Lilli Schroeder, Alexander Gocht Alexander Gocht, Maria Espinosa, Adrian Leip, Emanuele Lugato,...

Lilli Schroeder, Alexander Gocht

Alexander Gocht, Maria Espinosa, Adrian Leip, Emanuele Lugato, Lilli Aline Schroeder, Benjamin Van Doorslaer, Sergio Gomez y Paloma

Promotion of grassland as strategy to reduce greenhouse gas emissions? An EU-wide spatial analysis with the CENTURY and the CAPRI model

150th EAAE Seminar ‘The spatial dimension in analysing the linkages between agriculture, rural development and the environment’

Schroeder et al.

Background:•Grassland has high potential to sequester carbon•Grassland protection in CAP (Pillar I only maintenance no enhancement; Pillar II for biodiversity issues) 2020: low carbon economy

Our Policy Scenario:•5% grassland expansion at NUTS2 level, Farm Types (FT) can adapt differently according to economic conditions (yields, costs, etc.)•Farmers receive premium

Technical model implications:•Farmers receive premium at which the conversion is economically feasible•Iterative model approach until 5% target in NUTS2 regions is achieved

Slide 2

Introduction

150th EAAE Seminar22.10.2015

Schroeder et al.

The CAPRI Model

• MP model linked with linear market model

• Feedback mechanism MP adapts to the price vector of the market model

• For whole EU + Turkey, Norway, Western Balkans

• 2430 Farm types

Slide 3150th EAAE Seminar

http://www.capri-model.org

22.10.2015

Schroeder et al.

The CENTURY Model - Carbon sequestration through conversion from arable into grassland

Slide 4

• Bio-geo-chemistry model

• CAPRESE project with EUCommission (ISPRA, IPTS)

• Based on climate and soil data

• 10x10 km grid cells aggregated to NUTS3

Linking CENTURY to CAPRI:

Approximating location of FT models by linking NUTS3 to CAPRI FT (using FADN data)


Schroeder et al.

How much premium do farmers need as an incetive for conversion?

Average 238 EUR/ha

Slide 5

Figure 1: Grassland premium and converted grassland at NUTS2 level

Converted grassland [1,000 ha]

Grassland premium [Euro pro ha]


22.10.2015Slide 6

150th EAAE Seminar

Grassland Arable land Animal

Type of farming (FT) EU 27 aggregates

Utilized agri. Area

(UAA) Pasture Share conv.

Arable land Cereal

Other crops

Set aside fallow land

Fodder crops Cattle Other

1,000 ha Livestock Units

Abs. diff 1,176 2,909 100 -1,733 -528 -120 -610 -476 174 26

% change 1 5 -1 -1 -.3 -8 -2 .3 .

Sheep, goat other gra. 532 777 27% -245 -41 -4 -127 -73 32 25

Cattle rearing fattening 184 409 14% -225 -64 -8 -52 -102 49 .

Dairy 106 358 12% -252 -82 -8 -39 -123 23 -2

Residual 94 337 12% -242 -90 -26 -61 -65 13 -2

Mixed crops-livestock 82 321 11% -238 -90 -22 -82 -45 22 1

Cereals oilseed protein 60 312 11% -252 -76 -29 -125 -23 16 7

Field cropping mixed 66 221 8% -155 -53 -15 -59 -28 9 2

Mixed livestock 46 122 4% -76 -23 -2 -37 -13 7 1

Pig and poultry 3 28 1% -24 -5 -3 -14 -2 2 -6

Olives . 13 . -13 -2 -1 -9 -1 1 .

Vineyards . 5 . -5 -1 -1 -2 -1 . .

Fruit and citrus 1 4 . -3 . -1 -2 -1 . .

Permanent combined . 3 . -3 -1 . -2 . . .

Horticulture . . . . . . . . . . . = less than 0.1

Land Use Change at EU-FT level

1,000

Land Use Change at MS level

Slide 7

-400 -300 -200 -100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600

Denmark

Finland

Germany

Sweden

The Netherlands

Greece

Portugal

Belgium and Luxembourg

Spain

France

Italy

Czech Republic

Irland

United Kingdom

Hungary

Austria

Poland

Lithuania

Bulgaria

Romania

Slovenia

Slovak Republic

Estonia

LatviaConversion of non-agric. land ingrassland (increase in UAA)

Conversion of arable land ingrassland

Reduction of set aside & fallowland

Reduction of cereals, othercrops

Reduction of fodder crops


Land market

Slide 8

Figure 1: Land buffer and prices aggregated at MS level

Land buffer [ha buffer per UAA]

Land rents[in Euro per UAA]


Figure 1: Land buffer and prices aggregated at MS level

Land buffer [ha buffer per UAA]

Land rents[in Euro per UAA]

Figure 1: Abatement Cost for SOC Emissions and Net-Emissions at the NUTS2 level

Abatement costs for C sequestr. [EUR per t CO2e]

Abatement costs for Net emissions[EUR per t GWP in Agriculture]


Abatement costs• SOC rates (soil + climate conditions) low in SK, LT, EE, LV

• Distribution of ruminant increases CH4 and N2O

• Increasing N2O (cultivation fertilisation of new land) in UK, IT, ESFigure 1: Abatement Cost for SOC Emissions and Net-Emissions at the NUTS2 level



Figure 1: Abatement Cost for SOC Emissions and Net-Emissions at the NUTS2 level



22.10.2015Slide 10

150th EAAE Seminar

-200

-100

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

-500

-300

-100

100

300

500

700

900

1100

1300

1500

DK FI DE SE NL EL PT BL ES FR IT CZ IR UK HU AT PL LT BG RO SI SK EE LV

EUR

per t

CO

2e

kt C

O2e

per

yea

rC-Sequestration in soilCH4 + N2O emissionsNet emission changesAbatement costs net emissionAbatement costs C-sequ.

France, Italy and Spain, the Netherland and Germany can provide almost 2/3 of the 4.3 Mio t CO2e emission reduction at costs below 85 EUR/t CO2e (highest in

Germany).

Abatement Cost Curve for net-emissions per FT at EU27level

Slide 11

Larger farms and FT specialized in cereals and protein crops, mixed field cropping, granivores and mixed crops-livestock farming have highest

potential at relatively low costs

Different FTs can adjust differently to reach 5% target at NUTS2 level

adjustment is cost efficient & depends on production costs of each FT


Example FT13 (specialized in cereals & protein crops): 0.84 Million t CO2e at costs of 65 EUR/t CO2e

Schroeder et al.

EU overall net effect of 5% grassland expansion

1. 2.9 Million ha converted into grassland (from arable 1.7 Million ha)

2. Reduction of net 4.3 Million t CO2e (CH4 and N2O emissions included)

3. Cost of about 417 Million EUR (average 238 EUR/ha)

4. Net abatement costs Ø 97 EUR/t CO2e, substantial carbon sequestration can be achieved already from 50 EUR/t CO2e

Slide 12150th EAAE Seminar22.10.2015

Schroeder et al.

Conclusion: 3 influencing factors

1. regionally highly different carbon sequestration rates

2. regional land market differs regarding the available land buffer and land rents that in turn influence arising additional GHG emissions through land use change

3. regionally different predominant agricultural production influences e.g., if additional GHG emissions through increasing livestock occurs or if arable land is converted to grassland and hence carbon sequestration is realized


Schroeder et al.

Conclusion for policy implication

• Expensive measure compared to others (restoring peatlands, afforestation)

• Not Appropriate everywhere

– Not sensible as measure in CAP Pillar I

– Could be implemented as tergeted AECM in CAP Pillar II

• Yearly payments needed

• Long term perspective

– Abatement costs will increase


Schroeder et al.Slide 15

Thank you for your attention


th EAAE Seminar22.10.2015

Schroeder et al.

The CAPRI Model

http://www.capri-model.org

Slide 17

• for all EU Farm Types

• to analyse Rural Development (RD) measures targeting land, capital and labour and non-agricultural sectors

CGE (= General Equilibrium Models) developed in CAPRI-RD project


Schroeder et al.

Sceanrio: 5% grassland expansion at NUTS2 level

Slide 18

Figure 1: Grassland premium and converted grassland at NUTS2 level

Converted grassland [1,000 ha]

Grassland premium [Euro pro ha]


Schroeder et al.

Century c sequ.

Slide 19

Figure 1: A) Standard deviation of CO2e of C sequestration for the farm types in the EU27; B) CO2e of C sequestration per hectare aggregated at NUTS2 level

B)


Schroeder et al.

Abatement Cost Curve for net-emissions: FT specialized in cereals, oilseed and protein crops

Slide 20

Share


Schroeder et al.

The CAPRI Model: analysing impacts at Farm Type (FT) level

Slide 21

Figure 1: A) Standard deviation of CO2e of C sequestration for the farm types in the EU27; B) CO2e of C sequestration per hectare aggregated at NUTS2 level

A)

0

0,2

0,4

0,6

0,8

1

1,2

0 100 200Stan

dard

dev

iatio

n of

CO

2 eq

uiv

of S

OC

sequ

estr

ation

for t

he fa

rm ty

pes

NUTS2

• Approximating location of FT models by linking NUTS3 to CAPRI FT (using FADN data)

• Each NUTS2 contains of different FTs

Variance within on NUTS2


Intro

22.10.2015Slide 22

150th EAAE Seminar

Schroeder et al.22.10.2015Slide 23

150th EAAE Seminar

Permanent grassland

Soil

Roots

Litter

Lilli Schroeder, Alexander Gocht Alexander Gocht, Maria Espinosa, Adrian Leip, Emanuele Lugato,...

Documents

Transcript of Lilli Schroeder, Alexander Gocht Alexander Gocht, Maria Espinosa, Adrian Leip, Emanuele Lugato,...