General enquiries on this form should be made to:Defra, Procurements and Contracts Division (Science R&D Team)Telephone No. 0207 238 5734E-mail: research.competitions@defra.gsi.gov.uk

SID 5 Research Project Final Report

NoteIn line with the Freedom of Information Act 2000, Defra aims to place the results of its completed research projects in the public domain wherever possible. The SID 5 (Research Project Final Report) is designed to capture the information on the results and outputs of Defra-funded research in a format that is easily publishable through the Defra website. A SID 5 must be completed for all projects.

This form is in Word format and the boxes may be expanded or reduced, as appropriate.

ACCESS TO INFORMATIONThe information collected on this form will be stored electronically and may be sent to any part of Defra, or to individual researchers or organisations outside Defra for the purposes of reviewing the project. Defra may also disclose the information to any outside organisation acting as an agent authorised by Defra to process final research reports on its behalf. Defra intends to publish this form on its website, unless there are strong reasons not to, which fully comply with exemptions under the Environmental Information Regulations or the Freedom of Information Act 2000.Defra may be required to release information, including personal data and commercial information, on request under the Environmental Information Regulations or the Freedom of Information Act 2000. However, Defra will not permit any unwarranted breach of confidentiality or act in contravention of its obligations under the Data Protection Act 1998. Defra or its appointed agents may use the name, address or other details on your form to contact you in connection with occasional customer research aimed at improving the processes through which Defra works with its contractors.

Project identification

1. Defra Project code AC0210

2. Project title

Economic and environmental impacts of livestock production in the UK

3. Contractororganisation(s)

Cranfield University,Cranfield,Bedfordshire,MK43 0AL

54. Total Defra project costs £ 149,830(agreed fixed price)

5. Project: start date................. 05/01/2009

SID 5 (Rev. 07/10) Page 1 of 31

end date.................. 31/03/2011

SID 5 (Rev. 07/10) Page 2 of 31

6. It is Defra’s intention to publish this form. Please confirm your agreement to do so.......................................................................................YES x NO (a) When preparing SID 5s contractors should bear in mind that Defra intends that they be made public. They

should be written in a clear and concise manner and represent a full account of the research project which someone not closely associated with the project can follow.Defra recognises that in a small minority of cases there may be information, such as intellectual property or commercially confidential data, used in or generated by the research project, which should not be disclosed. In these cases, such information should be detailed in a separate annex (not to be published) so that the SID 5 can be placed in the public domain. Where it is impossible to complete the Final Report without including references to any sensitive or confidential data, the information should be included and section (b) completed. NB: only in exceptional circumstances will Defra expect contractors to give a "No" answer.In all cases, reasons for withholding information must be fully in line with exemptions under the Environmental Information Regulations or the Freedom of Information Act 2000.

(b) If you have answered NO, please explain why the Final report should not be released into public domain

Executive Summary7. The executive summary must not exceed 2 sides in total of A4 and should be understandable to the intelligent

non-scientist. It should cover the main objectives, methods and findings of the research, together with any other significant events and options for new work.Introduction The livestock industry is an important and characteristic component of the agricultural and rural sector in the UK. Grassland for livestock accounts for almost half of the terrestrial surface of the UK, and almost two thirds of managed agricultural land, providing many of the landscape and biodiversity benefits enjoyed by the wider public. However, the livestock sector is also associated with large proportions of the environmental burdens from agriculture. Life Cycle Assessment, for example, suggests that UK meat and dairy consumption accounts for about 8% of total consumption related GHG emissions in the UK and 68% of the UK agricultural ammonia emissions. Defra's vision is for a "profitable and competitive domestic industry which enhances the biodiversity and rural landscape of England while minimising its impact on climate change, soil, water, and air quality”.

ObjectivesIn this context the aim of this project was to determine the economic, social and environmental performance of livestock production in the UK, particularly with respect to Defra’s objectives for the sector. It also set out to explore the implications of alternative future scenarios associated with possible changes in the demand for livestock products, or the consequences for the livestock sector of giving different priorities to economic, social or environmental objectives. It also sought to identify likely challenges to achieving a profitable and environmentally sustainable livestock industry, and the new knowledge and skills that might be required.

MethodA review of factors driving change in the livestock sector was undertaken, including key agricultural and environmental policies. The opinions of a range of industry representatives were canvassed regarding views on the role of livestock in the rural economy and its relationship with the environment. This assessment, together with a systematic review of scientific literature, helped to identify the positive and negative impacts of the livestock sector.

The relationship between livestock farming systems and society was then explored using an ecosystems framework, namely the affect on provisioning (e.g. food production), regulating (e.g. GHG emissions) and cultural (e.g. landscape) services. A variety of scenarios were then developed to reflect actual and potential demands from the livestock sector, given current and future drivers.

The preceding work supported the development of an integrated livestock-ecosystems linear programming

SID 5 (Rev. 07/10) Page 3 of 31

model to assess the economic and environmental impacts of the livestock sector. For this, Life Cycle Assessment models developed at Cranfield University were linked with a grassland productivity model and a soil erosion model at a 5x5 km resolution across England and Wales, to evaluate the environmental consequences of the livestock sector within an integrated modelling framework.

The model was parameterised with economic data from national statistics. National valuation data were developed on a per ha or per unit of livestock product basis. The model maximises the net benefit of the ecosystems services generated from all the different livestock sectors. The benefits included ‘provisioning’ products, such as meat, milk, and eggs as well as employment, both within the livestock farm sector and the ‘multiplier’ effects along the supply chain. ‘Cultural’ benefits included landscape, biodiversity and recreation services considered jointly in terms of a value of willingness to pay that varies by land use. The main costs were the impacts on ‘regulating’ services such as air quality (e.g. GHG and ammonia emissions) and water quality (e.g. emissions of nitrates and phosphates).

Results Results for the modelled Business as Usual scenario for the UK showed that the main benefit of livestock systems was from the provisioning service in terms of production of food. The total product value was estimated to be £8,266 million. The benefit of this, excluding labour, was £5,337 million (£2,794 million including labour as a cost). Most of this was provided by dairy and dairy beef (£2,734 million), followed by poultry (£780 million), sheep (£665 million), suckler beef (£455 million), pigs (£436 million), and eggs (£267 million). In addition to the direct value of this provisioning service, linked benefits, some of which are costs on an individual farm basis, also represent income for other sectors of the UK economy. For UK sourced products, the estimated value of employment generated by the livestock sector was £3,764 million and backward linkages to input industries, £2,931 million. The total value of UK sourced products into processing, packaging, and the retail sector was £14,984 million.

Cultural benefits based on current willingness to pay estimates were significant (£748 million), although substantially lower than the provisioning benefits. These cultural benefits were associated primarily with suckler beef (£190 million) and sheep (£403 million) systems, mostly on extensive systems.

The major ecosystem costs were associated with estimated impacts on regulating services, namely GHG (£2,063 million) and ammonia (£379 million) emissions. The emissions to water were of less significance, and mainly linked to the cost of nitrate leaching on environmental water quality and the removal of nitrates from drinking water (£113 million), and the cost associated with soil erosion (£84 million) in terms of flood damage and prevention.

The analysis also considered the possible implications of reducing or entirely withdrawing livestock production in the UK and substituting it where possible, with arable production. From a spatial analysis of soil suitability for agriculture, an estimate was derived of the degree to which arable production might replace particular types of livestock production in the UK. On the whole, it was found that there would be high opportunity costs to replacing large areas of livestock land with arable land. It was evident that the level of substitution from livestock land to arable land was limited: much grassland is not suited to arable production. The total modelled land area required for livestock production in the UK was estimated to be 6.89 Mha. About 1.42 Mha (21%) of this was estimated to be well-suited for arable production, whilst 1.68Mha (24%) was moderately-suited, and 0.45Mha (7%) was marginally suited for arable production. About 3.35 Mha (48%) was entirely unsuited to arable production and would therefore be abandoned from agricultural use. It was assumed that this would result in loss of biodiversity, landscape features, and tourism and recreational opportunities that are associated with managed landscapes.

There was also a high cost in terms of reduced benefit flow from ecosystem services. Whilst arable production increased to £1,489 million on the land that is currently used for livestock production, and employment in arable agriculture increased to £532 million, there was a substantial loss in the total provisioning service from the land in the UK. Arable production and the associated employment generated only 22% of the provisioning and employment benefit in the BAU livestock scenario.

The trade-offs against regulating and cultural services were also highly unfavourable. Under a no livestock scenario, impacts on the regulating services remained relatively high at 66% of the total regulating cost in the BAU scenario (£2701 million). The cultural benefits also decreased substantially, more than in proportion to the land lost. The arable scenario provided only 21% of BAU cultural benefit (£748 million), whilst occupying 52% of the land released from grazing (5.36 Mha), a decrease in cultural benefit of £87 ha-1 (BAU) to £22 ha-1 for arable substitution over the whole livestock area in the UK.

A modelling study of upland farming in the Peak District showed considerable variation amongst different livestock systems in terms of sensitivity to possible changes in livestock product prices and Government policies such as income support and environmental payments. Impacts on indicators of biodiversity and

SID 5 (Rev. 07/10) Page 4 of 31

landscape also varied, being broadly adverse if systems were either abandoned or intensified. DiscussionThe analysis shows how livestock producers use available resources to respond to market opportunities, with indicators of profitability and competitiveness being generally higher in areas with better soil and climates. Extensive livestock systems, typically occupying agriculturally marginal areas, are heavily dependent on direct income support. Our analysis, supported by industry views, concludes that the future profitability of the industry requires much better connectivity between producers and consumers, and market prices that properly reward sustainable production.

The analysis confirms the important role of livestock systems in cultural services, and especially the contribution of less intensive systems to landscape and biodiversity. The provision of many of these public benefits is not rewarded directly but rather through farm income support that is justified against general social and environmental objectives. The exclusive pursuit of economic efficiency would render many of these livestock systems non viable, compromising some of Defra’s non-economic objectives.

The analysis clearly points to the significant trade-offs between provisioning of livestock products and regulating services, especially regarding impacts on air and water. These impacts, whilst lower then the provisioning and cultural benefits of the livestock sector, constitute real costs borne by others without compensation, reduce the overall economic efficiency of the sector. There is therefore a need to develop and promote cleaner livestock technologies and practices, supported by (i) better accounting of environmental effects, (ii) appropriate regulatory and market price mechanisms, and, (iii) research, development, technical support and training.

Gaps and uncertainties The analysis here identifies a number of gaps that need to be filled in order to maximise the potential benefit of livestock systems in the UK. There are gaps in the understanding of the bio-physical relationships between livestock production and a range of regulating and cultural ecosystem services, and how these vary with the type and intensity of livestock production. A second major knowledge gap concerns the possible non linearity of emissions and impacts with changes in livestock production systems, for example, due to changes in feed types and grassland fertiliser regimes. A third knowledge gap concerns the performance of measures to control emissions while maintaining or enhancing production. A fourth gap relates to the valuation of non market goods. The analysis here uses estimates drawn from multiple published sources, based on a range of estimation techniques. It is clear there are many uncertainties about the reliability of generic estimates. The extent to which livestock directly contribute to landscape, biodiversity and recreational benefits is a particular gap in knowledge. Following the latter, a fifth gap, prompted by the analysis here, concerns how best to incentivise and reward environmental services, whether by regulatory or market based instruments, including industry sponsored schemes. There is also uncertainty about how livestock farmers would respond to such incentives. Lastly, the study revealed that limited information is available on the broader economic impacts on incomes and employment of the livestock industry as a whole. The analysis here treated employment creation as a benefit, especially important in rural areas where jobs are limited.

Recommendations for further research A number of recommendations can be made to support Defra’s policy objectives for the sector.

The analysis confirms the benefit of focussing future effort on improving the productivity of livestock while ameliorating key areas of negative livestock impact, notably regarding GHG and nitrate emissions impact. The development of appropriate technologies and farming practices, developed and promoted to suit local conditions and livestock systems, would help farmers mitigate potential the environmental costs of livestock production. The analysis points to the very substantial benefits that livestock farmers make to cultural services, notably landscape, biodiversity and recreation. Much would be gained by a better understanding of these relationships, how cultural services can be aligned with livestock farming and how farmers can be more directly rewarded for these public goods. There is advantage in adopting an ecosystems based approach to formulating policies in support of sustainable livestock that firmly places provisioning of food alongside other services. It would be beneficial to do this for the major livestock subsectors and for different production systems drawing out the distinction between intensive and extensive systems, as between geographical areas. There are two main challenges here, namely how to (i) improve the environmental performance of intensive livestock systems and (ii) improve the productivity of extensive environmentally benign systems.

The analysis here has developed an innovative approach for spatially integrated modelling of the livestock sector, simultaneously considering economic, social and environmental performance. There is potential benefit to develop this further to support decision making by policy makers and industry

SID 5 (Rev. 07/10) Page 5 of 31

Project Report to Defra8. As a guide this report should be no longer than 20 sides of A4. This report is to provide Defra with details

of the outputs of the research project for internal purposes; to meet the terms of the contract; and to allow Defra to publish details of the outputs to meet Environmental Information Regulation or Freedom of Information obligations. This short report to Defra does not preclude contractors from also seeking to publish a full, formal scientific report/paper in an appropriate scientific or other journal/publication. Indeed, Defra actively encourages such publications as part of the contract terms. The report to Defra should include: the scientific objectives as set out in the contract; the extent to which the objectives set out in the contract have been met; details of methods used and the results obtained, including statistical analysis (if appropriate); a discussion of the results and their reliability; the main implications of the findings; possible future work; and any action resulting from the research (e.g. IP, Knowledge Transfer).

Introduction The livestock industry, comprising dairy, beef, sheep, pigs and poultry production, is an important and characteristic component of the agricultural and rural sector in the UK. In 2009, the value of livestock production in the UK was estimated to be £10,833 million1, equivalent to 56% of total agricultural value. In order of contribution, dairy accounted for 29% of livestock value, cattle 20%, poultry 14%, pigs 9%, sheep 9% and eggs 5%. Furthermore, grassland for livestock accounts for almost half of the terrestrial surface of the UK, and almost two thirds of managed agricultural land. In upland areas, rough grassland occupied by extensively grazed livestock is the dominant form of land management. Many highly valued and historic features of the rural landscape are a result of livestock farming, notably the patchwork of fields bounded by hedgerows and stone walls that are part of distinctive landscape characteristics. Simultaneously, many grassland systems, especially those following traditional methods, are associated with high levels of biodiversity, made all the more valuable by reductions elsewhere in more intensively farmed areas. Furthermore, livestock and grassland areas in both lowlands and uplands are closely integrated with rural tourism and recreation where enjoyment of the countryside provides a range of social and economic benefits, relieving the pressures associated with increasingly urban lifestyles.

1 Defra (2009). Agriculture in the United Kingdom 2009. 146pp

SID 5 (Rev. 07/10) Page 6 of 31

At the same time, however, the livestock sector is associated with a large share of the burdens placed by agriculture on the environment. In the UK, Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) suggests that consumption of meat and dairy products accounts for about 8% of total consumption related GHG emissions, mainly associated with methane and nitrous oxide generation2. It also accounts for 68% of the UK agricultural ammonia emissions3 potentially resulting in acid rain, and in some areas with pollution of freshwater from chemical fertiliser and manure. Although livestock is a key component of the farmed landscape and rural economy in the UK, especially in the north and western regions that have comparative advantage in grassland farming, there is considerable debate about the combined economic, social and environmental impact of livestock production in the UK. The debate is further complicated by changes in market demand, whether associated with reduction in the demand for red meat as part of healthier diets, or a strengthening of global demand for dairy and meat products as incomes rise in developing economies.

This debate necessarily calls for an objective assessment of the contribution of the livestock sector in achieving the UK Government’s (and its constituent administrations) development objectives. In this context the main aim of this project was to undertake a valuation analysis of the market and non-market benefits and costs of the livestock sector using an integrated economic-environmental modelling approach within an ecosystems framework. This resonates with new coalition priorities for Defra4, which are to support and develop farming, encourage sustainable food production, and enhance the environment and biodiversity to improve quality of life. A variety of objectives were determined to help achieve this. To develop context for the project, Objective 1 set identified the drivers and constraints of the livestock industry using a DPSIR (Drivers-Pressures-State-Impact-Response) analysis5 6 and a key informant survey. Objective 2 undertook a qualitative analysis of the positive and negative impacts of each sector of the livestock industry within an ecosystems framework and Objective 3 reviewed scenarios from previous research to inform the modelling analysis. Objectives 4, 5 and 6 developed the data, the integrated economic-environmental modelling approach, and assessed the results in terms of Defra objectives for the livestock sector. Finally, Objective 7 identified the implications for a sustainable livestock sector and Objective 8 reported on evidence gaps and suggestions for future research.

Although the broad context of the study is set at the UK scale, and many general insights are applicable at this level, the detailed analysis of environmental effects is conducted for the administrative areas of England and Wales.

Results

The DPSIR analysis The relationship between the livestock industry and society can be represented using the Drivers-Pressures-State-Impact-Response (DPSIR) framework. This framework, widely used by policy analysts, seeks to understand the causes and effects of change, and the kind of behavioural responses that these may bring about, whether by individuals, organisations, or governments. A review of academic literature and policy documentation provided the following insights.

2 Garnett, T. (2009). Livestock-related greenhouse gas emissions: impacts and options for policy makers. Environmental science & policy: 12: 491 – 503.3 NAEI (National Atmospheric Emissions Inventory) 2005. AEA Energy & Environment, Harwell. 4 Defra Business Plan 2011-20155 EEA (1995). Europe’s Environment: the Dobris Assessment. European Environment Agency, Copenhagen.6 Holten-Anderson, J., Palby H., Christensen, N., Wier, M., Andersen, F.M. (1995) Recommendations on strategies for integrated assessment of broad environmental problems. Report submitted to the European Environment Agency (EEA) by the Environmental Research Institute (NERI), Denmark

SID 5 (Rev. 07/10) Page 7 of 31

DriversThe main driver for the livestock sector is the demand for food, predominantly meat, fat, milk, eggs, and edible offals. Leather, wool, skins, feathers, pet food, garden fertiliser from bone meal and animal manure are by-products of this. While there has been some decline in and substitution amongst livestock products in household diets, global demand for livestock products is likely to increase as China and India become globally competitive in the world food market. The intensification of food production, including livestock production, has been driven by the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) through intervention prices, import levies, and export subsidies7 that remained largely intact until the MacSharry (1992) and Fischler (2003) reforms. Decoupling of income support from product price support means that the incentives for livestock production are now more closely attuned to market demand. The evolution of CAP from 2013, when the next budget is set, is the subject of considerable debate. Whilst a 2005 joint Defra/HM Treasury paper8 envisages agriculture as being ‘internationally competitive without reliance on subsidy or protection,’ market-focussed and environmentally responsible, some stakeholders such as the NFU, claim the CAP is required to enable farmers to survive and maintain stable food supplies whilst also providing the public benefits enjoyed by society as a whole9.

Pressures Livestock production can create pressure on the environment in the form of greenhouse gas emissions (GHG), predominantly methane (CH4) nitrous oxide (N2O), ammonia (NH3), and carbon dioxide (CO2). Malodours can be problematic with housed livestock and high densities of animals in limited areas have an impact on soil quantity and quality. Large volumes of manure and slurry are produced each year and nitrogen (N) phosphorus (P), sediments, heavy metals, pathogens (e.g. E. coli and Cryptosporidium) in feed and veterinary medicines (which may contain zinc and copper) are emitted to soil and water10.

State Pressures associated with livestock production can degrade the "State" of air, water, and soil. Emissions of greenhouse gases result in global climate change. Ammonia (and other nitrogen-based air emissions such as nitrogen oxide) causes acidification and enrichment of the environment. Odours reduce the quality of the air. High densities of livestock can cause soil degradation. Nitrogen, phosphorus and organic nutrients increase biological oxygen demand and pesticides, soil particles (sediment), heavy metals (e.g. copper and zinc) in feed supplements and veterinary medicines reduce water quality.

ImpactThe change in the "State" of the environment can lead to a loss of beneficial goods and services that impact on the welfare of people. The range of those impacts can be identified using an ecosystems approach, whilst the extent of this impact on human wellbeing can be measured by applying the techniques of valuation. It is noted that, as explored here, livestock systems are associated with both negative and positive impacts on the environment, in the latter case, where managed landscapes provide the benefits of landscape, biodiversity and recreation.

Responses A system of policy instruments has been instituted to manage the impacts of food production, including livestock production. Cross-compliance, statutory management requirements and agri-environment schemes have been developed and also act as drivers of the livestock sector. The Nitrates Directive (91/676/EC) and the Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC) were introduced to protect water bodies especially from nitrogen and phosphorus pollution. The Bathing Water Directive (2006/7/EC) and Shellfish Waters Directive (79/923/EEC) provides regulations on manure-borne pathogens (Defra, 2008). These aspects are subsumed within the Water Framework Directive.

7 European Commission (1957). Treaty Establishing the European Community as Amended by Subsequent Treaties. 25 March 1957, Rome, Italy. 8 HM Treasurey, Defra (2005). A Vision for the Common Agricultural Policy 9 NFU policy, The CAP after 2013. 20pp10 Atkinson, P.W., Buckingham, D.L. & Morris, A.J. (2004). What factors determine where invertebrate-feeding birds forage in dry agricultural grasslands. In: J. A. Vickery & A. D. Evans (eds) Ecology and Conservation of Lowland Farmland Birds II: The Road to Recovery. Ibis 146 (suppl. 2): 99-107.

SID 5 (Rev. 07/10) Page 8 of 31

Under the Climate Change Act 2008, the UK Government is legally required to achieve an overall 80% reduction in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from 1990 levels across the UK economy by 2050. The agriculture sector will need to play its part. For example, a target reduction in annual agricultural emissions in England of 3 Mt of CO 2-equivalent (CO2e) by the third carbon budget period (2018 – 2022) was set in the Government’s 2009 Low Carbon Transition Plan11. Under the Gothenburg Protocol and the National Emissions Ceilings (Directive 2001/81/EC), the UK has a national target of 297 kt NH3 per year by 2010 (compared with an estimated 320 kt NH3 in 2000). In addition, the first “Air Quality Daughter Directive” (Directive 99/30/EC) sets binding concentration of particles such as PM10.

There are also legal and recommended minimum requirements for animal health and welfare in the “general framework directive” (Directive 98/58/EC), as well as specific guidelines for laying hens (Directive 99/74/EC), calves (Directive 91/629/EEC as amended by Directive 97/2/EC and Directive 97/182/EC), and pigs (Directive 91/630/EEC as amended by Directive 2001/88/EC and Directive 2001/93/EC) (Defra)12. In the UK, The Animal Welfare Act 2006 commits those involved with animals to a Duty of Care for animals and the welfare of farmed animals is protected under Regulation S.I. 2007 No.2078. A range of highly subscribed voluntary schemes that go beyond these requirements also exist13. These combine to produce some of the highest welfare standards in the EU14.

It is clear from the foregoing that a broad range of factors shape the livestock sector and its relationship with society and the environment.

Survey of industry body opinionFollowing the broad appreciation provided by the DPSIR framework, an open ended electronic questionnaire and telephone interviews were used with representatives from the livestock industry to understand the positive and negative impacts of the livestock sector from their perspective.

Respondents pointed to a range of linkages with other sectors of the economy, mainly within the food supply chain, such as feed or retail industries, but also to the pharmaceutical industry, tourist industry, and the general public. Attention was drawn to the importance of the economic benefits of livestock in terms of food and industrial products, rural incomes and employment, as well as culturally important landscapes and biodiversity benefits, many of these linked to thriving regional tourist industries, especially in upland areas. For these benefits to be maintained, a profitable industry was needed. The point was made that many livestock systems occupy the margins of commercially viable farming and provide a better social and environmental option than abandoned land. Thus, it was argued, policy needs to recognise the social importance of the livestock sector, especially its employment role. At the same time however, there was need to attract and retain young people in the industry through the development of new skills and technologies.

Although there were challenges for the livestock sector such as managing animal welfare, emissions of GHG, ammonia, methane, and diffuse pollution, respondents were not convinced these were as problematic as portrayed in the media. They pointed out that the livestock sector was willing and already adopting mitigating measures, including options for using slurry in anaerobic digesters for energy production.

CAP legislation was considered to be highly influential within the livestock sector, currently making it more market focussed. Animal welfare and the move to freedom foods were important recent drivers. One respondent suggested that the environmental costs of production should be included in product prices to reduce the differential between organic and non-organic products. However, the global economic recession was seen as a threat to higher animal welfare standards as was the need to increase food production due to an enlarged EU and a global playing field. Livestock disease outbreaks were mentioned as a major driver of growth in the organic sector.

Many respondents perceived a vulnerability in the livestock sector due to the concentration of power in the retail sector. There was suggestion that retailers reinforced negative impacts of the livestock industry by failing to show sufficient commitment to more environment-friendly products. The driving down of prices for livestock products by powerful retailers was considered to jeopardise the survival of many farmers. Changing diets and cheaper imports were also seen as threats to the pig, lamb and beef sector.

11 HM Government (2009). The UK low carbon transition plan: national strategy for climate and energy. 220 pp12 Defra: http://www.defra.gov.uk/animalh/welfare/farmed/on-farm.htm13 Veissier, I., A Butterworth, B Bock, E Roe (2008). European approaches to ensure good animal welfare. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 113 (2008) 279–29714 Wathes CM, Maggs H, Campbell ML, Buller H. (2012). Towards livestock production in the 21st Century: a perfect storm averted? http://www.cigr.ageng2012.org/christopher_wathes.php

SID 5 (Rev. 07/10) Page 9 of 31

Regarding the future, industry opinion felt that increasing exposure to the market through CAP legislation and growing food demand would lead to intensification of livestock production systems. Beef and sheep farms would continue to be lost and that those that remained would do so only on better quality land. It was felt that many dairy producers would not survive, whilst remaining dairy businesses would become larger, but face shortages of skilled labour and succession within the industry. The pig sector considered its future rested on public willingness to pay more for the higher welfare standards provided by UK pig farmers. In the poultry sector, the key to reducing environmental impacts was seen to be in increasing production efficiency, reducing GHG production per unit output. Throughout the sector, there is scope to develop new housing and feed technologies to reduce emissions, although many thought welfare and reduced environmental impacts were not entirely compatible. Some thought that animal welfare could be addressed through genetic selection rather than more extensive production systems, although this is a contentious issue.

In summary, the respondents argued for the strategically important and diverse role of the livestock sector as a provider of food, incomes and employment, and a wide range of environmental benefits. They recognised the environmental burdens associated with livestock production, but argued that these have and can be further mitigated by new technologies and practices. They noted, however, that the livestock producers were mainly price ‘takers’ rather than ‘setters’. The incentives and scope to improve the sustainability of livestock production were highly dependent on a mix of policy and market drivers over which they perceived they often had limited control.

An ecosystem perspective of the livestock industryIt is clear from the DPSIR assessment and discussions with key stakeholders that the livestock industry has a diverse and complex relationship with society, pivoting around its use of natural resources. In the last decade, the ecosystems framework has emerged as a means of explicitly linking natural capital with social welfare (Table 1). In this, natural capital supports a number of interrelated ecosystem services (provisioning, regulating, cultural and supporting services) which produce a variety of goods or benefits that have value for humans15 16 17.

Table 1. Functions and uses of ecosystems (MA, 2005)Service Goods ExamplesProvisioning The benefits obtained from

directly from ecosystems: Food, fibre, fuel, genetic resources, biochemicals, natural medicines, pharmaceuticals, ornamental resources, and fresh water

Regulating The benefits obtained from regulation of ecosystem processes

Air quality regulation, climate regulation, water regulation, erosion regulation, water purification and waste treatment, disease regulation, pest regulation, pollination, and natural hazard regulation

Cultural The non-material benefits obtained from ecosystems

Cultural diversity, spiritual and religious values, knowledge systems (traditional and formal), educational values, inspiration, aesthetic values, social relations, sense of place, cultural heritage values, recreation and ecotourism

Supporting The capacity to support other services through essential processes

Soil formation, photosynthesis, primary production, nutrient cycling, and water cycling

In broad terms, the positive impacts of the livestock sector are linked to the “provisioning” of food (and the broader benefits associated with employment and linkages to related industries) and “cultural” benefits in terms of the aesthetic pleasure obtained from grazed landscapes, their features such as hedgerows and stone walls, and their biodiversity. Negative impacts are largely associated with the loss of “regulating” services, including emissions of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere, and emissions of contaminants to water, including sediment and transport of bound pollutants such as phosphorus, pesticides, heavy metals, and pathogenic microorganisms (Table 2). This became the framework of analysis for an integrated livestock-ecosystems model as explained below.

Table 2. Summary of key impacts of the livestock sector within the ecosystem frameworkFunction Uses Benefits CostProvisioning Livestock products Meat, milk, eggs    Employment  

Linked industryRegulating Climate regulation Carbon sequestration GHG emissions  Methane oxidation

Air quality regulation Ammonia

15 Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005). http://www.milleniumassessment.org/en/index.asp16 Defra (2007a). An introductory guide to valuing ecosystem services. Report published by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. London, UK. 68pp.17 UNEP-UK NEA (2010). UK National Ecosystem Assessment. http//uknea.unep-wcmc.org.

SID 5 (Rev. 07/10) Page 10 of 31

NVOCPM10

  Water regulation, supply and quality

Buffering of flow rates Phosphate  Nitrate

PesticidesSilage effluent

    Particulates    Pathogens    Heavy metals  Soil retention & formation Soil Organic Matter Acidification

Soil degradation  Nutrient regulation  Soil fertility enhancementCultural Aesthetic pleasure Landscape   Hedges and stonewalls  

Archaeology BiodiversityRecreation

Development of scenarios for modellingIt is clear that the livestock-society relationship is not only complex and diverse, but also subject to considerable uncertainty as future drivers of change take effect. For this purpose, a number of scenarios were constructed to represent plausible futures and these were then modelled quantitatively using the integrated livestock-ecosystems model developed in this project. For this, scenarios used in previous research were reviewed including the “Estimating the impacts of Pillar I reform” project18, the “Agricultural Futures” project19, and the “Limits to a Sustainable Livestock Sector” project20.

The Estimating the Impacts of Pillar I Reform modelled the impact of a variety of policy scenarios on agriculture, mostly associated with changes in direct farm income support. These included: A) Business As Usual (BAU), B) CAP Pillar 1 Reform, C) Trade Liberalisation, and D) CAP Pillar 1 Reform + Trade Liberalisation. Declines in livestock numbers relative to the baseline were predicted for all the scenarios but were particularly severe in Scenario D. A number of threats were identified to landscape character, such as “loss of boundary features”, the “increased scrub”, and “loss of traditional character”, and rural employment was expected to decrease. However, some impacts were more positive. Soil degradation was predicted to decrease, as were nitrates and phosphorus loads in water, and greenhouse gas and ammonia emissions.

The Agricultural Futures project interpreted the Foresight21 scenarios for use in modelling long term futures in agriculture. The scenarios, termed “World Markets”, “Global Sustainability”, “National Enterprise”, and “Local Stewardship” were developed in relation to drivers, in particular, agricultural trade and policy. Animal numbers declined most under World Markets, resulting in upland abandonment, whilst they increased most under Local Stewardship because of low per animal yields and greater reliance on self sufficiency. An environmental analysis for the uplands suggested that World Markets and Global Sustainability offered potential environmental gains, whereas Local Stewardship resulted in declines in environmental quality because much of the land would be used for production. However, under World Markets, a complete loss of agricultural employment in upland areas was predicted, whilst in Local Sustainability, employment increased due to increased livestock numbers.

The Limits to a Sustainable Livestock Sector project determined how a series of management measures could be used to meet national targets on ammonia and greenhouse gas emissions. A variety of feasible scenarios were developed and the best solutions combined to determine how productivity of the livestock sector could be maintained whilst minimising environmental burdens. For example, potential solutions in dairy were to use high-yielding herds, inject slurry in grassland, and reduced protein and roughage in diets. In beef systems, emissions were reduced by increasing the supply of calves from dairy herds. In poultry systems, increasing the area per bird was found to increase emissions unless manure was well managed. Further scenarios explored whether concentrating reductions in different sectors would be more effective in reducing total gaseous emissions than attempting to cut emissions uniformly across all sectors. The best solutions were found to lie in reducing beef, dairy and pig production, whilst allowing poultry and sheep production to be maintained at current levels.

18 ADAS (2008). Estimating the Environmental Impacts of Pillar I Reform and the Potential Implications for Axis II funding. Final Report prepared for Defra by ADAS UK Ltd, with SAC, RPA, and IGER. Wolverhampton, UK. 175pp.19 Morris J, Audsley E, Wright IA, McLeod J, Pearn K, Angus A, Rickard S. 2005. Agricultural Futures and Implications for the Environment. Defra Research Project IS0209. Bedford: Cranfield University. Available on hppt//www.silsoe.cranfield.ac.uk.20 Rickard, S., Morris, J., and Audsley, E. (2005) Possible futures for Agriculture in Northern Europe during a period of policy reform, in Sylvester-Bradley, R and Wisemann J, (ed) Yields of farmed species: constraints and opportunities in the 21st century, University of Nottingham Press21 OST (2002) UK Foresight Futures 2020: Revised Scenarios and Guidance. London: Office of Science and Technology, Department for Trade and Industry, London

SID 5 (Rev. 07/10) Page 11 of 31

It was clear from these studies that: (i) the livestock sector has a high level of dependency on farm income support, especially in marginal areas, that if removed could lead to abandonment of land with uncertain social and environmental outcomes, and; (ii) that the more intensive livestock systems can exert considerable pressures on environmental quality unless checked.

Scenarios for modellingUsing this review of scenarios in previous projects and the understanding developed in a review of science and policy, a set of scenarios was developed to explore how Defra objectives for the livestock sector could be met, namely a “profitable and competitive domestic industry which enhances the biodiversity and rural landscape of England while minimising its impact on climate change, soil, water, and air quality” 22. These were:

1. Business as usual: a baseline business as usual scenario, examining the net balance between the Provisioning, Regulating, and Cultural impacts of the livestock sector and determining how individual sub-sectors contribute to this. This scenario also included a sensitivity analysis (+/-25%) of individual ecosystem costs and benefits to determine the impact on net benefit.

Table 3. Tabular depiction of BAU scenarios General Scenarios Product mix scenarioBAU BAUCommodity prices: +/- 25% 25% reduction in livestock production balanced by plant commodities.Environmental benefits: +/- 25% Shift from red meat to white meatEnvironmental costs: +/- 25%GHG emission: -25%Employment as a benefit/cost

Arable substitution of livestock sector

And also a series of optimising scenarios to determine the effect of: 2. Maximising employment generation associated with the livestock sector3. Minimising production costs from the livestock sector4. Reducing GHG emissions by 25%5. Shifting from red to white meat6. Reducing production of each livestock sector by 25% balanced as far as possible by plant commodities

Data inputs and model developmentData for the valuation of Provisioning, Regulating and Cultural services were developed from a variety of sources and adjusted, where needed, to 2009 values with HMT GDP deflators23. Whilst data on provisioning services were relatively easy to find, data on the impact of livestock systems on the value of regulating and cultural services were especially difficult to develop. The data are provided in Appendix 1. A description of how they were derived is provided below.

Provisioning servicesFood production: Provisioning benefits associated with food and fibre production tend to have market values, unlike regulating and cultural benefits. These values were taken from various sources 24 25 26 and are shown in Appendix 1. Food production requires inputs leading to variable and fixed costs. Whilst these are expenditures at the farm level, they result in incomes to input and service providers, and can be used as estimates of the benefit provided by the livestock sector to input industries (e.g. feed, concentrates, machinery costs) and society as a whole in the form of employment generated. For example, of the £35 typically expended on variable inputs on lowland sheep, about 40% is spend on concentrate feeds, 40% on veterinary expenses and the balance on fertiliser and fuels. For dairy cows, of a typical annual expenditure of £500-£600, 55% is spent on concentrate fees, 9% on veterinary expenses and 15% on forage variable costs. These expenditure profiles provide a measure of economic impact. While some of these expenditures engage local services, some are provided from further a field.

Linked industry benefit: Backward linkages to input industries as described above are not the only benefit provided by the livestock sector to other industries. Forward linkages into processing, packaging, transport and retail industries are also important. Data on the forward linkages of agriculture into processing, packaging, transport, and retail industries were sparse. Much effort was made to find such “supply chain margins” from the

22 Defra bid document: FFG 080323 HM Treasury (2011) GDP deflators: http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/data_gdp_fig.htm24 Nix, J. (2009). The John Nix farm management pocketbook: 40th edition. The Anderson Centre, Leicestershire25 Agro Business Consultants (2009). The Agricultural Budgeting and Costing Book, (69th edition). Agro Business Consultants Ltd, Melton Mowbray, Leicesteshire.26 Defra (2009). Agriculture in the United Kingdom 2009. 146pp

SID 5 (Rev. 07/10) Page 12 of 31

industry bodies, Defra, and experts in agriculture, but only broad assessments were possible, based mainly on dated and generic estimates, with the notable exception of a DairyCo27 study for milk. For this reason, the associated benefits of agriculture into upstream industries were developed by assuming that the difference between the farm gate price and the retail price of livestock commodities was an indicator of the value generated in the supply chain (processing, packaging, transport and retail) beyond the farm gate. Such data are developed by Defra28. Typically, farmers receive about 50% of the carcass based final retail price for beef, 47% and 37% for lamb and pork respectively, 35% of the final price for milk, and about 24% of the retail price of eggs. It is noted that once domestically produced livestock commodities enter the industrial and ‘wholesale’ markets, they compete with commodities sourced internationally.

Regulating servicesLivestock production can interact with the regulation services of ecosystems associated with air and water quality, climate regulation, flood control, waste treatment, and natural hazard regulation. Unit rates for estimating the impacts of livestock on these services is drawn from a number of sources, particularly those drawn together to estimate the National Environmental Accounts for Agriculture in the UK by Jacobs29.

Climate regulation: Livestock produce greenhouse gases such as Methane (CH4) nitrous oxide (N2O) and carbon dioxide (CO2) contribute to climate change. Several studies have estimated the per unit cost of this. For example, Eyre et al30 proposed costs of £63 t-1 for CO2, £263 t-1 CH4 for and £7,530 t-1 for N2O. Jacobs31 uses a value of £25 t-1 CO2 based on the shadow price of carbon proposed by Defra. More recently, the EU Emissions Trading System (ETS)32 has created a market in GHG emissions, which provides a traded carbon price based on abatement costs. Agricultural emissions currently exist outside the ETS, but DECC33 has advised that non-traded carbon prices (£51 t-1 CO2e for 2009) should be used in such cases and provides ratios to calculate global warming potential (GWP) for other GHG gases giving a per unit cost of £1,071 t-1 CH4 and £15,810 t-1 N2O.

Air quality regulation: Ammonia is a major air pollutant from livestock, emitted from buildings housing livestock, manure stores, grazed pastures and during manure and N fertilizer application. Holland et al34 estimate the environmental costs of NH3 to be between £87 and £270 t-1 NH3, and this range has been commonly used to calculate the costs of NH3 emissions. However, following recommended by the Defra Inter-departmental Group on Costs and Benefits (IGCB) in 2008, the estimated environmental costs of NH3 were significantly increased to £1840 t-1 NH3 in Jacobs35. Combustion associated with the livestock sector produces pollutants such as particulate matter, carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, sulphur oxides and non-methane volatile organic compounds (NMVOCs). These can have adverse effects on human, animals, plant and ecosystem health. Some studies have estimated specific damage costs from airborne emissions for example on biodiversity (£140 t-1 SOx and £430 t-1 NOx

36. Hartridge and Pearce37 calculated overall costs on humans and biodiversity (£3874 t -1 PM10 and £6089 t-1 SOx). The values used here from Jacobs38 (adjusted to 2009 values) provide unit cost estimates of £1,840 t -1 NH3, £837 t-1

NOx, £1,433 t-1 NMVOC, £1,452 SO2, £2.1 t-1 CO, and £8,733 t-1 PM10.

Water quality regulation: Rivers and canals: Damage costs to rivers and canals are linked to levels of NO3-N and the apportionment to agriculture estimated as £47.4 million (adjusted to 2009 value) in Jacobs39. Since NO3-N data are not given in Jacobs40, the total of 295,409 t NO3-N for agriculture in England and Wales is taken from Defra project WQ010641

27 DairyCo: Dairy Supply Chain Margins 2009/10. 20 pp28 Defra (2009). Agriculture in the United Kingdom 2009. 146pp 29 Jacobs (2008). Environmental Accounts for Agriculture. Final report submitted to Defra. 175 pp.30 Eyre, N., Downing, T., Hoekstra, R., Rennings, K., and Tol, R (1997) Global Warming Damages. Final report of the external global warming sub-task, DG Environment, European Commission, Brussels.31 Jacobs (2008). Environmental Accounts for Agriculture. Final report submitted to Defra. 175 pp.32 EU Emissions Trading System: http://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/ets/index_en.htm33 DECC (2010). Carbon Appraisal in UK Policy Appraisal: A revised Approach A brief guide to the new carbon values and their use in economic appraisal34 Holland, M., Forster, D., Young, K., Haworth, A., Watkiss, P. (1999) Economic Evaluation of Proposals for Emission Ceilings for atmospheric Pollutants (Interim Report for DG XI of the European Commission), AEA Technology, Culham, Oxon.35 Jacobs (2008). Environmental Accounts for Agriculture. Final report submitted to Defra. 175 pp.36 Econcept and ESU-Services (2006). Assessment of Biodiversity Losses. Deliverable 4.2 submitted to the EU in partial fulfilment of the New Energy Externalities Developments for Sustainability NEEDS project: http://www.needs-project.org/RS1b/RS1b_D4.2.pdf37 Hartridge O. and Pearce D. (2001) Is UK Agriculture Sustainable? Environmentally Adjusted Economic Accounts for UK Agriculture, CSERGE-Economics paper, September.38 Jacobs (2008). Environmental Accounts for Agriculture. Final report submitted to Defra. 175 pp.39 Jacobs (2008). Environmental Accounts for Agriculture. Final report submitted to Defra. 175 pp.40 Jacobs (2008). Environmental Accounts for Agriculture. Final report submitted to Defra. 175 pp.41 Anthony, S., Duethman, D., Gooday, R., Harris, D., Newell-Price, P., Chadwick, D. and Misselbrook, T. (2009) Quantitative Assessment of Scenarios for Managing Trade-Off between the Economic Performance of Agriculture and the Environment and Between Different Environmental Media. Final Report, Defra Project WQ0106 (Module 6), 95 pp.

SID 5 (Rev. 07/10) Page 13 of 31

giving a per unit damage cost of £161 t-1 NO3-N, which can be attributed to livestock emissions where these are known to occur.

Lakes: The estimate for the cost of eutrophication in lakes in the UK was £62.6 million (adjusted to 2009 values) and linked to an estimated P load of 45% from agriculture42, giving an apportionment of £28.2 million to agriculture. It should be noted that the apportionment to agriculture varies significantly amongst different sources and has been reported as 29.2% in Defra Project WT0701CSF43. Since physical units for P are not given in Jacobs44, the total load given for the UK in Defra Project WT0701CSF45 (43,796 t yr-1) is used to develop per unit cost for phosphorus from the total cost in Jacobs46 giving a per unit cost of £1,407 t-1 P that can be attributed to livestock where appropriate.

Transitional waters: The cost of damage to transitional waters are also linked to nitrate and is estimated from Jacobs47 to be to be £2.6 million yr-1 (adjusted to 2009 values) for England and Wales. The physical data developed by Defra project WQ010648 for nitrate leaching by agriculture in England and Wales was used to obtain the per unit value of £8.9 [t NO3-N]-1.

Marine water: Micro-organisms such as E coli, Cryptosporidium and other manure-borne pathogens have an impact on marine water quality, with costs imposed if beaches are closed because of high contamination levels. About 30% of the total faecal contamination in the marine environment is assumed to be from agriculture49, most of this attributable to excreta produced by the dairy, beef, sheep and pig sectors, since management of poultry excreta is assumed to destroy most pathogens50. Jacobs51 reports the value of reducing faecal contamination in marine water to meet EU standards at least 80% of the time as £9.1 million (adjusted to 2009 values). Total excreta production in England and Wales were developed from per animal excreta production data in Shepherd et al (2007)52 and national animal numbers in Anthony et al53. This is used to derive a per unit cost of marine contamination from Jacobs54, giving a cost of £0.07 t-1 undiluted excreta.

The severity of impacts from faecal contamination varies between different livestock sectors because of different rearing and manure management practices55 and an estimate of the relative impact of faecal contamination from the different livestock sectors was developed using weightings in Cuttle et al56. The estimated weighted per unit cost associated with undiluted excreta production were £0.086 t-1 (dairy), £0.067 t-1 (beef and sheep), £0.009 t-1

(indoor pigs), and £0.054 t-1 (outdoor pigs).

Water pollution: Pollution incidents associated with livestock include point-source pollution such as silage effluent, slurry, pesticides, and sheep-dip spills. These damage fish stocks and ecosystems. The cost of Category 1 and Category 2 incidents in respect of restocking fish (adjusted to 2009 values) is give as £4,243 per incident and £2,163 per incident respectively57.

42 Jacobs (2008). Environmental Accounts for Agriculture. Final report submitted to Defra. 175 pp.43 White, P.J. and Hammond, J.P. (2006). Upadating the estimates of the sources of phosphorus in UK waters. Defra project WT0701CSF44 Jacobs (2008). Environmental Accounts for Agriculture. Final report submitted to Defra. 175 pp.45 White, P.J. and Hammond, J.P. (2006). Upadating the estimates of the sources of phosphorus in UK waters. Defra project WT0701CSF46 Jacobs (2008). Environmental Accounts for Agriculture. Final report submitted to Defra. 175 pp.47 Jacobs (2008). Environmental Accounts for Agriculture. Final report submitted to Defra. 175 pp.48 Anthony, S., Duethman, D., Gooday, R., Harris, D., Newell-Price, P., Chadwick, D. and Misselbrook, T. (2009) Quantitative Assessment of Scenarios for Managing Trade-Off between the Economic Performance of Agriculture and the Environment and Between Different Environmental Media. Final Report, Defra Project WQ0106 (Module 6), 95 pp.49 Jacobs (2008). Environmental Accounts for Agriculture. Final report submitted to Defra. 175 pp.50 Cuttle, P. M., P. M. Haygarth, D.R. Chadwick P. Newell-Price, D. Harris, M.A. Shepherd, B.J. Chambers and R. Humphrey (2006). An Inventory of Measures to Control Diffuse Water Pollution from Agriculture. User Manual. Defra Project ESO20351 Jacobs (2008). Environmental Accounts for Agriculture. Final report submitted to Defra. 175 pp.52 Shepherd, M., Anthony, S., Temple, M., Burgess, D., Patton, M., Renwick, A., Barnes, A., and Chadwick, D. (2007). Baseline Projections for Agriculture and implications for emissions to air and water. Defra project SFF060153 Anthony, S., Duethman, D., Gooday, R., Harris, D., Newell-Price, P., Chadwick, D. and Misselbrook, T. (2009) Quantitative Assessment of Scenarios for Managing Trade-Off between the Economic Performance of Agriculture and the Environment and Between Different Environmental Media. Final Report, Defra Project WQ0106 (Module 6), 95 pp.54 Jacobs (2008). Environmental Accounts for Agriculture. Final report submitted to Defra. 175 pp.55 Cuttle, P. M., P. M. Haygarth, D.R. Chadwick P. Newell-Price, D. Harris, M.A. Shepherd, B.J. Chambers and R. Humphrey (2006). An Inventory of Measures to Control Diffuse Water Pollution from Agriculture. User Manual. Defra Project ESO20356 Cuttle, P. M., P. M. Haygarth, D.R. Chadwick P. Newell-Price, D. Harris, M.A. Shepherd, B.J. Chambers and R. Humphrey (2006). An Inventory of Measures to Control Diffuse Water Pollution from Agriculture. User Manual. Defra Project ESO20357 Jacobs (2008). Environmental Accounts for Agriculture. Final report submitted to Defra. 175 pp.

SID 5 (Rev. 07/10) Page 14 of 31

Nitrate removal: Removal of nitrate in freshwater imposes costs on water companies. The agricultural apportionment of this is assumed to be 61% giving a total cost (adjusted to 2009 values) of £51 million58. The agricultural load of NO3-N (295,409 t yr-1) estimated for England and Wales by Anthony et al59 is used to derive the per unit cost (£ 172 t-1 NO3-N) for removal of nitrate from drinking water associated with livestock applications on grassland.

Pesticide removal: The proportion of pesticides in water from agriculture in England and Wales is estimated to be 85%60. Jacobs61 reports the total cost of removing pesticide to be £57 million giving a cost attributable to agriculture (adjusted to 2009 values) of £51 million. This was divided by the total number of spray-hectares (52 million) applied in England and Wales62 to obtain a unit cost of £0.97 per spray-hectare.

Cryptosporidium removal: The filtration of cryptosporidium to meet legal requirements imposes a cost of £37 million63. About 90% of cryptosporidium is from livestock excreta, in particular young cattle and sheep 64 and on dairy and grazing farms65, giving an agricultural apportionment (adjusted to 2009 values) of £35 million. This was divided by the total undiluted excreta production from calves under 1 year old and lambs in England and Wales developed using excreta production data in Shepherd et al.66 and national farm animal data in Anthony et al67 to a per unit cost of £1.73 t-1 undiluted excreta.

Sediment removal: The total cost of sediment removal is assumed to be 50% of OFWAT's 'other' expenditure68. Agriculture is assumed to contribute about 75% of the total sediment load in watercourse 69 giving a total cost (adjusted to 2009) of £29 million. This was divided by the total agricultural load of sediment in rivers in England and Wales, given as 1,906 kt yr-1 by Anthony et al70 to derive a per unit cost of £15.4 t-1 sediment, attributed to livestock where appropriate.

Water quantity regulation:Water abstraction: Water abstraction for agriculture imposes an opportunity cost on water ecosystems in terms of reduced dilution of pollutants and lost recreational amenity71 and is given in Jacobs72 as a cost of £0.30 m3 d-1. Flood regulation: The annual cost of flood prevention and flood damage in the UK is given as £1,170 million and £500 million by Jacobs73 with an apportionment to agriculture of 14% giving a total damage cost (adjusted to 2009) of £244 million. This is divided by the total sediment load for the UK (2,832 kt yr -1), calculated by adding the load for England and Wales (1,906 kt yr-1) given in Anthony et al. (2009)74, and the load estimated for Scotland (689 kt yr -1) and N. Ireland (238 kt yr -1) from per hectare average values given in Defra project WQ0106, to give a per unit cost of £86.2 t-1 sediment.

Soil removal: The annual off-site cost of erosion damage estimated through dredging of water courses in England and Wales is given as £9.9 million with an agricultural apportionment of 95% giving a total cost (adjusted to 2009)

58 Jacobs (2008). Environmental Accounts for Agriculture. Final report submitted to Defra. 175 pp.59 Anthony, S., Duethman, D., Gooday, R., Harris, D., Newell-Price, P., Chadwick, D. and Misselbrook, T. (2009) Quantitative Assessment of Scenarios for Managing Trade-Off between the Economic Performance of Agriculture and the Environment and Between Different Environmental Media. Final Report, Defra Project WQ0106 (Module 6), 95 pp.60 Jacobs (2008). Environmental Accounts for Agriculture. Final report submitted to Defra. 175 pp.61 Jacobs (2008). Environmental Accounts for Agriculture. Final report submitted to Defra. 175 pp.62 The Food and Environment Research Agency (FERA) (http://pusstats.csl.gov.uk/myresults.cfm)63 Jacobs (2008). Environmental Accounts for Agriculture. Final report submitted to Defra. 175 pp. 64 IGER (2006). Benefits & Pollution Swapping: Cross-Cutting issues for CSF Policy. Defra project WT070665 Pretty, J.N. Ball, A.S. Lang, T. Morison, J.I.L. (2006). Farm costs and food miles: An assessment of the full cost of the UK weekly food basket. Food Policy 30 (2005) 1–1966 Shepherd, M., Anthony, S., Temple, M., Burgess, D., Patton, M., Renwick, A., Barnes, A., and Chadwick, D. (2007). Baseline Projections for Agriculture and implications for emissions to air and water. Defra project SFF060167 Anthony, S., Duethman, D., Gooday, R., Harris, D., Newell-Price, P., Chadwick, D. and Misselbrook, T. (2009) Quantitative Assessment of Scenarios for Managing Trade-Off between the Economic Performance of Agriculture and the Environment and Between Different Environmental Media. Final Report, Defra Project WQ0106 (Module 6), 95 pp.68 Jacobs (2008). Environmental Accounts for Agriculture. Final report submitted to Defra. 175 pp.. 69Defra project WQ0128:http://randd.defra.gov.uk/Default.aspx?Menu=Menu&Module=More&Location=None&Completed=0&ProjectID=1554670 Anthony, S., Duethman, D., Gooday, R., Harris, D., Newell-Price, P., Chadwick, D. and Misselbrook, T. (2009) Quantitative Assessment of Scenarios for Managing Trade-Off between the Economic Performance of Agriculture and the Environment and Between Different Environmental Media. Final Report, Defra Project WQ0106 (Module 6), 95 pp.71 Jacobs (2008). Environmental Accounts for Agriculture. Final report submitted to Defra. 175 pp.72 Jacobs (2008). Environmental Accounts for Agriculture. Final report submitted to Defra. 175 pp.73 Jacobs (2008). Environmental Accounts for Agriculture. Final report submitted to Defra. 175 pp.74 Anthony, S., Duethman, D., Gooday, R., Harris, D., Newell-Price, P., Chadwick, D. and Misselbrook, T. (2009) Quantitative Assessment of Scenarios for Managing Trade-Off between the Economic Performance of Agriculture and the Environment and Between Different Environmental Media. Final Report, Defra Project WQ0106 (Module 6), 95 pp.

SID 5 (Rev. 07/10) Page 15 of 31

of £9.8 million. This is divided by the sediment load 1,906,260 t yr -1 given for England and Wales by Anthony et al, (2009)75 to give a unit cost of £5.15 t-1 sediment.

Cultural services : The character and features of the landscape can contribute to human well being through spiritual experiences, and aesthetic pleasure. Jacobs76 estimates values for linear features, farmland birds and broad habitat types. These were explored in some detail and used to inform estimates of valuation data, using a variety of sources as described below.

Livestock in the landscape: The presence of livestock in the countryside is associated with a range of non-market cultural services, notably landscape, biodiversity and recreation, which are particularly challenging to value. They are often correlated and overlapping such that their separate enumeration is problematic and in a number of respects of limited practical value. Whilst a review of literature did not identify work that assesses the direct contribution of livestock to the provision of cultural services, there is evidence that livestock are clearly associated with landscape features such as vegetation cover, field size, boundary features such as stone walls and hedgerows, and buildings. These features also help define the relationship between livestock and biodiversity. Grasslands tend to be more biodiverse than arable land, unless very intensively managed and broadly, the lower the intensity of management on those grasslands, the greater is the biodiversity. However, it should be noted that in some landscapes, thresholds are reached beyond which reducing management intensity may also reduce biodiversity. In these cases, maintaining a minimum level of management may be needed, in the form of appropriate stocking densities and grazing regimes. .

Estimates of the value of cultural services associated with livestock can be obtained from revealed preferences, evident for example in actual expenditure on agri-environment schemes, and from expressed preference studies of hypothetical willingness to pay. The most accessible estimate of the value of livestock related cultural services is that based on agri-environment payments, which specifically reward farmers for environmental protection and the provision of selected public benefits associated with landscape, biodiversity and public access. Entry Level Scheme (ELS) payments are paid at the rate of £30 ha -1 for a general programme of measures at the farm scale, including maintenance of hedgerows and buildings. High Level Scheme (HLS) payments target specific outcomes and for the most part are associated with extensive farming systems, many of which involve grassland and livestock. Payments for moderate controls on grassland management, such as constraints on grazing seasons, fertiliser use and the timing of silage or hay making range between £50 and £150 ha -1, and are typically about £90 ha-1. More demanding stewardship requirements, often involving a change in land use, carry annual payments that range between £150 and £325 ha-1 averaging about £200 ha-1. In an upland context, payments are available for controlled grazing and maintenance of landscape features, averaging about £180 ha -1. Livestock are an inherent part of these grassland agri-environment schemes and a key element in the delivery of intended outcomes. For the purpose here, it is reasonable to argue that the environmental benefits ‘revealed’ by these expenditures can be attributed to livestock in the landscape.

Estimates of livestock related benefits can be also obtained from studies of household willingness to pay for specified changes in landscape and biodiversity. A number of studies (reviewed in the technical appendices) have attempted to derive estimates of particular landscape features, such as hedgerows and stone walls and to maintain or enhance presence of farmland birds. Others have assessed the value of changes in whole landscapes 77 78, including willingness to pay for the combined landscape and biodiversity benefits provided by Environmental Stewardship schemes (at between £68 ha-1 and £324 ha-1 for ELS and HLS respectively) across a range of landscape types. While people appear to prefer recreational access to grassland areas rather than arable, and intuitively for the most part livestock add to recreational value, the extent of this value is not known.

Drawing on a variety of sources, Table 4 shows the assumed values for cultural services associated with livestock and used in the analysis here.

Table 4. Estimates of the Value of Cultural Services from Livestock in Grassland Areas Landscape and biodiversity.

£ ha-1 yr-1Potential

Recreation bonus (£ ha-1

yr-1)Low

estimateBest

estimateHigh estimate

Arable 25 30 46 0Improved Grassland, lowland : high stocking rates: 27 30 50 10

75 Anthony, S., Duethman, D., Gooday, R., Harris, D., Newell-Price, P., Chadwick, D. and Misselbrook, T. (2009) Quantitative Assessment of Scenarios for Managing Trade-Off between the Economic Performance of Agriculture and the Environment and Between Different Environmental Media. Final Report, Defra Project WQ0106 (Module 6), 95 pp.76 Jacobs (2008). Environmental Accounts for Agriculture. Final report submitted to Defra. 175 pp.77 Willis, K.G. and Garrod, G.D.(1995) Assessing the value of future landscapes. Landscape and Urban Planning, 23, 1992, 17-32.78 Boatman, N., Willis, K., Garrod, G. and Powe, N. (2010). Estimating the Wildlife and Landscape Benefits of Environmental Stewardship.  Report to Defra and Natural England. Food and Environment Research Agency and University of Newcastle upon Tyne, Newcastle

SID 5 (Rev. 07/10) Page 16 of 31

fertiliser: > 150kg N/haImproved Grassland, lowland : moderate stocking rates: fertiliser : 75kg N/ha - 149kg N/ha

27 50 90 20

Extensive grassland , mainly lowland: low stocking rates: 0 kg N/ha – 75kg N/ha

48 140 170 40

SSSI designations £160 350 773 40Rough grazing, mainly upland 47 141 174 30Abandoned 0 0 0 5

In Table 4, low and best estimates are based on based on agri-environment payments. High estimates are based on willingness to pay estimates where available. It is possible that in many areas there will be a significant recreational bonus associated with enjoyment of the countryside, specifically enjoying the presence of livestock in the landscape. These benefits are however very context specific, given that recreational participation rates strongly depend on particular site characteristics, proximity to local population centres and availability of substitute sites. Assessing these benefits is not possible at the current scale of enquiry.

Development of an integrated livestock-ecosystems model An integrated livestock-ecosystems linear programming model was developed to model the economic and environmental impacts of the livestock sector, drawing on the foregoing data and relationships. For this Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) models developed at Cranfield University79 were linked with a grassland productivity model and soil erosion model to assess the environmental consequences of the livestock sector. The LCA model was improved for this and other projects. Emission factors for GHGs were updated in line with Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change values80, ammonia emission factors were aligned more closely with NARSES81, and data on fuels updated using the EU Joint Research Centre European Life Cycle Database82. Animal models were greatly improved and detailed systematic breakdown of metabolic energy needs for maintenance and growth were incorporated so that forage and concentrates needs for different types of system could be calculated based on weight gain and duration. A model was also developed to calculate soil erosion for each 5x5km grid square in England and Wales using the Morgan Morgan Finney model83. Soil erosion was calculated per unit area for each slope angle for the different land uses and slope proportions then allocated between the different systems, after removing non-productive land. From this process, average erosion values (t ha -1) were derived for arable, dairy, beef and sheep, and then split for lowland (<100m), upland (≤100m; <300m) and hill (≤300m). This was repeated for wheat up to a slope angle of 15.5° in order to inform those scenarios where the extent to which arable systems could replace livestock systems was examined.

The outputs of these models were linked within the linear programming framework to the valuation and linked industry data. Table 5 illustrates the livestock ecosystems model with the columns representing the levels of activities and the rows representing the constraints on those activities. For illustration activities these have been collapsed into a single description – thus sheep systems are actually 63 columns with activities such as hill, upland and lowland ewes, organic flocks, and fattening stores, and pig systems are 14 activities representing indoor or outdoor, sows, weaning and finishing systems. Similarly rows have been collapsed – thus ‘Emissions’ includes rows for individual emissions such as greenhouse gases, nitrate leaching and pesticides.

Table 5 Illustrative description of the Livestock ecosystem services linear programming model

She

ep

syst

ems

Pig

sy

stem

s

Bee

f sy

stem

s

Chi

cken

sy

stem

s

Egg

sy

stem

s

Dai

ry

syst

ems

Ara

ble-

wel

l

Ara

ble-

mod

erat

e

Ara

ble-

mar

gina

l

Uns

uita

ble

Em

issi

ons

Cul

tura

l

Rur

al

labo

ur

Objective(services) = P+R+CProvisioning + + + + + + + + + + = P

Regulating + = RCultural + + + + + + + + + + -ve = C

ConstraintProduction 1 1 1 1 1 1 = Demand

79 Williams, A.G., Audsley, E. and Sandars, D.L. (2006) Determining the environmental burdens and resource use in the production of agricultural and horticultural commodities. Main Report. Defra Research Project IS0205. Bedford: Cranfield University and Defra. Available on www.agrilca.org and www.defra.gov.uk80 IPCC (2006) IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) http://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/2006gl/index.html81 NARSES: http://randd.defra.gov.uk/Default.aspx?Menu=Menu&Module=More&Location=None&Completed=0&ProjectID=9635 82 JRC, 2011. (http://lca.jrc.ec.europa.eu/lcainfohub/datasetArea.vm).83 Morgan, RPC, Morgan, DDV, Finney, HJ (1984). A Predictive Model for the Assessment of Soil-Erosion Risk. Journal of Agricultural Engineering Research, 30 (3) pp. 243-253

SID 5 (Rev. 07/10) Page 17 of 31

Arable Land + + + + + + 1 = LGrassland + + + + + + 1 1 1 1 = LHilll Land F F 1 = L

Emissions + + + + + + + + + -1 = 0Labour + + + + + + + + + -1 = 0

Intra-system + + + + + + = 0Inter-system 1 -ve = 0

Land types + + + + + + < KNotes : + denotes positive coefficients, -ve denotes negative coefficients, unit coefficients shown as +/-1

The objective function to be maximised is the sum of the different ecosystem services which have been converted to common monetary (£) valuation system (P+R+C). As shown in the columns, this comprises positive monetary values for livestock production and for arable production, negative values for emissions, and positive values for cultural services and employment generation. Cultural services include landscape, biodiversity and recreation benefits services considered jointly in terms of a value of willingness to pay that varies by land use. In the main analyses, we consider employment as a benefit and value it as the minimum wage.

The relationships between activities (columns) and constraints (rows) are defined by an array of technical coefficients, showing, for example, the farm labour requirements of a tonne of beef meat, or the nitrate emissions generated in the production of a tonne meat on a particular type of land.

The constraints are grouped as follows:

‘Production’ represents the amount of production of each livestock type. Initially this is set equal to the current level of ‘Demand’ for livestock products. Thereafter the constraint depends on the scenario and may be set as an equality or an upper or lower limit.

‘Land’ resources classified as arable, grassland and hill land are specified, with different suitabilities for livestock and arable production, as are the land requirements of each unit of livestock production. Land use is calculated for the current level of production and becomes an equality constraint, so that this land must be used and evaluated. The equality ensures that land not used for livestock in a scenario must be allocated to another use which may be arable with different levels of suitability, or abandoned.

‘Emissions’ shows the emissions (and resource use) per unit of production for NH3-N, N2O-N, CO2, CH4, GWP100, Ammonia, Energy, Nleaching, Pleaching, Pesticide use, Pollution Accidents and Soil Erosion. The Zeroes to the right require that the activities are balance by ‘incurring’ emissions costs in the objective function.

‘Labour’ comprises farm production labour, with farm labour specified for each unit of production. Aggregate labour is subsequently weighted by a multiplier of 1.48 to reflect additional labour generated in the supply chain.

‘The intra and inter system’ constraints define the inter-relationships between the activities, such as lambs which are either fattened or become breeding ewes, in situ or elsewhere, including movements between hill and upland systems. Dairy calves can be switched into beef fattening units.

‘Land type’ enables some flexibility and ‘smoothing’ in the allocation of land with different suitabilities and productivity amongst livestock systems.

A mathematical explanation of the model is contained in supporting annexes.

It is noted that the methods used here consider the relative economic impacts of the livestock sector by assessing the value of production at the farm gate (net of direct costs associated with feed and fertiliser), the environmental costs of emissions, the environmental benefits of livestock in the landscape, and the benefits of employment generation and linked industry effects. It uses an ecosystems framework, rather than a cost benefit framework, to assess the values of selected flows of services for the current BAU case, and how these might vary with different configurations of the sector. The method could be developed to provide a more complete assessment of costs and benefits (and hence of economic efficiency) for policy analysis, but this goes beyond the scope of the project.

Modelling resultsEstimates of the value of ecosystem services, classified into provisioning, regulating and cultural services were first obtained for the Business as Usual Scenario. This involved an allocation of land to meet current demand for livestock products, both grassland and the arable area required to provide non-grass feeds. The proportional

SID 5 (Rev. 07/10) Page 18 of 31

distribution of grassland and arable land for each 5x5 km square in England and Wales was estimated using spatially interpolated 2004 Agricultural Census data provided by Edine84 (Figure 1 and Figure 2). These confirm the greater incidence of grassland and livestock production in the northern and western regions, associated with sheep, dairy, and beef systems (Figure 5), although it is worth noting the significant production of pigs and poultry in the eastern part of England (Figure 6). Grasslands were divided into lowland (<100m), upland (≤100m; <300m) and hill (≤300m), and further sub-divided by Site Class85, which depended on rainfall, soil texture, temperature, and wetness.

Proportion of agricultural land as arable per 5k grid square

0-20%

20.01-40%

40.01-60%

60.01-80%

80.01-100%

Figure 1. Estimated proportional distribution of grassland

Figure 2. Estimated proportional distribution of arable land

Figure 3. Estimated density of production of grazing livestock (sheep, dairy and beef) in England and Wales

Figure 4. Estimated density of production of non-grazing livestock (pigs and poultry) in England and Wales

The BAU results for the UK showed that the main benefit of livestock systems was from the provisioning service in terms of production of meat, milk and eggs (Table 6). The total product value was estimated to be £8268 million. The benefit of this (excluding labour) was £5337 million. The greatest benefit was estimated to be provided by dairy and dairy beef (£2734 million), followed by chicken (£780 million), sheep (£655 million), suckler beef (£455

84 Edina AgCensus data: http://edina.ac.uk/agcensus/85 Magic: http://magic.defra.gov.uk/

SID 5 (Rev. 07/10) Page 19 of 31

Total production (LU)

0

0 - 500

500 - 1500

1500 - 3000

3000 +

Total production (LU)

0

0 - 500

500 - 1500

1500 - 3000

3000 +

million), pigs (£436 million) and eggs (£267 million). Whilst these direct benefits of the provisioning service are attributable to the livestock sector, there exist a variety of linked benefits, which although typically viewed as costs on an individual enterprise basis, represent income for other sectors of the UK economy. Such associated impacts include the value of employment generated by the livestock sector (£2543 million within the livestock sector and £1220 in linked industries), backward linkages to input industries (£2931 million), and forward linkages in the supply chain into the retail industry (£14884 million). It is worth noting that whilst we have viewed labour as a positive impact of the livestock sector here, because of its importance for livelihoods, from an individual farmer’s perspective, this is a cost, in which case, the profitability of the livestock sector is reduced substantially to £2794 million.

Cultural benefits based on current willingness to pay estimates were significant (£748 million), although substantially lower than provisioning benefits, and were associated primarily with beef (£237 million) and sheep (£403 million) systems. The majority of these benefits were associated with hill and upland areas (Figure 6).

The major ecosystem costs were associated with impacts on regulating services, namely GHG (£2,063 million) and ammonia (£379 million) emissions. The emissions to water were of less significance, and mainly linked to the cost associated with nitrate leaching in terms of reduced environmental water quality and removal of nitrates from drinking water (£113 million), and the cost associated with soil erosion (£84 million) in terms of flood damage and prevention. The majority of these costs are associated with grazing systems to the west and north of England and Wales and non-grazing livestock to the east of England (Figure 5).

Table 6. Modelled valuation impact of the livestock sector  BAU Sheep Pigs Suckler

beefEggs Chicke

nDairy &

dairy beefArable subsa

    £M £M £M £M £M £M £M £MA. Ecosystem benefits                Production Total product value 8268 826 843 828 592 1376 3802 3398

Inputs -2931 -161 -407 -373 -325 -596 -1068 -1863Labour -2543 -526 -420 -294 -84 -331 -888 -371Production (less inputs) 5337 665 436 455 267 780 2734 1535Production (less inputs & labour) 2794 139 16 161 183 449 1846 1163

Regulation Total -2701 -321 -215 -571 -96 -279 -1219 -1811

Soil erosion -84 -51 -3 -14 -2 -5 -10 -511Pesticide -12 0 -2 -1 -1 -4 -3 -29Eutrophication -4 0 0 -1 0 0 -1 -2N leaching -113 -16 -8 -29 -4 -15 -42 -78GHG -2063 -230 -145 -422 -65 -207 -993 -1114Ammonia -379 -21 -56 -81 -23 -47 -151 -77Faecal contamination -10 -1 0 -4 0 0 -5 0

  Chryptosporidium -35 -1 0 -20 0 0 -14 0Cultural Cultural 748 403 9 190 5 13 128 160B. Linked impacts                

System inputs 2931 161 407 373 325 596 1068 1863System labour (as above) 2543 526 420 294 84 331 888 371Linked labour 1220 252 201 141 41 159 426 178Downstream impact 14984 733 1265 828 1449 2246 8463 N/A

C. Total areas usedUK Arable (Mha) 1.64 0.06 0.29 0.13 0.15 0.44 0.57 1.64Overseas arable (Mha) 1.10 0.02 0.26 0.04 0.13 0.52 0.14 0.00Grassland (Mha) 4.23 1.10 0.00 1.27 0.00 0.00 1.86 3.72

  Hill (Mha eqv) 2.68 2.16 0.00 0.52 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00  Total UK land (Mha) 8.55 3.32 0.29 1.92 0.15 0.44 2.43 5.36

a “Arable substitution” examines the potential for arable production to substitute on livestock production on current livestock land that is considered to be at least marginally suitable for arable production

SID 5 (Rev. 07/10) Page 20 of 31

Cultural values £ per ha

0 - £40/ha

£41-70/ha

£71-100/ha

£101-140/ha

Figure 5. Estimated value and source of regulating costs from livestock systems in England and Wales

Figure 6. Estimated value and location of cultural benefits from livestock systems

Some grassland currently supporting livestock could be suitable for arable production, to varying degrees, or, as in the case of uplands, not at all (Figure 7). The areas available for each degree of suitability were determined by comparing the 5x5km square data on soil types86 with 5x5km census data87 and progressively allocating the best soil in each grid cell first to arable, then to dairy, then beef and finally sheep.

86 LandIS: http://www.landis.org.uk/data/index.cfm87 Edina AgCensus data: http://edina.ac.uk/agcensus/

SID 5 (Rev. 07/10) Page 21 of 31

Regulating Cost (£/ha)

0

0 - 50

50 - 200

200 - 500

500 +

Suitability for arable

Well suited

Moderately suited

Marginally suited

Unsuited

Figure 7. Modelled suitability of land for arable production

From this spatial distribution of soils suitability for agriculture, an estimate was derived of the degree to which arable production might replace particular types of livestock production in England and Wales if the latter was reduced or eliminated. The quantities and values of ecosystem services associated with different livestock systems and total estimated level of substitution by arable production shown in Table 6 are interpreted in Table 7 as relative values.

From this, it is evident that the level of substitution from livestock land to arable land is limited: much grassland is not suited to arable production. The modelled land area required for livestock production in the UK is estimated to be 6.89 Mha, including both grazing land and the land required for fodder production. About 1.42 Mha (21%) of this is well-suited to arable production, whilst 1.68Mha (24%) is moderately-suited, and 0.45Mha (7%) is marginally suited for arable production. About 3.35 Mha (48%) is entirely unsuited to arable production and would probably be abandoned from agricultural use in the absence of livestock.

Land taken out of production is likely to be associated with agriculturally poor natural conditions and difficult logistics88 primarily in the uplands, where evidence suggests various scrub, bracken, bramble, and woodland communities with their own assemblage of flora and fauna would develop89,90.

Lowland habitats affected would include dwarf shrub heath, neutral and calcareous grassland and sand dunes91 where lack of livestock in some SSSIs already results in difficulty applying the grazing pressure required to maintain faunal and floral diversity92.

Abandoned land is often associated with lower cultural value than managed areas. Undergrazing and abandonment can damage the historic environment and reduce its aesthetic impact, especially in the uplands 93. Recreational access facilitated by open landscapes may also be reduced. Evidence suggests that visitors to upland areas value current livestock landscapes highly in comparison with other potential landscapes94 95. 88 Moravec, J and Zemeckis, R (2007) Cross Compliance and Land Abandonment, Deliverable D17 of the CC Network Project, SSPE-CT-2005-022727.89 Rural Development Service (2006). Preducted Changes in Livestock Farming in England, Possible Environmental Impacts and Problems of Undergrazing. Report prepared for the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, Exeter, UK. 51pp. 90 Morris J, Audsley E, Wright IA, McLeod J, Pearn K, Angus A, Rickard S. 2005. Agricultural Futures and Implications for the Environment. Main Report. Defra Research Project IS0209. Bedford: Cranfield University. Available on hppt//www.silsoe.cranfield.ac.uk.91 Rural Development Service (2006). Preducted Changes in Livestock Farming in England, Possible Environmental Impacts and Problems of Undergrazing. Report prepared for the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, Exeter, UK. 51pp. 92 Wooley and Company (2005) Grazing Management of Isolated Grassland Sites in the East of England. Woolley and Co., Frechenham.93 Rural Development Service (2006). Preducted Changes in Livestock Farming in England, Possible Environmental Impacts and Problems of Undergrazing. Report prepared for the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, Exeter, UK. 51pp. 94 Willis, ICG. and Garrod, G.D., 1992. Assessing the value of future landscapes. Landscape and Urban Planning. 23:17-32.95 Rural Development Service (2006). Preducted Changes in Livestock Farming in England, Possible Environmental Impacts and Problems of Undergrazing. Report prepared for the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, Exeter, UK. 51pp.

SID 5 (Rev. 07/10) Page 22 of 31

However, loss of skills and labour as farms are abandoned would result in low maintenance of culturally significant features such as stone walls and traditional hay meadows, leading to a general look of neglect in the landscape that could reduce visitor numbers and income generating opportunities in other sectors.

The release of large areas of land could be used to diversify upland areas. For example, semi-natural upland woodlands have declined by 30-40% since the 1950s and the UK Habitat Action Plan has therefore included a target to increase the area of upland oakwood through planting or natural regeneration of current open ground96. Thus, whilst in general, the abandonment of agricultural land with high environmental value is generally not viewed as positive, Defra97 has concluded that land abandonment need not to be avoided where the overall outcome might be positive. This indicates a need for valuation data to be generated for other potential uses if agriculture is no longer valid.

Whilst arable provisioning could be increased to £3398 million on the land that is currently used for livestock production, and employment generation associated with agriculture would increase to £549 million (£371 million plus £178 million) (Table 6), there was a substantial loss in the total provisioning service possible from current livestock land. Table 7A shows that arable provisioning would generate only 41% of the provisioning benefit in the BAU scenario (£3764 million) and labour (not shown here) would be only 15% of that in the BAU scenario.

The trade-offs against regulating and cultural services would also be highly unfavourable. Whilst under arable, the provisioning benefit was only 41% of that in the BAU scenario, the cost on regulating services was proportionally higher, at 67% of the total regulating cost in the BAU scenario (£2701 million) (Table 7A). Thus, under arable substitution, whilst GHG emission from livestock production (76% of BAU regulating cost) and ammonia (14% of BAU regulating cost) were eliminated, GHG emission from arable production was still 54% of those in BAU, whilst flood damage and prevention costs increase to 607% of those in BAU. The cultural benefits under arable substitution also decreased substantially, more than in proportion to the land lost. Whilst BAU cultural benefits (£748 million) are largely driven by sheep and beef systems, arable substitution provided only 21% of BAU cultural benefit, whilst potentially occupying 52% of the land, a decrease in benefit from £87 ha -1 (BAU) to £30 ha-1 over the whole livestock area in the UK (Table 7D).

Table 7 Comparative values of ecosystem services by livestock production scenarios*A. Provisioning, regulating, and cultural value relative to BAU (shaded)c

BAU Sheep Pigs Beef Eggs Chicken Dairy and dairy beef

Arablesubsa

Provisioning benefit 8268 10% 10% 10% 7% 17% 46% 41%Regulating cost -2701 12% 8% 21% 4% 10% 45% 67%Cultural benefit 748 54% 1% 25% 1% 2% 17% 21%

B. Regulating and cultural values relative to provisioning value (shaded)c

BAU Sheep Pigs Beef Eggs Chicken Dairy and dairy beef

Arablesubsa

Provisioning benefit 8268 826 843 828 592 1376 3802 3398Regulating cost 33% 39% 26% 69% 16% 20% 32% 53%Cultural benefit 9% 49% 1% 23% 1% 1% 3% 5%

C. Regulating and cultural values relative to provisioning value (shaded)d

BAU Sheep Pigs Beef Eggs Chicken Dairy and dairy beef

Arablesubsa

Provisioning benefit 2794 139 16 161 183 449 1846 1163Regulating cost 97% 230% 1311% 354% 53% 62% 66% 156%Cultural benefit 27% 289% 55% 118% 3% 3% 7% 14%

D. Per hectare ecosystem costs and benefitsb          

BAU Sheep Pigs Beef Eggs Chicken Dairy and dairy beef

Arablesubsa

Provisioning (product + labour - inputs)e

1064 435 3645 464 2613 2886 1666 389

Provisioning (product - inputs)f 967 249 2907 431 3947 3128 1565 634Provisioning (product - labour - inputs)g

327 42 57 84 1217 1020 760 217

Regulating cost -16 -97 -741 -297 -640 -634 -502 -338Cultural benefit 87 121 31 99 33 30 53 30* Based on Table 7

96 JNCC (2006) UK Biodiversity Action Plan, Upland Oakwood Habitat Action Plan. Available from www.ukbap.org.uk97 Defra (2006). Rural Development Programme for England: 2007- 2013, Upland Reward Structure, Consultation Document. Defra, London.

SID 5 (Rev. 07/10) Page 23 of 31

a “Arable substitution” examines the potential for arable production to substitute on livestock production on current livestock land that is considered to be at least marginally suitable for arable production b The per hectare values for non-grazed systems are developed using the arable footprint of those systems in terms of land required for feed productionc The provisioning value of the livestock sectors has been viewed with employment generation as a benefit and also as a cost. In this table, the provisioning value is net of input costs (e.g. concentrates, fuel) and labour is not included, either as a benefit or a cost. d The provisioning value of the livestock sectors has been viewed with employment generation as a benefit and also as a cost. In this table, the provisioning value is net of input costs (e.g. concentrates, fuel) and labour costs. e In this row, the provisioning value is viewed net of input costs (e.g. concentrates, fuel) but with labour as a benefitf In this row, the provisioning value is viewed net of input costs (e.g. concentrates, fuel) and excludes labour either as a cost of a benefitg In this row, the provisioning value is viewed net of input costs (e.g. concentrates, fuel) and labour costs

The findings here depend on many assumptions relating to the biophysical performance of livestock systems, and the valuation of a broad range of inputs, outputs and impacts, classified in terms of ecosystems services. The estimated net benefit from the livestock sector depends on how provisioning goods are accounted for. If provisioning includes both the value of products and employment generation within the livestock sector, benefits are substantial and the costs of regulation, for the assumptions made, account for about 33% of provisioning benefits (Table 7B). However, if labour is treated as a cost (on the grounds that labour is a resource that could be employed elsewhere) the same provisioning benefits are reduced in value and the regulating costs become a much greater proportion of benefits, potentially exceeding both provisioning and cultural benefits, as in the case of pigs, suckler beef, and also, arable substitution (Table 7C). In this context, in the case of sheep, whilst the regulating cost is also higher than the provisioning benefit (230%), the cultural benefits are also relatively high (289%), due to provision of high value landscape, so that the net value remains positive. The analysis shows: (i) the implications of treating employment as a benefit or a cost, and; (ii) the relative values of the different ecosystem services in the different livestock sectors.

The key message from this analysis is that for the assumptions made:

(i) livestock production makes a net positive contribution to ecosystem services, especially when employment generation is viewed as a benefit of the provisioning service. When it is viewed as a cost, net ecosystem benefits are negative for pigs, suckler beef and also the hypothetical arable uptake on livestock land.

(ii) The cost of regulating services accounts for about 30% of the value of the provisioning benefit, but about 90% if the provisioning benefit is viewed net of labour and input costs

(iii) the cost associated with the loss of regulating services is more than three times the estimated benefits of cultural services

(iv) Cultural services add a further 9% to the value of livestock production (27% if the product value is net of labour and input costs)

(v) Removing livestock production completely and substituting with arable where possible would lead to more than a 90% reduction in the value of ecosystems services from current livestock land if labour is viewed as a benefit and about 60% when labour is viewed as a cost.

Selected optimisation scenarios for the livestock sectorA variety of optimising scenarios were run to examine how the livestock sector could be configured to meet Defra’s objectives for the livestock sector. A selection of these is shown in Table 8.

With employment viewed as a benefit (Table 8A), and the model constrained to producing the same quantity of provisioning benefits, optimisation of net ecosystem value (105% of current BAU) was achieved by increasing dairy value (104% of current BAU) and making greater use of free range egg production, despite the reduced value of this (94% of current BAU). Some livestock land was also allocated to arable production. The main reason for the increase in net benefit flow was, however, associated with the configuration of the different sectors to increase employment generation (107% of current BAU), for example, through greater use of free range poultry systems and more labour intensive feeding and waste management systems.

Where production from the different sectors was allowed to increase by up to 20% above current BAU production, observing the constraints of currently available land, but defining no minimum production level for any of the sectors, optimisation of net ecosystem benefit was achieved generally through an accentuation of these trends. Pig and poultry value (123% and 113% of current BAU) was increased, but egg production disappeared altogether. Labour value increased to 104% of current BAU and net ecosystem value to 107% of current BAU value. However, this was at the expense of the entire egg sector.

SID 5 (Rev. 07/10) Page 24 of 31

When set to achieve a 25% reduction of GHG emissions from the livestock sector, the model suggested that the optimal route to achieving this would be through reducing dairy and beef production (58% and 28% of current BAU value) with arable replacing some of the land released through this process and poultry, egg, pigs and sheep remaining relatively unaffected. This was however associated with a 20% loss in net ecosystem value, partly because of lost employment opportunities (81% of current BAU) and reduced cultural value (76% of current BAU) from the livestock sector.

Under the red to white meet scenario, where red meet was assumed to be provided only from dairy as a by-product of milk production, the model suggested that 92% of provisioning benefit could be maintained by increasing pig, poultry, and milk production and introducing arable production on the land released. However, there was a 70% loss of cultural value, associated primarily with the loss of sheep and suckler beef systems, and the overall net flow of ecosystem benefits was reduced to 83% of current BAU.

Where employment was viewed as a cost (Table 8 B), the results were substantially different. Net ecosystem value in the optimised BAU scenario was achieved largely through reducing labour requirements, for example, by greater use of housed poultry systems and slurry manure management. Where production from the different sectors was allowed to increase by up to 20% above current BAU production, observing the constraints of currently available land, but defining no minimum production level for any of the sectors, optimisation of net ecosystem benefit was achieved through greater reliance on dairy, egg, and poultry systems (128%, 124% and 125% of current BAU).

On the whole, there was a tendency for optimisation to be achieved at the expense of the pig sector which disappeared altogether, to be replaced by arable production in the BAU+20% scenario, the 25% GHG emission reduction scenario, and the red to white meat scenario. This was in contrast to optimisations where employment was viewed as a benefit, where pig production was at least equivalent to that in the current BAU.

However, as when employment was viewed as a benefit, the reduction in GHG emissions was best achieved through a reduction in the dairy and beef sector, although the model suggested that in contrast to when employment was viewed as a cost, the sheep sector should also be reduced to some degree.

In the red to white meet scenario, where red meet was assumed to be provided only from dairy as a by-product of milk production, net ecosystem value was optimised by shifting to poultry production for white meet and shifting the released land to arable production.

It is worth noting that whilst these scenarios demonstrate how the model can be used to optimise the net flow of ecosystem benefit from the livestock sector, they have not incorporated the social acceptability of losing whole sectors of the livestock industry. This can be built into the scenarios as constraints, so that, for example, the model would optimise net ecosystem benefits by not reducing production from any sector by more than a given level. It is also worth noting that the model provides extensive outputs on how management and physical impacts within each of the livestock sectors change and this is explored more fully in the technical annexes

Table 8. Selected optimising scenarios under hypothetical future conditions relative to current BAU (labour viewed as a benefit)

A. Employment as a benefit B. Employment as a cost

Current BAU

Optimised BAU

BAU + (up to 20% +)

GHG reduce

d by 25%

Red to white meat

Current BAU

Optimised BAU

BAU + (up to

20% +)

GHG reduced by 25%

Red to white meat

£M £M £M £M £M £M £M £M £M £MProvisioning 9100 104% 106% 81% 92% 2793 117% 134% 95% 124%Arablea 0 21 0 557 533 0 17 268 736 678Labour 3764 107% 104% 81% 84% -2543 92% 81% 59% 57%Dairy 2306 104% 118% 58% 107% 2306 107% 128% 66% 107%Eggs 267 94% 0% 94% 86% 267 103% 124% 103% 103%Poultry 779 99% 113% 99% 129% 779 104% 125% 104% 135%Beef 883 102% 105% 28% 49% 883 105% 67% 25% 50%Pigs 436 102% 123% 102% 133% 436 102% 0% 0% 0%Sheep 664 101% 101% 101% 0% 664 101% 101% 90% 0%Regulation -2700 100% 101% 81% 101% -2700 98% 97% 79% 97%Cultural 748 99% 100% 76% 30% 748 100% 92% 73% 35%Net value 7148 105% 107% 80% 83% 840 162% 214% 126% 131%a actual values give for arable as the arable BAU is 0 and relative values cannot be calculated

Upland scenariosSince the impact associated with changes in drivers and diets is greatest where farming is marginal, a detailed examination of the potential economic and environmental changes in the uplands, using the Peak District in

SID 5 (Rev. 07/10) Page 25 of 31

England as a case study was undertaken to examine the impacts more closely. The work here was undertaken using a mathematical programming model developed by Acs et al98 during the RELU project99. Through a detailed survey of upland farms, which included collecting data on the economic and biodiversity aspects of the Peak District, six typical farm types were identified for the uplands: Moorland Sheep & Beef (MSB), Moorland Sheep & Dairy (MSD), Moorland Sheep (MS), Inbye Sheep & Beef (ISB), Inbye Sheep & Dairy (ISD) and Inbye Beef (IB). These six farm types were used as the basis for six “representative farm” models. The mathematical model consisted of different activities and constraints. The objective function of the farm models was to maximise farm gross margin and the output of the model included production plans with optimal land use, labour use and fertilizer application. Five management variables which are outputs from the farm model were chosen which were thought, a priori, to have an influence on bird diversity on the uplands: sheep density, beef density, dairy density, fertiliser use and the number of grass cuts for silage production. These provide the link between economic and biodiversity indicators, through regression results relating the management variables to avian species richness and abundance.

A series of short term results were examined, looking at the impact of Pillar I reform. In addition, in order to investigate the impacts of possible agricultural policies and market conditions in the long term in marginal upland areas, four policy scenarios based on the Foresight Programme100 (World Markets, Global Sustainability, National Enterprise, and Local Stewardship) as interpreted by Morris et al101 were used in the model, using the relative value of factors for each policy relative to the present day baseline scenario.

The long-term result for 2050 showed that the impact of the future scenarios differed across the scenarios and farm types. Table 9 shows an example of the outputs for Moorland sheep and beef. Generally across the different farm types, World Markets resulted in the lowest gross margins, the greatest degree of land abandonment, and the lowest stocking rates and labour use. National Enterprise resulted in the greatest density of livestock units for all farm types, and the greatest labour and fertiliser use for most of the farms. Local Stewardship produced the lowest degree of land abandonment and the highest gross margin, except in Inbye Sheep & Beef farms, where gross margins were below the baseline BAU scenario. Global Sustainability in general was similar to World Markets although values were slightly higher.

The impact of the different farm management enforced by these scenarios on biodiversity was also assessed . The results showed that the impact of policy scenarios on varied substantially between farms types and between different individual species and groups of species. In general, the total density of the indicators occurred in the National Enterprise and Local Stewardship scenarios and the highest values in the World Market and Global Sustainability scenarios across most of the different farm types. The impact of the scenarios on total richness and individual species density was found to be very diverse and specific for each farm type. However, regarding upland species richness and conservation concern species richness, the highest values were predicted for National Enterprise in for five of the six farm types, and the lowest values in general occurred in World Markets and Global Sustainability. This result raises interesting issues about the appropriate selection of indicators to be used in Futures modelling. Table 9 shows example results for Moorland sheep and beef farms.

Table 9. Relative values of biodiversity indicators in the uplands under the Foresight scenariosBAU World

MarketsGlobal

Sustainability

National Enterprise

Local Stewardshi

pMoorland sheep and beefLivestock density (LU ha-1) 0.23 50% 70% 161% 139%Total labour (h ha-1) 7.14 57% 70% 165% 142%Land use (ha ha-1) 0.86 10% 79% 116% 116%Bird density (n ha-1) 1.12 203% 92% 5% 13%Bird species richness (n) 28 94% 100% 79% 82%Upland bird species richness (n) 5 70% 106% 158% 145%Birds of conservation concern (n) 11 90% 101% 106% 105%

Meeting Defra objectives for the livestock industry Defra’s objective for the livestock industry is to achieve a “profitable and competitive domestic industry which enhances the biodiversity and rural landscape of England while minimising its impact on climate change, soil,

98 Ács, S., N. Hanley, M. Dallimer, P. Robertson, P Wilson, K. Gaston, P.R. Armsworth, 2010. The effect of decoupling on marginal agricultural systems: implications for farm incomes, land use and upland ecology. Land Use Policy 27(2) p 550-563. 99 Rural Economy and Land Use Programme (RELU). Project “Hill Farm Economics, Landscapes and Biodiversity in the Peak District”: http://www.biome.group.shef.ac.uk/RELU/index2.htm100 OST (2002) UK Foresight Futures 2020: Revised Scenarios and Guidance. London: Office of Science and Technology, Department for Trade and Industry, London101 Morris J, Audsley E, Wright IA, McLeod J, Pearn K, Angus A, Rickard S. 2005. Agricultural Futures and Implications for the Environment. Defra Research Project IS0209. Bedford: Cranfield University. Available on hppt//www.silsoe.cranfield.ac.uk.

SID 5 (Rev. 07/10) Page 26 of 31

water, and air quality”. The opportunities and constraints facing the industry as it seeks to balance Defra’s objectives are influenced by a range of economic, social, environmental and technological factors, as well as a range of institutional factors that reflect the way the industry is governed.

In this context, the preceding high level analysis used the ecosystems framework to explore the extent to which these objectives can be achieved. The main policy challenges is to balance the prime purpose of the ‘provisioning’ livestock food and fibre to meet market needs, while enhancing ‘cultural’ services , avoiding negative effects on ‘regulating’ services, simultaneously supporting rural employment, livelihoods and economy.

The analysis shows how livestock producers use available resources to respond to market opportunities, with profitability and competitiveness being generally higher in areas with better soil and climates. Extensive livestock systems, typically occupying agriculturally marginal areas, are heavily dependent on direct incomes support. . While there is some optimism for a strengthening of commodity livestock prices, there is a clear need to improve the efficiency by which livestock producers convert feed and energy inputs into high value protein products to meet market requirements. Our analysis, supported by industry views, concludes that the future profitability of the industry requires much better connectivity between producers and consumers, and market prices that properly reward sustainable production. The significant economic impact of the livestock industry is apparent when employment creation and the multiplier effects of income generation throughout the supply chain are treated as benefits. The analysis confirms the important role of livestock systems in cultural services, and especially the contribution of less intensive systems to landscape and biodiversity. The provision of many these public benefits is not rewarded directly but rather through farm income support that is justified against general social and environmental objectives. This is especially so in economically disadvantaged areas such as the uplands as our analysis shows. The exclusive pursuit of economic efficiency would render many of these livestock systems non viable, compromising some of Defra’s non-economic objectives. Clearly there is a challenge here that requires a better understanding of (i) what society wants from landscapes where livestock are the best, albeit marginal, land use, (ii) the role of livestock production within a system of rewards for providing cultural services. Furthermore, there is a need to develop new or reinvigorate existing livestock technologies that can enhance productivity and cultural services simultaneously.

The analysis clearly points to the significant trade-offs between provisioning of livestock products and regulating services, especially regarding impacts on air and water. These impacts, which constitute real costs borne by others without compensation, reduce the overall economic efficiency of the sector. They reflect a failure of markets and governance to adequately pass environmental costs to polluters. This is a generic failure, and the livestock industry should not be picked out a special case. Clearly there is a need to develop and promote cleaner livestock technologies and practices, supported by (i) better accounting of environmental effects and their communication throughout the supply chain (ii) appropriate regulatory and market price mechanisms to encourage sustainable livestock (iii) and research, development, technical support and training in support.

Defra’s objectives for the industry are difficult to convert into a simple metric and contain a number of inherent conflicts. The analysis here addresses this by allocating priorities and targets to particular elements, revealing the main synergies and trade-offs, with a view to enhancing the total economic value of the sector.

Of course, the economist’s theoretical utilitarian view is that if benefits and costs were fully accounted for in market prices for livestock products and services, these policy conflicts would not arise. In practice, however, markets are imperfect and interventions to address failure are required. However, the legacy of custom and practice, as well as previously well-intentioned interventions, also act as barriers to beneficial change.

Gaps and uncertainties The analysis has identified a number of knowledge gaps and uncertainties that need to be addressed in order to support the implementation of Defra’s objectives for the livestock industry. Some of which are generic to the agricultural sector as a whole.

There a gaps in the understanding of the bio-physical relationships between livestock production and a range of regulating and cultural ecosystem services, and how these vary with the type and intensity of livestock production. The analysis identified that the major effects on regulating services concern GHG and ammonia emissions to atmosphere and nitrate emissions to water. While the estimates here are based on the best available sciences for prescribed practices and conditions, there is uncertainty about the reliability of these estimates for actual on farm practices and circumstances.

A second major knowledge gap concerns the possible non linearity of emissions and impacts with changes in livestock production systems, for example, due to changes in feed types and grassland fertiliser regimes. It is these marginal changes, associated with technology change that are often more important than major shifts in livestock types and numbers. The uncertainties of these relationships are heightened under conditions of climate change and pressure on natural resources.

SID 5 (Rev. 07/10) Page 27 of 31

A third knowledge gap concerns the performance of measures to control emissions while maintaining or enhancing production. In the current analysis, we have mainly focussed on existing mainstream technologies, only considering broad differences between intensive and extensive grassland systems. There is a need to consider (i) the broader range of options within for example cattle or sheep systems, that could better balance the different ecosystem services (including food production) and (ii) the range of technologies that can facilitate this improved balance, such as different feeding regimes, genetic selection and grassland management.

A fourth gap relates to the valuation of non market goods. The analysis uses estimates drawn from multiple published sources, based on a range of estimation techniques. It is clear there are many uncertainties about the reliability of generic estimates, especially where values are required to reflect very contextually specific impacts, whether pollution effects on local water bodies or particular landscapes. Conversely, there are uncertainties about transferring context specific estimates to the general case. The extent to which livestock directly contribute to landscape, biodiversity and recreational benefits is a particular gap in knowledge.

Following the latter, a fifth gap, prompted by the analysis here, concerns how best to incentivise and reward environmental services, whether by regulatory or market based instruments, including industry sponsored schemes. There is also uncertainty about how livestock farmers would respond to such incentives.

Lastly, the study revealed that limited information is available on the broader economic impacts on incomes and employment of the livestock industry as a whole. The analysis here treated employment creation as a benefit, especially important in rural areas where jobs are limited.

Recommendations for further research A number of recommendations can be made to support Defra’s policy objectives for the sector.

The analysis confirms the benefit of focussing future effort on improving the productivity of livestock while ameliorating key areas of negative livestock impact, notably regarding GHG and nitrate emissions impact. The development of appropriate technologies and farming practices, developed and promoted to suit local conditions and livestock systems, would help farmers mitigate the potential environmental costs of livestock production. The analysis points to the very substantial benefits that livestock farmers make to cultural services, notably landscape, biodiversity and recreation. Much would be gained by a better understanding of these relationships, how cultural services can be aligned with livestock farming and how farmers can be more directly rewarded for these public goods.

There is advantage in adopting an ecosystems based approach to formulating policies in support of sustainable livestock that firmly places provisioning of food alongside other services. It would be beneficial to do this for the major livestock subsectors and for different production systems drawing out the distinction between intensive and extensive systems, and between geographical areas. There are two main challenges here, namely how to (i) improve the environmental performance of intensive livestock systems and (ii) improve the productivity of extensive environmentally benign systems.

The analysis here has developed an innovative approach for the spatially integrated modelling of the livestock sector, simultaneously considering economic, social and environmental performance. There is potential benefit to develop this further to support decision making by policy makers and industry.

SID 5 (Rev. 07/10) Page 28 of 31

Appendix

Appendix 1. Summary of valuation data for livestock system in the UKEcosystem service Impact Indicator Positive Negative      Value Unit Value UnitProductionProvisioning service Food production Beef meet 2250 £ t-1  

  Poetry meat 940 £ t-1    Pig meat 1220 £ t-1    Milk 2220 £ t-1    Eggs 0.8 £[doz

eggs]-1 

RegulationClimate regulation GHG emission CH4     1071.0 £ t-1     N2O     15810.0 £ t-1

    CO2     51.0 £ t-1

Air quality regulation     

Air pollutants NH3     1922.0 £ t-1

  NOx     874.3 £ t-1

  NMVOC     1496.8 £ t-1   CO     1516.7 £ t-1   SO2     2.1 £ t-1   PM10     9122.1 £ t-1

Environmental water quality

Rivers, canals NO3-N     161.0 £ t-1 Freshwater lakes P     1407.0 £ t-1 Transitional water NO3-N     8.9 £ t-1 Marine water Dairy excreta     0.086 £ t-1

Beef excreta     0.067 £ t-1 Sheep excreta     0.067 £ t-1 Pig (indoor) excreta     0.009 £ t-1 Pig (outdoor) excreta     0.054 £ t-1

Pollution incidents from silage, sheep dips, slurry, silage, pesticides

Category 1     4243 £ incident-1 Category 2     3114 £ incident-1 Average     2516 £ incident-1

Drinking water quality   

Nitrate NO3-N     172 £ t-1 Pesticide Spray-hectare     0.97 £ spray-ha-1

Cryptosporidium young cattle/sheep excreta

    1.73 £ t-1

Sediment Soil     15.4 £ t soil-1 Water regulation  

Abstraction Water     0.30 £ m3 Flooding Soil     86.20 £ t soil-1 Erosion Soil     5.15 £ t soil-1

Waste sink function Sewage sludge disposal

Sewage sludge 35.5 £ t -1    

 Cultural            Aesthetic pleasure Lowland - bundled

estimate of landscape character, linear feature, and biodiversity values

Rough grass 140 £ ha-1    Low input grassland 90 £ ha-1  High input grassland 50 £ ha-1  Arable 30 £ ha-1  Abandoned 0 £ ha-1  

 Upland - bundled estimate of landscape character, linear feature, and biodiversity values

Rough grass 140 £ ha-1  Low input grassland 90 £ ha-1  High input grassland 50 £ ha-1  Arable 30 £ ha-1  Abandoned 0 £ ha-1  

 Hill - bundled estimate of landscape character, linear feature, and biodiversity values

Rough grass 140 £ ha-1

Low input grassland 90 £ ha-1  High input grassland n/a  Arable n/a  Abandoned 0 £ ha-1  

 

SID 5 (Rev. 07/10) Page 29 of 31

References to published material

9. This section should be used to record links (hypertext links where possible) or references to other published material generated by, or relating to this project.

Ács, S., N. Hanley, M. Dallimer, P. Robertson, P Wilson, K. Gaston, P.R. Armsworth, 2010. The effect of decoupling on marginal agricultural systems: implications for farm incomes, land use and upland ecology. Land Use Policy 27(2) p 550-563.

ADAS (2008). Estimating the Environmental Impacts of Pillar I Reform and the Potential Implications for Axis II funding. Final Report prepared for Defra by ADAS UK Ltd, with SAC, RPA, and IGER. Wolverhampton, UK. 175pp.

Agro Business Consultants (2009). The Agricultural Budgeting and Costing Book, (69th edition). Agro Business Consultants Ltd, Melton Mowbray, Leicesteshire.

Anthony, S., Duethman, D., Gooday, R., Harris, D., Newell-Price, P., Chadwick, D. and Misselbrook, T. (2009) Quantitative Assessment of Scenarios for Managing Trade-Off between the Economic Performance of Agriculture and the Environment and Between Different Environmental Media. Final Report, Defra Project WQ0106 (Module 6), 95 pp.

Atkinson, P.W., Buckingham, D.L. & Morris, A.J. (2004). What factors determine where invertebrate-feeding birds forage in dry agricultural grasslands. In: J. A. Vickery & A. D. Evans (eds) Ecology and Conservation of Lowland Farmland Birds II: The Road to Recovery. Ibis 146 (suppl. 2): 99-107.

Boatman, N., Willis, K., Garrod, G. and Powe, N. (2010). Estimating the Wildlife and Landscape Benefits of Environmental Stewardship.  Report to Defra and Natural England. Food and Environment Research Agency and University of Newcastle upon Tyne, Newcastle

Cuttle, P. M., P. M. Haygarth, D.R. Chadwick P. Newell-Price, D. Harris, M.A. Shepherd, B.J. Chambers and R. Humphrey (2006). An Inventory of Measures to Control Diffuse Water Pollution from Agriculture. User Manual. Defra Project ESO203

DairyCo: Dairy Supply Chain Margins 2009/10. 20 pp DECC (2010). Carbon Appraisal in UK Policy Appraisal: A revised Approach A brief guide to the new

carbon values and their use in economic appraisal Defra (2006). Rural Development Programme for England: 2007- 2013, Upland Reward Structure,

Consultation Document. Defra, London. Defra (2007). An introductory guide to valuing ecosystem services. Report published by the

Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. London, UK. 68pp. Defra (2009). Agriculture in the United Kingdom 2009. 146pp Defra bid document: FFG 0803 Defra Business Plan 2011-2015 Defra: http://www.defra.gov.uk/animalh/welfare/farmed/on-farm.htm Econcept and ESU-Services (2006). Assessment of Biodiversity Losses. Deliverable 4.2 submitted to

the EU in partial fulfilment of the New Energy Externalities Developments for Sustainability NEEDS project: http://www.needs-project.org/RS1b/RS1b_D4.2.pdf

Edina AgCensus data: http://edina.ac.uk/agcensus/ EEA (1995). Europe’s Environment: the Dobris Assessment. European Environment Agency,

Copenhagen. EU Emissions Trading System: http://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/ets/index_en.htm European Commission (1957). Treaty Establishing the European Community as Amended by

Subsequent Treaties. 25 March 1957, Rome, Italy. Eyre, N., Downing, T., Hoekstra, R., Rennings, K., and Tol, R (1997) Global Warming Damages. Final

report of the external global warming sub-task, DG Environment, European Commission, Brussels. Garnett, T. (2009). Livestock-related greenhouse gas emissions: impacts and options for policy

makers. Environmental science & policy: 12: 491 – 503. Hartridge O. and Pearce D. (2001) Is UK Agriculture Sustainable? Environmentally Adjusted

Economic Accounts for UK Agriculture, CSERGE-Economics paper, September. HM Government (2009). The UK low carbon transition plan: national strategy for climate and energy.

220 pp HM Treasury and Defra (2005). A Vision for the Common Agricultural Policy HM Treasury (2011) GDP deflators: http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/data_gdp_fig.htm Holland, M., Forster, D., Young, K., Haworth, A., Watkiss, P. (1999) Economic Evaluation of

Proposals for Emission Ceilings for atmospheric Pollutants (Interim Report for DG XI of the European Commission), AEA Technology, Culham, Oxon.

Holten-Anderson, J., Palby H., Christensen, N., Wier, M., Andersen, F.M. (1995) Recommendations on strategies for integrated assessment of broad environmental problems. Report submitted to the European Environment Agency (EEA) by the Environmental Research Institute (NERI), Denmark

Defra project WQ0128: http://randd.defra.gov.uk/Default.aspx?Menu=Menu&Module=More&Location=None&Completed=0&ProjectID=15546

SID 5 (Rev. 07/10) Page 30 of 31

IGER (2006). Benefits & Pollution Swapping: Cross-Cutting issues for CSF Policy. Defra project WT0706

IPCC (2006) IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) http://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/2006gl/index.html

Jacobs (2008). Environmental Accounts for Agriculture. Final report submitted to Defra. 175 pp. JNCC (2006) UK Biodiversity Action Plan, Upland Oakwood Habitat Action Plan. Available from

www.ukbap.org.uk JRC, 2011. (http://lca.jrc.ec.europa.eu/lcainfohub/datasetArea.vm). LandIS: http://www.landis.org.uk/data/index.cfm Magic: http://magic.defra.gov.uk/ Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005). http://www.milleniumassessment.org/en/index.asp Moravec, J and Zemeckis, R (2007) Cross Compliance and Land Abandonment, Deliverable D17 of

the CC Network Project, SSPE-CT-2005-022727. Morgan, RPC, Morgan, DDV, Finney, HJ (1984). A Predictive Model for the Assessment of Soil-

Erosion Risk. Journal of Agricultural Engineering Research, 30 (3) pp. 243-253 Morris J, Audsley E, Wright IA, McLeod J, Pearn K, Angus A, Rickard S. 2005. Agricultural Futures

and Implications for the Environment. Defra Research Project IS0209. Bedford: Cranfield University. Available on hppt//www.silsoe.cranfield.ac.uk.

NAEI (National Atmospheric Emissions Inventory) 2005. AEA Energy & Environment, Harwell. NARSES: http://randd.defra.gov.uk/Default.aspx?Menu=Menu&Module=More&Location=None&

Completed=0&ProjectID=9635 NFU policy, The CAP after 2013. 20pp Nix, J. (2009). The John Nix farm management pocketbook: 40 th edition. The Anderson Centre,

Leicestershire OST (2002) UK Foresight Futures 2020: Revised Scenarios and Guidance. London: Office of Science

and Technology, Department for Trade and Industry, London Pretty, J.N. Ball, A.S. Lang, T. Morison, J.I.L. (2006). Farm costs and food miles: An assessment of

the full cost of the UK weekly food basket. Food Policy 30 (2005) 1–19 Rickard, S., Morris, J., and Audsley, E. (2005) Possible futures for Agriculture in Northern Europe

during a period of policy reform, in Sylvester-Bradley, R and Wisemann J, (ed) Yields of farmed species: constraints and opportunities in the 21st century, University of Nottingham Press

Rural Development Service (2006). Preducted Changes in Livestock Farming in England, Possible Environmental Impacts and Problems of Undergrazing. Report prepared for the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, Exeter, UK. 51pp.

Rural Economy and Land Use Programme (RELU). Project “Hill Farm Economics, Landscapes and Biodiversity in the Peak District”: http://www.biome.group.shef.ac.uk/RELU/index2.htm

Shepherd, M., Anthony, S., Temple, M., Burgess, D., Patton, M., Renwick, A., Barnes, A., and Chadwick, D. (2007). Baseline Projections for Agriculture and implications for emissions to air and water. Defra project SFF0601

The Food and Environment Research Agency (FERA) (http://pusstats.csl.gov.uk/myresults.cfm) UNEP-UK NEA (2010). UK National Ecosystem Assessment. http//uknea.unep-wcmc.org. White, P.J. and Hammond, J.P. (2006). Upadating the estimates of the sources of phosphorus in UK

waters. Defra project WT0701CSF Williams, A.G., Audsley, E. and Sandars, D.L. (2006) Determining the environmental burdens and

resource use in the production of agricultural and horticultural commodities. Main Report. Defra Research Project IS0205. Bedford: Cranfield University and Defra. Available on www.agrilca.org and www.defra.gov.uk

Willis, ICG. and Garrod, G.D., 1992. Assessing the value of future landscapes. Landscape and Urban Planning. 23:17-32.

Wooley and Company (2005) Grazing Management of Isolated Grassland Sites in the East of England. Woolley and Co., Frechenham.

SID 5 (Rev. 07/10) Page 31 of 31