Cluster Agriculture | Umweltbundesamt

On the relevance of the action field

More than half of Germany’s terrain is used for agriculture. This means that – given its expanse alone – Germany possesses a huge potential for creating landscape and biotope structures in keeping with the concept of ‘good’ adaptation to climate change. At the same time, the agricultural sector with its associated preliminary work and investments – as well as the nutrition industry closely bound up with agricultural production and bioeconomy – is of major importance to the national economy. At a global scale, climate change has become a relevant risk factor for food security. In many countries located in both the European and the global south, farmers are wrestling with severe drought and other extreme events. However, in Germany too, there are now regions in which it is no longer possible to farm as productively and sustainably as in the past. For agriculture to remain productive under conditions of ongoing climatic changes, it is essential to adapt, not only in many agricultural subsectors, but also in terms of maintaining nutritional values and in terms of food processing.

Given the close links between agriculture, (high-quality) nutrition and health, the UN organisations for health (WHO), animal health (WOAH), environment (UNEP) as well as food and agriculture (FAO) are involved in the propagation of the concept of ‘One Health’. This concept has become a guiding principle for action taken in respect of global health policies, at the same time as acting as a lever to make agricultural production and, in particular nutrition, more sustainable at the global scale.

DAS Monitoring –what is happening due to climate change

Agricultural management is largely influenced by European and German agricultural policies and by international agricultural and input markets. It is therefore not usually possible in this sector to identify – on the basis of collectable data – a distinct causal relationship with climate change. Monitoring data will always have to be interpreted against the background of the framework of the prevailing agricultural policy, as well as market conditions and individual business decisions.

The fact that climate change is relevant to agriculture is demonstrated directly by the shift in agrophenological phases (cf. Indicator LW-I-1). For example, during the past ten years, winter rapeseed – based on Germany’s national average – started to flower roughly 18 days earlier than the mean for the period of 1971 to 1980; while apple trees started to flower roughly 15 days earlier. Likewise, vines also start sprouting earlier in the year. The vegetation period is becoming longer. These changes harbour both risks and opportunities for agriculture and horticulture.

Farmers have always ‘worked’ according to the weather pattern and tried to adapt to current conditions and observed changes as best they could. In the face of climate change too, there are countless adaptation options available to avoid or mitigate impacts on cultural traditions, reduce risks or to exploit new opportunities. This is why many developments of climate change impacts in agriculture – illustrated by means of impact indicators contained in the DAS Monitoring Report – are already the result of preventative and prudent adaptation efforts and not just a description of isolated climate change effects. The fact that insured damage from hailstorms – adjusted for inflation effects and increases in insured amounts – in sensitive agricultural crops did not increase between 1980 and 2021 (cf. Indicator LW-I-3), may be due to a lack of increases in severe hailstorm events in that period, or indeed that hailstorms did not hit agricultural crops. It may also be due to agricultural businesses having taken protective measures – such as installing hailstone protection nets – thus effectively avoiding or reducing damage.

Above all, it is the unpredictability of annual weather patterns which makes it difficult for agricultural businesses to adapt adequately or in good time. Extreme events or unexpected weather conditions can overwhelm even the most solid and provident forward planning. Foreseeable medium and long-term trends such as rising temperatures and increasingly dry conditions in spring, or conditions favouring certain pest organisms as a result of changing weather patterns (cf. Indicator LW-I- 4) can be integrated in business strategies by selecting crop varieties that are adapted better. In respect of some crop species, yields continue to increase – partly owing to the continuing intensification of agricultural processes and as a result of provident business management. On the other hand, there are now some crops for which yields are stagnating. Time and again, there are more or less strong fluctuations in the quantity and quality of yields (cf. Indicator LW-I-2). In one year, yields might be unexpectedly high due to surprisingly good weather patterns, whereas in another year, extreme weather events lead to substantial yield losses. Both situations present agricultural businesses with challenges as they make it (increasingly) more difficult to schedule farming processes.

Future climate risks – outcomes of KWRA

Research carried out within the framework of the 2021 Climate Impact and Risk Analysis (KWRA) as covered in the agriculture action field indicated – already for the middle of this century – a high risk of abiotic stress and yield losses. In addition, a high risk of a heat-related reduction in health and performance of livestock is to be expected by the end of the century. As far as the risks for a decline in the quality of harvested crops is concerned, a medium risk (according to a grid of low – medium – high risk) was estimated owing to stress from pests and diseases as well a shift in cultivation areas and agrophenological phases is to be expected to arise by the middle and towards the end of this century. The certainty of risk assessments regarding nearly all climate impacts ranges from medium to high. However, whether there will be any stress from pest organisms and diseases and also in respect of yield losses is subject to major uncertainties.

In future, conflicts regarding the utilisation of terrain and water will have a crucial influence on the framework conditions governing agricultural production.

Where do we have gaps in data and knowledge?

So far the DAS Monitoring Indicators have not managed to provide adequate illustrations of many relevant impacts of climate change on agriculture and horticulture. Despite regular agro-structural surveys, the data basis underlying some of the themes is just not adequate. Moreover, many business-related data (such as insurance data) are subject to data protection, or the assessment of data would have required major efforts (for instance regarding the documentation on the application of pesticides by agricultural businesses).

So far, agricultural damage resulting from floods, storms, droughts and late frosts have not been documented either systematically or nationally. This is due to the lack of high-resolution, comprehensive yield data from research, as well as the insufficient cover of agricultural multi-risk insurance nationwide which would make it possible to derive representative statements from insurance data. Even with a significant increase in the density of insurance cover, it will take several more years to make any statistically valid statements.

There are knowledge gaps regarding the quality of harvested products that can be affected by climate change impacts. Apart from heat and drought, CO₂ concentration also plays a role. It might reduce a plant’s nutritional value. As far as wheat is concerned, CO₂ concentration presumably also influences the baking quality. This subject is increasingly becoming a matter of scientific interest. Every year, the ‘Besondere Ernte- und Qualität- sermittlung’ (special survey of yield and quality data), is carried out in respect of agricultural businesses. As far as cereal crops and rapeseed are concerned, additional assessments are made regarding ingredients and processing properties. However, in order to interpret such data in the context of climate change, it would be necessary to have better access to data for research purposes and would also require more knowledge.

A particularly large knowledge gap exists in respect of climate change impacts on livestock farming. Especially with regard to animal health, there is a nationwide lack of data sources. Data collated by veterinary inspection offices, slaughter houses or even rendering plants cannot be retrieved and assessed centrally. Performance parameters – such as the actual milk yields achieved – can be interpreted in relation to specific weather events and weather patterns insofar as details are known regarding the pertaining animal husbandry. Analyses carried out within the framework of the 2021 KWRA demonstrate that the number of days with heat stress expected to affect dairy cows, pigs and poultry might be distinctly higher in future. Especially with regard to livestock kept indoors, it is not possible to make any statements on actual impacts as many byres, barns and pigsties are air-conditioned. Furthermore, improvements made to animal welfare are apt to counteract any adverse impacts from heat.

What’s being done – some examples

Agriculture provides numerous possibilities for responding to climate change. What is crucial is the choice of crop types and varieties (cf. Indicators LW-R-2, LW-R-3 and LW-R-4) as well as the type of management practised (cf. Indicators LW-R-1, and LW-R-5). Short-term adaptation in respect of permanent crops is more difficult, as in these cases provident business decisions have to be made a long time in advance. The situation is similar in respect of annual crop species, in cases where these require specific management techniques and associated investments or if they are bound up with specific processing and marketing structures. In fact, the installation of an irrigation infrastructure (cf. Indicator LW-R-6) also requires carefully considered investments, and not least, the availability of and access to water resources.

At Federal level, adaptation activities are aimed at improving the knowledge base available to agricultural businesses. With the establishment of Federal soil information systems and the enhancement of agricultural meteorological advisory services (including the Agricultural Meteorological Advisory Software AMBER), the objective is that agricultural businesses receive differentiated information. This information is intended to enable agricultural businesses to adapt their management in a more targeted way to changing conditions. In Mission 2 ‘Klimaschutz, Klimaanpassung, Ernährungssicherheit und Bewahrung der Biodiversität voranbringen’ (Advancing climate protection, climate adaptation, food security and the conservation of biodiversity), contained in the ‘Zukunftsstrategie Forschung und Innovation’ (Future strategy, research and innovation) adopted by the Federal government, a particular focus was placed on promoting plant research. Resistant varieties which are yield-assured even under drought conditions are required in order to safeguard global food security^{106, 106}. The support initiative entitled ‘Agricultural systems of the future’ is used by the BMBF for the development of new avenues to a sustainable design of agricultural production under the conditions imposed by climate change¹⁰⁷.

Agricultural aid is an important lever for use at Federal and Länder level. The new funding period of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) started in January 2023, after the two transitional years of 2021 and 2022. In accordance with the regulation laid down in the CAP Strategic Plan, each EU member state first had to submit its own CAP Strategic Plan in conformity with the framework adopted at EU level, which stipulates what the funding is to be used for. The BMEL developed this plan in close cooperation with Federal government departments, the Länder, associations and stakeholder groups. A new conditionality was introduced for the current CAP funding period. This conditionality relates to general basic requirements. It is incumbent on all agricultural businesses to fulfil these requirements, if they wish to obtain agricultural funding support. These basic requirements include the compliance with standards for the maintenance of good agricultural and ecological condition (GLÖZ Standards). These standards are intended to provide additional support for climate protection, as well as the adaptation to climate change, coping with numerous problems in respect of water, the protection of the soil and soil quality, and not least for strengthening biodiversity.

Likewise, the funding of ecological farming can support adaptation, as eco-farming practices include diversified plant cultivation systems, diverse crop rotation and continuous ground cover – all apt to strengthen the resistance and resilience of agricultural ecosystems. However, for agriculture to cope with climate risks, there is also a need for far-reaching change in respect of the markets and for the demand side to embrace changes in terms of product selection and pricing, not least because agricultural businesses will incur higher costs.

One approach to reduce economic risks in agriculture is the development and offer of insurance solutions that match requirements. By granting a significantly reduced tax rate of only 0.3 per mille of the amount insured in 2013, more favourable conditions for multi-risk insurance in agriculture have been established already. These conditions covered not only the risks of hailstorms but also tempests, severe frost, heavy rain and floods. In early 2020, the regulation was amended to include drought as a natural hazard. Given that the premiums for multi-risk insurance policies are mostly very high, there are now grants to assist with insurance policies available to agricultural businesses in several EU member states. In Bavaria, Baden-Württemberg, North Rhine-Westphalia and Thuringia there is currently funding available from Länder- or EU resources for multi-risk insurance policies, particularly in respect of special crops, which means that part of the insurance premium is paid from the public purse. Lower Saxony, along with Bremen and Hamburg, are planning to introduce such funding as of 2024.

^{106 - BMBF – Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung 2023: Zukunftsstrategie Forschung und Innovation. https://www.bundesregierung.de/breg-de/aktuelles/zukunftsstrategie-forschung-innovation-2163454 und https://www.bmbf.de/bmbf/de/forschung/zukunftsstrategie/zukunftsstrategie.html.}

^{107 - Informationen des BMBF zum Vorhaben „Agrarsysteme der Zukunft – gemeinsam gestalten“: https://agrarsysteme-der-zukunft.de.}