BIOECONOMIC POTENTIAL FOR SILVOPASTORAL AGROFORESTRY SYSTEM IN NORTH WALES
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.47941/jap.385Keywords:
agroforestry, silvopasture, forestry, livestock, bioeconomicAbstract
Purpose: This study evaluated the bio-economic potentials of temperate lowland silvopastoral agroforestry systems in North Wales, United Kingdom.
Methodology: The bioeconomic analysis compared three land-use plausible scenarios (‘forestry’, ‘pasture / livestock’ and ‘agroforestry’) at 3.5% discount rate on a 10-hectare farm over a 30-year rotation using discounted cash flow analysis and national costs and prices for both livestock and tree products based on 2016 baseline data. Base case net present value (NPV) and annual equivalent value (AEV) were calculated for each production livestock grazing, farm forestry, and silvopastoral agroforestry scenario, assuming no policy interventions.
Findings: Generally, results of the economic analyses indicated that under the baseline case, assuming no policy interventions, none of the options was viable. This study also showed that increase in lamb sale price, wood price, and wood yield improved the economic viability of the three investment options significantly. Again, the viability of the three investment options in this study is shown to decrease with increase in discount rates. Furthermore, this study disclosed that the application of prevailing government grant/subsidy schemes significantly improved the economic viability of the three investment options as livestock, forestry and agroforestry options showed positive NPV and AEV values at the baseline assumptions and are therefore adjudged economically viable as they all met the decision rule criteria for investment acceptance. Forestry was the most viable option with the highest NPV and AEV, followed by pasture/livestock and agroforestry options.
Unique contribution to theory, practice and policy: This study underscored the imperative need for policy makers to improve awareness of the benefits of grant incomes and address farmers’ concerns about the economic viability of livestock, forestry and agroforestry investments. The results of this research will help promote greater awareness of the economic value of trees in extensively grazed landscapes in the United Kingdom as well as provide a basis for future comparisons and analysis of farm programs and ecosystem service markets.
Downloads
References
Bergez, J. E., Etienne, M., & Balandier, P. (1999). ALWAYS: a plot-based silvopastoral system model. Ecological Modelling, 115(1), 1-17.
Bullard, S. H., & Straka, T. J. (1998). Basic Concepts in Forest Valuation and Investment Analysis. Preceda. Inc., Auburn, AL, USA.
Burgess, P. J. (2011, December). Agroforestry in the UK. Briefing document prepared for the First European Meeting of Agroforestry Paris.
Burton, R., & Wilson, O., (2000). Farmers’ resistance to woodland planting in community forests: The influence of social and cultural factors. Occasional Paper. De Montford University, Leicester, UK.
Chase, L. E., Ely, L. O., & Hutjens, M. F. (2006). Major advances in extension education programs in dairy production. Journal of dairy science, 89(4), 1147-1154.
Clason, T.R. (1995). Economic implications of silvipastures on southern pine plantations. Agroforest. Syst. 29: 227-238.
Dagang, A. B., & Nair, P. K. R. (2003). Silvopastoral research and adoption in Central America: recent findings and recommendations for future directions. Agroforestry systems, 59(2), 149-155.
Dangerfield, C. W. and Harwell, R. L. (1990). An analysis of a silvopastoral system for the marginal land in the southeast United States. Agroforestry Systems. 10: 187-197.
Davies, O., & Kerr, G. (2015). Comparing the costs and revenues of transformation to continuous cover forestry for sitka spruce in Great Britain. Forests, 6(7), 2424-2449.
Defra (2006b). Single Payment Scheme: Handbook and Guidance for England 2006. Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs and the Rural Payments Agency from Section C: What land can be claimed under the Single Payment Scheme? pages 19 and 20.
Doye, D. G. (2007). Evaluating Options for Change. Division of Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resources, Oklahoma State University.
Glastir Woodland Creation. Rules Booklet. Version 2 March 2016. Welsh Government Rural Communities -Rural Development Programme for Wales 2014-2020 https://naturalresources.wales/...woodland-creation/support-available-for-new-woodla
Godsey, L. D. (2008). Economic budgeting for agroforestry practices. University of Missouri Center for Agroforestry. www.centerforagroforestry.org/
Godsey, L. D., Mercer, D. E., Grala, R. K., Grado, S. C., & Alavalapati, J. R. (2009). Agroforestry economics and policy. www.centerforagroforestry.org/ www.centerforagroforestry.org/
Grado, S.C. and Husak, A.L., (2004). Economic Analyses of a Sustainable Agroforestry System in the Southeastern United States. In Valuing Agroforestry Systems (pp. 39-57). Springer Netherlands.
Graves, A. R., Burgess, P. J., Liagre, F., Terreaux, J. P., Borrel, T., Dupraz, C., ... & Herzog, F. (2011). Farm-SAFE: the process of developing a plot-and farm-scale model of arable, forestry, and silvoarable economics. Agroforestry systems, 81(2), 93-108.
Husak, A. L. & Grado, S. C. (2002). Monetary benefits in a southern silvopastoral system. Southern Journal of Applied Forestry. 26(3): 159-164.
Lawrence A., N. Dandy and J. Urquhart (2010) Landowner attitudes to woodland creation and management in the UK. Forest Research, Alice Holt, Farnham. Available at www.forestry.gov.uk/fr/ownerattitudes
McAdam, J.H., Thomas, T.H. and Willis, R.W. (1999a). The economics of agroforestry systems in the UK and their future prospects. Scottish Forestry, 53(1): 37-41.
Nworji, M. J. (2017). Physical and Bioeconomic Analysis of Ecosystem Services from a Silvopasture System. PhD thesis, SENRGY, Bangor University, Wales.
Nworji, M. J. (2019). Allometric Equations for Estimating Biomass of Open- Grown Red Alder (Alnus rubra Bong) in A Silvopastoral System. International journal of agriculture & agribusiness, 2(2), 35-49.
Osmond, J., & Upton, S. (2012). Growing Our Woodlands in Wales-the 100,000 Hectare Challenge. Institute of Welsh Affairs.
Redman, G. (2015). The John Nix farm management pocketbook., 46th edition. Agro Business Consultants Ltd, Leics
SAC 2014. Farm Management Handbook 2015/16 (No. Ed. 36). Scottish Agricultural College, Edinburgh, UK.
Sibbald, A. (1996). Silvopastoral systems on temperate sown pastures, a personal perspective. In: Etienne, M. (ed), Western European silvopastoral systems, INRA, Paris, pp 23-36.
Sibbald, A.R. and Dalziel, A. (2000). Silvopastoral National Network Experiment - Annual Report 1999. The UK Agroforestry Forum, Newsletter No 1. pp2-6.
Sibbald, A. R. (2006). Silvopastural agroforestry: a land use for the future. Scottish Forestry, 60(1), 4.
Smith, J., Pearce, B. D., & Wolfe, M. S. (2012). A European perspective for developing modern multifunctional agroforestry systems for sustainable intensification. Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems, 27(04), 323-332.
Soeleman, S., Sa'id, E. G., Daryanto, H. K. S., & Suroso, A. I. (2014). Annual Equivalent Value, Benefit Cost Ratio, and Composite Performance Index as Valuation Appraisal Support of Teakwood Plantation. Jurnal Manajemen Hutan Tropika, 20(1), 58-65.
Teklehaimanot, Z., Jones, M. and Sinclair, F.L., (2002). Tree and livestock productivity in relation to tree planting configuration in a silvopastoral system in North Wales, UK. Agroforestry Systems, 56(1), pp.47-55.
Thomas, T. H., & Willis, R. W. (1997). Linking economics to biophysical agroforestry models. In Agroforestry Forum (United Kingdom).
Thomas, T.H. and Willis, R.W. (2000). The economics of agroforestry in the UK. Forestry Commission Research Bulletin, 122: 107-122.
Treasury, H. M. S. (2003). The green book. Appraisal and evaluation in central government.
Williams, M. (1988). Decision-making in forest management. Letchworth, Hertfordshire, England: Research Studies Press.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY) 4.0 License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgment of the work’s authorship and initial publication in this journal.
