MEASURES IN AGRICULTURE TO REDUCE AMMONIA EMISSION

Transcription

1 International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis Schlossplatz 1 A-2361 Laxenburg, Austria Tel: Fax: riley@iiasa.ac.at Web: MEASURES IN AGRICULTURE TO REDUCE AMMONIA EMISSION Service Contract N o /2006/433072/FRA/C1 under the framework contract No ENV.G.1/FRA/2004/0081 Final Report Z. Klimont, W.A.H. Asman, I. Bertok, F. Gyarfas, C. Heyes, F. Wagner, W. Winiwarter, L. Höglund-Isaksson, R. Sandler International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA) Contractor Institute voor Environmental Studies (IVM), Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, The Netherlands Service provider under specific agreement for service contract No /2006/433072/FRA/C1 IIASA Contract No April 2007 This paper reports on work of the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis and has received only limited review. Views or opinions expressed in this report do not necessarily represent those of the Institute its National Member Organizations or other organizations sponsoring the work.

2 ii

3 Administrative summary Service contract: Measures in agriculture to reduce ammonia emission Service Contract No /2006/433072/FRA/C1 Performed under the framework contract No ENV.G.1/FRA/2004/0081 Coordinating institutions: Framework Contract: Institute for Environmental Studies, Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, The Netherlands Service Contract: International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA), Laxenburg, Austria Person who signed the contract: Prof. Dr. F.G.H. Berkhout, Director IVM, Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam Institution performing the service contract: International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA), Laxenburg, Austria Person authorized to manage the contract: Mr. Frans Oosterhuis, IVM, Vrije Universiteit Person authorized to manage the service contract: Dr. Markus Amann, Head, APD, IIASA Persons responsible for carrying out the technical aspects of the work: Zbigniew Klimont, Willem A.H. Asman, Imrich Bertok, Frantisek Gyarfas Persons responsible for administrative matters at IIASA: Susan Riley, Head, OSR Costs: Total cost: 99,900 (excluding VAT) Travel and subsistence costs: 5,000 Contract management IVM: 3,500 Total cost excluding travel and subsistence and contract management: 91,400 Contact information: IIASA Markus Amann Schlossplatz 1, A-2361 Laxenburg, Austria iii

4 Glossary of terms used in this report BAT CAFE CAP CAPRI CH4 CLE CO 2 EEA EFMA ELV EU FAO GAINS IIASA IPPC MITERRA MS N 2 N2O ND NEC NH3 NMS Norg NO x NVZ PM10 PM2.5 RAINS SNAP TAN TSAP UNECE VS VSd VSnd WTO Units kt Mt PJ EJ Best Available Technology Clean Air For Europe Programme European Union Common Agricultural Policy Agricultural model developed by the University of Bonn, Germany Methane Current legislation Carbon dioxide European Environment Agency European Fertilizer Manufacturer Association Emission limit value European Union United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization Greenhouse Gas and Air Pollution Interactions and Synergies model International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control Model developed by Alterra, Wageningen, The Netherlands Member States (of the European Union) Nitrogen (gas) Nitrous oxide Nitrate Directive National Emission Ceilings directive Ammonia New Member States of the European Union Organic nitrogen Nitrogen oxides Nitrate Vulnerable Zone Fine particles with an aerodynamic diameter of less than 10 μm Fine particles with an aerodynamic diameter of less than 2.5 μm Regional Air Pollution Information and Simulation model Sector aggregation system of the CORINAIR emission inventory Total Ammoniacal Nitrogen Thematic Strategy on Air Pollution United Nations Economic Commission for Europe Volatile Solids Degradable VS Non-degradable VS World Trade Organization kilotons = 10 3 Mg megatons = 10 6 Mg Petajoule = J Exajoule = J iv

5 Contents 1 INTRODUCTION 1 2 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Task 1: Impact of the CAP reform and possible further liberalization Projections of agricultural activities The agricultural projection employed for the CAFE programme (CAFE) Agricultural projection including the CAP mid-term review (CAP1) National agricultural projections for 2020 (NEC) Comparison of livestock projections in the EU for Projections of ammonia emissions Projections of methane and nitrous oxide emissions Task 2: Impact of the full implementation of the IPPC Directive Background Results and discussion Interpretation of IPPC directive impact on emissions Interpretation of IPPC directive meeting NEC and TSAP targets Interpretation of IPPC directive ecosystem impacts Task 3: Impact of the Commission Biomass Action Plan Considered regulations RAINS implementation Results and discussion Emissions Analysis of health impacts Task 4: Impact of the Nitrate and Water Framework Directive RAINS model extensions The manure handling model The soil model Future work Results and discussion Task 5: Most promising measures Background Results and discussion Emissions Impacts Optimization Optimization update Task 6: Extension of the IPPC Directive Background Results and discussion Analysis of emissions Analysis of control costs Task 7: Interface and additional simulations Modification of activity data IPPC Directive Animal feeding Nitrate Directive 77 3 OTHER ACTIVITIES 78 v

6 4 CONCLUSIONS Activity projections Full IPPC directive implementation Extension of IPPC directive Impacts of the Nitrate Directive and most promising measures New standards for domestic combustion installations Integration 83 5 REFERENCES 83 6 ANNEX 1: MAJOR DEVELOPMENTS SINCE THE INTERIM REPORT Review of key changes Activity data Control strategies Other parameters Scenarios 87 7 ANNEX 2: ADDED ANALYSIS 88 vi

7 Executive Summary The European Commission, Directorate-General Environment, has contracted the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA) to work on the project Measures in agriculture to reduce ammonia emissions. This work is performed in close collaboration with the consortium 1 working on the service contract on integrated measures in agriculture to reduce ammonia emissions. The objective of this project is (1) to integrate into the RAINS integrated assessment model the most recent information gathered through various studies, contracts and research programmes on agriculture and ammonia emissions and (2) on this basis make additional sensitivity analysis in the framework of the NEC directive review. This report provides final results for Task 1 (Impact of the CAP reform and possible further liberalisation), Task 2 (Impact of the full implementation of the IPPC Directive), Task 3 (Impact of the Commission Biomass Action Plan), Task 4 (Impact of the Nitrate and Water Framework Directive), Task 5 (Most promising measures), Task 6 (Extension of the IPPC Directive), and summarizes several additional tasks that were performed during the duration of the project. Within Task 1 IIASA has implemented in the RAINS model the agricultural projections that consider CAP mid-term review. This report includes their discussion and comparison to the projections used in the CAFE programme and the latest NEC baseline, both in terms of activity data and ammonia emissions. The latest NEC baseline is an update of the scenario presented in the Interim Report and takes into account the comments of several countries following discussions under NEC review. Furthermore, a discussion of implications of these scenarios on Thematic Strategy and NEC targets is provided. This analysis indicated similarity for dairy cows but significant differences for beef cattle and, for NMS, large differences for poultry. In terms of emissions the projection including CAP mid-term review is comparable to the NEC baseline (at the EU-25 level), while both show lower emissions than the CAFE baseline; the difference of about 250 kt NH 3 can be largely attributed to the introduction of the CAP reform that brought reductions of animal livestock as well as resulted in improvements of efficiency of production. The task of exploring the projections considering further liberalization of agricultural policy in the EU and assessment of its implications on ammonia emissions has not been achieved since the respective data for such scenario were not provided to IIASA. Drawing on the collaboration with the Alterra consortium, working on the integrated measures project, IIASA implemented the IPPC directive for pigs and poultry producing facilities into the RAINS control strategies (Task 2) for the NEC baseline scenario. The implementation was based on the document reviewing both the number of farms and the share of total animals kept in facilities being subject to this directive in the EU. The current implementation in RAINS is a revision of the strategies presented in the Interim Report in September The first set of developed scenarios, including underlying data, was made available to MS and IPPC Steering Committee for review in late autumn The most important element of the last revision relates to the exclusion of land spreading from the definition of IPPC installations and extension of penetration of low nitrogen feeding. The land spreading 1 Consortium ALTERRA-EUROCARE and Animal Science Group of Wageningen University vii

8 measures were implemented only if the national strategies provided by MS were taken into account. The extent and pace of implementation as seen by national experts varies significantly between member states. This report presents the results for two scenarios, i.e., national and full 2 implementation of IPPC. Interpretation of the IPPC implementation has important implications for the achieved ammonia reductions by 2020, consequently changing the distance to TSAP and NEC target emission levels. The difference in calculated total EU-27 emissions is about 130 kt, where the full implementation brings larger reductions than the national perspective. Also initial analysis of the ecosystems and health related (particulate matter) impacts are presented. The national interpretation of IPPC directive leads to increase in all impact indicators, however, changes are very small for PM exposure, slightly larger for acidification and eutrophication. Task 3 (Impact of the Commission Biomass Action Plan) included two major elements, i.e., to assess the possible impacts of the Biomass Action Plan and to develop a scenario where the effects of alternative emission standards for wood burning stoves and domestic boilers will be evaluated. The first task could not be achieved as the necessary energy and agricultural activity data was not made available to IIASA, instead the second task has been expanded to include two scenarios and impact analysis. The European Commission has provided IIASA with information on the proposal of Danish and Swiss emission limits. IIASA has prepared two scenarios where such legislation on new installations is included. The first scenario relies on the NEC baseline while the second one makes use of the recently available draft coherence scenario where latest agreements on reduction of greenhouse gasses in the European Union by 20 percent by 2020 are taken into account (the scenario was provided by the PRIMES modeling group within the NEC Directive review work). IIASA developed respective control strategies and performed emission and impact calculation. Introduction of such progressive policy is estimated to lead to reduction of PM 2.5 emissions from residential wood combustion in EU27 by about 13 percent in both scenarios. The new coherence scenario shows higher PM, by about 100 kt, emissions from wood burning while at the same time lower emissions from coal combustion. A model structure has been created to accommodate for the inputs from the Alterra consortium in order to simulate the impacts of Nitrate and Water Framework Directives (Task 4). The first analysis of MITTERA results and development of the respective scenario was performed. This scenario assumes full implementation of the Nitrate Directive in the NEC Baseline. IIASA has calculated emissions and costs for this scenario as well as performed the optimization run to meet TSAP targets and compared it to the NEC Baseline run and the results of the scenario from Task 5. The results show important reduction of ammonia emissions and consequently lower overall costs of reaching TSAP targets. Implementation of targets for the Water Framework Directive (WFD) results in even higher reduction of N input to soils and an analysis of consequences is also presented. The WFD scenario results in approximately three percent lower emissions of ammonia than the Nitrate Directive scenario. The work continues beyond this contract to develop GAINS further to allow for easier exchange of data between MITTERA and GAINS. 2 Often referred in the report as the European IPPC implementation. viii

9 At the meeting with the Alterra consortium and the European Commission, three sets of scenarios with the most promising measures were defined (Task 5). They refer to animal feeding, balanced fertilization and a combination of those. From the perspective of IIASA the priority was set to the last set where specifically a balanced fertilization scenario will be calculated by Alterra using RAINS optimized scenario where Thematic Strategy targets are met. Detailed results of the scenario presented in December 2006 at the NEC meeting were prepared and passed to Alterra. Consequently, IIASA performed necessary analysis of MITTERA results and developed the respective RAINS scenario. This new scenario takes into account extended introduction of low protein feed, full implementation of Nitrate Directive and balanced fertilization. IIASA has calculated emissions and costs for this scenario as well as performed the optimization run to meet TSAP targets and compared it to the NEC Baseline run and the results of the scenario from Task 4. The results show important further reduction of ammonia emissions and consequently lower overall costs of reaching TSAP targets. The extension of the IPPC Directive to cattle and possible modification of existing thresholds for pigs and poultry (Task 6) and consequently the analysis of impacts on emissions on ammonia, N 2 O and methane are presented. The basic data on the share of animals kept on farms fulfilling various criteria defined for these scenarios originate from the integrated measures contract (see also Task 2) and discussions carried on during meetings held with the Alterra consortium and the European Commission. Three alternative thresholds scenarios have been developed in RAINS. Additionally, two more scenarios that include the extension of IPPC legislation to include BAT for land spreading were developed. The first one is an extension of the existing IPPC directive while the second is combined with one of the sensitivity scenarios where cattle is included and the threshold for poultry is tightened. Emissions of NH 3, N 2 O, and CH 4 are assessed and discussed for the five scenarios. The estimated changes in emissions of greenhouse gasses are very small. Changes for ammonia are larger and are very sensitive to the assumption on inclusion of BAT on land spreading. The scenarios with land spreading are characterized by lower emissions that all of the modified threshold scenarios and show much better cost efficiency, i.e., the average unit costs are 3-4 times smaller than in the scenarios with reduced thresholds alone. According to this calculation, the most cost efficient scenario would be to enforce existing IPPC with extension to land spreading. The report also provides a brief description of the software developments to complete the Task 7 (Interface and additional simulations). Specifically, bulk download and upload procedures were developed enabling much easier preparation of data sets with uniform changes across livestock category, control technology or group of countries. The scenarios presented in this report are based on the same set of principal data as was used in preparation of the NEC Report Nr 3 (March 2007) available from IIASA web site: The scenarios discussed in this report are available from the model web site under the scenario group Integrated Agriculture. ix

10 x

11 1 Introduction In September 2005, the Commission adopted a communication on the Thematic Strategy on air pollution (TSAP). Among others, the Strategy also indicates the levels of ammonia emissions reductions and possible measures that may be required in order to meet the objectives. At the time when the scenarios for the Strategy were prepared it was not possible to assess in depth the possible influence of other policies and instruments aiming at reducing nitrogen pollution in the waters and/or N 2 O emissions on ammonia emissions. Similarly, it was not possible with the current version of the RAINS model to fully assess the effect of different measures taken to reduce ammonia emission on nitrate and N 2 O losses. In addition, the possible impact on ammonia emissions of the implementation of the IPPC directive was only partly taken into account. Finally, due to time constraints, it has not been completely possible to include the possible impacts of the CAP reform on main agricultural drivers and additional efforts to promote biomass use (Biomass Action Plan). In order to fill these gaps, and as part of the implementation of the Thematic Strategy, a service contract has been launched to develop an integrated approach and to assess the impact on water, ammonia, nitrous oxide and methane emissions of various packages of measures. The cross influence of various policy instruments will be assessed as well as the envisaged impact of the IPPC directive and its possible extension. The objective of this service contract is (i) to integrate into the RAINS integrated assessment model the most recent information gathered through various studies, contracts and research programmes on agriculture and ammonia emissions and (ii) on this basis, make additional sensitivity analysis in the framework of the NEC directive review. More specifically, the findings and data originating from (i) the implementation of the service contract on integrated measures to reduce ammonia (ii) the EEA study on the impact of the CAP reform and the recent decisions taken in the framework of the WTO agreement and concerning the Biomass Action Plan were adapted to the requirements of the RAINS model and included into the model to the possible extent. Following that integration and necessary extensions or the RAINS model, a set of scenarios and sensitivity cases is analyzed. The contract contains the following seven tasks/assessments: Task 1: Impact of the CAP reform and possible further liberalisation Task 2: Impact of the full implementation of the IPPC Directive Task 3: Impact of the Commission Biomass Action Plan Task 4: Impact of the Nitrate and Water Framework Directive Task 5: Most promising measures Task 6: Extension of the IPPC Directive Task 7: Interface and additional simulations Since the signature of the contract (21 April 2006) intensive collaboration with the Alterra consortium has taken place. Discussion of the details of the approaches used by 1

12 both teams helped to determine the necessary steps towards integration and development of tools for easier exchange of necessary inputs and outputs. A number of bilateral meetings have been organized to discuss intermediate results and exchange of information. This report presents the final results and links with the ongoing work on the NEC Directive review. The latter includes development of new scenarios and subsequent comparison with the NEC related work. IIASA worked closely with the integrated measures project team to ensure the quickest possible incorporation of their results into RAINS, however, some of the elements could only be used in sensitivity analysis of the NEC baseline projection since they arrived too late to become part of the baseline. Specific issues are discussed within each Task. 2

13 2 Results and discussion This section presents the results for all tasks defined in this service contract including a discussion as to what extent they were implemented within the scenarios prepared for the NEC directive review (further referred to as NEC baseline). Furthermore, a brief discussion of additional tasks performed beyond the original proposal and their importance for the NEC review process or other ongoing activities, e.g., EU LIFE EC4MACS project (for detailed description see: is discussed. The scenarios presented in this report are based on the same set of principal data as was used in preparation of the NEC Report Nr 3 (March 2007) available from: The detailed discussion of key changes of data and parameters during the duration of the project is provided in the Annex 1 of this report. The scenarios discussed in this report are available from the model web site under the scenario group Integrated Agriculture. 2.1 Task 1: Impact of the CAP reform and possible further liberalization Implement the animal livestock projections from the EEA study on the possible effects of the CAP reform and the most recent mineral N-fertilizer projections from EFMA where the CAP reform was also included. To the extent corresponding projections of livestock numbers and fertilizer use are available, perform additional calculations in order to assess possible implications of further liberalization of agricultural policies. The agricultural projections that consider CAP mid-term review have been implemented in the RAINS model. This section includes their discussion and comparison to the projections used in the CAFE programme and the latest NEC baseline, both in terms of activity data and ammonia emissions. It was not possible to perform the calculations for the projections considering further liberalization of agricultural policy in the EU and assessment of its implications on ammonia emissions as such projections were not made available to IIASA within this contract Projections of agricultural activities Projections of agricultural activities used in the CAFE programme did not fully include the impacts of CAP reform on livestock numbers as well as fertilizer use. Furthermore, only a handful of countries provided, at the time, their national projections (Amann et al., 2004). In anticipation of the significant implications of the CAP reform on atmospheric emissions from agriculture and in recognition of the importance of national views on CAP implementation, it was essential to develop new projections taking these into account. Within this study, the EEA (EEA, 2004) and EFMA (EFMA, 2005) projections including expected effects of CAP reform for the EU-25 countries have been implemented in the RAINS model (Schöpp et al, 1999; Klimont and Brink, 2004). At the same time, the update of historical information based on the results of the bilateral 3

14 consultations with the Member States 3 has been completed. The latter task was very important to assure consistency in the time series. It is important to note that since EEA projections do not always include live animals (except cattle) but rather slaughtered animals and the base year is an average of around 2000 rather than specifically year 2000 as in RAINS, the appropriate adjustments and relative growth rates were used to develop the RAINS projections based on the EEA study. The scenario including the CAP reform is available from the Internet version of the RAINS model ( (all scenarios where NEC_PRIMES.V3 4 appears in the name) along with the scenarios developed within the NEC review study (Amann et al., 2006) where most recent (NEC Report Nr 3) national perspectives are included (all scenarios where NEC_NAT.V3 appears in the name). Until recently, IIASA has had no access to any new data on projections for Bulgaria, Romania, Croatia, and Turkey and therefore only updates based on the recent statistical data were made while the projections rely on the FAO global outlook study (Bruinsma, 2003) as for the Thematic Strategy scenarios (CEC, 2005). IIASA has received comments on activity data from Romania but they refer to historical data. Further sections provide data and discussion for three scenarios of livestock and N- fertilizer use projections; sources of data by scenario and region and summarized in Table 2.1: CAFE projections as used in the Thematic Strategy calculations (see section and ), CAP1 projections developed on the basis of data from EEA (EEA, 2004), EFMA (EFMA, 2005), and FAO (Bruinsma, 2003) (see section , and 2.1.2), NEC current NEC baseline scenario used in the NEC review project where national projections are used to the possible extent (Amann et al., 2006) (see section , and 2.1.2). Table 2.1: Sources of activity data in agricultural projections until Category Region CAFE CAP1 NEC EU-15 CAPRI (2003) CAPRI (EEA, 2004) National a) Livestock N-Fertilizers a) NMS-12 DG Agri (2003), FAO (Bruinsma, 2003) CAPRI (EEA, 2004), FAO (Bruinsma, 2003) National a) Other FAO (Bruinsma, 2003) FAO (Bruinsma, 2003) National a) EU-15 EFMA (2003) EFMA (2005) National a) NMS-12 FAO (Bruinsma, 2003) Other EFMA (2003), FAO (Bruinsma, 2003) EFMA (2005), FAO (Bruinsma, 2003) EFMA (2005), FAO (Bruinsma, 2003) National a) National a) Collected during bilateral consultations in , however, if national data not available then activity source as in CAP1 projection 3 These bilateral consultations were carried out within the NEC Directive review work in 2005 and This scenario includes activity data derived from various models like PRIMES for energy and CAPRI and EFMA for agriculture. 4

15 As a starting point for further analysis, Table 2.2 summarizes the statistics on agricultural activities for the year 2000 as implemented in the RAINS database. Table 2.2: Agricultural activity data for the year Cattle Pigs Chicken and Sheep and Horses Fertilizer Country poultry goats consumption 1000 animal heads kt N Austria Belgium Bulgaria Cyprus Czech Rep Denmark Estonia Finland France Germany Greece Hungary Ireland Italy Latvia Lithuania Luxembourg Malta Netherlands Poland Portugal Romania Slovakia Slovenia Spain Sweden UK EU Croatia Turkey Norway Switzerland Data source: RAINS, based on EUROSTAT, FAO, IFA, national statistical yearbooks, consultations The agricultural projection employed for the CAFE programme (CAFE) This projection is based on the CAPRI and EFMA model results from 2003 and includes impacts of Agenda 2000 but does not include reform of the EU Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). Compared to the updated projections that take the mid-term review of the CAP into account (CAP1 see section ) and national scenario (NEC baseline see section and ), the CAFE scenario expected larger livestock numbers and less optimistic assumptions about improvements in the efficiency of nitrogen fertilizer 5

16 use. At the EU-27 level the differences are typically within a few percent, however, large differences emerge in projections for individual countries and especially for NMS where previous scenarios assumed an optimistic recovery of livestock after a significant decline at the beginning of the 1990s, which was driven largely by rapid economic changes (compare Figure 2.1.5). Table 2.3: Projections of agricultural activities as used in the CAFE programme for the year Cattle Pigs Chicken Sheep and Horses Fertilizer Country and poultry goats consumption 1000 animal heads kt N Austria Belgium Bulgaria Cyprus Czech Rep Denmark Estonia Finland France Germany Greece Hungary Ireland Italy Latvia Lithuania Luxembourg Malta Netherlands Poland Portugal Romania Slovakia Slovenia Spain Sweden UK EU Data source: RAINS, based on CAPRI and EFMA results Agricultural projection including the CAP mid-term review (CAP1) EU-wide livestock projections developed with a CAPRI model for the European Environment Agency study (EEA, 2004) and mineral fertilizer projections provided by the European Fertilizer Manufacturers Association (EFMA) have been implemented into RAINS (Table 2.4). The methodology used for CAPRI projections combines the standard structure of the agricultural sector model CAPSIM with amendments to systematically integrate external forecasts. CAPSIM is a partial equilibrium modeling tool with behavioral functions for activity levels, input demand, consumer demand and processing. It is designed for policy relevant analysis of the CAP and, consequently, covers the whole of agriculture of the EU Member States. 6

17 Table 2.4: CAP1 projections of agricultural activities for the year Cattle Pigs Chicken and Sheep and Horses Fertilizer Country poultry goats consumption 1000 animal heads kt N Austria Belgium Bulgaria Cyprus Czech Rep Denmark Estonia Finland France Germany Greece Hungary Ireland Italy Latvia Lithuania Luxembourg Malta Netherlands Poland Portugal Romania Slovakia Slovenia Spain Sweden UK EU Croatia Turkey Norway Switzerland Data source: RAINS, based on CAPRI and EFMA results The reference projection (EEA, 2004), further referred to as the CAP1 projection, explores the long-term impact of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) on the European Union agriculture. This scenario is based on existing exogenous projections (e.g., FAPRI, FAO, DG Agri) for cropping areas, production, consumption, feed use, supplemented by our own trend projections. The most recent policies like sugar sector reform are considered only in the mineral fertilizer projection component. For the EU-27 as a whole, CAP1 projections (Table 2.4) anticipate largely similar changes between 2000 and 2020 as the national projections discussed in section They foresee about a 21 percent drop in dairy cow numbers followed by about seven percent decline in beef. The development of the beef sector depends on the assumption of a continued milk quota regime with expected milk yield increases (approximately 30 percent on average) and on the long term demand shift from beef to pig and poultry meat. The latter (in terms of livestock numbers) are projected to 7

18 increase by about eight percent during the period. More details on the modeling approach and results of the CAPRI reference run can be found in EEA (2004). The mineral nitrogen fertilizer projection for EU-25, Norway and Switzerland was developed by EFMA (2005); projections for Bulgaria and Romania originate from an FAO study (Bruinsma, 2003). EFMA prepares such a forecast annually using quantitative information from various sources (e.g., from USDA, FAPRI, DG Agri) and combines this with qualitative analyses made by EFMA experts. The results are consulted with national experts. Overall, for EU-25, EFMA projects a nine percent decline in N-fertilizer use between 2000 and In order to derive numbers for 2020 an assumption was made that the trends in the EFMA projections will continue. As was already mentioned in the introduction to section 2.1.1, the numbers presented here (Table 2.4) are not directly comparable (except cattle and laying hens) with data found in the EEA report (EEA, 2004); The reason being a different basis for reporting animal numbers that stem from the purpose for which models like RAINS and CAPRI are used. RAINS refers to the average number of present animals during the year while CAPRI reports on produced animals, i.e., slaughtered pigs, poultry. Relevant conversions were used in order to translate one into each other; it includes assumptions on the number of production rounds per year - such data has been reviewed during CAFE and NEC bilateral consultations National agricultural projections for 2020 (NEC) In order to provide the full spectrum of projections available within the scope of recent EU work on air quality and discuss their implications on emissions of ammonia, we include information about national projections prepared during the NEC review study (Amann et al., 2006). DG-Environment of the European Commission has invited all Member States to provide the official national projections of their agricultural activities up to 2020 as a basis for the revision of the NEC directive. These projections should reflect national agricultural policies (as laid down, e.g., in governmental plans). Furthermore, these projections must include all necessary measures to comply with the Kyoto targets on greenhouse gas emissions and the burden sharing agreement for For 2020, it should be assumed as a minimum that the Kyoto emission caps remain unchanged. With these requirements, the national agricultural projections for the revision of the NEC Directive should be consistent with the agricultural projections presented by the Member States to the UNFCCC in their Fourth National Communications in In the course of the bilateral consultations in 2005 and 2006, 19 Member States have supplied national agricultural projections to IIASA for implementation into the RAINS model. Collectively, these national projections constitute the National Projections baseline scenario for the revision of the NEC directive (henceforth referred to NEC). For those Member States that have not provided their own agricultural projection, the NEC baseline case assumes by default the agricultural development as outlined by the CAP1 projections (see section and Table 2.1). 5 The 2005 projection did not take into account recent plans of the Commission to increase energy crop production only recently EFMA developed new set of projections where these targets are considered but they are not taken into account in this study. 8

19 For the EU-27 as a whole (Table 2.5), these national projections anticipate that between 2000 and 2020, cattle will decline by 13 percent in livestock numbers (dairy cows drop by about 16 percent and beef cattle by about 11 percent), sheep will be reduced by 10 percent and the number of pigs and poultry increase by about six percent. Use of nitrogen fertilizers is estimated to decline in the EU-27 by about six percent. Table 2.5: National projections (NEC) of agricultural activities for the year Cattle Pigs Chicken and Sheep and Horses Fertilizer Country poultry goats consumption 1000 animal heads kt N Austria Belgium Bulgaria Cyprus Czech Rep Denmark Estonia Finland France Germany Greece Hungary Ireland Italy Latvia Lithuania Luxembourg Malta Netherlands Poland Portugal Romania Slovakia Slovenia Spain Sweden UK EU Croatia Turkey Norway Switzerland Data source: RAINS, based on national submissions to IIASA While these national projections reflect the latest governmental views of the individual Member States on the future agricultural development, there is no guarantee for Europe-wide consistency in terms of assumptions on economic development trends, and national, as well as EU-wide, agricultural policies. 9

20 Comparison of livestock projections in the EU for 2020 This section provides a brief comparison of discussed projections at the level of EU-15 and NMS12 and by animal category. Table 2.6 shows significant differences between the projections especially for NMS12 where CAFE projection for cattle, pigs, and fertilizer consumption are higher than both CAP1 and NEC by about percent. For sheep the difference is even larger, but it is driven mainly by the change for Romania where most recent statistical data shows a very different trend from the one assumed previously in CAFE. At the EU-27 level, the differences are much less pronounced and are under 10 percent, this is because EU-15 dominates the total activity and the variation in data sets are much smaller than for NMS12 countries. Table 2.6: Regional comparison of agricultural activities for the year Cattle Pigs Chicken and Sheep and Horses Fertilizer Region/scenario poultry goats consumption Million animal heads Mt N EU-15 CAFE CAP NEC NMS-12 CAFE CAP NEC EU-27 CAFE CAP NEC A discussion of differences in projections for specific livestock categories are illustrated in Figure to Figure Rather than comparing absolute numbers (reported in the previous section) changes relative to the year 2000 are shown. For dairy cows the trends for the more recent scenarios (CAP1 and NEC) seem to be very similar, also for NMS12. Only the CAFE scenario shows a slower reduction in the number of cows in EU-15 (Figure 2.1.1). The fact that the recent scenarios are consistent has important implications for expected emissions since dairy cows often represent the largest emission source (see also discussion in section 2.1.2). For other cattle, the more recent scenarios (CAP1 and NEC) show a similar trend and agree within a few percent (Figure 2.1.2); note that while for EU-15 a continuing decline in livestock numbers is projected, for NMS a reverse trend is shown. The CAFE projection indicated a continuing decline until 2020 arriving at similar numbers for EU-15 but about ten percent lower for the NMS-12 countries. For EU-27, the projected trends for pigs are very similar indicating a slight increase in animal numbers by 2020, i.e., five to eight percent for CAP1 and NEC scenarios. Faster growth was assumed in the CAFE projections, approximately 12 percent (Figure 2.1.3). All scenarios show a larger growth for NMS-12 countries reaching over 20 percent in CAP1 while in the EU-15 the recent scenarios consistently show only a marginal increase of three to four percent by

21 EU-27 EU15 NMS12 110% 110% 110% 100% 100% 100% 90% CAFE CAP1 90% NEC CAFE CAP1 90% NEC CAFE CAP1 NEC 80% 80% 80% 70% % % Figure Relative trend in the number of dairy cows. EU-27 EU15 NMS12 110% 110% 110% 100% 100% CAFE CAP1 NEC 100% CAFE CAP1 NEC CAFE CAP1 NEC 90% 90% 90% 80% % % Figure Relative trend in the number of other cattle. EU-27 EU15 NMS12 130% 130% 130% 120% 120% 120% 110% CAFE CAP1 110% NEC CAFE CAP1 110% NEC CAFE CAP1 NEC 100% 100% 100% 90% % % Figure Relative trend in the number of pigs. 11

22 For poultry, the trends at the EU-27 level are very similar in all scenarios, CAFE showing the highest increases and CAP1 and NEC being within a few percentage points indicating growth of just fewer than ten percent by 2020 (Figure 2.1.4). However, the trends for EU-15 and NMS-12 differ greatly. For EU-15, CAP1 shows a modest increase after 2010 of about six percent, the national projections (NEC) indicate no significant change. For NMS-12 on the other hand, large increases in poultry numbers are projected in all scenarios with the current national projection (NEC) reaching nearly 40 percent increase by 2020 and about half of that growth in the CAP1. The trends and relative growth after 2005 is, however, very similar and it is the difference in 2005 numbers that accounts for the discrepancy at the end of the period. The NEC projection takes into account available statistical data for 2005 and therefore should be more accurate. The other scenarios rely on data from the period defining the starting point for the projection. Another potentially important element is statistical artefacts, e.g., changing in accounting systems in selected countries, this is believed to be the case in Poland where such a modification was introduced for broilers in 2003 leading to a higher reported number of animals (Source: personal communication with MS experts during the NEC consultations). A more detailed review of differences by country and animal category and fertilizers is presented in Figure to Figure They show a ratio of CAP1 and NEC projections to the original CAFE activity data (100 percent line in the charts). The broad picture reflects the trends discussed above showing the largest variation for poultry and the smallest for cattle. EU-27 EU15 NMS12 140% 140% 140% 130% 130% 130% 120% 110% 120% CAFE CAP1 NEC 110% 120% CAFE CAP1 NEC 110% CAFE CAP1 NEC 100% 100% 100% 90% % % Figure Relative trend in the number of poultry For most countries CAP1 and NEC developments for cattle are very similar showing lower livestock numbers than CAFE and typically NEC is lower than CAP1. This is consistent with the expected impacts of the CAP Reform that are included in these runs but were not part of CAFE. An observed big change for Romania is mostly driven by the use of more recent statistical data. A few countries expect higher cattle numbers than in the CAFE and in CAP1 scenarios, e.g., Hungary, Portugal. 12

23 Cattle 200% 180% 160% 140% 120% 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% Austria Belgium Bulgaria Cyprus Czech Rep. Denmark Estonia Finland France Germany Greece Hungary Ireland Italy Latvia Lithuania Luxembourg Malta Netherlands Poland Portugal Romania Slovakia Slovenia Spain Sweden UK EU-27 Croatia Turkey Norway Switzerland CAP1 Pigs NEC 200% 180% 160% 140% 120% 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% Austria Belgium Bulgaria Cyprus Czech Rep. Denmark Estonia Finland France Germany Greece Hungary Ireland Italy Latvia Lithuania Luxembourg Malta Netherlands Poland Portugal Romania Slovakia Slovenia Spain Sweden UK EU-27 Croatia Turkey Norway Switzerland Poultry CAP1 NEC 200% 180% 160% 140% 120% 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% Austria Belgium Bulgaria Cyprus Czech Rep. Denmark Estonia Finland France Germany Greece Hungary Ireland Italy Latvia Lithuania Luxembourg Malta Netherlands Poland Portugal Romania Slovakia Slovenia Spain Sweden UK EU-27 Croatia Turkey Norway Switzerland CAP1 NEC Figure Change in livestock projections for 2020 relative to CAFE projections (100% line) 13

24 200% 180% 160% 140% 120% 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% Austria Belgium Bulgaria Cyprus Czech Rep. Denmark Estonia Finland France Germany Greece Hungary Ireland Italy Latvia Lithuania Luxembourg Malta Netherlands Poland Portugal Romania Slovakia Slovenia Spain Sweden UK EU-27 Croatia Turkey Norway Switzerland CAP1 NEC Figure Change in N-fertilizer application projections for 2020 relative to CAFE projections (100% line) Although the pig numbers on the EU-27 level are lower for the more recent scenarios, there are a host of countries where that is not the case, especially among NMS. Specifically, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia but also Sweden provided national projections with up to 50 percent higher numbers than CAP1 or 80 percent higher than CAFE. CAP1 levels are either about CAFE numbers or lower. A great variation can be observed between CAFE and recent projections for poultry that is especially true for NMS where either a percent decline or percent increase is expected. In most of these cases the national scenario confirms CAP1. Poland is a special case as there has been a change in statistical accounting which introduced large distortion. Obviously the fact of joining the EU in 2004 and the consequent entanglement in the CAP Reform makes an impact. For nearly all EU-15 countries the N-fertilizer use projection in CAP1 is lower than in CAFE; this is consistent with the expected impacts of CAP Reform, Nitrate Directive, and continuous improvements in fertilizer efficiency use and application practice. In fact, the latter two were already considered in the previously used projection in CAFE but the most recent EFMA (2005) projection considered further improvements in efficiency of applying mineral fertilizers. National projections (NEC) show very similar patterns although Italy, Netherlands, and Portugal predict significantly higher consumption than shown in the CAP1 scenario. For NMS countries the CAFE scenario was based on FAO work (Bruinsma, 2003) rather than EFMA (see Table 2.1), which only recently included NMS countries in their work and which was included in the CAP1 scenario. The national projections (NEC) largely confirm the trends projected by EFMA. 14

25 2.1.2 Projections of ammonia emissions The CAFE baseline projection, which was developed before the mid-term review of the EU Common Agricultural Policy, envisaged a slight decline of ammonia emissions of three percent between 2000 and Emissions from Romania and Bulgaria make an important impact on the CAFE scenario since without these two latest MS, the trend for EU25 shows a decline compared to In contrast, both the national projections (NEC) as well as the CAPRI and EFMA models (CAP1) associate structural changes in European agriculture with the mid-term review that should lead to a 9-10 percent decline in emissions (Table 2.7). While NEC and CAP1 projections lead to similar results for the EU-25 as a whole, expectations for individual countries are sometimes significantly different. Table 2.7 also includes the results for a modified CAFE baseline (CAFE-N) which is a scenario developed to compare impacts of variation in agricultural activity projections only, i.e., the other model parameters like emission factors, the penetration of control options and their efficiencies are the same as for the other scenarios, i.e., CAP1 and NEC. The only common parameter between CAFE and CAFE-N are activity data (animal numbers and fertilizer use), all other parameters might be different, i.e., CAFE-N has complete parameterization of the NEC baseline scenario. Therefore, comparing emissions for CAFE-N and NEC/CAP1 scenarios show only the impact of the change in projections of agricultural activities between the CAFE and NEC baselines. The differences could be interpreted as the impact of the CAP reform on emissions of ammonia. Table 2.7 also includes emissions estimated to meet the TSAP targets (Amann et al., 2005) and the emission ceilings decided under the NEC directive. These numbers are used in Figure and Figure where a comparison of emissions calculated for CAFE, NEC and CAP1 scenarios is made against the targets of the TSAP and NEC directive. The impact of changes in the projections of livestock numbers and nitrogen fertilizer use is also illustrated in Figure Similar to the results presented in Table 2.7, all emission relevant parameters (emission factors, removal efficiencies, penetration of control options) are the same and, therefore, only activity data is different. Additionally emissions from other (non-agricultural) sources are excluded from the comparison illustrated in these figures. Several features can be seen in this figure: Currently used NEC and CAP1 projections show good consistency at the aggregated levels, i.e., EU27, EU-15, and NMS-12, CAFE-N scenario results in consistently higher emissions indicating more optimistic assumptions with respect to growth in animal numbers, At the EU27 level, the variation (between CAFE-N and the recent projections) in ammonia estimates for 2020 due to changes in activity projections (livestock and N-fertilizer use) is about 240 kt NH 3 which represents nearly 70 percent of the expected reduction in the current (NEC) baseline. 6 Note that Table 2.7 shows actually increase of emissions by 2020 in the CAFE scenario. The reason is a change of the base year (2000) emissions that were updated and recalculated. The results of these updates are reflected in the modified CAFE scenario called CAFE-N that shows the expected reduction of about three percent. 15