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?

When money enters a discussion it quickly focuses peoples attention. Can a price be put on soil health?

By all accounts the health of our soil is declining to the point where it will be dead within two generations. The government is blind to the issue. The recent House of Lords’ proposal for a Land Use Commission to enable the development land use failed to address soil health which is critical for food production. Other initiatives such as the government’s Environmental Land Management ( ELMs ) concentrates on biodiversity and other related issues such as countryside recovery but there appears to be no tangible support for improving soil health.

The current food system is driven by markets i.e. how we spend our money on food, and demands that food is produced as cheaply as possible. Farmers are aware that the most important asset on their farm is their soil but they are under extreme pressure to meet this demand which undermines its long term health. Farming techniques centred on soil health have been growing over the years, such as organic farming and more recently regenerative farming but they remain a small percentage of land being farmed e.g. organic farming is about 3% of the total land farmed. However, both of these approaches increase the cost of food which will have consequences for us, something that politicians seem to be ignoring.

When a farm comes up for sale the quality of the land is mentioned using some form of classification; for example in England and Wales the Agricultural Land Classification is used, Scotland has the Land Capability for Agriculture and in Northern Ireland their classification system is from the Agri-Food and Biosciences Institute. But these approaches can be broad brush and don’t describe the soil’s health in any detail. Sometimes in a farm’s sale literature there is mention of the land’s productivity: higher the productivity of a farm then the higher its value. For example the avergae price of farmland in England during 2023 made more than £10,000/acre but the range can vary from £4,000/acre to a high of £16,100/acre. But using productivity is a crude way to value soil health. Productivity depends on the decisions being made about what will maximise profit which can vary dramatically from year to year.

What I am proposing is that soil health is a clearly defined asset that joins the traditional assets such as buildings and equipment which would let it be valued by market forces. Healthier soil would command a higher price when sold. Unhealthy soil would be at a lower price but would be an opportunity for buyers to improve its health and increase its value. To achieve this, a better way of measuring soil health could be added to the current ways of surveying land. Robotics could be used to measure and analysis soil samples quickly and new statistical techniques could be used to assess a field from a small number of measuring points, using techniques from other industries,
therefore reducing the costs of the survey. The measurement of soil health could be repeated every five years, or before a farm was being sold, to assess the level of improvement. The land on a farm could then be classified and its value determined by the market. Higher the classification then the higher its value. Even a British Standard could be established so that there was consistency in soil health assessments.

Based on the current predictions of the decline of soil health the only conclusion that can be drawn is that most attempts at addressing the problem are failing. There seems to be no government support in tackling soil health. Linking soil health to markets through a new classification system would incentivise its improvement. Maybe there will be a time in the future when soil will be as valuable as oil or gas!

Standing in the middle of a local wood wondering how it could be managed to recover its biodiversity, a thought suddenly came to mind - is there any help from the UK government? Trying to answer the question proved to be as complex as the habitat I was standing in.

As a tax payer I am always interested in where our money is going. The decision about how it is spent is down to politicians and civil servants; I have very little say. One area that I am interested in is how much of tax payer’s money is being spent on recovering the UK’s badly depleted biodiversity. When a £25 m Species Survival Fund was announced, I was intrigued about how much of the money was going to reach the frontline of nature conservation. What was behind my interest is a simple question: for every pound that the government spends how much of it actually gets to the people who are working hard to try and save our biodiversity? For example, it costs HMRC just under one pence to collect and redistribute our money. For £1 taken in tax, 99p is available to go onto the next stage in its expenditure but how much actually gets to the frontline - is it 75p, 50p, or less? There are three broad questions: how is funding allocated to particular problems, how much of every pound announced actually gets to the people on the frontline, and once it get there how well is it being spent?

To help navigate through the different legislation and funding involved in recovering a species I chose the Dormouse as the test case - how much is actually being spent on improving its habitat. Dormice are a key indicator species; where they occur the habitat is usually very suitable for a wide range of other species. They are also particularly sensitive to habitat and population fragmentation, so their presence is an indication of habitat integrity. The dormouse is protected by law but how effective prosecutions are is unclear. It is reported in the The State of Britain’s Dormice 2023 that Hazel dormice have undergone a long decline in Britain and monitoring of populations in established woodlands shows a continuing decrease in its population. Between 2000 and 2022, the National Dormouse Monitoring Programme shows that the population has fallen by 70 per cent. Therefore, the dormouse is a good case to follow the money from the tax payers pocket to improving its habitat.

The first step was to work through the The Environmental Targets (Biodiversity) (England) Regulations 2023 ( part of Environmental Act 2021 ) which has the aim of reducing the risk of a species extinction by 2042. At the heart of the legislation is an index that will monitor its progress. However, the act assumes there are around 40,000 different native species in the UK, but the index only covers about 20% of them. Checking the index there is no mention of the dormouse therefore any funding via this route will be zero.

I am assuming, because it is not clear, that Species Survival Fund is part of the government’s efforts to achieve its biodiversity targets. Over the last few years the government has announced various funds such as an £80m The Green Recovery Challenge Fund but when I contacted the organisations involved in managing how it was spent, in particular its impact on species recovery I was deafened by silence. I am assuming that silence means that the money spent had no impact on species recovery.

Armed with the experience of how previous spending was managed, I worked through the details of the Species Survival Fund where I found that it was managed by the National Lottery Heritage Fund who have a broad criteria for distribution of the money and very little about specific species. Further searching found that my local Wildlife Trust received about £1m. They are going to spend it on projects that include: dry and wet heathland scrapes, wetland creation, willow coppicing, creation and restoration of ponds, reintroductions of Ladybird spider, Sand lizard and Marsh clubmoss, woodland ride and glade creation, and the construction of a bat roost. There is no specific action to recover Dormice but it is part of their on going operations.

Funding can come indirectly through other organisations such as Natural England, ELMs, DEFRA etc. At the local level Dorset has a Local Nature Strategy. But when I contacted them for specific information about species recovery, you guessed it, more silence!

Summarising what I have found out so far about the the position of the dormouse; there appears to be no tax payer’s money directly reaching people on the frontline to help with the recovery of its habitat, either from national or local government. Any work that is being carried out is being done on the broad shoulders of charities and volunteers. In general, there are so many organisations involved in managing the money towards the frontline that by the time that they have had their cut then the tax payers pound will be considerably reduced but by how much is unclear. If I was a struggling dormouse settling down to hibernate, I will be dreaming about another difficult year!

PS: Big thanks to the Secretary of State for DEFRA who along with his colleagues answered some of questions about the effectiveness of government funding for species recovery which will help with future posts on this subject. If any of organisations mentioned above reply to my questions then this post will be updated.