Implementation of mitigation measures for N 2 O emissions

Transcription

1 Implementation of mitigation measures for N 2 O emissions Peter Kuikman with colleagues at Alterra Oene Oenema, Jan Peter Lesschen, Gerard Velthof, Jan Willem van Groenigen, Rene Schils

2 Nitrogen losses and greenhouse gas emissions

3 Issues Mitigation = lower emissions N 2 O Policies and impact Use of N Implementation of measures targeted action with less N 2 O Function of specific emission factors

4 Measures Measures can be categorized in: management related measures technical and technological measures, and structural measures Promising measures should meet the following criteria: Co beneficial effects for water, air, climate change and soil protection Feasible notably from an administrative and enforceability point of view Potentially acceptable by the farmers notably for what concerns costs and additional efforts at farm level Compatibility with the need for improved animal welfare

5 EU: environmental legislation Kyoto protocol N 2 O, CH 4, CO 2 NH 3 Thematic Strategy on Air Pollution National Emission Ceiling Directive IPPC Directive CLRTAP Gothenborg Protocol Air Quality Directives manure Nitrates Directive IPPC / CLRTAP fertilizer Agriculture Thematic CAP reform + C.C. Animal welfare Rural Development Soil Strategy Birds and habitats directives N & P in surface water Nitrates Directive Water Framework Directive NO 3 in groundwater Nitrates Directive Water Framework Directive Groundwater Directive

6 Soil nitrogen balance in European Union kg N / ha / year Input Output N leaching N2 emission Nox emission NH3 emission N2O emission Crop uptake N fixation Deposition Fertilizer Grazing Manure

7 N surplus/emissions in kg N/ha agricultural land United Kingdom Sweden Spain Slovenia Slovakia Romania Portugal Poland Netherlands Malta Luxembourg Lithuania Latvia Italy Ireland Hungary Greece Germany France Finland Estonia Denmark Czech. Rep Cyprus Bulgaria Belgium Austria NH 3 N 2 O NOx N 2 N leaching EU [Velthof et al., in prep]

8 N 2 O emission in EU-27 N surplus N 2 O emission Lesschen (2010); Miterra-Europe

9 Stay away from N surpluses!

10 Pollution swapping? N outputs: harvested crop Atmosphere Atmosphere NH 3 N 2 O NO X N 2 NH 3 N 2 O NO X N 2 N inputs: N fertilizer BNF, N deposition Crop production: - Crop type - Cropped area - Management feed manure Animal production: - Animal species - Animal number - Management N outputs: milk, meat, egg NH 4 + NO 3 - DON N part NH 4 + NO 3 - DON N part Groundwater & surface waters

11 MITERRA - EUROPE EU service contract :.to define the most appropriate integrated and consistent actions to reduce environmental impacts from agriculture Develop an integrated approach: MITERRA EUROPE Analysis of International and European Instruments ammonia abatement measures nitrate leaching reduction measures Effects on NH 3, N 2 O, N 2, NOx, and CH 4 emissions N leaching [Introduction (Supra)nationalscale Farm scale Field/plot scale Conclusions]

12 Integrated assessment tool MITERRA-EUROPE Based on: RAINS: gaseous emissions, abatement techniques CAPRI: activity data Databases: activity data Newly developed: leaching Three scales: EU-27 Member states Regional (NUTS-2) [Introduction (Supra)nationalscale Farm scale Field/plot scale Conclusions]

13 Scenarios in MITERRA-EUROPE 1. Baseline, Mitigation measures current trend, Ammonia mitigation full implementation, Nitrate leaching mitigation full implementation, Ammonia + nitrate mitigation full implementation, 2020 [Introduction (Supra)nationalscale Farm scale Field/plot scale Conclusions]

14 Ammonia mitigation measures Low ammonia application of manure Low Nitrogen feed Animal housing adaptations Covered manure storage Biofiltration/air purification in animal housing Substitution of urea with ammonium nitrate Incineration of poultry manure Implementation of measures differs between countries in EU 27

15 Potential effect of NH3 abatement measures on changes in the emissions of NH3 and N2O to the atmosphere and N leaching to ground- and surface waters, and potential effect of N leaching abatement measures on changes in the emissions of NH3 and N2O to the atmosphere and the N leaching to groundwater and surface waters in EU27 for 2000 from MITERRA-Europe change in emission, % compared with situation without measures NH3 emission NO3 leaching N2O emission Biofiltration Low NH3 application technique Covered storage Stable adaptation Low nitrogen feed Incineration Urea substitution NH3 package Ammonia measures

16 Nitrate leaching mitigation measures Balanced N fertilizer application Maximum manure N application rate (170 kg N/ha) No N application in winter and wet periods Limitation to N application on sloping grounds Manure storage with minimum risk on leaching Appropriate application techniques Growing winter crops Bufferstrips Implementation of measures differs between countries in EU 27

17 Potential effect of NH3 abatement measures on changes in the emissions of NH3 and N2O to the atmosphere and N leaching to ground- and surface waters, and potential effect of N leaching abatement measures on changes in the emissions of NH3 and N2O to the atmosphere and the N leaching to groundwater and surface waters in EU27 for 2000 from MITERRA-Europe. 0 change in emission, % compared with situation without measures NH3 emission NO3 leaching N2O emission -45 Balanced fertilization Decreased application on sloping soils Efficient application technique No winter application Winter crops NO3 package Nitrate measures

18 Results of policy scenarios 100% NH 3 emission NO 3 leaching N 2 O emission 50% Baseline 2020, current trend 2020, NH 3 measures 2020, NO 3 measures 2020, NO 3 measures, low N feed 2020, NO 3 measures, NH 3 measures [MITERRA EUROPE] [Introduction (Supra)nationalscale Farm scale Field/plot scale Conclusions]

19 Conclusions Risk of pollution swapping is higher for measures that decrease specific N emissions than for measures that decrease N surplus Changes in emissions in EU 27 in 2020 compared to 2000: NH 3 emissions: -9 to -20% N leaching: -2 to -28 % N 2 O emissions: -11 to +8% Low protein feeding crucial in integral mitigation strategy [Introduction (Supra)nationalscale Farm scale Field/plot scale Conclusions]

20 Recommendation based on MITERRA- Europe assessment for EU DG ENV N input reduction is best guiding and overarching principle Prevent pollution swapping and focus on both nitrate (ND) and ammonia (IPPC NEC) Targets for N use efficiency for specified farming systems are effective through integrated N input control with option to reward under EU RD prg Link to animal welfare, spatial planning in regions with low vulnerability, agro complex and retail may benefit environmental performance.

21 Nitrous oxide: Livestock housing Manure storage Soils: Fertilizer Manures (incl. grazing) Crop residues

22 Spatial variability of N 2 O fluxes in soils Within a field: related to soil properties, plants, N application technique etc. Between fields: related to soil type, N application, climate, crop etc. Regions: related to agriculture systems and soil types EU 27: related to agriculture systems, soil types, climate

23 Small scale variability N 2 O emission, µg N m -2 hour

24 Total greenhouse gas emissions Regional differences across EU27 from PICCMAT

25 Total GHG emission in the Netherlands CH4 N2O Total CO2 Lesschen (2010); Miterra-NL

26 Lesschen et al. (in press). GHG emission profiles of European livestock sectors Estonia Bulgaria Romania Latvia Ireland Poland Greece Hungary GHG emission per kg milk Enteric fermentation N2O soil emissions Manure management Organic soils and liming Fertilizer production Fuel consumption Electricity use GHG emission (kg CO2-eq / kg milk) 0 Denmark Sweden Austria France Belgium United Kingdom Germany Spain Slovakia Italy Slovenia Netherlands Portugal Finland Lithuania Czech Republic

27 Total GHG emission in EU-27 Lesschen, 2010; Miterra-Europe

28 Mitigation potential PICCMAT measures

29 Mitigation potential (% of SOC stock) Mitigation potential (% of SOC stock) Denmark CC ZT RT RM1 RM2 FA FT RS AL AF GG Scotland CC ZT RT RM1 RM2 FA FT RS AL AF GG EU PICCMAT project (2008) strong regional differences; likely also to occur in France Mitigation potential (% of SOC stock) Poland CC ZT RT RM1 RM2 FA FT RS AL AF GG Mitigation potential (% of SOC stock) Spain CC ZT RT RM1 RM2 FA FT RS AL AF GG Mitigation potential (% of SOC stock) Italy CC ZT RT RM1 RM2 FA FT RS AL AF GG Mitigation potential (% of SOC stock) Bulgaria CC ZT RT RM1 RM2 FA FT RS AL AF GG

30 Mitigation potential EU27 What is the mitigation potential in the agriculture sector?

31 GHG emissions from agriculture across EU-27 GHG emissions (Mton CO2-eq) EU-12 EU

32 Agriculture sector: Emissions and abatement potential

33 Categorization of policies and measures EU MS27 Energy / biogas Ammonia / air quality CAP (incl. Rural Development) Cross Compliance Awareness Nitrate related Organic farming Integrated emission program Number of countries Additional PAM in countries Livestock breeding / reduction Fertilizer / manure management Cross sectoral / research Other Number of policies and measures

34 Mitigation potential per measure and cost EU-27 Mitigation potential (Mton CO2-eq/year) > 50 per kg CO per kg CO per kg CO2 < 0 per kg CO2 Anaerobic digestion of manure improved cattle fodder /genetic Nitrification inhibitors reduced N- application

35 Technical mitigation potential per MS by 2020 Anaerobic digestion Improved cattle fodder Nitrification inhibitors Reduced N-application Austria Belgium Bulgaria Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark Estonia Finland France Germany Greece Hungary Ireland Italy Latvia Lithuania Luxembourg Malta Netherlands Poland Portugal Romania Slovakia Slovenia Spain Sweden United Kingdom Mitigation potential (Mton CO2-eq/year)

36 Mitigation potential EU-27 What is the mitigation potential across MS and for EU 27? Very distinct potentials per MS Expect some of the potential to not to fit agriculture in practice and remain rather theoritical

37 Policy options mitigation Agriculture (1) Sector policies have been defined at EU and MS level and have been effective Most not specifically aimed at climate action but target other environmental problems These often have positive side effects for climate mitigation, e.g. NO 3 directive

38 Policy options mitigation Agriculture (2) Quantification policy impact of ECCP PAM on the mitigation by MS is estimated at <1% of total AG emissions Projected technical mitigation potentials from the SERPEC study in agriculture could be as high as 150 Mton CO 2 eq per year and is >30% of baseline There is a significant policy gap and this could be covered from agriculture to reach MS ESD targets by 2020 Large part of projected potential is from nitrification inhibitors (NI); NI are not yet part of any EU or national policy and not fully represented in reporting

39 Overview Introduction (Supra)national scale Farm scale Field/plot scale Conclusions NL, EU and animal agriculture Legislation, pollution swapping Management options Processes, mitigation conception

40 Update emission factors values update the data base with N 2 O emission factors obtained in field experiments carried out in the Netherlands; literature study on emission factors from fertilizers and manures. Focus on the effect of manure application technique and difference in N 2 O emission between grassland and arable land estimate the N 2 O emission factor for manure applied to peat soil to derive average emission factors for calcium ammonium nitrate fertilizer and animal manures in the Netherlands, including an indication of the uncertainty of these emission factors.

41 Update emission factors Emission factors were only included when they were obtained in field experiments with replicates and a unfertilized controlled. The emission factor calculated as: N 2 O emission factor (in %) = [(N 2 O emission from fertilized soil) (N 2 O emission from unfertilized soil)]/(n applied) * 100, where N 2 O emission from fertilized plot, N 2 O emission from unfertilized plot, and N applied are expressed in kg N per ha.

42 Why meta analysis of EF1 values? Land use Fertilizer and manure application technique Emission factor experiments, % Emission factor current protocol, % Table 2. Average N 2 O emission factors obtained in the field experiments of Velthof et al. (2010) and the emission factors according to the current protocol (see Table 1). Grassland CAN Cattle slurry; shallow injection Cattle slurry; broadcast Arable land CAN Cattle slurry; injection Cattle slurry; broadcast Pig slurry; injection Pig slurry, broadcast 0.9 1

43 Effect application technique and manure type total N 2 O emission, % of applied manure N Emission factor protocol Emission factor protocol Injection Surface application Injection Surface application Injection Surface application Cattle slurry; grassland Cattle slurry; maize land Pig slurry; maize land Velthof et al., 2010

44 Emission factors for nitrous oxide Application technique Nitrous oxide, % of N applied Arable land Grassland Surface application (Shallow) injection Velthof, 2001

45 Antagonistic effects: pollution swapping Application technique Ammonia, % of N applied Nitrous oxide, % of N applied Arable land Grassland Arable land Grassland Surface application (Shallow) injection Huijsmans & Vermeulen, 2009 Velthof, 2001

46 N 2 O emission factors (%) for CAN and livestock manure Source Application Arable land Grassland technique Average sd n Average sd n Mineral soils CAN 0.7 ± ± Livestock manure low emission 1.3 ± ± surface 0.6 ± ± Peat soil CAN

47 Summary promising measures Most promising measures relate to management related measures (begin of pipe), and to some of the technical and technological measures (end of pipe). Most promising measures must focus on input control to minimize the risk on pollution swapping avoid focus on single emission N input control and management related and technical/technological measures form the building blocks of the most promising measures in agricultural systems Improving N use efficiency is another building block of the most promising measures for mitigating all emissions

48 Most promising measures (1) Improving N use efficiency in animal production and lowering the N excretion of livestock through improved animal feeding e.g. low protein animal feeding Improving N use efficiency in crop production and lowering N input in agriculture through balanced N fertilization Combination of most promising measures (ii) plus enforced implementation of technical measures to decrease NH 3 emissions. Balanced N fertilization is implemented in NVZ under EU ND) and best be extended to other areas for synergistic effects on NH 3, NO 3 and N 2 O under ND and WFD in EU

49 Most promising measures (2) Relatively large amounts of manure N have to be neutralized through a combination of low protein animal feeding and manure treatment and manure disposal in specific regions, at considerable additional costs. Lowering N excretion through further lowering of the protein content in the animal feed and through improving the genetic potential of the herd are key for areas with relatively high livestock density. Survey on animal feeding practices and animal performance in EU27 is lacking but needed to assess the potential from lowering N excretion through lowering of the protein content in the animal feed

50 Most promising measures (3) As a consequence of demand for biofuels, the cost and availability of high quality animal feed to decrease protein in animal feed may change. More 1st generation biofuels may increase use and application of fertilizer N Biofuel bioproducts (DDGS) increase but are poor in energy + rich in (low quality) protein and fiber and protein in animal feed and N excretion has tendency to increase again with more NH3. What can be done to improve the Q of by products to animal feeds?

51 Conclusions Reducing GHG emissions is only one of many environmental constraints of farming (in the EU) Measures aiming at reducing N surpluses offer by far the best potential for reaching all environmental aims Ultimately, all measures need to be feasible at the farm scale We need experimental work as the basis for innovative mitigation strategies [Introduction (Supra)national scale Farm scale Field/plot scale Conclusions]

52 Thank you! Wageningen UR

53 References Oenema, O., D. Oudendag and G.L.Velthof (2007) Nutrient losses from manure management in the European Union. Livestock Sciences 112, Velthof G.L., D Oudendag, H.P. Witzke, W.A.H. Asman, Z. Klimont and O. Oenema (2009) Assessment of nitrogen emissions in EU 27 using the integrated model MITERRA EUROPE. Journal of Environmental Quality 38: Oenema, O., H.P. Witzke, Z. Klimont, J.P. Lesschen, and G.L. Velthof (2009) Integrated assessment of promising measures to decrease nitrogen losses from agriculture in EU 27. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 133: Lesschen, J.P., M. van den Berg, H. Westhoek, H.P. Witze and O. Oenema (2011) Greenhouse gas emission profiles of European livestock sectors. Animal Feed Science & Technology. 7. Lesschen, J.P., Kuikman, P.J., Smith, P., Schils, R. (in preparation) Quantification of mitigation potentials of agricultural practices for Europe. Global Change Biology 8. Lesschen, J.P., G.L. Velthof, J. Kros and W. de Vries. (in press) Differentiation of nitrous oxide emission factors for agricultural soils. Environmental Pollution.