Report produced by Dr Chris Short

return to main index

Contextual summary

Agriculture will be affected by climate change and it is therefore essential that the industry be well placed to respond to the threats and opportunities that climate change poses. Agriculture is an important component of the South West's economy both as a contributor to GDP and employment and as the principal guardian of the environment, perhaps the South West biggest competitive advantage. However, it must be recognized that climate change is yet one more in a series of pressures on the agriculture industry as a whole.

The major climate changes that will affect the agriculture sector in the South West fall into four main categories:

• Increased levels of Carbon Dioxide (CO2);
• Higher average temperatures throughout the year;
• A redistribution of seasonal rainfall together with an overall increase;
• Stronger winds and a higher incidence of extreme weather.

The overall impact of these changes is difficult to determine but it is widely anticipated that the range of arable crops currently grown will move northwards and become increasingly 'exotic'. The hectarage of forage maize has already been highlighted as an indicator of climate change. The area grown has risen from about 20,000 hectares in 1985 to over 100,000 hectares in 1995. Only part of this is due to improved plant varieties (Lister & Subak 2000).

What is also clear is that the increased temperatures and levels of CO2 will have an impact on weeds, pest and diseases. The redistribution of rainfall so it is concentrated in the autumn, winter and spring months will also increase the stress caused to crops in dry hot summers. This leads to some less obvious impacts with an increased capacity for water storage will become necessary. Some of the impacts will be locally specific with the low-lying coastal and flood plains likely to experience greater levels of flooding and sea encroachment. Many upland and other marginal areas will become increasingly marginal from an agricultural point of view.

Climate change does raise some larger questions of the agricultural industry, notably in terms of how the industry itself functions. With increased heavy rainfall, issues such as soil erosion and the resulting pollution of watercourses will become reality for even the gentlest of sloping fields. Farm management will be affected by the changes in the organic content of soil and the changes in species diversity in both flora and fauna throughout the countryside and as a whole. The global nature of agriculture with its transporting of 'goods' across continents (and back) also needs to be considered for its contribution to factors influencing climate change.

Workshop Discussion

The two provocateurs, Anthony Gibson (South-West Regional Director of the National Farmer's Union) and Huw Lloyd-Jones (Farming and Rural Conservation Agency) provided the basis for a lively and well-balanced discussion. The positive role of agriculture in the carbon capture area was highlighted alongside the likely difficulties of weather extremes and disease spread. The underlying message was the need for those involved in agriculture to learn, inform and interact. Farmers were beginning to become aware of the issues following the floods of Autumn 2000 but there were more pressing issues at the present time. Nevertheless there was the need for convincing and non-technical data to be communicated to farmers. It was noted that this was the subject of a successful MAFF bid by the Institute for Grassland and Environmental Research (IGER), the Countryside and Community Research Unit (CCRU) at C&GCHE and the Centre for Climate Change Impact Forecasting (C-CLIF) to begin in 2001.

The discussion from the floor fell into a number of themes. The first related to mitigation. Most agreed that, as the experts have confirmed, the overall contribution from agriculture to Green House Gas (GHG) emissions is low in the UK. The latest OECD figures indicate that agriculture produced 8.1% of the UK's GHG emission (OECD 2001). However, there are some areas where progress can be made, notably the use of fertilizer, which makes up a high proportion of the UK's Nitrous Oxide (N2O) emissions. Other areas indicated the importance of permanent pasture and of tree cover as a carbon capture mechanism. In this sense the broad verdict was that agriculture and forestry need to become more integrated within the South West.

The main area of discussion concerned the adaptation. One point was agreed by all, that farmers are good at adapting to change provided they have the freedom and flexibility to undertake this change. Given the recent high instance of flooding within the region this aspect was highlighted. It was broadly agreed that agriculture had its part to play in flood management. The area of discussion focused around the need to flatten the storm hydrograph. In other words reducing the speed at which water moves down the catchment and, potentially, into the sea. The recent experience of the Somerset Levels, which saw serious flooding over a long period of time, indicated that few interests are satisfied by the steep storm hydrograph style of flood management. Water lying more than six foot deep is no good for agriculture, nature conservation or rural communities. Measures need to be taken up stream at the top of the catchment for such areas to hold water more readily and release it into the watercourses more slowly. An increase in tree cover and reducing drainage would assist in this. Conversely in the summer months when water is scarce, farms should be able to have sufficient storage at the farm level for their needs. This would need the planning system to be revisited and a more integrated approach within government.

The second area of adaptation concerned the means of developing the agricultural industry so it copes with climate change. Here there were two clear schools of thought. One school of thought saw agriculture as a technologically advanced industry with the means to use this technology to adapt. The introduction of genetically modified organisms (GMOs), both crops and animals, would be one method of adapting. This would enable the advances in disease and crop and animal stress problems associated with higher temperatures to be alleviated. The approach to extreme weather in this scenario was for the industry to consider insurance policies against crop failures as a response to decreasing government support.

The other school of thought proposed an approach based much more on working with nature and using production systems that are less intensive and more integrated. Here the Codes of Good Agricultural Practice would be extended to further reduce run off and soil erosion. It was accepted that the South West had largely lost its competitive advantage from early cropping and the suggestion was made that this could be restored by placing the emphasis on healthy environmentally friendly products. This would have the double benefit of enhancing the Southwest's greatest asset, its environment; crucial to the tourism and leisure industries. When we produce food we need to consider the full cost and that includes the externalities such as damage to the environment.

The barriers to our discussions also fell into two areas. First there was the pressing need for clear information and of a coherent and joined up strategy from government. This is not unique to agriculture as it also concerns issues surrounding globalisation, macroeconomics and future supply needs. The second area concerned the current preoccupation with the payment to farmers for the loss of agriculture income. The general feeling was that farmers should be rewarded for the environmental changes made, thus supporting the positive rather than the negative.

Conclusions

First, agriculture should accept responsibility for the increased efforts required in using resources efficiently, especially in the area of inputs. Agriculture should also play its part in reducing the far bigger emissions from the processing, packaging and distribution of food. Here all were agreed that there was massive inefficiency.

There was a new approach needed to agri-environment policy, one that considered the developments from a natural perspective rather than a human one. For example, a move to a catchment based scheme rather than one focussing on individual holdings would enable the issue of flooding to be considered in a more strategic way.

The above emphasises the need for flexibility within the system so that agriculture can adapt. For this joined up thinking within government has to become a reality. For too long issues have been dealt with on a sectoral basis, a point that is likely to be stressed in these 'sectoral' workshops. Current Government thinking is not clear, on the one hand the globalisation of agriculture is endorsed but on the other a return to less intensive, more integrated farming techniques is encouraged. This last point comes back to the two schools of thought regarding adaptation. On the one hand those in support of a technically advanced agriculture are saying that we have the knowledge to 'make the enterprise fit the land' through new techniques and advances in genetics and breeding. The other school of thought proposes an industry that makes the 'land fit the enterprise' in way that will enhance the natural environment rather than control it. This would be achieved through the use of older disease hardy varieties and integrated management techniques that are far more selective in its use of technological advances, rejecting GMOs and encouraging local partnerships.

Either way agriculture will in the future need to be more aware of better nutrient management, reducing the loss of permanent grassland to arable and increasing the area of woodland or energy crops.

References
OECD (2001) Environmental Indicators for Agriculture Volume 3: Methods and Results, Paris: OECD.
Lister, DH & Subak S (2000). Candidate indicates for agriculture and forestry: warm-weather crops, forage maize, in DETR, Indicators of Climate Change London: DETR.

Dr Chris Short
Countryside and Community Research Unit
Cheltenham & Gloucester College of Higher Education
March 2001