The high N inputs to agricultural systems in many regions in 27 member states of the European Union (EU-27) result in N leaching to groundwater and surface water and emissions of ammonia (NH(3)), nitrous oxide (N(2)O), nitric oxide (NO), and dinitrogen (N(2)) to the atmosphere. Measures taken to decreasing these emissions often focus at one specific pollutant, but may have both antagonistic and synergistic effects on other N emissions. The model MITERRA-EUROPE was developed to assess the effects and interactions of policies and measures in agriculture on N losses and P balances at a regional level in EU-27. MITERRA-EUROPE is partly based on the existing models CAPRI and GAINS, supplemented with a N leaching module and a module with sets of measures. Calculations for the year 2000 show that denitrification is the largest N loss pathway in European agriculture (on average 44 kg N ha(-1) agricultural land), followed by NH(3) volatilization (17 kg N ha(-1)), N leaching (16 kg N ha(-1)) and emissions of N(2)O (2 kg N ha(-1)) and NO(X) (2 kg N ha(-1)). However, losses between regions in the EU-27 vary strongly. Some of the measures implemented to abate NH(3) emission may increase N(2)O emissions and N leaching. Balanced N fertilization has the potential of creating synergistic effects by simultaneously decreasing N leaching and NH(3) and N(2)O emissions. MITERRA-EUROPE is the first model that quantitatively assesses the possible synergistic and antagonistic effects of N emission abatement measures in a uniform way in EU-27.

No abstract

No abstract

To be able to meet the European Union’s energy and climate targets for 2030, all member states need to rethink their energy production and use. One potential renewable energy source is biogas. Its role has been relatively small compared to other energy sources, but it could have a more central role to solve some specific challenges, e.g., to reduce carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from traffic, or to act as a buffer to balance electricity production with consumption. This research analyses how the future of the biogas business in three case study countries is developing until 2030. The study is based on experts’ views within the biogas business branch in Germany, The Netherlands, and Finland. Both similarities and differences were found among the experts’ answers, which reflected also the current policies in different countries. The role of biogas was seen much wider than just to provide renewable energy, but also to decrease emissions from agriculture and close loops in a circular economy. However, the future of the biogas branch is much dependent on political decisions. To be able to show the full potential of biogas technology for society, stable and predictable energy policy and cross-sector co-operation are needed.

No abstract

Animal production systems are large and complex sources of greenhouse gases (GHG), especially nitrous oxide (N2O) and methane (CH4). Emissions from these systems are expected to rise over the coming decades due to the increasing global population and shifting diets, unless appropriate mitigation strategies are implemented. In this paper, we argue that the main constraints for such implementation are: (i) the complex and often poorly understood controls of GHG sources in animal production systems; (ii) the lack of knowledge on the economic and social costs involved in implementing mitigation strategies; and (iii) the strong political emphasis on mitigating nitrate leaching and ammonia volatilisation, rather than GHG emissions. We further argue that overcoming these three constraints can only be achieved by initiating integrated mitigation strategies, based on modelling and experimental work at three scales. At the ‘laboratory and field scale’, basic causal relationships with respect to processes of GHG formation and other detrimental fluxes need to be experimentally established and modelled. As management options are considered at the ‘farm scale’, this is the ideal scale to evaluate the cost-effectiveness, feasibility and possible pollution swapping effects of mitigation measures. Finally, at the ‘national and supra-national scales’, environmental legislation is implemented, effectiveness of environmental policies and emissions abatement measures are being monitored, and the social costs of various scenarios are being weighed. We illustrate the need for integral measures and working across different scales using our own work on the relationship between nitrogen surplus and fluxes to the environment. At the field scale, a clear positive relation between nitrogen surplus and N2O emission, NO3– leaching and NH3 volatilisation was experimentally established. At the farm scale, the model DAIRYWISE was used to evaluate effects of minimising nitrogen surplus on the nutrient flow and economic viability of an average Dutch dairy farm. Even after including trade-off effects of CH4 emissions from cattle and manure storage, there was still a clear positive relationship between farm gate nitrogen surplus and GHG emission. At this scale, the prime issue was balancing environmental gains with economic viability. Finally, at the ‘national and supra-national scale’ we developed the MITERRA-EUROPE model, and used it to quantify the effects on GHG emissions of environmental policies aimed at reducing NO3– leaching and NH3 volatilisation in the 27 Member States of the European Union (EU-27). This showed the intricate relationship between different environmental goals, with both positive feedback (balanced fertilisation reduced both NO3– leaching and N2O emission) and negative feedback (‘low-emission’ manure application reduced NH3 volatilisation but increased N2O emission) possible. At this scale, there is a clear need for an integral approach towards reducing environmental assessment to the environment. Our studies so far suggest that ‘balanced fertilisation’ is among the most promising mitigation measures for simultaneously lowering N2O emission, NO3– leaching and NH3 volatilisation, without pollution swapping to CH4 emission.

No abstract

Various model approaches have been developed for assessing emissions of different forms of reactive nitrogen in various parts of Europe at various geographic resolutions and for various time periods. The modeling approaches include emission factor approaches, empirical models, simple process-based models, and detailed ecosystem models. In this study, we compared three relatively simple process-based models, developed for the national scale (Integrated NITrogen Impact AssessmenT model On a Regional Scale (INITIATOR2)), European scale (MITERRA) and global scale (integrated model to assess the global environment (IMAGE)), with respect to their response to structural and technological changes in the agricultural systems based on the IPCC B2 baseline scenario for the period 2000-2030. Changes are predicted by the IMAGE model and relate to crop yield, crop area, animal numbers, and N fertilizer inputs. The predicted relative changes by IMAGE are used in INITIATOR2 and MITERRA while relating the animal categories and crop categories in IMAGE to those in the latter models. A comparison was made of NH 3 , N 2 O and NO x emissions and N leaching to ground water. We compared predictions for the years 2000 and 2030 for: (i) the Netherlands between INITIATOR2 and MITERRA and (ii) Europe (EU-27 countries) between MITERRA and IMAGE. The results of the comparison are presented and evaluated in view of differences in model structure and the effect of aggregating input data at larger spatial scales.