Nordic nitrogen and agriculture : Policy, measures and recommendations to reduce environmental impact
Hellsten, Sofie; Dalgaard, Tommy; Rankinen, Katri; Tørseth, Kjetil; Kulmala, Airi; Turtola, Eila; Moldan, Filip; Pira, Kajsa; Piil, Kristoffer; Bakken, Lars; Bechmann, Marianne; Olofsson, Stina (2017)
Tätä artikkelia/julkaisua ei ole tallennettu Jukuriin. Julkaisun tiedoissa voi kuitenkin olla linkki toisaalle tallennettuun artikkeliin/julkaisuun.
Hellsten, Sofie
Dalgaard, Tommy
Rankinen, Katri
Tørseth, Kjetil
Kulmala, Airi
Turtola, Eila
Moldan, Filip
Pira, Kajsa
Piil, Kristoffer
Bakken, Lars
Bechmann, Marianne
Olofsson, Stina
Julkaisusarja
TemaNord
Numero
2017:547
Sivut
94 p.
Nordic Council of Ministers
2017
Kuvaus
ISBN 978-92-892´3-5088-4 (EPUB). Standard PDF/UA-1. ISO 14289-1
Tiivistelmä
The aim of this study was to provide recommendations on:
- Strategies and policy instruments to achieve cost effective abatement of reactive nitrogen from agriculture in the Nordic countries.
- The need for further work to describe the effects of integrated, cost effective control strategies for reduction of loss of reactive nitrogen in the Nordic countries under varying climate and soil conditions.
This report is based on a literature review performed by Sofie Hellsten, Tommy Dalgaard, Katri Rankinen and Kjetil Tørseth (see Appendix 3). Additional input was also obtained from discussions at a workshop held in Gothenburg in January 2017, with 11 participants from the Nordic countries with different backgrounds within the field of nitrogen and agriculture (See Appendix 1). The current study has contributed to encourage Nordic collaboration regarding nitrogen and agriculture.
Main conclusions and recommendations
The Nordic countries have, during the last 20 years, introduced efficient measures to reduce nitrogen loss to the environment. Still, N losses are relatively high as compared to the policy targets set, despite the regulatory framework applicable to the agricultural sector at EU and national level. The Nordic countries are at very different stages with regard to nitrogen abatement. Denmark for instance has already cut nitrogen losses by 50%.
Especially, adequate policies and regulations for manure management are important to reduce the impact of reactive nitrogen (ammonia, nitrate and nitrous oxide) from farming systems in the Nordic countries. What further research can be recommended, and what is the way forward for policy development: Stricter laws and regulations, economic instrument and incentives, or more voluntary and advisory efforts? Furthermore, it is important to discuss how to separate and consider the emissions and uncertainties due to weather events and other factors which cannot be controlled by farmers.
We have identified a few key policy actions:
- The focus in the Nordic countries should be on implementing the most cost effective, practical and feasible measures first. As long as these practical and feasible measures (which do not cause other negative environmental effects) are not fully implemented, more demanding and costly approaches should not be the first priority.
- For reduction of ammonia emissions from agriculture, we noted that low nitrogen feed, covered slurry and manure storages and low ammonia emission spreading techniques, are among the most cost-effective, practical and feasible abatement measures to implement.
- In some cases, it may be relevant to extend current rules and regulation e.g. regarding new livestock houses, and coverage of manure tanks and spreading of manure, slurry and digested manure. However, the effects (economic and on other pollutants and environmental effects) need to be considered and further investigated.
- We recommend that some of the current farm-regulations are simplified.
- We recommend scientifically based voluntary actions, in line with the Swedish advisory program “Focus on nutrients” to be continued and further developed, and that similar approaches are also implemented in other Nordic countries.
- Important success criteria for advisory actions and changed farming behaviour are voluntary measures and repeated farm visits, relating to how measures will influence farm economy (positively or negatively) and feedback to farmers regarding the environmental progress (e.g. through the press) to make the farmers proud of their achievements.
- We also recommend more, scientifically based information campaigns about the effects of changed consumption behaviour, towards reduced nitrogen and greenhouse gas emissions, highlighting the environmental benefits.
- We believe N balances, and the distribution of surplus N to different types of losses, may be more relevant as a basis for policy instrument on large (landscape and regional) scales rather than on a small (field) scale.
We have identified a few key policy challenges:
- A great challenge with agri-environmental policies is to decrease negative effects, while at the same time maintain or increase food production.
- When assessing technical abatement measures, a holistic policy approach, not only considering the direct mitigating effect and costs but also other benefits and effects of the actual measure, is important.
- In addition to technical measures, system change measures, e.g. reduction of food waste, increasing the overall efficiency in the food chain, or promotion of consumption patterns with lower nitrogen footprints, could help to further reduce overall nitrogen losses.
- An important policy challenge is to consider the effect of emissions produced in other countries due to increased import. Measures to reduce nutrient losses from agriculture are ineffective in a global perspective if the production is carried out in other countries with as large or larger environmental effects.
- An important dilemma that needs to be discussed politically is the question of carbon sequestration and the fact that digestion of manure to produce biogas may have negative implications and lead to lower C content in soils if the digest is not returned into the soils as fertiliser. Holistic approaches are needed for the use of bio-based energy sources to reduce the use of fossil fuels and mitigate greenhouse gas emissions.
- We need to produce more with less in the future. Precise farming with modern technology should be highlighted. In this way higher yields with lower nitrogen losses, and net greenhouse gas emissions etc. can be obtained.
We have identified a few key knowledge gaps where further research is needed:
- From a policy perspective, to further motivate abatement of nitrogen losses from agriculture, it is important to identify knowledge gaps as well as possible overlaps and gaps in existing policies on reactive nitrogen.
- The complex interactions, synergies and trade-offs between different pollutants and environmental effects demand relevant assessment tools and more research to find the right balance between potential conflicting interests, including e.g. emission savings, other environmental effects, costs, and ethical values.
- There is a need to improve the understanding of the efficiency of voluntary efforts and advisory actions.
- Nordic research groups are in a strong position to take on research in novel approaches to mitigate ammonia, nitous oxides and nitrate losses from agricultural land, while developing a significant and more sustainable bioeconomy.
- An evaluation of the balance between targeting of mitigation measures and the transaction costs is lacking.
- There is a gap to define, evaluate and compare e.g. biodiversity versus water protection effects, mitigation measures for climate change versus water protection targets, etc.
- There are large potentials for the development of the Nordic agriculture-based bioeconomy including integration of environmental protection schemes and a better utilisation of nitrogen in the whole production chain.
- The back up from the scientific community within the field of nitrogen research is an important contributor to the prominent position of the Nordic countries in different policy bodies within the EU as well as within the Convention on Long Range Transboundary Air Pollution (CLRTAP). Therefore, it is important to continue to exchange information and experience between the Nordic countries on measures and policy strategies to reduce nitrogen losses from agriculture.
- Strategies and policy instruments to achieve cost effective abatement of reactive nitrogen from agriculture in the Nordic countries.
- The need for further work to describe the effects of integrated, cost effective control strategies for reduction of loss of reactive nitrogen in the Nordic countries under varying climate and soil conditions.
This report is based on a literature review performed by Sofie Hellsten, Tommy Dalgaard, Katri Rankinen and Kjetil Tørseth (see Appendix 3). Additional input was also obtained from discussions at a workshop held in Gothenburg in January 2017, with 11 participants from the Nordic countries with different backgrounds within the field of nitrogen and agriculture (See Appendix 1). The current study has contributed to encourage Nordic collaboration regarding nitrogen and agriculture.
Main conclusions and recommendations
The Nordic countries have, during the last 20 years, introduced efficient measures to reduce nitrogen loss to the environment. Still, N losses are relatively high as compared to the policy targets set, despite the regulatory framework applicable to the agricultural sector at EU and national level. The Nordic countries are at very different stages with regard to nitrogen abatement. Denmark for instance has already cut nitrogen losses by 50%.
Especially, adequate policies and regulations for manure management are important to reduce the impact of reactive nitrogen (ammonia, nitrate and nitrous oxide) from farming systems in the Nordic countries. What further research can be recommended, and what is the way forward for policy development: Stricter laws and regulations, economic instrument and incentives, or more voluntary and advisory efforts? Furthermore, it is important to discuss how to separate and consider the emissions and uncertainties due to weather events and other factors which cannot be controlled by farmers.
We have identified a few key policy actions:
- The focus in the Nordic countries should be on implementing the most cost effective, practical and feasible measures first. As long as these practical and feasible measures (which do not cause other negative environmental effects) are not fully implemented, more demanding and costly approaches should not be the first priority.
- For reduction of ammonia emissions from agriculture, we noted that low nitrogen feed, covered slurry and manure storages and low ammonia emission spreading techniques, are among the most cost-effective, practical and feasible abatement measures to implement.
- In some cases, it may be relevant to extend current rules and regulation e.g. regarding new livestock houses, and coverage of manure tanks and spreading of manure, slurry and digested manure. However, the effects (economic and on other pollutants and environmental effects) need to be considered and further investigated.
- We recommend that some of the current farm-regulations are simplified.
- We recommend scientifically based voluntary actions, in line with the Swedish advisory program “Focus on nutrients” to be continued and further developed, and that similar approaches are also implemented in other Nordic countries.
- Important success criteria for advisory actions and changed farming behaviour are voluntary measures and repeated farm visits, relating to how measures will influence farm economy (positively or negatively) and feedback to farmers regarding the environmental progress (e.g. through the press) to make the farmers proud of their achievements.
- We also recommend more, scientifically based information campaigns about the effects of changed consumption behaviour, towards reduced nitrogen and greenhouse gas emissions, highlighting the environmental benefits.
- We believe N balances, and the distribution of surplus N to different types of losses, may be more relevant as a basis for policy instrument on large (landscape and regional) scales rather than on a small (field) scale.
We have identified a few key policy challenges:
- A great challenge with agri-environmental policies is to decrease negative effects, while at the same time maintain or increase food production.
- When assessing technical abatement measures, a holistic policy approach, not only considering the direct mitigating effect and costs but also other benefits and effects of the actual measure, is important.
- In addition to technical measures, system change measures, e.g. reduction of food waste, increasing the overall efficiency in the food chain, or promotion of consumption patterns with lower nitrogen footprints, could help to further reduce overall nitrogen losses.
- An important policy challenge is to consider the effect of emissions produced in other countries due to increased import. Measures to reduce nutrient losses from agriculture are ineffective in a global perspective if the production is carried out in other countries with as large or larger environmental effects.
- An important dilemma that needs to be discussed politically is the question of carbon sequestration and the fact that digestion of manure to produce biogas may have negative implications and lead to lower C content in soils if the digest is not returned into the soils as fertiliser. Holistic approaches are needed for the use of bio-based energy sources to reduce the use of fossil fuels and mitigate greenhouse gas emissions.
- We need to produce more with less in the future. Precise farming with modern technology should be highlighted. In this way higher yields with lower nitrogen losses, and net greenhouse gas emissions etc. can be obtained.
We have identified a few key knowledge gaps where further research is needed:
- From a policy perspective, to further motivate abatement of nitrogen losses from agriculture, it is important to identify knowledge gaps as well as possible overlaps and gaps in existing policies on reactive nitrogen.
- The complex interactions, synergies and trade-offs between different pollutants and environmental effects demand relevant assessment tools and more research to find the right balance between potential conflicting interests, including e.g. emission savings, other environmental effects, costs, and ethical values.
- There is a need to improve the understanding of the efficiency of voluntary efforts and advisory actions.
- Nordic research groups are in a strong position to take on research in novel approaches to mitigate ammonia, nitous oxides and nitrate losses from agricultural land, while developing a significant and more sustainable bioeconomy.
- An evaluation of the balance between targeting of mitigation measures and the transaction costs is lacking.
- There is a gap to define, evaluate and compare e.g. biodiversity versus water protection effects, mitigation measures for climate change versus water protection targets, etc.
- There are large potentials for the development of the Nordic agriculture-based bioeconomy including integration of environmental protection schemes and a better utilisation of nitrogen in the whole production chain.
- The back up from the scientific community within the field of nitrogen research is an important contributor to the prominent position of the Nordic countries in different policy bodies within the EU as well as within the Convention on Long Range Transboundary Air Pollution (CLRTAP). Therefore, it is important to continue to exchange information and experience between the Nordic countries on measures and policy strategies to reduce nitrogen losses from agriculture.
Collections
- Julkaisut [85632]