Learning Portal

How to roughly estimate the climate change mitigation potential of a CAP Strategic Plan (CSP)

A useful, easy-to-use methodological approach to quantify potential impacts and identify areas for improvement of how your CAP Strategic Plan (CSP) can contribute to climate change mitigation.

Page contents

Basics

Beautiful green sping rural landscape

Context

In 2023, agriculture generated 365 Mt CO2e of non-CO2 emissions, mainly methane and nitrous oxide, accounting for roughly 13% of the EU’s total greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Land use, land use change and forestry (LULUCF) activities, excluding forestry, added another 69 Mt CO2e, representing about 2.4% of the total.

To support the EU's climate objectives, CAP Strategic Plans (CSP) includes various instruments designed to reduce emissions and enhance carbon sinks. These include eco-schemes, agri-environmental and climate measures, among others.

What is it?

The methodology developed represents the first attempt to directly link good agricultural and environmental conditions (GAEC) standards and planned CSP interventions with farming practices and their climate change mitigation potential. It distinguishes the potential contribution of the CSPs to:

  • reducing GHG emissions;
  • increasing carbon (C) removals; and
  • protecting existing carbon stocks in soil and biomass.

While many studies have assessed the mitigation potential of individual farming practices, this is the first time that these practices have been systematically connected to actual CAP programming data at the Member State level. By doing so, it offers a structured approach to estimating what the CAP could potentially contribute to in terms of climate mitigation, both within individual Member States and across the EU.

The approach represents a starting point for the development of a further refined methodology, utilising available Member State data, and for enhancing their inventories of GHG emissions and removals.

Main principles

The approach is applied at the CSP level, using approved programming data from Member States. It incorporates rough estimates of expected uptake of CSP interventions and average emission and removal coefficients associated with specific farming practices.

Each farming practice is assigned a coefficient that estimates its potential to mitigate GHG emissions or to increase or preserve carbon stocks, relative to a conventional alternative. These coefficients are then applied to areas estimated for each GAEC and CSP intervention covered in the study. GAECs and CSP interventions are treated differently.

For CSP interventions, the estimated potential contribution encompasses all the areas where supported farming practices are expected to be implemented.

For GAEC standards, the study only considers the additional areas where the required practices are newly implemented in the current programming period, compared to the previous one. This approach aims to capture the net change in activity resulting from updated CAP compliance obligations.

At this stage, these estimates do not represent an assessment of the effect of the CAP. They are subject to several important limitations:

  • The assumption that all CSP interventions are newly introduced leads to an overestimation of the mitigation potential. In reality, some supported practices may have already been in place during the previous programming period.
  • The estimates are based on average assumptions and coefficients.

Consequently, results should be interpreted with caution as providing a broad order of magnitude of the CSP’s potential contributions. To go a step further and serve as an assessment tool of the actual contribution of the CSP, it is necessary to consider:

  • The actual uptake of interventions by farmers.
  • Baseline conditions, i.e. the practices that were already in place before the start of the current programming period.

Pros and cons

Advantages Disadvantages
  • Provides an overview of how CSPs and supported farming practices can contribute to reducing GHG emissions, sequestering carbon, and protecting carbon sinks.
  • The same approach(es) is applied to all the CSPs.
  • “Rough” approach: simple and rapid calculation, once there is an agreement on the assumptions, data and proxies used.
  • Can be refined and improved as new data is available.

When to use?

This methodology offers a framework for estimating potential mitigation contributions and for comparing different scenarios. Managing Authorities willing to enhance the quantification of their CSP for policy assessments and complementarity with other national Policies and Measures for climate can apply this methodology. On the other hand, used data and estimation can also be utilised by national inventory compilers to enhance their reporting to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).

Managing Authorities and CAP evaluators are encouraged to use it as an ‘entry point’ into more quantitative approaches, which can be refined and developed over time.

Key areas for improvement include:

  • Improving coefficients: adapt them to reflect local pedoclimatic conditions and specific cropping systems.
  • Filling data gaps, especially for agroforestry practices, such as the creation of silvicultural systems.
  • Using actual implementation data: collect detailed information on the number of hectares affected and the practices adopted.
  • Differentiate between newly adopted practices and those already implemented in the previous CAP programming period.

Step-by-step

Before applying the approach, several preparatory steps are essential:

  • Familiarisation with the methodology and tools: review the available guidance material, including the capacity-building material and Excel-based tools. These resources provide the foundation for the correct application of the approach.
  • Understand the methodological assumptions: a solid grasp of the underlying logic and simplifications is key to applying the method coherently, choosing appropriate assumptions, and interpreting results accurately in light of the quality and limitations of input data.
Illustration of the steps
  • Step 1 – Define the scope
  • Step 2 – Label GAECs and interventions with farming practices
  • Step 3 – Estimate areas per farming practice
  • Step 4 – Apply a standard coefficient value and calculate the potential contribution
  • Step 5 – Analyse the results.

Step 1 – Define the scope

Select the relevant interventions and GAECs to be included in the analysis, for their potential to contribute to GHG emissions mitigation or carbon sequestration or protection.

As an example, the Rough Estimates study currently covers:

  • GAEC standards:
    • GAEC 1 – Maintain permanent grassland
    • GAEC 2 – Protect wetlands and peatlands
    • GAEC 5 – Minimum soil cover (focus on tillage practices)
    • GAEC 6 – Minimum land management to prevent erosion
    • GAEC 7 – Crop rotation to preserve soil potential
    • GAEC 8 – Preserve non-productive features and areas
  • CAP interventions:
    • Coupled income support (CIS)
    • Eco-schemes
    • Agri-environment-climate commitments (ENVCLIM)
    • Investment measures (INVEST)

Step 2 – Label GAECs and interventions with farming practices

This step involves associating farming practices with each intervention and GAEC, using a standardised classification scheme of farming practices developed by the European Commission Joint Research Centre (JRC). The Evaluation Helpdesk and the JRC began developing the labelling of CSPs' interventions and GAECs in 2023. This work is now publicly available in the European Commission's online Catalogue of CAP interventions.

Step 3 – Estimate areas per farming practice

Estimation of the area per farming practice is contingent upon the design of the intervention and available information, primarily sourced from CSPs available at the time of the study, such as the planned output, planned unit amount or planned result indicators.

Various configurations exist, ranging from cases with comprehensive data to estimate the output per farming practice to cases with limited information for which assumptions are necessary. The accuracy of results hinges on the level and type of assumptions made.

Using actual implementation data or a more accurate estimation of the baseline situation will improve the accuracy of the estimates.

Step 4 – Apply a standard coefficient value and calculate the potential contributions

Each farming practice is assigned to a coefficient, representing its estimated impact on reducing GHG emissions, enhancing carbon removals, or protecting carbon in soil or biomass, expressed in kilogrammes of CO2 equivalent (CO2e) per unit (usually hectares) per year. These coefficients are primarily established based on emission and removal coefficients compiled by the JRC in the iMAP integrated modelling platform for agro-economic and resource policy analysis project.

Coefficients are predominantly established at the continental or global level, and the combined effects of different practices on the same plot of land, as well as indirect land use change effects, are not considered. Fine-tuning at national levels (or even lower levels) would improve the accuracy of the results. The study also includes a few gaps in terms of farming practices (agroforestry or certain manure storage techniques), for which no data is available to establish a coefficient.

The mitigation or protection potential contribution of each CAP intervention and GAEC standard is estimated by multiplying the estimated area covered by each farming practice by its corresponding coefficient value. These resulting values are then aggregated at the levels of intervention/GAEC, CSP and ultimately at the EU level.

Step 5 – Analyse the results

Results are expressed in million tonnes of CO2e per year, representing the potential reduction in GHG emissions, increase in carbon sequestration, or protection of carbon already stored in soil and biomass, compared to the emissions and removals expected if the areas had remained cultivated using conventional practices.

These results can be disaggregated by farming practices, GAEC and interventions.

Pie charts

The figure above shows the estimated mitigation potential per type of intervention and per categories of farming practices (according to the JRC farming practices classification) (%).

To contextualise the contribution of the CSPs with regard to EU climate targets, it is possible to aggregate the results according to the categories of the UNFCCC's Common Reporting Format (CRF), which was developed for national inventories of GHG emissions and removals. For that, the farming practices coefficients are associated with the relevant categories of emissions or removals (CRF3.A – Enteric fermentation, CRF3.B – Manure management, CRF3.D – Agricultural Soils, CRF4.B – LULUCF-Cropland, CRF4.C – LULUCF-Grassland). Although the correspondence is not always straightforward because the methodology employed in the rough estimates approach deviates from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change inventory methodologies, this step makes it possible to put the CSP estimated potential contribution into context with regard to current emissions and removals at the national level.

Main takeaway points

This methodology enables CSPs to connect with supported farm practices and their potential contribution to climate mitigation and carbon sink protection.

It helps reveal the potentially important contribution of agricultural soils and their management to LULUCF targets and CO2 emission reduction. These results come with many uncertainties. It is not possible to quantify the level of error, but this is why the approach is considered a first step. To improve estimates, the main domains for improvement are as follows:

  • Improve coefficients: more context-specific, reflecting local pedoclimatic conditions and crop systems.
  • Fill in data gaps for coefficients related to certain practices, such as livestock mitigation practices and agroforestry.
  • Replace programming data with implementation data on farming practices, in terms of hectares and type of practice.
  • Distinguish between new practice on farm vs continuation.

These recommendations are addressed primarily to Managing Authorities willing to enhance the quantification of their CSP for policy assessments and complementarity with other national Policies and Measures for climate. On the other hand, used data and estimation can also be utilised by national inventory compilers to enhance their reporting to the UNFCCC.

Resources for implementation

Further reading

Other methodologies for estimating the potential effects of the CAP will be available soon:

  • Rough estimate on soil health
  • Rough estimate on nutrient balance