Synergies between mitigation and adaptation to Climate Change in grassland-based farming systems

Transcription

1 Synergies between mitigation and adaptation to Climate Change in grassland-based farming systems Agustin DEL PRADO Basque Centre for Climate Change (BC3) "BC3, the world s second most influential Think Tank in the field of climate change economics and policy." (After the 2013 ICCG Climate Think Tank Ranking. More information at Agnes Van den Pol-van Dasselaar Wageningen UR David Chadwick Bangor University Tom Misselbrook North Wyke, Rothamsted Res. Daniel Sandars Cranfield University Eric Audsley Cranfield University Rosa María Mosquera-Losada USC

2 Outline 1. General overview 2. Sinergies/trade-offs mitigation and adaptation 3. Policy implications Disclaimer

3 Climate change mitigation and adaptation

4 Climate Projections in Europe (IPCC WGII, AR5) (within recognised modelling limitations -Hotter: warmest in S Europe in summer and N Europe in winter (high conf.) -Rainfall (drier in South, wetter in North-but dry summers) (med. conf.) (less clear in Continental Europe) -more climate extremes Heat waves, warm days/nights (high conf.) Droughts Heavy precipitation (specially N Europe, High Conf) Most vulnerable (in general): high mountains, South Europe

5 Impacts of CC on European grasslands(ipcc WGII, AR5) Complex response: interactions between temp, CO 2, O 3, extremes, N, water (non-lineal) -Grass species distribution, productivity, quality -Livestock productivity

6 Synergies/trade-offs in Climate Change mitigation&adaptation

7 average start day (Since 1st Jan) of grazing season Extending the grazing season (for latitudes with increasing growth potential) annual grass growth (t DM ha -1 yr -1 ) Extended growth in spring and fall Increased summer autumn forage failure by end century (e.g. France: Graux et al., 2011) Average start day (since 1 st of January) of grazing season (a) and average annual sward biomass in baseline 2020s, 2050s, 2080s scenarios for UK locations. 130 SW YH WA SC 18 SW YH WA SC SW: South West YH: Yorkshire WA: Wales SC: Scotland a baseline b baseline Moran et al.(2009)

8 Extending the grazing season: interactions Adaptation (more grazing) affects mitigation Ruminant CH 4 (unless more imported feed, less feed from grazing or silage) Manure GHG & NH 3 (unless limitations in manure removal & application) Soil N 2 O, NO 3 leaching grazing Pre-farm GHG Soil C sinks? Adaptation (more grazing) affects other adaptation Animal Health/welfare Soil quality Milk/meat quality Soil Organic matter

9 Extending the grazing season SOM (and C)? McSherry and Ritchie (2013) GCB Large interaction grazing, rainfall and SOC

10 Agroforestry systems Adaptation Change microclimate to -Provide greater habitat diversity -Provide greater structural and functional Diversity to protect ES -Create diversified production opportunities Mitigation Schoeneberger et al. (2012) -Reduce impacts of extreme events on crop production -Maintain forage quality & quantity -Reduce livestock stress -Carbon sequestration (wood, soil) -Reduce energy use (CO 2 ) -Reduce fertiliser inputs (N 2 O, CO 2 ) -Enhance forage quality: less CH 4

11 Replacement of permanent grasslands by suitable arable forage crops (e.g. maize) -Crop suitability will change (but Climatic variability will limit winter crops expansion) Dairy farms: Forage maize vs grassland productivity energy (offfarm) NO3- Nox grassland-based NH3 1.5 N2O CH ? total GHG C seq energy (onfarm) ploughing some grassland to maize Values <1 improve conventional farm results Adapted from -Vellinga and Hoving (2011) NCA -Del Prado et al. (2011b)

12 The potential for forage legumes For further info about legumes: Luscher et al. (2014) GFS Example: modelled comparison between conventional (grass-based) vs mixed clover & grass-based dairy farms in typical dairy farm in Devon (England, UK) : 1. Conventional: raygrass-based (and forage maize) 2. Mixed forage legume (grass+ white clover) (and forage maize) 3. Conventional + optimised* synthetic fertiliser (N use efficiency improved) Assumption: no differences in reseeding practices and frequency GEIs, NH3, NO3- Sustainability attributes Adapted from Del Prado et al., 2011a STOTEN * Values <1 improve conventional farm results

13 Agro-industrial by-products (under-utilised) OLIVE SILAGE TOMATO SILAGE OAT HAY N NDF CH4, l/kg CH4, l/kg Control Olive silage Tomato silage David Yañez-Ruiz (pers. com.)

14 No-tillage -Promotes soil C sequestration and build-up of SOM -Method and timing of grassland renovation affects N 2 O and DM yield (Velthof et al., 2010) -Non-CO 2 emissions: Ploughing effect on N 2 O is not clear (e.g. Pinto et al., 2004)

15 Policy implications and specific challenges

16 Complex issue -Policies of mitigation and adaptation are considered In separate frameworks (conflicts) -Not an easy task: mitigation and adaptation differ in space, timing and geographically (Smith & Olesen, 2010)

17 Climate protection in the new EU CAP But does not promote -avoid competition between feed and food, unfair competition -most sustainable use of plant residues and agroindustry byproducts (feed vs bioenergy vs soil organic matter) -excessive protein import: coupled subsidies to specific sectors (e.g. intensive dairy farming) -greening: permanent grassland, crop biodiversity and Ecological focus Areas (EFA) -grazing (via cross-compliance) and AF -Legumes (via EFA), forage legumes? -Rich-species swards? (Rural Development Programme?) -Agroforestry systems (fire risk areas)

18 Unwanted effects: C leakage Lassaletta et al., (2014) Global market of proteins (C leakage)

19 Effectiveness over different time and spatial scales -Maintaining or enhancing soil C must be ensured for a long period (N 2 O, CH 4 or energy-based CO 2 can not be re-emited) -Mitigation must be tailored to specific conditions (adaptation generally is more specific) and account for N and C cycles interactions to avoid unwanted Pollution or impact trade-offs (e.g pollution swapping)

20 Challenges Diets that have MORE Competition with Human-food Diets that have LESS Competition with Human-food Del Prado et al., 2013b STOTEN -reference unit: ha (e.g. CAP) vs product (industry) -Other units to factor the fact that some livestock systems heavily compete in the human food chain

21 Acknowledgements EU FACCE-MACSUR Agustin DEL PRADO, Basque Centre for Climate Change (BC3)