Transitions Pathways and Risk Analysis for Climate Change
Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies
8 June 2017 - Santiago, Chile
JIN Climate & Sustainability
Eise Spijker
www.jin.ngo
‘Co-effects of transition pathways in the livestock sector in the Netherlands’
Annela Anger-Kraavi
Cambridge Econometrics
www.camecon.com
L O W E M I S S I O N T R A N S I T I O N I N L I V E S T O C K : W H Y ?
Agricultural sector in the Netherlands
- 2nd agriculture exporter in the world (in EUR)
- 4th milk producer in EU (7th herd size)
- Largest veal producer in EU
- 5th largest pig herd in EU
*Livestock densities in EU in 2013 (in LSU / ha)
Source: Eurostat
Livestock sector - ISSUES
- Nutrient accumulation (manure)
- ‘Mega-stables’, Animal-human health
- Low milk & meat prices
CH4
N2O
CO2
70%
70%
4%
NH3
PM10
NOX
87%
27%
6%
Note: emissions percentages are share of national total emissions of
that particular pollutant
T R A N S I T I O N O P T I O N S F O R L I V E S T O C K S E C T O R
( 2 0 3 0 )
Low Emission Pathway Options
Primary objective:
Low GHG
Reduce livestock
Reduce animal protein consumption
Improve conversion efficiency
Promote low-GHG feeds
Promote energy saving
Produce renewable energy
Promote manure management
I M P A C T A T N A T I O N A L L E V E L R L V S . I M M2 0 3 0 T A R G E T = - 3 3 % C H 4 I N A G R I C U L T U R E ( 2 0 0 5 )
2.500.000 1.500.000
RL – requires
-37,5% reduction of all cattle
(dairy & beef)
IMM – requires
Cattle manure
51.8 mln. ton
≈ 17.000 farm-scale
plants
CAPEX
≈ 5,2 bln. EUR
Pig manure
11.6 mln. ton
≈ 60 industrial scale
plants
CAPEX
≈ 0,6 bln. EUR
A N Y C O - E F F E C T S O F R E D U C I N G L I V E S T O C K ?A S K S T A K E H O L D E R S
What does reduction of 1,5 mln. cattle mean?
- Lower emissions of GHGs, air pollutants
- Lower production of dairy and meat
- Change of land use? More food crops?
- Positive impact on human health (lower risk on zoonotic diseases)?
- Income loss to livestock sector and livestock farming households?
- Employment?
- Water quality (river, ground-water)?
- Soil fertility / productivity?
- More biogas from crop residues
- …..?
A N Y C O - E F F E C T S O F I N T E G R A T E D M A N . M A N A G E M E N T ?A S K S T A K E H O L D E R S
What does installation of 17.000 farm-scale and 60 industrial scale AD-Man. treatment
plants mean?
- Lower emissions of GHGs, air pollutants
- Positive impact on animal welfare (lower risk on animal diseases)?
- Loss of international competitiveness of dairy industry
- Employment?
- Water quality (river, ground-water)?
- Soil fertility / productivity (mix of organic and fossil fertilizers changes)?
- More biogas from manure digestion
- …..?
C O M P A R I N G C O - E F F E C T S O F 2 P A T H W A Y SG R E E N H O U S E G A S E M I S S I O N S
Red. livestock Int. Man. ManagementCH4 Enteric Fermentation emissions down neutral
CH4 Manure Management emissions down emissions down
CO2 - biogas production biogas from crop. Res. up biogas from manure
CO2 - Soil C emissions up (LUC) neutral
N2O - agri-soils - animal manure emissions down emissions down
N2O - agri-soils - organic fertilizers emissions up emissions stable / up?
N2O - agri-soils - fossil fertilizers emissions up emissions stable / down?
N2O - agri-soils - indirect N2O ? ?
C O M P A R I N G C O - E F F E C T S O F 2 P A T H W A Y SL A N D U S E C H A N G E & S O I L Q U A L I T Y
Red. livestock Int. Man. ManagementSoil - fertility - fertilizer mix (NPK - C) down down
Soil - compaction (soil type) ? neutral
Soil - acidification - acidity (pH) less animal manure
lowers pH
less untreated an. Manure lowers
pH
LAND-USE - land-use change grass/maize silage land conversion
into foodcrop land
neutral
C O M P A R I N G C O - E F F E C T S O F 2 P A T H W A Y SS O C I O - E N V I R O N M E N T A L E F F E C T S
Red. livestock Int. Man. ManagementHUMAN HEALTH - food borne illnesses neutral neutral
HUMAN HEALTH - zoonotic diseases down
lower livestock density
down
improved sanitary conditions
ANIMAL WELFARE - free range stable / up neutral / down?
ANIMAL WELFARE - use of medicines (e.g. antibiotics) stable / down down
improved sanitary conditions
BIODIVERSITY - preservation of rare species (cattle) risk of loss of rare species neutral
C O M P A R I N G C O - E F F E C T S O F 2 P A T H W A Y SE C O N O M I C E F F E C T S
Red. livestock Int. Man. ManagementEMPLOYMENT - direct down (farmers) up (biogas / man. Treatment)
EMPLOYMENT - indirect down (processing and logistics) up (biogas / man. Treatment)
SECTOR INPUTS - FEED - wet feeds down neutral
SECTOR INPUTS - FEED - mixed feeds down neutral
SECTOR INPUTS - FEED - roughage down neutral
SECTOR OUTPUTS - ANIMAL - dairy down neutral
SECTOR OUTPUTS - ANIMAL - beef down neutral
SECTOR OUTPUTS - ANIMAL - veal down neutral
SECTOR OUTPUTS - ANIMAL - manure down neutral
SECTOR OUTPUTS - PLANT - vegetables up neutral
SECTOR OUTPUTS - PLANT - grains up neutral
SECTOR OUTPUTS - PLANT - potatoes up neutral
SECTOR OUTPUTS - PLANT - sugar beets up neutral
GDP CHANGE - gross domestic product change down ?
Comparing pathway options at national scale is nice, but…
o How much jobs are lost / gained?
o What is the net GHG saving? How many Mt CO2-eq. saved?
o Can we expect a dramatic change in soil fertility (productivity)?
Role of modelling
o Quantify (yet) (un)known side-effects
o Reducing risks & uncertainties for stakeholders
Modelling in this case study
o Macro-econometric Energy-Environment- Economy model - E3ME
o Modelling scenarios and comparing them with a selected reference
o Scenarios are what-if stories and developed with stakeholders
o Outputs to inform policy and industry stakeholders
M ODELL ING PATHWAY IMPACTSN O W W E H A V E T O D O S O M E N U M B E R C R U N C H I N G !
S OME PREL IM . M ODELL ING RESULTSS O M E N U M B E R S C R U N C H E D
Macroeconometric Energy-Environment-Economy Model
• 59 geographical regions
• All TRANSrisk case study countries but Kenya
• 69/43 economic sectors (Europe/RoW)
• 43/28 consumption categories
• 22 users of 19 fuels
• 14 atmospheric emissions
E3ME -
S OME PREL IM . M ODELL ING RESULTSS O M E N U M B E R S C R U N C H E D
Macroeconometric Energy-Environment-Economy Model
• Baseline and scenarios
• can be ex-post or ex-ante
• Baseline calibrated to IEA WEO or similar projections
• Scenarios defined by making adjustments to model variables
S OME PREL IM . M ODELL ING RESULTSS O M E N U M B E R S C R U N C H E D
Red. livestock Int. Man. ManagementGDP, m euro 2005 -1.7% +0.2%
Price index, agriculture +17.6% +7.9%
Consumer Price Index +2.6% +0.3%
Consumption -2.7% -0.3%
Total investment -0.7% +0.0%
Employment, in thousands -0.3% (22.5k) +0.0%
Employment in Agriculture, thousands -6.0% (10k) -0.0%
Total imports, m euro 2005 +0.6% +0.1%
Agriculture imports, m euro 2005 +28.6% +2.5%
Energy use CO2 emissions, th tC -1.3% -0.0%
E3ME Model results for Netherlands in 2030, % changes from business as usual
W H A T A B O U T 2 0 5 0 T A R G E T ? = - 8 0 % O V E R A L L N A T I O N A L R E D U C T I O N ( 1 9 9 0 )
S OME PREL IM . M ODELL ING RESULTSS O M E N U M B E R S C R U N C H E D
Biogas
scenarioGDP, m euro 2005m induced by electrification +3%
Energy CO2 emissions, increase from electrification (90TWh) +10%
Employment induced by building a 1MW biogas plant 1,875
Small scale biodigesters (2009-20251), employment 1,500
Increase in CO2 emissions from LPG, (2009-20251) ~69mtCO2
Lives saved (2009-20251) 10% = 48,000?
E3ME Model results for Indonesia in 2025
1 10 thousand digesters per year installed from 2017, 121k installed 2009-2025
What co-effects can be observed for livestock expansion/modernistion in Chile?
What technologies, practices and policies are needed to
ensure ‘green growth’ in this sector?
Also, ask it is it ok if we:
o Swap GHG emission reduction for lower household income?
o Improve animal welfare but reduce local water quality?
o Jeopardize food security to meet national environmental goals?
o Reduce short-term farmer income, by improving long-term crop yields?
Q U E S T I O N S T O A U D I E N C E ?
Livestock
Greenhouse gases
Air
Soil quality
Human health
Water quality
Household income
…
….
Handout with more background information on this case study is available on:
http://jin.ngo/8-events/162-transrisk-cop22
http://cdn.jin.ngo/images/jin/publications/JIQ_Special_COP22_TRANSrisk_livestock_pathways.pdf
T H A N K Y O U F O R Y O U R A T T E N T I O N
http://jin.ngo/8-events/162-transrisk-cop22http://cdn.jin.ngo/images/jin/publications/JIQ_Special_COP22_TRANSrisk_livestock_pathways.pdf
Observation
NOT all pathways target multiple objectives at the same time
Focus on 2 pathways
• Reduction Livestock (RL)
• Integrated Man. Mngmt (IMM)
Goal
• Maximize SYNERGIES
• Minimize TRADE-OFFS
W E N E E D M U L T I - P U R P O S E P A T H W A Y S ! !
