Revision of EMEP/CORINAIR emissions Guidebook

Chapters on agricultural emissions

How current chapters equate to the new

Current New

1010 Cultures with fertilizers 4D Agric. soils

1020 Cultures without fertilizers 4D Agric. soils

1040 Enteric fermentation Not needed

1050 Manure management C compounds

4B Manure management

1090 Manure management N compounds

4B Manure management

1030 Stubble burning 4F Field burning

Order of explanation

Ammonia (NH3)

Nitric oxide (NO)

Non-methane VOCs (NMVOCs)

PM –Klaas and Torsten are working on this

Reasoning behind Tiers

Consistent with Justin’s definitions this morning

•T1 - readily available statistics

• combined with default EF

•T2 - process/practice-specific conditions

• combined with default EF, but with provision for national EF when available

•T3 - goes beyond the above, e.g. models

Chapter 4D – Tier 1 NH3 methodology

Separate emission factors (EF) for major types of N fertilizer, including

• ammonium nitrate (AN)• urea• ammonium sulphate (AS) and phosphate (AP)

Three climatic regions according to their mean spring air temperatures: 

Region A, ts > 13 °C; B 6 °C < ts < 13 °C;

C ts < 6 °C

Tier 1 – examples of EF

Fertilizer Region A Region B

AN 0.020 0.015

Urea 0.200 0.170

AS 0.025 0.020

AP 0.025 0.020

Solutions 0.110 0.090

Chapter 4D – Tier 2 NH3 methodology

For fertilizer types, for which evidence is available, different EF for arable and grassland

In each of the three climatic regions

A multiplier when AS and AP applied to soils of pH >7

Tier 2 – examples of EF, Region B

Fertilizer Arable Grass Multiplier

AN 0.008 0.016 1

Urea 0.115 0.230 1

AS 0.020 0.020 10

AP 0.020 0.020 10

Solutions 0.060 0.120 1

Tier 3 – process-based models

Example of a simple process-based model is provided by Misselbrook et al. (2004)

Each fertilizer type is associated with a maximum potential emission (EFmax)

Modified by functions relating to • soil pH• land use• application rate• rainfall • and temperature

Chapter 4B -Tiers 1, 2 and 3

Following IPCC approach we begin (in concept) with the most complex approach (Tier 3) and then simplify to produce Tiers 2 and 1

4B Manure Management - proposed NH3 methodology

Tier 3

Mass-flow approach

All N losses and transformations are estimated using Tier 3 methodology

• e.g. mineralization of N to TAN

• immobilization of TAN in litter

• emissions of N2O, NO and N2

In order to more accurately assess the TAN pool at each stage of manure management

4B – NH3 Tier 3

Mass balance models developed by the reporting country may be used

A calculation procedure is outlined (as a Tier 2 method) in which country-specific EF may be used

4B – NH3 Tier 2

A process-based, mass balance approach, which tracks N throughout the system, starting with feed input through final use/disposal, is proposed as a Tier 2 procedure

The Tier 2 method uses default EF for each stage of manure management

• But requires the use of country-specific activity data, for example, the proportions of livestock sub-categories on different manure management systems

• default data are provided for N excretion

4B – NH3 Tier 2

In addition to NH3-N EF, default EF are

provided for all other N losses and transformations to be estimated

• e.g. mineralization of N to TAN • immobilization of TAN in litter • emissions of N2O, NO and N2

In order to more accurately assess the TAN pool at each stage of manure management

Why does Tier 2 appear complicated?

Increasing the number of EF to account for emissions at each stage of manure management and discriminating between systems and abatement measures, makes the calculation of the interactions between abatement measures complicated

In particular, such an approach may fail to recognise that introducing abatement at an early stage of manure management, e.g. housing, will, by conserving NH4

+-N,

increase the potential size of NH3 emissions later, i.e.

during storage or after spreading

Why does Tier 2 appear complicated?

In fact the procedure is not complicated

The calculation routines may be lengthy• but are easy to follow

Defaults are provided• derived from EF used in published mass-flow models such as • DYNAMO (CH)• DAN-AM (DK)

4B – NH3 Tier 1

Tier 1 entails multiplying the total number of animals in each livestock class by a default EF

• expressed as kg NH3-N/animal/year

Default EF were calculated using Tier 2 default NH3 EF for each stage of manure management including, where appropriate,

• grazing, default N excretion data and default data on %TAN in excreta

• where appropriate, separate EF are provided for slurry- and litter-based manure management systems

• the user may choose the EF for the predominant manure management system for that livestock class in the relevant country

4B Manure Management - proposed NO methodology

No robust method available, for housing and storage emissions

An estimate is available of losses during storage as part of the Tier 2 and 3 approaches to estimating NH3

emissions • mass flow will estimate N applied to soils • NO emissions may then be 0.7% of manure-N applied.

4D - proposed NO methodology for fertilizer application

Tier 1• 0.7 % of applied mineral fertilizer-N

An improvement in estimates of NO emissions from soils may only be achieved by use of detailed mechanistic models, which allow simultaneous calculation of production, consumption and emission of NO from soils with regard to all processes involved

No Tier 2 or Tier 3 proposed

4D - proposed NMVOC methodology

Tier 1

An estimate may be made for a few crop types based on the crop area and published EF

• However, there is insufficient published data to enable compilation of an inventory

No Tier 2 or Tier 3 approach

4B Manure Management - proposed NMVOC methodology

Tier 1

Some EF per animal for livestock classes

No Tier 2 or Tier 3 approach

4B Manure Management - proposed authors

Ulrich Dämmgen (Germany)

Co Chairs of Agriculture and Nature Panel

Harald Menzi (Switzerland)

Carlos Pineiro (Spain)

Martin Dedina (Czech Republic)

Brian Rumberg (USA)

Shabtai Bittman (Canada)

Karin Groenestein (the Netherlands - NO)

Phil Hobbs (UK -NMVOC)

Klaas van der Hoek (Netherlands – PM)

Torsten Hinz (Germany – PM)

4D Agricultural soils – proposed authors

Co Chairs of Agriculture and Nature Panel

Tom Misselbrook (UK)

Pierre Cellier (France)

Kentaro Hayashi (Japan)

Ute Skiba (UK – NO)

David Simpson (EMEP - NMVOCs)

4F- Stubble burning – current approach

Simple methodology

Where an EF is combined with an activity statistic, i.e. the amount of residue burnt.

It is assumed in this methodology that a dry weight of straw from cereal crops is 5 tonnes per ha

Stubble burning – current approach

Detailed methodology

An improvement can only be achieved by a prior knowledge of the dry weight per ha yielded from a specific crop

Some crop residue statistics are provided by the GHG Inventory Reference Manual

The following ratios for residue/crop product are given: wheat 1.3, barley 1.2, maize 1, oats 1.3 and rye 1.6.

Stubble burning – proposed approach

Tier 1

simple EF to be provided

Tier 2

country-specific EF

Tier 3

process-based modelling, if an approach is available

4F - Stubble burning – proposed authors

Co Chairs of Agriculture and Nature Panel

Bryan Jenkins (US)

Cecile de Klein ? (New Zealand)

Any volunteers ?

Summary

Explain which chapters

explain Tiers for each pollutant in each chapter

agree co-authors• Including from outside area to get methodology accepted by UNFCC?

explain timetable

4D Manure Management - proposed NH3 Tier 2

Tier 2

the Tier 2 method follows the same calculation equation as Tier 1 but would include the use of technology- or climate-specific activity data

• For example, the use of country-specific N excretion rates for livestock categories would constitute a Tier 2 methodology

• proportions of livestock on slurry or FYM• use default EF based on technology and climate

Cultures with fertilizers – current NH3 methodology

Simpler methodology

an EF for each type of N fertilizer• applied in all countries

e.g. AN 2%, Urea 15%

Cultures with fertilizers – current NO methodology

0.7 % of applied mineral fertilizer-N

Cultures with fertilizers – current NMVOC methodology

The sparse information on emissions of NMVOCs did not allow for the construction of even a simpler methodology

however, an equation provided to estimate the order of magnitude of NMVOC emissions

4B - proposed NH3 methodology for fertilizer application

Tier 1

since Tier 1 is a reference table, why not use the climatic regions?

Tier 2• use Tier 2 where activity data are available on amounts applied to arable

and grassland• effect of calcareous soils

Tier 3

process-based model of the type developed by Tom for the UK [do not describe new tier 3s – refer]

Manure Management N Compounds - current NH3 methodology

Simpler methodology

the use of an average EF per animal for each class of animal multiplied by the number of animals

Detailed methodology

mass-flow approach

Manure Management N Compounds - current NO methodology

Simpler methodology

no method

Detailed methodology

NO emissions calculated as part of mass flow aproach

4D Manure Management - proposed NH3 methodology

Tier 1

in the current simpler approach the EF per animal is already sub-divided (in an appendix) into EF for each stage of manure management, as kg per animal

propose that for Tier 1 we have EF for each stage of manure management using IPCC default values for N excretion

Manure Management C Compounds - current NMVOC methodology

Simpler methodology

estimated as a ratio of NH3 emissions

no detailed methodology

4B – proposed NO methodology without fertilizers

Simpler methodology

0.7 % of the N returned to the soil as crop residues is emitted as NO

no Detailed methodology

4D Manure Management - additional co-author

Phil Hobbs

Cultures without fertilizers – current NH3 methodology

Simpler methodology

multiply area of legumes by an EF of of 1 kg ha-1 a-1 NH3-N

EF also supplied for unfertilized pastures grazed by cattle and sheep

• or an EF as % of N deposited during grazing

Cultures without fertilizers – current NH3 methodology

Detailed methodology

to provide a more detailed methodology it would be necessary to distinguish between different legume species

further detail may be provided if estimates are available of NH3

emissions from crops (e.g. hay), or unfertilized crop residues left on the surface

• the effects of different climates on NH3 emissions both from unfertilized

crops, and from their residues, needs to be known

4B – proposed NH3 methodology without fertilizers

Tier 1

simple EF to be provided

Tier 2

country-specific EF for legumes and for grazing emissions based on country-specific data on N excretion - %of N excreted.

Tier 3

process-based modelling, if an approach is available

Cultures without fertilizers – proposed NO methodology

Simpler methodology

0.7 % of the N returned to the soil as crop residues is emitted as NO

no Tier 2 or 3

4B – proposed NMVOCs methodology without fertilizers

Not currently reported

same approach as for with fertilizers

Cultures without fertilizers – proposed NMVOC methodology

Tier I

methodology as proposed in chapter 'cultures with fertilizers'

No Tier 2 or Tier 3 methods proposed.

Timetable - 1

Preliminary drafts of 3 chapters already prepared for comment by Barbara and Nick

zero order drafts to be submitted to co-authors by end August

co-authors to comment by end September

any issues raised by co-authors to be discussed at TFEIP meeting in October

Timetable - 2

First order drafts for formal consultation by January 2008

second order drafts to be prepared by May 2008 for final revision

How do current chapters equate to the new

Current• 1010 Cultures with fertilizers• 1020 Cultures without fertilizers• 1040 Enteric fermentation• 1050 Manure management regarding organic compounds• 1090 Manure management regarding N compounds