Over the years of cycling through the countryside I have seen many changes in farming practice. Recently I have picked up on a trend which could be the solution to the conflict between producing food and recovering biodiversity.

Cycling along the hilly Dorset lanes it is clear that there is a wide variation in the height and width of the hedgerows. They can range from what I call a ‘crew cut’, where they are cut to within an inch of their lives, to a ‘I need to get the job done’ when I usually get a puncture from the sharp thorns. Trees are dotted about the countryside, but their position looks random. It is all very haphazard. The current state of the hedgerows offer some habitat for the usual suspects: robins, blackbirds, sparrows and chaffinches. The trees are dominated by wood pigeons and crows. If I ever came across a yellow hammer I would fall off my bike in shock! Over the last two to three years I have seen more deer than rabbits, and I have yet to spot a hedgehog or fox. But what I am starting to see is that a few hedgerows are being laid which is where the hedge stems are laid at an angle to thicken their base which invigorates growth. I believe this is an early sign that some farmers and landowners are beginning to take hedgerow management seriously.

Traditional hedgerow management would have seen hedges laid every fifteen to twenty years. Laying the hedgerow encourages new growth at its base which is the ideal habitat for wildlife. Sometimes they would have been left to grow out and then be relaid. Otherwise they would have been trimmed by hand. This type of management lasted for centuries but it was labour intensive. Two factors changed hedgerow management: mechanisation of farming with the introduction of the flail mower and wire fencing. The flail mower is cheaper to use than hand trimming and by replacing hedgerows with wire fencing the maintenance costs are further reduced. Today the flail mower is controversial because they are used to keep the height of a hedge at the same level each year so that re-laying a hedge is no longer required.

Hedgerows have the potential to offer a home for a wide range of species. For example a study carried out on a hedgerow in Devon identified over 2000 species. The report also identified many factors that are involved in using the hedgerow for wildlife habitat such as: connection with the surrounding landscape, hedge structure, plant diversity and the ‘green-lane effect’ which is where farmland tracks with unsealed surfaces are bordered on each side by hedges. However, poorly managed hedgerows can have an adverse effect on wildlife. For example many over trimmed hedgerows create high canopies which leads to vegetation thinning at their base which is bad for hedgehogs.

There is a growing interest in hedgerow management with voluntary groups such as the The Great Big Dorset Hedge who work with farmers to facilatate the restoration of hedgerows across Dorset. The National Hedge Laying Society are dedicated to maintaining hedge laying skills for wildlife. And some individuals such as Adam Nigels have influenced government policy. Many wildlife organisations such as the People’s Trust for Endangered Species along with other groups who campaign for hedgehogs, doormice etc. actively promote good hedgerow management. The UK government through subsidies pay farmers to manage the hedgerows and their Envronmental Improvement Plan has pledged to support them to create or restore 30,000 miles of hedgerows a year by 2037 and 45,000 miles a year by 2050. But as I cycle around the countryside it is obvious that there is a long way to go before improved hedgerow management will recover biodiversity.

So what can be done? One suggestion is that groups of farmers could club together and create a new role for somebody to manage the wildlife on their farms using active hedgerow management. The aim would be to replace all fences by hedges and recover existing hedgerows. The individual’s role would include planning and managing the hedgerows with the aim of improving biodiversity on their farms. The role would coordinate their efforts with volunteer groups who are a great source of knowledge about hedgerows and wildlife. They would be ‘hands on’, we don’t need another layer of management, and include laying hedges and measuring biodiversity as part of their skills. ELMs and other government grants could pay for the role. If more government support was required then how about a ‘wildlife tax’ where all food processors and retailers are taxed as the produce leaves the farm gate and the money gathered would pay for the role described above?

We need to accelerate the recovery of biodiversity but maintain, and where applicable, improve food production. One of the best ways of doing this is to improve hedgerow management. It takes unproductive land which can be maximised for the recovery of biodiversity. But the improvement in hedgerow management needs to move from evolution to revolution if we are going to reverse the decline in biodiversity. The role described above would focus action on farms but the revolution needs to be ignited by us. If you have a hedgerow in your garden is it in the best shape to improve biodiversity? When you are out walking through the countryside do the hedges look like they are supporting a wide range of biodiversity? If not why not then contact a local group working on improving biodiversity e.g. your local wildlife trust, etc. and ask how you can help? If there are parks close to where you live, are the local authorities managing the hedges to maximise biodiversity? If not, contact your local councillor and ask why not. If you see a farmer you could have a chat about the obstacles that are preventing them from managing their hedgerows to get a better understanding of the problems that they face. Contact your local MP and ask them how the latest government initiatives will improve hedgerow management. If it isn’t going to improve biodiversity then ask them why they are wasting tax payers money. With a little bit of imagination and lots of determination we can all help to recover biodiversity and then maybe one day when I am out cycling I will see more yellow hammers than robins.

Each day there seems to be the launch of a new product claiming that it will change our lives. If computer technology is involved then the sales pitch stretches reality to breaking point. Apple’s latest product, Vision Pro fits neatly into this category. But will it really change our lives?

Vision Pro is the latest iteration in Augmented Reality ( AR ) which first saw the light of day at Harvard in 1968. The product consists of a headset that shows a mix of the real world and computer generated content. We are probably familiar with some of the technology’s ideas through its use on the web: superimposing different styles of spectacles onto a face or fit a sofa, or wallpaper onto a room in our homes. It has a lot of potential applications in a broad range of industries. But I suspect the thought of walking around wearing something the size of diving face mask will put most people off.

Manufacturers are trying to develop new products that can be labelled the ‘killer app’, a piece of software that we can’t live without which and which increases their profitability. Probably the best known killer app is the spreadsheet. It was launched in 1979 with the first product being VisiCalc on an Apple and then it was quickly followed by IBM on their PC with Lotus 1-2-3. Initially it was thought that accountants would be replaced by the spreadsheet but what happened was that it was the accounting clerks that were replaced by out sourcing the number crunching to the machine. Today there are probably more accountants than ever but it is because of other factors such as the increase in complex legislation and taxation.

However, there was a bigger impact in other areas such as Science and Engineering. The engineering company that I worked for took the bold step of buying one of the early PCs. It sat in our office for a few months with many people peering at it as they walked past. Until its arrival, I was using a large computer to carry out engineering calculations which could take between five minutes to many hours to complete a set of results. One day I switched it on and found Lotus 1-2-3. I started to play with it and discovered its potential in manipulating numbers. We quickly transferred most of the equations from the main computer to the spreadsheet and carried out the calculations in a matter of seconds. Many other companies spotted the spreadsheet’s potential and quickly adopted for other areas of Engineering and Science.

In general, the golden rule is that “software sells hardware”. The rule can be seen in action today with generative AI driving up the demand for advanced computer chips which will eventually bring their cost down and sophisticated AI applications will be as common today as spreadsheets. Any software product must meet three criteria: it solves an important problem ( in my case it was speeding up calculations so that we could improve our engineering designs ), it is easy to use, and is affordable. In the case of the spreadsheet, it had an initial high cost because PCs were around $2000 at the time, but the demand for it contributed to the reduction in computer costs which increased its affordability. Today, where there are numbers being used, there is usually a spreadsheet in the background.

But it is only when we look back that we can see that the spreadsheet was a piece of software that earned the label of being a ‘killer app’. And as any good philosopher will point out that there are no good arguments that the past can be used to predict the future. In the case of the spreadsheet, who in the late 70s would have predicted that it would rule the world of numbers?

Vision Pro has potentially many applications ranging from improved collaboration, entertainment and health. But AR is still trying to find a fundamental problem that would make it indispensable to how we live. In other words it is a ‘solution trying to find a problem’. Apple should drop its price, which is currently around $3,499, so that it is made more accessible to as many people as possible. Then maybe somebody will switch it on and invent an application that historians looking back will label a ‘killer app’.

Hacking through over grown footpaths while searching for signs of a route across the countryside can feel like being in the film Raiders of the Lost Ark. Do we need a new approach to making the countryside more accessible?

I find most footpaths close to a town and city have clear directions and accessible footpaths. The trouble starts when I stride out to explore the countryside. I have come across finger posts, the tall posts that point the way of the footpath, that have been decimated by hedge cutting equipment or knocked over, foot stiles that haven’t been repaired for years, and overgrown footpaths that are lost in amongst bramble bushes. Then there are the gates. Kissing gates, those that swing backwards and forwards, can be difficult to open and manoeuvre through with a buggy or wheelchair, and if you have to open a field gate then be prepared for some heavy lifting. Then the routes themselves can pose many challenges. The worst are those that go through people’s gardens, or through the middle of a farm yard, where you are usually greeted with a death stare or a barking dog. Often a planned route can be several miles from sensible parking and therefore a few miles have to be added to the walk which can turn the day into a major hike. Then there are footpaths that cross fields full of animals, in particular a bull. Although there is great advice in the The Countryside Code about crossing fields with animals, it is still too daunting for many and then a ‘re-route ‘ is required which can add more miles to the walk. All of these small challenges can take the enjoyment out of a day walking through the countryside.

It is not all bad. Some farmers try and help the walker. For example running tractor tracks across their fields to show the route direction. Sometimes they re-route the footpath around their farms to keep walkers clear from a busy farmyards and allow Premissive Pathways, which usually offer better routes across their farms. But they are the exception rather than the rule.

The future of footpaths are in trouble. A recent report describes over 32,000 places were blocked through lack of maintenance. Then there is the wider issue of losing ancient footpaths with all of their history. The UK Government recently announced it would be implementing a deadline of 2031 to save the 41,000 miles of lost paths in England. After that date we will no longer be able to claim rights of way in England based on historic evidence. Maintenance for public rights of way falls between local councils who should make sure the footpaths are kept in good order and the farmers who are responsible for keeping the footpaths clear. Both parties are strapped for cash and therefore footpaths are a very low priority.

But there is a strong case for making access to the countryside available to the wider population. The health benefits are many and are discussed daily in the media. They include improvements in physical health, wellbeing, reducing stress and improving sleep quality. The newly introduced Social Prescribing includes walking, and the UK government are trialling the effect of walking on peoples physical and mental health. With increasing demand for walking then there will be more pressure on farmers and local councils to make sure that footpaths are in good order. Rather than rolling their eyes they should look at it as a good opportunity to promote the countryside and farming in general.

Farmers are nearing the end of the Agricultural Transition Plan which is taking farming subsidies from Direct Payments where they are paid on the amount of agricultural land that they own to Environmental Land Management ( ELM ) where they will be paid public payment for public goods. Given the amount of press about the difficulty in implementing ELMs then there will probably be an ELMs 2.0 which would be the time to add more support for the farmers through additional payments to help manage the footpaths going across their land. Funding could be taken from the Office for Health Improvment and Disparities whose role is to improve the nation’s health, and moved to ELMs. One side effect would be to bring farmers closer together with their local communities as well as educate the wider public about the important role that they play in the life of the country.

Access to the countryside needs improving if more people are going to benefit from what the UK can offer. Some simple rule changes to farming subsidies, backed with some money, would make the benefits of walking through the countryside available to the wider population. In the future, rather than coming across people lost and confused about the route, I hope to find them excited about the wonderful countryside that the UK has to offer.

There is a lot of talk about biodiversity: politicians use the word to attract a few more votes, businesses use it to tick some boxes, farmers squeeze some small strips of land for to improve the wildlife, and celebrities wear it as a green badge. But are there any real signs of a recovery in biodiversity?

Biodiversity is a large and complex subject and therefore to keep this post short we will concentrate on a particular bird and use it as a thermometer to take the temperature of biodiversity. We will steer clear of the birds that are on BoCC Red List such as Bewick’s Swan or Dunlin because they already get lots of attention in the media. Instead we will use a bird that is on the amber list, which means that its population is in moderate decline, and find out what is in place to stop it slipping onto the red list. The bird that caught my eye was the small wading bird, the Common Snipe, or rather hasn’t caught my eye because I can’t remember ever seeing one. Over recent years its population has started to decline in the UK. The causes are many: improved land drainage, lowering of the water table, lower base river flows due to water abstraction and fragmentation of habitat which has isolated its populations making it more vulnerable. Common Snipe can be shot between early August to end of January, the shooting season, but it is unclear how much of an impact this is having on their population.

The best estimate of the Common Snipe population is about 80,000 breading pairs which can swell to over a million during winter. The UK population of Common Snipe has undergone a moderate decline in the past twenty-five years, with particularly steep declines in lowland wet grassland. Surveys in England and Wales revealed a decrease of 62% in breeding birds in wet meadows between 1982 and 2002. It is still quite common in the north of England so while it’s on the amber list, it is due to its decline in the south. On the Conservation of Threatened Species Red List, which looks at species population worldwide, its status is officially “of least concern”.

The UK Government has various legislation and policies in place to improve biodiversity. The Environmental Act 2021 includes a section on biodiversity with “species abundance target” by 2030 of “at least 10% higher than the overall relative species abundance index for 31st December 2030 (the specified date for the 2030 species abundance target).” But as the target will be set in 2030, when the population of the Common Snipe will have declined further, then there is little hope that it will have an effect on its recovery. In the The Environmental Targets (Biodiversity) (England) Regulations 2023 there is a range of documents on UK National Ecosystem Assessment and a Biodiversity Strategy 2020 but the implications for Common Snipe are unclear. More specifically, for farming the introduction of Environmental Land Management (ELM) does include the rejuvenation of wetland and costal habitats but only provides support for threatened species such as the Nightjar and Dartford Warbler, there is nothing for the Common Snipe. Overall, there seems to be little help from legislations, or government policies, to stop the Common Snipe’s population from slipping into conservatory status of red.

During the late 2000s the RSPB put a species recovery action plan in place but its success is not clear. Around about 2010s, most local councils had put biodiversity plans in place but their outcome has faded into silence. For example, Shropshire had a couple of efforts to improve their population of Common Snipe. However, they didn’t reply to my questions about the success of their plans ( I am assuming that silence means that nothing happened ). Most councils have a Biodiversity link on their web sites but it is to do with species protection as part of their planning process. But because the Common Snipe is a wetland bird, as expected, there is no mention about saving its habitat.

In conclusion biodiversity is ‘falling between many stools’ of various groups. The UK government produce lots of strategy documents, usually driven by estimates of species population from voluntary organisations, but the link to action plans is unclear. Local councils start initiatives to improve biodiversity but due to other priorities they are dropped by the way side. In specific cases where biodiversity is part of the planning process it is so vague that even the species at threat will struggle to survive. Volunteer groups, who are the backbone of the drive to improve biodiversity, lack enough resources to carry through any significant change. Farmers, who are in the middle of the transition from Direct Payment subsidies to ELMs, will probably loose sight of the species on the amber list such as the Common Snipe because of the complexity and constraints of the new payment system.

The Common Snipe is seen by most organisations as not being at risk and is either ignored or swept up in wider initiatives to improve the habitats for wader populations. A deeper understanding of the ecology of a species, for example the impact of predation, is at the trial-and-error stage of research and therefore it is difficult to predict how a particular bird population can be improved. Using the Common Snipe to measure the improvement in biodiversity in the UK then it is reading lukewarm!

Big thanks to the Royal Society For the Protection of Birds, British Trust for Ornithology, The Wildlife Trusts and the Countryside Alliance for taking the time to answer my questions.

Rather than writing another post about farming I decided to set myself a challenge. Could I write a strategy for faming that would fit onto a beer mat?

Farming is a complex activity which can range from the daily routine of feeding animals to making long term decisions about investing in new buildings and equipment. It is the first stage in an even more complex food chain that eventually delivers food, mainly via supermarkets, to our plates. Therefore trying to develop a strategy that can be scribbled on something the size of a beer mat would seem foolhardy. But if farming is ever going to have its fare share in the ongoing discussion about its future it needs to have a clear view on what it needs to achieve. The ‘strategy on a beer mat’ exercise forces this discussion to concentrate on what is really important rather than being pulled in different directions by the swirl of self-opinionated noise that fills the media.

Over many years farming has successfully developed and used a wide range of technology to increase food production. The technology is as diverse as the range of foods grown which includes mechanisation, fertilisers, herbicides, insecticides, animal medication and more recently the increasing use of robotics. But the cost has been a significant loss of biodiversity. Biodiversity is essential for a healthy ecosystem that we all rely on to provide us with the air we breathe and the food we eat. Also, due to farming systems and practices the health of the soil has suffered dramatically with some claiming that it only has enough fertility for about 40 harvests. Therefore the first line in the beer mat strategy is: recover the levels of biodiversity and soil health to pre-mechanisation levels.

The overriding issue that is facing us and the planet is the climate crisis. It is creating erratic weather conditions which are being experienced around the world. In the UK the seasons are changing with heavier rain during winter and longer dry periods during summer which are impacting on food production. The UK’s greenhouse gas emissions is around 1% of the total global output with countries such as China contributing to around 28%. The UK must do its bit to reduce its contribution to greenhouse gases but managing the climate crisis will depend on other countries and the signs of them getting to grips with the problem is not hopeful. Therefore UK farming has to be resilient to the changing seasons. It is against this background that the next line on the beer mat should be: farming systems and practices must adapt to the changing climate and weather patterns.

Switch on any news outlet and it is clear that geopolitics is having a fundamental effect on how countries work together. For example, the ongoing war in Ukraine has affected the export of grain resulting in major food security concerns for millions of people. The UK is about 60% self sufficient in food production and therefore what is happening in other parts of the world can disrupt the amount of imported and exported food. So the next line on the beer mat would be: farming to improve self sufficiency of food production to minimise disruption to imported food.

Some of you eagle-eyed readers will have noticed that the beer mat strategy is not explicit about the reduction in greenhouse gases. But the points in the strategy will reduce its production. For example, a reduction in the amount of fertilisers will have a reduction in the amount of greenhouse gases created in its production, transportation, and its application to the fields.

Farming does not sit in an isolated part of the food system. There are many forces that are outside of its control and this is where the UK government needs to take a more proactive role. The UK government has direct influence over farming through subsidies, which is about 10% of farmer’s income, and indirectly through policy and legislation. The beer mat strategy could be used to check the effectiveness of government policies such as Environmental Land Management (ELMs) or the government could pick up ideas that are being developed locally that meet the beer mat strategy to see how they could be used across the UK. Could the The Green Farm Collective, who are developing novel ways to invest in regenerative farming, be scaled across the UK through changes in government policy?

The targets that are described in the beer mat strategy are very challenging. Farming is at the root of how we live and if it should start to stumble, or even fall, then how we live will fundamentally change. Maybe those officials in the government who are responsible for farming should take a few farmers out for a beer and discuss how they can best work together to secure our futures.