The Future for Food-Producing Landscapes

P.J. Jones, J. Tzanopoulos, S. R. Mortimer & Bruce Traill School of Agriculture, Policy & Development, University of Reading,

UK.

The origins of this analysis

Relu-funded project: • Implications of a Nutrition Driven Food Policy

for Land Use and the Rural Environment

Investigate the effectiveness of policies designed to promote healthy eating, the potential for modified agricultural husbandry methods to produce healthier food products and the implications for the countryside.

• Three market/policy scenarios studied, including:

– E & W population adhering to DoH guidelines for healthy eating – policy and market conditions remain unchanged

Land use implications of the healthy diet scenario - methodology

Apply changes in food demand to a linear

programming model of E & W agriculture

• Average UK diet was mapped using household food consumption data and published tables used to express this diet in terms of nutrients consumed

• A quadratic programming model was used to adjust existing diet to comply with DOH nutrient guidelines by minimising the changes to existing diet (also minimal expense changes)

• New diet (ie new mix food items) is converted into constituent agricultural commodities using a conversion matrix based on recipe information (these values are imposed as proxy demand values in the LUAM)

• The LUAM is run to project the land use implications of the changed diet

Scenario data and assumptions

   Referenceposition

Healthy diet

scenarioChange  

  Milk 7,727 4,447 -42.20%  

  Beef & Veal 444 377 -15.46%  

  Mutton & Lamb 128 93 -28.16%  

  Pork 435 350 -18.23%  

  Poultry 518 577 9.81%  

  Eggs 18 16 -9.61%  

  Fish 251 352 35.88%  

  Cereals 2,415 3,134 29.76%  

  Sugar 684 454 -31.38%  

  Oils & Fat 355 339 -5.24%  

  Potato 3,010 3,791 23.41%  

  Green Vegetables 913 1,421 55.62%  

  Other Vegetables 1,334 2,215 66.08%  

  Fruit 1,766 2,696 52.69%  

  Units: g, ml or eggs per person per week.    

• Compliance with DoH guidelines for healthy eating

• Change in commodity demand

• Home produced share assumed as at present

• Prices and technology unchanged• Policy based on Fischler-reformed

CAP, plus policy changes in pipeline

DoH nutrient change guidelines:– total fat restricted to a third of energy intake– Protein and sugar (either free or as total

carbohydrates) are restricted– higher fruit and vegetable consumption & higher

consumption of dietary fibre– Calorie intake (average): 2,500 kcal per day

(men), and 2,000 kcal (women)

Results – regional

Results – uplands – livestock

Land idling

Methodology – JCA assessment• Landscape implications assessed for Joint Character

Areas (JCA) using a semi-qualitative approach.

• JCA 'profiles' in the CQC describe landscape visions & the nature of change relative to the vision (maintained, enhanced, diverging or neglected)

• For each JCA Classification Decision Trees used to identify land-use changes associated with positive, negative or neutral impacts on landscape character

• LUAM projected changes in agricultural land-uses were assessed for their impact on landscape character

- Scored on a 3-point scale (-1 = negative effect, 1 = positive effect, 0 = neutral effect)

Impact on landscape character – CAP reform• Arable JCAs no change

– 60% of arable dominated JCAs will not be affected while the rest may suffer both, positive or negative impacts.

• Lowland pastoral JCAs mixed effects - predominately negative changes

– Intensively farmed areas – benefit – reduced overgrazing– Extensively farmed areas – negative – under-grazing

• Uplands JCAs predominantly negative - under-grazing & land ‘idling’

– South West - positive (overgrazing reduced)– North – negative (under-grazing and land ‘idling’)

• Mixed farming JCAs, mixed effect depending on existing intensity

– Low intensity, pastoral landscapes - benefit from more grassland– High intensity arable landscapes – no change

Impact on landscape character – Healthy diet• Arable JCAs no change from the REF run

• Lowland pastoral JCAs - negative changes from REF– Intensively farmed – negative, reduced livestock numbers– Extensively farmed – negative, extension of under-grazing

• Uplands JCAs brunt of negative changes experienced here - more lost livestock under-grazing & land ‘idling’

– South West – mildly negative (livestock numbers hold up better)– North – negative (further under-grazing and land ‘idling’)

• Mixed farming JCAs, similar to REF, mixed effect depending on existing intensity

– Low intensity, pastoral-dominated benefit from more grassland– High intensity farming landscapes – no change

© Eric Jones, Dolgellau

Landscape impacts

Conclusions• Impacts of CAP reform - in terms of directions of change, LUAM results are

consistent with other commentators and modelling exercises– Loss of livestock production (dairy in lowlands & all types in uplands) - extensification– modest changes in lowland arable

• Effect of adoption of a healthier diet will be to deepen these trends– Horticulture opportunities in the South & East (some livestock losses – dairy)– Extending livestock losses in uplands

• Landscape effects mixed:– lowland arable areas – neutral– Lowland pasture – beneficial under CAP reform, negative under changed diet– Uplands – badly negative in nothern uplands, mixed effects in the South West

• Timescale of HD scenario long-term, but some impacts of the HD scenario, would be driven by other forces (eg dairy contraction) - can already be seen in effect

• A ‘perfect storm’ of policy/market conditions gathering around upland agriculture, requiring a new vision for the uplands & suitable policies for delivery - URGENT