Low Carbon Options and GHG Abatement Potential in Agriculture and - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

21 st AIM International Workshop National Institute for Environmental Studies, Tsukuba, Japan 13-14 November 2015 Low Carbon Options and GHG Abatement Potential in Agriculture and Energy using Sectors in Nepal Ram M. Shrestha and Bijay B. Pradhan Asian Institute of Technology and Management 1 Lalitpur, Nepal

Background Objectives Scenarios Analysis Conclusion Sectoral GHG emission mix in 2010 Sectoral GHG emission Others Waste 2.2% 8.8% Industrial Energy processes 18.1% 0.3% Agriculture 70.6% Total: 32 MtCO2e Sources: IEA (2012) 2 • Agriculture has the highest share in the national GHG emission in 2010 • Energy using activities account for 18.1%

Background Scenarios Analysis Conclusion Objectives Methodology • AFOLU-B model for agriculture sector • AIM/Enduse for energy using sector 3

Background Objectives Scenarios Analysis Conclusion Scenarios considered • BAU, no-regret and four GHG emission tax scenarios with tax rates of • 10 USD/tCO2e (CT10) • 100 USD/tCO2e (CT100) • 300 USD/tCO2e (CT300) • 500 USD/tCO2e (CT500) 4

GHG Mitigation from Agriculture Sector 5

Background Objectives Scenarios Analysis Conclusion Growth in Livestock during 1999-2013 12000 1200 60 600 Cattle, buffaloes, goat (000’) 10000 1000 50 500 Sheep, Pig (000’) Duck (thousands) Fowl (millions) 8000 800 40 400 6000 600 30 300 4000 400 20 200 2000 200 10 100 0 0 0 0 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 Fowl Duck Cattle Buffaloes Goat Sheep Pigs • • AAGR AAGR • Goat: 3.5%. • • Cattle : 0.2% Fowl: 7.7% • Pig: 2.2% • • Buffalo: 2.8% Duck: -0.6%

Background Objectives Scenarios Analysis Conclusion Growth in cultivated area during 1999-2013 2.5 2.0 Area (000' hectares) 1.5 Rice 1.0 Others 0.5 0.0 • AAGR 7 • Rice: 0.2% • Other crops: 1.1%

Background Objectives Scenarios Analysis Conclusion GHG emission from agriculture during 2010- 2050 in BAU case 45 41.4 Agricultural soil 40 GHG mitigation (MtCO2e) management (N2O) 34.1 35 31.2 Rice cultivation (CH4) 28.7 30 24.2 25 Manure management (N2O) 20 Manure management 15 (CH4) 10 Enteric fermentation (CH4) 5 0 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 • Total emission increases at CAGR of 1.4%. • CH4 Emission from rice cultivation remains almost constant • During 2010-2050, emission increase by • CH4 from enteric fermentation: 70% • CH4 from manure management: 80% • N2O from manure management: 110% • N2O form agricultural soils: 90%

Background Objectives Scenarios Analysis Conclusion Structure of GHG emission in agriculture in BAU case Agricultural 2010 2050 Agricultural soil soil management management (N2O) (N2O) 28% 31% Enteric Rice Enteric Rice fermentation fermentation cultivation cultivation (CH4) (CH4) (CH4) (CH4) 45% 7% 44% 12% Manure Manure Manure Manure management management management management (N2O) (CH4) (N2O) (CH4) 13% 2% 16% 2% Total: 24.2 MtCO2e Total: 41.4 MtCO2e • Enteric fermentation and agri. soil management- the two largest contributors • Emission related to agricultural soil management increases from 28% to 31% • Share of N2O from manure management increases from 13% to 16%. • Share of CH4 from rice production decreases from 12% to 7%.

Background Objectives Scenarios Analysis Conclusion The set of mitigation options varies with the emission tax rate CT0 CT10 CT100 CT300 CT500 EF1: High genetic merit (CH4) EF2: Replacement of roughage with concentrates (CH4) MM1: Daily spread of manure (CH4) MM2: Dome digester, cooking fuel and light (CH4) RC1: Midseason drainage (CH4) RC2: Off-season straw (CH4) ASM1:High efficiency fertilizer application (N2O) ASM2: Tillage and residue management (N2O) ASM3: Slow-release fertilizer (N2O) 10 *EF - Enteric fermentation, MM- Manure management RC -Rice cultivation, ASM- Agricultural soil management

Background Objectives Scenarios Analysis Conclusion GHG mitigation potential of no-regret options during 2020-2050 12 10.5 RC: Incorporation of rice straw Mitigation potential (MtCO2eq/yr) 10 (CH4) 8.5 8 7.1 5.9 MM: Dome digester, cooking fuel 6 and light (CH4) 4 2 EF: Replacement of roughage with concentrates (CH4) 0 2020 2030 2040 2050 • Mitigation potential nearly doubled during the period 11 • Enteric fermentation has the highest mitigation potential • Shares in agriculture sector GHG mitigation in 2050 • Live stock management: 97%; Rice cultivation: 3% (Enteric fermentation: 92%; Manure management: 5%)

Background Objectives Scenarios Analysis Conclusion GHG mitigation potential at $10/tCO2e 16 ASM2: Tillage and residue Mitigation potential (MtCO2eq/yr) management (N2O) 12.4 ASM1:High efficiency fertilizer 12 application (N2O) 10.2 8.4 RC2: Midseason drainage (CH4) 8 7.1 MM1: Dome digester, cooking fuel and light (CH4) 4 EF2: High genetic merit (CH4) EF1: Replacement of roughage with concentrates (CH4) 0 2020 2030 2040 2050 • Mitigation potential is highest in enteric fermentation. 12 • In 2050, share in total agriculture sector mitigation • Enteric fermentation: 79%; Rice cultivation:5% • Agricultural soil management: 11%; Manure management: 4%

Background Objectives Scenarios Analysis Conclusion Would GHG mitigation potential increase significantly at $100, $300, $500 per tCO2e? 18 16.2 15.4 16 14.9 ASM3: Slow-release fertilizer (N2O) 13.2 14 ASM2: Tillage and residue 12.3 12.5 management (N2O) 12 10.4 10.9 ASM1:High efficiency fertilizer 10.2 application (N2O) 8.8 10 9.1 RC2: Midseason drainage (CH4) 8.5 8 MM1: Dome digester, cooking fuel and light (CH4) 6 MM2: Daily spread of manure (CH4) 4 EF2: High genetic merit (CH4) 2 EF1: Replacement of roughage with concentrates (CH4) 0 2020 2030 2040 2050 2020 2030 2040 2050 2020 2030 2040 2050 CT100 CT300 CT500 • Overall, there is relatively small increase in abatement potential at high tax rates. 13

Background Objectives Scenarios Analysis Conclusion GHG mitigation options and potential in 2020 10 9.1 9.1 ASM3: Slow-release fertilizer (N2O) 9 8.7 8.7 8.6 8.6 ASM2: Tillage and residue GHG mitigation (MtCO2e) 8 management (N2O) 7.1 7.1 7 ASM1:High efficiency fertilizer 5.9 application (N2O) 6 RC1: Off-season straw (CH4) 5 RC2: Midseason drainage (CH4) 4 3 MM1: Dome digester, cooking fuel and light (CH4) 2 MM2: Daily spread of manure (CH4) 1 EF2: High genetic merit (CH4) 0 CT0 CT10 CT100 CT300 CT500 EF1: Replacement of roughage with concentrates (CH4) 2020 • Total mitigation potential does not change significantly after CT100 14 • Highest share of EF in mitigation; its share decreases with the emission tax. • No change in RC related mitigation after CT10.

Background Objectives Scenarios Analysis Conclusion GHG mitigation options and potential in 2030 12 9.1 10.9 10.4 ASM3: Slow-release fertilizer (N2O) 8.7 10.2 8.6 10 ASM2: Tillage and residue GHG mitigation (MtCO2e) management (N2O) 8.4 7.1 ASM1:High efficiency fertilizer 8 7.1 application (N2O) RC1: Off-season straw (CH4) 6 RC2: Midseason drainage (CH4) 4 MM1: Dome digester, cooking fuel and light (CH4) MM2: Daily spread of manure (CH4) 2 EF2: High genetic merit (CH4) 0 EF1: Replacement of roughage with CT0 CT10 CT100 CT300 CT500 concentrates (CH4) 15 2030 • The mix of mitigation options varies with the tax rate. • At a particular tax rate, the mix remains unchanged during 2020-2050.

Background Objectives Scenarios Analysis Conclusion GHG mitigation options and potential in 2050 18 16.2 9.1 ASM3: Slow-release fertilizer (N2O) 8.7 16 15.2 8.6 14.9 GHG mitigation (MtCO2e) ASM2: Tillage and residue management 14 (N2O) 7.1 12.4 ASM1:High efficiency fertilizer 12 application (N2O) 10.5 10 RC1: Off-season straw (CH4) 8 RC2: Midseason drainage (CH4) 6 MM1: Dome digester, cooking fuel and light (CH4) 4 MM2: Daily spread of manure (CH4) 2 EF2: High genetic merit (CH4) 0 EF1: Replacement of roughage with CT0 CT10 CT100 CT300 CT500 concentrates (CH4) 2050 • Relatively small change in mitigation above the tax rate of $100/tCO2e. 16 • In 2050, GHG emissions decrease by • 25% with No-regret options • 30% with CT10 • 36% with CT100, 37% in CT300 and 39% in CT500

Emission Mitigation from energy using sectors 17

Economic and demographic growth considerations • Medium variant of population projection (36% higher population by 2050 as compared to 2010) • .Share of urban population to increase from 17% to 36% during 2010-2050 • GDP growth rate: 4% (2010-2015) and 5.56% (2015-2050) 18

Background Objectives Scenarios Analysis Conclusion Sectoral Shares in Fossil Fuel Consumption in BAU scenario Agriculture Commercial Agriculture Commercial 3% 7% 7% 5% Power 1% 2050 Transport 2010 Industrial 46% Industrial Transport 34% 30% 53% Residential Residential 5% 9% 8 Mtoe 1.3 Mtoe 19 • Fossil fuel consumption increases by almost 5 times in 2050. • Transport and industry – the two highest fossil fuel consuming sectors & their shares would be increasing.