No abstract

The agriculture, forestry and other land use sector are responsible for 24% (10–12 Pg CO2e per year) of anthropogenic greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions worldwide, with concomitant opportunities for mitigation. A scientific panel used deliberative methods to identify ten technical measures comprising 26 sub-measures to reduce GHG emissions from agriculture in France. Their abatement potential and cost are compared. The proposed measures concern nitrogen (N) management, management practices that increase carbon stocks in soils and biomass, livestock diets, and energy production and consumption on farms. Results show that the total abatement potential can be divided into three parts. One third of the cumulated abatement potential corresponds to sub-measures that can be implemented at a negative technical cost. These sub-measures focus on increased efficiency in input use including N fertilisers, animal feed and energy. The second third are sub-measures with moderate cost (<€25 per metric Mg of avoided CO2e). These sub-measures require specific investments or changes to cropping systems, but additional costs or lower incomes are partially compensated for by a reduction in other costs or by the production of other marketable products. The remaining third are high-cost sub-measures (>€25 per metric Mg of avoided CO2e). These require investment with no direct financial return, the purchase of particular inputs, dedicated labour time or involve production losses. Assuming additivity, the cumulated abatement is 32.3 Tg CO2e per year in 2030, but only 10 Tg (i.e. 10% of current agricultural emissions) when calculated under current inventory rules. This study confirms that a significant abatement potential exists in the agricultural sector, with two thirds of this potential at low or even negative cost. This is likely to be an underestimated as it is based on a status quo of the current agricultural system. Results also emphasise the need to upgrade inventory rules so that efforts to reduce emissions can be accounted for

Abstract. Agriculture significantly contributes to emissions of greenhouse gases in the EU. By using a farm-type, supply-side oriented, linear-programming model of the European agriculture, the baseline levels of methane and nitrous oxide emissions are assessed at the regional level in the EU-15. For a range of CO 2 -equivalent prices, we assess the potential abatement, as well as the resulting optimal mix of emission sources in the total abatement. Furthermore, we show that the spatial variability of the abatement achieved at a given carbon price is large, indicating that abatement cost heterogeneity is a fundamental feature in the design of a mitigation policy. The cost savings permitted by market-based instruments relative to uniform standard are shown to be large.

No abstract

We propose a quantitative assessment of the marginal abatement costs (MAC) of greenhouse gas emissions from European agriculture and analyze the implications of the non-ETS burden-sharing agreement (BSA) for this sector. This assessment is based on MAC reduced forms, the generic specification of which enables simple parameterization and numerical computations. Such MAC curves are parameterized for each Member State using the outputs of a detailed model of the European agricultural supply. They are then used to compute total and marginal abatement costs involved by the BSA targets, as well as the cost-effective effort sharing, the corresponding emission price and abatement costs. The main findings are: (i) flexibility mechanisms such as a cap-and-trade system for agricultural emissions could reduce the total costs of meeting the 10% EU abatement target by a factor two to three relative to the strict implementation of each country's target, (ii) the corresponding equilibrium emission price is found to be 32-42€/tCO2eq depending on the assumption regarding business-as-usual emissions, and (iii) a cap-and-trade system with allowances based on the BSA targets would involve substantial transfers from EU-15 countries to New Member States, an important share of which being made of 'hot air'.Les auteurs proposent une évaluation des coûts marginaux d'abattement des émissions de gaz à effet de serre d'origine agricole en Europe et en analysent les implications du partage de l'effort européen pour les émissions non couvertes par le système d'échange de quotas (non-ETS). L'évaluation est basée sur des formes réduites des courbes de coût marginal d'abattement, dont la spécification générique permet une paramétrisation et des calculs numériques simples. Ces courbes sont paramétrées pour chaque Etat-Membre en se basant sur les résultats d'un modèle détaillé de l'offre agricole Européenne. Ces courbes sont ensuite utilisées pour calculer les coûts totaux et marginaux associés aux cibles fixées par le partage de l'effort, ainsi que le partage coût-efficace, le prix des émissions et les coûts d'abattement correspondants. Les principaux résultats des auteurs sont : (i) des mécanismes de flexibilité, tel qu'un système d'échange de quotas européen pour l'agriculture, permettraient de réduire le coût total d'atteindre la cible de réduction 10% des émissions agricoles européennes pourrait être divisé par 2 ou 3 par rapport à la stricte application des cibles nationales; (ii) le prix d'équilibre des émissions s'établirait entre 32 et 42 EUR/tCO2eq selon l'hypothèse relative aux émissions de référence en 2020; (iii) un système de quotas dont l'allocation initiale serait basée sur les cibles nationales prévues par le partage de l'effort européen conduirait à des transferts substantiels des pays de l'UE-15 vers les nouveaux Etats-Membres, une partie importante de ces transferts étant constituée d'"air chaud"

No abstract

Meeting future policy targets for bioenergy development worldwide poses major challenges for biomass feedstock supply chains in terms of competitiveness, reliability and sustainability.This paper reviews current knowledge on the sustainability of agricultural feedstock supply chains and emphasizes future research needs. It covers annual and perennial feedstocks, and environmental, economic and social aspects. Knowledge gaps and technological options to assess and meet sustainability criteria are reviewed from plot to landscape and global scales.Bioenergy feedstocks present a wide range of dry matter yields, agricultural input requirements and environmental impacts, depending on crop type, management practices, and soil and climate conditions. Their integration into farmers׳ cropping systems poses specific challenges in terms of environmental impacts, but also opportunities for improvements via the use of grass–legume intercropping or residues from biomass conversion processes. Taking into account the spatial distribution of bioenergy crops is paramount to assessing their environmental impacts, in particular, on biodiversity or the food versus energy competition issue. However, few modeling frameworks convey the full complexity of the underlying processes and drivers, whether economic, social or biophysical. In particular, social impacts of bioenergy projects are seldom assessed and there is no methodological consensus.The main research areas identified involve multi-crop and multi-site experiments, along with modeling, to optimize management practices and cropping systems producing bioenergy, possibly on alternative lands and under future climate changes; the design of innovative cropping systems using expert knowledge to ensure suitable integration into farmers׳ cropping systems; the collection of detailed data on the location of bioenergy crops to validate theoretical modeling frameworks and improve sustainability assessment; tackling direct and indirect effects of bioenergy development on land-use changes via coupled economic and agronomical models; investigating the effect of perennial stands on biodiversity in relation to previous land-use and landscape structure; and further developing currently-available methodologies to fully appraise the social implications of bioenergy projects

Although agriculture could contribute substantially to European emission reductions, its mitigation potential lies untapped and dormant. Market-based instruments could be pivotal in incentivizing cost-effective abatement. However, sector specificities in transaction costs, leakage risks and distributional impacts impede its implementation. The significance of such barriers critically hinges on the dimensions of policy design. This article synthesizes the work on emissions pricing in agriculture together with the literature on the design of market-based instruments. To structure the discussion, an options space is suggested to map policy options, focusing on three key dimensions of policy design. More specifically, it examines the role of policy coverage, instruments and transfers to farmers in overcoming the barriers. First, the results show that a significant proportion of agricultural emissions and mitigation potential could be covered by a policy targeting large farms and few emission sources, thereby reducing transaction costs. Second, whether an instrument is voluntary or mandatory influences distributional outcomes and leakage. Voluntary instruments can mitigate distributional concerns and leakage risks but can lead to subsidy lock-in and carbon price distortion. Third, the impact on transfers resulting from the interaction of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) with emissions pricing will play a key role in shaping political feasibility and has so far been underappreciated.Bien que l'agriculture puisse contribuer substantiellement aux réductions d'émissions européennes, son potentiel d'atténuation reste largement inexploité. Les instruments économiques pourraient jouer un rôle essentiel dans l'atteinte d'objectifs d'atténuation à moindre coût. Cependant, les spécificités de ce secteur en terme de coûts de transaction, de risques de fuite et d'impacts redistributifs entravent leur mise en œuvre. L'importance de ces barrières dépend étroitement de la conception des politiques publiques. Cet article synthétise le travail sur la tarification des émissions dans l'agriculture. Un ensemble d'options est proposé et analysé selon trois dimensions clés de la conception des instruments de politiques publiques : leur couverture, leur type et les transferts aux agriculteurs