|
|
Roggero, P. P. (2016). Managing Agricultural Greenhouse Gases Network (MAGGnet): Exploring Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Potential of Cropland Management Practices (Vol. 9 C6 -).
Abstract: Global Research Alliance on Agricultural Greenhouse Gases Established: December 2009, United Nations Climate Change Conference, Copenhagen, Denmark•Purpose: Facilitate research, development and extension of technologies and practices that will help deliver ways to grow more food (and more climate-resilient food systems) without growing greenhouse gas emissions.•Current Membership: 46 countries (Europe, Americas, Asia Pacific, Africa)
|
|
|
|
Matthews, A. (2016). Is agriculture off the hook in the EU’s 2030 Climate Policy (Vol. 9 C6 -).
Abstract: EU climate policy and AFOLU•Overall 2030 level of ambition agreed by European Council October 2014•Commission ESR proposal July 2016 – sharing of effort in NETS across MS plus trading mechanisms•Commission LULUCF proposal – integration of LULUCF into climate policy•AFOLU mitigation pursued through CAP as well as flanking environmental policies•No specific EU targets for agricultural mitigation in NETS•Ultimately, how AFOLU mitigation is pursued will depend on MS decisions2Implications of EU bubble•Commission has put in place trading mechanisms in NETS sectors to ensure least-cost fulfilment of overall EU targets•Challenge of MS ESR targets also depends on use MS make of trading mechanisms•MS have not to date made use of these mechanisms and prefer to meet targets domestically•A number of MS have domestic targets in addition to EU targets•ESR IA looked at adding central information site, central market place for AEA transfers or mandatory auctioning•Links with annual monitoring and 5-year legal compliance checks (2027 and 2032)
|
|
|
|
Niemi, J. (2016). Framework of stochastic gross margin volatility modeling of crop rotation with farm management practices (Vol. 9 C6 -).
Abstract: DP models with risk aversion through meanvariancespecification is already implemented inLuke and applied in North Savo regionHOWEVER climate change, e.g. changes in mean andvariance of crop yiels, still not yet taken into account– Recently, such crop modelling results have becomeavailble for wheat as well, not only for barley– Still CC impact available for 2 cereals crops only, whilemost farms cultivate more than 2 crops Some early conclusions• The suggested approach is consistent in terms of DPprinciples and mean-variance approach and can provideconsistent results for farm scale risk analysis• It is however hard to utilise the approach except assuming afarm with only few crops (those with crop modelling / otherresults of climate change effects on mean and (co-variance)© Natural Resources Institute Finland• Assuming no change in price (co)variability is a majorsimplification results show farm level (or local) effects ofchanges in mean yields and yield (co)variability only
|
|
|
|
Biewald, A. (2016). Representative Agricultural Pathways for Europe (Vol. 9 C6 -).
Abstract: Agricultural aspects have been covered in the scenario process on shared socio-economic pathways (SSPs), but only to a limited extent. In order to analyze the future dynamics of agricultural development they need to be complemented and specified by Representative Agricultural Pathways (RAPs), which cover different aspects of agricultural development as for example European agricultural and domestic policy, environmental policies, different livestock management systems, cropping systems or irrigation efficiencies.In this paper we will develop a general framework for RAPs where we define for each SSP the corresponding specific agricultural development. Some aspects of the above mentioned specifics can be derived from the definitions in the SSPs, as for example irrigation efficiencies which are linked to technological development. Agricultural policies on the other hand are not included in the SSP definitions. Here we will define agricultural and environmental policies, including the available funding in each area of the common agricultural policy (CAP) (pillars 1 and 2). As RAPs can only to a small degree be developed as European guidelines and implemented unilaterally, it is important to translate the overall storylines into specific scenario parameterization at national levels. Concerned by this are 1. national policies, as well as the agri-environmental schemes of the CAP in Pillar II, 2. livestock efficiencies and the development of extensive and intensive farm management, and 3. crop management systems.Additionally we will define which respresentative concentration pathways (RCPs) will match best the future agricultural and agro-economic trajectories. The following 5 preliminary RAPs for Europe will be further developed in our analysis:EU-RAP1 (Sustainable Europe) : strong CAP, strong shift on environmental regulation, no producer support, green CAP with strong mititgation componentEU-RAP2 (Middle of the road): BAU or things will stay as they are.EU-RAP3 (Fragmented Europe): Europe breaks up, rich countries support farmers with national subsidies, poor countries do not. There is no CAP anymoreEU-RAP4 (Two Europes): Europe is divided in a poor and a rich part. In the rich part a green and environmental friendly CAP will be implemented, in the poor part of Europe, the CAP will cease to existEU-RAP5(Fossil fueled Europe): free market world, strong institutions, weak on enviromental regulations, low domestic polices? Local green CAP without mitigation
|
|
|
|
Kersebaum, K. - C., Wallor, E., Ventrella, D., Cammarano, D., Choucheney, E., Ewert, F., et al. (2017). Comparison of site sensitivity of crop models using spatially variable field data from Precision Agriculture (Vol. 10).
Abstract: Site conditions and soil properties have a strong influence on impacts of climate change on crop production. Vulnerability of crop production to changing climate conditions is highly determined by the ability of the site to buffer periods of adverse climatic situations like water scarcity or excessive rainfall. Therefore, the capability of models to reflect crop responses and water and nutrient dynamics under different site conditions is essential to assess climate impact even on a regional scale. To test and improve sensitivity of models to various site properties such as soil variability and hydrological boundary conditions, spatial variable data sets from precision farming of two fields in Germany and Italy were provided to modellers. For the German 20 ha field soil and management data for 60 grid points for 3 years (2 years wheat, 1 year triticale) were provided. For the Italian field (12 ha) information for 100 grid points were available for three growing seasons of durum wheat. Modellers were asked to run their models using a) the model specific procedure to estimate soil hydraulic properties from texture using their standard procedure and use in step b) fixed values for field capacity and wilting point derived from soil taxonomy. Only the phenology and crop yield of one grid point provided for a basic calibration. In step c) information for all grid points of the first year (yield, soil water and mineral N content for Germany, yield, biomass and LAI for Italy) were provided. First results of five out of twelve participating models are compared against measured state variables analysing their site specific response and consistency across crop and soil variables. (Main text to be published in a peer-reviewed journal)
|
|
