ELO Biodiversity Conference

Brussels 9 December 2015

Farmland and climate change: factors and

lessons from farmed landscapes

Europe’s environmental challenges Marginal agricultural areas

Challenges: maintain on-field

biodiversity, stimulate favourable

practices, increase profitability

without intensifying

Prime agriculture areas

Challenges: reduce pressures

on air, soil and natural habitats

Main irrigated areas

Challenge: reduce water stress

Tarnava Mare, a lowland area of high biodiversity, 85.000ha farmed by 5.000 families in small-scale

farming communities

Resistance to flooding Resilience to effects of

climate change Low energy agriculture

Short supply chains

Pollination C-sequestration

Agro-biodiversity

Biodiversity

Clean air, clean water

Food quality Food security

Multifunctionality

A romantic view of these ideal

landscapes is not enough.

We need a science-based and

market-based approach

The problem

In EU-27: the agricultural sector was reported to account for 9.6% of the total

greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in 2008

The vast majority of these emissions were reported to arise from:

• Carbon loss from soils. Many global soils have lost 50% of original C.

Cause: loss of soil organic carbon on arable land, and intensified grazing on

pastures.

• Soils: N2O emissions from fertilisers: 49% of agricultural GHG emissions

• Enteric fermentation: Methane emissions: 10% of agricultural GHG

emissions

(Eurostat, 2010)

The potential • Soils hold nine times the amount of carbon that is stored in all

vegetation (including forestry). UK National Ecosystem

Assessment

• How to repair soil C?

– Keep it covered

– Increase (bio)diversity

– Composting

– Good grazing practices

• High C soils offer benefits

– water retention, productivity

Paris

• French government proposes increase soil C by 0.4% / year

• If achieved, would store 75% of global C emissions

Some progress

The contributions of the habitats of farmland to regulating services have often

been negative, but are improving.

Levels of carbon in Arable soils fell between 1998 and 2007, while stocks under

Improved Grassland remained steady.

So

•C (in form of CO2) continues to be lost

•inputs used more carefully – non-CO2 greenhouse gas (N2O, methane)

emissions from UK agriculture have fallen by 19% since 1990.

However, numbers of honey bee colonies in England have declined by 54%

since 1985.

UK National Ecosystem Assessment

Sources: FAO (2007), Garnett (2007) and Grayson (2008)

A. Freibauer et al. / Geoderma 122 (2004) 1–23 (EU policies

and measures to reduce greenhouse gas emission: Towards a

European Climate Change Programme (ECCP)’’, COM (2000)

88, Working Group Sinks, Subgroup Soils

Agriculture as a Carbon emitter

• Ploughing releases large amounts

of CO2

• Additional C footprint from fuel,

artificial fertilizers and pesticides.

Agriculture as a carbon sink

• Agriculture sequesters CO2 in soils

and in plants.

• Grasslands especially important:

store 34% of the global stock of

carbon in terrestrial ecosystems,

whilst forests store 39%. Yearly C fluxes per hectare in EU-15

Farming systems and CO2

Grasslands and Carbon sequestration

Grasslands Forests Arable Underground

stock 140 t/ha 140 t/ha

30 t/ha (ploughed)

40 t/ha (low tillage)

Annual trend +1 t/h/year +6 t/h/year -1 t/ha

• soil carbon is the 'premium sink’: most woodland is felled releasing large

amounts of CO2

• Unlike England, which is a net source of carbon dioxide, Wales is considered

to be a net sink, because of land management, with large amounts of carbon

locked up in its soils

UK National Ecosystem Assessment

Semi-natural Grasslands

Multiple services requiring low energy inputs.

Compared to Temporary Grassland and Arable, Semi-natural Grasslands:

• store greater densities of carbon

• produce less nitrous oxide

• produce less methane due to their lower stocking densities

• Better water regulation (and flood prevention)

• less pollution because of the low fertiliser input

• provide better nutrient cycling

But of course, lower overall animal production.

UK National Ecosystem Assessment

Pasture-based dairying: comparing 2 million litres / year farms

Conventional/intensive

•230 cows (8500l./year/cow)

•700 tonnes of purchased cake/year

•Profit after rent 1 pence/litre = zero

Pasture-based

•400 cows (5000l./year/cow)

•200 tonnes of purchased cake per year

•Profit after rent €0.13/litre = €260,000

Reasons

•Cattle out 10 months of the year: healthy

•Longevity – 6 lactations as opposed to 3.5

•Feed costs reduced to 20%

•Reduced feed costs, fuel costs, vet costs

The Methane question!

≈33% of Methane emissions are

estimated to come from cattle and

sheep

Should intensive production methods

– where cattle are fed largely on

cereals, producing less methane –

be preferred over more traditional

grass-fed livestock farming

Research at 10 UK National Trust

farms shows that while the GHG

emissions of grass-fed and

conventional farms are comparable,

the carbon sequestration contribution

of less intensive grassland systems

reduced net emissions by up to 94%,

even resulting in a carbon 'net

gain' in upland areas.

In addition, these systems are much

less reliant on artificial inputs, have

lower impact on water and soil quality

and biodiversity.

Some science-based conclusions • Agricultural soils in EU could sequester high percentage of European

anthropogenic emissions

A. Freibauer et al. / Geoderma 122 (2004): Carbon sequestration in the agricultural soils of Europe

(EU policies and measures to reduce greenhouse gas emission: Towards a European Climate Change

Programme (ECCP)’’, COM (2000) 88, Working Group Sinks, Subgroup Soils

Identified as most promising measures

• Conversion of arable to grassland is

most effective C mitigation option

• Arable management: promotion of increased

C from ‘organic’ adjustments, organic farming,

conservation tillage.

• Increased level of organic material – carbon – in soil has other benefits

e.g. increased water holding capacity, improved soil structure / nutrient

supply.

• Peat soils: maintain water table (no turbines on moorlands!)

Some final ideas

Landscape complexity and permanent grassland are significant for

mitigation and adaptation. How to maintain them?

We need market mechanisms.

•Support small-scale / family farms ownership? Can be a partial answer

•Incentives for small and large landowners: both CAP payments and

markets (3 aspects of greening of Pillar 1)

•Many mitigation/adaptation measures make economic sense too.

– Lower inputs = higher profits.

– Diversified cropping spreads the risk – portfolio effect

– Landscape complexity and Permanent grassland – “Nature

branding” market advantage

– Market models exist – pasture-based dairy farming and National

Trust beef studies in UK

Thank you for your

attention

Fundatia ADEPT Transilvania

www.fundatia-adept.org