Mitigation of climate change in Finnish agriculture – help from FAO is needed! Marja-Liisa Tapio-Bistrom NRD

Finland Surface area km 2 –forestry land km 2 (78%) –agricultural land km 2 (6.7%) Population –share of rural population about 30% Population density 17.4 persons./km 2 –(EU persons/km 2 ) GDP: billion euros (€) €/capita –share of agriculture and forestry 2.6%

Finland – World’s northernmost agricultural country Geographical location the greatest handicap Growing season (in the picture) days Temperature sum degree days - Germany degree days - Spain degree days Natural conditions reflected especially in yield levels → only about half of those in Central Europe

Typology of Finnish municipalities 2006 Source: MTT, Kajaani University Consortium of the University of Oulu and Finnish Area Research FAR Urban (58) Urban-adjacent rural (89) Rural heartland (142) Sparsely populated rural (143)

EU:n climate and energy package by 2020 Finland should decrease by 16 % the GHG (ekv.) emissions in agricultural sector compared to the year 2005 (meaning in absolute emissions 6 Mt CO2ekv)

Agriculture In the annual inventory of GHGs emmissions form agriculture are reported in three sectors: 1.Agriculture 2.LULUCF (Land use, land use change and Forestry) 3.Energysector (the energy use of agriculture)

GHG emissions from agriculture sector Finland’s agricultural greenhouse gas emissions reported in the agriculture sector in 2006 were 5.6 Tg CO 2 equivalents in total. Agriculture is the third largest greenhouse gas emission source sector after the energy sector and industrial processes with an around 6.9% share of the total greenhouse gas emissions in 2006 Emissions from agriculture include CH 4 and N 2 O emissions.

Lähde: Bionova Engineering Emissions from farm level Total 13,9 Mt CO 2

Agricultural emissions (sector Agriculture) from the total greenhouse gas emissions in 2006 are 7 % BUT 15 % of the non-emission trade emissions

Agricultural GHG emissions in Finland consist of… CH 4 emissions from enteric fermentation of domestic livestock (28% of the total agricultural emissions) CH 4 (5%) and N 2 O emissions (9%) from manure management Direct and indirect N 2 O emissions from agricultural soils (58%) –Direct N 2 O emissions from agricultural soils include emissions from synthetic fertilisers, manure applied to soils, biological nitrogen fixation of N-fixing crops, crop residues, sewage sludge application and cultivation of organic soils. –Indirect N 2 O emission sources include emissions from atmospheric deposition and from nitrogen leaching and run-off to watercourses.

Agricultural emissions have decreased Agricultural emissions have decreased by 22% (1.5 Tg CO2 eq.) The main driver has been the overall change in the economy of agriculture, which has resulted in a decrease in the number of animals and an average increase in farm size.

How to understand the emissions 1? From all reporting sectors organic agricultural soils as a whole central source 42 %, animals and manure 22 %, mineral soils 15 %, synthetic fertilizers and lime 9 % and energy production 10 % BUT from agricultural reporting sector emissions are from animal digestion 28 %, manure 27 %, synthetic fertilizers 21 %, organic soils 19 %

How to understand the emissions 2? all reporting sectors emissions from production lines: 79 % from animal production (meat 51 % and milk production 28 %) and 18 % of food plant cultivation THE IMPORTANCE OF CONSUMPTION PATTERS

Emissions from manure management Methane emissions from manure management have increased somewhat, despite the decrease in the number of animals, because more animals are kept in slurry based manure management systems, which have ten-fold methane emissions compared with solid storage or pasture. Nitrous oxide emissions from manure management are on the contrary lower in slurry than in solid storage systems Totally slurry systems have decreased emissions from manure Methane could be considerabley decreased with biogas THE IMPORTANCE OF TECHNOLOGY CHOISE

Lähde: Bionova Engineering Most important mitigation measures – based for costeffectiveness analysis 1 General equilibrium model –takes into account the whole national economy and regional economy which is affected by a change in the agricultural sector –incorporates the adaptation of the economy –costeffectiveness was defined in unit €/t CO2 ekv,inrelation to BNP. Permanent grass cultivation in organic soils –the emission rate is lower when grass is cultivated on organic soils in stead of for ex. grains –Modelled measure: ha organic soils transferred from grain to grass and ha Transformation of forests into fields is not allowed (deforestation) - No new fields, old fields transformed to other uses, the area based emissions decrease - Modelled measure : Stoppped deforestation of 9400 ha/ year Decrease on the use of synthetic fertilizers by 20 %

Most important mitigation measures – based for costeffectiveness analysis 2 - Consequences Permanent grass cultivation in organic soils -most organic soils are in South –West and West (40 %), the best agricultural area growing food grains and oil crops => food production will decrease, food imports will increase, GCG leakage -grass is in the west, cows are in the east -a number of farmers would be transformed to providers of environmental services

Most important mitigation measures – based for costeffectiveness analysis 3 - Consequences Transformation of forests into fields is not allowed (deforestation) -animal producers will face difficulties in growing their unit size because no new land can be taken for manure spreading (economic consequences) Decrease on the use of synthetic fertilizers by 20 % -no big impact on production (precisions agriculture?)

Organic agriculture? reduction in synthetic fertilizer use will decrease N2O emissions from the soils (how much?) and fossil fuel use emissions from the production process BUT only N2O reductions are calculated at present for the country in question and the sector  we need to go into life cycle approach

Lifecycle approach ??? 1 we must talk about lifecycle approach in food systems – carbon print of the production system and the food system for.ex. Finnish poultry and pig production is based on imported protein fodder from LATAM – we should pay for the emissions – fodder import payment – funds used for mitigation in developing countries?

Lifecycle approach ??? 2 consumptions patterns are mainly affected by price – the aim must be the internalization of environmental externalities in agricultural production – the real price of meat would increased considerably – decrease of demand would have a direct impact on GHG emissions

Carbon trading in agriculture? verification of information and monitoring difficult governance costs very high A solution???????  certified organic agriculture could be used in carbon trading

Mitigation in agriculture is location specific technology dependent policy intensive