INSEA Integrated Sink Enhancement Assessment – FP 6 Michael Obersteiner DG AGRI Bruxelles 13 th Sept. 2005

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

Background The Kyoto Protocol requires that EU-15 reduces its GHG emissions by 8% / 1990 levels (time horizon ) 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 etc…directives, STS –CAP reform and cross-compliance

…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

INSEA-toolbox Land Use/cover Soil DB, Management Ancillary Cost / Technology data Non C-GHGs Biomass crops Sequestered carbon Climate Change Geography of Production Possibilities Link to Energy Models Food Crops / Wood Agricultural forest Market Model

Common Platform

National Economic Models FASOM Regional Farm Type Model AROPAj Farm Model EFEM-DNDC Stand level Model PICUS Regional Forest Model EURO - FOR Model for GHG Response to Management EPIC Common Database and Standards 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 INTEGRATED POLICY FRAMEWORK All Partners

National Economic Models AGRIPOL FASOM Regional Farm Type Model AROPAj Farm Model EFEM-DNDC Stand level Model PICUS Regional Forest Model EURO - FOR Model for GHG Response to Management EPIC Common Database and Standards 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 INTEGRATED POLICY FRAMEWORK

EPIC simulates many Processes: on a daily time step 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,... Fertilization: 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,...

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,...

Distribution of BARLEY_REST and MAIZETOT on arable land of Baden- Württemberg as a result of LUCAS Data Broker BARLEY_REST MAIZETOT

Yield Validation

Erosion Conventional / Reduced Tillage

Soil Organic Carbon Conventional / Reduced Tillage

SOC

National Economic Models AGRIPOL FASOM Regional Farm Type Model AROPAj Farm Model EFEM-DNDC Stand level Model PICUS Regional Forest Model EURO - FOR Model for GHG Response to Management EPIC Common Database and Standards 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 INTEGRATED POLICY FRAMEWORK

Farm-level model

National Economic Models AGRIPOL FASOM Regional Farm Type Model AROPAj Farm Model EFEM-DNDC Stand level Model PICUS Regional Forest Model EURO - FOR Model for GHG Response to Management EPIC Common Database and Standards 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 INTEGRATED POLICY FRAMEWORK

Emission trajectorium - Agriculture

Animal numbers Crop area Pasture/ Forage Purchased Feed On-farm consumption EmissionsRHS Constraints CNC CH4N2O Objective t CH4 Enteric fermentation emissions Cattle /23 =0 Non-Cattle /23 =0 CH4 Manure-management emissions Cattle /23 =0 Non-Cattle /23 =0 CH4 rice production ++-1/23 =0 N2O Manure management emissions ++-1/296 =0 N2O Agr soils direct emissions /296 =0 N2O Agr soils indirect emissions /296 =0 N2O Agr soils animal production ++-1/296 =0 Emission accounting: Overview Emissions factors GWPs Tax (€/tCO2)

Constraints Animal numbers Crop area Pasture /Forage Purchased Feed On-farm consumption EmissionsRHS CNC CH4N2O Objective Feed requirements Energy <=0 Protein <=0 Maximum ingested matter (cattle) =>0 Demography (cattle)+/- =0 CH4 Enteric fermentation emissions =0 CH4 Manure management emissions =0 N2O Manure management emissions ++- =0 N2O Agr soils emissions =0 Animal feeding : current modelling approach (cont’d) Needs Energy and protein contents of feed CapacityTotal matter in feed

EU-15 agricultural abatement supply -8% / 2001 (-15% /1990) 55 EUR/tCO2eq

Infra-regional downscaling (e.g. Baden-Württemberg)

INRA/UHOH comparison: Baseline emissions by sources Common emission coverage UHOH: 5092 ktCO2eq INRA: 5115 ktCO2eq

INRA estimates of marginal abatement costs BW Germany EU-15

National Economic Models AGRIPOL FASOM Regional Farm Type Model AROPAj Farm Model EFEM-DNDC Stand level Model PICUS Regional Forest Model EURO - FOR Model for GHG Response to Management EPIC Common Database and Standards 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 INTEGRATED POLICY FRAMEWORK

Land Use Change until 2100 for B1 Intensity map: (affected) ha x C-uptake Existing forest Afforestation Deforestation

National Economic Models FASOM Regional Farm Type Model AROPAj Farm Model EFEM-DNDC Stand level Model PICUS Regional Forest Model EURO - FOR Model for GHG Response to Management EPIC Common Database and Standards 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 INTEGRATED POLICY FRAMEWORK

Basic Modeling Processing Markets Feed Mixing Other Resources Grazing Labor Pasture Land Natl. Inputs Forestland Water Livestock Production Crop Production Export Domestic Demand Import Biofuel/GHG Demand Forest Production Cropland

Mitigation Strategy Equilibrium Carbon price ($/tce) Emission reduction (mmtce) CH4 N2O Ag-Soil sequestration Afforestation Biofuel offsets

Example with 5 biofuel plants CarsFuel (MW)Bio (ODT/year) E

Cost in €/GJ MEOH

Cost in € / l MEOH

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

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)