Abstract
This study uses a bottom-up optimisation modelling framework to assess GHG (greenhouse gas) emission reduction potential from enteric fermentation, manure management, and agricultural soil-related activities. As a develo** European economy, the Turkish agriculture sector has been considered from 2020 until 2050. Four mitigation options are evaluated for their emission reduction potentials: addition of fat supplements to the diet, deployment of centralised biogas facilities, adjustment of fertiliser application rates, and crop rotation with legumes. Results point out the difficulty of emission mitigation in the sector from cost and limited abatement perspectives. Fat supplements have the highest potential (7.2%); others follow, respectively, 4.0%, 0.45%, and 0.35%. Crop rotation has the highest cost and the lowest GHG mitigation potential option considering the opportunity cost. Based on standalone potential assessments, three combined mitigation option sets are implemented. Besides the significant interaction effects, it has been found that the cost-effectiveness of the options depends on electricity and compost revenues.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Data Availability
Most of the public data analysed during this study are included in this published article. Its supplementary information files and the source links are shared as much as possible for convenience. Public data that does not have a direct link and/or that is not publicly available is available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request and with the permission of relevant institutions.
References
Akbay C, Bilgic A, Miran B (2008) Demand estimation for basic food products in Turkey. Turk J Food Agric Sci 14:55–65
Beach RH, Creason J, Ohrel SB et al (2015) Global mitigation potential and costs of reducing agricultural non-CO2 greenhouse gas emissions through 2030. J. Integr. Environ. Sci 12(sup1):87–105. https://doi.org/10.1080/1943815X.2015.1110183
Beauchemin KA, McGinn SM (2006) Methane emissions from beef cattle: Effects of fumaric acid, essential oil, and canola oil1. J Anim Sci 84:1489–1496. https://doi.org/10.2527/2006.8461489x
Britz W, Witzke P (2014) CAPRI Model Documentation
Chilliard Y, Ferlay A (2004) Dietary lipids and forages interactions on cow and goat milk fatty acid composition and sensory properties. Reprod Nutr Dev 44(5):467–492. https://doi.org/10.1051/rnd:2004052
Chiodi A, Donnellan T, Breen J et al (2016) Integrating agriculture and energy to assess GHG emissions reduction: a methodological approach. Clim. Policy 16(2):215–236. https://doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2014.993579
CME Group NYMEX. https://www.cmegroup.com/company/nymex.html.
Dace E, Muizniece I, Blumberga A, Kaczala F (2015) Searching for solutions to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions by agricultural policy decisions - Application of system dynamics modeling for the case of Latvia. Sci. Total Environ 527–528:80–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2015.04.088
De Cara S, Houzé M, Jayet P-A (2005) Methane and Nitrous Oxide Emissions from Agriculture in the EU: A Spatial Assessment of Sources and Abatement Costs. ERE 32:551–583. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10640-005-0071-8
Dogan N (2016) Agriculture and environmental kuznets curves in the case of Turkey: Evidence from the ardl and bounds test. Agric Econ 62:566–574 https://doi.org/10.17221/112/2015-AGRICECON
Eory V, Pellerin S, Carmona Garcia G et al (2018) Marginal abatement cost curves for agricultural climate policy: State-of-the art, lessons learnt and future potential. J Clean Prod 182:705–716. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.01.252
Ersoy E, Ugurlu A (2020) The potential of Turkey’s province-based livestock sector to mitigate GHG emissions through biogas production. J Environ Manage 255:109858
European Commission Paris Agreement. https://climate.ec.europa.eu/eu-action/international-action-climate-change/climate-negotiations/paris-agreement_en. Accessed 4 May 2023
Eurostat (2022) Electricity price statistics. https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Electricity_price_statistics.
Fellmann T, Domínguez IP, Witzke P et al (2021) Greenhouse gas mitigation technologies in agriculture: Regional circumstances and interactions determine cost-effectiveness. J Clean Prod 317:128406. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.128406
Fellmann T, Witzke P, Weiss F et al (2018) Major challenges of integrating agriculture into climate change mitigation policy frameworks. Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Chang 23:451–468. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11027-017-9743-2
Food & Agriculture Organization of the United Nation (2006) Livestock’s long shadow: environmental issues and options
Frank S, Havlík P, Stehfest E et al (2019) Agricultural non-CO2 emission reduction potential in the context of the 1.5 °C target. Nat Clim Chang 9:66–72. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-018-0358-8
Garcia F, Muñoz C, Martínez-Ferrer J et al (2022) 3-Nitrooxypropanol substantially decreased enteric methane emissions of dairy cows fed true protein- or urea-containing diets. Heliyon 8:e09738. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2022.e09738
Gielen DJ, De Feber MAPC, Bos AJM, Gerlagh T (2001) Biomass for energy or materials? A Western European systems engineering perspective. Energy Policy 29:291–302. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0301-4215(00)00123-3
Hasegawa T, Matsuoka Y (2012) Greenhouse gas emissions and mitigation potentials in agriculture, forestry and other land use in Southeast Asia. Journal of Integrative Environmental Sciences 9:159–176. https://doi.org/10.1080/1943815X.2012.701647
Hasegawa T, Matsuoka Y (2015) Climate change mitigation strategies in agriculture and land use in Indonesia. Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Chang 20:409–424. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11027-013-9498-3
Havlík P, Valin H, Herrero M et al (2014) Climate change mitigation through livestock system transitions. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 111:3709–3714. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1308044111
Hoa NT, Hasegawa T, Matsuoka Y (2014) Climate change mitigation strategies in agriculture, forestry and other land use sectors in Vietnam. Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Chang 19:15–32. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11027-012-9424-0
Höglund-Isaksson L, Gómez-Sanabria A, Klimont Z et al (2020) Technical potentials and costs for reducing global anthropogenic methane emissions in the 2050 timeframe –results from the gains model. Environ Res Commun 2. https://doi.org/10.1088/2515-7620/ab7457
International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA) (1995) User’s Guide for MESSAGE III. Paper, Working
IPCC (2006) IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use. https://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/2006gl/vol4.html.
Islam SMM, Gaihre YK, Islam MR et al (2022) Mitigating greenhouse gas emissions from irrigated rice cultivation through improved fertilizer and water management. J Environ Manage 307:114520. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2022.114520
Jilani T, Hasegawa T, Matsuoka Y (2015) The future role of agriculture and land use change for climate change mitigation in Bangladesh. Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Chang 20:1289–1304. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11027-014-9545-8
Liu C, Cutforth H, Chai Q, Gan Y (2016) Farming tactics to reduce the carbon footprint of crop cultivation in semiarid areas. A review. Agron Sustain Dev 36:69. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-016-0404-8
Loulou R, Goldstein G, Kanudia A, et al (2016) Documentation for the TIMES Model Part I. https://iea-etsap.org/docs/Documentation_for_the_TIMES_Model-Part-I_July-2016.pdf.
Loulou R, Goldstein G (2004) Noble K. Documentation for the MARKAL family of models. In, Energy Technology Systems Analysis Programme (ETSAP). http://www.iea-etsap.org/web/MrklDoc-I_StdMARKAL.pdf
MacLeod M, Eory V, Gruere G, Lankoski J (2015) Cost-Effectiveness of Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures for Agriculture: A Literature Review. OECD Food, Agriculture and Fisheries Papers No, p 89
Moran D, Lucas A, Barnes A (2013) Mitigation win–win. Nat Clim Chang 3:611–613. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate1922
Moran D, MacLeod M, Wall E, et al (2008) UK marginal abatement cost curves for the agriculture and land use, land-use change and forestry sectors out to 2022, with qualitative analysis of options to 2050: Final Report to the Committee on Climate Change
Official Gazette (2021) Law on the Approval of the Paris Agreement, vol 7335, p 31621
Official Gazette (2005) Law on Utilization of Renewable Energy Sources for the Purpose of Generating Electrical Energy
Ozcag M, Yilmaz B, Sofuoglu E (2017) Türkiye’de Sanayi ve Tarım Sektörlerinde Seragazı Emisyonlarının Belirleyicileri: İndeks Ayrıştırma Analizi. Uluslararası İlişkiler Dergisi 14:175–195. https://doi.org/10.33458/uidergisi.513242
Pellerin S, Bamière L, Angers D et al (2017) Identifying cost-competitive greenhouse gas mitigation potential of French agriculture. Environ Sci Policy 77:130–139. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2017.08.003
Postic S, Selosse S, Maïzi N (2017) Energy contribution to Latin American INDCs: Analyzing sub-regional trends with a TIMES model. Energy Policy 101:170–184. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2016.11.023
Republic of Turkey Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry Republic of Turkey Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry Publications and Data
Republic of Turkey Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry (2006) Fertiliser application suggestions guide
Republic of Turkey Ministry of Environment and, Urbanization (2018) Seventh National Communication of Turkey Under the UNFCCC
Romero-Perez A, Okine EK, McGinn SM et al (2014) The potential of 3-nitrooxypropanol to lower enteric methane emissions from beef cattle1. J Anim Sci 92:4682–4693. https://doi.org/10.2527/jas.2014-7573
Sarica K, Tyner WE (2013) Analysis of US renewable fuels policies using a modified MARKAL model. Renew Energy 50:701–709. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2012.08.034
Shabani E, Hayati B, Pishbahar E et al (2021) A novel approach to predict CO2 emission in the agriculture sector of Iran based on Inclusive Multiple Model. J Clean Prod 279:123708. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.123708
Smith P, Martino D, Cai Z et al (2008) Greenhouse gas mitigation in agriculture. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 363:789–813. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2007.2184
Stehfest E, van Vuuren D, Kram T, Bouwman L (2014) Integrated Assessment of Global Environmental Change with IMAGE 3.0 - Model description and policy applications
TurkStat2020a Agriculture Statistics. https://data.tuik.gov.tr/Kategori/GetKategori?p=Agriculture-111.
TurkStat (2020b Environment and Energy-Environment Statistics
TurkStat (2020c) Population and Demography- Population Projections
UNFCCC (2019) European Union National Inventory Report
UNFCCC (2015a) Intended Nationally Determined Contribution (INDC)
UNFCCC (2021) Turkish GHG National Inventory Report. https://unfccc.int/documents/271544
UNFCCC (2015b) National Inventory Report of Turkey
Vermont B, de Cara S (2010) How costly is mitigation of non-CO2 greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture? Ecological Economics 69:1373–1386. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2010.02.020
Woltjer G, Kuiper M (2014) The MAGNET Model. Module Description
Yan X, Yagi K, Akiyama H, Akimoto H (2005) Statistical analysis of the major variables controlling methane emission from rice fields. Glob Chang Biol 11:1131–1141. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2005.00976.x
Yao Z, Zheng X, Liu C et al (2017) Improving rice production sustainability by reducing water demand and greenhouse gas emissions with biodegradable films. Sci Rep 7:39855. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep39855
Yu Y, Jiang T, Li S et al (2020) Energy-related CO2 emissions and structural emissions’ reduction in China’s agriculture: An input–output perspective. J Clean Prod 276:124169. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.124169
Funding
The TRAGR model has been developed within the project “Technical Assistance for Developed Analytical Basis for Formulating Strategies and Options Towards Low Carbon Development”, which has been funded by the European Union and the Turkish Republic, with the project identification number EuropeAid/136032/IH/SER/TR and contract number of TR2013/0327.05.01-01/001.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Publisher’s note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Supplementary Information
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Sarica, K., Dellal, İ., Kollugil, E.T. et al. GHG Emission Mitigation of Turkish Agriculture Sector: Potential and Cost Assessment. Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change 28, 36 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11027-023-10073-6
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11027-023-10073-6