4th updated edition - European Commission...4 th updated edition on the occasion of the 17 th Conference of the Parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (COP 17) 28

4th updated edition

on the occasion of the 17th Conference of the Parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (COP 17)28 Nov. – 9 Dec. 2011Durban, South Africa

2011 EUR 21855 EN

European CommissionJoint Research Centre

Contact information

Frank Raes

Address: TP290 I-21020 Ispra (VA)E-mail: [email protected].: +39 0332 789958Fax.: +39 0332 785704

http://www.jrc.ec.europa.eu

The publication can be downloaded from

http://ccu.jrc.ec.europa.eu/

Legal NoticeNeither the European Commission nor any person acting on behalf of the Commission is responsible for the use that might be made of this publication.Its content does not necessarily reflect the official view of the European Commission

JRC 67564

EUR 21855 ENISBN 978-92-79-22008-1 (print)ISBN 978-92-79-22009-8 (PDF)

ISSN 1018-5593 (print)ISSN 1831-9424 (online)

doi:10.2788/96760

Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union

© European Union, 2011

Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged

Printed in Italy on recycled paper

Edited by Frank RaesAna Belen Prada BarrioGráinne MulhernTeiksma Buseva

2011 EUR 21855 EN

Table of Contents

FOREWORD

1

JRC’S RESEARCH ACTIVITIES

2

SCENARIO MODELLING

Low Carbon Roadmap to 2050

4

Limiting Near‐Term Climate Change

6

IMPACTS & ADAPTATION

Floods in Europe

8

Agriculture and Climate Change

10

Economic Impacts of Climate Change in the EU

12

The Adaptation Clearinghouse Mechanism

14

MITIGATION

Renewable Energies

16

CO2

Emissions from Vehicles

18

Energy and Greenhouse Gas Performance

20

CO2

Emissions from Maritime Transport

22

Carbon Capture and Storage

24

The Convenant

of Mayors

26

Meat Consumption and Climate Change

28

Biofuels

Demand

30

Biofuels, How Green are They?

32

Land Use, Land Use Change and Forestry

34

Reducing Emissions from Deforestation

36

MONITORING AND VERIFICATION

Trends in Greenhouse Gas Emissions

38

Soil Atlas of the Northern Circumpolar Region

40

Soil Atlas of Europe

40

Systematic Observations

42

CIVIL SOCIETY PERSPECTIVES

The JRC’s Climate Change Exhibition

44

ABBREVIATIONS

46

1

Foreword

International

climate

negotiations

received

unprecedented

attention

on

the

occasion

of

the

COP

15

meeting

in

Copenhagen

in

2009.

The

outcome

of

the

COP

15

did

not

meet

the

high

expectations

that

surrounded

it,

but

Europe’s

efforts

to

find

an

agreement

and

avoid

dangerous

climate

change

continue.

At

the

COP

17

meeting

in

Durban,

the

European

Union

aims to operationalise

the achievements of the COP 15 that were enhanced and confirmed at

the

COP

16

in

Cancun

in

2010.

The

EU

will

also

continue

to

pursue

a

comprehensive

legally

binding

agreement

as

the

basis

for

a

future

post‐2012

international

framework

to

combat

climate change.

With

the

creation

of

the

Directorate‐General

for

Climate

Action

(DG

CLIMA)

in

2010,

the

European Commission (EC) confirmed its strong commitment to addressing climate change. At

the same time a Memorandum of Understanding was established between DG CLIMA and the

Commissions’

Joint Research Centre

(JRC), which consolidates and advances the scientific and

technical support that the JRC provides for a range of climate policy initiatives.

The

present

fourth

edition

of

“Research

at

the

JRC

in

Support

of

EU

Climate

Change

Policy

Making”

describes

concrete

research

activities

and

results

that

contributed

to

the

EC

policy

initiatives of the past two years:

•

The

Commission’s

“Analysis

of

options

to

move

beyond

20%

greenhouse

gas

emission

reductions and assessing the

risk

of

carbon

leakage”,

and

the

“Roadmap

for moving

to a

competitive

low

carbon

economy

in

2050”,

which

have

been

particularly

significant

in

setting out a strategic vision for the EU.

•

The Commission’s work in developing a robust accounting framework for Land Use,

Land

Use

Change

and

Forestry

(LULUCF)

which

aims

to

achieve

a

clearer

picture

of

the

role

played in both emitting and removing greenhouse gases.

•

Preparations for an EU strategy following the White Paper

“Adapting

to

climate

change:

towards a European framework for action”, and the EU contribution to the Global Climate

Observing System (GCOS), which focuses on satellite and in situ

observations of climate in

the atmospheric, oceanic, and terrestrial domains.

This booklet further presents a wide range of activities that need to be addressed in order to

contribute to a sound science base for future policy action.

We consider the collaboration between our Directorates‐General to be of great importance in

continuing

and

tackling

global

climate

change

in

a

way

that

is

based

on

science,

environmentally and economically effective, and capable of attracting support from citizens in

Europe and worldwide.

Dominique Ristori

Jos

DelbekeDirector General

Director GeneralJoint Research Centre

Directorate‐General for Climate Action

2

JRC’s

Research Activitiesin support of EU climate change policy making

The

JRC

aims

to

determine

the

costs

and

benefits

of

mitigation

and

adaptation

polices in monetary and non‐monetary terms.

Benefits

are

assessed

not

only

in

terms

of

reducing

climate

change

risks,

but

also

in

terms of enhancing energy security, reducing air pollution, protecting against climate

variability, etc.

Within this context the JRC performs studies in the following five areas:

•

Scenario

modelling:

Ex‐ante

evaluation

of

the

environmental

and

economic

effectiveness of mitigation and adaptation strategies.

•

Impacts

&

Adaptation:

Quantitative

assessment

of

the

exposure

and

vulnerability

of

various

forms

of

‘capital’

(e.g.

infrastructure,

human

life,

biodiversity)

to

climate

change

hazards,

and

assessment

of

the

benefits,

co‐benefits

and

costs

of

reducing

exposure and vulnerability.

•

Mitigation: Quantitative assessment of the benefits, co‐benefits and cost of various

options to reduce climate change hazards by reducing greenhouse gas emissions and

enhancing their sinks.

•

Monitoring

and

Verification:

Development

and

promotion

of

EU

and

global

methodologies

for

monitoring

the

drivers

and

effects

of

climate

change,

monitoring

the effectiveness of policies and verifying reported data and claims.

•

Civil

Society

Perspectives:

Awareness

building

and

assessment

of the

social

acceptance

of

climate

change

risks

and

climate

change

policies

through

the

involvement of civil society.

The JRC Climate Change Research Strategy explores climate change

questions from a

European

and

global

perspective,

in

support

of

European

Commission

services,

EU

Member States and international organisations.

This

report

describes

the

various

JRC

activities

grouped

according

to

the

five

areas

mentioned above.

3

To address the climate change problem, both mitigation (by reducing greenhouse gas emissions)

and adaptation (by

reducing

exposure

and

vulnerability to

climate

change

impacts)

are

needed.

The JRC assesses the options and costs of such policies, as well

as their benefits and co‐benefits.

The

JRC

furthermore

monitors

the

implementation

and

effectiveness

of

climate

change

policies,

by supporting international programmes engaged in the monitoring

of essential climate variables

related to the atmosphere, the ocean and land.

4

Low Carbon Roadmap to 2050Modelling energy futures for meeting the 2C target

To avoid dangerous climate change, the EU has a stated objective

of limiting the global mean

temperature

increase

to

2°C

compared

to

preindustrial

times.

The

Intergovernmental

Panel

on

Climate

Change

(IPCC)

reported

in

2007

that,

in

order

to

reach

that

target,

global

emissions

of

greenhouse

gases

would

have

to

be

halved

by

2050

compared

to

1990

levels.

Developed

countries,

however,

would

need

to

adopt

a

reduction

target

within

the

range

of

80

to

95%

below

1990

emissions

by

2050.

The

European

Council

and

Parliament

endorsed

this as an EU objective.

Several EC Communications have analysed potential climate policies. In 2011, the EC adopted

a

Communication

entitled

“A

Roadmap

for

moving

to

a

competitive

low

carbon

economy

in

2050”.

In

support

of

this

Communication,

the

JRC

used

the

POLES

(Prospective

Outlook

on

Long‐term

Energy

Systems)

world

energy

sector

model

to

assess

the

technological

and

economic effects of various scenarios

designed to meet the 2°C target.

The

80

to

95%

reduction

target

for

developed

countries,

as

presented

in

the

IPCC's

4th

Assessment Report, covers both internal reductions and the use of international credits. The

POLES

model

was

applied

to

assess

the

order

of

magnitude

of

the

internal

reductions

required of the EU by 2050 in line with the 2°C

objective. Three scenarios were analysed:•

Global Baseline: globally no additional climate action is undertaken up to 2050;•

Global Action: global action halving global emissions by 2050 compared to 1990;• Fragmented Action: EU pursues a decarbonisation strategy but other countries do

not

follow.

They

only

comply

with

the

lower

end

of

the

Copenhagen

Accord

pledges

until

2020 and undertake no additional efforts after 2020.

A

review

of

the

latest

scientific

literature

and

the

model

projections

by

the

POLES

model

show that, in order to reach the 2°C target, the EU would need to reduce its greenhouse gas

emissions internally by at least 75% by 2050 compared to 1990.

Key publications:

European Commission (2011): A Roadmap for moving to a competitive low carbon economy in

2050, Impact Assessment. SEC(2011) 288.

Russ P., Ciscar

J.C., Saveyn

B.,

Soria

A.,

Szabó

L.,

Van

Ierland,T.,

Van

Regemorter

D.,

Virdis

R.

(2009):

Economic

Assessment

of

Post‐2012

Global

Climate

Policies.

Global

Climate

Policies,

EUR 23768 EN.

Russ P., Van Ierland

T. (2009): Insights on different participation schemes to meet climate

goals. Energy Economics 31 (Supplement 2);

S163‐S173. JRC56838

.

For more info:[email protected]

Economics of Climate Change, Energy and Transport Unit

Institute for Prospective Technological Studies

mailto:[email protected]

5

Figure 1: GHG emission pathway in case of Global Action, for all

sectors and gases

Figure 2: Per capita GHG emissions (in t CO2

‐eq/capita) in the Global Action scenario

World

Developed Countries

Developing Countries

EU 27

China

1990 2010 2030 2050

16

14

12

10

8

6

4

2

0

6

Black

carbon

and

ozone

in

the

lower

troposphere

are

pollutants

that

can

have

harmful

impacts on human health and ecosystems. They also contribute to global warming. Emissions

of

black

carbon

and

ozone

precursors

are

expected

to

increase

in

many

parts

of

the

world.

For

this

reason,

the

United

Nations

Environmental

Programme

(UNEP)

and

the

World

Meteorological

Organization

(WMO)

initiated

a

study

to

investigate

which

known

and

feasible

emission

control

measures

could

help

to

improve

air

quality

while

also

reducing

global warming.

The study identified a set of 16 of such measures (see Table 1) which target in particular the

emissions of black

carbon,

methane

and

other

ozone

precursors,

while

leaving

emissions

of

other gases such as sulfur

dioxide largely untouched.

As a contribution to the

UNEP‐WMO

study,

the

JRC

applied

the

ECHAM5‐HAMMOZ

General

Circulation Model to study how the implementation

of

the selected

set

of

control

measures

would influence concentrations of black carbon and tropospheric

ozone and their impact on

climate (see Figure 1). If these measures are immediately implemented, they will contribute

to reducing average global warming by 0.5°C by 2050. Only if measures to reduce emissions

of

carbon

dioxide

and

other

long‐lived

greenhouse

gas

emissions

are

implemented

simultaneously,

can

the

long

term

target

of

keeping

the

increase

in

global

atmospheric

temperature below 2°C (compared to pre‐industrial times) be reached.

It

is

generally

agreed

that

measures

to

reduce

black

carbon

and

tropospheric

ozone

should

be

developed

within

regional

air

pollution

policy

frameworks. However,

the

assessment

of

whether activities within these regional frameworks sum up to something significant for the

global climate requires a global modelling and monitoring approach.

Key publication:

Shindell

D., Kuylenstierna

J.C.I., Vignati E., Van Dingenen R., Amann

M., Klimont

Z., Anenberg

S.C., Muller N., Janssens‐Maenhout G., Raes F., Schwartz J., Faluvegi

G., Pozzoli

L.,

Kupiainen

K.,

Höglund‐Isaksson

L.,

Emberson

L.,

Streets

D.,

Ramanathan

V.,

Hicks

K.,

Kim.

Oanh

N.

T.,

Milly

G., Williams M., Demkine

V., Fowler D. (2011): Mitigating near‐term climate change and

improving

human

health

and

food

security

though

black

carbon

and

methane

emissions

controls, submitted to Science.

For more info:[email protected] Change and Air Quality Unit

Institute for Environment and Sustainability

Limiting Near‐Term Climate ChangeUNEP assessment on black carbon and tropospheric ozone


7

Figure 1: Reduction in radiative

forcing at the top of the atmosphere (W/m2) caused by a full

implementation of the UNEP‐WMO measures. This reduction in radiative

forcing could result

in a reduction of the global mean temperature increase by about 0.5C by 2050, if the

measures are implemented over the next 20 years.

Methane measures Black carbon measures

Pre‐mine degasification and recovery of CH4

from

coal mine ventilation Standards for the reduction of pollutants from

road and off‐road vehices, including diesel

particle filtres

Recovery and utilisation of CH4

and improved

control of fugitive emissions from oil and natural

gas production

Eliminating high‐emitting vehicles in road and off‐

road transport

Reduced gas leakage from long‐distance

transmission pipelinesReplacing coal by coal briquettes in cooking and

heating stoves

Separation and treatment of biodegradable

municipal wastePettet stoves and boilers to replace current wood

burning technologies in industrialised countries

Upgrading primary wastewater treatment to

include gas recoveryIntroducing clean‐burning biomass stoves for

cooking and heating in developing countries

Control of CH4

emissions from livestock Replacing traditional brick kilns with vertical shaft

and Hoffman kilns

Intermittent aeration of continuously flooded rice

paddiesReplacing traditional coke ovens with modern

recovery ovens

Table 1: Measures identified by the UNEP‐WMO assessment

to reduce methane and black

carbon emissions, which would be beneficial for air quality and

reduce global warming

8

Floods in EuropeThe changing hydrological cycle

To support EU climate change policy, the JRC has developed a methodology to

assess

global

warming

induced

changes

in

the

hydrological

cycle

and

the

consequent

socio‐economic

impacts.

The

physical

impact

assessment

integrates

high‐resolution

regional

climate

information,

pan‐European

hydro‐morphological

datasets,

hydrological

modelling

and

statistical

analysis

to

predict

changes

in

hydrological

variables

(see

Figure

1).

The

socio‐

economic

impacts

are

estimated

by

combining

the

physical

impact

with

information

on

exposure (capital, population and ecological assets) and vulnerability (measure of the extent

to which a system can be affected).

Resulting

economic

impacts

of

floods

estimated

within

the

PESETA‐I

and

FP7

CLIMATECOST

study

show

that,

under

a

medium‐high

emission

baseline

(A1B),

with

no

mitigation

or

adaptation,

the

current

Expected

Annual

Damage

of

approximately

€5.5

billion

is

projected

to reach €20 billion by the 2020s (2011‐2040), €46 billion by the 2050s (2041‐2070) and €98

billion

by

the

2080s

(2071‐2100)

in

the

EU‐27.

However,

a

large

part of

this is

due

to

socio‐

economic

changes.

The

marginal

effect

of

climate

change

is

estimated

at

€9

billion/year

by

the

2020s,

€19

billion/year

by

the

2050s

and

€50

billion/year

by

the

2080s.

These

are

then

also

roughly

the

values

of

the

economic

benefits

of

protecting

against

1‐in‐100‐year

flood

events across Europe under the A1B scenario. The costs of maintaining minimum protection

levels are estimated at €1.7 billion/year by the 2020s, €3.4 billion/year by the 2050s and €7.9

billion/year by the 2080s for the EU.

Key publication:Feyen

L.,

Dankers

R.,

Bódis

K.,

Salamon

P.,

Barredo

J.I.

(2011):

Fluvial

flood

risk

in

Europe

in

present and future climates. Climatic Change, in press.

Rojas

R.,

Feyen

L.,

Dosio

A.,

and

Bavera

D

(2011):

Improving

pan‐European

hydrological

simulation

of

extreme

events

through

statistical

bias

correction

of

RCM‐driven

climate

simulations. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences, 15, 2599‐2620.

For more info: [email protected]

Land Management and Natural Hazards Unit


9

Figure

1:

Relative

change

in

100‐year

flood

magnitude

(measured

as

discharge

in

cubic

meters

per

second)

between

the

control

period

(1961‐1990) and

(a)

1981‐2010,

(b)

2011‐

2040,

(c)

2041‐2070

and

(d)

2071‐2100,

based

on

an

ensemble

of

LISFLOOD

simulations

driven

by

12

climate

models

using

the

A1B

scenario.

Red

indicates

a

decrease

in

flood

magnitude, blue indicates more severe floods.

An increase in flooding is projected in several major European rivers and even in regions such

as in Southern Europe, where it will get drier on average. In North‐eastern Europe, however,

the hazard of extreme snowmelt floods is projected to decrease.

mean: 1.06; std: 0.21; min: 0.20; max: 2.50

mean: 1.02; std: 0.09; min: 0.50; max: 1.57 mean: 1.07; std: 0.11; min: 0.41; max: 1.85

mean: 1.06; std: 0.18; min: 0.32; max: 2.93 mean: 1.06; std: 0.21; min: 0.20; max: 2.50

10

Under

the

projected

changes

in

climate,

the

long‐term

sustainability

of

agricultural

production

systems

and

associated

livelihoods

is

unattainable

without

the

development

of

adequate

adaptation

strategies.

Robust

and

quantitative

assessment

tools

that

estimate

climate

change

risks

and

vulnerabilities

are

crucial

to

decision

makers

in

the

context

of

assessing trade‐offs, synergies and priorities for resource allocation in tackling the impacts of

climate change on agriculture.

Over

the

past

twenty

years,

the

JRC

has

been

assisting

the

European

Commission

in

the

implementation

of

the

Common

Agricultural

Policy

(CAP)

and

associated

decision

making

processes

such

as

market

interventions,

by

operationally

producing

in‐season

crop

yield

forecasts at a European level. To do this, the JRC uses a crop modelling infrastructure driven

by agro‐meteorological data and assisted by remotely sensed observations.

Recently,

a

new

modelling

platform,

BioMA

(Biophysical

Models

Application),

has

been

developed

within

the

JRC.

This

model

increases

the

JRC’s

modelling

capacities

and

extends

its crop monitoring expertise to

analyse

climate

change

impacts on

agricultural

productivity

under

future

emission

scenarios.

Because

crop

growth

models

are

very

sensitive

to

meteorological input data, statistical corrections and stochastic weather generation activities

must be carried out in order to adapt the

climate

simulated

from

emission scenarios

to the

requirements

of

crop

models.

Comparing

simulations

based

on

different

initial

conditions,

parameterisations, or drivers allows for the assessment of the potential impact of increased

stress (such as water‐limitation, diseases (see Figure 1), or abiotic

stress) on crop yields and

for

the

exploration

of

adaptation

strategies

to

minimise

these

effects.

In

the

framework

of

different

projects

working

on

impact

studies,

the

BioMA

platform

is

being

deployed

over

different

agricultural

landscapes

in

Europe,

Latin

America,

and

West

Africa

to

simulate

impacts

for

a

variety

of

crops

such

as

wheat,

maize,

rice,

grapevine,

soybean,

millet

and

cotton.

Short‐

to

medium

term

horizons

(2020,

2030

and

2050)

are

targeted,

based

on

emission scenarios proposed by the IPCC.

Key publications:

Bellocchi

G.,

Rivington

M.,

Donatelli

M.,

Matthews

K.

(2010):

Validation

of

biophysical

models:

issues

and

methodologies.

A

review.

Agronomy

for

Sustainable

Development,

30,

109‐130.

Bregaglio

S.,

Donatelli

M.,

Confalonieri

R.,

Acutis

M.,

Orlandini

S.

(2011):

Multi

metric

evaluation

of

leaf

wetness

models

for

large‐area

application

of

plant

disease

models.

Agricultural and Forest Meteorology, 151 (9), 1163‐1172.


Monitoring Agriculture Resources Unit


Agriculture and Climate ChangeAssessing the impact of changes in growing conditions


11

Figure 1: Crop diseases develop largely as the result of fungal responses to temperature and

humidity. Infection can be taken as an indication of potential damage to untreated crops. The

figure

illustrates

projected

differences

between

2000

and

2020

in

the

potential

infection

events

per

year

of

a

pathogen:

potato

leaf

blight

(Phytophthora

infestans).

In

general,

the

projections

show

an

increased

number

of

events

with

favourable

conditions

for

the

disease,

hence

a

greater

pressure

on

potato

crops.

While

some

reduction

in

the

number

of

potential

infection

events

(i.e.

less

disease

pressure)

is

estimated

in

many

coastal

areas

and

in

Southern Europe, worsening

conditions

for

potato

crops

are

projected

for

the

key

producing

areas in Central and Northern Europe.

Change in potential infection events per year of potato leaf blight

12

Economic Impacts of Climate Change in the EUThe PESETA–I study

The

main

purpose

of

the

PESETA‐I

(Projection

of

Economic

impacts

of

climate

change

in

Sectors of

the

European

Union

based

on

boTtom‐up

Analysis)

study

(Ciscar

et

al.,

2011)

was

to

make

a

consistent

physical

and

economic

assessment

of

the

impacts

of

climate

change

in

Europe

at

the

end

of

the

21st

century.

The

study

integrated

four

market

impact

categories

(agriculture,

coastal

areas,

tourism

and

river

floods)

in

an

economic

modelling

framework

of

computable general equilibrium. The analysis assessed the welfare effects that might result if

the climate of the 2080s were imposed on today’s socio‐economic context. The main result is

that,

without

public

adaptation,

the

welfare

loss

in

the

2080s’

climate

would

range

between

0.2% and 1% of the current welfare level, depending on the climate scenario (Figure 1).

It

is

interesting

to

note

that

there

is

a

high

variation

across

regions

and

impact

categories.

Climate

change

could

therefore

have

large

distributional

consequences

both

regionally

and

sectorally.

Most

European

regions

would

register

welfare

losses

in

the

2080

scenarios.

Northern

Europe

would

benefit

from

climate

change,

for

the

impacts

considered,

mainly

because

of

large

agricultural

crop

yield

gains.

Southern

Europe

is

the

only

region

that

shows

losses in all impact categories. Under the most extreme climate change scenarios (5.4°C global

mean

temperature

increase

and

88

cm

rise

in

sea

level),

the

welfare

losses

in

Southern

Europe could reach 1.6%. Moreover, welfare losses increase disproportionally

to

increases

in

temperature.

In

general

terms,

agriculture,

river

floods

and

coastal

systems

account

for

the

majority of the climate damages considered in the study.

Key publication:

Ciscar

J.‐C., Iglesias A., Feyen

L., Szabó

L., Van Regemorter

D., Amelung

B., Nicholl

R., Watkiss

P., Christensen O. B., Dankersc

R., Garrote

L., Goodess

C. M., Hunt A., Moreno A., Richards J.,

and

Soria

A.

(2011):

Physical

and

economic

consequences

of

climate

change

in

Europe.

Proceedings

of

the

National

Academy

of

Science,

January

31,

2011,

doi:10.1073/pnas.1011612108.

For more info:juan‐[email protected]

[email protected]

Economics of Climate Change, Energy and Transport


mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]

13

Figure 1: Sectoral

and geographical decomposition of welfare loss, if the 2080 climate were

imposed on the socio‐economic reality of today. Source: Ciscar

et al. (2011)

-1.0% -0.5% 0.0% 0.5% 1.0% 1.5% 2.0%Welfare Loss

2.5°C3.9°C5.4°C

5.4°C, 88 cm SLR

2.5°C3.9°C5.4°C

5.4°C, 88 cm SLR

2.5°C3.9°C5.4°C

5.4°C, 88 cm SLR

2.5°C3.9°C5.4°C

5.4°C, 88 cm SLR

2.5°C3.9°C5.4°C

5.4°C, 88 cm SLR

2.5°C3.9°C5.4°C

5.4°C, 88 cm SLRS

outh

ern

Eur

ope

Cen

tral

Eur

ope

Sou

th

Cen

tral

Eur

ope

Nor

thB

ritis

h Is

les

Nor

ther

nE

urop

eE

U Agriculture

Coastal systems

River floods

Tourism

14

The Adaptation Clearinghouse MechanismProviding EU wide data

The

need

for

an

Adaptation

Clearinghouse

was

identified

in

the

Commission’s

2009

White

Paper

“Adapting

to

climate

change:

Towards

a

European

framework

for

action”.

A

call

for

tender

was

published

in

2010

and

the

Adaptation

Clearinghouse

Mechanism

is

currently

under

development.

The

Clearinghouse

will

eventually

be

hosted

at

the

European

Environment Agency. The JRC supports the development of the Clearinghouse mechanism by

helping

with

its

management

and

by

providing

data

and

content

to

the

Clearinghouse

from

the following in‐house sources:•

European Soil Data Centre;•

European Forest Data Centre;•

Regional Climate Data Repository;•

European Database of Vulnerabilities;•

European Floods Portal;•

AGRI4CAST Agro‐meteorological and crop growth modeling systems;•

Integrated Land Use Modeling Platform;•

European Drought Observatory.

The

Clearinghouse

Mechanism

is

intended

to

comply

with

the

INSPIRE

Directive

and

its

Implementing

Rules

adopted

(or

to

be

adopted)

for:

Metadata,

Data

Interoperability,

Network

Services

(where

applicable),

Data

and

Service

Sharing,

Monitoring

and

Reporting.

The JRC provides the content from the abovementioned sources as follows:•

Metadata

for

all

listed

JRC

content

is

collected,

controlled

&

provided

to

the

Clearinghouse via the JRC Reference Data and Services Initiative

(a portal in which all JRC

reference

data

is

identified

and

described

by

INSPIRE‐compliant

metadata

and

can

be

subsequently retrieved using a search engine). •

Content:

data

information

sources

and

maps

are

supplied

from

the

individual

data

sources.

For

the

content,

bias

corrected

temperature

and

precipitation

fields

based

on

the

regional

climate

model

runs

produced

in

the

ENSEMBLES

project

(http://www.ensembles‐eu.org/)

have

been

produced

by

and

delivered

to the JRC

Regional

Climate

Data

Repository.

As

well

as

providing

content

for

the

Clearinghouse,

they

are

used

by

the

European

Database

of

Vulnerabilities, The European Floods Portal and AGRI4CAST in generating their own content.

Documenting

this

lineage

via

the

metadata

is

a

key

motivation

for

insisting

on

compliancy

with INSPIRE Implementing rules (see Figure 1).

Key publication:

Dosio A., Paruolo

P. (2011): Bias correction of the ENSEMBLES high‐resolution climate change

projections

for

use

by

impact

models:

Evaluation

on

the

present

climate.

Journal

of

Geophysical Research‐Atmospheres 116 (D16106); doi:10.1029/2011JD015934.


Climate Change and Air Quality Unit


http://www.ensembles-eu.org/mailto:[email protected]

15

ENSEMBLES

regional climate

scenario runs:12 GCM/RCM

model

combinations,

A1B & E1

scenarios

RCDR bias

corrected

ENSEMBLES

regional climate

parameters (T,

precip.)12 runs A1B & E1

Vulnerabilities, RCDR T

& precip. based

indicators)

Floods: RDCR T &

precip. + windspeed,

relative humidity

AGRI4CAST: RDCR

Daily T & precip

+ solar

radn, wind, RH,

evapotrans, vapour

press. deficit =>

weather generator

Figure

1:

Schematic

of

the

lineage

between

the

ENSEMBLES

regional

climate

simulation

ensemble

and

the

content

to

be

provided

to

the

Clearinghouse

Mechanism

by

several JRC

sources. (RCDR: JRC Regional Climate Data Repository)

16

Renewable EnergiesPotential and growth in Europe and worldwide

Key publications:

Jäger‐Waldau

A.,

Szabó

M.,

Scarlat

N.,

Monforti‐Ferrario

F.

(2011):

Renewable

Electricity

in

Europe. Renewable & Sustainable Energy Reviews 15, 3703–

3716.

Szabó

S., Bódis

K., Huld

T., Moner‐Girona

M.

(2011):

Energy solutions in rural Africa: mapping

electrification

costs

of

distributed

solar

and

diesel

generation

versus

grid

extension,.Environmental

Research Letters 6, 034002 (9pp).


Renewable Energy Unit

Institute for Energy and Transport

European energy strategy and policy is strongly driven by the twin objectives of sustainability

and

security

of

energy

supply.

Implementation

of

renewable

energy

systems

and

improved

energy efficiency are key means by which to achieve these objectives.

The

JRC

monitors

the

development

and

use

of

renewable

energy

sources

and

energy

efficiency

best

practices,

and

compares

these

with

targets

set

in

EU

directives. It

acts

as

a

“one‐stop

shop”

for

quality‐checked,

robust

and

validated

data

for

European

Institutions,

Member

States

and

stakeholders.

It

provides

feedback

on

the

effectiveness

of

renewable

energy policy measures, particularly with respect to CO2

emission reductions.

An important objective of the JRC’s

activities is to help industry reach voluntary agreements

on

cutting

demand

for

electricity

by

accelerating

the

development

and

uptake

of

new

technologies. The

JRC

develops

methodologies

to

measure

energy

savings

associated

with

specific policies and programmes and assesses the Member States'

national actions plans on

energy

efficiency.

It

also

carries

out

research

and

analysis

on

policy

instruments

such

as

tradable

energy

efficiency

certificates

(white

certificates),

demand

response,

and

energy

service companies.

The

JRC

is

also

active

in

specific

technological

areas

where

research

and

harmonisation

is

required,

such

as

the

assessment

of

bioenergy

resources

and

the

environmental

impact

of

cultivating energy crops. In a rapidly growing and increasingly competitive environment,

the

photovoltaics

industry relies on the JRC’s

European Solar Test Installation (ESTI) for reference

performance

measurements,

to

develop

international

testing standards

that will

ensure

fair

and transparent markets for new products.

The geographic frame of these activities is not restricted to Europe. For instance, in line with

the

UN’s

strategies

for

increasing

access

to

energy,

the

JRC

works

on

the

assessment

of

renewable

energies

potential

in

Africa

(see

Figure

1),

focusing

on

knowledge

transfer

to

promote the use of renewable energies in rural electrification.


17

Figure

1:

Cost

of

photovoltaic

(PV)

electricity

in

the

Mediterranean

Basin,

Africa

and

South‐

West

Asia assuming

a

PV

system

with

optimally‐tilted

modules,

performance

ratio

0.75,

system

price

€2,000/kWp,

payback

time

30

years,

interest

rate

5%

p.a.,

and

annual

maintenance cost equal to 1% of the system cost. © European Union, 2011

An online

tool for estimating electricity generation of photovoltaic systems on a regional level

is

available

at

http://re.jrc.ec.europa.eu/pvgis/.

It

combines

photovoltaic

performance

models

with

long

term

historical

solar

radiation

data

from

ground

measurements

and

satellites,

integrated

into

a

dataset

covering

Europe

and

Africa,

including

topographical

shadowing conditions.

Photovoltaic Solar Electricity Potential in the Mediterranean Basin, Africa and Southwest Asia

http://re.jrc.ec.europa.eu/pvgis/

18

CO2

Emissions from Vehicles

The

Transport

White

Paper

which

was

adopted

by

the

Commission

in

March

2011

has

set

very ambitious objectives for cutting greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from transport, with a

goal

of

cutting

60%

of

1990

levels

by

2050.

Road

transport

is

the

main

source

of

these

emissions, which amount to 71% of all transport‐related GHGs.

The

Commission

has

been

trying

to

reduce

GHG

emissions

from

road

transport

for

some

years.

Carbon

dioxide

(CO2

)

emissions

from

new

passenger

cars

registered

in

Europe

are

monitored in order to meet the objectives of Regulation EC 443/2009 (average CO2

emissions

of

130

g/km

for

new

cars

by

2015).

The

Commission

aims

to

further

decrease

emissions

to

95g/km

by

2020.

In

addition,

a

new

methodology

for

accurate

monitoring

of

CO2

emissions

from heavy duty vehicles

is now being developed with the help of the JRC.

However,

there

are

still

some

measuring

and

reporting

problems.

CO2

emissions

of

new

passenger cars are currently determined by vehicle type‐approval which involves testing over

the New European Driving Cycle. However,

real‐world fuel consumption is significantly higher

‐

about 12% for gasoline (see Figure 1) and about 16% for diesel.

The

main

objective

of

the

studies

performed

at

the

JRC

is

to

develop

functions

that

may

enable

real

world

fuel

consumption

values

to

be

predicted,

based

on

vehicle

specifications

over

actual

driving

conditions.

These

functions

can

then

be

used

in

inventorying

tools,

such

as COPERT and HBEFA, to correctly allocate CO2

emissions to the different vehicle types and

assess the actual impact of European CO2

‐reduction initiatives.

The

JRC

also carries

out

activities

to

support

the

Commission’s

monitoring

of

CO2

emissions

from

the

heavy

duty

vehicles

sector.

These

activities

include

the

development

of

vehicle

simulation

models

and

extensive

experimental

activities to

formulate

a

robust

and

accurate

emissions calculation protocol. For example, in Figure 2 the results of a real world emissions

measurement

campaign

are

compared

against

equivalent

values

from

literature

and

the

COPERT tool. It is clear that there is still room for improvement of the emission inventorying

tools.

For the year 2012, the JRC has undertaken to coordinate a large‐scale pilot phase that will be

carried

out

in

collaboration

with

some

of

the

largest

European

transport

laboratories

and

heavy duty vehicle manufacturers. During these

tests the

new

methodologies,

experimental

protocols and simulation tools will be evaluated.

Key publication:

Dilara P.,

Fontaras

G.

(eds)

(2011):

Parameterisation

of

fuel

consumption

and

CO2

emissions

of passenger cars and light commercial vehicles for modelling purposes. EUR 24927 EN.


Sustainable Transport Unit



19

PC Petrol: Ratio FC InUse / FC TA - Average +/- StdDev

-10%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

ADAC AMS AR TCS A300DB SMon All

Figure 1. Ratio of real‐world fuel consumption (FC InUse) over type‐approval consumption (FC

TA). (FC InUse data based on 5,800 cars from 6 databases)

Figure 2. Results of CO2

and pollutant emissions from heavy duty vehicle measurements and

comparison with respective values retrieved from emission inventorying tools (COPERT) and

literature. The reference emissions are those under real world conditions. (CNG: Compressed Natural Gas)

Gasoline Passenger Cars: Ratio FC InUse

/ FC TA

Reference values (Diesel Euro 5 average emissions)CO2 : 2.43 kg/km, HC: 0.21 g/km, NOx: 32.3 g/km, PM: 46.4m g/km

20

Energy and Greenhouse Gas PerformanceFocus on road transport

The

European climate, energy, transport and research policy objectives highlight the need to

develop

alternative,

sustainable

energy

sources

for

Europe’s

dynamic

transportation

sector,

which

is

a

key

element

of

European

competitiveness

on

the

global

scale.

Assessing

the

performance of fuel alternatives may nonetheless prove to be a tricky matter, if a cradle‐to‐

grave approach is adopted.

The

Well‐to‐Wheels

(WTW)

analysis

is

being

carried

out

by

the

JEC

research

collaboration,

made

up

of

the

Joint

Research

Centre

(JRC),

the

European

Council

for

Automotive

Research

(EUCAR)

and

the

oil

companies'

European

association

for

environment,

health

and

safety

in

refining

and

distribution

(CONCAWE).

It

has

the

objective

of

estimating

greenhouse

gas

(GHG)

emissions,

and

the

energy

efficiency

and

industrial

costs

of

all

conventional

and

alternative

automotive

fuels

and

powertrains

representative

of

the

European

situation.

A

shift

to

renewable

or

low

fossil

carbon

fuels

may

offer

significant

GHG

reduction

potential,

but generally requires greater amounts of energy in total. It is

therefore

crucial

that specific

fuel/energy production pathways be combined

with powertrain

efficiency.

The

WTW

analysis,

initiated

in

the

year

2000,

evolves

by

periodic

updates

(third

complete

revision

issued

in

October

2011)

that

incorporate

regulatory

developments

and

process

improvements. Today this analysis is a scientific reference in Europe.

Key publication:

Edwards R., Larivé

J‐F., Beziat

J‐C. (2011): Well‐to‐Wheels Analysis of Future Automotive Fuels

and Power Trains in the European Context ‐

Report, Version 3c. EUR 24952

EN.

http://iet.jrc.ec.europa.eu/about‐[email protected]




http://iet.jrc.ec.europa.eu/about-jecmailto:[email protected]:[email protected]

21

Figure

1.

Well‐to‐Wheels

energy

efficiency

and

GHG

emissions

for

Compressed

Biogas

(CBG)

from

3

different

origins

and

for

conventional

gasoline

(used

in

2010+

vehicles).

Energy

efficiency

is

lower

for biogas

than

for gasoline

in the Well‐to‐Tank (WTT) part, because

of the

energy

needed

to transform

the waste

products

into

biogas. Energy

efficiency

is

comparable

for all fuel pathways

in the Tank‐

to‐Wheels

(TTW) part. Biogas

derived

from

waste

products

partially

avoids

GHG emissions

and therefore

has a more

favourable

GHG balance than

gasoline. In the case of liquid

manure, one actually

reduces

the

overall

emissions

because

of capturing

and use of methane.

+

22

CO2

Emissions from Maritime TransportMarket‐based and technological control options

CO2

emissions from international maritime transport, estimated to account for 3‐5% of total

global

CO2

emissions,

are

expected

to

increase.

The

current

policy

actions

dealing

with

emissions

from

international

maritime

transport

relate

mainly

to

the

fuel

used

and

to

the

technological

options

available.

Market

based

instruments

such

as

emissions

trading

are

being

discussed

at

international

level

within

the

International

Maritime

Organization.

Furthermore,

the

maritime

transport

sector

is

also

being

considered

for

inclusion

in

the

EU

Emission Trading Scheme (ETS).

There

is

significant

potential

for

abating

emissions

from

the

shipping

sector.

Technical

solutions

to

reduce

fuel

consumption,

air

pollutants

and

greenhouse

gases

are

readily

available

and

range

from

better

ship

design,

propulsion

and

machinery

to

optimised

operation.

The JRC has analysed the methodological issues raised within the

scientific community about

assessing

the

impacts

of

the

maritime

sector

on

the

environment,

and

identified

shortcomings in reliable and comprehensive sources of information.

In its Reference Report entitled ‘Regulating air emissions from ships’

(Miola et al., 2010), the

JRC provides a detailed assessment of the cost efficiency and abatement potential of a range

of

technological

(fuel‐

and

engine‐related)

options.

However,

to

achieve

significant

improvements in the reduction of carbon emissions and air pollution, technological solutions

should be supplemented with other measures. Regional and global market‐based options are

analysed in the Reference Report, in particular the EU ETS.

Key publications:

Miola

A.,

Ciuffo

B.

(2011):

Estimating

air

emissions

from

ships:

meta‐analysis

of

modelling

approaches and available data sources. Atmospheric Environment, 45 (13), pp. 2242‐2251.

Miola

A.,

Ciuffo

B.,

Giovine

E.,

Marra

M.

(2010):

Regulating

air

emissions

from

ships.

The

State

of

the

Art

on

Methodologies,

Technologies

and

Policy

Options.

JRC

Reference

Report.

EUR 24602 EN; ISBN 978‐92‐79‐17733‐0.

Miola A., Marra M., Ciuffo B. (2011): Designing a

climate

change

policy

for

the

international

maritime

transport

sector:

Market‐based

measures

and

technological

options

for

global

and

regional policy actions. Energy Policy 39 (9), pp. 5490‐5498.


Sustainability Assessment Unit


23

Geographical

characterisation

of

the

CO2

emissions

in

2001,

via

improved

traffic

proxy

(ICOADS and AMVER databases combination following the approach reported in Wang et al.,

2008).

The

two

buffers,

Europe_Buffer_12

and

Europe_Buffer_200,

are

used

to

calculate

emissions produced by international shipping within 12 miles (Territorial Sea) and within 200

miles (Exclusive Economic Zone) respectively.

24

Carbon Capture and StorageA tool for pan‐European optimisation

of infrastructure

Fossil fuels will remain the main resource for electricity generation

in

Europe,

at

least

in

the

short to

medium

term,

despite

the

significant ongoing

efforts

to

promote

renewable

energy

technologies and energy efficiency. CO2

capture and storage (CCS) is considered to be one of

the

most

promising

technological

options

for

reducing

CO2

emissions

from

the

power

generation

sector,

as

well

as

from

other

heavy

industries,

offering

a

bridge

from

the

fossil‐

fuels‐dependent

economy

to

a

future

carbon‐free

economy.

Large‐scale

deployment

of

CCS

in Europe will require the development of new infrastructures to

transport the captured CO2

from its sources (e.g.

power plants) to the appropriate CO2

storage sites. Most likely, the CO2

transport

infrastructure

will

consist

of

a

network

of

pipelines

and

– to

a

lesser

extent

–

shipping routes.

The

JRC

has

recently

developed

a tool

that

can

describe

the

likely

extent

and

cost

of

such

a

network at the European scale for the period 2015‐50. The tool, which was named InfraCCS,

contains

a

number

of

methodological

innovations,

which

facilitates

the

computation

of

optimal minimum‐cost network when investments are coordinated at European level.

The

InfraCCS

tool

has

been

used

in

order

to

provide

input

for

the

Commission

Communication

“Energy

infrastructure

priorities

for

2020

and

beyond:

A

blueprint

for

an

integrated

European

energy

network”,

which

was

adopted

on

17

November

2010.

In

the

scenario used for this purpose, the size of

the

optimal

network

grows steadily

until

2030,

to

8,800

km,

requiring

around

€9

billion

of

cumulative

investment;

followed

by

a

step‐change

towards

2050,

leading

to

a

total

investment

of

around

€29

billion.

Already

by

2030,

16

EU

Member

States

may

be

involved

in

cross‐border

CO2

transport.

International

coordination

is

therefore

crucial

for

the

development

of

a

minimum‐cost

trans‐European

CO2

transport

network.

Key publication:

Morbee

J.,

Serpa

J.,

Tzimas

E.

(2010):

The

evolution

of

the

extent

and

the

investment

requirements

of

a

trans‐European

CO2

transport

network.

EUR

24565

EN.

Luxembourg:

Publications Office of the European Union.


Land Management and Natural Hazards Unit


25

Example of an envisaged trans‐European CO2

pipeline and shipping network in 2050, in order

to enable large‐scale deployment of CCS.

33

17

2489

25 2578

2337

22

42

12 1

3

25025

3

9 42

9

5

5

27

1114

18

6

24

5

13

10

5

11

114

11

10

5

15

10 75

208

74

10

133 59

28

23

5

255

37

18

5

7

5

12 7

1118

8

29

12

15

15

10

10

3

5

22

10

4

5

26

More than 50% of the world’s population currently live in cities, and urban areas account for

60

to

80%

of

human

energy

consumption.

Cities

are

therefore

a

major

contributor

to

greenhouse

gas

(GHG)

emissions,

emitting

75%

of

global

CO2

emissions.

The

Covenant

of

Mayors

(CoM)

is

the

mainstream

European

movement

that

involves

local

and

regional

authorities who voluntarily commit to increasing energy efficiency and the use of renewable

energy

sources

in

their

territories.

By

their

commitment,

Covenant

signatories

aim to

meet

and go beyond the European Union’s target of a reduction of 20% of CO2

by 2020.

Officially

launched

in

January

2008,

with

about

100

towns

and

cities

expressing

their

interest,

the

initiative

has grown

significantly.

It

currently

has

about

2,900

signatories

from

all EU‐27 countries and represents 121 million inhabitants, which corresponds to 24% of the

EU

population

(see

Figure

1).

Moreover,

113

cities

outside

the

EU

also

joined

the

CoM.

Covenant signatories

commit

to

reducing

CO2

emissions

in

their

respective

territories

by

at

least 20% through the implementation of a Sustainable Energy Action Plan (SEAP).

To translate the CoM

goals and principles into reality, the Directorate‐General for Energy has

entrusted

the

JRC

with

providing

scientific

and

technical

support

to

the

initiative.

This

includes the development of a step‐by‐step methodological guidebook for SEAP elaboration,

the evaluation of submitted SEAPs

and provision of

feedback

to signatories, the

monitoring

of the CoM

implementation and the operation of a technical helpdesk.

Since the launch of the Covenant, more

than

700

cities

have

produced

and

submitted

their

SEAP. The analysis of a first sample of

425

SEAPs,

representing

about

185

million tonnes of

annual

CO2

emissions

(about

4%

of

the

total

EU‐27

emissions

budget)

yielded

an

average

reduction

objective

of

about

28%.

The

largest

savings

would

be

achieved

by

increasing

energy efficiency (see Figure 2).

The Convenant of MayorsSustainable Energy Action Plans at Local Level

Key publication:

Bertoldi

P., Bornas

Cayuela

D., Monni

S., Piers de Raveschoot

R. (2010): How to Develop a

Sustainable Energy Action Plan (SEAP) –

Guidebook. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the

European Union. EUR 24360 EN, doi:10.2790/20638.


Renewable Energies UnitInstitute for Energy and Transport

[email protected] Change and Air Quality Unit


mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]

27

Figure 2: Share of the various sectors/measures for planned CO2

reduction by 2020

of

the first 425 SEAPs

http://www.eumayors.eu/

Expected contribution per sector / field of action

40%

18%

10%

12%

9%

10% 1%

Energy efficiency(buildings, industry etc)

Transport and mobility

Local heat generation(district heating, CHP etc)

Local electricitygeneration (renewables,CHP etc)Land use planning

Behavioural changes(working with the citizens)

Public procurement

Figure 1: Territory occupied by the cities and other local authories that signed up to the Convevant of Mayors. This covers 121 million inhabitants, corresponding to

24% of the EU population

http://www.eumayors.eu/

28

Meat Consumption and Climate Change

Greenhouse gas emissions from animal production in Europe

Globally,

it

has

been

estimated

that

livestock

farming,

i.e.

raising

animals

to

produce

meat,

eggs or diary products, causes 14‐18% of total greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions (FAO, 2006).

In Europe, livestock farming plays a major role in food production and has high economic and

social importance. The average consumption of animal proteins per capita

in the EU is about

twice

the

global

average

and

by

far

higher

than

that

recommended

in

World

Health

Organization

(WHO)

guidelines.

Furthermore,

a

large

share

of

what

is

produced

on

EU

agricultural land is required to feed the animals in European livestock production, compared

to that of direct human consumption.

The

JRC

has

carried

out

a

detailed

assessment

of

the

net

emissions

of

GHGs

from

the

livestock

sector

in

the

EU‐27

according

to

animal

species,

animal

products

and

livestock

systems.

Emissions

are

assessed

using

a

‘cradle‐to‐gate’

life

cycle

analysis

(see

Figure

1)

which includes: •

emissions

from agricultural

activities such

as

raising

livestock

or

growing

feed

crops

and

from

energy

use

in

agriculture,

such

as

fuel

for

tractors

and

machinery,

electricity

for

heating and drying, or transport of feed;• emissions from the production of farm inputs such as mineral fertilisers

and pesticides;•

emissions

from

land

use

and

from

land

use

change

caused

by

increasing

land

requirements to produce animal feed;•

emissions

caused

by

raising

animals

are

considered

only

if

they

occur

in

Europe.

Emissions

caused

by

the

cultivation

and

transport

of

feed,

however,

are

considered

globally, if they are imported to Europe. This is particularly important in the context of land

use change.

The

calculations

show

that

meat

from

ruminant

animals

(cattle,

sheep

and

goats)

has

the

highest amount of GHG emissions per kg produced (approx. 20 kg CO2

‐eq per kg, see details

in Figure 2). Total GHG emissions from the livestock sector, in 2004, are estimated to be 661

Mt

CO2

‐eq

(in

the

range

623‐852

Mt

CO2

‐eq.),

compared

to

5,157

Mt

total

anthropogenic

CO2

‐eq. reported in the GHG inventory for EU‐27.

Key publication:Leip

A., Weiss F., Wassenaar

T., Perez I., Fellmann

T., Loudjani P., Tubiello

F., Grandgirard

D.,

Monni

S.,

Biala

K.

(2010):

Evaluation

of

the

livestock

sector’s

contribution

to

the

EU

greenhouse

gas

emissions

(GGELS) ‐

final

report.

European

Commission,

Joint

Research

Centre.

http://afoludata.jrc.ec.europa.eu/index.php/dataset/detail/236


Climate Change and Air Quality Unit

[email protected]

in support of the CAPInstitute for Environment and Sustainability

robert.m'[email protected] Trade and Market Policies


http://afoludata.jrc.ec.europa.eu/index.php/dataset/detail/236mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]

29

Figure

1:

On

average

in

the

EU‐27,

livestock

emissions

estimated

by

the

life

cycle

approach

(LCA) amount to 85% of the total emissions from the agricultural

sector. However, about an

equal

amount

of emissions

are

created

outside

the

agricultural

sector.

The

emissions

from

energy,

land

use

and

land

use

change

are

all

CO2

emissions.

Compared

with

emissions

estimated

by

the

countries

in

their

National

Inventories,

CAPRI

estimates

show

lower

total

emissions in the agricultural sector due to methodological differences.

Figure 2: GHG fluxes from ruminants are around 20‐23 kg CO2

‐eq per kg of meat, while

the

production of pork and poultry meat creates significantly less emissions (7.5 and 4.9 kg CO2

‐

eq per kg

respectively)

due to a more efficient digestion process and the absence of enteric

fermentation. (Legend as in Figure 1)

30

EU directives set targets and define environmental goals for the

use of renewable energies

in

the

Member

States.

However,

there

is

little

consensus

on

the

sustainability

of

biofuels,

which

is

the

object

of

intense

discussions

in

Europe

and

worldwide.

A

particularly

controversial

topic

is

how to

estimate

greenhouse

gas

(GHG)

emissions

from

Indirect

Land

Use Change (ILUC), i.e.

when crops for food are diverted to those for biofuels. In practice, if

biofuel

crops

are

grown

on

uncultivated

land,

direct

land

use

change

will

be

caused.

If

biofuel

crops

are

grown

on

existing

arable

land

instead

of

crops

for

food,

ILUC

occurs

because of the necessity to maintain food production.

A

particular

issue

is

the

high

uncertainty

in

calculations

of

the

overall

GHG

impact.

Agro‐

economic models are generally used to assess the impacts of increased biofuel

demand on

global land

use

changes,

calculating

how

many

extra

crops

would

be

produced

in

different

countries/world

regions.

In

general,

such

models

do

not

give

information

on

the

related

GHG emissions.

To

fill

this

gap,

the

JRC

carried

out

numerous

studies,

working

with

economic

models

and

calculating

the

resulting

global

GHG

emissions

(see

Figures

1

and

2).

In

this

context

it

developed

an

innovative

methodology

that

maps

regional

changes

in

land

obtained

from

the economic models on a 5x5 min. grid, using historical trends of cropland expansion, agro‐

ecological

suitability

of

the

land

for

a

given

crop

and

the

proximity

to

similar

crops.

The

results from comparing the output of different agro‐economic models provided insights into

the

reasons

for

differences

between

various

models,

and

into

the

potential

sources

of

under (or over) estimation of GHG emissions.

The JRC furthermore developed a guidance document for assessing carbon stock changes in

soils and in above‐

and belowground biomass due to the cultivation of biofuel

crops.

Key publications:

Blanco

Fonseca

M.

et

al. (2010):

Impacts

of

the

EU

biofuel

target

on

agricultural

markets

and

land

use:

a

comparative

modelling

assessment.

EUR

24449

EN.

http://ftp.jrc.es/EURdoc/JRC58484.pdf

Edwards

R.

et

al.

(2010):

Indirect

landuse

change

from

increased

biofuels

demand:

comparison

of

models

and

results

for

marginal

biofuels

production

from

different

feedstocks. EUR 24485 EN. http://re.jrc.ec.europa.eu/bf‐tp/

Hiederer

R.

et

al.

(2010):

Biofuels:

a

new

methodology

to

estimate

GHG

emissions

from

global land use change. EUR 24483 EN. http://re.jrc.ec.europa.eu/bf‐tp/




Biofuels

demandIndirect Land Use Change

http://ftp.jrc.es/EURdoc/JRC58484.pdfhttp://re.jrc.ec.europa.eu/bf-tp/http://re.jrc.ec.europa.eu/bf-tp/mailto:[email protected]

31

Figure 1. Changes

in

total Cropland

area

by

Region

in

2020

between

a

baseline

(“no‐policy”)

scenario

and

the

scenario

where

EU

biofuels

directives

are

implemented,

resulting

from

the

partial

equilibrium

model

AGLINK‐COSIMO

run

by

the

JRC,

and

c

Documents

4th updated edition - European Commission...4 th updated edition on the occasion of the 17 th Conference of the Parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (COP 17) 28