Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Examples of mitigation strategies in the Dutch dairy sector

30 views

Published on

"Examples of mitigation strategies in the Dutch dairy sector," presented by Marion de Vries (Wageningen UR) at the CCAFS project meeting with CAAS, CAU & WUR in Beijing, January 15th 2019.

Part of the Carbon Footprint Assessment and Mitigation Options of Dairy under Chinese Conditions Project. Implemented by the Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciecnces (CAAS), China Agricultural University (CAU) & Wageningen University and Research (WUR). In collaboration with the CGIAR Research Program for Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security (CCAFS) and the Sino-Dutch Dairy Development Centre (SDDDC).

Published in: Science
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Examples of mitigation strategies in the Dutch dairy sector

  1. 1. Examples of mitigation strategies in the Dutch dairy sector CCAFS project meeting CAAS, CAU & WUR Beijing, January 15th 2019 Marion de Vries, Ph.D. (Wageningen UR)
  2. 2. Content 2 • Climate policies (EU & NL) • Greenhouse gas emissions from the Dutch dairy sector • Potential mitigation options
  3. 3. Paris Agreement: EU GHG emission targets 3 Source: EEA, 2018
  4. 4. Implications for Dutch agricultural sector 4 • Emission targets EU Effort Sharing Regulation (non-ETS sectors) • Netherlands (non-ETS): -36% in 2030 (ref 2005) • Dutch ‘Climate law’: -49% in 2030, -95% in 2050 (ref 1990) • Agricultural sector: reduction 3.5 Mton in 2030 (Dutch ‘Climate agreement’)
  5. 5. Value chain GHG reporting: sector vs. chain approach 5 • National reporting at sector level, CH4 and N2O only for non-ETS. International emissions not included. • Chain (incl. international), CH4 N2O and CO2. National reporting Industry, energy transport Agriculture (local) Industry, energy transport Agriculture ProcessingInputs Source: Blonk et al., 2018
  6. 6. GHG emissions Dutch agriculture (sector) 6 Source: Lesschen et al., 2017 Enteric fermentation Manure storage N2O soils Fossil fuels Land use Cattle Synthetic fertilizer Crop residues Greenhouses Mineral soils arable Pigs Organic fertilizer Organic soils Other agriculture Mineral soils grassland Other Grazing Indirect emissions Organic soils GHGemissions(ktonCO2-e)
  7. 7. GHG emissions Dutch dairy sector (chain) 7 • 14 Megaton milk • Emissions (cradle-to-farm gate): • total 19.3 Mton CO2-e • 1.15 kg CO2-e / kg milk • Mainly CH4 and CO2 • Mainly from enteric fermentation, farm inputs, and manure.
  8. 8. Changes in GHG emissions dairy over time (chain) 8 Source: Doornewaard et al., 2017 / De Vries et al., 2018
  9. 9. Sector vs chain approach gCO2-e/kgmilk(incl.LULUCF)
  10. 10. Developing a mitigation strategy 10 • ‘Climate tables’: governments, privat sector, NGO’s, knowledge institutes • Identification mitigation options • Evaluation theoretical long-term reduction potential agricultural sector • Theoretical potential reduction agriculture in 2050: -80% (chain approach, CH4 N2O & CO2) (Vellinga et al., 2018)
  11. 11. Types of mitigation options dairy 11 1. Increased efficiency • Examples: increased milk production, longevity, feed conversion, precision manure application, reduce losses fodder production/conservation 2. Avoiding emissions at the source • Rumen CH4, stables and manure storage (CH4, N2O), fertilizer application (N2O), soils (C loss/sequestration) • Examples: adjusting the feed ration, feed additives (e.g. 3NOP), genetic selection, soil nitrification inhibitors, manure management, no-till.
  12. 12. Types of mitigation options dairy 12 3. Removing emissions (end-of-pipe solutions) • E.g. capture emissions from manure storage, soil carbon sequestration 4. Structural changes production & consumption • E.g. re-allocation of farms, agroforestry, changing dietary consumption patterns.
  13. 13. Selection of mitigation options 13 Technical & economic feasiblity: • Reduction potential (also at higher system level; e.g. Vellinga & De Vries, 2018) • Costs and benefits • Technical Readiness Level (cf. innovation tasks) • Possibility to include in emission registration
  14. 14. Selection of mitigation options 14 .. But also context: • Interaction w/ other sustainability goals (e.g. N/P efficiency, water quality, biodiversity, animal welfare) • Societal acceptance, food safety • Increasing demand for biomass (e.g NL: 41 -> 148 Mton 2050; Broeze & Elbersen, in prep.)
  15. 15. Thank you 15

×