Socio-economic analysis of NAP regulationimplementation

Dr. Cathal BuckleyTeagasc ACP TeamTeagasc Colleagues: David Wall, Edel Kelly, Brian Moran, Thia Hennessy, Cathal O’Donoghue, Aine Macken-Walsh, Kevin Heanue.Others: Paul Murphy (UCD), Sarah Mechan (EPA), Stephen Hynes, Stephen O’Neill,Patricia Carney (NUI Galway) Peter Howley (University of York)

Introduction

Overview of Irish agriculture

ACP socio-economic research

Research in development

Agriculture in Republic of Ireland

Population of 4 million - produces enough food for 36 million people

Between 85-90% of production exported → Agri-food 10.6% of totalexports 6.3% of gross value added 7.4% of national employment

Milk and beef production are 60% of Ag. output - grazed grass systems

5th largest beef exporter in in the world (500,000 tonnes annually)

Dairying most intensive land based sector - 15,654 farms producing 5.6billion litres of milk 1% of world dairy cows 10th largest dairy export nation in world. 15% of the world’s infant milk formula

Between 2000-2010, highest average wheat and second highest averagebarley yields in the world

Terms of reference - ACP

Economic component

Nutrient management efficiency

Attitudinal / Behavioural Element

Uptake of NM best practices

Provision of ecosystem services

First Thematic Area -Nutrient management efficiency

Investigate double dividend win-win scenarios

Economic Nutrient management efficiency – Initial analysis

Productivity Analysis - Data envelopment analysis

Focus on specialist dairy and tillage farms

Benchmarks farms against most efficient in the sample

Ratio of outputs to inputs (Milk and cereals → Fertiliser, feeds, labour, other variable costs.

Stratified by good & average soils using National Farm Survey 2008 data.

Results of this one year static analysis Some inefficiency in the system (83-87% technical efficiency)

23-33 Kgs N Ha-1 and 2.9-3.5 Kgs P Ha-1

€39-49 Ha-1 modelled fertiliser cost savings

Buckley, C. and P. Carney., 2013. "The potential to reduce the risk of diffuse pollutionfrom agriculture while improving economic performance at farm level." EnvironmentalScience & Policy 25:118-126.

More Recent Research – NM Efficiency

Policymakers - Indicators of environmental sustainability? EU Nitrates Directive – What if anything has changed?

Temporal trends in the sustainable use of N and P using theTeagasc National Farm Survey (Buckley, Murphy, Wall, &Moran) NFS part of the EU Farm Accountancy Data Network (FADN) National representativeness

Research outputs1. Indicators in the use of N & P across 6 different farm systems Baseline and benchmarking – base year of 2012

2. Improvement in the efficiency of use of N and P at farm levelbetween 2006-2012 using NFS specialist dairy farms? Effect of regulations

Sustainability Indicators - Measurement Metrics

1. Farm-gate balance (N & P) Inputs and outputs that go through the farm gate

Limits analysis to element within farmers control

Equalizes inputs and outputs into Kgs Ha-1

Coefficients from literature

Inputs – outputs = Balance (surplus/deficit) (Kgs Ha-1)

Indicator of pressure on environmental quality

2. Nutrient use efficiency (Outputs / Inputs) x 100%

Indicator of agronomic efficiency in N and P use

Farm-gate balance

Source: Nevens et al., 2006

Output 1 – Deriving Sustainability indicators acrossdifferent farm systems

1. Farm gate balances and use efficiencies across differentfarm systems Teagasc National Farm Survey (NFS) 2012

Excluding farms importing / exporting organic manures

Results for 6 different farms systems for 2012

N=845, population weighted to 72,688

First to use FADN to generate these indicators across a range offarms systems using volume based data

Ability to benchmark going forward – Report like economic data

Buckley, C. Wall, D., Moran, B. and Murphy, P., - Paper under review in Nutrient Cycling inAgrosystems.

Farm systemSpecialistDairying

MixedLivestock

CattleOther

CattleRearing

SpecialistTillage

SpecialistSheep

AllSystems

Imports Kgs Ha-1(mean)

N Fertiliser 155.8 111.6 54.7 47.5 107.5 38.6 76.8

N Other Imports 32 24.9 17.4 8.1 9.4 14.5 17.4

Total N Imports 187.8 136.5 72.1 55.6 116.9 53.1 94.2

Exports Kgs Ha-1 (mean)

Total N Exports 42.3 30.6 16.2 7.3 64.4 14.9 23.2

N Balance Kgs Ha-1(mean) 145.5 105.9 55.9 48.3 52.5 38.2 71.0

NUE %(5% trimmed mean)

23.2 22.9 24.9 14.9 56.0 35.9 25.0

N balance and use efficiency – Farm System 2012

Farm systemSpecialistDairying

MixedLivestock

CattleOther

CattleRearing

SpecialistTillage

SpecialistSheep

AllSystems

Imports Kgs Ha-1(mean)

P Fertiliser 6.9 6.5 5.7 4.4 18.2 4.5 6.3

P Other Imports 8.4 6.7 5.3 2.1 2.9 4.1 4.9

Total P Imports 15.3 13.2 11.0 6.5 21.1 8.6 11.2

Exports Kgs Ha-1 (mean)

Total P Exports 9.1 8.0 6.3 3.0 14.8 4.7 6.5

P Balance Kgs Ha-1(mean) 6.2 5.2 4.7 3.5 6.3 3.9 4.7

PUE %(5% trimmed mean)

69.1 66.0 66.0 61.8 67.2 73.2 65.9

P balance and use efficiency – Farm System 2012

Output 2 - Trends in N and P use since EU Nitratesbased NAP measures in 2006

Changing in use of N & P since the EU Nitrates based NAPregulations introduced in 2006?

Data

150 specialist dairy farms who have remained in NFSbetween 2006-2012

7 years data

Average population weight

Represents 8,668 nationally over the period.

Buckley, C. Wall, D., Moran, B., O’Neill, S. and Murphy, P., Some of this research underreview in Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment

Trends in N Balance and use efficiency 2006-2012

Imports (mean) 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

N Fertiliser Kgs Ha-1 177.0 163.0 147.7 159.2 163.7 157.4 153.9

N Concentrates Kgs Ha-1 26.7 23.8 28.7 23.4 25.0 21.7 25.6

N Other Imports Kgs Ha-1 6.2 6.0 5.0 6.2 6.3 6.2 6.7

Total N Imports Kgs Ha-1 209.9 192.8 181.4 188.8 195.0 185.2 186.2

Exports (mean)

N Milk Kgs Ha-1 29.9 30.5 29.8 28.6 32.8 33.7 32.6

N Other Imports Kgs Ha-1 11.0 10.6 10.2 9.1 9.4 9.4 9.5

Total N Exports Kgs Ha-1 40.9 41.1 40.0 37.7 42.2 43.1 42.1

N Balance Kgs Ha-1 169.0 151.8 141.4 151.1 152.8 142.1 144.1

Nitrogen use efficiency 21.2 22.8 23.3 21.3 22.4 24.3 23.6

Trends in P Balance and use efficiency 2006-2012

Imports (mean) 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

P Fertilisers Kgs Ha-1 13.3 9.1 7.3 6.6 6.8 6.6 6.8

P Concentrates Kgs Ha-1 7.4 6.6 7.9 6.5 6.9 6.0 7.1

P Other Imports Kgs Ha-1 1.3 1.3 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.3 1.0

Total P Imports Kgs Ha-1 22.0 17.0 16.3 14.3 15.0 13.9 15.2

Exports (Mean)

P Milk Kgs Ha-1 5.6 5.7 5.5 5.3 5.6 5.7 5.5

P Other Exports Kgs Ha-1 4.3 4.1 3.9 3.5 3.6 3.6 3.6

Total P Exports Kgs Ha-1 9.9 9.8 9.4 8.8 9.2 9.3 9.1

P Balance Kgs Ha-1 12.1 7.2 7.0 5.5 5.8 4.6 6.1

P use efficiency 59.2 72.9 77.6 79.5 80.0 88.3 78.0

Results 2006-2012

N balance decline of 24.9 kgs ha-1 & NUE increase of 2.4% isattributable to reduced chemical N imports mainly. Equivalent to reduction of 1,245 kgs of N across the average farm Saving of €1,344 per annum on the average farm

P balances has declined by almost 50% (6.0 kgs ha-1) and Puse efficiency has increased by circa 19 per cent across theaverage specialist dairy farm Equivalent to 300 kgs of P across the average farm Saving of €863 per annum across the average farm Soil P status unknown?

Win-win double dividend scenario

Regulation – No counterfactual, other drivers? Fertiliser prices, stocking rates, land use potential – soils, contact with

extension services, rainfall and temperature.

Second Thematic Area -Ecosystems services provision

Sustainable Intensification Provision of environmental non-market public goodsAgri-environment schemes

If a 5 year scheme was introduced → 10 metres fenced buffer zone,capital cost covered. Participation? (N=247, 12 catchments)

A = I would not participate in such a scheme (53%)

B = I would participate in the scheme on free-of-charge basis (7%)

C = I would participate if I was provided with an appropriate financialincentive (40%)

Participation affected – Lower opportunity cost to land, environmentalprotection attitudes, history of agri-environment participation …

Price demanded – €1.53 metre

Willingness of farmers to adopt riparian buffer zones

Buckley, C., Hynes, S., Mechan, S. 2012. Supply of an ecosystem service –Farmers willingness to adopt riparian buffer zones in agriculturalcatchments. Environmental Science & Policy, 24, 101-109.

Critical Source Areas Work in ACP Targeting measures

80/20 rule

Ian Thomas (PhD)Catchment

Hydro(geo)logically

Susceptible Area

(HSA)

Nutrient Source

Area

Critical Source AreaSource: Daly, 2013

Third thematic area:Behaviour and attitudes

NM Practices Catchments Survey in 2009/10 → (6) ACP + (6) controls = 401 farmers

Baseline (n=271, with organic manure)

Nutrient Management Practice Numbers

Adopting

Percent

Adopting

Chemical fertiliser recording 201 74%

Springtime organic manure application 191 70%

Soil testing 180 66%

Chemical fertiliser field calibration 170 63%

Organic manure recording 156 58%

Liming 140 52%

Organic manure field calibration 130 48%

Estimation of nutrient content of organic manures 128 47%

Nutrient management plan 72 27%

Organic manure application – Trailing shoe, band or injection. 14 5%

Intensity of NM Practice AdoptionNumber of

practices

Number of farmers

undertaking practice(s)

Percent of farmers

undertaking practices

0 3 1%

1 14 5%

2 21 8%

3 29 11%

4 41 15%

5 43 16%

6 30 11%

7 23 8%

8 47 17%

9 18 7%

10 3 1%

Mean 5.3

NM Practices

Count data model - Predictors NM practices Attitudes/motivations (farm stewardship, production, environment)

Contact with advisors & discussion groups

Farm structural variables (Age, off-farm employment, FYM)

Paper under review – International Journal of Agriculturalmanagement

Baseline established – Survey about to be repeated

Wider survey of slurry management practice NFS 2009/10 52 % of all slurry was applied between the end of the closed period

in January and April 30th. 35% of slurry was applied in the spring ina 2003 survey

6 per cent of dairy farmers reported using the trailing shoe

Full report Hennessy et al (2009) – Being built into normal NFScollection schedules

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

CountyCouncil

DEHLG

EPANon

Teagascagricultural consultant

DAFF

Thefarm

organisations

Accountant / taxconsultant

Discussiongroup

Farmw

alks/information

events

Farming

press

Other farm

ers

Family

Teagasc Adviser

Mo

tiv

ati

on

Motivation to follow opinion or advice regarding NMpractices (N=402)

Mean Scores (1 to 5)

Survey of ACP and Control catchments (N=401)

58% of farmers in REPS indicated they didn’t use aNMP

What form do farmer wants their NM advice to take?

What do advisors need to provide this?

Focus groups of advisors & farmers to examine thesefundamental questions

NM Plan Development – Open Innovation

Participatory Research with FarmersFarmer focus group – Design Ideal Nutrient Management Plan

Farmers tend not to be that heavily involved in NMP development process. This is arole generally undertake by an advisor.

There was a general consensus that farmers should develop and use NMPs asfertilisers are expensive and it’s important from an agronomic and environmentalperspective to use correctly.

Farmers would welcome more exposure to information around managing soils.

A NMP needs to be useful to farmer and not just deal with compliance

A NMP has to be simple and flexible.

The farmer focus group recommended a 1 page laminated A4 sheet with a map on thefront and table on the back.

Decision supports tools – text messaging.

Conclusion Snapshot overview of ACP socio-economic research

6 years of work so just giving a flavour

Didn’t touch on collaborative work on going

Nutrient management efficiency

Baselines established

Improvement in efficiency since NAP measures in 2006 across dairysystems

Opinions and attitudes

NM practices subject to a range of influence – Policy?

Baselines established

Set up to do a lot of exciting analysis – Phase 3?

Thank you

www.teagasc.ie/agcatchments