Réduire les fuites de nitrate au moyen de cultures intermédiaires : conséquences sur les bilans d'eau et d'azote, autres services écosystémiques

La présence de nitrate en excès dans les eaux de surface et les nappes phréatiques pose des problèmes de santé publique et de dégradation de l’environnement. C’est d’abord un enjeu de santé publique notamment pour les nappes phréatiques, avec la nécessité de distribuer une eau de boisson présentant une teneur inférieure à la norme de potabilité qui est de 50 mg de nitrate par litre. C’est aussi un enjeu de protection de l’environnement pour les eaux de surface, en particulier pour certains bassins versants proches de la mer, comme en Bretagne ; le transfert rapide du nitrate des zones agricoles vers la mer induit une eutrophisation des zones côtières

Réduire les fuites de nitrate au moyen de cultures intermédiaires : conséquences sur les bilans d'eau et d'azote, autres services écosystémiques : Synthèse du rapport d'étude

Synthèse du rapport d'étude. Le présent document constitue la synthèse de l’étude sollicitée conjointement par le Ministère de l'Ecologie, du Développement Durable et de l'Energie et le Ministère de l’Agriculture et de l’Agroalimentaire et subventionnée par le Ministère de l'Ecologie, du Développement Durable et de l'Energie (étude n° 2100450303). Son contenu n'engage que la responsabilité de ses auteurs. Le rapport d’étude, source de cette synthèse, a été élaboré par les experts scientifiques sans condition d’approbation préalable par les commanditaires ou l’INRA. La synthèse a été validée par les auteurs du rapport

Réduire les fuites de nitrate au moyen de cultures intermédiaires : conséquences sur les bilans d'eau et d'azote, autres services écosystémiques : Synthèse du rapport d'étude

Synthèse du rapport d'étude. Le présent document constitue la synthèse de l’étude sollicitée conjointement par le Ministère de l'Ecologie, du Développement Durable et de l'Energie et le Ministère de l’Agriculture et de l’Agroalimentaire et subventionnée par le Ministère de l'Ecologie, du Développement Durable et de l'Energie (étude n° 2100450303). Son contenu n'engage que la responsabilité de ses auteurs. Le rapport d’étude, source de cette synthèse, a été élaboré par les experts scientifiques sans condition d’approbation préalable par les commanditaires ou l’INRA. La synthèse a été validée par les auteurs du rapport

Identifying cost-competitive greenhouse gas mitigation potential of French agriculture

The agriculture, forestry and other land use sector are responsible for 24% (10–12 Pg CO2e per year) of anthropogenic greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions worldwide, with concomitant opportunities for mitigation. A scientific panel used deliberative methods to identify ten technical measures comprising 26 sub-measures to reduce GHG emissions from agriculture in France. Their abatement potential and cost are compared. The proposed measures concern nitrogen (N) management, management practices that increase carbon stocks in soils and biomass, livestock diets, and energy production and consumption on farms. Results show that the total abatement potential can be divided into three parts. One third of the cumulated abatement potential corresponds to sub-measures that can be implemented at a negative technical cost. These sub-measures focus on increased efficiency in input use including N fertilisers, animal feed and energy. The second third are sub-measures with moderate cost (€25 per metric Mg of avoided CO2e). These require investment with no direct financial return, the purchase of particular inputs, dedicated labour time or involve production losses. Assuming additivity, the cumulated abatement is 32.3 Tg CO2e per year in 2030, but only 10 Tg (i.e. 10% of current agricultural emissions) when calculated under current inventory rules. This study confirms that a significant abatement potential exists in the agricultural sector, with two thirds of this potential at low or even negative cost. This is likely to be an underestimated as it is based on a status quo of the current agricultural system. Results also emphasise the need to upgrade inventory rules so that efforts to reduce emissions can be accounted for

How Do We Evaluate And Give Economical Values To Organic Farming And Food Externalities?

In addition to producing food, farming also generates negative externalities (costs) or positive externalities (benefits or amenities) that financial markets do not take into account. These externalities have taken more and more importance in social expectations. Several public tools tend to take them into account, and market initiatives tend also to reveal them and give them value. The question of quantifying externalities of organic farming (OF) is an old one. There has been numerous papers in different countries producing multi-criteria assessment. Nevertheless very few of them have tried to give economical values to these externalities in the context of promoting new tools in the future CAP, namely payment for environmental services.Our methodology consisted in identifying, qualifying, quantifying and assigning economic values, when possible, for environmental and social externalities differentials between OF and conventional farming (CF).Our results show that OF generates positive externalities differentials on very large items, with a few points to improve, and a concerning point about productivity that impacts some indicators like land use. This analysis gives not only a summary of established knowledge but also identifies points where knowledge gaps need to be filled or which are controversial, and points methodological difficulties, in particular i) the use of a conventional repository, which evolves, and which can be very territorial dependent, but also ii) the difficulty of establishing causalities between practices and ecosystems services’ bouquets, and iii) the problem of payment levels for farmer’s practices when the services improvement can be a result of practices’ management at different scales

Can organic agriculture cope without copper for disease control?. Synthesis of the Collective Scientific Assessment Report

International audienceCopper is used to control various fungal and bacterial diseases, especially in organic farming where synthetic fungicides are prohibited. The use of copper is subject to increasing regulatory restrictions in Europe due to its adverse effects on the environment. This book synthesizes the results of INRA scientific expertise on ‘alternatives’ to copper

Can organic agriculture cope without copper for disease control?

Copper is used to control various fungal and bacterial diseases, especially in organic farming where synthetic fungicides are prohibited. The use of copper is subject to increasing regulatory restrictions in Europe due to its adverse effects on the environment. This book synthesizes the results of INRA scientific expertise on ‘alternatives’ to copper