Becky Jenkins Archives | ClimateXChange

Farmers are already experiencing changing weather patterns and extreme events due to climate change and consideration of adaptation actions is very timely.

This report maps the major agricultural activities in Scotland and examines Scotland’s rainfall and temperature projections up to 2030, 2050 and 2100 using UK Climate Projection 18 data, to create a picture of current agricultural activity and future climate.

The study located regions that have a similar climate to what Scotland expects in the future, to identify agricultural products that could be adopted or expanded in Scotland. It also explored published evidence to examine the options for climate change adaptation for farmers in Scotland.

The evidence review identified around 50 adaptation actions suitable for Scottish agriculture that would be feasible in all regions of Scotland before 2030 and are also applicable to 2050 and 2100.

Key findings

Scotland is predicted to have wetter and warmer winters and drier and warmer summers, alongside a higher frequency of extreme events.
The climatically regions in the world comparable to Scotland are limited to northern Europe, parts of western Canada, southern Alaska, southern Chile and Auckland Island.
Relevant cropping activity could be e.g. sugar beet, apples, oats and hops.
Livestock are more adaptable than cropping, so it will be more important to adapt management and improve both natural/green and hard infrastructure, such as shade, shelterbelts and buildings, than completely change breeds and/or species.
Proposed adaptation actions include adjusting planting and harvesting dates, selecting crop types resilient to extreme weather, and adjusting pasture and soil management practices.
Adaptive actions include knowledge transfer and management changes, such as advice provision, early weather warning systems and farmer co-operatives. There are also cross-over actions that support mitigation and adaptation in agriculture and can support biodiversity, such as changes to fertiliser application frequency to improve both inorganic and organic fertiliser use efficiency, improved soil management to better respond to wetter and drier conditions and use of agroforestry.

The report recommends that it is important to act now to increase Scotland’s adaptive capacity, particularly as in the past year Scotland has experienced extreme storms, extreme heat and extended dry periods.

Further details on the findings and a full list of recommendations is available in the report.

If Scotland is to achieve its ambitious net-zero greenhouse gas emissions target by 2045, bioenergy crops present one option as an integral part of the energy supply system.

The Committee on Climate Change (CCC) has identified that under net-zero emissions scenarios, bioenergy supplied in the UK could reach 200TWh (with 170TWh of this sourced from the UK) by 2050. The CCC considered that UK-produced energy crops could be an important source of bioenergy and assumed that around 700,000 ha could be planted in the UK to help achieve this target, although it did not consider where. If it were evenly spread across the arable area of the UK, Scotland’s ‘share’ would be about 70,000 ha.

This report examines the potential for a sustainable expansion of perennial bioenergy crop production on low-grade agricultural land or underutilised land, focusing on short rotation coppice (SRC), miscanthus and short rotation forestry (SRF). The aim was to understand the potential implications of any expansion, as a basis for further discussion.

Key findings

The theoretically suitable total land area identified across all three crops and land types, which include grassland, is more than 900,000 ha; suggesting that Scotland could make a substantial contribution to the area of UK energy crops, and meet its ‘share.’ The theoretically suitable total land area is shown to decline when grassland areas are excluded.

In terms of total area, geospatial modelling shows a theoretical potential for each crop type in Scotland (based on current data) of :

912,600 ha of suitable land is currently available for planting of SRF,
219,100 ha is available for SRC and
51,800 ha is available for miscanthus.

The areas can overlap and are therefore not mutually exclusive.

The majority of this theoretically available land is located in the east of Scotland and the lowlands. The availability of this land will be limited by a range of other factors, for example the need for land for other uses, such as fodder production, forestry (non-energy) etc.

The theoretically available land could provide the following energy yields:

50TWh/yr and 5.78Modt/yr for SRF,
25TWh/yr and 1.75Modt/yr for SRC and
59TWh/yr and 0.52Modt/yr for miscanthus.

Overall constraints are more severe for miscanthus than for SRC or SRF. The following constraints have high impacts on potential production area:

Winter hardiness of miscanthus is a major constraint for this crop in much of Scotland.
Current varieties of miscanthus are constrained by climate to the south and south east of Scotland (Towers, 2013).
Soil carbon loss is a constraint for SRC expansion. There is a large area of land in Scotland with high levels of soil organic carbon and this land is susceptible to loss of soil carbon when it is cultivated. For SRF this constraint is less relevant because there is less soil cultivation but planting of trees on blanket bog (peatland) should be avoided (as recommended in the UK Forestry Standard (Forestry Commission, 2017)) because of habitat loss and carbon loss as a consequence of drainage.

Using a UK Climate Projections 2009 (UKCP09) medium emissions scenario for a changing climate, we found that the expansion in suitable land is between:

22-25% of the current theoretically suitable land area out to 2030 and between 29-30% of the current suitable land area out to 2045 for SRC and miscanthus.
However, the suitable land available for SRF is shown to decline by 3% by 2040.

Overall, the data do show that there are opportunities for energy crop expansion both currently and under a changing climate.

Scotland’s Climate Change Plan includes a policy commitment to reduce emissions from the use and storage of manure and slurry.

Agriculture and associated land use account for 24% of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in Scotland, with methane the most significant proportion of this at 44%. Methane comes from manure and enteric fermentation. The management of manures is therefore a critical element in mitigating the sector’s GHG emissions.

This study examines the feasibility of developing manure exchanges (slurries and farmyard manures) to reduce these emissions.

Main findings

The arisings of manure in Scotland indicate a total available nitrogen supply of 14,700 tonnes per annum from manure, compared with a total utilisation of applied nitrogen of approximately 152,000 tonnes.
A significant proportion of manures could potentially be part of a manure exchange, with just 6% of manure arisings currently reported as being exported from source.
The potential abatement of GHG emissions by offsetting manufactured nitrogen through the substitution of organic manure is limited. Under the most favourable scenario modelled, the potential saving is equivalent to just 0.68% of annual agricultural emissions.
We found three broad examples of schemes which support the movement of manures and would be relevant within the Scottish context: muck-for-straw, manure exports and movement of livestock.
Requirements for nitrogen are greater in all major regions of Scotland than can be supplied by manure sources.
Compared with other European countries, Scotland does not have a significant oversupply of livestock manures at a regional level.
There are environmental challenges associated with manure and slurry production and storage at an enterprise level, particularly for water quality. The potential for local surpluses has therefore been the focus of this study.
Surpluses of manure can lead to localised environmental impacts if they are not managed correctly. The factors influencing the success of manure exchanges rely on the recognition of costs and barriers and on investment in establishing agreements.
A strategic, regional or national scale exchange model is unlikely to be cost effective for GHG gas abatement. However, there is some potential to support exchanges of manure through improved local distribution (i.e. within a holding or with close neighbours).
The most useful measures are those that focus on the utilisation of manure nutrient value and that form part of an integrated policy alongside other drivers such as water quality (Water Framework Directive), Nitrate Vulnerable Zones, air quality and productivity.

Scotland’s Climate Change Plan makes a policy commitment to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from nitrogen fertiliser through improved understanding, efficient application and better soil condition.

This report considers the potential for nitrogen and urease inhibitors to support emission reductions in Scotland, considering Scottish circumstances and conditions, such as soils, crops, rainfall and temperature.

These inhibitors are particularly important for those who are modelling both GHG emissions and air quality. However, while some studies provide consistent messages concerning the evidence of their effectiveness and their impacts on the wider environment, others are contradictory.

Main findings

The evidence indicates that:

There is generally a positive potential impact of inhibitors on GHG and ammonia emissions under Scottish conditions, especially for nitrification inhibitors.
There are no significant concerns over the efficacy of inhibitors in Scotland. Low uptake relates to the niche market; inhibitors are primarily supplied for agronomic benefit with relatively marginal economic gains in most circumstances.
While the efficacy of inhibitors has been confirmed by the review, there remain uncertainties over the magnitude of emissions reductions. There are also questions relating to the environmental risk, trade-offs with potential emission/pollution switching, industry knowledge and practical implementation.
The persistence of the effects for both nitrification and urease inhibitors are likely to be impacted by a warmer climate, although any impact is likely to be minimal. Emissions from unabated fertilisers are expected to increase as climate change progresses. Under these conditions, the role of inhibitors as a tool in mitigating emissions becomes increasingly important.

The evidence for environmental risks includes:

There is little evidence exploring the impacts of N inhibitors on soil health and on impacts to non-target and nitrifying organisms.
Use of nitrification inhibitors can lead to increases in ammonia emissions. However, alongside this, there are benefits for other environmental indicators (particularly GHG emissions and nitrate leaching). The potential increase in ammonia emissions can be mitigated by use of nitrification and urease inhibitors together.
Some research highlights the risk of DCD (dicyandiamide – a nitrification inhibitor) leaching into surface and ground waters. This can have adverse effects on aquatic systems.
There are concerns regarding animal consumption (directly or via traces found on grass/hay) as DCD has been found in dairy products in New Zealand. This led to DCD being banned in New Zealand.
Increased risk of ammonia release from use of nitrification inhibitors will have adverse impacts on ecosystem biodiversity through deposition and increased N loading to sensitive sites.

The main practical/commercial considerations are:

Nitrification and urease inhibitors are not widely used due to poor cost effectiveness under conventional economic analysis at farm gate (i.e. not considering externalities of environmental or societal costs).
In the agriculture industry, there remains significant misunderstanding over the roles and practical application of inhibited fertilisers.
Investment in nitrification inhibitors will not be driven by market pull. Stakeholders feel N inhibitors are not currently attractive prospects for increased investment.
Urease inhibitors are more commercially viable (compared with nitrification inhibitors) and have potential economic benefits due to the potentially high emissions of ammonia losing significant N content. Interest and awareness of urease inhibitors is greater.
Price sensitivity: farmers in the UK are very sensitive to fertiliser price and will seek the most cost-effective source of N. A perception of little or no economic value in inhibited fertilisers will discourage adoption.

Main findings

The evidence indicates that:

There is generally a positive potential impact of inhibitors on GHG and ammonia emissions under Scottish conditions, especially for nitrification inhibitors.
There are no significant concerns over the efficacy of inhibitors in Scotland. Low uptake relates to the niche market; inhibitors are primarily supplied for agronomic benefit with relatively marginal economic gains in most circumstances.
While the efficacy of inhibitors has been confirmed by the review, there remain uncertainties over the magnitude of emissions reductions. There are also questions relating to the environmental risk, trade-offs with potential emission/pollution switching, industry knowledge and practical implementation.
The persistence of the effects for both nitrification and urease inhibitors are likely to be impacted by a warmer climate, although any impact is likely to be minimal. Emissions from unabated fertilisers are expected to increase as climate change progresses. Under these conditions, the role of inhibitors as a tool in mitigating emissions becomes increasingly important.

The evidence for environmental risks includes:

There is little evidence exploring the impacts of N inhibitors on soil health and on impacts to non-target and nitrifying organisms.
Use of nitrification inhibitors can lead to increases in ammonia emissions. However, alongside this, there are benefits for other environmental indicators (particularly GHG emissions and nitrate leaching). The potential increase in ammonia emissions can be mitigated by use of nitrification and urease inhibitors together.
Some research highlights the risk of DCD (dicyandiamide – a nitrification inhibitor) leaching into surface and ground waters. This can have adverse effects on aquatic systems.
There are concerns regarding animal consumption (directly or via traces found on grass/hay) as DCD has been found in dairy products in New Zealand. This led to DCD being banned in New Zealand.
Increased risk of ammonia release from use of nitrification inhibitors will have adverse impacts on ecosystem biodiversity through deposition and increased N loading to sensitive sites.

The main practical/commercial considerations are:

Nitrification and urease inhibitors are not widely used due to poor cost effectiveness under conventional economic analysis at farm gate (i.e. not considering externalities of environmental or societal costs).
In the agriculture industry, there remains significant misunderstanding over the roles and practical application of inhibited fertilisers.
Investment in nitrification inhibitors will not be driven by market pull. Stakeholders feel N inhibitors are not currently attractive prospects for increased investment.
Urease inhibitors are more commercially viable (compared with nitrification inhibitors) and have potential economic benefits due to the potentially high emissions of ammonia losing significant N content. Interest and awareness of urease inhibitors is greater.
Price sensitivity: farmers in the UK are very sensitive to fertiliser price and will seek the most cost-effective source of N. A perception of little or no economic value in inhibited fertilisers will discourage adoption.