Short term and long term approaches to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from Land use, Land Use Change, Conversion of Biomass & Transport systemsArthur Riedacker INRA and Joseph Racap MIES a.riedacker@wanadoo.fr

MAIN ASPECTS DISCUSSED

1/ Short term approaches (Kyoto Protocol or small GHG emission reductions)

2/Insufficiencies of present approaches for the long term

Climate change a global issue In the long term will concern every country

In the short term the Convention on climate change and the Kyoto Protocol is a good start

Share of agriculture and forestry in national inventories

Low Fossil Fuel Consumption Up to 5%

But high direct GHG Emissions (e.g. under UNFCCC) Up to 23% or more

French options to reduce GHG emissions under the Kyoto Protocol www.effet-de-serre.gouv.fr

And

Emissions from agriculture in France ! 1990 2002 Agriculture Agriculture

Emissions inventory for France Emissions included in Agriculture and forestry

Cropland 8.1%Livestock 7%Agriculture and others 1.4%Forestry 9.8%

Some emissions in other sectors related with agriculture and forestry

Pulp and paper industry 1.5%Chemical (fertilizer)/other industries 5.2%Metallurgy and steal industry 3.1%Road transportation 5.8%Housing 19%Waste 2.1%

Main options to reduce emissions in agriculture and forestry

But these otions are insufficient Insufficientto meet he Ultimate Objective of the Convention

Stabilization of GHG concentrations in the atmosphere at a non dangerous level

To allow adaptation of ecosystemsTo not threaten Food Production To allow sustainable economic development

Emissions curves to stabilize concentrations at various concentrations 450, 650 or 850 ppmvNatural Uptake

Divide Global Emissions by 2 For equity

=> Divide by 4 in Industrial Countries => Maintain around the present level in Developing countries

Some studiesLESS (Low Emitting Supply Scenario) IPCC 1996 Second Assessment Report in Chapter 19 and Summary for decision maker

Last year for France Division by 4 at 2050

Most studies of that type are mainly for the energy sector

Efficiency, E. Conservation, New technologies Biofuel use

do not consider Agriculture and Forestry

Land Use and carbon stock changes Emission reductionsN20 (mainly from nitrogen fertilizer )CH4 (from enteric fermentation, animal waste )Land use planning

UNFCC GHG Inventoriesare to assess emissions by country

to verify commitments but not for Policies and MeasuresThat we will probably need in the long term

They

do not reflect

net or avoided emissions

Carbon stock changes in Ecosystems

N2O, CH4

Harvest and Conversion Biomass for Food

Harvest and conversion of non food biomass

End of life cycle

Life Cycle Analysis can help to determine avoided emissions (reference scenario)

But are not, as stated in ISO 14040, not the only approach to be considered

Life Cycle Analysis can help if the objectives of LCAs are clearly defined, as recommended by ISO 14040

But are not, as stated in ISO 14040, the only approach to be considered

e.g. effect of nitrogen and biofuelSvebio

LCAse.g. IEA standard methodology for biofuels

But usually do not consider land use change other uses of land

But land is major limiting factor in the world ( Goklany 1992)

Population is increasing

Future energy consumption in OECD Europe may not increase (RIVM)

But may increase in Africa (RIVM)

Land cover may change drastically if agricultural productivity on a land basis is not increased in particular in Africa Cf. RIVM studies Image 2

=>a need for a systemic and integrated approach

over 50 or 100 years

INRA

The LU.LUC. CB & T approachfor Land Use, Land Use Change, Conversion of Biomass,and Transport approach

A systemic approach taking into account direct and net emissions, indirect emissions, avoided emissions

INRA

Combining - The territorial approach The Land Use, Land Use change and forestry approach Life cycle analysis related to all land products

and for Sustainable Development A 4 PRONGED APPROACH

Top DownLand /Food / Non food Bottom Up From eco-socio-systemsFrom End User NeedsFood Housing Transportation etc. Macro-economic modeling

1/ Emissions from all land (LU and LUC)INRA

And changes with time E.g. in Europe

In 1860 1ha for 1 t of grain,

In 1990 1/6 ha for 1 t of grain Gain: 5/6ha to do something else ( other crop, forestry , biofuel production )Loss: more N20 emissions More nitrate in water Final result : A huge net gain

Changes vary according to countries in the world, and the technology Industrialized countries, China, India; Still more efficient use of fertilizer

More intensive agriculture in Sub-Saharan Africa (often at the pre-industrial stage, depleting soils and leading to soil erosion)

And 2/ HUMAN USE OF BIOMASS2.1 Food - direct vegetables - via livestock2.2 Bioproducts 2.3. Recycling 2.4 Bioenergy 3/And END OF LIFE - Landfill - Incinration - Compost

1/RURAL AREA *Cropland *Grassland *Forest and others

2/HUMAN USE OF BIOMASS 2.1 Food - direct vegetables -via livestock 2.2 Bioproducts 2.3. Recycling 2.4 Bioenergy

3/END OF LIFE Landfill IncinrationCompost

4TRANSPORT INPUT

&INRA/ MIESwithin a country

1/RURAL AREA *Cropland *Grassland *Forest and others

2/HUMAN USE OF BIOMASS 2.1 Food - direct vegetables -via livestock 2.2 Bioproducts 2.3. Recycling 2.4 Bioenergy

3/END OF LIFE Landfill IncinrationCompost

4TRANSPORT INPUT

&INRA/ MIESWith international exchanges

For sustainable development A top down approachFood / Feed / Non food and Feed A bottom up approach considering local constraints, employment, local biodiversity, etc.. Mountains Semi arid landCompeting use of biomass etc.. End users approach ; (survival and other emissions)-Calories proteins lipids Housing transportation etc..Macro-modelling

On this basis we are forming a group to study options for 2050 For France ; at farm level, regional level, national level

For Brazil, Sub-Saharan Africa and India And we would like to include other industrial countries such as the US

Thank you

and if interested please

contact us

This does not really help to determine the maximum level not the pace at which we willhave to reach itHowever if present models are correct, sooner or later average annual emissions need to come down to around 2,5 to 3 GTC/year, which is about half of the present emissions or even less.If we assume that the acceptable level is around 450 ppm we will have to bring them down to about 3GtC/year in 2050For 650 ppm we have more time, but even in that case we will have to slow them down The Kyoto Protocol and all other efforts in this direction are therefore valuable to mobilize the World We should not forget that all changes will take time. Forgotten ?

1/ But the Kyoto Protocol remains a first and indispensable step paving the way for future actions1/ But the Kyoto Protocol remains a first and indispensable step paving the way for future actions