Work Plan Commissioned Reports on Opportunities for Greenhouse Gas Reductions in California s Agricultural Sector

Transcription

1 Work Plan Commissioned Reports on Opportunities for Greenhouse Gas Reductions in California s Agricultural Sector A series of reports to inform the California Air Resources Board s upcoming Scoping Plan February 25, For more information regarding this document or the project itself contact Lydia Olander (Lydia.Olander@duke.edu) or Brian Murray (Brian.Murray@duke.edu) Background California is leading the United States in implementing policies to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. As part of its comprehensive GHG reduction obligations under state law (AB 32), California has been exploring various approaches to reduce emissions from all sectors, include agriculture. The California Air Resources Board (ARB), which is tasked with designing and implementing California's climate policies, is developing their next scoping report focused on longer term (beyond 2020) mitigation strategy for the state. With the encouragement of ARB and the California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA) and support from the David and Lucile Packard Foundation, the Nicholas Institute is coordinating a complementary effort to bring together agricultural researchers and other experts to assess the opportunities for GHG management in the agricultural sector in California. The goal of this project is to provide updated and additional scientific and technical information to help California develop sound strategy for managing GHG emissions from the agricultural sector. Several commissioned reports will be compiled into a single report by the Nicholas Institute. The initial work plans for five commissioned reports are provided below, with specifics of a sixth still under development. The first three assess GHG mitigation strategies in croplands, rangelands, and animal agriculture systems in California, respectively. The other two provide economic analysis. First, an analysis of the cost and revenue implications of several GHG mitigation technologies and practices. A second study provides agricultural outlook for California to A separate study on GHG mitigation from bioenergy was considered but is currently not included in the work plan given constraints in researcher availability and project capacity. There may be some analysis of bioenergy included in the economic analysis, but the details are still being determined. Timeline Draft reports provided to ARB and CDFA for review April 15-30, 2013 Presentations given at a workshop (with PowerPoints to share) April 15-30, Reposted with major changes to Report 6, and other minor changes of editorial nature

2 Review drafts due August 30, 2013 Final reports due December 2013 Report 1: Literature Review and Assessment of Agricultural Mitigation Strategies for Annual and Perennial Crops in California Principal Investigator William Horwath (UC Davis) Co-authors Ryan Haden (UC Davis), Steven Culman (UC Davis), Dave Smart, Patrick Brown, Dave Goorahoo, Tim Hartz (others to tap for specific info) Research objectives The commissioned research report will examine strategies to mitigate GHG emissions in the major annual and perennial cropping systems in California (see Table 1 below). Key components of the report will include 1) a compressive review of the available literature on agricultural emissions of N 2 O, CH 4 and CO 2 both from and of particular importance to California and 2) a quantitative and comparative assessment of the biophysical potential of various agricultural mitigation strategies and practices relevant to California. Paper outline A. Introduction, Background and Objectives a. Introduction and Background i. Agriculture s contribution to total GHG emissions from California (e.g.7% of CA total) ii. Main sources of agricultural emissions (Direct N 2 O, Indirect N 2 O, livestock CH 4, rice CH 4, fuel use CO 2, etc). iii. Role of changing land use patterns on emissions (natural habitat farmland, shifting cropping patterns, farmland urban development, etc.) iv. Scope for agricultural mitigation relative to other sectors b. Objectives of the Report i. Describe our methods for prioritizing agricultural mitigation opportunities B. Annual crops a. Detailed list of cropping practices that are likely to mitigate GHGs organized into logical groups/categories. i. Help address issue of understanding mitigation for X# of groups of species rather than for all 300+ different crops. b. Assessment of biophysical potential of individual systems/practices listed above where data and information are available (what s known, what is coming soon, what is missing), i. Noting important co-effects (both positive and negative) ii. Summary of CA research iii. Summary of other relevant research (lit review outside CA) iv. Scale of mitigation potential (per hectare/acre and per pound or bushel of product) and current extent of the relevant crops that could theoretically change practices (max areas) c. Research needs (highlight important gaps that could inform CA strategy) i. Research on practices? Etc? ii. Research on implementation, adoption issues?

3 iii. Research relevant to quantifying emissions getting from qualitative to quantitative? What would help move toward quantification? Should this be a priority? d. Guidance (highest priorities for CA action for cropping systems- research, activities, etc ) C. Perennial crops a. List of cropping practices likely to mitigate GHGs organized into logical groups/categories b. Assessment of biophysical potential (what s known, what is coming, what is missing) i. noting important co-effects (both positive and negative) ii. Summary of CA research iii. Summary of other relevant research (lit review outside CA) iv. Scale of mitigation potential c. Research needs (highlight important gaps that could inform CA strategy) i. Details listed above Table 1: Major crops grown in California based on harvested area. Crop Area 2010 Rank (1,000 acres) Vegetables Broccoli Lettuce, Head Tomatoes, Processing Fruits and nuts Almond Grapes, Raisin Grapes, Wine Oranges Pistachios Walnuts Field crops Alfalfa for hay and Haylage Corn, grain Corn, silage Cotton Hay, small grain Rice Wheat Report 2: Literature Review and Assessment of Agricultural Mitigation Strategies for California Rangelands Principal Investigator Whendee Silver, UC Berkeley Co-authors Marcia Delonge, Justine Owen

4 The commissioned report will assess the greenhouse gas emissions reduction potential for rangeland systems in California. This report will review specific practices and their potential scale of application for CA. It will also discuss critical research needs if they exist. Rangelands cover almost half of the land area in California. Livestock are supported by these lands directly through grazing and indirectly through the production of forage crops. California is the largest dairy producer in the US and is among the top seven states in the nation for beef production. In this study we will review the literature on effects of rangeland management of greenhouse gas dynamics and soil carbon storage and loss in California. We will focus on practices that hold promise to reduce emissions and/or increase soil carbon sequestration. Below, we provide a general outline of the topics we will explore. Paper outline A. Introduction, Background and Objectives B. Rangeland soil carbon and greenhouse gas dynamics a. Definitions b. Background fluxes of carbon and greenhouse gases c. Grazing impacts d. Organic matter management (rangeland application only) e. Irrigation impacts f. The special case of oak woodlands g. Assessment of biophysical potential of individual systems/practices listed above where data and information are available (what s known, what is coming soon, what is missing), i. Mitigation research ii. Model outputs iii. Scale of potential application and life cycle assessments h. Research needs (highlight important gaps that could inform CA strategy) i. Research on practices ii. Research on areas with highest emissions iii. Research on implementation, adoption issues iv. Research relevant to quantifying emissions v. Guidance (highest priorities for CA action for cropping systems- research, activities, etc ) Report 3: Literature Review and Assessment of Agricultural Mitigation Strategies for Animal Management Systems in California Principal Investigator Ermias Kebreab, UC Davis Co-author James Fadel The commissioned report will assess the greenhouse gas emissions reduction potential for enteric and manure emissions from livestock systems in California. This report will review specific practices and their potential scale of application for CA. It will also discuss critical research needs if they exist. Paper outline 1. Introduction, Background and Objectives

5 2. Scope of study a. Enteric fermentation The amount of methane produced from livestock in California has only been assessed using IPCC equations or its modifications for inventory purposes. However, IPCC equations cannot be used to assess the impact of dietary manipulation to reduce enteric methane emission. In addition, California uses by-products that are unique in the country so the values using IPCC equations are even less representative. Therefore, the following work is proposed: i. Estimate the amount of enteric methane emissions from different classes of cattle in California. We will adapt the models developed at the Kebreab lab (Modeling sustainable agriculture laboratory). The work will need collection of the following data from farm advisors across the state: a. Detailed feed analysis. Feed for lactating dairy cattle, dry cows, cow-calf operations, stockers and feed lot. b. Estimate of number of animals in each category ii. Analyze reduction of emissions through mitigation options a. ETAAC final report suggested a 16% reduction in methane emissions if producers were feeding according to NRC requirement. We will test this assessment using observed feeding practices vs. NRC values. b. Assess the contribution of cattle particularly dairy cattle in using waste products such as almond hulls that would otherwise go to landfills. b. Manure management There are several manure management practices in California with different potential to emit methane. These will be reviewed in the report. However, there exist a knowledge gap in this area and this will be covered (including what needs to be done to address the research gap) in Section Assessment of biophysical potential of individual systems/practices Through the use of linear programming, we will summarize the mitigation potential of enteric methane emissions through dietary changes. We will also attempt to summarize mitigation potential of methane emissions from manure. 4. Research needs This section will summarize knowledge gaps identified in previous section and provide recommendations for further research. Report 4: Economics of GHG Mitigation in California Agriculture Principal Investigator Daniel A. Sumner, University of California Agricultural Issues Center California farms and ranches produce a great variety of commodities such as beef, poultry and dairy products, field crops, tree and vine crops, vegetables and greenhouse products. There are many potentially feasible opportunities to reduce GHG emissions from California agriculture, especially by reducing overall output and shifting across commodities. In addition, some mitigation practices and technologies could be applied to the production of commodities that are now important in the state. Potential GHG mitigation can be achieved by voluntary and incentive-based shifting across crops with existing technology. For example evidence from plant sciences suggest that alfalfa emits lower GHGs per acre than rice production. Policies that provide incentives for such an acreage shift could help mitigate GHG emissions. Likewise, evidence indicates that innovations in manure handing could reduce

6 GHG emissions from dairy production as could changes in feeds and feeding practices. The cost of these per unit of GHGs mitigated can be calculated from farm budget data. Production of biomass crops harvested for energy could become feasible either with much more rapid technical innovations that lower costs of processing and hauling, or with subsidies that are sizeable enough to overcome the costs. Most of California does not have a natural comparative advantage in production of biomass crops relative to areas with higher rainfalls and lower opportunity costs of land. However, local subsidies could make such production feasible. This project will draw on farm cost and returns budget, experimental evidence and crop modeling. We will build on recent modeling efforts of Merel, Howitt and others. We will also highlight needs for further research that links economics to the technical and crop modeling studies. Report 5: Agricultural Outlook for California to 2030 Principal Investigator Daniel A. Sumner, University of California Agricultural Issues Center California agriculture is diverse and complex. Production of dozens of major crop and livestock products are important and depend on a well-developed infrastructure of irrigation and other input delivery, processing and other marketing services. The array of commodities has evolved in response to changes in relative prices, pest pressures, policy and regulations, development of infrastructure and innovative technologies and practices. Such evolution will continue. This project will assess likely developments over about two decades and look to the future under alternative scenarios of demand growth reflected in market prices, subsidy and related policies, environmental regulatory pressures, irrigation, water cost and availability, hired labor costs and availability, and climate change. We will consider projections in stages, first shorter term trends that take us to 2020, which in the case of perennial crops, will account of acreage already planted to trees, vines and field crops, can make use of national and global projections of production, demand shifts and prices. For the period after 2020 we will consider longer term forces at work affecting the economic, regulatory (including GHG regulations) and resource landscape in California. Baseline projections will reflect sensitivity analysis to key assumptions (e.g., income growth in Asia or water availability for agriculture in California) to provide a plausible range of outcomes. We will develop relatively simple models of market evolution that link commodities that compete for resources, such as land or irrigation water, or are complements in production such as crops that typically grow in rotations such as hay, forage and livestock products. The link between hay and silage and dairy production is particularly important, given that the forage crops demand substantial irrigation water that may become more scarce as regulations tighten and climate changes. Parts of California agriculture are tied to the specific land, water and climate resources in the state. If variable costs rise for major parts of agriculture land and water prices will fall relative to what they would have otherwise have been. For other commodities, such as livestock products, that are less tied to land resources, California output may fall in response to higher variable costs locally relative to competitive regions. We do not envision idle land or irrigation water resources, but reallocation of land and other resources across commodities is likely to continue.

7 From these agricultural projections and scenarios we will draw on the work of agricultural scientists to assess the implications for GHG emissions from California agriculture. Report 6: Engaging California Agricultural Stakeholders in the Development of Mitigation Strategies Outreach Organization: Ag Innovations Network The outreach project is designed to formally engage agricultural leaders and producers in the review of the Nicholas Institute project Informing Agricultural Gas Mitigation Strategy for California. This includes ensuring agriculture stakeholders understand the context of the Nicholas Institute project and facilitating the collection of feedback and input on the Work Plan and individual reports. To address the objectives the following steps will be taken: 1. Identify members for and convene an ad hoc group of between industry leaders to contact about the Nicholas Institute effort. 2. Conduct interviews with each ad hoc group member to review the Nicholas Institute project, the CARB Scoping Plan update timeline, collect general information about agriculture s interests around long-term mitigation strategies and specific input on the Nicholas Institute work-plan. 3. Host 1-2 meeting with the ad hoc group to: a. Review the data collected from interviews. b. Identify common points of agreement within agriculture about climate change mitigation. c. Review and provide input to the Nicholas Institute reports. d. Inform group about the April 30 workshop and process for submitting during the formal comment/review. 4. Summarize the results of these calls into an informational presentation and dialogue that will be included as a part of the proposed April 30, 2013 Nicholas Institute briefing meeting. 5. Follow up with ad hoc committee members around additional opportunities to provide feedback on final reports once released.