This document summarizes synergies and trade-offs between climate change mitigation and adaptation strategies in grassland-based farming systems. It discusses how extending the grazing season can both increase greenhouse gas emissions from livestock but also sequester more carbon in soils. Replacing grasslands with crops like maize may improve farm productivity but also increase emissions. Forage legumes and agroforestry can both mitigate emissions and help farms adapt. Policy support is needed to avoid conflicts between mitigation and adaptation goals and unintended consequences like carbon leakage. The challenges include assessing impacts at different scales and accounting for competition with human food supply.

1. Synergies between mitigation and adaptation to Climate
Change in grassland-based farming systems
Agustin DEL PRADO agustin.delprado@bc3research.org
Basque Centre for Climate Change (BC3)
Agnes Van den Pol-van Dasselaar Wageningen UR
David Chadwick Bangor University
Tom Misselbrook North Wyke, Rothamsted Res.
Daniel Sandars Cranfield University
Eric Audsley Cranfield University
Rosa María Mosquera-Losada USC
"BC3, the world’s second most influential Think Tank in the field of climate change economics and policy." (After the 2013
ICCG Climate Think Tank Ranking. More information at www.bc3research.org).

2. 1. General overview
2. Sinergies/trade-offs mitigation and adaptation
3. Policy implications
Outline
Disclaimer

3. Climate change mitigation and adaptation

4. Climate Projections in Europe (IPCC WGII, AR5)
(within recognised modelling limitations
-Hotter: warmest in S Europe in summer and N
Europe in winter (high conf.)
-Rainfall (drier in South, wetter in North-but dry summers) (med. conf.)
(less clear in Continental Europe)
-more climate
extremes
Most vulnerable (in general): high mountains, South Europe
Heat waves, warm days/nights (high conf.)
Droughts
Heavy precipitation (specially N Europe, High Conf)

5. Impacts of CC on European grasslands(IPCC WGII, AR5)
-Grass species distribution, productivity,
quality
-Livestock productivity
Complex response: interactions between temp,
CO2, O3, extremes, N,
water (non-lineal)

6. Synergies/trade-offs in Climate
Change mitigation&adaptation

7. Extending the grazing season (for latitudes with increasing
growth potential)
Moran et al.(2009)50
60
70
80
90
100
110
120
130
baseline 2020 2050 2080
averagestartday(Since1stJan)ofgrazingseason
SW YH WA SC
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
baseline 2020 2050 2080
annualgrassgrowth(tDMha-1yr-1)
SW YH WA SC
ba
SW: South West
YH: Yorkshire
WA: Wales
SC: Scotland
Average start day (since 1st of January) of grazing season (a) and average
annual sward biomass in baseline 2020s, 2050s, 2080s scenarios for UK
locations.
Extended growth in spring and fall
Increased summer autumn forage failure by end century
(e.g. France: Graux et al., 2011)

8. Ruminant CH4
(unless more imported feed, less
feed from grazing or silage)
Manure GHG & NH3 (unless limitations in manure
removal & application)
Adaptation (more grazing) affects mitigation
Soil N2O, NO3 leaching grazing
Pre-farm GHG
Soil C sinks ?
Adaptation (more grazing) affects other adaptation
Animal Health/welfare
Soil quality
Milk/meat quality
Soil Organic matter
Extending the grazing season: interactions

9. SOM (and C)?
Large interaction grazing, rainfall and SOC
McSherry and Ritchie (2013) GCB
Extending the grazing season

10. Schoeneberger et al. (2012)
Agroforestry systems
Mitigation
Adaptation
Change microclimate to
-Reduce impacts of extreme events on crop
production
-Maintain forage quality & quantity
-Reduce livestock stress
-Provide greater habitat diversity
-Provide greater structural and functional
Diversity to protect ES
-Create diversified production opportunities
-Carbon sequestration (wood, soil)
-Reduce energy use (CO2)
-Reduce fertiliser inputs (N2O, CO2)
-Enhance forage quality: less CH4

11. Replacement of permanent grasslands by suitable
arable forage crops (e.g. maize)
-Crop suitability will change (but Climatic variability will limit winter
crops expansion)
Adapted from
-Vellinga and Hoving (2011) NCA
-Del Prado et al. (2011b)
Dairy farms: Forage maize vs grassland
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
N2O
CH4
C seq
energy (on-
farm)
energy (off-
farm)
total GHG
NH3
Nox
NO3-
productivity
grassland-based ploughing some grassland to maize
Values <1 improve conventional
farm results
?

12. The potential for forage legumes
Adapted from Del Prado et al., 2011a STOTEN *
Example: modelled comparison between conventional (grass-based) vs mixed clover &
grass-based dairy farms in “typical” dairy farm in Devon (England, UK) :
1. Conventional: raygrass-based (and forage maize)
2. Mixed forage legume (grass+ white clover) (and forage maize)
3. Conventional + optimised* synthetic fertiliser (N use efficiency improved)
GEIs, NH3, NO3-… Sustainability attributes
Values <1 improve conventional farm results
Assumption: no differences in reseeding practices and frequency
For further info about legumes: Luscher et al. (2014) GFS

13. Agro-industrial by-products (under-utilised)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
OLIVE
SILAGE
TOMATO
SILAGE
OAT HAY
N
NDF
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
Control Olive silage Tomato silage
CH4, l/kg
CH4, l/kg
www.solidairy.eu
David Yañez-Ruiz (pers. com.)

14. No-tillage
-Promotes soil C sequestration and build-up of SOM
-Method and timing of grassland renovation affects
N2O and DM yield (Velthof et al., 2010)
-Non-CO2 emissions: Ploughing effect on N2O is not
clear (e.g. Pinto et al., 2004)

15. Policy implications and
specific challenges

16. -Policies of mitigation and adaptation are considered
In separate frameworks (conflicts)
-Not an easy task: mitigation and adaptation differ in
space, timing and geographically
(Smith & Olesen, 2010)
Complex issue

17. Climate protection in the new EU CAP
-greening: permanent grassland, crop biodiversity and
Ecological focus Areas (EFA)
-grazing (via cross-compliance) and AF
-Legumes (via EFA), forage legumes?
-Rich-species swards ? (Rural Development Programme?)
-Agroforestry systems (fire risk areas)
But does not promote
-avoid competition between feed and food, unfair
competition
-most sustainable use of plant residues and agroindustry by-
products (feed vs bioenergy vs soil organic matter)
-excessive protein import: coupled subsidies to specific
sectors (e.g. intensive dairy farming)

18. Unwanted effects: C leakage
Lassaletta et al., (2014)
Global market of proteins (C leakage)

19. Effectiveness over different time and spatial scales
-Maintaining or enhancing soil C must be ensured for a long
period (N2O, CH4 or energy-based CO2 can not be re-emited)
-Mitigation must be tailored to specific conditions (adaptation
generally is more specific) and account for N and C cycles
interactions to avoid unwanted Pollution or impact trade-offs
(e.g pollution swapping)

20. Challenges
-reference unit: ha (e.g. CAP) vs product (industry)
-Other units to factor the fact that some livestock
systems heavily compete in the human food chain
Del Prado et al., 2013b STOTEN
Diets that have LESS
Competition with
Human-food
Diets that have MORE
Competition with
Human-food

21. Acknowledgements
EU FACCE-MACSUR
Agustin DEL PRADO, Basque Centre for Climate Change (BC3)
agustin.delprado@bc3research.org