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

The technology of the moment is Artificial Intelligence ( AI ). News of its development is everywhere. The gathering opinion is that we are going to be made redundant or even worse, humanity will be eliminated. But there are certain areas in our lives that it will never replace.

Computers have become an integral part of our lives; they are in our bags and pockets. Over the decades software has been developed to cover every moment of the day and night from managing our money to finding a partner. AI is the latest development which is changing how we live and work. But AI works in a different way compared to the current technology. Normally a computer programmer writes an algorithm in software, which is a series of instructions, to solve a particular problem. When data is input into the algorithm it returns with an answer. An example is your bank account where the input data includes your salary and bills, then an algorithm is used to output the amount available that you can spend. AI, in a sense, programmes itself. It finds patterns in amongst very large amounts of data. Then when a questions is asked uses the patterns that it has found to match it up an answer. In the case of the latest version of AI, Generative AI such as ChatGPT, the computer takes more text than can be imagined, and works out the meaning of the words by looking at their context within sentences. When the user asks a question it will return with a written reply that looks as though you are having a conversation with ‘somebody’ the other side of the screen. The claim by most commentators about Generative AI is that it simulates human cognitive processes - learning, decision-making, problem-solving and even creativity. Hence the near hysteria in the media about the future of humanity. However, as the system is based on the quality of the data then there are many problems. The most obvious example is bias and prejudice, and the old maxim “rubbish in - rubbish out” still applies. However, I am sure that these problems will eventually be solved.

But there are areas of life that AI will never be involved:

[1] The first area is where rules are already in place for carrying out an activity. For example the rules to decide whether a mortgage application is granted. Replacing a rules based activity by AI would be a disaster. Image an AI system deciding whether it awarded you a mortgage based on how you asked it a question rather than based on your economic circumstances.

[2] Anything that requires practical knowledge such as repairing a toilet. When I asked ChatGPT how I could repair a leaking toilet it came back with a list of steps littered with American terminology that was of no use. Any practical problem, which covers many activities in life, then humans are still the best at solving them.

[3] Commentators suggest that AI can be used instead of teachers. However, how about learning a new practical skill to ride? For example, learning to ride a bicycle requires a lot of trial and error and eventually confidence is built up until we can confidently put our foot on the pedals and cycle off. I asked ChatGPT how would I learn to ride a bicycle and it came back with a list of unhelpful instructions.

[4] Because Generative AI is text based then picking up on emotional aspects e.g. Emotional Intelligence, is very limited. There are no technology solutions for AI to interpret emotions and therefore will not be a part of our emotional lives.

[5] One of the biggest threats discussed by commentators is that an AI system can reproduce creativity. I asked ChatGPT to write a piece about a current world event in the style of Jane Austen and it returned with the news from Higbury, a fictional town from her novel Emma. But as discussed above an AI system can only be as creative as the data that it has learned from. How would it use intuition or insight, to develop a new piece of work. Could AI write a universal song such as Woody Guthrie’s “This Land Is My Land”, or change the history of Art such as Picasso? Very difficult to imagine.

The increasing availability of computers has had an big impact on our lives. But there are key areas where AI will not replace us because of our unique human capabilities. Next time that you read, or hear about AI eliminating humanity, then test the claim by asking how it will fix your leaking toilet?

PS I asked ChatGPT “what are the limits of Generative AI?” and its reply confirmed many of the views described above.

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.