Next Article in Journal
The Effects of Corporate Social Responsibility Practices and Environmental Factors through a Moderating Role of Social Media Marketing on Sustainable Performance of Business Firms
Next Article in Special Issue
In a Search for Equity: Do Direct Payments under the Common Agricultural Policy Induce Convergence in the European Union?
Previous Article in Journal
The Key Factors Influencing Safety Analysis for Traditional Settlement Landscape
Previous Article in Special Issue
Decomposing Dynamics in the Farm Profitability: An Application of Index Decomposition Analysis to Lithuanian FADN Sample
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

The Effects of Greenhouse Gas Emissions on Cereal Production in the European Union

1
Institute for Economic Forecasting of the Romanian Academy, 050711 Bucharest, Romania
2
Faculty of Management, Rzeszow University of Technology, 35-959 Rzeszów, Poland
3
Kaunas Faculty, Vilnius University, Mutines 8, LT-44280 Kaunas, Lithuania
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2019, 11(12), 3433; https://doi.org/10.3390/su11123433
Submission received: 16 May 2019 / Revised: 17 June 2019 / Accepted: 18 June 2019 / Published: 21 June 2019

Abstract

:
Considering food security and climate change mitigation as the main sustainability challenges for agriculture, the main goal is to achieve agricultural production at an acceptable level of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. In this paper, the effects of GHGs are described. Panel data models are built to assess the impact of greenhouse gases on harvested production of cereals in EU countries. The study is focused on the climate change cause by GHG emissions that have a direct impact on agriculture in what concerns cereal production. Therefore, the impact of GHGs on cereal production in the European Union, except Malta, in the period 2000–2016 was assessed. Moreover, the effects of GHGs on agricultural irrigated land in Denmark and Hungary, two EU countries with the large agricultural surface, were computed. The results indicated a positive impact of GHGs from agriculture and fertilizer consumption in the previous year on cereal production in the EU. Moreover, only in Hungary did the increase in GHG emissions determined a slow increase in the volume of agricultural irrigated lands in the period of 2000–2016.

1. Introduction

Human activity, including agriculture, contributes to the creation of greenhouse gases (GHG) that have been growing fast since the start of the industrial age [1]. The major challenges for agriculture in developing countries are represented by food security and climate change mitigation [2]. Since 1970, the global agricultural production has increased, on average, by more than two2 times with a contribution of almost a quarter of the total GHG burden in 2010. Food production has to grow to satisfy our growing demands, but climate change should be addressed and GHG emissions have to decrease. Bennetzen et al. [3] showed that except for the energy use in farming, the GHG emissions from all sources grew less than agricultural production. The authors stated there is decoupling between GHG emissions and agricultural production in recent decades.
By measuring GHG emissions from the production of various food commodities, researchers, farmers, and policymakers can better manage these emissions and identify suitable mitigation strategies to ensure higher food security and sustainable development [4,5].
At the world level, agriculture is the main source of climate change, contributing around 14% of anthropogenic greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, and another 17% through land use change. Most of the next increases in agricultural emissions will be, most probably, registered in low- to middle-income countries [6].
The latest data from the European Union indicate a slow increase in GHG as of 2017, this growth by 0.6% in 2017 as compared to 2016 being mostly attributed to the transportation sector. Chances to achieve the 2020 targets are getting smaller with every new day, thus, constant efforts should be made to achieve the newer targets established for 2030 already. In this context, the EU countries should deliver measures and policies to meet the Paris agreement commitments and the new targets for 2030. Changes in the EU climate legislation were made in 2018 stipulating a decrease in GHG by minimum 40% until 2030 as compared to the 1990 level. In case of full implementation of the EU policies, the emissions are expected to decrease by 45% until 2030, which would be a better performance than that established by the Paris Agreement [7]. There is still a significant decoupling between emissions and economic growth, even if the CO2 per unit of GDP decreased as compared to 1990. The emission of GHG from agriculture, transportation and international aviation has grown in the last five years. The efforts made in the direction to low carbon transition were supported by the integration of climate issues into the EU budget. Climate aspects required 20% of this budget in 2017. For the next budget, this share will be increased to 25% in order to achieve the climate objectives for the period of 2021–2027 [7].
Industrialized countries made efforts to reduce their actual levels of GHG emissions, while developing countries are still struggling to find an alternative to low-carbon development pathways. One of these alternatives is climate-smart agriculture (CSA) that transforms agricultural systems to achieve three goals: increased food security, climate change adaptation, and mitigation. In developing countries, mitigation is a co-benefit, the main propriety being food security and adaptation [8,9]. CSA is complementary with sustainable intensification (SI) that focuses on the growing agricultural productivity using actual agricultural land when environmental impact is reduced. Increased resource use efficiency contributes to SI like CSA through productivity growth and lowers GHG emissions per unit of output [8]. CSA and SI both focus on the potential trade-offs between agricultural production and environmental integrity. The trade-off’s potential helps in achieving a more productive and sustainable agricultural sector [10,11,12,13].
Agriculture releases to the air significant quantities of carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide [14]. The major challenge of GHG is the climate change that consists in extreme phenomena like storms, cyclones or very high temperatures. These climate conditions have a direct impact on production.
Agriculture land occupies around 40–50% of the land surface generating almost 12% of the total GHG emissions at the world level [10]. Greenhouse gas emissions are influenced by land utilisation, especially by the types of crops. The emission might vary with a crop type. In general, long-run effects of land use are smaller than short-term ones. Land use effects on the emission of CO2 are dominated by tillage. In case of N2O, the highest emissions are usually caused by fertilized grasslands [12]. The ploughing-in of residues can generate CO2 and N2O emissions. Industrialization cannot be directly responsible for changes in the concentration of water vapour, the main cause of these changes being attributed to climate warming [13].
There are just few studies dealing with assessment of impacts of GHG emissions from agriculture and their impacts [3,12,13,14]. These studies do not provide assessment of GHG emissions on cereal production or irrigated land. The main input of this study is assessment of GHG emissions impact on cereal production by taking into account mineral consumption. Therefore, our study attempts to assess the impact of GHG emissions from agriculture on the cereal production in the states of the European Union, excluding Malta, which does not produce cereals as such. On the other hand, during drought periods GHG emissions cause the necessity for extra irrigation. Therefore, the effects from GHG emissions might also be assessed taking the share of agricultural irrigated lands into account. In this paper, we will evaluate the relation between irrigated surfaces and GHG emissions from agriculture for Denmark and Hungary, the countries with large irrigated areas in EU agriculture. After a short review of literature regarding the necessity to reduce GHG emissions due to their negative consequences, the paper presents the assessment of the GHG emissions’ impact on cereals’ production and irrigated lands in EU countries. The last part of this paper draws some final conclusions.

2. The Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Agriculture and the Necessity to Mitigate Them

2.1. The Impact of GHG Emissions on Agriculture

The greenhouse gas (GHG) emission has significant effects on the environment:
-
Temperature increases determine increases in the water levels through dilatation and melting of the glaciers which could bring the disappearance of some territories (the Maldives islands and coral islands are the most vulnerable ones in this regard) [14];
-
Climate conditions are becoming more extreme with the fluctuations in the directions of storms and droughts;
-
Significant changes in climate might lead to the sinking of low-altitude coastal areas, now exploitable in agriculture, because of the rise in sea level;
-
Human health can be affected by climate transformations too: the waves of extreme heat cause deaths, encourage bacteria and mould, increase the quantity of insects (mosquitoes) and the infections (malaria and yellow fever in particular) [15].
Among the extreme meteorological events we should pay special attention to cyclones. These extreme climatic phenomena are usually named hurricanes when they are produced in the Atlantic Ocean, or typhoons when they are formed in the Pacific Ocean. They are also called tropical cyclones when they take place in the Indian Ocean [14]. For example, Irma was the most intense cyclone in the history with its 50 days of meteorological registrations by the satellite. It was also the strongest hurricane ever in the Atlantic Ocean. The previous record was registered by the super-typhoon Haiyan that affected the Philippines archipelago back in 2013 [4].
Glaciers in Switzerland melt at a high speed, losing almost one cubic kilometre of ice in the last year which means 900 billion litres of water. Zwally et al. [15] showed that glaciers melt intensified in the last 10 years and this tendency will continue even if the global warming will stop. Each year, the glaciers lose between 0.5–1 m from their bulk which is by 2–3 times more than the average loss in the previous century [15].
The currents’ change might also have disastrous effects. The actual climatic zones might migrate towards the Poles which would provoke the movement of temperate climate with 200–300 km for each additional degree Celsius. The consequences for the ecosystem can be critical because the move of these favourable areas might turn out to be too fast and the natural regeneration might not take place as such [11].
In Northern Europe, abundant rains could be favourable for the agriculture on the one hand, however, the floods might be dangerous. In the south, the waves of heat are more frequent and threat the sources of drinking water. In Siberia, the thaw of permafrost moves the areas of vegetation 150–500 km closer to the North Pole [15]. In the Middle East, very strong droughts increase the areas under the desert, which leads to decrease in the sources of water, thus, agriculture is affected [11]. In South America, tropical cyclones, storms and floods are becoming more and more frequent.

2.2. GHG Mitigation Policies in Agriculture

According to experts, human activity is responsible for intensification of the Earth warming processes. Brunetière et al. [16] pointed out that the greenhouse gas emissions into the atmosphere in France are caused by transport (26% of them), industry (22%), animal husbandry (19%) and agriculture (19%). At the world level, the carbon dioxide (CO2) from human activity comes from the following domains: 43% from agriculture, 24% from transportation, 19% from industries and 14% from the cities. The methane gas comes from animal husbandry (30%), rice plantation (22%), exploitation of oils deposits (17%), fires (11%) and waste decomposition (11%) [16]. There are no natural halocarbons in the atmosphere. Human activity is always responsible for their existence and, consequently, for the Earth’s warming.
The GHG emissions’ variation, especially those of CO2, is tracked down by an international network collecting atmospheric samples. Today this method of data collection is additionally strengthened by the air collection techniques practiced over the continents. As humans are responsible for GHG emissions’ excess, it is our duty to reduce the level of these emissions as soon as possible. In this regard, the experts propose, inter alia, the following measures:
-
The production of energy coming from fossil fuel combustion should be limited using instead the renewable energy like solar, wind, biomass, tide, nuclear etc. [15];
-
The reduction of GHG emissions from the main producing sectors: industry, agriculture, energy sector, construction etc. [16];
-
Protection of natural carbon sinks (the ecosystems that might absorb CO2 from the atmosphere, like oceans and forests) and intensification of the creation of complex carbon sinks [14].
However, these proposed measures are not enough. Some countries have already reacted to the negative consequences from the excess in GHG emissions, France being among them. Since 1990, the GHG emissions in this country decreased by 22% in industry, by 10% in agriculture, by 9% in the energy sector and by 8% in the sector of waste treatment [16].
Various international meetings have been taking place proposing policies to reduce GHG emissions. The most famous of them took place in June 1992, at Rio de Janeiro. The main objective of this conference was to ensure the level of gases that does not affect the climate. The Kyoto Protocol as of 1997 forced 38 industrialized countries to reduce their GHG emissions by 5% until 2012 as compared to the level in 1990. The Protocol constrained the US, the European Union and Japan to reduce the level of GHG emissions by 7%, 8% and, respectively, by 6%, even though later the US refused and asked for simple rules [1]. The conference held in Hague in 2000 proposed the application of this US offer which led, together with several other issues, to the suspension of talks as such without any compromise being achieved
The 2015 Paris Agreement of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change established that GHG emissions from agriculture should be reduced as to respond to climate change and also that they have to decrease by 2 °C by 2100 [17].
Relatively recently, in June 2017, almost 300 delegates from the IMO Member States, intergovernmental organizations and NGOs participated in the first meeting of a working group concerned with the reduction of GHG emissions from ships.

2.3. Major Challenges of GHG Mitigation in Agriculture

Agricultural production brings off-farm emissions because of the accompanying manufacturing and transportation of herbicides, fertilizers, and pesticides. Almost 1.6 bln ha of land are used these days for crop production. In developing countries, around 1 bln ha are used for crop production. At the world level, almost 25% of the CO2, 50% of the CH4 and 70% of the N2O from agriculture are produced by cultivated lands [18]. The GHG emissions together with ozone-depleting chlorofluorocarbons generate almost 96% of increase in radiative forcing since 1750.
Lands for agriculture that should meet the global food demand come from grasslands, forests, and other natural habitats [19]. Agriculture plays an important role in the global fluxes of carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide [20,21]. Carbon dioxide is mainly released from soil organic matter, burning of plant litter and microbial decay [22]. Methane appears when organic materials decompose due to lack of oxygen, mainly from fermentative digestion by stored manures, ruminant livestock, and rice grown in floods [23]. Nitrous oxide comes from the microbial transformation of nitrogen in manures and soils [24]. Agricultural GHG emissions are heterogeneous and complex, but they could be decreased [25]. Many mitigation opportunities stem from the currently available technologies. Burney et al. [26] considered that investment in agriculture is a good strategy to mitigate GHG emissions.
Table 1 presents the most frequent mitigation practices for GHG emissions.
Searchinger et al. [41] built a worldwide agricultural model to compute the GHG emissions from land-use change. Their results indicated that corn-based ethanol almost doubled the greenhouse emissions in the last 30 years and contributed to the increase in greenhouse gas emissions. Biofuels from switchgrass in the U.S. corn lands grew the GHG emissions by 50%. The utilization of good cropland to expand production of biofuels might intensify the global warming in a similar way like the conversion of grasslands and forests [41].
Various practices from agriculture (spraying, fertilizing, sowing, harvesting, soil tillage, transportation) require the use of tractors and, consequently, massive consumption of diesel fuel. For Turkey, Beran et al. [42] showed that agricultural diesel consumption produces up to 6606.7 thousand tonnes of CO2. Therefore, the CO2 emissions might be decreased by using more energy efficient tractors and also by means of applying innovative technologies and practices so that to improve the agricultural energy budget at the same time.

3. The Impact of Greenhouse Gas Emissions on Cereal Production and Agricultural Irrigated Lands in the European Union

3.1. Data and Methods

Given the fact that the main effect of greenhouse gases is related to climate change, our empirical study will assess the impact of greenhouse gas emissions on agriculture in terms of cereal production and use of agricultural irrigated lands in the European Union. The data availability preconditioned us to consider only two countries when studying the impact of greenhouse gas emissions on irrigated lands.
There are other factors that affect cereal production, actually. CO2 is generated along with the utilization of fertilizer and the production of fertilizer. The use of fertilizer increases the cereal production, but after a period of fertilizer consumption. However, the fact that fertilizer is used gives us important information about the fact that the previous and the actual production is not large enough and more fertilizer is needed.
Our empirical analysis will be focused on newer directions of research in the related field:
-
The evaluation of the effect from greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture and fertilizer consumption on the production of cereals in the states of the European Union (except Malta which does not have cereal production as such);
-
The evaluation of the effect of greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture on the agricultural irrigated lands (% of the total agricultural lands) in Denmark and Hungary, the countries with large agricultural surfaces, as compared to the rest of the European Union.
Greenhouse gas emissions expressed in thousand tonnes include: CO2, CH4 in CO2 equivalent, N2O in CO2 equivalent, PFC in CO2 equivalent, HFC in CO2 equivalent, SF6 in CO2 equivalent and NF3 in CO2 equivalent. The GHG emission indicator is measured only for agriculture. The sources of CO2 in agriculture are: fossil fuels, land use changes and oil organic matter of the croplands. CO2 emissions are predetermined in the first place by the use of agriculture machines and by production of fertilizers.
Fertilizers’ consumption expressed in kilograms per hectare of arable land indicates the quantity of plant nutrients utilized per unit of arable land. Fertilizer products include potash, nitrogenous and phosphate fertilizers.
Harvested production here refers only to cereals, including seeds.
Agricultural irrigated land includes the agricultural areas purposely provided with water. The lands irrigated by means of controlled flooding are included into this category.
The data on greenhouse gas emissions and harvest production are obtained from the Eurostat database. The data on agricultural irrigated lands in Denmark and Hungary and fertilizer consumption in the EU countries are obtained from the World Bank database. All the data covers the period of 2000–2016, more details are presented in Appendix A where the set of data for all the EU countries is presented. The data we need has been available since 2002 for fertilizers’ consumption and since 2000 only for the rest of the variables. Therefore, suitable techniques that could be applied on small sets of data were employed: panel data models and Bayesian models. In Table 2 we summarize the variables and the corresponding models.
The volume of agricultural irrigated lands had a significant tendency to increase in the period of 2000–2012 in Denmark, but in 2013 it abruptly decreased. In Hungary, this parameter was demonstrating fluctuations that can be explained by varying temperatures during summers. In the EU-28, due to different environmental policies, the greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture alone decreased by almost 6%. However, these GHG emissions still remain a challenge, particularly for agriculture.
Since the data are organized by countries and for a specific time period, we have used panel data regression models to estimate the impact of greenhouse gas emissions on cereal production. This method was also previously used in several similar environmental sociological studies [42,43]. A fixed-effect model controls for any unobserved, time-constant characteristics between the countries, as well as the events that occurred in each year effecting the countries at the same time. Therefore, the models indirectly control for any variables linked to GHG emissions from cereal production that are not observed within the model. The panel data model is presented below:
y i t = c + b · x 1 i t + d · x 2 i t + a i + ε i t
where:
  • y i t —dependent variable in country i and year t;
  • x 1 i t , x 2 i t —explanatory variables in country i and year t;
  • a i —individual effects;
  • ε i t —the error;
  • c—constant value;
  • b, d—parameters.
In our particular case, we get the following models estimated in Stata 15 (StataCorp LLC, Texas, USA):
Model 1:
c e r e a l s _ p r o d u c t i o n i t = c 1 + b 1 · G H G _ e m i s s s i o n s _ a g r i c u l t u r e i t + d 1 · f e r t i l i z e r _ c o n s u m p t i o n i t + a 1 i + ε i t
Then we conduct individual time series analysis for Denmark and Hungary to assess the impact of GHG emissions on irrigated lands. Due to the small time series (2000–2016), Bayesian linear models will be built using Gibbs sampling method of estimation in R.
Model 2:
i r r i g a t e d _ l a n d t = α + β · G H G _ e m i s s i o n s _ a g r i c u l t u r e t + ε t
Model 2 is necessary in this analysis because irrigated land is also influenced by GHG emissions. Global warming, due to GHG emissions, also contributes to the expansion of irrigated lands.
Bayesian linear models and panel data models have the main advantage of solving the issue of small sets of data. However, Bayesian models have also limits due to the method of estimation (Gibbs sampling). This method might marginalize out the closed form of parameters. Moreover, the samples are not independent as it is the case of rejection sampling. Gibbs sampling may fail if there is no path between islands of high-probability states and when all the states have positive probability and one island with high probability states. In this case, we considered a normal conjugate prior distribution for the model and an inverse-gamma distribution for error variance:
( σ 2 ) i . i . d . N ( 0 , σ 2 )
σ 2 InvGamma ( 1 , 1 )

3.2. Results

Panel data models are built to assess the impact of greenhouse gas emissions on harvested production of cereals in all of the EU countries, except Malta. The panel data for each variable were stationary at 5% level of significance according to Levin–Lin–Chu and Fisher-type test (Appendix B). Some random-effects models and a fixed-effects model were estimated to explain the production of cereals based on the quantity of greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture.
We checked the correlation between GHG emissions from agriculture and mineral fertilizer consumption and there is no significant contemporaneous correlation between these variables (according to a cross-sectional time series FGLS regression, the coefficient of fertilizers’ consumption is 4.23 (p-value = 0.6320)) which means that it is possible to consider the two variables as explanatory ones in the same model (see Table 3).
A total of 87.63% of the variation in production can be explained by the differences between the countries in terms of greenhouse gas emission quantities. According to Table 3, greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture had a positive and significant impact on cereal production in the European Union. As expected, the increase in cereal production is explained by the higher level of greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture which might be due to extensive cultivation of cereals, but also due to more mineral fertilizers that were previously used, thus producing more GHG emissions. Fertilizers’ consumption in the same period had a negative impact on cereal production, because fertilizer needs time to action. Indeed, the model suggests that the lands with low cereal production needed more fertilizers’ consumption. In this context, a generalized estimating equation (GEE) population averaged model with autoregression of order one is considered to measure the positive impact of fertilizers’ consumption (see Table 4).
As expected, after considering an autoregressive structure of order one in the population averaged model, we detected a strong positive impact of fertilizers’ consumption on cereal production and lower impact of GHG emissions from agriculture on it. This econometric technique made a necessary separation between current GHG emission level and the current consumption of fertilizers that will later generate GHG emissions.
Knowing that there are significant differences between the countries in the panel set, a better methodological solution is to employ a cross-sectional time series FGLS regression under the hypothesis of heteroskedastic panels and no autocorrelation (see Table 5).
According to Table 5, the greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture had a more significant positive impact on the cereal production in the European Union. This result reflects the positive effect of greenhouse gas emissions on agricultural production due to higher temperature ensured by these GHG emissions. As expected, fertilizers’ consumption had no immediate impact on cereal production growth. Low production level, in turn, stimulated the use of more fertilizer.
We also built a dynamic panel data model with Arellano–Bover–Blundell–Bond estimation (see Table 6) to explain cereal production, considering the production in the previous year and fertilizers’ consumption in the previous year.
According to the dynamic panel data model in Table 6, cereal production in the previous year, GHG emissions and fertilizers’ consumption in the previous year had, on average, a positive impact on cereal production. The strongest influence belongs to fertilizers’ consumption. An increase in the fertilizers; consumption in the previous year by 1000 tonnes determines, on average, an increase in the actual cereal production by 189 tonnes. If fertilizers’ consumption in the previous year grew, on average, by 1000 tonnes, the cereal production increased by 7168 tonnes. Actually, the increase in cereal production due to fertilizers’ consumption in the previous year is by around 10 times more than the increase due to GHG emissions in agriculture. According to dynamic panel data model, an increase in the annual GHG emissions from agriculture by 1000 tonnes determines, on average, an increase in the actual cereal production by 703 tonnes in the period 2000–2016.
Denmark and Hungary have quite large agriculture surfaces. Now we will check whether greenhouse emissions have affected the agricultural irrigated land (as % of the total agricultural lands) in Denmark and Hungary as both these countries use irrigation quite extensively. Due to relatively small dataset (time series from 2000–2016), some Bayesian linear regression models will be constructed for each country.
According to Table 7, when the quantity of greenhouse gases from agriculture in Denmark increased by one thousand tonnes, the share of irrigated lands in total agricultural areas decreased, on average, by almost 0.33 percentage points.
According to Table 8, if the quantity of greenhouse gas emissions from Hungarian agriculture increased by one thousand tonnes, the share of irrigated lands in total agricultural areas increased, on average, by almost 0.04 percentage points. This confirms the fact that mitigation of GHG emissions from agriculture should be top priority for less irrigated areas.
The obtained results can be explained by the economic development of the countries that has helped them reduce the costs of irrigation and achieve higher rates of production at the same time. There are few methods for reducing costs of irrigation. For example, if drip systems are used, these systems reduce the water utilization up to 20% compared to sprinkler system. Actually, drip system provides a steadier water flow which goes directly into the soil. The use of landscaping strategies and the proper plants, correct irrigation scheduling and control, overhead systems for large areas, oversight and proper maintenance are usual practices for reducing costs of irrigation. In Denmark, further efforts should be made to reduce GHG emissions from agriculture: better management of manure to reduce nitrous oxide, extension of rotational grazing, energy conservation, etc.

4. Discussion

GHG emissions have been increasing during the whole last century because of fossil fuel burning and associated human activities [44]. Agriculture remains a major global source of GHG emissions. The growing world population puts pressure on agricultural production that aims to guarantee food security under GHG emissions’ minimizing.
Our results are in line with the conclusions of Bennetzen et al. [3] who showed the decoupling between agricultural production and GHG emissions in the last decades. Several previous studies also showed that many techniques were applied to mitigate the GHG emissions from agriculture [27,45,46,47]. The positive effects of GHG emissions from agriculture on cereal production are revealed in this study. This might be explained by the increase in temperature which is favourable for cereal vegetation in some regions of Europe [25].
The obtained results are in line with [48] indicating that increase in GHG emissions have positive impact on crop yields in Northern and Eastern Europe. A study [48] also revealed a negative impact of increase in GHG emissions and climate change on crop yields just in the Mediterranean region. The impact of climate change on crop yields in other regions of EU was neutral [48]. The important limitation of current study is that EU regions were not singled out in the course of analysis. The impact of GHG emissions on cereal production needs to be addressed separately for North and Eastern Europe as well as for the Mediterranean Region, etc. Comparisons between these European regions will be made in order to assess the degree of achieving sustainable development which allows us to make recommendations for reducing the development gaps between regions. This issue will be analysed in a future research where the impact of GHG emissions on cereal production will be analysed in the context of achieving the objective of sustainable development.
Our results are in line with Venkat [49], Williams [50], Galnaitytė et al. [51] and Reif [52], all explaining that organic farming practices produce more greenhouse gas emissions as compared to conventional farming because of lower yields and extra reliance on machinery. We also obtained the result of higher cereal production under higher GHG emissions, which might be also explained by organic farming practices. Moreover, our econometric approach suggests higher impact of fertilizers’ consumption on cereal production as compared to GHG emissions. This result is in line with Ladha et al. who proved the efficiency of fertilizers in cereal production [53]. However, the effects of fertilizers’ consumption are not immediate, a lag of one year being necessary in this case to stimulate cereal production. The results of dynamic panel data model suggest that the increase in fertilizers’ consumption in the previous year with one unit generates an increase in cereal production by 10 times more than GHG emissions growth. The suitable fertilizer contributes to biomass production growth that restores and maintains soil organic carbon levels. An efficient strategy to manage GHG emissions is necessary in order to apply ecologically intensive management practices for crops. Snyder et al. suggested that this type of strategy ensures nutrient use efficiency maintaining cereal production growth [54,55]. On the other hand, high-yielding crops might mitigate GHG emissions due to extra storage of carbon in the soil. The results for both countries that we have chosen to analyse separately indicate that when greenhouse gas emissions increased, the share of irrigated areas in Denmark decreased, while in Hungary we observe an increase in the share of irrigated lands. This might be explained by the fact that Denmark, as a developed country, unlike Hungary, made more investments in agriculture as to reduce the quantity of irrigations. Water retention in the soil could be enhanced using farming methods like conservation tillage, residue management, bunds, field levelling. Moreover, Denmark has implemented various technologies that decrease the nitrogen losses without affecting the crops.
Moreover, Denmark is the single country from the Baltic region that registered net export for agricultural products. This country has a significant percentage of arable lands and a moderate climate which is favourable for agriculture production. Also, high productivity of Danish agriculture can be explained by well-developed infrastructure and the use of most advanced technologies in this field.
At the same time, these results might be cautiously retained since the decreased share of irrigated areas might be also explained by the environmental legislation that requires more parks and forests instead of farmers’ lands.

5. Conclusions

The increase of GHG emissions into the atmosphere has already led to global warming and accompanying climate change. Food production imposes high costs on the environment because of large GHG emissions from plants, soil, and livestock.
In this paper, we assess the impact of GHG emissions on cereal production in the EU countries, except Malta, and on agricultural irrigated lands in Denmark and Hungary, the EU countries with large agricultural areas. GHG emissions might affect cereal production and the volume of water needed for agricultural irrigation systems. Therefore, we employed the selected econometric techniques to evaluate the impact of GHG emissions on cereal production in the period of 2000–2016.
The main results show that the increase in GHG emissions from agriculture had a positive impact on cereal production in the EU. This means that the increase in GHG emissions brought the cereal production growth. This result suggests that efforts were made for a sustainable agriculture that produces more cereals in the conditions of ascending GHG. However, the impact of GHG emissions on cereal production needs to be addressed separately for Northern and Eastern Europe as well as for the Mediterranean region, etc. This could become one of the directions for future research in the same direction. The increased GHG emissions induced higher temperatures in Hungary and, consequently, more irrigated lands as compared to Denmark where control over GHG emissions is higher and a part of agricultural lands have been recently transformed into parks and forests.
Our study is limited by the fact that GHG emissions were not measured for the entirety of agriculture, but only for the lands covered by cereals, while GHG emissions arrive in the atmosphere from different various agricultural sources at the same time which is difficult to measure. However, most of the agricultural lands in Europe are designated to cereals. The relationship between GHG emissions and agricultural irrigated lands is checked for two countries only due to the lack of long data series for other EU countries. In a future study, we may consider the effects of GHG emissions on other indicators (productions of other plants, for example vegetables and some fruits). Moreover, it is useful to compare the impact of GHG emissions on the production of cereals, fruits and vegetables and to propose some measures to have an optimal effect of GHG emissions on each type of agricultural culture.
GHG emissions and utilization of global lands might develop in different directions depending on the trends in energy systems’ and agriculture development [51]. An efficient use of land is required as to preserve energy and ensure a maximum production without negatively affect the environment. Sustainable Development Goals focus on poverty reduction and on promotion of a sustainable economic growth path by protecting the planet from degradation [52,53,54,55,56]. While these goals build on earlier commitments, their incorporation indicates the interest of countries worldwide to cooperate more on sustainable development issues. While some improvements have been already observed in what concerns fighting against global poverty, the environmental goals were not achieved as such and the reduction of GHG emissions should be an important objective for future debates on sustainable agriculture development.

Author Contributions

All authors contributed equally to this work.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Appendix A

Table A1. Data for calculations.
Table A1. Data for calculations.
CountryCountry IndexYearCereal Production in Million TonesGHG from Agriculture in Tones of CO2 EquivalentTotal GHG in Tones of CO2 EquivalentFertilizers Consumption in Kilograms Per Hectare of Arable Land
Belgium120002512.911,350.62147,323.6
Bulgaria220005242.54987.4749,756.29
Czech Republic320006454.28975.75139,419.5
Denmark420009412.711,227.974,119.51
Germany5200045,271.267,562.781,004,997
Estonia62000696.11078.0213,916.58
Ireland720002173.920,295.1675,014.25
Greece820004233.759124.74124,216.5
Spain9200024,566.939,998.8348,018.2
France10200065,698.483,696.04528,762.3
Croatia1120002311.92887.9517,750.01
Italy12200020,622.234,914.39536,621.4
Cyprus13200048632.318251.89
Latvia142000923.62081.383641.24
Lithuania1520002657.74156.979779.82
Luxembourg162000152.8695.388914.96
Hungary17200010,036.46100.6372,693.58
Netherlands1820001818.821,243.78225,422.9
Austria1920004490.27506.4364,306.92
Poland20200022,340.631,005.77359,134.4
Portugal2120001623.467343.6477,204.08
Romania22200010,477.5118,456.03117,344.8
Slovenia232000493.81873.6912,976.94
Slovakia2420002201.33378.7440,144.17
Finland2520004089.36466.3348,188.59
Sweden2620005670.37804.7430,775.23
United Kingdom27200023,98549,551.63710,020.2
Belgium120012358.511,132.17145,635
Bulgaria220016055.84786.4655,807.35
Czech Republic320017337.69082.41138,744.5
Denmark420019423.111,224.8876,481.69
Germany5200149,709.367,125.011,019,402
Estonia62001558.41090.5516,204.51
Ireland720012165.119,996.1177,843.59
Greece820014236.789109.03124,785.4
Spain9200118,055.439,306.84344,860.3
France10200160,24683,127.12518,344.5
Croatia11200128293015.118,484.98
Italy12200119,933.234,366.38536,627
Cyprus132001127.4690.978146.61
Latvia1420019282201.843535.03
Lithuania1520012345.34054.612,433.75
Luxembourg162001144.3681.249389.21
Hungary17200115,046.96283.9773,202.92
Netherlands1820011862.620,762.88225,785
Austria1920014833.87448.9765,428.22
Poland20200126,960.330,614.99367,460.5
Portugal2120011307.167113.4773,303.89
Romania22200118,870.9318,580.83123,581.6
Slovenia232001495.971851.1712,660.12
Slovakia24200132123398.2443,410.81
Finland25200136616511.7751,845.23
Sweden2620015390.77260.325,963.33
United Kingdom27200118,959.446,979.11712,637.6
Belgium120022639.310,999.97143,580327.8918
Bulgaria2200267544931.6951,524.56113.7684
Czech Republic320026770.88855.49135,603.181.67916
Denmark420028803.711,302.8577,219.4897.55844
Germany5200243,391.365,025.571,032,688220.074
Estonia62002524.71029.3815,148.944.01402
Ireland720021963.619,660.9476,168.23597.0178
Greece820024249.669132.75124,485156.3769
Spain9200221,682.738,860.27362,965.4164.4518
France10200269,660.981,849.54504,843.6211.2838
Croatia1120023080.22926.7819,283.78256.9883
Italy12200221,256.133,729.47531,928.8171.1219
Cyprus132002141.8717.358350.11159.65
Latvia1420021028.52183.594998.7250.59507
Lithuania1520022539.14226.8513,578.96110.155
Luxembourg162002168.8667.3410,166.68581.1452
Hungary17200211,705.76317.1172,059.8794.87625
Netherlands1820021823.919,576.38223,663.6428.8231
Austria1920024757.37336.4971,950.76234.0238
Poland20200226,877.329,929.56347,981.8116.1952
Portugal2120021508.447007.2577,973.94191.054
Romania22200214,356.518,892.92125,370.634.78274
Slovenia232002610.731911.7212,529.3583.10638
Slovakia2420023193.63417.0340,830.68403.4762
Finland2520023939.46615.7353,737.97136.1426
Sweden2620025461.97393.2629,274.4699.88793
United Kingdom27200222,965.446,717.91691,496.2309.0218
Belgium120032613.610,626.75143,905.3313.8371
Bulgaria220033814.14827.3155,298.22147.3274
Czech Republic320035762.48388.58140,42591.57431
Denmark420039050.911,046.1681,829.39136.4003
Germany5200339,42664,080.431,027,593219.6981
Estonia62003505.71081.3416,691.4871.64954
Ireland720032146.919,843.1576,389.18533.7733
Greece820034290.689099.06128,493.2162.0903
Spain9200321,170.240,519.29371,292.8175.271
France10200354,98279,336.78505,548.6223.3639
Croatia1120032013.842849.9121,337.54292.8021
Italy12200317,864.133,640.31554,343177.7025
Cyprus132003164.69703.558740.66158.2321
Latvia142003932.42234.85669.0449.49425
Lithuania1520032631.84339.9113,864.82147.3843
Luxembourg162003164.1633.5910,646.59267.4677
Hungary1720038769.66143.8472,646.1995.49706
Netherlands1820031917.119,175.87224,073.2438.2914
Austria1920034263.87188.7287,005.24297.1385
Poland20200323,390.829,364.19358,489.6128.8711
Portugal2120031194.716552.9383,602.27174.404
Romania22200312,964.419,451.89130,665.238.63282
Slovenia232003398.751815.9412,476.7378.94834
Slovakia2420032490.33273.4441,514.29400.289
Finland2520033782.86476.9860,660.28118.386
Sweden2620035352.17399.7532,698.2298.23706
United Kingdom27200321,644.846,909.71698,586.2314.1898
Belgium12004295110,534.33145,477.1339.856
Bulgaria220047462.85277.2153,706.3980.8518
Czech Republic320048783.88583.03140,765.887.00808
Denmark420048963.210,983.2475,393.19144.7845
Germany5200451,09764,012.911,007,915215.1258
Estonia62004607.81121.7816,853.0484.30965
Ireland72004250119,572.0373,921.37466.4315
Greece820044540.029139.04129,205.1176.4176
Spain9200424,848.639,629.37387,324.6165.4026
France10200470,496.679,460.75503,629.5212.108
Croatia1120043067.483054.2421,319.49312.5844
Italy12200423,294.233,376.68552,996.7181.4181
Cyprus132004111.41681.988971.67131.4071
Latvia1420041059.52168.017072.5864.12884
Lithuania1520042859.44387.7314,879.37173.7602
Luxembourg162004179647.212,035.66333.6129
Hungary17200416,779.36409.9172,519.498.5211
Netherlands1820041923.319,019.46224,972.6357.3135
Austria1920045315.37170.0182,409.48131.3427
Poland20200429,635.129,354.21352,015.8129.1356
Portugal2120041378.836663.7577,024.28215.9395
Romania22200424,403.0120,302.75130,171.242.62524
Slovenia232004583.171753.9912,681.6383.66691
Slovakia2420043793.23036.2242,473.47358.6989
Finland2520043618.76434.4755,410.34132.7455
Sweden2620045507.87091.1632,788.1797.85392
United Kingdom27200422,074.546,894.88694,623287.3346
Belgium120052817.510,312.48141,556.3329.1435
Bulgaria220055839.14963.0654,429.7574.23196
Czech Republic320057659.858257.49138,395.189.555
Denmark420059283.110,787.9870,876.07137.1171
Germany5200545,980.263,446.45979,873.1208.7571
Estonia62005759.71129.0916,465.8460.95134
Ireland720051939.919,248.7675,184.82458.0372
Greece820054416.618936.41132,888.9143.0409
Spain9200514,32537,359.67400,812142.1395
France10200564,080.178,601.81504,018.1192.4626
Croatia1120053038.843029.6721,504.31294.5086
Italy12200521,505.132,711.68551,063.7171.7531
Cyprus13200570.19624.169127.27108.9756
Latvia1420051314.32245.767818.5868.04029
Lithuania1520052811.14420.4616,739.5897.56412
Luxembourg162005160.6635.8412,325.27313.15
Hungary17200516,212.56071.8269,916.7285.19887
Netherlands1820051857.318,822.76220,081.6337.8065
Austria1920054898.37103.8581,908.82135.7159
Poland20200526,927.829,511.99353,281.6161.9389
Portugal212005802.54661387,654.33202.7615
Romania22200519,345.4620,505.81126,331.751.35136
Slovenia232005576.291774.2913,007.2180.50395
Slovakia2420053585.33021.6645,790.67329.5511
Finland2520054058.36457.342,425.22134.2173
Sweden2620055050.67096.5732,095.5287.76872
United Kingdom27200521,024.946,084.36686,115.4272.8225
Belgium120062741.810,097.34138,976.7316.4525
Bulgaria220065531.84845.7754,212.5173.93997
Czech Republic320066386.18111.66142,242.694.27358
Denmark420068632.310,525.3879,011.52138.5812
Germany5200643,474.862,559.62986,776194.419
Estonia620066191123.7515,895.875.65373
Ireland720062083.0718,932.9975,386.18431.8768
Greece820063811.318839.92128,908124.6293
Spain9200619,091.836,669.01387,950.2142.3295
France10200661,707.978,626.58489,253.1190.3826
Croatia1120063034.642976.4822,009.37380.7877
Italy12200620,206.632,336.12540,314.7177.0316
Cyprus13200666.83647.419391.46109.0261
Latvia1420061158.72253.687199.3562.6556
Lithuania1520061857.84396.0917,967.8102.1679
Luxembourg162006161.5627.2612,244.2293.6333
Hungary17200614,467.46055.6771,022.1799.19513
Netherlands1820061749.918,806.84215,118.6353.1464
Austria19200644607077.1684,416.76130.6992
Poland20200621,775.930,221.1373,160.7159.3386
Portugal2120061200.186551.8873,155.79137.0609
Romania22200615,759.3220,522.75127,335.640.59559
Slovenia232006493.561768.6113,240.9491.78157
Slovakia2420062928.82951.1442,934.74322.0056
Finland25200637906414.8247,266.57134.4955
Sweden2620064128.47252.127,477.6186.29002
United Kingdom27200620,805.445,637.32680,174.3254.1844
Belgium120072786.810,277.61135,555355.1847
Bulgaria220073201.94701.6159,387.79102.0094
Czech Republic320077152.98265.07145,923100.1696
Denmark420078220.210,750.2271,688.29142.412
Germany5200740,632.161,972.9960,477.9221.8718
Estonia62007879.11179.4519,198.7375.87185
Ireland720071997.0418,629.473,345.53427.5217
Greece820073974.378971.78133,216.396.90339
Spain9200724,543.737,842.12401,775.3157.7222
France10200759,469.979,534.12480,286.4209.3382
Croatia1120072534.232920.3524,049.87410.0634
Italy12200720,303.732,979.21555,783.1190.23
Cyprus13200763.53643.899797.57109.8361
Latvia1420071535.22347.468250.3867.72475
Lithuania15200730174488.5518,462.2490.06537
Luxembourg162007148.4641.4211,751.41276.4098
Hungary1720079652.96051.9668,833.14110.4094
Netherlands1820071622.618,556.54214,239.8302.1391
Austria1920074757.97118.381,349.05110.2667
Poland20200727,142.830,854.09379,013.5181.1723
Portugal2120071066.846681.166,999.73199.9086
Romania2220077814.8320,613.75132,581.144.63585
Slovenia232007531.891823.9513,016.3589.95062
Slovakia2420072793.23014.1841,409.46324.5257
Finland2520074137.36390.7453,337.44123.5029
Sweden2620075066.86869.1523,524.6689.33031
United Kingdom27200719,04544,934.51667,957.7253.2457
Belgium120083307.210,129.36135,870.5242.891
Bulgaria220087015.64952.156,882.38111.2429
Czech Republic320088369.58382.73138,224.687.26412
Denmark420089073.510,693.6963,232.79147.6761
Germany5200850,104.964,327.79955,916.3159.5827
Estonia62008863.81236.1617,235.75100.363
Ireland720082461.2918,464.6371,557.34378.109
Greece820085058.758715.16128,418.6119.0477
Spain9200824,179.734,787.88369,970106.5446
France10200870,24679,988.68473,840.5152.4465
Croatia1120083725.52909.4222,543.17495.2283
Italy12200821,847.9331,991.35523,176.8143.4763
Cyprus1320086.34616.789931.03112.0146
Latvia1420081689.42325.777378.3166.94701
Lithuania1520083421.94340.1617,378.3186.68117
Luxembourg162008189.7655.3511,621.2250.5161
Hungary17200816,840.66073.565,424.0696.70076
Netherlands1820082062.618,619.91213,569.5267.7086
Austria1920085747.87225.7282,401.8110.0453
Poland20200827,664.330,928.18372,487157.7182
Portugal2120081313.196630.1262,875.41155.4888
Romania22200816,826.4420,261.46127,631.745.63525
Slovenia232008579.641739.6214,554.4775.08394
Slovakia24200841372904.6343,233.55279.843
Finland2520084229.16469.3746,385130.5808
Sweden2620085201.26968.3621,437.1899.01141
United Kingdom27200824,28244,024.15647,517.9213.9883
Belgium120093324.310,288.06122,880.3300
Bulgaria220096427.24772.1148,621.55104.6004
Czech Republic3200978327929.92128,903.688.51698
Denmark4200910,116.810,406.8964,572.13102.9181
Germany5200949,748.263,664.35888,919.9181.4144
Estonia62009873.11173.2813,902.3269.41314
Ireland720092063.0318,278.665,347.07477.3737
Greece820095269.548497.16121,095.663.09619
Spain9200917,827.335,403.55332,777.496.92694
France10200969,999.979,150.97458,784.6120.5634
Croatia1120093441.82796.2620,563.14164.6793
Italy12200917,562.9131,330.52469,849.8120.1116
Cyprus13200956.82611.749694.45181.4499
Latvia1420091663.12353.7910,738.4564.88356
Lithuania1520093806.64381.1112,502.4644.25573
Luxembourg162009188.6658.8611,105.47244.5847
Hungary17200913,590.45722.6360,802.6477.48222
Netherlands1820092088.818,474.1208,220.4238.1711
Austria1920095144.27244.7875,85383.40627
Poland20200929,826.630,232.31356,617.3147.265
Portugal2120091119.836541.5859,852.01118.5657
Romania22200914,872.9519,605.96108,19248.49323
Slovenia232009532.841753.2412,701.2678.3097
Slovakia24200933302798.2838,824.93233.8345
Finland2520094260.96487.9329,373.94107.9839
Sweden2620095250.26715.7815,180.7663.91205
United Kingdom27200921,61843,830.67590,443.1239.8744
Belgium120103105.210,235.8130,524.1344.1247
Bulgaria220107136.415245.1350,693.5797.05336
Czech Republic320106877.627761.98131,425.895.84579
Denmark420108747.710,326.0461,863.82113.7121
Germany5201044,069.9462,853.35925,381.6211.5968
Estonia620106781192.3719,219.0668.38915
Ireland720102040.3218,349.2365,861.86462.4411
Greece820104592.128815.94114,983.9122.4959
Spain9201019,869.1534,712.01318,328130.6753
France10201065,505.6677,780.83472,139.2150.538
Croatia1120103007.182717.520,065.22297.3098
Italy12201020,960.3330,526.61473,438.3122.746
Cyprus13201065.73637.489408.37202.7724
Latvia1420101435.5237614,221.3177.64791
Lithuania1520102796.74329.2210,881.33103.5348
Luxembourg162010166.19668.1711,997.12258.1921
Hungary17201012,2625642.4460,853.5484.33424
Netherlands182010188718,495.31220,056.8293.3258
Austria1920104817.877094.4279,171.92108.4873
Poland20201027,228.129,717.72376,248.8180.4783
Portugal2120101020.526472.1258,381.3148.9574
Romania22201016,712.8817,505.79102,402.852.54625
Slovenia232010568.831720.1612,803.1285.06394
Slovakia2420102571.242813.3840,547.07266.5692
Finland2520102989.36576.2248,287.81124.0797
Sweden2620104286.86799.9816,513.481.73032
United Kingdom27201020,94644,114.86606,250.8250.7538
Belgium120112944.210,140.34120,117.1338.1818
Bulgaria220117520.44897.0760,030.54133.0825
Czech Republic320118284.817904.13128,528.6100.5765
Denmark420118793.510,328.3955,056.89112.8487
Germany5201141,960.464,537.51906,630.1191.487
Estonia62011771.21218.3519,104.0871.51802
Ireland720112509.4217,748.1161,715.79430.4802
Greece820114785.698574.71111,918.6159.7077
Spain9201122,094.5234,236.16320,069.2122.6165
France10201163,825.4877,362.01448,477.2141.2993
Croatia1120112827.52785.5620,677.9311.0115
Italy12201117,923.4730,861.56465,141.3134.3225
Cyprus13201170.2619.219106.4151.2024
Latvia14201114122395.8713,214.9683.2323
Lithuania1520113225.94345.4111,116.6177.6328
Luxembourg162011149.5966211,767.56270.6053
Hungary17201113,678.215881.3859,700.193.28828
Netherlands182011168518,173.86206,237.6246.8111
Austria1920115704.277146.1376,509.92103.3892
Poland20201126,767.430,088.15368,514.2169.7423
Portugal2120111158.466436.5857,097.91132.5053
Romania22201120,842.1617,774.04108,187.654.13496
Slovenia232011607.961696.4712,959.4195.93732
Slovakia2420113714.12806.2439,046.5256.5066
Finland2520113667.86410.6938,898.4680.23195
Sweden2620114646.47171.3919,459.6985.08148
United Kingdom27201121,48544,013.6557,965.8238.7001
Belgium120123011.59911.06117,176.6348.6924
Bulgaria2201269885017.1154,872.9995.86976
Czech Republic320126595.497895.79125,008.7127.6652
Denmark420129460.410,274.352,410.93107.1133
Germany5201245,44164,076.53912,374.2198.9216
Estonia62012991.21307.418,034.4281.0701
Ireland720122125.1818,094.9362,699.1469.7325
Greece820124282.218446.56108,648.5109.4488
Spain9201217,543.1233,113.7317,673.5122.5808
France10201268,457.7577,059.12438,671.9160.7863
Croatia1120122686.552704.6419,144.4191.3879
Italy12201218,958.7631,455.39451,413.9122.5063
Cyprus13201290.75593.818605.24196.5268
Latvia1420122124.52506.4911,971.3291.56537
Lithuania1520124656.64379.5212,010.84107.056
Luxembourg162012153.43642.511,389.24258.5198
Hungary17201210,372.745945.1955,277.7699.61542
Netherlands182012182617,970.34201,475.1289.8121
Austria1920124875.887077.3874,404.87125.452
Poland20201228,543.829,956.2361,368.6177.8856
Portugal2120121178.96481.3157,667.59150.8605
Romania22201212,824.1417,623.42106,481.149.78086
Slovenia232012576.411679.3112,517.31106.9195
Slovakia2420123035.812890.5235,629.74250.3811
Finland2520123658.76373.2130,057.6680.28189
Sweden2620125070.66679.7510,350.9875.96158
United Kingdom27201219,51543,534.5575,575.3235.029
Belgium120133155.99904.48117,438.4340.31
Bulgaria220139153.935497.6848,946.29109.1383
Czech Republic320137512.618128.87121,829.6161.483
Denmark420139050.710,277.9855,618.9116.6228
Germany5201347,793.265,242.18930,850.9203.4706
Estonia62013975.51303.5220,368.9982.3558
Ireland720132400.618,923.9562,263.3472.9048
Greece820134620.248380.53100,571.8117.2323
Spain9201325,373.4433,373.32286,432.1143.5965
France10201367,323.3475,832.11436,461.4169.4174
Croatia1120133187.882536.9917,400.73160.8101
Italy12201318,212.3330,252.61406,621.6129.3035
Cyprus13201351.92550.187876.57183.8706
Latvia1420131948.72570.3312,342.1100.6565
Lithuania1520134474.84357.3311,443.61109.6359
Luxembourg162013173.3658.2510,677.71247.5901
Hungary17201313,609.916340.1353,526.08113.5586
Netherlands182013182318,447.22202,059.4231.1277
Austria1920134590.157059.1275,636.8135.6105
Poland20201328,455.130,497.88355,081.6179.3273
Portugal2120131363.566468.3456,260.18168.4289
Romania22201320,897.0818,193.8897,156.7156.23496
Slovenia232013457.341662.512,631.87109.3302
Slovakia2420133411.962970.8234,814.36254.1252
Finland2520134062.86483.9436,859.6980.85607
Sweden2620134992.66900.3310,829.3884.30115
United Kingdom27201320,02243,798.3558,701.5246.5924
Belgium120143172.9910,107.03112,149322.481
Bulgaria220149530.425084.950,369.88108.8032
Czech Republic320148779.38280.62118,037.5162.6573
Denmark420149764.410,399.5550,523.64120.5029
Germany5201452,048.266,590.89889,384.9217.659
Estonia620141221.61341.9319,326.1885.34098
Ireland720142597.8118,882.4962,398.47499.294
Greece820144297.448294.9198,909.79123.0625
Spain9201420,564.2434,899.25284,839.5151.3561
France10201472,714.9278,860.91413,626.7168.4267
Croatia1120142994.82427.0516,457.73192.077
Italy12201419,412.8229,757.88388,986.8126.5641
Cyprus1320147.36537.758250.3158.2065
Latvia1420142227.22663.3215,533.33101.1241
Lithuania1520145123.24529.7312,537.14111.7522
Luxembourg162014168.56666.5310,299.72240.7603
Hungary17201416,613.386493.952,518.22112.7082
Netherlands182014176718,616.7194,047.7247.8533
Austria1920145710.277183.5171,495.84144.5557
Poland20201431,945.4330,472.43350,800.6164.0007
Portugal2120141334.496566.0454,497.6179.8445
Romania22201422,070.7418,190.2397,155.0251.51959
Slovenia232014649.061707.5510,903.26116.4788
Slovakia2420144708.343047.1334,556.04263.0787
Finland2520144127.86510.830,735.9685.88443
Sweden2620145782.56975.818659.9692.65934
United Kingdom27201424,52544,698.03515,491.6243.3625
Belgium120153282.5410,002.78115,537.4323.8505
Bulgaria220158728.975937.854,608.01112.0156
Czech Republic320158183.518482.99120,486.1192.0822
Denmark4201510,024.410,298.6252,071.86132.374
Germany5201548,917.766,955.17887,351.7202.2227
Estonia620151535.31337.6215,681.26116.1867
Ireland720152633.5519,227.1164,191.821273.853
Greece820153437.148309.9792,574.66118.2727
Spain9201520,140.9535,978.59296,889.7151.5015
France10201572,633.1678,372.94421,318.8170.401
Croatia1120152796.82555.3218,510.43181.7
Italy12201516,118.9929,953.42396,806.1134.127
Cyprus13201588.13559.38262.48156.6778
Latvia1420153021.52739.6412,679.81104.7593
Lithuania1520156066.714600.313,391.18122.5821
Luxembourg162015176.52680.839863.99242.6752
Hungary17201514,145.176676.3554,579.64120.2579
Netherlands1820151706.4719,210.26201,749.5269.1291
Austria1920154843.87167.9974,027.14144.7092
Poland20201528,002.729,649.89356,997.9174.0975
Portugal2120151241.326623.5360,275.48173.3919
Romania22201519,286.2418,613.0398,168.5460.68603
Slovenia232015624.051743.5111,202.48112.9911
Slovakia2420153805.713014.4634,840.7267.9463
Finland2520153682.86480.9729,516.4482.87651
Sweden2620156168.86894.673177.3396.5354
United Kingdom27201524,73544,615.35496,123.1248.378
Belgium120162333.5310,029.52300.4327.8918
Bulgaria220168938.665999.28956.2113.7684
Czech Republic320168596.418503.58694.381.67916
Denmark420169130.210,199.79033.797.55844
Germany5201645,40164,20042,300220.074
Estonia62016934.11378.62946.344.01402
Ireland720162310.9419,108.112258.9597.0178
Greece820163473.8383223479.6156.3769
Spain9201624,227.233,298.623,996164.4518
France10201654,209.4775,00453,668.3211.2838
Croatia1120163457.625873469.1256.9883
Italy12201618,218.7227,88317,889171.1219
Cyprus13201627.8956927.89159.65
Latvia1420162703.227672758.450.59507
Lithuania1520165069.6645055112.9110.155
Luxembourg162016139.26672137.8581.1452
Hungary17201616,726.07663616,88494.87625
Netherlands1820161369.6919,0231302.7428.8231
Austria1920165691.3271895684.7234.0238
Poland20201629,849.2229,833.530,003116.1952
Portugal2120161149.656633.91167.2191.054
Romania22201619,928.2618,657.920,00334.78274
Slovenia232016643.881779.4645.783.10638
Slovakia2420164745.523000.964883.1403.4762
Finland2520163520.46480.973528.1136.1426
Sweden2620165458.36778.15332.899.88793
United Kingdom27201621,96544,045.3519,726309.0218
Table A2. Irrigated land in Denmark and Hungary (percent of total agricultural land).
Table A2. Irrigated land in Denmark and Hungary (percent of total agricultural land).
Irrigated Land in Denmark, %Irrigated land in Hungary, %
7.6233182.48
7.6547842.5
7.5808882.540494
7.7097512.04502
9.6786111.280914
9.6678971.341367
9.5381152.081798
9.520241.382383
9.6431281.846101
12.147750.840352
11.3841.894323
10.77832.337954
9.2755852.224719
8.93641.857838
8.99361.9
9.03642.1

Appendix B

Figure A1. Panel unit root tests.
Figure A1. Panel unit root tests.
Sustainability 11 03433 g0a1

References

  1. Johnson, D.E.; Johnson, K.A. Greenhouse Gas Emissions. In Encyclopedia of Animal Science-(Two-Volume Set); CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2018; pp. 578–581. [Google Scholar]
  2. Yue, Q.; Xu, X.; Hillier, J.; Cheng, K.; Pan, G. Mitigating greenhouse gas emissions in agriculture: From farm production to food consumption. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 149, 1011–1019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Bennetzen, E.H.; Smith, P.; Porter, J.R. Decoupling of greenhouse gas emissions from global agricultural production: 1970–2050. Glob. Chang. Biol. 2016, 22, 763–781. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Vetter, S.H.; Sapkota, T.B.; Hillier, J.; Stirling, C.M.; Macdiarmid, J.I.; Aleksandrowicz, L.; Green, R.; Joy, E.J.M.; Dangour, A.D.; Smith, P. Greenhouse gas emissions from agricultural food production to supply Indian diets: Implications for climate change mitigation. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2017, 237, 234–241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  5. Hnatyshyn, M. Decomposition analysis of the impact of economic growth on ammonia and nitrogen oxides emissions in the European Union. J. Int. Stud. 2018, 11, 201–209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  6. Palut, M.P.J.; Canziani, O.F. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2007. [Google Scholar]
  7. European Environment Agency. Approximated EU GHG Inventory: Proxy GHG Estimates for 2017; EEA Report; European Environment Agency: Copenhagen, Denmark, 2018; Volume 17, pp. 2–107. [Google Scholar]
  8. Campbell, B.M.; Thornton, P.; Zougmoré, R.; Van Asten, P.; Lipper, L. Sustainable intensification: What is its role in climate smart agriculture? Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 2014, 8, 39–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  9. Lipper, L.; Thornton, P.; Campbell, B.M.; Baedeker, T.; Braimoh, A.; Bwalya, M.; Caron, P.; Cattaneo, A.; Garrity, D.; Henry, K.; et al. Climate-smart agriculture for food security. Nat. Clim. Chang. 2014, 4, 1068. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Klapwijk, C.J.; van Wijk, M.T.; Rosenstock, T.S.; Van Asten, P.J.A.; Thornton, P.K.; Giller, K.E. Analysis of trade-offs in agricultural systems: Current status and way forward. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 2014, 6, 110–115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Steenwerth, K.L.; Hodson, A.K.; Bloom, A.J.; Carter, M.R.; Cattaneo, A.; Chartres, C.J.; Hatfield, J.L.; Henry, K.; Hopmans, J.W.; Horwáth, W.R.; et al. Climate-smart agriculture global research agenda: Scientific basis for action. Agric. Food Secur. 2014, 3, 11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Kanter, D.R.; Musumba, M.; Wood, S.L.; Palm, C.; Antle, J.; Balvanera, P.; Dale, V.H.; Havlik, P.; Kline, K.L.; Scholes, R.J.; et al. Evaluating agricultural trade-offs in the age of sustainable development. Agric. Syst. 2018, 163, 73–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Morkūnas, M.; Volkov, A.; Pazienza, P. How Resistant Is the Agricultural Sector? Economic Resilience Exploited. Econ. Sociol. 2018, 11, 321–332. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Paustian, K.; Cole, C.V.; Sauerbeck, D.; Sampson, N. CO2 mitigation by agriculture: An overview. Clim. Chang. 1998, 40, 135–162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Zwally, H.J.; Li, J.; Robbins, J.W.; Saba, J.L.; Yi, D.; Brenner, A.C. Mass gains of the Antarctic ice sheet exceed losses. J. Glaciol. 2015, 61, 1019–1036. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  16. Brunetière, J.R.; Alexandre, S.; d’Aubreby, M.; Debiesse, G.; Guérin, A.J.; Perret, B.; Schwartz, D. Le Facteur 4 en France: La Division Par 4 des Émissions de Gaz à Effet de Serre à L’horizon 2050; Rapport Final; Technical Report; Conseil général de l’Environment et du Développement durable: Tour Séquoïa, Puteaux, France, 2009. [Google Scholar]
  17. Wollenberg, E.; Richards, M.; Smith, P.; Havlík, P.; Obersteiner, M.; Tubiello, F.N.; Herold, M.; Gerber, P.; Carter, S.; Reisinger, A.; et al. Reducing emissions from agriculture to meet the 2 C target. Glob. Chang. Biol. 2016, 22, 3859–3864. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Stavi, I.; Lal, R. Agriculture and greenhouse gases, a common tragedy. A review. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 2013, 33, 275–289. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Zona, D.; Janssens, I.A.; Aubinet, M.; Gioli, B.; Vicca, S.; Fichot, R.; Ceulemans, R. Fluxes of the greenhouse gases (CO2, CH4 and N2O) above a short-rotation poplar plantation after conversion from agricultural land. Agric. For. Meteorol. 2013, 169, 100–110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Robertson, G.P.; Paul, E.A.; Harwood, R.R. Greenhouse gases in intensive agriculture: Contributions of individual gases to the radiative forcing of the atmosphere. Science 2000, 289, 1922–1925. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  21. Havrysh, V.; Nitsenko, V.; Bilan, Y.; Streimikiene, D. Assessment of optimal location for a centralized biogas upgrading facility. Energy Environ. 2018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Janzen, H.H. Carbon cycling in earth systems—A soil science perspective. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2004, 104, 399–417. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Mosier, A.R.; Duxbury, J.M.; Freney, J.R.; Heinemeyer, O.; Minami, K.; Johnson, D.E. Mitigating agricultural emissions of methane. Clim. Chang. 1998, 40, 39–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Oenema, O.; Wrage, N.; Velthof, G.L.; van Groenigen, J.W.; Dolfing, J.; Kuikman, P.J. Trends in global nitrous oxide emissions from animal production systems. Nutr. Cycl. Agroecosyst. 2005, 72, 51–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Meisterling, K.; Samaras, C.; Schweizer, V. Decisions to reduce greenhouse gases from agriculture and product transport: LCA case study of organic and conventional wheat. J. Clean. Prod. 2009, 17, 222–230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Burney, J.A.; Davis, S.J.; Lobell, D.B. Greenhouse gas mitigation by agricultural intensification. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2010, 107, 12052–12057. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  27. Schils, R.L.M.; Verhagen, A.; Aarts, H.F.M.; Šebek, L.B.J. A farm level approach to define successful mitigation strategies for GHG emissions from ruminant livestock systems. Nutr. Cycl. Agroecosyst. 2005, 71, 163–175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  28. Pradhan, B.B.; Shrestha, R.M.; Hoa, N.T.; Matsuoka, Y. Carbon prices and greenhouse gases abatement from agriculture, forestry and land use in Nepal. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2017, 43, 26–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Kasimir-Klemedtsson, Å.; Klemedtsson, L.; Berglund, K.; Martikainen, P.; Silvola, J.; Oenema, O. Greenhouse gas emissions from farmed organic soils: A review. Soil Use Manag. 1997, 13, 245–250. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Merino, A.; Pérez-Batallón, P.; Macías, F. Responses of soil organic matter and greenhouse gas fluxes to soil management and land use changes in a humid temperate region of southern Europe. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2004, 36, 917–925. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Harris, Z.M.; Spake, R.; Taylor, G. Land use change to bioenergy: A meta-analysis of soil carbon and GHG emissions. Biomass Bioenergy 2015, 82, 27–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  32. Giuntoli, J.; Agostini, A.; Edwards, R.; Marelli, L. Solid and Gaseous Bioenergy Pathways: Input Values and GHG Emissions; Report EUR; Joint Research Centre: Luxembourg, 2015; p. 26696. [Google Scholar]
  33. Buchholz, T.; Prisley, S.; Marland, G.; Canham, C.; Sampson, N. Uncertainty in projecting GHG emissions from bioenergy. Nat. Clim. Chang. 2014, 4, 1045. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Smith, P.; Martino, D.; Cai, Z.; Gwary, D.; Janzen, H.; Kumar, P.; McCarl, B.; Ogle, S.; O’Mara, F.; Rice, C.; et al. Greenhouse gas mitigation in agriculture. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 2008, 363, 789–813. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Chadwick, D.; Sommer, S.; Thorman, R.; Fangueiro, D.; Cardenas, L.; Amon, B.; Misselbrook, T. Manure management: Implications for greenhouse gas emissions. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 2011, 166, 514–531. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Van Vuuren, D.P.; Stehfest, E.; Gernaat, D.E.; Doelman, J.C.; Van den Berg, M.; Harmsen, M.; De Boer, H.S.; Bouwman, L.F.; Daioglou, V.; Edelenbosch, O.Y.; et al. Energy, land-use and greenhouse gas emissions trajectories under a green growth paradigm. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2017, 42, 237–250. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  37. Bellarby, J.; Tirado, R.; Leip, A.; Weiss, F.; Lesschen, J.P.; Smith, P. Livestock greenhouse gas emissions and mitigation potential in Europe. Glob. Chang. Biol. 2013, 19, 3–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. Wang, W.; Dalal, R.C.; Reeves, S.H.; Butterbach-Bahl, K.L.A.U.S.; Kiese, R. Greenhouse gas fluxes from an Australian subtropical cropland under long-term contrasting management regimes. Glob. Chang. Biol. 2011, 17, 3089–3101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Henderson, B.B.; Gerber, P.J.; Hilinski, T.E.; Falcucci, A.; Ojima, D.S.; Salvatore, M.; Conant, R.T. Greenhouse gas mitigation potential of the world’s grazing lands: Modeling soil carbon and nitrogen fluxes of mitigation practices. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2015, 207, 91–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Allard, V.; Soussana, J.F.; Falcimagne, R.; Berbigier, P.; Bonnefond, J.M.; Ceschia, E.; D’Hour, P.; Hénault, C.; Laville, P.; Martin, C.; et al. The role of grazing management for the net biome productivity and greenhouse gas budget (CO2, N2O and CH4) of semi-natural grassland. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2007, 121, 47–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Searchinger, T.; Heimlich, R.; Houghton, R.A.; Dong, F.; Elobeid, A.; Fabiosa, J.; Tokgoz, S.; Hayes, D.; Yu, T.H. Use of US croplands for biofuels increases greenhouse gases through emissions from land-use change. Science 2008, 319, 1238–1240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Beran, A.D.A.Y.; Ertekin, C.; Evrendilek, F. Emissions of Greenhouse Gases from Diesel Consumption in Agricultural Production of Turkey. Eur. J. Sustain. Dev. 2016, 5, 279–288. [Google Scholar]
  43. Jorgenson, A.K.; Austin, K.; Dick, C. Ecologically unequal exchange and the resource consumption/environmental degradation paradox: A panel study of less-developed countries, 1970–2000. Int. J. Comp. Sociol. 2009, 50, 263–284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. York, R. Do alternative energy sources displace fossil fuels? Nat. Clim. Chang. 2012, 2, 441. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Johnson, J.M.F.; Franzluebbers, A.J.; Weyers, S.L.; Reicosky, D.C. Agricultural opportunities to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions. Environ. Pollut. 2007, 150, 107–124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Cole, C.V.; Duxbury, J.; Freney, J.; Heinemeyer, O.; Minami, K.; Mosier, A.; Paustian, K.; Rosenberg, N.; Sampson, N.; Sauerbeck, D.; et al. Global estimates of potential mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions by agriculture. Nutr. Cycl. Agroecosyst. 1997, 49, 221–228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Chico, J.R.; Sánchez, A.R.P.; García, M.J. Influence of agricultural factors of production on the emission of greenhouse gases worldwide. ‘Oikos Polis’ Rev. Latinoam. Cienc. Econ. Soc. 2017, 2, 31–63. [Google Scholar]
  48. European Environment Agency. Climate Change, Impacts and Vulnerability in Europe 2012, An Indicator-Based Report; European Environment Agency: Copenhagen, Denmark, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  49. Venkat, K. Comparison of twelve organic and conventional farming systems: A life cycle greenhouse gas emissions perspective. J. Sustain. Agric. 2012, 36, 620–649. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Williams, A.; Audsley, E.; Sandars, D. Determining the Environmental Burdens and Resource Use in the Production of Agricultural and Horticultural Commodities: Defra Project Report IS0205. Available online: http://randd.defra.gov.uk/Default.Aspx (accessed on 5 March 2019).
  51. Reiff, M.; Surmanová, K.; Balcerzak, A.P.; Pietrzak, M.B. Multiple Criteria Analysis of European Union Agriculture. J. Int. Stud. 2016, 9, 62–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  52. Ladha, J.K.; Pathak, H.; Krupnik, T.J.; Six, J.; van Kessel, C. Efficiency of fertilizer nitrogen in cereal production: Retrospects and prospects. Adv. Agron. 2005, 87, 85–156. [Google Scholar]
  53. Snyder, C.S.; Bruulsema, T.W.; Jensen, T.L.; Fixen, P.E. Review of greenhouse gas emissions from crop production systems and fertilizer management effects. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2009, 133, 247–266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Galnaitytė, A.; Kriščiukaitienė, I.; Baležentis, T.; Namiotko, V. Evaluation of Technological, Economic and Social Indicators for Different Farming Practices in Lithuania. Econ. Sociol. 2017, 10, 189–202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  55. Balezentis, T.; Novickyte, L. Are Lithuanian Family Farms Profitable and Financially Sustainable? Evidence Using DuPont Model, Sustainable Growth Paradigm and Index Decomposition Analysis. Transform. Bus. Econ. 2018, 17, 237–255. [Google Scholar]
  56. Simionescu, M.; Albu, L.L.; Raileanu Szeles, M.; Bilan, Y. The impact of biofuels utilisation in transport on the sustainable development in the European Union. Technol. Econ. Dev. Econ. 2017, 23, 667–686. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Table 1. Measures aimed at reducing the GHG emissions from agricultural ecosystems.
Table 1. Measures aimed at reducing the GHG emissions from agricultural ecosystems.
MeasuresExamplesCO2N2OCH4Observations
organic soil management [27,28,29,30]Avoiding the drainage of wetlandsReduced emissionsUncertain effectIncreased emissions Arable farmed organic soils could be large emitters of CO2 and N2O
Bioenergy [31,32,33]Residues, energy crops, liquid, solid, biogasReduced emissionsUncertain effect Energy created by converting biomass from agriculture and by converting biogas from landfills and dairy cattle industry provides additional carbon-neutral energy sources
Degraded lands’ restoration [34]Nutrient and organic amendments, erosion controlReduced emissionsUncertain effect A sustainable landscape management approach could indicate land degradation neutrality in order to improve the land resources’ condition
Biosolid/manure management [35,36]Anaerobic digestion Uncertain effectReduced emissionsManure management means optimizing the rate, period, and technique of manure application to crops
More efficient use as a nutrient sourceReduced emissionsReduced emissions
Improved storage and handling Uncertain effectReduced emissions
Livestock management [36,37]Dietary additives and specific agents Reduced emissionsFeasibility of this mitigation practice depends on cost-effectiveness, while the mitigation potential should be expressed per unit of product in order to evaluate the possible negative effects on animal production
Improved feeding practices Reduced emissions
Longer-term management and structural modifications and animal breeding Reduced emissions
Cropland management [36,37,38]Residue/tillage managementReduced emissionsUncertain effects Mitigation practices in cropland management might include: better agronomic practices, residue/tillage management, nutrient management, agroforestry, water management, rice management, land use change
AgronomyReduced emissionsUncertain effect
Nutrient managementReduced emissionsReduced emissions
Water management Uncertain effectReduced emissions
Rice management Uncertain effectReduced emissions
AgroforestryReduced emissionsUncertain effect
Set-aside, land-use change Reduced emissionsReduced emissionsReduced emissions
Management of grazing lands/pasture improvement [39,40]Grazing intensityUncertain effectUncertain effect Grazing lands might be minor sinks of soil organic of CH4 and N2O, but strong sinks of soil organic carbon;
grazing practices that decrease forage maturity will reduce neutral detergent fibre concentration, contributing to the reduction in CH4 level
Nutrient managementReduced emissionsUncertain effect
Growth in productivity Uncertain effectUncertain effect
Fire managementReduced emissionsUncertain effect
Species introduction Reduced emissionsUncertain effect
Source: Own compilation from the sources mentioned in the first column of this table.
Table 2. Variables and the corresponding models.
Table 2. Variables and the corresponding models.
CountriesDependent VariableExplanatory VariablesModels
EU countries, except MaltaCereal productionGHG emissions from agriculture
Fertilizers’ consumption
Panel data models
DenmarkAgricultural irrigated landsGHG emissions from agricultureBayesian model
HungaryAgricultural irrigated landsGHG emissions from agricultureBayesian model
Source: Authors’ construction.
Table 3. Random-effects GLS regression model explaining the cereal production based on greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture (2000–2016).
Table 3. Random-effects GLS regression model explaining the cereal production based on greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture (2000–2016).
VariableCoefficientStandard ErrorZp-value
Greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture0.6800.04713.3100.000
Fertilizer consumption−3.4101.230−2.7700.006
Constant835.3961312.0810.6400.524
Source: Own calculations.
Table 4. GEE population averaged model explaining cereal production in the EU countries (2000–2016).
Table 4. GEE population averaged model explaining cereal production in the EU countries (2000–2016).
VariableCoefficientStandard ErrorZp-value
GHG emissions from agriculture0.4550.04510.0300.000
Fertilizers’ consumption8.5341.8764.5500.000
Constant−766.771393.563−1.9500.051
Source: Own calculations of the authors.
Table 5. Cross-sectional time series FGLS regression model explaining cereal production based on greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture and fertilizers’ consumption (2000–2016).
Table 5. Cross-sectional time series FGLS regression model explaining cereal production based on greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture and fertilizers’ consumption (2000–2016).
VariableCoefficientStandard ErrorZP > |z|
Greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture0.7070.00884.5500.000
Fertilizers’ consumption−7.9222.3020−3.4400.001
Constant−613.04433.508−18.3000.000
Source: Own calculations.
Table 6. Dynamic panel data model (Arellano–Bover–Blundell–Bond estimation) to explain cereal production.
Table 6. Dynamic panel data model (Arellano–Bover–Blundell–Bond estimation) to explain cereal production.
VariableCoefficientStandard ErrorZP > |z|
Cereal production in the previous year0.1890.0434.3700.000
Greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture0.7030.03917.7800.000
Fertilizers’ consumption in the previous year7.1683.0302.3600.018
Constant−1045.466635.019−1.6500.100
Source: Own calculations.
Table 7. Bayesian model explaining the impact of greenhouse emissions in agriculture on agricultural irrigated lands in Denmark (2000–2016).
Table 7. Bayesian model explaining the impact of greenhouse emissions in agriculture on agricultural irrigated lands in Denmark (2000–2016).
VariableMeanStandard Deviation
Constant44.3644009.657605
Greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture−0.0032500.000904
Variance1.7106000.788105
Source: Own calculations.
Table 8. Bayesian model explaining the impact of greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture on irrigated lands in Hungary (2000–2016).
Table 8. Bayesian model explaining the impact of greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture on irrigated lands in Hungary (2000–2016).
VariableMeanStandard Deviation
Constant−0.4864443.114722
Greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture0.0003910.000507
Variance0.2860800.131798
Source: Own calculations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Simionescu, M.; Bilan, Y.; Gędek, S.; Streimikiene, D. The Effects of Greenhouse Gas Emissions on Cereal Production in the European Union. Sustainability 2019, 11, 3433. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11123433

AMA Style

Simionescu M, Bilan Y, Gędek S, Streimikiene D. The Effects of Greenhouse Gas Emissions on Cereal Production in the European Union. Sustainability. 2019; 11(12):3433. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11123433

Chicago/Turabian Style

Simionescu, Mihaela, Yuriy Bilan, Stanisław Gędek, and Dalia Streimikiene. 2019. "The Effects of Greenhouse Gas Emissions on Cereal Production in the European Union" Sustainability 11, no. 12: 3433. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11123433

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop