Introducing greenhouse gas mitigation as a development objective in rice-based agriculture: II. Cost–benefit assessment for different technologies, regions and scales

Abstract

New tools for land use analysis including detailed cost–benefit assessments are needed to integrate resource management for enhancing farmers’ income and mitigating greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The paper comprises an assessment of GHG emissions and economic returns under different mitigation technologies in three rice growing regions in Asia, i.e., Ilocos Norte province (Philippines), Zhejiang province (China) and Haryana state (India). Site-specific data on soil, climate and socio-economics were integrated in the previously developed spreadsheet model TechnoGAS (Technical Coefficient Generator for Mitigation Technologies of Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Agricultural Sectors). Three baseline technologies that differed in terms of inorganic/organic N supply have been compared to different mitigation technologies in form of Marginal Abatement Cost Curves (MACCs). For the baseline technology of inorganic N (urea) fertilization, amendment with phosphogypsum and nitrification inhibitors are the most promising mitigation options resulting in shadow prices of less than US$10 per ton of carbon dioxide equivalent (CE). Assuming a mix of urea and farm yard manure for the baseline, we have tested several options including different irrigation patterns and husk used as fossil fuel. Mid-season drainage had a better cost–benefit ratio (ca. US$20 per t CE) than alternate flooding, but was less profitable than husk utilization (ca. US$4 per t CE). Assuming high organic inputs, biogas technology is, in most cases, the preferable option (ca. US$10 per t CE). Finally, we compiled regional abatement cost curves for selected administrative units using the outcome from regional optimization models. Implementing the three most promising technologies required US$6000 for Dingras municipality, Ilocos Norte, in the Philippines (ca. 10 3 ha of rice land potentially providing emission savings of ca. 3000 t CE), US$50,000 for Pujiang county in China (ca. 10 4 ha providing ca. 27,000 t CE), and US$1.2 million for Karnal district in India (ca. 10 5 ha providing ca. 220,000 t CE).