Figure 1 - uploaded by Guillaume P Gruere
Content may be subject to copyright.
The main on-farm agricultural greenhouse gas emission sources, removals and processes in managed ecosystems
Source publication
This paper reviews the international literature on the cost-effectiveness of supply-side mitigation
measures that can reduce the emissions intensity of agriculture while maintaining or increasing
production. Sixty-five recent international studies of cost-effectiveness covering 181 individual
activities are reviewed. Nine case studies of well cover...
Contexts in source publication
Context 1
... Table 21. Recurring costs and savings of improved energy efficiency in mobile machinery (+ cost, saving) ...................................................................................................................... 37 Table 22. Abatement rates for legumes in arable systems and on grassland ......................................... 39 Table 23. Costs or savings of N fixation introduction in crop rotations............................................... 39 Table 24. Potential source of study incommensurability ...................................................................... 40 Table 25. Examples of policy approaches to GHG mitigation .............................................................. 42 Table 26. Examples of the potentially ancillary costs (-) and benefits (+) that can arise from some common GHG mitigation measures .................................................................... 58 Table 27. Recent multiple measures studies of mitigation cost-effectiveness ...................................... 59 Table 28. Summary of the sub-categories of mitigation measures included in each study (for studies with cost-effectiveness calculation) ................................................................... 61 Table 29. Number of mitigation measures in each category (bold) and sub-category (italic)............... 64 Table 30. Number of times each mitigation measure was included in the reviewed studies ................ 65 Figure 1. The main on-farm agricultural greenhouse gas emission sources, removals and processes in managed ecosystems .................................................................................... 8 Figure 2. Trends in greenhouse gas emissions, agriculture value added and productivity in OECD countries (1990-2010) ............................................................................................. 8 Figure 3. Marginal abatement costs and benefits ................................................................................. 12 Figure 4. Example of marginal abatement cost curve (MACC) for UK dairy mitigation measures .... 12 Figure 5. Projected MACCs of non-CO2 emissions for agriculture and three other sectors as of 2030 .............................................................................................................................. 14 Figure 6. Classification of costs arising from mitigation ...................................................................... 15 Figure 7. Low (L) and high (H) estimates of cost-effectiveness (EUR/tCO2e) of mitigation measures from 12 MACC studies ......................................................................................... 41 Figure 8. Greenhouse gas emissions in OECD countries from 1990-2010 .......................................... 57 Box 1. Mitigating emissions in a ruminant agriculture: The case of Ireland ...................................... 9 Box 2. Using MACCs to analyse projected the cost-effectiveness of non-CO 2 GHG mitigation options across sectors and countries ..................................................................................... 14 Box 3. Implications of the different modelling approaches: results from a meta-analysis ............... 16 Box 4. MACCs with multiple pollutants .......................................................................................... 18 Box 5. Examples of alternative mitigation measures in development .............................................. 22 Box 6. Abatement potential and cost of ten technical measures: The case of France ....................... ...
Context 2
... greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions represent a significant proportion of the OECD’s total emissions. For the period 2008-10, on-farm agricultural GHG emissions (excluding on-farm energy use, land use change, or emissions arising pre and post-farm) accounted for 8% of the total OECD emissions reported to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Agriculture has a potential role to play in GHG mitigation, even as the agriculture sector is responding to an increased demand for food. Demand for the major food commodities is forecast to increase significantly between now and 2050; in this context, reducing global emissions should be pursued in parallel to agricultural production objectives. There are opportunities to reduce the emissions intensity (i.e. the emissions per unit of output) of OECD agriculture whilst simultaneously improving productivity. Depending on the rate of increase of productivity, this could even lead to an absolute emission reduction. Significant improvements in the emissions intensity of OECD agricultural output have already been observed due to technical and policy changes. Available estimates show that, on average, OECD countries have reduced their agricultural emission intensity by approximately 2% annually between 2000 and 2010. This has been achieved through a combination of the uptake of improved technologies and farm management practices, and incentives to lower emissions supported by a range of policies and policy reforms introduced by individual OECD countries. Going further on this path demands knowledge about the range of feasible agricultural mitigation options, and on whether they can be technically effective, economically efficient, and socially acceptable. In particular, the cost-effectiveness of agricultural mitigation practices, an aspect which is the subject of multiple studies, is often highly variable, being very dependent on location, weather, past and current farming practices, and therefore difficult to gauge and assess for policy purpose. This paper reviews the international literature on the cost-effectiveness of supply-side mitigation measures that can reduce emissions intensity while maintaining or increasing production. It therefore does not analyse demand side options, focuses on agricultural mitigation practices rather than potential policy instruments (such as carbon tax or carbon trading), and especially considers practices that reduce emissions while maintaining or increasing production. It is not a meta-analysis in that it does not claim to assess the average cost-effectiveness of measures. There is a large number of potential mitigation measures and significant variation in the estimates of their impact, which is partly due to the methods used to assess them. Different methodologies can be used to derive marginal abatement cost curves: (i) bottom up cost-engineering; (ii) micro-economic modelling, with exogenous prices; (iii) regional/sectoral supply-side equilibrium models. This study identifies and reviews 65 recent international studies of the cost-effectiveness of eight categories of agricultural mitigation measures, covering 181 individual activities. Nine case studies of well covered mitigation measures, generally using a cost-engineering approach, illustrate significant differences in cost-effectiveness of measures across countries and studies, in part due to contextual differences. Although caution needs to be exercised in comparing heterogeneous studies, the results suggest that measures based on fertiliser use efficiency and cattle breeding, and potentially improving energy efficiency in mobile machinery, are considered highly cost-effective mitigation opportunities across countries. Preliminary policy discussions highlight the existence of different options to encourage the adoption of cost-effective measures, from information to incentive-based policies. For the measures that have low (or negative) costs and high effectiveness it should be possible to encourage uptake using policies focused on providing education and information. For the measures that are likely to have positive or moderate costs, but would provide net benefits to society (i.e. where the cost of implementing the measure is less than the social cost of the emissions), an incentive-based policy approach might be justified. In that case, two main approaches may be considered: the use of sector-wide or broader economic instruments (e.g. tax or cap and trade), or voluntary payment based approaches promoting targeted mitigation measures, each approach having potential advantages and drawbacks. Further analysis is needed to address remaining estimation challenges, and to help determine how mitigation measures may be embedded into broader climate, agricultural and environmental policy frameworks. Despite the growing body of evidence, a number of technical challenges remain in the measurement of cost-effectiveness, including: (a) predicting the cost effectiveness of different combinations of measures; (b) accounting for leakages or displacement effects that move emissions from one place to another; (c) accounting for variability and uncertainty in cost-effectiveness; and (d) understanding why farmers are sometimes reluctant to adopt apparent “win - win” mitigation measures. Comprehensive analysis would also be needed to assess the costs and benefits of the different policy instruments for addressing GHG emission reduction in agriculture. Agricultural greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions represent a significant proportion of the OECD’s total emissions. For the period 2008-10, agriculture (excluding energy use and land use change) accounted for 8% of the total OECD emissions reported to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) (OECD, 2013; see Figure 8 in Annex A). As presented in Figure 1, the major GHGs associated with agricultural production are: CH 4 arising mainly from the anaerobic decomposition of organic matter during enteric fermentation and manure management, but also from paddy rice ...
Citations
... Emissions intensity may fall, but total emissions do not follow suit. Some technological options exist or are under development to reduce emissions from ruminant animals, the management of agricultural soils, and manure storage (see the references in European Parliament, 2014;MacLeod et al., 2015;Martineau et al., 2016;and Pérez Domínguez et al., 2016 for further discussion). Feed additives and methane inhibitors can help to reduce emissions from ruminant animals. ...
Through detailed and wide-ranging analysis, the Handbook on European Union Climate Change Policy and Politics provides a critical assessment of current and emerging challenges facing the EU in committing to and delivering increasingly ambitious climate policy objectives. Highlighting the importance of topics such as finance and investment, litigation, ‘hard to abate’ sectors and negative emissions, it offers an up-to-date exploration of the complexities of climate politics and policy making.
... Emissions intensity may fall, but total emissions do not follow suit. Some technological options exist or are under development to reduce emissions from ruminant animals, the management of agricultural soils, and manure storage (see the references in European Parliament, 2014;MacLeod et al., 2015;Martineau et al., 2016;and Pérez Domínguez et al., 2016 for further discussion). Feed additives and methane inhibitors can help to reduce emissions from ruminant animals. ...
... There are several methodologies to construct a MACC (Vermont and de Cara 2010; Eory et al. 2018), with engineering (bottom-up) MACCs (Moran et al. 2008;Beach et al. 2015;Pellerin et al. 2017) being commonly used in the literature. However, such MACCs are not the right tool to predict the total abatement potentials and relevant cost of combined mitigation options, as the interaction effects between the options may exist and lower the aggregated mitigation potential (MacLeod et al. 2015;Eory et al. 2018;Fellmann et al. 2021). Despite their limitations, bottom-up approaches can highlight the opportunities and low-hanging fruits for mitigation (Eory et al. 2018). ...
... Increasing the fat content reduces enteric CH 4 emissions from the rumen via biological processes in the digestive system. The CH 4 reduction is proportional to the fat content, but due to potential health issues and practical aspects, a maximum limit of 5-6 DM% total fat content is acceptable (MacLeod et al. 2015). It is determined that each 1% of fat added to the diet will result in a 5% reduction of enteric CH 4 emissions (MacLeod et al. 2015). ...
... However, despite the attractiveness of this option, the producers seem to have no willingness for its application, as also pointed out in the literature (Moran et al. 2013;Pellerin et al. 2017). Regarding crop rotation with legumes, the literature reports the cost of mitigation per ton CO 2 e avoided in the range of 20-50 €/ton (MacLeod et al. 2015;Pellerin et al. 2017). However, this option shows higher costs and low abatement potential in our study. ...
This study uses a bottom-up optimisation modelling framework to assess GHG (greenhouse gas) emission reduction potential from enteric fermentation, manure management, and agricultural soil-related activities. As a developing European economy, the Turkish agriculture sector has been considered from 2020 until 2050. Four mitigation options are evaluated for their emission reduction potentials: addition of fat supplements to the diet, deployment of centralised biogas facilities, adjustment of fertiliser application rates, and crop rotation with legumes. Results point out the difficulty of emission mitigation in the sector from cost and limited abatement perspectives. Fat supplements have the highest potential (7.2%); others follow, respectively, 4.0%, 0.45%, and 0.35%. Crop rotation has the highest cost and the lowest GHG mitigation potential option considering the opportunity cost. Based on standalone potential assessments, three combined mitigation option sets are implemented. Besides the significant interaction effects, it has been found that the cost-effectiveness of the options depends on electricity and compost revenues.
... Hence, agriculture and especially the livestock sector can play a key role in the reduction of GHG emissions. A broad range of possible mitigation measures has been proposed for global agriculture or specific regions (IPCC, 2014;MacLeod et al., 2015). Examples of measures in livestock production are improved herd management, manure handling or changes in feeding practices (Gerber et al., 2013). ...
To reduce agricultural greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, farmers need to change current farming practices. However, farmers' climate change mitigation behaviour and particularly the role of social and individual characteristics remains poorly understood. Using an agent‐based modelling approach, we investigate how knowledge exchange within farmers' social networks affects the adoption of mitigation measures and the effectiveness of a payment per ton of GHG emissions abated. Our simulations are based on census, survey and interview data for 49 Swiss dairy and cattle farms to simulate the effect of social networks on overall GHG reduction and marginal abatement costs. We find that considering social networks increases overall reduction of GHG emissions by 45% at a given payment of 120 Swiss Francs (CHF) per ton of reduced GHG emissions. The per ton payment would have to increase by 380 CHF (i.e., 500 CHF/tCO 2 eq) to reach the same overall GHG reduction level without any social network effects. Moreover, marginal abatement costs for emissions are lower when farmers exchange relevant knowledge through social networks. The effectiveness of policy incentives aiming at agricultural climate change mitigation can hence be improved by simultaneously supporting knowledge exchange and opportunities of social learning in farming communities.
... Carter et al. (2005[65]) projected a 6-17% sectoral revenue loss for strawberry producers in California after banning the MB. Regarding pollution leakage, Lynch, Malcolm, and Zilberman (2005 [56]) suggested that most Mexican farmers would not use MB for additional production because the pesticide was too expensive to adopt. The leakage rate was estimated to be 11.5%, i.e. more than one-tenth of the MB reduced in the United States would be applied in Mexico. ...
Governments in many countries are pursuing higher environmental goals for agriculture. However, in an interconnected world, the unilateral adoption of environmental policies for agriculture can reduce the producers’ competitiveness and induce pollution leakage. This report analyses these challenges and discusses policy solutions, focusing on two examples: climate change mitigation policies and policies limiting the environmental impacts of pesticides. The extent of competitiveness and leakage effects is found to depend on market conditions, differences in pollution intensity, and the type of environmental policy adopted. Two policy routes are identified to improve agriculture’s environmental performance while maintaining the benefits of global markets. The first route relies on “direct” environmental policies, such as market-based instruments or regulations, which are rapidly effective in limiting environmental impacts but may require additional complementary policies to limit their potential competitiveness and leakage impacts. The second route involves alternative policies acting on agricultural supply, demand, or through private sector engagement, which limit competitiveness and leakage impacts but may require time to be environmentally effective.
... The use of chemical fertilizers with pesticides and animal wastes in agricultural activities accounts for about 30% of all GHG emissions. This rate will undoubtedly continue to increase because of the rising global populations, increased food demand, as well as demand for dairy and meat-made products, and the intensification of agricultural processes [3,4]. ...
... As bacterial activity increased under anaerobic conditions with irrigation, more CH4 emissions were produced, indicating that irrigation techniques can have a significant impact on GHG emissions. Additionally, variations in soil moisture have an impact on the redox potential of the soil, which has a substantial impact on the rates of soil GHG emissions [3,10,15]. Therefore, irrigation practices need to be modified and the amount of water required to irrigate the crops must be scheduled according to the crop water requirement to lower GHG emissions. VRI technology is an option that fulfills the spatiotemporal water demands of the crops. ...
... As bacterial activity increased under anaerobic conditions with irrigation, more CH4 emissions were produced, indicating that irrigation techniques can have a significant impact on GHG emissions. Additionally, variations in soil moisture have an impact on the redox potential of the soil, which has a substantial impact on the rates of soil GHG emissions [3,10,15]. Therefore, irrigation practices need to be modified and the amount of water required to irrigate the crops must be scheduled according to the crop water requirement to lower GHG emissions. VRI technology is an option that fulfills the spatio-temporal water demands of the crops. ...
Agriculture is extremely vulnerable to climate change, creating more difficult challenges. Presently, the agricultural sector contributes to between 19 and 29% of all global greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions. Methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), and carbon dioxide (CO2) are the main types of greenhouse gases generated by the agricultural industry. Energy use before and after farms, as well as shifting ground carbon stocks above and below as a result of changes in land use, are major sources of CO2 emissions. There has been a trend in recent years toward lowering GHG emissions in the agriculture sector. Precision agriculture Technologies (PAT) address the field’s temporal and spatial variability to maximize the usage of agricultural inputs (i.e., irrigation, fuel, and fertilizers). The PAT can keep or increase productivity while lowering GHG emissions from agricultural activities, whereas the variable rate irrigation (VRI) approach is helpful in this scenario. Recent research shows that VRI has a significant potential to mitigate GHG. The present study reviews research related to VRI that address the reduction in GHG emissions.
... Between 1990 and 2014, they were largely responsible for the 15% increase in global non-CO 2 emissions from agriculture ( Blandford and Hassapoyannes, 2018), whereas OECD countries ( the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, OECD) as a whole experienced a slight reduction in non-CO 2 emissions over the same period. Improvements in production efficiency have contributed to this reduction by lowering the emission intensity of agricultural output ( MacLeod et al., 2015). However, the rate of decline in intensity appears to be slowing ( OECD, 2021). ...
... For example, increasing the amount of protein content in the feed while improving the output per functional unit without increasing per-unit GHGs emissions. The EEA views LCA- based environmental management as part of a sustainable business model that has the potential for achieving the eco-efficiency concept along the value chain [22][23][24]32]. ...
... This necessitates the detection of the hotspots along the chain to ensure that any emission is addressed [33]. The ability to detect and immediately propose a plausible solution renders LCA a standalone approach for avoiding environmental burden shift along the pig value chain, bolstering its sustainability [32][33][34]. ...
... Since most impacts from feed production arise from inputs and processing of the feed, increasing efficiency along the pig feed supply chain has the potential to mitigate the effects further. Evidence on adopting efficiency and its impact on environmental trade-offs across the Irish pig production systems as evaluated by Mc Auliffe et al. [4] shows that those systems where higher efficiency is implemented are more likely to reduce their GWP, EP, and AP by 6%, 15% and 12%, respectively [4,32,34,38]. ...
Growing demand for sustainably driven production systems, especially pork, requires a holistic or system thinking approach. Life Cycle Thinking (LCT) offers a robust methodological background as one of the approaches to achieving system analysis for a product along its lifecycle. On the other hand, Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) can perform state-of-art system analysis characterising its sustainability fronts as a compelling set of tools. Pork, as the most consumed meat across Europe (circa 34 kg per capita per year), compounded with the sector’s contribution to global greenhouse gases (GHG) doubling over the past decade necessitated this research. Our objective was to map hotspots along the value chain and recommend the best available practices for realising the sectoral contribution to carbon neutrality and climate change adaptation. To achieve the objective, we compared organic and conventional production systems by basing our analysis on Recipe midpoint 2016 (H) V1.13 as implemented in OpenLCA 1.10.2 using AGRIBALYSE® 3.0 datasets for eleven indicators. We found that producing 1 kg of pig meat under an organic production system had almost double the environmental impact of conventional systems for land use, water consumption, acidification, and ecotoxicity. Feed production and manure management are the significant hotspots accounting for over 90% of environmental impacts associated with 1 kg pig meat Liveweight (LW) production. Similarly, efficient conventional systems were less harmful to the environment in per capita unit of production and land use compared with organic ones in ten out of the eleven impacts evaluated. Implementing increased efficiency, reduced use of inputs for feed production, and innovative manure management practices with technological potential were some of the best practices the research recommended to realise minimal impacts on the identified hotspots.
... With feed being the major source of GHG emissions, improvements in the way feed is produced and used will also reduce the levels of GHG emissions. Therefore, reducing emissions from crop production would lead to a reduction in aquaculture feed emissions as well (MacLeod et al., 2015). Reductions in energy use, or changing the source of energy to low (hydroelectricity, geothermal or nuclear power) or lower (natural or biogas) emission sources (Cao et al., 2011) will also reduce GHG emissions. ...
Aquaculture and mariculture are becoming an increasingly important source of food supply food in many countries and regions. However, with the expansion of aquaculture and mariculture comes increasing emissions of greenhouse gases (GHG) which contribute to global warming and climate change. China leads the world in aquaculture and mariculture production, but there are no studies that systematically assess China's overall carbon footprint from these industries. This study quantified GHG emissions from aquaculture and mariculture by four source phases (feed, energy use, nitrous oxide and fertilizers), and then analyzed the carbon footprint of each of these phases for GHG production of nine major species groups over the past ten years to show the spatial distribution of GHG emissions from aquaculture and mariculture in China. Our results showed that the production of feed materials contributed most to the GHG emissions and found that crop energy use, crop land use changes (LUC), fertilizer production, crop nitrous oxide production and rice methane production were the main sources of feed emissions. The total GHG emissions of the nine species groups were 112 Mt (10⁹ kg) CO2e, the nine species accounting for approximately 86% of aquaculture and mariculture production. GHG emissions of cyprinids had the highest contribution at 47%. Spatial analysis based on our study showed Guangdong, Hubei, Jiangsu and Shandong had the highest GHG emissions of all the provinces in this study, and they accounted for approximately 46% of all emissions. The regional Gross Domestic Product (GDP) was significantly positively correlated with GHG emissions in every province, with a correlation coefficient higher than 0.6. Our results showed for the first time the relationship between the relative production by species composition and spatial distribution of GHG emissions from aquaculture and mariculture in China. Our findings provide the scientific basis for reduction of GHG emissions within a broader context of expanding aquaculture in the future.
... The use of nitrification inhibitors represents a cost to farmers, and incentives could be necessary if introduced for GHG mitigation. Cost estimates vary widely, from 10 to 90 € ha −1 yr −1 (MacLeod et al., 2015). The delay of ammonia oxidation can increase NH 3 volatilization (Qiao et al., 2015), although this will be small if residues are incorporated into the soil. ...
Crop residues are of crucial importance to maintain or even increase soil carbon stocks and fertility, and thereby to address the global challenge of climate change mitigation. However, crop residues can also potentially stimulate emissions of the greenhouse gas nitrous oxide (N2O) from soils. A better understanding of how to mitigate N2O emissions due to crop residue management while promoting positive effects on soil carbon is needed to reconcile the opposing effects of crop residues on the greenhouse gas balance of agroecosystems. Here, we combine a literature review and a meta-analysis to identify and assess measures for mitigating N2O emissions due to crop residue application to agricultural fields. Our study shows that crop residue removal, shallow incorporation, incorporation of residues with C:N ratio > 30 and avoiding incorporation of residues from crops terminated at an immature physiological stage, are measures leading to significantly lower N2O emissions. Other practices such as incorporation timing and interactions with fertilisers are less conclusive. Several of the evaluated N2O mitigation measures implied negative side-effects on yield, soil organic carbon storage, nitrate leaching and/or ammonia volatilization. We identified additional strategies with potential to reduce crop residue N2O emissions without strong negative side-effects, which require further research. These are: a) treatment of crop residues before field application, e.g., conversion of residues into biochar or anaerobic digestate, b) co-application with nitrification inhibitors or N-immobilizing materials such as compost with a high C:N ratio, paper waste or sawdust, and c) use of residues obtained from crop mixtures. Our study provides a scientific basis to be developed over the coming years on how to increase the sustainability of agroecosystems though adequate crop residue management.
