeasible 

and uneconomic to cultivate crops. 

E. Annual tracking of Canadian agricultural lands with Statistics Canada and AAFC. 

8.0 Plan to Provide EPA Data and Analysis for Annual Evaluation 

8.1 The Agriculture Division of Statistics Canada, in collaboration with AAFC, will 

conduct data compilation and analysis necessary to assist EPA in its annual assessment 

of the aggregate compliance approach. Statistics Canada is the official source for data 

and estimates of agricultural land in Canada. Statistics Canada’s Agriculture Division 

has been conducting censuses of agriculture and surveys since the agency’s inception, 

and earned a reputation in collecting, analyzing and disseminating credible, reliable and 

verifiable information on agricultural production, land use and agri-environmental 

factors. A good number of agricultural survey programs of Statistics Canada are 

conducted with the support from the federal agriculture department, Agriculture and 

Agri-Food Canada (AAFC). 

 

23 Lubowski, R.N., A.J. Plantinga and R.N. Stavins, 2007. What Drives Land-Use Change in the United States? 

A National Analysis of Landowner Decisions. National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) Working Paper 

No. W13572, November 2007. The first author is from USDA Economic Research Service, the second author 

from Oregon State University and the third author is from Harvard University. 

24 Statistics Canada, Urban Consumption of Agricultural Land, Rural and Small Town Canada Analysis Bulletin, 

Vol. 3, No. 2 (Sept. 2001), available at: http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/21-006-x/21-006-x2001002-eng.pdf.
13

8.2 The Agriculture Division of Statistics Canada publishes its September crop survey 

report containing land area estimates (preliminary) for field crops and summer fallow 

during the first week of October each year25. While data on hay and forage are collected 

in the September crop survey, the estimates for hay and forage are not published until 

the first week of December with the final crop survey report. As EPA will require land 

area estimates well ahead of November 30 each year, arrangements will be made to 

analyze and publish the preliminary data on hay and forage by the fourth week of 

October. Data on land areas for greenhouse, sod, nursery, fruits and vegetables, which 

constitute less than 1% of the total cropland, are published during the middle of the 

following year. 

8.3 To provide EPA with sufficient data to make a determination regarding the compliance 

of the baseline for Canada by November 30 each year, the Agriculture Division of 

Statistics Canada will provide EPA current year’s preliminary data26 on land areas for 

field crops and summer fallow, and an approximate area for hay and forage based on 

past years’ data in the second week of October each year. The immediate past year’s 

land area data on greenhouse, sod, nursery, fruits and vegetables will be provided at the 

same time from the respective annual survey results. It is pertinent to note that over the 

last 16 years the land areas for greenhouse, sod, nursery, fruits and vegetables have not 

undergone any significant changes. An estimated land area data for tame or seeded 

pasture for the year, obtained from the trend in the relevant census data, will also be 

provided to EPA for its annual assessment. Current year’s preliminary data on hay and 

forage will be provided in the fourth week of October each year. Data for submission to 

the EPA will be compiled in a spreadsheet that will include notes on their sources and 

methods of derivation. The data file along with a report containing relevant analysis and 

justifications wherever necessary will be sent electronically to the EPA. 

8.4 It should be noted that Statistics Canada is the agency required to provide data on land 

use in Canada and other issues to international bodies (e.g., climate change data to the 

United Nations, production data to FAO and OECD). Statistics Canada is legislated 

under the Statistics Act to provide data for the whole of Canada and each sector of the 

economy, including agriculture. Its data are fully transparent within the limits set by the 

Statistics Act, the Privacy Act and the Access to Information Act. The agency publishes 

and maintains extensive historical data on various aspects of Canadian agriculture. 

 

25 The final (post-harvest) crop survey report containing data on land areas for field crops, hay and forage, and 

summer fallow is published during the first week of December each year. 

26 Preliminary data are subject to revisions until the final estimates for the year is published in December. In the 

past five years (2006 to 2010), the variation between preliminary and final estimates remained within +/– 0.5%. 
14

Appendix 1

Table 1: Comparison of Components of Agricultural Land 

Component US Census of Agriculture 2007 

definition* 

Canada Census of Agriculture 2006 

definition* 

Cropland 

Section 2, Items 1a and 1b: Includes 

field crops, hay and forage, vegetables, 

potatoes, melons, fruits, nursery, 

floriculture, sod, mushrooms, vegetable 

seeds, greenhouse, Christmas trees, 

short rotation woody crops, and other 

crops. 

Does not include Christmas tree

(about 0.1 million acres) and short 

rotation woody crops, which are

reported separately. The rest of the 

items are identical (Questions in 

Steps* 9, 11, 12 and 13 of the 2006 

Census of Agriculture questionnaire) 

Summer fallow 

land 

Section 2, Item 1c: Includes summer 

fallow or chemical fallow. It may have 

been only treated with herbicides, only 

tilled, or a combination of these 

practices to control weeds and 

conserve moisture and not seeded. 

Equivalent to the definition of 

“Summerfallow” (Step 14, Question 

102). 

Cropland idle / 

used for cover 

crops or soil 

improvement 

(not harvested, 

not pastured / 

grazed) 

Section 2, Item 1d: Includes land used 

for cover crops or soil improvement, but 

not harvested or grazed; land in CRP, 

WRP, FWP, CREP* or other Federal or 

State conservation programs that was 

not hayed or grazed in 2007, or planted 

to trees for future harvest; land 

occupied with growing crops for harvest 

in 2008 or later years but not harvested 

or summer fallowed in 2007; and land in 

“skipped” rows between rows of crops 

or field strips should be reported here if 

the land was not used for any other 

purpose. 

There is no CRP equivalent in Canada. 

However, Statistics Canada collects 

binary (yes or no, not area) data on 

cover crops, buffer zones around 

water bodies and windbreaks / 

shelterbelts practices (Step 20, 

Question 118). Land utilized in those 

practices is mostly equivalent to the US 

CRP land. Wetlands in “Woodlands 

and wetlands” category (Step 14, 

Question 105) are equivalent to lands 

under the WRP. Idle cropland is 

included in the “All other land”

category (Step 14, Question 106). 

Permanent 

pasture 

Section 2, Item 2a: Includes 

pastureland and rangeland, other than 

woodland pasture or cropland, normally 

used for pasture or grazing. It usually 

includes land referred to as meadow, 

prairie, or range and consists of various 

types of grasses, such as bunch grass, 

shortgrass, buffalo grass, bluestem, 

bluegrass, switch grass, etc. 

Equivalent to the definition of “Natural 

land for pasture” (Step 14, Question 

104). 

Woodland 

pastured 

Section 2, Item 2b: Includes woodland 

or timber tracts, natural or planted, used 

for pasture or grazing. 

Included in “Natural land for pasture” 

(Step 14, Question 104). 

Continued to next page...
15

Appendix 1

Table 1: Continued from the previous page 

Component US Census of Agriculture 2007 

definition* 

Canada Census of Agriculture 2006 

definition* 

Cropland used 

only for pasture 

or grazing 

Section 2, Item 2c: Includes land 

pastured or grazed which could have 

been used for crops without any 

additional improvements (e.g., rock 

removal, terracing, tree removal, etc.); 

and land in planted crops that was 

hogged-off, pastured, or grazed and not 

harvested for grain or hay.

Equivalent to “Tame or seeded 

pasture” (Step 14, Question 103). 

Woodland not 

pastured 

Section 2, Item 3: Includes cut over 

and deforested land with new or 

remaining growth that has future value 

as wood products and was not pastured 

in 2007; and all other woodland, 

including tapped maple trees (sugar 

bush).

Partially matches the definition of 

“Woodlands and wetlands”, so far as 

it includes woodlots and sugarbush. It 

also includes windbreaks, bush, ponds, 

bogs, marshes, sloughs, etc. (Step 14, 

Question 105). 

All other land 

Section 2, Item 4: Include all other land 

occupied by buildings, farmsteads, 

windbreaks, lanes, roads, ponds, barn 

lots, gardens for home use, wasteland, 

etc. Also, include all land in this 

operation that does not fit the definition 

of the other land use categories listed in 

items 1, 2, and 3. 

Do not include windbreaks and ponds. 

Idle land and land for greenhouses 

and mushroom houses are included in 

this component (Step 14, Question 

106). 

* Section and item numbers in the second column refer to the contents of the U.S. Census of 

Agriculture Questionnaire 2007, and the definitions are taken from the 2007 Census of Agriculture 

Report Form Guide of the USDA. 

 Step and question numbers in the third column refer to the contents of the Canadian Census of 

Agriculture Questionnaire 2006, and the definitions are based on the descriptions/instructions 

provided in the questionnaire.

CRP = Conservation Reserve Program 

WRP = Wetlands Reserve Program 

FWP = Farmable Wetlands Program 

CREP = Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program 
16

Appendix 1

Table 2: Comparison of Farmland under Conservation Programs and Practices 

Category US Program definition* 

Canadian environmental 

management practices 

definition* 

Farmable 

Wetlands 

Farmable Wetlands Program (FWP): To be eligible, land 

must be either: 

Farmed and prior converted wetland that was cultivated 3 of 

the 10 most recent crop years, and is physically and legally 

capable of being cultivated; or 

A constructed wetland developed to receive flow for a 

drainage system for the purpose of providing nitrogen removal 

and other functions; or 

Devoted to commercial pond-raised aquaculture in any year 

during 2002-2007; or 

Land that was cropped during 3 of 10 crop years between 

1990 and 2002, and was subject to the natural overflow of a 

prairie wetland. 

Seasonal wetlands normally have 

water present until mid summer or 

early fall, and during most years. 

They include ponds, sloughs, 

potholes, seasonally flooded 

meadows, marshes and treed wet 

swamps, and exclude permanent 

wetlands that are flooded yearround except for extreme drought 

periods. Seasonal wetlands are 

often cultivated and forage seeds 

are sown especially in drier springs 

(Figures 4 and 5; Appendix 2).27

 

Land under 

Conservation 

Practices 

Conservation Reserve Program (CRP): To be eligible, land 

must be either: 

Cropland with a recent cropping history, and which is 

physically and legally capable of being planted in a normal 

manner to an agricultural commodity; or 

Certain marginal pastureland that is suitable for use as a 

riparian buffer or for similar water quality purposes. 

FSA uses the following Environmental Benefits Index (EBI) 

factors to assess the environmental benefits for the land 

offered: 

• Wildlife habitat benefits resulting from covers on contract 

acreage; 

• Water quality benefits from reduced erosion, runoff, and 

leaching; 

• On-farm benefits from reduced erosion; 

• Benefits that will likely endure beyond the contract period; 

• Air quality benefits from reduced wind erosion; and 

• Cost. 

Riparian buffer zones are strips of 

natural or planted vegetation that 

border wetlands, streams and 

rivers. They protect wildlife by 

providing habitats and water quality 

by capturing sediments and 

runoffs. 

Field shelterbelts (or 

windbreaks) include plantation 

usually made up of 1 to 3 rows of 

trees or shrubs planted to reduce 

the impact of wind on crops and to 

protect soil from erosion. 

Grassed waterways are broad 

and shallow channels designed to 

move surface water across 

farmland without causing soil 

erosion. The vegetative cover 

slows water flow and protects the 

channel surface from erosion. 

* Definitions of lands eligible for FWP and CRP are taken from the relevant FSA webpages at: 

 http://www.fsa.usda.gov/FSA/webapp?area=home&subject=copr&topic=fwp

 http://www.fsa.usda.gov/FSA/webapp?area=home&subject=copr&topic=crp

 

Canadian definitions of wetlands are taken from the 2006 Farm Environmental Management Survey 

questionnaire. Definitions of riparian buffer, field shelterbelts and grassed waterways are taken from the 

relevant websites of AAFC and Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs at: 

http://www4.agr.gc.ca/AAFC-AAC/display-afficher.do?id=1235756863870&lang=eng

http://www4.agr.gc.ca/AAFC-AAC/display-afficher.do?id=1192556664605&lang=eng

http://www4.agr.gc.ca/AAFC-AAC/display-afficher.do?id=1197485172103&lang=eng

http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/engineer/facts/09-021.htm

 

27 Huel, D., 2000. Managing Saskatchewan Wetlands – A Landowner‘s Guide (p. 20). Saskatchewan Wetland 

Conservation Corporation, Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada. 

Available online at: http://www.swa.ca/Publications/Documents/ManagingSaskatchewanWetlands.pdf 
Figure 1: Map of Canada Showing Agricultural Land in 2007 

Provincial boundary2006 Census of Agriculture Ecumene2007 Agricultural land based on satellite data

Note: Agriculture ecumene refers to areas where agriculture activity is sufficiently concentrated. Source: Advanced Very High Resolution Radiometer (AVHRR) satellite imagery at 1-kilometer resolution, 

and the 2006 Census of Agriculture ecumene boundary file. 
18

Appendix 1

Table 3: Total Cropland and Pastureland28 in Canada, 1995 to 2010 

Cropland + Range 

Summer 

fallow

Seeded 

Pasture

Total 

Cropland 

and 

Pastureland

Year Minimum Maximum

Million of Acres 

1995 103.7 10.9 114.6 114.2 115.0

1996 101.8 10.7 112.6 112.5 115.1

1997 101.8 11.0 112.8 112.7 112.9

1998 102.5 11.2 113.7 113.5 113.9

1999 103.1 11.5 114.6 114.3 114.9

2000 103.4 11.7 115.2 114.8 115.6

2001 101.9 11.9 113.8 113.4 115.9

2002 100.6 12.2 112.8 112.7 112.9

2003 100.2 12.5 112.7 112.4 112.9

2004 99.6 12.8 112.4 112.0 112.8

2005 98.7 13.1 111.8 111.3 112.3

2006 97.9 14.1 112.0 111.5 113.0

2007 99.0 14.4 113.4 113.3 113.5

2008 98.7 14.7 113.4 113.1 113.6

2009 98.4 15.0 113.4 113.0 113.8

2010 97.4 15.3 112.7 112.4 112.9

Mean 100.5 12.7 113.2 112.9 113.8

Standard 

deviation 2.1 1.6 1.0 1.0 1.1

Notes: 

1. Crops and summer fallow acreages have been calculated as the sum of seeded area and summer 

fallow area as published by statistics Canada on the CANSIM (see Table 5 in Appendix 2 for 

details). 

2. The seeded pasture acreages for the census years (years ending in 1 and 6) are taken from the 

Census of Agriculture seeded pasture area data and those for the other years have been derived 

from the trend in Census data between 1986 and 2006. 

3. In computing ranges for the census years, the undercoverage rates have been used. The ranges 

for other years are based on a 95% confidence interval. 

 

28 Not including farmland in conservation practices (Table 4) and idle cropland. 
19

Appendix 1

Table 4: Agricultural Land under Conservation Practices in Canada, 2001 and 2006 

2001 2006 

Conservation Practices 

Million of acres 

Seasonal Wetlands 2.2 2.7 

Land in Riparian Buffer 3.4 4.1 

Land in Shelterbelts or Windbreaks 2.3 2.4 

Grassed Waterways 0.5 0.6 

Total land in conservation practices 8.5 9.8 

Notes: 

1. For 2001 estimates, farmstead shelterbelts or windbreaks have been added to field windbreaks or 

shelterbelts to compensate for under-reporting of windbreaks and shelterbelts due to differences 

in the wording and the placement of the relevant questions of the 2001 Farm Environmental 

Management Survey questionnaire. 

2. The riparian buffer areas for 2001 and 2006 are derived by comparing and using estimated 

dimensions from both 2001 and 2006 Farm Environmental Management Surveys (FEMS). The 

differences between the survey estimates that could have resulted from the variations in survey 

questionnaires relating to riparian buffer areas were minimized in this approach.

Source: Statistics Canada, Farm Environmental Management Survey, 2001 and 2006. 
20

Appendix 1

Figure 2: Quinquennial Trend of Agricultural Land Use, Canada, 1991 to 2006 

Quinquennial Trend of Agricultural Land Use, Canada

112.6 112.5 113.4 111.5

y = -0.25x + 113.12

100

105

110

115

120

1991 1996 2001 2006

Million acres

Crops + Summerfallow + Seeded pasture Linear (Crops + Summerfallow + Seeded pasture)

Notes: The land area for undercoverage has not been accounted for in the analysis. 

A negative trend is indicated by the coefficient of x in the equation (– 0.25).

Source: Statistics Canada, Censuses of Agriculture, 1991, 1996, 2001 and 2006. 

Figure 3: Annual Trend of Agricultural Land Use, Canada, 1995 to 2010 

Annual Trend of Agricultural Land Use, Canada

y = -0.08x + 113.90

100

105

110

115

120

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Million acres

Crops + Summerfallow + Seeded pasture Linear (Crops + Summerfallow + Seeded pasture)

Note: A negative trend is indicated by the coefficient of x in the equation (– 0.08). 

Source: Statistics Canada, Annual surveys from 1995 to 2010 and Censuses of Agriculture, 1996, 

2001 and 2006. 
21

 Appendix 2

Table 5: Components of Agricultural Land Use, Canada, 1995 to 2010 

Field crops 

and 

Specialty 

crops 

Hay and 

Forage 

Summer 

fallow 

Fruits and 

Vegetables

Nursery, 

Sod and 

Christmas 

tree 

Seeded 

pasture 

Total 

Cropland 

and 

Pasture 

(Annual 

Surveys) 

Total 

Cropland 

and 

Pasture 

(Census + 

undercoverage)

Years 

Million of Acres

1995 69.5 16.7 16.8 0.5 0.2 10.9 114.6 -- 

1996 69.5 16.3 15.3 0.5 0.2 10.7 112.6 115.1 

1997 70.9 16.2 14.0 0.5 0.2 11.0 112.8 -- 

1998 71.6 16.8 13.4 0.5 0.2 11.2 113.7 -- 

1999 69.9 17.6 14.9 0.5 0.2 11.5 114.6 -- 

2000 72.7 18.5 11.5 0.5 0.2 11.7 115.2 -- 

2001 70.1 19.5 11.6 0.5 0.2 11.9 113.8 115.9 

2002 69.9 19.8 10.2 0.5 0.2 12.2 112.8 -- 

2003 70.8 20.0 8.6 0.5 0.2 12.5 112.7 -- 

2004 69.9 20.4 8.6 0.5 0.2 12.8 112.4 -- 

2005 67.9 20.7 9.3 0.5 0.2 13.1 111.8 -- 

2006 67.6 21.0 8.6 0.5 0.2 14.1 112.0 113.0 

2007 70.0 21.0 7.3 0.6 0.2 14.4 113.4 -- 

2008 71.0 20.9 6.0 0.5 0.2 14.7 113.4 -- 

2009 70.5 21.0 6.2 0.6 0.2 15.0 113.4 -- 

2010 64.3 20.8 11.6 0.5 0.2 15.3 112.7 -- 

Mean 69.8 19.2 10.9 0.5 0.2 12.7 113.2 -- 

Standard 

deviation 1.9 1.9 3.3 0.0 0.0 1.6 1.0 -- 

Percent of 

the mean 61.6 17.0 9.6 0.5 0.2 11.2 100.0 -- 

 

Notes: 

1. Field crop and specialty crop area data are obtained from Statistics Canada’s CANSIM Tables 001-

0014, 001-0017, 001-0018, 001-0019, and 001-0020. 

2. Data on areas in fruits and vegetables are taken from Statistics Canada’s CANSIM Tables 001-0009 

and 001-0013, and the publication series “Fruit and Vegetable Production”. 

Available at: http://www.statcan.gc.ca/bsolc/olc-cel/olc-cel?catno=22-003-X&chropg=1&lang=eng. 

3. Data on summer fallow land are obtained from Statistics Canada’s CANSIM Table 001-0017. 

4. Data for hay and forage acreage are obtained from Statistics Canada’s CANSIM Table 001-0018. 

5. Data on acreages of seeded pasture, nursery, sod and Christmas tree are taken from the Census of 

Agriculture for the census years (years ending in 1 and 6), and those for the other years have been 

derived from the trend in the Census data between 1986 and 2006. 

6. Census of Agriculture land use data are obtained from http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/95-632-

x/2007000/t/4185579-eng.htm and the undercoverage rates were taken from the data quality reports. 
22

Appendix 2

Figure 4: Satellite Images of Seasonal Wetlands, Manitoba, Canada 

Fannystelle Area, 55 km SW of Winnipeg, Manitoba

June 2003 (below average precipitation) 

The entire section in yellow box was cropped

June 2005 (above average precipitation) 

Only part of the section was cropped

June 2003 (below average precipitation) 

The area in yellow box was cropped

June 2005 (above average precipitation) 

The area in yellow box was not cropped

Source: Landsat-5 satellite imagery at 30m resolution. 
23

Appendix 2

Figure 5: Satellite Images of Temporary Wetlands, Saskatchewan, Canada 

Corinne Area, 40 km S of Regina, Saskatchewan

June 2008 (average precipitation) 

Almost 100% of the sections was cropped

June 2010 (above average precipitation) 

Temporary wetlands created by rainfall 

Quill Lake Area, 150 km E of Saskatoon, Saskatchewan

June 2008 (average precipitation) 

Smaller black spots are temporary wetlands

June 2010 (above average precipitation) 

Bigger black spots are more abundant

Source: Landsat-5 satellite imagery at 30m resolution.