Forage4Climate Forage systems for less GHG emission and ...

LIFE15 CCM/IT/000039 - C.R.P.A. S.p.A. Reggio Emilia

DOC-2021-0607/4.3.12.66 CRPA Deliverable _D1_3 – 09/03/2021 Pag. 1

Forage4Climate – Forage systems for less GHG emission and

more soil carbon sink in continental and Mediterranean areas.

Action D1 : Project monitoring

Socio-economic monitoring report

Beneficiary responsible for implementation– CRPA



Contents

Summary ............................................................................................................................................................ 3 Introduction ....................................................................................................................................................... 4 Cost-benefit analysis .......................................................................................................................................... 4

Costs .............................................................................................................................................................. 4 Benefit ........................................................................................................................................................... 5 Cost/benefit analysis ..................................................................................................................................... 9 Conclusion ................................................................................................................................................... 13

Political processes in the implementation of an innovative production system ............................................. 14



Summary

Forage4Climate (F4C) chose the cost-benefit analysis (CBA) for the economic evaluation of results because it is a good method of economic evaluation of a project/measure, even when comparing different policy/context scenarios.

In the analysis we considered the costs associated with the application of mitigation techniques. These costs also include any savings brought about by the mitigation techniques and they have already been determined by considering the costs and benefits associated with the technique itself.

Benefits are expressed in money associated to carbon credits: based on the ex ante (2016) vs ex post (2019) results in terms of GHG emission and Carbon sequestration in soil, it was possible to calculate the value of carbon credits gained (or lost) by individual farm. The cost of mitigation strategies applied in the 20 farms was evaluated in about 746,465 euros.

In 2016, the 20 demonstration dairy farms had an average carbon stock of 63 tons per hectare, about 20 tons more compared to a farm without animals in Po Plain. This plus was about 10 % higher than the amount of carbon emitted by the same farms for milk production, with a positive carbon credit balance of about 258,000 euros.

In 2019 emissions from the farms increased due to higher milk production, and they have offset higher total emissions with additional carbon accumulation in the soil. It represents a net value of 229,570 euros of carbon credits, with an average of 71 euros per hectare.

The application of mitigation strategies resulted in higher yields, but obtained with sustainable methods. With the results collected for the cow farms, it was possible to demonstrate that the dairy farm seen as a whole (stable with animals and forage system), can generate a flow of CO2 emissions and sequestration with a positive balance in favour of the carbon stock.

The activity proposed in the project involved analysing the innovation system in its context to understand its shortcomings, and the elements we investigated were the sharing and applicability of the innovations represented by the mitigation strategies; above all, we wanted to assess the conditions for their successful adoption.

The work done with stakeholders demonstrated the use of F4C’s results to generate parameters adopted as obligations, accepted as innovation by farmer’s representatives when verified in a co-creation process.

In general, LIFE Forage4Climate achieved its objectives by demonstrating that agricultural systems connected to milk production can mitigate the climate. The project provided accounting and control tools available to operators who want to monitor emission and removal inside its farm.



Introduction

The objectives of action D1 were: i) to monitor the effects induced by the adoption of the mitigation strategies (Deliverables D1.2 and D1.4); ii) to evaluate the strategies used for climate change mitigation from a socio-economic and accounting point of view at a farm level.

This deliverable reports on the activities carried out for the cost-benefit analysis and policy done for cow farms. The cost of applying mitigation techniques could not be determined for sheep and goat farms often reared in extensive and low input forage systems. In any case, we consider important to highlight the results of a method, rather than a set of individual results from demonstration farms.

The activities that analysed the political processes in the implementation of an innovative production system in its social context are closely related to the work done for the integration of LIFE Forage4Climate into European policy (Deliverable E1.6).

Cost-benefit analysis

Forage4Climate (F4C) chose the cost-benefit analysis (CBA) for the economic evaluation of results because it is a good method of economic evaluation of a project/measure, even when comparing different policy/context scenarios.

CBA is based on the estimation of costs and benefits, following which a judgement can be made about the feasibility of the project, in this case the feasibility of applying the F4C results. The economic principle underlying CBA is that economic efficiency leads to maximization of benefits. For F4C, carbon emissions and removals accounting before and after the application of mitigation strategies was assessed as benefits. For the analysis, the costs and benefits were as follows.

Costs - In the analysis we considered the costs associated with the application of mitigation techniques. The costs were determined by CRPA on the basis of: i) official price list for works in agriculture used by the Emilia-Romagna Region for the application of the Measures of the Rural Development Programme 2007-2013 and other regional incentives https://agricoltura.regione.emilia-romagna.it/aiuti-imprese/temi/prezzario/il-prezzario-documento-e-sue-modifiche) ii) its own experience in designing and building structures and equipment for the dairy farm; iii) market prices for feed, fertilisers and other inputs used on the farm; iv) official price lists for services provided by contractors and consultants.

These costs also include any savings brought about by the mitigation technique: e.g. savings on chemical fertiliser replaced by livestock manure. So these costs have already been determined by considering the costs and benefits associated with the technique itself.

Cost used are reported in Annex1 Del. D1_3. In Annex 2 Del. D1_3 the table of correspondence between cost of single interventions and mitigation strategy adopted in F4C (presented in Deliverable C3.2). In the following table 1 a summary of MS used in each cow farms and the corresponding total cost.

https://agricoltura.regione.emilia-romagna.it/aiuti-imprese/temi/prezzario/il-prezzario-documento-e-sue-modifiche)%20ii

https://agricoltura.regione.emilia-romagna.it/aiuti-imprese/temi/prezzario/il-prezzario-documento-e-sue-modifiche)%20ii



Table 1 - Mitigation strategy applied in cow farms

Dairy farm Mitigation strategy (MS) applied Total cost for Mitigation

Strategies cost per

cow

name acronym € €/cow

Boselli MS3, MS4, MS5, MS8, MS13, MS17 15,067 131

Bozzetti MS1, MS2, MS4, MS5, MS13, MS17, MS20 30,506 163

Candellero MS1, MS2, MS3, MS4, MS5, MS8, MS17, MS18, MS20, MS22

15,502 215

Comazzi MS1, MS2, MS3, MS4, MS5, MS17, MS18, MS20, MS22 27,871 135

De Giovanni MS2, MS3, MS4, MS5, MS13, MS17, MS18 22,109 162

Fallini MS4, MS5, MS13, MS17, MS20 16,988 73

Gallizia MS1, MS2, MS3, MS17, MS18, MS20, MS23 14,568 76

La Cerea MS1, MS2, MS3, MS4, MS5, MS8, MS17, MS18, MS20, MS22

12,621 203

La Corte MS1, MS3, MS4, MS8, MS16, MS17, MS20 106,856 112

Menozzi MS3, MS4, MS17, MS20, MS22 26,738 275

Lembo Farm

MS1, MS2, MS3, MS4, MS5, MS8, MS13, MS17, MS18, MS20, MS22

72,806 189

Mazzotti MS3, MS4, MS5, MS13, MS17 38,688 509

Monti MS3, MS4, MS5, MS15, MS22 9,840 61

Oppio MS1, MS3, MS4, MS8, MS16, MS17, MS20 138,282 193

Pautasso MS1, MS2, MS3, MS4, MS8, MS17, MS18, MS20, MS22 21,002 184

Rigamonti MS1, MS3, MS17, MS18, MS20 19,669 187

Rossi MS1, MS2, MS3, MS4, MS7, MS8, MS13, MS16, MS17, MS20,

44,986 281

Rosti MS1, MS2, MS3, MS4, MS17, MS18, MS20 42,040 183

Scalabrini MS1, MS3, MS16, MS17, MS20 31,769 73

Tosco MS1, MS2, MS3, MS4, MS8, MS13, MS17, MS18, MS20, MS22

38,545 323

Costs are expressed per livestock unit (LU)1, and calculations were applied to a “reference” farm with 115 dairy cows and 172.3 LU in the herd. Even if in F4C we have some bigger farms, and in general a small farm faces higher cost for the same investment as a larger one, it was necessary to maintain a common cost unit in order to make comparisons. Thus, the farms Oppio and La Corte, which are respectively 3 times and 5 times larger than the average of the 20 farms have very high mitigation costs. The total expenses for the 20 farms is about 746,465 euros. This cost is quite low, because no techniques involving investment in facilities have been applied in any farm. When equipment was needed, the cost of the contractor was considered.

Benefit - Benefits are expressed in money associated to carbon credits: based on the ex ante (2016) vs ex post (2019) results in terms of GHG emission and Carbon sequestration in soil, it was possible to calculate the value of carbon credits gained (or lost) by individual farm.

Table 2 shows difference in GHG emission per functional unit (kg of fat protein corrected milk (FPCM)) and difference in carbon sequestration (carbon stock) as Total organic carbon (TOC per unit of utilised agricultural area (UAA)). Differences are presented grouping the farms by forage system.

1 https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Glossary:Livestock_unit_(LSU)



Table 2 – Carbon emissions (GHG) and removals (Carbon stock) per Forage System. GHG in kg of CO2/kg of fat protein corrected milk (FPCM). Carbon stock in TOC/ha.

Forage Systems GHG

emissions 2016

GHG emissions

2019

GHG emissions 2019-2016

Carbon stock 2016

Carbon stock 2019

Carbon stock 2019-2016

acronym kg CO2/

kg FPCM kg CO2/

kg FPCM kg CO2/ Kg

FPCM kg TOC/ha kg TOC/ha kg TOC/ha

FS3 - CONV 1.52 1.41 -0.11 60,262 61,998 1,735

FS5 - HQFS 1.17 1.15 -0.02 57,620 61,347 3,726

FS6 - MIXED 1.38 1.18 -0.20 49,448 58,400 8,951

FS4 - WICE 1.45 1.37 -0.076 75,521 77,935 2,413

FS1 - PR DRY 1.33 1.26 -0.075 74,164 75,343 1,178

FS2 - PR FRESH 1.61 1.61 0 79,004 84,690 5,685

For 5 forage systems there were decreases in GHG emissions after the application of MSs, for one these remained the same. All forage systems reached an increase in carbon stock.

Tables 3 and 4 reports carbon emissions and removals for each farm.

Some farms had an increase in overall emissions related to milk production even with a reduction in CO2 produced per kg of milk: this is due to the higher milk production in 2019 compared to 2016.



Table 3 – Carbon emissions as GHG per farm

Dairy farm Milk 2016 Milk 2019 GHG 2016

GHG 2019

GHG 2016

GHG 2019

name kg FPCM kg FPCM kg CO2/ kg FPCM

kg CO2/ kg FPCM

kg CO2 total milk

kg CO2 total milk

Boselli 1,169,652 1,192,425 1.59 1.47 1,859,747 1,752,865

Bozzetti 1,758,479 1,740,215 1.75 1.55 3,085,114 2,700,605

Candellero 637,007 594,119 1.16 1.06 738,928 629,766

Comazzi 2,001,643 2,218,493 1.18 1.26 2,361,938 2,795,301

De Giovanni 1,641348 1,828,514 1.20 1.18 1,969,618 2,157,647

Fallini 1,945,506 2,197,170 1.57 1.44 3,054,445 3,163,925

Gallizia 1,155,360 1,221,248 1.27 1.10 1,467,307 1,343,372

La Cerea 529,652 605,077 1.36 1.27 720,326 768,448

La Corte 8,658,251 9,703,960 1.28 1.16 11,082,562 11,256,594

Landriano 894,175 1,016,378 1.71 1.39 1,529,040 1,412,765

Lembo Farm 3,968,980 4,619,326 0.99 1.07 3,929,291 4,942,679

Mazzotti 469,975 613,353 1.89 1.53 888,254 938,430

Monti 1,537,159 1,591,768 1.29 1.49 198,2935 2371735

Oppio 5,944,578 6,307,606 1.39 1.36 8,262,964 8,578,345

Pautasso 1,180,879 1,410,701 1.05 1.01 1,243,316 1,433,837

Rigamonti 1,079,180 1,399,367 1.17 1.10 1,262,641 1,539,303

Rossi 1,122,084 1,188,669 1.47 1.42 1,649,464 1,687,910

Rosti 2,262,637 3,358,110 1.31 1.18 2,964,054 3,962,570

Scalabrini 3,227,624 3,672,168 1.76 1.81 5,680,619 6,646,624

Tosco 1,900,374 2,504,029 1.18 1.16 2,242,441 2,904,673



Table 4 – Balance between emissions (GHG) and removals (carbon stock) per each farm Total Organic Carbon (TOC) converted in CO2 as CO2 = TOC *3.6.

Dairy farm GHG emissions 2019-2016

Carbon stock 2019-2016

Balance emission and removal

name kg CO2

kg CO2 kg CO2

Boselli -106,882 922,476 1,029,358

Bozzetti -384,509 1,221,422 1,605,931

Candellero -109,161 660,654 769,815

Comazzi 433,362 -129,905 -563,267

De Giovanni 188,028 -496,758 -684,786

Fallini 109,480 -572,948 -682428

Gallizia -123,934 1,323,362 1,447,296

La Cerea 48,122 -97,537 -145,659

La Corte 174,032 2,437,188 2,263,156

Landriano -116,275 352,913 469,188 Lembo Farm 1,013,388 1,717,923 704,535

Mazzotti 50,176 209,628 159,452

Monti 388,799 219,433 -169,366

Oppio 315,381 -319,514 -634,895

Pautasso 190,521 -192,576 -383,097

Rigamonti 276,662 -279,956 -556,618

Rossi 38,446 431,581 393,135

Rosti 998,515 800,598 -197,917

Scalabrini 966,004 1,425,864 459,860

Tosco 662,232 1,140,667 478,435

In table 5, the balance of CO2 emissions and sequestration is expressed in economic terms by calculating the value in corresponding carbon credits, where the carbon credit value is 0.03985 €/kg of CO2. This value is reported by Italian Stock Exchange for CO2 prices - Sandeco2 (https://www.sendeco2.com/it/prezzi-co2), as average CO2 price for the first five months of 2021.

7 farms have achieved a negative sign for the economic value of carbon credits for both emissions and loss of soil organic carbon stock: De Giovanni and Fallini (forage system 3 CONV); Comazzi, La Cerea and Pautasso (forage system 5 HQFS); Rigamonti (forage system 4 WICE) and Oppio (forage system 1 PRDRY).

For 5 farms there has been both a decrease in GHG emissions and an increase in carbon sequestration.

https://www.sendeco2.com/it/prezzi-co2



Table 5 – Carbon emissions (GHG) and removals (Carbon stock) per Farm and Carbon credit acquired or lost during LIFE Forage4Climate (from 2016 to 2019). GHG in kg of CO2/kg of fat protein corrected milk (FPCM). Total Organic Carbon (TOC) converted in CO2 as CO2 = TOC *3.6. Carbon credit = 0.03985 € per kg CO2 based on CO2 price in May 2020 of 39.85 € per ton

Dairy farm GHG

emissions 2016

GHG emissions

2019

GHG emissions 2019-2016

Carbon credits from GHG

Carbon stock 2016

Carbon stock 2019

Carbon stock 2019-

2016

Carbon credit

from C. stock

name kg CO2

total milk kg CO2

total milk kg CO2

€

kg TOC/ha

kg TOC/ha

kg CO2 €

Boselli 1,859,747 1,752,865 -106,882 4,259 45,869 56,137 922,476 36,714

Bozzetti 3,085,114 2,700,605 -384,509 15,322 42,228 55,421 1,221,422 48,673

Candellero 738,928 629,766 -109,161 4,350 50,170 59,031 660,654 26,327

Comazzi 2,361,938 2,795,301 433,362 -17,269 60,311 58,809 -129,905 -5,176

De Giovanni 1,969,618 2,157,647 188,028 -7,492 94,018 81,666 -496,758 -19,795

Fallini 3,054,445 3,163,925 109,480 -4,362 58,933 54,766 -572,948 -22,832

Gallizia 1,467,307 1,343,372 -123,934 4,938 51,164 60,788 1,323,362 52,735

La Cerea 720,326 768,448 48,122 -1,917 50,900 48,922 -97,537 -3,886

La Corte 11,082,562 11,256,594 174,032 -6,935 70,720 73,717 2,437,188 97,121

Landriano 1,529,040 1,412,765 -116,275 4,633 47,010 55,380 352,913 14,063

Lembo Farm 3,929,291 4,942,679 1,013,388 -40,383 58,151 68,739 1,717,923 68,459

Mazzotti 888,254 938,430 50,176 -1,999 43,045 53,010 209,628 8,353

Monti 198,2935 2371735 388,799 -15,493 64,082 68,072 219,433 8,744

Oppio 8,262,964 8,578,345 315,381 -12,567 77,608 76,968 -319,514 -12,732

Pautasso 1,243,316 1,433,837 190,521 -7,592 49,410 46,127 -192,576 -7,674

Rigamonti 1,262,641 1,539,303 276,662 -11,024 119,437 112,725 -279,956 -11,156

Rossi 1,649,464 1,687,910 38,446 -1,532 65,229 70,641 431,581 17,198

Rosti 2,964,054 3,962,570 998,515 -39,790 51,840 59,052 800,598 31,903

Scalabrini 5,680,619 6,646,624 966,004 -38,495 92,779 98,739 1,425,864 56,820

Tosco 2,242,441 2,904,673 662,232 -26,389 75,108 86,433 1,140,667 45,455

Cost/benefit analysis

Table 6 presents the balance of costs and benefits in euros for each farm comparing the costs related to the mitigation strategies applied during LIFE Forage4Climate and the monetized benefit as carbon credits acquired in the same period.

The cost of mitigation strategies applied the 20 farms is evaluated in about 746,465 euros

The method used to calculate costs may penalise large farms such as Oppio farm and La Corte, but despite its size La Corte could well offset the investment in Mitigation strategies (MSs) with the value of carbon credits linked to the carbon stock of its land.

For 5 farms the investments for MSs resulted balanced with the value of carbon credits gained during F4C. They are Boselli and Bozzetti from CONV forage system, Candellero and Gallizza from MIXED forage system and Mazzotti from WICE forage system. These farms are among those where mitigation measures have been most effective. For forage systems CONV and MIXED the ex-ante soil carbon levels were lower than the others (figure 1).



Table 6 –Carbon credit and Cost of mitigation strategies balance for farms

Dairy farm Carbon credits

from GHG Carbon credits from C stock

Carbon credits total

A

Mitigation Stategies costs

B A-B

name € € € € €

Boselli 4,259 36,714 40,973 15,067 25,907

Bozzetti 15,322 48,673 63,996 30,506 33,409

Candellero 4,350 26,327 30,677 15,502 15,175

Comazzi -17,269 -5,176 -22,446 27,871 -50,317

De Giovanni -7,492 -19,795 -27,288 22,109 -49.397

Fallini -4,362 -22,832 -27,194 16,988 -44.182

Gallizia 4,938 52,735 57,674 14,568 43,106

La Cerea -1,917 -3,886 -5,804 12,621 -18,425

La Corte -6,935 97,121 90,186 106,856 -16,670

Landriano 4,633 14,063 18,697 26,738 -8,041

Lembo Farm -40,383 68,459 28,076 72,806 -44,730

Mazzotti -1,999 8,353 86,060 38,688 47,372

Monti -15,493 8,744 -6,749 9,840 -16,589

Oppio -12,567 -12,732 -25,300 138,282 -163,582

Pautasso -7,592 -7,674 -15,266 21,002 -36,268

Rigamonti -11,024 -11,156 -22,181 19,669 -41,850

Rossi -1,532 17,198 15,666 44,986 -29,320

Rosti -39,790 31,903 -7,887 42,040 -49,927

Scalabrini -38,495 56,820 20,325 31,769 -11,444

Tosco -26,389 45,455 19,065 38,545 -19,480

Figure 1 - Soil carbon stock (kg/ha) in forage systems in the Po Plain at the beginning of the project.

At the starting of the project, the five farms had a carbon stock below the average value of the 20 demonstrative farms (figure 2) and the measures introduced in order to increase carbon stock were effective in Mazzotti farm (43 t/ha of carbon stock in 2016 vs 53 t/ha in 2019 - see also Deliverable 1.4).



Figure 2 - Carbon stock of demonstrative cow farms in 2016 (kg per hectare)

On the other hand, all the 5 farms had a high reduction in GHG emissions per kg of milk, and Boselli, Candellero, Bozzetti and Gallizzia reduced also the total GHG emitted for the annual milk production in 2019. The size of the farms ranges from 22 to 150 hectares, and size does not seem to have influenced the cost-benefit ratio analysed.

A cost-benefit analysis referred to demonstration farms for the duration of C3 activities shows that the costs of mitigation measures undertaken often do not correspond to the value of carbon credits acquired at the same time.

The change in production methods required for dairy farms to move to a climate change mitigating production system needs investment and economic support to drive it. And this is widely recognised by the agricultural production support measures that will soon be implemented in the Rural Development Plan until 2027.

We believe that a period longer than the duration of LIFE should also be considered in order to properly assess the value of the positive externalities that forage systems can have for climate change mitigation.

The aim of the project was to show how agricultural systems linked to milk production can have a positive impact on climate mitigation. Maintaining and increasing soil carbon stocks is a key element of mitigation. The build-up of soil carbon stock is a slow phenomenon, also due to the constant input of animal waste to soils in forage systems.

Deliverable C1.4 reports the average difference in carbon stock in tons per ha between a cereal farm without animals and a dairy farm, both located in Po Plain (figure 3). If we compare soil carbon stock for annual crops in farms with and without animals it is possible to see a difference of about one third in the carbon stock, higher in soils usually subjected to organic fertilisation. Further improvements are also noticeable on the livestock farm between soils for annual crops and soils with multiannual crops and/or permanent meadows.



Table 6 –Carbon credit and Cost of mitigation strategies balance for farms

Dairy farm Carbon credits

from GHG Carbon credits from C stock

Carbon credits total

A

Mitigation Stategies costs

B A-B

name € € € € €

Boselli 4,259 36,714 40,973 15,067 25,907

Bozzetti 15,322 48,673 63,996 30,506 33,409

Candellero 4,350 26,327 30,677 15,502 15,175

Comazzi -17,269 -5,176 -22,446 27,871 -50,317

De Giovanni -7,492 -19,795 -27,288 22,109 -49.397

Fallini -4,362 -22,832 -27,194 16,988 -44.182

Gallizia 4,938 52,735 57,674 14,568 43,106

La Cerea -1,917 -3,886 -5,804 12,621 -18,425

La Corte -6,935 97,121 90,186 106,856 -16,670

Landriano 4,633 14,063 18,697 26,738 -8,041

Lembo Farm -40,383 68,459 28,076 72,806 -44,730

Mazzotti -1,999 8,353 86,060 38,688 47,372

Monti -15,493 8,744 -6,749 9,840 -16,589

Oppio -12,567 -12,732 -25,300 138,282 -163,582

Pautasso -7,592 -7,674 -15,266 21,002 -36,268

Rigamonti -11,024 -11,156 -22,181 19,669 -41,850

Rossi -1,532 17,198 15,666 44,986 -29,320

Rosti -39,790 31,903 -7,887 42,040 -49,927

Scalabrini -38,495 56,820 20,325 31,769 -11,444

Tosco -26,389 45,455 19,065 38,545 -19,480

(*) 1 Carbon credit = 0.03985 € based on CO2 price in May 2020 of 39.85 € per ton

Figure 3 - Soil carbon stock (tons/ha) in cereal and livestock farms in the Po Plain and perspective for C stock increase.

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

cereal farms annual crops

dairy farms annual crops

dairy farms permanent meadows

Car

bo

n s

tock

(t/h

a, 0

-30

cm

laye

r)

The difference in carbon stock per hectare between the cereal farm and the average of the 20 LIFE Forage4Climate dairy demonstration farms at the beginning of the project, i.e. before the introduction of the mitigation strategies, is 20 tons per hectare.



This figure applied to the cultivated area of the farms, 3,223 hectares, results in a stored carbon value of 64,460 tons, corresponding to a carbon credit value of 2,568,731 euros.

In 2016 the farms emitted CO2 related to milk production amounting to 2,310,304 euros in consumed carbon credits.

Thus, in 2016, the 20 livestock farms had an average carbon stock of 63 tons per hectare (figure 2)., about 20 tons plus compared to farms without animals This plus was about 10 % higher than the amount of carbon emitted by the same farms for milk production, with a positive carbon credit balance of about 258,000 euros.

In 2019, emissions from the 20 demonstration farms increased due to higher milk production, reaching a value of 2,510,048 euros in carbon credits consumed, with a surplus compared to 2016 of 199,744 euros. Compared to 2016, also carbon stock increased and the carbon credits accumulated were equivalent to a gain of 429,314 euros.

This means that farms have offset their higher total emissions in 2019 with additional carbon accumulation in the soil. It represents a net value of 229,570 euros of carbon credits, with an average of 71 euros per hectare.

Conclusion

The application of mitigation strategies resulted in higher yields, but obtained with sustainable methods. With the results collected for the cow farms, it was possible to demonstrate that the dairy farm as a whole, stable with animals and forage system, can generate a flow of CO2 emissions and sequestration with a positive balance in favour of the carbon stock.

By applying mitigation strategies in the barn and in the field, especially those that best link these two parts of the dairy farm (e.g. manure use for increase self-production of feed), positive externalities and carbon credit values can be generated.

A value of carbon credits linked to the increase in carbon stock of about 70 euros per hectare was obtained over the project's lifetime.

Considering only the value of carbon stock gain obtained in the project may be reductive: forage systems already held a very important soil carbon stock before. On the other hand 20 tonnes of carbon stock per hectare leading to a lost as CO2 emitted into the atmosphere if a forage system were converted to cereal production and organic fertilisation abandoned.

LIFE Forage4Climate achieved its objectives by demonstrating that agricultural systems connected to milk production can mitigate the climate. The project provided accounting and control tools available to operators who want to monitor emission and removal inside its farm.

In 2019, emissions from the 20 demonstration cow farms increased due to higher milk production, reaching a value of 2,510,048 euros in carbon credits consumed, with a surplus compared to 2016 of 199,744 euros. Compared to 2016, also carbon stock increased and the carbon credits accumulated were equivalent to a gain of 429,314 euros.

This means that farms have offset their higher total emissions in 2019 with additional carbon accumulation in the soil. It represents a net value of 229,570 euros of carbon credits, with an average of 71 euros per hectare.



Political processes in the implementation of an innovative production system

The activity proposed in the project involved analysing the innovation system in its context to understand its shortcomings. It was planned to look at the functions involved such as entrepreneurial activities, knowledge development and exchange, market and resource formation, and resistance to change.

In this part of the work we had to take into account that the adoption of the innovation addressed by F4C has been greatly accelerated by environmental policy decisions in recent years.

One element that came into play during LIFE was the adoption by the European Union of a strong and decisive environmental policy. Of key importance was the so-called Green Deal, aimed at making European society greenhouse gas neutral by 2050.

Within the Green Deal framework, the Commission is adopting a series of strategies that affect agricultural production, in particular the Farm to Fork Strategy, the Biodiversity Strategy, the proposal for a European Climate Act and a new Action Plan to promote a circular economy perspective.

The application of the Common Agricultural Policy plays a key role in the realisation of the Green Deal in view of the agro-ecological approach given by the agricultural sector

European Commission listed some potential agricultural practices that CAP could support and they include some practices deemed to be active on climate change mitigation (CCM) and adaptation (CCA) as well as on prevention of soil degradation (SOIL) and several agricultural practices that eco-schemes could support correspond to the mitigation strategies (MS) that F4C identified and applied in the demonstration farms.

The innovations proposed by F4C have entered production practice and there was no point in generically analysing their acceptability.

Thus, the elements we investigated were the sharing and applicability of the innovations represented by the mitigation strategies; above all, we wanted to assess the conditions for their successful adoption.

Work done to this end is represented by Case study with stakeholders of Emilia-Romagna Region reported in the Deliverable E1.6, Report on the integration of Forage4Climate in the EU policy.

The work carried out aimed to demonstrate the feasibility of a process of co-creation of obligations with representatives of the same stakeholders who will benefit from rural development funds. Obligations are foreseen to receive RDP funds in the result-driven New Delivery Model: no longer just requiring compliance with rules, but conditionality to the achievement of target results (obligations).

Due to the COVID-19 pandemic focus groups and interviews were replaced by questionnaires and in-depth telephone interviews.

A group of 38 stakeholders representative of agriculture, livestock and environmental sectors at national and Emilia-Romagna Region levels were invited to answer a questionnaire.

Results and the exhaustive description of the work carried out are presented in Deliverable E1.6.

Anyway, the work done with stakeholders demonstrated the use of F4C’s results to generate parameters adopted as obligations, accepted as innovation by farmer’s representatives when verified in a co-creation process.

Date post:	08-Jan-2022
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	3 times
Download:	0 times

Forage4Climate Forage systems for less GHG emission and ...

Documents