PETER HARPER

CENTRE FOR ALTERNATIVE TECHNOLOGY

FARMING FUTURES, NORTH YORKSHIRE 25 NOVEMBER 2010

TREES AND LIVESTOCK:CHANGING LAND-USE IN

THIS IS WHY IT’S A SERIOUS MATTER

NOVEMBER 17, 2010:NOVEMBER 17, 2010:David Cameron yesterday warned that a David Cameron yesterday warned that a

fragmented national and regional fragmented national and regional approach to tackling climate change will approach to tackling climate change will

be unable to sufficiently curb greenhouse be unable to sufficiently curb greenhouse gas emissions, insisting that a binding gas emissions, insisting that a binding

global deal remains critical. global deal remains critical.

THE YAWNING CHASM

POLITICAL REALISM PHYSICAL REALISM

FURIOUS ACTIVITY

ZCB

THE MOST SIGNIFICANT BRANCH-POINT IN HUMAN

HISTORY?COMING SOON TO A PLANET NEAR YOU

SUCCESSFUL MITIGATION

INCREASINGLY DESPERATE ADAPTATIONS + ‘PEAK OIL’

LOGICAL STRUCTURE OF THE APPROACH

Rationalisation of demand

Emissions envelope

Net-negative processes

Low/Zero Carbon supply systems

IT IS AN INVESTMENT, NOT A COST

Tomorrow£196 million

LOGICAL STRUCTURE OF THE APPROACH

Rationalisation of demand

Emissions envelope

Net-negative processes

Low/Zero Carbon supply systems

NEW PRESSURES ON LAND USEArising from higher carbon prices

• Bioenergy crops• Low-emission raw materials• Sequestration crops• Low-emission food

• Stock, especially ruminants• Certain management practices• Excessive N-inputs• Conversion of grass to arable

Would attract credits

Would attract penalties or require offsets

Speculative plot of responses to increasing carbon price

£10/t £50/t £500/t

RUMINANTS

NON-RUMINANTS

ENERGY CROPS

SEQUESTRATION CROPS

FAIRLIE’S “DEFAULT

LIVESTOCK” LEVEL

‘DEFAULT MEAT PRODUCTION’

Elferink, E.V., S. Nonhebel and H.C. Moll (2008), J. Cleaner Production 16 (12) 1227-1233.

AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS: GHG EMISSIONS, LAND REQUIREMENT, OUTPUT. ADJUSTED FOR NUTRITIONAL VALUE AFTER MAILLOT 2009

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

16000

FOOD PRODUCT GROUPS, IN TWO CLASSES

EM

ISS

ION

S, K

T, L

AN

D, K

HA

X 4

, PR

OD

UC

T K

T Nutrionally-adjusted product

Land used

GHG emissions

PROTEIN RATIO

55% LIVESTOCK PRODUCTS

45% CROP PRODUCTS

COMPARISON OF EXISTING AND ZCB2030 SCENARIO EMISSIONS

-30000

-25000

-20000

-15000

-10000

-5000

0

5000

10000

15000

PRODUCTS IN THREE CLASSES, RANKED BY EMISSIONS

GH

G E

MIS

SIO

NS

, KT

CO

2e

/ye

ar

Scenario emissions

existing emissions

PROTEIN RATIO

34% LIVESTOCK PRODUCTS

66% CROP PRODUCTS

FOOD QUALITY: ‘DOUBLE FOOD PYRAMID’

PROPOSED BY BARILLA CENTERhttp://www.barillacfn.com/images/download/positionpaper_barillacfn_double-pyramid.pdf

ENERGY SILAGE

MISCANTHUS

SRC SRF

UNALLOCATED

GRAZING

IN SITU SEQUESTRATION FROM EXISTING FOIREST

LONG-TERM REFORESTATION

TREE CROPS

FEED CROPS

URBAN LIVESTOCK

INTENSIVE HORTICULTURE

PROTECTED CROPS

HEMP

FIELD CROPS

WOOD PRODUCTS FROM EXISTING FOREST

AREA ALLOCATION OF FUNCTIONS IN ZCB2030 SCENARIO

ENERGY SILAGE

MISCANTHUS

SRC SRF

UNALLOCATED

GRAZING

IN SITU SEQUESTRATION FROM EXISTING FOIREST

LONG-TERM REFORESTATION

TREE CROPS/ AGROFORESTRY

FEED CROPS

URBAN LIVESTOCK

INTENSIVE HORTICULTURE

PROTECTED CROPS

HEMP

FIELD CROPS

WOOD PRODUCTS FROM EXISTING FOREST

3674.1361235 1513 461 2150 318 20800

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

5000

UNALLOCATED

LONG-TERM REFORESTATION

IN SITU FROM EXISTING

WOOD PRODUCTS FROM EXISTING

SRF

SRC

MISCANTHUS

HEMP

ENERGY SILAGE

DIRECT CROPS

FEED CROPS

GRAZING

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

5000 UNALLOCATED

LONG-TERMREFORESTATION

IN SITU FROMEXISTING

WOOD PRODUCTSFROM EXISTING

SRF

SRC

MISCANTHUS

HEMP

ENERGY SILAGE

TREE CROPS

DIRECT CROPS

FEED CROPS

GRAZING

Read, D.J., Freer-Smith, P.H., Morison, J.I.L., Hanley, N., West, C.C. and Snowdon, P. (eds). (2009) Combating climate change – a role for UK forests. An assessment of the potential of the UK’s trees and woodlands to mitigate and adapt to climate

change, the synthesis report, Forestry Commission, The Stationery Office, Edinburgh.

POTENTIAL SEQUESTRATION VALUES FOR TREES IN ‘WINDOW’ 2015-2075

CO2e/ha/y

Arable 20

Rotational grassland 20

Improved lowland grassland 16

Unimproved lowland grassland 10

Upland sites 7

Peatland 5

Wakelyn’s, Suffolk

SILVOPASTORAL SYSTEMS• Sycamore trees planted at close spacing in farm Sycamore trees planted at close spacing in farm

woodland or clumped arrangements were significantly woodland or clumped arrangements were significantly larger in diameter than widely spaced sycamore at larger in diameter than widely spaced sycamore at 100 and 400 stems/ha.100 and 400 stems/ha.

• The planting of trees in a clumped pattern appears to The planting of trees in a clumped pattern appears to combine silvicultural benefits to tree growth with combine silvicultural benefits to tree growth with agricultural benefits of maintaining livestock agricultural benefits of maintaining livestock production production

• Livestock productivity was unaffected by the presence Livestock productivity was unaffected by the presence of trees during the six-year establishment phaseof trees during the six-year establishment phase

• Alder in silvopastoral systems in N. Wales fixed Alder in silvopastoral systems in N. Wales fixed nitrogen at 30kg/ha/ynitrogen at 30kg/ha/y

Rural livelihoods• This would of course be a fundamental shift in UK

agriculture and land use. Shocking?• But present day agriculture is only 0.6% of the

GDP, and is probably actually a net cost: people ask, “why bother?”

• In a decarbonising world the land use sector would have a MUCH greater significance in the UK economy

• High carbon prices would favour labour over equipment and materials; farming could become better tuned to local circumstance; and more creative

• There would be a very large number of associated rural jobs, and a revival of rural settlements

• ‘Carbon Farming’ would be an opportunity to re-invent UK agriculture

THE ENDTHE END

DOWNLOAD THE WHOLE REPORT FREE FROM

www.zerocarbonbritain.com

ORGANIC?• Follows calls from Soil Association report

for – A larger organic sector– Improved practice in the non-organic sector– More mixed farming

• Switch to biomass crops requires less fertiliser and pesticides

• Large inputs of organic matter to soils• Livestock sector shifts from quantity to

quality• Still provision for about 10% mineral

nitrogen

Biomass• Biomass crops replace only grazing grassland

– An inefficient but essential process replaces an inefficient and dispensable process

• Driven largely by carbon prices• The biomass crops are perennials generating

cellulose, not protein– Lower disturbance– Lower fertiliser requirement– Higher habitat/biodiversity value

• A new paradigm for farming and land use invites an explosion of new mixed approaches– Especially with respect to livestock

BIOMASS ENERGYHOW TO DO IT PROPERLY

• Using crops for energy is not efficient and should be minimised

• Using them for sequestration is a much better and indispensable function

• Arable/annual crops should not be used for energy at all, except for ‘waste materials’

• Biomass energy does however play a significant role in the scenario– Some surface transport needs– Balancing the electricity system– ‘Grounding’ hydrogen– Aviation

• We found no way to avoid it, given our chosen principles

Table 3: Land use in the UK

UK Total (Million

hectares)

Principal existing uses

Principal Scenario uses

Total crops 4.87 Arable crops Arable crops, N-fixing legumes

Of which is used for feeding livestock 2.10 Livestock feedMostly direct consumption, livestock feed, hemp, N-

fixing legumes

Fallow & set-aside 0.20 As above

Total grassland including rough grazing 11.20

Of which is temporary leys (grass under 5 yrs old)

1.14 Milk cattle Hemp, milk cattle, energy silage, clover

Of which is improved permanent lowland grassland

4.49 Milk & beef cattle Energy silage, miscanthus, milk & beef cattle

Of which is unimproved permanent lowland grassland

0.92 Beef cattle, sheep Miscanthus, SRC, beef, sheep

Of which is upland hill farms 1.25 Beef cattle, sheep SRC, SRF, reforestation, sheep

Of which is upland peat moorland 1.36 Sheep Sheep, minor reforestation

Of which is other upland grassland 2.04 Sheep, beef cattle SRF, reforestation, sheep

Woodland 3.24 Wood products Wood products, sequestration management

Of which is farm woodland & hedgerows 0.50 Wood products Wood products, seasonal grazing

All other agricultural land 0.50Intensive livestock

unitsArable, hemp, intensive livestock units, fish farms,

new woodland, protected crops

Urban land 3.28

Of which is potentially agriculturally productive land in urban areas

1.00Derelict, recreation,

under-usedIntensive horticulture, intensive livestock units,

woodlands, fish farms, protected crops

Total land 23.09

Balance of GHG emissions from land use processes – at present

AGRICULTURE AND LAND USE: BALANCE OF POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE EMISSIONS

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

PO

SIT

IVE

AN

D N

EG

AT

IVE

EM

ISS

ION

S, M

ILL

ION

S

OF

TO

NN

ES

CO

2E

Grazing livestock

Non-grazing livestock

Crop products

Imports

Negative emissions

Summary of our results

ZCB LAND-USE SCENARIO: BALANCE OF POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE EMISSIONS

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

NEGATIVE POSITIVE

PO

SIT

IVE

AN

D N

EG

AT

IVE

EM

ISS

ION

S, M

TC

O2E

/Y

Livestock products"

Crop products

Imports

Negative emissions