Developing farm-specific marginal abatement cost curves: Cost-effective greenhouse gas mitigation opportunities in sheep farming systems |
| |
| Institution: | 1. Center for Chinese Agricultural Policy, Institute of Geographic Sciences and Natural Resources Research, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Jia 11 Datun Road, Chaoyang District, Beijing 100101, China;2. Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Colorado State University, B330 Clark Bldg., Fort Collins, CO 80523-1172, USA;3. Division of Social Sciences, Memorial University, Grenfell Campus, 20 University Drive, Corner Brook, NL A2H 5G4, Canada;1. School of Economics and Trade, Guangdong University of Foreign Studies, 510006 Guangzhou, China;2. School of Management and Economics, Beijing Institute of Technology, 100081 Beijing, China;1. Ricardo-AEA, Gemini Building, Harwell, Didcot OX11 0QR, UK;2. Cranfield University, Cranfield, Bedfordshire MK43 0AL, UK;1. INRA/Vetagro Sup, UMR1213 Herbivores, F-63122 Saint-Genès-Champanelle, France;2. INRA, UMR1069 Sol Agro et hydrosystème Spatialisation, F-35000 Rennes, France;3. Agrocampus Ouest, F-35000 Rennes, France;4. Valorex, La Messayais, F-35210 Combourtillé, France;5. INRA, UMR1348 Pegase, F-35590 Saint-Gilles, France;1. Institute of Environment and Sustainable Development in Agriculture, Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Beijing 100081, China;2. Climate Economics Chair, Paris-Dauphine University, Paris 75002, France;3. Land Economy and Environment Research Group, Scotland''s Rural College, Edinburgh EH9 3JG, Scotland, UK;4. University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen AB24 3UU, Scotland, UK;5. Aberystwyth University, Aberystwyth SY23 3FL, UK;6. College of Resources and Environmental Sciences, China Agricultural University, Beijing 100193, China;7. College of Ecology and Environmental Science, Inner Mongolia Agricultural University, Hohhot 010018, Inner Mongolia, China;1. Tasmanian Institute of Agriculture, University of Tasmania, TAS 7320, Australia;2. Department of Environment and Primary Industries, Parkville, 32 Lincoln Square North, Carlton, VIC 3053, Australia;3. Melbourne School of Land and Environment, University of Melbourne, VIC 3010, Australia;4. Ivanhoe, 559 Bulart Bridge Road, Cavendish, VIC 3314, Australia |
| |
| Abstract: | Growing demand for agricultural produce, coupled with ambitious targets for greenhouse gas emissions reduction present the scientific, policy and agricultural sectors with a substantial mitigation challenge. Identification and implementation of suitable mitigation measures is driven by both the measures’ effectiveness and cost of implementation. Marginal abatement cost curves (MACCs) provide a simple graphical representation of the abatement potential and cost-effectiveness of mitigation measures to aid policy decision-making. Accounting for heterogeneity in farm conditions and subsequent abatement potentials in mitigation policy is problematic, and may be aided by the development of tailored MACCs. Robust MACC development is currently lacking for mitigation measures appropriate to sheep systems. This study constructed farm-specific MACCs for a lowland, upland and hill sheep farm in the UK. The stand-alone mitigation potential of six measures was modelled, against real farm baselines, according to assumed impacts on emissions and productivity. The MACCs revealed the potential for negative cost emissions’ abatement in the sheep industry. Improving ewe nutrition to increase lamb survival offered considerable abatement potential at a negative cost to the farmers across all farms while, lambing as yearlings offered negative cost abatement potential on lowland and upland farms. The results broadly advocate maximising lamb output from existing inputs on all farm categories, and highlight the importance of productivity and efficiency as influential drivers of emissions abatement in the sector. The abatement potentials and marginal costs of other measures (e.g. reducing mineral fertiliser use and selecting pasture plants bred to minimise dietary nitrogen losses) varied between farms, and this heterogeneity was more frequently attributable to differences in individual farm management than land classification. This has important implications for the high level policy sector as no two farms are likely to benefit from a generic one size fits all approach to mitigation. The construction of further case-study farm MACCs under varying farm conditions is required to define the biophysical and management conditions that each measure is most suited to, generating a more tailored set of sector-specific mitigation parameters. |
| |
| Keywords: | Agricultural emissions Red meat Climate change Carbon footprint Global warming IPCC |
| 本文献已被 ScienceDirect 等数据库收录！ |
|
