The environmental effects of protein crops: implications for policy

The environmental effects of protein crops: implications for policy Donal Murphy-Bokern Andrea Bues Sara Preißel Fred Stoddard Peter Zander Tom Kuhlm...
2 downloads 0 Views 4MB Size
The environmental effects of protein crops: implications for policy Donal Murphy-Bokern

Andrea Bues Sara Preißel Fred Stoddard Peter Zander Tom Kuhlman Kristina Lindström Moritz Reckling Kairsty Topp Christine Watson

1

Politics

and

Policy

2

The purpose of policy is Pea Faba bean To convert political vision into change in the real world

Lentil

Lupin 3

The primary responsibility of policy Pea Faba bean Security Justice system Protecting and enhancing public goods

Lentil

Lupin 4

Policy makers focus on Pea Faba bean Public goods Market failure Lentil

Lupin 5

Conclusion 1

Pea Faba bean

In considering policy, we must look at the world from the viewpoint of protecting and enhancing public goods And we must base positions on science

Lentil

Lupin 6

Protein crops

Pea Faba bean Soya

Aspects of the protein deficit Resource effects

Lentil

Environmental effects Competitiveness Policy implications and options

Lupin 7

Forage legumes

8

Conclusion 2 Most of our protein does not come from protein crops

9

Cereal production is remarkably stable in Europe Area cropped (million ha) 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 1960

Source: FAOstat 2013

1965

1970

1975

1980

1985

1990

1995

2000

2005

Grain legumes

Arable forage legumes

Cereals

Sugar beet and potatoes

Rapeseed and sunflower

Forage maize

2010

10

Europe is one of the world’s largest users of soy Price (USD/t)

Net import (million t) 45

600

40 500 35 30

400

25 300 20 15

200

10 100 5 0 1960

0 1965

1970

1975

1980

1985

1990

1995

2000

2005

2010

Soya cake imports Soya bean imports Soya bean price Soya cake price Source: FAOstat 2013

11

Growth in livestock production is the driver Million t 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 1960

1965

1970

1975

1980

Beef Poultry meat Net soya import (bean equivalent) Source: FAOstat 2013.

1985

1990

1995

2000

2005

2010

Pig meat Grain legume production Fertiliser-N consumption

12

Growth in poultry and pig meat consumption is the driver behind increased plant protein imports Million t 50 45 40 35 30

Poultry

25 20 15

Pigs

10 5

Beef

0 1960

Milk

1965

1970

1975

1980

Beef Poultry meat Net soya import (bean equivalent) Source: FAOstat 2013.

1985

1990

1995

2000

2005

2010

Pig meat Grain legume production Fertiliser-N consumption

13

Conclusion 3 If we are serious about the sustainable development of food systems, then we must look at consumption Million t 50 45 40 35 30

Poultry

25 20 15

Pigs

10 5

Beef

0 1960

Milk

1965

1970

1975

1980

Beef Poultry meat Net soya import (bean equivalent) Source: FAOstat 2013.

1985

1990

1995

2000

2005

2010

Pig meat Grain legume production Fertiliser-N consumption

14

Conclusion 4 There is a big difference between a protein policy and a protein crops policy

15

The proportion of EU cropland used for protein crops is low

Since 1961 the area has declined from 4.6 to 1.8% of arable land in Europe Source: EuroSTAT 2013

16

This means that the Europeans are foregoing whatever resource and environmental effects protein crops have 17

Resource effects

Protein crops require no nitrogen fertiliser and the need for fertiliser in the following crop is lower

Photo: RAUCH Landmaschinenfabrik GmbH

18

Resource effects Break crop effect: Reduced crop diseases Improved soil conditions Improved soil fertility

15 – 25% yield increase in following crop yield 19

These are all ‘internal’ benefits Break crop effect: Reduced crop diseases Improved soil conditions Improved soil fertility

15 – 25% yield increase in following crop yield 20

‘External’ environmental benefits – nitrogen cycle

Lower greenhouse gas emissions (particularly nitrous oxide) Reduced fossil energy CO2 emissions 21

‘External’ environmental benefits – biodiversity Mass flowering Crop diversity Soil organisms

22

‘External’ environmental benefits – land use change

Source: Paula Fridman/Carbis, Business Week May 22, 2008

23

‘External’ environmental benefits – life cycle Study

% change in environmental impact Energy demand

Ozone

GHG emission

Eutrophication

Acidification

Ecotoxicity

Land -use

Comparison of soya-based and domestic legume-based feed Sweden, pork1

-16

-13

Sweden, pork2

-19

-10

Germany, pork3

-31

-40

-36 24

-5

Spain, pork3

-6

France, chicken meat3

-6

-10

France, eggs3

-4

-10

17

32

-5

+

Comparison of soya-based and farm-produced feed Germany, pork3

-19

-16

-25

1 Cederberg and Flysiö 2004; 2 Eriksson et al. 2005; 3 Van der Werf et al. 2005

-11

-10

24

The public benefits of protein crops justify public policy intervention, and farmers respond

25

25

If we want more protein crops, what will this cost society?

26

European protein crops are high yielding Yield (t/ha) 6

5

4

3

2

1

0 1960

1965

1970

1975

1980

1985

1990

1995

2000

2005

2010

Wheat Pea Faba bean Soya bean Rapeseed Lupins

Source: FAOstat 2013.

27

27

Soy yields in the USA and France Yield (t/ha) 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 1960

1965

1970

1975

1980

1985

1990

USA wheat

USA soya bean

France wheat

France soya bean

1995

2000

2005

2010

Source: FAOstat 2013.

28

28

European protein crops are high yielding, but Europe is a world champion in growing wheat Yield (t/ha) 8

European wheat has a three-fold yield advantage

7 6 5 4 3 2

European and US soya bean and US wheat have similar yields

1 0 1960

1965

1970

1975

1980

1985

1990

USA wheat

USA soya bean

France wheat

France soya bean

1995

2000

2005

2010

29

29

European livestock production depends on imported protein – and crop land outside Europe

Carbohydrate

Protein

30

30

Von Witzke & Noleppe 2010

Conclusion 5 The problem is not that we cannot grow good protein crops. It is that we are exceptionally good at growing wheat & co.

31

Cropping sequence gross margins Case study, year

Annual gross margin incl. precrop effect (€/ha/yr) Legume rotation

Regional data, averaged 2000-2004

Rotation without legume

Deficit of legume rotation

1

Germany Saxony-Anhalt

278

281

-3

Germany lower Bavaria

142

167

-25

Denmark Fyn

193

213

-20

Switzerland Vaud

926

1107

-181

Spain Castilla y Leon

55

53

2

Spain Navarra light soil

331

330

1

Spain Navarra deep soil

354

347

7

France Barrois

243

243

0

France Picardie

425

428

-3

Regional data averaged 2001-2007

2

France Eure et Loir

737

738

-1

France Seine Maritime

833

839

-6

Germany Niedersachsen

745

792

-47

Spain Castilla-La Mancha

136

137

-1

UK East Anglia

813

852

-39

Average

477

-24

Range 53 to 1107 -181 to 7 Sources: Calculations based on data from: 1 von Richthofen et al. (2006b) (Considered precrop effects: yield effect on 1st subsequent crop, fertiliser saving, pesticide saving, reduced tillage). 2 LMC International (2009) (Considered precrop effects: Yield effect on 1st subsequent crop, N fertiliser saving)

32

Crop-level gross margins Annual gross margin (€/ha)

Case study, year

Netherlands, 2008

Rainfed clay

Irrigated loam

Irrigated clay

Pea

631

-571

Faba bean

796

-406

Lupin

616

-586

Maize

Barley

Rapeseed

2

Soya bean

245

206

68

29

-196

Pea

-48

-87

-255

-264

-489

Soya bean

253

188

58

Pea

-52

-117

-247

Soya bean

83

-410

Pea

153

-340

Soya bean

189

-214

Pea

190

-213

-41

-219

France Ariege, 2009 Pea Average

Wheat

1

France Midi Pyrenées, 1999-2003 Rainfed loam

Gross margin deficit of legume compared to other crop (€/ha)

3

-181 240

-622 -344

1Kamp

-227

Sources: Calculations based on data from: et al. (2010), 2Mahmood (2011), 3Chambre d’Agriculture de l’Ariege (2009) in Mahmood (2011).

33

Conclusion 6 In general, growing protein crops reduces farm profit in Europe.

34

Price (€/kg) 2.5

Changes in the price of mineral nitrogen fertilisers, wheat and milk in the EU-27, and the associated fertiliser/product price ratios (2000-2011)

Price ratio 15

2.0

12

1.5

9

1.0

6

0.5

3

0.0 2000

0 2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

Fertiliser nitrogen (from ammonium nitrate) Fertiliser nitrogen (from urea) Price ratio fertiliser nitrogen/wheat (urea) Price ratio fertiliser nitrogen/milk (urea)

2008

2009

2010

2011

35

Changes in producer prices for main protein crops, rapeseed and wheat in major producer countries (1990-2010) Producer price (USD/t) 500 450 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 1991

1993

1995

1997

1999

2001

Pea

Rapeseed

Soya bean

Wheat

2003

2005

2007

2009

36

37

38

Conclusion 6 We must invest in raising the yield of protein crops faster than the yield of wheat & co.

39

CAP reform: some principles offered

40

40

• Multiple and complex public effects point to integrated policy development using complementary policy measures. • Avoid obligation.

• Work within a comprehensive protein strategy. Photo: J. Logan

41

Policy options within the CAP • More stringent crop diversification requirements (greening in Pillar 1)

• Inclusion of legume crops in ecological focus areas (greening in Pillar 1)

• Voluntary coupled support schemes (direct support under Pillar 1)

42

Policy options within the CAP (continued)

• Legumes via agri-environment schemes (Pillar 2)

• Organic farming

• Investment into research, breeding, and technical progress • Support producer initiatives (e.g. Danube Soya) 43

Policy options outside the CAP

• Climate protection policies • Nutrient policies • Resource efficient Europe • Policies on biodiversity

44

Nitrogen on the Table TFRN Website

45

Nitrogen on the Table 46 TFRN Website

Nitrogen on the Table 47 TFRN Website

Conclusion 7 If we are really serious about the protein gap, GHG emissions, and public health, then changing consumption would be a cornerstone of policy

48

Summary

 The plant protein deficit is due to comparative advantage in cereal production combined with self-sufficiency in cereals and livestock for high levels of livestock consumption  Increased protein crop production will contribute to the development of more sustainable and balanced agriculture  Public intervention is justified  Developing better protein crops for farmers enhances their resource conservation and environmental benefits  Higher fertiliser and soya prices encourage protein crop production 49

Acknowledgements

50

“But prosperity is not enough”

John Fitzgerald Kennedy, July 1963 (to the Irish Parliament) 51

Suggest Documents