Alistair McVittie

Management of agricultural soils for greenhouse gas mitigation : Learning from a case study in NE Spain

A portfolio of agricultural practices is now available that can contribute to reaching European mitigation targets. Among them, the management of agricultural soils has a large potential for reducing GHG emissions or sequestering carbon. Many of the practices are based on well tested agronomic and technical know-how, with proven benefits for farmers and the environment. A suite of practices has to be used since none of the practices can provide a unique solution. However, there are limitations in the process of policy development: (a) agricultural activities are based on biological processes and thus, these practices are location specific and climate, soils and crops determine their agronomic potential; (b) since agriculture sustains rural communities, the costs and potential for implementation have also to be regionally evaluated and (c) the aggregated regional potential of the combination of practices has to be defined in order to inform abatement targets. We believe that, when implementing mitigation practices, three questions are important: Are they cost-effective for farmers? Do they reduce GHG emissions? What policies favour their implementation? This study addressed these questions in three sequential steps. First, mapping the use of representative soil management practices in the European regions to provide a spatial context to upscale the local results. Second, using a Marginal Abatement Cost Curve (MACC) in a Mediterranean case study (NE Spain) for ranking soil management practices in terms of their cost-effectiveness. Finally, using a wedge approach of the practices as a complementary tool to link science to mitigation policy. A set of soil management practices was found to be financially attractive for Mediterranean farmers, which in turn could achieve significant abatements (e.g., 1.34 MtCO2e in the case study region). The quantitative analysis was completed by a discussion of potential farming and policy choices to shape realistic mitigation policy at European regional level.

Ecosystems and biodiversity

Introduction In this chapter we look at the costs and benefits of three possible interventions that would enhance the planets biodiversity and improve its ecosystems over the next forty years The results are based on a study carried out across four research institutes and coordinated by the Scottish Agricultural College (Hussain etal 2011) that combined a global biophysical model (IMAGE-GLOBIO) which analyzed the biophysical impacts of different development scenarios compared to the counterfactual with a set of valuation studies that placed monetary values on the outcomes resulting from the different policy options in terms of biodiversity and ecosystem services (ESSs) While reference is frequently made in the popular press to biodiversity losses in practice it is difficult to quantify and value them There are several studies that attempt to do this in specific cases but no one has successfully estimated the value of the loss of biodiversity at a global level This is because the links between biodiversity and biolo-gical systems and the economic and social values that they support are extremely complex Even the measurement of biodiversity is problematic with a multi-dimensional metric regarded as appropriate (Purvis and Hector 2000; Mace etal 2003) but with further work considered necessary to define the appropriate combination

Marginal abatement cost curves for UK agriculture, forestry, land-use and land-use change sector out to 2022

Greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture, land use, land use change and forestry (ALULUCF) are a significant percentage of UK industrial emissions. The UK Government is committed to ambitious targets for reducing emissions and all significant industrial sources are coming under increasing scrutiny. The task of allocating shares of future reductions falls to the newly appointed Committee on Climate Change (CCC), which needs to consider efficient mitigation potential across a range of sectors. Marginal abatement cost curves are derived for a range of mitigation measures in the agriculture and forestry sectors over a range of adoption scenarios and for the years 2012, 2017 and 2022. The results indicate that in 2022 around 6.36 MtCO2e could be abated at negative or zero cost. Further, in same year over 17% of agricultural GHG emissions (7.85MtCO2e) could be abated at a cost of less than the 2022 Shadow Price of Carbon (£34tCO2e).

Public Preferences for Rural Policy Reform: Evidence from Scottish Surveys

McVittie A., Moran D. and Elston D. Public preferences for rural policy reform: evidence from Scottish surveys, Regional Studies. Agricultural reform across the European Union has focused debate on how agriculture delivers wider rural objectives. The authors undertook economic valuation and multicriteria studies to explore public preferences for rural policy. The results suggest simultaneous preferences for both environmental and social benefits, notably locally grown food, water quality, wildlife habitats, and maintaining rural communities. The public assigned greatest weight to locally grown food, which is closely linked to them as a direct use and is also routinely transacted for. The multicriteria study yielded a different preference ordering potentially arising from the differing elicitation methods indicating a possible drawback of the approach employed.

Integrating quantitative and qualitative data in assessing the cost-effectiveness of biodiversity conservation programmes

Globally, most biodiversity conservation programmes are not currently evaluated in terms of their costs and benefits, or their rate of return on the original investment. Assessing the cost-effectiveness of such schemes is challenging as the relationship between spending and the effectiveness of conservation is dependent on many biological and socio-economic factors. Here, we evaluate the cost-effectiveness of a selection of species and habitat conservation schemes undertaken through the Scotland Rural Development Programme. We use a combination of quantitative and qualitative data, based on expert knowledge, to estimate effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of different schemes and understand variations in the results. Our findings highlight a lack of geographical targeting in terms of where the funding might achieve the most conservation benefit, which may be contributing to high costs per unit of effectiveness. Recommendations include the need for improved advice on appropriate management and monitoring programmes that are linked closely to objectives. Conservation schemes within Scotland were used as the focus of the study, but the approaches used, interpretations drawn and improvements identified could be applied to any regional, national or international biodiversity conservation programmes. Cost and effectiveness data can be subject to a high degree of uncertainty and hence any cost-effectiveness estimate is subject to a number of caveats. There is therefore a need to focus not only on improving the cost-effectiveness of biodiversity conservation programmes, but also to improve the robustness of cost-effectiveness assessments, in terms of data availability and accuracy and improved monitoring of the outcomes of interventions.

Sustainable Intensification of Agriculture: Impacts on Sustainable Soil Management

There is a growing recognition of the fundamental importance of soils in supporting productive and sustainable agricultural systems. The term sustainable intensification is now widely used to characterise the importance of linking productivity with sustainability. This term recognises the need to maintain or increase food production without increasing the use of land or external inputs. In this chapter, we explore the concepts of sustainable intensification and soil quality and explain how these impact soils in different global regions. The economic impacts of improving soil quality are also considered.