De baten van de KRW : een eerste inventarisatie naar de potentiële baten van schoner water voor de land- en tuinbouw

In de landbouw wordt water vooral gebruikt voor: - beregening van gewassen (ongeveer 50-150 miljoen m3 per jaar); - drenking van vee (ongeveer 100 miljoen m3 per jaar). Wanneer als gevolg van de KRW de waterkwaliteit verbetert, kan dit tot baten voor de landbouw leiden. In de strategische MKBA voor de KRW is een eerste inschatting gemaakt van de kosten en baten van de KRW. In die studie is voor de baten voor de landbouw een pm post opgenomen. Achtergrondrapport voor de ex ante evaluatie kaderrichtlijn water (KRW

Earlier snowmelt may lead to late season declines in plant productivity and carbon sequestration in Arctic tundra ecosystems

Arctic warming is affecting snow cover and soil hydrology, with consequences for carbon sequestration in tundra ecosystems. The scarcity of observations in the Arctic has limited our understanding of the impact of covarying environmental drivers on the carbon balance of tundra ecosystems. In this study, we address some of these uncertainties through a novel record of 119 site-years of summer data from eddy covariance towers representing dominant tundra vegetation types located on continuous permafrost in the Arctic. Here we found that earlier snowmelt was associated with more tundra net CO2 sequestration and higher gross primary productivity (GPP) only in June and July, but with lower net carbon sequestration and lower GPP in August. Although higher evapotranspiration (ET) can result in soil drying with the progression of the summer, we did not find significantly lower soil moisture with earlier snowmelt, nor evidence that water stress affected GPP in the late growing season. Our results suggest that the expected increased CO2 sequestration arising from Arctic warming and the associated increase in growing season length may not materialize if tundra ecosystems are not able to continue sequestering CO2 later in the season

De baten van de KRW : een eerste inventarisatie naar de potentiële baten van schoner water voor de land- en tuinbouw

In de landbouw wordt water vooral gebruikt voor: - beregening van gewassen (ongeveer 50-150 miljoen m3 per jaar); - drenking van vee (ongeveer 100 miljoen m3 per jaar). Wanneer als gevolg van de KRW de waterkwaliteit verbetert, kan dit tot baten voor de landbouw leiden. In de strategische MKBA voor de KRW is een eerste inschatting gemaakt van de kosten en baten van de KRW. In die studie is voor de baten voor de landbouw een pm post opgenomen. Achtergrondrapport voor de ex ante evaluatie kaderrichtlijn water (KRW

Eco-efficiency in the production chain of Dutch semi-hard cheese

To achieve a sustainable cheese production chain, not only its ecological impact must be minimized, but economic value must be added along the chain also. The objectives of this study were to gain insight into ecological hotspots of the cheese chain, and to judge the ecological impact of chain stages in the context of their economic value added. A life cycle assessment (LCA) was performed to determine hotspots for global warming potential (GWP), land use and fossil energy use during production of Dutch, semi-hard cheese. To place ecological impact in an economic perspective, eco-efficiency of chain stages was determined, which was defined as the ratio of gross value added, and ecological impact. LCA and economic computations were based on empirical data from a specific Dutch cheese chain. Production of 1 kg cheese resulted in a GWP of 8.5 kg CO2-eq., and required 6.8 m2 land and 47.2 MJ energy. Of all stages, on-farm milk production contributed most to GWP (65%), and to land use (58%), followed by cultivation of concentrate ingredients (12% to GWP and 24% to land use). Regarding energy use, cultivation of concentrate ingredients had the highest contribution (33%). The after farm gate stages cheese-making, storage, and packaging each contributed about 7%–13% to energy use and about 3%–4% to GWP, whereas retail had a marginal impact. To decrease the ecological impact of cheese production, reducing the impact of on-farm milk production (e.g., by using feed ingredients that reduce enteric methane emission in the cow), and reducing the impact of cultivation of concentrate ingredients (e.g., by using locally produced ingredients or by-products) would be most effective. Stages after farm gate can lower their impact by minimizing use of fossil energy and use of alternative energy resources. Minimizing losses of milk and cheese in stages after farm gate, furthermore, is an important improvement option to reduce the impact per kg cheese of the whole chain. Total gross value added of the whole chain was €5.94 per kg cheese. On-farm milk production added most economic value (34%), followed by retail (27%), cheese-making (17%), and packaging (17%). Total eco-efficiency of cheese was €0.78 per kg CO2-eq., €1.03 per m2 land, and €0.16 per MJ energy. Of all stages, cultivation of concentrate ingredients and storage had the lowest eco-efficiency for each impact, whereas retail had the highest. Combining ecological impact and eco-efficiency, shows that cultivation of concentrate ingredients is the most problematic stage

Eco-efficiency in the production chain of Dutch semi-hard cheese

To achieve a sustainable cheese production chain, not only its ecological impact must be minimized, but economic value must be added along the chain also. The objectives of this study were to gain insight into ecological hotspots of the cheese chain, and to judge the ecological impact of chain stages in the context of their economic value added. A life cycle assessment (LCA) was performed to determine hotspots for global warming potential (GWP), land use and fossil energy use during production of Dutch, semi-hard cheese. To place ecological impact in an economic perspective, eco-efficiency of chain stages was determined, which was defined as the ratio of gross value added, and ecological impact. LCA and economic computations were based on empirical data from a specific Dutch cheese chain. Production of 1 kg cheese resulted in a GWP of 8.5 kg CO2-eq., and required 6.8 m2 land and 47.2 MJ energy. Of all stages, on-farm milk production contributed most to GWP (65%), and to land use (58%), followed by cultivation of concentrate ingredients (12% to GWP and 24% to land use). Regarding energy use, cultivation of concentrate ingredients had the highest contribution (33%). The after farm gate stages cheese-making, storage, and packaging each contributed about 7%–13% to energy use and about 3%–4% to GWP, whereas retail had a marginal impact. To decrease the ecological impact of cheese production, reducing the impact of on-farm milk production (e.g., by using feed ingredients that reduce enteric methane emission in the cow), and reducing the impact of cultivation of concentrate ingredients (e.g., by using locally produced ingredients or by-products) would be most effective. Stages after farm gate can lower their impact by minimizing use of fossil energy and use of alternative energy resources. Minimizing losses of milk and cheese in stages after farm gate, furthermore, is an important improvement option to reduce the impact per kg cheese of the whole chain. Total gross value added of the whole chain was €5.94 per kg cheese. On-farm milk production added most economic value (34%), followed by retail (27%), cheese-making (17%), and packaging (17%). Total eco-efficiency of cheese was €0.78 per kg CO2-eq., €1.03 per m2 land, and €0.16 per MJ energy. Of all stages, cultivation of concentrate ingredients and storage had the lowest eco-efficiency for each impact, whereas retail had the highest. Combining ecological impact and eco-efficiency, shows that cultivation of concentrate ingredients is the most problematic stage