Synergies between mitigation and adaptation to Climate Change in grassland-based farming systems

Agustin DEL PRADO agustin.delprado@bc3research.orgBasque Centre for Climate Change (BC3)

Agnes Van den Pol-van Dasselaar Wageningen UR David Chadwick Bangor UniversityTom Misselbrook North Wyke, Rothamsted Res.Daniel Sandars Cranfield UniversityEric Audsley Cranfield UniversityRosa María Mosquera-Losada USC

"BC3, the world’s second most influential Think Tank in the field of climate change economics and policy." (After the 2013 ICCG Climate Think Tank Ranking. More information at www.bc3research.org).

1. General overview

2. Sinergies/trade-offs mitigation and adaptation

3. Policy implications

Outline

Disclaimer

Climate change mitigation and adaptation

Climate Projections in Europe (IPCC WGII, AR5) (within recognised modelling limitations-Hotter: warmest in S Europe in summer and N Europe in winter (high conf.)

-Rainfall (drier in South, wetter in North-but dry summers) (med. conf.)(less clear in Continental Europe)

-more climate extremes

Most vulnerable (in general): high mountains, South Europe

Heat waves, warm days/nights (high conf.)DroughtsHeavy precipitation (specially N Europe, High Conf)

Impacts of CC on European grasslands(IPCC WGII, AR5)

-Grass species distribution, productivity, quality-Livestock productivity

Complex response: interactions between temp, CO2, O3, extremes, N, water (non-lineal)

Synergies/trade-offs in ClimateChange mitigation&adaptation

Extending the grazing season (for latitudes with increasing growth potential)

Moran et al.(2009)50

60

70

80

90

100

110

120

130

baseline 2020 2050 2080

aver

age

star

t da

y (S

ince

1st

Jan

) of

graz

ing

seas

on

SW YH WA SC

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

baseline 2020 2050 2080

ann

ual

gra

ss g

row

th (t

DM

ha-1

yr-1

)

SW YH WA SC

ba

SW: South WestYH: YorkshireWA: WalesSC: Scotland

Average start day (since 1st of January) of grazing season (a) and average

annual sward biomass in baseline 2020s, 2050s, 2080s scenarios for UK

locations.

Extended growth in spring and fallIncreased summer autumn forage failure by end century (e.g. France: Graux et al., 2011)

Ruminant CH4(unless more imported feed, lessfeed from grazing or silage)

Manure GHG & NH3 (unless limitations in manure removal & application)

Adaptation (more grazing) affects mitigation

Soil N2O, NO3 leaching grazingPre-farm GHGSoil C sinks ?

Adaptation (more grazing) affects other adaptation

Animal Health/welfareSoil qualityMilk/meat qualitySoil Organic matter

Extending the grazing season: interactions

SOM (and C)?

Large interaction grazing, rainfall and SOC

McSherry and Ritchie (2013) GCB

Extending the grazing season

Schoeneberger et al. (2012)

Agroforestry systems

Mitigation

Adaptation

Change microclimate to

-Reduce impacts of extreme events on cropproduction-Maintain forage quality & quantity-Reduce livestock stress

-Provide greater habitat diversity-Provide greater structural and functionalDiversity to protect ES-Create diversified production opportunities

-Carbon sequestration (wood, soil)-Reduce energy use (CO2)-Reduce fertiliser inputs (N2O, CO2)-Enhance forage quality: less CH4

Replacement of permanent grasslands by suitable arable forage crops (e.g. maize)

-Crop suitability will change (but Climatic variability will limit winter crops expansion)

Adapted from-Vellinga and Hoving (2011) NCA-Del Prado et al. (2011b)

Dairy farms: Forage maize vs grassland

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5N2O

CH4

C seq

energy (on-farm)

energy (off-farm)

total GHG

NH3

Nox

NO3-

productivity

grassland-based ploughing some grassland to maize

Values <1 improve conventional farm results

?

The potential for forage legumes

Adapted from Del Prado et al., 2011a STOTEN *

Example: modelled comparison between conventional (grass-based) vs mixed clover & grass-based dairy farms in “typical” dairy farm in Devon (England, UK) :

1. Conventional: raygrass-based (and forage maize) 2. Mixed forage legume (grass+ white clover) (and forage maize) 3. Conventional + optimised* synthetic fertiliser (N use efficiency improved)

GEIs, NH3, NO3-… Sustainability attributes

Values <1 improve conventional farm results

Assumption: no differences in reseeding practices and frequency

For further info about legumes: Luscher et al. (2014) GFS

Agro-industrial by-products (under-utilised)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

OLIVESILAGE

TOMATOSILAGE

OAT HAY

N

NDF

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

Control Olive silage Tomato silage

CH4, l/kg

CH4, l/kg

www.solidairy.eu

David Yañez-Ruiz (pers. com.)

No-tillage

-Promotes soil C sequestration and build-up of SOM

-Method and timing of grassland renovation affects N2O and DM yield (Velthof et al., 2010)

-Non-CO2 emissions: Ploughing effect on N2O is not clear (e.g. Pinto et al., 2004)

Policy implications and specific challenges

-Policies of mitigation and adaptation are considered In separate frameworks (conflicts)

-Not an easy task: mitigation and adaptation differ in space, timing and geographically (Smith & Olesen, 2010)

Complex issue

Climate protection in the new EU CAP

-greening: permanent grassland, crop biodiversity and Ecological focus Areas (EFA)-grazing (via cross-compliance) and AF-Legumes (via EFA), forage legumes?-Rich-species swards ? (Rural Development Programme?)-Agroforestry systems (fire risk areas)

But does not promote-avoid competition between feed and food, unfair competition -most sustainable use of plant residues and agroindustry by-products (feed vs bioenergy vs soil organic matter) -excessive protein import: coupled subsidies to specific sectors (e.g. intensive dairy farming)

Unwanted effects: C leakage

Lassaletta et al., (2014)

Global market of proteins (C leakage)

Effectiveness over different time and spatial scales

-Maintaining or enhancing soil C must be ensured for a long period (N2O, CH4 or energy-based CO2 can not be re-emited)

-Mitigation must be tailored to specific conditions (adaptationgenerally is more specific) and account for N and C cycles interactions to avoid unwanted Pollution or impact trade-offs (e.g pollution swapping)

Challenges

-reference unit: ha (e.g. CAP) vs product (industry) -Other units to factor the fact that some livestock systems heavily compete in the human food chain

Del Prado et al., 2013b STOTEN

Diets that have LESSCompetition withHuman-food

Diets that have MORECompetition withHuman-food

Acknowledgements

EU FACCE-MACSUR

Agustin DEL PRADO, Basque Centre for Climate Change (BC3)

agustin.delprado@bc3research.org