Del Prado, A., Van den Pol-van Dasselaar, A., Chadwick, D., Misselbrook, T., Sandars, D., Audsley, E., et al. (2015). Synergies between mitigation and adaptation to Climate Change in grassland-based farming systems (Vol. 6).
Abstract: Climate change mitigation and adaptation have generally been considered in separate settings for both scientific and policy viewpoints. Recently, it has been stressed (e.g. by the latest IPCC reports) the importance to consider both mitigation and adaptation from land management together. To date, although there is already large amount of studies considering climate mitigation and adaptation in relation to grassland-based systems, there are no studies that analyse the potential synergies and tradeoffs for the main climate change mitigation and adaptation measures within the current European Policy context. This paper reviews which mitigation and adaptation measures interact with each other and how, and it explores the potential limitations and strengths of the different policy instruments that may have an effect in European grassland-based livestock systems. No Label
|
Holman, I. P., Brown, C., Janes, V., & Sandars, D. (2017). Can we be certain about future land use change in Europe? A multi-scenario, integrated-assessment analysis. Agric. Syst., 151, 126–135.
Abstract: The global land system is facing unprecedented pressures from growing human populations and climatic change. Understanding the effects these pressures may have is necessary to designing land management strategies that ensure food security, ecosystem service provision and successful climate mitigation and adaptation. However, the number of complex, interacting effects involved makes any complete understanding very difficult to achieve. Nevertheless, the recent development of integrated modelling frameworks allows for the exploration of the co-development of human and natural systems under scenarios of global change, potentially illuminating the main drivers and processes in future land system change. Here, we use one such integrated modelling framework (the CLIMSAVE Integrated Assessment Platform) to investigate the range of projected outcomes in the European land system across climatic and socio-economic scenarios for the 2050s. We find substantial consistency in locations and types of change even under the most divergent conditions, with results suggesting that climate change alone will lead to a contraction in the agricultural and forest area within Europe, particularly in southern Europe. This is partly offset by the introduction of socioeconomic changes that change both the demand for agricultural production, through changing food demand and net imports, and the efficiency of agricultural production. Simulated extensification and abandonment in the Mediterranean region is driven by future decreases in the relative profitability of the agricultural sector in southern Europe, owing to decreased productivity as a consequence of increased heat and drought stress and reduced irrigation water availability. The very low likelihood (<33% probability) that current land use proportions in many parts of Europe will remain unchanged suggests that future policy should seek to promote and support the multifunctional role of agriculture and forests in different European regions, rather than focusing on increased productivity as a route to agricultural and forestry viability.
|
Topp, K., Eory, V., Bannink, A., Bartley, D. J., Blanco-Penedo, I., Cortignani, R., et al. (2017). Modelling climate change adaptation in European agriculture: Definitions and Current Modelling (Vol. 10).
Abstract: Confidential content, in preparation for a peer-reviewed publication.
|
Sandars, D., Audsley, E., & Holman, I. (2014). Predicting the optimum land use at any location for any future scenario (CLIMSAVE/IMPRESSIONS). FACCE MACSUR Mid-term Scientific Conference, 3(S) Sassari, Italy.
Abstract: Given any socio-, techno-, economic scenario and location specific soil and climate scenario, the farm model predicts the most profitable land use at that location. This model is encapsulated within a Europe-wide interactive interface, to allow adaptation and mitigation options to be explored by any user. With 5 climate models and 19 parameters, the user can study the sensitivity of the results to the chosen scenario settings. A scenario’s land use can be classified as intensive arable, intensive grassland, extensive grassland, forestry, or abandoned depending on potential profitability.
|
Hutchings, N. J., Özkan Gülzari, Ş., de Haan, M., & Sandars, D. (2018). How do farm models compare when estimating greenhouse gas emissions from dairy cattle production. Animal, 12(10), 2171–2180.
Abstract: The European Union Effort Sharing Regulation (ESR) will require a 30% reduction in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 2030 compared with 2005 from the sectors not included in the European Emissions Trading Scheme, including agriculture. This will require the estimation of current and future emissions from agriculture, including dairy cattle production systems. Using a farm-scale model as part of a Tier 3 method for farm to national scales provides a more holistic and informative approach than IPCC (2006) Tier 2 but requires independent quality control. Comparing the results of using models to simulate a range of scenarios that explore an appropriate range of biophysical and management situations can support this process by providing a framework for placing model results in context. To assess the variation between models and the process of understanding differences, estimates of GHG emissions from four farm-scale models (DailyWise, FarmAC, HolosNor and SFARMMOD) were calculated for eight dairy farming scenarios within a factorial design consisting of two climates (cool/dry and warm/wet) x two soil types (sandy and clayey) x two feeding systems (grass only and grass/maize). The milk yield per cow, follower cow ratio, manure management system, nitrogen (N) fertilisation and land area were standardised for all scenarios in order to associate the differences in the results with the model structure and function. Potential yield and application of available N in fertiliser and manure were specified separately for grass and maize. Significant differences between models were found in GHG emissions at the farm-scale and for most contributory sources, although there was no difference in the ranking of source magnitudes. The farm-scale GHG emissions, averaged over the four models, was 10.6 t carbon dioxide equivalents (CO(2)e)/ha per year, with a range of 1.9 t CO(2)e/ha per year. Even though key production characteristics were specified in the scenarios, there were still significant differences between models in the annual milk production per ha and the amounts of N fertiliser and concentrate feed imported. This was because the models differed in their description of biophysical responses and feedback mechanisms, and in the extent to which management functions were internalised. We conclude that comparing the results of different farm-scale models when applied to a range of scenarios would build confidence in their use in achieving ESR targets, justifying further investment in the development of a wider range of scenarios and software tools.
|
