Impacts of increasing energy crops on food and other ecosystem services

Transcription

1 Agro2010: Montpellier August 31st Impacts of increasing energy crops on food and other ecosystem services

2 Biomass crops are being encouraged: Non-food crop Recycle their nutrients Miscanthus No annual cultivation High energy savings and GHG reductions All of the plant is used as feedstock Longer growing season SRC willow

3 Biomass crops: Perennial In the ground for circa 25 yrs Harvested in winter/spring Dense, tall crops Potential implications for: Landscape Tourist income Farm income Water availability and quality Biodiversity Soil Expansion under biomass crops will constitute a significant land use change

4 Basic approach of Relu_Biomass SRC willow and Miscanthus Two contrasting regions (SW England and E-Midlands) Existing data & generated new data to fill knowledge gaps Methodologies: 1. Public surveys; stakeholder and focus group meetings 2. Biodiversity assessments of each crop 3. Hydrology assessments using a physically based model (JULES) 4. Economic assessment from farm to wider scale 5. GIS-based suitability mapping 6. Sustainablity appraisal Defra project IF0104 allowed us to expand biodiversity research

5 Social acceptability Public survey June Town Centres Targeted 100/Centre Actual numbers = 490 TARGET AND ACTUAL AGE CLASSES OF RESPONDENTS IN EACH SURVEY AREA Age Lincoln Lincoln Retford Retford Taunton Taunton Bridgewater Bridgewater Target (%) Actual (%) Target (%) Actual (%) Target (%) Actual (%) Target (%) Actual (%) (n=117) (n=130) (n=126) (n=117) 16 to to to

6 Results Public survey 1. >65% recognised biomass as a renewable fuel 2. >75% felt both Miscanthus and SRC would fit very well or reasonably well into the landscape 3. >60% said they would not mind seeing the crops within the view from their home. 4. This percentage halved when a biomass power station was shown and proximity of 25 mile radius suggested 5. Only 32% of surveyed people were familiar with SRC and 17% with Miscanthus. Infrastructure rather than the crops per se are likely to attract more public concern

7 Focus group meetings Held in two regions 60 people GIS-based landscape visualisations and photos

8 Computer visualisation No energy crops With Miscanthus

9 Computer visualisation 10 m field margin 4 m field margin

10 Computer visualisation Landscape without biomass crops Differing field numbers and arrangements of biomass crops

11 Results Focus groups 1. Most concerns related to increased lorry movements, loss of view 2. The main benefit expressed was improved diversity within the landscape 3. Dispersed or random planting patterns of small fields were preferred m margin was more popular than the 4 m margin 5. Most favoured of small-scale boilers and CHP units over larger units. Unlikely that wide-scale planting of biomass crops will give rise to any substantial public concern in relation to their visual impact in the landscape

12 Biodiversity 24 commercial fields each crop Flora Seedbank Weeds (counts & biomass) Seed rain Invertebrates Ground & plant active Pollinators (bees & butterflies) Moths Aerial/canopy Identified to species level Same protocols as FSE project Allows cf. break crops and cereals Relu Biomass and Defra project IF0104 Established Miscanthus (n = 17) Newly planted Miscanthus (n = 8) Established SRC (n = 15) Newly planted SRC (n = 8)

13 Results butterfly sampling 4 transects, 100 m long in each margin Steady paced walk along transect Count butterflies flying through a 5m wide corridor around the transect Total butterflies higher overall than in arable Conservation groups up! More in SRC cf Miscanthus Haughton et al J. Appl Ecol. 46,

14 Results all indicators Sampled along 32m long transects evenly distributed around the edges of the crops, and perpendicular to the crop edge into the crop Indicators generally significantly higher in SRC willows cf. Miscanthus Indicators significantly greater in both biomass crops cf. arable crops 3 x in SRC willows than in Miscanthus 4 x (Miscanthus) and 11 x (SRC) than in cereals 1.5 x ground and plant active inverts in SRC willows than Miscanthus 2.5 x canopy insects in the SRC willows than Miscanthus.

15 Results ratio of weed densities in biomass crops cf. cereals Miscanthus SRC R>1 = more in biomass crops R<1 = more in cereals R totals monocots dicots ruderal competitors short lived

16 Results Mean Diversity Indices of Weeds 8 mean diversity Index miscanthus SRC willows 0 newly planted established Plant diversity significantly > in newly planted SRC willows cf new Miscanthus Difference does not endure to established fields Species abundance is significantly different between the two established crops

17 Weed Species in Miscanthus Invertebrate species in Miscanthus Weed species in SRC willows Invertebrate species in SRC willows

18 Results birds PSA 28 biodiversity indicator Relevant Farmland bird species SRC v SRC v Misc V Misc v Grass Arable grass Arable Prefer Energy crop Equally Prefer previous Land Use Don t know SRC positive for many birds: Miscanthus neutral Birds needing open spaces and winter flocking may be disadvantaged Sage et al. (2010) Ibis 152:

19 Management vs crop

20 Water-use SRC willow and Miscanthus roots grow no deeper than deeper rooting annual crops. SRC willow water use is similar to that of a cereal crop, higher than permanent grass and lower than that of mature woodlands Miscanthus water-use approaches that of woodlands.

21 Impacts of expansion on alternative land-use Yield map for all soils except organic (~ 11 M ha) Yield map for 9 (primary) constraints (<8 M ha) Yield map 11 (secondary) constraints (<5 M ha) Yield map for all constraints plus ALC 3 & 4 (~ 3 M ha)

22 Results (i) Regional contrasts occur (ii) Highest biomass yields co-locate with food producing areas on high grade land (iii) After high grade land and environmentally sensitive areas are excluded, a policy-related scenario for increased planting on 350,000 ha utilised 4-28% of lower grade land. Lovett et al BioEnergy Research 2:17-28

23 Sustainability appraisal: Approach Identify Objectives and Indicators for each Region Generate Sustainability Framework (for SW and EM) Check against Regional Spatial Strategies Use completed framework to test scenarios

24 Sustainability objectives (for SW and EM) Framework East Midlands Objectives Minimise transport movements Enhance rural quality of life Increase water availability Improve public enjoyment of the countryside Safeguard the historic environment Reduce energy costs to the consumer Increase amount of energy produced locally Increase the viability of local economies Enhance tourism potential Enhance viability of farming Maximise waste management opportunities Enhance employment Enhance local landscape character Improve water quality Protect soil resources Improve air quality Protect and enhance biodiversity Reduce greenhouse gas emissions Maintain food security South West Objectives Minimise additional vehicle movements Enhance rural quality of life Maintain water availability Improve public connection with the countryside Safeguard the historic environment Reduce energy costs Increase amount of energy produced and used locally Increase the viability of local economies Maintain tourism resource Enhance viability of farming Maximise waste management opportunities Enhance rural employment Enhance local landscape character Improve water quality Protect and improve soil resources Improve air quality Protect and enhance biodiversity Reduce greenhouse gas emissions

25 Indicators suitability biodiversity example Agreed indicator Suitability criteria Change in farmland bird species (EM; SW) Change in local (native) populations of characteristic plant and invertebrate species/groups (EM; SW) Priority species and habitat status (EM; SW) Changes in BAP species in the local landscape (SW) policy relevant cover a range of environmental receptors relevant to the plan in question show trends be easily understandable to the public and decision makers be well founded technically and scientifically prioritise key issues and provide early warning adaptable to reflect differing circumstances

26 Scenario development Developed by project members with stakeholders EAST MIDLANDS 1. LAND COVER 1a) 72,000 Ha of SRC and Miscanthus planting (assume 50:50 split) 1b) 18,000 Ha of SRC and Miscanthus planting (assume 50:50 split) 1c) Extreme 200,000 Ha of SRC and Miscanthus planting (assume 50:50 split) 2. BIOMASS END-USE 2a) Small-scale CHP (Based on 8MW CHP units) 2b) Large-scale co-firing (Based on 100MW-biomass units) 2c) Dedicated Biomass (Based on 40MW units) 3. LANDSCAPE MANAGEMENT 3a) 50:50 - Heavily aggregated 3b) 50:50 - Realistic scenario 3c) 50:50 - Evenly spread 4. FIELD MANAGEMENT 4a) 4m 4b) 10m SOUTH WEST 1. LAND COVER SW Scenario 1a) 43,000 Ha of Miscanthus planting 1b) 18,000 Ha of Miscanthus planting 1c) Extreme 130,000 Ha of Miscanthus planting 2. BIOMASS END-USE 2a) Small-scale CHP (Based on 8MW CHP units) 2b) Large-scale co-firing (Based on 100MW-biomass units) 2c) Dedicated Biomass (Based on 40MW units) 3. LANDSCAPE MANAGEMENT: SW 3a) Monocrop Miscanthus - Heavily aggregated 3b) Monocrop Miscanthus - Realistic scenario 3c) Monocrop Miscanthus - Evenly spread 4. FIELD MANAGEMENT 4a) 4m 4b) 10m

27 Portion of the SA grid 1b) 18,000 Ha of SRC and Miscanthus planting Assumption: Given the significant element of unknown effects of Miscanthus on birds in the landscape, this lower planting level naturally leads to a lower risk overall of potential disbenefits and consequently may be a preferred scenario in the SW at least initially. However this also leads to a smaller amount of SRC which is very good for birds. which mmay change with New knowledge and a better understanding of how to avoid unwanted effects with miscanthus and how to make the most of the potential benefits of this crop to birds. In general this lower planting requirement is likely to lead to positive impacts on birds, especially bird biodiversity generally, a slightly positive impact on the FBI, a greatly reduced potential for conflicts with senstivie sites and sensitive species and a genral likelihood of increasing land use mixes locally. 2a) Small-scale CHP Assumption: Plantations likely to occur in areas distributed throughout region. This scenario has lowest risk of negative impacts and is most likely to lead to a positive impact on bird biodiversity overall and the FBI. This is because land uses mixes are likely to increase, pressures on unimproved sites lowest and benefits of in paroticualr SRC to the FBI. 3a) Heavily aggregated Assumption: Low overall panting rate means low risk overall. While lots of small local plantings, aggregation within these means Local mix of landuses may decrease but easy to avoid.. Conflicts with sensitive habitats/species also avoidable. No reduction in FBI Increase in bird bio possible. 3b) Realistic scenario Assumption: Low overall panting rate means low risk overall. Combined with lots of small local planitngs local mix of landuses very likely to increase. Conflicts with sensitive habitats/species possible but easy to avoid. No reduction in FBI Increase in bird bio. 4a) 4m Assumption: Good for birds when not shaded. 4b) 10m Assumption: Good for birds in most situations. 4a) 4m Assumption: Good for birds when not shaded. 4b) 10m Assumption: Good for birds in most situations. Increase in fields used overall

28 SA findings so far A SAFEGUARD THE HISTORIC ENVIRONMENT East Midlands South West [A2] Loss or damage to historic landscapes Same as H2 Same as H2 B PROTECT AND ENHANCE BIODIVERSITY [B1] Bird population indices (a) farmland birds (UK Government SD Indicator 20) (6) 21, 22, 23, 24 21, 22, 23, 24 [B3] Characteristic plant and invertebrate species/groups 12, 18, 24, 30, 36 6, 12, 18, 24, 30, 36 [B4] Butterfly abundance 6, 12, 18, 24, 30, 36 6, 12, 18, 24, 30, 36 C REDUCE GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS [C2] CO2, NO, CH4 emissions by biomass installation type over lifecycle not just combustion of biomass 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42 (all scenarios beneficial) [C3] Renewable electricity generated as a percentage of total electricity Not relevant replaced by F5 [C5] Ratio of energy output to energy input (through cultivation, harvesting, etc). 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 19, 20,21, 22, 23, 24, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42 (all scenarios beneficial) 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 19, 20,21, 22, 23, 24, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42 (all scenarios beneficial) Can see which scenarios have favourable results for the different objectives and indicators Some scenarios consistently come out better than others e.g. small scale CHP,

29 Summary 1. Many positive benefits could accrue from growing energy crops 2. Recommendations on management and field size (and margins) will encourage landscape compatibility and help ensure that the positive benefits on biodiversity are realised 3. GIS-based yield and suitability mapping can help identify important land-use implications at regional or finer spatial scales 4. Sustainability appraisal is a useful tool to appraise impacts of different planting scenarios

30 Acknowledgements Rufus Sage Mark Cunningham David Bohan Alison Haughton Andrew Riche Goetz Richter Andrew Lovett Alan Bond Trudie Dockerty Katy Appleton Gisela Sünnenberg Martin Turner Jon Finch Thanks to the Growers and Stakeholders