Vol. 15 No. 2 (2026)
Full Research Articles

Applying the Global Methane Pledge to the italian livestock sector

PDF Suppl. Mat.
  • Davide Dell'Unto,
  • Silvia Coderoni,
  • Raffaele Cortignani
Davide Dell'Unto
Department of Agriculture and Forest Sciences (DAFNE), University of Tuscia, Via San Camillo de Lellis, 01100, Viterbo, Italy
Silvia Coderoni
Department of Biosciences and Agricultural and Environmental Technologies, University of Teramo, Via Renato Balzarini, 1, 64100, Teramo, Italy
Raffaele Cortignani
Department of Agriculture and Forest Sciences (DAFNE), University of Tuscia, Via San Camillo de Lellis, 01100, Viterbo, Italy
DOI: https://doi.org/10.36253/bae-18002

Published 2026-01-30

Keywords

  • GHG emissions,
  • mathematical programming model,
  • carbon tax,
  • carbon subsidy,
  • carbon price,
  • short-lived GHG
    • ...More
    Less

How to Cite

Dell’Unto, D., Coderoni, S., & Cortignani, R. (2026). Applying the Global Methane Pledge to the italian livestock sector. Bio-Based and Applied Economics, 15(2), 63–75. https://doi.org/10.36253/bae-18002

Copyright (c) 2026 Davide Dell'Unto, Silvia Coderoni, Raffaele Cortignani

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Crossref
Scopus
Google Scholar
Europe PMC

Abstract

The Global Methane Pledge was launched by the EU and the US with the aim to cut 30% of methane (CH4) emissions by 2030. Livestock systems are major contributors to CH4 emissions. This study assesses a combined tax and subsidy policy tool applied at the farm level that would allow to reach the 30% reduction target for livestock CH4. The simulation is performed with the Positive Mathematical Programming model AGRITALIM calibrated using the Italian commercial livestock farms as represented by the Farm Accountancy Data Network. The micro-based model simulates at the farm level the imposition of a tax on each unit of emissions that exceeds the targeted amount, or the grant of a subsidy for each unit of emissions that is reduced above the target. The simulation exploits the heterogeneity of farmers’ behaviour to reach a market-clearing permit price of one tonne of emissions to obtain a self-sustaining policy tool that would equate the amount of taxes and subsidies paid. Results point that with a price of EUR 110.50t-1CO2eq. the system would self-sustain itself. Higher negative impacts are foreseen for less productive beef and mixed cattle farms as a result of the profitability and emission intensity of their activities. Findings could be used to help policymakers understand the diversified impacts of the target on farms and evaluate possible compensation they could provide for a more just transition.

PDF Suppl. Mat.

References

  1. Acosta A., Cicowiez M., Nicolli F., Rostan F. (2023). Economic, social and environmental effects of reducing dairy methane emissions through market-based policies: An application of the Livestock Policy Simulation Model. Journal of Policy Modeling, 45(2023), 345-361, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpolmod.2023.02.006.
  2. Arvanitopoulos, T., Garsous, G. and Agnolucci, P. (2021). Carbon leakage and agriculture: A literature review on emissions mitigation policies. OECD Food, Agriculture and Fisheries Papers 169, OECD Publishing: Paris, France.
  3. Baldi, L., Calzolai, S., Arfini, F., Donati, M. (2024). Predicting the effect of the Common Agricultural Policy post-2020 using an agent-based model based on PMP methodology. Bio-based and Applied Economics, 13(4), 333-351, https://doi.org/10.36253/bae-14592.
  4. Baldoni E., Coderoni S., Esposti R. (2017). The productivity and environment nexus through farm-level data. The Case of Carbon Footprint applied to Italian FADN farms. Bio-based and Applied Economics, 6(2), 119-137, https://doi.org/10.13128/BAE-19112.
  5. Bakam I., Balana B.B. and Matthews R. (2012). Cost-effectiveness analysis of policy instruments for greenhouse gas emission mitigation in the agricultural sector. Journal of Environmental Management, 112(2012), 33-44, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2012.07.001.
  6. Bellassen, V., Stephan, N., Afriat, M. et al. (2015). Monitoring, reporting and verifying emissions in the climate economy. Nature Clim Change, 5, 319-328, https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2544.
  7. Blandford, D. and Hassapoyannes K. (2018), The role of agriculture in global GHG mitigation, OECD Food, Agriculture and Fisheries Papers, No. 112, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/da017ae2-en.
  8. Cai B., Bo X, Zhang L., Boyce J., Zhang Y., Lei Y. (2016). Gearing carbon trading towards environmental co-benefits in China: Measurement model and policy implications, Global Environmental Change, (39), 275-284, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2016.05.013.
  9. Carl J., Fedor D. (2016). Tracking global carbon revenues: A survey of carbon taxes versus cap-and-trade in the real world. Energy Policy, 96(2016), 50-77, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2016.05.023.
  10. Caro, D., Frederiksen, P., Thomsen, M., Branth Pedersen, A. (2017). Toward a more consistent combined approach of reduction targets and climate policy regulations: The illustrative case of a meat tax in Denmark. Environmental Science & Policy, 76, 78-81, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2017.06.013.
  11. Cerutti, N., Lamb, W.F., Crippa, M., Leip, A., Solazzo, E., Tubiello, F.N., Minx, J.C. (2023). Food system emissions: a review of trends, drivers, and policy approaches, 1990–2018, Environmental Research Letters, 18(2023), 074030, https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/acddfd.
  12. Coderoni S. (2023). Key policy objectives for European agricultural policies: Some reflections on policy coherence and governance issues. Bio-based and applied economics, 12(2), 85-101, https://doi.org/10.36253/bae-13971.
  13. Coderoni S., Dell’Unto D., Cortignani R. (2024a). Curbing methane emissions from Italian cattle farms. An agroeconomic modelling simulation of alternative policy tools. Journal of Environmental Management, 351(2024), 119880, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2023.119880.
  14. Coderoni S., Esposti R., Varacca A. (2024b). How differ-ently do farms respond to agri-environmental poli-cies? A probabilistic machine-learning approach. Land Economics, 100(2), 370-397, https://doi.org/10.3368/le.100.2.060622-0043R1.
  15. Coderoni S., Vanino S. (2022). The farm-by-farm relationship among carbon productivity and economic performance of agriculture, Science of the Total Environment, 819, 153103, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.153103.
  16. Cortignani, R., Buttinelli, R. and Dono, G. (2022). Farm to Fork strategy and restrictions on the use of chemical inputs: Impacts on the various types of farming and territories of Italy. Science of the Total Environment, 810, 152259, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.152259.
  17. Cortignani, R. and Coderoni, S. (2022). The impacts of environmental and climate targets on agriculture: Policy options in Italy. Journal of Policy Modeling, 44(6), 1095-1112, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpolmod.2022.11.003.
  18. Cortignani R., Severini S. (2012). A constrained optimization model based on generalized maximum entropy to assess the impact of reforming agricultural policy on the sustainability of irrigated areas. Agricultural Economics, 43(6), 621-633, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1574-0862.2012.00608.x.
  19. Dabkienė, V., Baležentis, T. and Štreimikienė, D. (2020). Calculation of the carbon footprint for family farms using the Farm Accountancy Data Network: A case from Lithuania. Journal of Cleaner Production, 262, 121509, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.121509.
  20. Dell’Unto D., Dono G., Cortignani R. (2023). Impacts of Environmental Targets on the Livestock Sector: An Assessment Tool Applied to Italy. Agriculture, 13, 742, https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture13040742.
  21. Dell’Unto, D., Selvaggi, R., Pappalardo, G. and Cortignani, R. (2025). Adoption of precision livestock farming devices in the dairy cattle sector: An assessment based on agroeconomic modelling. Science of the Total Environment, 1002, 180555.
  22. Dumortier, J., Hayes, D. J., Carriquiry, M., Dong, F., Du, X., Elobeid, A., Fabiosa, J.F., Martin, P.A., Mulik, K. (2012). The effects of potential changes in United States beef production on global grazing systems and greenhouse gas emissions. Environmental Research Letters, 7(2), 024023, https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/7/2/024023.
  23. Erjavec, K., Erjavec, E. (2015). Greening the CAP – Just a fashionable justification? A discourse analysis of the 2014–2020 CAP reform documents. Food Policy, 51, 53-62.
  24. Esposti, R. (2022). The Coevolution of Policy Support and Farmers Behaviour and Performance. An investigation on Italian agriculture over the 2008-2019 period. Bio-Based and Applied Economics, 11(3), 49-82, https://doi.org/10.36253/bae-12912.
  25. European Commission et al. (2023). Pricing agricultural emissions and rewarding climate action in the agri-food value chain, Publications Office of the European Union. https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2834/200.
  26. European Commission (2022). Proposal for amending Directive 2010/75/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 November 2010 on industrial emissions and Council Directive 1999/31/EC of 26 April 1999 on the landfill of waste, COM(2022) 156 final/3, Strasbourg, 5.4.2022.
  27. European Commission (2020). An EU strategy to reduce methane emissions COM(2020) 663 final, Brussels.
  28. European Commission (2019). The European Green Deal. COM(2019) 640 final, Brussels.
  29. European Council (2009). Council Regulation (EC) No 1217/2009 of 30 November 2009 setting up a network for the collection of accountancy data on the incomes and business operation of agricultural holdings in the European Community. OJ L 328, 15.12.2009.
  30. European Court of Auditors (2021). Special Report: The Polluter Pays Principle: Inconsistent application across EU environmental policies and actions.
  31. European Scientific Advisory Board on Climate Change (2024). Towards EU climate neutrality. Progress, policy gaps and opportunities. Assessment Report 2024, Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2024, ISBN 978-92-9480-612-3, doi:10.2800/216446
  32. European Union (2022). European Union Methane Action Plan, available at the following url: https://energy.ec.europa.eu/topics/carbon-management-and-fossil-fuels/methane-emissions_en, accessed on 10/10/2024.
  33. FAO (2023). Pathways towards lower emissions – A global assessment of the greenhouse gas emissions and mitigation options from livestock agrifood systems. Rome https://doi.org/10.4060/cc9029en
  34. Fellmann, T., Witzke, P., Weiss, F., … and Leip, A. (2018). Major challenges of integrating agriculture into climate change mitigation policy frameworks. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, 23, 451-468, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11027-017-9743-2.
  35. Frontuto V., Felici T., Andreoli V., Bagliani MM., CorsiA. (2025). Is there an Animal Food Kuznets Curve, and does it matter? Bio-Based and Applied Economics, Bio-Based and Applied Economics, 14(1), 19-35, https://doi.org/10.36253/bae-16172.
  36. Gernaat D.E.H.J., Calvin K., Lucas P.L., Luderer G., Otto S.A.C., Rao S., Strefler J., van Vuuren D.P. (2015). Understanding the contribution of non-carbon dioxide gases in deep mitigation scenarios. Global Environmental Change, (33), 142-153, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2015.04.010.
  37. Heckelei, T., Britz, W. and Zhang, Y. (2012). Positive mathematical programming approaches–recent developments in literature and applied modelling. Bio-based and Applied Economics Journal, 1(1), 109-124. https://doi.org/10.13128/BAE-10567.
  38. Himics, M., Fellmann, T., Barreiro-Hurlé, J., Witzke, H. P., Domínguez, I. P., Jansson, T. and Weiss, F. (2018). Does the current trade liberalization agenda contribute to greenhouse gas emission mitigation in agriculture? Food policy, 76, 120-129.
  39. IPCC (2021). Climate Change 2021 – The Physical Science Basis: Working Group I Contribution to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. First edition. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009157896.
  40. Isbasoiu, A., Jayet, PA, De Cara, S. (2021). Increasing food production and mitigating agricultural greenhouse gas emissions in the European Union: impacts of carbon pricing and calorie production targeting. Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, 23, 409-440, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10018-020-00293-4.
  41. Magnapera C., Kazemekaityte A., Raffaelli R., Cerroni S. (2026). Farmers, experts and students’ subjective probability distributions on methane emission reductions in livestock farming: An experimental comparison across elicitation methods. Bio-Based and Applied Economics, 15(2), https://doi.org/10.36253/bae-17310.
  42. Mahmoud N., Hutchings, N.J. (2020). The advantages of using field- and farm-scale data to target agri-environmental measures-an example of afforestation. Environmental Science & Policy, 114: 14-21, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2020.07.019.
  43. McKibbin, W. J., and Wilcoxen. P. J. (2002). The Role of Economics in Climate Change Policy. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 16(2), 107-129.
  44. Milich L. (1999). The role of methane in global warming: where might mitigation strategies be focused? Global Environmental Change, 9, 179-201, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0959-3780(98)00037-5.
  45. Millock, K. and Nauges C. (2006), Ex Post Evaluation of an Earmarked Tax on Air Pollution. Land Economics, 82(1), 68-84, https://doi.org/10.3368/le.82.1.68.
  46. NERA (2007). Market Mechanisms for Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Agriculture, Forestry and Land Management – NERA’s Interim conclusions. NERA Economic Consulting, London.
  47. New Zealand Ministry for the Environment (2024), Review of methane science and target, available here https://environment.govt.nz/what-government-is-doing/areas-of-work/climate-change/emissions-reductions/emissions-reduction-targets/review-of-methane-science-and-target/ (accessed on 17/07/26).
  48. Minister of Environment and Climate Change (2023). Reducing Enteric Methane Emissions from Beef Cattle. Federal Offset Protocol Public Consultation Draft, December 2023. His Majesty the King in Right of Canada, ISBN: 978-0-660-69074-2.
  49. OECD (2019), Enhancing Climate Change Mitigation through Agriculture, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/e9a79226-en.
  50. OECD (2022), Agricultural Policy Monitoring and Evaluation 2022: Reforming Agricultural Policies for Climate Change Mitigation, OECD Publishing, Paris.
  51. Ollier M., De Cara S. (2024). Give and take: An analysis of the distributional consequences of emission tax-and-rebate schemes with an application to greenhouse gas emissions from European agriculture. Ecological Economics, 219(2024), 108154, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2024.108154.
  52. Pérez Domínguez, I., Fellmann, T., Witzke, P., Weiss, F., Hristov, J., Himics, M., … and Leip, A. (2020). Economic assessment of GHG mitigation policy options for EU agriculture: A closer look at mitigation options and regional mitigation costs (EcAMPA 3) (No. JRC120355). Joint Research Centre.
  53. Pérez Domínguez, I. P., Fellmann, T., Weiss, F., Witzke, P., Barreiro-Hurlé, J., Himics, M., … and Leip, A. (2016). An economic assessment of GHG mitigation policy options for EU agriculture. JRC Science for Policy Report, EUR, 27973(10.2791), 843461.
  54. Pezzey, J. (2003), Emission Taxes and Tradeable Permits A Comparison of Views on Long-Run Efficiency. Environmental and Resource Economics, 26(2), 329-342, https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1026393028473.
  55. Povitkina M., Carlsson Jagers S., Matti S., Martinsson J. (2021). Why are carbon taxes unfair? Disentangling public perceptions of fairness. Global Environmental Change, (70), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2021.102356.
  56. Roberts S., Thumin J. (2006). A Rough Guide to Individual Carbon Trading – Report to Defra, Centre for Sustainable Energy, November, London, UK.
  57. Stetter, C., Mennig, P., & Sauer, J. (2022). Using Machine Learning to Identify Heterogeneous Impacts of Agri-Environment Schemes in the EU: A Case Study. European Review of Agricultural Economics, 49(4), 723-739, https://doi.org/10.1093/erae/jbab057.
  58. USDA (2004). Agriculture and Forestry Greenhouse Gas Inventory: 1990–2001. Washington, DC: US Department of Agriculture.
  59. Walter, J. M. (2020). Comparing the effectiveness of market-based and choice-based environmental policy. Journal of Policy Modeling, 42(1), 173-191, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpolmod.2019.07.006.
  60. Wang W., Deng X., Wang Y. (2024). Changes in Non-CO2 Greenhouse Gas Emissions From Livestock Production, Meat Consumption and Trade in China. Sustainable Production and Consumption, 42(2023), 281-291, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2023.09.021.
  61. Weitzman M. L. (1974). Prices vs. Quantities. Review of Economic Studies. October, 41(4), 477-491.

Most read articles by the same author(s)