World Agriculture Vol.3 No.1 (Summer 2012)

Front 23/7/12 13:29 Page 1

Dear readers,

If you wish to receive regular Issues of this Journal please complete the stripand post it to: Circulation Department, Script Media, 47 Church Street,Barnsley, South Yorkshire S70 2AS or fax it to the publishers on 01226734478.

Or fill in the form online at www.world-agriculture.net

If you wish to place an advertisement in future Issues please in the firstinstance contact the Publishers by e-mail [email protected] or bypost: World Agriculture, Script Media, 47 Church Street, Barnsley, SouthYorkshire, S70 2AS.

If you wish to submit an article for consideration by the Editorial Board forinclusion in a Section of World Agriculture:a) Scientific b) Economic & Social c) Opinion & Comment, or d) a Letter to the Editor,please follow the Instructions to Contributors printed in this Issue and submitby e-mail to the Editor at the address given at the end of the Instructions.

For further information about World Agriculture please go to the followingweb address: www.world-agriculture.net

Yours faithfully,

David Frape

Name ..........................................................................................................

Business Address .........................................................................................

................................. Email ..........................................................................

Contact number ..........................................................................................

Job title ........................................................................................................

Inside Front 12/10/11 16:35 Page 1

WORLD AGRICULTURE 1

editorial

PatronSir Crispin TickellGCMG, KCVO ChairmanProfessor Sir Colin SpeddingCBE, MSc, PhD, DSc, CBiol, Hon FSB, FRASE, FIHort, FRAgS, FRSA, Hon AssocRCVS, Hon DSc AgriculturalistDeputy Chairman & EditorDr David FrapeBSc, PhD, PG Dip Agric, CBiol, FSB, FRCPath, RNutr Mammalian physiologistEmail: [email protected] Editor Robert CookBSc, CBiol, FSB (UK)Plant pathologist and agronomistAssistant Editor Dr Ben AldissBSc, PhD, CBiol, MSB, FRES (UK)Ecologist, entomologist and educationalistMembers of the Editorial BoardProfessor Pramod Kumar Aggarwal (India)B.Sc, M.Sc, Ph.D. (India), Ph.D. (Netherlands), FNAAS (India), FNASc (India)Crop ecologistProfessor Phil Brookes (UK)BSc, PhD, DSc (UK)Soil microbial ecologistProfessor Andrew Challinor (UK)BSc, PhD (UK)Agricultural meteorologistProfessor J. Perry Gustafson (USA)BSc, MS, PhD (USA)Plant geneticistProfessor Sir Brian Heap CBE (UK)BSc, MA, PhD, ScD, FSB, FRSC, FRAgS, FRS (UK)Animal physiologistProfessor Paul Jarvis (UK)FRS, FRSE, FRSwedish Soc. Agric. & Forestry (UK)SilviculturalistProfessor Brian Kerry (UK)MBE, BSc, PhD (UK)Soil microbial ecologistProfessor Glen M. MacDonald (USA)BA, MSc, PhD (USA)GeographerProfessor Sir John Marsh (UK)CBE, MA, PG Dip Ag Econ, CBiol, FSB, FRASE, FRAgS (UK)Agricultural economistProfessor Ian McConnell (UK)BVMS, MRVS, MA, PhD, FRCPath, FRSE (UK)Animal immunologist Professor Denis J Murphy (UK)BA, DPhil (UK)Crop biotechnologistDr Christie Peacock (UK) BSc, PhD, FRSA, FRAgS, Hon. DSc, FSB (UK)Tropical AgriculturalistProfessor RH Richards (UK)C.B.E., M.A., Vet. M.B., Ph.D., C.Biol., F.S.B., F.R.S.M., M.R.C.V.S., F.R.Ag.S (UK)AquaculturalistProfessor John Snape (UK)BSc PhD (UK)Crop geneticistProfessor Neil C. Turner (Australia)FTSE, FAIAST, FNAAS (India), BSc, PhD, DSc (Australia)Crop physiologistDr Roger Turner (UK)BSc PhD, MBPR (UK)Agronomist Advisor to the boardDr John BinghamCBE, FRS, FRASE, ScD (UK)Crop geneticist

World Agriculture Editorial Board

Published by Script Media,47 Church Street,

Barnsley, South Yorkshire S70 2AS, UK

Editorial AssistantsDr Philip Taylor BSc, MSc, PhDMs Sofie Aldiss BScMichael J.C. Crouch BSc MSc (Res)Rob Coleman BSc MSc

01 23/7/12 11:57 Page 1

04 12/10/11 16:04 Page 1

WORLD AGRICULTURE 3

contents

Editorials:� Is there a problem? 5

Robert Cook

� Developments in East Africa 6 Professor Sir Colin Spedding

� The complexities of global fertilizer use 7-8Professor Denis Murphy

� Economics of agriculture 9-10Professor Sir John MarshReply to Sir John Marsh

Philip Bicknell

Scientific:� Australia’s Water Reform, with especial reference 11-18to the Murray Darling Basin

Dr John C Radcliffe, AM

� Climate change and food security of India: adaptation 20-26 strategies for the irrigation sector

Professor P.K.Aggarwal, Professor K. Palanisami,Dr M. Khanna and Dr K.R.Kakumanu

� The Advent of Nanotechnology in Smart Fertiliser 27-31Dr Nilwala Kottegoda, Ms Imalka Munaweera, Mr Nadeesh Madusanka,

Mr Dinaratne Sirisena, Dr Nimal Dissanayake, Professor Gehan A. J.Amaratunga and Professor Veranja Karunaratne

Economic & Social:� Another Reform? Proposals for the post-2013 32-37Common Agricultural Policy

Professor Alan Swinbank

� Sustainable farming – stepping up to the challenge 38-44Dr Andrea Graham, Tom Hind, Dr Philip Bicknell

� Dairying: a British project to develop a more sustainable future 45-49 Andy Richardson, Dr Jessica Cooke

and Dr Richard Kirkland

Books and Report Reviews:� Ed. Bourne & Collins Hook to Plate: the state of Marine Fisheries; aCommonwealth Perspective 49

Letters to the Editor� Cocktail effects of pesticides, Response to a letter by Christopher Jones,WA Vol. 2, No. 2.Dr David Hughes 50

Instructions to contributors 51-52

Potential future articles 53

Publisher’s Disclaimer No responsibility is assumed by the Publisherfor any injury and/or damage to persons orproperty as a matter of products liability,negligence or otherwise or from any use oroperation of any methods, products,instructions or ideas contained in thematerial herein. Although all advertisingmaterial is expected to conform to ethicalstandards, inclusion in this publication doesnot constitute a guarantee, or endorsementof the quality or value of such product bythe Publisher, or of the claims made by themanufacturer.

In this Issue ...

Cover image: Nevada desertsage brush and wheat at sunset.

03 26/7/12 10:58 Page 1

4 WORLD AGRICULTURE

Near drought conditions challenge spring soybeancrops. (Glycine max)

World Agriculture:A peer-reviewed, scientific review journal directed towards opinion formers, decision makers, policy makers and farmers

objectives and functions of the Journal

The Journal will publish articles giving clear, unbiased and factual accounts of development in, oraffecting, world agriculture. Articles will interpret the influence of related subjects (including climate,forestry, fisheries and human population, economics, transmissible disease, ecology) on thesedevelopments. Fully referenced, and reviewed, articles by scientists, economists and technologists will beincluded with editorial comment. Furthermore, a section for “Opinion & Comment” allows skilledindividuals with considerable experience to express views with a rational basis that are argued logically.References to papers that have been subject to peer-review will not be mandatory for this section. Fromtime to time the Editor will invite individuals to prepare articles on important subjects of topical andinternational concern for publication in the Journal.

Articles will be independently refereed. Each article must create interest in the reader, pose a challenge toconventional thought and create discussion. Each will:

1) Explain likely consequences of the directions that policy, or development, is taking. This will includeinteractive effects of climate change, population growth and distribution, economic and social factors,food supplies, transmissible disease evolution, oceanic changes and forest cover. Opinion, in the “Opinion& Comment” Section must be based on sound deductions and indicated as such. Thus, an importantobjective is to assist decision-makers and to influence policies and methods that ensure development isevidence-based and proceeds in a more “sustainable” way. Without a clear understanding of theeconomic causes of the different rates of agricultural development in developing and developed countriesand of migration rates between continents rational policies may not be developed. Hence, the role ofeconomics must be understood and contribute an important part in the discussion of all subjects.

2) Provide independent and objective guidance to encourage the adoption of technical innovations andnew knowledge.

3) Discourage false short-sighted policies and loose terminology, e.g. “organic”, “genetically modified”,“basic”, “sustainable”, “progress” and encourage informed comment on policies of governments andNGOs.

4) Indicate the essential role of wild-life and climate, not only in the context of agricultural and forestrydevelopment, but by maintaining environmental balance, to ensure the sustenance and enjoyment of all.

5) Summarise specific issues and draw objective conclusions concerning the way agriculture shoulddevelop and respond in the location/region of each enterprise, to evolving factors that inevitably affectdevelopment.

6) Promote expertise, for advising on world agricultural development and related subjects.

7) Allow interested readers to comment by “Letters to the Editor” and by “Opinion & Comment”columns.

8) Provide book and report reviews of selected works of major significance.

9) To include a wide range of commercial advertisements and personal advertisements from advisors andconsultant groups.

04 23/7/12 12:00 Page 1

WORLD AGRICULTURE 5

editorials

When the leaders of the sixcore nations of the EuropeanEconomic Community (EEC)

established the Common AgriculturalPolicy (CAP) they did so against abackground of the periodic starvationof their peoples and the wish to avoidfuture military conflict in Europe. Atthat time, almost 60 years ago,theagriculture in Europe was far lessintensive than today and yields weresubstantially lower. The industryoperated on principles which todaywould be described as ‘Organic’,simply because the innovations ofweed control, crop protection andfertiliser use were in their infancy andnot available to the vast majority offarmers. Indeed, in 1946, the averageyield of wheat in Britain was a littleover 2 t/ha, the same as it had been inthe 1800s. Today, yields have reacheda plateau with the national average atabout 8 t/ha.

The CAP was set up to encouragefarmers to produce food, to supportproduction and to ensure that thepeople of those six nations would notgo hungry again. In the interveningyears, as the EEC evolved into theEuropean Union (EU),those essentialprinciples have remained unchanged.During this time yields of allcommodities have increased, owing toplant breeding (which has increasedwheat yields by about 3% each yearsince 1950 in Britain) whilstimprovements to field drainage,nitrogen fertilizers and crop protectionhave been applied to all crops. Thebasic principles of the CAP wereretained to control what was perceivedto be the unacceptable high yields ofdairy products and cereals whenquotas and set aside were introduced,during the 1980s and 1990s, asmechanisms to restrict production.

There is little doubt that the CAP isprimarily responsible for the well fednature of the largely urban populationof the EU. The plentiful supplies offood and improved economic well-

being have created a populationwhich is not only increasingly remotefrom the basics of food production,but also nostalgic for what is perceivedto be a lost rural idyll. At the sametime there seems to be increasingantagonism to using any cropprotection products to help improveyields. In the last 60 years thepopulation of the EU area has alsogrown, with consequent demands onthe ‘countryside’ for additionalinfrastructure, new towns andindustry/business parks to providehomes and employment. Aconsequence of these pressures hasbeen an increasing fragmentation ofthe rural environment. This has led torising human pressures on theremaining open spaces. No doubtthese pressures have helped acceleratethe decline in habitat and wildlife, soobvious across much of Europe, forwhich farmers so often get the soleblame.

There is a further factor; as affluencehas increased there is more leisuretime, so more public access to, andconsequent unrecognized pressure on,the ‘countryside’. Importantly, abenefit of the affluence and leisure ismore appreciation of the need topreserve habitats and wildlife. Theincreasing numbers of people whosupport conservation charities providea good illustration of the point. This isnot restricted to Europe, for example,the numbers of native Indians visitingtiger reserves has increasedsubstantially as the economy hasdeveloped in the last 15-20 years.

These important points carry awarning. The world faces a dire crisisof food needs in the next few decades.As articles in this journal have shown,there is little more land we can bringinto cultivation to produce the extrafood we need. There is no doubtsome food can come fromimprovements in distribution networksto reduce the post-harvest losses,estimated by FAO to be almost 40%.The food and agriculture industries

recognize the need for a technicalrevolution so that more yield per unitarea can be produced at lower cost, ifthe challenges ahead are to be met.

In recent years there has been arevolution in the understanding ofmolecular genetics. This has led tosubstantial improvements in medicaldiagnostics, treatments, drugdevelopment and forensic science.Advanced biotechnology is wellestablished as part of the medicalscene. In agriculture, advances inbiotechnology are exploitedthroughout the world, except inEurope, where production is restrictedto a small number of crops in a smallnumber of countries. There is anextraordinary irony, some may suggesthypocrisy, that in order to feed ourfarm animals we in Europe need toimport soya and maize supplies whichbenefit from advanced biotechnology;but we will not let our farmers growthe crops themselves. It is fair to askwhy there is the contrast in Europeanattitudes, between widespreadadoption of advanced technology inmedicine, and a refusal to adopt thepractice where food is concerned. Ifthe farming industry is to meet ourproduction needs in the next 25 yearswithout increased resources and with achanging climate it can be argued weneed to explore all the technologies atour disposal. Perhaps we need toreassess public attitudes to science andethics and explore these issues in ourschools as well as in open debate.Maybe it is also time for plantscientists to affirm how similar theunderstanding of, and systems in,animals and plants are and howappropriate technologies may be ableto help us improve crop yields andquality as they have helped inmedicine.

We in World Agriculture recognizethe challenges Man and hisenvironment face. We welcome thedebate and the need for decisions tobe based on sound evidence ratherthan hearsay or uninformed opinion.

Is there a problem?Robert Cook

05 23/7/12 12:01 Page 1

6 WORLD AGRICULTURE

editorials

Recently there have been twoimportant developments in EastAfrica and both have involved

Dr Christie Peacock, one of our Boardmembers.

First, Farm Africa has set up SidaiAfrica Ltd, with Christie as Chairman,funded by the Bill and Melinda GatesFoundation.

Sidai (Massai for “Good”) Africa Ltdis Africa’s first livestock franchisingsocial enterprise and has potential tobecome applicable in all developing

countries. The immediate objective isto establish, over the next four years,150 centres in Kenya to provideaffordable livestock services tolivestock keepers in rural areas. Eachcentre will provide access to all theproducts, services and advice that theyneed to effectively protect and investin their most valuable assets.

The importance of this developmenthas been recognised by the award of aGlobal Fellowship to Christie byAshoka, the world’s leading network ofsocial entrepreneurs, described as

“extraordinary changemakers”. It hasso far elected over 2,700 socialentrepreneurs in 70 countries andSalim Mohamed, Ashoka’sRepresentative for East Africa,welcoming Christie Peacock’sinnovative model, said, “We believethat this idea, in Christie’s hands, isreally going to spread throughout EastAfrica.”

World Agriculture is delighted tocongratulate Christie on her awardand is pleased to help publicise theseimportant developments.

Developmentsin East Africa

Sir Colin Spedding

Glyricedia Sepium Species found in Sri Lanka (14). See page 30 for details.

06 30/7/12 09:51 Page 1

WORLD AGRICULTURE 7

editorials

Most people, including manyscientists, seem to believethat worldwide consumption

of fertilizers is continually increasing inan unsustainable and environmentallydamaging way. This view is particularlyprevalent at the present time withfarmers striving to increase crop yieldsto feed expanding world populations.Because the availability of the keynutrients, nitrogen, phosphate andpotassium (NPK), is often rate limitingfor plant growth, it seems obvious thatthe steady increase in most crop yieldsthat has taken place since the 1960smust involve a proportionate increasein NPK fertilizer use. This belief in aglobal crisis of ever-increasing fertilizeruse is one of the key arguments usedagainst modern intensive agriculture.

In reality, however, the true situationis much more complex and multi-faceted than suggested by this rathersimplistic viewpoint. According to datafrom the UN Food and AgricultureOrganization (1), fertilizer use variesgreatly in different parts of the worldbut in regions with relatively matureintensive farming systems (e.g. Europeand USA) fertilizer consumption haslevelled off or even decreased relativeto crop yield over the past twodecades. In contrast, in lessagriculturally mature regions such assub-Saharan Africa, fertilizerconsumption is still only a tiny fractionof Western levels and urgently needsto be increased to provide foodsecurity to their rapidly expandingpopulations (2).

Historically speaking, farmers haveused various organic and non-organicfertilizers since the dawn of agricultureover ten thousand years ago. Organicmaterials such as manure, seaweed,and guano are rich sources of NPK,while non-organic chemicals such aslime are often essential to enable cropsto be grown on the acid soils that arefound in many parts of the world.Indeed the cultivation of soils in muchof upland Europe depended (and stilldepends) on the liberal use ofinorganic lime as a fertilizer. In termsof food production one of the greatest

advances of the modern era was theinvention of methods for theinexpensive manufacture of inorganicNPK fertilizers. A second key advancewas the breeding of crops able torespond to such fertilizers byincreasing grain yield rather thansimply making more inediblevegetative biomass such as stalks andleaves.

In particular, the development ofsemi-dwarf cereal cultivars, and theiruse with fertilizers as part of the GreenRevolution of the 1960s and 1970s,enabled developing countries in Asiato triple or quadruple production ofkey staple crops such as rice andwheat. However, this involved aconcomitant increase in fertilizer useand annual global consumption rosefrom 27 million tonnes in 1960 to over144 million tonnes in the late 1980s(3). While this increased application ofchemical fertilizers undoubtedlyunderpinned the production ofcheaper and more plentiful food inregions that were hitherto at seriousrisk of famine, there have also beensome downsides to fertilizer use. Forexample, in some developingcountries even the relatively modestcost of fertilizers was beyond the reachof the poorest farmers who weretherefore unable to participate fully inthe yield gains of the GreenRevolution. Ironically, in richercountries the same fertilizers wererelatively cheap, which has sometimesled to their overuse causing runoff ofsurplus fertilizer and pollution ofwatercourses.

So why has global fertilizerconsumption decreased in relation tocrop yield in recent years? There areseveral factors involved. Firstly, muchof the initial decline in fertilizer use inthe 1990s was due to the collapse ofthe state farming system in the formerSoviet Union that used fertilizerswastefully and inefficiently. This wasfollowed in many regions by improvedmanagement of fertilizer application aspart of an increasing consciousnessthat its excessive use could beenvironmentally damaging. For

example, many commercial farmersnow use satellite imaging to directfertilizer only to those parts of theirland where it is most required. Inrecent years, these and other measuresto reduce fertilizer use have beenmade even more necessary by thedramatic rise in prices, mainly due tohigher energy and commodity prices.In 2008-09, fertilizer prices more thandoubled in many regions andalthough they subsequently decreasedto some extent, prices are likely tokeep rising in the foreseeable future.

Today, fertilizer use is in relativedecline in those parts of the worldwhere more intelligent managementmeasures are used to apply it tocropland. However, there are a fewregions, most notably China, wherefertilizer overuse is still a majorproblem. In contrast, in much of sub-Saharan Africa fertilizer use remains fartoo low and is one of the main causesof food insecurity and environmentaldegradation in the region. Forexample, data from the ChinaAgricultural University show thatfarmers in Northern China use about588 kg/ha nitrate fertilizer in contrastto the 7 kg/ha used in the mineraldeficient soils of West Africa (4). Partof the problem in China is themaintenance of low prices bygovernment subsidy, which meansthat farmers tend to overuse theircheap fertilizers. The problem in Africais exactly the opposite. Here,intelligent measures are urgentlyneeded to promote fertilizer use,which, as shown above, is as little asone percent of the use in majoragricultural areas of China.

The environmental consequences offertilizer underuse in Africa werehighlighted in an international reportshowing that between 2000 and2005, forests were cut down at a rateof 4 million hectares per year, mainlydue to the need for more cropland tosustain growing populations (5). IfAfrican farmers had access to modestamounts of fertilizer (much less than isconsumed in developed countries) theresulting increased crop yields would

The complexities of global fertilizer use

Denis Murphy

07 23/7/12 12:04 Page 1

8 WORLD AGRICULTURE

editorials

have made it unnecessary to destroythese irreplaceable forests. Althoughfertilizer subsidies were introduced inAfrica during the 1980s, these hadlimited impact often due to poortargeting or mismanagement and mostprogrammes have now beensuspended in the context of economicliberalization. However, the potentialimpact of carefully targeted support offertilizer use was demonstrated by theactions of the government of Malawiwho brought back limited subsidies(against the strong advice of mostWestern aid donors) after a series of

poor harvests in 2001-06. The effectwas dramatic as maize yields morethan doubled enabling this very poorlandlocked country to move fromchronic dependence on food aid tobeing a food exporter within a singleyear (6).

In conclusion, the world is very farfrom experiencing a runaway increasein fertilizer use. In many, but not all,regions fertilizer use is in relativedecline thanks to improvedmanagement methods. However, themost important message is thatagriculture in Africa urgently needs

schemes to facilitate increased fertilizeruse in targeted areas in order for cropyields to increase to global levels. Suchmeasures should form an indispensableelement of future strategies topromote food security in this rich anddiverse continent, which willexperience the most rapid populationgrowth during the remainder of the21st century.

Denis Murphy, Professor ofBiotechnology, University ofGlamorgan, UK and BiotechnologyAdvisor, Food and AgricultureOrganization, Rome.

References� 1. FAO (2011) Current worldfertilizer trends and outlook to 2015,Food and Agriculture Organization,Rome,ftp://ftp.fao.org/ag/agp/docs/cwfto15.pdf

� 2. Hernandez MA and Torero M(2011) Fertilizer Market Situation,Market Structure, Consumption andTrade Patterns, and Pricing Behavior,IFPRI Discussion Paper 01058,International Food Policy ResearchInstitute, Washington, DC,www.ifpri.org/sites/default/files/publi

cations/ifpridp01058.pdf

� 3. Bumb BL and Baanante CA(1996) World trends in fertilizer useand projections to 2020, IPFRI Brief38, International Food PolicyResearch Institute, Washington, DC,http://www.ifpri.org/sites/default/files/publications/vb38.pdf

� 4. Vitousek PM et al (2009)Nutrient Imbalances in AgriculturalDevelopment, Science 324, 1519-1520

� 5. Bationo A (2006) African soils,their productivity and profitability of

fertilizer use, background paper forAfrican Fertilizer Summit, Abuja,Nigeria, African soils,http://tropag.ei.columbia.edu/sitefiles/file/African%20soils%20Their%20productivity%20and%20profitability%20of%20fertilizer%20use.pdf

� 6. Wiggins S and Brooks (2010)The Use of Input Subsidies inDeveloping Countries, Global Forumon Agriculture, Policies forAgricultural Development, PovertyReduction and Food Security, OECD,Paris,www.oecd.org/dataoecd/50/35/46340359.pdf

An aerial view of circular pivot farming in the American southwest.

08 23/7/12 12:17 Page 1

WORLD AGRICULTURE 9

editorials

Every person is affected by how weuse our natural resources. Thereare competing claims but none is

more significant than the need toprovide an adequate, reliable foodsupply.

This edition includes a substantialarticle from the viewpoint of theNational Farmers Union of the UK. Thispaper will generate interest across thewhole community of those who sharea concern with the issues. We lookforward to hearing their response.

The authors’ perception of thechallenges and opportunities facingfarmers includes a great deal ofcommon ground among all those withan interest in the use of farm land.

There are, of course, other prioritiesthat may influence policy and will playa part in the development ofagriculture. In this editorial several ofthe issues that might be furtherexplored are briefly mentioned.

Food security issues are less aboutthe production of food than about thefactors that determine how it isdistributed. The total amount of foodcurrently produced would, if evenlyspread; provide sufficient nutrition foreveryone.

People starve because they cannotaccess food, because they cannotafford it or because they lack otherentitlements within the family orthrough public social security. In somecases the poverty of publicinfrastructure, economic, physical andpolitical, makes it impossible to movefood from areas of surplus to placeswhere people are hungry. Producing

more food in wealthy countries doesnot resolve these problems.

Farmers are in a relatively weakbargaining position compared withtheir major customers: foodprocessors, multiple retailers and masscaterers. From the viewpoint ofefficient resource use, and thussustainable production, the efficiencyof these businesses is critical, as itemploys many more people thanfarming and contributes much moreto GDP.

Central to keeping their costs downhas been their competition with eachother. Part of that is inescapablypressure on their suppliers includingfarmers. The critical test is not justabout efficiency on the farm butefficiency in the food system as awhole.

There is an agreed need forgovernment to monitorcompetitiveness. Inhibitingmonopolistic behaviour is fundamentalto the health of the whole economy,but this is not a case for discriminationin favour of farmers or smallbusinesses. Worryingly competitionpolicy cannot be effectively pursued bya single nation.

Given the increasingly multinationalnature of major industrial and financialenterprises there is a need that acommon understanding of what isrequired should form part ofnegotiations about international tradeas its importance in the economic lifeof the world grows.

The authors make a strong case forthe support of research that can

increase the productivity of farms. Thesame case applies to the whole foodchain.

This is more than a focus ontransmission to UK businesses, itapplies across the world food system,embracing large and small units and isfundamental to the development ofbetter policy.

From the viewpoint of specificbusinesses such as farms, theapplication of research may be a twoedged sword.

It can enhance the ability ofcompetitors in other parts of the worldto penetrate UK markets as well asenhance the capacity of some, but notall, farm businesses, to lower cost.

The development of research isfundamentally a public good; themanagement of the changes itenforces, make appropriate social anddevelopmental policies a publicresponsibility.

As new technologies are applied,one of the common tendencies is forthe size of unit to increase as that atwhich they may be most efficientlyused. From a national viewpoint whatis needed is sufficient flexibility in thestructure of farm resources to allowprompt adaptation.

In practice the dominance of owneroccupancy and the tax privilegesaccorded to farmers tend to impedesuch a process. Many farmers arefinding ingenious ways of sharingresources and enterprises in ways thatovercome such rigidity but the processstill lags behind the

The economics of agriculture asviewed from the perspectives

of the NFU, the UK, the EU and the world

Sir John Marsh

09 23/7/12 12:17 Page 1

economic imperative.

Current proposals for CAP reformare a matter of concern for allEuropeans. The authors identify someof the areas in which what isenvisaged will make us all poorer.

The discrimination against largeenterprises, the proposal to imposecommon detailed regulation on landuse is rightly seen as inefficient.

On the other hand, andunderstandably, they want to continueto be paid for not doing damage tothe environment - a case whereregulation may be a more efficient useof public funds than subsidy.

This discussion is confused becauseof the conflicting impacts of specificproposals on EU member countriesand profound differences in thevaluation of the natural and socialenvironment that co-exist within theCommunity.

The authors rightly stress the impactof volatility upon farm and otheragricultural businesses. Wisely theylook to the development of moreaccessible financial instrumentsthrough which farmers can share therisks that are inescapable in markets

where supply is variable and demandrelatively inelastic.

This is an encouraging line ofthought, it might be strengthened bya discussion of how past governmentpolicies, such as the CAP, intended toinsulate domestic farmers from worldmarkets have magnified price volatilitythere and frustrated the developmentof such instruments.

There is no cry likely to win moresupport among farmers than a call forfair treatment within the EU.

They see how some membercountries apply common rules in waysthat are more beneficial to their ownfarmers.

However, the UK government looksat fairness not just in terms of paritywith continental farmers but in termsof the distribution of costs andbenefits across the whole UKeconomy.

At that level it manipulates theapplication of CAP rules in ways thatminimise additional cost to the UKBudget and is concerned witheconomic development at the level ofthe whole UK economy and regionaland rural development.

Its perspective on development ismuch broader than the CAP or theNFU's at the level of the whole UKEconomy and at regional and ruraldevelopment as areas of politicalconcern that affects the whole ruraleconomy, not just agriculture.

This article is greatly to bewelcomed. It gives us a clear insightinto the current concerns andunderstanding of the UK’s leadingfarming organisation.

At the same time it opens thedebate for others to contribute in waysthat can enrich the dialogue andenhance the development of policyhere and in the EU.

10 WORLD AGRICULTURE

editorials

‘The development ofresearch is fundamentally

a public good; themanagement of thechanges it enforces,

make appropriate socialand developmental

policies a publicresponsibility.’

Response to Editorial by John Marsh.Professor Sir John Marsh may be correct in asserting that food security is currently an issue of inequitable distribution,reflecting a range of socio-economic and geographic pressures. However, these are not easy to solve and it appears highly likely to us that a significant global production response will berequired to meet the inevitable growth in demand for food. Prof Marsh’s views on competition policy reflect an Anglo-centric view that has been sorely tested by the economic turmoilthat has beset global financial markets. Whilst one can subscribe to market economics, equally in order to ensure that both the private and public goods from agri-culture can be delivered in the future, we believe firmly a reconfiguration of global supply chains will be necessary. The economic contribution of food supply chains is utterly dependent on the production of primary raw materials fromagriculture. It is impossible to disassociate the economic benefits of food manufacturing from production especially in view of the hightransport cost and perishability of many primary agricultural materials.

Philip Bicknell, Chief Economist ,NFU.

10 30/7/12 09:50 Page 1

WORLD AGRICULTURE 11

scientific

Australia’s Water Reform, withespecial reference to the

Murray Darling BasinJohn C Radcliffe, AM, Chair, Water Forum,

Australian Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering c/- Private Bag 2, Glen Osmond,

South Australia 5064 [email protected] initiated a water reform process in 1994 with the agreement between the Commonwealth andStates/Territories governments followed by the Intergovernmental Agreement on the National Water Initiative, in 2004.The rights for water have been separated from land titles and are separately tradable instruments, so that both perma-nent water access and temporary water allocations can be traded. Water resource management has been separatedfrom provision of water supply services. Water trading during the later stages of Australia’s “Millenium drought” (2002-2010) showed that trading had brought significant economic benefits. However, in developing a new Plan for the man-agement of water within the Murray Darling Basin, the principal agricultural irrigation basin in Australia, it is proving dif-ficult to identify an appropriate balance between water for irrigated agriculture and water for the environment whilemaintaining a base river flow. The sought objective is to ensure that the Basin’s rivers are maintained as “healthy work-ing rivers”.

Keywords: Water resources, irrigation, climate change, water entitlement, water allocation, water trad-ing, groundwater, wetlands.

Glossarybase flow: the longer-term dischargederived from natural storages, oftenassumed to be groundwater dischargefrom shallow unconfined aquifers.Basin States: Those states and terri-tories of Australia within which parts ofthe Murray Darling Basin are located,viz New South Wales, Victoria, SouthAustralia, Queensland and AustralianCapital Territory.Commonwealth EnvironmentalWater Holder: A statutory positionresponsible for the management ofthe Commonwealth Government’sportfolio of water assets (water entitle-ments) and the accumulated annualyield of water (allocations) againstthose entitlements.Commonwealth of Australia: TheAustralian government, established bythe federation of the six formerAustralian colonies from January 1,1901 under the Commonwealth ofAustralia Constitution Act 1900 (Imp),an Act of the Parliament of the UnitedKingdom. The current six states andtwo territories have their own legisla-tures, the division of powers betweenthe Australian government and thestates and territories having beendetermined by the Australian constitu-tion.Council of Australian

Governments: A council comprisingthe Prime Minister as chair, thePremiers of the states, the ChiefMinisters of the territories and onerepresentative of the Australian LocalGovernment Association.dryland: Agricultural lands on whichcrops and pastures are grown depen-dant on natural rainfall withoutrecourse to irrigation.National Water Commission: A statuto-ry authority established under theNational Water Commission Act 2004(Cwlth) to advise CoAG and theAustralian Government on nationalwater issues and the progress of theNational Water Initiative.Prescription: A process introducedunder legislation when the level ofwater use in an area indicates that reg-ulatory control is needed to securesustainable management and to sup-port water dependent ecosystems.Standing Council on Environmentand Water: A council of Ministersestablished following the 2010 reviewof the ministerial council system. Itconsiders matters of national signifi-cance on environment and waterissues. The Standing Council onEnvironment and Water comprisesCommonwealth, state, territory andthe New Zealand environment andwater ministers and the Australian

Local Government Association. Itmeets approximately six monthly,replacing the previous NaturalResource Management MinisterialCouncil and the EnvironmentProtection and Heritage Council.Water access entitlement: A per-petual, or ongoing, entitlement toexclusive access to a share of waterfrom a specified consumptive pool, asdefined in the relevant water planaccredited by the appropriate level ofgovernment. It constitutes a tradableproperty right.Water allocation: The specific vol-ume of water allocated to a wateraccess entitlement in a given season,calculated from, and often expressedas, a percentage of the full water enti-tlement. Water bore: a bore, well or excava-tion, usually constructed by a licensedbore or well driller, used for the pur-pose of inspection, interception, col-lection, storage or extraction ofgroundwater.Water entitlement reliability: thefrequency with which water allocatedunder a water access entitlement isable to be supplied in full.(Queensland, New South Wales,Victoria and Tasmania each have a sys-tem for defining higher and lower reli-ability water products.)

11 23/7/12 12:18 Page 1


scientific

Introduction

Australia is a geologically old,relatively flat, continent withextensive areas of desert and

semi-desert. There is high rainfallvariability within and between seasonsand a high evaporation rate, with a riskof droughts and floods.

It presents a microcosm of globalwater governance issues as its statesface the same jurisdictional difficultiesas sovereign nations sharing waterresources, because responsibility forwater resources is a matter for stategovernments, not the Australian(Commonwealth) government.

Management of water resources wasretained by the states at the time ofestablishing the Commonwealth ofAustralia in 1901, under clause 100 ofthe constitution (1).

The distribution of rainfall is shownin Figure 1. The principal areas of pre-cipitation are the eastern coast, wherethe majority of the population resides,and in the sub-tropical latitudes acrosssparsely settled northern Australia.Rainfall is uneven.

On average, only 12% of rainfallruns off to collect in rivers: in five ofAustralia's 12 drainage divisions, run-off is less than 2%; in the two drainagedivisions of tropical monsoonal divi-

sions of Timor Sea and Gulf ofCarpentaria, run-off is greater than20%. The remaining 88% of rainfall isaccounted for by evaporation, waterused by vegetation; and water held instorages including natural lakes, wet-lands and groundwater aquifers (Figure1) (2). The principal surface waterbasin used for irrigated agriculture isthe Murray Darling Basin (MDB),shown in Figure 2. Approximately 6 %of its rainfall runs off and about 51% ofthat is used for consumptive purposesfor industry, irrigation and stock anddomestic use (4).

The Murray and Darling rivers andtheir tributaries have highly variableflows. Over the past 100 years, theBasin’s agricultural base has beentransformed from a low intensity,volatile dry land to a more intensive,mixed irrigation and dryland system.The Murray-Darling Basin generates39% of Australia’s agricultural produc-tion by value and approximately 40%is irrigated (15% of national agricultur-al output). Production of agriculturalcommodities now represents 93.7% ofland use across the Basin, 32% of busi-nesses and 10.8% of national employ-ment (Figure 2) (5). Australia’s highlyvariable rainfall makes it difficult todetermine any specific local responseto global warming, but there is evi-dence of the potential impact of possi-ble climate change in recent rainfalltrends. Figure 3 shows a decline inmean annual rainfall expressed in ten

year increments for the period 1970 to2010 over much of eastern Australiaand south-west Western Australia (6).This decline in rainfall affected urbanwater catchments and householdwater consumption of all capital citiesexcept Darwin, as well as affecting pro-duction agriculture (Figure 3).

The Southern Oscillation index, lead-

ing to drought when in the El Ninophase and to floods in the La Ninaphase, has attracted much attention.From 2002 to 2009, southern Australiawas subjected to the “Milleniumdrought”, while during the La Ninacondition of 2011-12, high rainfall andfloods were widely experienced insouthern and eastern Australia. Theseevents have focussed the minds ofwater policy makers. Irrigation waterrights and water resource managementhave emerged as major policy issuesfor governments in the past twentyyears.

Abbreviations ACCC Australian Competition and Consumer Commission; ACT Australian Capital Territory; AUDAustralian dollars; BoM Bureau of Meteorology; CEWH Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder; CoAG Council ofAustralian Governments; CSIRO Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation; DSEWPaCCommonwealth Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities; GL gigalitre (109

litres); IIO irrigation infrastructure operator; MDB Murray Darling Basin; MDB IGA Murray Darling BasinIntergovernmental Agreement; MDBA Murray Darling Basin Authority; MDBC Murray Darling Basin Commission; NSWNew South Wales; NT Northern Territory; NWI Intergovernmental Agreement on a National Water Initiative; SA SouthAustralia; SCEW Standing Council on Environment and Water; WA Western Australia.

Figure 1: Distribution of Average Annual Rainfall, Australia 1961-1990(2)

Figure 3: Trend in annual rainfall(millimetres per ten years)between 1970 and 2010 (5).

Figure 2: The Murray DarlingBasin (CSIRO).

12 26/7/12 10:58 Page 1


scientificThe commencement ofirrigation schemes Formal irrigation commenced on theRiver Murray, Australia’s principal river,at Renmark and Mildura in 1887,using technologies imported fromCalifornia.

It was recognised within Australiafrom the late nineteenth century thatwater resources were limited and var-ied widely between seasons, so a poli-cy of sharing available water propor-tionately has long been adopted (7).

Various irrigation schemes wereestablished after World War I andWorld War II for the settlement of dis-charged ex-servicemen, who aspiredto farming although inevitably as pro-duction efficiency has improved, theseholdings became inadequate in size.Some water resource managementunits, either for surface water orground water, were prescribed andentitlements defined, though thepotential for interconnection betweensurface and groundwater went largelyunnoticed.

In many other areas, access to waterwas governed by traditional riparianrights. Dams were built in other loca-tions by governments, usually on abasis of encouraging “nation building,closer settlement and economic devel-opment”, often as a result of electoralcommitments rather than any directbenefit: cost appraisal.

Regulating the RiverMurrayAfter the severe 1914-15 drought andfollowing 13 years of negotiation, theCommonwealth, NSW, Victoria andSouth Australia developed the MurrayWaters Agreement.

This led to the creation of the River

Murray Commission in 1915, to man-age and regulate the volumes of waterin the system. Plans were agreed toensure reliable and economical rivertransport (almost immediately ren-dered redundant by advances in rail-ways and motor transport) and toshare the water.

The plans were to construct a majorstorage on the Upper Murray, to buildLake Victoria to control flows to SouthAustralia, to construct 26 weirs andlocks between Echuca andBlanchetown on the River Murray,(only locks 1-11, 15 and 26 werebuilt), and to construct others on theMurrumbidgee or Darling rivers. Theplans would also coordinate the con-struction of water storages and locksto regulate the rivers.

The states within the Murray DarlingBasin took different approaches to irri-gation water, depending upon wateravailability and seasonal conditions.

Two classes of water reliability haveevolved in New South Wales andVictoria. A high-reliability entitlementmay receive a 100% water allocationagainst its unit share during all but themost severe droughts. High-reliabilityentitlements are allocated water first,before any water is allocated to entitle-ments belonging to a lower reliabilitycategory. New South Wales has a smallproportion of irrigation water with“higher reliability” which is more suit-able for perennial plantings such ashorticultural tree crops, grapes andperennial pastures for dairy and beefproduction and a large proportion of“lower reliability” irrigation waterwhich is primarily used for growingannual crops (cereals, rice, and cot-ton).

Victoria has a greater proportion ofhigh reliability water which hasencouraged dairying in that state. All

South Australia’s irrigation water is atthe same level of reliability and is pre-dominantly used for perennial crops.Queensland irrigators operate onunregulated rivers and are permittedto capture water into their own hold-ing tanks and dams according to rulesthat apply during periods of high flow.

The distribution of these arrange-ments is illustrated in figure 4. Waterfor essential human needs in the maincities and towns is provided by state orlocal government owned water agen-cies.

A restructured MurrayDarling BasinCommission During the 1980s, it was recognisedthat water quality needed to be man-aged and its importance in maintain-ing biodiversity and ecosystem serviceswas recognised.

Most states had established environ-ment protection authorities. In the late1980s, the management of the MurrayDarling Basin was restructured by theestablishment of a new Murray DarlingBasin Commission whose responsibili-ties extended to encompass water,land and the environment. Ministersfrom all of these portfolio areas partici-pated in a Ministerial Council chairedby the Commonwealth.

Strategies were developed for man-aging aspects of water quality in theBasin. A salinity strategy recognisedthe natural entry of saline groundwa-ter into the river as well as salinityderiving from excessive irrigationwhich leached salts into the river.

Although a subsidy on phosphateuse had been removed in 1973, therewas increasing use of nitrogen fertilis-ers which led to non-point pollutionand periodic algal blooms. A series ofsalt interception bores (wells) wasestablished adjacent to the river indownstream South Australia and salinegroundwater was pumped to sacrificialevaporation basins, partly to offsetincreasing upstream salinity.

In addition, by coordinating releasesof water from various dams and reser-voirs, a water quality standard of lessthan 800 electro-conductivity (EC)units expressed as μS/cm(microsiemens per centimetre) atMorgan, South Australia, was to beachieved 95% of the time. This inte-grated approach to salinity manage-ment has generally been successful.

At the same time, irrigators werebeing encouraged to adopt “improvedirrigation practices”. Most irrigationhad involved flood systems usingsiphons from irrigation channels.Growers began to laser level the baysin which flood irrigation water wasapplied to ensure an even advance of

Figure 4: Classes of water entitlements in the Basin States, expressedin GL (109 litres) at 100% allocation (8).

13 23/7/12 12:32 Page 1


scientificthe irrigation front, and relatively evenapplications of water across the irriga-tion landscape. Return of excess irriga-tion water (“tail water”) became pro-hibited. Meanwhile, large overheadsprinklers, which rarely supplied waterevenly, were being replaced by under-tree microsprinklers or drip systems.

Sub-surface drippers were also intro-duced in some cropping systems suchas for cotton, though their high instal-lation cost, constraints on row spacingof subsequent crops and difficulties ofmaintenance, especially where chewedby mice, have limited their adoption.

The initiation anddevelopment of WaterReform policies The Council of Australian Governments(CoAG), agreed in 1992 to establish aNational Competition Policy and com-missioned an Independent Committeeof Inquiry (9) which led to a pro-gramme of economic reforms.

In 1994, CoAG agreed to a range ofwater resource policy proposals toarrest widespread natural resourcedegradation occasioned, in part, bywater use. A package of measures,known as the 1994 Water ReformAgenda (10), was adopted to addressthe economic, environmental andsocial implications of future waterreform. States were to give priority toformally determining entitlements andallocations to water, including for theenvironment.

Among other major aspects were theprinciples of consumption-based pric-ing, full-cost recovery and desirably ofthe removal of cross-subsidies, to beachieved for rural water supplies by2001; establishment of comprehensivesystems of water entitlements and allo-cations, backed by separation of waterproperty rights from land title and theclear specification of entitlements interms of ownership, volume, reliability,transferability and, if appropriate, qual-ity. Environmental requirements, wher-ever possible, would be determined onthe best scientific information availableto maintain the health and viability ofriver systems and groundwater basins.In cases where river systems were per-ceived to be over-allocated for con-sumptive use, arrangements were tobe instituted by 1998 to provide a bet-ter balance in water resource use,including appropriate water to restorethe health of river systems.

The roles of water resource manage-ment, standard setting, regulatoryenforcement and service provisionwere to be separated so that waterdelivery organisations would have acommercial focus.

Water policy issues were thenaddressed nationally through six-

monthly meetings of the Ministersresponsible for water resources fromthe six state governments and two ter-ritories, along with the responsibleAustralian (Commonwealth) govern-ment Minister who chaired the meet-ings of what is now called theStanding Council for Environment andWater (SCEW).

Policy papers and proposals are pre-pared for the Ministerial Council by acommittee of officers, which earlierhad included members from the CSIROand the Bureau of Meteorology, butthat is now restricted to individualsfrom the respective water resourcesdepartments of the Commonwealth,states and territories.

Subordinate bodies and working par-ties are commissioned to address spe-cific issues, for example the develop-ment of guideline documents withinthe National Water QualityManagement Strategy that encompasstopics such as the Australian DrinkingWater Guidelines, National Guidelinesfor Water Recycling – Managing Healthand Environmental Risks, andAustralian Guidelines for WaterRecycling: Managing Health andEnvironmental Risks (Phase 2):Augmentation of Drinking WaterSupplies (11).

The National WaterInitiative (NWI)From 2004, the Commonwealth andall states and territories signed a 108clause non-statutory IntergovernmentalAgreement on the NWI.

The agreement (12) encompassesimplementation clauses on water enti-

tlements, water markets and trading,water pricing, management of environ-mental water, water accounting, urbanwater, community partnerships, andknowledge and skills. The NationalWater Commission was established inMarch 2005 to assist with the effectiveimplementation of this Agreement,and has undertaken biennial assess-ments of progress.

The NWI confirmed the rights to sur-face and groundwater sources beingseparated from the ownership of land,each having a separate title. The waterasset is defined as a water access enti-tlement, being a perpetual, or ongo-ing, entitlement to exclusive access toa share of water from a specified con-sumptive pool as defined in the rele-vant water plan, accredited by theappropriate government. (The entitle-ment share in the consumptive poolcan be compared with an equity share-holding in a stock-exchange listedcompany.)

The entitlement may be expressed asa volume at 100% allocation. The con-sumptive pool is the amount of waterresource that can be made available forconsumptive use in a given water sys-tem (catchment and/or groundwaterbasin), while ensuring sustainable pro-tection of the natural environment.The water allocation is the specific vol-ume of water allocated to a wateraccess entitlement in a given season,defined according to rules establishedin the relevant water plan. The alloca-tion reflects the seasonal availability ofwater in that year to be shared in pro-portion to holders’ entitlements withina catchment or groundwater manage-ment unit.

Table 1: Water entitlements issued by states, 2010 and the total enti-tlement volume expressed in gigalitres (GL, 109 litres) on issue in eachstate at 100% allocation (8)

14 23/7/12 12:20 Page 1


scientificThis means that in a drought year, all

owners of entitlements within a stateor territory share the same proportion-ate reduction in water volume.Irrigators may have some ability tocarry over their allocation of waterfrom one season to another if storagecapacity is available.

In an irrigation system, a deliveryshare is a share of capacity in an irriga-tion supply channel, or a water course,and may limit the rate at which awater allocation can be accessed. Awater use licence defines the purposesfor which the water can be used.Entitlements available in Australia, bystate, are shown in Table 1 (8).

Although the IntergovernmentalAgreement on the National WaterInitiative defined the terms for “entitle-ment” and “allocation”, the currentlegislation within the states and territo-ries still uses a variety of terms ratherthan the agreed NWI-compliant termi-nology. This can make trading acrossjurisdictional borders difficult to under-stand. The range of terms in use in2011 is shown in Table 2.

Water TradingWater entitlements and allocations, aswell as being held by water supplyservice providers and private owners(usually irrigators or industrial users),can also be provided to environmentalmanagers. Since access to water hasbecome a recognised property rightand water is tradeable, governmentshave established titles registers forwater rights and include on the watertitle any encumbrances, such as amortgage, over the water resource.

The water titles recognised historicallegal access to water and in essence,the original recipient of a title to anexisting resource has generally receiveda “free good” which has acquired acapital value. This may be at theexpense of the capital value of theowner’s land which no longer auto-matically commands access to water.Where an irrigation infrastructure oper-ator (IIO) holds a bulk water entitle-

ment, the water market rules prohibitactions of an IIO that prevent, orunreasonably delay, irrigators fromtransforming all or part of their irriga-tion rights into separate statutorywater access entitlements, allowingthem to be traded outside the irriga-tion district if they wish to do so.“Unallocated” water is vested in theState governments. Where there isunallocated water available, accessmay be granted by the state on a basisof competitive bids.

Owners of water have the option ofselling or leasing some or all of theirwater allocation in any given seasonfor “temporary transfer” to a buyer ata mutually negotiated price. Tradingacross state borders has been possiblesince 2006. Alternatively, the owner ofthe water can sell the entitlement out-right (a “permanent transfer”), inwhich case his land no longer hasaccess to irrigation water. Market expe-rience during the drought suggestedthat the price of a “permanent” salewas roughly five to ten times that of a“temporary” sale of one season’s

water. Water brokers facilitate watertrades in a comparable manner tostock brokers facilitating trade in equi-ties.

These arrangements have encour-aged the transfer of water to its high-est value uses. For example, during thedrought, rice growers found it moreprofitable to sell their water allocationrather than grow a rice crop. This isillustrated in Figure 5.

It has been estimated that watertrading in the southern Murray-DarlingBasin added 220 million AUDollars toAustralia's GDP in 2008-09; with netproduction benefits of AUD 79 millionin New South Wales, AUD 16 million inSouth Australia and AUD 271 million inVictoria (13).

The extent of allocation trading thatcan occur is shown in Figure 6 for theSouthern Murray Darling Basin in2008-9, which was towards the end ofthe Millenium drought.

The prices of water entitlement(“permanent”) trading are much lessvolatile than water allocation (“tempo-rary”) trading. This is to be expected,given the long-term nature of theinvestment that is made in an entitle-ment purchase.

The Australian Government has beenactive in the water market since 2008through its purchases of entitlementsfor environmental purposes under theRestoring the Balance in theMurray–Darling Basin programme.Across the entire MDB, the volume oftrade registered as Commonwealthenvironmental water purchasesincreased from zero in 2007–08 to acumulative total of 1 173 GL byNovember 2011.

The water markets outside the MDBremain relatively small, with a lowerTable 2: National Water Initiative – equivalent terminology, 30 June

2011 (13)

Figure 5: Rice production (kilotonnes), rice prices (AUDollars pertonne) and water allocation prices (AUDollars per Megalitre), 2005-6to 2010-11 (13).

15 23/7/12 12:21 Page 1

level of trading than those within theBasin. In some areas, there is not yetsignificant scarcity of water resources.Rights to unallocated water may still beissued. In other areas, the level of irri-gated agricultural development maynot be sufficient to support a watermarket. There is less connectivity, bothnaturally and engineered, betweenwater systems outside the MDB andmarket mechanisms such as registers,trading platforms, trade processing sys-tems may not be extant.

Market information may be muchless readily available. However, entitle-ment trading outside the MDBincreased to 205 GL in 2010–11 from131 GL in 2009–10. Increases in enti-tlement trading occurred in all statesexcept Tasmania, although the increasein trading in Victoria was primarily aresult of the inclusion of groundwaterentitlement for the first time in2010–11 (contributing about 27 GL tothe Victorian total).

The Potential Impact ofClimate ChangeThe Millenium drought focussed mindson the potential for climate change.The then Prime Minister and BasinStates Premiers commissioned CSIROin 2008 to report on sustainable yieldsof surface and groundwater systemswithin the MDB.

The report from the Murray-DarlingBasin Sustainable Yields Project (15),summarised the assessments for 18regions that comprise the Basin.Project results were framed aroundfour scenarios of climate and develop-ment defined by 111 years of daily cli-mate data. The baseline scenario wasthe historical climate from mid-1895 tomid-2006 and the current level ofwater resource development.

The second scenario was based onthe climate of 1997 to 2006, to evalu-ate the consequences of a long-termcontinuation of the Millenium droughtin south eastern Australia.

The third scenario considered cli-mate change to 2030 using threeglobal warming levels and 15 of theglobal climate models included in thefourth assessment report of theIntergovernmental Panel on ClimateChange (16). The fourth scenario con-sidered likely future development andthe 2030 climate. Development includ-ed growth in farm dam capacity,

expansion of commercial forestry plan-tations and increases in groundwaterextraction.

The 18 regions are shown in Figure7 and the impact of potential climatechange in Figure 8. Although a highvariability in the estimates was recog-nised, it was concluded that the great-est impacts of climate change arisingfrom global warming were likely to befelt in the southern and south-westernareas of the Basin.

The Basin PlanVarious intergovernmental agreementshave operated in the Murray DarlingBasin (MDB) since 1915. A new MurrayDarling Basin Agreement was given fulllegal status by the Murray-DarlingBasin Act 1993 (Cwth).

This agreement created new institu-tions to underpin its implementation,including the Murray Darling BasinMinisterial Council and the MurrayDarling Basin Commission (MDBC).After the signing of the NWI, the MDBcontinued to experience significantstress from the combined impacts ofover allocation of water, severedrought and what were perceived asthe early impacts of climate change.

There was a marked decline in riverhealth and it was considered necessaryto take additional action to return thesystem to a sustainable footing. TheWater Act 2007 (Cwth) was pro-claimed to assist implementation of theNWI within the MDB.


scientific

Figure 6: Interzone water trading in the Southern Murray DarlingBasin, 2008-9 (13)

Figure 7: The 18 regions adopted for the Murray Sustainable YieldsStudy, based on the major tributaries of the MDB, reflecting existingriver system models and surface water sharing plan areas (15).

16 23/7/12 12:22 Page 1


scientific

The Commonwealth gained addi-tional responsibilities for water reformfollowing the signing of theIntergovernmental Agreement onMurray Darling Basin Reform (MDBIGA) (17) in July 2008 by theCommonwealth, New South Wales,Victoria, Queensland, South Australiaand the Australian Capital Territory(the Basin States).

The Commonwealth agreed to pro-vide assistance to undertake waterprojects in the MDB, subject to theachievement of agreed outcomes,effectively subsidising infrastructureimprovements which may also reducewater losses; albeit these subsidiesdilute the intention of the full-costrecovery clauses of the earlier NationalWater Initiative.

Nevertheless, under the MDB IGA,the Commonwealth and the BasinStates reaffirmed their commitment toimplementing the NWI. The Water Act2007 (Cwlth) established two newstatutory bodies, the Murray DarlingBasin Authority (MDBA), whichreplaced the MDBC and theCommonwealth Environmental WaterHolder (CEWH). The MDBA was givenresponsibility for developing anenforceable Basin Plan (a high-levelplan to ensure the water resources ofthe MDB can be managed in an inte-grated and sustainable way).

The CEWH was given responsibilityfor managing the Commonwealth'senvironmental water holdings, andprotecting or restoring environmentalassets in the MDB and in other areaswhere environmental water is held.The Australian Competition andConsumer Commission (ACCC) wasgiven responsibilities relating to watermarket and water charge rules.

The MDBA released a Guide to theproposed Basin Plan in October 2010which also took account of potentialclimate change. The Guide providedan overview to assist people to under-stand the basis of the proposed BasinPlan, and the rationale for the propos-als. The then existing take of water for

consumptive purposes was 15 400 GLper year, made up of 13 700 GL of sur-face water and 1 700 GL of groundwa-ter. Reductions of 3 000, 3 500 and 4000 GL per year were hypothesised.However, the Guide was widely misin-terpreted as “The Plan”.

Growers assumed they would com-pulsorily lose water (the plan actuallyproposed the Commonwealth wouldbuy water from willing sellers), and itwas argued that many communitieswould be ruined. Numerous meetingswere held. While they were generallyorderly, there was much press activityincluding that inducing a group offarmers to burn copies of the Guide.Pre-consultation had been inadequate,the irrigators felt threatened, interpre-tation of water reliability differenceswas unclear, and there were differinginterpretations of the Water Act 2007.Actual readership and comprehensionof the Guide was probably not high.

Subsequently, the incomingChairman of the MDBA visited widelyaround the Basin while the Authoritydeveloped a draft Plan, which wasreleased for consultation in November2011. It does not take account ofpotential climate change. The formalProposed Basin Plan has the appear-ance of a draft Bill for Parliament – adaunting format not easily assimilated(19). However, it was accompanied bya well presented Plain EnglishSummary of the proposed Basin Plan,(20) which included explanatory notes.It suggested an initial reduction in the“sustainable level of take” of surfacewaters to 10 873 GL/year, a reductionof 2 750 GL/year.

Specific reductions were suggestedin individual catchments, with addi-tional non-specific reductions soughtacross all catchments to maintain baseriver flow, though how these figureswere determined was not clearly out-lined. A review of progress and imple-mentation mechanisms by 2015 wassuggested, with achievement of imple-mentation of the plan by 2019. A web-site was established to receive feed-

back on the Proposed Basin Plan over afive month consultation. Over 12, 000responses had been received by theclose of the consultation period,though it must be observed that ahigh proportion were “campaign sub-missions” sent in as “form letters”.

It now remains for the MurrayDarling Basin Authority to review itsPlan before presentation to theMinister for Sustainability,Environment, Water, Population andCommunities who must then seekapproval in the Federal parliament.

ConclusionsCentral to the development of theMurray Darling Basin as the principallocation of Australia’s irrigated agricul-ture has been the necessity for collabo-ration and compromise to recognisethe needs of the states in the Basin,and the constitutional rights of thosestates to manage water resources.

As production intensity has increasedand land development continued, thestates identified the need to movefrom merely managing the volume ofwater in the basin to managing itsquality, the impact of consumption onthe environment, its biodiversity andon land use change. Management hasmoved from solely a water policyapproach to a landscape managementapproach, albeit often driven by thecompetitive expectations of the statesfor water access. Policies have evolvedover time.

The apolitical adoption of an agreedset of policy principles in the 1994Water Reform Agenda and the 2004Intergovernmental Agreement on theNational Water Initiative, along with anaudit mechanism through the estab-lishment of the National WaterCommission to undertake a biennialassessment of progress in implement-ing the agreements has provided anunderpinning for future water manage-ment. However, the implementation ofthese principles at regional and land-holder level has inevitably introduced apolitical component into the rate ofadoption of the principles.

Since the NWI is non-statutory, it isnot completely binding on the signato-ries, and progress can depend on theextent of “rewards and sanctions” thatmay be available, effectively amount-ing to encouragement by theCommonwealth through availability ofgrants. Sanctions had been available toensure the introduction of water trad-ing over state borders at the time ofthe first biennial assessment of pro-gressing the commitments to the NWI,with payments to the states havingbeing withheld until functional crossborder trading mechanisms were inplace. These sanction mechanisms areno longer available. Implementation ofdifferent aspects has varied between

Figure 8: The percentage changes in average surface water availabilityby Murray Darling Basin region under the median 2030 climate model(15).

17 23/7/12 12:33 Page 1


scientificthe states/territories, and has fallen

well behind the originally announcedand ambitious timetable. As well asreviewing the general progress ofimplementing the NWI, the NationalWater Commission’s biennial assess-ments review progress by the individ-ual states and territories (21).

The states have not been particularlyappreciative of having to provideadvice to the National WaterCommission on progress they havebeen making. An example of differen-tial progress was the obligation for leg-islative and administrative regimes tobe amended to incorporate the ele-ments of the entitlements and alloca-tion framework in the Agreement bythe end of 2006. Almost all jurisdic-tions brought in new legislation, butWestern Australia continues to operatewith an amended Rights in Water andIrrigation Act 1914 (WA). As of 2011,WA, in terms of NWI clause 26(ii), hadnot implemented NWI-compliant legis-lation to provide the statutory basis forwater access entitlements (21).

The Commission has expressed itsfrustration that by 2010, the states hadnot made substantial progress inadjusting all over-allocated or overusedwater systems to sustainable levels of

extraction (21). Yet the agreement isstill in place, and progress is still beingmade, but more slowly than anticipat-ed in 2004.

As part of that timetable, theNational Water Commission was dueto close on 30 June 2012, but as aresult of a review (22), it will continuefor the life of the NWI. Nevertheless,the NWI principles have not becomepoliticised. The primary benefits ofthese policies have been the clear defi-nition of rights to water, the recogni-tion of these rights as a capital assetthat is separately tradable, and theability to allow water to move to itshighest value uses with economic ben-efits having been demonstrated.

The principle of sharing the impactof drought on water allocations amongentitlement holders has been wellestablished. It is notable that there isvirtually no personal litigation industryin Australia dealing with water. Theneeds of the environment to maintaina base flow in rivers is increasinglybeing provided.

However, these policies are complexand when efforts have been made toadopt them within the competitiveenvironment of the Basin States, their

implementation can become less thanobjective. Local self-interest hasbecome a dominant component.Political and journalistic opportunismhas arisen. The states have threatenedlitigation against each other (but as ofApril 2012, had yet to implement anysuch intentions). The underlying imple-mentation must be built on sound sci-ence and evidence.

The political realities in a democracyare that the stakeholders, whetherwater users or environmentalists, aswell as the governments must acceptthe policy objectives, with the eco-nomic, social and environmental issuesbeing considered together.

Australia has undertaken a pioneer-ing water reform journey, its progresshas been slower than was anticipated,yet there remains an expectation thatit will ultimately be successful. Theassociated political difficulties can beovercome with good will and anunderstanding of the importance ofsound research-based evidence.

The system being developed in theMurray Darling Basin could serve as aguide for other river basins where irri-gation needs compete with people andthe environment.

References1) Commonwealth of Australia ConstitutionAct 1900 (Imp) constituting theCommonwealth of Australia,http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/con-sol_act/coaca430/ (accessed March 23 2010)(2) National Land and Water Resources Audit(2000) Australian Water Resources Assessment2000, NLWRA, Canberrahttp://www.anra.gov.au/topics/water/pubs/national/water_availability.html (accessed April23 2012)(3) Bureau of Meteorology (2012) AverageAnnual Rainfall 1960-1990.http://www.bom.gov.au/jsp/ncc/climate_aver-ages/rainfall/index.jsp (accessed 23 March2012)(4) National Land and Water Resources Audit(2002) Australia’s Natural Resources 1997-2002 and beyond, NLWRA, Canberra.http://www.anra.gov.au/topics/publications/final-report/water.html (accessed 23 March2012)(5) EBC, RMCG, Marsden Jacob Associates,EconSearch, Geoff McLeod, Tim Cummins,Guy Roth and David Cornish, (2011),Community impacts of the Guide to the pro-posed Murray-Darling Basin Plan- ExecutiveSummary. Report to the Murray-Darling BasinAuthority, May 2011.http://www.mdba.gov.au/files/bp-kid/257-EBC-Vol1-exec-summary.pdf (accessed 18March 2011)(6) DSEWPaC (2011) State of Environment2011 – 3. Climatehttp://www.environment.gov.au/soe/2011/report/atmosphere/2-1-current-state-climate.html(accessed 13 April 2012)(7) Haisman, B. (2005) Impacts of WaterRights Reform in Australia. In Water RightsReform: Lessons for Institutional Design (EdBurns, R., Ringler, C. and Meinzen-Dick, R)IPFRI, Washington, DC, USA(8) National Water Commission (2010)Australian Water Markets Report 2009–10 ,

National Water Commission, Canberrahttp://nwc.gov.au/publications/topic/mar-kets/water-markets-report-december-2010(accessed 23 March 2012)(9) Hilmer, FD, Rayner, MR and Taperell, GQ(1993). National Competition Policy,(Australian Government : Canberra) 373pp.http://ncp.ncc.gov.au/docs/HilEx-001.pdf(accessed 18 March 2012)(10) CoAG (1994). Attachment A - Water

Resource Policy, Council of AustralianGovernments' Communiqué, 25 February1994, http://www.coag.gov.au/coag_meet-ing_outcomes/1994-02-25/docs/attachment_a.cfm (accessed 18March 2012)(11) Department of Sustainability,Environment, Water Population andCommunities (2011). National Water QualityManagement Strategy. http://www.environ-ment.gov.au/water/policy-programs/nwqms/#guidelines (accessed 23March 2012) (12) CoAG (2004) IntergovernmentalAgreement on the National Water Initiativehttp://www.coag.gov.au/coag_meeting_out-comes/2004-06-25/index.cfm#nwi (accessed23 March 2012).(13) NWC (2011) Australian water markets:trends and drivers 2007–08 to 2010–11.National Water Commission:Canberra, 87pp,http://www.nwc.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0005/18986/NWC_6959-Trends-and-drivers.pdf (accessed 18 March 2012)(14) NWC (2010). The impacts of water trad-ing in the southern Murray–Darling Basin: aneconomic, social and environmental assess-ment. National Water Commission, Canberrahttp://www.nwc.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0019/10783/681-NWC_ImpactsofTrade_web.pdf (15) CSIRO (2008) Water availability in theMurray–Darling Basin: a report to theAustralian Government from the CSIROMurray–Darling Basin Sustainable YieldsProject, CSIRO : Canberra.http://www.clw.csiro.au/publications/water-

forahealthycountry/mdbsy/pdf/WaterAvailabilityInTheMDB-FinalReport.pdf (accessed 22March 2012)(16) IPCC (2007) Climate Change 2007: ThePhysical Basis. Contributions of WorkingGroup 1 to the Fourth Assessment Report ofthe Intergovernmental Panel on ClimateChange. Cambridge University Press,Cambridge. http://www.ipcc.ch/publica-tions_and_data/publications_ipcc_fourth_assessment_report_wg1_report_the_physical_sci-ence_basis.htm (accessed 25 April 2012)(17) CoAG (2008) IntergovernmentalAgreement on Murray-Darling Basin Reformhttp://www.coag.gov.au/coag_meeting_out-comes/2008-07-03/docs/Murray_Darling_IGA.pdf (accessed23 March 2012)(18) MDBA (2010) Guide to the MurrayDarling Basin Plan MDBA, Canberrahttp://download.mdba.gov.au/Guide_to_the_Basin_Plan_Volume_1_web.pdf (accessed 25March 2012)(19) MDBA (2011) The Proposed Basin PlanMDBA, Canberrahttp://download.mdba.gov.au/proposed/pro-posed_basin_plan.pdf (accessed 25 March2012)(20) MDBA (2012) Plain English Summary ofthe proposed Basin Plan MDBA, Canberra.http://download.mdba.gov.au/proposed/plain_english_summary.pdf (accessed 25 March2012)(21) NWC (2011). The National WaterInitiative - securing Australia's water future:2011 assessment National Water Commission,Canberrahttp://www.nwc.gov.au/reform/assessing/biennial/the-national-water-initiative-securing-aus-tralias-water-future-2011-assessment (accessed25 March 2012)(22) Rosalky, D (2012). COAG Review of theNational Water Commission, (DSEWPaC,Canberra)http://www.environment.gov.au/water/aus-tralia/nwi/pubs/coag-review-national-water-commission.pdf (accessed 16 April 1012)

18 23/7/12 12:34 Page 1


Looking down on to the Murray River at Renmark.

19 23/7/12 12:34 Page 1


scientific

Climate change and food security of India: adaptation strategies

for the irrigation sectorP.K.Aggarwal, K. Palanisami1, M. Khanna2 and K.R.Kakumanu1

CGIAR Research Program on Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security,International Water Management Institute, New Delhi campus-110012, India

1International Water Management Institute, ICRISAT campus, Hyderabad 502324, India2Indian Agricultural Research Institute, New Delhi-10012, India

SummaryCreation of a large irrigation potential has been the cornerstone of India’s agricultural growth and past food security. Itis estimated that the irrigation sector in the country will be affected considerably by climate change due to a projectedincrease in absolute rainfall, intensity of precipitation, glacial-melt and flood, as well as drought events. These changesare projected to modify the supply of both surface and groundwater in each region. Climate change is likely toincrease the demand for groundwater to manage increasing intermittent periods of limited water availability.Simulation studies on Indian river basins have shown that the availability of water in some parts of the country maydecrease while there may be an enhanced intensity of floods in other parts of the country. Several adaptationstrategies are available for the irrigation sector. These include increasing the availability of usable water by conservingwater resources, increasing the recharge and use of industrial and sewage wastewater. Other options are improvingthe efficiencies for water use, management of groundwater, water transfers between basins, trans-boundarycooperation and the increased use of modern tools in water resource management, such as remote sensing and GIS,and real time weather forecasts. It is concluded that demand management options will have a higher adaptationpayoff than supply options. Key words: Climate change, irrigation, adaptation, India

IntroductionThe contribution of agriculture and itsallied sectors to the Gross DomesticProduct of India has decreased to14.5% in 2010-11, compared with43% in the 1970s.

However, it still plays a critical rolein food production, employment andlivelihood security for 58% of people.

After a period of stagnation between1995 and 2005, agriculturalproduction is now increasing; in 2011-12, food grain production was close to250 M tons. It is estimated that therequirement for food grains will

increase at a higher rate than therising population and income (1).Hence the pace of food productionmust be accelerated.

Climate change is projected to causesignificant adverse impacts on theagriculture of tropical regions suchIndia (2, 3).

Combined with increasedcompetition for land, water and labourfrom non-agricultural sectors, climatechange and an associated increase inclimatic variability will result inconsiderable seasonal/annualfluctuations in food production. Allagricultural commodities, even today,

are sensitive to climatic variability,such as droughts, floods, tropicalcyclones, heavy precipitation events,hot extremes, and heat waves. Allthese are known to negatively impactagricultural production and farmers’livelihoods.

There will be an overall reduction inthe quantity of available water in thefuture.

This paper explores the potentialimpact of climate change on Indianagriculture from the perspective ofwater management and irrigationneed within a diversifying andexpanding economy.

20 23/7/12 12:35 Page 1


scientificClimate change in IndiaSeveral studies have shown a warmingtrend in air temperature during thelast few decades. An analysis (4) forthe period 1901-2009 showed anincrease of mean annual temperatureof 0.56°C per 100 years. It alsoindicated that there was a muchhigher increase in the post-monsoonand winter season’s temperature(0.7°C to 0.77 °C/100 years) ascompared to the monsoon (0.33°C/100 years) and pre-monsoonseason (0.64 °C/100 years). Annualrainfall over India does not show anyclear trend of change; however, thewinter season rainfall shows adecreasing trend, and the post-monsoon season shows an increasingtrend. The frequency of extremerainfall also increased over the Indianmonsoon region during the southwestmonsoon (4). This is accompanied bya decreasing trend in smaller rainfallevents.

The IPCC has projected that theincrease in global mean annual surfaceair temperature by the end of thiscentury is likely to be in the range of1.8 to 4.0°C (5). For South Asia, theprojections are rises of 0.5 to 1.2°C inmean annual temperature by 2020,0.88 to 3.16°C by 2050 and 1.56 to5.44°C by the end of the century,depending on future developmentincluding rise in population. Overall,the temperature increases are likely tobe much higher in the rabi (winter)season than in the kharif (monsoon)season. It is also likely that hotextremes, and heavy precipitationevents will become more frequent.Most climate models project anincrease in the absolute amount ofprecipitation in future in all monthsexcept in the period betweenDecember-February, when it is likely todecrease. The increase may, however,be accompanied by heavierprecipitation events and fewer rainydays leading to increased frequency offloods and droughts in the region.

Impact of climatechange on agriculture

Several studies have shown thatunless we adapt there is a probabilityof a 10-40% loss in crop production inIndia by the end of the century owingto global warming, despite thebeneficial aspects of increasedatmospheric CO2 (2, 3). There is someevidence that changing climate hasalready impacted rice and apple yields(2, 3). Projections indicate thepossibility of a loss of 4-5 million tons

of wheat for each 1oC temperature risethroughout the growing period (2).Recent simulation analyses haveindicated that rainfed maize, sorghumand rice yields are likely to beadversely affected by the increase intemperature, although increasedrainfall and change in managementpractices can partly offset those losses(6, 7, 8). In general, most of thesestudies assume no new technologydevelopment, and no, or limited,adaptation by all stakeholders.

The projected increase in droughtand flood events could result ingreater instability in food productionand threaten the livelihoods offarmers. This is well-illustrated by thefact that in the recent drought of2002, 15 Mha of the rainy-season croparea and more than 10% ofproduction was lost. Similar losseswere noticed in the 2009 drought.Increased production variability couldperhaps be the most significant effectof climate change on Indianagriculture and food security. Thenutritional quality of cereals and pulsesmay be moderately affected by theincrease in temperatures which, inturn, will have consequences fornutritional security.

Small changes in temperature andhumidity can affect the virulence ofdifferent pests and diseases, so thatpest and disease interactions are alsolikely to change significantly withclimate change. This will affectdistribution and potential crop losses.Changes in rainfall, temperature andwind-speed pattern may also influencethe migratory behaviour of locusts andother insects.

Climate change andwater resources

Of the total precipitation of around4000 km3 in the country, theavailability from surface water andreplenishable groundwater isestimated at 1869 km3. Owing tovariations of topography, and anuneven distribution of rain over spaceand time, only about 1123 km3,including 690 km3 from surface water,and 433 km3 from groundwaterresources can be put to beneficial use(9).

India has twenty river basins, asshown in Figure 1. The 12 majorbasins have a total catchment area of2.53 Mkm2. The largest is the Ganga-Brahamputra-Meghna system, whichhas an area of about 1.1 Mkm2 (morethan 43% of the total catchment area

of all the major rivers in the country).The other major basins withcatchment areas of more than 0.1Mkm2 are those of the Indus,Mahanadi, Godavari and Krishna.There are a further 46 medium riverbasins with catchment areas ofbetween 2000 and 20 000 km2,totalling about 0.25 Mkm2.

Creation of a large irrigationpotential has been the cornerstone ofIndia’s agricultural growth and pastfood security. This will be affectedconsiderably by climate change, aswell as by future changes in theeffectiveness of irrigation methods(10). Climate change scenarios impacton the hydrological cycle, which, inturn, is likely to result in (i) greater rainfall intensity;(ii) decrease in the number of rainydays; (iii) overall increase in precipitation; (iv) an initial increase in glacial meltand runoff, followed by a decrease; (v) increase in runoff and reducedground water recharge and (vi) an increase in flood as well asdrought events.

These changes will affect the supplyof water from inflow from rivers,reservoirs, tanks, ponds and totalreplenishable groundwater resource.

The predicted increase inprecipitation variability, which implieslonger drought periods, would lead toan increase in irrigation requirements,even if total precipitation during thegrowing season remains the same.Overall, therefore, irrigation demandscould become even greater if rain-fedareas are not able to meet projectedfood needs. The IPCC (11), hasprojected a significant increase inrunoff in many parts of the world,including India. As the increase will belargely in the wet season the extrawater will not be available in the dryseason, unless water storageinfrastructure is increased greatly. Theextra water in the wet season, on theother hand, may increase thefrequency and duration of floods.

It has been observed by remotesensing that several monsooninfluenced glaciers are retreating (12).The increased melting and recession ofglaciers associated with climatechange could further alter the run-off(13). Any increase in glacier melt inthe Himalayas is likely to affect theavailability of irrigation water,especially in the Indo-Gangeticplain.This will, in turn, have consequenceson food production and food security.

Groundwater is crucial, even where

21 30/7/12 09:50 Page 1


scientific

Figure 1:River basinmap of India(EFR: Eastflowingrivers, WFR:West flowingrivers)

Bean field.

22 23/7/12 12:36 Page 1


scientificcrops are irrigated, to ensure stress-

free periods in crop growth. Climatechange is thus likely to increase thedemand for groundwater to facilitateirrigation management. Lowergroundwater tables and the resultingincrease in the energy required topump water will make irrigation moreexpensive. Peak irrigation demands arealso predicted to rise owing to apredicted increase in periods of severeheat stress.

This will increase competitionbetween agriculture and all waterconsumers, including urban industry.

A detailed simulation study on theimpact of climate change on waterresources in the Indian river systems(14) concluded that in future, theavailability of water in some parts ofthe country may decrease while theremay be enhanced intensity of floods inother areas.

The basins of the rivers Mahi(Gujarat), Pennar (Tamil Nadu),Sabarmati, Luni and Tapi will also facewater shortage conditions (15). Thebasins of the Cauvery, Narmada andKrishna will experience seasonal orregular water-stressed conditions. TheGodavari and Mahanadi rivers will nothave water shortages but are predictedto face flooding.

Adaptation strategies inthe agriculture sector

In view of the projected adverseeffects of climate change on foodproduction, we need to analyze theoptions that could improve India’sability to adapt. There is considerabletraditional wisdom in the region that isvaluable for adapting to climatic risks.Sharing such experiences accumulatedover centuries could be useful at thehousehold, community and nationallevel. The region has adapted toprevious climatic stresses by resortingto mixed cropping, changing varietiesand planting times, by diversifyingsources of income for farmers, andmaintaining buffer stocks of food foruse in periods of scarcity.

These management strategies wouldhelp in the future but may not besufficient in view of the increasingintensity of climatic risks and the needfor more efficient food production.Some of the possible adaptationoptions (16) which are relevant tocurrent climatic risks, are described inBox 1.

Adaptation strategies in the irrigationsector

A reduction in irrigation wateravailability in the majority of states dueto climate change or for socio-economic reasons calls for animmediate response at all levels. Thereis a need to work on either increasingthe availability of usable water and/orenhancing the fresh water productivityat all scales. The adaptations can beshort-or long-term which can help inreduction of losses and avoidance ofrisks. Box 2 provides a summary of thevarious options available.

Increasing the availabilityof usable water

This could be done by reducingwastage, increasing the waterharvesting capacity, and increasing the

rate of storage recharge. The effect ofa reduction in rainfall could bemitigated through better waterharvesting, for example, through thecreation of micro-storage facilities.

These would not only provideirrigation, but also could beconstructed so as to recharge thegroundwater particularly in thePunjab, Gujarat and Rajasthan. Liningof water transport systems is alsonecessary to reduce seepage losses.

The water demand patterns are likelyto be affected by climate change sothat integration of surface water andgroundwater use needs to bedeveloped.

There is a need to develop the abilityto carry over water from one season tothe next, as well as storage in thevadose zone (between soil surface andwater table) above aquifers. Storagestructures can be improved with sluicemodification, sluice management,canal lining and rotational irrigationwith bore well supplementation [8].

Agriculture must start vigorousevaluation of industrial and sewagewaste-water usage, because freshwater supplies are limited and havecompeting uses. Such effluents, onceproperly treated, can also be a sourceof nutrients for crops. Water servesmultiple uses and users, so effectiveinter-departmental coordination in thegovernment is essential to develop alocation specific framework ofsustainable water management and

1. Assisting farmers in coping withcurrent climatic risks� Improving collection and dis-semination of weather information� Establishing a regional earlywarning system of climatic risks� Promoting insurance for climaticrisk management2. Intensifying food productionsystems� Bridging yield gaps in crops� Enhancing livestock productivity� Enhancing fisheries3. Improving land and water man-agement� Implementing strategies formore efficient water conservationand use� Managing coastal ecosystems� Increasing the dissemination ofresource conserving technologies� Exploiting the irrigation andnutrient supply potential of treat-ed wastewaters4. Enabling policies and regionalcooperation� Integrating adaptations in cur-rent policy considerations� Providing incentives for resourceconservation� Securing finances and technolo-gies for adaptation5. Strengthening research forenhancing adaptive capacity� Evolving ‘adverse climate toler-ant’ genotypes� Evaluating the biophysical andeconomic potential of variousadaptation strategies

1. Increasing the availability ofuseable water� Water harvesting and storage� Increasing groundwaterrecharge� Recycling waste water2. Increasing the efficiency ofwater use� Laser leveling of irrigated areas� Micro-irrigation� Adjusting crop agronomy3. Groundwater management� Managed aquifer recharge� Rationing electrical power sup-ply� Integration of surface andgroundwater resource4. Water transfer between basins5. Trans-boundary cooperationbetween different states6. Use of Information andCommunication Technology inwater resource management

Box 1: Key Adaptation Strategiesfor Indian Agriculture (Adaptedfrom Reference 16)

Box 2: Key adaptation strategiesin the irrigation sector.

23 23/7/12 12:37 Page 1


scientificoptimize water recycling.

Improving waterusage efficiencyLarge areas are currently irrigatedthrough surface irrigation systems. Outof an 85 Mha irrigated area, onlyabout an area of 2Mha is irrigatedwith modern techniques such as dripand sprinkler methods. Proper laserlevelling of farms could improve waterapplication efficiencies by over 20%,including that of large scale irrigationlayouts. Water use efficiency wouldalso be improved by proper designingof farm layouts,greater realism in waterpricing and irrigation methods such asmicro-irrigation. Small changes inclimate can often be better managedby altering dates of planting, spacingand input management. Alternatecrops or cultivars more adapted tochanged environment can further easethe pressure on irrigation systems. Forexample, in wheat, early planting oruse later maturing cultivars may offsetmost of the losses associated withincreased temperatures in South Asia.Recent research has shown that cropyields from surface seeding or zero-tillage of upland crops after rice givessimilar yields to those from cropsplanted under conventional cultivationover a diverse set of soil conditions.This reduces the cost of production,allows earlier planting and gives higheryields, resulting in reduced weedgrowth, reduced inputs and improvedefficiency of water use. The systems ofrice intensification, machinetransplantation, alternate wetting anddrying and maize water management

are useful for improving the overallrice production (Fig 2). These practicesalso help in the optimization of landand water resources (8).

Groundwater measuresIndia’s groundwater hotspots, whichhave been over-exploited, areconcentrated in arid and semi-aridareas of western and peninsular India,including states of Punjab, Rajasthan,Maharashtra, Karnataka, Gujarat,Andhra Pradesh, and Tamil Nadu (17).These states need an aggressiveManaged Aquifer RechargeProgramme to ensure natural rechargerates are closer to ground-waterextraction rates so that these reservoirsbecome more sustainable. Thisunderground water storage will alsoresult in lower evaporation lossescompared to surface water storage.Rationing the electrical power supplysystem as adopted by the State ofGujarat in the Jyotigram scheme andenhanced education of stake-holderscould also result in a more efficient useof groundwater. More efficient waterutilization methods, such as micro-irrigation coupled with groundwateruse, should lead to a reduction in thedepletion rate of groundwater. In thestates of Rajasthan, Maharashtra, TamilNadu and Karnataka, micro-irrigationwith higher application efficiencies ascompared to surface irrigation hasreduced water consumption andincreased crop yields significantlywhere the average water saving underdifferent crops ranged from 20 to 55%and the yield increase ranged from 10to 23% (18). Combined managementof surface and groundwater in Punjab

offers large opportunities forimproving water productivity and forsaving energy (17).

Water Transfersbetween BasinsWater transfer between river basinshasthe potential to improve wateravailability in some of the southernstates with water deficits. Given themagnitude and distribution of India'sfuture water requirements, the inter-linking of the rivers will be vital.However, a major objective will be totransfer water from water-rich basinssuch as the Ganga, Brahmaputra, andGodavari to the water scarce central,western and southern regions(Penninsular link) (Figure 3). Threesuch projects: Ken-Betwa,Damanganga-Pinjal, and Par-Tapi-Narmada, have reached an advancedstage of planning. Studies show thattransfer of water from the Godavari tothe Krishna basin at Polavaram wouldalso reduce the seasonal pressure onthe proposed irrigation command area(19). The Supreme Court of Indiaordered the government to set up aspecial committee to implement riverinterlinking projects as a priority (20).The Maharashtra and Gujarat stateGovernments recently signed anagreement to prepare project reportson the Damanganga–Pinjal and Par-Tapi-Narmada Link Projects that willbenefit both States (21). These inter-basin water transfer programmesshould be given priority for evaluationand implementation in a participatorymode involving all the stakeholders.

The regulated market-basedallocation could also be an alternatesolution. Adequate incentives orcompensation packages to the watersurplus regions for sharing theirsurplus water should be determinedand provided and possibly built intothe cost of water. The national waterpolicy should be constituted in such away that there is scope for such anintervention by the states concerned.Thus, both in the short and long term,demand management options appearto be more promising compared tosupply management options.

Trans-boundarycooperationBasin-wide management of waterthrough trans-boundary institutionswould help in the management ofclimate change. A major challenge inIndia is that several of the major riversare shared between different states as

Figure 2: Predictions of future rice production under different future timescenarios and management options during Kharif season in Godavari Basin,Andhra Pradesh, India (8). System of rice intensification (SRI), machinetransplantation (MT), alternate wetting and drying (AWD) and maize watermanagement (MWM).

24 23/7/12 12:39 Page 1


scientific

well as between neighbouringcountries. This makes it difficult todevise basin-wide managementstrategies owing to challenges topoliticians, planners, administratorsand scientists.

The problem of trans-boundaryconflicts may increase once theconsequences of climate change onthe spatial and temporal availability ofwater resources become apparent.

There is thus a priority to negotiatewater sharing treaties to define waterrights and dispute resolutionmechanisms, and establish river watercommissions to reduce trans-boundarydisputes (23). Innovative approachesfor sharing water resources between

up-stream and down-stream countriesare also required.

The draft National Water Policy ofthe Government of India, 2012 statesthat international agreements withneighbouring countries are needed ona bilateral basis for exchange ofhydrological data of internationalrivers on a near real time basis (24).

ICT in water resource managementInformation and Communication

Technologies (ICTs) are now assistingin the dissemination of researchinformation.

This need is increased by climatechange. Spatial databases, GIS, remotesensing and water use and availabilitymodels have helped to utilise seasonal

weather forecasts for on-farmirrigation planning, for understandingand targeting water storage potential,and for developing climatically suitableland use systems.

Such systems can be used tounderstand and inform water usersand managers not only about climatechange, but also the potential impacton water resources, and strategies toimprove water supplies.

Automation, computer controlleddecision support systems, on demandirrigation through creation of pools incanals, and real time soil moisture datato decide irrigation amounts are someof the important means of improvingefficiency.

Figure 3. Himalayan and peninsular component of the inter river linking project ( Source: 22).

25 23/7/12 12:39 Page 1


scientific

References� 1.Anonymous (2012). Economic survey 2011-12. Government of India.http://indiabudget.nic.in� 2. Aggarwal, P.K. (Editor). (2009). GlobalClimate Change and Indian Agriculture. CaseStudies from the ICAR Network Project. IndianCouncil of Agricultural Research, New Delhi,India, 148p. � 3. Knox, J. W.; Hess, T. M.; Daccache, A.; andPerez Ortola, M. (2011). What are the projectedimpacts of climate change on food crop produc-tivity in Africa and South Asia? DFID SystematicReview, Final Report. Cranfield University. 77pp.� 4. Attri, S.D. and Tyagi, A. (2010). Climate pro-file of India. India Meteorology Department, NewDelhi, India� 5. IPCC, 2007a: Climate Change (2007): ThePhysical Science Basis. Contribution of WorkingGroup I to the Fourth Assessment Report of theIntergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M.Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M. Tignor and H.L. Miller(eds.). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, 996 pp.� 6. Kattarkandi, B, S. Naresh Kumar andAggarwal, P.K. (2010). Simulating impacts, poten-tial adaptation and vulnerability of maize to cli-mate change in India. Mitigation and AdaptationStrategies for Global Change. 15:413-431. � 7. Srivastava, A., S. Naresh Kumar, Aggarwal,P.K. (2010). Assessment on vulnerability ofsorghum to climate change in India. Agriculture,Ecosystems and Environment. 38:160-169.� 8. Palanisami, K., Raganathan, C.R., Kakumanu,K.R. and UdayaSekharNagothu., (2011). A hybridmodel to quantify the impact of climate changeon agriculture in Godavari basin, India. Energy

and environment research, 1, No.1, pp 32-52.� 9. Government of India (2011). India: Countrypaper on water security, Central WaterCommission, New Delhi.� 10. Kundzewicz, Z.W., L.J. Mata, N.W. Arnell, P.Döll, P. Kabat, B. Jiménez, K.A. Miller, T. Oki, Z.Sen and I.A. Shiklomanov, (2007). Freshwaterresources and their management. ClimateChange 2007: Impacts, Adaptation andVulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II tothe Fourth Assessment Report of theIntergovernmental Panel on Climate Change,M.L. Parry, O.F. Canziani, J.P. Palutikof, P.J. van derLinden and C.E. Hanson, Eds., CambridgeUniversity Press, Cambridge, UK, 173-210.� 11. IPCC, 2007b. Climate Change (2007):Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability.Contribution of Working Group II to the FourthAssessment Report of the IntergovernmentalPanel on Climate Change, M.L. Parry, O.F.Canziani, J.P. Palutikof, P.J. van der Linden andC.E. Hanson, Eds., Cambridge University Press,Cambridge, UK, 976pp.� 12. Scherler, D., Bookhagen, B., Strecker, M.R.(2011). Spatially variable response of Himalayanglaciers to climate change affected by debriscover. Nature geoscience, 4:156-159.� 13. Kulkarni A V, Bahuguna, I M, Rathore, B P,Singh, S K, Randhawa, S S, Sood, R K, andDhar,V. (2002). Glacial retreat in Himalaya usingIndian Remote Sensing satellite data. CurrentScience 92:69-74.� 14. Gosain A. K. SandhyaRao andDebajitBasuray. (2006). Climate change impactassessment on hydrology of Indian Riverbasins.Current Science, 90(3), 346-353.� 15. Aggarwal, P.K, and Khanna, M. (2012).Climate Change and Water Resources. Reportsubmitted to IWMI-Tata water Policy Program,IWMI, Hyderabad.

� 16. Aggarwal, P.K. and Sivakumar, M.V.K.(2010). Global Climate Change and Food Securityin South Asia: An Adaptation and MitigationFramework. 253-275. In: Climate change andfood security in south Asia. Lal, R.; Sivakumar,M.V.K.; Faiz, S.M.A.; Mustafizur Rahman, A.H.M.;Islam, K.R. (Eds.). Springer. 600pp.� 17.Shah T (2009) Climate change and ground-water: India’s opportunities for mitigation andadaptation. Environmental Research Letters4:13pp� 18. Palanisami, K., Raman, S. and Mohan, K.(2012). Micro-irrigation: Economics andOutreach. Macmillan Publishers India Ltd, NewDelhi. 345 pp� 19. Bharati, L., Anand, B.K. and Vladmir, S.(2008). Analysis of the inter-basin water transferscheme in India: A case study of the Godavari-Krishna link. Strategic analyses of the nationalriver linking project (NRLP) of India, Series 2,pp.63-78� 20. Iyer, Ramaswamy R. (2012). With all duerespect, my lord. Article in Hindu Newspaper,March 2, 2012.� 21. Anon (2012). Maharashtra, Gujarat signpact on linking of rivers, The Hindu, May 5th,2012� 22. Amarasinghe,U.A. and Sharma, B.R. 2008.Proceedings of the Workshop on Analyses ofHydrological, Social and Ecological Issues of theNRLP. Strategic analyses of the National RiverLinking Project (NRLP) of India, Series 2. IWMI,New Delhi.� 23. Giordano, M. A and Wolf, A.T. (2003).Sharing waters: Post-Rio international water man-agement. Natural Resources Forum, 27 ( 2):163 –171� 24. Government of India (2012). Draft NationalWater Policy (2012), Ministry of Water Resources,New Delhi.

ConclusionsIndia has a large number of waterresources including glaciers, rivers,ponds and lakes, precipitation andgroundwater.

These have been utilized to create alarge irrigation potential in the last 5decades and have been thecornerstone of food security in thecountry.

To ensure future food security, Indianeeds to pay attention to emergingscenarios of climate change becauseeven today 70% of our arable land isprone to drought, 12% to floods, 8%to cyclones, and almost 30 millionpeople are affected annually by waterrelated stresses.

The probability of such events isprojected to increase in future due toclimate change. Investment inmanaging and stabilizing the existingirrigation potential offers more scopein managing the impending climatechange scenarios than investment increating new irrigation potential.

Demand management options willhave a higher pay-off both in the shortand long term. In the longer term,however, as the impact of climatechange become more severe, therewill be a need to employ some of thewater movement strategies discussed

in this article. Hence, implementation of the inter-

basin water transfer projects which arealready in the pipe-line should begiven top priority.

At present, there are large yield gapsin most crops, which provide us with aunique opportunity for meeting futurefood demands, even in the face ofincreasing climatic risks.

A part of these yield gaps is due toinadequate spatio-temporal wateravailability. In the short-term, severaloptions relating to technology transferand adoption can help improveadaptive capacity.

Some of these interventions are theprovision of weather services,insurance, and credit to farmers;community management of water,food and forage; and compensation tofarmers for efficiency and conservationof resources. In the long-term, betteradapted genotypes and agro-ecologycompliant land use will also beneeded.

This requires a scientifically soundassessment of spatial and temporalavailability of surface and groundwaterat different scales for current andfuture climate, and for their impact onagricultural production.

Inter-seasonal storage variability andits impact on crop production should

be examined in view of the projectedvariations in rainfall and temperature.Hence, there is a need to make newinvestments in the water storagestructures, to store the monsoon run-off as it is not equally distributed.

Water management technologiesshould be validated in the selectedlocations of the irrigation projects andbased on the results beforeimplementation.

It must, however, be noted thatwidespread poverty and problemswith governance, and human capitallimit agricultural growth today andcan also continue to limit adaptationto climatic risks.

The early warning response systemfor droughts is a typical case.

Over the last two centuries, Indiahas responded to droughts bydeveloping and implementing severalpolicies relating to scarcity/droughtrelief, drought management, watermanagement, and knowledgemanagement; yet it continues to losesignificantly large amounts of itsagricultural production to droughts.

While increasing the availability ofwater and crop productivity are crucialfor enhancing our adaptive capacity, itis equally important to address socio-economic and political constraints.

26 26/7/12 10:59 Page 1


scientific

The Advent of Nanotechnologyin Smart Fertiliser

Nilwala Kottegoda1, Imalka Munaweera1, Nadeesh Madusanka1,Dinaratne Sirisena2, Nimal Dissanayake2, Gehan A. J.

Amaratunga1,3 and Veranja Karunaratne1

1.Sri Lanka Institute of Nanotechnology Pvt (Ltd), Lot 14, Zone 1, Biyagama Export ProcessingZone, Walgama, Malwana, Sri Lanka.

2.Rice Research and Development Institute, Batalegoda, Sri Lanka.3.Dept. of Engineering, University of Cambridge, Cambridge CB3 0FA ,UK

SummaryAs the planet marches toward a 9 billion population by 2050, of the manifold sustainability issues that humanity willface, fertiliser usage in agriculture will be of critical importance. We must discover methods to produce more food withless fertiliser not only to reduce the cost but also to minimize environmental degradation. Of the elements essential forplant growth, N, P, and K, nitrogen fertilisers, specifically the most widely used is urea, are the most energy intensiveto produce. Paradoxically, because of leaching and volatilization, nitrogen fertilisers damage the environment most. Inthe quest for sustainable fertilisers, nanotechnology has received recent attention. Nanotechnology strives to harnessunique and useful properties manifest in matter at sizes less than 100 nm. Among several reports which attempt toherald nanosolutions to produce more efficacious fertiliser, the work on encapsulating urea coated hydroxyl apatitenanoparticles into the micro/nano porous cavities present in a wood matrix, Glyricidia sepium and montmorilloniteclay appear to lead to effective slow and sustained release of plant nutrients in soil.

Keywords: Sustainable fertiliser, nanotechnology, plant nutrient encapsulation, slow and sustainedrelease

Glossary Slow and sustained release: Designed to slowly release a nutrient over an extended time period as and when required.Encapsulation: Inclusion of one material within another material so that the included material is not apparent or accessible.Hybrid nanostructures: Nano/Atomic or molecular level mixture of different materials with favourable interactions (chemical orphysical) between their different constituents.

IntroductionBackgroundWhen the human species led a hunter-gather lifestyle for sustenance, itmaintained about four million peopleglobally in a highly egalitarian and asustainable manner. Transition to anagricultural society around 5000 B.C.,not only increased the world foodproduction dramatically, but also gaverise to a surplus social order leading tofood storage, new governingstructures, armies and conflicts; thepopulation increased at a leisurely ratefor the next 5000 years until theground conditions for its radicalamplification were provided by theindustrial revolution 200 years ago.

Modern industrial agriculture whichbegan after the World War II,supported by the fossil fuel usage,facilitated chemical production of themacronutrients essential for plantgrowth, N, P, and K. This resulted in aspectacular increase of the global food

supply leading to a relative decrease inhunger, improvements in nutrition andthe mental and physical comfort of 6billion people. However, by 2050, theprojected population of 9 billion onthe planet will inevitably increase theland area (currently 38%) used forcrop production along with doublingof global food demand, leading to areduction in biodiversity andecosystem services.

Increased use of fertiliser, andsometimes its wanton abuse, willpollute aquatic and terrestrial habitatsand ground water. Therefore, it isobligatory that scientists look at moreefficient fertiliser formulations whichwill be both cost efficient andenvironmentally friendly.

Review of Evidence andPresent situationCurrent global fertilisertrendsMankind has reached a critical

juncture in the civilization wherepopulation versus resources are out ofbalance. In April 2005, the MillenniumEcosystem Assessment carried out bythe United Nations indicated that“...the ability of ecosystems to sustainfuture generations can no longer betaken for granted” (1).

Despite the lowering of the yieldgap in developed nations by earlyadaptation of green revolutiontechnologies, disregard of agriculturalpractices germane to the poor bygovernments and internationalagencies, the current global economiccrisis, and high prices of food in thelast several years have relegated closeto a billion people, mostly in thedeveloping world, to malnutrition.

In order to feed the increasingdemand in a sustainable mannerfertiliser supply and demand will playa critical role. Nitrogen supply anddemand in 2007 and 2008 was high,because of strong nitrogen fertiliserdemand in the South and East Asiaand Latin America;

27 23/7/12 12:42 Page 1


scientific

during the same period nitrogen fer-tiliser use slowed down in NorthAmerica, Western Europe and Oceania.Urea is the farmers’ choice of nitrogenfertiliser. Global ammonia production isexpected to increase from 150 milliontonnes N in 2008 to 173 milliontonnes N in 2012.

About 75% of this increase is pro-jected to arise from new factories.Regionally, China will account forabout half of envisaged productionexpansion followed by West Asia,South Asia, and Africa (2).

Urea , CO(NH2)2, is manufacturedby the reaction between ammonia andcarbon dioxide where the main carbonfeedstock is natural gas, followed bycoal and naphtha. Global nitrogen sup-ply was projected to grow at 3.8 % peryear in the period 2008–2012, anddemand at 2.6 % per year, thus mak-ing potential nitrogen balance as apercentage of global demand low(Table 1) (2).

ResolutionEmergence of nanotechnology enabledby nanoparticles

A nanometer being one billionth of ameter (10-9 m), nanoscience and nan-otechnology are the study, design andmanipulation of structures, devices,and phenomena on the length scale ofless than 100 nanometers (10-7 m).Nanoparticles, essential materialswhich drive much of nanotechnology,fall within the nanoscale.

This diminution of size gives rise tosignificant changes in their properties,both physical and chemical, comparedto the materials in the bulk scale. Inaddition, the increase in surface area tovolume ratio which results from thedecrease in size also exposes a highnumber of surface atoms which leadsto altered chemical reactivity com-pared to the bulk material.

“When you control atoms, you con-trol just about everything,” saidRichard Smalley (3), the 1996 Nobel

Laureate, who discovered buckyballs(nanoparticle consisting of 60 carbonatoms) referring to the possibilities ofnanotechnology.

The guiding vision of nanotechnolo-gy is atomic precision. In reality, nan-otechnology is an enabling technologyproviding tools for the fabrication,manipulation and control of materialsat the atomic level.

Nanotechnology, brings into collabo-ration ideas in chemistry, physics andbiology mixed and blended with engi-neering and medicine.

A plethora of materials are amenablefor conversion to the nanoscale, forexample, silicates, metal oxides, mag-netic materials, biopolymers such aschitosan, lyposomes, dendrimers andemulsions.

There is no shortage of methods,using both physics (arc-discharge,high-energy ball milling, laser pyrolysis,laser ablation) and chemistry (chemicalvapour deposition, sonochemistry, sol-gel methods and co-precipitation) forthe fabrication of nanoparticles (3).

Nanotechnology infertiliserNitrogen is the most important ele-ment for the production of food, bio-mass and fibre in agriculture. Ammoniais the key ingredient needed to synthe-sise nitrogen fertilisers such as urea anddiammonium phosphate.

These became globally accessibleafter commercial synthesis of ammo-nia by the Haber-Bosch process in1913 (4). Therefore, in terms of theeconomics of production, nitrogen fer-tilisers (such as urea) are the mostenergy intensive, and because of thelarge tonnage used (120 kg perhectare in rice) it is also the mostexpensive.

However, in comparison to what isapplied to soil the nitrogen use effi-ciency (NUE) by crops is very low,because between 50 and 70 % nitro-

gen applied is lost – due to leaching,volatalisation to ammonia and nitrogenoxide and long term incorporation intosoil organic matter – from fertilisergreater than 100 nm in size.

Scientists have recently begun tolook at this intractable problemthrough the lense of nanotechnology(5).

That it has taken several decades forthis paradigm shift in thinking may bethe result of lack of research fundingand a low level of innovation in thearea of fertiliser.

Perhaps, this view is mirrored by thenumber of patents using nanotechnol-ogy in fertiliser development (slightlymore than 100 patents and patentsapplications from 1998 to 2008) com-pared to the pharmaceutical domainwhich is thronged with over 6000patents and patent applications duringthe same period (5).

Nanotechnology has attracted theattention of scientists because of itspotential to increase the efficiency ofnitrogen use and contribute to sustain-able agriculture.

Several recent reports have looked atnanotechnology in agriculture particu-larly in the areas of precision farming,nanosensors and food packaging (6).

However, there has been a paucity ofdiscussion on fertilisers. Importantly,plant roots and leaves have nano- andmicropores. Nanomaterials with smalldimensions and large surface areascould therefore increase the interactionwith plant surfaces leading toimproved uptake of nutrients.

Recent reports of carbon nanotubespenetrating tomato seeds (7) and zincoxide nanoparticles entering the roottissues of ryegrass (8) have shown theopportunity of using modes of deliveryutilizing the nanoporous spheres ofplant surfaces.

A nanofertiliser can deliver nutrientsto crops in one of three modes: “nutri-ent can be encapsulated inside nano-materials such as nanotubes ornanoporous material, coated with aprotective polymer film, or delivered asparticles or emulsions of nanoscaledimensions” (5).

At the end, the high surface area tovolume ratio will be a boon to nanofer-tilisers improving on the performanceof even the highly touted polymer-coated conventional slow release fer-tilisers which have remained innova-tively static during the past decade.

Table 1. World nitrogen supply and demand balance, 2008-2012.

28 23/7/12 12:41 Page 1


scientific

Emerging nanostrategiesApplications of nanotechnology wouldenable fertilisers to become highlydesirable for harmonized discharge ofnitrogen, making it available to theplant when it is needed.

This vision, based on currently avail-able research is undoubtedly futuristic.However, in the interim, if the nanofer-tiliser can release the nutrient on-demand, in a slow and sustained man-ner, preferably coinciding with soil irri-gation, premature leaching and con-version to unutilizable gaseous mattercould be minimized.

The following examples give reasonsto be optimistic that future nutrientdelivery systems in agriculture wouldfind ways to reduce fertiliser usage:

(a) The inorganic Zn–Al-layered dou-ble hydroxide (LDH) was used as amatrix, to intercalate, ·-naphthaleneac-etate (NAA), a plant growth regulatorby self-assembly. The release of NAAinitially obeyed a burst pattern fol-lowed by a more sustained releasethereafter. This release behaviour waspH dependent. The mechanism ofrelease has been interpreted on thebasis of the ion-exchange processbetween the NAA anion intercalatedbetween the layers of the LDH andnitrate or hydroxyl anions in the aque-ous solution (9).

(b) Cochleate delivery systems arestable phospholipid-cation precipitatescomprising naturally occurring materi-als, such as, phosphatidylserine andcalcium with alternating layers of phos-pholipid and multivalent cations exist-ing as stacked sheets, or continuous,solid, lipid bilayer sheets rolled up in aspiral configuration. Water solubleplant nutrients containing primarynitrogen, phosphorus and potassiumand secondary plant nutrients calcium,boron, magnesium, zinc, chlorine,have been intercalated and stabilizedin these layered structures to be usedin foliar applications (10).

(c) Pore-expanded MCM-41 (PE-MCM-41) silica exhibits a unique com-bination of high specific surface area(ca. 1000 m2/g), pore size (up to 25nm) and pore volume (up to 3.5cm3/g). As such, this material is highlysuitable for the adsorption of large bio-molecules. The current study focusedprimarily on the application of PE-MCM-41 material as suitable host forurease (nickel-based large metalloen-zyme) in controlled hydrolysis of urea.Urease adsorbed on PE-MCM-41, regu-

lar MCM-41 and silica gel (SGA) wereused as catalysts for urea hydrolysisreaction. Adsorption studies of ureaseon these materials from aqueous solu-tion at pH 7.2 revealed that theadsorption capacity of PE-MCM-41(102 mg/g) is significantly higher thanthat of MCM-41 (56 mg/g) and SGA(21 mg/g). The equilibrium adsorptiondata were well fitted using theLangmuir–Freundlich model.Furthermore, the kinetic study revealedthat the uptake of urease follows thepseudo-first order kinetics. The in vitrourea hydrolysis reaction on pristine ure-ase and different urease-loaded cata-lysts showed that the rate of hydrolysisreaction is significantly slower on U/PE-MCM-41 compared to that of bulkurease and urease on MCM-41 andSGA. This technique could be an alter-native means to the use of ureaseinhibitors to control the ammoniarelease from urea fertiliser (11).

(d) Chitosan nanoparticles preparedby polymerization of methacrylic acidhave been investigated for the possibil-ity of incorporation of NPK macronutri-ent compounds. Attempts have beenmade to synthesise and characterisethe chitosan nanoparticles containingplant nutrient composites, but no evi-dence has been reported for the slowand sustained release behaviour of thecomposite thus resulting (12).

(e) A liquid composition for promot-ing plant growth, which contains tita-nium dioxide nanoparticles has beenreported. Titanium dioxide nanoparti-cles displayed a particle size whichcould be readily absorbed by plantsthrough the roots or leaf surface. Thenano TiO2 dispersion contains adju-vants necessary for plant growth and asurfactant to maintain the dispersionstability. The composition allows cropyield to be increased by increasing thephotosynthetic efficiency of plants, andpermits increasing the bactericidalactivity of plants against plantpathogens. Furthermore, the composi-tion permits improving the problem ofenvironmental contamination causedby the excessive use of fertiliser as soilapplications (13).

(f) Hybrid nanostructures based onhydroxy apatite nanoparticles (HA)with a particle diameter ranging from25 nm to 75 nm and a wood chipwith micro/nano prorus cavities wereused to encapsulate the highly solubleurea molecules which are the majornitrogen source in many of the fertilisersystems, leading to green sustainedrelease fertiliser systems for agricultural

applications. The rich surface chem-istry of HA nanoparticles enables theestablishment of strong van DerWalls/hydrogen bonding with the polargroups of urea molecules thus hinder-ing the reactivity of the carbonyl andthe amine groups. The high surfacearea of the rod shape nanoparticles sig-nificantly improves the surface encap-sulation capacity of urea moleculesonto the HA nanoparticles.

Urea-modified HA nanoparticle dis-persions were encapsulated intomicro/nano porous cavities of theyoung stem of, Glyricidia sepium (Jacg.)Kunth Walp., under pressure. Glyricediasepium is an easily propagating readilyavailable medium sized plant (com-monly referred to as Mata Raton,Glyricidia or Weta Mara) which findsapplications as live fencing, fodder,shade, firewood, green manure andas a biomass for energy production,(Fig.1, The size of the vascular canalscan range from 1mm down to 30μm,whereas the cell cavities of the plantstem vary in submicron sizes up toabout 10μm. There are intercellularspaces whose dimensions are below100 nm).

Its young stem contains a large vol-ume of (~ 60% of the total volume)empty cavities. These cavities aredefined by cellular polymers such ascellulose, hemi-cellulose and ligninwhich contains functional groups thatare capable of forming favourableinteractions with urea modified HAnanoparticles. It was hypothesized thatonce this nanofertiliser compositioncontained in a superabsorbent biopoly-meric matrix is incorporated into a soilsystem, it will absorb moisture, thusinitiating slow and sustained release ofnitrogen into the soil as a result of dif-fusion and microbial degradation.Nitrogen leaching studies conducted inour laboratory using soil columns (pH5.2) displayed slow and sustainedrelease kinetics compared to thatobserved for a conventional urea sys-tem (Fig. 3) (14).

Pot trials conducted at the RiceResearch and Development Institute,Sri Lanka, using paddy as the modelcrop indicated an increase of 25-30%in the crop yields with up to 25%reduction in the quantity of urea used(15). Significantly, one basal treatmentof the nanofertiliser was sufficient tomeet the nitrogen demand of theplant during the total life span, com-pared with three bi-weekly applicationsin addition to the basal treatmentwhen the conventional urea system

29 26/7/12 11:00 Page 1


scientific(recommended by the Department ofAgriculture, Sri Lanka) was used (Figs 2& 4). A similar study was carried out byencapsulation of the urea modified HAnanoparticles into a second nanomatersized thick layered clay material, partic-ularly into montmorollinite (MMT). Thepurpose of this was to protect furtherany free functional groups of urea inthe HA nanoparticle matrix againstdecomposition by photochemical, ther-mal, enzymatic, and other catalyticactivities of soils compared to free ureamolecules on the surface of soil parti-cles in conventional formulations.

It is hypothised that when the hybridcomposite is in contact with soil water,it adsorbs water so urea molecules areslowly transferred into the soil solutionby diffusion while the rate of release ishighly pH dependent (15).

ConclusionsIt is imperative that solutions to criticalissues such as cost and environmentaldegradation related to fertilizer manu-facture and usage be found soon. Itappears that there is a perfect fitbetween nanotechnology and plantnutrient delivery at the particle andplant nano-porous domain interphase.

The evidence indicates that nan-otechnology has brought about anovel template to produce sustainablefertiliser delivery systems. Theseapproaches, particularly the urea coat-ed hydroxyl apatite nanoparticle,encapsulated within slow releasingmatrices have the capacity to multiplyinto many futuristic sustainable fertilisersolutions.

Fig1: Scanning electron microscopic images of a cross section of ayoung stem showing empty cavities (14). The cross sections are acombination of different pore structures of Glyricedia Sepium.Photograph by Muditha S. Yapa.

Fig 2: Field trails for nanofertiliser at the Rice Research and Development Institute, Sri Lanka.

30 26/7/12 10:57 Page 1


scientific

References1. Millennium EcosystemAssessment. (2005). United Nations,New York.2. Current world fertiliser trends andoutlook to 2011/12. (2008). Foodand Agriculture Organization of theUnited Nations, Rome.3. Mansoori, G.A. (ed.) (2005)Principles of Nanotechnology,Molecular-Based Study of Condensed Matter in Small Systems,University of Illinois at Chicago, USA,ISBN: 978 981 256 154 1.4. Smil, V., (2011) Nitrogen cycleand world food production. WorldAgriculture, 2, 9 – 13.5. De Rosa, M. C., Monreal, C.,Schnitzer, M., Walsh, R., Sultan, Y.,(2010) Nanotechnology in fertilisers.Nature Nanotechnology, 5, 91.6. Sekhon, B. S., (2010) Food nan-otechnology – an overview.Nanotechnology, Science andApplications, 3, 1 -15.

7. Khodakovskaya, M., Dervishi, E.,Mahmood, M., Xu, Y., Li, Z.,Watanabe, F., Biris, A. S., (2009)Carbon nanotubes are able to pene-trate plant seed coat and dramatical-ly affect seed germination and plantgrowth. ACS Nano, 3, 3221–3227.8. Lin, D. H. and Xing, B. S. (2008)Root uptake and phytotoxicity ofZnO nanoparticles. , EnvironmentalScience and Technology, 42 (15),5580-5585.9. Hussein, M. Z., Zainal, Z., YahayaA. H., Foo, D. W. V., (2002)Controlled release of a plant growthregulator, ·-naphthaleneacetate fromthe lamella of Zn–Al-layered doublehydroxide nanocomposite. Journalof Controlled Release, 82, 417 –427. 10. Yavitz, E. Q. (2009) Plant protec-tion and growth stimulation bynanoscalar particle folial delivery. USpatent 006014645.11. Husain, K. Z., Monreal, C. M.,Sayari, A., (2008) Adsorption of ure-

ase on PE-MCM-41 and its catalyticeffect on hydrolysis of urea. ColloidsSurface B Biointerfaces, 62 (1), 42-50. 12. Wu, L., Liu, M., (2008)Preparation and properties of chi-tosan –coated NPK compound fer-tiliser with controlled-release andwater retention. CarbohydratePolymers, 72, 240 – 247.13. Choi, K., Lee, S., Choi, H.,(2002) Liquid composition for pro-moting plant growth, whichincludes. Patent application US2005/0079977 A1.14. Kottegoda, N., Munaweera, I.,Madusanka, N., Karunaratne, V.,(2011) A green slow release fertilisercomposition based on urea modifiedhydroxyapatite nanoparticles encap-sulated wood. Current Science, 101(3), 73 -78.15. Kottegoda, N., Munaweera, I.,Madusanka, N., Karunaratne, V.,Unpublished work.

Figure 4: Total crop yieldsobserved for nanofertiliser sys-tems compared to Department ofAgriculture recommendations.(NO-F – No fertiliser, DOA – ureawith Department of Agriculture(DOA) recommended quantity, T1– 75% of the nanofertiliser com-pared to DOA recommendation,T2 – nanofertiliser same quantityas DOA recommendation, T3 -125% of the nanofertiliser com-pared to DOA recommendation).

Figure 3: Cumulative nitrogen %leached out in soil (pH 5.2) (a)urea, (b) urea modified HAnanoparticle - MMT system and(c) urea modified HA nanoparticle– Glyricedia sepium system.

31 26/7/12 11:01 Page 1


economic & social

Another reform? Proposals forthe post-2013 Common

Agricultural PolicyAlan Swinbank

School of Agriculture, Policy and Development, University of Reading, Earley Gate, Whiteknights Road,

Reading RG6 6AR, UK. [email protected]

SummaryFollowing two decades of policy change, in 2011 the European Commission tabled proposals for a new ‘reform’ of theCAP. A major component of the reform would be a revamping of the existing system of direct payments to farmers. Forexample, 30% of the spend would be dependent on farmers respecting new greening criteria; and payments would berestricted to active farmers and subject to a payment cap. These proposals will be debated by the Council of Ministers andthe European Parliament throughout 2012, and possibly 2013, before final decisions are reached. What aspects, if any, ofthe proposals will prove acceptable is yet to be discerned. Although tabled as part of a financial package, the proposals donot appear to be driven by financial exigency: indeed they seek to maintain the expenditure status quo. Nor do theyappear to be driven by international pressures: if anything, they backtrack on previous attempts to bring the CAP intoconformity with a post-Doha WTO Agreement on Agriculture. Instead they seek to establish a new partnership betweensociety and ‘farmers, who keep rural areas alive, who are in contact with the ecosystems and who produce the food weeat’ (Ciolo? 2011), in an attempt to justify continuing support.Key words: agriculture, CAP, Doha, EU, reform, WTO

GlossaryAgreement on Agriculture: one of thetrade agreements negotiated during theUruguay Round (see below) and nowadministered by the WTO. It imposesthree sets of disciplines on farm policies,relating to market access, exportcompetition and domestic support(WTO 1994; Daugbjerg & Swinbank2009). Domestic support is furtherdifferentiation between the so-calledamber, blue and green boxes (seebelow).Amber, Blue and Green Boxes: Theprovisions of the WTO’s Agreement onAgriculture relating to domestic farmsupport are complex, but the basic ideais that all domestic farm support has tobe allocated to one of three categories.Expenditure on programmes that haveno, or very little, impact on production,and consequently on trade, are said tobe decoupled and fit within the so-called green box. This includes directpayments to farmers that are not linkedto current input use, prices, orproduction. There are no expenditurelimits on green box support. All othersupport for farmers (apart from thatallotted to an intermediate category,the blue box) falls by default into theamber box. Amber box support issubject to agreed limits (for the EU thisis shown as the ‘Amber Box Allowance’in Figure 1). The proposal on the tablein the Doha Round is for a 70% cut in

the EU’s Amber Box allowance. The bluebox houses expenditure on partiallydecoupled support, such as areapayments based on a fixed area andyield, and headage payments payableon a fixed number of livestock.Currently there are no limits on bluebox expenditure, but there would be ifthe Doha Round were to be concluded.Blue box: see Amber, Blue and GreenBoxes.Decoupling: breaking the link betweensupport to farmers and their productiondecisions (inputs used, quantitiesproduced).Doha Round: a multilateral tradenegotiation under the auspices of theWTO, launched in 2001 but as yetunfinished.European Union: Today’s EU of 27Member States has evolved from theinitial European Economic Community(EEC), of six, established in the 1950s. Asuccession of treaty changes haveenlarged its scope and changed itsdecision-making procedures to allow forincreased use of qualified majorityvoting in the Council of Ministers, and agrowing role for the EuropeanParliament. Seventeen of the 27 have acommon currency: the euro.Throughout the EEC/EU’s history theCAP, the budget, and monetary unionhave been the focus of sharpdisagreements between the MemberStates. In December 2011 the Eurozonecountries, and some other Member

States, in response to concerns aboutthe future of the euro, embarked on aprogramme of negotiations that mightlead to closer macroeconomiccoordination of their economies. The EUhas three core institutions that jointlydetermine policies: the EuropeanCommission, the Council of Ministers,and the European Parliament. TheHeads of State or of Government oper-ate as a ‘super’ council – the EuropeanCouncil – to provide overall guidance. Green Box: see Amber, Blue and GreenBoxes.Greening the CAP: making Europeanagriculture more environmentallyfriendly.Pillars 1 and 2 of the CAP: Pillar 1refers to a series of CAP policy measuresthat support market prices and farmincomes. Pillar 2 refers to measuresundertaken under the RuralDevelopment Regulation. Treaty of Lisbon: the latest EU Treaty,which came into force in December2009, has considerably enhanced theEuropean Parliament’s role in CAPdecision-making.Uruguay Round: a multilateral tradenegotiation under the auspices of GATT,which lasted from 1986 to 1994 andled to the creation of a new traderegime under which the WTOadministers a number of tradeagreements, including the Agreementon Agriculture (see above) and a re-enacted GATT.

32 23/7/12 12:46 Page 1


economic & social

Those three themes—the CAP’scost; pressure from the EU’strading partners; and a growing

concern about agriculture, land useand the environment—have beencited by a number of scholars toexplain the pressures that have beenbrought to bear on policy-makers, andthe subsequent sequence of CAP‘reforms’ (Daugbjerg & Swinbank2011).

In brief, that sequence has been asfollows.

The 1992 ‘reforms’, named after thethen EU farm commissioner RayMacSharry, reduced the support(intervention) prices for cereals andbeef, whilst compensating farmers forthe implied revenue loss through areaand headage payments, based on thearea of eligible crops grown and thenumber of beef animals and sheepkept. This, far from coincidently, cameat a time when the Uruguay Round(1986-1994) of multilateral tradenegotiations under the auspices ofGATT was stalled.

The changes allowed the Round tobe concluded, and the creation of anew trade regime administered by theWTO. Although the reform increasedthe taxpayer cost of the CAP (byshouldering support that consumershad borne through higher prices), thebudget cost of the post-1992 CAP wasmore predictable and, because oflimits on the number of hectares andanimals that would be supported, lessprone to rampant growth.

The CAP’s barely-developedstructural component was slightlystrengthened: Garzon (2006)suggesting that the ‘main innovationwas the introduction of agri-environmental measures at EU level.’

Previously some Member States haddeveloped such schemes. Now allwere required to do so.

The Agenda 2000 package (agreedin Berlin in March 1999) deepened thereforms of the cereals and beefregimes, and introduced the so-calledPillar 2 of the CAP (RuralDevelopment) by repackaging existingmeasures for structural change,environment protection, andpredominantly farm-based ruraldevelopment, but without the level offunding that the then farmCommissioner, Franz Fischler, hadsought (Serger 2001). His secondattempt at reform, in 2003, was bothmore ambitious and successful.

The 1992 reform had started theprocess of decoupling (breaking thelink between production and support)as advocated by the EU’s tradingpartners in GATT and the OECD. Inparticular it broke the link with yields,although crops still had to be sown,and animals kept, for payments to bemade. The Fischler reforms wentfurther by replacing the area andheadage payments, and some others,by the Single Payment Scheme (SPS).

The basic design of the SPS,although there were some importantexceptions, was that of an annualpayment to farmers, linked to landholdings but otherwise decoupledfrom production, and subject to someenvironmental conditions (known as‘cross compliance’) (Swinbank &Daugbjerg 2006). Decoupling ofsupport for milk producers also began,although quotas remained animportant part of the dairy regime.

The Fischler reform was settled at apotentially important stage in theDoha Round of multilateral tradenegotiations. As with the MacSharry

reform during the Uruguay Round, thelinks between the two processes wereimportant (Daugbjerg & Swinbank,2009), but an agreement in the WTOwas, and remains, illusive.

Under Fischler’s successor, MarianFischer Boel, the decoupling agendawas extended to most other CAPproducts, including sugar, so that bythe early 2010s the bulk of EU budgetexpenditure on the CAP was spent ondirect payments. Thus the EuropeanCommission’s initial draft budget for2012 allocated ?40.7 billion for directpayments, €3.1 billion for marketprice support and other intervention,and €12.7 billion to Pillar 2 (RuralDevelopment). (Appropriations forpayments in Budget headings 05.03,05.02 and 05.04 respectively(European Commission 2011a)). Therelative decline in the importance ofthe ‘old’ CAP of market price supportbrought about by two decades ofpolicy change has been accentuatedby more buoyant world commodityprices. The EU’s high import taxes onfarm and food products remain,however, and will only be reducedfollowing a Doha settlement.Moreover, when world dairy pricesplunged in 2009, intervention buyingand export subsidies were reactivated,but then again removed when worldprices recovered. Apart from privatestorage of olive oil (Agra Facts 2011b)the ‘old’ CAP market price supportmechanisms are currently (January2012) in abeyance, although still onthe statute books.

Reflecting these structural changes inthe budget spend on the CAP, the EU’sannual declarations of domestic farmsupport to the WTO, as can be seen inFigure 1, show a clear movementaway from trade-distorting amber box

Abbreviations CAP Common Agricultural Policy; EEC European Economic Community, now the EU; EU EuropeanUnion; GATT General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade; Mercosur Mercado Común del Sur; MFF Multiannual FinancialFramework; OECD Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development; SPS Single Payment Scheme; UK UnitedKingdom; WTO World Trade Organization

IntroductionTwo Decades of CAP ‘Reforms’From the early-1960s until 1992 the fundamental framework of the CAP went largely unchanged, with the introduction ofmilk quotas in 1984 perhaps the most significant exception. Following those ‘thirty years of immobility’ (Garzon 2006), thelast twenty years have brought a succession of changes (Cunha with Swinbank 2011) that mean that the CAP’s policymechanisms – if not its objectives – at the beginning of the 2010s are different from those of the early 1990s. In 1991,launching what was later to be dubbed the MacSharry Reform, the European Commission said of the CAP—‘created at atime when Europe was in deficit for most food products’—that its system of market-price support had led ‘to a costly buildup of stocks’; to the EU ‘having to export more and more on to a stagnant world market’ which ‘goes some way towardsexplaining the tensions between the [EU] and its trading partners’; and that it encouraged ‘intensification of productiontechniques’ which ‘if unchecked, leads to negative results. … nature is abused, water is polluted, and the landimpoverished’ (Commission of the European Communities 1991).

33 23/7/12 12:47 Page 1


economic & social

support (subject to WTO limits) to theso called green box, which includespolicies with only a minimal impact ontrade and which is consequently notsubject to WTO spending limits. Thisshifting of support between boxes hasbeen viewed with suspicion by someof the EU’s trading partners,particularly those harbouring the viewthat the ‘colour’ of the support is lessimportant than its overall size.

Why 2013?The EU has had a rolling programmeof financial planning since the 1980s.Although an annual budget isdetermined, this is in the context of aMultiannual Financial Framework(MFF) that specifies annual budgetceilings. At the time of writing we areapproaching the end of the 2007-2013 MFF, and accordingly in June2011 the European Commissionpresented its proposal for the 2014-2020 MFF. The proposed budget limitsfor the CAP were then incorporatedinto its subsequent proposals for thepost-2013 CAP (European Commission2011b and 2011c; Matthews 2011).Following ratification of the Treaty ofLisbon, which came into force inDecember 2009, the EuropeanParliament has an increased role inCAP decision-making (Greer & Hind2011). Consequently prolongeddiscussions between the MemberStates (in the Council of Ministers, andperhaps in the European Council) andbetween the institutions (Parliament,

Council and Commission), areexpected. It is possible these willextend through the next fourPresidencies of the Council of Ministers(Denmark, followed by Cyprus in2012; Ireland, followed by Lithuania in2013) to a last minute decision in late2013.

Not only have the decision-makingprocedure s changed since the lastCAP reform, but the EU is nowembroiled in a severe financial crisis inwhich the very survival of the euroseems threatened, with one MemberState (the UK) distancing itself fromthe December 2011 decisions taken bythe rest. (The British Prime Minister’sopening comment to the House ofCommons was that he had gone tothe European Council ‘with oneobjective: to protect Britain’s nationalinterest’ (Cameron 2011)). Quite howthis will affect discussions on the2014-2020 MFF, including the touchyissue of the British rebate (morebelow), and on the post-2013 CAP,remains to be seen.

As explained by the EuropeanCommission in a leaked, and un-adopted, draft document:

‘The UK correction was introducedwhen more than 70% of the EUbudget was spent on agriculturalmarket measures. At the time, theUnited Kingdom was one of the leastprosperous Member States. ... Todaythe UK is one of the most prosperousMember States and the share of ...agricultural expenditure in the EU

budget has decreased significantly’(European Commission 2009).

Although some other Member Statesalso benefit from special rules, theBritish rebate, worth several billioneuros a year, is by far the mostimportant. It was first negotiated atthe Fontainebleau meeting of theEuropean Council in 1984, and hasbeen renewed, more-or-less intact, insubsequent MFFs. It will be,presumably, a major element in theUK’s negotiating objectives for the2014-2020 MFF. In 2005, when theMember States were negotiating the2007-2013 MFF, it was suggested thatthe UK would be willing to surrenderpart of its rebate if France were toagree to CAP reform (Begg andHeinemann 2006). In the end therewas stalemate, but the UK did believethat it had been agreed that theCommission would ‘undertake a full,wide-ranging review covering allaspects of EU spending, including theCommon Agricultural Policy, and ofresources, including the UnitedKingdom rebate, and … report in2008/09.’ (European Parliament,Council and Commission 2006).Despite a major consultation exerciseimplemented by the EuropeanCommission, and the leaking of thedocument referred to above, nothingemerged from this process until 2010.

The ProposalThere are perhaps three key features ofthe European Commission’s proposalsfor the post-2013 CAP that should beemphasised.

First, despite the complexity (indeedopacity) of the documentation, this isnot a proposal for radical reform. Ithas nothing comparable to thedecoupling of the MacSharry (areaand headage payments) or Fischler(the SPS) reforms.

Second, budget expenditure on theCAP, and its allocation to directpayments, market price support, andrural development, is set to remainmore-or-less unchanged through to2020 in current (money) terms,although this implies a reduction inreal terms and as a percentage of theEU budget spend.

Third, there would be newenvironmental constraints put upon30% of expenditure under the SPS’ssuccessor scheme.

Milk and sugar quotas will end. TheRural Development Regulation (Pillar 2of the CAP) would be revised, but noadditional funding would be madeavailable. Moreover, as yet, how Pillar2 funding will be distributed among

Years

€

Fig. 1. The EU’s Domestic Support Declarations to the WTO (ecu/? mil-lion) Source: EU’s declarations in the WTO’s document seriesG/AG/N/EEC/ Comment: Throughout the period shown amber boxsupport has been declining and is well below the WTO limit (shownas the Amber Box Allowance). Blue box expenditure on partially cou-pled support such as area and headage payments has also beendeclining with expenditure on the SPS shifted to the een box. The lat-est declaration (for 2007/08) was made in January 2011. SeeSwinbank (2011b).

34 23/7/12 12:48 Page 1


economic & socialthe Member States remains unclear.

It is perhaps surprising that theEuropean Commission is proposing nochange in either Pillar 1 (income andmarket price support) or Pillar 2 (ruraldevelopment) funding from thatachieved in the last year of the 2007-2013 MFF, despite widespread beliefthat funding should switch from Pillar1 to Pillar 2, and rival bids for scarcegovernment funds. It would appearthat it is seen to be too political tochallenge the status quo. Whetherthere is a Plan B remains to be seen. Iffinance ministers impose a tightfinancial settlement on the CAP, will itbe rural development (Pillar 2) thatbears the brunt of the cuts, ashappened in the two preceding MFFs(2000-2006, and 2007-2013), or Pillar1 (i.e. direct payments)?

Direct PaymentsIt is proposed that the existing SPS(and its parallel arrangements in theMember States that joined the EU in2004 and 2007) be replaced by a new,legally distinct, regime in 2014; butone that clearly displays its origins. Asexplained earlier, the 1992 reformsintroduced area and headagepayments to compensate farmers forthe implied loss in revenue stemmingfrom reductions in support prices. Adecade later it seemed bothinappropriate and politicallyproblematic to continue with thisterminology. How could compensationstill be justified in the old MemberStates; or for that matter in the tennew states that were about to enterthe EU and had not experienced the1992 reform? Consequently, in 2003,the SPS was referred to as ‘an incomesupport for farmers’; even though itwas never clearly explained whyfarmers collectively needed ‘incomesupport’, or how the actualdistribution of payments betweenfarmers or countries could be justified(Swinbank, 2011a).

Within Member States payments arehighly skewed, reflecting pastproduction rather than any objectivemeasure of current need for incomesupport. In Italy, a rather extreme case,42.4% of claimants, for example,received €500 or less, accounting for3.4% of monies paid out, whereas atthe other end of the scale a mere0.8% of claimants claimed €50k ormore and scooped 28.9% of the cash,as can be seen in Table 1.

One particular complaint has beenthat the new Member States (andsome old ones, such as Portugal) hadbeen allocated a rather low budget for

direct payments. Even after theirphased introduction they amounted toabout €100 per hectare in Latvia, forexample, compared to well over€400 in The Netherlands (EuropeanCommission 2011d). Consequentlythe European Commission hasproposed some narrowing of the gapwhilst keeping the overall €27 spendwithin budget.

Increased equity within MemberStates is to be achieved by insisting ona move to regionalised payments (witha common payment per hectare for allfarmers within the region), comparedto the historic model that someMember States had continued toapply. Under the latter per hectarepayments could differ betweenneighbouring farmers, depending ontheir past production patterns.

Although the explanatorymemorandum to the proposedRegulation does mention the need forincome support, the draft Regulationitself does not. Article 1 establishes ‘abasic payment for farmers’, which itcalls ‘the basic payment scheme’,together with a payment for farmersobserving agricultural practisesbeneficial for the climate and theenvironment (European Commission2011c).

Farm businesses already in receipt ofdirect payments will be allocated

entitlements under the basic paymentscheme; with 30% of a MemberState’s budgetary allocation for directpayments earmarked for the greeningcomponent. This, nominally, leaves70% of the funds for the basicpayment scheme, but there are othercalls on this money (for young farmersand disadvantaged regions forexample), and more scope forcoupling support to specific crops thanis the case under the current regime.The greening component will be paidin addition to the basic payment(although whether the basic paymentis payable without compliance withthe greening component was unclearin the original English text). The basicpayment, after allowing for the cost ofemployed labour, would be subject to‘progressive reduction and capping’.Payments in excess of €150k perannum would be subject to‘progressive reduction’; in effect anescalating tax rate reaching 100% at€300k, imposing a cap of €235k ona farm business’ basic payment receipt(European Commission 2011c).

Greening, ActiveFarmers, and theWTO’s Green BoxThe greening payment for non-organicarable farmers would be

35 23/7/12 12:48 Page 1


economic & socialdependent upon them planting threedifferent arable crops, none of whichcould occupy less than 5% or morethan 70% of their arable area;maintaining existing permanentgrassland; and keeping at least 7% oftheir eligible hectares as an ecologicalfocus area, such as ‘land left fallow,terraces, landscape features, bufferstrips and afforested areas’ (EuropeanCommission 2011c). These constraintson production make it very difficult tojustify the claim that these would begreen box payments. They appear toinfringe paragraph 6(b) of Annex 2 ofthe Agreement on Agriculture (WTO1994) that insists that ‘decoupledincome support’ and ‘direct paymentsto producers’ (paragraph 5) should‘not be related to, or based on, thetype or volume of production …undertaken by the producer in anyyear after the base period’; and 6(d)which insists that payments ‘shall notbe related to, or based on, the factorsof production employed in any yearafter the base period’ (which is aproblem too for the existing SPS, asboth involve an annual claim based onthe land at a farmer’s disposal). Norcould the greening payment be readilyjustified as ‘payments underenvironmental programmes’(paragraph 12 of the green box) asthese are to be ‘limited to the extracosts or loss of income involved incomplying with the governmentprogramme’; and there is no suchprovision.

The attempt to restrict the basicpayment to active farmers is alsoproblematic. As the EuropeanCommission’s explanatorymemorandum explains: ‘the definitionof active farmer further enhancestargeting on farmers genuinelyengaged in agricultural activities, andthus legitimizes support’. The EU istrying to ensure that entities such asaerodromes or golf courses, thathappen to have some agricultural landattached to their business, do notqualify for CAP support. Article 9 ofthe draft Regulation is carefully craftedso that it excludes certain groups (e.g.when ‘the annual amount of directpayments is less than 5% of the totalreceipts they obtained from non-agricultural activities in the most

recent fiscal year’, which wouldprobably exclude quite legitimatefarming activities such as universityfarms), rather than specifying whatbusinesses have to do to beconsidered active farmers. As theEuropean Commission’s ImpactAssessment (2011d) concedes: ‘Manyof the criteria that could be used todefine who is an “active farmer” couldbe problematic from a WTO point ofview … in particular they cannotimply an obligation to produce.’

Whether or not the proposedscheme of direct payments, with itsgreening component and restriction toactive farmers, or for that matter theexisting SPS, is green box compatibleis, for the moment, of only esotericimportance, for if not green then theseare either amber or blue boxpayments. As shown by Figure 1, theexisting amber box support falls wellshort of WTO allowances, and thesecontested payments could berehoused there, or in the blue box forwhich there is no current constraint.Thus, for the moment, the EU isunlikely to be challenged in the WTO’sDispute Settlement Body. If, however,the Doha Round were to beconcluded, with a 70% cut in the EU’samber box allowance, and newconstraints on the blue box, then thegreen box compatibility of the post-2013 CAP’s direct payments wouldbecome of critical importance. If thegreen box classification of these directpayments were to be disallowed bythe WTO, this would mean that a keycomponent of the post-2013 CAPdirectly contravenes the EU’sinternational commitments.

Implications forWorld Agriculture

The proposals for the post-2013 CAPare unlikely to have a major impact onworld trade in farm products, andhence upon world agriculture. Thegreening of direct payments, and the7% ecological focus areas, might leadto a slight decrease in EU farm output.The removal of quotas on milk andsugar production in 2015 willprobably lead to a slight increase inoutput of these products. In the caseof milk, quotas were a bindingconstraint in 2010/11 in only five

Member States, which between themaccounted for 13.4% of milk quotaallocated (Agra Facts 2011a). It is inthese countries, and in TheNetherlands in particular, thatincreases in output might beexpected. Under the sugar regime,over-quota sugar cannot automaticallybe sold onto the domestic market,despite the shortages that wereappearing in 2011. Thus over-quotasugar was being exported from the EU(within the quantitative constraints setout in WTO obligations), whilst atendering procedure was in place for‘exceptional imports’ into the EU (AgraFacts 2011c). Removal of the quotaconstraint would allow a more rationalmovement of product: whether itwould also result in increased output isa more open question, althoughMatthews (2011) concludes that it‘could result in a substantial increase inproduction’.

Other developments, post-2013, aremore likely to impact world agriculturethan the current CAP reform. Asuccessful conclusion of the DohaRound for example would open-up theEU’s market for those products stillafforded high protection, such asdairy, sugar and beef. Similarly, anextension of its web of free-trade areas(permissible under WTO rules) wouldallow improved access for selectedsuppliers to the EU’s market. The mostsignificant of these negotiations is thatwith the Mercado Común del Sur(Mercosur), which comprisesArgentina, Brazil, Paraguay andUruguay, with other South Americaneconomies as Associates. Brazil, inparticular, has aspirations to sell itssugar, bioethanol, and beef, into theEuropean market. A study by theEuropean Commission’s Joint ResearchCentre (Burrell et al. 2011) to assessthe likely impact of a free-trade areawith Mercosur suggests ‘that theeconomic losses and the adjustmentpressures arising from a bilateral tradeagreement between the EU and thecountries of Mercosur would, as far asthe EU is concerned, fall very heavilyon the agricultural sector’. Offsettingthese losses for European agriculturewill be gains for EU consumers, and forthose overseas farmers that obtainmore access to the EU market.

36 23/7/12 12:49 Page 1


economic & socialConclusionIn his address to the EuropeanParliament, launching theCommission’s proposals for the post-2013 CAP, the present Commissionerfor Agriculture and RuralDevelopment, Dacian Ciolo (2011),said that a ‘new balance has to beestablished through a genuinepartnership between society as awhole, which offers the financialresources through a public policy, andfarmers, who keep rural areas alive,who are in contact with theecosystems and who produce the foodwe eat.’

Although the proposals form part ofthe 2014-2020 MFF there is noindication that they are motivated bybudgetary concerns, despite theSovereign Debt crisis afflicting mostEU Member States. Expenditure onboth Pillar 1 and Pillar 2 wouldcontinue unchanged (although fallingin real terms) through to 2020. Therewould be some shifting of Pillar 1, andprobably Pillar 2, support betweenMember States. This is not the

hallmark of a real reform, but rather ofbusiness as usual; a preference for thestatus quo. Whether this aspect of theproposal will survive the challenges ofwhat is likely to be a fractious debateover the 2014-2020 MFF remains tobe seen.

The Doha Round, launched in 2001,is not quite dead, although immediateprospects for its resurrection arelimited. WTO Ministers, at their 8thMinisterial Meeting in December2011, acknowledged that ‘thenegotiations are at an impasse’, butonce again they ‘committed to workactively, in a transparent and inclusivemanner, towards a successfulmultilateral conclusion of the DohaDevelopment Agenda in accordancewith its mandate’ (WTO 2011). Boththe MacSharry and Fischler reformswere, in my view, strongly influencedby the on-going Uruguay and DohaRound negotiations (Daugbjerg andSwinbank 2009 and 2011). TheFischler and subsequent reforms,together with the buoyancy of worldmarkets, left the CAP compatible with

a post-Doha Agreement onAgriculture, provided the EU’s recentdeclarations of amber and green boxsupport can be robustly defended inany WTO challenge (Swinbank2011b). By contrast, WTO pressuresdo not seem to have been a keydeterminant for Mr. Ciolo. Indeed, theproposals on greening the CAP, onactive farmers, and to allow somerecoupling of support, would appearto backtrack on the success of hispredecessors in acceding to theliberalising agenda of the WTO.

The key to the package is theattempt to justify to European society,‘which offers the financial resources’,continued support to farmers, ‘whokeep rural areas alive, who are incontact with the ecosystems and whoproduce the food we eat’.

Whether this strategy will survive thedebates of the MFF, and convincefinance ministers and taxpayers of thecost-effectiveness of the measuresproposed (not something addressed inthis paper) remains to be seen.

ReferencesAgra Facts, (2011a). 2010/11 superlevy bill?55.5m, with Ire, Bel & D approaching thepenalty line. 81-11. 19 October 2011.Agra Facts, (2011b). Nearly 10 000t ofSpanish olive oil granted PSA. 84-11. 28October.Agra Facts, (2011c). Green light for movesto address sugar supply concerns. 92-11. 25November.Begg, I Heinemann, F (2006). New Budget,Old Dilemmas. Briefing Note. London,Centre for European Reform.Burrell, A, Ferrari, E, Gonzalez Mellado, A,Himics, M, Michalek, J, Shrestha, S, VanDoorslaer, B (2011). Potential EU-MercosurFree Trade Agreement: Impact Assessment,Volume 1: Main results. Seville, JointResearch Centre–Institute for ProspectiveTechnological Studies.Cameron, D (2011). Hansard. House ofCommons, 12 December, column 519.http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmhansrd/cm111212/debtext/111212-0001.htm (accessed 12 January 2012)Ciolo?, D (2011). A new partnershipbetween Europe and its farmers. Speechpresenting the legislative proposals on thereform of the Common Agricultural Policyto the European Parliament, 12 October.SPEECH/11/653. Brussels, CEC.Commission of the European Communities(1991). The Development and Future of theCAP. Reflections Paper of the Commission.COM(91)100. Brussels: CEC.Commission of the European Communities(2009). A Reform Agenda for a GlobalEurope [Reforming the Budget, ChangingEurope]. The 2008/2009 EU Budget ReviewDraft 06-10-2009. Unofficial leaked text, at:http://www.people.ie/eu/eutax.pdf (lastaccessed 15 December 2011).Cunha, A, Swinbank, A (2011). An InsideView of the CAP Reform Process: Explainingthe MacSharry, Agenda 2000, and FischlerReforms. Oxford, Oxford University Press.Daugbjerg, C, Swinbank, A (2009). Ideas,Institutions and Trade: The WTO and the

Curious Role of EU Farm Policy in TradeLiberalization. Oxford, Oxford UniversityPress.Daugbjerg, C, Swinbank, A (2011).Explaining the ‘Health Check’ of theCommon Agricultural Policy: budgetarypolitics, globalisation and paradigm changerevisited. Policy Studies, 32 (2), 127-41.European Commission (2011a). DraftGeneral budget of the European Union forthe financial year 2012 Volume 3 Section IIICommission. Brussels, EC.European Commission (2011b). A Budgetfor Europe 2020. COM(2011)500. Brussels,EC.European Commission (2011c). Proposal fora Regulation of the European Parliamentand of the Council establishing rules fordirect payments to farmers under supportschemes within the framework of thecommon agricultural policy.COM(2011)625/3. Brussels: EC. (one of aset of texts).European Commission (2011d) ImpactAssessment. Common Agricultural Policytowards 2020. Commission Staff WorkingPaper. SEC(2011)1153. Brussels: Brussels.European Commission (2011e). IndicativeFigures on the Distribution of Aid, by Size-Class of Aid, Received in the Context ofDirect Aid Paid to the Producers Accordingto Council Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003and Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009(Financial Year 2009.http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/fin/directaid/2009/annex1_en.pdf (last accessed 5January 2012).European Parliament, Council andCommission (2006). Declaration on theReview of the Financial Framework attachedto the Inter-institutional Agreementbetween the European Parliament, theCouncil and the Commission on budgetarydiscipline and sound financial management.Official Journal of the European Union.C139. 14 June.Garzon, I (2006). Reforming the CommonAgricultural Policy: History of a Paradigm

Change. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan.Greer, A, Hind, T (2011). The Lisbon Treaty,agricultural decision-making and the reformof the CAP: a preliminary analysis of thenature and impact of ‘co-decision’. Paperpresented at the Annual Conference of theAgricultural Economics Society, University ofWarwick, 18-20 April.Mathews, A (2011). Post-2013 EU CommonAgricultural Policy, Trade and Development:A Review of Legislative Proposals. ICTSDProgramme on Agricultural Trade andSustainable Development, Issue PaperNo.39. Geneva, International Centre forTrade and Sustainable Development.Serger, S S (2001). Negotiating CAP Reformin the European Union–Agenda 2000.Report 2001: 4. Lund: Swedish Institute forFood and Agricultural Economics.Swinbank, A (2011a). Some Misconceptionsabout Requirements for the Post-2013 CAP’In House of Commons Environment, Foodand Rural Affairs Committee, The CommonAgricultural Policy after 2013. Volume II.Fifth Report of Session 2010-11. HC 671-II.London: The Stationery Office, pp. 152-7.Swinbank, A (2011b). Fruit and vegetables,and the role they have played indetermining the EU’s AggregateMeasurement of Support. The Estey CentreJournal of International Law and TradePolicy, 12 (2), 54-73.Swinbank, A, Daugbjerg C (2006). The2003 CAP Reform: Accommodating WTOPressures. Comparative European Politics, 4(1), 47-64.World Trade Organization (1994). WTOlegal texts.http://www.wto.org/english/docs_e/legal_e/legal_e.htm (last accessed 12 January2012).World Trade Organization (2011).Chairman’s Concluding Statement.Ministerial Conference Eighth SessionGeneva, 15-17 December 2011.WT/MIN(11)/11. Geneva, WTO.

37 23/7/12 12:50 Page 1


economic & social

Sustainable farming – steppingup to the challenge

Andrea Graham1, Tom Hind2, Philip Bicknell3

National Farmers’ Union, Agriculture House, Stoneleigh Park, Stoneleigh, Warwickshire

Introduction The challenges of global food securityare becoming clichéd in an increasing-ly rhetorical debate amongst academ-ics, policy makers and governments.

The challenges including lifting agri-cultural productivity, reducing environ-mental impacts, addressing povertyand facilitating access are well under-stood. What is considerably less clear ishow these challenges should beaddressed, by whom, how, where andat what cost.

1. NFU Chief Science and RegulatoryAffairs Adviser.

2. NFU Director of Corporate Affairs.

3. NFU Chief Economist.

There is a desperate need to movebeyond the narrative laid out mostnotably in the Foresight report of 2011(Global Food and Farming Futures) (1)and start mapping out the key actionsthat must be taken in the next decade,if not sooner.

We believe that the focus on 2050as a defining moment for global foodsecurity has allowed some commenta-tors and NGOs to suggest that we canput off the big decisions. Some arguethat agricultural productivity willincrease as farmers and scientistsrespond to market demands.

Others believe simply cutting wasteand changing global diets will providethe answers without a need to increaseproduction. In our view neither posi-tion is tenable.

Making the casefor sustainableintensificationAgricultural land and other key factorsof production, especially water, areeither expensive to produce or finite.

What is more, farm output must begenerated from already depleted andvital natural resources which must bepreserved. The demographic changeswe face not only affect demand forfood but also put pressure on energy,natural resources and water.

The term sustainable intensificationwas first formally coined by the RoyalSociety in its October 2009 report (2)to encapsulate the most important sin-gle response to the global challengesof food security, environmental protec-tion and climate change.

Yet the term is contentious and cansuffer from a lack of clarity in its exe-cution. We tend to see things quitesimply: producing more, impactingless.

Sustainable intensification is not anew concept or philosophical ideal;

indeed it is something that manyfarmers have already been makinggreat advances towards.

They have maintained or moderatelyincreased production over the last fourdecades without increasing the overallvolume of inputs. As an example, thevolume of nitrogen fertiliser used onfarms in the UK has fallen by 36%since the mid-1980s (Figure 1).

It is important to understand whatsustainable intensification means forfarming in the future. UK agriculture isa dynamic industry that has constantlyevolved to adapt to changing circum-stances in markets, policy, technology,techniques and labour.

Sustainable intensification is alreadybeing adopted by many farm business-es, for example, the use of precisionfarming technology for yield mappingusing GPS and advances in agriculturalengineering are increasingly commonplace on many farms.

More livestock and dairy farms areusing computer software to optimisefertiliser use on grassland and tailornutritional requirements for cattle.Significant advances have been madein breeding genetics in the pig andpoultry sectors.

In many cases, sustainable intensifi-cation is about quite subtle changes tooptimise inputs both spatially and

SummaryAs a consequence of extensive debate the challenges of achieving global food security are well understood. It is nowvital that policy makers identify the specific solutions needed to ensure farmers and growers in all parts of the world,including the UK, can respond through the sustainable intensification of agriculture.

There are three essential ingredients. First, a better structured and more coherent science framework is required thattakes basic research, translates this to applied science and that has the means to deliver this onto farms in the UK. In aclimate of fiscal restraint, there may be a need to rebalance public funding towards applied research and to seek outmore public/private partnerships. It is important that the farming industry specifies its priorities in terms of researchthat is needed over the next 5-10 years.

Secondly, there is a need to recognise and address systemic failures in the food supply chains through a combinationof regulatory mechanisms to remove abusive practices and introduce a change in buying behaviour towards long-termalignment. This will create a climate in which investment and sustainable intensification can be fostered.

Thirdly, we need to ensure that agricultural policies such as the CAP stimulate rather than inhibit sustainableintensification.

Industry and farmers must cooperate, but government retains an important role. This is not merely as an arbiter, but inguiding strategy particularly for public funded research. Here most importantly we need to move beyond talking aboutsorting out a “broken pipeline” to actually fixing it.

38 23/7/12 12:51 Page 1


economic & social

temporally (whether they be pesti-cides, herbicides or nutrients) that,scaled up, make a significant differenceto the productivity of farm businessesover time.

Collectively it means less waste, bet-ter crop performance, lower costs andbetter outcomes for the environment.

Recent studies in Australia haveshown that simply using the controlledtraffic farming systems to minimise soilcompaction can result in improve-ments in wheat yield of up to 15% (3).

There is still enormous scope toexploit this technology further in areassuch as crops sensing for disease andquality, real-time monitoring of animalhealth and welfare as well as the con-trolled management of farm vehicleoperations (4).

The role of UKagricultureFew people doubt that achieving foodsecurity requires significant increases inagricultural production.

However, some commentators andNGOs (indeed some government offi-cials) dispute the belief that productionmust also rise in the UK.

In 2009, the House of CommonsEFRA Select Committee (5) argued thatthe UK has a ‘moral duty’ to increasefood production, not only to addressconcerns about declining self-sufficien-cy at home, but also to play a part inthe global response to growingdemand.

The UK will never be a major globalagricultural exporter. However, its geo-graphical position, good trade linksand manufacturing capability shouldenable it to respond to what will be aninevitable growth in demand frominternational markets for food.

Whilst no-one can dispute the factthat developing countries must deliverthe lion’s share of an increase in pro-duction, few believe that they will bein a position to completely satisfygrowing demand sustainably. Thedeveloped world must also play itspart.

Global supply will be impacted byclimate change. Recent years havealready seen weather events impact onthe global output of key agriculturalcommodities and contribute to volatileprices.

A 2% rise in average global tempera-tures will generate further extreme

weather events, place greater stresseson production in certain parts of theworld, and exaggerate the annual vari-ations in global supply.

Some of the world’s major exportingregions may suffer the effects of salina-tion and heat stress (Figure 2). It willalso cause shifts in the ranges of pestsand diseases, as has already occurredwith bluetongue and Schmallenbergviruses in Europe.

By contrast, the impact of climatechange in the UK may be relativelymore benign.

The Commission on SustainableAgriculture and Climate Change Report(6) talks of the “safe operating space”as defined by climate change withinwhich global food production mustexist. There will be a greater onus onthose parts of the world that can pro-duce more to do so, including the UK.

Changing diets, reducing waste andreducing agricultural greenhouse gasemissions will only take us so far.Agriculture must also produce yieldimprovements and increased efficien-cies to keep within the “safe operatingspace” and innovation will have a keyrole.

Figure 1: UK nitrogen fertiliser use and output volumes 1984-2010. Source: Defra Agriculture in the UK2010 (chart 13.4 & table 10.1)

39 23/7/12 12:51 Page 1


economic & social

Figure 2: Projected changes in agricultural production in 2080 owing to climate change: Source: Cline.2007. Projections assume a uniform 15% increase in yields from the fertilization effect of rising CO2 inthe atmosphere on some plant species.

Three vital needs In an attempt to move beyond therhetoric and clichés, we believe that itis incumbent on farmers’ organisationsto start identifying what really is need-ed in the next 5-10 years to ensurethat the sector can address the chal-lenges. .

In perhaps its simplest encapsulation(and leaving aside some significantpolicy and regulatory hurdles that lieahead), we see three basic require-ments that will enable UK farmers toachieve sustainable intensification.

1. A better structuredscience framework.The results of scientific and, technolog-ical work and their subsequent com-mercialisation are absolutely crucial toensuring that future demands for food,fuel and fibre can be met from a limit-ed land area.

Lately, discussion of agricultural sci-ence has focussed on the highly politi-cised issue of genetically modifiedcrops (GMs). For the avoidance ofdoubt, let us be clear – we believe thatthe farming industry will need a fullrange of techniques and approaches,including GM to meet the challenges.

However, no single technology, tool orfarming system will solve all the prob-lems and feed the world.

Just as we must move beyond clichés,we must also move beyond the polar-ising rhetoric that dominates debateon GM.

Achieving tangible advances requires ascience framework that addresses fourthings:

a. Basic research that challenges theboundaries of conventional wisdom.

b. Investment in the research thatfarmers can then apply to their busi-nesses.

c. Knowledge transfer and extensionnetworks that secure take-up of thebest available technologies and tech-niques and also effective feedback tothe research sector.

d. Empowerment of the agriculturalindustry to take forward and apply thisnew knowledge and innovationthrough skills and training, particularlyin the areas of business and entrepre-neurial expertise.

The UK has traditionally been aworld leader in agricultural research &development (R&D), but it is essentialthat this reputation is continued andfurthered over the coming years.

It is also important to see the role ofUK R&D in the wider global context.

Many UK R&D centres have greattraditions as global experts on issuessuch as climate change and animalhealth. The knowledge from theseinstitutions benefits not just UK farmersand growers, but can be applied glob-ally to assist in securing food supplies.

The “early discovery stage” of R&D,often referred to as basic science,remains strong in the UK. We haverecently seen significant strategicinvestment from the Biotechnologyand Biological Sciences ResearchCouncil (BBSRC) to help in meetingchallenges such as sustainably feedingthe growing world population andfinding alternatives to dwindling fossilfuels.

These projects, such as current workto develop the next generationsequencing techniques which willenable the provision of fine mappingto the level required as a knowledgebase for the plant breeding pro-grammes of the future (7). These proj-ects may seem a long way from theday to day practicalities of farming,but they are a vital stage in the R&Dprocess.

However, the general trend in theUK and worldwide since the 1980s hasbeen for a substantial cut in publicly-funded agricultural science. This hasbeen particularly noticeable in the near

40 23/7/12 12:52 Page 1


economic & socialmarket applied sciences and in thetranslation/demonstration of researchapplications, which are critical steps intaking ideas through to commercialisa-tion.

This has been frequently referred toas the fracture in the “discoverypipeline”, an issue noted in numerousreports including the (see: All PartyParliamentary Group on Science &Technology in Agriculture report of2010 (8) and the NFU’s own WhyScience Matters for Farming report of2008 (9)).

More emphasis needs to be placedon taking the results of basic researchand turning it into actual products,technologies and practices that can beapplied by farmers and growers on acommercial scale.

This includes more independentapplied research to ensure we retainthe key skills. Many smaller researchgroups provide this vital function ofapplying fundamental knowledge topractical application, yet rarely benefitfrom core funds to help underpin theirskills, facilities and services.

In the current financial environment,spending, even on such vital areas ofresearch, is significantly constrained.So there is a need for a re-balancing ofpublic funds and for Government tourgently explore ways this area can besupported through new funding mod-els. These may well be a hybrid ofpublic and private core funds.

There is also a need for Governmentto take a role in supporting researchwhere there is market failure. Anexample is the development of plantprotection products for minor crops,such as common field vegetables.Following the EU review of availableproducts there are notable gaps in thearmoury of those available for use insome minor crops in the UK.

The high costs, and long run-intimes for the development of newproducts, combined with a relativelysmall crop, reduce the commercialattractiveness for private sector invest-ment. To put this into context, a brief-ing from the Fruit and Vegetables TaskForce (10) on the approvals process forplant protection products stated thatthe registration process of new prod-ucts can take on average about 5 yearsand cost between £200,000 and £2million for biological products, withestimates from agri-chemical compa-nies suggesting even greater costs andtimescales in the region of 10-15 yearsfor chemical pesticides.

There is no Government funding for

research into minor uses of herbicidesand the UK spends less than any otherEuropean country in this area. Thismeans that in the UK the cost of find-ing solutions to pest and disease con-trol for small area crops is alreadylargely borne by growers throughindustry levy bodies.

As funds for research are relativelyscarce, the agricultural industry needsto be better at articulating what its pri-orities are so that we see researcheffort and resource focussed in areaswhere substantial advancements couldbe collectively achieved and moveaway from the disjointed and scatter-gun approach that currently prevails.

Rather than perpetual 3-year short-term projects that currently prevailthere is also a need for long-term pro-grammes which require a long-termstrategy led by Government, but incooperation with industry and scienceagainst which these long-term pro-grammes can be aligned.

There have been various reports (8)in recent years from which researchpriorities with reoccurring themes canbe identified. The list is not in any waymeant to be exhaustive, but it high-lights some of the key areas where col-laborative research focus and transla-tion effort could yield worthwhileresults (Table 1).

The structure of agriculture can alsoprovide a barrier to the uptake andcommercialisation of research.

As presented in our evidence to therecent Science & Technology SelectCommittee inquiry (12), discountingthe very smallest farms, 96% ofEngland’s agricultural output is gener-ated by about 56,000 farm businesses.These cover many different sectorswith a variety of issues and commercialopportunities.

This fragmentation presents a signifi-cant challenge for intermediaries to‘take’ commercialisation to the farmgate. This is compounded by the factthat despite an instinctive drive toinnovate and experiment, many smallfarming businesses are often time andresource poor giving them little oppor-tunity to explore commercial applica-tion of new R&D technology.

The Technology Growth Report:How to Unlock Sustainable Growth inthe UK (13) attempts to identify com-mon challenges and solutions acrosssimilarly diverse industries and theremay be lessons to be learnt from thisto drive further action (14).

Getting more from existing knowl-

edge to improve management, be itunderstanding soils, optimising wateruse, improving rotations, or modifyingfeeding regimes is vital.

Yet, one of the greatest challengesfor the agriculture industry is securingthe application of knowledge and bestpractice and strengthening both thescience-push and the market-pull forresearch. At the moment, knowledgeexchange is essentially market driven;many of the best farming businessesare taking advantage of a wide rangeof consultants, including agronomistsand nutritionists, to perfect businesstechniques.

There is significant opportunity todetermine how public/private partner-ship could work better in this vital areaby aligning the delivery of publiclyfunded research with the advisers whoare presently visiting farms. Moreover,the challenges that a purely demandled approach creates, in terms of lackof acceptance and inadequate provi-sion of advice concerning environmen-tal sustainability.

These are key points which havealready been identified in the House ofLords European Union Committeesreport (“Innovation in EU Agriculture”)(15).

The Agriculture and HorticultureDevelopment Board (AHDB) has a piv-otal role here as one of the key playersin the provision of knowledge transferdirected at helping agriculture andhorticulture be more competitive, prof-itable and environmentally sustainable.The development of a better partner-ship between industry sectors, existingindustry initiatives and researchproviders will lead to an improved rele-vance of research.

2. A better structuredscience framework.There is a growing recognition in thebusiness community and at least inparts of government that a completelaissez-faire approach to market eco-nomics will not deliver sustainable eco-nomic growth.

This does not mean abandoningmarket principles, but it does meanaccepting that markets are imperfect,subject to volatility, distortion andabuse.

Financial instability, supply con-straints, low stock levels and extremeweather events have all combined tomake volatility more pronounced since2007. More significantly, farmers’exposure to volatility has grown owing

41 23/7/12 12:54 Page 1


economic & social

Table 1: Priority areas for collaborative agricultural research and translation

Key research priorities

Closing the yield gap

Future climatic stresses

Optimising inputs throughprecision farming technology andadvances in agriculturalengineering

Continued improvements toanimal feed and nutrition

Better detection and avoidance ofanimal disease

Better detection and avoidance ofplant disease

Fixing nitrogen

Optimising the nutritionalbenefits and quality attributesof food

Intercropping to enhance pestand disease control

Explore cross over betweensectors

The opportunities and challenges

British varieties can yield 15 to 16 t/ha in New Zealand as opposed to 10-12 t/hain the UK so the genetic capacity is there indicating gains could be madeagronomically by improving current sub-optimal management. Additional gainsmay be achieved for example through breeding programmes to improve the effi-ciency of photosynthetic pathways using the same amount of sunlight or byincreasing nutrient use efficiency. Pre-breeding research needs to include all majorcrop species.

Plant breeding for improvements in water uptake (e.g. root structure) and waterconservation (e.g. leaf structure and behaviour during stressed conditions tominimise evaporation rate) to cope with the more extreme rainfall patterns in thefuture.

All areas of agriculture and horticulture continue to benefit from advances inagricultural engineering, such as spray nozzle development which improvesproduct targeting and reduces spray drift. GPS technology for mapping andpredictive modelling/smart plants/precision techniques. Optimising the spatialand temporal placement of products (both nutrients and plant protection prod-ucts) has the potential to make more efficient use of costly inputs. A reduction inenergy use, soil damage and labour costs through new controlled traffic systemsfor farm machinery.

Maximising outputs but minimising environmental impact of livestock systemssuch as reducing methane emissions: by continued advances in breedingtechniques and improving livestock nutrition, by improving the quality ofsupplementary feeding and of grassland leys and by precision techniques indietary management and monitoring.

Animal diseases have damaged the livestock sector over the last two decades.Some recent research has identified a short window where Foot and MouthDisease can be detected before it becomes infectious and so spread rampantly.Mastitis reduces dairy cow welfare and milk quality, costing the UK dairy industryaround £200 million per year. Further investment into the causes and pathwaysof infection and selection for resistance to mastitis and development of vaccinescould help reduce occurrence. Remote sensing technology may also contribute tobetter animal monitoring for health and welfare.

Recent development in plant breeding such as the blight (Phytophthora infestans)resistant potatoes and aphid repelling wheat may contribute to a reduction in theneed for using plant protection products Agricultural engineering and remotesensing technologies may help with the modelling of outbreaks of crops pestsand diseases and aid early detection and control.

Incorporating nitrogen-fixing capability into non-leguminous plants is a theoreti-cal possibility, and experiments have brought this a step closer by providing abetter understanding of underlying mechanisms (11)

Increasing tonnes/ha or energy/ha has been a goal – but maximising nutritionalvalue/ha of food is also a necessary goal. This could include breedingprogrammes to introduce human health benefits such as additional nutrients orimproving the post-harvest processing characteristics and shelf life contributing toreducing waste in the food chain.

There are lessons to be learnt from the organic sector when it comes tomanaging pests and predators and making ecosystems work in our favour.Improvements in our understanding of the relationships between soil, pests anddiseases gained through organic systems have a contribution to make tocomplement new technology.

For example, novel opportunities to use the waste from one sector as a valuableinput for another.

42 23/7/12 12:55 Page 1


economic & scoialto globalisation and reductions in priceand market support through successivereforms of the CAP.

Can volatility be mitigated? Yes itcan. Many arable farmers have takenadvantage of financial instruments tohedge currency, output prices(through futures and options) and tosome extent inputs.

It would make sense to create a cli-mate in which these tools becomemore widely available to farmers in allsectors. This indicates that liquidity incommodities exchanges should bemaintained. While there may be a casefor regulation of agricultural commodi-ties trading, it is important that demo-nization of financial ‘speculation’avoids stifling the development offinancial instruments in sectors such asdairy products.

Following two CompetitionCommission enquiries there has beensome acceptance that the nature ofthe grocery market in the UK is imbal-anced. Abuse of market power bymajor grocery retailers risks undermin-ing long-term consumer choice by sti-fling innovation amongst farmers andmanufacturers.

The UK Government has now tabledlegislation that will introduce anAdjudicator to police the existing legal-ly binding Groceries Supply Code ofPractice that should be a major stepforward in addressing abuse of powerand thus create a more stable, pre-dictable climate in which farmers caninvest.

Further steps are necessary to pre-vent other food businesses from abus-ing market power. The best example isthe dairy sector where milk processorsuse exploitative terms and conditionsin milk contracts to adjust prices on awhim with no certainty or predictabili-ty. Regulation can play a role in subtlyrebalancing market power in a waythat shares risk more equitably.

Ultimately, the food industry mustmove from a culture of short-termexploitation to one of long-term part-nership. In recent years several majorretailers have taken steps to forgestronger relationships with British farm-ers through development groups,longer-term contracts and even specif-ic pricing models.

These approaches come in responseto consumer demand for local food, aswell as a desire to drive the environ-mental sustainability agenda throughthe supply chain. In future, it wouldappear to be increasingly in the inter-ests of major retailers and food service

companies to secure supplies close tohome to help manage the risk thatvolatility and insecure supply may poseto their businesses.

The challenge is to move away fromthe short-term imperatives that tend todrive business performance. Whilstthere has been recent political pressurefrom all sides for business to avoid ashort-term attitude there is little visiblesign that the performance of retailbuyers is measured by anything otherthan quarterly profit and loss.

A culture change across business andthe shareholders that invest in majorcompanies will be essential to create aclimate in which farmers can invest forthe long-term.

3. The CommonAgricultural PolicyA discussion of the most fitting regula-tory and policy framework to fostersustainable intensification is not possi-ble in this review. However, a fullerassessment requires a comment on thereform of Europe’s CommonAgricultural Policy.

While market forces are increasinglyshaping the direction of UK agricul-ture, the CAP will continue to wieldsignificant influence on the wellbeingof the sector; and this must lead to afair treatment for UK farmers. Whilethe future of the Eurozone may beshrouded, commitment to the CAPand supporting farm incomes acrossEurope remains strong.

Progressive reform, moving farmersaway from dependency on directincome support is desirable, but thismust be achieved evenly across the EU,not through an experiment on UKfarmers.

The risk is that the direction chosenby the European Commission mayentrench support rather than helpfarmers to become more competitive.Some elements of the Commission’sproposals run the risk of underminingthe competitiveness of parts ofEuropean farming, by obliging farmersto set-aside productive land or to growthree crops where two would be agro-nomically and economically better.

The tendency in the UK is to see theCAP as a necessary evil (or just plainevil in the eyes of Treasury econo-mists). Yet the CAP can be a powerfuland positive policy instrument inachieving two specific objectives: fos-tering investment and deliveringecosystem services.

The CAP plays an important role in

facilitating on-farm investment in phys-ical and human capital. It does this notonly through rural development pro-grammes but also through direct pay-ments that provide a degree of incomestability and a hedge against volatility,as well as a means of leveraging com-mercial lending from banks.

It is also right that the policy shouldfoster sustainable production.Incentivising and encouraging theright management techniques in theright locations through targeted meas-ures is a better approach than blanketmeasures that may not secure thedesired outcomes.

One particular opportunity and chal-lenge for the CAP in terms of drivinginnovation will be to make the mosteffective use of Rural DevelopmentProgramme funds, and how they inter-act with the results of research gener-ated under the proposed new EUResearch and Innovation Frameworkfunding stream for 2014-2020,Horizon 2020.

£4.5billion has been specifically ring-fenced for food and agriculture R&D.This doubles the funding allocated forthe previous seven year programmeand it is critical that farmers benefitfrom this investment. The newEuropean Innovation Partnership (EIP)on Agricultural Productivity andSustainability will have a network func-tion to link related actions of RuralDevelopment Programmes and theresearch funded under Horizon 2020.In particular the EIP aims to catalysecoordination and foster sustainabilityand to link with the growth and sus-tainability objectives under Europe2020.

It is hoped that the EuropeanInnovation Partnerships (EIP) will helpin bridging the gap between scientificresearch and the implementation ofresearch results by farmers and agri-business.

The Commission’s ambition is for thetwo instruments (i.e. Horizon 2020and the Rural DevelopmentProgramme activities funded underCAP) to work in tandem. This will notbe easy given the very different sys-tems of governance of these two fund-ing steams. There are potentially verypositive opportunities for industry toprogress the uptake of research onfarm. However, involvement of farm-ers in the research process from thestart and a significant improvement onthe bureaucratic system of previous EUFramework Programmes, will be crucialto the success of the new concept.

43 23/7/12 12:56 Page 1


economic & social

References1. “Future of Food and Farming”- Foresight reportof 2011http://www.bis.gov.uk/foresight/our-work/proj-ects/published-projects/global-food-and-farming-futures/reports-and-publications2. http://royalsociety.org/policy/publica-tions/2009/reaping-benefits/3. Tullberg, G, Yule, D F and McGarry D. (2003)‘On track’ to sustainable farming systems inAustralia. 16th Triennial Conference – ISTRO,Brisbane4. Agricultural Engineering: a key discipline foragriculture to deliver global food security - A sta-tus report developed by IAgrE, (to be published15 June 2012) 5. Environment, Food and Rural AffairsCommittee: Securing food supplies up to 2050:the challenges faced by the UK (2009)http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-archive/environment-food-and-rural-affairs/efra-food-policy/ 6. Commission on Sustainable Agriculture andClimate Change report –http://ccafs.cgiar.org/commission/reports7. http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2229/12/14

8. All-Party Parliamentary Group on Science andTechnology in Agriculture Report “Support foragricultural R&D is essential to deliver sustainableincreases in UK food production” (2010) DavidLeaver. http://www.appg-agscience.org.uk/linkedfiles/APPGSTA%20-%20David%20Leaver%20report%20Nov%202010.pdf 9. Why Farming Matters for Farming, NFU (2008)www.whyfarmingmatters.co.uk/Past.../Why-Science-Matters-report/ 10. Briefing from the Fruit and Vegetables TaskForce – Approvals process for plant protectionproductshttp://archive.defra.gov.uk/foodfarm/food/poli-cy/partnership/fvtf/documents/briefing-fv-approvals.pdf11. Legume pectate lyase required for root infec-tion by rhizobia, Downie et al,PNAS January 10, 2012 vol. 109 no. 2 633-638Science & Technology Select Committee inquiryon “Bridging the "Valley of Death": improving thecommercialisation of research”. http://www.publi-cations.parliament.uk/pa/cm201012/cmselect/cmsctech/writev/valley/valley69.htm13. Technology Growth Report: How to unlocksustainable growth in the UK http://www.pacon-sulting.com/our-thinking/uk-technology-growth-

report/ 14. http://www.paconsulting.com/our-thinking/uk-technology-growth-report/ 15. House of Lords European Union Committeesreport - “Innovation in EU Agriculture”http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201012/ldselect/ldeucom/171/171.pdf16. http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2011/04/in-praise-of-failure/all/117. UK Cross-Government Food Research andInnovation Strategy (2010)http://www.bis.gov.uk/assets/goscience/docs/c/cross-government-food-research-strategy 18. Global Food and Farming Futures (2011)http://www.bis.gov.uk/assets/foresight/docs/food-and-farming/11-546-future-of-food-and-farming-report.pdf 19. The Natural Environment White Paper – “TheNatural Choice” (2011)http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/natural/whitepaper/ 20. Defra Green Food Project (2012)http://engage.defra.gov.uk/green-food/ 21. Global Food Security Strategic Plan 2011-2016http://www.foodsecurity.ac.uk/assets/pdfs/gfs-strategic-plan.pdf

ConclusionAgriculture and the food chain areunlike industries which can run andrefine prototypes endlessly. JamesDyson famously had 5127 failed pro-totypes before producing the baglessvacuum cleaner (16). The very natureof agriculture means that it is influ-enced by the natural environmentover which we have little control andthis will impact on the uptake and suc-cess of research and development.

It is often said that there is no quickfix to the food production challenge.We need to identify and initiate thenecessary agricultural research imme-diately to allow for the time needed todo the basic research, develop andapply ideas and ensure uptake by theindustry. The UK Cross-GovernmentFood Research and InnovationStrategy quoted extended lag periodsof 15 – 25 years between researchexpenditures and adoption at farmlevel (17). Breeding programmes forsome fruit crops can take even longer.The year 2050 seems outside the lifes-pan of most of the practitioners inagricultural policy. Perhaps this is whythe current debate appears to begoing around in circles? Yet by 2025,there will be an additional billion peo-ple on the planet including an extra500 million in Africa (18).

A long-term, strategic view on scien-tific research is needed now so we arewell-placed to meet the future chal-lenges to agriculture. Recognition ofthe challenges ahead has promptedscience-based initiatives and group-ings. It is undoubtedly positive thatscientific research is considered to beof increased importance but theseapproaches must be coherent andcompatible. There is an inherent riskthat this serves to perpetuate the talk-

ing but leads to hesitation when itcomes to action. In short, we need toput the strategy back into UK agricul-tural science so that research pro-grammes can be aligned.

Much of UK Cross-GovernmentFood Research and InnovationStrategy (17) strategy recognises theimportance of strengthening existinginitiatives and promoting a more col-laborative and strategic approach toensure long-term sustainability ofnational research capacity.

However, it fails to address some ofthe fundamental challenges, such ashow to facilitate better collaborationbetween the public and private sec-tors, reduce bureaucracy, longtimescales and rebuild research capaci-ty in critical areas. The industry needsto articulate better to Governmentwhat it needs. This is why the NFU issupporting an initiative funded by theTechnology Strategy Board to pulltogether sector-based reviews andprovide a concise, coherent and inte-grated assessment of the R&D needsof the land-based industry up to 2030.

It would be naïve to believe therewon’t be conflicts, not just in the com-promises and trade-offs that may existbetween environmental and produc-tion ambitions, but also between indi-vidual farming sectors. That is whythe Government has a pivotal role tohelp facilitate developing and drivingthis strategy. The Government’sNatural Environment White Paper (19)has taken the first steps by announc-ing its intention to bring farming andenvironmental stakeholders togetherto identify how an increase in produc-tion can be achieved at the same timeas improving the environment.

The resulting Green Food Project(20) is due to report in July 2012. It is

hoped that this will start to identifynot only the clear advantages and ten-sions that exist in achieving these twoaims, but also, what actions must betaken by industry and policy makers tosecure sustainable intensification of UKagriculture.

Increasing food production will be achallenge for farmers across the world.A critical part will be for industry andgovernment to prepare the public forthe actions that must be taken toachieve sustainable intensification andthe consequences of inaction.

The UK’s key public funders of food-related research are working togetherunder the Global Food Security pro-gramme (21) to meet the challenge ofproviding the world’s growing popula-tion with a sustainable, secure supplyof nutritious food from less land andusing fewer inputs.

Part of the programme includespublic engagement on topics of highinterest such as production/economicsof farming; use of agrochemicals andnew technologies; competing defini-tions of sustainability; equity and otherethical issues around access to food;the role of consumer choice, and theneed for healthy diets and safety offood supplies. It is clear that engage-ment and dialogue will be essential forbuilding trust and confidence in thescience within the programme.

It is important to raise awareness ofthe contribution farmers make to theeconomy, the environment and to thesecurity and quality of the nation’sfood. Above all, we must ensure that itis a step that faces us and not a leap.

We need to make continualprogress, put the necessary buildingblocks in place and face it with thesupport of our suppliers, customersand policy-makers.

44 23/7/12 12:57 Page 1


Dairying: a British project to develop a

more sustainable futureAndy Richardson, Dr Jessica Cooke and Dr Richard Kirkland

Volac House, Orwell, Royston, Herts SG8 5QX

The dairy sector’schallenge

Global demand for dairyproducts is forecast to increase,particularly in the developing

world, where total consumption ofmilk is estimated to increase by 3.3%per year to 2020 (1). Furthermore, thetrend is likely to continue as the globalpopulation is forecast to expand bynearly 30% to nine billion by 2050,which will pose substantial challengesto our ability to produce sufficientfood in a resource-constrained world.These challenges include minimisingthe environmental impacts of climatepolicy and climate change onagricultural production and of thatproduction on climate. Moreover,there is the need to overcome theeconomic difficulties of changingdemands from civil society and fromretailers.

Recently, there has been increasingrecognition of these challenges andthe need to act on them. There isconsiderable on-going work aimed atidentifying the current level of impact

of the dairy industry and how thismight be improved. In response, theGlobal Dairy Agenda for Action onClimate Change was launched inSeptember 2009. Similarly, the DairySupply Chain Forum took the lead inthe UK livestock sector by launchingthe Milk Roadmap in 2008, anevolving document which aims toreduce the environmental impact ofthe dairy industry.

However, what is noticeable aboutthe majority of industry led initiativesto date, is that they tend to focus onsingle issues, particularlyenvironmental ones, rather than thebroader issue of the viability of theindustry. Emphasis has been placed oncompliance and incrementalimprovement, rather than making aforward looking assessment of theindustry as a whole.

This led us to work with the dairyindustry and key stakeholders andestablish Dairy 2020, a uniqueinitiative within Europe, which takes aholistic approach to improvingsustainability. Currently, there is nosense of a coherent future vision forthe industry which is then often forced

into a reactive position on criticalissues. There is a real need for thedairy industry to articulate why it issuch an important industry in the UKand what positive impacts a thriving,industry could have on the country’seconomy, health and landscape.

The ultimate aim is for the Dairy2020 project and our industry to beable to answer the question: “Whatdoes a sustainable dairy industry looklike, and what contribution can itmake to maintaining the ecosystem?”The project has brought stakeholdersin the dairy sector together to form acommon understanding of what hasto happen for it to be a successfulindustry in the future. A final reporthas been published in spring 2012which aims to create a strong sense ofmomentum and focus and developtangible short, medium and long-termcollaborative actions. The reportincludes recognition that we need tominimise the environmental impact ofdairying, focus on stewarding natureand improving animal welfare.

One of the most immediatechallenges is that the EU milk quotaregime ends in 2015. Introduced in

SummaryThe dairy industry provides food products that promote health and well-being. This industry helps to sustain ruralcommunities and plays a vital role in land stewardship. One of its key challenges is to expand production to meetdemand from the growing world population and increasingly affluent societies. To meet those goals, global research isfocusing on the major production components – genetics, management and nutrition. Their biggest challenge is todevelop new technologies which will simultaneously minimise environmental impact and equally, prove to beeconomic.

Keywords: dairy, productivity, sustainability, genetics, management, nutrition, environment

GlossaryFreemartin: An infertile femalemammal which has masculinizedbehaviour and non-functioningovaries.Nulliparous: A female who has nevergiven birth to a viable, or live, infant.Chemostatic mechanism: Blood levels

of specific metabolites rise, sending asignal that causes the animal's appetiteto be depressed.Cholecystokinin: A peptidehormone of the gastrointestinal systemresponsible for stimulating thedigestion of fat and protein.Enteric fermentation: A digestive

process by which carbohydrates arebroken down by microorganisms intosimple molecules for absorption intothe bloodstream of an animal.Sustainability: A sustainable dairyindustry is one that is vibrant andenables people, environment andbusiness to thrive.

economic & social

45 23/7/12 13:03 Page 1


1984, these quotas aimed to bringstability to the sector by putting aneffective limit on annual milkproduction. Some EU states areactively gearing up for massiveexpansion by 2020. For example, TheRepublic of Ireland is planning toincrease total production by 50% or2.5bn litres, while UK productioncould rise from the current 13.3bnlitres to 15bn litres per year (2).

The UK dairy sector must meet thisproduction challenge, against abackdrop of legislation whichcontinues to reinforce the necessity tomeasurably reduce the environmentalimpact of all food production systemswith improvements to animal welfare.The potential to increase productionefficiency is clearly demonstrated byprogress in the world’s leading dairyindustries, with dramaticimprovements in productivity duringprevious decades (Table 1).

These data highlight theimprovements achieved in the USdairy industry since World War II,where a 61% increase in milkproduction has been achieved with a64% lower dairy cow population. Thishas contributed towards a dramaticincrease in the efficiency of energy use- only 33% of energy consumed isused to maintain cows at presentlevels of production, compared with69% for cows in 1944. Furthermore,producing a given volume of milktoday requires only 10% of the landarea required in 1944, while thecarbon footprint per unit of milkproduced is only 37% of that 63 yearsearlier.

Similar strides have been achieved inthe UK dairy industry, with the forecastfor the next decade being forcontinued improvements in yield percow to reach a total milk supply of15bn litres from a similarly-sizednational dairy herd to that of today(Table 2). This can best be achievedthrough improvements in the majorproduction components – genetics,

management and nutrition.

GeneticsInnovations currently in progress arechanging the way that geneticistsundertake breed improvement,although improvements throughgenetics are likely to take longer thanare those by either management ornutrition.

Genetic indices – many countries arenow including more health andfertility traits in bull selection indices inan attempt to redress the problem ofpoor survival (5). The UK hasintroduced both a fertility index and alifespan index based on daughterperformance (6). Levels of herd fertilityare more quickly influenced bymanagement changes than breeding,but improvements through breedingare permanent and cumulative fromone generation to the next.

Genomic selection (GS) - the mostdramatic recent changes have comefrom GS which is significantlyspeeding up the rate of progress inglobal dairy cattle breeding. GS uses avery large number of DNA markers –currently in the range of 50,000 to800,000 for most species - that havebeen derived from the reference cattlegenome sequence (7).

In dairy cattle, GS allows predictionof the genetic merit of young animals- long before bulls will have daughterrecords available - from statisticalassociations of these DNA markerswith trait measurements on pastgenerations, referred to as the‘training’ data. This technology is nowbeing widely applied and has reducedgeneration intervals in dairy cattlefrom over five years to under two,thereby increasing the annual rate ofprogress by about 60%.

GS technology is advancing sorapidly that within the foreseeablefuture it should be possible tosequence the entire genome ofselected individual animals. Forexample, the determination of whichgenotypes may be associated with calf

mortality at parturition offers thepossibility of future genetic selection,of both bulls and breeding animals,against this adverse and wasteful trait.

ManagementUK dairying has predominantlyfocused on adult cow managementwhile the importance of the herd’syoungstock has tended to be ignored,a trend reflected in recent findingsthat almost 20% of all heifer calvesborn fail to calve for the first time (8).Table 3 identifies these losses and thefactors responsible.

The adoption of some of thefollowing basic managementprocedures together with theimplementation of the latest advancesin technology can play an importantrole in helping farmers to reduce theselosses.

Sexed semen – technologicaladvances in processing and storingsexed semen, since its introduction in1997, have resulted in claims thatsexed semen now produces similarconception rates to conventionalsemen. Sexed semen could provideone method to help tackle the largewastage of calves around birth bydelivering easier calving of femalecalves as well as reducing the largenumber of undesirable pure dairy bredmale calves.

Colostrum – colostrum is essential forcalves, providing nutrition (high levelsof fat and lactose) and immunity(antibodies), but quality can varyconsiderably. Colostrometers –hydrometers that measure the specificgravity of colostrum – provide farmerswith a rapid indication of its qualityprior to feeding new born calves.

Weigh scales – measuring andmonitoring growth rates are seldompracticed on dairy farms, howevertechnological advances in portableweigh platforms have made recordinglive weight a feasible reality for everyfarmer. The latest models combinesimplicity with accuracy andconvenience, and enable farmers toensure calves achieve the industry-recommended growth rates of 0.7kgper day for heifers from birth tocalving.

Linear trait classification scores –many of these measurements for cattleconformation (for example body, legsand feet, udder, teats) have mediumto high genetic correlations withlongevity and have been incorporatedinto breeding indexes (10, 11),however classification normally takesplace during first lactation. Frameclassification scores in the first

economic & social

46 23/7/12 13:05 Page 1


lactation havebeen shown tobe stronglyrelated to severalsizemeasurements ofheifers whenjuveniles –consequentlymeasurements ofskeletal size, forexample heightand crown-rumplength, at birthcould assist inselecting thebest heifers forbreeding (9).

Heat detection- failure todetect heat(oestrous) is a major problem amongtoday’s higher producing cows.Monitors are constantly evolving andtheir accuracy improving, for exampledetecting 3D movement via neck orankle collars, and allowing wirelessdata downloads with a range of up to150 m are now available.

Mastitis – a common condition indairy herds, mastitis results insignificant production and economiclosses and is a major reason for cullingcows. Early detection is vital andtechnology has been developing tofacilitate early identification based onincreased milk conductivity due tochanges in cation-anion balancearising from the mastitic infection.Similarly, work is continuing todevelop a vaccine against the majormastitis-causing organisms such asEscherichia coli and Staphylococcusaureus.

Lameness scoring – lameness is amajor factor contributing to earlyculling. Cow lameness has multi-factorial causes, including poorly-designed housing and nutritionally-imbalanced rations. Initiatives such asthe DairyCo Healthy Feet Programmetarget identification of specificproblems causing lameness.Introducing longevity ‘type’ traits intobreeding plans will contribute toreducing the incidence and extent oflameness on farms. In addition, somemanufacturers have developedautomatic lameness detectors whichidentify anomalies in cow walkpatterns as an early indicator of thecondition which enable treatment in amore prophylactic manner.

NutritionRationing animals accurately to meet

required targets is essential to ensurethe industry remains both viable andefficient. Considerable research efforthas been directed at developingfeeding systems to improve thefeeding of modern animal types.

Youngstock - Nutrition of youngstockis less advanced in the UK than foradult dairy cows. Genetic selection hasproduced animals that growprogressively faster – so we need tofeed calves in a way to maximisecontinually their growth rate potentialand achieve the targeted two year ageat first calving. Traditional UK standardpractice has been to feed milk at 10%of the calf’s bodyweight to produce ahealthy animal, however this restrictsgrowth rate at the time of highestpotential feed conversion efficiency inits life.

Colostrum management is a vitalbasic and we are continually urgingproducers to implement the ‘4Q’s’, orgolden rules, when it comes tofeeding – quality, quantity, quickly andquietly.

Technological advances in both milkreplacers and feeding equipment makeit possible to grow today’s moderndairy heifer at accelerated rates. Welaunched a 26% protein and 16% fatmilk replacer developed specifically forfast frame growth. For optimumintakes, computerised feeding systemsallow calves to be fed high volumes ofmilk, little and often throughout theday. This system also monitors thevolume drunk and drinking speedprovides farmers with early warning ofhealth issues.

Adult cows – nutritionists have alimited number of feed ingredientsand energy sources available to helpthem meet the challenge of increasing

individual cow productivity.Improvements in productivity must beachieved without negative effects oncow fertility, health and welfare.

In the first instance we have seendiets change dramatically in the UK assystems have gradually moved awayfrom extensive forms of dairyproduction. Consequently theproportional contribution of grazedforage to cow diets has decreased.Cow dry matter intake is limited bythe rumen size and regulation bychemostatic mechanisms, including‘type’ of nutrient metabolised in theliver (propionate vs acetate) and theeffects of particular nutrients on satietyfactors such as cholecystokinin (12).More intensive, cereal-based dietsenable cows to consume higher levelsof energy than through grass-basedsystems, facilitating greater productionper cow, or allowing the cow to moreclosely fulfil her genetic potential.However, we must not lose sight ofthe important and essentialcontribution home-grown forage willcontinue to make to the nutritionalrequirements of the herd.

Current feed systems (eg Feed intoMilk; Thomas 2004) (13) enable rationformulation for cows at given levels ofproduction. However, a majorchallenge for animal nutritionists is todevelop computer feed programswhich facilitate response prediction toenergy and nutrients, therebyimproving rationing accuracy, feedefficiency and economic returns, basedon an established marginal responseto additional feed. Attempts to predictresponses to energy supplementationhave been reported with some success(14).

Increasing outputIncreasing production invariablyinvolves supplying additional feed tothe cow, usually as more digestible,more efficiently-utilised feed sources.In practice, increasing energy supplycan be achieved by increasing theproportion of concentrate feed in thediet, for example wheat and maize.However, this is not without itsproblems and relying too heavily onstarch-rich feed sources can lead toproblems such as acidosis - low rumenpH, and laminitis.

Using fat supplements as an energysource is one method of helpingcounteract the twin requirements ofincreasing production whilemaintaining or improving cow health.Fat has the highest gross energyconcentration of any nutrient but

economic & social

47 23/7/12 13:06 Page 1


simply adding it to a ration can causemajor upset and reduce rumenfunction, by for example decreasingfibre digestibility (15). Furthermore,according to the biohydrogenationtheory of milk fat depression, theaddition of unsaturated oil to rationscan lead to the development ofparticular trans-fatty acids which aredetrimental to milk fat production(16).

The potential negative effects ofadding fats and oils to diets led Volacto launch Megalac rumen-protectedfat, based on the calcium salttechnology developed by Dr DonPalmquist at Ohio State University,USA. Farmers are now able to add fatto their rations ‘safely’ and improveproduction efficiency, cow fertility andanimal health (e.g. reducing the acidload in the rumen and the consequentdevelopment of laminitis).

Fertility Poor fertility in UK dairy herds isanother major issue. Conception rateto first service has fallen to below 40%(17), and is influenced by a number offactors, energy supply being one ofthe most critical.

Quality of ovulated eggs can bemeasurably improved bysupplementing dairy diets with specificrumen-protected fat sources, whichalso increases progesteroneproduction, the essential pregnancyhormone (18, 19). Implementation of

new technologies to more accuratelypredict oestrous (heat) could helpimproving pregnancy rates.

EnvironmentImproving production efficiency is avital component in reducing the dairysector’s environmental impact. It is estimated anthropogenicemissions from processing andtransportation account for 2.7%(±26%) of the total emissions of globalmilk production (FAO 2010) (20).

Methane – methane is estimated toaccount for between 30% and 50% oftotal greenhouse gas emitted from thelivestock sector, with approximately80% coming from enteric productionin the rumen (21).

As well as the negativeenvironmental implications, methanerepresents a considerable loss ofenergy to ruminants, ranging from lessthan 2% to over 10% of gross energyintake.

Methane is primarily produced as aby-product of anaerobic fermentationin the rumen by micro-organisms,facilitating the utilisation and digestionof poor quality, high cellulose forages.

However, grazing and high forageproduction systems inherently producemore methane than high concentratesystems, providing scope tomanipulate diet composition to reduceenteric methane production. Variousmethodologies have been studied toreduce ruminal methane production,

including dietary addition ofunsaturated fatty acids to act ashydrogen sinks (22), medium-chainfatty acids as microbial inhibitors (23),and garlic to directly inhibitmethanogenic bacteria or themetabolic pathways of methanesynthesis (24).

EfficiencyImproving production and fertility peranimal can make a major contributionto gross efficiency of dairy herds. Yan et al. (25) concluded thatselection of cows capable of highlevels of milk production and energyutilization efficiency offers an effectiveapproach to reducing methaneemissions from lactating dairy cows.

Producing 1M litres of milk fromcows yielding 9,000 litres per cow peryear would reduce methaneproduction to approximately half thatof cows yielding only 6,000 litres peryear (26).

Herd replacements contribute up to27% of the methane and 15% of theammonia produced by dairy cows inthe UK, but substantial reductions inemissions of these pollutants can beachieved by improvements in fertilityand cow longevity (26).

Similarly, increasing cow longevityfrom three to 3.6 lactations wouldreduce lifetime greenhouse gasfootprint (kg CO2e/litre milk) by 4.4%(27).

ConclusionsIncreasing output, as achieved ondairy farms over past decades, mustcontinue if we are to feed therapidly increasing world populationand at the same time achieve asustainable sector. This will requiregreater adoption of technologicaldevelopments to increaseproductive efficiency - milk outputper unit of resource input; and atthe same time reduceenvironmental impact.

We have already witnessed hugeimprovements in global productionefficiency; a given volume of milkrequires just 10% of the land area

while the carbon foot print of milk isonly 37% that of 60 years ago. Tomaintain this and to improve thoselevels of efficiency, the dairy sectoris looking forward to theintroduction of a number of newtechnologies. For example genomicselection is advancing geneticprogress by 60% annually, amiscellany of tools from sexedsemen and heat detectors to simpleweigh scales will bring significantimprovements to efficiency, whileon-going developments to improvelongevity will increase productiveefficiency and reduce lifetime dairycow carbon emissions.

A significant proportion of theimprovements in productiveefficiency has been achievedthrough increased use of cereals andprotein crops, which itself raisesquestions about the role of thesefeeds in animal production versuscompeting needs for humanconsumption.

Continued take up by dairyfarmers will be dependent onwhether or not investment in eachdevelopment can prove to be costeffective, both for the short andlong term, and that it will fit withinthe sector’s complex legislativeframework.

economic & social

48 23/7/12 13:07 Page 1


References� 1. Delgado, C, Rosegrant, M, Steinfeld, H,Ehui, S and Courbois, C (1999). Livestock to2020: The Next Food Revolution. Food,Agriculture, and the Environment.International Food Policy Research Institute,Discussion Paper 28. � 2. Kite Consulting (2011). World classdairying, A Vision for 2020. www.kiteconsult-ing.com/_Attachments/resources/315_s4.pdf� 3. Capper, J.L, Cady, R A and Bauman, D E(2009). Dairy’s environmental impact: thenand now. Hoard’s Dairyman, September2009, p 547.� 4. Brigstocke, T (2004). The future strategyfor dairy farming in the UK. Journal of theRoyal Agricultural Society of England, Volume165.� 5. Miglior, F, Muir, B L, and Van Doormaal,B J (2005). Selection indices in Holstein cattleof various countries. Journal of Dairy Science.88, 1255-1263.� 6. DairyCo (2010). Accessed January(2012).http://www.dairyco.org.uk/library/farming-info-centre/breeding/breeding-briefs� 7. Warkup, C, (2011). Where Next forLivestock Innovations? The Oxford FarmingConference 2011.� 8. Brickell, J S, McGowan, M M Pfeiffer, DU and Wathes, D C (2009). Mortality inHolstein-Friesian calves and replacementheifers in relation to body weight and IGF-Iconcentration, on 19 farms in England.Animal 3, 1175-82.� 9. Wathes, D C, Brickell, J S, Bourne, N E,Swali, A and Cheng, Z (2008). Factors influ-encing heifer survival and fertility on com-mercial dairy farms. Animal 2, 1135-43.� 10. Klassen, D J, Monardes, H G, Jairath, L,Cue, R I, and Hayes, J F (1992). Genetic cor-relations between lifetime production andlinearized type in Canadian Holsteins. Journalof Dairy Science 75, 2272-2282.� 11. Vukasinovic, N, Schleppi, Y and Kunzi,N (2002). Using conformation traits to

improve reliability of genetic evaluation forherd life based on survival analysis. Journal ofDairy Science. 85, 1556-1562� 12. Allen, M S (2000) Effects of diet onshort-term regulation of feed intake by lactat-ing dairy cattle. Journal of Dairy Science, 83,1598-1624.� 13. Thomas, C (2004). Feed into Milk. Anew applied feeding system for dairy cows.Nottingham University Press.� 14. Kirkland, R M and Gordon, F J (2001).The effects of stage of lactation on the parti-tioning of, and responses to changes in,metabolisable energy intake in lactating dairycows. Livestock Production Science 72, 213-224.� 15. Chalupa, W, Vecchiarelli, B, Elser, Aand Kronfield, D (1986). Ruminal fermenta-tion in vivo as influenced by long-chain fattyacids. Journal of Dairy Science, 69, 1293-1301� 16. Lock, A L and Bauman, D E (2007).Milk fat depression: What do we know andwhat can we do about it? Pebb State DairyCattle Nutrition Workshop, pages 9-18.� 17. Royal, M D, Darwash, A O, Flint, A P F,Webb, R, Wooliams, J A and Lamming, G E(2000). Declining fertility in dairy cattle:changes in traditional and endocrine param-eters of fertility. Animal Science 70, 487-501.� 18. Garnsworthy, P C, Lock, A, Mann, G E,Sinclair, K D and Webb, R. (2008a).Nutrition, metabolism, and fertility in dairycows: 1. Dietary energy source and ovarianfunction. Journal of Dairy Science, 91, 3814-3823.� 19. Garnsworthy, P C, Lock, A, Mann, GE,Sinclair, K D and Webb, R (2008b). Nutrition,metabolism, and fertility in dairy cows: 1.Dietary fatty acids and ovarian function.Journal of Dairy Science, 91, 3824-3833.� 20. FAO, 2010. Greenhouse gas emissionsfrom the dairy sector. A life cycle assessment.Food and Agriculture Organization of theUnited Nations.� 21. Newbold, J C, Yanez-Ruiz, D, Morgavi,D P, Fievez, V Kim, E J and Scollan, N (2010).

Reducing greenhouse gas on farm. FeedCompounder, July 2010, pages 34-36.� 22. Czerkawski, J W, Blaxter, K L andWainman, F W (1966). The metabolism ofoleic, linoleic, and linolenic acids by sheepwith reference to their effects on methaneproduction. British Journal of Nutrition 20,349.� 23. Dohme, F A, Machmuller, A,Wasserfallen, A. and Kreuzer, M (2000).Canadian Journal of Animal Science 80, 473-482.� 24. Busquet, M, Calsamiglia, S, Ferret, A,Carro, M D and Kamel, C (2005). Effect ofgarlic oil and four of its compounds onrumen microbial fermentation. Journal ofDairy Science, 88, 4393-4404.Capper, J L, Cady, R A and Bauman, D E(2008). Increased production reduces thedairy industry’s environmental impact.Proceedings of the Cornell NutritionConference, 2008, pages 55-66.� 25. Yan, T, Mayne, C S, Gordon, F J,Porter, M G, Agnew, R E, Paterson, D C,Ferris, C P and Kilpatrick, D J (2010).Mitigation of methane emissions throughimproving efficiency of energy utilization andproductivity in lactating dairy cows. Journalof Dairy Science 93, 2630-2638.� 26. Garnsworthy, P C 2004. The environ-mental impact of fertility in dairy cows: amodelling approach to predict methane andammonia emissions. Animal Feed Scienceand Technology 112, 211-223.� 27. Woods, V B, Ferris, C and Morrison, S(2010). Calculating the greenhouse gas foot-print of dairy systems: a preliminary analysisof emissions from milk production systems inNorthern Ireland, and some practical mitiga-tion strategies. Improving the sustainabilityof dairy farming within Northern Ireland.Proceedings of an AgriSearch seminar held atthe Agri-Food and Bio-Sciences Institute,Hillsborough, 21 October 2010.

economic & social

book & report reviewsReviewed by Ed Richard Bourne and Mark Collins. The

Commonwealth Foundation, London SW1Y 5HY.

Hook to Plate: the stateof Marine Fisheries; aCommonwealthPerspective ISBN 978-0-903850-37-7

The recently published Census ofthe Oceans has highlighted theimpact man is having on all

aspects of the marine environmentand the plant and animal populationswhich live there. This book containsdescriptions and discussion of fisheriesas a component of the food supply. Itexplores the history of fisheries andtheir exploitation by coastalcommunities. Although it takes aCommonwealth perspective, the

lessons are equally applicable tomanagement of all marine fisheries.

The complexities of internal, nationaland international trade are explored interms of WTO agreements and theimpact of subsidies, not just on thefood supply of countries offeringsubsidies, but also the adverse effectson those nations which do notsupport their fishery industry.Individual chapters by specialistauthors explore diverse topics such asfisheries and food security, industryorganisation, management and therole of cooperatives, the role of marineprotection areas in enhancing stocksand the international law of the sea.Chapters explore the options for longterm solutions with regional policies toimprove the management of fishstocks.

Topics are explored in wellresearched and referenced chaptersand the book is well written andedited. It contains 16 chapters by 24specialist authors who explore thewasteful and inefficient features offisheries.

Chapters deal with prospects forimproving the sustainability of fisheriesso that the industry can more readilyprovide for the well being of coastalcommunities dependent upon fishingas well as international trade.

The book will make essential readingfor anyone involved in fisheries policywhether at national or internationallevel. The challenges facing fisheriesmanagement to produce a sustainableindustry which supports adequatelythe communities dependent upon fishare clearly identified.

49 23/7/12 13:08 Page 1


letters

Dear editor,

In a letter in the autumn 2011 editionof World Agriculture, ChristopherJones commented that in my recentarticle on pesticide toxicity (Pesticidetoxicity and public chemophobia: howtoxic are modern-day pesticides?World Agriculture 2011, 2 (1), 22-31),I did not discuss the possible adverseeffects associated with thesimultaneous exposure to the residuesof multiple pesticides, so called“cocktail effects”. This is quite trueand I would like to rectify thissituation.

The fear of cocktail effects ispredicated on the observation that incertain circumstances mixtures ofbiologically active chemicals candisplay synergism. In other words themixture of chemicals can result ingreater biological effects than wouldbe expected from consideration of thebiological activity of the individualchemicals alone at the sameconcentrations. Since most pesticidetoxicity testing is done on individualactive ingredients alone, it is thereforeproposed that mixtures of pesticideresidues in food could possibly bemore toxic than testing would predict.

I’d like to make a number of points:firstly it will come as no surprise tolearn that companies engaged in theinvention of new pesticidal activeingredients actively look forcombinations of pesticides which havethe potential to act synergistically.Such mixtures will be more effective inthe field and hence lower sprayconcentrations will be required. Forinstance herbicides which inhibit 4-hydroxyphenylpyruvate dioxygenase(HPPD) are often used in tandem withherbicides which block photosystem-IIsince these mixtures tend to beespecially effective. However it mustbe emphasised that such genuinelysynergistic effects are rare: generallythe activity of mixtures of compoundsis well predicted by the activity of the

individual components alone. In factantagonistic effects, where mixtures ofcompounds are less active than wouldbe predicted, are more common thansynergistic effects and this can be areal issue in new productdevelopment.

Secondly, where genuine synergy isobserved, the magnitude of the effectis invariably small. A factor of threewould be considered very significant.In my paper I show that typicalexposure to pesticide residues in foodis of the order of a million-fold too lowto have any impact on the health ofpeople consuming the food. At suchminiscule levels of exposure, even ifsynergistic effects exist they are of noconsequence – the million-fold safetyfactor is many orders of magnitudegreater than any synergistic effect thathas ever been established. There areno reports of synergy ever beingrecorded at doses typical of pesticideexposure in food.

A recently published comprehensiveliterature review (Boobis et al. CriticalReviews in Toxicology, 2011, 41 (5),369-383) sought to analyse all of thestudies that claim synergistic effects ofmixtures of compounds in mammaliantest systems at “low dose” (i.e. near tothe no adverse effect level, still manyorders of magnitude higher thanactual pesticide exposure in food). Theauthors identified 90 studiesexamining combinations of 204compounds published in the peerreviewed literature between 1990 and2008. However convincing,quantitative evidence of synergy wasonly presented in six of these studiesand the magnitude of synergyreported never exceeded a factor offour.

Finally the whole “cocktail effect”concept perpetuates the absurd ideathat there is somehow somethingspecial about synthetic chemicals andtheir toxicity relative to naturalchemicals. All of the myriad natural

chemical components of our food arecapable of being toxic (if the dose issufficient), and many are present inhigher concentrations and are moretoxic than pesticide residues. Ifsynergistic toxicity between chemicalspresent in our food is really consideredto be a safety issue, surely we mustalso consider the possibility ofsynergism amongst these naturalchemicals? It may be argued thatthese natural chemicals have been inour diets for many years and hence wewould have spotted any suchtoxicological issues by now. Howevernew types of food are beingintroduced all the time and chefsdelight in combining ingredients inever more exotic and inventive ways.It can therefore equally be argued thatwe are continually being exposed tonovel mixtures of potentially toxicnatural compounds most of whichhave never even been isolated andidentified, let alone tested for toxicity!

It is perfectly reasonable for thepublic to demand extremely highstandards of safety in the food chain,and that is what is routinely deliveredby modern agriculture. However theissue of “cocktail effects” is often usedby those opposed to the use ofpesticides in agriculture to implyuncertainty in the safety of thistechnology. The PrecautionaryPrinciple is invoked and ever moretesting is demanded, along withguarantees of absolute safety whichare of course impossible to provide inany context. This threat remainsentirely hypothetical and these effectshave never been measured at realisticconcentrations. The fact remains thatpesticide residues in food are irrelevantto our health, and the use ofpesticides in agriculture makes ourfood safer than it has ever beenbefore.

David Hughes, Syngenta, Jealott’sHill International ResearchCentre, Bracknell, Berkshire, UKRG42 6EY

A response to a letteron “cocktail effects”

50 23/7/12 13:09 Page 1


World Agriculture: problems and potentialInstruction to contributorsWe have made a change to the

guidance for citations in thetext. In future, references

should be numbered sequentially in thetext and listed in the Reference section innumerical order. We have made thischange as we consider it makes articleseasier to read and simplifies the text. Inthis Issue there is inconsistency in theway references are presented, but wehope to adopt the new system witheffect from the next Issue.

This international Journal publishesarticles based upon scientificallyderived evidence that addressproblems and issues confronting worldagriculture and food supplies. All willbe subject to review by two or morescrutineers before acceptance.Authors are encouraged to take acritical approach to world-wide issuesand to advance new concepts. Thosewishing to submit an unsolicitedarticle should in the first instance senda short summary of their intendedpaper in English by electronic mail tothe Editor. The journal will publishsuitable articles on agriculture andhorticulture and their climatic,ecological, economic and socialinteractions. Relevant aspects offorestry and fisheries as well as foodstorage and distribution will also beacceptable.

The Journal is not available forcommunication of previouslyunpublished experimental work,although original deductions fromexisting information are welcome.Statements must be based on soundscientifically derived evidence and allarguments must be rational andlogically derived. Typical articles willbe between 1 000 – 3 000 words,with photographs, and figures, linedrawings and tables, where relevant.Articles outside these lengths may beacceptable, if the length can bejustified.

Articles that pose questions and raiseissues for which answers are neededwill be accepted if they meet thenecessary criteria. Such questions mayfor example, describe an economic orhusbandry problem in a developingcountry or ocean, resulting fromclimate change or some unintendedconsequence of policy, for which noclear solution is at hand.

World Agriculture will produce onevolume each year with Issue numbers

1, 2, 3 and 4 occurring within eachvolume. Page numbers will runconsecutively throughout each volumefrom page one onwards.

SectionsThe Journal has three main Sections:(1) Scientific, (2) Economic & Social,and (3) Comment & Opinion. It alsoaccepts Letters to the Editor andincludes Book Reviews and Editorials. Scientific, Economic and SocialStatements of fact in the first twoSections must be based on evidencefrom peer-reviewed publications whichmust be fully referenced. Comment and OpinionSubmissions must be based onconsiderable experience and belogically argued. Articles that posequestions and raise issues for whichanswers are needed will be accepted ifthey meet the necessary criteriafollowing rigorous examination. Suchquestions may for example, describean economic or husbandry problem ina developing country or ocean,resulting from climate change or someunintended consequence of policy, forwhich no clear solution is at hand.References are not essential, althoughthey should be used to justifystatements where appropriate.

Layout and typinginstructionsSI units and the English language mustbe used, the spelling being generallythat of the Concise Oxford Dictionary,9th Ed, so that words such as fertilisershould use ‘ise’ rather than theAmerican ‘ize’ spelling. Times NewRoman 12 point font should bejustified for normal text and Arialshould be used for headings.Standard abbreviations (e.g. Fig. andFigs) are acceptable, but specialistabbreviations and terms should bedefined in a short Glossary,immediately beneath the Summary.Additionally, key words should also beincluded beneath the summary. Fullstops are not used in commonlyaccepted abbreviations (e.g. USA, UK)and should not be used when anabbreviated word ends with the sameletter as the complete word (e.g.,Florida as FA and cultivar as cv.). Latinterms such as circa should be italicisedand ca is the abbreviation.

Commercial chemicals should bereferred to by their approved commonnames, but where a proprietary nameis relevant and unavoidable it shouldbe used with a capital initial and themanufacturer named at the firstmention. Concentrations and rates ofapplication should be clearly expressedand unambiguous, using, for example,mg/litre, or mg/L, mg/kg (not ppm).

Dates should be expressed as day,month, year, as for example, 18thMay 2010.

Currency references should use thestandard international abbreviations,eg USD, EUR and GBP for US$, Euroand £ respectively. Wherever possiblefinancial details should be quoted inthese currencies, although where thisis not possible a standard list ofabbreviations is available at<http://www.forex-rates.biz/currency-abbreviations.htm> which wasaccessed in March 2011.

The full Latin name of an organismshould be given at the first mention,e.g. Heterodera avenae; an abbreviatedname of the organism may be usedfor subsequent mentions, e.g. H.avenae. Names should follow theappropriate international codes.Naturally occurring infraspecificvariants should be described asvarieties, as for example Medicagopolymorpha var hispida and whereused repeatedly in the text variety maybe abbreviated to var or vars. Theword cultivar should be restricted toforms in cultivation and which need tobe propagated either by seed orvegetatively and can be abbreviated tocv or cvs after first use in the text.Named cultivar should be in normal,ie not italicised font as for exampleTaxus baccata ‘Variegata’ or Taxusbaccata cv Variegata.

Always use numerals for specificunits of measurement (e.g. 14 m, 2 d,3 wk). For other quantities up to andincluding nine, spell out in full (e.g. four plots, two experiments, nine larvae). Use numerals in allinstances for ten or over (e.g. 20fields).

Large numbers should be separatedby spaces every 000, rather than byuse of a comma, e.g., 10 000.

Hyphens should be avoided ifpossible, for example use ‘cooperate’rather than ‘co-operate’.

instructions

51 23/7/12 13:09 Page 1

instructionsWhere authors need to reproduce

information protected by copyrightthey must obtain permission toreproduce the item before the article ispublished in World Agriculture.

Sequence of headingsEach paper should commence with ashort concise, accurate andinformative Summary, normally ofapproximately 250 words, thatincludes the issues posed, the subjectcovered and the conclusions drawn.

The Introduction should set out thebackground to the subject. This is tobe followed by the main body of thearticle in sections each of which isheaded by terms defined by thenature of the paper, for example:Background, Review of evidence, thePresent situation, Problems to beconfronted and Resolution.

The paper should conclude with aDiscussion and/or Conclusionssection and finally References. Layoutof headings should follow theguidance below:Title, bold 16 pointAuthor name AffiliationMain headings central bold Arial 14point fontSecondary headings: left justified,bold Arial 12 point font Tertiary level: left justified, Arial 12point font Quaternary (if necessary) left justified,Arial 12 point italics

Tables, figures, linedrawings, photographsand graphsFigures, Tables and Photographsshould be placed in a separate set offiles from the text (indicate in textdesired location, e.g. with the phraseTable xx near here on a separate linein square brackets if possible). Eachshould be numbered sequentially withthe title in Times New Roman 12 pointfont beneath. All figures and tablesshould be of high resolution. Ifpossible figures and tables should besubmitted in Excel (same table(s)could be in Word, in addition) andalso if possible submit the data fromwhich the figure has been produced.Make sure all the denominations areaccording to international standardsand the legends are clear.

Tables with suitable titles must benumbered using Arabic numerals insequence and be understandablewithout reference to the text. Use ahorizontal line to separate columnheadings from data and at the bottomof the table; avoid column lines.Excessive numbers of columns should

be avoided.Illustrations in the form of text

figures, line drawings, and computergenerated figures and graphs withtheir captions should all becomprehensible without reference tothe text. All photographs should behalf tone or colour, have a highdefinition (>5 million pixels/photo)and the software should be IBM/DOScompatible. Each photograph shouldbe adequately identified with theauthor, paper and plate number.Photographs submitted electronicallymust be in separate jpg files with theessential information included in theproperties box for the file.Alternatively, photographs may beposted to the Editor on disk (requestaddress by e-mail). The plate number,authors and an indication of the papertitle should also be given in a separateelectronic file. Electronic-mail issatisfactory for correspondence, textand tables.

Standard deviations, standard errorsof the means and “n”, the number ofobservations associated with eachmean, should all be presented.

References and citationsAll references in the text should begiven as numbers, although theauthor(s) name may be givenimmediately before the number, ifhelpful. References should benumbered sequentially in the order inwhich they appear, the first as (1),with all subsequent references to thesame paper using the same number.Where more than one paper is cited,the numbers should be listed innumerical order. In the ReferenceSection papers should be listed innumerical order in the format:

1. Klass, D W (ed.) (1979) Currentpractice of clinicalelectroencephalography. New York,Raven Press, 1979 ISBN n nn nnn nnnnnn.

2. Anon (yyyy) Web pagetitle.<http://www.organisation/page/file_or_other_address> accessed ddmmm yyyy.

3. Organisation (yyyy) Web pagetitle.<http://www.organisation/page/file_or_other_address> accessed ddmmm yyyy.

4. Regan, D & Smith, A (1979)Electrical responses evoked from thehuman brain. Scientific American, 241,134-52.

5. Smil, V (2011) Nitrogen cycle andworld food production. WorldAgriculture, 2 (1) 9-13.

6. Blogs, P (2010) Personalcommunication.

7. Baggins, B (1991) Title of paper. In:Proceedings of--- (ed., R.E. Blogs),Name of sponsor or organiser, USA, 6-8 June 1991, pp.91-4.

When a reference includes an issuenumber, include the volume numberin bold and the issue number inbrackets, between the volume and thefirst and last page numbers.

Communications withthe Editor for publicationComments & Opinion and Letters tothe Editor by e-mail will also beconsidered for publication. Theseshould be concise and submitted forthe purpose of making objectivecomments on published articles, or onimportant subjects that have not beencovered.

Submission, Editingand AcceptanceManuscripts should be formatted toA4 justified using MS Word and 12 ptTimes New Roman font.

Authors’ names, qualifications,honours and affiliations should beincluded and submission will assumethat the author accepts the conditionslaid down in these Instructions toContributors and that copyright isheld by World Agriculture: problemsand potential.

Manuscripts should be submitted tothe Editor by electronic mail, with theaddress of: [email protected].

Articles that are accepted by theeditorial board will be edited and theEditor reserves the right to modifystatements made by the author, or toask for a revision, although the editedversions will be sent to the author forhis or her agreement beforepublication.

The author’s response must occurwithin 96 h. Moreover, during therevision process it is essential thatauthors respond quickly and reliably torequests for amendments, otherwisethe publication deadline will beforfeited.


52 23/7/12 13:12 Page 1


looking ahead

World Agriculture: potential future articles

Published by Script Media,

47 Church Street, Barnsley, South Yorkshire S70 2AS

� Jonathan ShepherdAquaculture – are the criticisms justified?

� Wallace CowlingGM canola for Australia

� Matthew GillihamSaline soils and genes

� André BationoAfrican soils, their productivity and

profitability of fertilizer use

� Ed Barbier Agricultural land expansion in

many tropical regions with poor use of irrigation and fertilizers

leads to destruction of natural habitats

� Alan BuckwellFuture of UK farming

� Penelope BebeliGenetic pollution of landraces

� Peter Barfoot & Graham BrookesPG Economics Global GM

crop technology and pesticide reduction associated with use.

� Michael Turner Seed policies in guiding seed sector

development in the 'post project era'.

inside back 26/7/12 11:10 Page 1

Back 23/7/12 13:30 Page 1

Documents

World Agriculture Vol.3 No.1 (Summer 2012)