Agroforestry Biodiversity Viability Study (ABVS), Application for a Grant

Introduction:

This document provides the core details for a grant application for a pilot project integrating the following areas: Agriculture, forestry, food, environment, sustainable development, climate, economy, business and employment.

These aspects are even more relevant with the concept of 2011 as the International Year of Forests in mind.

Goals: 

The project will provide evidence that an integrated use of land, applying the described methodology, allows to utilise natural recourses sustainable and profitable whilst increasing biodiversity at the same time. Success will be measured by assessing the following outcome parameters:

-Overall financial project viability

-Financial viability of economic sub activities, e.g. tree based produce, field based produce

-Increased project area biodiversity

-Increased sub area biodiversity, e.g. clear surface areas, tree rows, regeneration area

Context:

With the recent economic downturn and the increase in oil prices the cost for firewood in Britain has about double over the last 24 months. In addition the United Kingdom is amongst the top western European landmasses in terms of deforestation. Deforestation is partly responsible for the floods seen in recent years. Large scale reforestation projects are expensive and difficult to finance, since any financial yield is delayed by decades. In addition, due to the high population density, there are reasonable doubts regarding large scale reforestation on available arable land currently used for food production, a point made more pressing since importation of food from aboard does not only add cost but also food miles and pollution.

It is noteworthy that the ongoing destruction of woodland around the world is largely driven by agriculture in order to supply food for an ever growing human world population. Alternatives to currently established agriculture and forestry practices need to be evaluated in order to substantiate the availability and viability of sustainable practices in comparison to currently applied methods.

This study aims to examine the economic viability of combining forestry activities, with field crop and livestock production and other land using economic activities, whilst parallel increasing biodiversity. This is achieved by utilising a modernised version of a traditional agroforestry system from central Germany. Since the study design is flexible it allows for economic development within the project for sub activities, such as alternative food production, tourism, woodland burial, and others. 

Background:

Many cultures and countries have developed their own coppicing systems over the centuries, but rarely have such complex systems developed to a point where early industrial activities, such as iron smelting, food production and leather manufacturing were interwoven for centuries. 

The Siegerland is a small county in the middle of Western Germany with an iron ore mining tradition reaching back as far as the early La Tène time about 600 years BC. Charcoal was used for smelter and smithing but by about 700 AD the local forests had been devastated and the whole industry was at risk due to the lack of fuel. In addition the local soil was so poor in quality that a fierce competition between the need to keep woodland for charcoal production and arable land and pastures for food production ensued.  

Out of necessity developed an agroforestry system with the potential to be exemplary for the 21^st century, the “Haubergswirtschaft”.  In the traditional format of this system of agroforestry the land is owned cooperatively by the inhabitants of the local village, with an executive board and a senior executive. These cooperatives were already mentioned in legal documents dating as far back as the 18^th of January 1562. The whole system allowed for charcoal and domestic fuel production, field crops production - mainly rye, later also buckwheat and potatoes, and pasture land. The waste products were used as fertilizer. It was so successful that as a result even nowadays the mountainous county of Siegerland is 85% forested with a richness in wildlife almost unparalleled anywhere in Britain. 

It was rather fortunate that fossil coal had not been discovered at a time when forest reserves were running out, forcing people to re-think their use of the land. In contrast we find the barren desolate fells of Cumbria, originally forested with mixed broad leave trees up to 1200 feet height. Whilst this landscape, in terms of topography, is not unlike the Siegerland, a critical level of deforestation coincided with the discovery of fossil coal near Caldbeck and Workington/Whitehaven around the early 17^th century AD negating any need for reforestation. Even more cynical is the coincidence that it were German miners who, from the early 16^th century onwards, developed mining and deforested the northern fells for charcoal production (Roughton Gill And The Mines Of The Caldbeck Fells, Ian Tyler, ASIN B00315NG48). 

The traditional “Hauberg” was worked as follows: In about March/April all members of the cooperative begin on their allocated share of the land by clearing soft woods (birch, ash, willow) and the oaks not suitable for bark stripping. Strippable oaks and tall grown other trees remain, the latter as nursery and seed carrying trees. The felled trees are de-branched and the trunks are collected, formerly for charcoal production, nowadays mainly as fire wood. The small branches and twigs are collected and bundled, dried and then used to heat baking ovens. Strippable oaks are then debarked to up to 5meters above ground with the loosened bark hanging to dry on the stems. The bark is then removed and used for leather tanning whilst the stems are coppiced close to the ground in the same way as happened a few weeks earlier with the soft woods. Again the wood used to be used for char coal production, nowadays mainly as firewood or, if suitable, as timbers.  

In preparation for field crops the grass, herb and shrub cover of the ground is removed with a special tool, which allows cutting through smaller roots without disturbing or damaging the coppiced trees’ roots. The resulting turf sods are dried and cleared of soil, then collected in heaps and burnt. The ash is distributed over the felling area as fertiliser. Winter rye is sawn and then covered with soil by use of a special plough; it is ready for harvest in August the following year. The rye is harvested by sickle, bound into sheaves, dried and transported for threshing.  

After five to seven years of respite the area was used for seven to eleven years as forest pasture, mainly for cattle and sheep but also for pigs. Goats were prohibited because of their potential to damage the trees. The respite period was necessary to avoid browse damage of the livestock to the tree shoots. 

The mechanisation of agriculture and introduction of artificial fertilisers, paired with the use of fossil coal and chemical tanning agents, reduced the Hauberg to a pure wood fuel production system, none the less still in use and cooperatively organised today.  

The possibility of adjusting this traditional agroforestry system to modern mechanised land management methods could open opportunities for the production of renewable bio energy and food whilst also increasing the biodiversity of the cultured land. In addition the bio fuel production could potentially yield reasonably quick financial returns in terms of tree base produce thus allowing for more cost effective reforestation on a larger scale.

Changes to the traditional system would need to be implemented and pilot studies need to be conducted to evaluate the scheme. The resulting modern Hauberg-Agroforestry would have to allow for the following:

-Trees are either used as coppicing crops or fast growing timber crops.

-Tree planting and spacing must allow for mechanised tending of interspaced field crops.

-The field crop cycle needs to be extended to about ten years, depending on tree growth, before forest pasturing can ensue.

-A respite phase is not necessary since the prolonged use for field crops already allows for sufficient tree growth to protect against livestock and browse damage.  

The Scheme:

The following description is based on an idealised project area of 100 hectares (1 hectare equals 2.471 acres), subdivided into 22 subsections, 4 hectares each, allowing for a 20 years growth cycle for the trees, about 10 years use for field crops and a further  10 years cycle for forest pasturing or field crops as economically indicated. Cycle duration should be flexibly adapted based on tree growth rates and market demands in relation to harvestable trees or tree based produce. Other tree uses such as sap drainage will optionally be explored as well.

Two joint up subsections, 8 hectares, are left as natural regeneration zone, initially partially planted with native trees and a wet area if feasible, to be left alone there after. The planting will be four times as dense than in the main area. All remaining subsections will be planted in rows of native to Britain one tree species per subsection, allowing to utilise different tree species chosen according to the following criteria: local factors like ground orientation and soil, suitability for coppicing or harvestable as timbers within 20 years of planting, well suited as firewood, potential for other economic use (e.g. fruit trees, tree berries, sap, leaves as fodder, etc.). Also included are three rows respectively of non native to Britain tree species in order to explore there economical as well as their biodiversity potential: The FoxgloveTree (Paulownia Tomentosa), a fast growing Asian hardwood with the potential to be harvestable for timber within 20 years of planting and also suitable for coppicing and use as firewood, the leaves are also useful as fodder. The Sugar Maple (Acer Saccharum) for it's sap. The North American Tulip Tree (Liriodendron Tulipifera), useful for firewood coppicing or harvestable as timber. The European Cork Oak (Quercus Suber), suitable for coppicing or for its bark. The Swiss Pine (Pinus Cembra), for use of pine nuts and timber and the Australian Cider Gum Tree (Eucalyptus Gunnii), for firewood, sap and timber. Economical viability studies have not been conducted for any of the latter three tree species within the United Kingdom and their inclusion into this scheme will add further valuable data to the study. 

Depending on the availability of funds the project could initially commence on open farmland and tree planting would add a 4 hectares subsection every year. Alternatively the whole area could be planted at the beginning. Ongoing assessment of tree growth rates will allow for flexibility in tree use, e.g. early coppicing, pollarding or prolonged growth for timber, should economic viability dictate the same. Other tree uses, such as birch sap drainage, need to be taken into consideration. If for example birch trees provide a better income base as sap producers for birch wine than as firewood coppice crop, then birch coppicing will be abandoned and sap drainage will emerge as another business opportunity. Similar calculations need to happen to allow for a diverse use of the field surface areas. If use for birch sap production on full area coverage planting provides more income then use for field crops and pasturing, then an adaptation of the relevant subsection for pure birch growing will be implemented.

This system also allows for the development of very diverse economic activities on the tree row interspacing land surface area, from fields and pastures to woodland burial sites, fish ponds and equestrian activities. Diverse profitable use with maintained or furthered biodiversity stands at the centre of the project.

Additional research could be conducted by annually by analysing biodiversity of existing hedge rows, central open areas and tree rows. Calculations regarding the energy balance of aspects of the project (field crops, livestock and forestry) and soil analysis in order to evaluate the fertilising effect of the tree rows on the agricultural land would enhance the scientific value of the scheme. The aforementioned would add additional value to the study but their conduction would burst the frame of this application. We suggest to approach various universities and research institutes and offer the relevant  aspects as potential research projects for which independent funding has to be sought by the relevant organisations. 

Idealised Land Layout:

The costing is based on an idealised 100 hectares site with 22 4 hectares subsections. Two 4 hectares subsections are used as a natural regeneration zone as described above.

Spacing of the tree rows will be 20 meters, allowing for sufficient space between the rows for mechanical field tending, ploughing/harvesting etc. as well as for sufficient light exposure for the interspaced field crops. There also will be 2 meters distance of un-worked land from the central tree planting line to either side in order to protect tree roots from ploughing damage and to allow for flora and fauna regeneration. Between the perimeter of the sub sections and the beginning/end of tree rows will also be a distance of 20 meters. Tree spacing is four meters, ensuring sufficient closeness to encourage fast growth, but also aiding weather protection. It follows that every idealised 4 hectare subsection contains nine tree rows with 41 trees each, not covering the perimeter, equalling a density of about 92 trees per hectare. The perimeter would be covered in a traditional hedge row which will further enhance biodiversity. 

Costing:

The costing is based on an idealised land model allowing for the most efficient utilisation of funds. The project itself would need to be scaled and compartmentalised using the available land layout and topography to maximum effect. The costing covers the full 100 hectares of the proposed project site, this allows for coverage of planting within the natural regeneration area as well. Estimates are including VAT and labour where appropriate. 

Amount in £ sterling

The traditional agricultural use of the field and pasture surface together with the presence of hedge rows and pre-existing tree cover means that following the initial purchase of the land the project could potentially run on a self funding basis. This would of course mean that organising the project from that point onwards and the ongoing annual purchase of trees, planting tubes, bark chippings and fencing material including relevant labour cost would have to be financed out of agricultural profits making the calculations very tight. A reduction of available funds from the above estimate would inevitably lead to a reduction of the project area which in turn reduces the value of the project as a whole since 100 hectares represent a compromise between the average farm size in England (50 hectares) and Scotland (>100 hectares). 

Landownership stands at the centre of the scheme. Any business or other organisation conducting this sort of project on already owned land will be subject to criticism that the study was biased, because they had a vested interest in utilising their existing land asset profitably. With that the pressure for a favourable study outcome will be increased and the results, especially if positive, devaluated.

The project duration, initially twenty years, also necessitates land ownership and the types of economic activities are more or less prohibitive for long term lease agreements.

Data output in terms of economic viability data, agricultural output data, which lends itself to comparisons with traditional land surface use yields, as well as biodiversity data, can be extracted indefinitely.

Predicted Outcome:

Economical viability of the filed strips in line with general agricultural activity.

Added profits via tree based produce from year 10 into the project.

Increase in biodiversity for the project area as a whole as well as for the individual subsections: Regeneration zone, tree rows, field strips.

Profit based expansion of the project area after about 10 years when added income from tree based produce improves the funding situation.

On expansion of the project area the scope for integrating formerly native to Britain animal species into the project improves.

In combining agroforestry and biodiversity research this study is unique to the UK.

Carbon Offset:

The average UK citizen produces about 10 tonnes of CO2 each year and a tree offsets about 1 tonne of CO2 in 100 years, the roughly 15000 trees on the 100 hectares site will offset about 150 tonnes of C02 per year.

There is no fixed price for the cost of offsetting one tonne of CO2, but one can speculate how voluntary investments could finance parts of the project. In addition there is an enhanced advertising value for any supporter.

Since official approval for offsetting costs £3600 plus an annual renewal fee of £1600 Naturepark UK believes that applying for accreditation for CO2 offsetting is not good value for money.

Naturepark UK is currently working on an application for sponsorship by DEFRA, the European Commission and others in order to pilot the above scheme.

More general arguments for the utilisation of a pilot study can be found here: