How do 28 European Union Member States perform in agricultural greenhouse gas emissions? It depends on what we look at: Application of the multi-criteria analysis

Abstract European Union (EU) Member States have agreed to limit their greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from sectors not covered by the EU Emissions Trading Scheme, including emissions from agricultural sector. The aggregated GHG emission rate (i.e. t CO2 eq. from agricultural sector per country) is commonly used to measure the overall size of agriculture’s influence on climate. And indeed, since 2005, EU has managed to decrease its aggregated GHG emissions by 3.1%. However, the question is—does that mean that EU’s agriculture has become less emission intensive? This paper answers the question by providing a different perspective for the assessment and comparison of the agricultural GHG emissions in 28 EU Member States. It is done by applying three different approaches, including creation of derived indicators and application of multi-criteria analysis (TOPSIS), which is a novel approach for comparison of agricultural GHG emission mitigation performance. The results show that each EU Member State performs very differently in emission intensities. Even more, the emission intensity results show an alarming tendency of increase in most of the EU Member States, which indicates that the measured changes in aggregate agricultural GHG emission rates are misleading. Therefore, the paper suggests reconsidering the policy targets for GHG emission limits.

[1]  Mohammad Izadikhah,et al.  An algorithmic method to extend TOPSIS for decision-making problems with interval data , 2006, Appl. Math. Comput..

[3]  Ching-Lai Hwang,et al.  Fuzzy Multiple Attribute Decision Making - Methods and Applications , 1992, Lecture Notes in Economics and Mathematical Systems.

[4]  F. Vertès,et al.  Indicators to evaluate agricultural nitrogen efficiency of the 27 member states of the European Union , 2016 .

[5]  Dagnija Blumberga,et al.  The future competitiveness of the non-Emissions Trading Scheme district heating systems in the Baltic States , 2016 .

[6]  A. Blumberga,et al.  Searching for solutions to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions by agricultural policy decisions--Application of system dynamics modeling for the case of Latvia. , 2015, The Science of the total environment.

[7]  Rahula A. Attalage,et al.  A hybrid tool to combine multi-objective optimization and multi-criterion decision making in designing standalone hybrid energy systems , 2013 .

[8]  Dagnija Blumberga,et al.  Selecting a Catalyst for Methanation Process: Technical and Economic Performance Based TOPSIS Analysis , 2014 .

[9]  Eila Turtola,et al.  Evaluating agri-environmental indicators (AEIs)—Use and limitations of international indicators at national level , 2007 .

[10]  Guo H. Huang,et al.  An integrated optimization approach and multi-criteria decision analysis for supporting the waste-management system of the City of Beijing, China , 2010, Eng. Appl. Artif. Intell..

[11]  Simon Buckle,et al.  Mitigation of climate change , 2009, The Daunting Climate Change.

[12]  Morteza Yazdani,et al.  A state-of the-art survey of TOPSIS applications , 2012, Expert Syst. Appl..

[13]  D. Makowski,et al.  Agri-environmental indicators to assess cropping and farming systems. A review , 2011, Agronomy for Sustainable Development.

[14]  Cengiz Kahraman,et al.  Fuzzy multicriteria disposal method and site selection for municipal solid waste. , 2010, Waste management.