Agricultural climate change mitigation : Carbon calculators as a guide for decision making

This is an Accepted Manuscript of an article published by Taylor & Francis Group in International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability on 9 November 2017, available online: https://doi.org/10.1080/14735903.2017.1398628. Under embargo. Embargo end date: 9 November 2018.The dairy industry is receiving considerable attention in relation to both its significant greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, and it’s potential for reducing those emissions, contributing towards meeting national targets and driving the industry towards sustainable intensification. However, the extent to which improvements can be made is dependent on the decision making processes of individual producers, so there has been a proliferation of carbon accounting tools seeking to influence those processes. This paper evaluates the suitability of such tools for driving environmental change by influencing on-farm management decisions. Seven tools suitable for the European dairy industry were identified, their characteristics evaluated, and used to process data relating to six scenario farms, emulating process undertaken in real farm management situations. As a result of the range of approaches taken by the tools, there was limited agreement between them as to GHG emissions magnitude, and no consistent pattern as to which tools resulted in the highest/lowest results. Despite this it is argued, that as there was agreement as to the farm activities responsible for the greatest emissions, the more complex tools were still capable of performing a ‘decision support’ role, and guiding management decisions, whilst others could merely focus attention on key issues.Peer reviewe

Study on Input/Output Accounting Systems on EU agricultural holdings

Of 241 questionnaires sent out to 20 countries 55 completed forms were returned. No information could be obtained about systems in Portugal or the USA. The subject of nutrients was covered by 91% of systems, pesticides 38%, energy 29% and other subjects including wastes 44%. Nearly half of the systems covered more than one subject, the most common single subject system was nutrients. The arable sector was covered most often by the systems (76%), with dairy (62%) and pig (56%) the most prominent of the livestock sectors. The respondents judged that 65% of systems were at least moderately effective in improving the ratio of inputs to outputs. The highest levels of ratio reduction tended to occur with systems which included the livestock sectors or protected horticultural crops. Over half (56%) of farmers had a good opinion of the system, indifferent or bad opinions were more likely to be due to effect on income than the type of system or who managed it. High uptake was more likely in compensated systems. Farm incomes in the arable and dairy sectors were most likely to be improved by systems, negative effects were most likely in the horticultural sector. Government was the main driving force in 38% of the systems, but government was not necessarily the driving force behind the 15% compulsory systems and only one of these was compensated. Increasing concern about environmental issues was the driving force behind development of each of the systems studied. In most cases a major part of the funding to develop the system or run pilot projects came from government. Benefits in terms of increased awareness of problem areas were identified by several systems originators. Anecdotal evidence suggests that farmers are encouraged to make actual changes to their management on the basis of the systems, if they receive detailed help from an adviser associated with the system, or if the system results in a marketing advantage. It seems likely that input output accounting systems could be used to increase awareness and provide evidence of the impact of management changes, they may need to be linked to supporting systems of technical advice. More than 40 IOA systems representing very different approaches have been developed and applied on farms in European countries with the aim of improving environmental performance. Major differences regard especially two characteristics: The no topics covered (single or multiple) and the way indicators are presented. In many systems the indicators used are presented as calculations of input related to output and are derived from accounts based data. Other systems present indicators that are transformed to a standard scale and often these indicators are based on a combination of practise and account data compared with norms for Good Agricultural Practices. Moreover, the systems differ in their origin and driving force: Only a few systems have been developed for mandatory use or for labelling and formal auditioning. Most systems have been developed for the use by advisory services on a voluntary basis. A number of very different systems seem to have been successful. Effectiveness is defined here as the combination of a system with high (potential) impact on the participating farmers in combination with high uptake in terms of the no of farmers willing to use the system. Generally documentation of effects and uptake is poor and more investigations into this are needed. It seems that many systems have not passed the pilot phase, even though some of them did get a positive evaluation by the farmers. In several examples the effort of researchers to develop a scientifically valid concept was not matched by efforts to secure the uptake by advisors or other institutions afterwards. The right institutional setting and political context seems to be more important than the character of the indicators used for the question of farmer uptake. But that does not mean that the choice of indicators is not important from another point of view. In none of the reviewed systems were the use of confidence intervals or variation coefficients an established part of the procedure. Only few reports exist that analyse the variation between farms or between years on specific farms in order to decide to which degree differences are due to systematically different management practices

Organic agriculture and climate change mitigation - A report of the Round Table on Organic Agriculture and Climate Change

Summary and next steps Participants of the workshop were able to draw from their discussions and from the input of guest speakers and synthesize a set of conclusions that can be used to guide future activities concerning LCAs and other activities that seek to identify and quantify the potential contributions of organic agriculture to climate change mitigation. - LCA is the best tool for measuring GHG emissions related to agricultural products. - There is a risk of oversimplification when focusing on climate change as a single environmental impact category. - Farm production and transport (at least for plant products) are important hotspots for agricultural products. - Studies have shown no remarkable difference in GHG emissions between organic and conventional but, traditionally, soil carbon changes have not been included – which can have a major impact, especially for plant products. - The challenges of LCA of organic products – accounting for carbon sequestration and interactions in farming systems, including the environmental costs of manure – need to be addressed. - Attempts should be made to secure a consistent LCA methodology for agricultural products, including organic products

Mitigating Greenhouse Gases in Agriculture

Climate change has severe adverse effects on the livelihood of millions of the world’s poorest people. Increasing temperatures, water scarcity and droughts, flooding and storms affect food security. Thus, mitigation actions are needed to pave the way for a sustainable future for all. Currently, agriculture directly contributes about 10-15 percent to global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Adding emissions from deforestation and land use change for animal feed production, this rises to about 30 percent. Scenarios predict a significant rise in agricultural emissions without effective mitigation actions. Given all the efforts undertaken in other sectors, agriculture would then become the single largest emitter within some decades, and without mitigation in agriculture, ambitious goals, such as keeping global warming below two degrees may become impossible to reach. The main agricultural emission sources are nitrous oxide from soils and methane from enteric fermentation in ruminants. In addition, conversion of native vegetation and grasslands to arable agriculture releases large amounts of CO2 from the vegetation and from soil organic matter. The main mitigation potential lies in soil carbon sequestration and preserving the existing soil carbon in arable soils. Nitrous oxide emissions can be reduced by reduced nitrogen application, but much still remains unclear about the effect different fertilizer types and management practices have on these emissions. Methane emissions from ruminants can only be reduced significantly by a reduction in animal numbers. Sequestration, finally, can be enhanced by conservative management practices, crop rotation with legumes (grass-clover) leys and application of organic fertilizers. An additional issue of importance are storage losses of food in developing and food wastage in developed countries (each about 30-40 percent of end products). Thus, there are basically five broad categories of mitigation actions in agriculture and its broader context: zz reducing direct and indirect emissions from agriculture; zz increasing carbon sequestration in agricultural soils; zz changing human dietary patterns towards more climate friendly food consumption, in particular less animal products; zz reducing storage losses and food wastage; zz the option of bioenergy needs to be mentioned, but depending on the type of bioenergy several negative side-effects may occur, including effects on food security, biodiversity and net GHG emissions. Although there are many difficulties in the details of mitigation actions in agriculture, a paradigm of climate friendly agriculture based on five principles can be derived from the knowledge about agricultural emissions and carbon sequestration: zz Climate friendly agriculture has to account for tradeoffs and choose system boundaries adequately; zz it has to account for synergies and adopt a systemic approach; zz aspects besides mitigation such as adaptation and food security are of crucial importance; zz it has to account for uncertainties and knowledge gaps, and zz the context beyond the agricultural sector has to be taken into account, in particular food consumption and waste patterns. Regarding policies to implement such a climate friendly agriculture, not much is yet around. In climate policy, agriculture only plays a minor role and negotiations proceed only very slowly on this topic. In agricultural policy climate change mitigation currently plays an insignificant role. In both contexts, some changes towards combined approaches can be expected over the next decade. Its 13 is essential that climate policy adequately captures the special characteristics of the agricultural sector. Policies with outcomes that endanger other aspects of agriculture such as food security or ecology have to be avoided. Agriculture delivers much more than options for mitigating greenhouse gas emissions and serving as a CO2 sink. We close this report with recommendations for the five most important goals to be realized in the context of mitigation and agriculture and proposals for concrete actions. First, soil organic carbon levels have to be preserved and, if possible, increased. Governments should include soil carbon sequestration in their mitigation and adaptation strategies and the climate funds should take a strong position on supporting such practices. Second, the implementation of closed nutrient cycles and optimal use of biomass has to be supported. Again, governments and funds should act on this. Policy instruments for nitrate regulation are a good starting point for this. As a third and most effective goal, we propose changes in food consumption and waste patterns. Without a switch to attitudes characterized by sufficiency, there is a danger that all attempts for mitigation remain futile. Finally, there are two goals for research, namely to develop improved knowledge on nitrous oxide dynamics, and on methods for assessment of multi-functional farming systems. Without this, adequate policy instruments for climate friendly agriculture and an optimal further development of it are not possible

Review of existing information on the interrelations between soil and climate change. (ClimSoil). Final report

Carbon stock in EU soils – The soil carbon stocks in the EU27 are around 75 billion tonnes of carbon (C); of this stock around 50% is located in Sweden, Finland and the United Kingdom (because of the vast area of peatlands in these countries) and approximately 20% is in peatlands, mainly in countries in the northern part of Europe. The rest is in mineral soils, again the higher amount being in northern Europe. 2. Soils sink or source for CO2 in the EU – Both uptake of carbon dioxide (CO2) through photosynthesis and plant growth and loss of CO2 through decomposition of organic matter from terrestrial ecosystems are significant fluxes in Europe. Yet, the net terrestrial carbon fluxes are typically 5-10 times smaller relative to the emissions from use of fossil fuel of 4000 Mt CO2 per year. 3. Peat and organic soils - The largest emissions of CO2 from soils are resulting from land use change and especially drainage of organic soils and amount to 20-40 tonnes of CO2 per hectare per year. The most effective option to manage soil carbon in order to mitigate climate change is to preserve existing stocks in soils, and especially the large stocks in peat and other soils with a high content of organic matter. 4. Land use and soil carbon – Land use and land use change significantly affects soil carbon stocks. On average, soils in Europe are most likely to be accumulating carbon on a net basis with a sink for carbon in soils under grassland and forest (from 0 - 100 billion tonnes of carbon per year) and a smaller source for carbon from soils under arable land (from 10 - 40 billion tonnes of carbon per year). Soil carbon losses occur when grasslands, managed forest lands or native ecosystems are converted to croplands and vice versa carbon stocks increase, albeit it slower, following conversion of cropland. 5. Soil management and soil carbon – Soil management has a large impact on soil carbon. Measures directed towards effective management of soil carbon are available and identified, and many of these are feasible and relatively inexpensive to implement. Management for lower nitrogen (N) emissions and lower C emissions is a useful approach to prevent trade off and swapping of emissions between the greenhouse gases CO2, methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O). 6. Carbon sequestration – Even though effective in reducing or slowing the build up of CO2 in the atmosphere, soil carbon sequestration is surely no ‘golden bullet’ alone to fight climate change due to the limited magnitude of its effect and its potential reversibility; it could, nevertheless, play an important role in climate mitigation alongside other measures, especially because of its immediate availability and relative low cost for 'buying' us time. 7. Effects of climate change on soil carbon pools – Climate change is expected to have an impact on soil carbon in the longer term, but far less an impact than does land use change, land use and land management. We have not found strong and clear evidence for either overall and combined positive of negative impact of climate change (atmospheric CO2, temperature, precipitation) on soil carbon stocks. Due to the relatively large gross exchange of CO2 between atmosphere and soils and the significant stocks of carbon in soils, relatively small changes in these large and opposing fluxes of CO2, i.e. as result of land use (change), land management and climate change, may have significant impact on our climate and on soil quality. 8. Monitoring systems for changes in soil carbon – Currently, monitoring and knowledge on land use and land use change in EU27 is inadequate for accurate calculation of changes in soil carbon contents. Systematic and harmonized monitoring across EU27 and across relevant land uses would allow for adequate representation of changes in soil carbon in reporting emissions from soils and sequestration in soils to the UNFCCC. 9. EU policies and soil carbon – Environmental requirements under the Cross Compliance requirement of CAP is an instrument that may be used to maintain SOC. Neither measures under UNFCCC nor those mentioned in the proposed Soil Framework Directive are expected to adversely impact soil C. EU policy on renewable energy is not necessarily a guarantee for appropriate (soil) carbon management

Contribution to the development of mathematical programming tools to assist decision-making in sustainability problems

L'activitat humana està excedint la capacitat de resposta de la Terra, el que pot tenir implicacions perjudicials per al futur benestar humà i del medi ambient. Sens dubte, severs canvis estructurals seran necessaris, el que exigeix prendre solucions eficaces davant els problemes emergents de sostenibilitat. En aquest context, aquesta tesi es centra en dues transformacions clau per re-connectar el desenvolupament humà amb el progrés sostenible: la "seguretat alimentària sostenible", desacoblant la intensificació agrícola de l'ús insostenible dels recursos; i el "model energètic sostenible", donant suport al canvi cap a una economia respectuosa amb el medi ambient. El marc metodològic consisteix a abordar diferents problemes mitjançant el desenvolupament d'eines sistemàtiques de programació matemàtica amb l'objectiu de donar suport a la presa de decisions i la formulació de polítiques conduents a la consecució del desenvolupament sostenible. Aquesta tesi doctoral inclou quatre contribucions principals en forma d'eines de decisió i suport de polítiques prou flexibles com per abordar diferents casos d'estudi. En primer lloc, es proposa una eina multiobjectiu per assignar àrees de cultiu considerant simultàniament criteris productius i mediambientals. En segon lloc, es proposa un model multiperíode per determinar plans de cultiu òptims i subsidis efectius per tal de promoure pràctiques agrícoles sostenibles. En tercer lloc, es proposa una metodologia per a analitzar la sostenibilitat que permet avaluar sistemes muticriteri i proporciona potencials millores d'acord amb els principis de la sostenibilitat. En quart lloc, es proposa un nou enfocament basat en l'optimització d'accions cooperatives amb l'objectiu de promoure i enfortir la cooperació internacional en la lluita contra el canvi climàtic La informació derivada de la investigació, com la presentada en aquesta tesi, pot tenir un paper fonamental en la transició cap a una nova era en la qual l'economia, la societat i el medi ambient coexisteixin com a pilars clau del desenvolupament sostenible.La actividades humanas están excediendo la capacidad de carga de la Tierra, lo que puede potencialmente generar implicaciones perjudiciales para el futuro bienestar humano y del medio ambiente. Sin duda son necesarios profundos cambios estructurales, lo que exige tomar soluciones eficaces ante los problemas emergentes de sostenibilidad. En este contexto, esta tesis se centra en dos transformaciones clave para reconectar el desarrollo humano con el progreso sostenible: la "seguridad alimentaria sostenible", desacoplando la intensificación agrícola del uso insostenible de los recursos; y el " modelo energético sostenible", apoyando el cambio hacia una economía respetuosa con el medio ambiente. El marco metodológico consiste en abordar distintos problemas mediante el desarrollo de herramientas sistemáticas de programación matemática cuyo objetivo es apoyar la toma de decisiones y la formulación de políticas tendentes hacia la consecución del desarrollo sostenible. La tesis incluye cuatro contribuciones principales en forma de herramientas de decisión y apoyo de políticas suficientemente flexibles para abordar diferentes casos de estudio. En primer lugar, se propone una herramienta multiobjetivo para asignar áreas de cultivo considerando simultáneamente criterios productivos y medioambientales. En segundo, se propone un modelo multiperiodo para determinar planes de cultivo óptimos y subsidios efectivos con el fin de promover prácticas agrícolas sostenibles. En tercero, se propone una metodología para realizar análisis de sostenibilidad que permite evaluar sistemas muticriterio y proporciona potenciales mejoras de acuerdo con principios de sostenibilidad. En cuarto lugar, se propone un nuevo enfoque basado en la optimización de acciones cooperativas con el objetivo de promover y fortalecer la cooperación internacional en la lucha contra el cambio climático La información derivada de la investigación, como la presentada en esta tesis, puede desempeñar un papel fundamental en la transición hacia una nueva era en la que la economía, la sociedad y el medio ambiente coexistan como pilares clave del desarrollo sostenible.Impacts from human activities are exceeding the Earth’s carrying capacity, which may lead to irreversible changes posing a serious threat to future human well-being and the environment. There is no doubt that an urgent shift is needed for sustainability, which calls for effective solutions when facing ongoing and emerging sustainability challenges. Against this background, this thesis focuses on two key structural transformations needed to reconnect the human development to sustained progress: the “food security transformation”, through decoupling the intensification of agricultural production from unsustainable use of resources; and the “clean energy transformation”, supporting the transition towards a more environmentally friendly economy. Methodologically, different sustainability issues are tackled by developing systematic mathematical programming tools aiming at supporting sustainable decision and policy-making which ultimately will lead to the development of more efficient mechanisms to foster a sustainable development. This thesis includes four major contributions in the form of decision and policy- support tools which are flexible and practical enough to address different case studies towards a more sustainable agriculture and energy future. First, a multi-objective tool is proposed which allows allocating cropping areas simultaneously maximizing the production and minimizing the environmental impact on ecosystems and resources. Second, a multi-period model is proposed which allows determining optimal cropping plans and effective subsidies to promote agricultural practices beneficial to the climate and the environment. Third, a novel methodology tailored to perform sustainability assessments is proposed which allows evaluating multi-criterion systems and providing improvements targets for such systems according to sustainability principles. Fourth, an optimised cooperative approach is proposed to promote and strengthen international cooperation in the fight against climate change. Research-based work as the one proposed herein may play a major role in the transition towards a new era where the economy, society and the environment coexist as key pillars of sustainable development

The potential for land sparing to offset greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture

Greenhouse gas emissions from global agriculture are increasing at around 1% per annum, yet substantial cuts in emissions are needed across all sectors. The challenge of reducing agricultural emissions is particularly acute, because the reductions achievable by changing farming practices are limited and are hampered by rapidly rising food demand. Here we assess the technical mitigation potential offered by land sparing-increasing agricultural yields, reducing farm land area and actively restoring natural habitats on the land spared. Restored habitats can sequester carbon and can offset emissions from agriculture. Using the United Kingdom as an example, we estimate net emissions in 2050 under a range of future agricultural scenarios. We find that a land-sparing strategy has the technical potential to achieve significant reductions in net emissions from agriculture and land-use change. Coupling land sparing with demand-side strategies to reduce meat consumption and food waste can further increase the technical mitigation potential, however economic and implementation considerations might limit the degree to which this technical potential could be realised in practice.This research was funded by the Cambridge Conservation Initiative Collaborative Fund for Conservation and we thank its major sponsor Arcadia. We thank J. Bruinsma for the provision of demand data, the CEH for the provision of soil data and J. Spencer for invaluable discussions. A.L. was supported by a Gates Cambridge Scholarship.This is the author accepted manuscript. The final version is available from Nature Publishing Group via http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nclimate291