Estimating the Environmental Impacts of Pillar I Reform and the Potential Implications for Axis II funding
RPA
Prepared for: Defra Natural England Agriculture and Natural Resource Economics Northminster House Area 4e, Millbank Peterborough c/o 17 Smith Square PE1 1UA London SW1P 3JR Prepared by: ADAS UK Ltd SAC Commercial Ltd Woodthorne Kings Buildings Wergs Road West Mains Road Wolverhampton Edinburgh WV6 8TQ EH9 3JG
Date: March 2008
0936648 © ADAS Estimating the Environmental Impacts of Pillar I Reform
Acknowledgements The authors would like to thank all those who helped them prepare this report. In particular we are indebted to Defra and Natural England for their steer and support. We would also like to recognise the input from:
(i) Peer reviewers Stuart Ashworth (Quality Meat Scotland) and Andrew Moxey, who commented on the economic modelling:
(ii) Industry stakeholders from a range of organisations (see Appendix 10) who attended case study workshops and contributed to the assessment of environmental impacts. An informal meeting was held separately with NFU to discuss the project outputs.
The Team The team was led by ADAS UK Ltd, which managed the overall project delivery and provided agricultural and environmental experts. SAC were joint-contractors and led the economic modelling work. Risk & Policy Analysts (RPA) have contributed to the analysis of environmental impacts (flood risk) and implications for agri-environment schemes. IGER undertook the analysis of losses to air (greenhouse gases and ammonia).
i Estimating the Environmental Impacts of Pillar I Reform
Executive Summary ADAS and SAC were commissioned by Defra and Natural England to estimate the environmental impacts of Pillar I reform and the potential implications for Axis II funding in England. The context for this work is the Government paper ‘A Vision for the Common Agricultural Policy’, which considers what a sustainable model of European agriculture might look like. The work informs discussions on the next round of reform of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), the ‘Health Check’, scheduled for 2008.
There are three distinct tasks:
1. Economic Modelling: estimate the likely effects of Pillar I reform on agricultural production, including land use intensity and farm practices; 2. Environmental Impacts: estimate the likely impact of these changes in agriculture on environmental objectives, including landscape, biodiversity, water quality, greenhouse gas (nitrous oxide and methane) and ammonia emissions, flooding etc.; 3. Agri-environment Measures: advise on the potential budgetary requirements for delivering a specified level of environmental quality through agri-environment measures under Pillar II. The brief for the work sets out three CAP reform scenarios with projections measured against the baseline from the Business as Usual (BAU) III project (SFF0601). This gives four scenarios in total:
A) Business as usual (baseline)
B) Removal of decoupled support
C) Removal of tariff barriers and other trade restrictions
D) A combination of B and C.
Task 1: Economic Modelling In order to understand the potential environmental impacts of Pillar 1 reform it is first necessary to derive the impacts on agricultural production and land use. The purpose of task 1 is to estimate national and regional changes in agricultural production under the various reform scenarios through the use of economic modelling.
Methodology The approach used was based on economic modelling of eight farm types across three farm size categories, using the Farm Business Survey (FBS) typologies and dataset. Supply and demand functions for commodity production were used to predict changes in agricultural land use (i.e. the model can predict how much land is used in agriculture and how it is utilised but not what happens with that land that falls out of agriculture) and production response (crop areas and livestock numbers), using a number of assumptions about international prices and the efficiency of production.
The data was mapped at 10x10 km grid squares across England so that spatial variations in the impacts could be visualised. This approach was established in the BAU III project and uses numbers of holdings by farm-type from the Defra 2004 census and average crop areas and numbers of livestock for each farm-type and size by Government Office Region (GOR) from the 2005/06 Farm Business Survey for England.
The full methodology for economic modelling and spatial mapping is detailed in the report.
ii Estimating the Environmental Impacts of Pillar I Reform
Results The results are summarised in Table 1 by reform scenario:
Table 1: Forecast changes in crop areas/stock numbers by policy option scenario in 2015
Scenario A Scenario B Scenario C Scenario D Enterprise Per cent from 2004 Per cent change from Scenario A
Wheat +13.0 -9.8 -4.5 -26.2
Barley + 0.0 -21.5 -8.2 -63.1
Oilseed rape +19.0 -3.7 38.1 28.5
Potatoes - 5.0 -7.0 -25.4 -21.0
Dairy cows and heifers in milk -12 -3.1 -22.5 -19.7
Beef cows -8 -19.6 -0.3 -25.4
Other cattle -8 -8.8 -11.0 -14.7
Ewes -2 -15.1 -16.2 -20.1
Other sheep -2.5 -28.5 -1.8 -35.6
Pigs -1 -5.7 -18.3 -18.3
Poultry +6 -3.8 -3.8 -3.8
Scenario B In general, the model predicts that the removal of Single Payment Scheme (SPS) will lead to a decline in agricultural activity in England as the ability to cross-subsidise unprofitable production using SPS payments is removed. However, the extent of the change varies between commodities as not all the commodities are cross-subsidised. For example, in the crop sector, the area of wheat and oilseed rape is projected to fall modestly (by 9.8% and 3.7% respectively with respect to the Scenario A) whilst a much larger fall is projected for barley. The fact that the area of potatoes is forecast to decline by 7% under Scenario B highlights a wider effect of cross-subsidy from SPS than just on the crops that have been directly supported historically.
As might be expected, given their low relative profitability, the models forecast that the removal of the SPS hits the beef and sheep sectors hardest. This reflects the high level of cross-subsidisation that was implicit from the 2005/6 FBS data upon which the model is built. Whilst the model is able to capture production variations within these sectors, it is less able to accurately capture the production systems and therefore the splits between beef/other cattle and sheep/other sheep need to be treated with some caution. For dairy, removal of the SPS alone is not projected to have a marked effect (-3.1% with respect to Scenario A). This is to be expected given that the dairy sector has been less reliant on the SPS.
Scenario C A different pattern of change emerges under Scenario C, though again a general decline in agricultural activity is forecast. However, it is not clear whether the decline will imply a surge in imports as it will be depend on the self-sufficiency levels for each commodity. For crops, the projected fall in the area of wheat is less than under Scenario B (-4.5% with respect to Scenario A) as there is still the ability to cross-subsidise with SPS. However, for oilseed rape an increase of 38.1 per cent is forecast (albeit from a relatively low base area). This relates to the crop enjoying relatively favourable prices under a liberalised scenario due to the fact
iii Estimating the Environmental Impacts of Pillar I Reform that liberalisation appears to stimulate demand. A decline in potato area (-25.4% with respect to Scenario A) due to trade liberalisation might reflect increased imports of processed products in a free market situation. Sugar beet production (not shown in summary table) equally seems to suffer through the liberalisation process, probably reflecting the historically high levels of protection for this crop (-29.3% with respect to Scenario A).
The models were developed to allow for possible variations in supply response by farms of different size given that they may have a range of cost structures. Although there does seem to be a slight trend for larger farms to maintain slightly higher production levels under liberalisation, it is not marked.
As might be expected given the high levels of protection currently offered to the sector internationally, trade liberalisation has a more marked impact on the dairy sector than removal of the SPS. However, for the beef sector, the ability to cross-subsidise using the SPS under Scenario C, seems to outweigh the reduction in prices as a result of trade liberalisation and only a small change in numbers is forecast. Ewe numbers decline by a similar extent as under Scenario B but again the ability to cross subsidise means that overall sheep numbers do not decline significantly.
Scenario D The model predicts the largest changes for English agriculture where there is a combination of trade liberalisation and removal of SPS. This is the case even with the assumption that restructuring leads to a 20 per cent reduction in costs for crops and a 10 per cent reduction in costs for livestock systems, through less efficient producers being replaced by more efficient producers. For wheat, the fall in prices coupled with the removal of the option to cross- subsidise leads to a marked reduction in production (-26% with respect to Scenario A). This pattern is more pronounced in the case of barley (-63% with respect to Scenario A). The area under oilseed rape shows growth, albeit to a lesser extent than in scenario C (28.5% with respect to Scenario A) because prices are forecast to rise under trade liberalisation and in the case of Scenario D, this rise outweighs the impact of removal of SPS.
For livestock, the model estimates that the combination of trade liberalisation and loss of cross subsidy leads to a significant reduction in dairy, cattle, pig and sheep production.
Further analysis was undertaken under Scenario D to assess the sensitivity of the results to changes in commodity price levels and assumed productivity gains. This analysis highlighted that the results are quite sensitive to the underlying price assumptions, reflecting earlier work that suggested that supply curves for agricultural commodities in England are quite shallow. The results were much less sensitive to assumed changes in the level of productivity.
Land Out of Agricultural Production It is clear that under all the scenarios modelled, the results suggest a decline in the utilisation of agricultural area for production. The figures from the modelled projections are as follows:
Scenario A 1% land ‘out of production’ Scenario B 9% land ‘out of production’ Scenario C 5% land ‘out of production’ Scenario D 15% land ‘out of production’ This reduction relates to lowland areas; the models do not take permanent pasture ‘out of production’, assuming instead that production in these areas becomes more extensive. In practice it is likely that while significant areas of upland will be farmed extensively, some less productive and/or more remote areas will not be farmed at all while more productive areas may be farmed more intensively.
iv Estimating the Environmental Impacts of Pillar I Reform
The models do not enable validation of what happens to land ‘out of production’ in lowland areas. It may be that the use of rotational fallow becomes more economic in more marginal areas or that land is left idle or used for non-agricultural purposes. The latter might include for example, renewable energy crops, commercial timber production, recreation (including woodland), tourism (game), floodplain management, housing development and wilding.
Conclusions on Changes in Land Use Under the assumptions used for this study, the changes highlighted in these projections (in particular for cereals, beef and sheep), are greater than those from a number of other studies of trade liberalisation (FAPRI, 2007 for example). However, it should be noted that comparison with other models is difficult if not impossible due not only to differences in model construction and projections of key variables as prices, but also due to the spatial coverage of the models. For instance, the FAPRI model, which is the closest model to the ones used in this report in terms of comparability, was formulated for the entire UK and not for England. Other models are formulated on more aggregated terms such as EU-15 or the entire EU.
There are three key issues that should be considered:
1. Significant changes in land use are forecast across all three policy reform scenarios. The static nature of the study understates the extent of adjustment associated with these reform scenarios. Even where forecast land use change is modest there are likely to be marked changes in who is farming the land and under what business structure. Whilst this process of restructuring is already happening, the pace of change under complete liberalisation (scenario D) would be marked. This will clearly have potentially significant social and environmental implications. 2. Significant areas of land will be ‘out of production’ under scenarios B and D, due to the loss of cross-subsidisation from Pillar I. The lack of reduction in grassland area implies a process of extensification in the livestock sector as many fewer animals are spread over a similar grazing area. Lower stocking densities may produce environmental benefits but there is a potential for undergrazing in sensitive areas. In practice, it is likely that large areas of upland will only be farmed under environmental agreements. Forestry may be a viable option in an era of high energy prices. 3. It is unlikely that such extensification will occur in the crop sector, as changes in prices have historically had little impact on input usage. Instead, there is likely to be substitution between crops and perhaps land moving from crops to grass (or other uses). The regional and farm type analysis seems to point to a general reduction in cropping in more marginal areas with potential environmental implications.
Task 2: Environmental Impacts The results from task 1 in terms of land use and sector change can be expected to impact on the environment across a number of areas. Task 2 uses established relationships and previous research on the environmental impacts of agricultural land use / farm practice to consider impacts on landscape, biodiversity, water quality, soil quality, greenhouse gas and ammonia emissions and flood risk. While this has been quantified where possible, much of the assessment is qualitative.
Methodology Agricultural and environmental experts from ADAS and RPA interpreted the economic model outputs for the four policy scenarios and have given an assessment of the direction and scale of change that is likely. The evidence base used to inform the analysis comprised:
(i) Secondary data on environmental impacts of agriculture and land use change (e.g. Countryside Quality Counts data)
v Estimating the Environmental Impacts of Pillar I Reform
(ii) Output of nutrients and estimates of grazing pressure from the modelled changes in cropping and livestock numbers
(iii) Case studies at Joint Character Area (JCA) level with detailed analysis of impacts and stakeholder consultation. The case studies were selected on the basis of achieving a good regional coverage; representative sample of main farm types across the country; and able to demonstrate a good cross section of likely environmental impacts. Four case study areas were developed: JCA 8 – Cumbria Fells; JCA 61/62 – Shropshire, Cheshire & Staffordshire Plain & Cheshire Sandstone Ridge; JCA 83 - South Norfolk & High Suffolk Claylands; JCA 125 - South Downs.
Results All three policy reform scenarios (B, C and D) are likely to have both positive and negative impacts on the environment. Headline impacts on landscape, biodiversity, water quality, soils, greenhouse gases and ammonia emissions and flood risk are presented for each of the scenarios.
Landscape • There will be measurable changes in the English landscape under all scenarios (B, C and D); scenario D has the most potential for negative impacts on the landscape due to the larger extent of reductions in agricultural activity occurring across most enterprises. With an estimated 15% of land going out of production under Scenario D, this could profoundly change the existing character of the landscape. The degree to which the change in character is noticeable will depend on future land use in these areas. • Landscapes that are predicted to end up ‘Neglected’ or ‘Diverging’ from their current state (i.e. those landscapes where the original statement of intent for landscape character could be impacted by changes in agricultural practice) will require an increased focus from Pillar II schemes. This will involve measures to protect landscape features such as boundaries and support for current land management practices. • As a result of the changes in the agricultural sector, some farming businesses may no longer be interested in environmental stewardship schemes as they move into more profitable areas of production. In time, key landscape features may be lost or depleted to a level where traditional skills in landscape management are rare. In some cases the landscape change may occur at a rate that is too fast or expensive to reverse and these landscapes will need to be re-evaluated in terms of future direction and change.
Biodiversity • All three scenarios will have impacts on biodiversity, both positive and negative. Specific management regimes are needed to meet individual site objectives for biodiversity and there is no clear indication of the net impact across protected sites. • There will be a positive impact on SSSIs which are currently in unfavourable condition due to overgrazing, particularly those in the uplands under Scenario D. However, there is a risk that some upland areas, particularly at localised levels, may become undergrazed, negatively affecting associated SSSIs. This was identified as an important issue for the South Downs and South Norfolk/High Suffolk JCA case studies, and confirmed by local stakeholders consulted. • The reduction in numbers of grazing livestock in predominantly arable areas will lead to further undergrazing of lowland grassland BAP habitats. This was identified as an important issue for the South Downs and South Norfolk/High Suffolk JCAs case studies, and confirmed by local stakeholders. Under the current HLS rules many ESA grassland areas are unlikely to qualify for HLS funding when their agreements expire; this will therefore need to be addressed if quality of lowland grass habitats is to be maintained.
vi Estimating the Environmental Impacts of Pillar I Reform
• The reduction in spring cropping and in the diversity of cropping will lead to a further decline in farmland bird numbers, as a result of a decrease in overwintered stubbles and a reduced range of food sources. Impact will be greatest under Scenario D and least under Scenario C. The likely increase in rotational fallow under Scenario D (and to a certain extent Scenario B) will mitigate this effect to a limited extent. The reduction in grazing pressure in upland areas will be beneficial to birds.
Water Quality • Under all three scenarios, livestock numbers are expected to fall, with a move towards more extensive production of cattle and sheep. This change in farming practice should cause a reduction in potential nitrate and P loading to water bodies. • The overall reduction in arable area may also result in a reduction in nitrate and P loading. However, there will be localised variations, notably in the east, where the cropping area will remain relatively stable under all scenarios; specialist crops such as potatoes are expected to be more concentrated in some areas, potentially resulting in higher localised P loading. • Scenario D, on the whole delivers the greatest reduction in nutrient loads, but these reductions are small. Nutrient load reductions have the potential to improve water quality.
Soil Quality • Under all reform scenarios there is a decline in livestock numbers, with a consequent reduction in soil compaction and hence the risk of soil erosion is likely to decline. In addition to the direct impact on soils of less grazing livestock, there will also be indirect impacts associated with farming practices such as manure spreading, maize cultivation and silage making. However, there may be concentration of livestock in some areas at a local scale e.g. dairying in the west, resulting in soil degradation from compaction and soil erosion. • Under all scenarios, but especially B and D, a focus on reducing costs will encourage minimum tillage, which disturbs soil structure less and results in less soil erosion and an overall improvement in soil structure. However, localised concentration of intensive arable crops such as potatoes, for example in the East Midlands and the Eastern region, is likely to cause a decrease in soil stability and an increase in soil erosion.
• A reduction in spring cropping would lead to less bare ground overwinter, with associated benefits in reduced sediment leaching risk.
Greenhouse Gas and Ammonia Emissions • Total methane emissions are estimated to decline by 9%, 15% and 19% from the 2015 base year estimate for scenarios B, C and D, respectively. These reductions in emissions relate to decreases in the numbers of ruminants.
• Grazing, inorganic fertiliser spreading and crop residues are the most significant direct sources of N2O emissions, whilst N leaching is the greatest indirect N2O source. Total N2O losses are estimated to reduce by 9%, 6% and 18% under scenarios B, C and D, respectively, compared with the baseline year estimate for 2015.
• Emissions of ammonia from English agriculture are predicted to fall by 7%, 12% and 17% under scenarios B, C and D respectively, compared with the baseline year estimate for 2015. Reductions in NH3 emissions are due to a combination of reduction in the cropping and livestock sectors.
vii Estimating the Environmental Impacts of Pillar I Reform
Flood Risk • The potential for significant impacts in terms of changes in flood risk is limited to consideration of land predicted to move out of agricultural production. Since the end use of this land is not known, it is difficult to determine what the actual change in flood risk may be. If land out of production was converted to high run-off risk uses, such as for instance developments without proper Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (SUDS), then the run-off risk would increase. If it was converted to moderate risk land uses, then it would stay roughly the same. If the land was put into low run-off risk use, such as grassland or forests, then flood risk would be reduced.
Conclusions on Environmental Impact Overall, the environmental impact of the three policy reform scenarios can be said to be generally positive but with scope for localised problems due to concentration of sectors, loss of landscape and ecological diversity, undergrazing and land out of production.
The analysis highlights a wide range of likely impacts across the environmental media for all three policy reform scenarios. In overview, there are net positive impacts for resource protection impacts such as water quality, soils, GHG and ammonia emissions and flood risk and net negative impacts for landscape. This can be expected to some extent as it reflects an overall reduction in the scale of agriculture in England. For biodiversity, the net impact is largely neutral (Scenario B) or modestly positive (Scenarios C and D). The position is summarised in Figure 1 below:
Figure 1: Aggregate Environmental Impacts for Policy reform Scenarios
Landscape Scenario B 3.0 Scenario C 2.0 Scenario D 1.0
Flood risk 0.0 Biodiversity
-1.0
-2.0 -3.0
Water quality Soils
Greenhouse gas and ammonia emissions The policy response to these impacts through Pillar II environmental stewardship measures will be critical. There may also be new opportunities for non-agricultural land use; these have the capacity to be environmentally positive or negative.
Task 3: Agri-environment Measures Defra’s Vision paper, on which the policy reform scenarios in this study are based, indicates that spending on agriculture post-reform would be based on the current Pillar II and would
viii Estimating the Environmental Impacts of Pillar I Reform
….. allow a considerable reduction in total spending by the EU on agriculture. Task 3 sets out to test the hypothesis that ‘through reducing (though not eliminating) the environmental damage caused by modern agriculture, this would allow a considerable reduction in total spending by the EU on agriculture’.
Methodology Task 3 considers two components of environmental stewardship schemes:
(i) Changes to the payment rates due to revised ‘Income Forgone’ from displaced agricultural production. This is based on changes in the ‘cost’ to following environmental prescriptions at the expense of commercial production. The analysis uses forecast commodity price data (from task 1 output) under the different policy reform scenarios.
(ii) Changes to the coverage of schemes necessary to deliver the Government’s policy objectives on landscape, biodiversity etc. This is based on the environmental impact assessment (from task 2) and requires a qualitative assessment of the extent (uptake) and degree (intensity) of schemes needed post-reform.
A list of the most significant Entry Level Stewardship (ELS) and Higher Level stewardship (HLS) scheme options was identified by Natural England and underlying Income Forgone calculations supplied. Income Forgone has been recalculated for these options for each of the policy reform scenarios.
For ELS, an ‘average agreement’ was used to assess impacts by applying the revised Income Forgone data to component options. As the makeup of agreements is distinct for Severely Disadvantaged Areas (SDA) and non-SDA areas, impacts were estimated separately. The aggregate Income Forgone was then converted to ELS ‘points’ using existing protocols. These relate directly to the points target of 30 under ELS; in practice the average agreement is 30 points per hectare for non-SDA and 26 points per hectare for SDA (payment is based on 1 point = £1).
To assess the expected coverage or uptake of environmental stewardship (ES) schemes needed to meet Government policy objectives, a qualitative assessment was made of the necessary response to the environmental impacts set out in task 2, most of which is in itself qualitative. On this basis, this analysis should be regarded as indicative only. The analysis used a framework for assessment of key environmental policies (and ES measures that may contribute towards these policy targets) against the predicted environmental impact of moving from Baseline to scenario D.
Results The analysis of changes to ELS scheme payment rates under the four policy scenarios is summarised in Table 2 and highlights the following:
• Higher commodity prices under Scenario B relative to Baseline contributes to higher gross margins and therefore increases the opportunity cost of putting land in a stewardship scheme (by 2.1% and 0.7% for SDA and non-SDA agreements respectively) • Under Scenarios C and D, lower prices associated with the removal of trade barriers, reduces the opportunity cost of putting land in a stewardship scheme. Consequently, Income Forgone (and associated points) falls (by 2.2% and 3.3% for SDA and non-SDA agreements under scenario C and by 1.2% and 4.5% for SDA and non-SDA agreements under scenario D).
ix Estimating the Environmental Impacts of Pillar I Reform
For HLS, the impact of the policy scenarios on the payment rates for individual options varies widely as highlighted in Table 2. However, again there is generally an increase in the cost of schemes to Government under policy scenario B and a reduction under scenarios C and D.
Table 2: Summary of impacts of policy scenarios on Environmental Stewardship payment rates
2007 Scenario Variance from Scenario A (%) points A Baseline points Scenario B Scenario C Scenario D
Entry Level Stewardship
SDA average agreement 26.0 32.0 2.1% -2.2% -1.2%
Non-SDA average agreement 30.0 29.1 0.7% -3.3% -4.5%
Higher Level Stewardship (top 10) HK7 - Restoration of species- 200 245 253 237 241 rich, semi-natural grassland HL10 - Restoration of moorland 40 45 46 45 45 HK9 - Maintenance of wet 335 458 470 440 445 grassland for breeding waders HO2 - Restoration of heathland 200 199 199 199 199 from neglected sites HK6 - Maintenance of species- 200 245 253 237 241 rich, semi-natural grassland HD2 - Take archaeological 460 468 501 466 455 features out of cultivation HK10 - Maintenance of wet 255 350 363 312 314 grassland for wintering waders and wildfowl HE3 - 6m buffer strips on arable 400 407 437 405 395 land HK15 - Maintenance of valuable 130 219 228 195 197 semi-improved or rough grassland HF13 - Fallow plots for ground- 360 365 389 363 354 nesting birds
Results for ES scheme coverage are summarised in Table 3. This indicates an increased role for HLS in particular to address new environmental challenges related to land use and agricultural change.
A further consideration is that in the absence of Single Payment (scenarios B and D), cross- compliance would be tied only to ELS membership. In this instance, some farmers may opt out of ELS to focus on production or other economic activities, with consequent impacts on the environment. These impacts are likely to be modest at individual farm level but at aggregate level may be significant if concentrated in areas of environmental sensitivity. While resource protection objectives and some priority areas are underpinned by legislation, this is not the case for wider landscape and biodiversity assets.
x Estimating the Environmental Impacts of Pillar I Reform
Table 3: Indicative impact on coverage of Environmental Stewardship schemes under scenario D
Impact area Key policy Change in uptake of measures Relevant ES options objectives required Landscape CQC ELS options for boundary features; In areas that are or are enhanced trees and woodland; historic and expected to become status for landscape features; lowland neglected, a large increase national parks grassland; and upland. in uptake of measures would be required to bring Areas of HLS options for hedgerow; woodland them back to desired status Outstanding trees and scrub; orchard; historic Natural Beauty environment; grassland; moorland (AONBs) and upland; lowland heathland; inter- tidal coastal; wetland; and additional supplements currently available Biodiversity Sites of Options for SSSIs include Overall small increase (but Special maintenance and restoration of large within affected areas) Scientific species-rich grassland, wet to counter under grazing or Interest grassland, rough grassland, maintain appropriate level of (SSSIs) moorland, heathland and coastal grazing saltmarsh. Farmland Birds Habitat creation, restoration and BAP Priority management (including wetland) for Habitats farmland birds Protection/enhancement and, where appropriate, re-creation of BAP priority habitats are key targets for HLS Resource Catchment Buffer strips and field margins In areas that have high protection Sensitive baseline loadings of Under sowing spring cereals; Farming nutrients a large increase targets for Soil management; in the uptake of measures priority will be needed; in areas catchments Nutrient management; and where baseline loadings are low and improvement can Water Crop management plans be seen under scenario D Framework then uptake can remain Directive stable. Flooding - Opportunity to influence Making Space alternative use for the land for Water which is taken out of agriculture.
Conclusions on Pillar II Implications The evidence from this study allows the following conclusions to be drawn regarding environmental stewardship (ES) schemes:
Cost of ES schemes: Reform scenario B would increase the cost of most ES schemes in response to higher commodity prices while scenarios C and D would see a fall in cost. The extent of change is relatively modest for ELS in SDA areas (2.1% increase for average agreement under scenario B; up to 2.2% decrease for scenarios C and D), while in non-SDA areas the extent of change ranges from 0.7% increase for scenario B to 4.5% decrease for scenarios D. Payment rates for most HLS options are consistently higher under Scenario B relative to baseline, while under scenarios C and D, rates are generally lower.
xi Estimating the Environmental Impacts of Pillar I Reform
Intensity of ES schemes: The radical restructuring resulting from Pillar I reform will affect the need for environmental protection and enhancement; less intensive production in some areas, especially grassland systems, will reduce the need for ‘low input’ options while concentration (and intensification) of production in more productive areas will increase the need for them. An increase in the amount of ‘land out of production’ will require an increase in the need for stewardship schemes to maintain linear features (hedges and walls) and protect sensitive farmland habitats but these will only realistically be maintained by active farmers (see (3)).
Absolute uptake of ES schemes: Overall, it can be assumed that uptake of ELS is similar across the reform scenarios as by definition, the management required is ‘simple’ and has limited cost to farmers. For HLS the analysis is very different; under more challenging economic conditions (in the absence of Pillar I support), the incentive to participate will be greater but will be driven by availability. While the need for ES will be reduced in less productive areas due to a reduction in the intensiveness of farming, there will be a more significant impact on demand from the increase in ‘land out of production’.
It must be concluded that while the evidence is as yet imprecise, the cost of Pillar II is likely to increase under all reform scenarios as follows:
Reform scenario B would increase the cost of ELS agreements in SDA areas by 2.1% and by 0.7% in non-SDA areas. The unit cost of most HLS options would also increase (by 1- 9%). While the prices of many farm commodities is predicted to increase, the loss of the Single Payment would lead to extensive restructuring and a significant increase in ‘land out of production’, with a resulting increase in the need for targeted HLS uptake.
Reform scenario C would reduce the cost of ELS agreements in SDA and non-SDA areas (by up to 3.3%) and also the unit cost of most HLS options (by 1-13%). Retention of the Single Payment limits the extent of restructuring with the increase in ‘land out of production’ less than under Scenario B. However, the overall impact is expected to be an increase in the Pillar II budget.
Reform scenario D would reduce the cost of ELS agreements in SDA and non-SDA areas (by 1.2-4.5%) and also the unit cost of most HLS options (by 1-36%). Loss of the Single Payment and lower commodity prices will lead to substantial restructuring with a significant increase in ‘land out of production’ (15% in the lowlands and perhaps more in the LFA). As such, the overall impact is expected to be a significant increase in the Pillar II budget, despite the lower unit cost of options.
There will also be spatial impacts of reform; even with an increase in ‘low input’ schemes in intensively farmed lowland areas, Pillar II budgets are likely to be concentrated in the areas of greatest need, notably the uplands and less productive lowland. This will represent a transfer of CAP funding from the baseline position and will impact on rural economies to some degree. However, the main impact will be the loss of net income from farming activity across all rural areas.
Land Out of Production A key finding is that the more radical the policy reform, the more significant this category of land use is likely to be and that Government has a major role to play in whether alternative use has a positive or negative environmental impact.
A detailed analysis of the environmental impact of ‘land out of production’ or the possible implications for agri-environment schemes has not be presented in this report but a high level overview is provided in section 5. The key limitation is that there is insufficient evidence to indicate where the land will be, to what extent it will be concentrated over large tracts of land
xii Estimating the Environmental Impacts of Pillar I Reform or spread more evenly. Impacts also depend on whether land will be out of production but linked to active farming e.g. as rotational fallow in arable areas or as uncropped field margins / or buffer strips. Such outcomes could provide biodiversity benefits, just as elements of set aside have done, depending on how they are managed.
Perhaps more uncertain is the possibility of larger tracts of land, both in the uplands and lowlands, which is left unmanaged over a long period. This poses potential risks for landscape and biodiversity in particular. Just as importantly, this land might offer public benefits through non-agricultural use e.g. as managed flood plain, commercial or recreational woodland or for renewable energy crops. As such, while it is not possible to be specific about alternative land use, this could be substantially positive or negative for the environment. Where it is considered necessary for land to be farmed or managed to avoid negative environmental impacts e.g. loss of landscape value or biodiversity, environmental stewardship schemes could be used to reinstate appropriate management. It is likely that schemes would need to be offered at full payment rates to provide sufficient incentive to farm ‘land out of production’; in some cases, higher rates may be needed. Deadweight and additionality would need to be considered.
Some recommendations are given at section 5.4 for improving understanding of likely land use and environmental impact in practice.
xiii Estimating the Environmental Impacts of Pillar I Reform
Contents
1. Introduction...... 1
1.1 Aims and Objectives...... 1 1.2 Approach ...... 1
2. Task 1: Impacts on Agricultural Production and Land Use ...... 3
2.1 Economic Modelling Methodology ...... 3 2.2 Scenario Description and Assumptions ...... 5 2.3 Economic Modelling Results...... 12 2.4 Comparison with Aggregate Studies...... 24
3. Task 2: Likely Environmental Impacts...... 29
3.1 Landscape...... 31 3.2 Biodiversity ...... 37 3.3 Soils...... 48 3.4 Greenhouse Gas and Ammonia Emissions...... 51 3.5 Water Quality...... 59 3.6 Flood Risk...... 64 3.7 Synthesis of Environmental Impacts on Case Study JCAs...... 65 3.8 Summary of Environmental Impacts of Pillar I Reform ...... 73
4. Task 3: Implications for Axis II Funding...... 75
4.1 A Vision for the CAP...... 75 4.2 Cost Implications for Pillar II of Pillar I Reform...... 75 4.3 Income Forgone ...... 77 4.4 Coverage and Intensity...... 85 4.5 Conclusions...... 94
5. Land Out of Production...... 96
5.1 The Extent of Land Out of Production (Task 1) ...... 96 5.2 Environmental Impacts (Task 2)...... 100 5.3 Pillar II Schemes (Task 3)...... 101 5.4 Further Research...... 103
Appendix 1: Bibliography ...... 104 Appendix 2: Definitions of Robust Farming Types ...... 106 Appendix 3: Overview of the Regional Land Use Model ...... 107 Appendix 4: GIS Modelling – Mapping Methodology and Baseline...... 111 Appendix 5: Joint Character Area Case Studies ...... 116 Appendix 6: Landscape Impacts...... 120
Estimating the Environmental Impacts of Pillar I Reform
Appendix 7: Biodiversity Impacts ...... 128 Appendix 8: Water Quality Impacts...... 142 Appendix 9: Flood Risk ...... 147 Appendix 10: Case Study Stakeholder Consultation...... 156
List of tables Table 1: Forecast changes in crop areas/stock numbers by policy option scenario in 2015 ...... iii Table 2: Summary of impacts of policy scenarios on Environmental Stewardship payment rates ...... x Table 3: Indicative impact on coverage of Environmental Stewardship schemes under scenario D...... xi Table 4: Summary of Changes to Main Arable and Grass Area...... 13 Table 5: Summary of Changes to Main Arable and Grass Area by Farm Size...... 14 Table 6: Regional Changes in Cropping Area under Liberalisation Scenarios...... 15 Table 7: Summary of Changes to Livestock Sectors (changes in livestock numbers) ...... 17 Table 8: Summary of Changes to Livestock Numbers by Farm Size ...... 20 Table 9: Regional Changes in Livestock Numbers...... 21 Table 10: Changes to Livestock Numbers by LFA and non-LFA Livestock Farms1 ...... 23 Table 11: Sensitivity of Supply Response to Changes in Assumed Prices (Scenario D) ...... 26 Table 12: Impact of Productivity changes on Production Area Impacts (Scenario D) ...... 27 Table 13: Sensitivity of Projections for Livestock Numbers to Price (Scenario D)...... 27 Table 14: Impact of Productivity on Livestock Number changes (Scenario D)...... 28 Table 15: Links between task 1 results and environmental impacts (task 2)...... 29 Table 16: Landscape assessment JCA 8 (Cumbria Fells) ...... 34 Table 17: Landscape assessment JCA 61/62 (Shropshire, Cheshire & Staffordshire Plain) ...... 34 Table 18: Landscape assessment JCA 83 (South Norfolk & High Suffolk Claylands)...... 35 Table 19: Landscape assessment JCA 125 (South Downs) ...... 35 Table 20: Agricultural changes and biodiversity impacts resulting from policy scenario B...... 40 Table 21: Agricultural changes and biodiversity impacts resulting from policy scenario C...... 40 Table 22: Agricultural changes and biodiversity impacts resulting from policy scenario D...... 41 Table 23: Changes in biodiversity anticipated with Scenario B ...... 43 Table 24: Changes in biodiversity anticipated with Scenario C...... 44 Table 25: Changes in biodiversity anticipated with Scenario D...... 45 Table 26: Summary of impacts of change in agricultural practice on biodiversity ...... 46 Table 27: Impact of changes in livestock figures on physical soil degradation...... 49 Table 28: Impact of changes in areas of arable production on physical soil degradation...... 50 Table 29: Proportion of fertiliser types used...... 52 Table 30: Ammonia emission factors used for each fertiliser type (% of N applied)...... 52
Estimating the Environmental Impacts of Pillar I Reform
Table 31: Estimated methane emissions for policy scenarios by robust farm type (kt/yr) ...... 53
Table 32: Estimated N2O emissions for policy scenarios by robust farm type (kt/yr) ...... 55 Table 33: Estimated ammonia emissions for policy scenarios by robust farm type (kt/yr) ...... 58 Table 34: Summary of water quality results by JCA for each scenario ...... 61 Table 35: Percent Change in Flood Risk under Each Scenario ...... 65 Table 36: Summary of environmental Impacts for JCA8 (Cumbria) ...... 67 Table 37: Summary of environmental Impacts for JCA61/62 (Shropshire & Cheshire)...... 69 Table 38: Summary of environmental Impacts for JCA83 (South Norfolk)...... 71 Table 39: Summary of environmental Impacts for JCA125 (South Downs) ...... 73 Table 40: Revised points allocation for key ELS options under scenarios A-D ...... 78 Table 41: Percentage of points and weighted points by option in existing ELS agreements...... 79 Table 42: Average ELS scheme points for Scenario A in SDA and non-SDA areas...... 80 Table 43: Total points per ha for an ‘average’ ELS agreement for scenarios A-D by area...... 81 Table 44: Revised payment rates for scenarios A-D for key HLS options...... 82 Table 45: Percentage change in Income Forgone for scenarios B-D for key HLS options...... 83 Table 46: Income forgone (£/ha) for ‘land out of production’ and ‘land in agriculture’ ...... 84 Table 47: Possible changes in coverage and option make-up for stewardship schemes...... 85 Table 48: Environmental stewardship options that may contribute to policy targets ...... 88 Table 49: Changes in environmental impact moving from Baseline to scenario D...... 90 Table 50: Percentage of Land moving out of Agriculture ...... 96 Table 51: Grazing Livestock Units per Hectare of Forage and By-Products ...... 97 Table 52: Environmental Impacts of Land out of production ...... 101 Table 53: Estimated parameters of the cost function ...... 108 Table 54: BAU III land use and livestock categories ...... 112 Table 55: Harmonisation between BAU III and model variables and the 2004 census ...... 114 Table 56: Type, area and proportion of national resource of priority habitats within JCA 8...... 132 Table 57: Type, area and proportion of national resource of priority habitats within JCA 61...... 134 Table 58: Type, area and proportion of national resource of priority habitats within JCA 62...... 134 Table 59: Type, area and proportion of national resource of priority habitats within JCA 8...... 137 Table 60: Type, area and proportion of national resource of priority habitats within JCA 8...... 139 Table 61: Susceptibility to Water Erosion by agricultural of land use (as proxy for flood risk)...... 147 Table 62: Crops Included under each Flood Risk ...... 148 Table 63: Change in Area of High, Moderate & Low Risk Crops by Case Study Area and Scenario....149 Table 64: Percent Change in Flood Risk under Each Scenario ...... 151 Table 65: Percent Change for Key Flood Risk Areas in JCA 83 ...... 154
Estimating the Environmental Impacts of Pillar I Reform
List of figures Figure 1: Aggregate Environmental Impacts for Policy reform Scenarios ...... viii Figure 2: Methodological Framework for Analysis of CAP Policy Reform Scenarios ...... 2 Figure 3: Structure of the regional model...... 4 Figure 4: Supply and demand response (Scenario A - baseline) ...... 8 Figure 5: England: Wheat - Average Total and Variable Cost and Aggregated Area...... 8 Figure 6: Supply and demand response (Scenario B)...... 9 Figure 7: Supply and demand response (Scenario C) ...... 10 Figure 8: Supply and demand response (Scenario D) ...... 11 Figure 9: Impact of policy reform on commodity prices (relative to Scenario A)...... 12 Figure 10: The predicted land area of wheat across England under the four scenarios shown as percentage coverage within each 10km cell...... 16 Figure 11: The predicted land area of spring barley across England under the four scenarios shown as percentage coverage within each 10km cell...... 16 Figure 12: The predicted land area of oilseed rape across England under the four scenarios shown as percentage coverage within each 10km cell...... 17 Figure 13: The predicted numbers of dairy cattle across England under the four scenarios...... 22 Figure 14: The predicted numbers of beef cattle across England under the four scenarios...... 22 Figure 15: The predicted numbers of sheep across England under the four scenarios ...... 23 Figure 16: Dispersion in Total Costs of Production for Winter Wheat (£ per ha)...... 26 Figure 17: A framework for estimating environmental impacts from agricultural change ...... 30 Figure 18: Landscape impact at the case study level...... 37 Figure 19: Spatial distribution of methane emissions for scenario A and the absolute change in methane emissions from baseline predicted for scenarios B-D...... 54 Figure 20: Spatial distribution of nitrous oxide emissions for scenario A and the absolute change in nitrous oxide emissions from baseline predicted for scenarios B-D...... 57 Figure 21: Spatial distribution of ammonia emissions for scenario A and the absolute change in ammonia emissions from baseline predicted for scenarios B-D...... 59 Figure 22: Spatial distribution of nitrogen loss for scenario A and the absolute change in nitrogen loss from baseline predicted for scenarios B-D ...... 62 Figure 23: Spatial distribution of phosphorous loss for scenario A and the absolute change in phosphorous loss from baseline predicted for scenarios B-D...... 62 Figure 24: Spatial distribution of sediment loss for scenario A and the absolute change in sediment loss from baseline predicted for scenarios B-D...... 63 Figure 25: Aggregate Environmental Impact for Reform Scenarios B, C and D...... 74 Figure 26: Coincidence between JCA Upland areas and SDA ...... 77 Figure 27: Changes in Grazing Pressure for Scenario D in JCA8 (Cumbria)...... 98 Figure 28: Grazing pressure for JCA case study areas under Scenario D...... 99
Estimating the Environmental Impacts of Pillar I Reform
Figure 29: Uptake of ELS and HLS schemes in England...... 102 Figure 30: Triangular Plot Showing Change in Flood Risk for the Five Case Study Areas ...... 152 Figure 31: Change in Flood Risk for Example Squares ...... 153
Estimating the Environmental Impacts of Pillar I Reform
1. Introduction The context for this work is the Government paper ‘A Vision for the Common Agricultural Policy’, which considers what a sustainable model of European agriculture might look like. This is underpinned by a number of research studies that considered the negative impacts of CAP on the environment. However, as the Environment Food and Rural Affairs committee noted in their review of the Government paper1, there is relatively little quantification of the impacts of moving to this new sustainable model for agriculture. That is the focus for this research project. The work also informs discussions on the next round of reform of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), the ‘Health Check’, scheduled for 2008.
1.1 Aims and Objectives The overarching aim of this project is to estimate the possible environmental implications for England of Pillar I reform of the CAP through ending decoupled support and/or removal of trade barriers. The project will consider what agriculture in England might look like in 2015 against four possible scenarios, notably i) business as usual but considering possible budget constraints, ii) removal of decoupled support, iii) removal of tariff barriers and other trade restrictions and, iv) a combination of ii and iii. This will then form the basis for estimating environmental impacts (relative to baseline) and the cost to government of achieving key environmental objectives.
Detailed Objectives 1. Estimate the likely effects of Pillar I reform on agricultural production, including land use intensity and farm practices; 2. Estimate the likely impact these changes in agriculture on environmental objectives, including landscape, biodiversity, water quality, air quality, flooding etc.; 3. Advise on the potential budgetary requirements for delivering a specified level of environmental quality through agri-environment measures under Pillar II.
1.2 Approach The overall approach has been to address the three discrete tasks in turn, as they are sequential. However, the three stages are linked, with task 1 results informing task 2 and the task 2 analysis providing the basis for task 3. The steps involved are as follows:
(i) The team from SAC carried out the economic modelling in consultation with Defra. This included the characterisation of the scenarios, access to FBS data, EU level price impacts etc. The SAC team has had to make assumptions about the longer-term responses in supply and demand functions in the context of the policy changes. The model results have then been mapped by ADAS to illustrate spatial changes in land use and production (crop areas/livestock numbers). This quantitative data also allowed us to produce maps of outputs or ‘pressures’ from agriculture, using coefficients for losses to water and air.
1 EFRA (2007) The UK Government's “Vision for the Common Agricultural Policy” Fourth Report of Session 2006–07 HC 546-I
Page 1 Estimating the Environmental Impacts of Pillar I Reform
(ii) ADAS agricultural experts then considered the likely related changes in farm intensity and practice. This informed the drivers of environmental change e.g. stocking density, level and type of inputs etc. Given this production context, the existing evidence base on emissions per hectare of crop or unit of livestock was used along with previous research and expert knowledge (ADAS, IGER and RPA) to estimate environmental impacts on landscape, biodiversity and habitat, water quality, soils, greenhouse gas (nitrous oxide and methane) and ammonia emissions and climate and flood risk. These impacts have been assessed at England level with reference to regional variation and Joint Character Area (JCA) focus groups to quantify impacts. This has been supported by four case studies, based at individual JCA level to represent key countryside and farming types, to allow a more detailed analysis, including validation by local agencies and stakeholders.
(iii) Finally, the implications of these reform scenarios for existing agri-environment measures have been assessed in terms of payments rates and coverage to inform the Pillar II cost implications for Government.
The process is represented in Figure 2.
Figure 2: Methodological Framework for Analysis of CAP Policy Reform Scenarios
Policy Change (Three Reform Scenarios: B, C and D)
Land Use / Farm Sectoral Practice Change Change
Sectoral and Spatial Distribution of Change
Environmental Change (Landscape, Biodiversity, Soil, Greenhouse gas and ammonia emissions, Water Quality and Flood Risk)
Positive No change Negative impacts impacts
Direction, Location and Degree of Change/Impact
Change in Cost/ Uptake of agri-environment Schemes
Figure 2 shows that ultimately any actions taken in response to the task 3 analysis will feed back into land use and farm practice (task 1) i.e. the policy process is dynamic and the reform scenarios need to be judged in the context of Pillar II support as well as Pillar I reform. As such, this analysis represents the starting point in the policy reform process, rather than the end point.
Page 2 Estimating the Environmental Impacts of Pillar I Reform
2. Task 1: Impacts on Agricultural Production and Land Use In order to understand the potential environmental impacts of Pillar 1 reform it is first necessary to derive the impacts on agricultural production and land use. Therefore the purpose of task 1 is to estimate national and regional changes in agricultural production under the various reform scenarios through the use of economic modelling. The approach adopted is described in the following sections before the results are presented and discussed.
2.1 Economic Modelling Methodology At the instigation of the project, it was envisaged that as a substantial body of work had been undertaken that considered both the issue of removal of agricultural support and the implications of trade liberalisation, and that this would form the basis of estimating the aggregate impact of policy reform within this study. The main modelling effort for this study would therefore be directed at developing methods to disaggregate these projections across the main farm types and regions of England.
However, the question then arose as to which outcomes and which studies. Models have included both general equilibrium (for example GTAP) and partial equilibrium approaches (for example FAPRI, CAPRI, Ag-Link etc). It soon became apparent that whilst a number of models were available, none suited the exact requirements of this study. They tended to fall short in one or more of the following key areas: • Temporal aspects (base year and the latest year projections were made) • Scenario coverage (including interaction of scenarios) • Commodity coverage (including commodities such as potatoes, sugar beet) • Spatial coverage (lack of regional or even national disaggregation as all the aforementioned models are either for the EU or for the entire UK and this project is for England)
Therefore it was decided to adopt a different approach to projecting future land use under the various scenarios based on Farm Business Survey data, the most disaggregated source of data available.
The Models The starting point of the methodology was to consider a regional model of crops and livestock. The selected regions were Defra’s Government Office Regions (i.e., East Midlands, East of England, North East, South East and London, South West, West Midlands and Yorkshire and Humber). This classification, although based on the data available, approximately reflects differences in natural resources (e.g. land quality) and production specialisation (e.g. East of England on cereal production).
Within each region, we considered a number of farm models characterised by farm type (see Appendix 2) and farm size. These models were used to estimate the supply by commodity for each one of the regions. A maximum number of 24 farm models were considered (i.e., 3 farm sizes multiplied by 8 farm types) by region. Another way of looking at this is that a regional market comprised 24 different producers (e.g., large cereal farm or small Less Favoured Area (LFA) livestock) for each commodity.
Within a region, each farm model was characterised by a multi-output cost function that was estimated using a panel dataset comprising eight years of the Farm Business Survey. The outputs (i.e. area and livestock) used in the cost functions were wheat, barley, other cereals, oilseed rape, potatoes, sugar beet, other crops, vegetables and
Page 3 Estimating the Environmental Impacts of Pillar I Reform fruits, forage, set-aside, dairy cows, beef cows, other cattle, ewes, other sheep, sows, other pigs, hens and other poultry. A more detailed description of the model is presented in Appendix 3.
Figure 3 diagrammatically represents the operation of the model, using scenario B (where decoupled payments are eliminated but trade barriers remain in place) for illustrative purposes. It should be noted that this is the most difficult scenario to model, because domestic producers are isolated from the world market and prices are determined within the country, making parts of the model simultaneous.
Figure 3: Structure of the regional model
Region 1 ······· Region 8
Farm model 1 Farm model 2 ······· Farm model 24
Once the Regional supply by commodity equilibrium has been Regional prices by commodity reached within each region Aggregated regional demand by commodity
Aggregated figures for England Figure 3 develops the sub-model corresponding to region 1, which as mentioned above comprises a maximum of 24 farm models, each one representing a different type and size of farm. It is at the level of each model farm that CAP policies such as set-aside or dairy quotas are introduced. It is also at this level that the level of cross- subsidisation is estimated (based on available data).
Figure 3 presents the determination of the equilibrium for the case when the SPS is eliminated but trade barriers remain in place (i.e. equilibrium prices are determined by the model). Under this scenario, given the prices before the elimination of the SPS (taken as initial regional prices for each commodity in an iterative algorithm aimed towards computing the new price equilibrium), each farm model decides how much to supply of each commodity in order to maximise profits. The commodity supply of each farm model is then aggregated using weights derived from the census (i.e. number of farms within a region that belong a specific farm size and type) into the ‘regional supply by commodity’.
The aforementioned regional supply by commodity and the aggregated regional demand by commodity (which is calibrated using regional prices and commodity quantities) determine the regional equilibrium prices for each commodity. Once the equilibrium is reached, the aggregated figures for England are the sum of the regional figures.
Page 4 Estimating the Environmental Impacts of Pillar I Reform
In the case of trade liberalisation, the system is simplified in the sense that international prices (allowing for regional differences due to transportation costs) are expected to prevail. Therefore, there is no need for simultaneous solving of the parts of the model to obtain regional prices. Instead, given the international prices for each commodity, each farm type decides how much to produce and the procedure to compute the regional and English figures remains the same.
This approach therefore forms the basis for examining the impact of the scenarios discussed in the following section.
2.2 Scenario Description and Assumptions This research considers four policy scenarios, which are: A. Business as usual but considering possible budget constraints (baseline)
B. Removal of decoupled support
C. Removal of tariff barriers and other trade restrictions and
D. A combination of B and C.
The outputs from the modelling of these scenarios will then form the basis for estimating environmental impacts (relative to baseline scenario A) and the cost to Government of achieving key environmental objectives.
The policy assumptions associated with these four scenarios are outlined below.
Scenario A: Baseline (Business as Usual) To ensure consistency with other Defra funded work, the baseline (Scenario A) follows that assumed for BAU III (ADAS 2007).2 The aim of BAUII was to examine the likely environmental impacts of land use change in four time periods up to 2025 (including 2015, the timeframe for this study) taking into account current and known future policies and initiatives directed at the farming sector. This project concentrated on policy commitments that were in place in 2006, including for future implementation. As the project was looking to 2025 it seemed reasonable to include assumptions about some policy reforms that, due to current discussions, would seem likely although not formally agreed. Specifically this included the abolition of set-aside. 3
The key assumptions of BAU III are summarised below: • CAP reform. Included anticipated responses to existing and known reforms up to 2015. This includes the main 2003 reforms which came into force in 2005 and also subsequent reforms such as that of the Sugar regime, as indicated by farmer surveys and expert opinion of the agricultural industry. • Single Payment Scheme (SPS). Voluntary modulation of the Single Payment was assumed. • Response to existing Directives/legislation/conventions (including Water Framework Directive, Nitrates Directive, Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control Directive, Waste Framework Directive, Kyoto, Thematic Strategy on the
2 ADAS, SAC and IGER (2007) Baseline Projections for Agriculture (SFF0601). Final Report to Defra. 3 BAUIII was undertaken before the most recent proposed changes to NVZ and WFD policies were announced. Although it is difficult to quantify the impact of these revised regulations on agriculture it may be that, if market prices do not improve, they could lead to slightly greater declines in livestock numbers than predicted under BAUII
Page 5 Estimating the Environmental Impacts of Pillar I Reform
Sustainable Use of Pesticides, REACH). Most of these drivers were assumed to primarily affect management of land and inputs within agriculture, but also influence choice of crops, livestock numbers and infrastructure change. • Cross compliance. Assumed to ensure better adherence to existing regulations. • Agri-environment schemes. Planned targets for AES were assumed to be achieved. • Set-aside. Assumed set-aside phased out by 2015. • Sugar and Milk quota. Assumed would remain until 2015. • Social drivers. These included: − Organic food – this would continue to expand on current trends. − Hobby farming – the trend to more small, lifestyle and equine units was assumed to continue with little impact on commercial agriculture. − Farmer demographics – average age of 56 (and rising) was assumed to be reflected in structural change with fewer farm businesses. − Planning/development – need for more housing, interactions with land use/water resources, spatial considerations. Existing plans and trends were assumed to continue. • Climate change - There needed to be a consideration of potential longer-term impacts on choice of crops. However, two specific responses were considered: i. Biofuel crops – a move to renewable energy sources. This is an area of considerable uncertainty in the longer-term. Specific agreements already in place (e.g. Renewable Transport Fuel Obligations) were taken into account. ii. Water resources – assumed increasing demand on water resources from agriculture and the population, which would vary regionally. • Technical developments: Increased efficiency of production, both of crops and livestock, was assumed so that yield per unit increased. GM was assumed to be effectively blocked in Europe due to consumer pressure and that this would have a negative effect on the level of investment for crops adapted to our climates. Adoption of GM elsewhere in the world was assumed to continue. • Global considerations: International negotiations to liberalise world trade was assumed to continue with gradual success and the CAP was assumed to continue to be reformed to make it less trade distorting. Export Subsidies are assumed to be removed by 2015. Not included:
BAU III did not include: • Major new departures in policy making. • Potential drivers that are speculative at this stage.
In reality, some of the above drivers were taken into account more than the others, mainly because of lack of robust data for some elements. Consequently, major factors such as the 2003 CAP reforms (where work has previously been undertaken) formed the main considerations in developing projections for BAU III.
Having derived the baseline, the next step is to define the nature of the liberalisation scenarios. The exact form of reform and liberalisation scenarios were based on those
Page 6 Estimating the Environmental Impacts of Pillar I Reform undertaken as part of the testing process for the recent Defra-TAP project (SAC, 2007). These are described below:
Scenario B: Pillar 1 Reform This comprised the assumptions used for the Baseline but with the following changes to EU agricultural Policy: • Removal of Single Payment Scheme (SPS) • Abolition of Quotas (e.g. milk and sugar) • Removal of market intervention (intervention purchasing etc)
Scenario C: Trade Liberalisation In some ways it was hard to separate out trade liberalisation from domestic agricultural reform as it is a key component. However this scenario included: elimination of EU27 agro-food tariffs on third countries; elimination of all agro-food tariffs by non-EU regions and; elimination of all domestic agricultural support in non- EU regions. However, whilst the SPS and Quotas were assumed to remain in the EU, it is assumed that trade liberalisation makes it impossible for the EU to operate intervention schemes.
Scenario D: CAP Reform and Multilateral Liberalisation This equated with Scenario C plus the removal of all CAP support mechanisms (Scenario B).
Model Development This section briefly describes the issues arising and the approaches adopted to adapting our model to capture the liberalisation scenarios. First, to ease understanding of the processes underlying the development of our projections, the following outlines a conceptual view of the scenarios
Scenario A (baseline) In theory, the marginal revenue per area and animal should be equal to the market price multiplied by yields. However, calculations indicate that farmers are substantially “cross-subsidising” their production using the Single Payment (identified by the supply price). Therefore, the price used by producers to make their decisions about output is the “supply price”, which is higher than the actual market price (both indicated with red dots), which is the one at which the commodity is bought in the market (it should be noted the market price could be the intervention price). The situation can be represented in Figure 4 for an individual commodity:
Page 7 Estimating the Environmental Impacts of Pillar I Reform
Figure 4: Supply and demand response (Scenario A - baseline) Price
Supply
Supply price
Cross-subsidy
Market price
Demand
Market Output output An example of cross-subsidisation can be observed in Figure 5, which presents a simplified example for the case of wheat for England using FBS data. The figure presents the variable cost and the total cost of planting wheat. Assuming that all farms achieve the average yield and average 2005/06 price (as shown by the red line (i.e., without cross-subsidisation), only a small proportion of wheat would be planted. However due to the cross-subsidisation, a much higher area of wheat is planted. Of course not all farms achieve average yields and prices so the degree of cross- subsidisation might be exaggerated in this example.
Figure 5: England: Wheat - Average Total and Variable Cost and Aggregated Area
2,000
1,800
1,600 Total average cost of 1,400 Total return of the commodity production =8.1 £/tonne x 69.3 tonnes/ha 1,200 Total average variable 1,000 cost of production (£ /Ha) 800 Self-subsidy
600 Average and total variablecost 400
200
0 0 200,000 400,000 600,000 800,000 1,000,000 1,200,000 1,400,000 Aggregated area (Hectares)
Page 8 Estimating the Environmental Impacts of Pillar I Reform
Scenario B This simulation assumes that the entire Pillar I support mechanisms are removed but trade barriers remain. This means that domestic prices are at least partially independent from international prices, and therefore, commodity prices are determined within the EU borders. Given the differences in prices within English regions (see Defra’s “Farm Accounts in England”) we assume that commodity prices are determined regionally (i.e., there is a demand and supply for each commodity within each region).
By removal of Pillar I it is understood that the Single Payment, the set-aside constraint, the sugar beet quota and the milk quota are also eliminated. We assumed that farmers are willing to cross-subsidise their production only because they have the Single Payment. In its absence, it is assumed that cross-subsidisation will not occur and the marginal revenue received by farmers would be equal to the market price multiplied by yields. In other terms, the price at which producers make their output decisions is now the equilibrium price (indicated with a red dot) and not the supply price. It might be argued that the assumption of no cross-subsidisation in the absence of the SPS is an extreme one because it is possible that farmers will use other sources (for example off-farm income) to continue cross-subsidising their production. However, there are no data available to test this hypothesis. In addition, it might be reasonable to assume that such a situation would be unsustainable for any business in the long term.
Therefore, the areas and number of animals are expected to decrease as the marginal revenues received by the producers are lower; however, market prices for subsidised products may increase with respect to their baseline levels due to the effect of the contraction in quantity supplied (note that this is possible because the international market is closed and the entire EU faces a similar situation). This is represented in Figure 6:
Figure 6: Supply and demand response (Scenario B) Price
Supply
Supply price
Equilibrium price
Market price
Demand
Equilibrium Market Output quantity output
Page 9 Estimating the Environmental Impacts of Pillar I Reform
Scenario C Under this scenario, Pillar I will remain but trade barriers are removed. Since free trade is allowed, as in Scenario D, domestic prices are anchored to international prices (i.e., the law of one price operates)4, and movements in the domestic supply or demand will not affect domestic prices, they will only possibly generate trade flows.
Since the Single Payment is still in operation, farmers have the possibility to cross- subsidise their production (therefore, the supply price appears above the international price). Due to this reason one should expect that area or animal numbers under Scenario C to be higher than in Scenario B, and uncertain with respect to Scenario A. Note that in the case depicted in Figure 7, the effect of the cross- subsidisation is to generate production above the domestic demand and therefore part of the production is exported. Also it should be noted that in this situation the international price is above that which would have been received domestically with cross-subsidisation and no trade liberalisation. This may not be the case in practice.
Figure 7: Supply and demand response (Scenario C) Price Supply
Supply price
Cross-subsidy
International price
Demand
Market Output output
Domestic sales Exports
Scenario D This simulation assumes that both Pillar I and trade barriers are eliminated. It should be noted that under the assumption that UK is a small country as a proportion of the world trade, its domestic imbalances will not affect the world price. Therefore, domestic prices are expected to be equal to world prices (keeping a regional difference to account for transportation costs).
4 The price changes in this scenario were based on those arising from the OECD's Ag-Link model as modified by Defra. Whilst the model covers the major commodities and hence the vast majority of agricultural activities, prices under liberalisation for some more minor activities had to be taken from other sources (for example sugar beet prices were taken from GTAP). Where prices were not available, relative price relationships between commodities were assumed to remain in place.
Page 10 Estimating the Environmental Impacts of Pillar I Reform
Domestic prices are adjusted by the estimated change in prices due to trade liberalisation (again the changes were based on those arising from the OECD's Ag- Link model as modified by Defra). Under the new marginal revenues (i.e., new prices multiplied by yields) a new domestic supply is estimated.
It is important to emphasise that as domestic prices are anchored to international prices they will not react to the decrease in the supply. The situation can be seen in Figure 8, which assumes that world prices are below domestic prices and therefore imports occur. In the case where the international prices are above the market prices, the effect of trade liberalisation is to generate exports.
Figure 8: Supply and demand response (Scenario D) Price Supply
Equilibrium price
International price
Demand
Equilibrium Market Output quantity output Domestic Domestic output demand
Imports The previous four figures highlight the core of the simulation. However, it is clear that the models used are static in nature whilst the process of adjustment will be dynamic. Two key adjustments were made to the models. First, it is assumed that that commodity demand and prices were generally stronger in 2015 than 2005/6 which formed the base year data for the models (OECD, 2007). Therefore demand curves were shifted out to reflect this. The demand curves for cereals and oilseeds were shifted to a greater extent than livestock products, reflecting stronger projected demand for these commodities (as reported in OECD, 2007). Second, it is assumed that the low returns under Scenario D accentuate the restructuring process and lead to greater productivity gains than under the other scenarios.
It is assumed that the restructuring process is easier for arable producers and greater productivity gains can be achieved (gains of around 20 per cent are estimated). For livestock producers gains of 10 per cent are assumed. Sensitivity analysis has been conducted to assess the impact of changing these assumptions (see section 2.4).
Page 11 Estimating the Environmental Impacts of Pillar I Reform
2.3 Economic Modelling Results This section presents the results of applying the above methodology to the Farm Business Survey Data.
Before proceeding to examine the results in terms of changes to cropping and stocking, it is useful to consider the relative price levels across the scenarios as estimated in the models5. It should be recognised that these price changes are, in part at least, a result of changes in supply and demand. In general and in line with the conceptual discussion above, removal of single payment and maintenance of trade barriers (Scenario B) leads to higher prices compared to Scenario A across the main commodities as supply contracts (Figure 9). As expected, relative to this situation prices for nearly all commodities fall under the scenarios of trade liberalisation (Scenario C and Scenario D). The exception is oilseed rape where prices are forecast to rise under trade liberalisation as world supply and demand adjust.
Figure 9: Impact of policy reform on commodity prices (relative to Scenario A)
Pigs
Sheep
Cattle
Milk Scenario D Scenario C Sugar beet Scenario B
Potatoes
Oilseed rape
Wheat
-25% -20% -15% -10% -5% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25%
2.3.1 Changes in the Scale of Agricultural Production Crop Production This section briefly reviews the projections in terms of the changes to the main crops and grass area. Summary figures are presented in Table 4.
5 It should be noted that the BAUIII project upon which Scenario A is based did not explicitly model prices. The base prices are therefore taken from OECD projections (OECD, 2007) of price changes for major commodities under a situation of no further policy reform up to 2015.
Page 12 Estimating the Environmental Impacts of Pillar I Reform
Table 4: Summary of Changes to Main Arable and Grass Area6
Scenario A Scenario B Scenario C Scenario D Crop Per cent from 2004 Per cent change from Scenario A
Wheat +13.0 -9.8 -4.5 -26.2
Barley + 0.0 -21.5 -8.2 -63.1
Oilseed rape +19.0 -3.7 38.1 28.5
Potatoes - 5.0 -7.0 -25.4 -21.0
Sugar beet -12.0 -30.1 -29.3 -42.4
Vegetables and fruits -2.0 -4.4 -6.0 -3.2
Forage (Grass) +2.0 -2.1 -2.4 -2.0
Under Scenario A (BAU III), growth in the area down to wheat and oilseed rape was forecast due to higher prices, in part driven by the market for biofuels. However, some of this extra production is likely to have come from cross subsidy, as discussed above, and hence under Scenario B with the removal of the SPS (and all intervention methods) the area is projected to fall. However, under Scenario C there is still the ability to cross subsidise and production falls less. The greatest fall, as expected is under Scenario D with trade liberalisation and removal of the SPS as prices fall and the ability to cross-subsidise is removed. This pattern is more pronounced with barley as the price falls under trade liberalisation are greater. Oilseed rape shows a different result with a small decline as a result of removal of the SPS but marked increases under the trade liberalisation scenarios. This is because prices are forecast to rise under trade liberalisation and in the case of Scenario D this rise outweighs the impact of removal of SPS. It would appear that freer trade boosts demand for oilseeds relative to supply hence raising the price. The combination of the decline in price for barley and increase in price for oilseed rape leads to a marked substitution between the crops within the models.
In terms of root crops, the area down to potatoes is forecast to decline under Scenario B, which may seem a little surprising given that the crop is largely out of the support regimes of the EU. However, it must be remembered that areas arise as a result of a complex interaction within the farm business and it may be that the profitability of potatoes relative to other crops has altered. The decline in area due to trade liberalisation might reflect increased imports of processed products in a free market situation. Therefore whilst transport costs may restrict the import of fresh potatoes, these costs are considerably reduced (in relation to the value of the product) for processed products making them more competitive.
Sugar beet production equally seems to suffer through the liberalisation process, probably reflecting the historically high levels of protection for this crop. Given the specialist nature of sugar production and the fact that this model is unable to capture the integral relationship between the processing and growing, it may be the case that our model overstates the decline in sugar area.
6 For presentational purposes the results are presented as percentage changes throughout this section. Absolute 2004 baseline figures are presented in the BAUIII report (ADAS and SAC 2007)
Page 13 Estimating the Environmental Impacts of Pillar I Reform
Fruit and vegetable areas change only slightly, reflecting the specialist nature of these products. The majority will be grown to supply supermarkets and a change in these supply relationships is likely to have more impact than policy liberalisation.
The models were developed to allow for possible variations in supply response by farms of different size given that they may have a range of cost structures. Table 5 summarises the results by size of farm. Although there does seem to be a slight trend for larger farms in maintaining slightly higher production levels under liberalisation, it is not that marked.
Table 5: Summary of Changes to Main Arable and Grass Area by Farm Size
Scenario B Scenario C Scenario D Crop Per cent change from Scenario A Wheat Small farms -19.9 -7.1 -34.0 Medium farms -17.1 -7.1 -30.1 Large farms -5.1 -3.2 -23.0 Barley Small farms -18.5 -1.9 -51.5 Medium farms -26.5 -5.8 -59.5 Large farms -21.2 -11.0 -67.9 Oilseed rape Small farms -3.7 40.1 25.1 Medium farms -8.1 47.8 26.9 Large farms -2.7 35.4 29.6 Potatoes Small farms -36.0 37.9 -44.5 Medium farms -31.9 -10.0 -42.2 Large farms 0.7 -39.0 -14.6 Sugar beet Small farms -41.7 -40.3 -52.7 Medium farms -46.3 -43.3 -61.6 Large farms -18.6 -18.8 -30.4 Vegetables and fruits Small farms -5.3 -3.6 -4.5 Medium farms -4.7 -4.3 -4.4 Large farms -4.2 -6.8 -2.7 Grass Small farms -1.6 -1.7 -1.7 Medium farms -1.5 -1.7 -1.6 Large farms -2.4 -2.8 -2.2
A key element of the study is to improve understanding of the impacts of liberalisation scenarios on the environment. Clearly this is spatially dependent and the aggregate figures shown in Table 4 do hide some marked forecast changes between regions as shown in Table 6.
Page 14 Estimating the Environmental Impacts of Pillar I Reform
Table 6: Regional Changes in Cropping Area under Liberalisation Scenarios
Region Total Crop East East of North North South South West Yorkshire England Midlands England East West East West Midlands Humber Per cent Wheat Scenario B 1.4 2.4 -1.0 -20.0 -24.0 -26.0 -35.9 -8.4 -9.8 Scenario C -8.5 0.4 22.5 63.9 -84.0 31.0 6.3 22.4 -4.5 Scenario D 7.3 2.2 -11.4 -30.0 -64.2 -63.2 -61.4 -49.9 -26.2 Barley Scenario B 13.0 -3.2 -38.7 -39.6 2.0 -64.1 -29.4 -29.8 -21.5 Scenario C 28.7 -10.2 -60.0 -94.2 166.1 -64.6 19.4 -56.6 -8.2 Scenario D -0.9 -46.3 -79.9 -88.2 -66.7 -89.5 -69.0 -86.1 -63.1 Oilseed rape Scenario B -7.7 -9.1 -34.8 -32.2 3.6 16.2 -2.7 0.0 -3.7 Scenario C -5.5 17.6 1.4 16.0 61.7 74.2 90.8 67.7 38.1 Scenario D -7.1 12.6 -4.8 -7.9 54.4 67.3 45.0 53.4 28.5 Potatoes Scenario B 10.4 13.0 -14.5 -17.3 -100.0 -5.2 -32.0 -17.6 -7.0 Scenario C 97.5 -28.2 50.5 -39.3 -100.0 11.4 -73.4 -88.7 -25.4 Scenario D 2.6 -6.0 -18.9 -25.3 -100.0 -8.0 -48.9 -34.4 -21.0 Sugar beet Scenario B -13.7 -8.2 -100.0 -100.0 -100.0 -100.0 -93.9 -98.3 -30.1 Scenario C -12.5 -6.8 -100.0 -100.0 -100.0 -100.0 -93.4 -100.0 -29.3 Scenario D -29.8 -22.8 -100.0 -100.0 -100.0 -100.0 -100.0 -100.0 -42.4 Vegetables and fruits Scenario B -0.1 -6.4 -25.8 -16.1 -5.9 -17.5 -0.8 -2.3 -4.4 Scenario C -3.8 -9.0 -27.0 -12.0 -4.3 -10.3 -2.2 -3.1 -6.0 Scenario D -0.6 -4.6 -25.8 -7.2 -4.9 -11.2 -0.8 -2.3 -3.2 By-products, forage and cultivations Scenario B -5.5 -8.3 -0.5 -1.7 -1.8 -2.0 -1.4 0.0 -2.1 Scenario C -6.1 -6.9 -0.7 -1.8 -1.8 -2.1 -2.1 -1.7 -2.4 Scenario D -6.4 -7.6 -0.5 -1.7 -1.2 -1.9 -1.1 0.0 -2.0
It should be noted that because some regions may have a small area of a particular crop, small absolute changes may appear as large percentage changes. The regional figures highlight substitution between crop enterprises as the SPS is removed and trade liberalised. For example in the South West, there appears to be large production switches between wheat, barley and oilseed rape depending upon the Scenario. This substitution is much less marked in the main producing areas, for example the East of England and the East Midlands with relatively small changes in production across the Scenarios. However, there is a marked decline in barley production under Scenario D in the East Midlands.
The outputs of economic modelling simulations were mapped to 10-by-10 km grid squares across England; the results (Figures 10-12), show the Scenario A baseline crop percentage coverage within each 10 x 10 km cell along with the crop percentage coverage for Scenarios B-D to allow direct comparisons to be made. The variation between 10-by-10km cells is due to both the regional differences in the forecasts and the heterogeneous distribution of farm types and sizes across the country.
Page 15 Estimating the Environmental Impacts of Pillar I Reform
Figure 10: The predicted land area of wheat across England under the four scenarios shown as percentage coverage within each 10km cell
Figure 11: The predicted land area of spring barley across England under the four scenarios shown as percentage coverage within each 10km cell
Page 16 Estimating the Environmental Impacts of Pillar I Reform
Figure 12: The predicted land area of oilseed rape across England under the four scenarios shown as percentage coverage within each 10km cell
Livestock Production The projected changes for livestock are highlighted in Table 7. In all cases liberalisation will lead to a fall in numbers greater than that expected under Business as Usual (Scenario A).
Table 7: Summary of Changes to Livestock Sectors (changes in livestock numbers)
Scenario A Scenario B Scenario C Scenario D Livestock Category Per cent from Per cent change from Scenario A 2004
Dairy cows and heifers in milk -12 -3.1 -22.5 -19.7
Beef cows -8 -19.6 -0.3 -25.4
Other cattle -8 -8.8 -11.0 -14.7
Ewes -2 -15.1 -16.2 -20.1
Other sheep -2.5 -28.5 -1.8 -35.6
Breeding sows -1 -5.7 -18.3 -18.3
Other pigs -1 -4.8 -18.3 -18.3
Hens and pullets in lay +6 -3.8 -3.8 -3.8
Other poultry +6 -3.4 -3.4 -3.4
Page 17 Estimating the Environmental Impacts of Pillar I Reform
For Dairy, removal of the SPS on its own is not projected to have a marked effect. This probably reflects the fact that in 2005/6 support for this sector in terms of SPS was limited. However, trade liberalisation does have a more marked impact on the sector. Removal of the SPS does significantly impact on the beef sector and this reflects the high level of cross-subsidisation that was implicit from the 2005/6 FBS data. This would seem to be in line with Special Studies that highlight the extent to which this sector depends upon support to maintain profitability.
The ability to cross-subsidise seems to outweigh the reduction in prices as a result of trade liberalisation and Scenario C shows a very small impact. This result requires some clarification given that some analysts expect that trade liberalisation would have as large a negative impact as removal of the SPS on beef production. A key factor is that price falls used in this study as a result of liberalisation (derived in part from Defra's Ag-link model) are much smaller than the equivalent of £2000 per tonne (a figure often quoted by analysts).7 This fact, coupled with the fact that farms still have the ability to cross subsidise production from their Single Payment helps explain our findings.
If no cross subsidisation was occurring then Scenario C and Scenario D (under our methodology) would show similar results. Therefore the degree to which cross subsidisation occurs is crucial to the extent of change witnessed in Scenario C. The underlying assumption here is that farms will continue to cross subsidise, as in the FBS 2005/6 year, to the extent that they can. If however, farms gradually reduce their levels of cross subsidisation then Scenario C will look more like Scenario D.
Sheep numbers follow a similar pattern to beef, with large reductions witnessed as a result of removal of the SPS. However for ewes the ability to cross subsidise is reduced under trade liberalisation and marked falls are seen, although for other sheep this is not the case. It might be reasonable to assume that the least productive ewes would disappear first and therefore the proportionate reduction in ewe numbers should be greater than other sheep (lambs). This seems to be the case under Scenario C but not under scenarios B or D. It should be noted that the model is generic in nature and does not pick up the intricacies of the links within the sheep production process and is based simply on the relative returns. Therefore, the results are better viewed in terms of an overall reduction in sheep numbers rather than the actual splits between categories of sheep.
Although largely outside of the support regimes and hence not significantly affected by removal of Pillar 1 support, free trade does impact on the pig sector significantly reducing numbers. As these farms generally have little or no Single Payments their ability to cross-subsidise is reduced and hence the results from Scenario C are similar to those from Scenario D.
As with cropping the negative impact of trade liberalisation and removal of Pillar 1 support on livestock profitability is assumed to lead to greater restructuring in these sectors than under the other scenarios. However, on the assumption that these businesses are harder to restructure due to the fact that livestock need more attention and that moving livestock over distances is harder it is assumed that the ability to reduce costs through restructuring is lower than for cereals. Therefore, restructuring is assumed to lead to a 10 per cent reduction in costs. Again this is an area than might be further investigated through sensitivity analysis.
7 Source Stuart Ashworth (Quality Meat Scotland) personal communications
Page 18 Estimating the Environmental Impacts of Pillar I Reform
In general our models suggest that liberalisation will lead to a significantly reduced livestock sector (in numbers at least). The fact that the area of grass does not alter significantly might infer a general extensification in livestock production as a reaction to the reduced returns. This is probably more likely in beef and sheep production, but could occur in dairy production as well. Though this is only likely to occur in dairy if the cost of grazing land falls, making more extensive systems viable. The price might fall if more grazing land becomes available as a result of farms moving out of livestock production altogether.
The impact of liberalisation on farms of varying size is highlighted in Table 8. The results suggest a more mixed pattern than with cropping with larger farms reducing numbers to a greater extent under some scenarios and for some livestock categories. However, the pattern is not consistent. In Table 9 regional changes are highlighted.
Disaggregation to the regional level does throw up some apparent anomalies in the data. For example within the East of England a large increase (in percentage terms) in the number of sheep is forecast under Scenario C compared with large decreases under Scenarios B and D. However, a number of factors could explain this. First sheep numbers are not large in the East so small absolute changes are magnified when expressed as a percentage. Second, it may be that with the ability to cross- subsidise and the relative price changes that occur as a result of trade liberalisation, certain livestock enterprises become more attractive in the East compared to other enterprises.
Page 19 Estimating the Environmental Impacts of Pillar I Reform
Table 8: Summary of Changes to Livestock Numbers by Farm Size
Scenario B Scenario C Scenario D Livestock Category Per cent change from Scenario A Dairy cows and heifers in milk Small farms -2.2 -21.9 -21.7 Medium farms -12.6 -28.6 -28.6 Large farms -0.6 -20.9 -16.6 Beef cows Small farms -16.7 2.9 -21.6 Medium farms -12.3 7.7 -13.5 Large farms -23.3 -4.4 -30.9 Other cattle Small farms -1.5 -6.7 -6.1 Medium farms -19.4 -17.0 -23.0 Large farms -9.3 -11.4 -16.5 Ewes Small farms -13.1 -10.7 -16.1 Medium farms -10.4 -19.9 -12.5 Large farms -17.1 -17.0 -23.6 Other sheep Small farms -42.7 -1.9 -53.0 Medium farms -27.6 -13.1 -30.4 Large farms -24.3 1.3 -31.6 Breeding sows Small farms -13.7 -29.1 -29.1 Medium farms -20.2 -30.1 -30.1 Large farms -2.5 -14.9 -14.9 Other pigs Small farms -6.8 -22.7 -22.7 Medium farms -12.3 -22.2 -22.2 Large farms -2.5 -15.9 -15.9 Hens and pullets in lay Small farms -5.1 -5.1 -5.1 Medium farms -3.5 -3.5 -3.5 Large farms -3.3 -3.3 -3.3 Other poultry Small farms -3.6 -3.6 -3.6 Medium farms -5.0 -5.0 -5.0 Large farms -2.6 -2.6 -2.6
Page 20 Estimating the Environmental Impacts of Pillar I Reform
Table 9: Regional Changes in Livestock Numbers
Region Total Crop East East of North North South South West Yorkshire England Midlands England East West East West Midlands Humber Per cent Dairy cows and heifers in milk Scenario B -6.8 -11.4 0.1 -4.9 -13.3 -4.8 19.3 -16.8 -3.1 Scenario C -9.6 -41.9 -23.0 -15.2 -43.0 -17.8 -21.7 -51.5 -22.5 Scenario D -13.9 -41.9 -23.0 -15.2 -42.7 -17.8 -1.4 -51.5 -19.7 Beef cows Scenario B -0.8 -9.3 -20.9 -23.1 -24.5 -30.1 -1.5 -26.3 -19.6 Scenario C -14.7 -17.4 -11.0 -9.8 29.2 -41.9 42.8 64.5 -0.3 Scenario D 4.3 -10.3 -21.0 -26.3 -35.1 -40.4 -9.7 -34.5 -25.4 Other cattle Scenario B -10.4 -16.0 -9.0 -23.3 1.3 -6.3 27.5 -43.9 -8.8 Scenario C -16.4 18.8 -10.4 -2.5 21.1 -22.1 -28.8 -3.0 -11.0 Scenario D -6.3 -19.6 -10.2 -27.0 -8.3 -16.0 24.2 -54.7 -14.7 Ewes Scenario B -3.5 -70.5 -3.9 -32.6 -16.9 -11.3 -10.8 -6.1 -15.1 Scenario C -17.7 86.0 -37.3 -19.5 -2.3 -14.6 -13.6 -25.9 -16.2 Scenario D 1.9 -70.4 -0.3 -32.0 -30.0 -20.7 -23.5 -12.3 -20.1 Other sheep Scenario B -2.7 -4.0 -16.2 -28.7 -27.9 -51.9 -49.3 -5.3 -28.5 Scenario C -6.6 -13.8 -3.5 -37.7 -6.9 16.0 36.2 -8.4 -1.8 Scenario D -2.9 -1.2 -21.2 -27.6 -44.3 -60.6 -66.7 -12.1 -35.6 Breeding sows Scenario B -8.5 0.0 -52.8 -39.6 -5.9 -1.1 -8.2 -4.7 -5.7 Scenario C -12.0 -4.7 -57.5 -48.7 -24.8 -21.3 -26.3 -23.6 -18.3 Scenario D -12.0 -4.7 -57.5 -48.7 -24.8 -21.3 -26.3 -23.6 -18.3 Other pigs Scenario B -16.5 0.0 -44.5 -14.9 -14.7 -2.0 -6.9 -0.2 -4.8 Scenario C -19.3 -5.1 -50.7 -23.3 -32.1 -29.1 -23.1 -19.8 -18.3 Scenario D -19.3 -5.1 -50.7 -23.3 -32.1 -29.1 -23.1 -19.8 -18.3 Hens and pullets in lay Scenario B -7.4 0.0 -2.0 -1.6 -7.0 -0.2 -2.4 -7.0 -3.8 Scenario C -7.4 0.0 -2.0 -1.6 -7.0 -0.2 -2.4 -7.0 -3.8 Scenario D -7.4 0.0 -2.0 -1.6 -7.0 -0.2 -2.4 -7.0 -3.8 Other poultry Scenario B -1.5 -0.3 -85.6 -13.9 -1.1 -0.4 -0.3 -2.4 -3.4 Scenario C -1.5 -0.3 -85.6 -13.9 -1.1 -0.4 -0.3 -2.4 -3.4 Scenario D -1.5 -0.3 -85.6 -13.9 -1.1 -0.4 -0.3 -2.4 -3.4
Again, the modelled changes in livestock numbers have been mapped to 10-by-10 km grid squares across England; the results (Figures 13-15), show the Scenario A baseline animal numbers within each 10 x 10 km cell along with the animal numbers for Scenarios B-D to allow direct comparisons to be made. The variation between 10-by-10km cells is due to both the regional differences in the forecasts and the heterogeneous distribution of farm types and sizes across the country.
Page 21 Estimating the Environmental Impacts of Pillar I Reform
Figure 13: The predicted numbers of dairy cattle across England under the four scenarios
Figure 14: The predicted numbers of beef cattle across England under the four scenarios
Page 22 Estimating the Environmental Impacts of Pillar I Reform
Figure 15: The predicted numbers of sheep across England under the four scenarios
Given the different support measures in place for upland and lowland producers, it is useful to consider the estimated impacts on livestock numbers between LFA and non- LFA farms (Table 10). It should be noted that this does not represent total changes in LFA and non-LFA areas but changes on those farms classified as LFA livestock compared to those as non-LFA under the Defra farm classification scheme.
Table 10: Changes to Livestock Numbers by LFA and non-LFA Livestock Farms1
Scenario B Scenario C Scenario D Livestock Category Per cent change from Scenario A 1. Beef and other Cattle 2 -15.4 -16.8 -15.6 LFA -4.9 -9.8 -11.7 Non-LFA 1. Sheep 3 -13.0 -19.9 -14.0 LFA -30.3 -7.3 -41.2 Non-LFA 1/ Note that LFA and non-LFA refers to livestock farm types and not to areas 2/ Includes dairy cows, beef cows and other cattle 3/ Includes ewes and other sheep
Page 23 Estimating the Environmental Impacts of Pillar I Reform
The estimates in Table 10 highlight that under all three scenarios the percentage fall in cattle numbers is greater on LFA farms. This is to be expected given the relative profitability (or lack of it) of upland beef and dairy production compared to lowland. A different pattern emerges with sheep where (with the exception of Scenario C in which decoupled payments are maintained) there is a greater reduction on non-LFA livestock farms. This might reflect the relative opportunity costs in the two regions; producers in the lowlands have more options available as to alternative uses of the land than do upland producers.
Some Implications of Changes in Land Use Having examined the projected changes in cropping and stocking as a result of our modelling of the Scenarios, this section briefly considers some of the potential implications.
First, the static nature of the study hides the real pressures associated with the adjustment process. Even where land use is not forecast to change significantly there are likely to be marked changes in who is farming the land and under what structure. Whilst areas on small farms are assumed relatively static it is likely that many more of these farms will be farmed not as an individual unit but as part of a larger business. Whilst this may only be continuing a process that has been accelerating during the last sustained period of low returns it is likely to speed up further under a complete liberalisation scenario. This will clearly have major social implications but also more importantly it is likely to have environmental implications as well.
Second, as mentioned in the livestock section, implicit in these results is a process of extensification in the livestock sector as many fewer animals are spread over a similar grazing area. Lower stocking densities may produce environmental benefits but there is a potential for undergrazing in sensitive areas.
Third, it is unlikely that such extensification will occur in the crop sector as changes in prices have historically had little impact on input usage. The main changes will arise as a result of crop substitution and perhaps land moving from crops to grass (or other uses). The regional and farm type analysis seems to point to a general reduction in cropping in more marginal areas (though not in all cases or under all scenarios). This does have potential environmental implications. Whilst on one hand, more fragile areas might be better suited to grass, much research has pointed to the benefits of mixed cropping and stocking to wildlife. Therefore the cessation of arable production might be detrimental to these areas.
2.4 Comparison with Aggregate Studies The results discussed above do suggest some marked changes under the reform scenarios. It is therefore useful at this stage to consider how these results relate to other studies of CAP reform. At the outset, it should be stressed again, that none of the other current economic models that have been used to evaluate CAP reform (e.g. FAPRI, GTAP, OECD, FAO), were suitable for the specific tasks required for this project. A particular issue relates to the fact that the models were not formulated for England, the closest model being FAPRI’s, which was constructed on a UK basis. Other models such as those used by the OECD and FAO aggregate the entire EU into one block. Furthermore, no models regionally disaggregate within England, which makes them unsuitable for the task of estimating changes in spatial land use.
Page 24 Estimating the Environmental Impacts of Pillar I Reform
Despite the lack of full comparability - as FAPRI’s model was formulated for the UK - it will be used as a reference to compare the results obtained in the current exercise as the FAPRI model also evaluates the elimination of decoupled payments.8 At first sight, comparison between the results suggests that the models used in this study show greater changes for cereals and for beef and sheep than those reported by FAPRI. However, it is important to note that the task of comparing the results of the different models is quite a difficult one due to the lack of information about the models’ assumptions. For instance, the report produced by FAPRI evaluating the elimination of decoupled payments in the UK does not provide information about the structure of the model, the elasticities used for the UK, or the assumptions behind the implementation of the effects of the SPS. Moreover, as regards the effects of the SPS, the FAPRI report only states that “it is assumed that the SFP [SPS] has a production- stimulating effect but this effect declines over time” (Moss et al., 2007, pp. 2).
The issue of the structure of the model is an important one due to the fact that if (as we assume) the FAPRI model is formulated in terms of aggregating independently determined levels of supply for each commodity (i.e., one for each commodity) then, such a model cannot capture the changes, for instance in cropping, due to changes in relative prices, making its response more insensitive to changes in market conditions. Therefore it might be expected that our model which does capture these effects will show greater changes in production.
A further issue is that the level of impact is strongly related to the assumptions made about the proportion of the SPS that is used to subsidise production and the trend in international prices. This can be clearly appreciated in the projections presented by FAPRI in 20029, where for instance in the beef sector, if the SPS was totally decoupled from production the number of UK suckler cows was expected to be reduced by 18.9 per cent by 2010 with respect to the baseline; however, if 60 per cent of the decoupled payment were used for production purposes the reduction would be only 5.9 per cent.
A further point is that the models in this study have concentrated on areas and numbers rather than output because of our concern with land use. FAPRI (and other models) tend to report output changes. Therefore whilst our fall in crop areas are larger, it is likely that the more marginal land has gone out of production meaning that the actual level of output will reduce significantly less.
The above discussion highlights that for a number of reasons direct comparison of the results from this model with other modelling exercises is fraught with difficulty and unlikely to be particularly useful. Of more use is consideration of the sensitivity of the results in relation to changes in the underlying assumptions made. And this is discussed in the next section.
Sensitivity Analysis Two of the key assumptions made in the study relate to prices levels under trade liberalisation and the extent that restructuring can reduce fixed costs. The sensitivity of our results to these assumptions is now considered. To better understand the
8 Moss, J., Patton, M., Kostov, P., Zhang, L., Binfield, J. and Westhoff, P. (2007) “Analysis of the Impact of the Abolition of Milk Quotas, Increased Modulation and Reductions in the Single Farm Payment on UK Agriculture”. Report prepared for Defra, available online: http://statistics.defra.gov.uk/esg/reports/UK%20report%202007%20 (revised).pdf 9 Moss, J., McEarlan, S., Kostov, P., Patton, M., Westhoff, P., and Binfield, J.. (2002) “Analysis of the Impact of Decoupling on Agriculture in the UK”. Report prepared for Defra, available online: http://statistics.defra.gov.uk/esg/ reports/decoupling/QueenUni.PDF
Page 25 Estimating the Environmental Impacts of Pillar I Reform impacts of the assumed level of world prices, sensitivity analysis was undertaken for Scenario D (removal of Pillar 1 and trade liberalisation). The results for key crops are highlighted in Table 11.
Table 11: Sensitivity of Supply Response to Changes in Assumed Prices (Scenario D)
Wheat Barley Oilseed rape Sugar beet Scenario A (Baseline) Per cent change in crop area from Scenario A*
Price change -10% +10% -10% +10% -10% +10% -10% +10%
Wheat -26.2 -51.4 6.7 -25.5 -27.2 -25.3 -27.1 -26.2 -26.3
Barley -63.1 -62.3 -65.8 -77.4 -37.5 -62.8 -63.8 -63.1 -63.1
Oilseed rape 28.5 30.6 21.6 29.2 27.7 -4.5 61.3 28.5 28.5
Sugar beet -42.4 -42.0 -42.9 -42.2 -42.5 -42.2 -42.4 -46.0 -38.6 Note * figures presented are percentage change in crop area, relative to baseline area, in response to +/- 10% change in commodity price
The figures highlight a high level of supply elasticity for wheat and oilseeds, which at first sight may appear surprising. However, previous work on wheat has highlighted that the supply curve for cereals is actually quite flat meaning that small changes in price can have large changes in the proportion of production that is viable (see Renwick, 2005 for example).
As mentioned, in Scenario D, the supply curve for cereals was shifted out to reflect a 20 per cent fall in average total costs of production as a result of intense restructuring caused by the marked decline in profitability. This was seen as a reasonable assumption given the current distribution of costs between farms. For example, Figure 16 highlights the cost distribution for winter wheat from the 2005/06 FBS.
Figure 16: Dispersion in Total Costs of Production for Winter Wheat (£ per ha)
England - Wheat - Dispersion in Average Costs
120
100
80
60
Absolute Frequency 40
20
0 0 550 600 650 700 750 800 850 900 950 1000 1050 1100 1150 1200 1250
However, it should be noted that the 20 per cent figure is important in determining the overall impact of the liberalisation process. For example, if restructuring led to greater gains in terms of lowering the average costs of production, the impact of policy liberalisation would be reduced and our cereal figures would more closely respond to those of FAPRI. To test this, simple sensitivity analysis is undertaken to assess the impact of changing the level of productivity gain on area (Table 12).
Page 26 Estimating the Environmental Impacts of Pillar I Reform
The change in area from the baseline is shown for situations where no change in productivity is assumed; where a ten per cent increase is assumed and; where a twenty per cent increase is assumed (the level used for the previous analysis). It appears that the results of the model are less sensitive to changes in productivity gains than to changes in output prices. For example, for wheat a twenty per cent change in productivity leads to only a ten-percentage point change in crop area.
Table 12: Impact of Productivity changes on Production Area Impacts (Scenario D)
Crop No Change 10 per cent increase 20 per cent increase
Wheat -36.2 -30.8 -26.2
Barley -67.8 -65.2 -63.1
Other cereals -61.7 -58.2 -55.2 Note * percentage figures presented are relative to baseline
A similar picture can be seen with livestock, the large dependence of the 'average' farm in our various categories on the current support structures means that, inevitably, removal of these support structures leads to quite marked declines in livestock numbers. Again it is of some interest to evaluate how sensitive the findings are to the assumed price levels. Table 13 highlights the percentage change in livestock numbers relative to the baseline resulting from price changes of ten per cent either side of the price assumed in this study.
Table 13: Sensitivity of Projections for Livestock Numbers to Price (Scenario D)
Dairy cows Beef cows Other cattle Ewes Other sheep Scenario A (Baseline) Per cent change in livestock numbers from Scenario A*
Price change -10% +10% -10% +10% -10% +10% -10% +10% -10% +10%
Dairy cows -19.7 -30.1 -7.2 -19.7 -19.7 -19.6 -20.1 -19.7 -19.8 -19.7 -19.8
Beef cows -25.4 -25.4 -25.4 -46.7 2.2 -25.2 -25.6 -25.1 -25.8 -25.0 -25.9
Other cattle -14.7 -14.6 -14.8 -14.6 -14.7 -41.3 14.9 -14.2 -15.2 -14.4 -15.2
Ewes -20.1 -20.1 -20.1 -20.0 -20.2 -19.9 -20.4 -43.3 6.4 -19.8 -20.6
Other sheep -35.6 -35.6 -35.6 -35.5 -35.6 -35.4 -35.8 -35.3 -35.9 -52.9 -6.6 Note * figures presented are percentage change in livestock numbers relative to baseline number, in response to +/- 10% change in commodity price
As is the case with cereals, projected livestock numbers do appear to be quite responsive to changes in price. For example a 10 per cent lower price reduces beef cow numbers by a further 20%.
Again the extent of the decline is in part dependent upon the ability of the industry to restructure in response to the changed circumstances. It has been assumed that costs could be reduced by a further 10 per cent through restructuring under Scenario D. Simple sensitivity analysis is again undertaken to examine the impact of adjusting this figure on the extent of the projected falls (Table 14). As with the cereal crops, the results seem less sensitive to productivity changes than output price changes. For example, for beef cows a ten per cent increase in productivity leads to a six- percentage change in the number of animals.
Page 27 Estimating the Environmental Impacts of Pillar I Reform
Table 14: Impact of Productivity on Livestock Number changes (Scenario D)
No Change 5 per cent 10 per cent
Beef cows -31.6 -28.5 -25.4
Other cattle -21.7 -18.1 -14.7
Ewes -26.8 -23.4 -20.1
Other sheep -41.0 -38.3 -35.6 Note * percentage figures presented are relative to baseline
Page 28 Estimating the Environmental Impacts of Pillar I Reform
3. Task 2: Likely Environmental Impacts The purpose of Task 2 was to estimate the environmental impacts of Pillar 1 reform on a range of environmental media including: • Soil • Water • Greenhouse gas (nitrous oxide and methane) and ammonia emissions • Biodiversity • Landscape • Flood risk
The relationship between land use/farm practice and environmental impact has been researched in previous studies, notably the 2005 Defra Observatory Study by CSL/CCRU. Table 15 uses this analysis to link headline task 1 results and to the environmental media above.
Table 15: Links between task 1 results and environmental impacts (task 2)
Task 1 predicted change Possible environmental implications relative to baseline Reduction in cropped Reduced cropping will lead directly to reduced cultivations and fertiliser use land under all scenarios; with benefits for greenhouse gas and ammonia emissions, losses of most severe under nutrients to water and soil compaction. scenario D. Productivity gains are likely to mean fewer, larger farmed units and more Considerable variations block-cropping, focussing on the most productive land. This will intensify between regions. production in these areas with loss of diversity of both crops and management; this will impact negatively on landscape and biodiversity. 20% productivity gain. Replacement of spring barley with winter wheat in rotations (less root crops and more oilseed rape) will also reduce diversity. Regional variation indicates a spatial effect in terms of impacts. Decline in cattle and Reduced grazing pressure, especially in uplands; biodiversity benefits in sheep numbers under all some areas from reduction in stocking rates but risk of undergrazing and scenarios; most severe ‘retreat’ from the hills with consequent effects on landscape and under scenario D. biodiversity. Limited regional variation Fewer livestock will lead directly to reduced greenhouse gas and in stocking changes. ammonia emissions and reduced losses of nutrients to water and soil compaction. Indirect impacts from move to extensive systems with reduced 10% productivity gain. fertiliser use and more outwintering of stock; the latter could impact negatively on soils at a local level but positively on ammonia emissions. Decline in intensive Fewer livestock will lead directly to reduced greenhouse gas and livestock enterprises – ammonia emissions and reduced losses of nutrients to water and soil pigs and large dairy compaction. Indirect impacts from reduced fertiliser use and reduced slurry units. spreading. 10% productivity gain. Productivity gain is likely to mean fewer, larger dairy units and a concentration of negative impacts for soils, water and greenhouse gas and ammonia emissions; elsewhere, impacts might be positive. Increase in ‘land out of Where unfarmed land is in the form of rotational fallow, there may be production’ benefits for biodiversity from increased overwintered stubble and less disturbance for farmland birds. Landscape and biodiversity impacts from localised areas of unfarmed land could be either positive or negative but larger tracts are likely to be negative for sensitive landscapes and habitats. Some of this land no longer required for agriculture may be used for other productive uses e.g. forestry (commercial or community) and make a positive environmental contribution in terms of landscape and biodiversity, greenhouse gas emissions and flood risk mitigation. However, commercial use or development might impact negatively.
Page 29 Estimating the Environmental Impacts of Pillar I Reform
The methodology used to estimate the impact for each environmental medium builds on the conceptual framework in the CSL/CCRU study10 to systematically examine the environmental impact in relation to farm type, farming system and farm practice. The framework has been modified to fit the focus of this study and is set out in Figure 17.
Figure 17: A framework for estimating environmental impacts from agricultural change
Non-cropped Habitat: amount, type and management Air
Input Use (fertiliser, Water pesticide and seed)
Soil Crop Type
Farm Systems (Intensive & Sowing season Extensive) Biodiversity Management: grazing/cutting/ harvesting/rolling
Veterinary products
Cultivations Landscape
Waste disposal
Farm Type Drainage
Upland management Flood Risk
Livestock system
Farming system Farming practice Environmental Impacts
CAP reform will affect different farming areas in different ways depending on the types of farming practised in those areas and on local environmental assets and challenges. In order to understand the impacts on the environment from changes in agriculture at a more local level, a detailed assessment was undertaken in four case studies, based on Joint Character Areas11 (JCAs).
The objective of the case studies was twofold; firstly, to validate the predicted changes in land use (from task 1), farming systems and practices at a more local level with local stakeholders and secondly, to validate and explore in greater detail the likely environmental impacts for specific contexts/areas in England. Case study areas
10 CSL/CCRU, October (2006) The environmental implications of the 2003 CAP reforms in England” 11 Four JCAs were selected in consultation with Defra. These were JCA 8, JCA 61/62, JCA 83 and JCA 125. These were felt to provide a fairly wide representation of different farming systems, landscapes and habitat types whilst being manageable within the scope and budget of the project. http://www.cqc.org.uk/jca/
Page 30 Estimating the Environmental Impacts of Pillar I Reform
were selected to represent different land use and farming systems/practices in England and a range of environmental features. Such an approach also provided the basis for considering impacts in the context of different emerging environmental issues, relating to water/soil/greenhouse gas (nitrous oxide and methane) and ammonia emissions, landscape, biodiversity and flood risk.
A broad description of each of the JCA case study areas is set out in Appendix 5. The four areas selected represent particular farming types and practices in England and also different JCA groups as follows:
1. Upland group: JCA 8 - Cumbria High Fells (upland livestock) 2. Flood Plain Lowland group: JCA 61/62 - Shropshire, Cheshire & Staffordshire Plain (dairy) 3. Mixed Lowland group: JCA 83 - South Norfolk & High Suffolk Claylands (arable)
4. Calcareous lowland group: JCA 125 - South Downs (arable & sheep)
For each case study, local stakeholders were invited to a workshop to comment on the projected changes in land use and potential changes in farming systems and practices for the four policy scenarios. Results and conclusions of predicted environmental impact assessment at a higher level (e.g. national and regional) for the four scenarios were also presented for validation and discussion. Stakeholder views and insight were used to inform the potential environmental impacts at JCA level12 and also contributed to the wider analysis.
3.1 Landscape Changes in agriculture and forestry will inevitably have an impact upon how the landscape looks in the future. These changes include the following:
• Changes in agricultural support mechanisms (switch between production and agri- environment measures) − amount of land under conservation management − demand for energy crops and biofuel − changing stock levels and types
• Changing farm profitability and incomes leading to changes in farm types, cropping regimes and land use
• Changes in the value/use of key landscape features such as walls/hedges/barns − climate change − loss of traditional skills
Some changes will be seasonal (e.g. winter cropping), others incremental (e.g. climate change affecting plant species and habitats) and others could be more dramatic (e.g. demand for biofuels). Although there may be some general change in key characteristics at a regional level, such as the effects of climate change affecting vegetation, most observable change will be perceivable within a JCA or even at a more local level.
12 The outputs from the stakeholder meetings are annexed to this report (Appendix 10)
Page 31 Estimating the Environmental Impacts of Pillar I Reform
3.1.1 Evidence from Previous Studies The CSL/CCRU Report, ‘OBS 04: The environmental implications of the 2003 CAP reforms in England’ provides a valuable summary of literature relating to decoupling of farm support, including changes in agricultural practices and the associated environmental impacts. The key environmental threats and opportunities affecting the landscape baseline (GFA-RACE & IEEP, 2004) have been identified as:
Environmental threats: deterioration of landscape quality • Loss and degradation of landscape features (hedgerows, stone walls and farm buildings) • Reductions in labour force leading to a loss of countryside skills/management practices/local knowledge/stewardship • Homogeneity of crop and grazing patterns leading to a wider landscape lacking in distinctiveness • Increased field size and loss of boundary features • Undergrazing/cessation of grazing leading to a loss of landscape character and switch to alternative land uses • Insufficient agri-environment payments leading to reduced incentive to participate
and;
Environmental opportunities: enhancement of landscape quality • Increase in fallow land leading to a reduction in damage to archaeological features • Reduction in stock numbers and resulting reduction in damage to archaeological features • Increase in incentives to join agri-environment schemes leading to better protection and management of landscape features (including re-use/ new uses for traditional farm buildings)
In summary, the landscape implications of changing agricultural land use and practices, identified in previous studies, are:
• Increasing homogeneity and loss of distinctiveness as a result of large scale intensive management in productive areas • Increased extensification, or near-abandonment, in marginal areas • Land leaving agriculture and being taken for other land uses (e.g. leisure and housing) • Changes in the use and maintenance of landscape features • Changes in the up-take of agri-environment schemes leading to improvement in landscape quality Data Availability and Indicators As the indicators for this assessment need to be linked to the data available from the scenarios generated in Task 1, only the following variables can be used for generating indicators (grouped data in order to reduce total variables used):
• Hectares under various types of production: Rough grazing; set- aside; grassland (under 5 yrs); permanent grassland; Maize; Winter cereals; Spring cereals; Other cereals; Oilseed rape; Biofuel crops (Miscanthus/coppice); Potatoes and beet; Other root crops; Other crops & veg; soft fruits; flowers • Animal numbers: Dairy cows; Other cattle; Sheep; Pigs; Poultry
Page 32 Estimating the Environmental Impacts of Pillar I Reform
3.1.2 Methodology The predicted changes in farmland type and animal numbers as a result of the four scenarios were interpreted to give implications for farm businesses and activities on the farm. In order to assess the likely impact of these changes on the landscape resource, the key characteristics of the relevant case study JCA were studied.
Countryside Quality Counts (CQC) studies the direction of landscape change within a character area over a 5-10 year period and, with the help of stakeholders, attempts to categorise the trends in change. The definitions for the terms used are as follows:
Maintained: the character of an area is already strong and largely intact; the changes observed for the key themes (i.e. Trees & Woodland, Agriculture, Settlement & Development, Semi-natural Habitats, Boundary Features, Rivers & Coast) serve to sustain the character; and/ or lack of change results in distinctive qualities of the landscape being retained.
Enhancing: The changes in the key themes restore or strengthen the overall landscape character of an area.
Neglected: The character of an area has been weakened or degraded by past change or the changes observed in the key themes are not sufficient to restore the desired qualities that made the area distinct.
Diverging: The change in the key themes is transforming the character of the area so that either its distinctive qualities are being lost, or significant new patterns are emerging.
In the absence of national or regional landscape policy objectives, it is not possible to comment on whether national landscape objectives or targets are being met. As a result, it has to be assumed that landscapes that are currently maintained and/or those that will remain maintained in the future, are meeting long term conservation objectives both within designated landscapes and beyond (as defined in CQC). The maintenance of existing landscape character through support of appropriate landscape management measures is currently the desired outcome of Environmental Stewardship and is fully supported in Government policy. However, it is not necessarily the case that ‘Maintaining’ the landscape will remain a key objective for all Joint Character Areas in the future.
The CQC assessment allows for the state of a JCA to change (and be dynamic) within a static model. For example, if no change in character is being detected the term ‘Neglected’ may be used (i.e. the rate of change is low and the condition of the JCA in terms of its desired state is poor). If what is left of the traditional character starts to erode, then the classification will be Diverging. It is therefore possible that new distinctive qualities (positive or negative) may start to emerge as a result of this change. A qualitative judgement was made as to the predicted effect on the landscape of each policy reform scenario and how this compared to the current state and vision (as recorded in Countryside Quality Counts). Using a GIS database at 10 km resolution, variables for each JCA were interrogated from a baseline (Scenario A) and an estimate of change calculated due to Scenario’s B, C or D.
3.1.3 Results The analysis of landscape impacts from CAP reform is detailed at Appendix 6 and summarised in tables 16-19 below for each of case study JCAs. Scenario A (baseline), as assessed by Countryside Quality Counts (CQC) provides the descriptive base from which each scenario can be analysed for its impact on each character area (JCA).
Page 33 Estimating the Environmental Impacts of Pillar I Reform
Table 16: Landscape assessment JCA 8 (Cumbria Fells)
Reform Trend Landscape impacts scenario B A reduction in livestock will reduce pressure on the fells from the The trend is current overgrazing and reduce pressure for agricultural improvement. towards However the ability and requirement to maintain boundary features Divergence (from and other historic features may reduce, leading to these features current policy falling into disrepair. Consolidation of farms may further impact on statements for boundary features as field sizes increase. this landscape character area). C A reduction in all livestock could lead to significant levels of The trend is undergrazing and consequential loss of distinctive character and towards Neglect, diversity. However, continued support through the Single Payment except Boundary may contribute to maintaining boundary features and other historic & Historic features. Features, which may continue to be Enhanced. D A reduction in livestock will reduce pressure on the fells from the The trend is current overgrazing and reduce pressure for agricultural improvement. towards However the ability and requirement to maintain boundary features Divergence. and other historic features may reduce, leading to these features falling into disrepair. Consolidation of farms may further impact on boundary features as field sizes increase.
Table 17: Landscape assessment JCA 61/62 (Shropshire, Cheshire & Staffordshire Plain)
Reform Trend Landscape impacts scenario B With a reduction in cropping, more land will fall out of intensive arable The trend is systems. Cattle numbers will be slightly up (Dairy & Other Cattle) but towards Neglect. intensification of livestock farming could also lead to a reduction in pasture. The combined impact from changes in both arable and livestock sectors will have a negative effect on the maintenance and enhancement of the overall pastoral character of the area. The move towards more intensive systems may affect the diversity of the landscape and result in the loss of distinctive features such as vernacular farm buildings. C Increased scale of cereal farms may continue the trend in loss of The trend is pasture. The large increase in oilseed rape will create a seasonal towards Neglect. change in the colours in the landscape and will emphasise the difference between pasture and arable areas. Further intensification of farming could also lead to improved field drainage and loss of ponds and wet pasture. On intensive farms there will be an increasing pressure on field boundaries with further loss of hedgerows and hedgerow trees. In addition, marginal land may be left uncultivated as it is less likely to be used for cattle pasture and there will be a corresponding decline in sheep numbers. The combined impact from changes in both arable and livestock sectors will have a negative effect on the maintenance and enhancement of the pastoral character of the area. D With a reduction in cropping, more land will fall out of intensive arable The trend is systems. Cattle numbers will be slightly up (Dairy & Other Cattle) but towards intensification of livestock farming could also lead to a reduction in Divergence. pasture. The combined impact from changes in both arable and livestock sectors will have a negative effect on the maintenance and enhancement of the overall pastoral character of the area. The move towards more intensive systems may affect the diversity of the landscape and result in the loss of distinctive features such as vernacular farm buildings.
Page 34 Estimating the Environmental Impacts of Pillar I Reform
Table 18: Landscape assessment JCA 83 (South Norfolk & High Suffolk Claylands)
Reform Trend Landscape impacts scenario B The reduction in livestock could lead to land losing grazing condition The trend is and developing scrub habitat. For the river valleys where the towards Neglect. landscape character is one of grazing marsh, this change could result in loss of character. C The change in type of crop to oilseed rape will have a temporary The character of seasonal effect with large areas of the countryside becoming yellow. the area would be The reduction in fruit and vegetables is less likely to have an impact, Maintained. although there maybe a further fall in orchards. The more extensive use of grass may benefit the river valleys and provide more opportunities for a diverse landscape. The reduction in dairy cows is likely to be balanced by the increase in ewe numbers. However, this area is traditionally a dairy area and therefore some of the cultural and economic links with dairying may be lost, impacting on local character. D The change in size of arable farms could lead to a return to large- The trend is scale arable production and the amalgamation of fields resulting in the towards loss of landscape features and diversity across the area. In particular Divergence. a further loss of ditches, ponds and pasture. There will be less variety from season to season, however this will be balanced by an increase in marginal land and more extensive use of grass providing a more diverse landscape on the fringes of farms. A reduction in livestock would result in a more extensive use of grassland.
Table 19: Landscape assessment JCA 125 (South Downs)
Reform Trend Landscape impacts scenario B The consolidation of cereal farms could lead to the amalgamation of The trend is fields resulting in the loss of landscape features and diversity across towards the area. A reduction in livestock could impact on the distinctive chalk Divergence. grasslands which require grazing management. The significant loss of pigs is unlikely to make a noticeable impact on the landscape. C The change in type of crop to oilseed rape will have a temporary The character of seasonal effect with large areas of the countryside becoming yellow. the area would be The reduction in fruit and vegetables is less likely to have an impact. Maintained. The reduction in dairy cows may impact on the viability of the traditional character of the wet grasslands although this may be counter- balanced by an increase in Other cattle. The significant loss of pigs is unlikely unlikely to make a noticeable impact on the landscape. D The concentration on productive land with marginal land falling out of Although most production could provide opportunities to expand chalk grassland. The parts of the area concern is that with the reduction in all grazing stock much of the would be grassland will not be grazed and move towards scrub habitat. Maintained, some areas are moving towards Divergence.
Page 35 Estimating the Environmental Impacts of Pillar I Reform
3.1.4 Summary of Landscape Impacts Specific threats and risks to landscape character arising from the various scenarios can be summarised as: • Intensification of farming leaving marginal land out of production • Consolidation of farms leading to loss of boundary features • Loss of ability to maintain boundary features • Reduction in seasonal variety • Reduction in grazing leading to increased scrub • Consequential loss of distinct characteristics and diversity • Loss of maintenance and management of key landscape features • Loss of traditional character (cultural influences) • Changing habitats
The overall assessment of landscape impact at the case study level (Figure 18) concludes that under all scenarios (B, C and D) there will be measurable changes in the English landscape, with Scenario D having the most potential negative impact. The results are summarised as follows: • In the baseline situation (Scenario A) one JCA (61) has been identified as Diverging and the rest are considered to be Maintained. This means that significant change in the landscape is not expected as a result of business as usual. • When compared with the baseline, Scenario D has most impact on landscape, as it results in three Diverging and one Maintained/Diverging landscape • Scenario B has the next highest impact with two Neglected and two Diverging character areas. • Scenario C has the potential to have the least impact on the landscape with two Neglected and two Maintained landscapes.
In general terms, the challenging economic conditions associated with all three reform scenarios is likely to divert attention and investment away from land management activities at the farm level to such an extent that work to maintain and enhance landscape character ceases, increasing the trend towards neglect. In turn, the removal of tariff barriers and trade restrictions could lead to dramatic landscape changes in some areas as the complete farming landscape shifts to different types of production or out of production altogether.
Under scenarios where landscapes are neglected, continued spending on agri- environment schemes is likely to help buffer change. In particular, where schemes support key landscape characteristics such as boundary features, existing land management practices or cultural features, neglect might be halted or reversed.
Where landscapes are identified as likely to be diverging, the solution may need to be more radical. In some cases the changes in the agricultural sector could be such that the landscape management structures are removed or at least depleted to a level where the traditional methods of delivering landscape maintenance are no longer available or required. There is a recognition here that the loss of traditional skills may be a consequence of landscape change as demand for work diminishes and people leave the sector.
Similarly, some farming businesses may become less reliant on agri-environment support as they move into more profitable enterprises (i.e. different enterprises or
Page 36 Estimating the Environmental Impacts of Pillar I Reform
diversification into other activities). In some cases the landscape change may be too extensive or too fast to reverse; these landscapes may need to be re-evaluated in terms of future direction and change of land use and ambitions in terms landscape character.
Figure 18: Landscape impact at the case study level
As the landscape assessment is based on regional JCA classification, consideration was given to how a qualitative assessment could be scaled up to provide a national picture. The key issue with taking these assessments and providing a national picture is that each JCA provides a snapshot of distinctive qualities and attributes for a landscape character area. There are over one hundred character areas that make up England and by their very nature, they are distinct. For example a potential impact on the grassland landscape of the South Downs may have a different consequence when compared to the same impact affecting a grassland landscape in the South West. Each JCA has its own characteristics and local environmental context. However, Figure 18 does provide a degree of overview and visually it is possible to see for example, that Scenario A (Baseline) indicates a predominantly maintained landscape across the country; Scenario B reveals that landscapes that are currently degraded may struggle to have key distinct characteristics restored; Scenario C shows some red warning signs that parts of the country could be further weakened by change; and Scenario D leads to a transformed national picture, one where either distinctive landscape qualities are likely to be lost or significant new patterns will emerge.
3.2 Biodiversity Significant biodiversity declines on farmland over many years have been attributed to the effects of farm intensification and specialisation. To a large degree these changes have been driven by support from the CAP which guaranteed markets and supported prices and although support has recently been decoupled from production, the impact of reform has been modest to date. More radical reform such as that set out in the
Page 37 Estimating the Environmental Impacts of Pillar I Reform
three scenarios in this study would be expected to lead to significant changes in agriculture and consequently on biodiversity.
3.2.1 Evidence from Previous Studies Previous work carried out under the Agricultural Change and Environment Observatory Programme, and summarised in OBS 04, has reviewed and examined the agricultural issues that influence biodiversity. The work identifies the following factors as resulting in the major declines in biodiversity over the past forty years: • Intensification with higher inputs of fertilisers and pesticides • Larger fields • More autumn sowing of crops • Polarisation of arable and livestock enterprises • Simpler crop rotations • Switch from hay to silage • Higher stocking rates leading to overgrazing, particularly in the uplands.
The work also examines in more detail the current key biodiversity issues and impacts of agricultural practices for invertebrates, birds, mammals and plants. There will of course be differences in response to changes between these groups, and indeed between different species within these groups, but the main factors are enterprise type, pattern of cropping/land use, level and type of inputs and the extent and timing of key land management practices. The extent of non-crop area (hedgerows, field margins, and fallow) is also important.
The indicators, including biodiversity indicators, selected for the Observatory monitoring framework are also presented in report OBS 04.
3.2.2 Methodology Biodiversity Indicators From the range of biodiversity indicators in the Observatory monitoring framework, a selection was chosen to assess the impact of changes in agricultural practices. The indicators were chosen to be appropriate to the scale of analysis, and to reflect the major policy drivers of the Government commitment to reverse the declines in farmland birds by 2020, to address the decline in habitats and species through a range of Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) targets and to achieve favourable condition for 95% of Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) by 2010.
Thus indicators chosen are the main UK Biodiversity Action Plan Priority and Broad Habitats associated with agriculture, farmland birds and Sites of Special Scientific Interest.
BAP Habitats: Priority Habitats are those identified in the England Biodiversity Strategy indicators for agriculture13 (Working with the grain of nature - taking it forward: Volume II Measuring progress on the England Biodiversity Strategy: 2006 assessment, November 2006). Two BAP Broad Habitats were also included as indicators because they comprise the main lowland farmland habitats by area, many Priority Habitats being relatively scarce. Habitat indicators are as follows:
13 http://www.defra.gov.uk/wildlife-countryside/biodiversity/biostrat/indicators/pdf/grain/grainvol2annexf.pdf
Page 38 Estimating the Environmental Impacts of Pillar I Reform
BAP Priority Habitats • Arable field margins14 • Blanket bog • Hedgerows15 • Lowland calcareous grassland • Lowland dry acid grassland • Lowland meadows • Purple moor grass and rush pastures • Upland calcareous grassland • Upland hay meadows • Upland heathland
Broad Habitats • Arable and horticultural • Improved grassland
Farmland birds are widely used as indicators of the response of biodiversity to environmental change. Farmland birds, as a group, were used as an indicator to assess impacts at a national level. For the more detailed four case studies, the farmland bird species that are target species for Agri-Environment Schemes, as indicated on the Nature on the Map web site16 were used as indicators. These target species are Black Grouse, Cirl Bunting, Corn Bunting, Curlew, Grey Partridge, Lapwing, Redshank, Ring Ouzel, Snipe, Stone Curlew, Tree Sparrow, Turtle Dove, Twite, Woodlark and Yellow Wagtail.
SSSIs: For the more detailed assessment of the four case study areas the condition of SSSIs was used as an indicator. The modelled changes in cropping and stocking, together with the predicted changes to farming systems/patterns were used to assess the impacts on the biodiversity indicators. The general impacts of the changes under each scenario were described, by broad farming type17, using and building on the environmental impacts expressed in Table 3 of OBS 04.
The response of most indicators was too complex to make accurate quantitative predictions and suitable models are lacking for most, so qualitative judgements were made. At the national level the direction and degree of impact (minor, moderate, high) was assessed for BAP habitats and farmland birds as a group, taking account of the scale of the changes in cropping and stocking. The output is expressed in tabular form for each of the three change scenarios.
For the four case studies, the direction and degree of impact (minor, moderate, severe/high) was assessed for the relevant BAP priority habitats, target farmland bird species and SSSIs for each JCA. For SSSIs, account was taken of the current condition assessment and, where unfavourable, the main reasons for this, and the impacts were expressed for broad habitat groups. SSSI condition reports are available from the Natural England web site on a national, regional and county basis18 but those
14 formerly “Cereal field margins” 15 formerly “Ancient and/or species-rich hedgerow” 16http://www.natureonthemap.org.uk 17 These are set out in detail in Annex 6 18 http://www.english-nature.org.uk/Special/sssi/reportIndex.cfm
Page 39 Estimating the Environmental Impacts of Pillar I Reform
for the chosen JCAs were supplied directly by Natural England. The detailed case study assessments are set out at Annex 6; findings contribute to the expected impacts described here.
3.2.3 Results For all three Scenarios (B, C and D) there are likely to be both positive and negative impacts on biodiversity. Key changes in agriculture resulting from policy reform scenarios B-D are linked to likely biodiversity impacts in tables 20-22.
Table 20: Agricultural changes and biodiversity impacts resulting from policy scenario B
Change in agriculture Implication for biodiversity Substantial fall of 13% in both the cereal area and The non-cropped land is likely to be the least in the area of arable land. The area of land productive, providing additional wildlife habitat and removed from production is similar in scale to the buffers for areas of biodiversity value; some land area of set-aside in 2004. is likely to be fallowed rotationally with potential for providing associated biodiversity benefits, depending on how the stubbles/fallow are managed. The sugar beet area reduces by a third, with Taken together with a reduction in other spring remaining production concentrated in the East crops, there will be a fall in the area of and East Midlands; nationally there is a small fall overwintered stubbles and in the area of less in potato area. dense spring/summer cover, which may be partially balanced by the likely increase in rotational fallow. The reduction in diversity of crops will have an adverse effect on wildlife. There is a fall in cattle numbers in most areas, General extensification together with localised except the West Midlands. intensification. Sheep numbers fall (ewes 15%) except in Reduction in overgrazing in the uplands but Yorkshire and Humberside; the steepest decline is lowland grazed habitats which are commonly in upland areas. undergrazed may suffer.
Table 21: Agricultural changes and biodiversity impacts resulting from policy scenario C
Change in agriculture Implication for biodiversity Smaller reduction (4%) in arable land, equivalent Increased area of oilseed rape could benefit some to the estimated non-rotational set-aside in 2004. birds. This land is more likely to be in permanent fallow than rotational fallow. Cereal area also falls less than for Scenario B, and there is a substantial increase (38%) in oilseed rape. A 30% reduction in sugar beet, 25% reduction in Will reduce the area of overwintered stubbles, potatoes and falls in the area of other spring which is unlikely to be balanced by rotational crops. fallow. Overall crop diversity falls Large reduction (22%) in dairy cows in all regions, More extensive grassland management will have and a general decrease in beef cattle although a positive impact except on lowland grazed there will be small increases in some areas. habitats where undergrazing is a concern. Ewe numbers decline by 16%, with the steepest Will benefit overgrazed uplands but undergrazed decline in the northern uplands. lowlands may suffer.
Scenario C would appear to have a less negative impact on biodiversity compared to Scenario B.
Page 40 Estimating the Environmental Impacts of Pillar I Reform
Table 22: Agricultural changes and biodiversity impacts resulting from policy scenario D
Change in agriculture Implication for biodiversity Substantial reduction in the arable area of one The overall fall in cereal production and crop million hectares or 25%, with a 28% increase in diversity will have adverse effects on farmland oilseed rape, balanced by falls in cereals and all birds that are largely dependent on cereals or other crops; wheat area increases in the East and mixed cropping. East Midlands. In all, 1.1 million hectares come out of production, some of which is likely to be fallowed rotationally. Sugar beet falls by over 40% and potatoes by The effect of the fall in spring cropping on the area some 20%. of overwintered stubbles may be balanced by an increase in rotational fallow if appropriately managed. A 20% fall in dairy cows will result in less intensive There is a risk of undergrazing on lowland grassland management, as will a 25% fall in beef grassland habitats cows and a 15% fall in other cattle. A substantial fall in sheep numbers (20% breeding Will provide relief from overgrazing in the uplands ewes) particularly in the north and west. but combined with the fall in cattle numbers could lead to undergrazing in some areas of the uplands, as well as increasing this problem in lowland grassland habitats
Overall Scenario D would appear to give rise to a similar range of negative impacts on biodiversity compared to Scenario B and have slightly more positive impacts on biodiversity compared to Scenario C.
The assessment of likely direction and scale of impact on biodiversity is set out in Tables 23 -25. Where an impact is assessed as being negative this is highlighted in red; where the impact is positive, it is highlighted in green. The scale of impact is based on the number of + or – symbols. The full analysis by case study JCA is detailed at Appendix 7. An analysis by indicator is detailed below.
SSSI Under all policy reform scenarios there will be a positive impact on SSSIs which are currently in unfavourable condition due to overgrazing, particularly those in the uplands. However there is a risk that some areas may become undergrazed in the longer term. This was identified as an important issue for the South Downs and South Norfolk/High Suffolk JCAs case studies, and confirmed at the stakeholder workshops. There are concerns that further falls in livestock numbers will lead to loss of infrastructure such as local abattoirs, so speeding the decline. Undergrazing of lowland SSSIs is of concern in other areas also, for example the South West.
This may be a localised issue, but there will be a tipping point between an appropriate grazing intensity in these upland areas and undergrazing, which needs further examination. The more significant reduction in grazing livestock in scenario D suggests the impact will be greater than for Scenarios B and C.
BAP Habitats The more intensive grassland management associated with the increase in cattle in the West Midlands under scenario B will have a small negative impact (given that management is already intensive) on adjacent lowland grassland BAP habitats. Elsewhere the fall in cattle numbers and less intensive grassland management in predominantly livestock areas will have a positive buffering effect, as will the fall in arable production in mixed farming areas. However, for SSSIs the fall in grazing
Page 41 Estimating the Environmental Impacts of Pillar I Reform livestock in predominantly arable areas will lead to further undergrazing of lowland grassland BAP habitats.
The reduction in grazing livestock will have a positive impact on upland BAP habitats, and also on the condition of hedgerows. The reduction in spring cropping will have a slight negative impact on hedgerows in that the opportunities for winter management are reduced; however this may be compensated by increased rotational and permanent fallow.
Under all scenarios, the amount of arable field margin will reduce with land going out of arable production and any aggregation of arable fields; however larger equipment could lead to an increase in the area of remaining margins. A fall in the sugar beet and potato area should improve the condition of arable field margins with a reduction in autumn/winter trafficking.
Farmland Birds The reduction in spring cropping and in the diversity of cropping will have a negative impact on farmland birds, with a decrease in overwintered stubbles and a reduced range of food sources. Rotational fallow, if managed sympathetically, could compensate for the loss of spring crops. Permanent fallow in predominantly arable areas could also be of benefit. In mixed and predominantly grassland areas the decrease in arable crops will reduce the diversity of habitat and food sources, especially for seed eating birds. This concern was also expressed for the South Downs JCA at the stakeholder meeting. Birds adversely affected will include corn bunting, grey partridge, tree sparrow and turtle dove.
The negative impact of this will be greater for scenario D than scenarios B and C
The reduction in sheep and cattle and consequent less intensive grassland management in livestock areas will have a positive impact on farmland birds, particularly ground nesting birds.
Page 42
Table 23: Changes in biodiversity anticipated with Scenario B
Purple moor Arable Lowland Lowland Upland Upland Blanket Lowland grass & Upland Arable & Improved Farmland field Hedgerows calc. dry acid calcareous hay bog meadows rush heathland horticultural grassland birds margin grassland grassland grassland meadows pasture Scenario B Arable Arable land out of production; increased - 0 ++ + + + 0 0 0 0 + + + permanent fallow Arable land out of production; increased ++ 0 + 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ++ 0 ++ rotational fallow
Reduced spring cropping -- 0 - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -- 0 -- Simpler rotations; less diverse cropping + 0 - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -- 0 -- Larger farm units and more block cropping 0 0 - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -- 0 - Mixed Less arable cropping in mixed farm areas -- 0 0 + + + 0 0 0 0 -- 0 -- Livestock Increase in all cattle in W Midlands - more intensive 0 0 ------0 0 0 0 - -- grass management Decrease in all cattle elsewhere - less intensive 0 0 + + + + + + + 0 0 ++ ++ grass management Decrease in sheep numbers and grazing 0 +++ + ------0 - + +++ 0 ++ + pressure
-- Strong –ve impact --- Modest –ve impact ++ Strong +ve impact + Modest +ve impact
Table 24: Changes in biodiversity anticipated with Scenario C
Purple moor Arable Lowland Lowland Upland Upland Blanket Lowland grass & Upland Arable & Improved Farmland field Hedgerows calc. dry acid calcareous hay bog meadows rush heathland horticultural grassland birds margin grassland grassland grassland meadows pasture Scenario C Arable Arable land out of production; increased - 0 ++ + + + 0 0 0 0 + + + permanent fallow
Reduced spring cropping -- 0 - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -- 0 -- Simpler rotations; less diverse cropping + 0 - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -- 0 -- Larger farm units and more block cropping 0 0 - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -- 0 - Mixed Less arable cropping in mixed farm areas - 0 0 + + + 0 0 0 0 - 0 - Livestock Decrease in dairy cows in all regions - less intensive grass management where 0 0 + + + + + 0 0 0 0 + + switch to other livestock Switch from dairy to beef in some areas, and overall fall in beef cattle - less 0 0 + + + + + 0 0 0 0 ++ ++ intensive grass management Decrease in sheep numbers and grazing 0 +++ + - - - 0 ++ + +++ 0 ++ + pressure
-- --- ++ + Strong –ve impact Modest –ve impact Strong +ve impact Modest +ve impact
Table 25: Changes in biodiversity anticipated with Scenario D
Purple moor Arable Lowland Lowland Upland Upland Blanket Lowland grass & Upland Arable & Improved Farmland field Hedgerows calc. dry acid calcareous hay bog meadows rush heathland horticultural grassland birds margin grassland grassland grassland meadows pasture Scenario D Arable Arable land out of production; increased - 0 ++ + + + 0 0 0 0 ++ + + permanent fallow Arable land out of production; increased ++ 0 + 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ++ 0 +++ rotational fallow
Reduced spring cropping -- 0 - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -- 0 --- Simpler rotations; less diverse cropping + 0 - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -- 0 -- Larger farm units and more block cropping 0 0 - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -- 0 - Mixed Less arable cropping in mixed farm areas -- 0 0 + + + 0 0 0 0 -- 0 -- Livestock Decrease in dairy cows in all regions - less intensive grass management where 0 0 ++ + + + + 0 0 0 0 + + switch to other livestock Switch from dairy to beef in some areas, and overall fall in beef cows & other cattle - 0 0 + + + + + 0 0 0 0 ++ ++ less intensive grass management Decrease in sheep numbers and grazing 0 ++ + ------0 - + ++ 0 ++ + pressure
-- Strong –ve impact --- Modest –ve impact ++ Strong +ve impact + Modest +ve impact
Estimating the Environmental Impacts of Pillar I Reform
3.2.4 Summary of Biodiversity Impacts Scenarios B, C and D will all have impacts on biodiversity, some positive and some negative. Table 26 summarises these impacts on biodiversity as a result of changes associated with the three reform scenarios.
Table 26: Summary of impacts of change in agricultural practice on biodiversity
Overall change Impact Reduction in area of arable Negative for birds and other wildlife, in mixed farming areas, due to loss cropping of food sources; negative for arable field margins Positive for water habitats Consequent increase in Positive in predominantly arable areas, dependent on management; rotational fallow positive for hedgerows, facilitating winter trimming Reduction in the range of Negative for a range of wildlife arable crops; more block cropping Positive for arable field margins where reduction in winter-harvested roots Reduction in spring Negative for a range of wildlife, especially birds; negative for hedgerows cropping Decrease in dairy cattle Positive impact on grassland and adjacent habitats from less intensive grassland management; positive for hedgerow condition Decrease in beef & sheep Positive when part of existing intensive system; positive for hedgerow in lowland areas condition Negative where undergrazing of Biodiversity Action Plan priority habitats is an issue e.g. chalk grassland, grazing marshes in east; and where grass:arable ratio is reduced in mixed or arable areas Decrease in beef and Positive initially, but undergrazing or ‘retreat’ from the hills could have sheep in the uplands negative consequences where the decrease is severe; negative if cattle:sheep ratio reduced
For upland areas the reduction in grazing livestock under all scenarios will have positive benefits by reducing grazing pressure in areas where overgrazing has been a concern for some years. However there is a risk that some upland areas may become undergrazed, particularly under Scenario D. Identifying where the tipping point between overgrazing and undergrazing is in the uplands is very difficult. A recently completed project19 concluded that:
Vegetation responses to particular grazing regimes will vary among sites and among plant communities within individual sites. Habitat requirements, and therefore the response to a grazing regime, also vary among bird and invertebrate taxa. Diverse vegetation structure and plant species composition within and between sites are required to maximise biodiversity. It is not possible, therefore to produce generalised grazing prescriptions but specific grazing regimes are most likely to meet individual site objectives for biodiversity and economics.
19 Determining Environmentally Sustainable and Economically Viable Grazing Systems for the Restoration and Maintenance of Heather Moorland in England and Wales. 2007. ADAS UK Ltd, NERC CEH, IGER, Newcastle University, RSPB & SAC. Contract report for Defra
Page 46 Estimating the Environmental Impacts of Pillar I Reform
For lowland grassland habitats the reduction in grazing livestock will exacerbate the existing undergrazing problems; this effect will be less under Scenario C. Although the areas of lowland SSSI and BAP habitat may be small in comparison with the substantial area of upland heathland and bog, these are nonetheless valuable because of their rarity value. Similarly, although undergrazing is the reason for unfavourable condition on a relatively small area of SSSI, it is identified as a significant problem in the South West, South East, East, North East and West Midlands,20 and undergrazing is the subject of project initiatives in various parts of the country, e.g. East of England.
For farmland birds the reduction in spring cropping and diversity of crops will have a negative impact which will be greatest under Scenario D and least under Scenario C. The likely increase in rotational fallow under Scenario D and to a certain extent Scenario B will mitigate this effect to a limited extent. In mixed and predominantly grassland areas the decrease in arable crops will reduce diversity of habitat and food sources – again the negative impact will be greatest under Scenario D. On the positive side the reduction in grazing pressure in upland areas and the decrease in stocking of currently intensively managed lowland grassland will be beneficial to birds.
Implications for Schemes Whilst the reduction in stocking will provide a positive impact on upland habitats, the responses on individual sites will vary according to the degree of heterogeneity of vegetation and the baseline condition of that vegetation. As the reduction in stocking is an economic response to lower returns, it is likely that resources will be unavailable to provide the level of management necessary to optimise the biodiversity benefits. The report on heather moorland21 concluded that upland grazing systems, including those with cattle, require considerable financial support to achieve positive margins. Thus there is little scope to reduce the agri-environmental scheme support, and whereas currently Higher Level Stewardship (HLS) payments are structured on the basis of income foregone to reduce stocking levels, the additional costs of keeping stock on the uplands will need consideration, particularly under Scenario D.
Where undergrazing is an issue, and will be increasingly so under the change scenarios, HLS schemes will need to be available to maintain or increase the keeping of livestock to graze these areas at an appropriate level. Whilst SSSIs are an important target for HLS, under current arrangements many ESA lowland grassland areas are unlikely to qualify for HLS under current targeting when their agreements expire, and ELS payments are likely to be insufficient to maintain adequate stocking levels. Overall, HLS needs to be more widely available to mitigate the effects of undergrazing.
Options for wild bird seed mixtures are available in both arable and grassland areas under ES. Take up of these options has been low under ES, and as they will become increasingly important under all scenarios in mixed and predominantly grassland areas to mitigate the reduction in area and diversity of arable crops, they will need to be made more attractive under ELS (e.g. more points and/or a required element where appropriate; higher payments).
20 Target 2010 – the condition of England’s SSSIs in 2005. English Nature 2006 21 Determining Environmentally Sustainable and Economically Viable Grazing Systems for the Restoration and Maintenance of Heather Moorland in England and Wales. 2007. ADAS UK Ltd, NERC CEH, IGER, Newcastle University, RSPB & SAC. Contract report for Defra
Page 47 Estimating the Environmental Impacts of Pillar I Reform
As the amount of spring cropping falls under all scenarios, the options for overwintered stubbles under ES will become less attractive. The possible increase in rotational fallow under Scenarios B and D is unlikely to compensate for the consequences of reduced spring cropping. To overcome the negative impacts the options for overwintered stubble and spring cropping in ES will need to be made more attractive.
As a general point, whilst the relatively narrow targeting of HLS can benefit identified key bird species, it has limited impact on farmland birds across the wider countryside. ELS options do benefit the wider countryside, provided the uptake of the scheme and relevant options is sufficient.
3.3 Soils ‘Soil quality’ is an often-used term, though frequently it is not well defined, or has different meanings to different users (Stockdale et al., 2002). Soil quality was once synonymous with soil fertility, i.e. the ability of a soil to grow a crop well (Cooke, 1973). However, this is a limited definition and does not recognise the need to include a much wider range of potential functions alongside plant production.
Our working definition of soil quality for the purpose of this report is that developed by Larson & Pierce (1994): soil quality is represented by a range of physical, chemical and biological properties of the soil within its particular environment that together provide a medium for plant growth and biological activity, regulate and partition water flow and storage in the environment and serve as a buffer in the formation and destruction of environmentally hazardous compounds.
Thus, for soils to provide these functions adequately, we need to maintain good soil structure, adequate soil nutrient status and diverse soil biology. All of these aspects are interlinked, and adequate supplies of organic matter are central to maintaining these properties.
3.3.3 Methodology Changes/trends in livestock numbers, fertiliser use and livestock and manure management were used to make a qualitative assessment of the impact of scenarios on physical soil degradation through compaction and loss of the soil resource by erosion.
3.3.4 Results Soil structure may be described in terms of porosity, soil strength (e.g. sheer strength), bulk density, size and shape of aggregates and stability of aggregates. Good soil structure has: good aggregate stability, which provides resistance to structural degradation (capping, compaction, erosion); optimal bulk density (aids root development and water/air movement within soils); optimal water holding capacity and rate of water infiltration.
Loss of soil structure through compaction can therefore lead to reduced crop production (and reduced efficiency of use of other inputs), and excessive surface run- off of water and soil erosion.
The likelihood of changes in soil structure, changes in organic matter content and changes in soil erosion risk are therefore good indicators of impacts of agricultural changes on soil quality.
Page 48 Estimating the Environmental Impacts of Pillar I Reform
Impacts of Livestock Production All livestock can cause significant soil compaction, especially when stocking rates are high and soils are wet. Compaction tends to increase with increasing livestock density. However, soil conditions and soil type are also crucial in determining the degree of compaction and sward degradation.
Soil degradation can arise from: • Compaction from animal trampling • Compaction from use of heavy machinery to spread manure • Compaction from use of heavy machinery for silage making • Increased risk of compaction/erosion if grassland is replaced by maize production
A positive benefit of the livestock sector is the maintenance of soil organic matter and related properties through maintaining grass cover and inputs of manure to land. A reduction in livestock numbers could, therefore, potentially reduce soil organic matter (SOM), especially if the land is returned to arable production.
When considering Scenarios B-D it is probable that, on average, the overall adverse effects on soil compaction from livestock will reduce (Table 27). This is because, under all scenarios, livestock numbers are expected to decrease.
Table 27: Impact of changes in livestock figures on physical soil degradation
Scenario Overall Change General Impact on Soil Local Variations in Livestock numbers B Reduction in all Potential An increase in dairy cows is projected in the livestock sectors improvements in soil West Midlands therefore further soil compaction compaction, reduced could be an issue due to increased trampling, surface run-off and manure spreading and silage production. soil erosion C Reduction in Potential Stocking rates of beef cows will increase in dairy cows, improvements in soil South East, West Midlands and Yorkshire. finishing cattle, compaction, reduced Increases in sheep are expected in the North breeding ewes surface run-off and West. Compared to dairy cows, some beef and and all pigs soil erosion most sheep systems, are outdoors for much of the winter, therefore there is the potential for these animals to cause more compaction. D Fall in all Potential In East Anglia, poultry figures remain stable; livestock improvements in soil therefore soil compaction due to the spreading sectors, with compaction, reduced of litter and manure will not improve in this area. only poultry surface run-off and remaining stable soil erosion
The fine detail of how these changes in agricultural structure will affect soil quality depends on many factors: for example, whether the response is extensification (fewer animals per unit area) or conversion of grassland to arable production.
Page 49 Estimating the Environmental Impacts of Pillar I Reform
Impacts of Arable Production Arable cultivation can potentially adversely affect soil quality by: • Reducing soil organic matter content (arising from annual disturbance of the soil by cultivation, which increases mineralisation) • Increased erosion risk from bare soils, particularly on slopes and in periods of intense rainfall. • Opportunity for compaction from trafficking and/or cultivation when soils are too wet
As with livestock systems, though we have identified potential hazards (Table 28), the actual risk of damage will depend on the production system, the soils and the climate.
Some crops provide more of a risk than others. For example, potatoes require intensive soil preparation with an increased risk of erosion. Similarly small-seeded vegetable crops require very fine seedbeds, with an increased erosion risk. Crops with a long growing season (e.g. sugar beet) and/or late harvested crops risk soil structure damage by the need to harvest in winter when soils are wetter and prone to soil compaction.
On many soils, there is a move away from ploughing to non-inversion minimal tillage (to save costs). This can benefit soils because there is less disturbance of the soil structure, reduced erosion risk and greater concentrations of organic matter in the soil surface. Thus, the overall effects of changed agricultural structure will depend on the fine detail of the response.
Table 28: Impact of changes in areas of arable production on physical soil degradation
Scenario Overall Change in General Impact on Soil Local Variations arable production B Overall reduction Minimum tillage disturbs the There is a potential increase in potato in all cropping soil structure less. This will production, for example in the East areas and a move results in less soil erosion, Midlands and the Eastern region; as a towards minimum combined with an overall result there will be more intensive soil tillage due to improvement in soil structure, preparation. This is likely to cause a production cost due to increased organic decrease in soil stability, causing an cutting mater and increased water increase in soil erosion. holding capacity.
C Overall reduction The increase in autumn sown Large reductions in potatoes and in all cropping wheat and oilseed rape can sugar beet in the south east and south areas except weaken topsoil structural west will help to improve soil stability. Oilseed rape and stability and increase erosion These improvements may be counter wheat where an and run-off acted by an increase in barley and increase is oilseed rape in the south east which expected require fine seed beds in the autumn and leave soils bare over the winter period. D Overall reduction A reduction of land in In the East Midlands there is a small in all cropping agriculture will mean less increase in wheat, balanced by drops areas except land being cultivated in barley and oilseed rape. There is a Oilseed rape nationally, and as a result small increase in potatoes but a where an increase less of a problem with soil decline of 30% in sugar beet. is expected erosion. Therefore under this situation soil degradation will not improve.
Page 50 Estimating the Environmental Impacts of Pillar I Reform
3.4 Greenhouse Gas and Ammonia Emissions Pillar I reform will impact on the magnitude of emissions of methane, nitrous oxide and ammonia as a result of changes in numbers of livestock (and the manure that they generate) and crop areas resulting in changes in total N fertiliser use and quantity of crop residues. This section summarises the impact of the three Pillar I reform scenarios on emissions of methane, nitrous oxide and ammonia from agriculture in England and compares them to estimated emissions from the base year 2015. The same methodology is used to estimate these gaseous emissions as that used in Defra project SFF0601, Baseline Projections for Agriculture, i.e. the IPCC22 methodology for 23 estimating N2O and CH4 emissions, and NARSES to determine NH3 emissions.
3.4.1 Methodology Effects of Pillar I Reform on Gaseous Emissions Methane The IPCC methodology for quantifying methane emissions in the UK is based on Tier 1 and Tier 2 calculations for enteric and manure sources (Baggott et al., 2006). Tier 1 calculations are based on multiplying an agreed emission factor by the number of livestock in a particular category, and apply to all livestock categories, the exception being dairy cows. For dairy cows, the UK uses a Tier 2 method for calculating emissions from enteric and manure sources. Tier 2 calculations are based on the productivity (litres of milk produced), live weight and fat content of the milk. With predicted decreases in dairy cow numbers, but increased production per head, Tier 2 methodology is essential to account for increased feed intakes by more productive lactating dairy cows.
Live weight, milk productivity and milk fat content data were taken from the UK IPCC Greenhouse Gas (GHG) inventory (Baggott et al., 2006), where live weight is predicted to increase by 0.6% year on year and milk productivity is predicted to increase by 1% year on year to the year 2025. For these predictions, the milk fat content was assumed to remain constant, at 4%. For the year 2015 (our baseline year), the annual methane emissions from the enteric and manure management sources from dairy cows were calculated at 109.9 and 27.0 kg/head/yr, respectively.
Methane emissions were calculated for the enteric and manure sources separately for each 10 x 10 km grid square and summed to generate a total for England.
Nitrous Oxide
The IPCC methodology was used to quantify N2O emissions. Emissions from the direct sources: grazing (GRAZ), organic fertiliser applications (FAW), manure storage (AWMS) and inorganic N fertiliser use (FERT) were estimated separately. So too, were emissions from crop residues and biological fixation. (Codes in parentheses are those used in the IPCC inventory). The indirect losses of N2O, viz. N deposition and N leaching were also estimated using the IPCC methodology. It is important to note, as the current IPCC methodology for calculating the UK N2O inventory was used, no account was taken of the effect of soil type, rainfall and temperature or fertiliser type on N2O emissions.
22 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 23 National Ammonia Reduction Strategy Evaluation System
Page 51 Estimating the Environmental Impacts of Pillar I Reform
Ammonia Ammonia emissions were estimated from animal housing, manure storage, hard standings, manure spreading and grazing sources using the National Ammonia Reduction Strategy Evaluation System mass flow model (NARSES) (Webb and Misselbrook, 2004) and combined to generate a single emission factor on a per head basis. This average emission factor per head takes into account the range of livestock housing types, manure stores and manure spreading activities that operate across the UK, based on farm management practice surveys. There is uncertainty about the management practices of livestock, manures and N fertilisers that operate at the UK level. Previous studies investigated the uncertainty in the UK ammonia emissions inventory (NARSES) using @RISK software, and showed that the error around the national value for ammonia emissions is +- 21% (Webb and Misselbrook, 2004). There will be uncertainty around the activity data that operates at each the 10 km x 10 km grid. Livestock numbers are known at this scale, but manure and livestock management will vary within a grid. Within the resources, it has not been possible to run @RISK software for each grid square, so cannot comment on the degree of uncertainty that surrounds the ammonia emissions value for each 10 km x 10 km grid.
The emissions from fertiliser use were estimated using the average fertiliser N application to each crop type (information from project SFF0601). Emissions from fertiliser N applied to grazing land were included in the NARSES estimation, hence to avoid double counting we excluded the fertiliser applied to permanent pasture in our estimation from fertiliser sources. The split between fertiliser type used for each land use was taken from NARSES with different proportions for tilled and grassland (see Table 29). For simplicity, it was assumed that the split was deemed the same for all tillage crops (including horticulture). The same fertiliser use (rate and form) was assumed for the same crops in all the reported scenarios. Emission factors for the different forms of fertiliser were also taken from NARSES (not yet updated by NT26 data) (Table 30).
Table 29: Proportion of fertiliser types used
Proportion of fertiliser used (%)
24 AN 0.58
Urea 0.16 25 UAN 0.12
Other 0.14
Table 30: Ammonia emission factors used for each fertiliser type (% of N applied)
% Tillage Grassland
AN 1.3 1.7
Urea 13.4 16.7
UAN 7.4 9.3
24 ammonium nitrate 25 solution of urea and ammonium nitrate in water
Page 52 Estimating the Environmental Impacts of Pillar I Reform
3.4.2 Results Effects of Pillar I Reform on Gaseous Emissions Methane
Table 31 summarises the CH4 emissions for England by robust farming sector following the predictions in changing livestock numbers as a result of the three Pillar 1 reform scenarios.
Table 31: Estimated methane emissions for policy scenarios by robust farm type (kt/yr)
2015 Baseline Scenario B CH4 (kt/year) CH4 (kt/year) Enteric Waste Total Enteric Waste Total
Dairy 154.3 31.2 185.5 Dairy 146.5 30.2 176.7
LFA 53.9 2.1 56.0 LFA 47.4 1.7 49.1
Lowland Grazing 79.0 6.5 85.5 Lowland Grazing 71.3 6.2 77.4
Mixed 62.9 11.6 74.6 Mixed 49.4 9.7 59.2
Pigs 3.7 7.0 10.6 Pigs 3.5 6.9 10.4
Poultry 0.9 10.0 10.9 Poultry 0.6 9.8 10.4
Cereal 21.7 2.5 24.2 Cereal 19.5 2.2 21.7
General 9.3 2.4 11.7 General 12.0 2.9 14.9
Horticulture 0.0 0.0 0.0 Horticulture 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total 385.7 73.3 459.1 Total 350.2 69.7 419.9
Scenario C Scenario D CH4 (kt/year) CH4 (kt/year) Enteric Waste Total Enteric Waste Total
Dairy 131.1 26.8 157.8 Dairy 129.8 26.6 156.4
LFA 42.4 1.7 44.1 LFA 47.5 1.7 49.2
Lowland Grazing 71.2 5.6 76.8 Lowland Grazing 64.8 5.6 70.5
Mixed 50.4 8.0 58.4 Mixed 37.2 7.2 44.4
Pigs 3.1 6.0 9.1 Pigs 3.1 5.9 9.0
Poultry 0.7 9.8 10.5 Poultry 0.5 9.8 10.4
Cereal 21.6 2.1 23.7 Cereal 17.6 1.9 19.5
General 7.7 1.7 9.4 General 11.3 2.6 13.9
Horticulture 0.0 0.0 0.0 Horticulture 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total 328.1 61.7 389.8 Total 311.8 61.5 373.3
Total methane emissions are estimated to decline by 9%, 15% and 19% from the 2015 base year estimate for Scenarios B, C and D, respectively.
For Scenario B, the most marked reduction in methane emissions was from the mixed farming sector (15 kt), with similar decreases from the dairy (9 kt), Less Favoured Area (LFA) (7 kt) and lowland grazing (8 kt) farming sectors. These reductions in
Page 53 Estimating the Environmental Impacts of Pillar I Reform methane emissions were due to decreases in the numbers of ruminants. Losses of methane were reduced by a modest amount from the cereal farming sector (2 kt) but increased from the general farming sector (3 kt). There was little effect of Scenario B on emissions from the pig and poultry farming sectors.
For Scenario C, the most marked reduction in methane emissions (28 kt) was due to changes in dairy cow numbers. Scenario C also resulted in marked reductions of methane from the LFA farming sector. Reductions in methane emissions from the lowland grazing (9 kt) farming sector were similar to those from Scenario B. There was a larger impact of Scenario C on methane emissions from the pigs farming sector (a reduction of 1.5 kt) compared with Scenario B. Scenario C resulted in a decrease in methane emissions from the general farming sector, in contrast to Scenario B.
For Scenario D, the most marked reductions in methane emissions were from the dairy (29kt), mixed (30 kt) and lowland grazing (15kt) farming sectors. Emissions from the cereal farming sector were reduced by 5 kt, whilst those from the general farming sector increased by 2 kt.
It is important to note, that although scenarios B, C and D result in reduced methane emissions as a result of a decrease in dairy and other ruminant numbers in England, the demand for milk and meat will probably not decrease, and the products will be sourced from elsewhere in the world. Thus, global methane emissions may not be reduced as a consequence of these scenarios.
The spatial distribution of CH4 emissions can be seen in Figure 19 for the baseline 2015 year and the absolute difference from baseline for each of the Pillar I reform scenarios.
Figure 19: Spatial distribution of methane emissions for scenario A and the absolute change in methane emissions from baseline predicted for scenarios B-D.
Page 54 Estimating the Environmental Impacts of Pillar I Reform
Nitrous Oxide
The effects of Pillar I reform scenarios on N2O emissions are summarised in Table 32 by robust farming sector.
Table 32: Estimated N2O emissions for policy scenarios by robust farm type (kt/yr)
Baseline 2015 N2O (kt/year) Crop N AWS FAW GRAZ FERT N leach Total Res depn.
Dairy 0.6 1.4 2.1 0.1 2.1 3.3 0.7 10.4
LFA 0.2 0.2 1.5 0.0 0.5 1.1 0.3 3.8
Lowland Grazing 0.4 0.6 1.7 0.1 1.1 1.8 0.4 6.0
Mixed 0.5 0.8 1.2 0.6 1.7 2.1 0.5 7.5
Pigs 0.3 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.1 1.1
Poultry 0.4 1.0 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.9 0.2 2.7
Cereal 0.2 0.2 0.5 3.8 8.0 5.1 0.8 18.5
General 0.1 0.1 0.2 1.4 3.1 2.0 0.3 7.3
Horticulture 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.3
Total 2.6 4.7 7.3 6.1 16.7 16.6 3.3 57.5 Scenario B N2O (kt/year) Crop N AWS FAW GRAZ FERT N leach Total Res depn.
Dairy 0.5 1.3 2.0 0.1 2.0 3.1 0.7 9.8
LFA 0.2 0.2 1.3 0.0 0.5 1.0 0.2 3.4
Lowland Grazing 0.4 0.5 1.4 0.1 1.0 1.6 0.4 5.5
Mixed 0.4 0.7 0.9 0.4 1.4 1.7 0.4 6.0
Pigs 0.3 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.1 1.1
Poultry 0.4 1.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.2 2.7
Cereal 0.1 0.2 0.4 3.4 7.4 4.7 0.7 16.9
General 0.1 0.2 0.2 1.3 2.8 1.9 0.3 6.8
Horticulture 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.2
Total 2.4 4.4 6.6 5.4 15.4 15.2 3.0 52.4
Page 55 Estimating the Environmental Impacts of Pillar I Reform
Scenario C N2O (kt/year) Crop N AWS FAW GRAZ FERT N leach Total Res depn.
Dairy 0.5 1.2 1.8 0.1 2.1 2.9 0.6 9.2
LFA 0.2 0.2 1.1 0.0 0.5 0.9 0.2 3.1
Lowland Grazing 0.4 0.5 1.5 0.1 1.0 1.6 0.4 5.5
Mixed 0.4 0.6 1.0 0.6 1.8 2.0 0.4 6.9
Pigs 0.3 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.1 1.0
Poultry 0.4 1.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.2 2.7
Cereal 0.1 0.2 0.5 3.5 7.8 5.0 0.8 17.9
General 0.1 0.1 0.1 1.5 3.2 2.0 0.3 7.4
Horticulture 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.2
Total 2.3 4.1 6.3 5.9 16.6 15.6 3.0 53.9 Scenario D N2O (kt/year) Crop N AWS FAW GRAZ FERT N leach Total Res depn.
Dairy 0.5 1.2 1.8 0.1 2.0 2.9 0.6 9.0
LFA 0.2 0.2 1.3 0.0 0.5 1.0 0.2 3.4
Lowland Grazing 0.3 0.5 1.3 0.1 1.0 1.5 0.3 5.1
Mixed 0.4 0.6 0.7 0.2 1.2 1.5 0.3 4.9
Pigs 0.3 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.9
Poultry 0.4 1.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.2 2.7
Cereal 0.1 0.2 0.4 2.8 6.8 4.3 0.7 15.3
General 0.1 0.1 0.2 1.0 2.3 1.6 0.3 5.5
Horticulture 0 0 0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.2
Total 2.2 4.0 5.9 4.2 14.1 13.9 2.8 47.1
The data in table 32 are shown for the various sources of N2O for England’s agriculture. It is clear that grazing (GRAZ), inorganic fertiliser spreading (FERT) and crop residues are the most significant direct sources of N2O emissions; whilst N leaching is the greatest indirect N2O source. Total N2O losses are estimated to reduce by 9%, 6% and 18% compared with the baseline year estimate for 2015 by Scenarios B, C and D, respectively.
For Scenario B, the most marked reductions in total N2O emissions were from the cereal (1.5 kt) and mixed (1.5 kt) farming sectors. For Scenario C, the most marked reductions in total N2O emissions (1.1 kt) were from the dairy farming sector, although the reductions in N2O emissions from the mixed and cereal farming sectors were not as marked as for Scenario B. There was a small increase in total N2O emission from the general farming sector as a result of Scenario C. For Scenario D, the most marked decreases in total N2O emissions were from the dairy (1.4 kt), mixed (2.5 kt), cereal (3.1 kt) and general (1.7 kt) farming sectors.
Page 56 Estimating the Environmental Impacts of Pillar I Reform
Again, it should be noted that although scenarios B, C and D result in reduced nitrous oxide emissions, the demand for milk and meat will probably not decrease and the products will be sourced from elsewhere in the world. Thus, global nitrous oxide emissions may not be reduced as a consequence of these scenarios.
The spatial distribution of total N2O emissions can be seen in Figure 20 for the baseline 2015 year and the absolute difference from baseline for the three Pillar I reform scenarios.
Figure 20: Spatial distribution of nitrous oxide emissions for scenario A and the absolute change in nitrous oxide emissions from baseline predicted for scenarios B-D.
Ammonia
Table 33 summarises the NH3 emissions from the robust farming sectors in England for the baseline year 2015 and the three Pillar I reform scenarios. Emissions of ammonia from English agriculture are predicted to fall by 7%, 12% and 17% compared with the baseline year estimate for 2015 due to Scenarios B, C and D, respectively.
Page 57 Estimating the Environmental Impacts of Pillar I Reform
Table 33: Estimated ammonia emissions for policy scenarios by robust farm type (kt/yr)
2015 Baseline Scenario B NH3 (kt/year) Animal Fertili Total NH3 (kt/year) Animal Fertili Total ser ser
Dairy 46.8 1.6 48.4 Dairy 45.2 1.5 46.7
LFA 7.0 0.1 7.1 LFA 6.2 0.1 6.2
Lowland Grazing 13.3 0.7 14.0 Lowland Grazing 12.1 0.7 12.8
Mixed 21.2 3.0 24.2 Mixed 17.6 2.1 19.7
Pigs 10.7 0.1 10.7 Pigs 10.5 0.1 10.6
Poultry 19.4 0.1 19.4 Poultry 19.1 0.0 19.2
Cereal 5.1 18.5 23.6 Cereal 4.4 17.1 21.5
General 4.1 7.2 11.4 General 4.7 6.7 11.4
Horticulture 0.0 0.4 0.4 Horticulture 0.0 0.2 0.2
Total 127.7 31.6 159.3 Total 119.8 28.5 148.3
Scenario C Scenario D NH3 (kt/year) Animal Fertili Total NH3 (kt/year) Animal Fertili Total ser ser
Dairy 40.1 1.6 41.7 Dairy 39.8 1.4 41.2
LFA 5.7 0.1 5.8 LFA 6.2 0.1 6.2
Lowland Grazing 11.8 0.7 12.5 Lowland Grazing 11.0 0.6 11.6
Mixed 15.6 3.1 18.7 Mixed 13.7 1.8 15.4
Pigs 9.1 0.1 9.2 Pigs 9.1 0.0 9.1
Poultry 19.1 0.1 19.2 Poultry 19.1 0.0 19.2
Cereal 4.4 18.1 22.6 Cereal 3.8 15.7 19.5
General 2.9 7.5 10.5 General 4.3 5.4 9.7
Horticulture 0.0 0.2 0.2 Horticulture 0.0 0.2 0.2
Total 108.9 31.5 140.3 Total 107.0 25.3 132.3
For Scenario B, the most marked reduction in NH3 emissions was from the mixed (4.5 kt) and cereal (2.1 kt) farming sectors. For Scenario C, the most marked reductions in NH3 emissions were from the dairy (6.7 kt) and mixed (5.5 kt) farming sectors. For Scenario D, the most marked reductions in NH3 emissions were from the mixed (8.8 kt), dairy (7.2 kt), cereal (4.0 kt) and lowland grazing (2.4 kt) farming sectors.
Any reduction in ammonia emissions will have an additional benefit on biodiversity. This will be particularly the case where ammonia emissions are reduced significantly in the vicinity of sensitive ecosystems, where the ammonia is deposited. Ammonia emission reduction will also result in less deposition to surface waters. The spatial distribution of NH3 emissions can be seen in Figure 21 for the baseline 2015 year and the absolute change from baseline for the three reform scenarios.
Page 58 Estimating the Environmental Impacts of Pillar I Reform
Figure 21: Spatial distribution of ammonia emissions for scenario A and the absolute change in ammonia emissions from baseline predicted for scenarios B-D
3.4.3 Summary of Impacts on Greenhouse Gas and Ammonia Emissions The estimated effect of Pillar I reform on gaseous emissions is summarised as follows: • Baseline 2015 methane emissions for England agriculture are estimated to be 459 kt. Total methane emissions are estimated to decline by 9%, 15% and 19% from the 2015 base year estimate for Scenarios B, C and D, respectively. • Baseline 2015 nitrous oxide emissions for England agriculture are estimated to be 57.5 kt. Total N2O losses are estimated to reduce by 9%, 6% and 18% compared with the baseline year estimate for 2015 by Scenarios B, C and D, respectively. • Baseline 2015 ammonia emissions for England agriculture are estimated to be 159.3 kt. Ammonia emissions are predicted to fall by 7%, 12% and 17% compared with the baseline year estimate for 2015 due to Scenarios B, C and D, respectively.
3.5 Water Quality Diffuse agricultural pollution has a major impact on surface and groundwater quality. It is caused by losses of nitrogen (mainly nitrate but also ammonium and nitrite) and phosphorus (P), as well as losses of sediment, pesticides and pathogens. A major challenge of the Water Framework Directive (WFD) and the Nitrates Directive is to address diffuse water pollution from agriculture.
The aim was to provide quantitative, but only indicative, estimates of the diffuse pollutant losses from agricultural land that reflected the forecast changes in the
Page 59 Estimating the Environmental Impacts of Pillar I Reform
structure of the agricultural sector (crop areas, stock numbers, and unit yields) and land management practices (timing and quantities of manures and fertilisers applied). 3.5.1 Methodology Approaches developed in Defra’s Diffuse Pollution Inventory projects (ES0203/ES0205 and WQ0106) and Baseline Projections for Agriculture project (SFF0601) have been used in this study. This involved linking diffuse pollution models with GIS databases that allowed calculated losses to take account of: • Soil and climate regions across England • Changes in cropping areas and livestock numbers • Changes in inputs of fertiliser and manure
Thus, the models were run for the baseline year (2005) and rerun for the different scenarios. Results here are discussed at the JCA level (detailed at Appendix 8), and placed in the overall national context.
3.5.2 Results Nationally, under all three scenarios, livestock numbers are expected to fall, with a move towards more extensive production of cattle and sheep. This change in farming practice should cause a reduction in potential nitrate and P loading to water bodies (Table 34). Spatial impacts are shown in figures 22-24.
The overall reduction in arable area may also result in a reduction in nitrate and P loading. However, there will be localised variations. For example, in the east cropping area will remain relatively stable under all scenarios, and in some areas potatoes are expected to become more common, potentially resulting in higher soil P indices leading to a potential increase in P loading.
Scenario B Scenario B sees an overall reduction in all livestock numbers, directly resulting in a potential reduction in nutrient loads as well as helping to elevate pressures on water resources. In terms of the arable systems, the regional pattern is more complicated, with greater variations between regions; however the overall effect is likely to result in reductions in both nitrate and P loading.
Looking at the individual JCAs, there are significant variations. For example, JCA 83 is expected to show an increase in both nitrate and P loading. This is within an area that already has high water nutrient concentrations and is already at risk of failing future WFD standards and current NVZ regulations.
Scenario C In terms of nitrate the Eastern, Yorkshire and Humber and the Midlands government regions show an increase in nitrate losses (<1%). This is likely to be a result of the increase in areas of wheat, barley and potatoes. The increase in the area of potatoes could have implications on water resources due to the increased need for irrigation.
In comparison, the South East shows a marked reduction in nitrate losses (20%), which can be linked to the 24% reduction in wheat, as well as reductions in other crop areas such as potatoes and sugar beet which disappear completely. These changes are set against only small increases in barley and oilseed rape, therefore nitrate loadings are potentially reduced.
Page 60 Estimating the Environmental Impacts of Pillar I Reform
The increases in nitrate loads under this scenario are insignificant as can be seen with JCA 83. However in small areas of East Anglia this may result in the risk of non- compliance with nitrate drinking water standards. If nitrate loads cannot be decreased enough to reduce nitrate concentrations, then new water treatment works may need to be developed to ensure compliance.
Scenario D The combined impact of reduced support and tariffs has the greatest impact on reducing nutrient loading (Table 34). The exception to this is still the Eastern and East Midlands regions, where nitrate loading still increases, although this is increase is very small, 0.01 – 3.74 kg N ha-1.
Table 34: Summary of water quality results by JCA for each scenario
JCA Baseline Scenario B Scenario C Scenario D England Varied pattern Overall reduction in Minor decrease in both Significant decrease in across the UK. livestock numbers P (10%) and N (8%) N (27%), P (38%) and The greatests and changes in loading due to reduction sediment (10%) in loads tend to arable systems will in livsetock numbers. large parts of the come from areas result in minor However areas where country due to with high reductions in N there is an increase in reduction in livestock livestock (8%), P (10%) and cereal and potatoes numbers, cereals, numbers. sediment (2%) loss minor increases in N potatoes and sugar (6%), P (4%) and beet. The exception is sediment (2%) can be East Anglia the East expected Midlands. JCA 8 High quality river Minor N reductions Minor N reductions Minor N reductions systems with low (9.8%) but minor (9.8%) but minor (9.8%) but N and P losses significant P significant P reductions significant P reductions reductions (25%) (25%). (25%). JCA 61 Varied N and P Minor reductions in Minor reductions in both Minor reductions in and 62 losses across both N (10%) and N (6%) and P (9%) both N (10%) and P (4 the JCA, 11 – 35 P (3 – 10%) - 12%) kg N ha-1 and 0.2 – 1.3 kg P ha-1 JCA 83 Eutrophic water Insignificant Insignificant increase Minor reduction in P with large N and increase (<1%) in (<1%) in N & P loss losses (1%). P losses, 35 kg N & P loss Insignificant increase N ha-1 and 1.16 in N (<1%) kg P ha-1 respectively JCA Eutrophic water Insignificant Insignificant decrease in Minor reduction in N 125 with large N and decrease in N N (<1%), minor losses (2.2%) but P losses, 318 kg (<1%), minor reduction in P (3%) significant reductions N ha-1 and 1.77 reduction in P in P loss (13 -56%) kg P ha-1 (6.5%) respectively
In the case of P there are reductions in loads for all the JCAs under this scenario. This is likely to be related to the reduction in animal numbers, helping to reduce soil erosion and consequently sediment loads. Soil erosion is one of the main transport routes of particulate phosphorus to water bodies. Although a reduction in both sediment and phosphorous loading may occur under this scenario, concentrations of phosphorus within a water body may still remain high for a number of years due to the suspension and re-suspension of sediments in a river system.
Page 61 Estimating the Environmental Impacts of Pillar I Reform
Figure 22: Spatial distribution of nitrogen loss for scenario A and the absolute change in nitrogen loss from baseline predicted for scenarios B-D
Figure 23: Spatial distribution of phosphorous loss for scenario A and the absolute change in phosphorous loss from baseline predicted for scenarios B-D
Page 62 Estimating the Environmental Impacts of Pillar I Reform
Figure 24: Spatial distribution of sediment loss for scenario A and the absolute change in sediment loss from baseline predicted for scenarios B-D
3.5.3 Summary of Impacts on Water Quality Scenario D, on the whole has the greatest reduction in nutrient loads, but these reductions are small. Nutrient load reductions have the potential to improve water quality, but these improvements will not be instantaneous. For example, nitrate concentrations will remain high in groundwater for a number of years due to the hydrological time lag within catchments.
Any reduction in nutrient concentrations may also be overshadowed by the influence of climate change. In the future, hotter and drier summers are expected, and this will result in prolonged periods of dry weather and less water flows along the rivers. This will affect biological quality because it impacts on habitat structure and chemical quality. Lower river flows are generally associated with poorer chemical quality for several reasons: • Less water to dilute the effect of pollutants; • Less river turbulence which means that less oxygen dissolves in the water (and oxygen is less soluble in warmer water too); • More algae which can have a spurious effect on one of our laboratory tests of chemical quality.
Climate change could also increase demand for irrigation water during the summer. The greater risk of summer drought as a consequence of climate change could also see the extension of irrigation to a wider range of crops and into areas where irrigation crops are currently rare i.e. towards the west.
Page 63 Estimating the Environmental Impacts of Pillar I Reform
Therefore, further investigation and greater emphasis on agri-environment schemes is needed to reduce diffuse pollution inputs from agriculture and improve water quality within some areas of England, particularly East Anglia and the East Midlands.
3.6 Flood Risk Flood risk depends on a wide range of factors, such as rainfall, the capacity of the land to assimilate the water and the storage capacity of the river catchments. This project is only concerned with one small part of the overall flood risk, namely land use; the other factors were assumed to remain unchanged. We therefore based the analysis on the potential for run-off from the fields, which would estimate whether the time taken for rainfall to reach the river increased, decreased or stayed the same.
3.6.1 Methodology Land uses were split into three categories for run-off risk, namely high risk (including vegetables and fruit crops), moderate risks (i.e. cereal crops) and low risk (grassland). These categories were based on categories identified for soil erosion risk from rainfall, here assumed to correlate with speed of water flow over fields into watercourses. The predicted changes in total land under each run-off risk category that would occur by moving from the baseline Scenario A to Scenarios B, C or D respectively was then calculated. Only the main findings are represented here, and a more detailed description of the methodology and assessment can be found in Appendix 9.
3.6.2 Summary of Flood Risk Impacts With regards to flood risk, the most significant change relates to land moving out of agriculture. For all the scenarios, this was predicted to be the most significant change in land use under the Pillar I CAP reforms. The change in flood risk associated with this land would depend on the use it was put to. It if was all converted to high run-off risk uses, such as for instance developments without proper Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (SUDS), then the run-off risk would increase. If it was converted to moderate risk land uses, then it would stay roughly the same. If the land was put into low run-off risk use, such as grassland or forests, then flood risk would be reduced.
The assessment of flood risk has shown that the potential for significant changes in flood risk is limited to consideration of land predicted to move out of agriculture. Since the end use of this land is not known, it is difficult to determine what the actual change in flood risk may be. As can be seen in Table 35, the use of the assumptions that all land moving out of agriculture becomes high, moderate or low risk shows some significant changes in risk (e.g. South Downs).
However, such wholesale changes are unlikely, particularly change to high risk because of controls through PPS25, for example, that prevent new developments increasing run-off to greater than that of a greenfield site.
Nevertheless, it is clear that there may be opportunities to reduce flood risk (albeit slightly) if land predicted to move out of agriculture tends towards lower flood risk activities.
It is important to compare the potential impacts on flood risk identified in this study with the implications of other changes and policies, such as PPS25 mentioned above. Of particular relevance are changes to flood risk management and the policy of ‘Making Space for Water’. This may reduce protection to agricultural land or encourage creation of washland along river valleys and may have a bigger influence of future land use than the Pillar I CAP reforms.
Page 64 Estimating the Environmental Impacts of Pillar I Reform
Table 35: Percent Change in Flood Risk under Each Scenario
Land out of production all… Scenario High Risk Moderate Risk Low Risk South Norfolk and High Suffolk Claylands
Scenario B (%) +10% +4% +1%
Scenario C (%) +3% 0% -2%
Scenario D (%) +3% -3% -6% Cumbria High Fells
Scenario B (%) +9% +3% 0%
Scenario C (%) +7% +2% -1%
Scenario D (%) +8% +2% -1% Shropshire, Cheshire and Staffordshire Plain
Scenario B (%) +27% +5% -6%
Scenario C (%) -2% -3% -4%
Scenario D (%) +9% -13% -24% Cheshire Sandstone Ridge
Scenario B (%) +21% +5% -3%
Scenario C (%) +4% -1% -3%
Scenario D (%) +4% -13% -21% South Downs
Scenario B (%) +40% +14% +1%
Scenario C (%) +9% 0% -4%
Scenario D (%) +20% -6% -19% Notes: No values are given for the baseline since the figures shown reflect change from the baseline for each scenario
3.7 Synthesis of Environmental Impacts on Case Study JCAs In this section, we summarise the environmental impacts of the policy reform scenarios on the four case study JCA areas, with emphasis on headline emerging environmental issues for each JCA evidenced from our expert analysis and the feedback from local stakeholder consultations. For simplicity of discussion, analysis in this section is based on Scenario D (complete liberalisation scenario with no single payment or trade barriers), which represents the worst case of scenario with the most dramatic land use changes and the biggest environmental impacts.
Page 65 Estimating the Environmental Impacts of Pillar I Reform
3.7.1 JCA8 Cumbria High Fells Description of Baseline Situation JCA 8 is an upland area and agriculture is dominated by hill sheep farming. The baseline position is summarised as follows:
• Landscape character is being enhanced by improved planting of trees and semi- natural woodland and restored boundary features, while the general character of all agricultural land cover is being maintained. • The main agricultural BAP priority habitats are upland heathland, blanket bog, and upland calcareous grassland. These vegetation communities have been strongly influenced by grazing stock. There are substantial areas of this JCA designated SSSI and many of these are under a management agreement26. Upland birds are an important component of the area. • The water quality within the JCA is good, with low nutrient values in the centre (Lake District National Park), and higher values along the edges of the JCA on more fertile slopes. The river systems are of high quality within the JCA and are not classed as eutrophic. • The level of GHG and ammonia emissions is largely influenced by the scale of livestock production in the JCA. • Flood risk is generally low.
Land Use Changes and Potential Environmental Impacts (Scenario D) Under the complete liberalisation scenario, there will be a decrease in cropped area of just over 2,000 ha and a reduction in all types of cattle and sheep with the greatest reduction in the north and south-west of the JCA and smaller reductions elsewhere. Some 5,500ha of land is being removed from agricultural production, mainly arable and rough grazing land.
These land use changes can have both positive and negative environmental impacts on JCA8 areas with variations (both in degree and direction of impact) in sub regions. The detailed environmental impacts are summarised in Table 36.
Stakeholder Comments The feedback from the stakeholder consultations in the JCA8 area largely confirms the findings of environmental impact assessment; stakeholders raised the following concerns:
• Some degree of ‘retreat’ from the fells, with possibly increased pressure on in-bye land, resulting in greater risk of soil erosion, changes in habitat, biodiversity and nutrient pollution; • Losses of skilled labour and the hefting system would be extremely difficult to recover.
26 Management agreements may be under national or local schemes e.g. Environmentally Sensitive Area, Wildlife Enhancement, Countryside Stewardship or Environmental Stewardship schemes.
Page 66 Estimating the Environmental Impacts of Pillar I Reform
Table 36: Summary of environmental Impacts for JCA8 (Cumbria)
Medium Direction and scale of impacts Landscape Significant impact (+/-) from reduction in all types of grazing livestock and a resulting consolidation of farms into larger units. A reduction in livestock will reduce pressure on the fells from the current overgrazing and reduce pressure for agricultural improvement. However the ability to maintain some grazing pressure and to maintain boundary features and other historic features may reduce, leading to these features falling into disrepair. Consolidation of farms may further impact on boundary features as field sizes increase Limited impact from changes in arable systems Biodiversity Significant impact (+/-) from a reduction in livestock; reduced grazing pressure on the fells could have a positive impact, particularly in areas not under environmental management agreement. However there is a risk that undergrazing or ‘retreat’ will lead to loss of important habitats that are dependent on management by grazing. The change in the ratio of cattle and sheep numbers may have an adverse effect on habitats which benefit from mixed grazing. A severe negative effect on birds associated with arable cropping - Corn Bunting, Grey Partridge, Tree Sparrow and Turtle Dove (-); a slight positive effect on Yellow Wagtail and Ring Ouzel (+); a moderate positive impact on Curlew, Redshank, Snipe and Twite(+); a high positive impact on Black Grouse (+). Significant impact (-) from the decrease in cropped area; while small in absolute terms at just over 2000 ha, this is significant as it will leave only some 900 ha, and will reduce the diversity of land use in the lower areas of JCA 8, and the variety of food sources for birds and mammals in particular. Water Moderate impact (+) from a reduction across the board in nitrate and phosphate as the result of reduction in livestock, with the largest reductions at the JCA boundaries. Small impact (+) from a decline in all crops, with the largest reduction in wheat, barley and potatoes. This leads to positive impacts on water quality in terms of reduction in P and N but this is small due to the small scale of arable sector in the JCA. Soil Moderate Impact (+) from potential improvements in soil compaction, reduced surface run-off and soil erosion due to fall in livestock production. Small impact (+) from a reduction of cropped area; results in less soil erosion and has a positive impact on soil quality (+) Greenhouse Sinificant impact (+) from reduced GHG emissions as a result of Gas and reduction in livestock production. Ammonia Limited impact from changes in arable systems Emissions Flood risk Limited impact from changes in livestock and arable systems. Land use changes on slopes result in small changes in flood risk because water can be carried away quickly.
Page 67 Estimating the Environmental Impacts of Pillar I Reform
3.7.2 JCA61/62: Shropshire/Cheshire/Staffs Plain & Cheshire Sandstone Ridge Description of Baseline Situation JCA 61/62 is mainly pastoral and agriculture is dominated by intensive dairy and mixed livestock and arable systems. The baseline position is summarised as follows:
• The agricultural landscape and associated boundary features of JCA 61 is weak and the general impact of development is considerable, particularly in the north- east. The overall landscape character of JCA62 is relatively stable and has been maintained, although the farmed landscape character has been weakened. • The main agricultural BAP priority habitats within these JCAs are lowland calcareous grassland, lowland dry acid grassland, lowland meadows, purple moor grass and rush pastures, upland heathland, hedgerows and arable field margins. The area is important for mosses, meres and fen grassland. The main areas of SSSI relate to non-agricultural habitats, predominantly meres and mosses. The mixed farmland provides habitat for various birds. • The level of GHG and ammonia emissions is largely influenced by the scale of poultry and pig production in the JCA. • Flood risk is moderate
Land Use Changes and Potential Environmental Impacts (Scenario D) Under Scenario D, there will be a fall of one third in cereal cropping and sugar beet almost disappears. There will be a substantial reduction in potatoes, giving an overall reduction of some 28,500 ha in cropped area. Changes in arable systems and practices include: concentration on productive cereal land with marginal land falling out of production; a few large farms with block cropping and annual change; more winter cropping and an overall increase in combinable rotations; reduced variety of cropping; reduction in fruit and vegetables; and, Mixed farms expanding the area of extensive grassland. In livestock systems, there will be a reduction sheep and dairy numbers.
These land use changes can have both positive and negative environmental impacts on JCA61/62 areas with variations (both in scale and direction of impact) in sub regions. The detailed environmental impacts are summarised in Table 37.
Stakeholder Comments The feedback from the stakeholder consultations in JCA61/62 region largely confirms the findings of environmental impacts and the stakeholders have raised the following concerns:
• Lack of investment on in infrastructure could reduce water quality in JCA 61. • Concerns on increasing intensity with damaging effects on soil structure.
Page 68 Estimating the Environmental Impacts of Pillar I Reform
Table 37: Summary of environmental Impacts for JCA61/62 (Shropshire & Cheshire)
Medium Direction and scale of impacts Landscape Significant impact (-) from reduction in cereals and crops with marginal land falling out of agricultural production and further intensification and consilidation. On intensive farms there will be an increasing pressure on field boundaries with further loss of hedgerows and hedgerow trees. Although marginal land is likely to be left uncultivated, it is unlikely to be used for pasture as there will be a corresponding drop in ewe numbers. The combined effect of changes in both arable and livestock sectors will have a negative impact on the maintenance and enhancement of the pastoral character of the area. The move towards larger farms as consolidation occurs in the industry is likely to affect the ability to retain a strong pattern of hedgerows. Biodiversity Significant impact (+/-) from concentration on productive cereal land with marginal land falling out of production. Overall reduction in crop diversity adversely affects species that benefit from mixed cropping (-); reduction in the area of spring crops resulting in reduced overwintering and breeding habitat (-); possibly compensated by bare fallow replacing sugar beet and potatoes in some rotations and by marginal land left uncultivated which helps buffer mosses and meres habitats, and farmland ponds (+). Significant impacct (+) from a the large fall in grazing livestock numbers together with only a limited fall in grassland area which suggests a less intensive grassland management and will benefit adjacent habitats (+). Neutral impact on SSSIs that are in favourable condition, and a moderate positive effect on SSSIs which are in unfavourable condition because of water quality. Severe negative impact on Corn Bunting, Grey Partridge, Tree Sparrow and Turtle Dove (-); a slight positive effect on Lapwing, and Yellow Wagtail (+); and a moderate positive impact on Curlew, Redshank and Snipe (+). Water Small impact (+) from minor reductions in both N and P. Soil Moderate Impact (+) from potential improvements in soil compaction, reduced surface run-off and soil erosion due to fall in dairy and sheep production. Moderate impact (+/-) from a concentration and intensification of crop production. Greenhouse Gas Sinificant impact (+) from reduced GHG emissions as a result of and Ammonia reduction in livestock production. Emissions Limited impact from changes in arable systems Flood risk Significant impact (+) from changes in livestock and arable systems.
Page 69 Estimating the Environmental Impacts of Pillar I Reform
3.7.3 JCA83 South Norfolk and High Suffolk Claylands Description of Baseline Situation JCA 83 is a lowland area and agriculture is dominated by arable crops. The baseline position is summarised as follows:
• Although development pressure is significant, the character of the area has largely been maintained with a relative stable farmed landscape and strong woodland character. • The main agricultural BAP priority habitats within this JCA are lowland calcareous grassland, lowland dry acid grassland, lowland meadows, purple moor grass and rush pastures, hedgerows and arable field margins. The area of coastal and floodplain grazing marsh is extensive within the valleys. The SSSIs within the JCA mainly relate to non-agricultural habitats. The arable areas are important for ground-nesting birds. Hedgerows support many bird species. • High baseline level of phosphate and nitrate loads as a result of intensive agriculture within the JCA and high numbers of both poultry and pig farms, with highest loads of nutrient in the west and the centre. • The level of GHG and ammonia emissions is largely influenced by the scale of poultry and pig production in the JCA. • Flood risk is very high.
Land Use Changes and Potential Environmental Impacts (Scenario D) Under Scenario D, there will be a small increase in wheat but large falls in barley and other cereals which result in a reduction of 8,500 ha in the cereal area; oilseed rape increases, with sugar beet and potatoes decreasing. Economic pressures may lead to sugar beet and potatoes being concentrated on fewer holdings, reducing diversity of cropping overall and leading to more block cropping. In livestock systems, there will be a decrease in the area of grassland corresponding to the increase in the area of land out of production and substantial falls in cattle and sheep numbers.
These land use changes can have both positive and negative environmental impacts on JCA83 with variations (both in scale and direction of impact) in sub regions. The detailed environmental impacts are summarised in Table 38.
Stakeholder Comments The feedback from the stakeholder consultations in JCA83 region largely confirms the findings of environmental impacts and the stakeholders have raised the following concerns:
• Concerns on increased intensity and proportion of oilseed rape with consequent increases in nutrient loss and eutrophication. • Loss of livestock grazing in river valleys
Page 70 Estimating the Environmental Impacts of Pillar I Reform
Table 38: Summary of environmental Impacts for JCA83 (South Norfolk)
Medium Direction and scale of impacts Landscape Significant impact (-/+) from change in size of arable farms which could lead to the amalgamation of fields, resulting in the loss of landscape features and diversity across the area (-); in particular a further loss of ditches, ponds and pasture(-). There will be less variety from season to season (-); however this will be balanced by an increase in marginal land and more extensive use of grass, providing a more diverse landscape on the fringes of farms (+). Significant impact (-) from reduction in dairy cows and other cattle herds and sheep and resulting consolidation of farms into larger units. Biodiversity Significant impact (+/-) from concentration on productive cereal land with marginal land falling out of production. The decrease in spring crops with associated reduction in overwintered stubbles will reduce food, shelter and breeding habitat for a wide range of wildlife (-); However this may be partly compensated if the decrease in cropped area is reflected in increased rotational fallow, although if this is managed purely for weed control the biodiversity benefits may be limited (+). Significant impact (+/-) from decrease in grazing stock numbers. Less intensive management could benefit biodiversity, particularly in the river valleys (+), but there is an increased likelihood of undergrazing, particularly given a small decrease in grassland area (-). However the decrease in the area of grassland and an increase in the area of land out of agriculture suggests important habitats could be ungrazed (-) Slight impact (-) on SSSIs in fen, marsh and swamp, acid grassland and neutral grassland broad habitats where condition is favourable, and a moderate negative impact (-) where the condition is unfavourable due to undergrazing. This scenario will have a neutral effect on SSSIs that are in unfavourable condition due to water quality. Slight impact (-) on Corn Bunting, Grey Partridge, Lapwing, Tree Sparrow, Turtle Dove, Curlew, Redshank and Snipe. Water Limited impact (+/-) from an increase on winter wheat and oilseed rape but a drop in barley and a decline in potatoes by 20%. This results in a small reduction in phosphate loadings throughout the JCA, especially within the northern half where the baseline level is the lowest within JCA (+); Increases in nitrate loadings are still seen (-); Overall, depite decreases in phosphate loadings, the reduction is very small and therefore will probably not help to improve the water quality within the JCA. Soil Significant Impact (+) from potential improvements in soil compaction, reduced surface run-off and soil erosion due to fall in cattle and sheep numbers. Limited impact from changes in arable systems where there is a small increase in wheat, balanced by drops in barley and other cereals. Greenhouse Gas Sinificant impact (+) from reduced GHG emissions as a result of and Ammonia reduction in livestock production. Emissions Limited impact from changes in arable systems Flood risk Limited impact from changes in livestock and arable systems. A reasonably small change in flood risk, mainly due to the relatively small percentage changes in area of land predicted to come out of agriculture.
Page 71 Estimating the Environmental Impacts of Pillar I Reform
3.7.4 JCA125 South Downs Description of Baseline Situation JCA 125 is lowland calcareous and agriculture is dominated by arable and sheep production. The baseline position is summarised as follows:
• The landscape character of the JCA is currently stable with agri-environment schemes helping to strengthen landscape character. • The main agricultural BAP priority habitats within this JCA are lowland calcareous grassland, lowland dry acid grassland and lowland meadows, for which the JCA has significant amounts of each; also hedgerows (in the valleys) and arable field margins. Many of the SSSIs in this JCA are on the chalk escarpment and are intended to conserve the remaining high conservation value chalk grasslands, chalk heath, ancient woodlands and geological features. There are also SSSIs within the river valleys of the Arun, Ouse and Cuckmere. Grey partridge, lapwing, stonechat, linnet and skylark all still occur in downland, but are becoming far more scarce, while stone curlew, Dartford warbler, wheatear and whinchat are declining species which were once much more widespread on the Downs. The floodplain wetlands support important and wintering populations of waders and wildfowl including gadwall, teal, ringed plover and shoveler. These wetlands also have significant number of breeding birds including waders like redshank, snipe and lapwing. • Water quality problems are frequently most acute in the upper reaches of the main river catchments (Adur, Arun, Ouse and Cuckmere). Nitrate concentrations pose a major problem to groundwater quality. Baseline nitrate loads are very high due to the intensive arable production of maize and horticulture in a relatively small area. • The level of GHG and ammonia emissions is relatively high • Flood risk is high.
Land Use Changes and Potential Environmental Impacts (Scenario D) Under Scenario D, there will be a dramatic 65% fall in cereal production leading to a reduction in cropped area of some 11,500 ha or 40%, in spite of an increase in OSR area. In the livestock sector, there will be a reduction in dairy and beef and sheep numbers together with a dramatic decline in sows and poultry.
These land use changes can have both positive and negative environmental impacts on JCA125 with variations (both in degree and direction of impact) in sub regions. The detailed environmental impacts are summarised in Table 39.
Stakeholder Comments The feedback from the stakeholder consultations in JCA125 region largely confirms the findings of environmental impacts and the stakeholders have raised the following concerns:
• Threats from loss of livestock used to maintain important landscape and habitats, especially loss of sheep on the Downs
Page 72 Estimating the Environmental Impacts of Pillar I Reform
Table 39: Summary of environmental Impacts for JCA125 (South Downs)
Medium Direction and scale of impacts Landscape Significant impact (-) from consolidation of cereal farms which could lead to the amalgamation of fields resulting in the loss of landscape features and diversity across the area (-). Significant impact (-) from reduction in livestock; impact on the distinctive chalk grasslands which require grazing management (-). The significant loss of sows and poultry are unlikely to make a noticeable impact on the landscape. Biodiversity Significant impact (+/-) from concentration on productive land with marginal land falling out of production; reduced number of farms, but an increase in size with block cropping. Reduction in the area of spring crops, resulting in reduced overwintering and breeding habitat (-); However this may be compensated if the decrease in cropped area is reflected in increased rotational fallow, as is likely given the rotational needs of oilseed rape (+); marginal land left uncultivated may provide opportunities for reversion to chalk grassland (+). Significant impact (+/-) from dramatic reduction in beef, sheep and dairy production. The reduction in sheep numbers may lead to undergrazing of important chalkland habitats and impact on the progress of arable reversion schemes (-); Reduction in dairy cows may lead to less intensive management of the valley grassland (+). For SSSIs in calcareous grassland, dwarf shrub heath and neutral grassland broad habitats there will be a moderate negative impact (-) where condition is favourable, and a severe negative impact (-) where the condition is unfavourable due to undergrazing. There will be a slight negative impact (-) on Lapwing, and a severe negative impact on Corn Bunting, Grey Partridge, Tree Sparrow and Turtle Dove. Water Moderate impact (+) Minor reduction in N losses (2.2%) but significant reductions in P loss (13 -56%); greatest reductions occur in those areas where baseline levels are already low. Soil Significant Impact (+) from potential improvements in soil compaction, reduced surface run-off and soil erosion due to fall in livestock sector. Significant impact (+) from less soil erosion as a result of dramatic reduction of arable crops. Greenhouse Gas Sinificant impact (+) from reduced GHG emissions as a result of and Ammonia reduction in livestock sector. Emissions Small impact (+) from reduction in arable sector. Flood risk Significant impact (-) from changes in livestock and arable systems. Large area of land is predicted to be coming out of production.
3.8 Summary of Environmental Impacts of Pillar I Reform A considerable amount of evidence has been presented across three policy reform scenarios, for six environmental media, using data for England, English regions and four JCA case studies. In order to get an overview of the reform scenarios, the net environmental impacts have been scored on a scale of -3 to +3 across the environmental themes. This approach is of limited use as there are both positive and
Page 73 Estimating the Environmental Impacts of Pillar I Reform negative impacts for most media and they cannot necessarily be traded-off against each other. The analysis is shown in the radar diagram at Figure 25.
This analysis does show that impacts are generally positive but there are significant risks and it very important to understand where benefits and risks are located. Thus some benefits accrue in areas where they do not represent a priority e.g. reduced nutrient losses to water in areas where water quality is within prescribed quality parameters while loss of livestock from some upland areas represents a significant risk to landscape and biodiversity, as well as the local economy and community.
Figure 25: Aggregate Environmental Impact for Reform Scenarios B, C and D
Landscape Scenario B 3.0 Scenario C 2.0 Scenario D 1.0
Flood risk 0.0 Biodiversity
-1.0
-2.0 -3.0
Water quality Soils
Greenhouse gas and ammonia emissions
The analysis reinforces the fact that all three policy reform scenarios represent a compromise between the reducing negative externalities of modern farming – losses to water, air and impact on soils and some loss of biodiversity – through reducing the scale of farming itself, and maintaining the landscape (and associated biodiversity) which has been shaped by farming. Thus the greater the absolute reduction in the scale of farming by removing support, as represented by Scenario D, the more significant the positive impacts on soil, water and gaseous emissions and the more negative those for landscape; more widespread biodiversity benefits are realised but risks are increased to sensitive habitats on a localised basis. In principle, the latter can be addressed by through Pillar II support; section 4 considers the implications for agri-environment schemes.
Finally, it should be noted that the analysis in this section has been confined purely to the environmental impacts associated with Pillar I reform. As discussed in section 2.3.1(Changes in the Scale of Agricultural Production), significant industry restructuring is inherent in any radical reform of farm support and this would have major socio-economic impacts. There might also be secondary socio-economic impacts associated with environmental change e.g. impact of landscape change on tourism. While this is outside the remit of this report, it should be considered as part of the evidence for policy analysis.
Page 74 Estimating the Environmental Impacts of Pillar I Reform
4. Task 3: Implications for Axis II Funding
4.1 A Vision for the CAP Defra’s Vision document set out a vision for the future of the European Union’s Common Agricultural Policy to stimulate and help inform debate. It considers what a sustainable model of European agriculture might look like. Task 1 has modelled the likely land use impacts of CAP reform as set out in the Vision, namely: • Import tariffs for all farm sectors progressively aligned with the much lower level prevailing in other sectors of the economy; and • No price support, export refunds or other production or consumption subsidies…….. and no income or production support payments which treat agriculture differently from other sectors;
The Vision also indicates that spending on agriculture would be based on the current Pillar II and would ….. allow a considerable reduction in total spending by the EU on agriculture and bring this into line with other sectors. The premise is that CAP, and in particular high levels of market price support, has encouraged farmers to intensify agricultural production, which in turn has exacerbated both agriculture’s contribution to diffuse water pollution, and the negative impact of modern agriculture on bio-diversity and wildlife.
The Environment Food and Rural Affairs (EFRA) committee noted in their review of the Government paper27, there was relatively little quantification of the impacts of moving to this new sustainable model for agriculture. Task 2 of this study has aimed to develop the evidence base by linking policy change to impacts and quantifying this where possible.
Task 3, in this section, sets out to test the hypothesis that ‘through reducing (though not eliminating) the environmental damage caused by modern agriculture, this would allow a considerable reduction in total spending by the EU on agriculture’. The Vision paper concedes that environmental benefits would be enhanced if the coverage of agri-environment schemes is strengthened.
4.2 Cost Implications for Pillar II of Pillar I Reform This task takes account of the outputs from Tasks 1 and 2 in assessing the possible change in cost to government (relative to the baseline) of delivering policy objectives under each of the policy scenarios. There are two components of change: (i) Income Forgone: the new economic environment will mean that the cost to farmers and landowners of implementing agri-environment schemes will change in terms of the value of production displaced. It requires the income forgone calculations which underpin the stewardship schemes to be revised for each scenario. It is assumed that enterprise yields and input costs remain constant across scenarios.
(ii) Coverage and intensity: changes to agricultural production and practice may also mean that there is lesser or greater need for stewardship schemes. A detailed analysis cannot be undertaken in this study but we provide a high-level assessment of the direction and scale of change in coverage (the total area of
27 EFRA (2007) The UK Government's “Vision for the Common Agricultural Policy”: Government Response to the Committee's Fourth Report of Session 2006–07 First Report of Session 2007–08 HC 48
Page 75 Estimating the Environmental Impacts of Pillar I Reform
land under each type of stewardship) and intensity of schemes (the combination of different measures that farmers can opt for) necessary to deliver the Government’s policy objectives.
The approach adopted for this analysis has been agreed in consultation with the Project Steering Group. Natural England provided the existing income forgone methodology and calculations used for stewardship schemes and agreed an approach to presenting change in both the payment rates for key stewardship options and their uptake.
4.2.1 Environmental Stewardship Schemes There are two main environmental stewardship (ES) schemes which need to be considered, namely Entry Level Stewardship (ELS) and Higher Level Stewardship (HLS). The Organic Entry Level Scheme (OELS) has not been considered in this study.
Entry Level Stewardship The aim of ELS is to encourage a large number of farmers across a wide area of farmland to deliver simple yet effective environmental management with limited impact on their farming operation. Farmers select options from a wide range of over 50 options (e.g. hedgerow management, stone wall maintenance, low input grassland, buffer strips, and arable options), each of which has an allocated ‘points’ contribution. Farmers are required to meet a ‘points target’ for the land entered into the scheme, which will be calculated at the rate of 30 points per hectare (except for LFA land within parcels of 15 hectares or more which will be calculated at the rate of 8 points per hectare). Payment is made on the basis of 1 point = £1 across the whole farm.
For the analysis of policy scenarios in this research, the starting point for ELS is the ‘average agreement’ i.e. the typical combination of measures most commonly subscribed to. Average ELS agreements are distinct for Severely Disadvantaged Areas (SDAs) and non-SDAs and have been defined separately. When a map of the SDA areas is overlaid with the map of the Upland JCAs, there is a strong correlation between the two typologies (Figure 26). As such the SDA represents a good proxy for Upland JCAs and vice versa.
For our analysis, the 20 most common ELS options are used to define the average agreement in both SDA and non-SDA areas. Within these options there is a focus on management of in-bye pastures and stone wall protection in SDAs and on permanent grassland with low inputs and hedgerow management in non-SDAs. For each of these options, income forgone calculations have been revised.
Page 76 Estimating the Environmental Impacts of Pillar I Reform
Figure 26: Coincidence between JCA Upland areas and SDA
Higher Level Stewardship HLS aims to deliver significant environmental benefits in high priority situations and areas. It is designed to build on ELS to deliver a wide range of environmental benefits across the whole farm. HLS concentrates on the more complex types of management where land managers need advice and support and where agreements will be tailored to local circumstances. Rather than aggregation of options to secure a points target, specified HLS options are selected as part of a Farm Environment Plan (FEP) and relevant payments applied. Entry to the scheme is discretionary and applications go through an assessment process which takes into account how the application meets the environmental priorities for a local area.
For the analysis, payment rates (based on income forgone) for the most ‘popular’ 30 HLS options have been revised for the baseline and each of the policy reform scenarios.
4.3 Income Forgone 4.3.1 Entry Level Stewardship The methodology for estimating income forgone for ELS is set out in three steps:
Step 1: Revise Income Forgone and Points Allocation for Key Options Points allocated for the top twenty ELS schemes have been revised by applying projected commodity prices from task 1 to the income forgone calculations underpinning them. This generates new margins and income forgone from displaced production under the four policy scenarios. Only prices have been revised; costs and yields are assumed to be constant with no account for inflation or productivity gain
Page 77 Estimating the Environmental Impacts of Pillar I Reform across scenarios (Income Forgone calculations were completed in 2004). As income forgone is not fully accounted for in all payment rates, the current percentage of income forgone has been applied in calculating the points allocation.
Table 40 lists the revised points allocation for the 20 ELS options. The data shows that the points allocation (and therefore cost) of ELS options will generally increase for scenarios B, C and D relative to the baseline scenario A.
Table 40: Revised points allocation for key ELS options under scenarios A-D
Baseline Scenario Scenario Scenario Scenario ELS Options points A B C D
EK2 - Permanent grassland with low inputs [ha] 85 123 130 116 119 EB1 - Hedgerow management (on both sides of 22 22 22 22 22 hedge) [m] EA1 - Farm Environment Record (FER) [ha] 3 3 3 3 3 EB3 - Enhanced hedgerow management [m] 42 42 42 42 42 EK3 - Permanent grassland with very low inputs 150 225 239 212 218 [ha] EB2 - Hedgerow management (on one side of 11 11 11 11 11 hedge) [m] EF6 - Over-wintered stubbles [ha] 120 166 122 143 104 EE3 - 6m buffer strips on cultivated land [ha] 400 407 445 404 394 EF1 - Field corner management [ha] 400 407 444 404 394 EB6 - Ditch management [m] 24 24 24 24 24 EB8 - Combined hedge and ditch management 38 38 38 38 38 (incorporating EB1) [m] EB11 - Stone wall protection and maintenance 15 15 15 15 15 [m] EL2 - Manage permanent in-bye grassland with 35 64 67 61 63 low inputs [ha] EL3 - Manage in-bye pasture and meadows 60 92 96 89 91 with very low inputs [ha] EB7 - Half ditch management [m] 8 8 8 8 8 ED5 - Archaeological features on grassland [ha] 16 16 16 16 16 EL4 - Management of rush pastures (LFA land) 60 74 76 73 74 [ha] EK5 - Mixed stocking [ha] 8 8 8 8 8 EL6 - Moorland and rough Grazing [ha] 5 6 7 6 6 EC2 - Protection of in-field trees (grassland) 8 11 12 10 10 [tree]
Step 2: Calculate Points Total for the Average ELS Scheme in SDA/non-SDA Areas The 20 key options in the average ELS agreement plus the ‘remainder’ represent a total of 30 points per hectare for SDA and non-SDA farms but the average SDA agreement is 26.0 points because parcels of unenclosed SDA land over 15 ha only attract 8 points.
A break-down of the weighting (in percentage terms) of each of the 20 options and remainder in the average ELS agreement in SDA and non-SDA areas is shown in the first two columns in Table 41. The weighted component points per option for the
Page 78 Estimating the Environmental Impacts of Pillar I Reform baseline (agreements with start dates from Jan-05 to Dec-07) are shown for each of these options in the last two columns in Table 41.
Table 41: Percentage of points and weighted points by option in existing ELS agreements
Weighted Weighted Percentage of Percentage of component component Points: Points: Points: Points: SDA (%) Non-SDA (%) SDA Non-SDA agreement agreement
EK2 - Permanent grassland with low inputs [ha] 0.1 11.2 0.03 3.36
EB1 - Hedgerow management (on both sides of 1.04 hedge) [m] 4.0 9.9 2.97
EA1 - Farm Environment Record (FER) [ha] 11.7 9.3 3.04 2.79
EB3 - Enhanced hedgerow management [m] 3.8 7.7 0.99 2.31
EK3 - Permanent grassland with very low inputs 0.00 [ha] 0.0 6.8 2.04
EB2 - Hedgerow management (on one side of 0.29 hedge) [m] 1.1 5.5 1.65
EF6 - Over-wintered stubbles [ha] 0.4 4.9 0.10 1.47
EE3 - 6m buffer strips on cultivated land [ha] 0.1 3.9 0.03 1.17
EF1 - Field corner management [ha] 0.0 3.8 0.00 1.14
EB6 - Ditch management [m] 1.5 3.1 0.39 0.93
EB8 - Combined hedge and ditch management 0.08 (incorporating EB1) [m] 0.3 2.7 0.81
EB11 - Stone wall protection and maintenance 4.45 [m] 17.1 0.7 0.21
EL2 - Manage permanent in-bye grassland with 4.13 low inputs [ha] 15.9 0.6 0.18
EL3 - Manage in-bye pasture and meadows with 1.90 very low inputs [ha] 7.3 0.2 0.06
EB7 - Half ditch management [m] 5.8 0.6 1.51 0.18
ED5 - Archaeological features on grassland [ha] 4.4 0.3 1.14 0.09
EL4 - Management of rush pastures (LFA land) 1.04 [ha] 4.0 0.0 0.00
EK5 - Mixed stocking [ha] 3.6 0.7 0.94 0.21
EL6 - Moorland and rough Grazing [ha] 3.5 0.0 0.91 0.00
EC2 - Protection of in-field trees (grassland) 0.68 [tree] 2.6 1.0 0.30
Remainder (inc. management plans) 13.0 27.0 3.38 8.10
Total 100% 100% 26 30
The exercise has been repeated for each of the four policy scenario, using the revised number of points per option (from Table 40) and applying the weighting of the 20 key options to the points associated with each for the average ELS scheme in SDA and non-SDA areas. The aggregate of the component points represents the total points for the 20 options under each scenario. The points associated with ‘Remainder’ have been revised pro rata to the points changes of the top 20 options. Table 42 illustrates this process for scenario A.
Page 79 Estimating the Environmental Impacts of Pillar I Reform
Table 42: Average ELS scheme points for Scenario A in SDA and non-SDA areas
Revised Weighting of Component Weighting of Component points per points points points points ELS Options- Income Forgone option SDA SDA Non-SDA Non-SDA Scenario A agreement agreement agreement agreement
EK2 - Permanent grassland with 123 0.0003 0.04 0.0395 4.87 low inputs [ha] EB1 - Hedgerow management 22 0.0473 1.04 0.1350 2.97 (on both sides of hedge) [m] EA1 - Farm Environment Record 3 1.0140 3.04 0.9300 2.79 (FER) [ha] EB3 - Enhanced hedgerow 42 0.0235 0.98 0.0550 2.30 management [m] EK3 - Permanent grassland with 225 - 0.00 0.0136 3.06 very low inputs [ha] EB2 - Hedgerow management 11 0.0260 0.29 0.1500 1.65 (on one side of hedge) [m] EF6 - Over-wintered stubbles 166 0.0009 0.14 0.0123 2.04 [ha] EE3 - 6m buffer strips on 407 0.0001 0.03 0.0029 1.19 cultivated land [ha] EF1 - Field corner management 407 - 0.00 0.0029 1.16 [ha] EB6 - Ditch management [m] 24 0.0163 0.39 0.0388 0.93 EB8 - Combined hedge and 38 0.0021 0.08 0.0213 0.81 ditch management (incorporating EB1) [m] EB11 - Stone wall protection and 15 0.2964 4.43 0.0140 0.21 maintenance [m] EL2 - Manage permanent in-bye 64 0.1181 7.51 0.0051 0.33 grassland with low inputs [ha] EL3 - Manage in-bye pasture 92 0.0316 2.92 0.0010 0.09 and meadows with very low inputs [ha] EB7 - Half ditch management 8 0.1885 1.50 0.0225 0.18 [m] ED5 - Archaeological features 16 0.0715 1.14 0.0056 0.09 on grassland [ha] EL4 - Management of rush 74 0.0173 1.29 - 0.00 pastures (LFA land) [ha] EK5 - Mixed stocking [ha] 8 0.1170 0.94 0.0263 0.21
EL6 - Moorland and rough 6 0.1820 1.18 - 0.00 Grazing [ha] EC2 - Protection of in-field trees 11 0.0845 0.94 0.0375 0.42 (grassland) [tree] Remainder 4.16 3.77
Total Points 32.0 29.1
Page 80 Estimating the Environmental Impacts of Pillar I Reform
Step 3: Calculate Total Payment for Average ELS Agreements This method set out in Table 42 has been undertaken for scenarios B, C and D (details not shown). The total points (from Step 2) for each of the four scenarios are set out in Table 43 and the variance from baseline (Scenario A) presented as a percentage.
Table 43: Total points per ha for an ‘average’ ELS agreement for scenarios A-D by area
Agreement Scenario A Scenario B Scenario C Scenario D points (2007) (baseline)
SDA total 26.0 32.0 32.7 31.3 31.7
SDA change from baseline 2.1% -2.2% -1.2%
Non-SDA 30.0 29.1 29.0 28.1 27.8
Non-SDA change from baseline 0.7% -3.3% -4.5%
Using the formula where 1 point = £1, the revised points estimates can be directly translated to the cost of agreements.
This preliminary analysis suggests that as commodity prices increase under Scenario B (see Figure 8 in section 2.3) and gross margins increase relative to A, so too does the opportunity cost of putting land into a stewardship scheme. Consequently, in Scenario B, Income Forgone (and associated points) increases by 2.1% for SDA agreement and by 0.7% for non-SDA agreements.
Under Scenarios C and D, lower prices associated with the removal of trade barriers reduce the opportunity cost of putting land in a stewardship scheme. Consequently, Income Forgone (and associated points) falls by 2.2% and 3.3% for SDA and non- SDA agreements under scenario C and by 1.2% for SDA and 4.5% for non-SDA agreements under scenario D.
4.3.2 Higher Level Stewardship The methodology for estimating income forgone for HLS is equivalent to step 1 of the ELS approach. Again, only prices have been revised, with yields and variable costs as per base year. Income forgone has been recalculated for the 30 most common HLS options based on uptake, and payments rates calculated (Table 44).
Most payment rates are higher than in the base year (2007), across all scenarios. However, for some of the options Scenario D represents a small fall in payment rate.
Page 81 Estimating the Environmental Impacts of Pillar I Reform
Table 44: Revised payment rates for scenarios A-D for key HLS options
2007 Scenario A Scenario B Scenario C Scenario D payment
HK7 - Restoration of species-rich, semi-natural 200 245 253 237 241 grassland HL10 - Restoration of moorland 40 45 46 45 45 HK9 - Maintenance of wet grassland for 335 458 470 440 445 breeding waders HO2 - Restoration of heathland from neglected 200 199 199 199 199 sites HK6 - Maintenance of species-rich, semi- 200 245 253 237 241 natural grassland HD2 - Take archaeological features out of 460 468 501 466 455 cultivation HK10 - Maintenance of wet grassland for 255 350 363 312 314 wintering waders and wildfowl HE3 - 6m buffer strips on arable land 400 407 437 405 395 HK15 - Maintenance of valuable semi- 130 219 228 195 197 improved or rough grassland HF13 - Fallow plots for ground-nesting birds 360 365 389 363 354 HK11 - Restoration of wet grassland for 335 458 470 440 445 breeding waders. HK17 - Creation of valuable semi-improved or 210 182 198 185 171 rough grassland HF12 - Enhanced wild bird seed mix plots 475 482 512 479 469 HK3 - Manage permanent grassland with very 150 225 239 212 218 low inputs HO1 - Maintenance of lowland heathland 200 201 201 201 201 HK13 - Creation of wet grassland for breeding 355 445 465 422 419 waders HK8 - Creation of species-rich, semi-natural 280 236 255 244 229 grassland HD7 - Arable reversion by natural regeneration 500 508 540 506 495 HE10 - Floristically enhanced grass margin 485 492 522 490 481 HF6 - Over-wintered stubbles 120 166 142 145 107 HG7 - Low input spring cereal to retain or re- 250 342 336 344 344 create an arable mosaic
HK12 - Restoration of wet grassland for 255 350 363 312 314 wintering waders and wildfowl HN4 - Permissive bridleway/cycle path access 90 90 90 90 90 HC12 - Maintenance of wood pasture and 180 181 181 181 181 parkland HK16 - Restoration of valuable semi-improved 130 219 228 195 197 or rough grassland HJ3 - Reversion to unfertilised grassland to 280 283 306 284 275 prevent erosion/run-off HL9 - Maintenance of moorland 41 45 46 45 45 HL7 - Maintenance of rough grazing for birds 80 113 116 109 111
Page 82 Estimating the Environmental Impacts of Pillar I Reform
Table 45 shows the percentage change from scenario A, based on the payment rates calculated for each policy scenario.
Table 45: Percentage change in Income Forgone for scenarios B-D for key HLS options
Scenario A Scenario B Scenario C Scenario D
HK7 - Restoration of species-rich, semi-natural grassland 245 3.4% -3.3% -1.7% HL10 - Restoration of moorland 45 1.1% -0.9% -0.3% HK9 - Maintenance of wet grassland for breeding waders 458 2.6% -3.9% -2.8% HO2 - Restoration of heathland from neglected sites 199 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% HK6 - Maintenance of species-rich, semi-natural grassland 245 3.4% -3.3% -1.7% HD2 - Take archaeological features out of cultivation 468 6.9% -0.5% -2.8% HK10 - Maintenance of wet grassland for wintering waders 350 3.8% -10.9% -10.1% and wildfowl HE3 - 6m buffer strips on arable land 407 7.4% -0.6% -3.0% HK15 - Maintenance of valuable semi-improved or rough 219 3.9% -10.9% -10.0% grassland HF13 - Fallow plots for ground-nesting birds 365 6.8% -0.5% -2.8% HK11 - Restoration of wet grassland for breeding waders. 458 2.6% -3.9% -2.8% HK17 - Creation of valuable semi-improved or rough 182 9.0% 1.7% -5.8% grassland HF12 - Enhanced wild bird seed mix plots 482 6.3% -0.5% -2.6% HK3 - Manage permanent grassland with very low inputs 225 6.1% -5.8% -2.9% HO1 - Maintenance of lowland heathland 201 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% HK13 - Creation of wet grassland for breeding waders 445 4.5% -5.2% -5.8% HK8 - Creation of species-rich, semi-natural grassland 236 8.1% 3.1% -2.8% HD7 - Arable reversion by natural regeneration 508 6.3% -0.5% -2.5% HE10 - Floristically enhanced grass margin 492 5.9% -0.5% -2.4% HF6 - Over-wintered stubbles 166 -14.9% -12.9% -35.9% HG7 - Low input spring cereal to retain or re-create an 342 -1.7% 0.7% 0.6% arable mosaic
HK12 - Restoration of wet grassland for wintering waders 350 3.8% -10.9% -10.1% and wildfowl HN4 - Permissive bridleway/cycle path access 90 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% HC12 - Maintenance of wood pasture and parkland 181 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
HK16 - Restoration of valuable semi-improved or rough 219 3.9% -10.9% -10.0% grassland
HJ3 - Reversion to unfertilised grassland to prevent 283 8.2% 0.2% -3.1% erosion/run-off
HL9 - Maintenance of moorland 45 1.1% -0.9% -0.3%
HL7 - Maintenance of rough grazing for birds 113 3.4% -2.8% -1.0%
The data show that, relative to baseline (Scenario A), payment rates for most HLS options are consistently higher under Scenario B while under scenarios C and D, rates are generally lower.
Page 83 Estimating the Environmental Impacts of Pillar I Reform
4.3.3 Land Out of Production This analysis to date has not taken account of land which has no productive agricultural use, referred to as ‘land out of production’. In this situation, the income forgone due to displaced production should be nil and the payment rates would in principle only reflect additional costs. However, all ES options which involve active management with livestock or cropping generate a gross margin which is higher than associated additional costs and the net impact is a small positive return. In other words, the income forgone (based on enterprise gross margins) by moving from ‘land out of production’ to a management option is negative.
In practice, farming ‘land out of production’ will incur some level of ‘fixed cost’, such as labour and equipment and possibly investment in infrastructure e.g. winter housing for cattle, handling facilities for sheep. It is this additional cost, which is not captured in the Income Forgone methodology that provides the disincentive to farm. It is not possible to quantify the extent of the fixed cost associated with farming unfarmed land as it will vary according to individual circumstance. Thus it might range from the marginal costs of labour and machinery associated with land farmed by a neighbouring unit to the full costs of establishing a new unit, including property and miscellaneous fixed costs.
A cursory analysis of the impact of including the fixed costs associated with bringing ‘land out of production’ back into production is illustrated in Table 46. This shows the income forgone across three land types and relevant ES options, under three sets of assumptions as follows: a) Income forgone, allowing for no displaced production but the introduction of a new enterprise. This is negative due to the gross margin of the new enterprise
b) Income forgone, as (a) but allowing for average per hectare labour and machinery costs associated with the new enterprise. This is significantly positive due to the additional costs involved
c) Income forgone assuming land was being actively farmed (for comparison)
Table 46: Income forgone (£/ha) for ‘land out of production’ and ‘land in agriculture’
SDA Lowland (wetland) Lowland (marginal)
HLS/ELS option UP21 Maintenance / GR6 Maintenance / GR2 Maintenance / restoration of moorland restoration of wet restoration of species grassland for breeding rich semi-natural waders grassland HLS/ELS gross margin 97.2 Sheep grazing 50.3 Livestock 50.3 Livestock
Enterprise Gross Margin £/ha) 23 268 150
Forage costs (£/ha) 0 -16 -12
Working capital (£/ha) -4 -36 -20 Extra costs (£/ha) -11 -198 -44 (a) Income Forgone (no fixed -8 -18 -74 costs) (£/ha) Average farm labour and 220 385 385 machinery costs (£/ha) (b) Income Forgone (after labour 212 367 311 and machinery costs) (c) Income Forgone calculation 41 334 238 for land in agriculture (£/ha)
Page 84 Estimating the Environmental Impacts of Pillar I Reform
The indication is that it may not be any less expensive to encourage existing landowners or neighbouring farmers to implement ES options on ‘land out of production’ than on farmed land. In practice, there are good reasons to offer the same payment levels, including: • Simplicity of administration and monitoring • Lower payments for ES on land out of production’ would encourage farmers to nominally farm the land to qualify for higher payments (for farmed land) • If land was genuinely ‘out of agriculture’ for a period of time, ‘start-up’ costs relating to dilapidation would build up and the payments required to incentivise farming would increase; it would be better to avoid this situation
4.4 Coverage and Intensity For this task, it is necessary to estimate the coverage and the intensity of ES schemes required to meet the desired policy objectives as set out in section 2 and summarised below: • Biodiversity: SSSI target, farmland birds target, BAP Priority Habitats; • Landscape/historic environment: CQC enhanced status for national parks, Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONBs), maintained for other areas; • Resource protection: Catchment Sensitive Farming targets for priority catchments; legislative requirements elsewhere.
The two ES schemes need to be treated differently. For ELS, there is already a high rate of uptake (about 60%) so this is unlikely to increase significantly. For this reason, coverage is assumed to be similar to present (2007), while allowing the intensity or combination of different measures to change. Conversely, for HLS the options stay constant, but the coverage or uptake may change.
Table 47: Possible changes in coverage and option make-up for stewardship schemes
Coverage Option make up or intensity ELS Static - assume this will be same as at Variable – what combination of present measures is required in order to meet the desired policy objectives? HLS Variable – how much do we need to Static - assume this will be same as at achieve the environmental objectives? present Source: Task specification set out by Natural England
4.4.1 Methodology The methodology can be set out in three main steps:
Step 1: Identify Environmental Objectives and Related Measures Assessment of the different environmental policies and their objectives that must be considered and how these are connected to the different measures in place under the environmental stewardship schemes. Key stages are: a) Drawing up a complete list of all environmental policies that will need to be taken into account; b) Summarising the specific objectives or targets for these policies;
Page 85 Estimating the Environmental Impacts of Pillar I Reform c) Determining the specific requirements these policy objectives have with regards to environmental protection, i.e. what kind of environmental protection or improvement will be required in order to meet the objectives and targets; and d) Determining what measures under the ELS and HLS can help in reaching the desired environmental standards.
Step 2: Summarise the Change for Each Environmental Issue and Mitigation Measures Available Under Stewardship Schemes Earlier parts of this project have already identified the impact of possible scenarios of CAP reform on the following environmental issues: • Water quality; • Soil quality; • Air quality; • Landscape; • Biodiversity; and • Flood risk.
This step involves using the output from the earlier tasks to identify for each environmental issue what the likely changes are when going from scenario A (baseline) to scenario D: a) What is the general direction of change for each environmental issue? b) What is the magnitude of change? This may be assessed using a generic scale of low/medium/high. c) What is the geographical extent of the change? There are likely to be regional differences across the country due to the different nature of the agricultural practices and the local environment.
Whilst the direction and magnitude of change has already been identified in earlier parts of this project, this has not been linked to SDA (Severely Disadvantaged Areas) and non-SDA areas. Instead, it was undertaken at JCA level for the case studies, with an overall assessment for the whole of England; as upland JCAs are strongly correlated with SDAs, so it should be possible to give an overview for SDA/non-SDA areas.
Step 3: Estimate the Changes in Uptake of Stewardship Measures to Meet the Policy Objectives Step 2 provides some guidance on the direction and magnitude of change required to be addressed by the stewardship measures. However, this is not at a level which will make it possible to quantify the total change in uptake and intensity of the stewardship measures and hence calculate the associated budgetary requirements.
The required coverage and intensity of stewardship measures to meet the required policy objectives depends entirely on the specific attributes of a local environment. For instance, for the SSSIs, the kind and combination of stewardship measures that are required in order to protect the site depend entirely on what kind of a habitat that specific site is and the environmental pressures (for instance caused by farming practises) on the site. This makes it impossible to quantify the total area of land for which the different changes in uptake levels and intensities are required on a national scale. It may be necessary to use a case study approach, i.e. to undertake a more thorough assessment for the direction and magnitude of change within a confined geographical
Page 86 Estimating the Environmental Impacts of Pillar I Reform
area (e.g. the Joint Character Areas used for the case studies to assess environmental impact) and then derive a general direction and magnitude of change forecast for the whole of England based on this. This will include identifying where different combinations of measures may be required under ELS and those where higher uptake of HLS is required.
4.4.2 Results and Analysis Table 48 below sets out the environmental policies identified by Defra/Natural England for consideration in this project and the objectives that have been set for each policy (e.g. targets to be reached by a certain year). The kind of environmental maintenance, restoration or creation that will be required in order to reach these objectives is then identified (e.g. diffuse pollution must be tackled in order to reach the Water Framework Directive targets) and this is then linked with the possible mitigation measures available under the stewardship schemes. This then allows identification of those measures that will be required to a greater or lesser extent in order to ensure that the policy objectives are reached (depending on how well they are progressing towards reaching each target within a given geographical region).
Table 49 summarises the main outputs from the environmental impact assessments carried out in earlier parts of this project. For each environmental issue, the overall impact of moving from the baseline to Scenario D is summarised, and a general description of the direction and magnitude of change is given where possible.
In order to complete this overview, the project groups who were responsible for undertaking the case study assessments of the each environmental impact were asked to provide input regarding the overall change expected in moving from the baseline to Scenario D and the magnitude and direction of change.
As can be seen from Table 49, some measures may mitigate more than one environmental impact. As an example, many of the measures that protect the soil from erosion may also help protect water quality and reduce flood risk. Therefore, even where increases in uptake of a range of measures are required in order to mitigate two or more environmental impacts, this does not necessarily mean that two separate sets of stewardship scheme options must be increased.
There is not sufficiently detailed information available regarding the geographical extent of the predicted changes under Scenario D in order to undertake a quantitative assessment of the required budgetary changes to fund stewardship scheme measures to combat any undesirable environmental impacts. However, as can be seen from the summary of earlier project outputs, most environmental areas require a small to large increase in uptake of agri-environment measures in order to prevent undesirable impacts.
For some of the environmental issues, such as water quality, an increase in the uptake of measures is only required in certain areas (in this case, where there is a risk of failure of WFD targets for P and N). If the increase in uptake can be limited to those geographical areas where it is required as well as being focused on those measures that provide a benefit for as many different environmental issues as possible, then the requirement for budgetary increase can be kept at a minimum. However, it is nevertheless probable that some moderate budgetary increments will be required overall in order to combat the net environmental impacts associated with moving from the baseline to Scenario D. In order to quantify this requirement, a more detailed assessment will need to be made of current uptake of measures and the associated cost, as well as the required regional changes.
Page 87
Table 48: Environmental stewardship options that may contribute to policy targets
Specific Environmental Environmental maintenance, environmental Policy Objective (brief description) Scheme and measures under which this is available policy area restoration or creation required policy Biodiversity Sites of Special To preserve the best wildlife and geological Protection and restoration of the SSSIs are a key target under HLS where HLS options Scientific Interest areas in England. Over 4,100 sites covering habitats and features of the SSSIs. can help achieve or maintain favourable condition. (SSSIs) over a million hectares (7.6% of total land). The measures required depends Options include maintenance and restoration of species- Target for 95% of SSSIs land to be in entirely on the nature of the SSSI site, rich grassland, wet grassland, rough grassland, ‘favourable’ or ‘recovering’ condition by 2010. which may vary from small site moorland, heathland and coastal saltmarsh. providing a habitat for one species, to a >60,000 ha site. Farmland Birds Increase in populations of farmland birds. Habitat creation, restoration and ELS and HLS include options to provide and enhance management (including wetland). cover and food supplies e.g. hedgerow management, wild bird seed mixture plots, over-wintered stubbles, skylark plots, rush pastures; HLS also provides for creation and restoration of woodland, wet grassland, moorland, heathland and coastal saltmarsh. BAP Priority To develop national strategies for conservation 391 species and 45 habitat action ELS management options will benefit some BAP priority Habitats of biological diversity and the sustainable use of plans have been published, setting habitats; protection/enhancement and, where biological resources. out the measures required for each at appropriate, re-creation of BAP priority habitats are key a national level. Exact measures may targets for HLS. vary at the local level. Landscape CQC enhanced CQC systematically assesses how the Achieve national parks that are Most agri-environment scheme options could be status for national countryside is changing, either: maintained or enhanced. Criteria: woodland and expected to have a positive effect on the landscape as parks enhanced, or neglected or transforming. trees, boundary features, agricultural current options have been developed and targeted on land cover, settlement and distinct landscapes for many years. development patterns, semi-natural ELS options for: habitats, historic features and river and coastal features. boundary features; trees and woodland; Areas of To safeguard precious landscapes with Protection of the AONBs. historic and landscape features; Outstanding distinctive character and natural beauty. 35 in Natural Beauty England + 1 which runs across the Welsh border. lowland grassland; and (AONBs) Each area is designated for its flora, fauna, upland. historical and cultural association and/or scenic HLS options for: views. Covers a wide range of landscapes, from rugged coastlines to upland moors. hedgerow; woodland trees and scrub; orchard; historic environment;
Specific Environmental Environmental maintenance, environmental Policy Objective (brief description) Scheme and measures under which this is available policy area restoration or creation required policy grassland; moorland and upland; lowland heathland; inter-tidal coastal; wetland; and additional supplements currently available. Other areas Maintain present status/condition Various ELS & HLS options Resource Catchment To reduce diffuse pollution from agricultural Reduction in field run-off, hence ELS options for: protection Sensitive Farming sources though land management practices. reducing diffuse water pollution. buffer strips and field margins; targets for priority Forty priority catchments have been identified, under sowing spring cereals; catchments where dedicated advisors help farmers tackle the causes of water pollution. soil management; nutrient management; and crop management plans. Water Framework All inland and coastal waters should reach Reduce diffuse pollution from ELS options for: Directive “good” status by 2015. This is to be achieved by agricultural sources through reduction buffer strips and field margins; establishing a river basin district structure within in run-off. under sowing spring cereals; which demanding environmental objectives will be set, including ecological targets. soil management; nutrient management; and and crop management plans. Flooding - Making Reduction in number of properties at risk of Creation of floodplains, inter-tidal ELS options for: Space for Water flooding. wetlands, water meadows, saltmarsh, buffer strips and field margins; mudflats and saline lagoons. ditch management; under sown spring cereals; Reduction in run-off from fields over wintered stubbles; through reversion to grassland, infield soil management to reduce erosion; and grassland grassland and buffer strips. management. HLS options for: grassland management; inter-tidal wetland options; water meadows and wetlands; salt marshes, mudflats, saline lagoons. Sources: Natural England (2007), Defra (2007a), Environment Agency (2007a)
Table 49: Changes in environmental impact moving from Baseline to scenario D
Environmental Changes under Scenario D (relative to Magnitude of change Geographical extent of change Change in uptake of measures required - Impact baseline) including direction and magnitude (see notes) Water quality • Overall reduction in potential • N levels may increase slightly • Localised variations will remain, e.g. in • In areas that have high baseline loadings of N nitrate and phosphate loading to (<1%) in some areas (Eastern the East and East Midlands N & P & P (and are therefore at risk of failing WFD water bodies as livestock numbers and East Midlands); levels may stay the same (or increase targets), a large increase in the uptake of (e.g. pigs) and total area of land slightly) as cropping levels remain measures will be needed to improve water under agriculture fall. • P levels may increase by about similar; and quality; but 8% in East Midlands, but decrease in other regions; • The greatest reductions in P loadings • In areas where baseline loadings are low and can be seen where baseline loadings improvement can be seen under scenario D • Reduction in pig numbers will are already relatively low e.g. 56% then uptake can remain stable. reduce soil erosion, hence reduction in the South Downs JCA. sediment loads; This is very significant as areas with low baseline loadings are not at risk of • P loads of surface waters may still remain high for a number of failing the WFD targets but are seeing years due to the re-suspension the greatest reductions. of sediments; and
• The South, West Midlands, Yorkshire and Humber and the North East show a marked reduction in both phosphate and nitrate (15% for each) due to a reduction in animal numbers, wheat, barley, potatoes and sugar beet. Soil quality • Overall reduced negative impact on soil as reduced livestock numbers leads to less soil compaction;
• Compaction may be further reduced due to reduced numbers of caged poultry stock, which means less manure and litter needs to be spread on land;
• Less erosion due to reduced number of free range hens;
• Reduction in total area of land under agriculture will lead to less soil erosion; and
Environmental Changes under Scenario D (relative to Magnitude of change Geographical extent of change Change in uptake of measures required - Impact baseline) including direction and magnitude (see notes) • Possibly less tillage (to save costs) in land that remains under agriculture. Landscape JCA 8: • The rate of change is also Each case (JCA) will be different, for • In areas that are or expected to become critical as this will determine example: neglected, a large increase in uptake of • the ability and requirement to whether or not agri-environment measures would be required to bring them maintain boundary features and scheme options can keep pace • JCA 8: will affect the fells and upland back to the baseline; and other historic features may or in some cases, reverse the areas – more than 50% of JCA reduce, leading to these features change occurring in the coverage; • A more focused capital programme may be falling into disrepair; and landscape; required in some areas to bring the • JCA 61/62: most areas within the landscapes back into condition before entering • consolidation of farms may • where landscapes are currently JCA will be affected; into agri-environment schemes. further impact on boundary or expected to be maintained, features as field sizes increase. • JCA 83: will affect the river valleys – these schemes will play a less than 50% of JCA coverage; and JCA 61/62: significant role; and • JCA 125: will affect the downland – • where landscapes are starting • intensification of farming could more than 50% of JCA coverage. lead to improved field drainage to diverge from the baseline and loss of ponds and wet there will be questions of what pasture; direction, how much and how fast the landscapes are • increasing pressure on field changing. boundaries with further loss of hedgerows and hedgerow trees;
• negative effect on the maintenance and enhancement of the pastoral character of the area; and
• move towards larger farms as consolidation occurs in the industry is likely to affect the ability to retain a strong pattern of hedgerows. JCA 83:
• return to large scale arable production and the amalgamation of small fields resulting in the loss of landscape features and diversity across the
Environmental Changes under Scenario D (relative to Magnitude of change Geographical extent of change Change in uptake of measures required - Impact baseline) including direction and magnitude (see notes) area;
• further loss of hedgerows, hedgerow trees, ditches, ponds and pasture; and
• increase in marginal land and more extensive use of grass provide a more diverse landscape on the fringes of farms. A reduction in livestock would tie in with a more extensive use of grassland. JCA 125:
• The change in size of arable farms could lead to a return to large scale arable production putting further pressure on remnant chalk grassland;
• concentration on productive land with marginal land being left out of cultivation, could help balance the changes in the arable sector; and
• concern is that with the reduction in all grazing stock much of the grassland will not be grazed and lose diversity of plant species. Biodiversity • Arable land out of production will • These changes will be slight or • All arable and mixed farming areas. • Stable – to ensure appropriate management of lead to increased permanent and moderate, although extra Permanent fallow likely to be on less overwintered stubbles and arable reversion. rotational fallow, with positive rotational fallow in winter productive land – localised fields and impacts on farmland birds and combinable cropping areas will some wider areas such as the field boundary BAP habitats; have high impact on farmland Cotswolds. birds. • Reduced spring cropping, with negative impacts on farmland • These changes will have • birds and field boundary BAP moderate impact. All arable and mixed farming areas. • Small increase – to encourage well managed habitats; overwintered stubbles and spring cropping.
• Less diverse cropping, with negative impacts on farmland
Environmental Changes under Scenario D (relative to Magnitude of change Geographical extent of change Change in uptake of measures required - Impact baseline) including direction and magnitude (see notes) birds and hedgerows; • Slight or moderate impact. • All arable and mixed farming areas. • Large increase – to encourage a range of crop types, and wild bird seed cover. • Less arable cropping in mixed farm areas, with negative impact on farmland birds & arable field margins, and positive impact on • Large increase – to encourage a range of crop • Negative impacts moderate; • All mixed farming areas. types, and wild bird seed cover; stable for lowland grassland BAP habitats; positive impacts slight. lowland grassland BAP habitats to ensure • Decrease in all cattle and less appropriate management. intensive grassland management with positive impact on lowland • Overall small increase (but large within grassland BAP habitats, • All areas; decrease in cattle numbers affected areas) to counter under grazing. will lead to or exacerbate under grazing hedgerows and farmland birds; and problems on some lowland grassland • Impacts mainly slight. BAP habitats and SW upland areas. • Overall small increase (but large within • Decrease in sheep numbers and affected areas) to counter under grazing or grazing pressure with negative • Some upland areas could become under grazed or abandoned. maintain appropriate level of grazing. impacts on lowland grassland BAP • Impacts mainly moderate. habitats, and positive impacts on hedgerows, upland heathland and hay meadows and farmland birds. Flood risk • The effect of this on flooding • The largest potential increase • Most severe in the JCAs in the South • The most important factor here is the depends on what the land that in flood risk is 20% (South Downs; Cumbria High Fells; alternative use for the land which is taken out goes out of agriculture is used for Downs); Shropshire, Cheshire and Staffordshire of agricultural use. If this is all converted to instead; Plain; “low or moderate flood risk” uses, then the • there is potential for moderate flood risk is likely to decrease. Maintaining • if this is high flood risk uses (e.g. (8-9%) increases in flood risk • any other area where large areas of stable levels of uptake of agri-environment development without adequate Cumbria and Shropshire JCAs; land will go out of agricultural use also schemes aimed at preventing flooding may drainage), then flood risk will and has potential for increased flood risk. then assist in combating flooding further; increase; however • in the Norfolk and Cheshire however • if the land instead is used for JCAs there is potential for a • if this land is converted to “high flood risk purposes associated with low risk small (3-4%) increase in flood uses”, then a small to large increase in uptake (e.g. forestation or grassland), then risk. of agri-environment schemes which combat flood risk may decrease. flooding is required to counteract this effect. Source: Project output from earlier tasks Notes: For the headline “Change in uptake of measures required” the direction and magnitude of change is where possible given according to the following scale: • Large reduction: more than 20% reduction in uptake; • Small reduction: between 5% and 20% reduction in uptake; • Stable: uptake to stay within +/- 5% of current uptake; • Small increase: between 5% and 20% increase in uptake; and • Large increase: more than 20% increase in uptake.
Estimating the Environmental Impacts of Pillar I Reform
4.5 Conclusions The analysis in this section is focused on the link between Pillar I reform and Pillar II input, as a consequence of land use change and changes in the economics of agricultural production. It is clear from the economic modelling in task 1 that all three reform scenarios would prompt significant restructuring within the agricultural industry.
To some extent, Pillar II could be used to mitigate the economic pressures associated with loss of direct payments and/or loss of trade tariffs by transferring budget to an enhanced offer in terms of environmental stewardship schemes. However, this would risk perpetuating the cross-subsidisation which is inherent in direct payments under Pillar I and perhaps undermining some land use changes which have desired environmental impacts. Conversely, Government cannot await any environmental degradation associated with the restructuring process before taking action as this will increase the cost and risk irreversible environmental damage. Therefore it will be important to anticipate change and ensure provision is in place as part of the reform package, rather than in response to it.
The most significant question is whether the Pillar II budget needs to change as a result of Pillar I reform; this may relate to changes in the cost of individual ELS or HLS options, the mix or intensity of options that are required or an absolute change in the uptake of options. The current Pillar II stewardship schemes are focused on protecting or enhancing biodiversity and landscape features, rather than resource protection; the need for the former would be reduced by more extensive agriculture but both are vulnerable to neglect associated with absence of farming.
The evidence from this study allows the following conclusions to be drawn:
1. Cost of environmental stewardship schemes. Reform scenario B would increase the cost of most ES schemes in response to higher commodity prices while scenarios C and D would see a fall in cost. The extent of change is relatively modest for ELS in SDA areas (2.1% increase for average agreement under scenario B, up to 2.2% decrease for scenarios C and D), while in non-SDA areas the extent of change ranges from 0.7% increase for scenario B to 4.5% decrease for scenario D. For HLS, payment rates for most HS options are consistently higher under Scenario B relative to baseline (Scenario A), while under scenarios C and D, rates are generally lower.
2. Intensity of ES options. The radical restructuring resulting from Pillar I reform will affect the need for environmental protection and enhancement; less intensive production in some areas, especially grassland systems, will reduce the need for ‘low input’ options while concentration (and intensification) of production in more productive areas will increase the need for them. An increase in the amount of ‘land out of production’ will require an increase in the need for stewardship schemes to maintain linear features (hedges and walls) and protect sensitive farmland habitats but these will only realistically be maintained by active farmers (see (3)).
3. Absolute uptake of options. While analysis of ELS uptake data shows that larger holdings are significantly more likely to enter, the link to cross-compliance (in the absence of Single Payment) might be a disincentive to enter. Overall, it can be assumed that uptake is similar across the reform scenarios as by definition, the management required is ‘simple’ and has limited cost to farmers.
Page 94 Estimating the Environmental Impacts of Pillar I Reform
For HLS the analysis is very different, requiring ‘more complex environmental management where land managers need advice and support’. Under more challenging economic conditions (in the absence of Pillar I support), the incentive to participate will be greater but the scheme is discretionary. The absolute uptake will be driven by the availability of HLS and as such, by perceived need. The analysis in this study suggests that while need will be reduced in less productive areas due to a reduction in the intensiveness of farming, notably the uplands and lower quality lowland, there will be a more significant impact from the increase in ‘land out of production’ under scenario D e.g. much of the land in National Parks falls within Less Favoured Areas and is vulnerable to destocking28.
It must be concluded that while the evidence is as yet imprecise, the cost of Pillar II is likely to increase under all reform scenarios as follows:
Reform scenario B would increase the cost of ELS agreements in SDA areas (by 2.1%) and in non-SDA areas (by 0.7%). Also, the unit cost of most HLS options would increase (by 1-9%). While the prices of many farm commodities is predicted to increase, the loss of the Single Payment would lead to extensive restructuring and a significant increase in ‘land out of production’, with a resulting increase in the need for targeted HLS uptake.
Reform scenario C would reduce the cost of ELS agreements in SDA and non-SDA areas (by 2.2-3.3%) and also the unit cost of most HLS options (by 1-13%). Retention of the Single Payment limits the extent of restructuring with the increase in ‘land out of production’ less than under Scenario B. However, the overall impact is expected to be an increase in the Pillar II budget.
Reform scenario D would reduce the cost of ELS agreements in SDA and non-SDA areas (by 1.2-4.5%) and also the unit cost of most HLS options (by 1-36%). Loss of the Single Payment and lower commodity prices will lead to substantial restructuring with a significant increase in ‘land out of production’ (15% in the lowlands and perhaps more in the LFA). As such, the overall impact is expected to be a significant increase in the Pillar II budget, despite the lower unit cost of options.
There will also be spatial impacts of reform; even with an increase in ‘low input’ schemes in intensively farmed lowland areas, Pillar II budgets are likely to be concentrated in the areas of greatest need, notably the uplands and less productive lowland. This will represent a transfer of CAP funding from the baseline position and will impact on rural economies to some degree. However, the main impact will be the loss of net income from farming activity across all rural areas.
There will also be spatial impacts of reform; even with an increase in ‘low input’ schemes in intensively farmed lowland areas, Pillar II budgets are likely to be concentrated in the areas of greatest need, notably the uplands and less productive lowland. This will represent a transfer of CAP funding from the baseline position and will impact on rural economies to some degree. However, the main impact will be the loss of net income from farming activity across all rural areas.
28 ENPAA (2007) Position Statement: Upland Livestock farming in National Parks www.nationalparks.gov.uk/enpaa- pps-uplandlivestockfarming.pdf
Page 95 Estimating the Environmental Impacts of Pillar I Reform
5. Land Out of Production
5.1 The Extent of Land Out of Production (Task 1) Task one highlighted that all the future scenarios implied less land being used for productive agriculture than currently is the case. Given that this has important implications for environmental impacts, this final section considers the issue in more detail.
As a starting point, Table 50 highlights the percentage of the total area (as farmed in 2004 and including set-aside) that the model predicts will not be used for crops, grass or by-products under the various scenarios by region.
Table 50: Percentage of Land moving out of Agriculture
Region Total Category East East of North North South South West Yorkshire England Midlands England East West East West Midlands Humber
Scenario Per cent land out of production A 1.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 B 3.8 1.0 5.9 3.3 11.9 12.4 18.6 11.3 9.0 C 6.7 4.4 2.6 3.3 15.4 4.0 -0.9 -1.0 5.0 D 0.1 7.0 9.3 6.8 23.7 17.3 25.7 26.0 15.0 Note: a negative figure implies an increase in land used
It can be seen that the national average hides some marked differences between regions. In terms of land-use it seems that much of the land moving out of agriculture comes from land currently cropped and this helps explain the different impact of the reform scenarios across the regions. The areas dominated by livestock and those with comparative advantage in cereals seem to have less land remaining idle. Those areas with more marginal arable land seem to have the greatest changes in land-use. In some regions the decline in land may look dramatic but should be put in the context of the fact that quite similar areas of land have been idled under the set-aside programme.
Arable Land It is important to emphasise the point that the models used for the study are not dynamic and therefore do not consider the nature of rotations. It could be the case that the land highlighted by our models as not farmed in one year may not necessarily be out of agriculture. During periods of low prices for cereals and break crops, incorporating a fallow into the rotation could be a viable option. Family farms with high fixed costs are more unlikely to find it viable to leave land fallow (as long as the crop returns a positive gross margin it will be contributing something to covering fixed costs) as opposed to farms that are engaging contractors to undertake the majority of operations.
This said it is likely that more marginal arable land will leave crop production in the absence of support payments. In earlier studies (BAUI and BAUII) when discussing the implications of the removal of compulsory set-aside it was felt by the majority of stakeholders that a proportion of this land would remain out of agriculture. Therefore, one way of viewing the land out of production is as a form of voluntary set aside. There are potentially a number of reasons why a farmer might set-aside land voluntarily. First, the land is more marginal, for example having poorer soils or being
Page 96 Estimating the Environmental Impacts of Pillar I Reform liable to flooding. Second, given that machinery is now generally larger and covers a greater area, it may just not be viable to cultivate awkward shaped parts of fields. Finally, there might also be regulatory incentives to leave land idle. For example, if buffer strips are sufficiently wide they can reduce the requirement for LERAPs reporting. This form of land out of production can be viewed as providing some of the environmental benefits associated with current set-aside policy and therefore may be deemed as beneficial.
It might be expected that arable land that is no longer cropped would return to grass. However, given the degree of specialisation that has happened in agriculture, it is unlikely that farms will return to putting stock on their land once the infrastructure is lost (fences, water supply, housing etc). Perhaps more importantly, it is questionable whether the animal husbandry skills will still exist in these areas or could be bought in easily.
Grassland In terms of grassland, the general assumption has been that the estimated reductions in livestock numbers coupled with a relatively stable forage area means an implied extensification of livestock production. However, this assumption does require further investigation, because reduction in livestock numbers may not mean a general extensification but a mixture of retreat from some areas and concentration of production in more productive pastures. For example, in hill and upland areas there is concern over the implications of a complete destocking.
It is useful to consider the changes in livestock numbers discussed earlier in terms of stocking rates. In Table 51, implied stocking rates are crudely calculated as total livestock units29 divided by the available forage (including grass) and by-products area.30 It can be seen that for England as a whole stocking rates fall from 1.02 Livestock Units per hectare under Scenario A (Business as Usual) down to 0.83 Livestock Units per hectare under Scenario D (removal of pillar 1 and trade liberalisation) implying a marked decline. There are though variations across regions under the various scenarios.
Table 51: Grazing Livestock Units per Hectare of Forage and By-Products
Region Total Category East East of North North South South West Yorkshire England Midlands England East West East West Midlands Humber
Scenario Grazing Livestock Units per Hectare of Forage and By-Products A 1.12 0.60 0.78 1.02 0.82 1.12 1.35 0.93 1.02 B 1.10 0.50 0.73 0.83 0.74 1.03 1.45 0.73 0.92 C 1.02 0.74 0.63 0.88 0.79 0.96 1.17 0.75 0.89 D 1.12 0.44 0.71 0.79 0.60 0.90 1.28 0.60 0.83
This data represents average grazing pressure at regional level and given a distribution around the average, there will be areas of more intensive grazing and
29 For this analysis Livestock Units are calculated as those used for Less Favoured Area Support Schemes. For example, Dairy and Suckler cows are the equivalent of 1 livestock unit and sheep are the equivalent of 0.15 of a unit 30 This figure might over represent the amount of land available for feeding livestock as not all by-products would be fed to livestock.
Page 97 Estimating the Environmental Impacts of Pillar I Reform areas where grazing pressure is very low. This is illustrated in Figure 27 for the Cumbria case study (JCA8), where the stocking density is less than 0.5 GLU per hectare for a significant area in the centre of the JCA and the relatively high stocking rate around the periphery under the baseline scenario. It is not possible to cite a threshold stocking rate below which vegetation change is undesirable; research undertaken on lowland semi-natural habitat grazing regimes31 and on upland grazing32 is informative.
Low stocking rates in the East of England may reflect predominance of permanent pasture and land which is not suitable for cultivation and a limited grazing livestock sector.
Figure 27: Changes in Grazing Pressure for Scenario D in JCA8 (Cumbria)
Under Scenario D, there appears to be extensification across the JCA but this may reflect the modelling assumptions rather than actual practice. While farmers might run fewer livestock across all areas it is equally possible we might see a combination of undergrazing or retreat from farming on the fells in the centre of the JCA combined with continued problems of overgrazing on in-bye land at the periphery.
While stocking rates are relatively higher in the lowland JCAs, there is still significant variation across the area, before and after reform (Figure 28). Again it is possible that the least productive land e.g. wetland might be undergrazed or taken out of production while other areas continue to be grazed intensively.
31 ADAS (2003) Review of Stocking Levels Recommended for Semi-natural Lowland Grasslands. Report for Countryside Council for Wales (CCW) in conjunction with English Nature (EN), Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH) and the Environment and Heritage Service (EHS) for Northern Ireland. 32 ADAS et al (2007) Determining Environmentally Sustainable and Economically Viable Grazing Systems for the Restoration and Maintenance of Heather Moorland in England and Wales. Report to Defra (BD1228).
Page 98 Estimating the Environmental Impacts of Pillar I Reform
Figure 28: Grazing pressure for JCA case study areas under Scenario D
Implications for Farming Systems In a fully decoupled world, moving to extensive farming systems only makes sense if it enables the business to reduce the cost per animal of production or increase productivity and/or price; the latter has been demonstrated in practice by many organic farms. A substantial increase in input prices e.g. fertiliser and feed also encourage more extensive systems and this is likely to be the preferred direction for at least some cattle and sheep farms. The extension of NVZ areas also incentivizes extensification generally (reduced reliance on fertiliser) and in particular outwintering of stock (investment in slurry/FYM storage).
An example might be a move to 'ranching', or 'easi-care' systems where much less input and labour is required. When this scenario was raised with stakeholders in an earlier study (BAUII), a view expressed by some was that such systems would potentially impact on animal welfare. In practice, the evidence from 'easi-care' and organic systems is that well managed extensive systems using suitable breeds can offer acceptable welfare, and may even offer opportunities for niche marketing e.g. outdoor or free range.
The alternative is to concentrate production on the most productive (and accessible areas) with full destocking of marginal land. If this happens across a large number of farms in a region, there may be a point where a livestock sector becomes unviable in a particular area or locality, through loss of critical mass. For example, if there are insufficient sheep to support the ancillary industries (and vets) then this could mean that production would stop altogether. This has implications for regional food supply chains and for consumers, as well as the more direct environmental impacts.
The issue of infrastructure and critical mass is important when considering whether some livestock production might move out of upland areas to marginal arable areas in the lowlands. This is only likely where livestock farming is already practiced on a reasonable scale and it is very unlikely that there will be any move towards more mixed farming systems. Access to Pillar II support is likely to remain critical to upland farming.
Government policy and intervention can mitigate this pressure to rationalise where production takes place. For example, under Pillar II, Hill Farming Allowance (HFA), which provides dedicated support to beef and sheep producers who farm land in Severely Disadvantaged Areas within the English LFAs, has a minimum stocking requirement and is an important element of farm income in many hill and upland areas. HFA will continue to 2009 under the new Rural Development Programme for
Page 99 Estimating the Environmental Impacts of Pillar I Reform
England but uplands support will be fully integrated into Environmental Stewardship from 2010. Also, as existing ESA (Environmentally Sensitive Area) agreements come to an end over the next few years, there may be an opportunity to transfer to one of the newer Environmental Stewardship schemes, subject to funding being available. The potential environmental impact of land out of production needs to be considered as part of this policy development.
Other Possible Land Use Changes Finally, it is necessary to consider the likelihood of alternative uses of land out of agricultural production on economic grounds. While this has not been a focus of the research, it is clear that this land will be available, in principle, for other uses e.g. renewable energy crops, commercial timber production, recreation (including woodland), tourism (game), floodplain management, housing development, wilding etc. Many of these are coherent with wider public policy on, for example, mitigation of climate change or management of flood risk.
Pillar II support for rural development is available to businesses outside mainstream agriculture and covers sectors such as recreation and tourism; these can utilise land directly as well as linking closely with the farmed environment. The direction and extent of such development relies on regional and local priorities and the devolution of the socio-economic element of the Rural Development Plan for England 2007-2013 to the Regional Development Agencies is helpful in this respect.
5.2 Environmental Impacts (Task 2) In terms of environmental impacts, the analysis is constrained by uncertainty over the management of ‘land out of production’ in lowland areas and the extent to which a reduced livestock population in the uplands is spread over the whole area or concentrated on better/more accessible land, with limited or no grazing of moorland areas.
The analysis concludes that more ‘land out of production’ could be either negative or positive, depending on the particular circumstances and the uptake of alternative land uses. This is summarised in table 52.
Page 100 Estimating the Environmental Impacts of Pillar I Reform
Table 52: Environmental Impacts of Land out of production
Medium Positive impacts Negative impacts Landscape Marginal arable land coming out of Unused land will move towards scrub production could provide habitat, with a negative impact on the opportunities to expand grassland, landscape. This might lead to potentially strengthening local consequential loss of distinctiveness and landscape characteristics. be accompanied by a loss of ability to maintain important boundary features. Some alternative uses could contribute to diversity of landscape Some alternative uses could also have but might represent non-traditional negative impacts on traditional landscape features. characteristics and/or biodiversity Biodiversity In terms of biodiversity, rotational Loss of biodiversity in areas where land is fallow, if managed sympathetically, not managed. could compensate for the loss of spring crops. Permanent fallow in predominantly arable areas could also be of benefit. Widling or other uses which were environmentally symapathetic might contribute to biodiversity, although there may be a whole new set of ecosystems. Soils A reduction of land in agriculture will Commercial use of land e.g. for recreation mean less land being cultivated or inappropriate cultivation could cause nationally, and as a result less of a problems of soil erosion. problem with soil erosion. Greehouse Localised impact of reduced Commercial use of land e.g. for recreation gases and Greenhouse Gas and Ammonia could lead to increased access and ammonia Emissions, where livestock are no increase Greenhouse Gas Emissions emissions longer kept or where alternative land use contributes to renewable energy production or provides a carbon sink. Water quality Land not cultivated or receiving Industrial uses or housing may increase fertilisers etc. from active farming or emissions of a range of pollutants. in forestry would have minimal emissions to water. Flood risk Land out of production which was Land out of production which was converted to low run-off risk use, converted to high run-off risk uses, such as such as grassland or forests, would for instance developments without proper reduce flood risk, where this Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems coincided with foold prone river (SUDS), would increase flood risk. systems or flood plains.
5.3 Pillar II Schemes (Task 3) The task 3 analysis suggests that additional coverage of Higher Level Stewardship will be needed to protect sensitive environmental areas at risk from undergrazing or lack of use while continued to protect other areas from overgrazing, albeit on a reduced scale. Given that many farms include both types of land, a whole farm agri- environment scheme might deliver both these outcomes efficiently. The current Entry Level Scheme may provide insufficient incentive to deliver this alone but in combination with a revised HFA scheme and/or access to more focused HLS options (conditional on ELS membership), farm level management could be secured.
Page 101 Estimating the Environmental Impacts of Pillar I Reform
Land out of production in arable areas might be fallowed on a rotational basis or represent uncropped field margins or buffer strips along rivers; these could provide biodiversity benefits, just as elements of set aside have done, depending on how they are managed. There is some scope to integrate rotational fallow and field margins with ES schemes, for example by linking fallow to spring cropping and overwintered stubbles. The analysis in section 3.2 highlighted the benefits of the latter.
Land out of production on a more permanent basis in arable areas may also require some degree of management to safeguard habitats or landscapes. Again this could come within the scope of ES schemes such as woodland planting or energy crops but some non-agricultural uses would be outside the remit of Pillar II.
While it is difficult to anticipate the extent of need for ES schemes relating to land out of production, it is likely that most active farms would account for some land in this category. However, paying farmers to compensate for loss of production on field margins or buffer strips might represent a degree of deadweight in terms of public funding (i.e. it would happen in the absence of ES payments) and it may be that ES schemes should focus on areas of land out of production where the risk of neglect to landscape or biodiversity is significant or where more additionality can be achieved. A pragmatic approach would be that areas with scope for high levels of public good should be prioritised, for example in terms of valued landscape or habit, or contribution to flood management, public access, climate change mitigation etc. A robust and transparent policy and process would be needed to ensure landowners and regional agencies knew why some areas received funding and others did not as there is likely to be a reallocation of Pillar II funding between regions.
The existing pattern of uptake of ELS and HLS schemes is shown in Figure 29 and indicates a focus on ELS in the east and HLS in the west of the country.
Figure 29: Uptake of ELS and HLS schemes in England
Source: Natural England
Page 102 Estimating the Environmental Impacts of Pillar I Reform
This situation is likely to continue post-reform on the basis that more marginal land in the west will come out of production and need prescribed ‘management’ under HLS. While ELS may not offer sufficient incentive for farmers in the east to put productive land under conservation measures, it may be a valuable option for uncropped field margins or buffer strips.
5.4 Further Research It is recommended that the following research needs should be addressed to better understand the likely changes in farm practice, post-reform, which might lead farmers to manage all land more extensively or to manage land selectively, included some element of unfarmed land:
1. Survey of farmers in high risk areas (both upland and lowland) to test different scenarios in terms of reduced stock numbers and marginal arable land
2. Literature review of existing research on the environmental implications of a number of alternative land uses, including absence of management
3. Case studies of a range of extensive management systems to capture economic viability and assess environmental impacts over a period of time
Page 103 Estimating the Environmental Impacts of Pillar I Reform
Appendix 1: Bibliography
ADAS UK Ltd, NERC CEH, IGER, Newcastle University, RSPB & SAC (2007) Determining Environmentally Sustainable and Economically Viable Grazing Systems for the Restoration and Maintenance of Heather Moorland in England and Wales. Report for Defra.
ADAS (2003) Review of Stocking Levels Recommended for Semi-natural Lowland Grasslands. Report for Countryside Council for Wales (CCW) in conjunction with English Nature (EN), Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH) and the Environment and Heritage Service (EHS) for Northern Ireland.
ADAS and SAC (2007) Project SFF0601 Baseline Projections for Agriculture (BAU phase III) Defra Final Report
Baggott S.L., Brown L., Cardenas L., Downes M., Garnett E., Hobson M., Jackson J., Milne R., Mobbs D.C., Passant N., Thistlethwaite G., Thomson A. and Watterson J.D. (2006). UK Greenhouse Gas Inventory, 1990 to 2004. NETCEN. pp.428. ISBN 0-9547136-8-0.
CSL and CCRU (2006) OBS 03: Quantitative approaches to assessment of farm level changes and implications for the environment
CQC JCA Index http://www.cqc.org.uk/jca/
Defra (2005): Controlling Soil Erosion: A Manual for the Assessment and Management of Agricultural Land at Risk of Water Erosion in Lowland England, September 2005 version, Defra: London
Defra (2005) Making Space for Water: Taking forward a new Government strategy for flood & coastal erosion risk management Introduction
Defra (2002) Directing the flow: Priorities for future water policy
Defra (2007a) Catchment Sensitive Farming, Defra webpages, www.defra.gov.uk/farm/environment/water/csf/index.htm
EFRA (2007) The UK Government's “Vision for the Common Agricultural Policy” Fourth Report of Session 2006–07 HC 546-I http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200607/cmselect/cmenvfru/546/546i.pdf
ENPAA (2007) Position Statement: Upland Livestock farming in National Parks www.nationalparks.gov.uk/enpaa-pps-uplandlivestockfarming.pdf
English Nature (2006) Target 2010 – the condition of England’s SSSIs in 2005
Environment Agency (2007a) Catchment Sensitive Farming, Environment Agency webpages, www.environment-agency.gov.uk/business/business sectors/agriculture/catchment sensitive farming
GFA-RACE & IEEP (2004) The Potential Environmental impacts of the Cap Reform Agreement Final Report for Defra.
HM Treasury / Defra (2005) A Vision for the Common Agricultural Policy p16. Available online at http://www.defra.gov.uk/farm/capreform/vision.htm
Moss, J., Patton, M., Kostov, P., Zhang, L., Binfield, J. and Westhoff, P. (2007) “Analysis of the Impact of the Abolition of Milk Quotas, Increased Modulation and Reductions in the Single Farm Payment on UK Agriculture”. Report prepared for Defra, available online: http://statistics.defra.gov.uk/esg/reports/UK%20report%202007%20 (revised).pdf
Page 104 Estimating the Environmental Impacts of Pillar I Reform
Moss, J., McEarlan, S., Kostov, P., Patton, M., Westhoff, P., and Binfield, J. (2002) “Analysis of the Impact of Decoupling on Agriculture in the UK”. Report prepared for Defra, available online: http://statistics.defra.gov.uk/esg/ reports/decoupling/QueenUni.PDF
Natural England (2007) SSSI Enforcement Policy Statement, Natural England Head Office, Sheffield, January 2007.
Webb J. and Misselbrook T.H. (2004) A mass-flow model of ammonia emissions from UK livestock production Atmospheric Environment 38 (14), 2163-2176
Page 105 Estimating the Environmental Impacts of Pillar I Reform
Appendix 2: Definitions of Robust Farming Types
Defra’s Robust Farm Types classification used in the Defra Farm Business Survey has been used throughout the report. These are defined as follows:
Cereals Holdings on which cereals and other crops generally found in cereal rotations (e.g. oilseeds, peas and beans harvested dry and land set-aside) account for more than two thirds of their total SGM. These crops are all harvested with a combine harvester, are readily interchangeable with little impact on the capital and labour required and constitute a relatively homogenous group. Holdings on which land set-aside accounts for more than two thirds of their total SGM - specialist set-aside holdings - are excluded from this type and included in the other robust type.
General Cropping Holdings on which arable crops (including field scale vegetables) account for more than two thirds of their total SGM excluding holdings classified as cereals; holdings on which a mixture of arable and horticultural crops account for more than two thirds of their total SGM excluding holdings classified as horticulture and holdings on which arable crops account for more than one third of their total SGM and no other grouping accounts for more than one third.
Horticulture Holdings on which fruit (including vineyards), hardy nursery stock, glasshouse flowers and vegetables, market garden scale vegetables, outdoor bulbs and flowers, and mushrooms account for more than two thirds of their total SGM.
Specialist Pigs Holdings on which pigs account for more than two thirds of their total SGM
Specialist Poultry Holdings on which Poultry account for more than two thirds of their total SGM
Dairy Holdings on which dairy cows account for more than two thirds of their total SGM. A holding is classified as a Less Favoured Area (LFA) holding if 50 percent or more of its total area is in the LFA and a lowland holding if less than 50 per cent of its total area is in the LFA.
LFA Grazing Livestock Holdings on which cattle, sheep and other grazing livestock account for more than two thirds of their total SGM except holdings classified as dairy. A holding is classified as a Less Favoured Area (LFA) holding if 50 per cent or more of its total area is in the LFA. Of holdings classified as LFA, those whose LFA land is wholly or mainly (50 per cent or more) in the Severely Disadvantaged Area (SDA) are classified as SDA; those Farm Classification using 2000 SGMs and SLR 12/10/2004 whose LFA land is wholly or mainly (more than 50 per cent) in the Disadvantaged Area (DA) are classified as DA.
Lowland Grazing Livestock Holdings on which cattle, sheep and other grazing livestock account for more than two thirds of their total SGM except holdings classified as dairy. A holding is classified as lowland if less than 50 per cent of its total area is in the LFA.
Mixed Holdings in which none of the above categories is responsible for more than 2/3 of SGMs. This category includes mixed pigs and poultry farms as well as farms with a mixture of crops and livestock (where neither accounts for more than 2/3 of SGMs).
Page 106 Estimating the Environmental Impacts of Pillar I Reform
Appendix 3: Overview of the Regional Land Use Model
The starting point of the methodology was to consider a regional model of crops and livestock. The selected regions were Defra’s Government Office Regions (i.e., East Midlands, East of England, North East, South East and London, South West, West Midlands and Yorkshire and Humber). This classification, although based on the data available, approximately reflects differences in natural resources (e.g., land quality) and production specialisation (e.g., East of England on cereal production).
Within each region (denoted by the sub-index r), we considered farm models (i.e., ‘representative farms’) disaggregated by farm type (denoted by the sub index t) and farm size (denoted by the sub index s). Therefore, a maximum number of 24 supply relationships (i.e., 3 farm sizes multiplied by 8 farm types) were possible in a region. Another way of looking at this is that a regional market comprised 24 different producers (e.g., large cereal farm or small LFA livestock) for each commodity.
We estimated a cost function using a panel dataset comprising eight years of the Farm Business Survey. The outputs (i.e., area and livestock) used in the function were wheat, barley, other cereals, oilseed rape, potatoes, sugar beet, other crops, vegetables and fruits, forage, set-aside, dairy cows, beef cows, other cattle, ewes, other sheep, sows, other pigs, hens and other poultry. The cost function contained dummy variables associated with farm type (f), of a size (s) and of the region (r) that allowed us to build individual cost functions for each ‘representative farm’ within the region.
Instead of using produced quantities and input prices in the estimation of the cost function, we assumed that this depended on areas or average animals and input prices. This approach has two advantages: first, the result of the profit maximisation considering this cost function yields directly the area allocated to a crop and the average number of animals; and second, it avoids the problem of estimating a cost function where the regressors (i.e., crop outputs) are stochastic (since produced quantities are the multiplication of areas and yields and the latter are normally considered random terms).
The functional form for the cost function was chosen due to its simplicity and adequacy for the task of estimating theoretically consistent marginal costs (i.e., supply relationships). The cost function omitting the sub-indices f,s,r for simplicity and also the specific dummies, is given by (where the sub-index t represents the time period):
m m ⎡ n n n ⎤ ⎡ 1 2 ⎤ 1 C W, A = α + α A + α A ⋅ exp β + β ln W + β ln W ln W + ε t ()⎢ 0 ∑ h ht 2 ∑ hh ht ⎥ ⎢ 0 ∑ j jt 2 ∑∑ jk jt kt ⎥ t ⎣ h=1 h=1 ⎦ ⎣⎢ j=1 j==1k 1 ⎦⎥
It should be noted that the first part in brackets corresponds (excluding the parameter α0 ) to the quadratic cost function frequently used in positive mathematical programming models, where separability amongst outputs (where the A's in the formula represent the crop areas or average livestock numbers) is assumed. The second term in brackets corresponds to the input prices (Ws). This functional form can be deduced from the more general cost function presented in Pulley and Braunstein (1992).33
33 Pulley L. B. AND Braunstein Y. M. (1992), “A Composite Cost Function for Multiproduct Firms with an Application to Economies of Scope in Banking”, Review of Economics and Statistics, 74, 221-230.
Page 107 Estimating the Environmental Impacts of Pillar I Reform
After the cost function was estimated, its parameters were adjusted to reproduce exactly the results of the season 2005/06, i.e., the latest available data and one under the effect of the SPS.
For each ‘representative farm’ in every region (e.g., East of England small cereal farms) a mathematical programming model was formulated where the representative farm maximised its profit subject to constraints in terms of its available resources (cropping area and grass) and taking into account the presence of policy constraints such as set-aside, sugar beet quota and dairy quota. Thus, given a set of commodity prices and assuming average yields, each representative farm decided its production of each commodity.
The regional aggregated supply of a commodity was obtained as the weighted sum of the commodity production (commodity areas multiplied by commodity yields) of each representative farm in the region. The weights (i.e., number of farms in a region corresponding to a farm type and size) were constructed using the census data.
The commodity demands were assumed to be for the regional product (i.e., demand from the own region plus the demand from other regions). These demands were assumed to be linear and its parameters calibrated using the regional data (total production and prices).
The solution of the model for each scenario it is explained in the text. Table 53 presents the estimated parameters of the cost function.
Table 53: Estimated parameters of the cost function
Correlation between estimated and observed endogenous variable 0.99-1969.88 t ratios Log likelihood function variables Coefficients Standard error Intercept-dummies for farm type Cereals 8.0381 0.3860 20.8260 Dairy 8.1215 0.3902 20.8160 General cropping 8.1899 0.3831 21.3760 Horticulture 15.3020 0.3860 39.6400 LFA grazing livestock -19.8520 1.0000 -19.8520 Lowland grazing livestock -0.2545 1.0000 -0.2545 Mixed -15.1000 1.0000 -15.1000 Pigs and poultry -16.2430 1.0233 -15.8730 Intercept-dummies for farm size Small -5.2610 0.3833 -13.7260 Medium -5.3912 0.3827 -14.0860 Large -6.1467 0.3821 -16.0880 Intercepts associated to trend Trend -0.0514 0.0271 -1.8969 Squared trend 0.0105 0.0029 3.6827 Input prices variables
ln(W1) 0.3878 0.0255 15.2100
ln(W1) · ln(W1) 0.2192 0.5602 0.3913
ln(W1) · ln(W2) -0.0325 0.0964 -0.3366
ln(W1) · ln(W3) -0.0912 0.3083 -0.2957
ln(W1) · ln(W4) 0.0569 0.1441 0.3949
ln(W1) · ln(W5) -0.0080 0.2478 -0.0322
ln(W1) · ln(W6) -0.1445 0.2682 -0.5388
Page 108 Estimating the Environmental Impacts of Pillar I Reform
Correlation between estimated and observed endogenous variable 0.99-1969.88 t ratios Log likelihood function variables Coefficients Standard error
ln(W2) 0.0535 0.0054 9.9754
ln(W2) · ln(W1) -0.0325 0.0964 -0.3366
ln(W2) · ln(W2) 0.0415 0.1131 0.3670
ln(W2) · ln(W3) -0.0296 0.0710 -0.4171
ln(W2) · ln(W4) 0.0146 0.0380 0.3828
ln(W2) · ln(W5) 0.0272 0.0752 0.3622
ln(W2) · ln(W6) -0.0212 0.1072 -0.1982
ln(W3) 0.1114 0.0150 7.4363
ln(W3) · ln(W1) -0.0912 0.3083 -0.2957
ln(W3) · ln(W2) -0.0296 0.0710 -0.4171
ln(W3) · ln(W3) 0.0342 0.2269 0.1506
ln(W3) · ln(W4) -0.0240 0.0914 -0.2630
ln(W3) · ln(W5) 0.0500 0.1710 0.2925
ln(W3) · ln(W6) 0.0606 0.2174 0.2789
ln(W4) 0.1274 0.0073 17.3760
ln(W4) · ln(W1) 0.0569 0.1441 0.3949
ln(W4) · ln(W2) 0.0146 0.0380 0.3828
ln(W4) · ln(W3) -0.0240 0.0914 -0.2630
ln(W4) · ln(W4) 0.0424 0.0616 0.6886
ln(W4) · ln(W5) 0.0299 0.1024 0.2921
ln(W4) · ln(W6) -0.1197 0.1186 -1.0099
ln(W5) 0.1010 0.0127 7.9546
ln(W5) · ln(W1) -0.0080 0.2478 -0.0322
ln(W5) · ln(W2) 0.0272 0.0752 0.3622
ln(W5) · ln(W3) 0.0500 0.1710 0.2925
ln(W5) · ln(W4) 0.0299 0.1024 0.2921
ln(W5) · ln(W5) 0.0643 0.2092 0.3076
ln(W5) · ln(W6) -0.1635 0.2234 -0.7320
ln(W6) 0.2189 0.0136 16.0354
ln(W6) · ln(W1) -0.1445 0.2682 -0.5388
ln(W6) · ln(W2) -0.0212 0.1072 -0.1982
ln(W6) · ln(W3) 0.0606 0.2174 0.2789
ln(W6) · ln(W4) -0.1197 0.1186 -1.0099
ln(W6) · ln(W5) -0.1635 0.2234 -0.7320
ln(W6) · ln(W6) 0.3884 0.3213 1.2087 Output related terms (linear and squared) Intercept 82.3860 6.8916 11.9540 Wheat -146.9800 8.3536 -17.5950 Squared wheat 3.3141 0.2061 16.0790 Barley -63.1990 6.5282 -9.6809 Squared barley -8.5487 0.6174 -13.8450 Other cereals -338.0600 4.8795 -69.2810 Squared other cereals 23.6890 1.0280 23.0440 Oilseed rape 136.8800 3.1569 43.3600 Squared oilseed rape -3.2183 2.0864 -1.5426
Page 109 Estimating the Environmental Impacts of Pillar I Reform
Correlation between estimated and observed endogenous variable 0.99-1969.88 t ratios Log likelihood function variables Coefficients Standard error Potatoes -48.0730 1.1903 -40.3860 Squared potatoes 21.7130 1.0177 21.3350 Sugar beet 582.1600 2.6269 221.6200 Squared sugar beet 0.0000 2.5838 0.0000 Other crops -61.5760 2.1558 -28.5620 Squared other crops 0.0000 3.1766 0.0000 Vegetables and fruits -2.9495 0.7401 -3.9855 Squared vegetable and fruits 0.0000 0.1130 0.0000 By prods., forage and cultivations -105.6800 2.1876 -48.3090 Squared by prods., forage and cultivations -11.2580 0.3751 -30.0140 Set-aside -48.0890 4.1656 -11.5440 Squared set-aside -5.6264 0.9948 -5.6556 Dairy cows and heifers in milk -1656.4000 4.6599 -355.4500 Squared dairy cows and heifers in milk -4.8653 0.2972 -16.3690 Beef cows -923.4100 1.0003 -923.1600 Squared beef cows 0.0000 4.9363 0.0000 Other cattle 2518.7000 3.3184 759.0000 Squared other cattle 0.0000 1.0441 0.0000 Ewes -906.1600 1.3706 -661.1200 Squared ewes 0.0000 0.5541 0.0000 Other sheep -124.7400 1.3843 -90.1110 Squared other sheep 0.0000 0.5935 0.0000 Breeding sows 15767.0000 1.0000 15767.0000 Squared breeding sows 10.8770 2.6830 4.0542 Other pigs -85.2900 1.9025 -44.8310 Squared other pigs 1.1233 0.3069 3.6600 Hen and pullets in lay -64.8380 1.3335 -48.6220 Squared hen and pullets in lay -0.8074 0.1147 -7.0397 Other poultry -13.1780 29.5680 -0.4457 Squared other poultry 0.0000 0.9414 0.0000 Notes:
W1= Feed grown and purchased price
W2= Livestock services price
W3= Seeds (purchased and grown) price
W4= Fertilizers price
W5= Crop protection price
W6= Other good and services price
Page 110 Estimating the Environmental Impacts of Pillar I Reform
Appendix 4: GIS Modelling – Mapping Methodology and Baseline
The outputs of economic modelling simulations were mapped to 10-by-10 km grid squares across England so that spatial variations in the impacts could be visualised. This entailed two separate exercises: • Mapping of the baseline year (2015) data on 10-by-10 km grid cells • Applying the percentage change derived from the scenario projections to the baseline statistics.
Farm Business Survey Data The mapping component of the project required information on the relative numbers of farm- types and sizes by Government Office Region (GOR) and the agricultural area and stock count on them for each of the 10 x 10 km grid cells. The numbers of holdings by farm-type were obtained from Defra survey 2004 statistics that were reported for Super Output Areas (SOAs; n=7,194). Baseline statistics on the average crop areas and numbers of livestock for each farm-type and size by GOR were obtained from the 2005/06 Farm Business Survey (FBS) report for England. Summary data on the scenario average crop areas and numbers of livestock for each farm-type, size and GOR were obtained directly from SAC
Business as Usual Baseline The 2015 baseline (Scenario A) was adapted from the Business as Usual (BAU) III project (SFF0601) by splitting the 2015 forecast land areas and animal numbers within a farm type and region into the three size divisions, using the ratios from the FBS. This was the baseline from which all scenario projections were referenced.
To obtain the mapped baseline, ADAS had previously prepared a 1-by-1 km grid dataset of the England 2004 agricultural survey for Defra based on parish level statistics (c. 10 km2 in area). This dataset was summarised to give totals for each of the 10-by-10 km grid cells.
Agricultural Survey Attributes The agricultural survey data were reported under 46 distinct crop and livestock categories as in the BAU III project. The survey categories and the relevant annual Defra Agricultural Census (England) form items are listed in Appendix 4. The BAU III project checked the mapped survey data against published national statistical summaries for 2004 and national scale adjustments were made until the agreement was within ±1% for each item.
Baseline and scenario forecasts provided by the SAC economic models reduced these BAU III variables to 19 model variables. The harmonisation between the BAU III variables and the model variables is shown in Appendix 4.
Redistributing the Agricultural Survey by Farm-type, Farm-size and Region To map Scenario A, a dynamic Excel spreadsheet was used, which redistributed the BAU III 2015 forecasts for each farm type between farm sizes and GORs for each individual 10 x 10 km grid cell in proportion to the total number of farms of each size within the grid cell using the regional ratios provided by the FBS.
The output was a baseline 2015 dataset for each farm type and size with regional stratification, listing the crop areas and livestock numbers according the agreed categories for each 10 x 10 km grid cell.
Page 111 Estimating the Environmental Impacts of Pillar I Reform
Scenario Forecasts Tool To map the scenario B-D projections, a dynamic Excel spreadsheet was adapted from BAU III that enabled simple changes to be made to crop areas and livestock numbers for each farm type, size and GOR. Livestock numbers were simply scaled according to percentage change data supplied by the results of the SAC modelling. For crops, the total land area was required to remain constant within a farm type. SAC provided new land areas by type, e.g. wheat, barley, oilseed rape for each scenario forecast. The forecasts were then disaggregated to 10 x 10 km cells approximately as follows:
For each 10 x 10 km grid cell, for each land use type that reduced in area, the cell area was changed in proportion to the regional percentage change – thereby creating space to accommodate crops that increased in area;
For each 10 x 10 km grid cell, for each land use type that increased in area, the cell area was changed in proportion to the regional percentage change, but within the limits of the available local land space.
An extra variable for land taken out of agriculture entirely was included as a fixed area for each farm type, size and region combination before the process of conserving land area was performed. No assumptions were made as to the fate of agricultural land taken out of production; simply that it was no longer used to grow crops or to graze livestock. For any given cell, the land area classed as out of production increased if the overall percentage change in crop area was negative.
It must be emphasised that the split between farm-types and sizes is a statistical process and cannot be considered accurate for an individual grid cell. The process combines national average data on farm cropping and animal numbers with local estimates of land use and farm-type counts that can have a large error at the scale of the individual cell, however further disaggregation of the data by farm size should reduce the error compared to that in BAU III. Overall, the process is a useful means for the indicative mapping of land use and livestock density by farm-type and size at the regional and national scales.
Table 54: BAU III land use and livestock categories
Equivalent Defra (England) 2004 Survey Code Description Categories 32 Set-Aside Land G7 33 Wheat A1 34 Winter Barley A2 35 Spring Barley A3 36 Sugar Beet A12 37 Oilseed Rape A24, A25 38 Potatoes (early and maincrop) A10, A11 39 Other Cereals (oats, corn, rye, triticale) A4, A5, A6, A7 40 Other Root Crops (turnips, swedes, fodder beet and A15, A16, A17 mangolds) 41 Other Crops (hops, beans, peas, linseed, flax, fallow) A21, A22, A26, A27, A28, A31, A32 42 Vegetables for Human Consumption (grown in open) B1, B2, B3, B4, B5, B21 43 Soft Fruit (and Orchards) C5, C6, C7, C8, C9, C10, C11 44 Bulbs, Flowers and Nursery Stock (grown in open) D6, D8, D10, D13
Page 112 Estimating the Environmental Impacts of Pillar I Reform
Equivalent Defra (England) 2004 Survey Code Description Categories 45 Grassland less than 5 Years Old G1 46 Permanent Grassland G2 47 Sole Ownership Rough Grazing G5 48 Common Ownership Rough Grazing N/A 49 Maize A23 1 Dairy Cows and Heifers K1 2 Dairy Heifers in Calf, 2 Years and Over K2 3 Dairy Heifers in Calf, less than 2 Years K3 4 Beef Cows and Heifers K6 5 Beef Heifers in Calf, 2 Years and Over K7 6 Beef Heifers in Calf, less than 2 Years K8 7 Bulls, 2 Years and Over K11 8 Bulls, 1 to 2 Years K12 9 All Other Cattle, 2 Years and Over K4, K9, K13, K15 10 All Other Cattle, less than 2 Years K5, K10, K14, K16 11 Other Cattle, Less than 1 Year (Inc. Calves) K17, K18, K19 12 Sheep M1, M4, M7, M9, M13, M14 13 Lambs Less than 1 Year M17 14 Sows in Pig and Other Sows L1 15 Gilts in Pig and Barren Sows L2, L7 16 Gilts Not Yet in Pig L3, L5 17 Boars L4 18 Other Pigs, 110kg and Over L10 19 Other Pigs, 80 to 110kg L11 20 Other Pigs, 50 to 80kg L12 21 Other Pigs, 20 to 50kg L13 22 Other Pigs, Under 20kg L14 23 Layers N31, N32, N33 24 Breeding Birds N5, N6, N7 25 Broilers N10 26 Pullet N2 27 Turkeys N15 28 Other Poultry N13, N14, N16
Page 113 Estimating the Environmental Impacts of Pillar I Reform
Table 55: Harmonisation between BAU III and model variables and the 2004 census
2004 Land Area/ BAU III variables Livestock Model variable numbers
33 Wheat 1,864,456 Wheat
34 Winter Barley 350,768 Barley
35 Spring Barley 291,048
39 Other Cereals 101,562 Other cereals
37 Oilseed Rape 455,144 Oilseed rape
38 Potatoes 111,533 Potatoes
36 Sugar Beet 153,768 Sugar beet
41 Other Crops 308,594 Other crops
42 Vegetables for Human Consumption 112,375 Vegetables and fruits
43 Soft Fruit 29,736
44 Bulbs, Flowers and Nursery Stock 13,486
40 Other Root Crops 28,218 By-prods, forage and
45 Grassland less than 5 Years Old 674,856 cultivations
46 Permanent Grassland 3,018,680
47 Sole Ownership Rough Grazing 637,866
48 Common Ownership Rough Grazing 425,361
49 Maize 107,246
32 Set-Aside Land 476,380 Set-aside payments
1 Dairy Cows and Heifers 1,379,813 Dairy cows and heifers in
2 Dairy Heifers in Calf, 2 Years and Over 150,070 milk
3 Dairy Heifers in Calf, Less than 2 Years 149,658
4 Beef Cows and Heifers 730,669 Beef cows
5 Beef Heifers in Calf, 2 Years and Over 74,128
6 Beef Heifers in Calf, Less than 2 Years 39,352
7 Bulls, 2 Years and Over 37,715 Other cattle
8 Bulls, 1 to 2 Years 13,009
9 Other Cattle, 2 Years and Over 330,345
10 Other Cattle, 1 to 2 Years 1,318,799
11 Other Cattle, Less than 1 Year (Inc. Calves) 1,470,097
12 Sheep 8,065,106 Ewes
13 Lambs Less than 1 Year 7,820,620 Other sheep
14 Sows in Pig and Other Sows 287,491 Breeding sows
15 Gilts in Pig and Barren Sows 61,079 Other pigs
16 Gilts Not Yet in Pig 138,105
17 Boars 18,192
Page 114 Estimating the Environmental Impacts of Pillar I Reform
2004 Land Area/ BAU III variables Livestock Model variable numbers
18 Other Pigs, 110kg and Over 39,173
19 Other Pigs, 80 to 110kg 543,831
20 Other Pigs, 50 to 80kg 872,567
21 Other Pigs, 20 to 50kg 1,071,266
22 Other Pigs, Under 20kg 1,200,041
23 Layers 23,198,366 Hens and pullets in lay
24 Breeding Birds 6,208,207 Other poultry
25 Broilers 87,275,590
26 Pullet 6,526,609
27 Turkeys 6,582,486
28 Other Poultry 6,504,916
Page 115 Estimating the Environmental Impacts of Pillar I Reform
Appendix 5: Joint Character Area Case Studies
JCA 8: Cumbria High Fells
The key characteristics of the Cumbria High Fells are:
• Spectacular and rugged mountain scenery of open fells with an expansive character, and a mosaic of high craggy peaks and screes, heaths, mires, peatland, heather moorland, acid grassland, bracken and remote valleys with fast flowing streams and tarns. • A radiating pattern of deep glaciated valleys with extensive lakes, reed beds, carr woodlands, meadows and other lakeshore vegetation, rivers and semi-improved and improved grazing land. • Farmland and sheltered valley landscapes at lower altitudes with woodland, dry stone walls, hedgerows, copses, pollarded trees and scrub vegetation. • Traditional stone farm buildings in vernacular styles with slated roofs, circular chimneys and occasionally spinning galleries. • Extensive areas of ancient, semi-natural, broadleaved, mixed and conifer woodlands in Borrowdale, Buttermere, Ennerdale, Derwent Water, Duddon and the Thirlmere areas. • Relatively formal lakeshore landscapes of managed grassland with occasional boathouses and dwellings, and broadleaved woodland and individual trees in a parkland setting. • Ancient patterns of stone walls which subdivide lowland pasture and high fellsides with various densities, reflecting the management of land as inbye, intake and fell grazing. • Pressure for growth and development of the tourist industry. • Agriculture is predominately hill sheep farming.
Page 116 Estimating the Environmental Impacts of Pillar I Reform
JCA 61/62: Shropshire, Cheshire and Staffordshire Plain/Cheshire Sandstone Ridge
The key characteristics of Shropshire, Cheshire and Staffordshire Plain/Cheshire Sandstone Ridge are:
• Extensive gently rolling plain, interrupted by sandstone ridges, the most prominent being the Cheshire Sandstone Ridge. • A unified rural landscape, dominated by dairying, with strong field patterns, merging with more mixed and arable farming to the north and south-east. • Mosses, meres and small field ponds are scattered throughout; subsidence flashes occur to the east of the Cheshire Plain. • Boundaries are predominantly hedgerows, generally well managed, with abundant hedgerow trees, mostly oak; metal railing fences occur locally on estates. • Woodlands are few, restricted to deciduous and mixed woods on the steeper slopes of sandstone ridges, and some of the more difficult wet areas. There are also locally extensive tracts of coniferous woodland. The plentiful hedgerow trees, particularly in Cheshire, give the appearance of a well-wooded landscape. • Large farmsteads regularly spaced throughout, with dispersed hamlets, and few market towns. • Buildings are predominantly red brick, with warm sandstone churches and, in the national parks occasional very distinctive black and white half-timbered buildings. • Extractive industries generally small scale but widespread - sand, gravel, salt, sandstone, peat.
Page 117 Estimating the Environmental Impacts of Pillar I Reform
JCA 83: South Norfolk and High Suffolk Claylands
The key characteristics of the South Norfolk and High Suffolk Claylands are:
• Large area of chalky boulder clay plateau with little relief, except where incised by small rivers and streams and the river Waveney. • Slightly undulating topography, more varied along valley sides but flat to south of Wymondham and north-west of Framlingham with strong contrast between intimate, small-scale wooded valleys fringing Coast and Heaths area and open, arable plateaux. • Area of relatively small, individual landholdings, with scattered small parkland estates. Mix of remnant medieval Ancient Countryside (irregular small fields with pollard hedgerow oaks), early co-axial field patterns (east of Scole) and large modern fields devoid of hedges and trees. • Round-towered Saxo-Norman and medieval churches, often isolated, are a prominent feature as are large common grazing lands, greens or commons with settlement around the edge. • Large number of isolated, moated timber-framed farmhouses, mainly 1400-1730, with steeply pitched pantile or pegtile roofs. Little flint, some brick (especially in towns). Small villages and nucleated market towns with architectural variety and colour. • Almost entirely arable, except for pasture in river valleys, remnant parkland, commons and greens. Intensive livestock housing (pig/poultry). • Boundaries formed by deep ditches, with or without hedges and/or hedgerow trees. Ponds are few. Large areas of woodland are scarce, especially on the plateau. Small copses are frequent in some areas. • Few major transport routes but extensive network of narrow lanes and byroads.
Page 118 Estimating the Environmental Impacts of Pillar I Reform
JCA 125: South Downs
The key characteristics of the South Downs are...
• Prominent Chalk outcrop rising gently from the South Coast Plain with a dramatic north- facing scarp and distinctive chalk cliffs formed where the Downs end abruptly at the sea. A chalk landscape of rolling arable fields and close-cropped grassland on the bold scarps, rounded open ridges and sculpted dry valleys. • Lightly settled landscape with scattered villages, hamlets and farmsteads - flint is conspicuous in the buildings, walls of villages, farms and churches. • Roman roads and drove roads are common and characteristic features and the area is rich in visually prominent prehistoric remains, particularly Neolithic and Bronze Age barrows and prominent Iron Age hillforts. • In the east, rivers from the Low Weald cut through the Downs to form river valleys and broad alluvial floodplains with rectilinear pastures and wet grazing meadows - a contrast with the dry uplands. Above these valleys, the high, exposed, rounded uplands of white chalk have a simple land cover of few trees, an absence of hedgerows, occasional small planted beech clumps, and large arable areas and some grassland. • The eastern Downs have a distinctive escarpment which rises prominently and steeply above the Low Weald. It is indented by steep combes or dry valleys. • Woodlands - both coniferous and broadleaved - are a distinctive feature of the western Downs. • In the west, large estates are important features with formal designed parkland providing a contrast to the more typical farmland pasture.
Page 119 Estimating the Environmental Impacts of Pillar I Reform
Appendix 6: Landscape Impacts
Countryside Quality Counts provides a set of evidence based judgements about each Joint Character Area (JCA) across England. The judgements, which are publically available on the web, draw on the analysis of nationally available data and a set of profiles for each area. The JCA Profiles set out the vision for each area in the form of a series of vision statements and provide an insight into the kinds of change that would strengthen or weaken the JCA distinctive landscape qualities.
The following definitions have been used for judging the state of each JCA before and after various scenarios have been applied:
Maintained: the character of an area is already strong and largely intact; the changes observed for the key themes (i.e. Trees & Woodland, Agriculture, Settlement & Development, Semi-natural Habitats, Boundary Features, Rivers & Coast) serve to sustain the character; and/ or lack of change results in distinctive qualities of the landscape being retained.
Enhancing: The changes in the key themes restore or strengthen the overall landscape character of an area.
Neglected: The character of an area has been weakened or degraded by past change or the changes observed in the key themes are not sufficient to restore the desired qualities that made the area distinct.
Diverging: The change in the key themes is transforming the character of the area so that either its distinctive qualities are being lost, or significant new patterns are emerging.
CQC Sources of Data The CQC project draws together a rich diversity of information (http://www.cqc.org.uk/about_sources.html). The elements listed above are used to determine how and where change is occurring. A detailed explanation of how these data sources where used in conjunction with the vision statements is available from Natural England (NE). An evidence file for the baseline assessment was created by NE for each JCA and this provides both maps and tabular information. Assessments of Potential Impact for each Scenario within the four JCAs
JCA 8 Cumbria (upland) The baseline character is being enhanced by improved planting of trees and semi-natural woodland and restored boundary features, while the general character of all agricultural land cover is being maintained. Overall character is maintained.
Consistent with vision Inconsistent with vision Stable Maintained Neglected Trees & woodland Agriculture Settlement & development Semi-natural habitats River & coastal Boundary features Changing Enhancing Diverging Historic features
Page 120 Estimating the Environmental Impacts of Pillar I Reform
Assessment of Impact on JCA 8 Scenario A (no change)
This is the current state – the baseline
Scenario B (removal of support)
The changes brought about by Scenario B are considered to have the following effects:
• There will be little or no impact on JCA 8 from changes in arable systems and practices • There will be a significant impact on JCA 8 from changes in livestock systems and practices. In particular, a reduction in all types of cattle, sheep and pigs and a resulting consolidation of farms into larger units
A reduction in livestock will reduce pressure on the fells from the current overgrazing and reduce pressure for agricultural improvement. However the ability and requirement to maintain boundary features and other historic features may reduce, leading to these features falling into disrepair. Consolidation of farms may further impact on boundary features as field sizes increase. The trend for Scenario B would be Diverging.
Scenario C (removal of tariffs)
The changes brought about by Scenario C are considered to have the following effects:
• There will be little impact on JCA 8 from changes in arable systems and practices. The exception is on mixed farms where there maybe an increase in more extensive grassland and less arable. • There will be significant impact on JCA 8 from changes in livestock systems & practices. In particular, − A reduction in dairy cows, beef cattle, other cattle, ewes and sows resulting consolidation of farms into larger units A reduction in all livestock could lead to significant levels of under grazing and consequential loss of distinctive character and diversity. However, the increased viability of these farms may ensure provision for maintaining boundary features and other historic features. The trend for Scenario C would be Neglected, except Historic Features, which may continue to be Enhanced.
Scenario D (removal of support & tariffs)
The changes brought about by Scenario D are considered to have the following effects:
• There will be little impact on JCA 8 from changes in arable systems and practices. The exception is on Mixed Farms where there maybe an increase in more extensive grassland and less arable. • There will be a significant impact on JCA 8 from changes in livestock systems and practices. In particular, − A reduction in all types of cattle, sheep and pigs and a resulting consolidation of farms into larger units A reduction in livestock will reduce pressure on the fells from the current overgrazing and reduce pressure for agricultural improvement. However the ability and requirement to maintain boundary features and other historic features may reduce, leading to these features falling into disrepair. Consolidation of farms may further impact on boundary features as field sizes increase. The trend for Scenario D would be Diverging.
Page 121 Estimating the Environmental Impacts of Pillar I Reform
JCA 61 & 62 Shropshire, Cheshire and Staffordshire Plain/Cheshire Sandstone Ridge (lowland livestock) JCA 61 Although woodland character has been strengthened in recent years, the agricultural landscape and associated boundary features remain weak. The general impact of development is considerable, particularly in the north-east. Overall, this suggests that the landscape character has been weakened and is possibly diverging from the vision suggested for the area.
Consistent with vision Inconsistent with vision Stable Maintained Neglected Semi-natural habitats Boundary features Historic features Agriculture River & coastal
Changing Enhancing Diverging Trees & woodland Settlement & development
JCA 62 Although the character of the farmed landscape has been weakened, enhancement of woodland and the limited pressure from development suggest that overall landscape character is relatively stable and has been maintained.
Consistent with vision Inconsistent with vision Stable Maintained Neglected Trees & woodland Boundary features Settlement & development Agriculture Semi-natural habitats Historic features River & coastal Changing Enhancing Diverging
Assessment of Impact on a combined JCA 61/62 The changes brought about by the various Scenarios are considered to have the following effects:
Scenario A (no change)
This is the current state – the baseline
Scenario B (removal of support)
The changes brought about by Scenario B are considered to have the following effects:
• There will be some impact on JCA 61/62 from changes in arable systems and practices. Notably, − A reduction in the amount of cereals grown − Marginal land left uncultivated
Page 122 Estimating the Environmental Impacts of Pillar I Reform
• There will be a significant impact on JCA 61/62 from changes in livestock systems and practices. In particular a, − Dramatic decline in numbers of ewes, sows and poultry. With a reduction in cereals and crops grown, more land will fall out of intensive arable systems. Cattle numbers will be slightly up (Dairy & Other Cattle) and this may result in the increase in pasture. However, a general trend in the intensification of livestock farming could also lead to improved field drainage and loss of ponds and wet pasture. However, marginal land maybe left uncultivated as it is less likely to be used for cattle pasture and there will be a corresponding dramatic decline in sheep numbers. The combination impact from changes in both arable and livestock sectors will have a negative effect on the maintenance and enhancement of the overall pastoral character of the area. The move towards more intensive systems may affect the diversity of the landscape and result in the loss of distinctive features such as vernacular farm buildings. The trend for Scenario B would be Neglected.
Scenario C (removal of tariffs)
The changes brought about by Scenario C are considered to have the following effects:
• There will be a notable impact on JCA 61/62 from changes in arable systems and practices, − More winter cropping and an overall increase in combinable rotation − Large increase in oilseed rape − More extensive grassland on mixed farms − Little overall change in area of production • There will be a significant impact on JCA 61/62 from changes in livestock systems and practices. In particular a, − sharp decrease in numbers of sows and poultry − Marginal increase in the number of beef cattle An increased scale of cereal farms may continue the trend in loss of pasture. The large increase in oilseed rape will create a seasonal change in the colours in the landscape and will emphasis the difference between pasture and arable areas. Further intensification of farming could also lead to improved field drainage and loss of ponds and wet pasture. On intensive farms there will be an increasing pressure on field boundaries with further loss of hedgerows and hedgerow trees. However, marginal land maybe left uncultivated as it is less likely to be used for cattle pasture and there will be a corresponding dramatic decline in sheep numbers. The combination impact from changes in both arable and livestock sectors will have a negative effect on the maintenance and enhancement of the pastoral character of the area. The trend for Scenario C would be Neglected.
Scenario D (removal of support & tariffs)
The changes brought about by Scenario D are considered to have the following effects:
• There will be a significant impact on JCA 61/62 from changes in arable systems and practices. In particular, − Concentration on productive cereal land with marginal land falling out of production − A few large farms with block cropping and annual change − More winter cropping and an overall increase in combinable rotation − Reduced variety of cropping
Page 123 Estimating the Environmental Impacts of Pillar I Reform
− Reduction in fruit and vegetables − Mixed farms expanding the area of extensive grassland • There will be a notable impact on JCA 61/62 from changes in livestock systems and practices. In particular a, − Reduction sheep and dairy numbers With a reduction in cereals and crops grown, more land will fall out of intensive arable systems. On intensive farms there will be an increasing pressure on field boundaries with further loss of hedgerows and hedgerow trees. Although marginal land is likely to be left uncultivated, it’s unlikely to be used for pasture as there will be a corresponding drop in ewe numbers. The combination impact from changes in both arable and livestock sectors will have a negative effect on the maintenance and enhancement of the pastoral character of the area. The move towards larger farms as consolidation occurs in the industry is likely to affect the ability to retain a strong pattern of hedgerows. The trend for Scenario D would be Diverging.
JCA 83 South Norfolk and High Suffolk Claylands (lowland arable) Although current development pressure is significant, the character of the area has largely been maintained with a relative stable farmed landscape and strong woodland character.
Consistent with vision Inconsistent with vision Stable Maintained Neglected Agriculture Boundary features Semi-natural habitats Changing Enhancing Diverging Trees & woodland Settlement & development Historic features
Assessment of Impact on JCA 83 The changes brought about by the various Scenarios are considered to have the following effects:
Scenario A (no change)
This is the current state – the baseline
Scenario B (removal of support)
The changes brought about by Scenario B are considered to have the following effects:
• There will be few impacts on JCA 83 from changes in arable systems and practices, − Cereal and crop area will be similar to the baseline. • There will be a significant impact on JCA 83 from changes in livestock systems and practices. In particular, − Reduction in all types of cattle, sheep and poultry and a resulting consolidation of farms into larger units The reduction in livestock could lead to land loosing grazing condition and developing scrub habitat. For the river valleys where the landscape character is one of grazing marsh, this change could result in loss of character. The trend for Scenario B would be Neglected.
Page 124 Estimating the Environmental Impacts of Pillar I Reform
Scenario C (removal of tariffs)
The changes brought about by Scenario C are considered to have the following effects:
• There will be notable impacts on JCA 83 from changes in arable systems and practices. These are, − Although little overall change in area of cereal production, a large increase in oilseed rape would be expected − Reduction in fruit and vegetables − More extensive grass, less arable • There will be a notable impact on JCA 83 from changes in livestock systems and practices. In particular, − Reduction in dairy cows − Increase in numbers of other cattle and ewes The change in type of crop to oilseed rape will have a temporary seasonal effect with large areas of the countryside becoming yellow. The reduction in fruit and vegetables is less likely to have an impact, although there maybe a further fall in orchards. The more extensive use of grass may benefit the river valleys and provide more opportunities for a diverse landscape. The reduction in dairy cows is likely to be balanced by the increase in ewe numbers. However, this area is traditionally a dairy area and therefore some of the cultural and economic links with dairying may be lost, impacting on local character. Scenario C would be Maintained.
Scenario D (removal of support & tariffs)
The changes brought about by Scenario D are considered to have the following effects:
• There will be significant impacts on JCA 8 from changes in arable systems and practices. These are, − Concentration on productive land with marginal land falling out of production − Reduced number of farms, but an increase in size with block cropping and increased change year on year − Move to combinable rotation, less variety of crops and more winter cropping with a loss of winter stubble − Reduction in fruit and vegetables − More extensive use of grass • There will be a significant impact on JCA 83 from changes in livestock systems and practices. In particular, − Reduction in dairy cows and other cattle herds and sheep and resulting consolidation of farms into larger units The change in size of arable farms could lead to a return to large-scale arable production and the amalgamation of fields resulting in the loss of landscape features and diversity across the area, in particular a further loss of ditches, ponds and pasture. There will be less variety from season to season, however this will be balanced by an increase in marginal land and more extensive use of grass provide a more diverse landscape on the fringes of farms. A reduction in livestock would tie in with a more extensive use of grassland. The trend for Scenario D would be Diverging.
Page 125 Estimating the Environmental Impacts of Pillar I Reform
JCA 125 South Downs (lowland calcareous) The character of the JCA is currently stable with agri-environment schemes helping to strengthen landscape character.
Consistent with vision Inconsistent with vision Stable Maintained Neglected Trees & woodland Boundary features Settlement & development Semi-natural habitats Historic features River & coastal Changing Enhancing Diverging Agriculture
Assessment of Impact on JCA 125 The changes brought about by the various Scenarios are considered to have the following effects:
Scenario A (no change)
This is the current state – the baseline
Scenario B (removal of support)
The changes brought about by Scenario B are considered to have the following effects:
• There will be notable impacts on JCA 125 from changes in arable systems and practices. These are, − Increased size cereal farms resulting from consolidation of farm units and more block cropping − Marginal land left uncultivated • There will be a significant impact on JCA 125 from changes in livestock systems and practices. In particular, − Reduction in dairy and beef cattle (other cattle slightly up), ewes and a resulting consolidation of farms into larger units − A dramatic decline in sows and poultry The consolidation of cereal farms could lead to the amalgamation of fields resulting in the loss of landscape features and diversity across the area. A reduction in livestock could impact on the distinctive chalk grasslands which require grazing management. The significant loss of sows and poultry are unlikely to make a noticeable impact on the landscape. The trend for Scenario B would be Diverging.
Page 126 Estimating the Environmental Impacts of Pillar I Reform
Scenario C (removal of tariffs)
The changes brought about by Scenario C are considered to have the following effects:
• There will be notable impacts on JCA 125 from changes in arable systems and practices. These are, − A reduction in the area of cereal production with an expected increase in oilseed rape − Reduction in fruit and vegetables − More extensive grass, less arable • There will be a notable impact on JCA 125 from changes in livestock systems and practices. In particular, − Reduction in dairy cows − Slight increase in beef and other cattle − Dramatic decline in sows and poultry The change in type of crop to oilseed rape will have a temporary seasonal effect with large areas of the countryside becoming yellow. The reduction in fruit and vegetables is less likely to have an impact. The reduction in dairy cows may impact the viability of the traditional character of the wet grasslands although this may be counter- balanced by the increase in other cattle. The significant loss of sows and poultry are unlikely to make a noticeable impact on the landscape. Scenario C would be Maintained.
Scenario D (removal of support & tariffs)
The changes brought about by Scenario D are considered to have the following effects:
• There will be significant impacts on JCA 125 from changes in arable systems and practices. These are, − Concentration on productive land with marginal land falling out of production − Reduced number of farms, but an increase in size with block cropping and increased change year on year − Move to combinable rotation, less variety of crops and more winter cropping with a loss of winter stubble − Reduction in fruit and vegetables − More extensive use of grass • There will be a significant impact on JCA 125 from changes in livestock systems and practices. In particular, − A reduction in dairy cows, beef and other cattle herds and sheep and resulting consolidation of farms into larger units The concentration on productive land with marginal land falling out of production could provide opportunities to expand chalk grassland. The concern is that with the reduction in all grazing stock across the country, much of the grassland will not be grazed and will move towards scrub habitat. The trend for Scenario D would be Maintained, with some areas Diverging.
Page 127 Estimating the Environmental Impacts of Pillar I Reform
Appendix 7: Biodiversity Impacts
National and Regional
Impact on Biodiversity Scenario B Change General impact on biodiversity Cereals Reduction in cereal area of some 380,000ha. in Scale of non-cropped land is similar to set-aside total, but not in the East Midlands and East of area of 2004. Permanent fallow may be as England. Unused land likely to be least fields, part fields or margins and if grassed over productive but some land likely to be fallowed will provide a non-cultivated habitat for wildlife rotationally. and the potential to buffer existing habitats of value. Natural regeneration on poorer soils could temporarily provide for rare arable plants. Rotational fallow could provide overwintered stubbles, of value to birds in particular, and nesting and food sources in the spring early summer, depending on management. Need to cut costs to remain profitable will lead to Block cropping will affect biodiversity, especially larger farm units and more block cropping species that require a range of habitats Continuing threat to wheat production from As above fallow can benefit biodiversity, but may resistant blackgrass may require use of fallow to be less where management of fallow is primarily control weeds. to control weeds eg early complete spraying off of weeds. Reduction in spring cropping, particularly peas & A reduction in spring crops will reduce over beans for stockfeed, and potatoes and beet. wintered stubble, diversity, spring-germinating Reduction in barley overall likely to lead to plants and the amount of less dense crop cover reduction in spring barley unless spring barley required by some species. for malting is more profitable than winter feed barley. General cropping Sugar beet reduced by one third overall, with A reduction in spring crops will reduce over production concentrated in the East Midlands wintered stubble, diversity and the amount of and the East. Potato production reduced less dense crop cover sought by some species. slightly, with large falls in the North West, North East, South East & Y & H, and small increases elsewhere. Sugar beet and potatoes likely to be Reduced range of crops & block cropping will concentrated on fewer larger farms, leading to affect biodiversity, especially species that fewer mixed farms, and reduced spring cropping require a range of habitats. in rotations. Switch from sugar beet to potatoes in some Reduction in spring cropping as above; fallow areas will require longer rotations, with increase could compensate for reduced spring cropping. in winter crops or possibly including fallow.
Horticulture Small reduction with biggest changes in the SW. Reduction in diversity but may be balanced by reduction in herbicide & pesticide use. Mixed farming Reduction in arable more likely to lead to Less diverse land use reduces wildlife diversity.
Page 128 Estimating the Environmental Impacts of Pillar I Reform
Change General impact on biodiversity additional grass than fallow; however need for More grassland may result in less intensive straw may maintain cereal production. management Dairy Sharp rise in dairy cow numbers in West More intensive grassland management in W Midlands, with decreases elsewhere Mids, which will impact adversely on grassland and water habitats, but less intensive elsewhere Beef & sheep Reduction in beef cows across all regions More intensive grassland management in W except for W Mids; increase in other cattle in W Mids, which will impact adversely on grassland Mids and South East, and decrease elsewhere and water habitats Decrease in sheep numbers in all regions but Upland areas should have relief from Yorks & Humberside; steepest decline in upland overgrazing; conversely undergrazed areas eg areas East Anglian marshes, chalk grassland may suffer
Impact on Biodiversity Scenario C Change General impact on biodiversity Cereals Reduction in cereal area of some 175,000ha. Permanent fallow if grassed over will provide a with increases in wheat balanced by decrease in non-cultivated habitat for wildlife and the barley in most regions except South East and potential to buffer existing habitats of value. East Midlands where the reverse applies. Natural regeneration on poorer soils could Substantial increase in OSR. Arable area provide for rare arable plants. Increase in OSR reduces by 165,000ha. Unused land ,equivalent beneficial for some birds. to estimated non-rotational set-aside in 2004,likely to be least productive – margins, corners etc. Reduction in spring cropping, particularly peas & A reduction in spring crops will reduce over beans, and potatoes and beet. Reduction in wintered stubble, diversity and the amount of barley in many regions likely to lead to reduction less dense crop cover sought by some species. in spring barley unless spring barley for malting is more profitable than winter feed barley. General cropping Sugar beet reduced by 29% overall, with A reduction in spring crops will reduce over production concentrated in the East Midlands wintered stubble, diversity and the amount of and the East. Potato production reduced by a less dense crop cover sought by some species. quarter, with large falls in the East, West Midlands & Y & H, and large increases in the East Midlands and North East. Sugar beet and potatoes likely to be Reduced range of crops & block cropping will concentrated on fewer larger farms, leading to affect biodiversity, especially species that fewer mixed farms, and reduced spring cropping require a range of habitats. in rotations. Switch from sugar beet to potatoes in some Fallow could compensate for reduced spring areas eg East Midlands will require longer cropping. rotations, with increase in winter crops or possibly including fallow.
Page 129 Estimating the Environmental Impacts of Pillar I Reform
Change General impact on biodiversity Horticulture Small reduction with biggest changes in the SW. Reduction in diversity but may be balanced by reduction in herbicide & pesticide use. Mixed farming Reduction in arable more likely to lead to Less diverse land use reduces wildlife diversity. additional grass than fallow; however need for More grassland may result in less intensive straw may maintain cereal production. management Dairy Large reductions in dairy cows in all regions. Less intensive grassland management which will impact positively on grassland and water habitats Beef & sheep Increase in beef cows in South East, West More extensive grassland management will Midlands and Yorks & Humberside and increase impact positively on grassland and water in other cattle in East and South East; habitats; however risk of undergrazing in some decreases elsewhere, especially in South West areas Decrease in sheep numbers in all regions but Upland areas should have relief from East; steepest decline in northern upland areas overgrazing; conversely undergrazed areas, eg chalk grassland may suffer,
Impact on Biodiversity Scenario D Change General impact on biodiversity Cereals Reduction in cereal area of over 1 million ha. in Permanent fallow may be as whole farms, fields, total, but wheat increases in the East Midlands part fields or margins and if grassed over will and East of England. Barley area falls in all provide a non-cultivated habitat for wildlife and regions except the East Midlands. OSR the potential to buffer existing habitats of value. increases by 150,00ha. Unused land likely to be Natural regeneration on poorer soils could least productive but some land likely to be provide for rare arable plants. Rotational fallow fallowed rotationally. could provide overwintered stubbles, of value to birds in particular, and nesting and food sources in the spring early summer, depending on management. Need to cut costs to remain profitable will lead to Block cropping will affect biodiversity, especially larger farm units and more block cropping species that require a range of habitats Continuing threat to wheat production from As above fallow can benefit biodiversity, but may resistant blackgrass may require use of fallow to be less where management of fallow is primarily control weeds. to control weeds eg early complete spraying off of weeds. Reduction in spring cropping, particularly peas & A reduction in spring crops will reduce over beans for stockfeed, and potatoes and beet. wintered stubble, diversity and the amount of Reduction in barley overall likely to lead to less dense crop cover sought by some species. reduction in spring barley A million ha coming out of arable production Adverse effects on farmland birds that are largely dependent on cereal or mixed cropping
Page 130 Estimating the Environmental Impacts of Pillar I Reform
Change General impact on biodiversity General cropping Sugar beet reduced by over 40% overall, with A reduction in spring crops will reduce over production concentrated in the East Midlands wintered stubble, diversity and the amount of and the East, at a reduced level. Potato less dense crop cover sought by some species. production reduced in all regions except East Midlands. Sugar beet and potatoes likely to be Reduced range of crops & block cropping will concentrated on fewer larger farms, leading to affect biodiversity, especially species that fewer mixed farms, and reduced spring cropping require a range of habitats. in rotations. Switch from sugar beet to potatoes in some Fallow could compensate for reduced spring areas will require longer rotations, with increase cropping. in winter crops or possibly including fallow. Horticulture Small reduction with biggest changes in the SW. Reduction in diversity but may be balanced by reduction in herbicide & pesticide use. Mixed farming Reduction in arable more likely to lead to Less diverse land use reduces wildlife diversity. additional grass than fallow More grassland may result in less intensive management Dairy Some 20% decrease in dairy cows; falls across Less intensive grassland management, except all regions although localised increases in part of in parts of W Mids, which will benefit grassland West Midlands and water habitats Beef & sheep Substantial reduction in beef cows (25%) and Less intensive grassland management, except other cattle (15%); falls across all regions except in parts of W Mids, which will benefit grassland for increase in other cattle in W Mids and water habitats. Risk of undergrazing on SW upland areas. Substantial decrease in sheep numbers, Upland areas should have relief from particularly in west and north overgrazing; conversely undergrazed areas eg East Anglian marshes, chalk grassland may suffer
Case Studies Cumbria High Fells JCA 8 Priority Habitats The main agricultural BAP priority habitats are upland heathland, blanket bog, and upland calcareous grassland. These vegetation communities have been strongly influenced by grazing stock. The area of upland hay meadow is not large, mainly due to agricultural improvement, but it does comprise a substantial proportion of the national resource.
Page 131 Estimating the Environmental Impacts of Pillar I Reform
Table 56: Type, area and proportion of national resource of priority habitats within JCA 834
% of national Priority Habitat Area (ha) Rank resource
Blanket bog 9,476 4.6% 7/31
Lowland calcareous grassland 13 0.0% 68/90
Lowland dry acid grassland 59 0.1% 53/100
Lowland meadows 103 0.3% 60/136
Purple moor grass & rush pastures 89 0.4% 34/117
Upland calcareous grassland 334 3.6% 5/10
Upland hay meadows 95 8.7% 4/15
Upland heathland 55,786 14.8% 3/49
SSSIs There are substantial areas of this JCA designated SSSI and many of these are under a management agreement35.
Birds Upland birds are an important component of the area with the rocky crags providing nesting places for raven, peregrine, golden eagle and ring ouzel. The fells and moorlands, together with the in-bye land, support curlew, lapwing, wheatear, whinchat and, along the streams, dipper and grey wagtail. The woodland birds of both the fells and the lowlands include pied flycatcher, redstart and wood warbler.
Assessment of Impact on JCA 8 The changes brought about by the various Scenarios are considered to have the following effects:
Scenario B (removal of support)
• The decrease in cropped area, although small in absolute terms at just over 1000 ha, will reduce the diversity of land use in the lower areas of JCA 8, and the variety of food sources for birds and mammals in particular. • There will be a significant impact on JCA 8 from changes in livestock systems and practices. In particular, − A reduction in all types of cattle and sheep, with the greatest reduction in the north and south of the JCA, and smaller reductions across the centre − Some 4,500ha of land being removed from agricultural production, mainly arable and rough grazing land. • A reduction in livestock will reduce pressure on the fells and could have a positive impact on the current overgrazing and pressure for agricultural improvement, particularly
34 Source: www.natureonthemap.org.uk 35 Management agreements may be under national or local schemes e.g. Environmentally Sensitive Area, Wildlife Enhancement, Countryside Stewardship or Environmental Stewardship schemes.
Page 132 Estimating the Environmental Impacts of Pillar I Reform
in areas not under environmental management agreement. However there is a risk that absence of farming will lead to loss of important habitats that are dependent on management by grazing. • Overall the changes are assessed as having a neutral effect on grassland SSSIs that are in favourable condition, but that the reduction in grazing will have a slight negative effect on SSSIs in the bog; dwarf shrub heath; fen, marsh and swamp and montane broad habitat types. There will and a moderate positive effect on For SSSIs which are in unfavourable condition because of overgrazing there will be a moderate positive impact on montane habitats, and a high positive impact on the bog; dwarf shrub heath; and fen, marsh and swamp broad habitats. • There will be a moderate negative effect on birds associated with arable cropping - Corn Bunting, Grey Partridge, Tree Sparrow and Turtle Dove; a slight positive effect on Yellow Wagtail and Ring Ouzel; a moderate positive impact on Curlew, Redshank, Snipe and Twite, and a high positive impact on Black Grouse.
Scenario C (removal of tariffs)
• The decrease in cropped area, although small in absolute terms at just over 1000 ha, will reduce the diversity of land use in the lower areas of JCA 8, and the variety of food sources for birds and mammals in particular. • There will be a significant impact on JCA 8 from changes in livestock systems and practices. In particular, − A reduction in all types of cattle and sheep, but a greater reduction in sheep number than for Scenario B, and a smaller drop in cattle numbers; the pattern of decrease correlates more closely with the baseline scenario − Some 4,500ha of land being removed from agricultural production, mainly arable and rough grazing land. • A reduction in livestock will reduce pressure on the fells and could have a positive impact on the current overgrazing and pressure for agricultural improvement, particularly as the largest decreases are forecast for areas with most stock in the baseline scenario. However there is a risk that absence of farming will lead to loss of important habitats that are dependent on management by grazing, particular the higher areas that are dependent on sheep. • Overall the impacts on SSSIs and on Agri-environment Scheme target bird species will be similar to Scenario B.
Scenario D (removal of support & tariffs)
• The decrease in cropped area, although small in absolute terms at just over 2000ha, is significant as it will leave only some 900ha, and will reduce the diversity of land use in the lower areas of JCA 8, and the variety of food sources for birds and mammals in particular. • There will be a significant impact on JCA 8 from changes in livestock systems and practices. In particular, − a reduction in all types of cattle and sheep, although the fall in sheep numbers is less, and the fall in cattle numbers is more than in the other two change scenarios; the greatest reduction is in the north and south-west of the JCA, with smaller reductions elsewhere − some 5,500ha of land being removed from agricultural production, mainly arable and rough grazing land.
Page 133 Estimating the Environmental Impacts of Pillar I Reform
• A reduction in livestock will reduce pressure on the fells and could have a positive impact on the current overgrazing and pressure for agricultural improvement, particularly in areas not under environmental management agreement. However there is a risk that absence of farming will lead to loss of important habitats that are dependent on management by grazing. The change in the ratio of cattle and sheep numbers may have an adverse effect on habitats which benefit from mixed grazing. • Overall the impacts on SSSIs and on Agri-environment Scheme target bird species will be similar to Scenarios B and C, although the negative impact for Corn Bunting, Grey Partridge, Tree Sparrow and Turtle Dove will be severe.
JCAs 61 & 62 Shropshire, Cheshire and Staffordshire Plain/Cheshire Sandstone Ridge Priority Habitats The main agricultural BAP priority habitats within these JCAs are lowland calcareous grassland, lowland dry acid grassland, lowland meadows, purple moor grass and rush pastures, upland heathland, hedgerows and arable field margins. The area of non-linear agricultural priority habitats is limited. However the area is important for mosses, meres and fen grassland, all of which can be affected by surrounding agricultural activity. The restricted and isolated nature of most of the agricultural priority habitats reflects the intensive, mainly pastoral, land use within the JCA.
Table 57: Type, area and proportion of national resource of priority habitats within JCA 6136
% of national Area (ha) Rank resource
Lowland calcareous grassland 88 0.2 35/90
Lowland dry acid grassland 53 0.1 58/100
Lowland meadows 250 0.8 34/136
Purple moor grass & rush pastures 157 0.7 23/117
Upland Heathland 27 0.0 42/49
Table 58: Type, area and proportion of national resource of priority habitats within JCA 6237
% of national Area (ha) Rank resource
Lowland dry acid grassland 15 0 79/100
Lowland meadows 103 0.3 89/136
Purple moor grass & rush pastures 6 0 99/117
36 Source: www.natureonthemap.org.uk 37 Source: www.natureonthemap.org.uk
Page 134 Estimating the Environmental Impacts of Pillar I Reform
SSSIs The main areas of SSSI relate to non-agricultural habitats, predominantly meres and mosses, although there are some grassland SSSIs.
Farmland Birds The mixed farmland provides habitat for tree sparrow, corn bunting, skylark, grey partridge, whilst wet grassland attracts farmland birds and waders such as yellow wagtail, lapwing, redshank, snipe, curlew, golden plover, pintail, widgeon and teal.
Assessment of Impact on JCA 61/62 The changes brought about by the various Scenarios are considered to have the following effects:
Scenario B (removal of support)
• There will be significant impact on JCA 61/62 from changes in arable systems and practices, with a fall of one third in cereal cropping, sugar beet almost disappears and a substantial reduction in potatoes, giving an overall reduction of some 28,500ha in cropped area. Notably, − Increased number of large scale cereal farms with more block cropping − Overall reduction in crop diversity adversely affecting species that benefit from mixed cropping − Reduction in the area of spring crops, resulting in reduced overwintering and breeding habitat − Possibly compensated by fallow replacing sugar beet and potatoes in some rotations and by marginal land left uncultivated − Uncultivated land may help buffer the mosses and meres habitats, and farmland ponds. • There will be a limited impact on JCA 61/62 from changes in livestock systems and practices. The area of grassland remains stable; there is a fall in dairy cow numbers in the north of the area where dairy cow numbers are highest under the baseline scenario, but increases in the south give an overall small increase; sheep numbers fall by a third: − The dairy cow changes probably reflect a move to fewer larger herds; this may lead to more intensive grassland use in the south, but will require less intensive management over parts of the northern area − The large fall in ewe numbers also suggests a decrease in the intensity of grassland management. • Overall the changes are assessed as having a neutral effect on SSSIs that are in favourable condition, and a minor positive effect on SSSIs which are in unfavourable condition because of water quality. • There will be a moderate negative effect on Corn Bunting, Grey Partridge, Tree Sparrow and Turtle Dove and a slight positive impact on Curlew, Redshank and Snipe.
Scenario C (removal of tariffs)
• There will be a notable impact on JCA 61/62 from changes in arable systems and practices, with a fall in the area of barley and other cereals more than balanced by an increase in wheat; together with an increase in OSR, very little sugar beet and a substantial reduction in potatoes the area in arable production is largely unchanged:
Page 135 Estimating the Environmental Impacts of Pillar I Reform
− Reduction in the area of spring crops, resulting in reduced overwintering and breeding habitat − Simplified rotations in south where increased combinable crops replace sugar beet providing less farmland diversity • There will be a significant impact on JCA 61/62 from changes in livestock systems and practices, with a substantial fall in cattle numbers, particularly in dairy cows and other cattle, and a small decline in sheep numbers; grassland area reduces by some 2500ha: − The large fall in cattle numbers together with only a limited fall in grassland area suggests a less intensive grassland management, which will benefit adjacent habitats. • Overall the changes are assessed as having a neutral effect on SSSIs that are in favourable condition, and a minor positive effect on SSSIs which are in unfavourable condition because of water quality. • There will be a slight negative effect on Grey Partridge and Tree Sparrow and a slight positive impact on Lapwing, Yellow Wagtail, Curlew, Redshank and Snipe.
Scenario D (removal of support & tariffs)
• There will be a significant impact on JCA 61/62 from changes in arable systems and practices with a dramatic reduction in cereals by two thirds to 24,000ha; with a small increase in OSR, a fall in potatoes and no sugar beet the arable area falls by over 50%: − Concentration on productive cereal land with marginal land falling out of production − A few large farms with block cropping − Overall reduction in crop diversity adversely affecting species that benefit from mixed cropping − Reduction in the area of spring crops, resulting in reduced overwintering and breeding habitat − Possibly compensated by fallow replacing sugar beet and potatoes in some rotations and by marginal land left uncultivated − Uncultivated land may help buffer the mosses and meres habitats, and farmland ponds. • There will be a notable impact on JCA 61/62 from changes in livestock systems and practices with a substantial drop in dairy cows, and an almost 50% reduction in the sheep flock: − The large fall in grazing livestock numbers together with only a limited fall in grassland area suggests a less intensive grassland management, which will benefit adjacent habitats. • Overall the changes are assessed as having a neutral effect on SSSIs that are in favourable condition, and a moderate positive effect on SSSIs which are in unfavourable condition because of water quality. • There will be a severe negative effect on Corn Bunting, Grey Partridge, Tree Sparrow and Turtle Dove; a slight positive effect on Lapwing, and Yellow Wagtail; and a moderate positive impact on Curlew, Redshank and Snipe.
Page 136 Estimating the Environmental Impacts of Pillar I Reform
JCA 83 South Norfolk and High Suffolk Claylands Priority Habitats The main agricultural BAP priority habitats within this JCA are lowland calcareous grassland, lowland dry acid grassland, lowland meadows, purple moor grass and rush pastures, hedgerows and arable field margins. The area of non-linear agricultural priority habitats is limited, although the area of coastal and floodplain grazing marsh, within the valleys, is more extensive.
The restricted and isolated nature of most priority habitats reflects the predominant arable land use within the JCA.
Table 59: Type, area and proportion of national resource of priority habitats within JCA 838
% of national Area (ha) Rank resource
Lowland calcareous grassland 98 0.2% 35/90
Lowland dry acid grassland 31 0.1% 70/100
Lowland meadows 103 0.3% 62/136
Purple moor grass & rush pastures 163 0.7% 21/117
Coastal and floodplain grazing marsh 1293 0.6% 40/122
SSSIs The SSSIs within the JCA mainly relate to non-agricultural habitats.
Birds The arable areas are important for ground-nesting birds such as skylarks, lapwings and grey partridge as well as corn bunting, reed bunting and turtle dove. Hedgerows, especially if large and bushy, support many bird species including tits, thrushes, finches, wren, robin, warblers, linnet and tree sparrow. Birds such as snipe, redshank, and lapwing breed on some of the wetter river valley grasslands.
Assessment of Impact on JCA 83 The changes brought about by the various Scenarios are considered to have the following effects:
Scenario B (removal of support)
• There will be limited impacts on JCA 83 from changes to arable cropping, as cereal and OSR areas remain similar, and a decrease in sugar beet is compensated by an increase in potatoes: − However economic pressures may lead to sugar beet and potatoes being concentrated on fewer holdings, reducing diversity of cropping overall and leading to more block cropping.
38 Source: www.natureonthemap.org.uk
Page 137 Estimating the Environmental Impacts of Pillar I Reform
• There will be limited impact on JCA 83 from changes in livestock systems and practices, although they could impact on areas important for biodiversity. In particular: − The decrease in the area of grassland corresponds to the increase in the area of land out of production, which suggests important habitats could be ungrazed − A small decrease in numbers of cattle and more substantial falls in sheep numbers may also lead to undergrazing. • For SSSIs in fen, marsh and swam, acid grassland and neutral grassland broad habitats there will be a slight negative impact where condition is favourable. There will be a moderate negative impact on acid and neutral grassland and a slight negative impact on fen, marsh and swamp habitats where the condition is unfavourable due to undergrazing. This scenario will have a neutral effect on SSSIs that are in unfavourable condition due to water quality. • There will be a slight negative impact on Lapwing, Curlew, Redshank and Snipe.
Scenario C (removal of tariffs)
• There will be limited impacts on JCA 83 from changes to arable cropping, with a small reduction in cereals, particularly barley, an increase in OSR, a decrease in sugar beet and an increase in potatoes; with decreases in other crop types there is a fall in the arable area of some 3500ha: − A reduction of most crop types other than wheat, OSR and potatoes will reduce crop diversity and benefits to wildlife − The decrease in cropped area may be reflected in increased fallow, either in rotation or taking out margins and less productive land, which depending on management could add to diversity of habitat and winter food. • There will be some impact on JCA 83 from changes in livestock systems and practices, as cattle numbers overall remain stable but with a decrease in dairy and beef cows compensated by an increase in other cattle, and sheep numbers increase substantially; there is a fall in grassland area with an increased area out of agriculture: − The move away from dairying implies a less intensive management that could benefit biodiversity, particularly in the river valleys − The increase in sheep and maintenance of cattle numbers overall should reduce the likelihood of undergrazing, particularly given a small decrease in grassland area. − However that decrease in the area of grassland and an increase in the area of land out of production suggest important habitats could be ungrazed. • For SSSIs, for acid grassland and neutral grassland broad habitats there will be a slight positive impact where condition is unfavourable due to undergrazing. • There will be a slight negative impact on Lapwing, Curlew, Redshank and Snipe.
Scenario D (removal of support & tariffs)
• There will be significant impacts on JCA 83 from changes to arable cropping, as although there is a small increase in wheat, falls in barley and other cereals results in a 8000ha reduction in the cereal area; OSR increases, with sugar beet and potatoes decreasing, with an overall fall in the arable area of some 8500ha: − Economic pressures may lead to sugar beet and potatoes being concentrated on fewer holdings, reducing diversity of cropping overall, and leading to more block cropping
Page 138 Estimating the Environmental Impacts of Pillar I Reform
− The decrease in spring crops with associated reduction in overwintered stubbles will reduce food, shelter and breeding habitat for a wide range of wildlife − However this may be partly compensated if the decrease in cropped area is reflected in increased rotational fallow, although if this is managed purely for weed control the biodiversity benefits may be limited. • There will be significant impact on JCA 83 from changes in livestock systems and practices, with substantial falls in all cattle and sheep numbers; and a similar fall in grassland area to scenarios B and C: − The decrease in grazing stock numbers implies a less intensive management that could benefit biodiversity, particularly in the river valleys − But there is an increased likelihood of undergrazing, particularly given a small decrease in grassland area − However that decrease in the area of grassland and an increase in the area of land out of production suggests important habitats could be ungrazed • For SSSIs in fen, marsh and swamp, acid grassland and neutral grassland broad habitats there will be a slight negative impact where condition is favourable, and a moderate negative impact where the condition is unfavourable due to undergrazing. This scenario will have a neutral effect on SSSIs that are in unfavourable condition due to water quality. • There will be a slight negative impact on Corn Bunting, Grey Partridge, Lapwing, Tree Sparrow, Turtle Dove, Curlew, Redshank and Snipe.
JCA 125 South Downs Priority Habitats The main agricultural BAP priority habitats within this JCA are lowland calcareous grassland, lowland dry acid grassland and lowland meadows, for which the JCA has significant amounts of each, and hedgerows (in the valleys) and arable field margins.
Table 60: Type, area and proportion of national resource of priority habitats within JCA 839
% of national Area (ha) Rank resource
Lowland calcareous grassland 1,343 2.9% 7/90
Lowland dry acid grassland 845 1.7% 9/100
Lowland meadows 816 2.7% 9/136
Purple moor grass & rush pastures 7 0.0% 98/117
SSSIs Many of the SSSIs in this JCA are on the chalk escarpment and are intended to conserve the remaining high conservation value chalk grasslands, chalk heath, ancient woodlands and geological features. There are also SSSIs within the river valleys of the Arun, Ouse and Cuckmere.
39 Source: www.natureonthemap.org.uk
Page 139 Estimating the Environmental Impacts of Pillar I Reform
Farmland Birds Grey partridge, lapwing, stonechat, linnet and skylark all still occur in downland, but are becoming far more scarce, while stone curlew, Dartford warbler, wheatear and whinchat are declining species which were once much more widespread on the Downs. The floodplain wetlands support important and wintering populations of waders and wildfowl including gadwall, teal, ringed plover and shoveler. These wetlands also have significant number of breeding birds including waders like redshank, snipe and lapwing.
Assessment of Impact on JCA 125 The changes brought about by the various Scenarios are considered to have the following effects:
Scenario B (removal of support)
• There will be notable impacts on JCA 125 from changes in arable systems and practices, with a 20% reduction in cereal area, and a smaller reduction in most other crops leading to an overall reduction of some 5000ha in arable area: − Increased number of large scale cereal farms with more block cropping − Small overall reduction in crop diversity may adversely affect species that benefit from mixed cropping − Reduction in the area of spring crops, resulting in reduced overwintering and breeding habitat − However this may be partly compensated if the decrease in cropped area is reflected in increased rotational fallow − Marginal land left uncultivated may provide opportunities for reversion to chalk grassland • There will be a significant impact on JCA 125 from changes in livestock systems and practices, with a small reduction in cattle numbers but a more significant decrease in sheep numbers of approximately 20%, and a small reduction in the area of grassland: − The reduction in sheep numbers may lead to undergrazing of important chalkland habitats and impact on the progress of arable reversion schemes. • For SSSIs in calcareous grassland, dwarf shrub heath and neutral grassland broad habitats there will be a slight negative impact where condition is favourable, and a moderate negative impact where the condition is unfavourable due to undergrazing. • There will be a slight negative impact on Corn Bunting, Grey Partridge, Tree Sparrow and Turtle Dove.
Scenario C (removal of tariffs)
• There will be notable impacts on JCA 125 from changes in arable systems and practices, which will see a 85% fall in wheat, but a substantial, almost 50% increase in winter and spring barley; with a substantial increase in OSR there will overall be a 3,500ha decrease in cropped land: − The increase in spring cropping will benefit a variety of wildlife providing winter food and spring breeding cover − If the decrease in cropped area is reflected in increased rotational fallow this will also provide wildlife benefit − Marginal land left uncultivated may provide opportunities for reversion to chalk grassland
Page 140 Estimating the Environmental Impacts of Pillar I Reform
• There will be some impact on JCA 125 from changes in livestock systems and practices, with a small decrease in dairy cattle being more than balanced by an increase in beef cows and other cattle, and only a small decrease in sheep numbers; grass area decreases slightly: − Reduction in dairy cows may lead to less intensive management of the valley grassland − The reduction in sheep numbers may lead to some undergrazing of important chalkland habitats and impact on the progress of arable reversion schemes. • Overall the changes under this scenario are expected to have a neutral effect on SSSIs. • The impacts on Agri-environment Scheme target bird species will be similar to Scenario B.
Scenario D (removal of support & tariffs)
• There will be significant impacts on JCA 125 from changes in arable systems and practices, with a dramatic 65% fall in cereal production leading to a reduction in cropped area of some 11,500ha or 40%, in spite of increase in OSR area: − Concentration on productive land with marginal land falling out of production − Reduced number of farms, but an increase in size with block cropping − Reduction in the area of spring crops, resulting in reduced overwintering and breeding habitat − However this may be compensated if the decrease in cropped area is reflected in increased rotational fallow, as is likely given the rotational needs of OSR − Marginal land left uncultivated may provide opportunities for reversion to chalk grassland • There will be a significant impact on JCA 125 from changes in livestock systems and practices, with a decrease in all cattle of some 20%, and a substantial fall in sheep numbers of some 20,000, nearly 40%: − The reduction in sheep numbers may lead to undergrazing of important chalkland habitats and impact on the progress of arable reversion schemes. − Reduction in dairy cows may lead to less intensive management of the valley grassland • For SSSIs in calcareous grassland, dwarf shrub heath and neutral grassland broad habitats there will be a moderate negative impact where condition is favourable, and a severe negative impact where the condition is unfavourable due to undergrazing. • There will be a slight negative impact on Lapwing, and a severe negative impact on Corn Bunting, Grey Partridge, Tree Sparrow and Turtle Dove.
Page 141 Estimating the Environmental Impacts of Pillar I Reform
Appendix 8: Water Quality Impacts
Norfolk and High Suffolk Claylands (JCA 83) The Waveney valley is the most significant of the rivers in the East of England the South Norfolk and High Suffolk Claylands JCA 83. The Environments Agency’s (EA) GQA (General Quality Assessments) for the rivers in East Anglia indicates that:
• 64% of the rivers have high concentrations of nitrate • 78% of the rivers have high concentrations of phosphate.
Nutrient concentrations in the East are generally higher than in other parts of the country. The area has been designated as sensitive area both due eutrophication and high nitrate levels by Defra. High concentrations of nutrients can threaten some of the unique habitats within the East of England. For example the River Waveney has one of three key populations of Depressed River Mussels with the UK. The region is also home to important fenland and wet heathlands.
The river catchments are generally low-lying and largely rural, with intensive arable farming in many places and a few large urban settlements. Sewage treatment works and other discharges, if not properly regulated, can cause poor water quality and increase nutrient concentrations. Fertiliser applied to farmland may wash into rivers and elevate nutrient concentrations. To add to the threat, abstraction of water, for both public water supply and crop irrigation, reduces flows and water levels in the rivers.
Baseline Nutrient Loads Intensive agriculture within the JCA and high numbers of both poultry and pig farms means that baseline conditions for both phosphate and nitrate are high. Towards the west of the JCA nitrate loads reach up to 35 kg ha-1, with the lowest loads in the north ranging from 21 – 23.7 kg ha-1. Phosphate loads are high through out the JCA, reaching 1.16 kg ha-1 in the centre of the JCA.
Scenario Nutrient Loads Scenario B Under scenario B there is an overall small increase in nitrate loading throughout the JCA. The greatest changes occur in the in west of the catchment with a >0.3 kg ha-1 increase, where nitrate loadings are already high under baseline conditions (28.5 – 35 kg ha -1). Throughout the JCA there are also small increases in phosphate loadings. The greatest increases can be seen within the east of the catchment, where an increase of >0.005 kg ha-1 can be expected.
Increases in potential nutrient loadings are possibly occurring due to the Increase in the area of potatoes grown in the JCA. Potatoes require more intensive soil preparation, which results in decreased soil stability and increase erosion. Potatoes are also heavy users of nitrogen and have a yield response to higher levels of phosphate than their off take. This may result in increased soil P levels and therefore there is a greater potential for phosphate loss from surface run-off during storm events.
With an increased area of potatoes there will be an increased need for irrigation. This will intensify the eutrophication problems which already exist within the JCA due to need for greater abstraction. With greater abstraction the quantity of water left for dilution of pollutants is decreased this especially a problem for phosphates.
Page 142 Estimating the Environmental Impacts of Pillar I Reform
Scenario C As with scenario B there are small overall increases of both nitrate and phosphates within the JCA. Increased nitrate loading is seen throughout the JCA with the highest increases accruing in the northern half (0.201 – 0.30 kg ha-1). Compared to baseline conditions the increases in nitrate loadings are seen on areas that had relatively small loadings under current conditions (21 – 24 kg ha-1).
In terms of phosphate increases are also most apparent in the northern half of the JCA. However, increases are still relatively small (>0.005 kg ha-1).
The small increases in both nitrate and phosphate may be the result of the increase in OSR area projected under this scenario. OSR requires a high input of both nitrate and phosphate, which therefore can potentially increase nutrient loading. This would have a detrimental affect on eutrophication problems within the JCA. Nitrate levels may also exceed the drinking water standard of 50 mgl-1, increasing the cost of water treatment.
Scenario D Within scenario D there is an increase on winter wheat and oilseed rape but a drop in barley and a decline in potatoes by 20%. This results in a small reduction in phosphate loadings throughout the JCA, especially within the northern half, where loadings decrease between 0.014 – 0.005 kg ha-1.
Increases in nitrate loadings are however still seen under this scenario. Increases are not as high as under scenario B and C, except for the western side of the JCA where increases of >0.3 kg ha-1 are expected.
Although decreases in phosphate loadings may occur under this scenario, the reduction is very small and therefore will probably not help to improve the water quality within the JCA.
Cumbria High Fells (JCA 8) The water quality within the JCA is good, average nitrate concentrations are approximately 4 mg l-1, with phosphate concentrations averaging 0.02 mgl-1. The river systems are of high quality within the JCA and are not classed as eutrophic.
Baseline Nutrient Loads As would be expected given the dominant land use and the good water quality the baseline values are quite low within the JCA. There is still quite a large variation within the JCA, with nitrate loads varying from 5 to 25 kg ha-1. The higher values are located along the edges of the JCA, with the low values in the centre; this follows the topography of the area, with the Lake District national park being in the centre of the JCA and flatter more fertile slopes located on the periphery.
Scenario Nutrient Loads Scenario B Under scenario B there is a large drop in livestock numbers, sheep numbers, the main agricultural system, a fall of almost 200,000 (32.6%), combined with a reduction of cattle in general, pigs and poultry. There is a decline in all crops, but given the fact arable farming is completely over shadowed by livestock farming it is this that causes the reduction seen in terms of nitrate and phosphate. It is the edges of the JCA that are affected most. This is because the centre of the JCA is very extensively farmed and therefore agriculture only has a small impact.
Page 143 Estimating the Environmental Impacts of Pillar I Reform
Scenario C Scenario C follows a very similar pattern to that of scenario B, the reduction in sheep numbers are even greater, but other livestock/cropping shows a similar reduction. Wheat is however the exception, showing an increase in cropped area.
As a result the nitrate and phosphate levels are almost the same to those seen under scenario B, with an overall reduction in levels. The greatest reduction once again is on the edges of the JCA.
Scenario D In terms of scenario D sheep and poultry numbers remain very similar to the baseline. There is a reduction in cattle, both beef and dairy, in terms of arable cropping the largest reduction are in wheat, barley and potatoes.
Despite these changes the nutrient loadings are still similar to those from the other scenarios, a reduction across the board in nitrate and phosphate, with the largest reductions once again on the JCAs boundaries.
South Downs JCA Within the South Downs JCA the EA’s GQA show that:
• 91% of the rivers have high concentrations of nitrate • 88% of the rivers have high concentrations of phosphate
The area has been designated as sensitive area both due eutrophication and high nitrate levels by Defra. Water quality problems are frequently most acute in the upper reaches of the main river catchments (Adur, Arun, Ouse and Cuckmere) and during drought periods, when treated sewage can contribute a significant proportion of river flow. Compared to results achieved in the early 1990s, GQA results have shown an underlying trend of improvement in water quality. This is largely due to significant improvements in the quality of point source discharges to rivers in the South East.
Nitrate concentrations pose a major problem to groundwater quality with around 50 per cent of the South East designated as either a groundwater or surface water Nitrate Vulnerable Zone. Trends show that there has been a continued increase in nitrate concentrations throughout the region, with the only decreases being seen during periods of drought when the water table is lower than usual.
Baseline Nutrient Loads in the South Downs Under baseline conditions nitrate loads are very high compared to the other case studies within this report. Within the north of the JCA nitrate loads reach up to 318 kg ha-1. Nitrate loads are there lowest in the southern region of the JCA, but the loadings are still elevated compared to other JCAs at 90 kg ha-1. Phosphate levels are also elevated compared to the case study sites. The highest loads are in the north of the JCA reaching 1.77 kg ha-1. These values decrease down to 0.35 kg ha-1 in the south of the JCA.
The very high nitrate loads seen under the baseline conditions can be the intensive arable production of maize and horticulture in a relatively small area compared to the other JCAs.
Page 144 Estimating the Environmental Impacts of Pillar I Reform
Scenario Nutrient Loads Scenario B Under scenario B there is an overall small uniform decrease in nitrate loading throughout the JCA. However this decrease is very small when compared to the already high baseline conditions, only 1.99 kg ha-1. Throughout the JCA there are also small decreases in phosphate loadings. This decrease is also uniform throughout the JCA at 0.099 kg ha-1.
Scenario C As with scenario B there are small overall decreases of both nitrate and phosphates within the JCA. Decreased nitrate loading is seen throughout the JCA (1.99 – 1.0 kg ha-1). Compared to high baseline conditions the decreases in nitrate loadings are minimal. In terms of phosphate decreases are lower compared to scenario B (0.049 – 0.025 kg ha -1). The reduction is phosphate is not as uniform as in scenario B with smaller decreases being seen as you move towards the southerly most tip of the JCA. This is where baseline loads were lower at 0.355 – 0.79 kg ha-1.
Scenario D Within this scenario the reductions in both nitrate and phosphate are the greatest compared to scenario B and C. Nitrate reduction is uniform across the whole JCA at <= 3.0 kg ha-1, except for the most southerly tip of the JCA where reductions are in the region of 1.99 – 1.0 kg ha-1.
Phosphate reductions vary throughout the JCA, ranging from 0.1 – 0.2 kg ha-1. Like under scenarios B and C the lowest reductions tend to be where baseline conditions were already low.
Shropshire, Cheshire and Staffordshire Plain (JCA 61) & Cheshire Sandstone Ridge (JCA 62) The main river to the south of this JCA is the River Severn, it has moderate to low levels of water contamination, with an average nitrate concentration of 11 mgl-1, and phosphate averaging 0.07 mg l-1. Towards the north of the JCA, the River Weaver has a much high background nitrate level, with averages of almost 40 mg l-1, along with elevated phosphorus levels averaging 0.74 mg l-1.
There are meres and mosses scattered throughout the area and contain a range of habitats including dystrophic, oligotrophic, mesotrophic and eutrophic lakes, raised bogs, valley mires, basin mires, reedbeds and fens. The area also contains many ponds scattered across the area.
Baseline Nutrient Loads The pattern is very varied across the JCA, with nitrate loadings varying from 11 to 35 kg ha-1, in some cases in grid squares. Phosphate loadings also vary dramatically from 0.2 to 1.3 kg ha-1. This is likely due to the variety in agricultural land use across the JCA. Grazing is the major land use but there are still areas where arable is dominant, e.g. in the Mersey valley, and the sandier areas of Shropshire where potatoes are the key. In Staffordshire however, the heavier clay soils result in a high numbers of dairy cows.
Page 145 Estimating the Environmental Impacts of Pillar I Reform
Scenario Nutrient Loads Scenario B Under scenario B there is a reduction in nitrate and phosphate levels across the whole JCA. Nitrate levels are predicted to fall uniformly across the entire region, with reductions of between 0 to kg ha-1. The largest reduction is in the far North West of the JCA of between 2 to 3 kg ha-1. In terms of phosphate there is a north/south divide; within the southern half a reduction of approximately 0.025 kg ha-1 is expected, whereas the northern half is expected to reduce by upwards of 0.05 kg ha-1. Once again the largest reduction is expected in the far North West of the JCA.
The cause of the reduction in nitrate and phosphate losses can be attributed to the decline in livestock and a more extensive production system being employed, with the exception of dairy cows where some numbers increase. This has a greater impact in this JCA because as permanent pasture is the dominate land cover. This is combined with a reduction in crop areas, especially wheat, barley, potatoes and sugar beet. This results in decreased nutrient inputs into the system and consequently a reduction in nitrate and phosphate loss, however due to the large amounts of permanent pasture this is not as significant.
Scenario C Scenario C would give rise to a reduction in phosphate and a predominant reduction in nitrate levels, with the exception of the far North West and South East predicting a small increase in nitrate loadings. The increase aside nitrate levels are predicted to fall by the same amount as under scenario B. Phosphate on the other hand is likely to reduce on average by a great amount than under scenario B, but with less localised loss in the far North West of the JCA.
The overall reduction in livestock is less marked compared to scenario B, except for dairy cows where the small increase that was expected under scenario B has changed to a large reduction in dairy cows under scenario C. Generally the overall reduction in stock numbers and the resulting extensification is likely to be the major cause of the reduction in nitrate and phosphate losses seen across the whole JCA.
The arable cropping shows a different pattern, to that under scenario B, with a marked increase in wheat, and oilseed rape. However, this is offset by reductions in barley, potatoes and an almost complete reduction in sugar beet; these two changes virtually cancel each other out, therefore arable cropping is unlikely to change the amount of nitrate and phosphate lost.
Scenario D Scenario D for nitrate is predicted to cause the largest reduction, with some areas showing nitrate losses reducing by 3 kg ha-1, with JCA wide reductions of between 2 to 3 kg ha-1. In terms of phosphate again the largest reductions are as a result of scenario D. The north of the JCA will experience the largest reduction, greater than 0.1 kg ha-1. Losses in the south will still be significant, but are more varied, changing from 0.05 to 0.1 kg ha-1.
The fact that scenario D shows the greatest reductions in losses in terms of both nitrate and phosphate is most likely to be as a result of the changes in livestock numbers, which are characterised by a large drop in dairy cow numbers, greater than 500 in places. Overall cereal numbers also fall dramatically over the entire JCA, which combine cause the large reduction in nitrate and phosphate losses.
Page 146 Estimating the Environmental Impacts of Pillar I Reform
Appendix 9: Flood Risk
The aim is to identify the potential change in flood risk based on the modelled changes in land use for three scenarios (B, C and D), where scenario A forms the baseline.
Identification of Change in Flood Risk A literature review has been undertaken to identify information on the implications for flood risk from different cropping regimes and from other factors that need to be considered when assessing the impact on flood risk of changes in land use. These factors include the vegetation cover provided by plants, the rate at which they take up water and their evapotranspitation rate, the soil type and gradient as well as antecedent soil moisture. Together, these factors impact upon the total amount of water that will run off a field, and thus potentially contribute to a flood event.
However, limited information was found, such that a number of assumptions have been necessary on how flood risk could change. The first assumption is that the crop types can be assigned to different groups based on a broad assessment of flood risk (high, moderate and low). The grouping of crops was based on definitions of high, moderate and low susceptibility to erosion (also associated with run-off), from Defra (200540). Table 61 presents the crop types included within each susceptibility band.
Table 61: Susceptibility to Water Erosion by agricultural of land use (as proxy for flood risk)
Highly Susceptible Moderately Susceptible Less Susceptible Late sown winter cereals Potatoes Early sown winter cereals Sugar beet Oilseed rape (winter and spring Field vegetables Long grass leys sown) Outdoor pigs Permanent grass Spring sown cereals Grass re-seeds Woodland (excluding short Spring sown linseed term coppice) Forage maize Short rotation Outwintering stock coppice/Miscanthus Grazing forage crops in autumn or winter Notes: Based on Defra (2005): Controlling Soil Erosion: A Manual for the Assessment and Management of Agricultural Land at Risk of Water Erosion in Lowland England, September 2005 version, Defra: London.
40 Defra (2005): Controlling Soil Erosion: A Manual for the Assessment and Management of Agricultural Land at Risk of Water Erosion in Lowland England, September 2005 version, Defra: London.
Page 147 Estimating the Environmental Impacts of Pillar I Reform
The susceptibility groupings for flood risk used in the analysis are shown in Table 62.
Table 62: Crops Included under each Flood Risk
High Moderate Low Wheat Potatoes Winter barley Sugar beet Rough grazing Spring barley Vegetables and fruit New grass Other cereals Rootcrop Permanent grass Oilseed rape Maize Other crop Notes: Based on crop/livestock types provided in the model data. From the data provided, it was not possible to determine outwintering stock versus those that are housed, such that livestock have been excluded from the analysis. Land identified as ‘out of agriculture’ has not been automatically assigned to the three flood risk categories (see below).
The model results were used to identify the total area of land uses identified as being high, moderate and low flood risk. This was done by aggregating the areas of each crop type for each scenario. The percentage change under each scenario was then calculated. These predicted changes (in terms of percent change from the baseline) are shown in Table 63 for the five case study areas; areas (in hectares) are given for the baseline scenario to provide the context for the predicted percentage change.
The data show that the percentage changes for some of the scenarios are quite high, with the main change being a move from areas that are cropped (or grass) to land that is out of agriculture. For all five case studies, the largest changes occur under Scenario D.
Page 148 Estimating the Environmental Impacts of Pillar I Reform
Table 63: Change in Area of High, Moderate & Low Risk Crops by Case Study Area and Scenario
Out of Scenario High Risk Moderate Risk Low Risk Agriculture South Norfolk and High Suffolk Claylands
Baseline (ha) 19,000 130,000 29,000 3,200
Scenario B -7% 0% -8% +340%
Scenario C -9% -2% -7% +170%
Scenario D -28% -4% -7% +340% Cumbria High Fells
Baseline (ha) 300 2,700 170,000 950
Scenario B -8% -38% -2% +570%
Scenario C -9% -36% -2% +460%
Scenario D -43% -73% -2% +570% Shropshire, Cheshire and Staffordshire Plain
Baseline (ha) 23,000 73,000 170,000 2,700
Scenario B -28% -29% -1% +1700%
Scenario C -36% +10% -1% +130%
Scenario D -77% -51% -1% +1700% Cheshire Sandstone Ridge
Baseline (ha) 1,100 2,800 12,000 130
Scenario B -7% -36% -1% +1400%
Scenario C -13% -10% -1% +440%
Scenario D -68% -56% -1% +1400% South Downs
Baseline (ha) 2,000 27,000 27,000 600
Scenario B -12% -18% -2% +2000%
Scenario C -11% -12% -2% +670%
Scenario D -77% -41% -1% +2000% Notes: % change is calculated in terms of change from the baseline for the high, moderate and low flood risk categories. High percentage changes often occur due to the small area in a particular flood risk category (or out of agriculture) under the baseline scenario
The next step was to convert the change in areas to reflect a change in flood risk. No relevant data were found during the literature review that provide an indication of the difference in risk between high, moderate and low. For the purposes of this assessment, it was therefore (simplistically) assumed that ‘high’ flood risk is twice as significant as ‘moderate’ flood risk and that ‘moderate’ flood risk was twice as significant as ‘low’ flood risk. This means that overall flood risk (and the change in flood risk under each scenario) can be calculated as:
Flood risk =1.low + 2.moderate + 4.high
Page 149 Estimating the Environmental Impacts of Pillar I Reform
Although the use of 1, 2 and 4 as multipliers is arbitrary, the key is the difference between these multipliers, with the overall impact of a move from low to high being a four-fold increase in flood risk. However, it is not known whether ‘land out of production’ would be high, moderate or low flood risk, as the land use to which it is changed is not known. Therefore, three assumptions were used to provide a range of possible changes:
• ‘Land out of production’ all goes to high flood risk: this could reflect a move to development (although it is unlikely that an increase in flood risk would be allowed under Planning Policy Statement 25 (PPS2541), for example). Other land uses could be for recreation, such as mountain biking, motocross, etc. which would increase the risk of compaction and, hence, run-off from the land. Under-drainage associated with playing fields could also raise the risk to high; • ‘Land out of production’ all goes to moderate flood risk: this could reflect land that is generally left uncultivated but may be ploughed from time to time, or land that is grazed by horses; and • ‘Land out of production’ all goes to low flood risk: this could reflect a move to establishing woodland or creating wetlands.
This allowed three sub-scenarios to be used for each case study area.
Summary of Results The above assumptions have been used to manipulate the data from the modelling to provide an indication of change in flood risk (both direction and magnitude). Table 64 provides an overall indication of the range of changes in flood risk when the above three assumptions for the change in flood risk associated with land going out of agriculture were applied to the four case studies.
The data show that the percent changes for the case study areas as a whole are generally small (less than 10% increase or decrease). The larger changes are mainly associated with scenarios B and D and with the assumption that all of the land predicted to go out of agriculture would move to high (or low) risk land uses.
41 PPS25 covers development and flood risk and has the overall aim of steering new development to Flood Zone 1 (low risk), with development in higher risk zones restricted to certain categories and generally only where there are no other options.
Page 150 Estimating the Environmental Impacts of Pillar I Reform
Table 64: Percent Change in Flood Risk under Each Scenario
Land out of production all… Scenario High Risk Moderate Risk Low Risk South Norfolk and High Suffolk Claylands
Scenario B (%) +10% +4% +1%
Scenario C (%) +3% 0% -2%
Scenario D (%) +3% -3% -6% Cumbria High Fells
Scenario B (%) +9% +3% 0%
Scenario C (%) +7% +2% -1%
Scenario D (%) +8% +2% -1% Shropshire, Cheshire and Staffordshire Plain
Scenario B (%) +27% +5% -6%
Scenario C (%) -2% -3% -4%
Scenario D (%) +9% -13% -24% Cheshire Sandstone Ridge
Scenario B (%) +21% +5% -3%
Scenario C (%) +4% -1% -3%
Scenario D (%) +4% -13% -21% South Downs
Scenario B (%) +40% +14% +1%
Scenario C (%) +9% 0% -4%
Scenario D (%) +20% -6% -19% Notes: No values are given for the baseline since the figures shown reflect change from the baseline for each scenario
The overall change in flood risk associated from land use changes also needs to take into account other factors, particularly slope and distance from a river. These are taken into account as follows:
• Slope: average proportion of high to low ground within the JCA; and • Distance to river: average (mean) distance to a main river from any point within the JCA.
This means that the flood risk and changes to flood risk can be described in terms of three key factors, slope, distance to main river and change in land use, such that they can be presented using a triangular plot. This plot provides an indication of how a change in one factor (land use) can affect the overall flood risk. Figure 30 provides a triangular plot showing the change in flood risk for the five case study areas. Changes to land use result in a change in overall flood risk, such that the location of each data point changes. Increases in flood risk results in the data points moving towards the corner labelled change in land use (reflecting the greater contribution of land use to overall flood risk), the distance that the point travels towards the corner reflects the magnitude of change.
Page 151 Estimating the Environmental Impacts of Pillar I Reform
The plot shows how changes in land use change affect the flood risk, since slope and distance to main river are the same for any one 10x10km square. As well as showing direction of change, the magnitude is illustrated by the distance that the CAP scenarios are plotted from the baseline data point (shown as a blue in Figure 30). Data points near the corner labelled ‘change in land use’ reflect the greater contribution of land use changes to overall flood risk than those nearer the other corners (slope or distance to main river). This is shown clearly in Figure 30 as the red data points (which reflect land going out of agriculture assumed to move to high risk land uses) are closer to the corner labelled change in land use than the amber or green data points.
Figure 30: Triangular Plot Showing Change in Flood Risk for the Five Case Study Areas
Baseline Slope Scen B-out of ag as red Scen B-out of ag as amber Scen B-out of ag as green Scen C-out of ag as red Scen C-out of ag as amber Scen C-out of ag as green Scen D-out of ag as red Scen D-out of ag as amber Scen D-out of ag as green JCA8 JCA125 JCA62
Distance to main river Change in land use JCA61 JCA83
Figure 30 provides an indication of the change in flood risk under the three sub-scenarios, with the largest range reflecting the largest predicted differences in flood risk. The largest range is for JCA125 (South Downs), reflecting the larger area of land predicted to be coming out of agriculture in scenarios B and D (see also Table 64). The range for JCAs 61 (Shropshire, Cheshire and Staffordshire Plain) and 62 (Cheshire Sandstone Ridge) are also quite large while that of JCA8 is the smallest. JCA83 has a reasonably small change in flood risk, mainly due to the relatively small percentage changes in area of land predicted to come out of agriculture (see Table 64). It is important to note that the predicted changes in flood risk are based on a large number of assumptions (in particular those related to how flood risk may change on the land coming out of agriculture) and are intended to be illustrative. Many other factors will be as important (if not more important) than changes in land use as a result of the Pillar I CAP reforms for flood risk.
The proximity of the baseline JCA data points to each corner of the chart shows which factor has the largest influence on flood risk (e.g. for JCA62 the biggest influence is associated with change in land use, while JCA61 is much more affected by the travel time to the nearest river). This is because there are many more large rivers within JCA61 and changes in land use are less likely to have an immediate impact on those rivers than if there is a dense network of surface watercourses. Similarly for JCA8, slope is more important since the area is much hillier and changes in land use are likely to result in small changes in flood risk because water can be carried away quickly.
Page 152 Estimating the Environmental Impacts of Pillar I Reform
JCA83 (South Norfolk and High Suffolk Claylands) was selected as the case study area for consideration of flood risk impacts42. Table 64, above, shows the overall change in flood risk for the JCA as a whole with this varying between a maximum increase of 10% (Scenario B) and a minimum decrease of 6% (Scenario D). Within the JCA, however, there is considerable variation between the different 10x10km squares. One further key finding that is not represented by the above percentage changes in flood risk is that the numbers of livestock are predicted to decrease significantly. This could affect how the river valley is used and so, could have more significant implications for flood risk than the modest percentage changes predict.
There are four key urban areas where a slight increase or decrease in flood risk could have significant impacts. These areas include those identified after the 1968 floods as requiring additional flood warning (including Loddon and Halesworth) and areas where there are channel restrictions within or immediately downstream of an urban areas (including Diss and Wymondham). Figure 31 presents a triangular plot showing the predicted change in flood risk for these four 10x10km squares, with the percentage changes.
The squares are:
• Square 2907: Diss (to the south-west); • Square 2928: Wymondham (to the south and south-east); • Square 2961: Halesworth (to the south-west); and • Square 2963: Loddon (to the south and south and south-west).
Figure 31: Change in Flood Risk for Example Squares
Baseline Slope Scen B-out of ag as red Scen B-out of ag as amber Scen B-out of ag as green Scen C-out of ag as red Scen C-out of ag as amber Scen C-out of ag as green Scen D-out of ag as red Scen D-out of ag as amber Scen D-out of ag as green
2928 2907
Distance to main river Change in land use 2961 2963
42 The selection was made in advance of the model results due to the range of different land use types within the JCA and because the river valley currently operates as a fully functioning floodplain.
Page 153 Estimating the Environmental Impacts of Pillar I Reform
Table 65: Percent Change for Key Flood Risk Areas in JCA 83
Land out of production all… Scenario High Risk Moderate Risk Low Risk Diss (square 2907)
Scenario B (%) +1% -1% -2%
Scenario C (%) +2% -1% -3%
Scenario D (%) +2% -2% -5% Wymondham (square 2928)
Scenario B (%) +2% 0% -2%
Scenario C (%) +3% -1% -2%
Scenario D (%) +7% -3% -8% Halesworth (square 2961)
Scenario B (%) +2% -1% -2%
Scenario C (%) +2% -1% -2%
Scenario D (%) +3% -1% -4% Loddon (square 2963)
Scenario B (%) +3% 0% -2%
Scenario C (%) +3% -1% -3%
Scenario D (%) +10% -2% -8%
The changes in flood risk shown in Figure 31 and Table 65 are small, even in these key flood risk areas, and the implications of the changes predicted are difficult to identify in terms of an overall increase or decrease in flood risk to the urban areas. However, it is clear that there may be opportunities to reduce flood risk (albeit slightly) if land predicted to move out of agriculture tends towards lower flood risk activities.
The assessment of flood risk has shown that the potential for significant changes in flood risk is limited to consideration of land predicted to move out of agriculture. Since the end use of this land is not known, it is difficult to determine what the actual change in flood risk may be. The use of the assumptions that all land moving out of agriculture becomes high, moderate or low risk shows some significant changes in risk (e.g. South Downs). However, such wholesale changes are unlikely, particularly change to high risk because of controls through PPS25, for example, that prevent new developments increasing run-off to greater than that of a greenfield site.
There are some potential measures that could be used to increase the potential for land going out of agriculture to move to lower risk activities such as:
• Encouraging planting of woodlands on sloping ground; • Encouraging creation of wetlands within the floodplain; and • Encouraging on-going grazing of floodplains to avoid increasing the flood risk (this may be particularly important in JCA83 due to the landscape benefits provided by the grazed floodplains and the predicted reduction in number of livestock).
Page 154 Estimating the Environmental Impacts of Pillar I Reform
Other techniques, such as those proposed under Catchment Sensitive Farming, could be applied to land that remains within agricultural use (e.g. underplanting high risk crops such as maize with grass).
It is important to place the impacts on flood risk identified in this study in context with other changes and policies. Of particular relevance are changes to flood risk management and the policy of ‘Making Space for Water’. This may reduce protection to agricultural land or encourage creation of washland along river valleys and may have a bigger influence on future land use than the Pillar I CAP reforms. There are also the constraints imposed on future development by PPS25 and the need for ensuring that run-off from new developments does not exceed that of a greenfield site (e.g. through the use of Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems, SUDS) even in the face of considerable development pressure (e.g. as in the South Downs JCA).
Page 155 Estimating the Environmental Impacts of Pillar I Reform
Appendix 10: Case Study Stakeholder Consultation
Delegates Calcareous Flood Plain Mixed Lowland Upland group lowland group Lowland group group (JCA 83) (JCA 8) (JCA 125) (JCA 61/62) Venue RPA offices Plumpton College Stonecross Manor, Soulton Hall, Wem Kendal Date 31/10/07 1/11/07 6/11/07 9/11/07 Natural England Nicola Newell, Charles Orrell Stephen Lund Alex Lowe CLA Jane Burch Ben Underwood Carole Hodgson RSPB Chris Bailey Harriet Denninson Tim Youngs FWAG Anthony Becvar Water Co. Nigel Smetham Edward Holt NFU Pamela Forbes Will Cockbain Sarah Faulkner FC Mike Render Bob Jones EnvironmentAgency Khadine Morcom Andrew Penton National Trust Neil Johnson GONW Gordon Jones NWDA Louise Bell National Park Chris Greenwood
Comments (overview) Stakeholder highlighted the current high soft commodity prices for grains and the extent to which this may affect the forecasts and modelling carried out in the project. A second issue is that of climate change quite possibly having greater effects, possibly on flooding and coloration of water (Cumbria). Thirdly, livestock disease is considered a very significant threat.
A common concern is the loss of income from losing Pillar I payments, especially from areas that may not be a priority for HLS. While many farm practices are not classified as environmental management, they do in fact result in a lot of sympathetic land management that would not be carried out in the absence of farming. Thought should go into the review of ES to allow for this. Voluntary changes to management are likely to be more successful than compulsory ones.
Stakeholders were sceptical about large scale retreat from the land in all JCAs. However, in Cumbria there was concern over retreat from the land due to loss of commons in production systems and consequent habitat changes. This would make access difficult with reversion to scrub and woodland.
Overall, stakeholder concerns are for general loss of income and the subsequent impact on general countryside maintenance. This would lead to less maintenance and possibly to increased flooding. There was great concern over consolidation and loss of character affecting tourism and leisure industries as well as the reduction in livestock making suitable grassland management impossible. Also, there is also an impact of industry consolidation through loss of skilled workers who are key to maintenance.
Page 156