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

Limits of agricultural greenhouse gas calculators to predict soil N2O and CH4 fluxes in tropical agriculture

Acknowledgements This work was undertaken as part of the CGIAR Research Program on Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security (CCAFS), which is a strategic partnership of CGIAR and Future Earth. This research was carried out with funding by the European Union (EU) and with technical support from the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD). The UN FAO Mitigation of Climate Change in Agriculture (MICCA) Programme funded data collection in Kenya and Tanzania. The views expressed in the document cannot be taken to reflect the official opinions of CGIAR, Future Earth, or donors. We thank Louis Bockel of the UN FAO Agricultural Development Economics Division (ESA) for his comments on an earlier draft of the manuscript.Peer reviewedPublisher PD

Identifying integrated options for agricultural climate change mitigation

Purpose: In order to achieve reductions in greenhouse gas emissions it is essential that all industry sectors have the appropriate knowledge and tools to contribute. This includes agriculture, which is considered to contribute about a third of emissions globally. This paper reports on one such tool: IMPACCT: Integrated Management oPtions for Agricultural Climate Change miTigation. Design/methodology/approach: IMPACCT focuses on greenhouse gas emissions, carbon sequestration and associated mitigation options. However, it also attempts to include information on economic and other environmental impacts in order to provide a more holistic perspective. The model identifies mitigation options, likely economic impacts and any synergies and trade-offs with other environmental objectives. The model has been applied on 22 case study farms in seven member states. Findings: The tool presents some useful concepts for developing carbon calculators in the future. It has highlighted that calculators need to evolve from simply calculating emissions to identifying cost effective and integrated emissions reduction options. Practical implications: IMPACCT has potential to become an effective means of provided targeted guidance, as part of a broader knowledge transfer programme based on an integrated suite of guidance, tools and advice delivered via different media. Originality/value: IMPACCT is a new model that demonstrates how to take a more integrated approach to mitigating greenhouse gas emissions on farms across Europe. It is a holistic carbon calculator that presents mitigation options in the context other environmental and economic objectives in the search for more sustainable methods of food production.Peer reviewedFinal Accepted Versio

Optimal livestock diet formulation with farm environmental compliance consequences

The current method to derive livestock diets is to optimize cost performance subject to animal performance and resulting nutritional requirements via a linear programming model. In contrast, we examine the livestock diet formulation problem as a multi-criteria decision model with the criteria being cost performance, feed efficiency, and environmental compliance costs. We find that there are many situations where farm financial situations are improved by feeding products with higher costs per unit of protein but lower phosphorus levels.Environmental Economics and Policy,

Results on life cycle assessments to determine impacts of agronomic management choices in the Cauca and Honduras CSV

The intense management of the crops, that characterizes current agricultural cropping systems, has resulted in increased concentrations of greenhouse gases (GHGs) such as carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), and nitrous oxide (N2O). In this study, we used the field-scale agricultural assessment model - Cool Farm Tool (CFT), to model GHG emissions and uptake estimates (Hillier et al., 2011). This tool combines different algorithms that integrate climate, soil and crop data and presents outputs on carbon footprints in a format that is accessible to non-experts. Furthermore, the CFT provides the possibility to compare GHG emissions and uptake estimates from different production sites and systems. Finally, the tool CFT enables crop producers and stakeholders to take a more informed and holistic approach to environmental sustainability in the agricultural sector

Whole Farm Net Zero: approaches to quantification of climate regulation ecosystem services at the whole farm scale. Vermont Payment for Ecosystem Services Technical Report #7

In this report, approaches to the quantification of climate mitigation ecosystem services at the whole farm scale are reviewed and summarized for easy comparison. Eight quantification tools, and three case studies demonstrating possible tool applications, are summarized to fulfill the requirements of the Technical Services Contract—Task 7. Information from a combination of literature review and expert interviews served to document the inputs, outputs, strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats for each quantification tool. This research was conducted in service to the Vermont Soil Health and Payment for Ecosystem Services (PES) Working Group (VT PES working group). It is our hope that this report provides productive information and insights for the implementation of whole farm scale payment for ecosystem services programs, Vermont’s Climate Action Plan, and similar efforts elsewhere. Emissions reductions on farms are of interest to farmers in Vermont and will be required by the implementation of the Global Warming Solutions Act (GWSA). Management changes that reduce emissions at the farm scale could possibly be supported and encouraged through a PES program. Given the work and goals of the PES Working Group and the requirements to implement the GWSA it is critical to understand the degree of accuracy and scope of currently available greenhouse gas assessment tools that could possibly be implemented to measure and monitor outcomes from VT agriculture. Section 2 of this report describes the methods used to collect information reviewing eight tools for quantifying agricultural greenhouse gas emissions and sequestration rates, including the CarbOn Management & Emissions Tool (COMET)-Farm, COMET-Planner, COOL-Farm, DayCent, DNDC (DeNitrification-DeComposition), Environmental Policy Integrated Climate (EPIC) & APEX Agricultural Policy / Environmental eXtender (APEX), Holos, and the Integrated Farm Systems Model (IFSM). These eight tools were each reviewed using a systematic literature review, interviews with experts who are well-versed in using the specific tools, and a Strengths-Weaknesses-Opportunities-Threats (SWOT) analysis. Section 3 presents some larger-context considerations for choosing an appropriate tool. Section 4 gives a high-level overview of the SWOT analysis performed for each tool reviewed for this task. Section 5 describes three example applications of emissions modeling tools.Section 6 contains concluding remarks. The report’s Appendix section includes the SWOT analyses for each tool to allow for more in-depth review, as well as a series of tables to present a high-level comparison of the tools

Contribution of High Nature Value farming systems to sustainable livestock production : A case from Finland

Sustainability of livestock production is a highly contested issue in agricultural sustainability discourse. This study aimed to assess the environmental impact of farms using semi-natural grasslands in Finland, or so-called High Nature Value (HNV) farms. We estimated the environmental impact of 11 such farms, including greenhouse gas emissions (GHG), nitrogen (N) balance, land occupation, and carbon storage. We also accounted for unique biodiversity, defined in this study as communities that are dependent on semi-natural grasslands. We compared these to the alternative states of the farms, specifically a hypothetical farm with the same production output but without access to semi natural grasslands. GHG emissions at the farm level (tCO(2eq)/ha) in HNV farms were 64% lower than on the alternative farms; GHG emissions at the product level (tCO(2eq)/t LW) and N balance (N kg/ha) were 31% and 235% lower, respectively. The carbon stocks were 163% higher at farm level. Biodiversity values, indicated by the share of semi-natural grassland in management, ranged from 23% to 83% on HNV farms. Six out of eleven farms would need to increase their arable land occupation by an average of 39% of arable land to fulfil their needs for animal feed if they did not utilize semi-natural grassland. This study contributes to growing evidence that HNV farming systems can support sustainable production by minimising arable land occupation, reducing nutrient loses, and increasing carbon storage while maintaining unique biodiversity.Peer reviewe

Co-designing climate-smart farming systems with local stakeholders: A methodological framework for achieving large-scale change

The literature is increasing on how to prioritize climate-smart options with stakeholders but relatively few examples exist on how to co-design climate-smart farming systems with them, in particular with smallholder farmers. This article presents a methodological framework to co-design climate-smart farming systems with local stakeholders (farmers, scientists, NGOs) so that large-scale change can be achieved. This framework is based on the lessons learned during a research project conducted in Honduras and Colombia from 2015 to 2017. Seven phases are suggested to engage a process of co-conception of climate-smart farming systems that might enable implementation at scale: (1) “exploration of the initial situation,” which identifies local stakeholders potentially interested in being involved in the process, existing farming systems, and specific constraints to the implementation of climate-smart agriculture (CSA); (2) “co-definition of an innovation platform,” which defines the structure and the rules of functioning for a platform favoring the involvement of local stakeholders in the process; (3) “shared diagnosis,” which defines the main challenges to be solved by the innovation platform; (4) “identification and ex ante assessment of new farming systems,” which assess the potential performances of solutions prioritized by the members of the innovation platform under CSA pillars; (5) “experimentation,” which tests the prioritized solutions on-farm; (6) “assessment of the co-design process of climate-smart farming systems,” which validates the ability of the process to reach its initial objectives, particularly in terms of new farming systems but also in terms of capacity building; and (7) “definition of strategies for scaling up/out,” which addresses the scaling of the co-design process. For each phase, specific tools or methodologies are used: focus groups, social network analysis, theory of change, life-cycle assessment, and on-farm experiments. Each phase is illustrated with results obtained in Colombia or Honduras