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.

Although I claim to be a fly fisherman I probably spend more time trying to locate a trout rather than hooking it. From years of studying the life of a trout, what I’ve learned can be applied to any other species that is facing extinction.

To catch a trout takes many years of listening to and watching experts on the subject, reading lots of books and spending many hours, if not days, standing on a river bank. There are many factors that have to be pulled together before a cast can be made: how fast is the river flowing, its colour, height, width, the condition of the river bed, the time of year including the time of day, weather conditions such as temperature, wind direction, cloud cover, the list goes on. All of this information can be pulled into four criteria: oxygen levels ( yes they can drown! ), easy access to food, a place to hide from predators and conditions to breed. Using this information I try to locate likely areas where a trout might be, then I can wait for many of minutes to see if it moves, or in may cases, not. If it does then I am ready to cast a fly. The criteria that I use for trout fishing can be adapted for other species and in particular those many species that are in decline in the UK.

However, there is a deeper connection between the different criteria, which is that one species depends on other species for its survival. Take food for example. Trout primarily eat invertebrates that live in the river or lake, or drop on to the water from trees and plants on the banks. Some favourite trout food includes mayflies, caddis flies, stone flies, as well as worms, freshwater shrimp and if the trout is large then other fish. Low lying trees and roots in the river bank give cover for trout to hide from predators such as otter, mink, cormorants, ducks and other fish such as pike. However trout like many other fish are under threat from pollution in the river both from agriculture and sewage, damage to riverbanks from cattle and dogs accessing the river, and severe weather conditions driven by climate change which have been created by us. Pick any species and the criteria used for trout can be applied whether it is for a sustainable population of yellow hammers or hedgehogs.

The current approach to halting the decline, or the re-introduction of a species, is to concentrate on a key species and if their numbers appear to increase then it is assumed that the habitat is enough to sustain its population. But its introduction can have a detrimental impact on other species. For example, when Grayling were introduced on some of the chalk streams in southern England, so that that fishing could continue during the closed season for trout, they ate a lot of the trout’s food which resulted in a reduction in their population. When we put initiatives in place to halt the decline of a species there appears to be no assessment of its impact on other species.

Our level of understanding of the natural world is at the qualitative level: we understand which species relies on others e.g. the food chain for a red kite includes mice, voles, young hares, rabbits and carrion. But we have no quantitate level of understanding. For example, how many mice are required to form a healthy diet for a red kite, or if there is not enough mice available, then what would a balanced diet look like? We need a more accurate way of quantifying how one species relies on others. This would give a clearer picture that can be used for managing one species impact on others. It will require new measurement techniques to gather data about different species that will give us important insights into the inter-relationship and new statistical techniques to analyse the data. Maybe some government money could be diverted into developing a better science about the natural world? Let’s hope there will be a future when trout will return to our rivers in large numbers in such a way that their population will be sustainable for future generations.

Over the years I have read about, and in some cases contacted, many organisations about their work on the environment. All of them are doing great work and usually against major challenges. But it struck me that if we summed up all of their efforts, would the UK achieve its environmental goals, and would it be in time?

The landscape has changed over the last couple of centuries as we have increased food production for a growing population which has pushed many species into near extinction. The increase in population has required housing which has added to lack of space for nature. All of this has brought the UK to the point where it is one of the world’s most nature-depleted countries. A similar picture can be drawn from over fishing around our shores. Added to this, we are leaving a trail of pollution behind us whether it is plastic in the oceans, overfilling landfills or sewage in our rivers. And with the increasing use of coal, oil and gas over the last one hundred years we have been pumping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere which is starting to bite us back with severe weather changes. Within these major environmental problems there are the on going social, political and economic problems as well as the wider issues such as trading with other countries and our security in an increasingly volatile world.

In the UK there are many groups tackling some of these problems: government departments at the local and national levels, supermarkets, unions, voluntary organisations, MPs, NGOs and individuals. For example, the Wildlife Trusts are providing a sanctuary for our remaining biodiversity and other groups have successfully re-established species such as the Roy Dennis Wildlife foundation’s re-introduction of the white-tailed eagle. Another aspect is the quality of food that we are producing and eating and its impact on our health which has been highlighted in Henry Dimbleby’s National Food Strategy and although its recommendations have not been implemented it keeps shining a light on a major problem. Supermarkets are trying to reduce waste and packaging with mixed results. The UK government has various plans in place to transition to renewable energy with some success. For example, December 2023 was the 15th month in a row where zero-carbon generation produced more than fossil fuel generation. In other countries, governments are trying to meet The Paris Agreement such as Australia who have passed a Climate Change Act and joined 27 other nations to have legislated to its net zero targets. And there are successful global initiatives such as the Prince of Wales’ Earthshot Prize. The list could go on.

What is missing is how all the pieces fit together and will the overall effort be enough to solve the many problems outlined above? For example, how can a transition to renewable energy reduce poverty? The Joseph Rowntree Trust has produced an excellent report We can solve poverty in the UK that includes a five-point plan. But the plan doesn’t mention the environment or how using the environmental transition could lift people out of poverty through for example new skills and jobs. A similar criticism can be pointed at The Big Issues’ Blueprint for Change which mentions the environment but gives no detail how it can be used to reduce poverty. Other issues facing the UK and the environment are missing: could the UK’s poor productivity be improved through decarbonising the current industries? Or, as geopolitics becomes more volatile, how can an integration of the UK defence and foreign policy use environmental recovery to influence other countries?

Although the date of 2050 has been set to achieve net zero emissions whatever happens before then will be ‘baked in’ and work will be needed to adapt the way that we live to meet the changes that are inevitable. We have enough technology to make a dent in some of the problems but new solutions are required, for example putting environmental friendly packaging in our supermarkets. Wider issues such as changes in behaviours are slowly working through to customers who are increasingly more aware of environmental issues. But more work is needed to turn this awareness into action so that their purchasing power changes the behaviours of the supermarkets. Now to the more difficult parts. Globally, countries have different challenges and therefore there will be different issues. However, it is not clear how fitting all of their solutions together will have an overall effect in reducing greenhouse gases and species recovery. Finally, getting everybody to agree on what actions need to be taken is proving very difficult. For example, at the global level, just witness the struggles the various COP sessions are having in getting any significant agreements.

The recovery of the environment should not be seen as another problem that is prioritised against the other problems that the UK is facing. When we do something whether as a consumer, farmer, business leader, politician etc. we should be asking “how can this recover the environment?” What is needed is a new way of looking at the problems, and pulling together so that the jigsaw pieces start to fit in enough time to save us and the environment.

Digging below the entertainment of Clarkson’s Farm successful third series, a fundamental problem can be found that will affect us all. But will we have enough time to find a solution?

The TV series Clarkson’s Farm shows how difficult it is for his farm Didley Squat Farm to make any money. Over the three series, Jeremy and the rest of his team have tried to develop new income streams such as: a farm shop, restaurant, growing different crops, farming sheep and cattle, at the same time as improving bio-diversity. But at each attempt he ran into various problems including layers of of bureaucracy.

During the recent series, a competition was set up between Jeremy and his side kick Kaleb Cooper. Kaleb had to maximise the profit from the arable side of the farm, and Jeremy was to make money from the non-productive areas of the farm such as the wood. Included in Jeremy’s new income streams were breeding pigs in the wood, rearing goats to clear overgrown areas of the farm which would then be rented out to other farmers for a similar use, and grow mushrooms in what looked like an an old air raid shelter.

During one of the episodes Andy Cato of Wildfarmed discussed the adverse effect of the current faming practices on the health of the soil, and at best it had about two generations of harvests left. He described the principles of regenerative farming and how it will improve the health of the soil. The term regenerative farming has been increasingly used since the 1980s, but it is only in the last 10 years that it has gained a higher profile through various campaigns. As the name suggests, it is an approach to farming that, in theory, allows the land, the soil, water, and nutrients to recover through different cropping approaches. To test the principles, a small plot on Didley Squat was sown with a mix of grain and beans. The beans were included to improve the nitrogen levels in the soil and therefore reduce the amount of artificial fertiliser. During the last episode the results from the plot were pulled together and although the crop yield was down the inputs such as fertiliser were lower and therefore the plot made a profit. Which is good news for farmers. I was interested in how much the health of the soil had recovered so I contacted Wildfarmed but I have received no reply. However, checking other peoples work in the area such as Gabe Brown, although the health of the soil will return after many years of regenerative farming the yield never fully returns to that produced by current farming techniques. So here is the problem: if regenerative farming was scaled up across the UK then the yield would be down, and if the demand for the crops stay constant then the price will go up resulting in increased food prices. So to save our soil, food prices will go up.

If we are going to find a balance between improving the health of our our soil and increased food prices then a discussion will be needed between three different groups: famers, the government and us, the consumer. For example, as food prices go up the government could reduce the import tariffs on grain which would bring food prices down but that would reduce the profitability for farmers. Another approach the government could take is to stimulate economic activity so that there is more money in our pockets to pay for the higher prices. But given their performance over the last ten to twenty years I am not hopeful. Of course they could increase taxes and improve farming subsidies but that is not a vote winner. Similarly farmers would face lots of challenges. Although their profitability may improve using regenerative farming there is the ongoing impact of climate change which will make the growing of any future crops difficult. Then there is us, the consumer. If we changed our eating habits and reduced our meat consumption then less grain would be fed to animals, which is expensive way to produce food. For example, it has been calculated that a 15% reduction in meat consumption across the EU would have nulified the global grain shortage caused by the war in Ukraine. But all of these questions, and I’m sure there are many more, will need lots of discussion to thrash out the best action to be taken.

From my experience, Clarkson’s Farm gives the viewer the most accurate view of the struggles of farming in the UK. Scaling up of regenerative farming which is required to save our soil will require a constructive discussion and agreement between farmers, politicians and us the consumer. It is going to take tens of years for the health of the soil to fully recover which is time that the soil probably hasn’t got therefore the discussions need to start now!

PS After I wrote this post I came across a document with the same title Saving Our Soils which is part of the Soil Association’s campaign to raise awareness of soil health. It gives a seven point plan to address soil health and is well worth a read. They are also running a campiagn where individuals can pledge to improve the health of soil - so show some support and give it a click