Download sundmad hæftet engelsk

How can we reduce emissions of greenhouse gases
caused by agriculture and food consumption?
Creating tomorrow's environment today
Contents
Preface · 3
1 The impact of climate change on nature and the landscape · 4
2 The impact of climate change on agricultural production · 6
3 Agriculture’s impact on the climate · 8
4 How can we reduce agriculture’s emissions of greenhouse gases? · 10
5 Dilemmas and synergy · 14
6 Environmental and climate effects of food production · 15
7 Agricultural policy and climate agreements · 18
Glossary · 22
Notes · 23
Text: Jette Hagensen, The Danish Ecological Council
Thanks to: Christian Ege and Susanne Bruun Jakobsen
English translation: Hugh Matthews
Layout: Designkonsortiet,
Illustrations: Frontpage: Batavia Media, photo page 3+18: Søren Dyck-Madsen, map page 5: municipality of Aalborg, page 7,10+11: Jette
Hagensen, page 13, bottom: DJF, University of Aarhus
1. December 2008 edition, ISBN: 87-92044-26-3
A PDF version of the pamphlet is available on the Danish Ecological Council website www.ecocouncil.dk.
You are most welcome to quote from, copy and otherwise use the pamphlet on condition that you indicate the source.
Production of the pamphlet was funded by the Danish Foreign Ministry Pulls and Lottery Fund, the Board for the Advancement of Debate
and Enlightenment Regarding Europe and the Bodil Pedersen Foundation.
Published by:
The Danish Ecological Council
The environment of tomorrow is created today
Blegdamsvej 4B
2200 København N
Tel.: (+45) 33 15 09 77
e-mail: [email protected]
Web: www.ecocouncil.dk
Farming and food are mutually linked with the
climate, the environment and nature
Whether we decide to eat a steak or a bean stew for our
evening meal it will have an impact on nature and the environment. At the same time, the impact on the climate will
be essentially different. A meal of steak, potatoes, béarnaise
sauce and salad produces 20 times as much CO2 as a meal
with chilli sin carne*, mashed potatoes, raw vegetable salad
and bread.
18% of man-made emissions of greenhouse gases in
Denmark stem from agricultural production making this
sector the third largest contributor to the greenhouse effect
after energy (electricity and heat) and transport. On top of
this comes the emission of greenhouse gases from processing and distribution of foods. In all, approximately 25% of
emissions are derived from our consumption of foods.
Just as we can save on electricity, heat and transport, and the
technology used in the sectors can be made more efficient,
we can also consider the climate, the environment and nature when we choose what to eat. These considerations can be
optimised in agricultural and food production, e.g. by exploiting nutrients from fertilisers as efficiently as possible, thus
reducing nitrogen emissions into waterways and the natural
environment, as well as the emission of greenhouse gases.
In some domains, consideration of the climate is good for the
environment and nature as well as animal welfare, whereas
in others, inconsistencies come into play. For example, grazing
cattle and sheep are good as far as nature and animal welfare are concerned. However, this is not necessarily the best
form of production if we want to reduce emissions of nutrients and greenhouse gases. So these considerations have to
be weighed up against each other in many situations.
EU agricultural policy largely determines the framework for
agricultural production in Denmark and the rest of the EU.
The policy is undergoing change at the moment, and there
is much discussion as to how considerations for nature, the
environment and the climate should be integrated into the
sceme. Agriculture and transport are now on the agenda of
the international climate negotiations in terms of more precise targets being formulated for how much the sectors
must contribute to reduction of the emission of greenhouse gases in future.
This pamphlet concerns agriculture and food production in
the light of climate changes. It is intended to encourage
debate about the challenges, possibilities and dilemmas
involved. The issues are an integral part of the global challenges, including the finance crisis, increasing energy prices,
increasing demand for foods and growing problems of hunger and malnutrition. We need to consider these issues in
relation to each other when looking for new ways of planning our production and consumption patterns in the future. We can do a lot as individuals, both when we choose
what we eat and what we otherwise consume, but also by
acquainting ourselves with the political agendas and contributing to the debate.
The pamphlet is intended for social studies and geography
at high school level, as well as the broader target group in
public information and adult education. It has been produced together with an educational DVD and a recipe insert,
which can be used together in a class, a group or for individual project work. For use in the latter and in adult education, the Danish Ecological Council has produced a report 1
on the EU's agricultural policy in relation to the environment and the climate.
Happy reading!
There is a glossary on the reverse of this pamphlet. Words included in this glossary are marked with an *
3
1
The impact of climate change on nature and the
landscape
Is there time to adjust?
Global climate changes which according to the United
Nations climate panel IPCC we should expect over the next
century will make for a warmer climate than the Earth has
experienced in millions of years. The Earth's climate has
always been changing and with it the conditions faced by
plants, animals and humans. But the changes on the way
now will be so rapid that they will surpass anything the
Earth has previously experienced.
There is a risk that many plant and animal species will
become extinct because they cannot adapt quickly enough
to rapid changes in the climate. Others will move to new
areas - if, that is, the conditions for such migration exist.
Adaptation is an important process in plant and animal
species' struggle to survive the Earth's continuous climate
changes. If conservation corridors are not secured to allow
species to migrate biological diversity is in serious danger.
When the climate changes so rapidly and is unpredictable
and variable at the same time, adaptation will not necessarily be able to keep up. The balance of the ecosystems will
come under pressure because some animal and plant species will get better conditions, while the conditions of others
will deteriorate as a result of changed climatic conditions.
This may nudge things further towards developments
which may lead to the extinction of vulnerable species.
Climate change has already resulted in more unstable
weather conditions and in future this tendency is expected
to become more severe, e.g. in the form of heavy rain showers, fiercer storms, more frequent and more intense heat
waves and long-term drought. For each degree Celsius the
temperature rises, the climate zones will move approx. 200300 km northward. Temperature increases of 1.5-2.0%
Celsius are expected by 2050. This means that Denmark's
climate will then resemble that of the Netherlands or central Germany.
Heavy rainfall is expected in Denmark, particularly in the
Facts about climate change
In average global temperature increased by 0.74º C
from 1906-2006 (of which 0.6° over the last 30 years)
and the global sea level rose by an average of 0.17 m in
the same period. The International Climate Panel (IPCC)
predicts that by the year 2100 the average temperature
on earth will have increased by between 1.6 and 4°C.
The latest research suggests that the increase will be at
the high end of this range - or perhaps as much as 6°C
if current developments continue.
4
Unpredictable factors
The climate models used to predict climate change is
based on the assumption that the climate will change
gradually in step with global warming. However, the
IPCC points out that there is a risk that global warming
will trigger so-called "unpredictable non-linear climate
leaps". One example of this is that global warming
may result in changes in the major ocean currents,
which in turn will have a tremendous impact on the climate. For example, changes in the Gulf Stream could
lead to the cooling of northern Europe, including
Denmark. In addition to this, the IPPC, due to the
panel's lengthy decision-making process, bases its figures on research which is quite a few years old. Recent
research suggests that the consequences will be more
serious and come about faster than the IPCC has predicted 3.
autumn and the winter, while the summers will be drier.
Southern Europe will experience actual droughts during the
summer and large volumes of rain during other periods.
The climate changes are expected to hit hardest in a number of developing countries and in the Arctic regions2.
Climate change may have serious consequences for the global and European natural environments
Some ecosystems such as coral reefs, tropical rainforests
and polar regions are more fragile and less able to adapt
than others. For example, even small increases in temperature can cause corals in the tropical oceans to die out4.
Scientists have predicted that the species that will suffer
first from global warming are those which are only found in
narrow temperature zones such as on mountain tops or
around the poles. This has held true. Studies show, for
example, that certain species of polar birds are already on
the way to becoming extinct. 5
Models predict that the temperature in the Arctic regions
may increase by approximately 8°C over the next hundred
years, rather more than the expected average global temperature increase. Intense changes are already being seen in
the Arctic regions in the form of melting inland and sea ice,
which is packing later and later during the autumn. This
means, for example, that polar bears cannot get out onto
the ice to hunt seal. And when polar bears are forced to
remain on land their reproduction cycle is disrupted.
The glaciers on mountain peaks all over the world are retreating, long periods of drought are causing erosion and desert
Figure 1
The map shows a part of the inlet
“Limfjorden” next to Aalborg. The
blue areas are potentially flooded
at a 2 meter rise of sea level. It is
not possible to pump away the
water or prevent rise of the sea
level, except by making properly
dikes. (NB: The map is only showing
the natural contours, and not possible existing dikes)
expansion and the drinking water shortage is getting worse.
The number and strength of hurricanes is on the increase,
trees are being pulled up by the roots, especially in some
parts of Africa where the hummus content of the soil is low.
Although the development is most rapid in tropical and
polar regions, there are also many visible signs of climate
change in Europe. Increasing temperatures alternating with
heavy rain showers and long periods of drought, particularly in southern Europe, increase the risk of large areas becoming infertile due to erosion. at the same time this leads
to shortage of water, for example in some parts of Spain.
The increasing drought and rising temperatures in southern Europe will lead, among other things, to many species
of butterfly not being able to survive here and therefore
moving northward. However, it may be difficult to some of
the species to migrate because the landscape has been split
up and there are fewer natural habitats. This will prevent
fragile stationery species escaping from the heat.6 At the
same time, the Territories and the Alps will prevent amphibians moving northward in line with climate changes. The
disappearance of amphibians will lead to a reduction in the
number of snakes, fish and birds which primarily live on the
amphibians and will increase the number of insects and
rodents, numbers of which the amphibians currently keep
in check.
Changes in the Danish countryside
There are already many signs that the Danish climate is
changing. The growing season for plants has become longer. Trees and flowers burst into leaf and blossom earlier
than usual, and migrating birds arrive in Denmark earlier
than they used to.7
the Danish climate. For example, Bynkeambrosia (a
Mugwort) has spread from the USA to a number of countries in Europe, and Denmark is at the edge of its dissemination area. It is known as an invasive species and has no natural enemies in Denmark. If the climate in Denmark gets warmer Bynkeambrosia will grow here, too. Thus a new weed
problem may arise which could also be a problem for pollen
allergy sufferers, as ambrosia has a very long pollen season
and has a powerful allergenic effect. Climate change may
therefore impact on both the ecological balance and health.
Rising sea level
Another expected consequence of climate change is rising
sea levels, to begin with because hot water occupies more
space than cold, but later on the effect is expected to increase drastically as a result of melting inland and sea ice. This
will threaten or at least change coastal areas. Calculations
show that the Danish coastline will have withdrawn an average of 14 metres inland by 2100. This will change the landscape, e.g. as shown in Figure 1.
The dikes along the South West Jutland coastal mudflats
(Vadehavet) keep the water out when the water level rises.
The water table rises instead. However, because the fauna
of the mudflats is dependent on the tidal flow in the shallows, the consequences will be serious for the Nordic and
Arctic wading birds, among other species, which stop over
here between their wintering grounds in the south and
their northerly breeding grounds.9
SUGGESTED ASSIGNMENT
Find other examples of plant or animal species, or even
entire ecosystems, that are threatened by climate change.
Plants usually spread rather slower than e.g. birds and
insects. Studies show that conditions for 67-78% of Danish
plant species will be tougher in a warmer climate while
only 10% will benefit.8 In the long term, this will mean a
substantial deterioration of biodiversity.*
At the same time, new plant species will be able to adapt to
5
2
The impact of climate change on
agricultural production
New potential of the Danish agriculture – but new challenges too
Climate change will have both a positive and a negative
effect on agricultural production. The increase in temperature will enable Danish farmers to grow new crops. For
example, they already grow a lot more maize for use as
green animal fodder and will soon be able to grow grain
maize. In the long term, sunflower seeds and protein crops
such as soya beans for animal fodder will be a common
sight in Danish fields and will help reduce the need to
import protein fodder.
Therefore, we can expect a number of positive effects on
agricultural production in Denmark and other countries at
the same latitude. However, we must also expect negative
effects to occur which changes in growing methods can
only rectify matters to a certain extent.
For annual agricultural crops such as cereals, rape seed oil
and potatoes, an increasing temperature will reduce the
length of the active growth period, because the crops will
ripen earlier. This may result in lower yields. To avoid this
happening we will have to grow e.g. wheat varieties that
grow more slowly.
The longer growing season will mean that Danish free
range vegetables will cover consumption over a longer
period. A warmer summer climate will enable us to grow
e.g. tomatoes and cucumbers in unheated greenhouses or
outdoors. It will also be possible to grow larger fruit and
fruit of better quality, and wine production will become
viable in Denmark.
Another example of how we will have to adapt is that an
earlier harvest gives a longer period in the autumn with
bare soil, which increases the risk of nitrogen washout
during the autumn and the winter. There will therefore be
an increased need for the cultivation of successive crops
such as mustard or rye grass which help keep nutrients in
the soil.
However, temperature alone does not decide which crops
can be grown and how big a yield can be expected. Factors
such as the length of the growing season, the amount of
CO2 in the air and amounts of rainfall also play a role. A higher content of CO2 in the atmosphere will increase production of most crops, with maize as one of the exceptions. As
far as crops which do not ripen (e.g. grass and sugar beet)
an increase in temperature will lengthen the growing
period and also make for better harvests. Providing a water
shortage does not arise.
A third, probably larger problem is the fact that agriculture
will have to adapt itself to new plant diseases under different climatic conditions. Already known plant diseases may
also take on new significance. The increased risk of plant
disease may also lead to an increase in the need for pesticide spraying, as is already the case today. New species of
weed may, as mentioned previously, also lead to increased
pesticide consumption.
Increased pesticide consumption
Pesticide consumption in Denmark has increased in recent
Grain maize is corn that ripens in the
field and can be harvested using a combine harvester, unlike today when the
entire plant, including the cobs, are harvested green as animal food.
Grain maize is a more concentrated
animal food.
6
tonnes active substances
4.000
tonnes pesticides
13.500
3.900
13.000
3.800
12.500
3.700
3.600
12.000
3.500
11.500
3.400
tonnes active substances
3.200
11.000
tonnes pesticides
3.300
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
10.500
as added pressure of contagion, destruction of fisheries and
the displacement removal of populations (because of rising
water levels, lack of drinking water, etc.) The living conditions of large population groups in the poor countries will
deteriorate.
New diseases spread to Europe
Man-made climate change may also affect the state of
health of people and animals, including domestic animals.
The UN climate panel IPCC estimates that global climate
change will be more detrimental to health than it is beneficial. Higher temperatures, flooding and storms themselves
represent a danger to health, but the spread of some infectious diseases will also increase.
Figure 2: Pesticide consumption in Denmark 2001-2007
years despite clear objectives to the contrary. The target set
for treatment frequency in the Danish Pesticide Action Plan
2004 - 2009 is 1.7. However, this increased from 2.07 in 2002
when it was extremely close to achieving the partial target
of 2.010, to 2.2 in 2006 and 2.5 in 2008. Both the total quantity of pesticide and the amount of effective substances are
thus also increased as can be seen in Figure 1. 11
2008 figures show that almost half of all fruit, vegetables
and cereals grown in the EU are contaminated by pesticides, several of which are classified as carcinogenic or as
endocrine disruptors. This is an increase of 20% over the
last 5 years. 4.7% of the products contain pesticides exceeding the permitted limit values. 12
There is a correlation between disease, weather conditions,
varieties, resistance, characteristics of pathogenic fungi and
cultivation systems. Thus there is a considerable uncertainty as to when we should attempt to predict the significance
of individual plant diseases in the future. However, we must
be prepared for ongoing changes and the fact that cultivation methods and disease prevention will have to be adapted in order to ensure stable production and low consumption of pesticides. Inspiration for this can be found in organic farming which does not use pesticides but is entirely
based on preventive methods such as seed changes and
robust varieties, as well as biological control.
The impact of climate change on agriculture in the world's
poorest countries
The negative impact of climate change will hit hardest in
areas and among populations, where both social, economic,
climatic and ecological factors together exacerbate the
situation. When, for example, climate change in many parts
of the world exacerbates problems with drought, water will
be in even shorter supply than it is today. There is a risk that
food production will fall drastically as a result of drought
and a lack of irrigation.
The expected increases in air and water temperatures and
heavy rainfall may increase the spread of disease. For example, carriers of disease such as malaria mosquitoes will
become more common and the pathogen* itself may breed
more rapidly.13 Numerous scientists believe that climate
change is one of the reasons why tropical diseases, hitherto
unknown in our part of the world, are becoming more common in Europe. The warmer climate also increases the risk
of dissemination of insect-borne domestic animal diseases
such as the cattle disease bluetongue which has spread
very rapidly during the last few years. 14
Bluetongue is a virus spread by small mosquitoes, or midges.
It infects cattle, sheep, goats and deer, whose tongues turn
blue and they gasp for breath, suffer oedema (fluid accumulation) in the head, lips, snout and lower jaw, and they hobble. They get sores on the mucous membrane of their
mouth, get eye infections and suffer hair loss. Mortality is
relatively high in sheep, though seldom in cattle.
A combination of climate and environment changes is
most likely to blame for the disease and its carriers being
able to spread from Africa and the Middle East to southern
Europe. From here, the virus has transferred to local
European species of midge spreading to northern Europe,
which has never previously been affected by the disease. A
vaccine has been developed against the type of bluetongue
that is widespread in northern Europe and vaccination has
been obligatory since the summer of 2008.
Bluetongue first appeared in Europe in 2006 in Holland
and Belgium and has since spread in all directions at an
amazing rate. In 2007, over 50,000 new farms in
Western Europe were infected. The first case of bluetongue was confirmed in a herd of Danish cattle on 13
October 2007. Since then a number of herds have been
infected in various parts of the country.
At the same time, there is a risk that more ferocious storms
and flooding will ruin crops in many parts of the world.
Together with other consequences of climate change such
7
3
Agriculture's impact on the climate
What causes agriculture's emissions?
Agriculture, forestry and horticulture give rise to considerable emissions of greenhouse gases. For one thing, CO2 (carbon dioxide) is emitted on combustion of fossil fuels used
in tractors and other machinery, for electricity generating
and heating buildings in greenhouses, as well as the production of, among other things, artificial fertilisers. In addition, however, far greater quantities of the greenhouse
gases methane and laughing gas are emitted from the animals' justice systems, from manure and soil preparation.
Changes in the soil's content of nitrogen, which comes
about in connection with cultivation and changes in the
way land is used, are also significant to the overall emission
of greenhouse gases.
Some of the CO2 released is, however, bound by the sea as
part of the natural adjustment of the balance between the
atmosphere's increased content of CO2 and the carbon content of soil and the oceans. The problem is that CO2 is
Laughing gas
Laughing gas emissions stem primarily from the use of
nitrogen fertilisers, both mineral and organic. Laughing
gas is released via nitrogen loss to the atmosphere and
the soil (ammonia and nitrate washout), among other
things while manure and commercial fertilisers are
added to the soil, from biological nitrogen fixation*,
from manure storage and soil treatment.18
Agriculture is emitting laughing gas, methane and CO2
The powerful greenhouse gases methane and laughing
gas are 21 and 310 times as strong as CO2 respectively.
Converted into CO2 equivalents, almost half of
Denmark's agricultural emissions of greenhouse gases
come from laughing gas, 30% from methane and the
remainder from CO2.
8
added so quickly that the balance between sea water and
air cannot manage to adjust.15 For this reason, we have
seen an increase in emissions of greenhouse gases during
the last few decades which may have enormous consequences in future.
How much of the man-made climate change is caused by
agriculture?
In 2006, Danish agriculture accounted for 18% of overall
greenhouse gas emissions. In the EU, agriculture's share of
greenhouse gas emissions is lower on average than in
Denmark, in 2006 accounting for 13-14%. However, this
covers substantial variations. Agricultural emissions in
Ireland total 26% because of the country's large domestic
animal production, especially cattle and sheep.
Globally, approximately 14% of the greenhouse effect caused by man comes from agriculture. In addition to this, 18%
comes from changes in the way land is used, e.g. felling the
Methane
Methane (CH4) is formed by the decomposition of
organic material in completely de-oxidised conditions,
for example in the digestive tracts of animals and in
permanently wet environments, e.g. from rice production and from marshland, where there is a combination
of a lot of organic material and a high water level.
Emissions of methane from Danish agriculture stem
primarily from animal production, especially from ruminants such as cattle and sheep. Methane comes both
from the animals' digestive systems and from manure.
Stored slurry contains a lot of organic material and
storage is in a de-oxidised environment. Therefore,
large quantities of methane is derived from the storage
of slurry in the pens and in stores outside the pens. The
microorganisms that form methane are only effective
in entirely de-oxygenated conditions. Their activity is
low at temperatures below 10-15°C.
Carbon dioxide - CO2
Most of Danish agriculture's CO2 emissions stem from
the combustion of fossil fuels in field operations, heating buildings and greenhouses and the production of
artificial fertilisers. A small portion, approx. 6% stems
from changes brought about in the soil's content of
CO2 by cultivation and changes in the use of acreage.
The emission of greenhouse gases from changes in the
way land is used is much larger in other parts of the
world, among other things resulting from the felling of
rainforests and the cultivation of marshland.
14
%
24
%
%
Bu
ild
ing
s8
d5
ate
l
e
-r
rgy
ne
e
r
%
he
te 3
Ot
Was
%
Agriculture
14 %
%
ent 18
anagem
Land m
4%
port 1
Trans
Ind
ust
ry
El
ec
tri
cit
y
Figure 3 Emissions of the greenhouse gases methane and
laughing gas by agriculture in 2006
rain forests. This means that almost 1/3 of greenhouse gas
emissions at a global level are attributable to farming and
land management. In addition to this comes the emission
of greenhouse gas from food processing and distribution.
It is worthy of note that farming's emissions of greenhouse
gases has fallen since 1990, when they accounted for 25% of
Denmark's overall emissions of greenhouse gases16. The
main reason for this is that efforts to ensure a cleaner
aquatic environment, among other things as a result of
government aquatic environment plans, have also led to
lower emissions of laughing gas and methane. The reduction in these emissions has, however, been declining, and
over the last 5 years the positive development has more or
less come to a standstill apart from a minor reduction in
energy consumption.
In order to reduce emissions of nutrients into the water and
atmosphere, agriculture has been subjected to a number of
measures. Slurry tanks have been covered, either with floating
or fixed roofs which has reduced the evaporation of ammonia
as well as the smell. Systems have been developed to cool slurry before it is fed into the covered tanks. From these, the slurry
is spread on the fields at times when the plants are best able
to absorb the nutrients. The manure is stirred or ploughed into
the soil, thus reducing the loss of nutrients.
The emission of greenhouse gases from the use of artificial
fertilisers has been halved since 1990,17 because the above
initiatives have substantially improved the utilisation of
manure from domestic animals. At the same time managing nitrogen fertilisation in this way has had a positive
effect on emissions of greenhouse gases. So there is a
synergy between the climate and environmental initiatives
in this field. Also in some other European countries, such as
Holland, which has a large industrialised domestic animal
production, developments have been similar to those in
Denmark with the reduction in emissions of greenhouse
gases from agriculture. In other parts of the world production takes the form of cattle and sheep grasing on large
areas of grassland. Here, emissions of the greenhouse gas
methane, primarily from ruminants like cattle sheep and
goats, are the main cause of emissions of greenhouse gases
from the agricultural sector – and this has not fallen.
Figure 5
Mill. t CO2-equi.
Cattle
Pigs
Other domestic animal
1990
2006
change (%)
3,23
2,44
-24,5
0,66
1,07
62,1
0,12
0,13
8,3
The distribution between the various domestic animals is
seen in figure 5.19 It can be seen that the proportion of methane emitted by pigs has increased strongly during the
period in step with the increase in pig production. Although
the number of cattle is decreasing, they are still responsible
for approx. 2/3 of emissions.
Mill. t CO2-equi.
20
18,84
1990
15
12,68
2006
9,03
10
Figure 4
Increases in emissions from
agriculture in Denmark developments 1990 –
2006/7
5,96
5
4,01
3,64
3,38
0,96
0
Methane
Laughing gas
CO2 agriculture
2,42 2,13
CO2 energy
Greenhouse gasses
9
4
How can we reduce agriculture's emissions of
greenhouse gases?
Potential for continued improvement
We stand a good chance of further reducing agriculture's
emissions of greenhouse gases. DJF 20 has estimated that
emissions of laughing gas can be reduced by 25-50% if farmers continue to improve their use of manure/fertilisers by
burying or ploughing slurry and other fertilisers into the
soil and adjusting the amount of fertiliser they use and
when they use it more precisely.
Slurry is the most commonly used form of fertiliser in
Denmark. By covering all slurry tanks with a fixed roof and
moving the slurry from warm pens to a cold slurry tank
both the evaporation of ammonia and the emission of the
greenhouse gases methane and laughing gas are reduced.
In addition to this other methods can be used such as rinsing the slurry channels daily to remove the microorganisms that form methane.
Pen and slurry treatment technologies continue to develop.
The most accessible technologies which minimise nitrogen
emissions as much as possible can be approved as
BAT*technologies. One example is drained floors in cattle
pens which ensure that urine flows on as quickly as possible so that ammonia does not evaporate into the pen. There
is still considerable potential for reducing the emission of
greenhouse gases using methods such as these.
One alternative is to keep animals on straw and to handle
manure dry as in pens of old instead of as slurry. This method is used in rest areas with deep litter* in loose housing*
for cattle. This increases the oxygen content of the manure
thus reducing emissions of methane. If the manure is handled in a solid-state methane production can be reduced by
75% and in the manure layer by 50-60%.21 This requires that
manure is handled correctly during storage and application
10
Biogas
Biogas production is the most efficient way of changing cattle farming and other domestic animal production from being a net discharger of greenhouse gases
to a net consumer. In biogas plants the production of
methane is encouraged and it is then used to fuel either generators or vehicles. At the same time, emissions
of laughing gas from slurry spreading will be reduced
after it has been treated in a biogas plant.
in order not to end up with higher emissions of laughing
gas. This is a question of burying the manure or ploughing
it into the field shortly after it has been spread.
Emissions of greenhouse gases can also be limited by retaining
carbons in the soil.When meadows and marshes drained, the
soil's content of carbon is reduced and CO2 is given off because
of the decomposition of the soil's substantial content of organic material. On the other hand, when wet areas are re-established, windbreaks and woodland planted and the cultivation
of successive crops increased to cover larger quantities of CO2
Efficiency can result in lower CO2 emissions
The quicker a calf, a pig or a chicken grows, the more
milk a cow produces and the more cereal can be harvested from a hectare (ha)* of land, the lower will be the
emission of greenhouse gases per kilo of meat, milk or
cereal. So in many cases, efficient production may be
the most climate-friendly kind although it may have
negative consequences as far as e.g. animal welfare
and flavour are concerned.
Biomass
There is also considerable potential for reducing the
emission of greenhouse gases by using crops in other
forms of bioenergy production, partly because it replaces fossil fuel energy sources and at the same time
reduces emissions of laughing gas. The potential is
greatest when perennial crops are involved, for example willow, and when these are used in combined
power and heat plants as the resulting yield is far higher than when using liquid biofuels such as bioethanol
or biodiesel. Bioenergy based on crops which can also
be used as food should be avoided as this could cause a
harmful development globally as regards food safety,
see also p. 21.
are bound, thus countering the greenhouse effect. In an international perspective there is a tremendous potential for reducing CO2 and methane emissions by planting woodland and
by means of more efficient rice production.
In addition to this, discharges of greenhouse gases from
food production can be limited by choosing foods with low
CO2 emissions. We will come back to this in chapter 6.
Domestic animal production affects the environment in
many ways
Today’s domestic animal production is responsible for 18% of
global greenhouse gas emissions.22 Global domestic animal
production is rapidly increasing because the demand for
meat is growing, among other things because of the growth
in population and increased wealth in several countries in
Asia. Global meat production in 2000 was 229 million tonnes meat/year and is expected to increase to 465 million
tonnes meat/year by 2050. In the same period, milk production is expected to increase by 580 million to 1,043 million
tonnes.23 It is therefore important to focus on animal foods
and the potential to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by
limiting consumption of meat, eggs, milk and cheese.
In Denmark, 70% of cereal production is for domestic animal
production. In addition to this, large quantities of fodder,
among other things soya protein, are imported from the
USA and South America. In 2007 Denmark imported fodder
to the tune of DKK 6.5 billion, the equivalent of 3-4 million
tonnes. In this way European agriculture indirectly makes
use of large areas of land in other parts of the world.24
Emissions of methane from ruminants such as cows and
sheep are higher than those from single stomach animals
Feeding
A cow produces between 100 and 130 kg of methane a year, the precise quantitative pending on e.g. how it is fed. The more
fibre there is in food the more methane is given off during digestion. One way to reduce methane production is to add fat
to the fodder. The Danish Institute of Food and Resource Economics has calculated that fat could be added to half the fodder fed to Danish dairy cattle. This would reduce total methane emissions by 248,000 CO2 equivalents per annum.25
An increased proportion of concentrates such as cereals and soya meal thus reduces emissions of methane – and since
high yield cows are fed more concentrates, high yield dairy cows and rapidly growing calves are an advantage to the climate. However, cows are not happy unless they get coarse fodder so there is a limit to how much the composition of
their food can be changed. 2/3 of cattle in Denmark are breeding or beef cattle which to a larger extent are fed with
coarse fodder than dairy cattle. And it is precisely an advantage of ruminants that they can metabolise large quantities
of coarse fodder and that they at the same time are able to graze on grass during crop rotation and on external land.
70% of Danish dairy cows are
never able to graze
11
such as pigs and poultry. CO2 emissions per kilo of beef are 67 times that of the production of 1 kg of poultry or pork. On
the other hand, ruminants can live on coarse fodder such as
grass and also perform landscape maintenance by grazing.
Is organic farming good for the climate?
Organic farming makes allowances for the environment
and the countryside in several ways. Organic farmers do not
use pesticides or artificial fertilisers. The manufacture of
artificial fertilisers is extremely energy intensive and therefore often results in the emission of CO2. Organic farming
deliberately aims to increase the humus content of the soil,
e.g. through the cultivation of successive crops* and the use
of organic fertilisers to improve the fertility of the land and
its ability to retain moisture. And there are often fields available under clover to several years as part of crop rotation. It
is thus possible at the same time to store CO2 in the soil
and delay the release of greenhouse gases. And when the
soil is neither ploughed nor fertilised, less CO2 and laughing
gas are released.
On the other hand, organic farming makes great use of
mechanical weed treatment because pesticides are not
used. Ploughing and harrowing requires fuel oil, which is
detrimental to the climate account of organic producers.
Free range animals – and their manure – normally release
more methane and laughing gas than animals kept indoors
in pens measured in relation to the amount of meat and
milk produced. Consequently, we cannot be sure that organic products are more climate friendly than conventional
ones. Emissions of climate gases per hectare will usually be
lowest on organic farms, although measured in kilos of crops
or food produced they may be higher, see figure 6. There is a
good chance of organic production methods being improved
which can reduce emissions of greenhouse gases.
Organic farming currently yields approx. 20% less on average than conventional agricultural production in Denmark.
This is more or less the same as other places in temperate
regions, whereas the opposite may be true in tropical
regions, as described below.
Organic farming reduces vulnerability in Kenya
In 1997, El Niño swept across East Africa causing violent
storms and extremely heavy rainfall in Kenya which,
among other things, destroyed the road between Nairobi
and Mombassa. It gave rise to extensive erosion with soil
shifting and trees torn up by the roots in many places.
Capita has emerged that trained organic farmers using
crop rotation and well-established ditches in the fields
were able to protect themselves against erosion. Their farmer neighbours who used artificial fertilisers and pesticides and did not exploit organic methods were far harder
hit by the storm. Gullies up to 2 m in depth crossed their
fields, destroying crops and a tremendous amount of work
was needed before they could cultivate the land again. 30
12
Calculations shown in figure 6 illustrate that some organic
products are slightly inferior in climate terms. This applies
e.g. to pork and greenhouse vegetables, while other
products, including milk, cereals and oilseeds rape from
organic farms are a little better when it comes to climate
friendliness.
Figure 6
Emissions of CO2/kg of selected foods from conventional
and organic production respectively26
Rape seed oil
Oats
Wheat
Greenhouse tomatoes
Carrots
Potatoes
Milk (Danish production)
Pork
Conventional
farming
Organic
farming
1.5
0.8
1.1
3.5
1.2
0.2
1.2
3.3
0.9
0.6
0.7
4.9
1.5
0.3
0.9
3.8
Organic farming can increase yields in Tropical regions
The use of artificial fertiliser and pesticides can also basically
increase yields in the tropics more than organic methods.
However, it emerges that organic farming can improve the
robustness of the ecosystems, thus improving and stabilising
yields.27 Whereas conventional farming with easily soluble
nutrients derived from artificial fertilisers, organic farming
methods, on the contrary, help to build up the soil's content
of humus by means of organic fertilisers and plant cover.
Conventional farming using artificial fertilisers made for
this reason is more vulnerable in the face of hurricanes /
cyclones than organic farming, which deliberately seeks to
build up the fertility of the land by increasing the humus
content of the soil and its structure.28
Studies have shown that small farms in the tropics can
increase their incomes by 30-200% using organic methods.29
Harvest yields can be doubled or tripled and the cost of
input is lower when farming is based on local resources,
manure and organic materials. It improves the fertility of
the soil, wards off vermin and thus improves the robustness
of crops in storms and droughts caused by climate change.
Domestic animal ethics
Domestic animal welfare legislation regulates Danish and
European production systems and are of importance to
competitiveness. Minimum animal welfare demands are in
place in Denmark for conventional production, free range
and organically produced animals. Today, the minimum requirement for pig pens is 0.65 m2 per animal. The equivalent
figure for organic production is 1.3 m2 per pig. Animal welfare standards are, according to the Danish Meat Association,
higher in Denmark than in those countries against which
we compete. All the same, a production is still carried on
under cramped, factory-like conditions with extremely limited potential for natural behaviour.
Seven million pigs die every year in Denmark before they
reach slaughter weight. This accounts for more than one in
five of an annual production of approx. 25 million slaughter
pigs. The most frequent killers are virus diseases, bronchial
infections, abscesses, cardiovascular disease and limb injuries.31
A 2008 survey revealed that 17% of Danish sows had shoulder sores, which are comparable to bed sores in humans
and caused by the animals lying too long in the same position. Considerable differences emerged from one herd to
another. Some herds had only a few sores while in others,
Pig with shoulder wound
almost one in three sows was affected. 13% of sows had
minor sores, while 4% had serious wounds.32 The sores are
to a large extent attributable to the fact that pens live up
to the legal 0.65 m2/animal.
No area requirements exist in the cattle farming, apart from
rearing calves. In practice, many tethered pens have been
replaced in recent years by loose housing,* in which cattle can
move about freely in deep litter* or shavings, as well as separate feeding and milking areas. Much of these areas are covered
in slatted flooring, with excrement falling through the slats
into slurry chambers* under the floor. On many farms, cattle
live in this loose housing all year round, often with plenty of
light and fresh air, although without access to grass or two
areas large enough for them to be able to run around.
13
5
Dilemmas and synergy
In some circumstances, consideration of the environment,
nature, climate and domestic animal welfare pull agricultural production in the same direction, and in others there will
be conflicting considerations we must balance against each
other. A synergy effect will often exist between the environment and the climate when it comes to reducing emissions
of nitrogen from both artificial fertilisers and manure and
reducing emissions of greenhouse gases. However, there are
also examples of the opposite being true.
For example, emissions of methane resulting from handling
of manure in the pens have risen, unlike other types of methane emissions. This is , among other things , due to consideration of animal welfare in the form of loose boxes cattle and
slatted floors instead of solid concrete for pigs, which produce much more liquid manure and therefore higher emissions
of methane.33 It is, however, possible to biogasify slurry and
thus reduce emissions of greenhouse gases considerably.
There is no unambiguous answer as to whether conventional organic production is best for the climate, see section 4.
However, organic farming has the distinct advantage that it
does not use artificial fertilisers and pesticides. At the same
time, the minimum demands for animal welfare are also
stricter than for conventional farming. For example, organic
pigs must have twice as much pen space, always have
access to coarse fodder and be allowed to go outside. It is
also required that the cattle are out to grass during the
summer and hens must have access to at least 4 m2 of outside space per bird.
Efficient domestic animal production may be preferable in
terms of climate considerations, but efficient production of
pigs and cattle, etc., depends to a high degree on cereals and
14
imported fodder in the form of e.g. soya. Contrary to this, the
production of meat from cattle and sheep is based on coarse
fodder and grazing on extensive areas, which are often part
of a varied plant production and preservation on e.g. meadows and common land, as well as fields including crop rotation. One distinct advantage of ruminants is that they can
convert large quantities of coarse fodder into meat and milk.
The climate impact of beef production is approx. seven
times that of the production of pork and the other environmental effects are also highest as far as beef is concerned. 34
On the other hand cattle are out to graze and helping preservation, keeping open areas free of bushes and woodland,
a job that otherwise requires man-hours or engine power.
Grazing cattle or sheep are also better at preservation than
mowers because they graze less consistently.
Improved animal welfare can counteract climate considerations. Access to the outdoors means more manure on the
fields resulting in larger emissions of methane. The same
applies to the use of coarse fodder such as grass, straw,
beet, hay and silage which results in higher emissions of
methane than concentrates such as cereals and soya.
Conversely, a certain amount of coarse fodder for pigs can
prevent and reduce e.g. problems with stomach ulcers and
intestinal diseases and coarse fodder such as straw also
keeps the animals occupied.
SUGGESTED DISCUSSION TOPIC
Discuss how one can weigh up consideration of climate, nature and animal ethics when standing at the cold
counter at your local supermarket.
6
Environmental and climate effects of food production
The previous section was about nature and agriculture in
relation to the climate and greenhouse gases. We shall now
focus on food production and consumption of foods because this is where there is tremendous potential when it
comes to reducing emissions of greenhouse gases.
Food consumption accounts for a good deal of a family's
impact on the environment – approx. 1/4 of greenhouse
gases emissions are related to food consumption. This varies of course according to what you eat, both because there
are substantial differences in the environmental effect of
different foods and because individual types of food can be
produced and processed in different ways. A variety of methods can be used to calculate the environmental impact of
food production. The calculations involved a complicated,
because there will always be a number of assumptions
which are up for discussion.
Greenhouse gas emissions from meat are some 15-60 times
those of e.g. potatoes.35 This is because the average amount
of energy used in the production of a kilo of meat is 5-10
times higher than that of the production of a kilo of potatoes. Besides this, meat production emits large quantities of
the greenhouse gases methane and laughing gas, as mentioned previously.
Emissions from vegetables grown in heated greenhouses
are much higher than those from free range vegetables.
Eating tomatoes produced e.g. in Spain, where there is no
need to heat greenhouses is much better from a climate point of view, even after energy used in
transport has been taken into consideration.
Greenhouse vegetables emit large quantities of CO2
Tomatoes, cucumbers, peppers and aubergines, etc. are
usually grown in greenhouses in Denmark and the greenhouses are heated for most of the year. As a result,
energy consumption is approx. 10 times as much when
growing e.g. a kilo of Danish tomatoes than when growing a kilo of cabbage or beetroot which can be grown
free range.
Energy consumption in Danish greenhouses has been
reduced in recent years. These days they are usually heated using district heating, either from public combined
heat and power plants or by the market garden's own
local district heating plants, from which the garden sells
the electricity and makes use of the heat. Market gardens with their own heating plants can also type the
CO2 from the flue gas via a catalyst into the greenhouses, thus helping to increase the plants' growth.
Emissions from tomatoes grown in Spain are much
lower even when the effect of transport is added.
Calculations by LCA food and the Swedish market in
organisation Svenskt Sigill 36show that emissions of
greenhouse gases from a kilo of Danish greenhouse
tomatoes, even when energy usage has been rendered
more effective, are approx. 3.5 kg of CO2, while emissions from a kilo of Spanish tomatoes transported to
Denmark in a full lorry amount to approx. 1.4 kg CO2.
Therefore, from the point of view of the climate, it is better to eat Spanish tomatoes than those grown in heated
greenhouses in Denmark. On the other hand, Danish
tomatoes are almost entirely produced without pesticides as most Danish tomato producers only combat pests
by organic means. Consumption of chemical sprays in
Spain, on the other hand, is extremely high which means
that the vegetables contain high levels of pesticide. The
soil and water also frequently become polluted because
the spray pesticides used are not disposed of properly. 37
So if you want to elect both for the climate and the environment during the winter organic tomatoes from e.g.
Spain are the best bet. At the same time it is also a good
idea to eat a lot of seasonal vegetables; the production
of which does not require heating.
15
Methods for the calculation of the environmental impact of
agriculture and food production
The emission of greenhouse gases is a global environment
problem. The impact in the form of climate change affects
all parts of the world regardless of where the emissions
actually take place. It is advantageous to assess global environmental problems using methods relevant to the product
concerned. This is because environmental impact can be
compared with the impact of a product which serves the
same purpose that is produced elsewhere.
Conversely, when the environmental impact is primarily
local, e.g. run-off of nutrients into the local aquatic environment with deoxidisation and dead fish as a consequence. In
this instance it may be prudent to use methods related to
the specific area because the local environmental impact
can only be reduced if the run-off of nutrients per unit of
area is reduced.
A product-based method we will use below are based on
life cycle assessments. This means that the environmental
impact of the product's entire life cycle, also known as cradle to grave is part of the calculation. As far as some products are concerned, calculations are made from the field to
the point where the goods are sold in the shop whereas for
others the calculation only includes the point when they
leave the individual farm. This is not where the decisive difference lies, so it is in order to compare the figures.
Transport to Denmark is included for foreign produce.
Transport by air or road
The transport of food by air has a considerably greater
impact on the climate than the transport of e.g. vegetables
from southern Europe to Denmark by road. A UK study has
shown that although only 1% of foods imported to the UK
arrive by air, this accounts for 11% of the total of CO2 emissions from food distribution.38 This naturally has to be weighed against the benefit to developing countries of producing and exporting organic produce.
16
Life cycle assessment - LCA
A life cycle assessment is an assessment of the impact
of a product or service on the environment throughout
its life, from cradle to grave. It is abbreviated LCA.
Carrying out an LCA involves mapping out the use of
resources and all impacts on the environment from the
production of seed and fertiliser, through soil processing, harvesting and storage to the point when the product is ready for sale. Next, a calculation is made of the
impact on the environment of a number of parameters
such as CO2 emissions, eutrofication and land use.
One process frequently involves the production of more
than one product, e.g. dairy produce is a by-product of
beef. It is therefore necessary to be able to apportion
the environmental impact of the process among the
individual products. There are several methods for
apportioning the environmental impact of processes
among the main product and by-products. System
expansion and allocation are examples of such methods, the choice of method may be extremely significant to the result of the LCA.
Allocation of environmental impacts between the main
and bi-products may, for example, be from the point of
view of economy or weight. If the main product costs
EUR 6 and the by-product EUR 4, then 60% of the environmental impact is allocated to the main product,
while 40% is allocated to the by-product. Allocation can
also be by weight.
In system expansion, by-products can replace other products in the market which are thus regarded as a
repressed production. A relatively simple example of
this is soya meal and soya oil. In system expansion it is
assumed that soya oil is a by-product that can be replaced by rapeseed oil. Thus Rapeseed oil becomes the
repressed production. The environmental impacts of
rapeseed oil can then be deducted from the environmental impacts of soya as shown in Figure 7.
Soya bean field (1 ha
3 tonnes of soya
2.5 tonnes soya flour + 0.5 tonnes soya oil
Compensation on
world market
0.5 tonnes rape seed oil
(0.42 ha rape saved)
Environmental impact of soya meal is:
–
Environmental impact of 1 ha soya (x g CO2 equiv.)
Saved environmental impact of 0.42 ha rapeseed oil (y g CO2 equiv.)
= Environmental impact of soya meal (x-y g CO2 equiv.)
Figure 7
The two methods of apportioning environmental impacts
among main product and by-product (allocation and
system expansion) are linked to be two ways of performing
LCAs. Allocation is part of the traditional method in which
only part of the entirety is described, and average data is
used for the various processes within the life cycle. System
expansion is part of the "consequence LCA" method which
attempts to trace changes in the environmental impacts of
a product caused by a specific activity and thus to generate
information about the consequences of an activity.
S U G G E S T E D D I S C U S S I O N T O P I C S 40
Discuss the advantages and disadvantages of using
allocation and system expansion respectively to assess
the environmental impact of a production.
Discuss how assumptions for such calculations can be
established and possibly visualised in a credible way.
The figures in this pamphlet stem mainly from the LCA
food database, which uses the consequence LCA method.
This method is the most precise since it can reflect e.g. the
effect of market forces. In the LCA food database, cheap
beef (sold at less than DKK 100/kg) is classified as a by-product of the production of milk and expensive beef (costing
more than DKK 100/kg). Cheap beef is replaced by pork,
whereas expensive beef is replaced by imported beef produced by extensive agricultural production abroad.39 This
explains how the emission of CO2/kg minced (ground) is
set much lower (4,4 kg CO2/kg) than the production of of
e.g. beef steak (42,4 kg CO2/kg).
17
7
Agricultural policy and climate agreements
The EU's agricultural policy
Danish agricultural policy is to a large extent determined by
the EU, partly via the EU's common agricultural policy and
partly through numerous directives such as the Habitat
directive and the Water Framework directive. The EU's agricultural policy is currently in the midst of a process of reform
in which new targets relating to environment, nature and
animal ethics will supplement and partially replace targets
relating to increased production.
Natura 2000
Valuable natural habitats, wild animals and plants in
the EU are protected by Natura 2000, which among
other things includes the EU's 1979 Bird Protection
directive and the Habitat directive, as well as the
Biodiversity Convention, both adopted by the EU in
1992. Throughout the EU, an average of 14% of the area
of member states have been designated Natura 2000
habitats. In Denmark the figure is approx. 8,3 %.45 The
idea is that Habitat and Bird protection areas which
come under Natura 2000 should together form an ecological network of protected habitats throughout the
EU. This process has taken a long time, but in 2009
plans are to be drawn up for the individual areas.
The Water Framework directive
The Water Framework directive adopted by the EU in
late 2000 requires EU member states to ensure sound
conditions in all watercourses, lakes and coastal waters
and all groundwater by 2015. The directive will be implemented in Denmark by the Environment Centres which
are to prepare a local aquatic plan in 2009. In continuation of this, the municipalities must adopt action plans
involving specific initiatives in 2010. Studies have shown
that more than 50% of watercourses, 75% of lakes, all
coastal waters and approx. 50% of Denmark's groundwater will not be able to comply with the requirements
of the water framework directive by 2015,44 so there is a
need for a massive, prompt effort.
Since the 1950s, the EU has provided substantial subsidies
to individual farms. The original purpose of this was to
ensure adequate food production in Europe after World War
II and to secure agriculture as a stable income. For the first
many years, agricultural subsidies were given in the form of
production subsidies, among other things by means of guaranteed minimum prices for a number of products. This,
together with export subsidies and restrictions on imports
into the EU contributed to security of supplies and stable
prices in the EU. However, in certain parts of the EU it has
also led to extremely intensive agricultural production
which has had serious consequences for the nature and the
environment. This high production resulted in massive
surplus stocks within the EU for a number of years which
were either destroyed or sold cheaply to developing countries, undercutting market prices of local products.
The comprehensive reform of the EU's agricultural policy
commenced in 1992 with the so-called MacSharry reform.
Guaranteed minimum prices were reduced and instead, a
fixed subsidy per hectare was introduced. The subsidy
depended on the yield but varied from one crop to another
Subsidies were also introduced on the production of,
among other things, veal and lamb and subsidies were also
introduced for set aside in order to reduce production.
In 2008, rising cereal prices and the food shortage, among other
things, led to annulment of the set-aside scheme. This meant
that areas that had been set aside for a number of years and
had developed into valuable natural habitats are now being
ploughed up in many places. Natural habitats are thus being
lost and carbon which was bound to the soil is being released in
the form of the greenhouse gas CO2.
18
Danish farms are getting bigger and bigger
The average size of a Danish farm was 55 ha. in 2006,
more than 2.5 times as big as in 1970. 42This embraces
all sizes of farms, from smallholdings to pig farms with
several thousand animals. 40 % of farms were smaller
than 20 ha. in 2007, while half the 26 million pigs produced in 2007 came from farms producing more than
5,000 pigs a year.43
The reforms continued in 1999 via the Agenda 2000 reform
which led to much of the subsidies which formally went
direct to the individual farmer being transferred to what
are known as second pillar subsidies. This involves the allocation of subsidies to e.g. rural area development and to
projects which promote consideration of the countryside
and the environment. There is discussion as to whether this
part of the subsidy should be further increased at the cost
of direct subsidies. The Agenda 2000 reform also involve
the introduction of a new strategy for the integration of the
environment into agricultural policy in the form of so-called
environmentally friendly provisions under which special
subsidies are given to environmentally friendly methods of
cultivation.
In connection with a mid-term assessment of Agenda 2000
in 2003, so-called single payment schemes were introduced.
As a general rule this scheme gives farms the same subsidy
per hectare independent of crop and yield. So-called cross
compliance was also introduced in 2003. This means that
individual farms must comply with a number of requirements relating to the environment, food safety, animal welfare and sound agricultural practice in order to secure a
subsidy. In practice it is not difficult to live up to these requirements these days. It is, however, to be expected that the
requirements will be sharpened up when the new Water
Framework and Natura 2000 directives are implemented.
Agricultural subsidies in the EU are still substantial. In 2008
agriculture had at its disposal more than 42.6% of the EU's
overall budget, equivalent to EUR 55 billion. Of this, some
75% is in the form of direct subsidies to individual farmers.41
In 2008 the average European farmer received DKK 2700 in
subsidy per hectare.
In 2008, rising cereal prices and the food shortage, among
other things, led to annulment of the set-aside scheme.
This meant that areas that had been set aside for a number
Big differences between European farms
European agriculture is still characterised by traditional
family farms, especially in southern Europe and the
new member states. 85% of farms in the EU are smaller
than 20 ha., and in countries such as Bulgaria, Rumania,
Poland and Italy there are millions of small farms under
5 ha. Other countries, such as the Czech Republic,
Britain, Denmark and parts of France have extremely
large farms. In most parts of Europe structural development is ongoing and the size of farms is increasing. In
several cases animal production must now be described as industry per se. Structural developments such as
these are likely to have serious social consequences in
countries like Bulgaria and Rumania since there needs
to be found alternative occupations for the many people who until now have more or less survived on their
minuscule 3-4 ha. farms.
19
of years and had developed into valuable natural habitats
are now being ploughed up in many places. Natural habitats are thus being lost and carbon which was bound to the
soil is being released in the form of the greenhouse gas
CO2.
In a so-called health check of the EU's agricultural policy in
2008 consideration of climate change is beginning to make
its mark on the agenda in which it, together with securing
water resources and biodiversity and the issue of energy
crops are being discussed as new challenges in the EU's
common agricultural policy.
World trade and agricultural subsidies
Along with export subsidies, customs regulations, etc., the
EU's farm subsidies are important issues in the international agreements relating to world trade under the World
Trade Organisation (WTO) and bilaterally.* Agricultural subsidies in the EU, the USA and other places have been criticised the years as anti-competitive practices, by among
others Brazil and India, which have been pushing for changes in the rich nations' agricultural policies.
For decades, agricultural subsidies in the EU and other
Western nations have, along with export subsidies, led to
food being sold at dumping prices in many countries, outcompeting local foods. This has resulted in far too little
money being invested in agricultural production in these
countries, which have become dependent on food imports.
The MacSharry Reform was therefore important in relation
to the WTO agreement of 1994. The EU's reduction of minimum prices was acknowledged as a step in the right direction away from direct production subsidies, and it was emphasised that customs duties and export subsidies were
simultaneously reduced by 36%.
The change to the new individual payment scheme in the
EU was acknowledged at the WTO as yet another step
towards a less anti-competitive agricultural policy. Several
people have pointed out, however, that the fact that the EU
and other countries still provide extensive agricultural subsidies while farmers in poor developing countries do not
receive any form of agricultural subsidy is anti-competitive.
20
Green visions for the EU's agricultural policy
A European environmental umbrella organisation, the
European Environmental Bureau (EEB) proposes that the
EU's agricultural policy be reorganised to be entirely oriented towards nature and the environment. One method
is to develop special sustainability criteria, with which
more and more farms must comply, ending with 100% in
2030. The sustainability criteria would be developed in
step with the acquisition of new knowledge.47
The EU is therefore still under pressure to scrap its agricultural subsidies.
What will the EU's agricultural policy look like in the future?
There is internal discussion within the EU as to whether
agricultural subsidies should be phased out or reduced to
much lower levels – or whether subsidies should only be
given as compensation for specific considerations of the
environment and the countryside. A number of opposing
interests exist in the different countries of the EU. France
and a number of countries in Eastern Europe, for example,
are working to maintain agricultural subsidies, with specific
reference to small farmers. They are striving to secure variety of regional foods and maintain communities in rural
areas so as to secure a livelihood for their many small farmers. Unlike them, countries like Denmark, Britain and
Holland, which no longer have many very small farms, want
liberalisation, with agricultural subsidies being phased out
entirely.
The Danish environment and development organisations
which are members of the 92-group have proposed that
the EU's agricultural policy is changed so that it no longer
provides direct agricultural support without proof of the
farmers delivering environmental and social services. They
SUGGESTED DISCUSSION TOPIC
Discuss what the EU's agricultural policy should look
like in the future if it is to help promote climate and
environmental considerations.
Food safety and increasing food prices
In 2008 Denmark, like the rest of the world, saw massive
increases in food prices, among other things as a result
of increased demand for biofuels and to meat production to supply the Asian market in particular. Reduced
harvest yields due to drought in, among others,
Australia, Ukraine, parts of Africa and the EU, also resulted in food shortages and increases in food prices.
Increasing energy prices49 and speculation contributed
to increasing food prices still further. This resulted in
massive problems in developing countries that import
foods – as well as people in towns and cities who cannot produce their own food. Conversely, the increase in
food prices has been good for poor farmers who sell at
market, while subsistence farmers have not been particularly influenced by world market prices. The dramatic
increases in food prices in 2008 have led to an increase
in the number of people starving in the world. The FAO
estimated that 923 million people would suffer from
malnourishment by the end of 2008. 50
This will entail Denmark making reductions in the nonquota sector 20% by 2020. This includes agriculture, transport and individual home heating (i.e. not district heating).
If other countries commit themselves to a global agreement, the EU is willing to increase its share to 30%. In such
case the targets will also be made more stringent for the
non-quota sector – likely 30% in Denmark. However, it was
also decided that the 2008 summit would be permissible
for 2/3 of the reduction in the non-quota sector to be achieved by a acquiring CO2 credits in other countries. Denmark
has, however, signaled that it will fulfil a minimum 50% of
its reductions domestically.
also propose a marked reduction in the overall agricultural
budget from 2013 and changes in the targets to promote
the climate, the environment and the countryside as part of
rural district development and the promotion of global considerations, including food safety by means of agricultural
development outside the EU.48
In the longer term there are a number of possibilities being
discussed in connection with international negotiations on
the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. One proposal
that has come up is to include CO2 accounting on imports
and exports of goods, including agricultural produce.
Global climate negotiations
Copenhagen is to host the Climate Summit in 2009, at
which the emission of greenhouse gases by agriculture will
also be on the agenda. Via the 1997 Kyoto protocol and the
EU burden-sharing agreement, Denmark has committed
itself to reducing emissions of greenhouse gases by 21% in
relation to 1990 during the period 2008-12.
SUGGESTED ASSIGNMENTS
1. Write an article about agriculture and food scene in
relationship to the environment, the countryside
and/or climate change.
2. Organise a panel debate in which 3-5 students each
present their own proposals as to how agriculture
can contribute to solving the climate problem, followed by a question and answers session with the
rest of the class or group. The individual students
may have each their own focus, for example they
may want to represent different interest groups or
political parties.
At a summit in March 2007, the EU adopted as a binding
target its commitment to reduce CO2 emissions in the EU
member states by 20% by 2020. The EU intends to implement this unilaterally, and this was confirmed at the EU
summit in December 2008. The EU's future targets up to
and including 2020 are to be divided into quota and nonquota sectors – by way of a climate and energy package.
Because emissions from transport will increase considerably
massive efforts will be necessary simply to stabilise these. It
must therefore be expected that the target for the non-quota
sector will demand a considerable effort on the part of agriculture. At the same time, many of the "low-hanging fruits" harvested by farmers already come under the water environment
plans which, as mentioned above, have led as a side-effect to a
reduction in emissions of greenhouse gases by agriculture.
21
Glossary
Chili sin carne: Chilli without meat
Successive crops: crops sown in between or after the main
crop, providing a growing plant cover after the main
crop is harvested and which can absorb excess nitrogen
and store it until the next growing season, thus reducing nitrogen washout.
Treatment frequency: A Danish method of specification
defined as the number of times a farmer has sprayed in
a year with the recommended and approved dose per
hectare (ha).
Invasive species: Plants or animals which are moved by
man, deliberately or not, from their natural habitat to a
new biosphere and which displace the original plant or
animal life. In the longer term they can thus lead to
considerable changes in landscapes and ecosystems
and contribute to reducing biodiversity.
Biodiversity: The existence of a wide variety of species living
in their natural environment.
Pathogen: Organisms or substances which can cause disease.
Agricultural undertaking: a generic term for agriculture,
forestry and horticulture. A number of sources use
agriculture as a joint definition which we have chosen
not to change.
**Nitrogen fixation: The ability of leguminous plants to
absorb nitrogen from the atmosphere in symbiosis with
rhizobium bacteria.
BAT technologies: Best Available Technology, the technology
that imposes the least burden on the environment.
Liquid manure: Urine from domestic animals collected in a
tank.
Deep litter: A mat of manure containing ample quantities
of straw which lies in the rest area of an animal pen for
several months before being removed.
Loose housing: Pens arranged with a large area allowing
animals to move about and socialise.
ha: = hectare, 1 ha = 10,000 m2
22
Erosion: The gradual destruction of the soil resulting in the
loss of hummous and thus its ability to absorb and
retain moisture. Erosion can be caused by wind, waves,
running water, glaciers or human activities such as tree
felling or intensive farming without adding new nutrients and humus to the soil.
Slurry cistern: Slurry container beneath the slatted floor of
pen systems.
Eutrofication: Excessive manuring. The word is used to
describe water containing excessive amounts of nutritional salts, especially nitrate and phosphate.
Eutrophication causes strong growth of algae in lakes,
rivers, inlets, etc. into which nutrient-rich rich water is
led off.
Allocation: Allocation of resources for different purposes –
applies here to a specific method.
Extensive agricultural production: In this context e.g. cattle
grazing on large areas covered in grasses poor in nutrients, making for slow animal growth.
Bilateral: Agreements between individual countries as
opposed to multilateral agreements involving many
countries.
Subsistence farmers: Farmers who mainly live on their own
produce and who do not go to market.
Notes
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
The Danish Ecological Council: Environmental
Integration in EU Agricultural Policy, January 2009, and
the summary: A proposal from the Danish Ecological
Council on: A Sustainable agriculture in 2020. Both can
be downloaded from: www.ecocouncil.dk.
www.dmi.dk
NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) James
E. Hansen, see http://www.information.dk/print/161686
Danish Energy Agency, 2003: Global climate changes, an
introduction to the UN’s climate panel’s third assessment report
National Geographic News, 28 November 2006
Josef Settele: Climatic risk atlas of european butterflies,
Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research, 2008
IPCC 2007: Climate Change synthesis report, Summary
for policymakers
Climate change – Humanity’s greatest challenge yet,
DMU 2008
http://www.dmi.dk/dmi/virkninger_af_klimaaendringer.pdf Danish only
http://www.foi.life.ku.dk/Publikationer/Rapporter/~
/media/Foi/docs/Publikationer/Rapporter/Nummerered
e%20rapporter/2008/Rapport_197.pdf.ashx - Danish
only
Danish Environment Agency:
Bekæmpelsesmiddelstatistik - pesticides statistics
www.mst.dk - Danish only
Press release from Pan-European: Highest ever levels of
pesticides in food, 15.10.2008
Ulla Kristine Brandt: Klimaforandringer i et folkesundhedsperspektiv, Det Økologiske Råd, i
Sundhedsstyrelsen: Miljø og Sundhed nr. 32, dec. 2006 Danish only
Fødevarestyrelsen (the Danish Veterinary and Food
Administration): Facts about bluetongue www.foedevarestyrelsen.dk/bluetongue Danish only and dtu:
www.dmi.dk - Danish only
Kaare Fog: Ecology – a textbook, Gads Forlag 2001 (in
Danish)
Emissions of greenhouse gases are calculated by converting gases such as methane and laughing gas to CO2
equivalents
DJF report: Jørgen E. Olesen (Editor): Agricultural greenhouse gas emissions - ways of reducing them, 2005
(Danish only)
Kaare Fog: Ecology – a textbook, Gads Forlag 2001
Figures provided by Jørgen E. Olesen, DJF
The Agricultural Sciences Faculty at Århus University
Jørgen E. Olesen et. al.: Greenhouse gases and domestic
animal production, “Aktuel Naturvidenskab” (Natural science now) no. 5 2007
Greenpeace International: Cool Farming: Climate
impacts of agriculture and mitigation potential , 2008
The figures for meat production are from the FAO, here
taken from Jan Dahlmann: The threat of the steaks.
Ingeniøren (The Engineer) 9.2.2008 (in Danish)
Knud Vilby: The EU’s agricultural policy and the global
challenges, 2008, see www.92grp.dk (in Danish)
25 Danish Institute of Food and Resource Economics
Agriculture and climate report December 2008
26 Niels Halberg / Darcof: Energy use and Green house gas
emissions in organic agriculture
27 UNEP and UNCTAD, October 2008: Organic agriculture
and food security in Africa
28 International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge,
Science and Technology for Development, IAASTD:
Report April 2008, www.agassessment.org
29 Juan J. Jiménez: Organic Agriculture and the millenium
developement targets, IFOAM, 2006
30 Aage Dissing November 2008, personal account
31 Michael Rothenborg: Pigs in Paradise, at variance with
nature, 2006, p. 47 (Danish). Figures from Landsudvalget
for Svin, KVL/KU-LIFE
32 DJF Århus University: Internal report on domestic animal production no. 12 November 2008: Marianne Bonde:
Occurrence of shoulder sores in Danish sow herds
33 Jørgen E. Olesen et. al.: Greenhouse gases and domestic
animal production, “Aktuel Naturvidenskab” (Natural science now) no. 5 2007
34 www.lcafood.dk - Danish
35 See www.lcafood.dk and the recipe insert in this pamphlet
36 http://www.miljoeogsundhed.dk/filarkiv/data_mad.xls
37 Karl Vogt-Nielsen, CASA for SID: Comparison of the production of tomatoes and cucumbers in Denmark and
Spain, 2004 - in Danish
38 www.soilassociation.org/airfreight
39 www.lcafood.dk
40 This section and the suggested topics are intended for
students at advanced level.
41 The Danish Ministry of Food Agriculture and Fisheries:
Memorandum on developments in the EU’s agricultural
budget, 23.1.2008, case number: 8886
42 Dansk Landbrug and Landbrugsrådet: Danish farms in
figures 2007 - Danish
43 Danmarks Statistik: Dansk Landbrug i tal 2007, samt
Danish Meat Association, se www.danishmeat.dk
44 Hans Nielsen: The Water Framework directive, Danish
Ecological Council, 2007
45 The Danish Nature Council Skeletons in this landscape,
report 2005
46 Christian Friis Bach and John Nordbo: The global marketplace, the WTO in brief, MS, the Danish Association
for International Co-operation. (in Danish)
47 European Environmental Bureau (EEB): Vision European
Agriculture 2008-2020, se www.eeb.org
48 Knud Vilby: The EU’s agricultural policy and global challenges, 2008, (in Danish) see www.92grp.dk
49 Energy prices set a record to date in the summer of 2008,
but although they have fallen considerably since then,
the International Energy Agency, IEA, believes that in the
long term oil and energy prices will continue to rise.
50 FAO: Food Outlook, november 2008
23
D
O
O
F
T
Y
E
H
N
T
A
L
L
P
HEA
K
C
I
S
FOR A
How can we reduce emissions of greenhouse gases
caused by agriculture and food consumption?
Over the next 100 years, global climate change will alter the conditions for life on Earth. The balance of the
ecosystems will be upset, vulnerable natural areas risk further loss of biodiversity and new plant and animal
species will dominate, further upsetting the balance. The production of foods in many parts of the world may
become more unstable because of the increased risk of for example extremely heavy rainfall and long-term
drought.
Agriculture and food production are major sources of man-made greenhouse gas emissions.
There is tremendous potential for limiting emissions of greenhouse gases from agriculture and foods, e.g. by
cooling slurry and the production of biogas. However, we also need to further develop such solutions and promote their use. At the same time, it is possible to combine consideration of the climate and other considerations such as nature, environment, and animal welfare. Organic farming is one form of production that balances up these considerations, but this also needs improvement, among other things as regards its impact on
the climate.
We also need to look at our own personal behaviour, e.g. what we eat. Eating less meat and more domestic
root vegetables will enable us to substantially reduce our CO2 emissions.
At the political level, climate change can be prevented in connection with the solution of other problems such
as economic recession, hunger and malnutrition, as well as the increasing price of food and energy.
This teaching pamphlet will focus on the interplay between agriculture and foods and climate, environment
and nature. Some considerations do not go hand in hand, such as climate and animal welfare. How do we
measure the impact of different foods on the climate? Which political agendas are in play? The pamphlet is
intended to encourage debate on challenges and dilemmas and also includes a recipe insert with examples of
climate-friendly meals to enable us to act at a personal level.
The pamphlet and recipe insert have been produced together with an educational DVD, all with the title "Healthy
food for a sick planet" in cooperation with Batavia Media. All three have been produced as a contribution to education aimed at sustainable development and are intended for social sciences and geography at high school level,
as well as a broader target group in youth and adult education.
Creating tomorrow's environment today