Written evidence submitted by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (AZE0038)
Executive Summary
1.1 Productivity of agricultural land is highly variable. Across all farm types in England in 2017/18, the average performance of the top 25% of farms was 1.8 times better than the bottom 25%. If we can improve the bottom 25%, along with everyone else, then we could maintain current food production on a smaller area of land. This may allow agricultural land to be repurposed.
1.2 Land use changes to encourage carbon sequestration would be necessary to achieve net zero. This might include afforestation, agroforestry, peatland restoration, biomass production and to a lesser extent soil carbon sequestration. Increased forest cover and restoration of peatland would repurpose suitable land currently under agricultural production. By contrast, catchment-sensitive farming and diversification can occur on land that is still under agricultural production, without repurposing its use.
1.3 Moving towards net zero emissions from agriculture while maintaining food production would mean both bringing current skills, management and productivity up to best-practice standards; off-setting unavoidable emissions; and exploring innovations which could change the way we produce food. Improved production efficiency ensures that energy and nutrients are captured in agricultural products rather than lost to the environment as pollution, including as GHG emissions.
1.4 Progress has already been made in this space. Defra emissions and production statistics suggest that since 1990 we are producing a litre of milk with 17% fewer GHG emissions, and a kilogram of pork with a reduction of 40% GHG emissions. Efficiency gains in dairy farming mean that we are now producing 9% more milk than in the year 2000 with 24% fewer cows.
1.5 The need for productivity improvements is particularly acute if we do not want to increase livestock density, an important factor in animal health and welfare.
1.6 Defra’s Beef Feed Efficiency Programme has identified that selective breeding for more feed-efficient animals, kept in suitable conditions, could reduce GHG emissions across the UK beef sector by up to 26% while increasing profitability by up to 40% if beef herd size remains constant.
1.7 Since 2003, Defra has funded four Crop Genetic Improvement Networks (GINs) on breeding improved wheat, oilseed rape, vegetable and pulse crop varieties. The networks – with a combined value of around £1M per year – undertake breeding for improved resource efficiency, sustainability and resilience to pests, diseases and climate change risks. Seed companies, breeders and growers are actively engaged in the work via a stakeholder engagement group facilitated by the Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board (AHDB).
1.8 Agroforestry is recognised as a practice that increases the carbon stock on agricultural land through both the cessation of cultivation under the planted trees enabling soil carbon stocks to increase back to their natural maximum, and the accumulation of carbon in the growing trees. In addition the trees in the system can provide produce, shelter for livestock and soil protection.
1.9 The Lowland Agricultural Peat Taskforce will deliver recommendations for a new more sustainable future for agriculture on lowland peatlands in England. The aim is to extend the usable life of our agricultural peatland soils, both to preserve the carbon stored in them, and to ensure that profitable agriculture can continue for decades to come. It will examine a wide range of solutions including partial rewetting and a transition to ‘wet agriculture’ or paludiculture. Further details will be published in the England Peat Strategy.
1.10 It is worth noting that excessive land use control could hinder the function of market forces and lead to an inefficient allocation of land between economic agents. This may inflict an overall cost to society compared to a scenario where there is lower levels of land use regulation. As such, encouraging land use changes without proper thought to the welfare implications of such changes may have distortionary effects on markets and prove societally costly.
1.11 On the demand side, some agri-food types provide a higher calorie/protein content per hectare of land used than others, with livestock providing a relatively low calorie/protein content per hectare of land used[1]. However, the environmental impacts of a consumption shift away from less land intensive products would be weakened considerably by trade. Reductions in domestic demand could result in greater exports of resource intensive products, rather than changes in overall domestic production.
1.12 The soil-grassland-livestock system is a complex one, with many inter-dependencies and potential for numerous trade-offs. Existing lifecycle assessments[2] suggest that livestock raised in pasture-dominated systems can emit more greenhouse gases per unit of product produced than livestock in housed/mixed systems – even though emissions per farm type look lower. As with all lifecycle assessments assumptions needed to be made based on best available knowledge at the time; those specific to these studies are detailed in the footnote below. We are currently updating these lifecycle analyses (carbon footprints) to include the range of livestock systems now in use and update their parameters to the present day situation. As before these will include externalities and impacts felt at a global scale.
1.13 In any livestock system, best practice in animal husbandry and good land management are absolutely key to managing emissions. There are significant emissions benefits to be made by ensuring cattle are healthy, improving genetics, and by optimising diets; and soils under permanent pasture tend to reach their soil carbon maximum when well-managed, with no further net carbon change. Ongoing research is exploring whether novel species mixes in grassland swards can reduce ruminant emissions and industry R&D is studying whether novel grass species can increase soil carbon content.
1.14 In making holistic land management and policy choices it will be important to also consider those other benefits which may not be measured on a simple emissions basis, such as biodiversity and landscape.
1.15 Catchment Sensitive Farming (CSF) is a cross Defra group partnership which provides free-to-access technical environmental advice and training to farmers. They align environmental and business objectives by focussing on mitigating agricultural pollution to water, whilst supporting a sustainable farming sector. CSF has a proven track record in improving water quality. The on-farm mitigation measures adopted under CSF also benefit a wider range of Natural Capital (including air quality, water resources, biodiversity, flood risk, natural pest control, and beneficial insect pollination) under pressure from farming.
2.1 There are currently no sector-specific targets for emission reductions, and due to the nature of agricultural production, it is unlikely the agricultural sector as a whole will be able to achieve zero greenhouse gas emissions. The sector could contribute towards the net zero target however, through reducing direct emissions from farming, increasing carbon sequestration on farmland, and reducing emissions from other sectors by producing renewable energy/fuels. The main emissions are methane from livestock (mostly ruminants – cattle and sheep) and nitrous oxide from manures and mineral fertiliser use.
2.2 The Government recognises the importance of reducing emissions further in the food, farming and land use sectors. The Clean Growth Strategy and the 25 Year Environment Plan set out the Government’s ambition for how this will be achieved, and this year we have started developing a new emissions reduction plan for agriculture, in which we will set out our long-term vision for a more productive, low-carbon farming sector. This policy development will be informed by research, modelling, stakeholder engagement and feasibility studies[3].
2.3 The Environmental Land Management (ELM) scheme will pay public money for public goods, delivering environmental outcomes such as greenhouse gas emissions reduction and carbon sequestration. Defra is working closely with stakeholders to determine specific climate mitigation and adaptation measures for which ELM schemes could pay.
2.4 Animal Health - The impact disease can have on cattle is significant: a life-cycle analysis found that compared to healthy animals, infection with endemic diseases can increase the GHG emissions associated with producing a unit of milk by up to 25% and can increase the emissions for a unit of beef by up to 130%.
2.5 Precision agriculture and innovations - Increased uptake of precision farming technologies and innovations such as vertical farming may play a role in improving resource efficiency and yield in the future, although research must continue to develop these technologies so that we can better understand their direct and wider impacts (e.g. of reduced tillage practices) and ensure good soil management for continued fertility and sustaining levels of soil organic carbon storage. However, there is no conclusive evidence of the relationship between tillage and its impact on levels of soil carbon. Modern slurry management and application practices can significantly reduce associated GHG and ammonia emissions. Defra is currently funding research investigating the potential for the latest slurry acidification technology to safely and effectively reduce ammonia and GHG emissions associated with livestock farming. Early results indicate that both ammonia and methane emissions from slurry can be reduced by over 90% after treatment. Reduced use of mineral fertiliser has potential to reduce associated emissions of nitrous oxide.
2.6 Biofuels – The Renewable Transport Fuel Obligation (RTFO) was introduced in 2008 and sets a target for the use of renewable fuels in UK road transport with the aim of reducing carbon emissions. It places an obligation on owners of transport fuel supplying at least 450,000 litres a year to ensure that a certain amount of sustainable biofuel is supplied. In 2016/17, renewable fuels reduced UK carbon emissions from road transport by approximately 2.5 million tonnes compared to the equivalent fossil fuels.
2.7 Bioenergy crops - Energy demand in the UK is around 200 million tonnes oil equivalent (Mtoe). We produce around 2.6 Mtoe from plant biomass fired power stations that use domestic biomass; mainly sourced from Short Rotation Coppice, straw and miscanthus, although exact figures are unknown.
2.8 Anaerobic digestion (AD) is the process by which organic matter is broken down to produce biogas, heat and digestate. This is anaerobic because the process occurs in an oxygen free environment called a biodigestor. The input organic matter can be a wide range of products including farm waste, crop residues, food waste, manure and slurries or energy crops. AD can also reduce greenhouse gas emissions, such as methane, from on-farm waste when best practice is used, though there is a risk of increased ammonia emissions.
2.9 Soils under Permanent Pasture if well managed tend to be at their soil carbon maximum, therefore being neither a net emitter nor absorber, although carbon is cycled through the system.
3.1 Our future Agriculture policy will support farmers to produce more home-grown, healthy food to high environmental and animal welfare standards. In relation to environmental public goods, the Environmental Land Management Scheme (ELM) will contribute to delivering against many of the key outcomes set out in the 25 Year Environment Plan and the Clean Growth Strategy - including clean air and mitigation and adaption to climate change. This will significantly contribute to other goals such as net zero carbon emissions by 2050.
3.2 In developing the ELM scheme, we are working with external contractors to assess approaches to payments to maximise participation and the delivery of environmental outcomes, ensuring value for money. We will be discussing this extensively with stakeholders and will use our test and trials work, and the ELM national pilot, to test approaches to payments and gather evidence to help us make informed decisions.
3.3 During the transition, in addition to the ELM scheme, we will provide support to farmers for investment into equipment, technology, and infrastructure. This will help them deliver public goods (such as reducing greenhouse gas emissions) and improve their productivity and resilience.
4.1 Many farmers already access sources of advice and information through the industry-funded Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board (AHDB), through product marketing and sales support (feed merchants, machinery sales) and independent advice (i.e. vets, farm business advisors, agronomists). In this respect most knowledge transfer is funded within industry.
4.2 It is a key priority of this government to enable an innovative, productive and competitive agricultural sector, which invests in its people and skills. Attracting talented individuals into careers in farming and land management, both now and in the future, is also vital to our future success.
4.3 Government is actively collaborating with industry, through the Agricultural Productivity Working Group of the Food and Drink Sector Council, to develop proposals for a world leading knowledge exchange system - a single hub for evidence-based best practice for farming and growing. This collaborative work is also supported by the Skills Leadership Group, an industry-led stakeholder group representing agriculture and horticulture, which is developing a strategy for improving the recognition of, and access to, the talent and skills required to enable the industry to thrive.
4.4 The Catchment Sensitive Farming (CSF) programme has supported £102 million of investment in farms to protect water quality since 2008. This funding, reinforced with free advice and training, has helped CSF to significantly reduce the use of pesticides and engage farmers in effective measures. This funding contributes to the wider money government has invested to further help farmers protect and restore the environment. Between 2014 and 2020 government will have invested £150 million on water quality measures, mostly undertaken by farmers. When accompanied by advice, these investments have made an even greater impact on water quality – up to eight times more.
4.5 During the transition period Defra will provide financial assistance to help farmers invest in equipment and technology that might help them to adopt best practice and new techniques to boost productivity and help deliver environmental benefits. Additionally, we are developing evidence based, accessible, environmental guidance to support and help land managers and their advisors to decide the public goods they can deliver and how to manage their land to deliver desired outcomes including adaptation to and mitigation of climate change.
5.1 Achieving the net zero target is a priority for Government and we need to explore the opportunities presented by R&D and innovation to help the agriculture sector meet this ambition. That’s why the Government is building on the 2013 £160 million Agri-Tech Strategy investment, with support for Innovative R&D to increase agricultural productivity and reduce environmental impacts from food production.
5.2 Exploring the potential of new technologies and ensuring best farming practice across the sector could both help to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture, as complementary tools in the toolkit. Existing evidence strongly suggests that improving skills, management and productivity through whole-sector adoption of best practice, is a major area of opportunity for cost effective greenhouse gas reduction in current agricultural systems.
5.3 The Industrial Strategy Clean growth challenge is supporting programmes to stimulate the development, manufacture and use of low carbon technologies, systems and services. The UK Research & Innovation £90M ‘Transforming Food Production’ Challenge Fund[4] is one of these programmes and is focused on ‘Precision agriculture’. The programme aims to support the industry to reduce waste and to move towards net-zero emissions. Its objectives are to improve the productivity of the sector by reducing those costs associated with carbon-based inputs as well as generating gross value added (GVA) opportunities for those businesses producing ‘precision’ technologies and services. These industry-led proposals will address end user needs and ensure that new and exciting innovations are commercially viable. Feasibility and demonstration will feature as a key part of the challenge to improve the link between R&D and adoption by farming businesses.
5.4 Leaving the EU provides an opportunity to develop new ambitious R&D proposals as part of our new policy for agriculture. This will boost sustainable innovation and build on existing programmes to develop new technologies that could offer a step change in production efficiency and GHG reduction. These activities will encourage uptake of precision techniques and practices that could contribute to achieving the net zero carbon target.
5.5 Examples of innovative technology being researched include livestock feed additives which could alter ruminant digestion to reduce methane emissions; and, slurry acidification technology which could potentially significantly reduce ammonia and GHG emissions from agricultural slurry.
6.1 Large-scale changes in land use can affect rural communities. Agriculture, forestry and fishing contributes around 2 per cent of GVA in predominantly rural areas but in some rural communities is greater. Therefore where farming represents a significant part of the local economy the impact on rural communities may be greater so it is hard to generalise impacts.
6.2 There may also be wider social implications of large-scale land use changes in the agriculture sector, given the traditional centrality of farmers in many rural communities as direct employers, buyer of services from other sectors and as participants in many of the key institutions of rural life.
6.3 The rural economy, environment, agriculture and rural communities are highly interconnected and dependent on each other with farming, forestry and fisheries providing an important contribution to the rural economy. How the landscape looks and feels therefore may affect wider community impacts, such as tourism and recreation – a wooded landscape for example offers recreational opportunities alongside open farmed landscapes. Our data on access to the natural environment suggests that the public access a range of land use for leisure and recreation.
6.4 Land use changes could increase the provision of environmental goods in rural communities. Further, the opportunity to be paid for the delivery of environmental public good will give land managers the ability to diversify, and consequently generate alternative income streams.
6.5 Farmers will have sufficient time to adapt and prepare for our new ELM scheme which will be piloted and rolled out during the transition. We will look at the wider impact of ELM schemes on rural communities as more detail becomes available. Environmental outcomes will continue to be provided during the transition from existing Environment Stewardship and Countryside Stewardship schemes.
6.6 We are planning a smooth transition to our new system of public money for public goods. We plan to phase out Direct Payments to farmers in England during a seven year agricultural transition period, starting in 2021. This will make sure there is a gradual transition from the current world to the new, avoiding a cliff-edge for farm businesses. It will give farmers and land managers sufficient time to adapt and prepare for our new ELM scheme which will be piloted and rolled out during the transition.
6.7 We are planning a managed and phased exit from the existing Environmental Stewardship and Countryside Stewardship land management schemes as the ELM scheme is developed. This will ensure that environmental outcomes continue to be delivered during the transition.
6.8 Once we have left the EU and once Parliament has passed the legislation needed for our agricultural reforms, we can put our intended changes into practice and be clearer about our timeline.
7.1 The Government provides guidance on a healthy dietary patterns in the Eatwell Guide[5], which includes a recommendation to eat less red and processed meat. The key to a healthy diet is getting the balance right; this means eating a wide variety of foods, and in the right proportions.
7.2 The National Diet and Nutrition Survey, carried out on behalf of Public Health England and the Food Standards Agency, indicates that there has been a downward trend in red and processed meat consumption over the past nine years. However, men aged 19 years and over have a mean total red and processed meat intake above the recommended 70g per day.
7.3 Work by the Carbon Trust[6] and others reflects the evidence based consensus that shifts towards healthy dietary patterns presented in the Eatwell Guide would reduce GHG emissions, land use and water use whilst increasing the number of healthy life years[7]. Defra funded scenario-based work[8] also showed that shifting diets would impact on GHG emissions, grassland and arable land use.
7.4 There are a range of interventions that aim to target changes in consumer behaviour. There is a large and growing body of research attempting to understand the evidence, including the EU collaborative research programme that Defra helped to fund.
7.5 There is uncertainty about the responsiveness of consumers to policies that aim to target consumer behaviour. If such policies did lead to a lower demand for red meat domestically, there is uncertainty as to the impact this would have on domestic livestock producers due to the role of dairy production and of international trade.
7.6 It is not clear that encouraging a shift in diets would lead to a reduction in UK livestock production. If domestic demand fell and levels of trade remained the same, supply may be slow to respond to changes in demand due to long production times and land use specification (some land types will be better suited to rearing livestock vs other uses). If the UK livestock herd reduced without a shift in diets, prices would be expected to increase across meat and dairy commodities. It is worth noting that a reduction in livestock numbers would also reduce the demand for feed, potentially leading to a short term surplus of grain supply.
7.7 We cannot, however, ignore the role that international trade plays in domestic markets. If domestic demand fell, this may not necessarily lead to a reduction in domestic production of red meat, as surplus production could be exported. It is therefore important to consider both domestic and international markets when discussing the impact of a shift in diets towards lower red meat consumption.
7.8 Defra are committed to supporting and developing the UK livestock farming sector. While food choices can have an impact on greenhouse gas emissions, well managed livestock also provide environmental benefits such as supporting biodiversity, protecting the character of the countryside and generating important income for rural communities; particularly in the uplands and on permanent grazing less suited to other forms of agriculture.
7.9 The Global Food Security Programme (GFS) works with government partners to look at how to achieve a secure and resilient food system from farm to fork[9]. This includes how to tackle the complexities around the impacts of sustainable production and consumption on the food system within a global context.
7.10 The Food Strategy will build on work that started with the Agriculture Bill, the Environment Bill, the Fisheries Bill, and the Childhood Obesity plan. This will help ensure that our food system delivers healthy and affordable food for all people, and is built upon a resilient and sustainable agriculture sector, which considers its climate impact.
8.1 Current methodologies for accounting emissions present problems for measuring the extent of ‘offshoring’. Domestic carbon accounting is generally carried out on a territorial basis, according to United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) standards. However, this approach means that emissions embodied in the production of goods which are exported to the UK from overseas are not attributed to the UK. This approach enables offshoring to occur.
8.2 In addition to the national production statistics, Defra also publish estimates of emissions relating to UK consumption. A “carbon footprint” approach factors in emissions from inputs and products produced outside the UK. This includes intermediate consumption of items such as fertiliser, as well as direct consumption of finished products such as chocolate and coffee. However, measuring emissions on a consumption basis faces data challenges and is currently only available as high level aggregates across sectors.
8.3 A reduction in the domestic production of high emissions agricultural products such as those derived from livestock, which is not driven by changes in demand, could cause an increase in the demand for imports and a fall in the volume of exports. Therefore, in such a scenario where international trade is modelled, emissions are likely to be offshored. It is also important to note that if changes are demand-driven, the observable impact on UK emissions will be ‘watered down’ by the offshoring of some of the reductions, if imports also fall. This represents an offshoring of the benefits of demand-driven changes in livestock production levels.
8.4 We are exploring all options in the design on future bilateral trade and investment agreements. We’re clear that new trading opportunities do not have to come at the expense of the environment. Trade agreements can encourage dialogue between governments, business groups and civil society on climate change issues. The UK will play an active role in international discussions at the World Trade Organization (WTO) and beyond on addressing climate change.
8.5 Measuring emissions on a consumption basis faces significant data challenges, as emissions embedded in the UK’s imports would also need to be calculated. This carbon footprint approach includes emissions associated with the consumption spending of UK residents on goods and services wherever in the world these emissions arise along the supply chain, in addition to emissions directly generated by UK households (e.g. motoring).
8.6 We recently launched the Global Resource Initiative taskforce, which will make recommendations on where Government, business and civil society can take action to reduce the UK’s footprint overseas. The taskforce will consider where policy interventions, monitoring and reporting tools, the commodities sector and the financial sector can enhance the sustainability of forest-risk commodity supply chains. Our initial focus will be on the supply of palm oil; soya; cocoa; paper and pulp; rubber; beef and leather; and timber. We will also consider where UK expertise and leadership can be used to leverage wider international impact, in order to protect biodiversity, reduce emissions and support livelihoods.
September 2019
[1] https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/land-use-per-gram-of-protein-by-food-type
[2] [Williams; Audsley; Sandars (2006): Determining the environmental burdens and resource use in the production of agricultural and horticultural commodities- Defra project report IS0205.) and (Williams; Webb; Evans; Moorhouse; Watkiss (2008): Comparative Life Cycle Assessment of Food Commodities Procured for UK Consumption through a Diversity of Supply Chains – Defra project report FO0103)] The parameters of these LCAs include machinery, fertiliser and pesticide manufacture, in addition to usage, in production of animal feed. They also accounted at the time of study for changing land use impacts from land producing animal feed. Current market sources of UK feed components may or may not be associated with additional land use change. Taking into account current sources of animal feed and the extent of their sustainability of production will be essential to get a full and up-to-date picture.
These LCAs do not account for change of UK land use to permanent pasture because the change is a one-off carbon gain and therefore the net effect over the long term is minimal. N.B. LCA standards (PAS2050) exclude carbon sequestration because the IPCC inventory guidelines assume that soils ability to store carbon reaches equilibrium after 20 years.
[3] Defra (2017) Sustainable Intensification Platform. Available at: http://sciencesearch.defra.gov.uk/Default.aspx?Menu=Menu&Module=More&Location=None&ProjectID=18802&FromSearch=Y&Publisher=1&SearchText=sip&SortString=ProjectCode&SortOrder=Asc&Paging=10#Description (SIP1 – farm scale), http://sciencesearch.defra.gov.uk/Default.aspx?Menu=Menu&Module=More&Location=None&ProjectID=18803&FromSearch=Y&Publisher=1&SearchText=sip&SortString=ProjectCode&SortOrder=Asc&Paging=10#Description (SIP2 – landscape scale), http://sciencesearch.defra.gov.uk/Default.aspx?Menu=Menu&Module=More&Location=None&ProjectID=18804&FromSearch=Y&Publisher=1&SearchText=sustainable intensification&SortString=ProjectCode&SortOrder=Asc&Paging=10#Description (SIP3 – supply chain scale).
[4] https://www.ukri.org/innovation/industrial-strategy-challenge-fund/transforming-food-production/
[5] Public Health England (2016) The Eatwell Guide. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-eatwell-guide
[6] The Carbon Trust (2016) The Eatwell Guide: A more sustainable diet. Available at: https://www.carbontrust.com/resources/reports/advice/sustainable-diets/
[7] Cobiac, L., Scarborough, P., Kaur, A., and Rayner, M. (2016) The Eatwell Guide: Modelling the health implications of incorporating new sugar and fibre guidelines. Available at: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0167859&type=printable
[8] Defra (2018b) Assessing the environmental impacts of healthier diets. Available at: randd.defra.gov.uk/Document.aspx?Document=14310_FinalReport_FO0427.pdf