There is nothing more disheartening than walking along a river that is dying. It is muddy, littered with rubbish and barely moving. In the UK we have have developed many ways to strangle the life out of rivers.

Fish are the best indicator of the health of a river. In good health it supports sustainable populations by providing: a good supply of food, air to breath ( yes - fish need oxygen ), areas to breed and hide from predators. Of all of the fish species that a river can support the wild brown trout is the gold standard. In the UK their population is in a steep decline. Data from the Office for National Statistics indicates that the number of rod-caught trout in the UK has steadily declined by 51% between 1994 and 2019.

The health of a river depends on a number of factors. Currently, pollution is the headline grabber in the shape of sewage discharges. It introduces pathogens and excess nutrients into a river. Pathogens can cause fin rot, ulcers, gill disease, and systemic infections that weaken immunity and reproductive failures. Still under the heading of pollution is agricultural runoff from fertilizers, pesticides and animal waste that cause eutrophication and algal blooms. Eutrophication is a process where a body of water becomes excessively enriched with nutrients which can lead to plant die-offs, harming species like water crowfoot and pondweeds as well as affecting invertebrates. If that was not enough then there is industrial pollution with chemicals and heavy metals. Finally litter such as plastic bags and sacks, old tyres, paint cans, wood, fridges, bicycles, bottles and the infamous supermarket trolley.

The next factors is land use and recreation. Urbanisation increases more concrete which means less natural absorption, increasing surface runoff and pollution. Deforestation and poor land management reduces natural filtration and increase sediment in rivers. Drainage and canalisation changes to natural river courses alter flow patterns and habitats. Then there is us. Anglers gear, if not properly cleaned, can introduce spores and larvae and other invasive species. Swimming can introduce contamination from sunscreen and insect repellents, and disturb sediment and habitats. It’s a similar situation with dogs, pathogens can be introduced from their pooing and peeing when they swim in a river. Also, the use of flea deterrents can be harmful to insects living in the river.

If the above factors are not enough then there is water abstraction. Excessive water is removed for agriculture, industry, or public supply which lowers river levels and harms aquatic life. The list continues with invasive species of non-native species like American signal crayfish or Himalayan balsam which disrupt local ecosystems and outcompete native species.

Finally, the factor that affects us all is climate change. Increased global temperatures affect oxygen levels in a river which impacts on the ability of fish to breath. The increasing frequency of droughts reduce river flow, concentrate pollutants, and shrink habitats. More intense storms cause flooding and spread pollution.

Reducing the impact of one of these factors is an important step but they all have to be addressed at the same time if a river is going to return to full health. For example, if pollution from sewage discharges was totally eradicated and the rest of the factors stayed the same then there is no guarantee that a river will recover full health. Next time you are asked to support an organisation that is going to tackle one of these factors, ask them how the other factors will be affected. It won’t be until their elimination is coordinated that the wild brown trout will return to all of our rivers.

Reversing the decline in biodiversity is a very complex problem. Most attempts are either struggling to improve the situation or have failed. Part of the problem comes from trying to piece together all of the issues that surround biodiversity such as legislation, government policy, and economics in a way that any actions can have an impact. AI is the latest tool that can cut through this complexity so that actions can be targeted.

AI can be used to summarise a complex information about a situation. For example, I asked ChatGPT to find all of the legislation relating to the protection of insects. Surprisingly, it returned several pieces of legislation that I had never heard of such as the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 and The Bees Act 1980. My follow up question asked if there had been any prosecutions under any of the legislations and it brought back a few cases. I then asked about the leading dragonfly experts in the UK and again it returned with several names and their contact details. In a matter of a few minutes I had pulled together a useful overview of some of the issues involved in the protection of insects in the UK.

There are limits to AI. The quality of the answers will only be as good as the data it has been trained on which may include biases. Also, the accuracy of the answers that are returned will depend on how the questions are being asked - vague questions will return vague answers.

An improvement to AI would be the ability to set up realtime monitoring of an area of interest so that the user is kept up to date with any changes in its situation. A welcome development in ChatGPT is that it includes the latest news for an area of interest. For example, the questions that I was asking on insects, it displayed an article from the Guardian about the Government’s Biodiversity Net Gain scheme and its progress after one year.

The recovery of biodiversity is a complex problem that will probably not have a complete solution because the situation will depend on compromises between food production, demand for housing, the management of climate change, reducing pollution and many other issues. However, AI is a powerful tool that can be used to manage the complex information around biodiversity so that campaigns can be more effective in improving weak conservation policies and the lack of enforcement laws.

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!