Estonia is required to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions in a number of sectors by 24 percent of 2005 levels by 2030 compared to 2005, as per an EU agreement.

This requirement is particularly applicable to the sectors listed in the EU's Effort Sharing Regulation (ESR), including transport, agriculture, industry and waste management.

However, in Estonia's agricultural sector, with the current measures in place, greenhouse gas emissions are expected to increase 32 percent from their 2005 levels. This means that in order for agriculture to meet the target for all sectors, emissions would have to be cut by almost half of current levels by 2030.

However, according to Madis Pärtel, undersecretary for bioeconomy at the Estonian Ministry of Regional Affairs and Agriculture, halving emissions is unrealistic and therefore out of the question. The only way to achieve such targets would be by reducing the amount of livestock and arable land.

"If we look at export sectors today, agriculture is second only to the wood sector, at 13 percent. Clearly, this type of reduction in the number of animals would have a major impact on our economy, on incomes and jobs in the countryside. There would be a clear socio-economic impact," said Pärtel.

Although Estonia needs to significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions, current projections show that emissions from agriculture will continue to rise. In order to reduce emissions, the state is now considering a number of options, including converting peatland to grassland, the afforestation of arable and grassland, building biogas plants, and converting agricultural machinery to run on alternative fuels.

Regarding the question of how much it would be realistic to reduce emissions by, Pärtel was unable to provide a concrete answer, as discussions over the issue are still ongoing. However, two potential scenarios have been presented to the government's working group for a sustainable food system. The first would see a nine percent reduction in emissions from 2021 levels, while the second would see a 17 percent reduction.

Ants-Hannes Viira, a member of the Climate Council and senior researcher at Estonian University of Life Sciences' (Eesti Maaülikool) Institute of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences, said that a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture of those magnitudes is also realistic.

However, as the required reductions in greenhouse gas emissions still need to be achieved by 2030, other sectors, such as transport, will end up having to contribute more than agriculture.

"It will certainly be more difficult for the agricultural sector to meet these targets. This has also been acknowledged by the Ministry of Climate," said Pärtel.

The challenging situation faced by the agricultural sector stems from the fact that the EU's greenhouse gas emissions targets use figures from 2005 as a baseline. According to Viira, Estonian agriculture was at its lowest point at that time as it was still recovering from the collapse of the Soviet Union. Since then, with the help of EU subsidies, production volumes and the associated greenhouse gas emissions have both risen.

One of the most promising measures is the conversion of peat soils to grassland.

The working group for a sustainable food system has now mapped out more realistic and measurable actions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Socio-economic impact studies will only arrive at a later stage.

According to Pärtel, one of the main measures under discussion is the conversion of peat soils to grassland. According to the working group, 18,000 hectares of peatland could be converted to grassland by 2030 for instance.

In areas with peat soils, such as farmland, peat, which is rich in carbon, is the main soil constituent. Historically, these have been marshy areas, which were cultivated and drained. The more peat soils are cultivated, the more the peat decomposes and releases greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. According to Viira, peat soils account for a fifth of the emissions produced by the entire agricultural sector.

Converting areas of peatland, which are currently used for arable crops, into grassland would also reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Another option, according to Pärtel, would be using peatland for wetland farming.

"There are risks here, because many producers in the horticultural sector are on peatland. Some crops, like carrots, grow really well there, and as horticultural producers don't have a lot of land, there is definitely the issue of food security. If we convert these areas to grassland, then horticultural activities cannot continue there. We definitely need to map out these risks for ourselves," Pärtel said.

However, according to Ragnar Viikoja, head of agriculture at the Estonian Chamber of Agriculture and Commerce (EPKK), converting to grassland can be problematic, especially if producers are not offered an alternative.

"What could be a concern for farmers is if this is implemented by force, by, for example, ordering land to be metaphorically speaking, put under grass, or afforested. This will reduce producers' income," he said.

Viira said one way to encourage farmers to convert peatland to grassland would be to allow them to take part in land swaps. He explained that, a present, farmers are not allowed to plough up permanent grassland in order to begin cultivating it.

According to Viira, by encouraging farmers to convert fields from peatland to permanent grassland, the government could, at the same time, give them permission to use the same amount of land in order grow crops, such as wheat.

Viikoja responded positively to the idea. Pärtel also said that similar land swaps could be allowed for land which is converted from peat to grass, but that discussions were still ongoing.

Converting 18,000 hectares of peatland to grassland should reduce greenhouse gases by 116 kilotonnes by 2030, according to the ministry's calculations.

State considering afforestation of arable and grassland

The state is also considering the afforestation of arable or natural grassland. The ministry has calculated that afforesting 18,000 hectares of arable land and the same amount of natural grassland on mineral soil could reduce greenhouse gas emissions by around 150 kilotonnes by 2030.

"If we look at Estonia, more than half of it is forest. A separate question is whether we need more forest. However, it would be in less fertile soils where it is difficult to grow crops anyway," Pärtel said.

Viikoja said the concerns about afforestation were similar to those about converting peatland to grassland.

"If a producer has a little productive land and they afforest it, then perhaps there should be some new kind of use for the land there, so that if the need arises, for example in the context of food security, that land could be converted back to farmland," he said.

Reducing mineral fertilizers will bring additional investment for farmers

In terms of crop production, the working group for a sustainable food system has identified the reduction of mineral fertilizer use as a potentially promising measure. In livestock production, the working group is considering increasing the amount of grazing as well as biogas production through the construction of new biogas plants. When it comes to fuels, however, the conversion of machinery used for forestry and agriculture to run on alternative fuels such as HVO (Hydrotreated vegetable oil) or biomethane is being discussed.

According to Pärtel, reducing the use of nitrogen fertilizers would be a relatively realistic measure, with the question being how much to reduce it by. According to the ministry's calculations, reducing the use of mineral fertilizers by 10 percent would cut greenhouse gas emissions by 33 kilotonnes. A reduction of 20 percent, on the other hand, would reduce emissions by almost double that amount.

"More progressively-minded farmers say that reducing it by a fifth (20 percent) is also doable. We'll see if it stays in that area," he said. 

According to Vijay, farmers already used five percent less mineral fertilizer last year than in 2022, so there may not be a great deal of need for the government to act in order to reduce fertilizer use further.

Reducing the use of mineral fertilizers means replacing them with organic fertilizers such as manure. Fertilizer use can also be cut down thanks to precision farming, whereby the tractor sprayer or seed drill is linked to a GPS device, which enables nutrients to be sprayed in exactly the places they are needed.

"You have sensors in front of you that take a picture of the field and tell you to put less fertilizer in a certain area, because the crops are in good shape there at the moment. Here it's poorer, so put more here. You can estimate how much fertilizer you need to use on a per-area, per-square-meter basis," explains Pärtel.

This would not only enable farmers to use less fertilizer, but also reduce the amount of time spent driving the machine around their fields, and therefore reduce fuel use too, he added.

However, precision farming is more expensive and not accessible to everyone, said Viikoja.

He said that he had also recently purchased a combine harvester for his own farm, to which precision farming technology was added. While the machine would usually have cost €400,000, the precision technology added a further €50,000 to the price.

"If we want to meet the 2030 climate targets now, which is already only six years away, it is obvious that companies do not have the financial capacity to adopt these kinds of technologies," said Viikoja.

Viira: State support for farmers should be far higher

Ants-Hannes Viira, who is a member of the Climate Council, said that if Estonia is serious about climate targets and really wants to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by as much as 30 percent, then the current support measures are not enough.

"To do this, we actually need measures to redesign the agricultural policy. One answer lies with the technology. But changing technology is expensive, it means a lot of investment, and we need to find a way to encourage more of that investment. At the moment, these investment budgets are certainly not enough," Viira said.

Ragnar Viikoja said that an exemption from excise duty on biodiesel, for example, would help to facilitate switching machinery used in forestry and agriculture to alternative fuels.

"At the moment, it is still more expensive to produce than conventional diesel, and this means extra costs for producers. There's no reason why it should still be subject to excise duty –  after all, it helps us to meet our climate objectives," he said.

Madis Pärtel, undersecretary at the Ministry of Regional Affairs and Agriculture, said there is already a state support measure in place to encourage precision farming.

"It is certainly not on the kind of scale whereby every farmer can buy a precision farming unit, but part of the community certainly could," he said.

According to Pärtel, it is not possible to say in concrete terms, how much EU money could be used to meet the climate targets by 2030. However, no additional funds have been allocated in the state budget to help meet climate targets.

"Agriculture relies heavily on the common agricultural policy. The rules are uniform, but the funding is also uniform. So it is certainly possible to finance some activities through that, and that is what we are doing," he said.

The agricultural sector accounts for a tenth of Estonia's total greenhouse gas emissions. Nearly half Estonia's emissions come from the energy sector, 19 percent from the land use and forestry sector and 15 percent from the transport sector.

--

Follow ERR News on Facebook and Twitter and never miss an update!