INSEA Integrated Sink Enhancement Assessment

1
INSEAIntegrated Sink Enhancement Assessment FP
6

• Michael Obersteiner

DG AGRI Bruxelles 13th Sept. 2005
2
FT

• Forest fires due to abandoned ag-land
• Agriculture sector second largest contributor to
  GHG emissions after energy sector
• Climate Change and oil prices require to grow
  more biofuels
• EU to upload sugar
• Ministers seek unity as fuel prices loom

3
Background

• The Kyoto Protocol requires that EU-15 reduces
  its GHG emissions by 8 / 1990 levels (time
  horizon 2008-12)
• Agriculture represents 10 of EU GHG emissions
• No commitment despite possible wellfare increases
• Agricultural and climate/env policies at a
  crossroad
• Emission Trading Scheme (inclusion of
  agricultural emissions and sinks? 23 EURO/tC)
• CHP directive, Biomass Action Plan
• Clean Air, Nitrate etcdirectives, STS
• CAP reform and cross-compliance

4
the Challenge ahead.

• Identification of integrative, effective and
  efficient Policies
• Competitiveness New Markets
• Rural Development
• Environmental Performance
• Transition planning
• Mechanism design
• Timing
• Precise Planning and Forecasting

5
INSEA-toolbox
Climate Change
Link to Energy Models
Non C-GHGs
Biomass crops
Food Crops / Wood
Agricultural forest Market Model
Geography of Production Possibilities
6
Common Platform
7
All Partners
8
INTEGRATED POLICY FRAMEWORK
Model for GHG Response to Management EPIC
National Economic Models AGRIPOL FASOM
Regional Farm Type Model AROPAj
Regional Forest Model EURO - FOR
Farm Model EFEM-DNDC
Stand level Model PICUS

• Common Database and Data Structure
• Harmonized System Boundaries
• IPCC GPG and /or FGA Accounting
• Consistent Baseline Assumptions
• Joint Catalogue of GHG Mitigation Measures
• Uniform Validation Criteria
• Agreed Sustainability Constraints
• Common IT Standards
• Standard Scenario Assumptions and Story Lines
• Joint Vision

Common Database and Standards
9
EPIC simulates many Processes
Weather simulated or actual Hydrology
evapotranspiration, runoff, percolation, 5 PET
equations,... Erosion wind and water, 7 erosion
equations Carbon sequestration plant residue,
manure, leaching, sediment,... Crop growth NPK
uptake, stresses, yields,N-fixation,... Fertiliza
tion application, runoff, leaching,
mineralisation, denitrification, volatilization,
nitrification,... Tillage mixing, harvest
efficiencies,... Irrigation and furrow
diking,... Drainage depth,... Pesticide
application, movement, degradation,... Grazing
trampling, efficiency,... Manure application and
transport,... Crop rotations inter-cropping,
weed competition, annual and perennial crops,
trees,...
on a daily time step
10
EPIC/APEX Input data - Management

• Crop rotation (crops, grass/legumes, trees)
• date of planting
• date amount of fertilization (kg/ha)
• date amount of irrigation (mm)
• date amount of pesticides (kg/ha of active
  ingredients)
• date of tillage operation (plough, harrow spike,
  field cultivator, thinning,...)
• date of harvesting (expected yield), grazing,...

11
Distribution of BARLEY_REST and MAIZETOT on
arable land of Baden-Württemberg as a result of
LUCAS Data Broker
BARLEY_REST
MAIZETOT
12
Yield Validation
13
Erosion Conventional / Reduced Tillage
14
Soil Organic Carbon Conventional / Reduced
Tillage
15
SOC
16
INTEGRATED POLICY FRAMEWORK
Model for GHG Response to Management EPIC
National Economic Models AGRIPOL FASOM
Regional Farm Type Model AROPAj
Regional Forest Model EURO - FOR
Farm Model EFEM-DNDC
Stand level Model PICUS

• Common Database and Data Structure
• Harmonized System Boundaries
• IPCC GPG and /or FGA Accounting
• Consistent Baseline Assumptions
• Joint Catalogue of GHG Mitigation Measures
• Uniform Validation Criteria
• Agreed Sustainability Constraints
• Common IT Standards
• Standard Scenario Assumptions and Story Lines
• Joint Vision

Common Database and Standards
17
Farm-level model
18
(No Transcript)
19
Emission trajectorium - Agriculture
20
Emission accounting Overview
Tax (/tCO2)
Animal numbers Animal numbers Crop area Crop area Pasture/Forage Pasture/Forage Purchased Feed Purchased Feed On-farm consumption On-farm consumption Emissions Emissions RHS RHS
Constraints C NC CH4 N2O
Objective - - -t -t
CH4 Enteric fermentation emissions
Cattle -1/23 0
Non-Cattle -1/23 0
CH4 Manure-management emissions
Cattle -1/23 0
Non-Cattle -1/23 0
CH4 rice production -1/23 0
N2O Manure management emissions -1/296 0
N2O Agr soils direct emissions -1/296 0
N2O Agr soils indirect emissions -1/296 0
N2O Agr soils animal production -1/296 0
Emissions factors
GWPs
21
Animal feeding current modelling approach
(contd)
Constraints Animal numbers Animal numbers Crop area Crop area Pasture/Forage Pasture/Forage Purchased Feed Purchased Feed On-farm consumption On-farm consumption Emissions Emissions RHS
C NC CH4 N2O
Objective - - - -
Feed requirements Energy - - - - - - lt 0
Protein - - - - - - lt 0
Maximum ingested matter (cattle) - - - - - - gt 0
Demography (cattle) /- 0
CH4 Enteric fermentation emissions - 0
CH4 Manure management emissions - 0
N2O Manure management emissions - 0
N2O Agr soils emissions - 0
Energy and protein contents of feed
Needs
Capacity
Total matter in feed
22
EU-15 agricultural abatement supply
23
(No Transcript)
24
INRA/UHOH comparisonBaseline emissions by
sources
UHOH 5092 ktCO2eq
INRA 5115 ktCO2eq
Common emission coverage
25
INRA estimates of marginal abatement costs
BW
Germany
EU-15
26
(No Transcript)
27
(No Transcript)
28
Land Use Change until 2100 for B1Intensity map
(affected) ha x C-uptake
Existing forest Afforestation Deforestation
29
(No Transcript)
30
Basic Modeling
Forestland
Forest Production
Biofuel/GHG Demand
Cropland
Domestic Demand
Water
Markets
Crop Production
Labor
Export
Processing
Natl. Inputs
Import
Other Resources
Livestock Production
Feed Mixing
Pasture Land
Grazing
31
Mitigation Strategy Equilibrium
500
400
Biofuel offsets
300
Carbon price (/tce)
200
100
0
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
Emission reduction (mmtce)
32
Example with 5 biofuel plants
Cars Fuel (MW) Bio (ODT/year)
461500 185 521100
514300 206 580800
1E06 463 1307600
462300 185 522100
362800 145 409700
33
Cost in /GJMEOH
34
Cost in / lMEOH
35
Summary

• Detailed Biophysical Models
• Yield Impacts
• Environmental Impact Assessment
• Integrated from Farm Global Agriculture/Forestry
  /Energy Model

36
Conclusion

• No free lunches
• transfer from Energy sector
• Trade-offs (Ammonia vs N2O, Minimum tillage vs.
  Pesticides)
• Heterogeneity in biophysical and economic
  responses.
• Use economic instruments or very well planned
  traditional (supported by precise scientific
  tools)