1. Revision of EMEP/CORINAIR emissions Guidebook Chapters on agricultural emissions

2. How current chapters equate to the new CurrentNew 1010 Cultures with fertilizers4D Agric. soils 1020 Cultures without fertilizers4D Agric. soils 1040 Enteric fermentationNot needed 1050 Manure management C compounds 4B Manure management 1090 Manure management N compounds 4B Manure management 1030 Stubble burning4F Field burning

3. Order of explanation Ammonia (NH 3 ) Nitric oxide (NO) Non-methane VOCs (NMVOCs) PM –Klaas and Torsten are working on this

4. 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

5. Chapter 4D – Tier 1 NH 3 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, t s > 13 °C; B 6 °C < t s < 13 °C; Ct s < 6 °C

6. Tier 1 – examples of EF FertilizerRegion ARegion B AN0.0200.015 Urea0.2000.170 AS0.0250.020 AP0.0250.020 Solutions0.1100.090

7. Chapter 4D – Tier 2 NH 3 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

8. Tier 2 – examples of EF, Region B FertilizerArableGrassMultiplier AN0.0080.0161 Urea0.1150.2301 AS0.020 10 AP0.020 10 Solutions0.0600.1201

9. 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 (EF max ) Modified by functions relating to soil pH land use application rate rainfall and temperature

10. 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

11. 4B Manure Management - proposed NH 3 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 N 2 O, NO and N 2 In order to more accurately assess the TAN pool at each stage of manure management

13. 4B – NH 3 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

14. 4B – NH 3 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

15. 4B – NH 3 Tier 2 In addition to NH 3 -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 N 2 O, NO and N 2 In order to more accurately assess the TAN pool at each stage of manure management

16. 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 NH 4 + -N, increase the potential size of NH 3 emissions later, i.e. during storage or after spreading

17. 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)

18. 4B – NH 3 Tier 1 Tier 1 entails multiplying the total number of animals in each livestock class by a default EF expressed as kg NH 3 -N/animal/year Default EF were calculated using Tier 2 default NH 3 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

19. 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 NH 3 emissions mass flow will estimate N applied to soils NO emissions may then be 0.7% of manure-N applied.

20. 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

21. 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

22. 4B Manure Management - proposed NMVOC methodology Tier 1 Some EF per animal for livestock classes No Tier 2 or Tier 3 approach

23. 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)

24. 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)

25. 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

26. 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.

27. 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

28. 4F - Stubble burning – proposed authors Co Chairs of Agriculture and Nature Panel Bryan Jenkins (US) Cecile de Klein ? (New Zealand) Any volunteers ?

30. 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

31. 4D Manure Management - proposed NH 3 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

32. Cultures with fertilizers – current NH 3 methodology Simpler methodology an EF for each type of N fertilizer applied in all countries e.g. AN 2%, Urea 15%

33. Cultures with fertilizers – current NO methodology 0.7 % of applied mineral fertilizer-N

34. 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

35. 4B - proposed NH 3 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]

36. Manure Management N Compounds - current NH 3 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

37. Manure Management N Compounds - current NO methodology Simpler methodology no method Detailed methodology NO emissions calculated as part of mass flow aproach

38. 4D Manure Management - proposed NH 3 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

39. Manure Management C Compounds - current NMVOC methodology Simpler methodology estimated as a ratio of NH 3 emissions no detailed methodology

40. 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

41. 4D Manure Management - additional co-author Phil Hobbs

42. Cultures without fertilizers – current NH 3 methodology Simpler methodology multiply area of legumes by an EF of of 1 kg ha -1 a -1 NH 3 -N EF also supplied for unfertilized pastures grazed by cattle and sheep or an EF as % of N deposited during grazing

43. Cultures without fertilizers – current NH 3 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 NH 3 emissions from crops (e.g. hay), or unfertilized crop residues left on the surface the effects of different climates on NH 3 emissions both from unfertilized crops, and from their residues, needs to be known

44. 4B – proposed NH 3 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

45. 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

46. 4B – proposed NMVOCs methodology without fertilizers Not currently reported same approach as for with fertilizers

47. Cultures without fertilizers – proposed NMVOC methodology Tier I methodology as proposed in chapter 'cultures with fertilizers' No Tier 2 or Tier 3 methods proposed.

48. 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

49. Timetable - 2 First order drafts for formal consultation by January 2008 second order drafts to be prepared by May 2008 for final revision

50. 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