Download Climate change impacts on the livestock sector

General enquiries on this form should be made to:
Defra, Science Directorate, Management Support and Finance Team,
Telephone No. 020 7238 1612
E-mail:
[email protected]
SID 5



Research Project Final Report
Note
In line with the Freedom of Information
Act 2000, Defra aims to place the results
of its completed research projects in the
public domain wherever possible. The
SID 5 (Research Project Final Report) is
designed to capture the information on
the results and outputs of Defra-funded
research in a format that is easily
publishable through the Defra website. A
SID 5 must be completed for all projects.
1.
Defra Project code
2.
Project title
This form is in Word format and the
boxes may be expanded or reduced, as
appropriate.
3.
ACCESS TO INFORMATION
The information collected on this form will
be stored electronically and may be sent
to any part of Defra, or to individual
researchers or organisations outside
Defra for the purposes of reviewing the
project. Defra may also disclose the
information to any outside organisation
acting as an agent authorised by Defra to
process final research reports on its
behalf. Defra intends to publish this form
on its website, unless there are strong
reasons not to, which fully comply with
exemptions under the Environmental
Information Regulations or the Freedom
of Information Act 2000.
Defra may be required to release
information, including personal data and
commercial information, on request under
the Environmental Information
Regulations or the Freedom of
Information Act 2000. However, Defra will
not permit any unwarranted breach of
confidentiality or act in contravention of
its obligations under the Data Protection
Act 1998. Defra or its appointed agents
may use the name, address or other
details on your form to contact you in
connection with occasional customer
research aimed at improving the
processes through which Defra works
with its contractors.
SID 5 (Rev. 3/06)
Project identification
AC0307
Climate change impacts on the livestock sector
Contractor
organisation(s)
SAC Commercial Ltd
Kings Buildings
West Mains Rd
Edinburgh
EH9 3JG
54. Total Defra project costs
(agreed fixed price)
5. Project:
Page 1 of 24
£
199,661
start date ................
01 April 2007
end date .................
31 March 2009
6. It is Defra’s intention to publish this form.
Please confirm your agreement to do so. ................................................................................... YES
NO
(a) When preparing SID 5s contractors should bear in mind that Defra intends that they be made public. They
should be written in a clear and concise manner and represent a full account of the research project
which someone not closely associated with the project can follow.
Defra recognises that in a small minority of cases there may be information, such as intellectual property
or commercially confidential data, used in or generated by the research project, which should not be
disclosed. In these cases, such information should be detailed in a separate annex (not to be published)
so that the SID 5 can be placed in the public domain. Where it is impossible to complete the Final Report
without including references to any sensitive or confidential data, the information should be included and
section (b) completed. NB: only in exceptional circumstances will Defra expect contractors to give a "No"
answer.
In all cases, reasons for withholding information must be fully in line with exemptions under the
Environmental Information Regulations or the Freedom of Information Act 2000.
(b) If you have answered NO, please explain why the Final report should not be released into public domain
Executive Summary
7.
The executive summary must not exceed 2 sides in total of A4 and should be understandable to the
intelligent non-scientist. It should cover the main objectives, methods and findings of the research, together
with any other significant events and options for new work.
SID 5 (Rev. 3/06)
Page 2 of 24
This report considers the issue of climate change adaptation as it applies to the UK livestock sector
comprising the beef, dairy, sheep, pigs and poultry industries. Beyond an understanding of direct impacts
from warming, a key policy consideration relates to indirect or ancillary costs that might arise incidental to
any accelerated private adaptation decision-making. That is, how changing patterns of autonomous or
private on-farm adaptation responses might exacerbate external impacts in terms of animal welfare from
heat stress, disease and diffuse pollution to water and air. In relation to the latter, an important
consideration is how adaptation responses potentially undermine other environmental objectives including
greenhouse gas mitigation strategies.
In this report, UKCIP 02 climate projections are applied across a representative set of UK regions to
determine potential impacts across the main livestock categories. This information is developed with a
view to quantifying a range of significant impact categories that can be expected under a central warming
scenario. These impacts are necessarily limited to those that we currently consider most significant in
terms of the potential cost to the industries and wider society.
Economic damage estimates are then derived for these impacts under a business as usual scenario,
which assumes that animal numbers remain stable and that autonomous adaptation does not occur.
While there is potential for under-estimating autonomous adaptation, and therefore over-estimating
damage costs, this analysis provides an initial estimate of the value at risk in livestock sectors and
beyond, and will be indicative of the likely adaptations required.
The relevant impact categories include pastoral/grassland productivity, waste generation (by livestock),
heat stress, and disease. In-field management decisions can also be expected to impact upon biodiversity
and potentially water quality. However, identifying the potential impacts of adaptations is beyond the
scope of this project. In sketching out the impacts resulting from the warming scenario, we also have to
assume certain behavioural responses by producers and in some cases, the distinction between an
impact and an adaptation is blurred.
The effect of climate change on pastoral systems and regions is likely to increase grass production.
Increased forage availability could increase the annual grazing period by a maximum of five weeks for
cattle systems, and seven weeks for sheep systems. In most regions this will allow animals to be kept
outdoors for longer, and could mean a potential reduction in the proportion of the year that animals require
housing and/or access to conserved forages. The changes in length of the grass growth season are
generally more substantial in northerly than in southerly regions. Changes in husbandry in response to
changes in forage availability may lead to greater potential gains in terms of private productivity. However,
any change will also have potential welfare and disease exposure consequences. For example, a
prolonged grazing season extends the exposure to environmental populations of parasites and pathogens.
Increased grass/grazing can also imply an increase in the acidifying gases and, in the case of the beef
and dairy sectors, diffuse pollution loading. The increases in acidifying gases are mainly due to increases
in ammonia emissions from slurry. The net global warming impact of the two gases (methane and nitrous
oxide) will decrease: on the one hand we predict a reduction in the emissions of nitrous oxide for all
sectors. But this will be offset by increased methane emissions due to ruminants being fed more grass
and forage. There are some variations between regions for all the livestock types, and the magnitude of
the change tends to increase with time for all the environmental pollutants.
Climate change, including extreme events, will also affect animal systems and transportation, leading to
production and functional losses and increased potential mortality and morbidity costs. We predict that by
2080 mortality costs related to heat stress could amount to around £34 million (present value). These
represent private losses and we can expect industry to adapt if guided by appropriate regulatory reform
and surveillance. The addition of extreme events to gradual climate change may provide a “shock” to
livestock systems. The results show that the damages due to a warming climate will be amplified with the
additional stress of extreme events, such as a heat wave. Also, some of the impacts of climate change on
animal production and functionality (e.g., health and welfare) may be further exacerbated by adaptations
farmers make in other areas of the farming system, such as taking advantage of a longer growing season
and keeping animals outdoors for longer periods, thus increasing livestock exposure to prevailing weather
conditions.
Some of the private adaptations that livestock keepers will put in place to minimise the impact of climate
change will not have a large cost (e.g., changing grazing patterns, introducing shelter belts in fields).
However, some adaptations may require larger scale interventions and therefore higher costs (e.g., new
buildings, introduction of mechanical ventilation/heating) which some livestock keepers may not be able to
afford.
SID 5 (Rev. 3/06)
Page 3 of 24
Climate change has the potential to drive outbreaks of highly infectious exotic disease in the UK livestock
industries. Our understanding of the disease risks and impacts (both endemic and exotic) of climate
change are limited by data that are required to inform predictive modelling, although the climate signal is
likely to increase the risk of exposure of livestock to a range of pathogens and parasites (some may
decline). Climate matching techniques offer immediate returns in highlighting diseases of immediate
concern for future research, however, process based modelling techniques offer the potential for
increased predictive power.
Despite the lack of more specific climate-epidemiology modelling, some existing evidence suggests that
episodes of certain diseases can lead to significant economic impacts within and beyond the sector.
There is also an increased potential for accelerated drug resistance.
For each of the preceding impact categories we consider the nature of any adaptation responses and
whether there are unanticipated external costs occasioned by private adaptation choices. Overall, we do
not yet find compelling evidence on social costs in terms of increased greenhouse gases from
management changes, though the impacts of diffuse pollution to water may warrant further investigation in
terms of linking waste generation to water quality objectives in specific receiving waters. Nevertheless we
consider that public adaptation needs are often convergent with the aims of existing national and EU
environmental regulations (e.g. climate change mitigation plans or Nitrates Directive). We suggest a need
for further examination of extreme event information, and for detailed modelling of new disease threats.
The broad conclusion we reach at this point is that while there is a need to adapt to climate changes, the
extent of required adaptation is largely within the capacity of the livestock industry and can be motivated
by information to provoke an attitudinal shift and increased awareness that climate change presents
certain risks that need to be factored into farm and production planning. Relevant information includes
clear data on the potential frequency and magnitude of extreme events. Information provision is simply a
basis of facilitating informed private action. In addition to improved scenario information, some regulatory
reform may also be required to accommodate changing housing and transportation requirements.
In the case of disease, the returns to anticipatory disease surveillance investments already yield
demonstrably good rates of return, and will therefore continue to be a good adaptation strategy. Rapid
identification of emergent disease challenges is often a critical factor affecting the effort required for
control. Consideration should be given to more pro-active early warning systems and the potential use of
fast throughput screening technologies deployed outside of and within the UK. Instigation of long term
parasite and pathogen monitoring schemes would greatly improve our capacity to accurately predict
emergent disease challenges to the livestock industries that are driven by climate change. Proposed costsharing instruments can also be considered part of a rational public adaptation strategy that attempts to
modify producer behaviour and re- allocated responsibility for disease costs.
The agenda suggested here does not currently represent a radical change from the gradual autonomous
adaptation that characterises the adjustments different parts of the industry have had to undertake in
response to market liberalisation and other changes over the last two decades.
Some attention also needs to be given to the synergies and interactions between mitigation efforts and
adaptation goals. Considering the two climate change responses in isolation may lead to trade-offs and
maladaptations, undermining the response of the agricultural sector as a whole. Specifically, ways in
which a more immediate greenhouse gas mitigation agenda will influence adaptive capacity, and
conversely, how adaptation actions may affect mitigation efforts.
The project used input from industry experts to gain insights into priority actions in relation to adapting to
climate change. This information suggested that adaptation decisions are a low priority relative to more
immediate business re-structuring in the face of changing market conditions. To the extent that climate
change figures in decisions, it is the more immediate mitigation obligations that are gradually being
factored in as potential business costs. Adaptations may be considered only to the extent that: a) climate
scenarios and damage information can be made more specific; and b) that these are incidental to, or
convergent with, improving financial rates of return. To date there is little evidence suggesting a clear
case for the latter. Information from the same experts also assisted in drawing up a range of potential
adaptation options and their costs. Qualitative and quantitative surveys were then used to identify options
and how these are ranked by industry participants.
This report can be viewed as a contribution to the national requirement to develop an adaptation economic
analysis (AEA) within the context of the Climate Change Risk Assessment (CCRA) (See Watkiss et al
2009). This exercise presents a first attempt to integrate impact and valuation information as a basis of
deciding whether livestock impacts are significant and where these impacts fit within (agricultural) sector
and national priorities.
SID 5 (Rev. 3/06)
Page 4 of 24
Project Report to Defra
8.
As a guide this report should be no longer than 20 sides of A4. This report is to provide Defra with
details of the outputs of the research project for internal purposes; to meet the terms of the contract; and
to allow Defra to publish details of the outputs to meet Environmental Information Regulation or
Freedom of Information obligations. This short report to Defra does not preclude contractors from also
seeking to publish a full, formal scientific report/paper in an appropriate scientific or other
journal/publication. Indeed, Defra actively encourages such publications as part of the contract terms.
The report to Defra should include:
 the scientific objectives as set out in the contract;
 the extent to which the objectives set out in the contract have been met;
 details of methods used and the results obtained, including statistical analysis (if appropriate);
 a discussion of the results and their reliability;
 the main implications of the findings;
 possible future work; and
 any action resulting from the research (e.g. IP, Knowledge Transfer).
SID 5 (Rev. 3/06)
Page 5 of 24
Climate change impacts on the livestock sector
1. Introduction
This report considers the issue of climate change adaptation as it applies to the UK livestock sector comprising
the beef, dairy, sheep, and poultry industries. Climate change has climbed steadily up the list of government
priorities with the Stern Review (2006) providing a compelling economic case for advancing spending on
mitigation. Climate projections from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) indicate warming
trajectories of global temperature ranges between 1.4 and 5.8ºC by 2100. There is considerable uncertainty
attached to these projections, as well as to the expected impacts and responses to them. While the EU has set a
target of not exceeding a 2 ºC increase, we believe the possibility that this target will not be met must also be
considered.
The objective of this project was to predict the impact of climate change on the UK livestock industry and to
assess efficient adaptation. The emphasis of this project is on gaining an understanding of the nature of the risks
that might arise to the public interest, their extent and their value, and the policy interventions that are then
required. The specific objectives of the project were: (i) Carry out a review to estimate future livestock numbers
and location; (ii) Develop a range of climate scenarios; (iii) Model changes to grassland/forage production arising
from climate change; (iv) Develop an impacts inventory across key livestock species; (v) Value the impacts
endpoints in monetary terms; (vi) Develop an adaptations inventory; (vii) Carry out a cost-benefit appraisal of
adaptation plans; (viii) Appraise the distributional implications of efficient adaptation plans; (ix) Provide
recommendations on optimal adaptation in the UK livestock sector; and (x) Carry out reporting and
communications. We feel we have addressed and largely met all the objectives specified with the exception of
objectives (vii) and (viii), which entail a definitive cost-benefit analysis of adaptation plans (vii) and an appraisal of
the distributional impacts of undertaking the adaptations that are deemed to be economically efficient (viii). As
this project has progressed, it has become apparent that conventional cost-benefit appraisal is less appropriate
for judging investment options where: a) the impact endpoints are biologically complex and therefore difficult to
value; b) where there is high uncertainty in terms of impacts; c) the time horizon is potentially greater than 30
years; d) where periodic learning is likely to require a flexible approach to investment decision and a need to be
adaptive to change with new technologies. These conditions are recognised in the proposal for the Climate
Change Risk Assessment, which proposes a periodic review of the information
Agriculture is both affected by climate impacts as well as being a net contributor to climate change through
emissions of greenhouse gases (GHGs), particularly methane and nitrous oxide. The agricultural sector can also
offer a range of cost-effective mitigation options (for reducing methane and nitrous oxide) in livestock production
practices such as nutritional management and waste disposal, but this is beyond the scope of this report, which
focuses on adapting to the impacts of climate change. In policy terms, mitigation has until now taken precedence
over adaptation, but there is growing recognition that some degree of climate change is now inevitable and hence
the importance of an effective adaptation response, as well as consideration of the synergies between adaptation
and mitigation.
Due to weather dependence, agriculture is arguably the most vulnerable sector regarding the effects of climate
change in the UK. This is important because while the conventional economic contribution of the sector may be
small, its role in the provision of public goods 1 (e.g. ecosystem goods and services) is significant. How agriculture
adapts to maintain productivity and a strong resilient sector, and how this in turn affects the provision of public
goods, potentially have wider consequences for social well being. The impacts need to be factored into any
public policy response and associated investment decisions.
Adaptation is therefore an important public policy priority. Adaptation policy differs from mitigation policy for
several reasons. The first is that although climate science is becoming more categorical in terms of the
relationships between greenhouse gas concentrations and dangerous climate change, there is still much
uncertainty about global scenarios on emissions and the downscaled consequences of climate impacts at
regional and local scales. This uncertainty does not affect promoting efficient policies to meet mitigation targets
for compliance with international agreements. That is, mitigation policy decisions do not directly depend on
damage outcomes, and can instead be based on an appraisal of where the lowest cost emissions reductions can
be found as soon as possible (i.e. a cost -effectiveness appraisal). In contrast, impact uncertainty is much more
problematic in relation to decision making on adaptation. Here the effectiveness of options is only identified by
some notional ranking of the damages they are helping to avoid. This cost-benefit comparison ideally requires a
clear picture of the social return, which is a provided by having a clear forecast of both the private and public
costs of inaction. This uncertainty also translates into the absence of any clear policy obligation and/or more
discretion on interpreting climate uncertainties and necessary expenditure.
1
Public goods in economic jargon, describes a good that is non excludable and that can be enjoyed by all once it
is provided. Agriculture affects many rural public goods, e.g. landscapes, water quality and biodiversity, clean
air.
SID 5 (Rev. 3/06)
Page 6 of 24
Even where costs and benefits are identifiable, it is important to identify the goals and aims of adaptation. While
in some cases adaptation may be about preserving the status quo, in other cases an effective adaptation might
be to accept that some changes will occur and deciding to live with them. Thus, no action (i.e. living with change
is also likely to be a rational strategy in the face of some impacts (e.g. disease incursion) that may prove
impossible to contain at low cost. Further, in some private cases, an optimal decision may be to do nothing in the
face of uncertain outcomes or even perceived net gains.
Agricultural gains (e.g. crop yields) are likely to be a reality for some agricultural producers in the UK, and no
action on adaptation may be a short term rational choice. This is a an attractive narrative for many private
producers who at the same time are typically unable to make business plans for events beyond the current year,
let alone across decades or a century. But gains are unlikely to accrue to all agricultural producers, and the
behavioural stance of government must act as a palliative to resulting incentives that will lead the market to
under-invest or to delay low cost investment in the face of new evidence on potential longer term costs. This is
most important where private decisions might accentuate damage to agricultural public goods. Overcoming this
distinct form of market failure presents key challenges in terms of the form of information to influence behaviours
and the identification of the best strategy to share the joint cost burden of a socially efficient adaptation strategy.
The latter implies the need for a better understanding of both private and social costs and benefits over a range of
adaptation measures.
Conventional economic appraisal of adaptation is therefore not straightforward, although policy can be informed
by an attempt to determine the damage costs of projected warming scenarios. In agriculture, potential adaptation
decisions also need to be considered against a backdrop of early mitigation obligations, other sector reforms, and
regulations that are changing the environmental in which agriculture operates. For example, beyond or possibly
as part of its ‘public good’ role, agriculture is increasingly implicated in national food security.
The research reported here aimed to identify and, to the extent possible, appraise the extent of private and public
investment required for adaptation in the livestock sector. Livestock production is a significant percentage of
agricultural output in the UK, and there is some incentive for private adaptation investments to safeguard
productivity (if this is an identified and agreed-on aim of adaptation). Under many warming scenarios, it is also
possible to anticipate a number of livestock related impacts that have public good implications (e.g. greenhouse
gas emissions, disease spread and the effects of grazing on ecosystems and water quality), which may therefore
warrant some level of public intervention to address market failure and to maintain environmental security.
Determining the need for public adaptation requires some understanding of both the costs of relevant adaptations
and the benefits they bring. Notwithstanding the problems mentioned above, this suggests that some element of
cost-benefit analysis ought to be applied to the problem; a comparison between the cost of adaptation
investments and the benefit of avoided climate related impacts including extreme events. A rational public
adaptation strategy ought therefore to attempt to map out both sides of this comparison. This analysis accounts
for the fact that impacts have a time dimension, which has a bearing on how adaptation should be prioritised.
In this report we use projected climate information to identify climate change impacts on the UK livestock industry
and as a basis for informing an efficient adaptation response. The emphasis of this project is on gaining an
understanding of the nature of the risks and trade-offs that might arise to the public interest, their extent and their
value, and the policy interventions that are then required. To reach this point, the report considers likely private
responses and the costs and benefits of adaptation options. Our analysis is based on the premise that Defra
wishes to distinguish between market-led adaptations and those where the market will fail to protect the supply of
public goods.
In this short report we summarise the findings from the research and discuss the results and their implications.
Please refer to the main report for further detail. This short report begins with a background to the characteristics
of UK livestock systems, followed by a summary of climate projections relevant for the UK. Responses to climate
change are introduced, focusing on adaptation, which is followed by a section on the economics of adaptation
under uncertainty. We then introduce the impacts we will consider, which are then described in more detail in
individual sections, together with a summary of the methodologies used and the results. An economic cost for
some of the impacts is developed in a subsequent section. Following this, possible adaptations are discussed
together with our assessment of them in terms of feasibility and robustness against uncertainty. We then discuss
implications of the findings together with conclusions and suggestions for further research in the final section.
2. Characteristics of UK livestock systems
Livestock production generates more gross revenue than any other single output in UK agriculture. The value of
livestock output (i.e. livestock production and products) in 2003 was £9.2 billion, of which £5.9 billion was
livestock production. The four major livestock groups (cattle, sheep, pigs and poultry) cover different
geographical distributions and so can be expected to be affected differently by shifting temperature and
precipitation.
SID 5 (Rev. 3/06)
Page 7 of 24
Dairying, with 2.1 million dairy cows, is generally concentrated in the lowland grass-growing areas of the west.
The average herd size has increased in recent years to 83 cows/herd, with 57% of all cows kept in herds of 100
or more, although the size of the national herd has declined. Most commonly, cows will be housed during the
winter and grazed during the summer, with the length of the grazing season dictated by the location’s climate. A
minority of farmers house their cows throughout the year. Cows are fed a combination of ensilage forage, mostly
grown on the farm, and concentrate feed. The impact of climate change may be to increase the length of the
grazing season, but some farmers may opt to reduce vulnerability to weather conditions by adopting a continuous
housing system. Changes in climate will also affect the availability of the cereals and other crops that make up
the concentrate portion of the diet. Farmers may investigate the possibility of breeding cows for specific farming
systems and conditions, or using another breed of dairy cow.
The national beef cattle herd numbers 1.7 million in 2009. Suckler cows are either a specialised continental or
British beef breed or a cross between dairy and beef breeds. Suckler cows are found in both the lowlands and
the uplands. Traditional systems produce finished cattle from grass with minimal concentrate feed at 24 months
of age. These systems continue on the poorer quality land but there has been a gradual change to shorter indoor
finishing systems elsewhere requiring the use of higher levels of concentrate feed (Renwick and Reader, 2004).
As for dairy cattle, changes in climate will affect the housing systems used and the type of forage and feed-crops
that can be grown or purchased.
There are approximately 18 million breeding ewes in the UK with sheep on about 84,000 farms. The diverse
geography of the UK has resulted in a number of different sheep systems. A stratified system exists in broad
terms, whereby specialised hill breeds are kept in mountain and upland areas and first-cross ewes of these
breeds are mated to specialised meat breeds to produce lambs for market. The hill breeds, such as Swaledale
and Scottish Blackface, are very hardy, surviving on poor land and lambing outdoors, whereas the specialised
meat breeds, such as Suffolk and Texel, are often lambed indoors and perform best when supplementary
concentrate feed is provided. Meat is the primary product, with wool representing only about 3% of output and
falling (Renwick & Reader, 2004). Climate change may alter the grazing ranges of sheep across the country and
the breed of sheep used in each type of system.
Increased international competition in the intensive pig and poultry sectors has placed downward pressure on
prices, in the face of rising costs of production associated with increased commitment to animal welfare and food
safety. Pig and poultry production has become increasingly specialised. Smaller producers have gone out of
business in the face of falling or variable market prices whilst remaining units have tended to get larger. Welfare
considerations have had a significant effect on production. In the pig sector, total pig numbers fell by 9.8% in
2001, although the breeding herd fell by only 2%. There has also been a distinct trend towards outdoor pig
production. In poultry, there has been a rapid rise in the number of table birds with a corresponding decline in the
laying flock, and the popularity of free-range systems continues to increase (Renwick & Reader, 2004). For flocks
and herds that are housed, the need to provide adequate climate control within the housing will be a major issue
as the British climate warms. As for the other species, sourcing of appropriate feeds may also be an issue.
3. Climate change projections for the UK
The current working scenarios of climate change impacts for the UK are provided by UKCIP, known as UKCIP02
(Hulme et al., 2002). They provide four alternative descriptions of how the UK climate might evolve over the
course of this century. Differences between scenarios result from uncertainty regarding future trends and
behaviour and how these might affect future global emissions of greenhouse gases. The latest climate change
scenarios for the UK were released in June 2009. The methodology used for UKCP09 differs fundamentally from
that used for UKCIP02, which makes a direct comparison between the two difficult, and therefore an estimate of
the effects of these changed scenarios are difficult to make. The analysis in this report uses the UKCIP02
medium-high scenario as the basis for assessing the impacts. Impacts of climate change on agriculture come
about through changes in variability, seasonality, changes in mean precipitation and thus water availability.
These variables in turn affect grassland productivity and the emergence of new pathogens and diseases. The
greatest impacts of climate change in the short term are likely to be from extreme weather events such as floods,
droughts, heat waves and windstorms. These are expected in increase in both frequency and intensity; they are
more difficult to map and therefore more difficult to adapt to than gradual warming. The scenarios provide
information at 50x50km grid squares, and highlight (among other things) the regional variation of impacts in the
UK. This variation indicates that adaptation will also need to be local and appropriate to the impacts experienced.
A one-size-fits-all approach to adaptation is not likely to be very constructive.
4. Livestock and Climate Change Impacts
The impacts of climate change on livestock systems will be spatially and temporally diverse. Broad categories of
impacts include drought and variations in the length of growing seasons for grasses and forage crops. Further,
altered ranges for pathogens and pests are likely to increase overall disease burdens and present associated
challenges in terms of animal welfare impacts. On a longer time scale, livestock producers are likely to need to
contend with a higher incidence of extreme events such as fluvial and pluvial flooding. It is possible to distinguish
between direct and indirect effects of climate on livestock production. Both forms of impact can be addressed by
SID 5 (Rev. 3/06)
Page 8 of 24
a range of adaptations that in turn imply further impacts that may be external to the agent undertaking the
adaptation. This ancillary adaptation impact is of interest in this project, although its identification clearly requires
a robust scenario of what private adaptation will take place.
Considerable research has been carried out on the primary effects and interactions of climate change on plant
growth and yield (Easterling et al., 2007). Less research has been carried out on the impacts of climate change
on pastures and livestock (Easterling et al., 2007). A number of studies have been carried out assessing the
impact of past extreme weather events (particularly heat waves) on the agricultural sector in the UK and Europe
(Orson, 1996; Subak, 1997; COPA COGECA 2003., Ciais et al., 2005; Hunt et al., 2006; European Commission,
2009). These provide useful indicators of what might occur in the future.
The direct effects on livestock include those of animal health and welfare, growth and reproduction, while the
indirect effects are due to the impact of climate change on the productivity of pastures and forage crops. A further
more complex indirect impact occurs via the impacts of climate on the economic cost of inputs e.g. feedstocks
that are imported into UK systems from global markets. These effects are not considered further in this report,
which focuses primarily on the direct effects on animal health and welfare and indirect impacts via grasslands.
5. Climate change responses: mitigation and adaptation
Two distinct but related responses strategies have been adopted in the face of climate change. To prevent the
worst impacts of climate change and to minimise future impacts, mitigation strategies have been developed,
which aim to reduce the emissions of greenhouse gases (GHGs) into the atmosphere. Adaptation on the other
hand, is concerned with coping with the unavoidable changes that will occur, even if mitigation is successful at
minimising or avoiding the worst impacts. Mitigation obligations are becoming more clearly defined by national
compliance with externally determined emissions reductions. In contrast, there is no similar obligation to adapt
although Under the Climate Change Act (2008) the UK government has made provision for a periodic risk
assessment that will inform on priorities for intervention. There is also some recognition of the links between
adaptation and mitigation actions. Adaptation was previously regarded as ‘giving-up’ on mitigation and accepting
that greenhouse gas abatement targets would not be met. However, due to historical emissions and inertia in the
climate system, the world is now committed to a certain degree of change, regardless of the level of mitigation,
and impacts are already being experienced. Both mitigation and adaptation are important and complementary
tools for tackling climate change, and in some areas the distinction between the two is less clear. This report
however is concerned primarily with adaptation strategies and mitigation will not be discussed unless it relates
directly to adaptation.
Adaptation has been defined broadly as the ‘adjustment in natural or human systems in response to actual or
expected climatic stimuli or their effects, which moderates harm or exploits beneficial opportunities’ (IPCC, 2001).
Adaptation can focus either on managing the impacts of the climate-related hazard, or reducing the vulnerability
of the elements at risk, or both. Adaptations can also be defined as public or private, depending on the actors
involved. Planned adaptations tend to be made in the public sector, but not exclusively. Overall, adaptation is an
ongoing process, and as the climate continues changing, adaptation must continue evolving. We are unlikely to
reach a state where we are “adapted” (or “climate-proofed”); indeed, we are not adapted to the current climate, as
evidenced by continual damage associated with flooding, droughts and heat waves. The level of damage we are
prepared to accept is a societal decision, and will vary spatially and temporally. As mentioned, there is a public
role in making this clear and in delineating responsibilities for resulting costs, and fostering the development of
better adaptive capacity; the ability of individuals, systems, or society to adapt to changes in climate.
6. Cost-benefit analysis (CBA) under uncertainty
Uncertainty presents a major challenge to adaptation. The benefits of adaptation are uncertain in terms of when
(if) the benefits (avoided damages) will occur, when they will occur, and how large they will be. On the other
hand, the costs of adaptation are relatively observable, may be high, and are likely to need to be paid now.
Watkiss et al. (2009) suggest that these conditions handicap the use of traditional cost-benefit analysis, which is
typically dependent on short term horizons and observable cost and benefit streams. In contrast, for adaptation
investments much of the necessary information will not be available. In these cases techniques for decisionmaking under uncertainty must be employed. UKCIP (Willows & Connell (2003); Metroeconomica (2004)) offer
guidelines for carrying out these techniques.
There are clearly many challenges in presenting an accurate ex ante cost-benefit appraisal of livestock sector
adaptation. Adaptation decisions need to be robust in the face of uncertainty, that is, they should be relevant for
a range of future climate impacts. Ideally actions will create win-win (no regrets) situations, in terms of
decreasing vulnerability to current variability while simultaneously increasing farm profitability. Actions that
increase the adaptive capacity of the sector generally, rather than specific actions in anticipation of uncertain
events are likely to be more cost-effective. Actions that allow flexibility for further action or reversibility when
impacts become more certain are also important.
SID 5 (Rev. 3/06)
Page 9 of 24
This report divides the impact analysis into the following sections: i) Grassland potential under altered climatic
conditions and the effects on the length of grazing periods; ii) Alternative private productivity and waste
generation associated with increased grassland consumption (set out what externalities are); iii) Welfare from infield, housed and transportation conditions; and iv) Disease. Consideration of i) and ii) provides a basis for
considering external costs in terms of greenhouse gas emissions, water quality impacts and the likely impacts on
biodiversity. However, the extent of this analysis remains largely qualitative. Each impact category uses climate
data differently; categories i-iii) are informed by downscaled climate information and the impact of extreme
events. Uncertainty in relation to disease impacts means that this section is largely qualitative. More details can
be found in the Main Report.
7. Impacts of climate change on grazing systems
Grassland is the main productive driver of ruminant livestock systems and is sensitive to climate and hence any
changes in the climatic conditions. The climate change scenarios will determine the productive potential for
grassland systems of the future and so will drive any change in ruminant livestock distribution and production.
The effects of climate change on grassland systems are potentially complex with effects on forage yields and
quality, which may affect the relative suitability of grasses and legumes and their utilisation. Climate change is
likely to have impacts on the length of the growing and grazing seasons and animal output, which will have
consequences for environmental pollution. Changes in fertiliser strategies resulting from changes in growth and
utilisation patterns, and the possibility of planting shelter / shade belts will have implications for biodiversity. The
objective of this section is to explore the response of ruminant production from different regions within the UK to
climate change. The impacts for the UKCIP medium high scenario for 2020, 2050 and 2080 are explored.
To assess the climate impact on farming systems an assessment of how grassland production would be affected
is required. A grassland model was used to predict the changes in forage production and length of grazing
season for dairy, beef and sheep systems in the UK. The output from this model was then used as the input to
the farm system models, and the models of environmental pollution, which are described in section 8. These
simulations were based on the means of 50 simulations per region per time point (i.e. baseline, 2020, 2050 and
2080) when grass cuts would occur (day of the year), the dry matter yield (DMY) of the grass, the grass quality
characteristics; namely digestibility (D), crude protein (CP) content and the variation in these characteristics as
indicated by their standard deviations.
The effects of climate change proper on farms that rely on grass production will, in almost all systems and
regions, lead to a potentially longer grazing period. The predicted increase in annual grazing period between the
baseline and 2080 differs between regions and varies from 3.2 weeks on dairy farms (range: 1 to 5 weeks), to 1.8
weeks on beef farms (range:-2 to +5 weeks) and 2.9 weeks on sheep farms (range: 1 to 7 weeks). In most
regions this will allow animals to be kept outdoors for longer and means a potential reduction in the proportion of
the year that animals require housing and/or access to conserved forages. Proportionally, the changes in length
of the grazing season are generally more substantial in northerly than in southerly regions. Climate change is
predicted to also lead to an increase in annual usable grass DMY per hectare between the baseline and 2080.
This increase differs between regions and varies from +1.2 tonnes on dairy farms (range: 0.4 to 2.4 tonnes), to
1.5 tonnes on beef farms (range: 1.0 to 2.3 tonnes) and 2.3 tonnes on sheep farms (range: 1.7 to 2.9 tonnes).
Proportionately, the increase is predicted to be strongest on sheep farms, and the increase tends to be higher in
northerly compared to southerly regions on all farm types. The trend of increasing DMY/ha is expected to be
strengthened by a likely increase in fertiliser-N application with more favourable climatic growing conditions. This
would allow for an even more pronounced increase in stocking rate, i.e. a larger herd/flock size for a given farm
acreage or a reduction in farm acreage for a given herd/flock size. For dairy farms, the effects of climate change
on predicted changes in stocking rate, concentrate use and N excess per hectare is likely to be limited, or
reversed, as a result of increases in feed intake per cow, especially in the form of concentrates, that will likely be
associated with expected increases in milk yield per animal.
8. Impacts of climate change on environmental pollution losses
The predicted increases in grass production and the lengthening of the grazing season will lead to changes in the
farming system, its economic performance and the generation of waste including nitrogen (N) losses. However,
there are competing factors regulating this process. First, there are different processes competing for the
available N in the soil, and second, the changes in climate will influence the soil water conditions, which regulate
the oxidative processes. The changes in N availability will also have an influence on plant biodiversity. The
objective of this section is to explore the impact of climate change on the potential environmental pollution from
ruminant production for the 10 RDP regions in the UK. The knock-on effects for biodiversity and the economic
performance of the farming systems for the dairy sector are also explored. The predictions of grass production
for this exercise were taken from the grassland model used in the previous section.
The effect/impact of 3 future climatic scenarios on the farm nutrient flows and losses of nitrogen (N) and C
(methane: CH4) were assessed for 3 typical farming systems (beef, sheep, dairy) in the UK. Ten Regional
Development Programme (RDP) areas were selected and used to cover the UK as representative case study
SID 5 (Rev. 3/06)
Page 10 of 24
areas. The baseline systems for beef and sheep and dairy farming follow information from DEFRA project
NT2511. For the baseline dairy farm, a typical grazing scenario was assumed.
As expected, changing climatic conditions greatly affected N losses. A combination of two factors were
responsible for controlling such losses. First, different processes compete for the available N in the soil, and
second, soil water conditions greatly regulate the oxidative level of the N lost (e.g. as NOx, N2O, N2). The most
important factors affecting the loss of available N are the increase in plant production per unit of both land area
(ha) and kg of animal product (data not shown). The increasing plant N uptake in future climate change scenarios
causes a reduction in soil inorganic N available for the rest of the competing processes leading to loss of N to the
wider environment. The form of N that is lost via denitrification and nitrification is greatly regulated by soil water
content. The rate of NO emission is greater with drier soils and decreases as the soil moisture content
approaches field capacity. As the soil atmosphere becomes more O2-limited, so, N2O and N2 emissions increase
while emissions of NO decrease. Evidence suggests that the optimum soil % water filled pore space (WFPS)
values for maximum NO emissions were between 30% and 40% WFPS (e.g. del Prado et al., 2006). Nitrous
oxide emissions increase to a level where simultaneous denitrification and nitrification are at their maximum (75%
WFPS). Above this soil water content, denitrification is the main process producing N 2O and, as the soil became
more anaerobic, emissions of N2 became greater than those of N2O.
Nitrate leaching losses (only shown for dairy systems) were affected by factors that regulate the competition for
the available N in the soil during the period previous to autumn-winter drainage season. Among these factors,
increasing plant N uptake would result in a decrease in leaching but decreasing denitrification losses through
disfavouring soil anaerobic conditions would lead to an increase in soil leachable N for the autumn-winter
drainage season. Smaller drainage volumes in future scenarios would result in a reduced amount of total N being
leached and an increase in the concentration of that N actually leached. In this study, as land area required was
adjusted to the amount of food produced, assuming a constant product (e.g. total meat and milk) resulted in
greater NO3 leaching per hectare but fewer per unit of product (or total) (data not shown).
Most CH4 emissions were caused by animal enteric fermentation. Although CH4 emissions from dung deposition
may have varied from region to region and time-slices, they are minor in comparison to enteric fermentation and
would not influence the overall CH4 emission at the farm level. Methane emissions per unit hectare were greatly
affected by the number of hectares required to support the level of production. Methane output per unit of product
was inversely related to %N content as more protein in the diet generally increased the amount of kg of meat per
unit of DM ingested by the animal. This study did not account for the potential changes in animal energy use in
future time-slice scenarios. The quality of diet was not included as a factor affecting CH 4 emissions from enteric
fermentation. Although there is some evidence that some factors (e.g. fat content) may have a strong effect on
CH4 output from enteric fermentation, herbage parameters simulated by the SAC models did not include those
needed to estimate the potential effect on rumen CH4 generation.
As Glendining et al. (2009) indicated for sustainability-related studies, land area should be also included in any
assessment. Land area was included in our study, but an improved methodology would require costing changes
in land requirement to produce the same amount of food. Economically-based policies may in turn be in serious
conflict with those more related to environmental risks due to this mismatch of scale relevance. The effectiveness
of mitigation methods to decrease any particular pollutant will depend for example on the farmer or land user´s
response to any potential economic benefits or penalties due to implementation and in relation to market
dynamics.
Potential co-benefits of increasing the efficiency of N plant use included greater opportunities for improving the
botanical diversity. This needs further testing as the temporal variation of inorganic N flows in the soil may have
different implications for different plant species.
The soil quality component in the SIMSDAIRY modelling framework refers only to soil structure and some general
aspects of chemical fertility. Positive changes were observed for future climate change scenarios possibly due to
a decrease in rain and thereby a decrease in soil poaching and erosion by grazing animals.
9. Climate impacts on welfare: Expert review, transport and thermal challenges
.
This section details the impact of, and potential adaptations to, climate change in the UK on the welfare of
animals. This will assess “thermal stress” that livestock will face in a changing climate, including quantitative
impacts on selected production and fitness traits, and review the impacts of climate change on the welfare of
animals in transport.
Impacts of climate change on livestock welfare
Weather and climate can directly and indirectly determine the efficiency of livestock production and the welfare of
livestock (Starr, 1980). Examples of direct influences include the heat balance of livestock and extreme
meteorological events. Indirect influences are disease and parasites (section 10). Excessive heat or cold
SID 5 (Rev. 3/06)
Page 11 of 24
increases the metabolic energy required to maintain the animal’s body temperature thus reducing the energy
available for productivity and maintaining functional fitness of the animal. This requires an understanding of how
environmental stressors (e.g., temperature, humidity, thermal, air speed) can directly and adversely affect animal
performance, health, and well-being when coping capabilities of the animals are exceeded. The indirect
consequences of weather episodes, such as feed quality and availability, must also be recognised, see section 7.
All animals have a range of ambient environmental temperatures termed the thermoneutral zone, which is the
range of temperatures that are conducive to health and performance. Many studies have explored the impact on
livestock production and fitness traits of moving outside this zone and this type of information can be used to
surmise the impact of climate change on UK livestock. This section will focus mainly on the impacts on livestock
of moving outside the thermoneutral zone. Setting aside the obvious impact of extreme event, UKCIP02 predicts
that there will be stronger winds and higher rainfall in the west of the country in springtime, and this is where a
high proportion of Great Britain’s dairy and beef cattle are farmed. This may have welfare consequences for
animals as they begin to feel cold in wet and windy conditions. The lower critical temperature (LCT) is the point
where the animal must increase its metabolic heat production to maintain homeothermy and therefore animals
start to experience cold stress. The LCT of an individual animal is affected by its body size, condition score,
metabolic state and hair cover. The predicted warmer summers coupled with more favourable grass growing
conditions in general will allow grazing animals the opportunity to be at grass for longer period and thus more
exposed to the changing climate. The upper critical temperature of the thermo neutral zone is the point at which
heat stress effects begin to affect the animal. Heat stress can be simply defined as the point where the cow
cannot dissipate an adequate quantity of heat to maintain body thermal balance. Impacts of heat stress on
production, reproduction, health (including mortality), welfare and behaviour in many livestock species have be
studied (review: Hahn et al., 2003).
Climate predictions for Great Britain show that on average the climate will become warmer. However, there are
many regional and temporal variations to this scenario. Animals are affected by cold weather at the lower limit of
their thermo neutral zone. The ambient temperature at which animals begin to feel the cold is higher in wet and
windy conditions.
With respect to cold stress, the areas that had high densities of beef cattle were identified and predicted
windspeed and air temperatures taken from UKCIP02. The NRC formulae were used to calculate the LCT of the
types of animals that are likely to be at pasture during the spring months (March-May) (NRC, 2000). The LCT
calculations take into account heat loss vs heat production (which is affected by the bodyweight, lactation or
growing state of the animals, metabolisable energy intake, hide depth and coat depth), ambient windspeed and
degree of wetness/muddiness of the coat. For beef cattle, young stock, and both autumn- and spring-calving
cows of large and small breeds were considered. As temperatures rise and grass growth increases, it is likely
that animals will be at pasture during the spring period of March-May. In reality, when conditions are below the
LCT, beef cattle are likely to lose weight as they use body reserves to produce heat and grazing is reduced as
they often huddle with others or seek shelter.
With respect to heat stress, the methodology of St-Pierre et al. (2003) will be employed for estimating the impact
of heat stress on production and fitness traits in UK livestock under the medium-high climate change scenario for
2020, 2050 and 2080 (UKCIP02). The environmental conditions that induce heat stress can be calculated using
the temperature humidity index (THI), which combines the ambient temperature and humidity. UKCIP02 monthly
50km2 weather data were taken for the base period (1961-1990), 2020s, 2050s and 2080s. From these data, the
THI was calculated for each square in each time period. To account for the variation across a day (within a
month), the maximum THI was calculated using the maximum monthly temperature and the minimum THI was
calculated using the minimum monthly temperature. Each class of animal was assigned a THI threshold above
which that class of animal began to suffer heat stress.
With regards to dairy enterprise, generally, heat stress did not dramatically impact on biological performance until
2050 and was inevitability, greatest in 2080. The impacts on biological performance were greatest in the South
and South East of England. There was no impact of heat stress on biological performance of young dairy animals
(up to 1 year old). The impact on dairy heifers (1 to 2 years old) was small, with this class of animals
experiencing heat stress for an average of 262 hours per year by 2080. The level and duration of heat stress in
dairy heifers was predicted to reduce livestock gain by an average 180 g/animal/year and result in approximately
0.7 heifers in 1000 dying from heat stress by 2080. Dairy cows have a higher level of metabolic activity than
younger dairy animals, in that they are producing high levels of milk, maintaining pregnancy as well as
maintaining immune function. This means that their thermo neutral zone is smaller than other categories of
livestock. Overall, dairy cows are predicted to experience 111 hours of heat stress per year in 2050, which rises
to 420 hours by 2080. The duration of heat stress in 2080 ranges from 111 hours/year (North East) to 852
hours/year (South East). Milk yield was predicted to reduced 13.2 kg/cow/year (0 – 42 kg) in 2080 due to the
impact of heat stress. Reproductive performance of dairy cows was also predicted to get worse, with the
numbers of days open increasing by 2 days/cow/year (0.05 – 5.28 days) by 2080. Reproductive problems are
one of the main reasons for involuntary culling in the dairy herd and therefore, in regions where the impact of heat
SID 5 (Rev. 3/06)
Page 12 of 24
stress is large, the rate of involuntary culling may increase. Increasing the level of heat stress in dairy cattle over
time is predicted to have an unfavourable effect of livestock survival, in that approximately 2.3 cows in 1000 are
predicted to die due to heat stress in 2080.
The impact of heat stress on beef cows over the time periods studied are relatively small with only beef cows in
the East of England and the South East experiencing a small amount of heat stress with an average of 55.5
hours/cow/year. This has little or no impact on the biological traits studied. The results for the impact of heat
stress in beef finishers and beef cows for 2020 and 2050 are shown in Appendix 4 of the main report, although
only a proportion of regions are predicted to result in a scenario where beef animals are suffering from heat
stress. Overall, beef animals in England and Wales are predicted to be experiencing a total of 240 hours of heat
stress per year, nearly half the duration that dairy cows experience. The impact of this heat stress will affect
production by, on average, 270 g of live weight gain/animal/year. Although small, this would be cumulative
across the herd and in the South East, for example, is predicted to be 710 g. The impact of heat stress of the
survival of beef animals is lower than seen for dairy cattle with a relatively consistent prediction across regions of
0.8 animals out of 1000 dying as a result of heat stress per annum.
Monogastric livestock will suffer heat stress, to some extent, by 2080. The duration of heat stress that animals
will undergo in a year by 2080 is 92 hours for sows, 214 for growing pigs and 420 for laying hens. The difference
in the duration of heat stress reflects the difference between these classes of animals in terms of their metabolic
rate with layers and their systems of production being highly efficient with a high turnover of feed into product.
The overall impacts of heat stress differ across livestock class as well. The impact of heat stress on production
traits is greatest in the layers, followed by the growing/finishing pigs, with an average of reduction of 24 g of
egg/bird/year in layers and 425 g reduction in live weight gain/animal/year in pigs. The impact of heat stress on
survival varied to a lesser degree across species with 1, 0.7 and 1.2 animals out of 1000 dying as a result of heat
stress in sows, growing pigs and layers respectively.
These results highlight a number of factors. First, there is considerable regional variation. The most affected
region for all animal types is the South East, which is projected to see the greatest climate change impacts.
Scotland is not expected to experience any losses due to mortality from heat stress in any of the time periods.
Impacts start occurring predominantly from the East Midlands south. Many of the sectors will not be affected until
the 2080s, however some, notably dairy and poultry, begin to see some losses as early as 2020, and in these two
sectors only Scotland is unaffected by the 2080s.
Impacts of climate change on livestock in transport.
Animal transportation (by road, sea and air) constitutes one of the most important “acute” threats to animal
welfare and productivity in commercial animal production. Good work over many weeks or months, in terms of
animal housing and husbandry, can be undone in a matter of hours or days if transportation stress is excessive.
In addition to the risks associated with animal handling, loading and unloading and the vibrations and
accelerations experienced by animals in transit, the “on-board” thermal microenvironment represents a major
source of transport stress and is the cause of increased mortalities, poor welfare, reduced production efficiency
and product quality and decreased performance in livestock after completion of the journeys. As external
conditions become warmer or cooler then the risks of the transported animals being subject to heat stress or cold
stress increases and this situation may be exacerbated by poor vehicle ventilation regimes.
The climate change scenario of most concern in animal transport is a major alteration in the incidence of “extreme
events” and increased frequency of extreme episodes. Thus very high temperature conditions or very low
temperatures, even over a one day period, will cause problems for animal transportation. Extended periods of
elevated temperatures (or very low temperatures) will constitute a threat to animal welfare (and indeed survival in
transit) even on relatively short journeys to slaughter (up to 12 hours duration). It therefore must be emphasised
that whilst it is obvious that animal transport is one component of the animal production industry which is
particularly vulnerable to the effects of climate change, specifically elevated mean ambient temperature and an
increased incidence of potential heat stress episodes or extreme events there is little available data that allows
accurate prediction of the effects upon the welfare of the animal, the losses to the industry and the costs of
adaptations.
It thus is essential that existing predictive models of livestock responses (Mitchell & Kettlewell 1998; Turnpenny et
al. 2000a and b; Fiahlo et al. 2004; Mitchell 2006) to thermal loads and which allow assessment of acceptable
ranges for thermal conditions in transit are integrated with climate change predictive models (e.g. similar to those
employed by Parsons et al., 2001; Turnpenny et al., 2001) and economic models (e.g. St-Pierre et al. 2003) to
facilitate a much more comprehensive assessment of the climate change impacts upon the welfare and
production efficiency of livestock in the UK. Animal transport may constitute only a small temporal component of
an animal production cycle but represents a period of very high risk to animal welfare and production efficiency.
Transport is also a process which is extremely sensitive to the climate change effects and even small increases in
mean temperatures and in the frequency of episodes of elevated temperature (extreme events) will impose
excessive heat loads on animals in transit resulting in compromised welfare, increased losses and mortalities and
SID 5 (Rev. 3/06)
Page 13 of 24
may economic losses. The accurate and reliable predictive modelling of such effects is vital for the provision of a
sound scientific basis for and precise definition of sound strategies and adaptations for the various climate
change scenarios.
10. Impacts of climate change of disease risk to livestock
Many pathogens and parasites of livestock have lifecycle stages, vectors or intermediate hosts that are sensitive
to climate and thus it might be expected that climate change would have fundamental and far reaching impacts on
their epidemiology. This section considers the likely impacts of climate change on animal health. There is much
uncertainty about the likely climate-induced impacts of disease and it is impossible to undertake a full integrated
valuation of the likely climate-incidence of diseases. This section does scope the categories of disease risks but
draws on illustrative examples to provide a preliminary health impact and likely adaptation needs.
Many livestock parasites and pathogens are transmitted via the environment and are thus exposed to and
affected by climate. Exposure to the sun (UV radiation) affects the survival of bacterial pathogens (e.g. bovine
tuberculosis & e-coli O157) in the environment. Similarly, the rates of development of gastrointestinal nematode
parasites (from eggs in faeces to infective stage larvae on pasture) are temperature and humidity regulated and
often highly sensitive to desiccation. There is the potential for an increase in many livestock pest and disease
problems due to less ‘winter kill’ and longer disease seasons as they can persist in the environment for greater
proportions of the year.
Both increases in the number of generations of parasites and treatments for parasitism, can increase the risk of
development of resistance to drugs and pesticides, further exacerbating the direct effects of climate change.
However, despite these well known effects of climate on parasite and pathogen survival in the environment, todate there is no agreement between leading researchers on whether, at the global scale, the amount of disease
will change (Lafferty, 2009a; 2009b). A recent series of discussion papers highlighted the varying opinions of
researchers on the effects of climate change on disease risk (See Lafferty 2009a and subsequent forum in
Ecology, 2009, 90, No4, Introduced by Wilson 2009). Whilst there was much disagreement on how climate
change will affect the amount of disease, Wilson, (2009) summarised the areas where there was agreement: (i)
climate change is altering the geographical distribution and incidence of (at least some) infectious diseases and
will continue to do so; (ii) detecting a climate signal in disease-range changes is likely to be difficult because of
the influences of other confounding factors, such as changes in land use, socioeconomic factors, vector control
strategies, and health care practices; (iii) better data sets and modelling approaches are required to be able to
make robust predictions of the impacts of climate change on disease dynamics; and (iv) whether or not specific
infectious diseases expand or contract their geographical ranges will depend not only on extrinsic factors (e.g.
climate change), but also intrinsic factors (such as immunity, phenotypic plasticity, and evolution).
It is with this background of accepted unknowns and uncertainty that we consider the potential impacts of climate
change on livestock disease risk in the UK. What we do know from past experience is that episodes of certain
livestock diseases can lead to heavy economic impacts within and beyond the sector. As an adaptation strategy,
the limited evidence suggests that disease surveillance can deliver high social rates of return and is therefore a
prudent capacity investment.
Changing management in response to a changing climate
As climate changes, farm management practices are also likely to change as farmers adapt to the new
conditions. Livestock management drives the contact processes between hosts (livestock and wildlife) and
parasites whether through rates of population mixing (i.e. risk of direct transmission) or rates of contact with
environmental distributions of parasites and pathogens i.e. risk of indirect transmission).
Given the damaging potential in some animal diseases, the adaptation imperative is to determine a clear strategy
on what diseases to prevent rather than cure. For some endemic diseases this distinction is moot and the
emphasis is on how current controls are exacerbated by changing climatic conditions. For non-endemic
diseases, a distinction between anticipatory (ex ante) and reactive (ex post) responses needs to be informed by
an assessment of which diseases are worth stopping - i.e. some disease risks will be exacerbated by climate
change, but their prevention may be economically not worthwhile. While surveillance is likely to be strategy in
both cases, recent experience suggests that ex post responses can be very costly involving containment and
wider economic and social disruption to the industry and in the countryside). There is therefore a premium on
improving anticipatory capacity as a climate change adaptation.
Given the current uncertainties in predicting which and when exotic pathogens will reach the UK the costs of such
outbreaks are best predicted from previous experience. For example the UK has recently experienced two main
threats to the livestock industry from highly infectious diseases that may be used to set bounds on the costs of
control. Where disease eradication is required (for trade or health reasons) foot and mouth disease may be used
as an estimate of the costs of eradication. Where eradication is not feasible, the vaccination campaign used to
control bluetongue may be used as an example.
SID 5 (Rev. 3/06)
Page 14 of 24
For many infectious diseases a key bottleneck in predicting the future risk to the UK driven by climate change is
lack of long term basic epidemiological data. Modelling the effects of climate change on biological systems
irrespective of whether it is climate matching models or process based models requires good data for model
building and testing. Without data there is limited to no ability to test the predictive power of mathematical
models.
Given that we are at an early stage in quantifying the impacts of climate change on the livestock industries, we
also need to consider early warning systems for disease outbreaks in the UK. For example, the use of fast
throughput technologies e.g. arrays to test large numbers of animal samples for multiple pathogens.
Statistical modelling (e.g. climate envelope modelling) offers the greatest potential for immediate return in terms
of predicting changes in the disease risk posed to UK livestock by climate change. However, to improve our
ability to predict changes in the amounts and distributions of infection and thus the associated economic losses to
the industry, we must not disregard the complex interaction of intrinsic and extrinsic factors that drive disease
transmission in livestock production systems. Process based simulation modelling (e.g. Agent-Based modelling)
offers potential insights in to this complexity and ultimately when developed in association with data it offers the
potential for improved predictive ability. Such models can be developed to incorporate the explicit role of human
agency (ie farmer behaviour) in disease control and spread.
In this regard we recognise private and public good costs associated with disease outbreaks and prevalence.
Private human behaviours (i.e. management choices) are implicated in the external costs of livestock disease
transmission. Increased surveillance as an adaptation does not obviate strategy of changing behavioural
incentives through potential cost-sharing arrangements. Climate change adds a further rationale for behavioural
change and it is important that its inevitability is emphasised as part of the cost sharing policy message.
11. Estimating the cost of impacts
In this section we draw together some of the quantitative evidence on impact costs, with a view to determining the
relative significance of likely damages in the sector. We have selected impacts from preceding chapters which
have an identifiable cost over a time horizon to 2080. We have not covered all cost categories, for example, we
exclude the impacts of extreme events like flooding. Therefore it is not possible to provide an estimate of the total
cost of climate change to the livestock sector in the UK. In addition, some of the impacts are likely to be mutually
exclusive. At this point we do not account for interaction of impacts and therefore the cost categories are not
strictly additive. The analysis distinguishes between private and public costs. Costs may be private (financial) or
public (social). Many of the costs (or benefits) identified in this report are private; i.e. they accrue to the individual
farmer in the form of change in production. Some of the costs have an external cost, such as mortality arising
from heat stress, disease spread or the increased emissions of pollutants to air and water.
Private costs are typically valued using market prices to determine losses to producers. We typically assume that
these costs are internalised and that there is an incentive to undertake an appropriate adaptation to reduce these
costs. Social costs include external impacts beyond the original impact. For example, disease transmission from
one farm to another leads to a private cost being incurred beyond the original source of the contagion. Again,
such social costs can be quantified with reference to market prices of the damage (i.e. a sick animal). Other
social costs are much more problematic (though not impossible) to quantify because they cannot be related to a
market price. Animal welfare is an example of a non-market impact that nevertheless has a social value. Only
part of this impact will ever show up in actual behaviours such as purchases of welfare-friendly goods, but this
does not obviate the existence of preferences for avoidance of poor welfare states. If consumers are notionally
willing to pay to avoid such impacts, they can be quantified. Indeed, a range of existing willingness to pay (or
stated preference) estimates for welfare are available for crude benefits transfer if necessary. There are obvious
synergies between the ways in which private costs and adaptations can affect external costs and, in addition to
the absolute value of damage costs this has a bearing on which adaptations should be prioritised. As an example
disease surveillance is likely to deliver high benefit cost ratios. For a given risk of incursion and spread, several
diseases can lead to high damage costs relative to the cost of surveillance expenditures that can reduce risks.
The same expenditures can also be successful for detecting other endemic disease problems that affect animal
efficiency. While these productivity issues may well be private, inefficient animals are typically more polluting in
terms of waste generation.
For detail on the costing methodology, please refer to the main report. For the dairy and beef sectors
respectively, climate change may actually lead to a saving in forage costs to the dairy sector of £42m and £5m
respectively by 2080 (present value). This is however less than a one percent change from base situation.
Additionally, these savings may be offset by the impact of extreme events that may adversely affect grazing
systems. The sheep sector is predicted to save almost 3% (£90m between now and 2080). Clearly, the saving in
forage costs resulting from a changing climate is greatest in the sheep sector; however a three percent saving
over 70 years is not particularly significant. However, it does highlight that the impacts of climate change,
particularly in the UK, are not all likely to be negative.
SID 5 (Rev. 3/06)
Page 15 of 24
Both greenhouse gases and eutrophication are social costs and are currently an externality of agricultural
production. If agriculture were included in an emissions trading scheme then the change in emissions becomes a
private cost (i.e. a permit price) to be borne by the producer. Alternatively the social cost of GHG emissions can
be calculated using the social price of carbon (SPC). Either way, the results suggest that on balance a reduction
in GHG can be expected. There was a suggestion that eutrophication potential could worsen, though we do not
undertake an extensive valuation of these effects due to data limitations in linking the location of increased
loading and receiving waters. With the exception of the south-west in 2020, and the north-east in 2080, the net
farm income for dairy farms is expected to increase by up to 8%. The economic results were simulated by
assuming that all input values would not change with geopolitical scenario and site. Due to this simplification, we
did not intend to produce a robust assessment of the impact of climate change on the economic returns; however
we have used these results as an example of possible differences caused only by climatic changes in different
areas of the UK
In the dairy herd, heat stress affects mortality, productivity and reproductive capacity of dairy cows, and mortality
of dairy heifers. The effect of climate change on the dairy sector varies between regions. Nevertheless the net
impact on the dairy sector on the total discounted costs is approximately £11m by 2050 and £33m by 2080, with
over 90% of this value being due to mortality of dairy cows. Beef finishing cattle are more affected by heat stress
and suffer greater losses from mortality than the older cattle. This is due both to the more intensive production
systems involved in finishing cattle, and the energy involved in the growing and finishing phase of the animal’s
development. Heat stress also affects the bodyweight gain of finishing cattle. The total (discounted) cost is only
around £311k however, which is small in comparison to the losses arising from mortality.
Like beef finishing cattle, grower finisher pigs are also likely to experience a loss in body weight gain as a result of
heat stress. Only the East and the South East are expected to experience any costs in 2050. By 2080 however,
the total discounted cost over the country is over £3 million, which is relatively serious, and more than the cost
from mortality.
With respect to poultry, heat stress can also result in a reduction in the amount of eggs laid. While most regions
experience a loss by the 2080s, the value of this loss is relatively small (in total only around £140k in 2080). It is
possible that a loss of this magnitude would simply be accepted by the producers, rather than investing in
adaptation.
With respect to total losses from mortality by 2020 the costs to the agricultural industry are only around £200k,
which is likely to be able to be absorbed by the industry. By 2050 however, the costs have reached over £11m,
and by 2080 the costs of mortality alone have risen to over £34m. This is a more serious cost to the agricultural
sector, and in addition does not include losses other than mortality, which are discussed earlier. The dairy sector
is expected to experience the greatest losses, a combination of the location of much of present dairy farming
being in areas projected to experience greater levels of change, together with the value of each dairy cow, which
is significant. This indicates that the dairy sector is vulnerable to gradual warming. However, an extreme event,
such as prolonged heat wave in a given year, is likely to have a more dramatic effect on biological traits described
and therefore costs to the industry increased dramatically for that given year. There are likely to be other costs
incurred from other impacts such as other extreme events (droughts and flooding) and increases in disease
incidence. On the other hand there may be benefits resulting from a longer growing season and milder winters,
as discussed previously
It should be emphasised the even under the worst case climate scenarios, the impacts affecting the UK are
unlikely to be so significant that agriculture will be severely disturbed. The projections, even for the 2080s,
suggest the climate of the UK may become analogous to current climates in major agricultural producing areas in
Europe. A greater climate-related impact relevant to the UK, unfortunately beyond the scope of this report, is
likely to be the effect on world markets of impacts of climate change in other major agricultural producing areas in
the world. Further research would include these impacts as well as likely interactions between all potential
impacts to provide a more comprehensive cost estimate.
12. Identification of adaptation options and attitudes
Based on the relatively benign impacts projected for the UK, farmers are likely to adapt autonomously to the
changes. The role for government is likely to be in building adaptive capacity, for example to improve predictive
modelling capability to understand impacts through time as well as to provide farmers with adequate information
regarding impacts and adaptation options. Intervention may also be required to integrate climate change with
existing policy, e.g. animal housing and transport regulations, and surveillance programmes for livestock disease.
As previously noted “adaptation” can have different objectives and may also be variously interpreted by different
stakeholders. It is important to understand how these varying interpretations and expectations are actually
aligned, such that policy complements rather than displaces autonomous action. Accordingly, we identify likely
adaptation options for specific climate change impacts, and indicate whether these are management, technical, or
infrastructural measures (see main report section 12.1, pp114 for this list). These options are possible in theory,
SID 5 (Rev. 3/06)
Page 16 of 24
but there may be particular reasons why they may not be feasible for certain areas or production types in the UK.
The project used two survey methods to narrow the possible options down to a shortlist based on stakeholder
workshops held as part of this project.
The shortlisted options include: more housing/shelter; ventilation; animal breeding; access to water; improved
drainage; improved diseased monitoring and control; water and flood management defences; changes to timing
of operations; farm management changes; research and vaccination.
Understanding the position of those faced with the prospect of adapting is important for identifying barriers and
prioritising action. It is also important because assumptions need to be made regarding the likely future level of
private adaptation for impact and public adaptation costings. At present the impact calculations assume farmers
undertake no adaptation. This ‘dumb farmer’ assumption is as unrealistic as assuming they will be ‘clairvoyant’
and adapt efficiently to all impacts. We are currently at the point of assuming an arbitrary level of adaptation; but
understanding the likelihood of uptake of certain actions will make the assumption less arbitrary and more
informed.
An industry workshop was undertaken in autumn 2008 to explore attitudes and views on scenarios and potential
adaptation responses. The workshops used an open-ended discussion format to explore key issues on impacts,
adaptation, behaviours and perceived responsibilities for planning. These discussions were wide-ranging with
recognition of the potential impacts that could result from extreme climate scenarios. However, it proved difficult
to concentrate attention on the formation of concrete adaptation strategies that were simply not regarded as being
a priority in business plans. In essence, business time horizons are more short-term than the perceived time
horizon for significant impacts. At the very least, producers felt they needed better information on potential
damages relevant to them to allow them to consider the relevance of climate impacts. To the extent that any
adaptation could be motivated at this point, action would only be likely where adaptation action was coincidental
with management options that improved productivity or that might deliver on mitigation obligations.
In terms of responsibility there was an understandable tendency to suggest that longer term planning was a public
(rather than private) responsibility with some emphasis put on the encouragement of improved breeding for
improved resilience among species. Additional observations suggested that the age profile of producers is
significant in attitudes and behaviour on climate change. This was possibly related to the experience of how
market support policy had traditionally served as an industry buffer from adverse global conditions. The findings
from these exercises were revealing to the extent to which they confirmed an a priori expectation that private
enterprises are reluctant to contemplate investment plans without better information or downscaled climate
forecasts. This indicates that future resources might focus on developing a capacity to translate national
scenarios into storylines that are relevant to these groups.
In methodological terms, the open-ended nature of discussions was perhaps not best suited to the identification of
more definite (albeit hypothetical) adaptation options and decisions. However, break-out groups were useful for
providing a range of position statements on adaptation that could subsequently be a basis for further empirical
survey analysis.
To further our understanding of adaptation attitudes, the project undertook two further exercises. The first was a
survey exercise to elicit views using participants in a SAC annual Animal Health and Welfare conference (2008).
The second exercise used the statements from the initial expert workshops in a Q survey that was later mailed to
the same SAC conference survey participants who had indicated a willingness to participate in a further on-line
survey. The initial survey was administered to fifty-two conference participants from a range of agriculture and
veterinary related bodies. The majority were from within research (40%), with a smaller number being involved in
commercial businesses (including vets and farmers) (20%) or public bodies (6%).
Participants were presented with a questionnaire comprising a mix of eight open-and closed ended questions
eliciting opinions on the most likely adaptations to be applied now and by 2020, in response to heat stress, wetter
winters, changing seasonality and changes in disease trends. The vast majority of these response categories fall
under the adaptation category “management”.
A smaller number fall within the “technical” category.
Infrastructural related adaptations include water management, housing and drainage. These adaptations span
private and public roles.
A second survey methodology (Q methodology) was developed on the basis of the initial expert workshop breakout group exercise. Twenty-four statements were identified, and then ranked by stakeholders against a seven
point scale from agree to disagree. Four positions were identified, namely; Scenario one: Financial support for
farmers with freedom over decision-making; Scenario two: Regulation; Scenario three: Education/information
provision; and Scenario four: Technology. Scenario 1 very strongly advocates freedom over decision-making,
with financial support where necessary. While Scenario 2 advocates regulation used as a safety-net to ensure
certain standards and safeguards are met beyond the autonomy provided by scenario 1. In reality a compromise
between scenario 1 and 2 may be the most appropriate approach to ensuring effective adaptation without
SID 5 (Rev. 3/06)
Page 17 of 24
frustrating and perhaps disengaging farmers who may be adapting anyway. Education provision can go hand in
hand with both Scenario 1 and 2, as can technology.
This section has provided a clearer indication of attitudes among a limited sample of livestock industry, in addition
to a summary of possible adaptations that may occur. The findings from each survey provide several insights
about the attitudes towards adaptation from within the livestock industry. The first survey provides a useful
shortlist of which adaptations are prioritised now and in 2020; the Q survey reveals four distinct positions as
regards likely and preferred scenarios of climate change adaptation within the livestock industry. These results
imply an expectation of a combination of private and public responses.
13. Assessment of key public responses
The evidence gathered here suggests that autonomous adaptation will be gradual and that private agents are
adept at assessing the economic viability of interventions aimed at maintaining their own productivity. From the
available evidence, we anticipate that the external costs of this process will be small and that the management of
these impacts is in any case likely to be overtaken by other policies that are specifically focussed on these
endpoints. For example, increased emissions from livestock will be addressed by more aggressive mitigation
incentives at the farm scale and an evolving trend towards the use of carbon benchmarking (including nitrogen) or
even an instrument based on a carbon price. Similarly, diffuse pollution will in the interim be targeted by
provisions under the Water Framework Directive, Nitrate Vulnerable Zones and a range of related guidance on
management of waste. These changes should also be set against a trend of falling livestock numbers.
What then is the public role for the sector and how to appraise efficient intervention? The appraisal of adaptation
responses pre-supposes some indication of the magnitude of impacts and when responses might take place. Yet
the residual impacts of heat stress and disease incursion are highly uncertain. Only the former can be potentially
modelled using downscaled data accompanying extreme event information included in UKCP09 and the impacts
are arguably a shared responsibility. A straightforward adaptation response would involve a periodic review of
regulatory standards for housing and transport. These standards can also be informed by a review the impacts of
conditions in countries with projected climate conditions.
In the case of disease, while the data are uncertain, we can arguably base a worst case scenario on recent
experience with epidemics. The total costs arising from the last major episode of Foot and Mouth outbreak in
2001 have been put at around £9 billion, with at least £3 billion in direct costs to the public sector and about £5
billion in costs to tourism and the rural economy. Out of the total costs incurred during the outbreak,
compensation payments to farmers for the slaughter of their animals and welfare reasons were placed at £1.34
billion. These figures clearly dwarf any other cost be have been able to identify in this study,
The Foot and Mouth episode raised several useful lessons; specifically, this and other recent crises have led to a
clear government message about the need for a sharing of risk in disease management. The desire to share risk
and responsibility is set out in the government's Animal Health and Welfare Strategy (2004), and is restated in
Partners for Success (Defra 2005). In essence, if government acts as an underwriter of losses there is little
incentive for appropriate behavioural change that can minimise disease risks. While government cannot monitor
risky behaviours it can transmit a clear message in relation to the eventual sharing of costs in the event of future
episodes. This message on ultimate liability for damages is what can lead to modified behaviour, and the
learning from this experience can be extended to encompass the increased risks related to climate change. Only
in the case of extreme events is there likely to be a significant deviation from gradual adaptation pathway and
there is some merit in exploring the expected damages from the risk scenarios
Because of the uncertain nature of the impacts of climate change adaptation decisions need to be robust against
a variety of future climate outcomes. Hallegatte (2009) proposes a framework for assessing robustness under
uncertainty. The criteria he suggests include no-regrets strategies, reversible and/or flexible strategies; cheap
safety margins; soft strategies; reduced decision time horizon, and synergies with mitigation. Many of the
suggested adaptations relevant for the livestock sector appear relatively robust against uncertainty, using
Hallegatte’s criteria. Few major infrastructural irreversible adaptations are applicable to agriculture, with the
exception of some related to water storage and irrigation. While some adaptations will entail an initial cost, such
as improving shelter or ventilation, these are likely to be no-regrets in the sense that they will provide protection
from current climate variability. Many of the adaptation actions are changes in management systems, which will
not entail an initial cost and are reversible and flexible; for example adjusting the timing of lambing and calving in
response to changing seasonality.
SID 5 (Rev. 3/06)
Page 18 of 24
Adaptations assessed as to their robustness against uncertainty, their effect on mitigation, and who
would be adapting (++ = this adaptation always has the characteristic of the column it is in; + = in some
cases the adaptation has this characteristic, but not all)
Adaptation
Reversible/
NoSafety
Soft
Reduced Public/ Effect on
option
flexible
regret
margins
strategy
decision Private mitigatime
tion
horizons
Heat Stress - now
More
housing/shelter
Ventilation
+
+*
++
Private
+ve/-ve
+
+*
++
Private
-ve
Water
management
Heat Stress –
2020
Animal breeding
+
++
++
++
+
Better housing
+
+*
Access to water
+
Wetter winters –
now
More
housing/
shelter
Improve drainage
+
+*
++
Private
+ve/-ve
+
+*
+
Private
+ve
Disease
monitoring/control
Wetter winters –
2020
Animal breeding
++
++
++
++
+
Water and flood
management/
defences
Housing/shelter
+
+*
++
Public/
Private
+
+*
++
Private
+ve/-ve
++
++
++
++
Private
+ve /-ve
++
++
++
++
Private
++
++
++
++
++
Private
+
+
+
+
+
Public
++
++
++
++
Private
+
+
+
+
Public
++
++
++
++
Private
++
++
++
++
++
Public
+
++
++
++
+
Public
Changing
seasonality - now
Animals
out
earlier/
outwintering/
in later
Changes
to
cropping systems
Farm management
changes
Research
Changing
seasonality
–
2020
Changes
to
cropping systems
Research
Changes
to
lambing/calving
Changing
disease trends –
now
Monitoring/
Surveillance
Research
SID 5 (Rev. 3/06)
+
++
++
++
+
++
+
++
Public/
Private
Public
+ve /-ve
Private
+ve/-ve
Public/
Private
Public
Public
+
Page 19 of 24
+ve /-ve
+ve /-ve
Vaccination
++
++
+
+
Changing
disease trends –
2020
Animal breeding
++
+
Vaccination
++
++
+
Surveillance
++
++
++
++
++
Changes in farm
management
++
++
++
++
++
+
Private
Public
+ve /-ve
Private/
Public
Public/
Private
Private
+ve /-ve
*Some adaptations will make agriculture more resilient to current climate variability. Options which have a (+*) in
the No-regrets column assume that the action will increase resilience to the current climate.
Some adaptations are less clearly distinguishable as public or private. Water management and access to water
is classified as both public and private, because while individual farmers can improve their water management
and water storage capacity, abstraction demands can become a regional issue, particularly if there are competing
demands for water. Other adaptations may also be adopted by private or public actors, such as vaccination and
surveillance, which may be adopted on an individual farm level, or in the event of an outbreak there may be a
regulation requiring vaccination. Research into breeding goals and vaccine development are both public and
private.
The insurance sector (risk sharing) is likely to become more relevant to future adaptation decisions, whether
through traditional indemnity-based insurance, or through other options that may be more suitable for climate
based insurance, such as index-based schemes, weather derivatives or catastrophe bonds. For more detail on
these schemes refer to Barnett & Mahul (2007), Mills (2007), Fankhauser et al. (2008). Ideally insurance can
create incentives for adaptation and reducing risk by sending market signals about the climate risk and
encouraging risk-reducing behaviour through discounted premiums. However in reality this may not occur exactly
in this way, because of uncertainty about actual climate impacts, budget constraints and structural, social and
cultural barriers which prevent individuals and businesses from adapting, particularly if relocation would be the
most appropriate adaptation. In addition, as climate risks increase, insurance costs will also increase and may
prove to be too costly for some actors, leaving them highly vulnerable to climate change. In these cases public
intervention may be necessary to facilitate the sharing of climate risks between the insurance sector and the
state.
Fankhauser et al. (2008) discuss the role of environmental pricing, particularly in water markets, in encouraging
and promoting adaptation to climate change. More generally, the appropriate pricing of natural resources can in
fact improve the resilience of ecosystems and enable them to cope better with climate change. The identification
and protection of ecosystem services such as watershed protection through appropriate agricultural management
and/or forest cover can provide protection against flooding and erosion, as well as regulating the water table and
minimising water pollution. It is important therefore to think laterally about the valuation of ecosystem goods and
services; in this case, the role of natural assets as buffers to climate impacts 2.
Public-private partnership is also an area that could contribute usefully to facilitating adaptation. As well as the
financial benefits, public sector involvement sends a clear signal to private industry and individuals that the public
sector takes adaptation seriously and is committed to it. Barriers to adaptation identified in some sectors include
uncertainty regarding future policy commitment to adaptation, therefore if the public sector is engaged in
adaptation activities themselves this may remove some of these barriers. Examples of public private partnership
exist in other sectors, such as health, education and research and development. In agriculture, the most relevant
public private partnership is likely to occur in R&D, where the development of technology may facilitate
adaptation. Examples already exist in the work of crop genetic improvement networks and proposed foundation
of an animal genetic equivalent.
In summary, there are significant challenges in promoting adaptation to climate change through policy
intervention in agriculture. While economic efficiency (i.e. cost-benefit analysis) provides a rational basis for
adaption planning, it is important to recognise a number of complicating factors that limit adaptation responses
relative to mitigation action. The first is that while mitigation is likely to be more of a mandatory requirement with
more immediate actions, adaptation responses are continual processes requiring constant refinement as damage
scenarios become more certain and/or impacts become increasingly apparent. The costs of on-going adaptation
2
We note that the National Ecosystem Assessment for the UK is currently under preparation and encompass the
linkages between ecosystem integrity and benefits to related economic sectors.
SID 5 (Rev. 3/06)
Page 20 of 24
and the residual impacts lead to complications in identifying the costs and benefit of adaptation, and in
determining the distributional impacts of future adaptation.
A second complication is in terms of coordinating how private adaptation responses can be reconciled with
desirable public good outcomes. Little is known about how the promotion of private adaptation will impact on
public goods, or how these impacts can be minimised through cooperative adaptation planning. This leads to a
final observation on the respective private and public good roles. There is clearly a public interest role in the
conservation of public goods, and in the facilitation of private resilience. But in the absence of more definitive
impact scenarios, that role is largely limited to information provision and investment in research to understand
how coordinated action can work. There is currently a limited evidence base on comprehensive adaptation
measures, particularly in livestock systems and their costs. Part of the public good role should be to develop
inventories of adaptation measures and reconcile these with mitigation requirements.
Interaction with mitigation
It has already been noted that many adaptation outcomes are likely to be ancillary benefits of existing
environmental policies and regulations that are in place to safeguard environmental goods and services. The
extent of these policy synergies warrants further analysis, as does the important interaction with more immediate
greenhouse gas mitigation actions. Some adaptations may have unintended consequences on efforts to reduce
GHG emissions (mitigation). This is known in the climate change literature as maladaptation. The most obvious
example is in terms of increased emissions from cooled or ventilated buildings and transportation. Housing
animals for longer will affect the nitrous oxide emissions from manure (being collected centrally rather than from
grazing on the fields) but the direction is uncertain. New housing would require energy in the building process
and also possibly in the ongoing running of the building, and if mechanical ventilation was included this would
almost certainly result in an increase in energy use. Unless the energy was sourced from renewable sources, this
would lead to an increase in emissions. Drainage was considered to be positive for mitigation, due to the
alteration of the soil structure which will reduce nitrous oxide emissions. Animal breeding may either help with
mitigation efforts or lead to greater emissions depending on the type of animals that are bred. Animals that can
cope with higher temperatures are generally smaller so greater numbers would be required to maintain the same
output as larger animals, resulting in a greater level of emissions. Larger animals generally produce fewer
emissions per unit of product.
14. Conclusions and recommendations
This report has presented estimates of the major impacts affecting livestock in the UK resulting from a changing
climate. It has also scoped the requirement for public intervention to facilitate climate change adaptation in the
UK livestock sector. A secondary objective has been to determine the basis for identifying economically efficient
adaptation if intervention is required. As a man-made adjunct to natural ecosystems, agriculture is potentially the
sector of the UK economy most exposed to climate change. The sector may possess a potential adaptive
capacity, but in addition to uncertain warming scenarios, inherent biological complexities complicate our
understanding of what planned adaptations will be necessary, their timing and effectiveness, and how adaptation
responsibilities can be clearly divided between private and public sectors.
A key question is whether the extent and variability of predicted changes will motivate accelerated private action
that has unanticipated consequences for the rest of society. The focus here is in terms of impacts to public goods
that are valued by wider society.
The broad conclusion we reach at this point is that while there is a need to adapt, the extent of required
adaptation is largely within the capacity of the livestock industry and can be motivated by information to provoke
an attitudinal shift and increased awareness that climate change presents certain risks that need to be factored
into farm and production planning. This shift does not currently represent a radical change from the gradual
autonomous adaptation that characterises the adjustments different parts of the industry have had to undertake in
response to market liberalisation over the last two decades.
Using current data on grazing potential and pollution modelling, adaptation responses are unlikely to bring about
significant impacts in terms of air and water pollution. But the potential for extreme events, heat waves, flooding,
and disease are highlighted as key vulnerabilities and significant research gaps that will require revision as part of
the Climate Change Risk Assessment process.
In relation to the disease impacts, an important policy adaptation has already been noted in terms of the intention
to promote cost sharing as a means to alter behaviours. But even with this policy shift, the UK is at risk of
introductions of exotic diseases some of which are highly pathogenic and contagious with significant damage
potential. With current research we are forced to extrapolate further than the available data warrants when
making these predictions and there is a particular need to focus on improving these scenarios. This involves:
1. Data on trends seen in the field for model fitting
2. Quantification of mechanisms of effects of CC on disease epidemiology/ecology to improve predictive power
of models
SID 5 (Rev. 3/06)
Page 21 of 24
3. Early warning surveillance systems of approaching threats (i.e. outside the UK) and outbreaks in the UK.
In relation to impacts to livestock production and welfare the changing climate is likely to be an additional stressor
for livestock that needs to be managed. These results show that the gradual change in climate is likely to impact
on production output as well as functional fitness of livestock, in some cases leading to increased livestock
mortality. However it is extreme events that could have the largest impact on livestock systems and therefore
provide the greatest challenge for livestock managers. Also, the interaction of a changing climate with adopted
mitigation tools needs to be monitored to ensure that both mitigation and adaptation measures are compatible
and sustainable into the future. Continued development of information resources and tools will help farmers
improve the resilience of their systems. This could include:
1. Monitoring the thermo tolerance of livestock in UK farming systems and transport and advising on
adaptations, private (e.g., addition of shelter breaks, housing/grazing patterns) and public (e.g., updating
transport and housing guidelines and regulation).
2. Research and development of new and novel tools (e.g., livestock and plant breeding) that help farmers
adapt to climate challenges in a cost effective and sustainable way that have no or limited environmental
impact in their own right.
3. Understanding the interaction between mitigation tools, a changing climate and adaptation tools.
There is much that the private sector can do to adapt, and in the UK, producers have both the capacity and the
knowledge to adapt to projected temperature ranges. However producers do need information on both the
potential for worst case scenarios and what their responsibilities are in the event that these arise. The public role
therefore lies in building adaptive capacity, i.e. basically letting farmers operate with improved information on risk
and in setting the appropriate regulatory and policy framework that facilitates flexibility to change while setting
environmental constraints on the directions of change.
The adaptation literature offers a number of principles for decisions about both private and public adaptation of
relevance to the livestock sector. Broadly these indicate the need to foster an adaptive capacity in the industry
and to identify no-regrets investments, and for adaptation options to be flexible (e.g. reversible) to cope with
potential worst-case scenarios, or changing conditions (e.g. increasing mitigation requirements as well as a
change in projected climate). These principles place more emphasis on so-called “soft” strategies; those that do
not involve engineering or infrastructure, but involve institutional or financial tools, which generally have greater
flexibility or reversibility than hard adaptation options.
Soft adaptive strategies are already inherent in government objectives for fostering resilience and adaptive
capacity in agriculture using better information and R&D policy. Alongside these interventions is a clear message
on understanding and acceptance that there will be impacts and corresponding losses for which the sector should
take responsibility.
As noted, a range of existing policy shifts and regulations (e.g. milk quota reform, Nitrates Directive, and those
related to housing and transport) can be construed as setting environmental constraints on the direction of
adaptive responses. Policies relating to water demand and the conservation of ecosystem goods and services
can also be viewed as adding a buffer to the agricultural sector.
Adaptation needs to be considered in parallel to a more proximate mitigation objective that is also likely to shape
the way livestock are produced in the UK. In general, there is a need for research on how alternative mitigation
strategies may be developed to simultaneously maintain adaptive capacity in farm systems while reducing
emissions.
The conclusions we reach here do not obviate the need for more detailed social cost-benefit analysis to judge the
return to public interventions for specific impacts (e.g. diffuse pollution and disease). However, uncertainty and a
lack of data complicate the monetary valuation of impacts which is the ambition under the periodic climate change
risk assessment (CCRA).
SID 5 (Rev. 3/06)
Page 22 of 24
References
Barnett, B.J., Mahul, O (2007) Weather index insurance for agriculture and rural areas in lower income countries.
American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 89 (5), 1241 – 1247.
Ciais, P., Reichstein, M., Viovy, N., Granier, A., Ogee, J., Ailard, V. et al. (2005). Europe-wide reduction in
primary productivity caused by the heat and drought in 2003. Nature, 437, 549-533.
COPA COGECA. (2003). Assessment of the impact of the heat wave and drought of the summer 2003 on
agriculture and forestry Brussels.
Defra 2005. Partners for success A farm regulation and charging strategy.
http://www.defra.gov.uk/farm/policy/regulation/charge/pdf/farm-regulation-strategy.pdf
Defra (2004) Animal Health and Welfare Strategy for Great Britain. Defra, London.
Del Prado A., Merino P., Estavillo J.M., Pinto M. and González-Murua C. 2006a. Nitrous and nitric oxide
emissions from different N sources and under a range of soil water contents. Nutrient Cycling in
Agroecosystems 74: 229-243. .
Easterling, W. E., Aggarwal, P., Batima, P., Branker, K. M., Erda, L., Howden, A. et al. (2007). Food, fibre and
forest products Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
European Commission (2009). Adapting to climate change: the challenge for European agriculture and rural
areas Brussels: European Commission.
Fankhauser, S., Agrawala, S., Hanrahan, D., Pope, G., Skees, J., Stephens, C., Yasmin, S. (2008). Economic
and policy instruments to promote adaptation. In Agrawala, S., Fankhauser, S (eds) Economic Aspects
of Adaptation to Climate Change: Costs, Benefits and Policy Instruments. OECD, Paris.
Fialho, F.B., Bucklin, R.A., Zazueta, F.S. and Myers, R.O. (2004). Theoretical model of heat balance in pigs.
Animal Science, 79, 121-134
Glendining, M.J., Dailey, A.G., Williams, A.G., van Evert, F.K., Goulding, K.W.T. AND Whitmore, A.P., 2009. Is it
possible to increase the sustainability of arable and ruminant agriculture by reducing inputs? Agricultural
Systems 99: 117-125.
Hahn, G.L.; T.I. Mader, and R.A. Eigenberg. 2003. Perspective on development of thermal indices for animal
studies and management. In: Interactions between climate and animal production. EAAP Technical
Series No.7, pp.31-44. Wageningen Academic Publ., Wageningen, The Netherlands.
Hallegatte, S (2009) Strategies to adapt to an uncertain climate. Global Environmental Change, 19 (20), 240 –
247
Hulme, M., Jenkins, G. J., Lu, X., Turnpenny, J. R., Mitchell, T. D., Jones, R. G. et al. (2002). Climate Change
Scenarios for the United Kingdom: The UKCIP02 Scientific Report Norwich: Tyndall Centre for Climate
Change Research, School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK.
Hunt, A., Boyd, R., Taylor, T., Kovats, R. S., Lachowyz, K., Watkiss, P. et al. (2006). Report on the costs of the
hot summer of 2003 Bath: Metroeconomica Ltd.
IPCC (2001). Climate Change 2001. The IPCC Third Assessment Report. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Lafferty, K.D. (2009a). The ecology of climate change and infectious diseases. Ecology 90, 888-900.
Lafferty, K.D. (2009b). Calling for an ecological approach to studying climate change and infectious diseases.
Ecology 90, 932-933.
Metroeconomica (2004). Costing the impacts of climate change in the UK: Overview of guidelines. UKCIP
Technical Report Oxford: UKCIP.
Mills, E (2008). Synergisms between climate change mitigation and adaptation: an insurance perspective.
Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, 12, 809 – 842,
Mitchell, M.A. (2006). Using physiological models to define environmental control strategies. In: Gous, R.M.,
Morris, T.R., Fisher, C., (Eds.), Mechanistic modeling in pig and poultry production. CABI International,
Wallingford, UK pp. 209-228.
Mitchell, M.A., Kettlewell, P.J. (1998). Physiological stress and welfare of broiler chickens in transit: solutions not
problems! Poultry Science 77, 1803-1814.
Orson, J. H. (1996). A review of the impact of the hot, dry summer of 1995 on the main agricultural and
horticultural enterprises in England and Wales ADAS.
Parsons, D.J., Armstrong, A.C., Turnpenny, J.R., Matthews, A.M., Cooper,K. & Clark, J.A.2001. Integrated
models of livestock systems for climate change studies. 1. Grazing systems. Global Change Biology 7,
93-112.
Renwick, A.R. & Reader, M.A. 2004 Business as Usual Projections of Agricultural Outputs. Centre for Rural
Economics Research: Report to the Environment Agency, July 2004
St-Pierre, N. R., B. Cobanov, and G. Schnitkey. 2003. Economic Losses from Heat Stress by US Livestock
Industries. Journal of Dairy Science 86:(E. Suppl.):E52–E77
Subak, S. (1997). Agriculture. In J.P.Palutikof, S. Subak, & M. D. Agnew (Eds.), Economic impacts of the hot
summer and unusually warm year of 1995 ( Norwich, UK: University of East Anglia.
Turnpenny, J.R., McArthur, A.J., Clark, J.A. & Wathes, C.M. 2000a Thermal balance of livestock 1. A
parsimonious model. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 101, 15-27.
Turnpenny, J.R., Wathes, C.M., Clark, J.A. & McArthur, A.J. 2000b Thermal balance of livestock 2. Applications
of a parsimonious model. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 101, 29-52.
SID 5 (Rev. 3/06)
Page 23 of 24
Turnpenny, J.R., Parsons, D.J., Armstrong, A.C., Clark, J.A., Cooper,K. & Matthews, A.M. 2001. Integrated
models of livestock systems for climate change studies. 2. Intensive systems. Global Change Biology 7,
163-170.
Watkiss, P. Hunt, H and Horrocks, L (2009). Final Report for the Scoping Study for a National Climate Change
Risk Assessment and Adaptation Economic Analysis, Defra Contract number GA0208. Metroeconomica,
AEA group, and Paul Watkiss Associates. Published by Defra, 2009.
Willows, R., Connell, R. (2003) Climate adaptation: Risk, uncertainty and decision-making. UKCIP Technical
Report. UKCIP, Oxford
Wilson K. (2009). Climate change and the spread of infectious ideas. Ecology 90, 901-902.
References to published material
9.
This section should be used to record links (hypertext links where possible) or references to other
published material generated by, or relating to this project.
Journal articles
Wall, E. and D. Moran (2009) Developing breeding schemes to assist mitigation of greenhouse gas
emissions, Animal (accepted)
Conference Papers
Wu, L. and Topp, C.F.E. The impact of climate change on grassland - a modelling approach. XXI
International Grassland Congress and VIII International Rangeland Congress. 29 June - 5 July, 2008.
Hohhot, China.
Moran, D. (2007) Livestock emissions and global climate change: some economic considerations. In: The
Proceedings of the Livestock and Global Climate Change Conference, International Conference in
Hammamet, 17-20 May 2008. BSAS Published by Cambridge University Press ISBN 978-0-906562-62-8
SID 5 (Rev. 3/06)
Page 24 of 24