| Home | [71–80] << 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 >> [91–100] |
|
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)
|
|
Daccache, A., Ciurana, J. S., Diaz, J. A. R., & Knox, J. W. (2014). Water and energy footprint of irrigated agriculture in the Mediterranean region. Environ. Res. Lett., 9(12), 124014.
Abstract: Irrigated agriculture constitutes the largest consumer of freshwater in the Mediterranean region and provides a major source of income and employment for rural livelihoods. However, increasing droughts and water scarcity have highlighted concerns regarding the environmental sustainability of agriculture in the region. An integrated assessment combining a gridded water balance model with a geodatabase and GIS has been developed and used to assess the water demand and energy footprint of irrigated production in the region. Modelled outputs were linked with crop yield and water resources data to estimate water (m(3) kg(-1)) and energy (CO2 kg(-1)) productivity and identify vulnerable areas or `hotspots’. For a selected key crops in the region, irrigation accounts for 61 km(3) yr(-1) of water abstraction and 1.78 Gt CO2 emissions yr-1, with most emissions from sunflower (73 kg CO2/t) and cotton (60 kg CO2/t) production. Wheat is a major strategic crop in the region and was estimated to have a water productivity of 1000 tMm(-3) and emissions of 31 kg CO2/t. Irrigation modernization would save around 8 km(3) of water but would correspondingly increase CO2 emissions by around +135\%. Shifting from rain-fed to irrigated production would increase irrigation demand to 166 km(3) yr(-1) (+137\%) whilst CO2 emissions would rise by +270\%. The study has major policy implications for understanding the water-energy-food nexus in the region and the trade-offs between strategies to save water, reduce CO2 emissions and/or intensify food production.
|
|
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
|