Advertisement

The Kyoto Protocol and European and Italian Regulations in Agriculture

  • Davide Savy
  • Antonio Nebbioso
  • Rocío Dánica Cóndor
  • Marina Vitullo
Chapter

Abstract

Climate change represents the most important challenge for the international scientific community, for the inherent and irreversible modification brought about in natural ecosystems. International institutions increasingly adopt measures to promote preservation of ecosystems and counteract the social and economical consequences of environmental decline. Here we review the actions undertaken by both the Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change (IPCC) and the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), aimed to stabilize and reduce concentrations of greenhouse gases (GHG) in atmosphere, including the Kyoto Protocol that obliges developed countries to provide the political and legal framework to meet the Protocol’s expectations. Moreover, it is mandatory for national policies to reduce the occurrence of main risky events, such as landslides, floods, and desertification processes, whose frequency have rapidly risen in the Mediterranean regions mostly susceptible to climatic changes. According to the Kyoto Protocol, each signed party should include, in its annual GHG inventory, information on GHG possibly removed by means of carbon sinks activities such as land use, land-use change and forestry (LULUCF). Italian laws encompass the National System for the Italian Greenhouse Gas Inventory and the National Registry for Carbon sinks. The latter estimates GHG emissions by sources and accounts for their net removal based on sinks of the LULUCF sector that includes forest land, cropland, grassland, wetlands, and settlements. These compartments in 2008 removed 87.3 Mt of CO2 from atmosphere while, from 1990 to 2008, the total removal as CO2 equivalent increased by 34.8%, CO2 accounting for more than 99% of both total emissions and removals of the sector. Within this frame, carbon sequestration in cultivated soils has become important to add new carbon sinks other than LULUCF. The relation of soil management practices to the increase in soil organic matter is a basic requirement to develop a solid methodology to assess carbon stock changes in soil pool and provide a useful database over the national territory.

Keywords

Clean Development Mechanism Kyoto Protocol Soil Organic Matter Content Clean Development Mechanism Project Third Assessment Report 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Bigano A, Pauli F (2007) Dimensioni socio-economiche, costi dell’inazione e strategie di adattamento per l’impatto del cambiamento climatico sul sistema idrogeologici italiano. Agenzia per la Protezione dell’Ambiente e per i Servizi Tecnici. http://www.apat.gov.it/site/_files/Doc_clima/Paper_idrogeologico_finale_new.pdf
  2. Bojo J (1996) Costs of land degradation in Sub-Saharan Africa. Ecol Econom 16:161–173CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Cóndor RD, Vitullo M, Gaudioso D, Colaiezzi M (2010) The contribution of Rural Development Plans to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions in Italy. In: Leal Filho W (ed) Climate change and the sustainable management of water resources. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  4. Costantini ECC, Urbano F, Bonati G, Nino P, Fais A (2007) Atlante nazionale delle aree a rischio di desertificazione. INEA, RomaGoogle Scholar
  5. Diao X, Sarpong DB (2007) Costs implication of agricultural land degradation in Ghana. An economy wide, multimarket model assessment. IFPRI Discussion paper 00698Google Scholar
  6. Drechsel P, Gliele LA (1999) The economics assessment of soil nutrient depletion. Analytical issue framework development. Issue in sustainable land management. IBSRAM, BangkokGoogle Scholar
  7. Dregne HE, Chou NT (1992) Global desertification dimensions and costs. In: Dregne HE (ed) Degradation and restoration of arid lands. Texas Tech University, Lubbock. http://www.ciesin.org/docs/002-186/002-186.html
  8. EM-DAT 2011. The International Disaster Database EM-DAT. http://www.emdat.be. Accessed Apr 2011
  9. Fantappiè M, L’Abate G, Costantini EAC (2010) Factors influencing soil organic carbon stock variations in Italy during the last three decades. In: P Zdruli et al. (eds) Land degradation and desertification: assessment, mitigation 435 and remediation, doi:10.1007/978-90-481-8657-0_34 , ©Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010Google Scholar
  10. Gambarelli G, Gipponi G, Goria A (2007) La desertificazione, i costi dell’inazione e la valutazione delle opzioni di adattamento al cambiamento climatico. Agenzia per la Protezione dell’Ambiente e per i Servizi Tecnici. Workshop Alghero 21–22 GiugnoGoogle Scholar
  11. Giorgi F, Bi XQ, Pal J (2004) Mean, interannual variability and trends in a regional climate change experiment over Europe. II Climate Change scenarios. Clim Dynam 23:839–858CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. IPCC (1997) Revised 1996 IPCC guidelines for national greenhouse gas emission inventories. Three volumes: Reference Manual, Reporting Manual, Reporting Guidelines and Workbook. IPCC/OECD/IEA. IPCC WG1 Technical Support Unit, Hadley Centre, Meteorological Centre, Meteorological Office, Bracknell, UKGoogle Scholar
  13. IPCC (2000) Good practice guidance and uncertainty management in national greenhouse gas inventories. IPCC National Greenhouse Gas Inventories Programme, Technical Support Unit, Hayama, Kanagawa, JapanGoogle Scholar
  14. IPCC (2001) Climate Change 2001: the scientific basis. In: Houghton JT, Ding Y, Griggs DJ, Noguer M, van der Linden PJ, Xiasou D (eds) Contribution of working group I to the third assessment report of the IPCC. Cambridge University press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  15. IPCC (2003) Good practice guidance for land use, land-use change and forestry. IPCC Technical Support Unit, Kanagawa, JapanGoogle Scholar
  16. IPCC (2007a) Climate Change 2007: impacts, adaptation and vulnerability. Contribution of working group II to the fourth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. In: Parry ML, Canziani OF, Palutikof JP, van der Linden PJ, Hanson CE (eds) Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, p 976Google Scholar
  17. IPCC (2007b) Climate Change 2007: the physical science basis. Contribution of working group I to the fourth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. In: Solomon SD, Qin M, Manning Z, Chen M, Marquis KB, Averyt M. Tignor, Miller HL (eds) Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, p 996Google Scholar
  18. ISPRA (2008) Landslides in Italy. Special report 2008. ISPRA Technical Report 83/2008. Rome, Italy. http://www.apat.gov.it/site/_contentfiles/00153200/153292_RAPPORTO_83_08_Landslide.pdf
  19. ISPRA (2011a) Italian Greenhouse Gas Inventory 1990–2009. National Inventory Report 2011. ISPRA Technical report 139/2011. Rome, Italy. http://www.isprambiente.gov.it/site/_contentfiles/00009400/9475_NIR_ITALY_2011.pdf
  20. ISPRA (2011b) National Greenhouse Gas Inventory System in Italy. ISPRA Technical report 136/2011. Rome, Italy. http://www.isprambiente.gov.it/site/_contentfiles/00009400/9473_rap136_2011_NS_ITALY_2011.pdf
  21. ISPRA (2011c) Repertorio Nazionale degli interventi per la Difesa del Suolo. Statistiche. http://www.rendis.isprambiente.it/rendisweb/
  22. ISSER/DFID/World Bank (2005) The economics assessment of the sustainable of growth dependent upon renewable natural resource, GhanaGoogle Scholar
  23. Jebuni CD, Oduro AD, Tutu KA (1994) Trade and payments regime and the balance of payments in Ghana. World Develop 22:1161–1173CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Maestre FT, Cortina J (2004) Are Pinus halepensis plantations useful as a restoration tool in semiarid Mediterranean areas? For Ecol Manag 198:303–317CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Matallo H (2006) General approach to the costs of desertification United Nations Convention to Combat desertification. Latin America and Caribbean Unit, Rome 4–6 December 2006Google Scholar
  26. Ministero dell’Ambiente e della Tutela del Territorio e del Mare – MATTM (2009) Fifth National Communication under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change Italy. http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/natc/ita_nc5.pdf
  27. Ogaya R, Penuelas J (2003) Comparative field study of Quercus ilex and Phillyrea latifolia: photosynthetic response to experimental drought conditions. Environ Exp Bot 2:137–148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Pereira M, Trigo R, Dacamara C, Pereira J, Leite S (2005) Synoptic patterns associated with large summer forest fires in Portugal. Agr For Meteorol 127:11–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Re M (1997) Flooding and insurance. Geo Risks Research Department, Munich Reinsurance Company, Munich, GermanyGoogle Scholar
  30. Sardans J, Peñuelas J (2005) Effects of water and a nutrient pulse supply on Rosmarinus officinalis growth, nutrient content and flowering in the field. Environ Exp Bot 53:1–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Spizzichino D, Margottini C, Trigila A, Iadanza C, Linser S (2010) Landslides. In: Mapping the impacts of natural hazards and technological accidents in Europe. An overview of the last decade. European Environment Agency EEA Technical report 13/2010. http://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/mapping-the-impacts-of-natural
  32. UNEP (1992) World atlas of desertification. UN, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  33. UNFCCC (2005a) United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, Decision 15/CMP.1. Land use, land use change and forestry. FCCC/KP/CMP/2005/8/Add.2Google Scholar
  34. UNFCCC (2005b) United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, Decision 16/CMP.1. Land use, land use change and forestry. FCCC/KP/CMP/2005/8/Add.3Google Scholar
  35. United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD) (1994) United Nations, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  36. Young A (1999) Land degradation. In: Land resource: now and for the future. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UKGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Davide Savy
    • 1
  • Antonio Nebbioso
    • 1
  • Rocío Dánica Cóndor
    • 2
  • Marina Vitullo
    • 2
  1. 1.Dipartimento di Scienza del Suolo, della Pianta, dell’Ambiente e delle Produzioni AnimaliUniversità di Napoli Federico IINaplesItaly
  2. 2.Istituto Superiore per la Protezione e la Ricerca Ambientale (ISPRA)RomaItaly

Personalised recommendations