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