The environmental footprint: a method to determine the environmental impact of agricultural production

The environmental impact of producing agricultural commodities is an increasingly important topic at a time when climate change, an increasing population and competing demands for food, fibre and fuel are placing heavy demands upon the environment. There are already various methods available for quantifying environmental impact; however, none of them are flexible enough to account for multiple indicators while producing a simple, easy to comprehend result. Life cycle assessment (LCA) can be used to quantify every aspect of a production process and in agriculture has proved valuable in quantifying the inputs and outputs of resources and pollutants that are associated with the production of food commodities. However, the amount of detail that makes the LCA such a valuable tool can also make the results difficult to interpret. Carbon dioxide equivalents (carbon footprints) can be used to quantify the greenhouse gases emitted during a production process and have the advantage, in comparison to the LCA, of presenting the results as a single figure. This approach, as used in the forthcoming PAS 2050, is ideally suited to the retail market but is too simplistic to account for all the environmental burdens that agricultural production entails. This paper introduces a hybrid method, the environmental footprint, which incorporates four environmental indicators (pesticides, greenhouse gas emissions, eutrophication and acidification, and water use) and presents the result as a single figure on a per hectare basis

Why carbon footprinting (and carbon labelling) only tells half the story

The UK is a world leader in the use of carbon footprints. The introduction of PAS2050 has legitimised carbon footprinting and manufacturers and retailers have responded by estimating carbon footprints for selected products. In industrial production, where the relationship between inputs and outputs is constant and the process is tightly controlled, carbon footprints tend to be reproducible. However, agricultural production is different, being influenced by biological, geological and climatic variation. Thus, although the use of a single value to represent the carbon burden of a food product is appealing, in practice it can be misleading. This paper discusses the variability associated with carbon footprints of agricultural products and considers the value of carbon labelling. We suggest that carbon footprinting is a useful approach that will assist in the transition to a low carbon society but that current approaches to carbon labelling may not help consumers understand the carbon burden of agricultural products

Assessing the costs and benefits of agricultural production using an ecosystem approach

Integrated Farm Management (IFM) is seen as one way for agriculture to contribute towards the UKs challenging national targets for climate change, pollution, biodiversity and other environmental factors. Whilst it is clear that IFM and associated assurance schemes have a role in food quality and enhancement of the environment, they fail to address a number of issues. In particular, they fail to take sufficient account of ‘impact’ and ‘outcome’. In contrast, the relatively new concept of an ecosystem approach does consider these and there is extensive synergy between this approach and IFM. This is pertinent because the UK Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) is taking steps to embed an ecosystem approach in policy-making and delivery. This paper sets out to explore the links between IFM and an ecosystem approach and introduces a simple matrix to show how an ecosystem approach might be used to assess the outcome of IFM practices. Limited use of an ecosystem approach suggests that this type of methodology could deliver useful results for IFM. However, it should be used as a decision-support tool rather than a decision-maker. The advantage of using an ecosystem approach for assessing the impact of IFM is that it provides a holistic assessment of land management strategies, rather than focusing on either cropping, or environmental management, alone. However, the values assigned to individual parameters are generally based on expert opinion and, as such, are open to interpretation. Indeed, an ecosystem approach should be interdisciplinary, utilising the knowledge and expertise of a range of stakeholders. Whilst the development of an ecosystem approach for use within an agricultural setting shows promise, it is still in its infancy. There is a need for much discussion, between many disciplines, before it becomes accepted practice

Contribution of integrated farm management (IFM) to Defra objectives

A farming system comprises a complex of interrelated and interacting factors. Any study of an isolated part of the system will not provide adequate understanding of the behaviour of the entire system and interactions may be equally or more important than individual components. There is therefore a requirement for the development of integrated approaches and practices to help farming systems adapt to, eliminate or reduce the negative impacts of production on the environment. This must be achieved whilst maintaining the economic viability of the farm enterprise. Our analysis has confirmed that IFM techniques generally have far more beneficial than adverse effects on current Defra policy objectives. However, there are some notable ‘conflicts’ where a technique that has a large beneficial effect in one policy area has a large negative effect in another. Carbon footprinting is used to quantify the impact of some integrated farming practices

Maintaining Parameter Invariance in Censored Micro-Level Data

Research Methods/ Statistical Methods,

MEASURING NET BENEFITS RESULTING FROM UNIVERSITY-INDUSTRY COLLABORATION: AN EXAMPLE FROM THE NEW MEXICO CHILE TASK FORCE

Research and Development/Tech Change/Emerging Technologies,

A sensitivity analysis of the prediction of the nitrogen fertilizer requirement of cauliflower crops using the HRI WELL_N computer model

HRI WELL_N is an easy to use computer model, which has been used by farmers and growers since 1994 to predict crop nitrogen (N) requirements for a wide range of agricultural and horticultural crops. A sensitivity analysis was carried out to investigate the model predictions of the N fertilizer requirement of cauliflower crops, and, at that rate, the yield achieved, yield response to the fertilizer applied, N uptake, NO3-N leaching below 30 and 90 cm and mineral N at harvest. The sensitivity to four input factors – soil mineral N before planting, mineralization rate of soil organic matter, expected yield and duration of growth – was assessed. Values of these were chosen to cover ranges between 40% and 160% of values typical for field crops of cauliflowers grown in East Anglia. The assessments were made for three soils – sand, sandy loam and silt – and three rainfall scenarios – an average year and years with 144% or 56% of average rainfall during the growing season. The sensitivity of each output variable to each of the input factors (and interactions between them) was assessed using a unique ‘sequential' analysis of variance approach developed as part of this research project. The most significant factors affecting N fertilizer requirement across all soil types/rainfall amounts were soil mineral N before planting and expected yield. N requirement increased with increasing yield expectation, and decreased with increasing amounts of soil mineral N before planting. The responses to soil mineral N were much greater when higher yields were expected. Retention of N in the rooting zone was predicted to be poor on light soils in the wettest conditions suggesting that to maximize N use, plants needed to grow rapidly and have reasonable yield potential. Assessment of the potential impacts of errors in the values of the input factors indicated that poor estimation of, in particular, yield expectation and soil mineral N before planting could lead to either yield loss or an increased level of potentially leachable soil mineral N at harvest. The research demonstrates the benefits of using computer simulation models to quantify the main factors for which information is needed in order to provide robust N fertilizer recommendations

Infrastructure, tax, energy

This issue of the Monitor focuses on the role of the G20 in infrastructure, tax and energy governance. The Monitor opens with a reflection on a conference jointly hosted by the Reserve Bank of Australia, the Productivity Commission and the Lowy Institute, titled ‘Financial Flows and Infrastructure Financing’. There is also a note on trade. Key findings Ensuring that the right public infrastructure projects are selected is more important than the question of how they will be financed. As such, the G20 should designate appropriate project selection as the foundation stone of its infrastructure agenda. The MDBs can make a major contribution to reducing the global infrastructure gap, provided their actions begin with the principle of additionality. Private sector involvement is a desirable secondary goal and should be promoted wherever business finance produces a more efficient approach, but it should not supersede the MDBs’ preoccupation with an investment strategy built around value for money. Focusing on infrastructure investment for macroeconomic growth can, but does not automatically, benefit people living in extreme poverty, Australia needs to use its outreach program to talk to LICs about the possible prioritisation of infrastructure investment within the G20 agenda. Australia’s G20 presidency is a rare and time-bound opportunity to influence the process guiding tax reforms around base erosion and profit shifting. Better tax compliance and transparency will help to address poverty and inequality globally and within Asia and the Pacific. The G20 has a number of energy issues on its work program, including energy efficiency, yet it has not adequately addressed the prior need for a revision of the global energy governance framework itself. The G20 should push for an elevation of the International Energy Agency into a truly global forum that brings together all the major energy producers and consumers on equal basis