Abstract: The land-use sector can contribute to climate change mitigation not only by reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, but also by increasing carbon uptake from the atmosphere and thereby creating negative CO2 emissions. In this paper, we investigate two land-based climate change mitigation strategies for carbon removal: (1) afforestation and (2) bioenergy in combination with carbon capture and storage technology (bioenergy CCS). In our approach, a global tax on GHG emissions aimed at ambitious climate change mitigation incentivizes land-based mitigation by penalizing positive and rewarding negative CO2 emissions from the land-use system. We analyze afforestation and bioenergy CCS as standalone and combined mitigation strategies. We find that afforestation is a cost-efficient strategy for carbon removal at relatively low carbon prices, while bioenergy CCS becomes competitive only at higher prices. According to our results, cumulative carbon removal due to afforestation and bioenergy CCS is similar at the end of 21st century (600-700 GtCO(2)), while land-demand for afforestation is much higher compared to bioenergy CCS. In the combined setting, we identify competition for land, but the impact on the mitigation potential (1000 GtCO(2)) is partially alleviated by productivity increases in the agricultural sector. Moreover, our results indicate that early-century afforestation presumably will not negatively impact carbon removal due to bioenergy CCS in the second half of the 21st century. A sensitivity analysis shows that land-based mitigation is very sensitive to different levels of GHG taxes. Besides that, the mitigation potential of bioenergy CCS highly depends on the development of future bioenergy yields and the availability of geological carbon storage, while for afforestation projects the length of the crediting period is crucial.

Abstract: Two independently developed simulation models – the grassland-specific PaSim and the biome-generic Biome-BGC MuSo (BBGC MuSo) – linking climate, soil, vegetation and management to ecosystem biogeochemical cycles were compared in a simulation of carbon (C) and water fluxes. The results were assessed against eddy-covariance flux data from five observational grassland sites representing a range of conditions in Europe: Grillenburg in Germany, Laqueuille in France with both extensive and intensive management, Monte Bondone in Italy and Oensingen in Switzerland. Model comparison (after calibration) gave substantial agreement, the performances being marginal to acceptable for weekly-aggregated gross primary production and ecosystem respiration (R-2 similar to 0.66 – 0.91), weekly evapotranspiration (R-2 similar to 0.78 – 0.94), soil water content in the topsoil (R-2 similar to 0.1 -0.7) and soil temperature (R-2 similar to 0.88 – 0.96). The bias was limited to the range -13 to 9 g C m(-2) week(-1) for C fluxes (-11 to 8 g C m(-2) week(-1) in case of BBGC MuSo, and -13 to 9 g C m(-2) week(-1) in case of PaSim) and -4 to 6 mm week for water fluxes (with BBGC MuSo providing somewhat higher estimates than PaSim), but some higher relative root mean square errors indicate low accuracy for prediction, especially for net ecosystem exchange The sensitivity of simulated outputs to changes in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration ([CO2]), temperature and precipitation indicate, with certain agreement between the two models, that C outcomes are dominated by [CO2] and temperature gradients, and are less due to precipitation. ET rates decrease with increasing [CO2] in PaSim (consistent with experimental knowledge), while lack of appropriate stomatal response could be a limit in BBGC MuSo responsiveness. Results of the study indicate that some of the errors might be related to the improper representation of soil water content and soil temperature. Improvement is needed in the model representations of soil processes (especially soil water balance) that strongly influence the biogeochemical cycles of managed and unmanaged grasslands. (C) 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Abstract: Climate and socio-economic change will affect the land use and the economic viability of Dutch dairy farms. Explorations of future scenarios, which include different drivers and impacts, are needed to perform ex-ante policy assessment. This study uses a bio-economic farm model to assess impacts of climate and socio-economic change on dairy farms in a sandy area in the Netherlands. Farm data from the Farm Accountancy Data Network provided information on the current production levels and available farm resources. First, the farm plans of individual farms were optimized in the current situation to benchmark farms and assess the current scope for improvement. Secondly, simulations for two scenarios were included: a Global Economy with 2 °C global temperature rise (GE/W+) and a Regional Community with 1 °C global temperature rise (RC/G). The impacts of climate change, extreme events, juridical change (including abolishment of milk quota), technological change and price changes were evaluated in separate model runs within the predefined scenarios. We found that farms can increase profit both by intensification and land expansion; the latter especially for medium sized farms (less than 70 cows). Climate change including the effect of increased occurrence of extreme events may negatively affect farm gross margin in the GE/W+ scenario. Lower gross margins are compensated for by the effects of technology and price changes. In contrast with the GE/W+ scenario, climate change has positive impacts on farm profit in RC/G, but less favourable farm input-output price ratios have a negative effect. Technological change is needed to compensate for revenue losses due to higher input prices. In both GE/W+ and RC/G scenarios, dairy farms increase production and the use of artificial fertilizer. Medium sized farms have more options to increase profit than the large farms: they benefit more from the abolishment of the milk quota and better adapt to negative and positive impacts of climate change. While the exact impact of different drivers will always remain uncertain, this study showed that changes in prices, technology and markets have a relatively larger impact than climate change, even when extreme events are taken into account. By using whole farm plans as activities that can be selected, the model is grounded in observations, and it was shown that half of the farms are gross margin maximizers as assumed in the model. The model therefore indicates ‘what could happen if’, and gives insights in drivers and impacts of dairy farming in the region.