Arthur Riedacker INRA and Joseph Racapé MIES a.riedacker@wanadoo.fr

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

2. MAIN ASPECTS DISCUSSED 1/ Short term approaches (Kyoto Protocol or small GHG emission reductions) 2/Insufficiencies of present approaches for the long term

3. 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

4. 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

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

6. And

7. Emissions from agriculture in France ! 1990 2002 Agriculture Agriculture

8. 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%

9. Main options to reduce emissions in agriculture and forestry

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

11. Stabilization of GHG concentrations in the atmosphere at a non dangerous level • To allow adaptation of ecosystems • To not threaten Food Production • To allow sustainable economic development

12. Emissions curves to stabilize concentrations at various concentrations450, 650 or 850 ppmv Natural Uptake

13. Divide Global Emissions by 2 For equity => Divide by 4 in Industrial Countries => Maintain around the present level in Developing countries

14. Some studies • LESS (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

15. 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 reductions • N20 (mainly from nitrogen fertilizer …) • CH4 (from enteric fermentation, animal waste… ) • Land use planning

16. UNFCC GHG Inventoriesare • to assess emissions by country • to verify commitments but not for Policies and Measures That we will probably need in the long term…

17. They do not reflect net or avoided emissions

18. Carbon stock changes in Ecosystems

19. N2O, CH4

20. Harvest and Conversion Biomass for Food

21. Harvest and conversion of non food biomass

22. End of life cycle

23. 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

24. 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

25. e.g. effect of nitrogen and biofuelSvebio

26. LCAs e.g. IEA standard methodology for biofuels But usually do not consider land use change other uses of land

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

28. Population is increasing

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

30. But may increase in Africa (RIVM)

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

33. =>a need for a systemic and integrated approachover 50 or 100 years INRA

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

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

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

37. and for Sustainable Development A 4 PRONGED APPROACH Top Down Land /Food / Non food Bottom Up From eco-socio-systems From End User Needs Food Housing Transportation etc. Macro-economic modeling

38. 1/ Emissions from all land (LU and LUC) INRA

39. 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

40. 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)

41. And 2/ HUMAN USE OF BIOMASS 2.1 Food - direct vegetables - via livestock 2.2 Bioproducts 2.3. Recycling 2.4 Bioenergy 3/And END OF LIFE - Landfill - Incinération- Compost

42. & within 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 Bioenergy3/END OF LIFE Landfill IncinérationCompost 4TRANSPORT INPUT INRA/ MIES

43. & With international exchanges 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 Bioenergy3/END OF LIFE Landfill IncinérationCompost 4TRANSPORT INPUT INRA/ MIES

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

45. 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

46. Thank youand if interested please contact us