UK Farming and climate change

A bit more this time, on agriculture and the impact it has on climate change, and what the industry needs to do to do its bit in the UK.

Setting the scene:
UK farms are said to produce around 46.5m tCO2e in GHG (Greenhouse Gas) emissions each year; that is, around 10% of the total UK emissions. But additionally, we import around 48% of our food, so the carbon footprint from food production is probably much, much higher (and rising). A WWF-UK / Food Climate Resource Network report in 2010 said the actual UK footprint of farming could be more like 30%.

The relationship between farming and climate change has become somewhat fractious over the years. Farmers say that there is a distinct 'anti-meat' agenda out there, with Guy Smith, Deputy President of the NFU (National Farmers Union) saying, "The vegan lobby are hijacking the climate debate."

The politics can be quite confusing. The Conservative government of the 1990s, for example, told farmers that if they improved their standards, that people would be happy to pay a premium for that additional sustainability and welfare. A ban was put in place on sow stalls that restricted the movement of pregnant pigs - it was, the government said - what the consumer wanted. So farmers invested the money to overcome the law, but they were thwarted; there was no such restriction on imported pork and so that consumer support never happened, as people were happy to go for the cheaper (imported) option!

IPCC report:
The NFU, which represents 55,000 British farmers, says that the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report on 'Change and Land', has been misinterpreted by many - and especially the BBC - they say, basically boiling it down to 'eat less meat and save the planet.' They point that the actual text of the report says;

"Balanced diets, featuring plant based foods, such as those based on coarse grains, legumes, fruit and vegetables, nuts and seeds, and animal sourced food produced in resilient, sustainable and low GHG emission systems, present major opportunities for adaptation and mitigation while generating significant co-benefits in terms of human health."

The industry claim that beef produced in western Europe, for example, is around 2.5 times more efficient in how carbon is managed than the global average.

This gets into another contentious issue. Beef production is the perceived bad boy of agriculture, in climate change terms, as it is a high producer of methane and nitrogen oxides - which are more damaging GHG's than CO2. While carbon dioxide takes a bit of a backseat in this discussion, scientists don't necessarily agree on the outcomes.

Methane was responsible for 56% of farming GHG emissions in 2017, and NO for 31%. This comes from the complexities of soil and microbial processes. The debate surrounds how much weighting they are given in the scientific outcomes. There are those who say that since they are the big GHG emitters, they must be weighted highly; the flip side is that their effects are easier to reverse, as they don't remain in the atmosphere as long, so the weighting should be lowered somewhat.

The NFU and the future:
The NFU vision, set out in September 2019, says that this 46.5m tonnes of emissions could be removed completely in the next 20 years. They say that;

• More efficient production will remove 11.5m tonnes
• Farmland as a store for carbon will remove 9m tonnes
• A boost to renewables and bioenergy will account for a whopping 22m tonnes

On that last point, countryside online say that farmers have already diversified to renewables production, to the point where they provide power for 10 million homes.

The NFU say that if farmers are offered rewards, then this is all achievable.

But there has been no real progress on reducing farming emissions since 2008. A 2013 target to plant 5,000ha of trees a year has also proved difficult; in England in the year up to March 2019, only 1,420ha was planted (according to the Woodland Trust). Guy Smith says, "We are happy with trees on farmland as long as it doesn't significantly curtail production. [Otherwise] you'll just offshore the carbon and they will continue ripping down the Amazon rainforest."

Countryside Online say that in 2017 there were 35,000 agri-environmental schemes happening with farmers in England, all helping to protect the environment and enhance biodiversity. 

The dairy industry has produced a Dairy Roadmap for 2020 - 2025, setting environmental targets, such as around fertiliser use and hedgerow protections. They claim that GHG emissions from the UK dairy industry have been reduced by 24% since 1990, and that most farmers now undertake nutrient and manure management programmes to minimise water pollution.

The Royal Society for the encouraging of Arts, Manufacturing and Commerce (RSA) Food, Farming & Countryside Commission has a report out that says farming and food systems must be sustainable by 2030 to help with tackling climate change and meeting government targets.

They say meat must come from 'sustainable livestock', and reflect the NFU claim, that farmers could make these big changes over the next decade if they are given the right backing. 

One example would be agro-forestry, where trees are mixed with crop and grazing fields. One farmer engaged in this practice, Ben Raskin, says, "There's a lot of evidence that if an animal is sheltered it's more productive - so its' spending less energy keeping its core warm so it can put more energy into producing milk or putting on weight, which is good, obviously, for production on the farm."

The Wrap:
So, what we see is a need to strike a balance between the need for sustainability and putting in place measures to help reduce carbon emissions and combat climate change; whilst simultaneously dealing with the ever growing demand for cheap (or at least reasonably priced) food.

As with other industries facing the climate change conundrum, it will be a mix of innovation, legislation and willing participation that will lead to UK farming successfully reaching their targets (or otherwise).

Research:
'Out to pasture?' Transform magazine - November 2019
https://www.countrysideonline.co.uk/food-and-farming/protecting-the-environment/how-are-british-farmers-helping-to-tackle-climate-change/ 
https://news.sky.com/story/make-uk-farming-sustainable-to-help-save-the-planet-report-11763956 

Will we see the wood for the trees?

Following on from a recent election based post - I was wondering if some of the, frankly massive, tree planting pledges being put forward by the various parties in the run up to the general election, are particularly realistic to achieve?

But first, let us go back a few years to see where the land lay....

The last pledge:

The government's last pledge on tree planting was 11 million trees a year in England. In 2016, Stuart Goodall, Chief Executive of the UK forestry industry body Confor, told the Environmental, Forestry & Rural Affairs committee in Westminster, that this target was most certainly achievable, but not with the current grant system in place at the time.

The target represented a shift in England to get from 10% tree cover, up to around 12% by 2060 - that is about 50,000 hectares a year. Goodall pointed out that the grant system was "overly complex and bureaucratic." It was felt that there had been a steady disconnect between policy and the realities of the timber industry over the previous 20 years.

Confor pointed to a number of new options that would be needed to get things going again. This would include ideas like productive mixed forestry being introduced in some areas of northern England where farmers were under pressure, and so something like this may be of interest. They also pointed to the out of date view of conifer planting being 'demonised' - without it, the timber industry would be facing major issues with sourcing supplies by the mid 2030's.

Then there was also a need for more experience in dealing with large scale schemes from the Forestry Commission and other such bodies, as many of them had not had to deal with such applications in many years. Sir William Worsley, Chairman of the National Forest for the East Midlands, said, "To look at hardwoods as being attractive and softwoods as unattractive and commercial is the wrong way to look at it. Well managed commercial forestry can be very beautiful."

The big pledges!

So since the last government targets were set, things have moved on at pace. Climate change is now front and centre on the agenda, in fact for some groups it will be the second or third most thing on their minds when voting this month.

The legislation in June of this year, making net-zero carbon emissions a legal commitment for the UK by 2050, meant that people (including those in power) suddenly had to give some thought on how to achieve this rather daunting target!

Step forward the humble tree! A thing of great beauty and of great importance for many ecosystems - now realised as a potential lifeline for achieving carbon emission reductions, through their ability to sequester CO2.

Oak Tree (photo: Wikimedia)

• Conservatives: pledging 30 million trees a year
• Lib Dems and SNP: both pledging to plant 60m a year
• Greens: they have gone for a pledge of 70m a year
• Labour: reckon they can plant 100m a year for the next 20 years. That's 2 billion more trees!

Now, there are some other issues around planting this number of trees, like can we provide enough nursery stock of suitable native trees to meet any of these demands? And where are such numbers going to be planted? Many sparsely populated areas, like say northern Scotland, actually don't necessarily need huge numbers of trees - northern Scotland would actually largely benefit from protecting and enhancing its peat bogs (another great CO2 sequesterer).

But lets just concentrate on the sheer numbers and not some of these other technicalities, that will have to be covered in great depth in the next few years, as one of these parties is actually going to have to try and enact what it has promised........ (or not)

The Labour party pledge represents planting a quarter of a million trees every day!

To put that in perspective, in the year to March 2019, 13,400ha was planted in the UK (11,200 of that was in Scotland). But there is some historic precedent of sorts, as in the 1980s we did manage to plant at a rate of around 30,000ha a year.

Depending on tree species, habitat, terrain etc., you can plant between 1,000 and 2,500 trees per hectare, so taking a reasonable average, that means 30,000ha would be covered by around 50 million trees.

The Woodland Trust say that things need to change fundamentally for large-scale planting to happen;

• More people need to get involved in planting - at national and local level, and in statutory bodies
• There needs to be a big boost in tree stocks
• There needs to be more money / grants for farmers and landowners to encourage them to plant trees
• Natural reforestation must be encouraged alongside planting

The Committee on Climate Change (CCC) has stated in its guidance that the UK needs a net gain of 32,000ha of trees per year for 30 years to help hit the net-zero emissions target by 2050. That is 1.5 billion trees. That would see the overall tree coverage for the UK going from 13% to 17% in that time - but that compares with an EU average of 35% tree cover.

Confor has analysed the tree planting pledges of the main parties - here is a little of what it has said on the four main national parties; 

Conifer forest (photo: Wikimedia)

• Conservatives: they need to do much more to meet the targets. It points out that they failed to reach the last, much more modest target, of 11m trees a year over 5 years.
• Labour: they need big leadership commitments to make any progress on such a target. Confor likes the recognition Labour have given to what the forestry / timber industries can do to help meet their green jobs pledge.
• Lib Dems: their targets are in line with what Confor have been suggesting is needed, but Confor say that their processes will need to be much improved. They also like the commitment to use more timber in house construction. Their position could be interesting if they end up holding a balance of power after the election.
• Greens: their targets, like the Lib Dems, line up with Confor ambitions, and will need similar overhaul of current processes. They also like their emphasis on integration between farming and forestry.

Research:

https://www.confor.org.uk/news/latest-news/ge2019-tree-planting-pledges-analysed/ 

http://www.confor.org.uk/news/latest-news/planting-targets-achievable-but-grant-system-not-fit-for-purpose/ 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/50591261 

Will climate change be on the agenda at this election?

With the release today of the Green Party manifesto, it seems fitting to ponder whether climate change, and the environment in general, will feature heavily in the general election chat?

Climate change has leapt to the fore this year with Greta Thunberg and Extinction Rebellion becoming household names around the world.

The other main UK parties all touch on climate and environment to varying degrees, but this is obviously the Green's main subject area - so what are their key proposals?

Not Now, When?

Is the name of their manifesto, by the way.... The headline pledge is that of making the UK net zero for carbon emissions by 2030 - something that is way ahead of the Liberal Democrats (LD), who call for it to happen by 2045, and the Tories who enacted the recent legislation for this to happen by 2050 (on the advice of the Committee on Climate Change [CCC]).

To get to this, the Green's say that they will spend £100bn a year on it for a decade. All petrol and diesel vehicles will be phased out by 2030; gas boilers switched out (to hydrogen maybe?); home insulation will be improved and all carbon emissions avoided or sequestered in rocks and trees.

They argue that with low interest rates on government borrowing at the moment, this creates "an unparalleled opportunity for public investment" to tackle the issue. There will be a carbon tax on the extraction of oil and gas, and more taxes on fuels, raising the prices for the consumer. The focus will be on creating new jobs in the clean and green industries, which will mean other industries would certainly face losses.

What else?

The manifesto also pledges an extra £6bn a year to 2030 for the NHS, with an additional £1bn a year for nursing higher education, and a reduction in private sector involvement in the health service.

They pledge to plant 700m trees by 2030, way ahead of both LD at 60m a year, and the Tories at 30m a year. They will also encourage farmers to adopt greener practices, anticipating that eventually 50% of agriculture will be agro-forestry (where food crops are planted between trees) inside a decade - something which perhaps surprisingly, farmer's unions say is not impossible.

There will be a scrapping of tuition fees. A basic income of £89 per person will be introduced, with extra for families and pensioners. Free personal care will be offered in the home to the over 65's.

With home energy efficiency currently averaging D on the EPC ratings, they will be looking at a 'deep retro-fitting' programme to improve that. In 2018, only 0.22% of registered properties reached an A on the EPC scale.

There will be a ban on single-use plastics, and an extension to the bag tax to include plastic bottles, single-use plastics and microplastics.

Climate Change and the election

While Brexit, and also the health service, will tend to dominate the election campaign this time around, will climate change and the environment muster very high on the agenda?

It is the single most important issue of this, or indeed any recent, generation (yes, even more than Brexit) - so it really needs to be front and centre of each debate. What the parties end up pledging and doing on this front is of vital importance to us in Britain, and elsewhere around the globe (especially if we are still the global player we say we are).

YouGov has tracked views on the environment for a decade or so, and it has generally tracked very low in terms of its importance to voters. When the bad storms hit in the winter of 2013-14, this level spiked, but soon returned to normal.

But this year there has been a more fundamental change. Pollster, Chris Curtis, says that 27% of people now have the topic in their top3 issues, along with Brexit and healthcare. Meanwhile, 45% of 18 - 24 year olds rank it as second most important! Therefore, one can argue that the topic will indeed be crucial in the run up to the election next month.

Extinction Rebellion upset some people and inspired others - but either way, undoubtedly furthered the debate. Greta Thunberg and the school strikes have caught the imagination of schoolchildren around the globe. Their more dramatic actions have actually forced changes - after years of people politely waving placards and camping outside in protest over things, this more direct approach, whilst ruffling more than a few feathers, has actually garnered results! Legislation has been enacted, and politicians and businesses are having to take this much more seriously than ever before.

The issue will not go away, as it will be on our minds on an ever increasing basis. We have had the Australian wildfires and the floods in northern England in the last week. 2019 has seen record breaking heatwaves in places, and rising temperatures are not a future issue, it is one we are already witnessing. 2016 was the hottest year on record, and 18 of the 19 hottest years have been during this century (we are only 2019)! The one exception? 1998 - just 2 years outside this century. It doesn't take a rocket (or indeed climate) scientist to see how this is going.....

What are the others saying?

Well it's too early to say much - remember the Green's were the first with their manifesto. The Tories have announced a ban on fracking, but this may be more of a well-timed pause!? They also point to their net-zero carbon commitment, with the UK being the first major economy to stake such an objective. Opposition parties want the achievement to happen sooner though. 

Labour have a Warm Homes plan, which will see 27m homes insulated, along with help for solar panels and heat pumps.

Labour, LD, Green's and SNP have all called for a live climate change debate as part of the election build-up - but as yet this has not been confirmed.

Whatever end date you set as a target, radical change is needed, as is heavy investment over the next decade. With the next climate conference (CoP26) happening in Glasgow next year - the eyes of the world will be on the UK, so it will be ever more important that whichever party (or parties) end up in control next month, take this subject very seriously.

Research:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2019-50464641

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-50307304