|
|
Sandars et al. (2016). A comparison of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from dairy farms by four systems models with eight agro-climatic scenarios (Vol. 8).
Abstract: Conference presentation PDF
|
|
|
|
Sinabell, F. (2016). Adaptation to climate change in the European agriculture: A new tool for explicit cost accounting (Vol. 9 C6 -).
Abstract: farm structure in Austria and level of educationchallenges of more volatile markets / more uncertain yieldsmore uncertainty about revenues and costsspecialisation and liquidity problems – not alleviated by EU direct paymentspolitical measures: late, uncertain, no legal title, wrong incentivestax credits – not relevant in Austria for most farmsprice hedging instruments steep learning curve and intransparent marketsmost frequently used: service of buying co-operatives control of accumulation risksdetails of contract are attractive for farmerse.g. monthly benefits for milk producersbenefits at the time of sale for pig, piglet, grain producerscombination with production risk insurance with discountsgovernment support during introduction period / as a new policy instrumentmarketing and sales: wholesale buyers / dairies / producer organisations offer margin insurance as a service
|
|
|
|
Sándor et al. (2016). Global Research Alliance on Greenhouse Gases – benchmark and ensemble crop and grassland model estimates (Vol. 8).
Abstract: Conference presentation PDF
|
|
|
|
Hempel et al. (2016). An integrated modelling approach to assess optimisation potentials for cattle housing climate (Vol. 8).
Abstract: Conference poster PDF
|
|
|
|
Wehrheim, P. (2016). Agriculture and land use in the Commission proposals for the 2030 Climate and Energy Framework (Vol. 9 C6 -).
Abstract: Introduction: policy context•Impact Assessment: options, models, examples•Proposal for Effort Sharing Regulation and LULUCF Regulation•Conclusions and Outlook: more work for modellers 1. Fully in line with Paris Agreement, no backsliding on robustness and transparency2.Provides for continuity•Addresses Member States and not individual farmers or foresters•Stand-alone LULUCF pillar•No-debit rule (from KP)•Flexibility within LULUCF and from ESR to LULUCF3.Proposes limited innovations•Flexibility to the ESR up to 280 mt CO2•Aligning accounting rules (AF,CM/GM)•Defining EU-internal process to set national forest management levels•Simplifying administrationConclusions (2)
|
|
