•Agricultural monocultures have societal costs
•Role for agroforestry
•Introducing AGFORWARD
•Two case studies on the financial and economic benefits of agroforestry in EuropeEuropean Union’s Seventh Framework Program for research, technological development and demonstration under grant agreement no 61352

Burgess, P.J.

Crous-Duran, Josep

Graves, Anil R.

Palma, J.H.N.

Upson, Matt

English

UTL Repository

Copyright © 2015 AGFORWARD European Union’s Seventh Framework Program for research, technological development and demonstration under grant agreement no 613520 Financial and Economic Benefits of Integrated Crop-Livestock-Tree Systems in Europe  Paul J. Burgess1, Anil R. Graves1, João H.N. Palma2, Josep Crous-Duran2, and Matt Upson1 1Cranfield University, Cranfield, Bedfordshire, MK43 0AL, UK. 2Instituto Superior de Agronomia, Universidade de Lisboa, Portugal p.burgess@cranfield.ac.uk  Presentation at World Congress on Integrated Crop-Livestock-Tree Systems, Brasilia, Brazil  14 July 2015  • Agricultural monocultures have societal costs • Role for agroforestry • Introducing AGFORWARD • Two case studies on the financial and economic benefits of agroforestry in Europe Content Simplification of systems Separation of arable, livestock, and tree-crop enterprises in Europe has provided production benefits per unit land and per unit labour. LabourLand02004006001950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000Output index per unit labour or landYearLevels of output per unit of land (dashed line) and unit of labour (solid line) in the UK between 1953 and 2000 (1953=100) (Thirtle and Holding, 2003). Negative externalities Agricultural system Annual output (£ ha-1) Annual ecosystem dis-services (£ ha-1) Eggs 2114 -325 Pigs 1532 -375 Dairy and dairy beef 1479 -425 Chicken 1433 -277 Arable 634 -308 Suckler beef 422 -194 Sheep 247 25 Although agriculture monocultures results in positive outputs of goods, most systems result in ecosystem dis-services (such as greenhouse gas emissions and reduced water quality) which can be valued. Value of provisioning and other ecosystem services of UK agricultural systems (after Chatterton et al 2014) Role for agroforestry Field-scale arable or livestock Field-scale agroforestry Farm-scale agroforestry Policy makers in Europe are attracted by agroforestry (crop-livestock-tree systems) to reduce negative externalities. Introducing AGFORWARD  The AGFORWARD project is promoting agroforestry  (the integration of trees with farming)  Partners 1. Cranfield University 14 Aarhus University 2. European Forest Institute 15 AFBI 3 ACTA  16 CRA 4 University of Santiago de Compostela 17 Louis Bolk Institute 5 TEI Stereas Elladas 18 CNR 6 INRA 19 NYME 7 Organic Research Centre 20 Universitatea Babes-Bolyai 8 BTU Cottbus 21 Veneto Agricoltura 9 Universidad de Extremadura 22 Agroof 10 Instituto Superior de Agronomia, Lisbon 23 APCA 11 University of Copenhagen  24 Association Française d’AgroForesterie 12 Research Station FDEA-ART Zurich 25 World Agroforestry Centre 13 Wervel vzw 26 European Agroforestry Federation www.agforward.eu Portuguese www.facebook.com/AgforwardProject Establishment on 40 agroforestry  stakeholder groups across Europe 800 + farmers and other stakeholders Other systems • Silvopastoral systems with oak, Greece • Bocage agroforestier, Bretagne, France • Oak wood pasture in Sardinia, Italy • Wood pasture, UK • Agroforestry in the Spreewald floodplain, Germany • Wood pasture, Hungary • Wood pasture, Transylvania in Romania Agroforestry of high nature and cultural value Dehesa, Spain and Montado, Portugal Agroforestry with reindeer, Sweden Bocage agroforestry, France Other systems • Chestnut agroforestry, Galicia, Spain • Intercropping and grazing of walnut plantations in Spain • Intercropping of olives in Greece • “Bordure” trees in France Agroforestry with high value trees Intercropping and grazing of olive systems in Italy Intercropping oranges in Greece Grazed orchards in England, Northern Ireland, and France Other systems • Alley cropping, Hungary • Trees in arable systems in Greece • Silvoarable agroforestry in S.W. France • Silvoarable agroforestry in Western France • Silvoarable agroforestry in Northern France • Silvoarable agroforestry in UK • Alley cropping in Germany Integrating trees into arable systems Switzerland Mediterranean regions of France Italy Other systems • Agroforestry for poultry in the Netherlands • Agroforestry with organic poultry in Denmark • Agroforestry with free-range pigs, Italy • Agroforestry with free-range pigs, Denmark • Fodder trees for goats and sheep in the Netherlands Integrating trees into livestock systems Agroforestry with Celta pigs in Spain Poultry agroforestry in the UK Agroforestry with ruminants, France Developed research protocols Each group has developed a protocol, available on the AGFORWARD website.    About 20-30% of the interventions are being addressed by a clearer assessment of the inputs and outputs of the systems using biophysical and economic models Case study 1: Woodland eggs in the UK (Burgess et al., 2014) Supermarket Free-range Woodland Aldi 1.00 1.19 Morrisons 1.39 1.59 UK consumers are willing to pay a premium of £0.20 for six woodland eggs in two supermarkets  UK egg packers are willing to give a price premium of £0.01 for six woodland eggs compared to “free-range” (IGD, 2008) Price (£ per six eggs) of free range and woodland eggs (source: retailers’ websites, April 2014) Benefits (£ ha-1 a-1) Price premium (1 p per 6 eggs) 933 Improved egg quality (less seconds) 327 Sub-total 1260 Financial analysis of woodland eggs (Burgess et al. 2014) Assumed annual costs (£ ha-1 a-1) Loss of more eggs in the field 174 Maintenance cost of trees 60 Sub-total 234 Assumed one-off costs (£ ha-1) Cost of tree planting 380 Reduction in land value 1700 Financial analysis: benefits and costs to the farmer  Assuming a premium of 1 pence per six woodland eggs and an 8% discount rate, a farmer could gain an additional  £700 ha-1 (3500 R$ ha-1) per year over the first 15 years. Economic (societal) benefits Animal welfare:  Injurious feather pecking Bright and Joret (2012) also report reduced injurious feather pecking by laying hens in a woodland environment Ammonia capture and carbon sequestration benefits of the trees is small: less than 0.01 pence per six eggs Amenity value of the trees (calculated using the Arboriculture Asssociation method) may be worth up to 0.18 pence per six eggs Woodland eggs make sense from financial and economic perspectives Unfortunately trees in Europe do not grow as fast as in Brazil  There is increasing interest in tree planting in arable systems, particularly in France where it is possible to grow high value trees within rotations of 40-60 years. Case study 2: Financial analysis of trees in arable systems Biophysical models We cannot wait 60 years, so we use a parameter-sparse biophysical model called Yield-SAFE to describe tree, grass and arable yields on a daily time-step in different combinations   (van der Werf et al, 2007) A more detailed 3-D  model called Hi-sAFe has also been developed by INRA A spreadsheet model to integrate the results of the biophysical model with data on costs, values, and grants, and discount rates Financial analysis using Farm-SAFE Plot management (i.e. crop rotation, date) Weather data Tree parameters Crop parameters Soil parameters Yield-SAFE Biophysical model (daily time-step)                Tree yield Crop yield Agroforestry yields Forestry yields Arable yields Plot management (i.e. discount rate, labour cost) Crop revenue and costs Tree revenue and costs Grants Farm-SAFE Economic model (annual time-step)                Summary of outputs Equivalent annual value (EAV) (2005) of silvoarable systems compared with arable and forestry monocultures in W. France (Graves et al., 2007) Case study 2: Financial analysis for silvoarable systems  Wild cherry Without grants  (€ ha-1 a-1) With EU grants (€ ha-1 a-1) Arable  14  381 Forestry  -111  63 Silvoarable  68  336 Walnut Without grants (€ ha-1 a-1) With EU grants (€ ha-1 a-1) Arable  91  459 Forestry  227  394 Silvoarable  296  504 Equivalent annual value (EAV) (2005) of silvoarable systems compared with arable and forestry monocultures in W. France (Graves et al., 2007) Case study 2: Financial analysis for silvoarable systems  Wild cherry Without grants  (€ ha-1 a-1) With EU grants (€ ha-1 a-1) Arable  14  381 Forestry  -111  63 Silvoarable  68  336 Walnut Without grants (€ ha-1 a-1) With EU grants (€ ha-1 a-1) Arable  91  584 Forestry  227  417 Silvoarable  296  598 Note: these values from 2005 do not include the management and administrative costs associated with complexity A spreadsheet model to integrate the results of the biophysical model with data on costs, values, and grants, and discount rates Economic analysis using Farm-SAFE Plot management (i.e. crop rotation, date) Weather data Tree parameters Crop parameters Soil parameters Yield-SAFE Biophysical model (daily time-step)                Tree yield Crop yield Agroforestry yields Forestry yields Arable yields Plot management (i.e. discount rate, labour cost) Crop revenue and costs Tree revenue and costs Grants Farm-SAFE Economic model (annual time-step)                Summary of outputs Environmental indicators Environmental values Equivalent annual value (EAV) of silvoarable systems relative to arable monoculture, assuming discount rate of 4% (after Andreola, 2014). Environmental services provided by agroforestry Cherry Wild cherry (€ ha-1 a-1) Walnut (€ ha-1 a-1)  Carbon sequestration1  36  99 Improved water quality2  42  42 Improved air quality3  3  3 Sub-total  81  144 1 Assuming Carbon price increasing from 0 in 2020 to £30 per t C from 2050. 2 Assuming reduction in nitrogen leaching 3 Assuming reduction of pollution due to NO2, SO2, PM10 and PM2.5 Conclusions • Through AGFORWARD (www.agforward.eu) the EU is seeking to promote trees in agriculture in Europe • We are working with over 800 farmers and other stakeholders • We are developing existing financial and economic analysis tools (Yield-SAFE and Farm-SAFE) to predict the financial and economic effects of integrated crop-livestock-tree systems, relative to  existing practice • There are systems that work • Tools to address complexity? • Join us at https://www.facebook.com/AgforwardProject References AGFORWARD (2015).  AGFORWARD website.  www.agforward.eu Andreola S (2014).  Assessing the economic externalities of silvoarable agroforestry: an ecosystem services approach. Unpublished MSc thesis September 2014.  Cranfield University    Bright A and Joret A (2012) Laying hens go undercover to improve production. Veterinary Record 170: 228  Burgess, P.J. and Morris, J. (2009).  Agricultural technology and land use futures: the UK case.  Land Use Policy 26S: S222-S229. Burgess PJ, Belot V, Buachie E, Cuartero de Frias F, Nedved K, Rodriguez Arquero E (2014). The economics of woodland eggs in the UK. In: 2nd European Agroforestry Conference 4-6 June 2014, Cottbus, Germany Book of Abstracts. 67-70. Burgess, P.J., Sanchez Martinez, P.J., Williams, A.G. (2015). At what scale should livestock-forest systems be considered? Poster at World Congress of Integrated Crop-Livestock-Forest Systems. 12-17 July 2015, Brasilia, Brazil Burgess PJ, Crous-Duran J, den Herder M, Fagerholm N, Freese D, Garnett K, Graves AR, Hermansen JE, Liagre F, Mirck J, Moreno G, Mosquera-Losada MR, Palma JHN, Pantera A, Plieninger T, Upson M (2015). AGFORWARD Project Periodic Report: January to December 2014. Cranfield University: AGFORWARD. Chatterton, J., Graves, A., Audsley, E., Morris, J., & Williams ,A.(2014). Using systems-based LCA to investigate the environmental and economic impacts and benefits of the livestock sector in the UK.  Journal of Cleaner Production In Press, Accepted Manuscript, Available online 15 July 2014 References Graves, A.R., Burgess, P.J., Palma, J.H.N., Herzog, F., Moreno, G., Bertomeu, M., Dupraz, C., Liagre, F., Keesman, K., van der Werf, W. Koeffeman de Nooy, A. & van den Briel, J.P. (2007).  Development and application of bio-economic modelling to compare silvoarable, arable and forestry systems in three European countries.  Ecological Engineering 29: 434-449. Graves, A.R., Burgess, P.J., Liagre, F., Terreaux, J-P., Borrel, T, Dupraz, C., Palma, J. & Herzog, F. (2011).  Farm-SAFE: the process of developing a plot- and farm-scale model of arable, forestry and silvoarable economics.  Agroforestry Systems 81: 93-108. Palma, J.H.N., Graves, A.R., Bunce, R.G.H., Burgess, P.J., de Filippi, F., Keesman, K.J., van Keulen, H., Liagre, F., Mayus, M., Moreno, G., Reisner, Y. & Herzog, H. (2007).  Modeling environmental benefits of silvoarable agroforestry in Europe.  Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 119: 320-334. Palma, J.H.N., Graves, A.R., Burgess, P.J. & Herzog, F. (2007) Integrating environmental and economic performance to assess modern silvoarable agroforestry in Europe.  Ecological Economics 63: 759-767. Palma, J.H.N., Graves, A.R., Burgess, P.J., Keesman, K.J., van Keulen, H., Mayus, M., Reisner, Y. & Herzog, F. (2007).  Methodological approach for the assessment of environment effects of agroforestry at the landscape scale.  Ecological Engineering 29: 450-462.  Thirtle, C., and Holding, J. (2003) Productivity in UK Agriculture: Causes and Constraints. Report to Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. Wye, Kent: Imperial College van der Werf, W., Keesman, K., Burgess, P.J., Graves, A.R., Pilbeam, D, Incoll, L.D, Metselaar, K., Mayus, M., Stappers, R., van Keulen, H., Palma, J & Dupraz, C. (2007).  Yield-SAFE: a parameter-sparse process-based dynamic model for predicting resource capture, growth and production in agroforestry systems.  Ecological Engineering 29: 419-433.     AGFORWARD (Grant Agreement N° 613520) is co-funded by the European Commission, Directorate General for Research & Innovation, within the 7th Framework Programme of RTD.  The views and opinions expressed in this presentation are purely those of the writers and may not in any circumstances be regarded as stating an official position of the European Commission. www.agforward.eu Thank you 

Financial and economic benefits of integrated crop-livestock-tree systems in Europe

https://www.repository.utl.pt/bitstream/10400.5/9193/1/REP-CEF-ACTAS-Burgess%20et%20al%202015%20presentation.pdf

Financial and economic benefits of integrated crop-livestock-tree systems in Europe

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

UTL Repository