Search

Combatting climate change has risen to the top of the international policy discourse. Effective governance necessitates the generation of concise information on the costs-effectiveness of policy instruments aimed at reducing atmospheric greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The marginal abatement cost curve (MACC) approach is a framework commonly used to summarise information of potential mitigation effort, and can help in identifying the most cost-effective managerial and technological GHG mitigation options. Agriculture offers key opportunities to mitigate GHG emissions and utilise carbon (C) sink potentials. Therefore, a number of countries have developed national agricultural MACCs in the last decade. Whilst these MACCs have undoubtedly been catalysers for the information exchange between science and policy, they have also accentuated a range of constraints and limitations. In response, each of the scientific teams developed solutions in an attempt to address one or more of these limitations. These solutions represent ‘lessons learned’ which are invaluable for the development of future MACCs. To consolidate and harness this knowledge that has heretofore been dispersed across countries, this paper reviews the engineering agricultural MACCs developed in European countries. We collate the state-of-the-art, review the lessons learnt, and provide a more coherent framework for countries or research groups embarking on a trajectory to develop an agricultural MACC that assesses mitigations both within the farm gate and to the wider bioeconomy. We highlight the contemporary methodological developments, specifically on 1) the emergence of stratified MACCs; 2) accounting for soil carbon sequestration 3) accounting for upstream and downstream emissions; 4) the development of comprehensive cost-calculations; 5) accounting for environmental co-effects and 6) uncertainty analyses. We subsequently discuss how the mitigation potential summarised by MACCs can be incentivised in practice and how this mitigation can be captured in national inventories. We conclude that the main purpose of engineering MACCs is not necessarily the accurate prediction of the total abatement potential and associated costs, but rather the provision of a coherent forum for the complex discussions surrounding agricultural GHG mitigation, and to visualise opportunities and low-hanging fruit in a single graphic and manuscript. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from agriculture can be mitigated from both supply (production) and demand (consumption) sides. In this study the carbon footprint (CF) of a range of 26 crop and 6 livestock products was calculated using national statistical data and used as an indicator to assess the climatic impacts of agriculture from farm production to food consumption in China. Of the products assessed, meat had the highest CF (6.21 kg CO 2 -equivalent (CO 2 -eq)/kg), and vegetable had the lowest (0.15 kg CO 2 -eq/kg). The CFs of fruit, legume, grain crop, oil crop, milk, industrial crop and poultry egg were 0.31, 0.46, 0.77, 0.95, 1.47, 2.96 and 4.09 kg CO 2 -eq/kg, respectively. Methane emissions from paddy rice and emissions from fertilizer application were the largest contributors of about 36∼93% of CFs for crop production, whereas GHG emissions from forage, enteric fermentation and manure treatment accounted for more than 96% for CFs of livestock and poultry production. Significant differences between CFs were found across different management patterns and farm scales. GHGs emissions estimated from supply side food production are currently 912.5 kg CO 2 -eq/capita/year, which was considerably higher than that estimated from consumption being 379.6 kg CO 2 -eq/capita/year – which may be attributable to export, waste, or to the use of crops as feed for livestock. The CF for dining out was 2.87 kg CO 2 -eq/capita/meal, which was higher than home dining at 1.57 kg CO 2 -eq/capita/meal. We conclude that both improved agricultural management and dietary consumption changes have the potential to provide considerable GHG mitigation in China. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Following the Paris agreement in 2015, the European Union (EU) set a carbon neutrality objective by 2050, and so did France. The French agricultural sector can contribute as a carbon sink through carbon storage in biomass and soil, in addition to reducing GHG emissions. The objective of this study is to quantitatively assess the additional storage potential and cost of a set of eight carbon-storing practices. The impacts of these agricultural practices on soil organic carbon storage and crop production are assessed at a very fine spatial scale, using crop and grassland models. The associated area base, GHG budget, and implementation costs are assessed and aggregated at the region level. The economic model BANCO uses this information to derive the marginal abatement cost curve for France and identify the combination of carbon storing practices that minimizes the total cost of achieving a given national net GHG mitigation target. We find that a substantial amount of carbon, 36.2 to 52.9 MtCO 2 e yr−1, can be stored in soil and biomass for reasonable carbon prices of 55 and 250 € tCO 2 e−1, respectively (corresponding to current and 2030 French carbon value for climate action), mainly by developing agroforestry and hedges, generalising cover crops, and introducing or extending temporary grasslands in crop sequences. This finding questions the 3–5 times lower target of 10 MtCO2e.yr−1 retained for the agricultural carbon sink by the French climate neutrality strategy. Overall, this would decrease total French GHG emissions by 9.2–13.8%, respectively (reference year 2019). • Additional carbon storage, net GHG budget, and cost of 8 agricultural practices. • MACC shows abatement potential of 40–60 MtCO 2 e.yr−1 for carbon price 55–250 €.tCO 2 e−1. • Key practices: agroforestry, hedges, cover crops, grasslands in crop sequences. • No "one size fits all strategy" due to heterogeneity across regions and practices. • French agricultural carbon sink potential is 5 times higher than anticipated by the government. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions is an urgent challenge for mankind. However, as aggregate emissions continue to rise, necessary changes in industrial practices are lagging behind. The article addresses this discrepancy by exploring how the issue of GHG reduction is channeled from policy to industry, in one of the more GHG intensive sectors, agriculture. We adopt the translation perspective to analyze and discuss how the climate issue travels between contexts. Our study explores the activities involved as advisors, functioning as translating agents within Swedish agri-policy, inform producers about the issue of GHG reduction. The study sheds new light on the effectiveness of mitigation policy in promoting practice change and illustrates how translation is an analytical framework suitable for studying this within different industries. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Farmers' adoption of climate change mitigation measures is key to successfully reduce agricultural greenhouse gas emissions. This article investigates the role of non-cognitive skills, namely self-efficacy and locus of control, in farmers' uptake of mitigation measures. The study is based on a combination of survey and census data from 105 farmers in Switzerland. Almost all farmers in our sample already adopt some of the considered measures to reduce greenhouse gases on their farm. On average, 37% of the mitigation measures available to the specific farm type are adopted. We find that a one standard deviation increase in non-cognitive skills is associated with a 20 to 40% higher share of adopted mitigation measures. This relationship is robust to the inclusion of a comprehensive vector of controls, inspired both from the agricultural economics and the psychology literature. Additionally, we find that omitted variable bias would need to be implausibly large to refute our findings. Finally, we explore potential mechanisms. The suggested pathway through which non-cognitive skills are associated with the adoption of climate change mitigation measures is the innovativeness of the farmers. Fostering farmers' non-cognitive skills could be an effective policy lever to accelerate the diffusion of climate change mitigation measures. • Understanding farmers' climate change mitigation behavior is key for reducing agricultural greenhouse gas emissions. • Non-cognitive skills are positively associated with adoption of mitigation measures adoption. • Innovativeness is the suggested mechanism towards the uptake of greenhouse gas mitigation measures. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Pricing greenhouse gas emissions is a burgeoning and possibly lucrative financial means for climate change mitigation. Emissions pricing is being used to fund emissions-abatement technologies and to modify land management to improve carbon sequestration and retention. Here we discuss the principal land-management options under existing and realistic future emissions-price legislation in Australia, and examine them with respect to their anticipated direct and indirect effects on biodiversity. The main ways in which emissions price-driven changes to land management can affect biodiversity are through policies and practices for (1) environmental plantings for carbon sequestration, (2) native regrowth, (3) fire management, (4) forestry, (5) agricultural practices (including cropping and grazing), and (6) feral animal control. While most land-management options available to reduce net greenhouse gas emissions offer clear advantages to increase the viability of native biodiversity, we describe several caveats regarding potentially negative outcomes, and outline components that need to be considered if biodiversity is also to benefit from the new carbon economy. Carbon plantings will only have real biodiversity value if they comprise appropriate native tree species and provide suitable habitats and resources for valued fauna. Such plantings also risk severely altering local hydrology and reducing water availability. Management of regrowth post-agricultural abandonment requires setting appropriate baselines and allowing for thinning in certain circumstances, and improvements to forestry rotation lengths would likely increase carbon-retention capacity and biodiversity value. Prescribed burning to reduce the frequency of high-intensity wildfires in northern Australia is being used as a tool to increase carbon retention. Fire management in southern Australia is not readily amenable for maximising carbon storage potential, but will become increasingly important for biodiversity conservation as the climate warms. Carbon price-based modifications to agriculture that would benefit biodiversity include reductions in tillage frequency and livestock densities, reductions in fertiliser use, and retention and regeneration of native shrubs; however, anticipated shifts to exotic perennial grass species such as buffel grass and kikuyu could have net negative implications for native biodiversity. Finally, it is unlikely that major reductions in greenhouse gas emissions arising from feral animal control are possible, even though reduced densities of feral herbivores will benefit Australian biodiversity greatly. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Abstract: Local authorities are important actors to mitigate climate change. They can implement policies which can reduce emissions of greenhouse gases in sectors like transport, waste, agriculture and land use, land use change and forestry (LULUCF). They can also implement policies which can increase carbon dioxide removals. The European Union Emissions Trading Scheme (EU ETS) is one of the most important initiatives to reduce carbon dioxide emissions in the EU. It is a cap and trade scheme encompassing almost half of the European-wide carbon dioxide emissions. However, carbon dioxide removals and sectors associated with local authorities’ responsibilities are not included in the EU ETS. The main objective of this paper is to propose an original cap and trade system, called LETS, designed to involve local authorities. The LETS was then tested and applied to all the local authorities in the mainland of Portugal covering emissions and removals of a single greenhouse gas (carbon dioxide) in the LULUCF and the transport sectors. The system proved to have the necessary conditions to be implemented and adaptable to other country contexts. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Agricultural activities and associated land use change are a major contributor to global anthropogenic greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, making climate change mitigation in the agricultural sector all the more critical. However, farmers' willingness to adopt GHG abatement depends, to a large extent, on the financial implications of new practices. Climate change mitigation is unlikely to be adopted without external (financial, socio-cultural, or other) incentives. The research presented in this paper considers farmers' preferences for financing climate change mitigation practices through public crowdfunding. As a first study of its kind, we investigate farmers' attitudes towards climate change mitigation, knowledge of crowdfunding as a fundraising method, and interest in using public crowdfunding campaigns to finance on-farm mitigation practices. Based on a choice experiment survey with 443 Norwegian farmers, we show that knowledge about crowdfunding as an alternative finance method is generally low. Respondents who are interested in using crowdfunding prefer donation- or reward-based crowdfunding models that cover the full cost of mitigation over a loan-based model or campaigns that only fund a proportion of the costs. A financially secure farming business, previous exposure to crowdfunding, and a strong sense of responsibility to abate climate change are associated with higher farmers' interest in using crowdfunding. We find that farmers in Norway are hesitant to be publicly presented as recipients of crowdfunding, which suggests that crowdfunding is best set up as joint campaigns (e.g. with other farmers) that are run by intermediary organisations (rather than by individual farmers). Our findings highlight that, while opportunities to use crowdfunding as a fundraising method for agricultural climate change may be limited, properly designed campaigns can provide an effective instrument to engage certain groups of farmers in on-farm climate change mitigation. • Crowdfunding can be used to raise funds for agricultural climate change mitigation. • There is currently no research on farmers' interest in crowdfunding. • We conduct a choice experiment survey of Norwegian farmers. • About 25% of farmers would be interested in crowdfunding to finance mitigation measures. • Donation- or reward-based models, and campaigns that collaborate with other farmers are preferred. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Agriculture, forestry and other land use are important components of a global strategy to limit climate change. Using the example of EU agriculture, this paper examines the potential contribution of technological (i.e. technical and management-based) greenhouse gas mitigation options to climate targets. The quantitative framework presented allows to analyze disparities between marginal abatement cost curves (MACCs) derived from two different commonly used approaches, and between aggregated and regional MACCs. Results highlight the importance of assessing mitigation of agricultural emissions from a multi-dimensional perspective, considering regional heterogeneity of biophysical and economic circumstances and comprising both carbon-dioxide (CO 2) and non-CO 2 emissions. Regarding the ranking of technologies in terms of mitigation potential and costs, the results underline the need to consider technologies in a combined manner, avoiding the simple aggregation of mitigation potentials by individual measures without taking their interactions into account. Focusing only on standalone MACCs can lead to an overestimation of the mitigation potential. Conversely, measures classified as relatively high cost in standalone and aggregated MACCs should not be discarded, as they can still be cost-effective in some regions. The analysis shows that there is no 'one size fits all' rule that could be followed for identifying technologies that should be implemented in all regions. From a policy perspective the results imply that farmers should be granted some flexibility to adopt a set of cost-effective mitigation options that best fits their circumstances. • This paper explores disparities between technology-specific MACCs in agriculture. • Mitigation technologies need to be considered in a combined and regional manner. • Interactions between measures affect cost-effectiveness of individual technologies. • Standalone approaches may discard options that are cost-effective for some regions. • Region-specific flexibility is required to find the most cost-effective technology mix. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]