There’s growing concern that the decline in nature will have an adverse effect on the UK’s financial system. But managing this risk is based on a flawed analysis.

The UK government has started to wake up to the decline in nature because of its affect the stability of the financial system. In a recent letter from the UK Chancellor of the Exchequer, to the Governor of the Bank of England it was stressed that the climate and nature crisis is the greatest long-term global challenge that the UK faces and that it should be included in their analysis of risk to the financial stability of the country. Along with government concerns there is a growing consultancy industry with companies whose names include ‘Nature Capital’ or ‘Green Finance’, which is a sign that the topic is slowly moving up the country’s political and business agendas.

Nature Capital, as defined by the ONS, is “ … comprised of all the ecosystem services that UK natural assets provide; natural assets include soil, air, water and all living things.” The UK’s nature capital has declined by 10% between 2010-2018. However, most definitions of nature capital are riddled with problems. For example, the United Nation’s Ecosystem Accounting, which are guidelines to developing an accounting system for nature, is over 400 pages long and is too abstract to be of any practical use. Another problem is that the value of a capital asset such as machinery depreciates over time through its use in making products. Nature is a living asset whose health has declined through farming practices and therefore the decline needs to be reversed if it is going to sustain the next generation.

Underlying most speeches about nature capital is the The Dasgupta Review which tried to identify the economic value of nature. But like most things it tends to focus on the big things such as trees and water which are easy to value because we already consume them in some form. The smaller things, that are difficult to see and we don’t consume, only get a few passing comments in the report. For example, checking the report for my favourite species - insects - they get a mention in a few sentences to illustrate that some natural assets move about. Insects are at the bottom of the food chain but a world without them would mean it would be severely depleted. For example, it takes 200,000 insects to raise a swallow chick to adulthood. Insects also break down plant matter and help recycle nutrients into the soil. Without any insects at all, most bird and amphibian species would be extinct in about two months. Without insects, we could still grow many foods, but onions, cabbage, broccoli, chillies, most varieties of tomato, coffee, cocoa and most fruits would be off the menu. So would sunflower and rapeseed oil.

The fundamental flaw in the approach of capitalising nature is that it takes no account of biodiversity. As the financial system starts to concentrate on the parts of nature that we consume, biodiversity will be left behind and continue to decline. The government should face up to the problem rather than passing it around and create positive policies for biodiversity - then take action before it is too late!

I’ve always been sceptical about the use of visions, and subscribed to Germany’s Chancellor, Helmut Schmidt’s, opinion that “anyone who has visions should go to the doctor”. However, I recently came across one that could be useful for thinking about the future of farming and food production.

I have already written about bringing farming back onto the table as a central part of any discussions about the future of the UK’s food production. However, once on the table what about its future? Type ‘vision for farming’ into the web and there are pages full of visions which read more like prescriptions to keep farming on life support rather than setting it off on a healthy path. Even the government has had a go. In 2020 the then Secretary of State For Environment, Food and Rural Affairs produced a vision for future farming which describes how Brexit will give farming the kick start it needed to tackle the twin challenges of ‘climate and nature crisis’. For all of the visions that have been produced there is very little sign of anything happening. Maybe Chancellor Schmidt was right!

Recently, I came across a vision from Nelson Mandell: “Action without vision is only passing time, vision without action is merely day dreaming, but vision with action can change the world.” What changed my scepticism about visions is that this one includes the word action. If you look at any of the current visions for farming and food production then they all fall into the first two categories of wasting time and wishful thinking.

A vision for faming and food production should be strong enough to last a few generations. However, it is nearly impossible to predict what will be happening next week never mind 30 or 60 years ahead. Therefore, to give a vision longevity, it needs to be supported by some underlying principles that will maintain it through an unpredictable future. For example, farming should minimise its footprint on the environment. This principle can then be used to test any current, or future, government policies. If it doesn’t meet it then it should be revised until it does. I’m sure that there are other underlying principles that can be adhered too and maintained for many generations.

Whatever the vision for farming, if it is not backed up with actions then it is not much more than muddy thinking, or worse political slogans and deserves what Great Thunberg would label as blah blah blah. Farming is much more important than political posturing. How about over the next family meal, or a coffee with friends, you spend a few minutes developing a vision for the future of food production which is built upon underlying principles for farming, develop a few sensible actions, and stick it on social media with the hash tag #futureofourfood - let’s see what happens?

Farming gets a mixed press. On one hand they play a critical role in the UK’s food security and then on the other, they are seen as major contributors to climate change and destroyers of biodiversity. In between, it has a chocolate box image of lambs skipping over green rolling hills. Whatever your view farming is fundamental to all our lives and therefore we need a mature discussion about its future.

To demonstrate farming’s importance let’s conduct a thought experiment. If we take all of the politicians, business leaders, celebrities and any one else in a position of authority and hire several cruise ships to send them on a holiday around the world - what would happen to the rest of us? Probably not a lot. Life would go on. However, if we took all of the farmers and sent them on a well deserved cruise around the world how long would it take for our lives to fall apart? I suspect that before the ships had left the harbour panic buying would clear the supermarket shelves, and within a few weeks society would start breaking down as we all search for food!

At the heart of our reliance on farming is what economists call ‘the surplus’. Humans have been farming for about one-twentieth of their time on earth. Before that they lived as hunter gatherers. Then suddenly about five thousand years ago, in the neighbourhood of Jerico, there was a village where farming started. Crops were grown rather than gathered from the wild and animals could be husbanded instead of hunted or herded. For the first time, food for all of the people could be provided by some of the people. There was a surplus. The surplus has continued to grow allowing more and more people to do other things such create economies, develop culture and raise armies, along with major milestones such as the industrial and now the digital revolution. As the surplus has increased we have become more remote from the production of food to the point that it seems that access to it is like turning on a tap.

It is important for all of us that healthy food reaches our plates at a fair price. Economists tell us that the UK is a mixed economy which is a balance between a free market and legislation. I can walk into any café I choose and buy any coffee I want but it has to comply with a complex set of legislations. Farming is part of a complex food system that is driven by us, the market, when we buy our food. But famers are on the horns of a dilemma: we want food as cheap as possible but they must make a profit if they are going to survive. This is against a wall of legislation, adapting to climate change and increasing pressure to recover lost biodiversity.

How food is produced and delivered is a problem that faces us all and therefore it is firmly on the government’s desk. But past performance of the governments has been dismal. For example, Henry Dimbleby’s National food Strategy developed clear arguments and solutions to solving farming’s dilemma but it was kicked into the long grass. It could have been used to start an informed discussion about farming’s future. There are many other initiatives that have put put in their bottom drawer and are gathering dust. Next time you bump into your MP ask them how they are going to guarantee that the food on your plate is healthy, at a fair price and recovers biodiversity. If you get a reply then please let me know.

The UK produces about 60% of its own food with the rest being imported. Every farmer supports around 370 non-farming people which is a big load for them to carry. Why don’t we take all of the discussions, initiatives and policies that we have had about farming over the past tens of years and convert them into actions to make their load more bearable? As you sit down to your next meal have a thought about how precariously the meal has arrived on your plate. Let’s hope that farmers don’t go on holiday!

Dear Wildlife Trusts,

We enjoyed your daily updates from COP16. It was clear from all the people involved that there was a lot optimism about the recovery of biodiversity around the world. However, as mentioned several times during the updates, there needs to be less talking and more action.

The Wildlife Trusts have taken an important step by using the Global Diversity Framework and applying it to the UK. However, I feel that your report - Local to Global - lacks bite. Therefore I would like to make a few comments that I hope you will consider to improve its impact.

I am sure that you are aware that to achieve any target it needs to be clearly defined, have realistic timescales with enough money and people in place to achieve its success. But the most important element is a clear line to the person who is responsible for reaching the target. Unfortunately, many of the targets set in your report lack these elements and therefore their impact on biodiversity in the UK is uncertain. Could you revisit them and improve their detail?

The word ‘sustainability’ is used throughout the report but it is never defined. This is a common problem. For example, does it mean that the population of a species is large enough to survive predation and increasingly climate change? Maybe the Wildlife Trust could pioneer a clear definition?

Many of the targets to be delivered land on the desk of the government who are notorious at saying lots but doing very little. Are you prepared to put pressure on the government by taking them to court if they fail to meet the targets set in legislation for biodiversity?

The section covering the activities of business is very light. Business has a big impact on biodiversity mainly from their supply chains. The international consultancy company Bain & Company have produced a report called The Nature and Biodiversity Playbook for Business which is a good start. But could the Wildlife Trusts develop it further so that it can be used as part of legislation where it was mandatory for a business to assess its impact on biodiversity?

In the UK there are many positives about biodiversity that can be built on. For example, as discussed during COP16, the UK is pioneering initiatives such as ELMs where part of the government payments are being used to improve the management of biodiversity. Other positives, include farmers applying techniques such as regenerative farming that is improving biodiversity. Consumers are becoming more aware of the impact their buying habits are having on the environment. But there is no clear link between their spending and its impact specifically on biodiversity. Could the Wildlife Trusts start a campaign to increase their awareness of their impact on biodiversity?

In the UK, biodiversity is a reluctant add-on to the broader activities to combat climate change. Most of the government’s legislation about the environment squeezes in a few vague lines about biodiversity. The situation is worse with businesses where there is no mention of biodiversity at all in their annual reports. Now is the time for The Wildlife Trusts to take action and move biodiversity into the centre of the UK’s overall management of climate change.

Over 35 years ago a British Prime Minster took to the podium at a prestigious United Nations General Assembly meeting and delivered a warning about the oncoming global crisis. Was anybody listening?

When Margaret Thatcher gave her speech in 1989 the world was in a different place. The threat of global annihilation from a nuclear war had receded due to a thaw in the Cold War. But a fundamental threat to human survival was gathering pace, the global environment. Today, major conflicts have returned with the shadow of nuclear warfare looming: the on-going war in Ukraine and a possible miscalculation in the Middle East war. However, the deterioration in the global environment is beginning to reach a point where climate change maybe taking on a self-sustaining or ‘runaway’ quality which will become irreversible.

Mrs Thatcher used her background in science to drive home the points about the threat to the global environment. For example, climate change is dependent upon human activity and therefore linked to population. Since the time of her speech, the global population has increased by 3bn, around 60%, and by the year 2050 it is estimated that it will level off at about 10bn which is about double the population since 1989. The increase in human activity has resulted in the global temperature increasing by just under 1 °C since the UN meeting. Today, the lower global temperature threshold of 1.5 °C, set by COP21, has been breached for a full 12 months.

Many problems related to the environment are local. Mrs Thatcher mentioned that the UK had a target to recycle household waste by 50% by 2000. We have failed to hit that target. Currently, the average recycling across the UK is 46%. She also called for a reduction in vehicle emissions, one of the largest contributors to green house gases, which is happening but very slowly. The UK’s deadline for zero emissions has slipped from 2030 to 2035. She felt that farming should be encouraged “to reduce the intensity of their methods and to conserve wild-life habitats” but based on the current mishmash of government policies and data on species population the natural environment in the UK continues to deteriorate and remains the most depleted in the world.

Amongst the solutions that Mrs Thatcher discussed was to strengthen global institutions rather than adding more, and greater support for poorer nations. Over the last 35 years there has been little implementation of her solutions. One of the organisations that she mentioned was the World Meteoroligal Organisation whose budget has remained flat over the last 35 years, but due to inflation, it has reduced in real terms. A similar story for poorer nations. The UK has been committed to 0.7% of Gross National Income (GNI) for foreign aid since 2013 but in 2020 it was reduced to 0.5%.

Although Mrs Thatcher called for “multinationals to take the long view” most of them have returned to short termism and concentrate on maximising profits for their shareholders. Although customers are more aware of environmental issues, in general, the markets are using ‘greenwashing’ to increase their profitability. Markets should be regulated by governments so that profit maximisation is not to the detriment of the environment. A clear example of weak regulation is the UK water industry which has lead to severe river pollution.

Towards the end of Mrs Thatcher’s speech she offered a few rays of hope based on reason and science. Reason for everyone to accept the scale of the problem and act on solutions that must be developed through a deeper scientific understanding about life on the planet.

One year after her speech, Mrs Thatcher was out of office. She was a controversial figure and left behind a mixed legacy. But her speech to the United Nations Assembly remains the best summary of the threats to the global environment ( to read the full speech click here ) and provides a framework for any future action. Nobody was listening 35 years ago. Maybe those who want our votes in the future should read her speech and explain how they are going to tackle the problem before we put a cross in their box?