MacLeod, M

English

The purpose of this note is to derive an updated estimate of the land use change (LUC) emissions embedded in feed imported into the UK

SRUC - Scotland's Rural College

Estimating the land use change GHG emissions embedded in crops imported into the UK for feedMichael MacLeod, 14/6/23IntroductionThe purpose of this note is to derive an updated estimate of the land use change (LUC) emissions embedded in feed imported into the UK. To date, we have used the emission factor for LUC derived in GLEAM v 1.0 (see MacLeod et al. 2013), which is now out of date. GLEAM 3.0 uses a new approach to estimating LUC emissions, based on Pendrill et al. (2020) (FAO 2022, p97). A similar approach is used for the indicators used to underpin the Defra’s “25 Year Plan” https://oifdata.defra.gov.uk/themes/ (see Croft et al. 2021, Molotoks and West 2021). The explanation in FAO (2022, p97) implies that it is only emissions from deforestation (rather than other LUC) that are included:“In this version of GLEAM it has been decided to scale up the estimation of emissions associated to land use change adopting the model by Pendrill et al. (2020). It quantified how much and where deforestation occurs from the expansion of croplands and pasture and what products are grown on this converted land.”This slightly different to GLEAM v1.0 which included the conversion of forest and shrubland but was limited to LUC occurring in Brazil and Argentina. Trends in LUC EFCroft et al. (2021) report about 3000ha deforestation per year in Brazil in 2017 from soy imported into the UK, which results in ~ 1MtCO2e, i.e. ~300tCO2e/ha. Dividing by the net imports of soycake and bean in FAOstat gives an EF for LUC of ~0.4kgCO2e/kg soy. This is lower than the GLEAM v1.0 EF of 3.25kgCO2e/kg soy but the difference may be explained by: (a) reduced fraction of UK soy is from Argentina and Brazil (compared to 2005) and (b) rates of deforestation in the Amazon have decreased since 2005 (which used the 1987-2007 rate of LUC). Croft et al. (2021) provide downloadable background data (https://hub.jncc.gov.uk/assets/709e0304-0460-4f83-9dcd-3fb490f5e676 ), including time series of the deforestation areas and emissions by commodity. We can calculate the LUC EF for each commodity from these (Figure 1). The EI declines over time in response to a reduction in the amount of soy imported from Brazil and a reduction in the rates of deforestation in Brazil and Argentina (Figure 2). However, over this period imports from Argentina increased – do Croft et al. (2021) include emissions from LUC not involving deforestation, e.g. from the conversion of grassland or shrubland? These may be significant source of emissions in Argentina. Figure 1. EF for deforestation from soybeans imported into the UK (Croft et al. 2021)Figure 2. Rates of deforestation In Argentina and Brazil due to UK crop demand (Croft et al. 2021) and area of Amazon forest lost due to all demandHow much of the imported crops are used for feed?AHDB (2023a, b) provide estimates of UK cereals supply and usage, broken down into animal feed and other uses (see Appendix B). They also provide estimates of GB animal feed production (and by livestock type) including imported feeds such as soy. We can use these to estimate the amount of the deforestation emissions reported in Croft et al. (2021) that should be allocated to feed (Table 1). Three crops dominate: oil palm fruit, soybeans and maize. The estimate for oil palm fruit (mainly from Indonesia) is uncertain as the % of this crop used for feed is unknown. Most of the deforestation emissions are likely to be associated with soybeans (from Brazil and Paraguay) and maize (mainly Brazil). Table 1. Estimated deforestation GHG arising from imported feed materials (based on Croft et al. 2021)		Feed GHG (ktCO2e)	Implied EF (kgCO2e/kg fresh)Material	Assumed % used for feed	Inc. peat drainage	Exc. peat drainage	Inc. peat drainage	Exc. peat drainageOil palm fruit	5%	207	119	1.01	0.58Soybeans	100%	1,267	1,158	0.37	0.33Maize	64%	659	545	0.14	0.12Total		2,133 	1,822 		Table 2. Soymeal and maize deforestation EI expressed in terms of dry matter.Feed material	Deforestation EI	UnitsSoymeal EI (inc. peat)	0.38	kgCO2e/kgDMSoymeal EI (exc. peat)	0.35	kgCO2e/kgDMMaize EI (inc. peat)	0.17	kgCO2e/kgDMMaize EI (exc. peat)	0.14	kgCO2e/kgDMIt is worth noting that the EI for soymeal is lower than the LUC EI of 3.25kgCO2e/kgDM that was used in GLEAM v 1.0 for the UK. This is because rates of deforestation driven by UK crop demand have decreased in Brazil and Argentina between 2005 and 2017 (Figure 2). This is the result of reduced total deforestation rates in Argentina and Brazil and a decrease in the proportion of UK soy imported from Brazil. Appendix A shows that the LUC EF calculated using the GLEAM v1 method produces a similar EF to Croft et al. (2021) when the assumptions are updated. How do imported feed LUC GHG compare to domestic agricultural GHG?In order to put the imported feed LUC emissions in context, we can compare them with UK agricultural emissions (Table 3). They appear to be a small but significant source of GHG, and would have been a major source of GHGs in the past, when the UK was importing much more soy from Brazil (and when the rates of deforestation were higher). Need to check:How significant are non-deforestation LUC emissions given how much soy we now import from Argentina? (check PAS 2050 guidance, Argentina’s inventory, FAOstat land use stats, Frank et al. 2020). Given that deforestation now illegal (though illegal deforestation still occurs) the main LUC is likely to be conversion of natural steppe/shrubland to cropland and grassland (Frank et al. 2020), which probably has fairly modest LUC GHG emissions for soy, but might have a significant impact in terms of biodiversity loss via intensification, loss of habitat, use of pesticides etc.How much palm oil is used in feed?Table 3. UK GHG emissions reported for 2020 in the UK 2022 inventory and estimated LUC for imported soy, palm oil and maize used for feed (in 2017)GHG category	MtCO2eEnteric fermentation	30.5Agricultural soils	11.6Manure management	7.1Liming	0.9Other (please specify)	0.3Urea application	0.2	Imported feed LUC	2.1ReferencesAHDB (2023a) UK cereals supply and demand estimates https://ahdb.org.uk/cereals-oilseeds/uk-cereals-supply-demand-balance-sheets AHDB (2023b) GB animal feed production https://ahdb.org.uk/cereals-oilseeds/cereal-use-in-gb-animal-feed-production Croft, S., West, C., Harris, M., Otley, A. & Way, L. 2021. Towards indicators of the global  environmental impacts of UK consumption: Embedded Deforestation. JNCC Report No. 681, JNCC, Peterborough, ISSN 0963-8091. https://hub.jncc.gov.uk/assets/709e0304-0460-4f83-9dcd-3fb490f5e676 FAO (2022) GLOBAL LIVESTOCK ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT MODEL Model description. December 2022. Version 3.0 Data reference year: 2015. Rome: FAOFrank F., Sirimarco X., Barral M.P., Martínez P.G., Villarino S. and Monjeau A. (2020), “Pathways to Sustainable Land-Use and Food Systems in Argentina by 2050” In: FABLE 2020, Pathways to Sustainable Land-Use and Food Systems, 2020 Report of the FABLE Consortium. Laxenburg and Paris: International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA) and Sustainable Development Solutions Network (SDSN), pp. 63-93. https://doi.org/10.22022/ESM/12-2020.16896 MacLeod, M., P. Gerber, A. Mottet, G. Tempio, A. Falcucci, C. Opio, T. Vellinga, B. Henderson & H. Steinfeld (2013) Greenhouse gas emissions from pig and chicken supply chains – A global life cycle assessment. Rome: FAOMolotoks A and West C. Which forest-risk commodities imported to the UK have the highest overseas impacts? A rapid evidence synthesis [version 1; peer review: 2 approved with reservations]. Emerald Open Res 2021, 3:22 (https://doi.org/10.35241/emeraldopenres.14306.1 Pendrill, F., Persson,U.M., & Kastner, T. 2020. Deforestation risk embodied in production and consumption of agricultural and forestry commodities 2005-2017. Chalmers University of Technology, Senckenberg Society for Nature Research, SEI, and Ceres Inc. doi: 10.5281/zenodo.4250532. zenodo.org/record/4250532#.YIfHP-gzZPYAppendix A. LUC approach used in GLEAM v1 compared to v3“Emissions related to LUC were taken from PAS2050 guidelines (BSI, 2008) that estimate deforestation (conversion of forest to annual cropland) releases in Brazil at an average 37 t CO2-eq/ha, and conversion of forest and shrub land to annual crop in Argentina at 17 and 2.2 t CO2-eq per ha, respectively. GHG emissions from soybean-driven LUC were calculated as the accumulated emissions for one year resulting from the total area deforested during the period 1987–2007 divided by the total soybean production in 2007.Based on this data, two LUC EIs were estimated for soybean cake produced in Brazil and Argentina, respectively: 7.69 and 0.93 kg CO2-eq/kg soybean cake. Soybeans and soybean cake produced elsewhere were assumed not to be associated with LUC.” MacLeod et al. (2013, p133)LUC EF calculated using the GLEAM v1 method and different assumptionsTable A1 shows the UK soy LUC EF used in GLEAM 1 (scenario 1) and calculated using the same method but different values for key parameters (scenario 2-4). Adjusting the import rates and rates of deforestation to 2017 values (scenario 4) gives an EF for soycake that is similar to the value reported in Croft et al. (2021) – see Figure 1. Table A1 UK soy EF calculated using the GLEAM 1 method and varying key parametersScenario	1	2	3	4Parameters changing		Import rates	Import rates	Import ratesParameters changing			Deforestation rate Brazil	Deforestation rate BrazilParameters changing				Deforestation rate Argentina				Year of soy production	2005	2017-2021	2017-2021	2017LUC time frame	1987-2007	1987-2007	2017-2021	2017				Net soybean import (t cake eq)	618,911 	564,865 	564,865 	596,363 Net soycake import (t cake)	1,625,942 	1,975,673 	1,975,673 	1,837,211 % beans imported from Brazil	84%	58%	58%	70%% beans imported from Argentina	0%	0%	0%	0%% cake imported from Brazil	26%	7%	7%	2%% cake imported from Argentina	9%	56%	56%	66%				Brazil LUC EF (kgCO2e/kg cake)	7.69	7.69	3.65	2.94Argentina LUC EF (kgCO2e/kg cake)	0.93	0.93	0.93	0.00UK all soy LUC EF (kgCO2e/kg cake)	3.25	1.80	1.07	0.55Total LUC from feed in GLEAM v1 and v3Total global land use change emissions arising from feed production reported in GLEAM are given in Table A2. The total LUC emissions are similar in 2005 and 2015, but the decrease in emissions from other feed has been offset by an increase in emissions from pasture expansion. The decrease in the “Other feed” LUC is consistent with the trend in deforestation in Figure 2.Table A2 Total global land use change emissions arising from feed production reported in GLEAM v1 (for 2005) and GLEAM v2 (for 2015). “Grassland” refers to pasture expansion and “Other feed” to LUC induced by feed crops and by-products from food products used as feed.Commodity	LUC type	GLEAM v1 (2005)	GLEAM v3 (2015)	UnitsAll livestock	Grassland	400	574	MtCO2eAll livestock	Other feed	230	100	MtCO2eAll livestock	Total	630	673	MtCO2eNotes on the method used by Croft et al. (2021), which is based on Pendrill et al. (2019), as is the method used in GLEAM v3.Deforestation only, doesn’t include other LUCDeforestation emissions in a given year are allocated to the subsequent 5 years (what period was used in PAS 2050 – 20 years?)Appendix B. UK feed productionAHDB (2023b) report that GB feed production is dominated by wheat, barley, soy and OSR (Table B1). Of these only soya products are likely to be associated with significant deforestation (Croft et al. 2021). Other commodities that are associated with deforestation are likely to either make up a small proportion of overall feed (i.e. oil palm fruit) or comprise a modest proportion of feed and have a lower EI for deforestation (i.e. maize). Why is feed usage higher in Table B2 than in B1? Maybe B2 is all feed (including grains bought directly or grown by farmers for feed), whereas Table B1 is materials bought by feed companies only? Regarding the data in Table B1, the AHDB state that: “This information shows the volume of animal feed produced by manufacturers in GB and the amount of raw materials used in the process. It is updated each month and is used to produce the UK cereals supply and demand estimates.”Table B1. GB animal feed production (for the main feed materials, i.e. those accounting for >1% of production), based on AHDB (2023b)Feed material	Annual production (kt) 2018-2023 averageWheat	3353Barley	1256Soya cake and meal**	1226Wheat feed	933Oilseed rape cake and meal	663Minerals	501Whole and flaked maize	443Other oilseed cake and meal	424Other materials**	395Sunflower cake and meal	324Distillery by-products	305Molasses	291Dried sugar beet pulp	272Oil and fat	234Other cereals by-products	230Confectionery by-products	197Table B2. UK cereal supply and demand estimates (AHDB 2023a) 	2016-2021 average (kt)Supply	Wheat	Barley	MaizeOpening stocks	2122	1199	240UK production	13731	7300	0Imports	1799	88	2418Total availability	17652	8587	2658Demand	 	 	 Human and industrial consumption	7279	1829	765Feed	7165	4147	1367Seed and other	334	230	4Total domestic consumption	14778	6206	2132Balance	2874	2381	526Exports	732	1214	161

Estimating the land use change GHG emissions embedded in crops imported into the UK for feed

https://pure.sruc.ac.uk/files/72679808/soy_LUC_june_2023.docx

Estimating the land use change GHG emissions embedded in crops imported into the UK for feed

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

SRUC - Scotland's Rural College