1. PETER HARPER
CENTRE FOR ALTERNATIVE TECHNOLOGY
FARMING FUTURES, NORTH YORKSHIRE 25 NOVEMBER 2010
TREES AND LIVESTOCK:
CHANGING LAND-USE IN

2. THIS IS
WHY IT’S
A
SERIOUS
MATTER

3. NOVEMBER 17, 2010:NOVEMBER 17, 2010:
David Cameron yesterday warned that aDavid Cameron yesterday warned that a
fragmented national and regionalfragmented national and regional
approach to tackling climate change willapproach to tackling climate change will
be unable to sufficiently curb greenhousebe unable to sufficiently curb greenhouse
gas emissions, insisting that a bindinggas emissions, insisting that a binding
global deal remains critical.global deal remains critical.

4. THE YAWNI NG CHASM
POLI TI CAL REALI SM PHYSI CAL REALI SM
FURI OUS ACTI VI TY
ZCB

5. THE MOST SIGNIFICANT BRANCH-
POINT IN HUMAN HISTORY?
COMING SOON TO A PLANET NEAR YOU
SUCCESSFUL
MITIGATION
INCREASINGLY
DESPERATE
ADAPTATIONS
+ ‘PEAK OIL’

6. LOGICAL STRUCTURE OF THE
APPROACH
Rationalisation of demand
Emissions
envelope
Net-negative processes
Low/Zero Carbon supply systems

7. IT IS AN INVESTMENT, NOT A COST

8. Tomorrow
£196 million

10. LOGICAL STRUCTURE OF THE APPROACH
Rationalisation of demand
Emissions
envelope
Net-negative processes
Low/Zero Carbon supply systems

11. NEW PRESSURES ON LAND USE
Arising from higher carbon prices
• Bioenergy crops
• Low-emission raw materials
• Sequestration crops
• Low-emission food
• Stock, especially ruminants
• Certain management practices
• Excessive N-inputs
• Conversion of grass to arable
Would
attract
credits
Would attract
penalties or
require
offsets

12. Speculative plot of responses to
increasing carbon price
£10/t £50/t £500/t
RUMINANTS
NON-RUMINANTS
ENERGY
CROPS
SEQUESTRATION CROPS
FAIRLIE’S
“DEFAULT
LIVESTOCK”
LEVEL

13. ‘DEFAULT MEAT
PRODUCTION’
Elferink, E.V., S. Nonhebel and H.C. Moll (2008), J. Cleaner Production 16 (12) 1227-1233.

14. AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS: GHG EMISSIONS, LAND REQUIREMENT, OUTPUT.
ADJUSTED FOR NUTRITIONAL VALUE AFTER MAILLOT 2009
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
14000
16000
O
TH
ER
C
RO
PSO
ATS
PE
AS
AN
D
BEANS
FR
U
IT
BE
ET
VE
G
ETABLESBA
RLEY
PO
TATOES
RAPE
PR
O
TECTED
C
ROPS
W
H
EAT
HO
RS
ES
etc
EG
GS
PIG
S
SH
EEP
PO
ULTRY
BE
EF
M
ILK
FOOD PRODUCT GROUPS, IN TWO CLASSES
EMISSIONS,KT,LAND,KHAX4,PRODUCTKT
Nutrionally-adjusted product
Land used
GHG emissions
PROTEIN RATIO
55% LIVESTOCK PRODUCTS
45% CROP PRODUCTS

15. COMPARISON OF EXISTING AND ZCB2030 SCENARIO EMISSIONS
-30000
-25000
-20000
-15000
-10000
-5000
0
5000
10000
15000
PRODUCTS IN THREE CLASSES, RANKED BY EMISSIONS
GHGEMISSIONS,KTCO2e/year
Scenario emissions
existing emissions
PROTEIN RATIO
34% LIVESTOCK PRODUCTS
66% CROP PRODUCTS

16. FOOD QUALITY: ‘DOUBLE FOOD PYRAMID’
PROPOSED BY BARILLA CENTER
http://www.barillacfn.com/images/download/positionpaper_barillacfn_double-pyramid.pdf

17. ENERGY SILAGE
MISCANTHUS
SRC SRF
UNALLOCATED
GRAZING
IN SITU SEQUESTRATION
FROM EXISTING FOIREST
LONG-TERM
REFORESTATION
TREE CROPS
FEED CROPS
URBAN LIVESTOCK
INTENSIVE
HORTICULTURE
PROTECTED CROPS
HEMP
FIELD CROPS
WOOD PRODUCTS FROM
EXISTING FOREST
AREA ALLOCATION OF FUNCTIONS
IN ZCB2030 SCENARIO

18. ENERGY SILAGE
MISCANTHUS
SRC SRF
UNALLOCATED
GRAZING
IN SITU SEQUESTRATION
FROM EXISTING FOIREST
LONG-TERM
REFORESTATION
TREE CROPS/
AGROFORESTRY
FEED CROPS
URBAN LIVESTOCK
INTENSIVE
HORTICULTURE
PROTECTED CROPS
HEMP
FIELD CROPS
WOOD PRODUCTS FROM
EXISTING FOREST

19. 1235 1513 461 2150 318 20800
UNALLOCATED
LONG-TERM REFORESTATION
IN SITU FROM EXISTING
WOOD PRODUCTS FROM EXISTING
SRF
SRC
MISCANTHUS
HEMP
ENERGY SILAGE
DIRECT CROPS
FEED CROPS
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
4500
5000
U
R
B
A
N
O
T
H
E
R
A
R
A
B
LE
A
R
A
B
LE
FO
R
FE
E
D
R
O
TA
T
IO
N
A
L
LO
W
LA
N
D
IM
P
R
O
V
E
D
U
N
IM
P
R
O
V
E
D
H
ILL
O
T
H
E
R
U
P
LA
N
D
P
E
A
T
M
O
O
R
E
X
IS
T
IN
G
W
O
O
D
LA
N
D
O
T
H
E
R
F
A
R
M
LA
N
D
UNALLOCATED
LONG-TERM
REFORESTATION
IN SITU FROM
EXISTING
WOOD PRODUCTS
FROM EXISTING
SRF
SRC
MISCANTHUS
HEMP
ENERGY SILAGE
TREE CROPS
DIRECT CROPS
FEED CROPS
GRAZING

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

22. POTENTIAL SEQUESTRATION VALUES
FOR TREES IN ‘WINDOW’ 2015-2075
CO2e/ha/y
Arable 20
Rotational grassland 20
Improved lowland grassland 16
Unimproved lowland grassland 10
Upland sites 7
Peatland 5

24. Wakelyn’s, Suffolk

25. SILVOPASTORAL SYSTEMS
• Sycamore trees planted at close spacing in farmSycamore trees planted at close spacing in farm
woodland or clumped arrangements were significantlywoodland or clumped arrangements were significantly
larger in diameter than widely spaced sycamore atlarger in diameter than widely spaced sycamore at
100 and 400 stems/ha.100 and 400 stems/ha.
• The planting of trees in a clumped pattern appears toThe planting of trees in a clumped pattern appears to
combine silvicultural benefits to tree growth withcombine silvicultural benefits to tree growth with
agricultural benefits of maintaining livestockagricultural benefits of maintaining livestock
productionproduction
• Livestock productivity was unaffected by the presenceLivestock productivity was unaffected by the presence
of trees during the six-year establishment phaseof trees during the six-year establishment phase
• Alder in silvopastoral systems in N. Wales fixedAlder in silvopastoral systems in N. Wales fixed
nitrogen at 30kg/ha/ynitrogen at 30kg/ha/y

26. Rural livelihoods
• This would of course be a fundamental shift in UK
agriculture and land use. Shocking?
• But present day agriculture is only 0.6% of the GDP, and
is probably actually a net cost: people ask, “why
bother?”
• In a decarbonising world the land use sector would have
a MUCH greater significance in the UK economy
• High carbon prices would favour labour over equipment
and materials; farming could become better tuned to
local circumstance; and more creative
• There would be a very large number of associated rural
jobs, and a revival of rural settlements
• ‘Carbon Farming’ would be an opportunity to re-invent
UK agriculture

27. THE END
THE END
DOWNLOAD THE WHOLE REPORT
FREE FROM
www.zerocarbonbritain.com

28. ORGANIC?
• Follows calls from Soil Association report for
– A larger organic sector
– Improved practice in the non-organic sector
– More mixed farming
• Switch to biomass crops requires less
fertiliser and pesticides
• Large inputs of organic matter to soils
• Livestock sector shifts from quantity to
quality
• Still provision for about 10% mineral
nitrogen

29. Biomass
• Biomass crops replace only grazing grassland
– An inefficient but essential process replaces an
inefficient and dispensable process
• Driven largely by carbon prices
• The biomass crops are perennials generating
cellulose, not protein
– Lower disturbance
– Lower fertiliser requirement
– Higher habitat/biodiversity value
• A new paradigm for farming and land use
invites an explosion of new mixed approaches
– Especially with respect to livestock

30. BIOMASS ENERGY
HOW TO DO IT PROPERLY
• Using crops for energy is not efficient and should be
minimised
• Using them for sequestration is a much better and
indispensable function
• Arable/annual crops should not be used for energy at all,
except for ‘waste materials’
• Biomass energy does however play a significant role in the
scenario
– Some surface transport needs
– Balancing the electricity system
– ‘Grounding’ hydrogen
– Aviation
• We found no way to avoid it, given our chosen principles

31. Table 3: Land use in the UK
UK Total
(Million
hectares)
Principal existing
uses
Principal Scenario uses
Total crops 4.87 Arable crops Arable crops, N-fixing legumes
Of which is used for feeding livestock 2.10 Livestock feed
Mostly direct consumption, livestock feed, hemp, N-
fixing legumes
Fallow & set-aside 0.20 As above
Total grassland including rough grazing 11.20
Of which is temporary leys (grass under 5
yrs old)
1.14 Milk cattle Hemp, milk cattle, energy silage, clover
Of which is improved permanent lowland
grassland
4.49 Milk & beef cattle Energy silage, miscanthus, milk & beef cattle
Of which is unimproved permanent lowland
grassland
0.92 Beef cattle, sheep Miscanthus, SRC, beef, sheep
Of which is upland hill farms 1.25 Beef cattle, sheep SRC, SRF, reforestation, sheep
Of which is upland peat moorland 1.36 Sheep Sheep, minor reforestation
Of which is other upland grassland 2.04 Sheep, beef cattle SRF, reforestation, sheep
Woodland 3.24 Wood products Wood products, sequestration management
Of which is farm woodland & hedgerows 0.50 Wood products Wood products, seasonal grazing
All other agricultural land 0.50
Intensive livestock
units
Arable, hemp, intensive livestock units, fish farms,
new woodland, protected crops
Urban land 3.28
Of which is potentially agriculturally
productive land in urban areas
1.00
Derelict, recreation,
under-used
Intensive horticulture, intensive livestock units,
woodlands, fish farms, protected crops
Total land 23.09

32. Balance of GHG emissions from
land use processes – at present
AGRICULTURE AND LAND USE:
BALANCE OF POSITIVE AND NEGATIVEEMISSIONS
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
POSITIVEANDNEGATIVEEMISSIONS,MILLIONS
OFTONNESCO2E
Grazing livestock
Non-grazing livestock
Crop products
Imports
Negative emissions

33. Summary of our results
ZCB LAND-USE SCENARIO: BALANCE OF POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE
EMISSIONS
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
NEGATIVE POSITIVE
POSITIVEANDNEGATIVEEMISSIONS,MTCO2E/Y
Livestock products"
Crop products
Imports
Negative emissions