1. The Future for Food-Producing Landscapes P.J. Jones, J. Tzanopoulos, S. R. Mortimer & Bruce Traill School of Agriculture, Policy & Development, University of Reading, UK.

2. The origins of this analysis Relu-funded project: Implications of a Nutrition Driven Food Policy for Land Use and the Rural Environment Investigate the effectiveness of policies designed to promote healthy eating, the potential for modified agricultural husbandry methods to produce healthier food products and the implications for the countryside. Three market/policy scenarios studied, including: –E & W population adhering to DoH guidelines for healthy eating – policy and market conditions remain unchanged

3. Land use implications of the healthy diet scenario - methodology Apply changes in food demand to a linear programming model of E & W agriculture Average UK diet was mapped using household food consumption data and published tables used to express this diet in terms of nutrients consumed A quadratic programming model was used to adjust existing diet to comply with DOH nutrient guidelines by minimising the changes to existing diet (also minimal expense changes) New diet (ie new mix food items) is converted into constituent agricultural commodities using a conversion matrix based on recipe information (these values are imposed as proxy demand values in the LUAM) The LUAM is run to project the land use implications of the changed diet

4. Scenario data and assumptions Reference position Healthy diet scenario Change Milk7,7274,447-42.20% Beef & Veal444377-15.46% Mutton & Lamb12893-28.16% Pork435350-18.23% Poultry5185779.81% Eggs1816-9.61% Fish25135235.88% Cereals2,4153,13429.76% Sugar684454-31.38% Oils & Fat355339-5.24% Potato3,0103,79123.41% Green Vegetables9131,42155.62% Other Vegetables1,3342,21566.08% Fruit1,7662,69652.69% Units: g, ml or eggs per person per week. Compliance with DoH guidelines for healthy eating Change in commodity demand Home produced share assumed as at present Prices and technology unchanged Policy based on Fischler-reformed CAP, plus policy changes in pipeline DoH nutrient change guidelines: –total fat restricted to a third of energy intake –Protein and sugar (either free or as total carbohydrates) are restricted –higher fruit and vegetable consumption & higher consumption of dietary fibre –Calorie intake (average): 2,500 kcal per day (men), and 2,000 kcal (women)

5. Results – regional

6. Results – uplands – livestock

7. Land idling

8. Methodology – JCA assessment Landscape implications assessed for Joint Character Areas (JCA) using a semi-qualitative approach. JCA 'profiles' in the CQC describe landscape visions & the nature of change relative to the vision (maintained, enhanced, diverging or neglected) For each JCA Classification Decision Trees used to identify land-use changes associated with positive, negative or neutral impacts on landscape character LUAM projected changes in agricultural land-uses were assessed for their impact on landscape character - Scored on a 3-point scale (-1 = negative effect, 1 = positive effect, 0 = neutral effect)

9. Impact on landscape character – CAP reform Arable JCAs no change –60% of arable dominated JCAs will not be affected while the rest may suffer both, positive or negative impacts. Lowland pastoral JCAs mixed effects - predominately negative changes –Intensively farmed areas – benefit – reduced overgrazing –Extensively farmed areas – negative – under-grazing Uplands JCAs predominantly negative - under-grazing & land ‘idling’ –South West - positive (overgrazing reduced) –North – negative (under-grazing and land ‘idling’) Mixed farming JCAs, mixed effect depending on existing intensity –Low intensity, pastoral landscapes - benefit from more grassland –High intensity arable landscapes – no change

10. Impact on landscape character – Healthy diet Arable JCAs no change from the REF run Lowland pastoral JCAs - negative changes from REF –Intensively farmed – negative, reduced livestock numbers –Extensively farmed – negative, extension of under-grazing Uplands JCAs brunt of negative changes experienced here - more lost livestock under-grazing & land ‘idling’ –South West – mildly negative (livestock numbers hold up better) –North – negative (further under-grazing and land ‘idling’) Mixed farming JCAs, similar to REF, mixed effect depending on existing intensity –Low intensity, pastoral-dominated benefit from more grassland –High intensity farming landscapes – no change © Eric Jones, Dolgellau

11. Landscape impacts

12. Conclusions Impacts of CAP reform - in terms of directions of change, LUAM results are consistent with other commentators and modelling exercises –Loss of livestock production (dairy in lowlands & all types in uplands) - extensification – modest changes in lowland arable Effect of adoption of a healthier diet will be to deepen these trends –Horticulture opportunities in the South & East (some livestock losses – dairy) –Extending livestock losses in uplands Landscape effects mixed: –lowland arable areas – neutral –Lowland pasture – beneficial under CAP reform, negative under changed diet –Uplands – badly negative in nothern uplands, mixed effects in the South West Timescale of HD scenario long-term, but some impacts of the HD scenario, would be driven by other forces (eg dairy contraction) - can already be seen in effect A ‘perfect storm’ of policy/market conditions gathering around upland agriculture, requiring a new vision for the uplands & suitable policies for delivery - URGENT