Environmental and Resource Economics

, Volume 32, Issue 4, pp 551–583

Methane and Nitrous Oxide Emissions from Agriculture in the EU: A Spatial Assessment of Sources and Abatement Costs

  • Stéphane De Cara
  • Martin Houzé
  • Pierre-Alain Jayet


Agriculture significantly contributes to emissions of greenhouse gases in the EU. By using a farm-type, supply-side oriented, linear-programming model of the European agriculture, the baseline levels of methane and nitrous oxide emissions are assessed at the regional level in the EU-15. For a range of CO2-equivalent prices, we assess the potential abatement, as well as the resulting optimal mix of emission sources in the total abatement. Furthermore, we show that the spatial variability of the abatement achieved at a given carbon price is large, indicating that abatement cost heterogeneity is a fundamental feature in the design of a mitigation policy. The cost savings permitted by market-based instruments relative to uniform standard are shown to be large.

Key words

agriculture climate change European Union greenhouse gas emissions marginal abatement costs methane nitrous oxide 

JEL classifications

Q15 Q25 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Antle, J. M., Capalbo, S., Mooney, S., Elliott, E., Paustian, K. 2003Spatial Heterogeneity, Contract Design, and the Efficiency of Carbon Sequestration Policies for AgricultureJournal of Environmental Economics and Management46231250CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Arrouays, D., Balesdent, J., Germon, J.-C., Jayet, P.-A., Soussana, J.-F., Stengel, P. 2002Increasing Carbon Stocks in French Agricultural Soils? Synthesis of an Assessment Report by the French Institute for Agricultural Research on Request of the French Ministry for Ecology and Sustainable DevelopmentINRAParis, FranceScientific Assessment Unit for ExpertiseGoogle Scholar
  3. Babiker, M. H., Criqui, P., Ellerman, A. D., Reilly, J. M., Viguier, L. L. 2003Assessing the Impact of Carbon Tax Differentiation in the European UnionEnvironmental Modeling & Assessment8187197Google Scholar
  4. Bates, J. (2001), ‘Economic evaluation of emission reductions of nitrous oxides and methane in agriculture in the EU’. Final Report AEAT-3773, AEA Technolgies and Environment, Abingdon, UK. Contribution to a Study for DG Environment, European Commission by Ecofys Energy and Environment, AEA Technology Environment and National Technical University of Athens, 99 pp.Google Scholar
  5. Cara, S., Jayet, P.-A. 1999Evaluation et Régulation de L’effet de Serre D’origine AgricoleL’Actualité Economique75597623Google Scholar
  6. Cara, S., Jayet, P.-A. 2000Emissions of Greenhouse Gases from Agriculture: The Heterogeneity of Abatement Costs in FranceEuropean Review of Agricultural Economics27281303Google Scholar
  7. European Climate Change Programme (2003), ‘Can We Meet Our Kyoto Targets?’. Second ECCP progress report, European Commission, DG ENV, Brussels, BelgiumGoogle Scholar
  8. European Commission (1998a), ‘Options to Reduce Methane Emissions’. Report AEAT-3773, DG XI, Brussels, Belgium, 255 ppGoogle Scholar
  9. European Commission (1998b), ‘Options to Reduce Nitrous Oxide Emissions’. Report AEAT-4180, DG XI, Brussels, Belgium, 169 ppGoogle Scholar
  10. European Commission (2002), ‘Towards an Analytical Capacity in Costing of Abatement Options for Forestry and Agricultural Carbon Sinks’. Final report, DG XI – EuroCare, Bonn, Germany, 51 ppGoogle Scholar
  11. European Environmental Agency2004‘Analysis of Greenhouse Gas Emission Trends and Projections in Europe 2003’European Environmental AgencyCopenhagen, DenmarkTechnical report 4/2004Google Scholar
  12. Feng, H., Zhao, J., Kling, C. L. 2002The Time Path and Implementation of Carbon SequestrationAmerican Journal of Agricultural Economics84134149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Freibauer, A. 2003Regionalised Inventory of Biogenic Greenhouse Gas Emissions from European AgricultureEuropean Journal of Agronomy19135160CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hayhoe, K., Jain, A., Pitcher, H., MacCracken, C., Gibbs, M., Wuebbles, D., Harvey, R., Kruger, D. 1999Costs of Multigreenhouse Gas Reduction Targets for the USAScience286905906CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2000), ‘Land Use, Land-Use Change and Forestry’. Special Report, IPCC, Geneva, SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar
  16. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change2001aClimate Change 2001: The Scientific BasisCambridge University PressCambridge, UK881 ppGoogle Scholar
  17. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change2001bGood Practice Guidance and Uncertainty Management in National Greenhouse Gas InventoriesInstitute for Global Environmental Strategies (IGES)JapanGoogle Scholar
  18. Jarrige, R. 1988Alimentation des Bovins, Ovins et CaprinsINRAParis, FranceGoogle Scholar
  19. Lal, R., Bruce, J. P. 1999The Potential of World Cropland Soils to Sequester C and Mitigate the Greenhouse EffectEnvironmental Science and Policy2177185Google Scholar
  20. Manne, A. S., Richels, R. G. 2001An Alternative Approach to Establishing Trade-Offs Among Greenhouse GasesNature410 675677CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. McCarl, B. A., Schneider, U. A. 2001Greenhouse Gas Mitigation in U.S. Agriculture and ForestryScience29424812482CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Newell, R. G., Stavins, R. N. 2003Cost Heterogeneity and the Potential Savings of Market-Based PoliciesJournal of Regulatory Economics234359CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Perez, I., Britz, W. 2003Reduction of Global Warming Emissions in the European Agriculture through a Tradable Permit System. An Analysis with the Regional Agricultural Model CAPRISchriften der Gesellschaft für Wirtschafts- und Sozialwissenschaften des Landbaues e.V. Bd.39283290Google Scholar
  24. Perez, I., W. Britz and C. Wieck (2003), ‘Modeling of Passive Environmental Indicators for the European Agriculture: The Role of Marginal Abatement Costs’. Contributed paper, 12th Annual Conference of the EARE, Bilbao, SpainGoogle Scholar
  25. Perez, I., W. Britz and K. Holm-Müller (2004), ‘The Use of Tradable Permits in the European Agriculture as a Feasible and Cost-Effective Mitigation Strategy’, in GHG Emissions from Agriculture. Mitigation Options and Strategies (Conference Proceedings), pp. 335–336Google Scholar
  26. Reilly, J. M., Prinn, R. G., Harnisch, J., Fitzmaurice, J., Jacoby, H. D., Kicklighter, D., Melillo, J., Stone, P., Sokolov, A., Wang, C. 1999Multi-Gas Assessment of the Kyoto ProtocolNature401549555CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Schlesinger, W. H. 2000Carbon Sequestration in Soils: Some Cautions Amidst OptimismAgriculture, Ecosystems and Environment82121127Google Scholar
  28. Schneider, U. A., McCarl, B. A. 2003Economic Potential of Biomass Based Fuels for Greenhouse Gas Emission MitigationEnvironmental and Resource Economics24291312CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Viguier, L. L., Babiker, M. H., Reilly, J. M. 2003The Costs of the Kyoto Protocol in the European UnionEnergy Policy31459481CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Stéphane De Cara
    • 1
  • Martin Houzé
    • 1
  • Pierre-Alain Jayet
    • 1
  1. 1.Institut National de la Recherche AgronomiqueUMR Economie Publique INRA INA-PGThiverval-GrignonFrance

Personalised recommendations