9
Wetland Futures Report 2013: The Value of Healthy Wetlands
Wetlands and agriculture panel
Left to right: Alastair Driver, Environment Agency and Chair;
Richard Murray Wells, Farmer; James Grischeff, Senior Advisor,
Natural England; Professor Joe Morris
Concern about loss of wetlands habitats in the UK, of soil
carbon with potential to cause climate change, and loss
of other benefits associated with wetlands, have lead to
increased calls for wetland protection and restoration.
Taking land out of agricultural production, especially in
order to restore lowland peatlands previously ‘reclaimed’
for intensive agriculture, could, however, affect
national
food security
. This has been of particular concern since
the food price spikes of 2007/8, the continued prospects
of increased global demand for food, and the increased
uncertainty of food supply due to climate change. In this
context, we at Cranfield University have undertaken two
studies to explore the implications of lowland peatland
restoration for carbon emissions and food security.
The first study, for Natural England (Morris et al, 2010),
explored restoration options contained in the aspirational
Wetland Vision for England
(Natural England, 2010).
(There are about 325,000 ha of lowland peatlands in
England only, about 240,000 ha of which are farmed).
The areas for study included selected parts of the
Somerset Levels, The Lythe Valley (Cumbria), The
Humberhead Levels and the East Anglian Fens,
totalling about 66,500ha. Restoration (no agriculture)
and Conservation (extensive wet grassland) options
were compared against a ‘counterfactual’ of continued
agricultural use, whether mainly grassland in the case of
Somerset and Lythe (dairy and fat stock) and intensive
arable (potatoes/vegetables/salads) for the Humberhead
Levels and the Fens. Generally, as evidence clearly
confirms, continued agriculture results in continuing
peatland degradation, with highest rates of degradation for
arable production. Estimates of carbon loss by land use
were valued at DECC carbon prices and medium term
agricultural prices for the year 2010, assuming steady
state land use options at ‘full development’.
It was found that the comparative advantage and current
high profitability of intensive agriculture on peatlands
are lost over time as peat soils degrade. In many cases,
depending on underlying soils, arable land use would
switch to extensive (cereals and oil seeds) arable farming.
Notwithstanding the uncertainties in the estimates, it
appears there could be substantial economic gain from
wetland restoration once the reduced future value of
agricultural productivity, the costs of carbon emissions
and the potential for other ecosystem benefits are taken
into account.
A second study undertaken for the Adaptation Sub-
Committee on Climate Change (Graves and Morris, 2013)
explored the Fenland case in more detail. A peatland
‘decay’ function was developed for different long term
climate change scenarios through to 2080. Allowances
were made for real changes in carbon prices and
agricultural commodity prices. A similar broad message
to that referred to above was obtained. Analysis of the
present value of future benefits and costs of land use
options on the Fens showed a potential net economic
benefit for restoration and conservation options compared
with continued intensive farming that results in carbon
loss and peatland wastage.
Both of these studies explored the implications for
contemporary views of food security, defined as an ability to
supply nutritious food reliably at affordable prices, whether
from domestic farmers or trading partners. It is noted that
national food security is influenced by ‘supply’ side factors
such as the availability and productivity of agricultural
land in the UK and international markets and trading
conditions. It is also affected by ‘demand’ side factors such
Peat and food security
Professor Joe Morris, Emeritus Professor, Cranfield University
