A workshop which brought together economists and ecologists, and organised by the Natural Capital Initiative, took place yesterday at Charles Darwin House. The aim of the event was to facilitate conversation between experts of the two disciplines to discuss how to integrate the knowledge of the participants to inform decision making. The workshop focused on a case study of sustainable agriculture and attracted about 50 economists and ecologists altogether.

The event was chaired by Peter Costigan from Defra and started with a welcome note from the Chief Executive of NERC, Professor Duncan Wingham. To stimulate discussion, the morning continued with keynote presentations focusing on methods of incentivising farmers to adopt environmentally sustainable agricultural practices; Professor William Sutherland of the University of Cambridge provided the ecological perspective, and Professor Ian Bateman of the University of East Anglia gave the economists’ point of view. This was followed by a discussion involving a panel consisting of Mr Costigan, Prof Sutherland and Prof Bateman, as well as Prof Tim Benton of the University of Leeds, Dr. Salvatore Di Falco of the London School of Economics, Prof Charles Godfray of the University of Oxford, and Dr Paul Morling of the RSPB. Members of the panel each gave their ideas of the key issues which need to be addressed in order to facilitate progress towards sustainable agriculture in the UK, and, after questions and comments from the audience, these were summarised into a list to inform the afternoon’s break-out sessions.

After lunch and a chance to network, the audience was split up to 6 groups and each of the groups had to focus on one key issue to develop further, proposing activities which could be undertaken to explore or resolve this issue. Some interesting proposals came from these group discussions:

Issue 1: What is the best way to spend pillar II funds?
Proposal: This proposal aimed at bringing together ecological, economic and social knowledge to inform policy with the aim of reassessing the best way to spend CAP money to ensure farmers ‘do the right thing in the right place’.

Issue 2: How do we incentivise land managers to ‘do the right thing’ in the right place?
Proposal: Similarly to the first proposal, this group also focused on what management should be done where, but considered the issue from a different angle, suggesting that ecosystem services will be protected most effectively by combining top down and bottom up processes. A change to the structure of how funds are allocated to land managers were proposed, including a ‘bidding process’ and regional control of the ‘pot of money’.

Issue 3: Behaviour change to enhance resilience to shocks
Proposal: This group suggested a comprehensive study of farmer and consumer behaviour across different regions and farming types designed to identify the gap between desirable farm management and current behaviour and possible reasons for this. This would allow suitable incentives to be identified and employed.

Issue 4: Achieving a spatial balance of management activity on farmland
Proposal: This proposal aimed to change farmers’ behaviour by organising consultations and testing how land managers’ responded to different possible farming incentives.

Issue 5: ‘Better choice of choice’
Proposal: This group focused on product labeling and the possibility of integrating ecosystem services into existing certification schemes (e.g. Fairtrade, FSC, MSC).

Issue 6: Where do we need bees? A case study of spatial targeting of agriculture
Proposal: The final group’s idea was to better target agricultural incentives spatially by collecting existing knowledge, filling knowledge gaps and developing a GIS tool to help decision making for farmers. They demonstrated the idea through a case study on pollination services.

All of the proposals were strongly built on interdisciplinary or even intersectoral co-operation between ecologists, economists and other stakeholders. Four out of the six plans focused on spatial arrangements of agricultural incentives, suggesting that ecologists and economists alike think a critical problem with current initiatives lies in a lack of spatial planning and targeting of farmland management measures.

At the end of the workshop, the proposals were rated by participants based on their importance and feasibility. It was interesting to see that proposals which got more votes for importance generally got fewer votes for feasibility and vice versa. The winning scheme for importance was proposal 2, which focused on how to encourage farmers to “do the right thing in the right place”, whilst the most feasible proposal was voted to be proposal 6 on spatial planning with the case study on bees.

The feedback from participants was that it was a day of interesting and fruitful discussions, and hopefully some seeds of ideas for further research and co-operation between ecologists and economist were planted yesterday.

Additional information on the workshop and the full program can be downloaded from the workshop’s webpage.

Yesterday’s meeting of the Cross Party House of Common’s Agroecology Group discussed the potential for soil management practices to influence the future of farming in the UK. The session was chaired by Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer and co- hosted by the Food Ethics Council.

Professor Mark Kibblewhite, Chair of Soil Science at Cranfield University, kicked off the session by scene setting the romantic attachment we have with soils – the smell of light rain on dry earth on a warm summer’s evening and then the reality that this smell is the result of a chemical secreted by soil organisms. He then went on to explain how the biological engine of the earth (the soil biology) utilising carbon as its fuel source drives key ecosystem functioning. But this vital resource is under threat with 25% of soils globally showing signs of significant degradation while the increasing pressure of food production and climate change will shrink these soil resources further. Soil contains some 2,500 gigatonnes of carbon which is 3 times that of the biogenic carbon in the atmosphere and yet currently the Government has no published soil strategy in place and is part of a minority group that is blocking the proposed European Soil Framework Directive. Professor Kibblewhite called on the UK Government to work progressively to adopt the EU framework and positively influence Europe in the interests of our own food security. He also identified the progressive sealing of soils through urbanisation as a major threat. The recently published much condensed draft National Planning Policy Framework makes little specific mention of the protection of soils for the delivery of food and other ecosystem services.

Dr Charlie Clutterbuck of the Food Ethics Council discussed the decline in the study and practice of agricultural sciences in the UK and the disconnect between consumer and supply.

Peter Melchett of the Soil Association drew the formal meeting to a close discussing the need to further our research base and understanding of soil processes in relation to management techniques. This is so that soil scientists can provide practical advice for land managers and not assume that this knowledge is built in to the system. He highlighted that the treatment of soils post war has been input driven and that now was the time to look at alternatives. He heavily supported the need for EU-level soil framework legislation.

This meeting was attended by MPs, NGOs and agronomic advisers along with Dr Kathryn Allton, Executive Officer and Mr Dick Thompson, Governance Trustee, of the British Society of Soil Science.

Blog post by Dr Kathryn Allton, Executive Officer, British Society of Soil Science

Voting in two resolutions last week, MEPs (Members of the European Parliament) called for the European Commission to introduce a Seventh Environmental Action Programme and for higher political priority to go to preserving and restoring damaged ecosystems.

The Seventh Environmental Action Programme (7th EAP) will be Europe’s next flagship environmental policy. The sixth EAP is due to expire in July this year. MEPs have called for the 7th EAP to mainstream climate change and other environmental objectives across all policy areas, whilst also reflecting the need for binding targets for greater energy efficiency. The EAP should also lead to an overall reduction in waste generation, along with ambitious prevention, re-use and recycling targets for waste.

In addition, MEPs have called for the 7th EAP to incorporate targets to ensure the sustainable use of land and to address emerging threats to human and animal health, such as nanomaterials, endocrine disruptors and the combined effects of chemicals in the environment. MEPs also urge Member States to implement fully and effectively existing rules on water. MEPs also used the resolution to encourage the European Commission to introduce sustainability criteria for biofuels and biomass.

MEPs sitting on the Environment Committee of the European Parliament voted on a second resolution to call for more ambitious targets to restore damaged and degraded ecosystems, whilst also highlighting the economic damage caused by biodiversity loss. The loss of biodiversity, they stated, ‘leads to devastating economic costs to society which until now have not been sufficiently integrated into economic and other policies’. Reforms to the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) and Common Fisheries Policy, along with reforms to the Multi-Annual Financial Framework (MFF) – the EU budget from 2014-2020- are necessary to tackle this, they state.

For example, payments under the CAP should be underpinned by cross-compliance measures that contribute to the preservation of biodiversity and ecosystem services. In addition, at least 1% of the total MFF should be devoted to environmental protection. The Common Fisheries Policy should guarantee an ecosystem approach to fisheries management.

The Environment Committee calls for the target to restore at least 15% of degraded ecosystems by 2020, agreed at the UN’s 10th Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity in Nagoya, in 2010, to be seen only as a ‘minimum’, with the EU going beyond this to tackle environmental degradation. In addition, the MEPs call for detailed EU and national level plans to be developed to phase out all environmentally harmful subsidies by 2020.

The ongoing decline in wild bumblebee populations has caused worldwide concern, with evidence suggesting that the loss of critical pollination services could lead to a decrease in crop yields and the loss of many wildflower species. A number of reasons for the decline have been suggested and debated, but research from the University of Stirling, published in the journal Science last week, provides new evidence that pesticides used on flowering crops are having a significant effect.

The study, carried out by Dr Penelope Whitehorn and Steph O’Connor and supervised by Professor Dave Goulson at the University of Stirling, investigated the effects of neonicotinoid insecticides used as a seed dressing on flowering crops such as oilseed rape and sunflowers. These insecticides are systemic, travelling through the plant and occurring at low levels in nectar and pollen.

Findings reveal that bumblebee nests exposed to these low levels for just two weeks grew more slowly as a result, and showed an 85% reduction in the number of new queens they produced. Prof Goulson notes “Our work suggests that trace exposures of our wild bees to insecticides is having a major impact on their populations. Only queen bumblebees survive the winter to build new nests in the spring, so reducing the number produced by 85% means far fewer nests the following year. Repeated year on year, the long term cumulative effects are likely to be profound.”

Neonicotinoid insecticides are the best-selling insecticides worldwide and used broadly on a wide range of crops. As bumblebees often forage over a kilometre from their nest to find food, the study suggests that most nests in agricultural landscapes are likely to be exposed to these compounds. With insect pollination worth an estimated €22 billion a year to European agriculture, and many species of wildflower entirely dependent on bumblebees for pollination, Dr Whitehorn states “There is a clear need to re-evaluate the safety of these chemicals”.

This research is published as Whitehorn PR, O’Connor S, Wackers FL & Goulson D. Neonicotinoid pesticide reduces bumblebee colony growth and queen production and appears in the journal Science online and at the Science Express website.

Welsh Environment Minister John Griffiths yesterday launched the Welsh Government’s Strategic Framework for Bovine TB Eradication, which outlined a programme of badger vaccination to be introduced in the Intensive Action Area.

The Minister said the decision to pursue vaccination as opposed to culling of badgers was made based on ‘the evidence provided…including scientific and legal advice’ and that, at present, he is ‘not satisfied that a cull of badgers would be necessary to bring about a substantial reduction in cases of TB in cattle’.

A five year programme of vaccination is to be designed by the Chief Veterinary Officer and the Strategic Framework outlines a comprehensive longterm plan including measures for improved management of persistent cases of TB, piloting of an audit technique to assess TB testing, a voluntary scheme to facilitate the sharing of bovine TB data between neighbouring farms, and an advisory service for farmers whose herds are affected by the disease.

In his launch speech, Minister Griffiths emphasised that TB eradication will require longterm commitment and the use of new technological and scientific advances as they become available. A working group of experts, led by the Chief Veterinary Officer, will be created to develop the vaccination strategy.

The full Strategic Framework can be found on the Welsh Government website.

Factors including drought, soil erosion, salinity and climate change all contribute to food scarcity, but a report by the UK government’s Foresight thinktank (The Future of Food and Farming: Challenges and choices for global sustainability) suggests another important cause may be insufficient agricultural research. In most countries, research into agriculture and fisheries remains a low priority and two decades of this lack of interest has caused a slow-down in productivity gains. The report emphasises the need for a significant increase in new agricultural research to support a radical change to the food system in order to meet the urgency of food scarcity. Investment in research is one of the report’s ‘key priorities’ and it suggests new models of research funding are needed in which public, private and third sector funders coordinate their efforts and incentives are provided for research into solutions to benefit low-income countries.

Four out of five adults believe that farmers have a responsibility to look after the landscape and wildlife for future generations, according to a new survey commissioned by the Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE). Fewer than a fifth of British adults would accept a more industrialised farming sector and an overwhelming 78 per cent of people want farmers to get more support to carry out environmentally sustainable farming practices.

The CPRE published an accompanying report describing their farming vision where farmers who adopt new environmental sustainability standards benefit from a price premium that recognises the additional environmental measures they are taking. For example, replanting of the countryside’s diminishing numbers of hedgerows.

Increasing global population and a changing climate have increased the pressures on food production. Agricultural intensification across Europe, particularly in the West, has simplified landscapes leading to a loss in biodiversity. However, Ian Woodhurst, senior farming campaigner for CPRE, believes that the public are aware of and understand the challenges of producing affordable food for a growing population and says “It’s great to see that people clearly want the environmental sustainable future for farming set out in our vision. There are huge challenges, including growing populations, increasing demand for land and natural resources, and pressures due to climate change. But we must find ways to cope with these challenges if we are to secure a living, thriving rural landscape”.

Source: Flohre, A., Fischer, C., Aavik, T. et al. (2011) Agricultural intensification and biodiversity partitioning in European landscapes comparing plants, carabids, and birds. Ecological Applications. 21: 1772-1781.

A call for specific biodiversity goals to be integrated into the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) was abandoned at the insistence of Germany during a meeting of environment ministers in Brussels today (19 December).

In its proposal for a biodiversity strategy to 2020, the European Commission had listed several types of biodiversity concerns that should be dealt with under the CAP. But several member states objected to this, saying it prejudged the outcome of ongoing talks among agriculture ministers to reform the CAP.

The Polish presidency of the Council of Ministers put forward a proposal changing the list to theoretical “examples,” but this was still not acceptable to Germany. After several hours of discussion, Germany succeeded in having the entire paragraph on biodiversity objectives for the CAP deleted in the final version approved by ministers. Germany’s environment ministry was under strict orders from its agriculture ministry not to accept any list of possible biodiversity requirements for CAP, according to a source involved in the discussions.

Campaign group BirdLife Europe said the deletion was symptomatic of an overall fear by environment ministers of clashing with ongoing discussions in other Council meetings. The UK was able to water down language on funding for the environmental funding programme Life, saying it prejudges ongoing discussions over the multiannual financial framework. Language on fisheries was also made vaguer.

Ariel Brunner, head of European policy at BirdLife, said the decision was a worrying sign that environmental goals would not be taken seriously in upcoming discussions on agriculture, fisheries and budget reform. “Looking at environment ministers compromising for hours on the protection of what should be the core of their political mandate – biodiversity – is a dangerous preview of the fate of biodiversity left completely in the hands of agriculture ministers,” she said.

Janez Potočnik, the European commissioner for the environment, issued a statement condemning the deletion of the list, adding that the Commission would continue to push for biodiversity objectives to be made part of the CAP during the reform discussions.

Original text from: http://www.europeanvoice.com/article/2011/december/reference-to-cap-in-biodiversity-conclusions-deleted-/73015.aspx

Professor Charles Godfray, immediate past President of the BES, is to give evidence to the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Select Committee on Wednesday 14th December as part of the Committee’s inquiry into ‘Greening the Common Agricultural Policy‘.

Professor Godfray will give evidence at 16.00 and the session will be available to watch live on Parliament TV.

Intensive farming methods have simplified landscapes across Europe, leading to a loss of biodiversity. A recent study has investigated the effects of intensive farming on plants, beetles and birds in Western European regions and found that plants and birds are particularly affected.

In recent decades, changes in agricultural practices have transformed the structure of landscapes across Europe, particularly in the West. Intensification of agriculture has simplified a previously complex landscape, which has been accompanied by a loss of biodiversity in European farmlands. Agricultural intensification (AI) affects biodiversity at all levels of the landscape, from field and farm levels, through to the regional scale.

In this study, the diversity of plants, ground beetles (carabids) and breeding birds was measured at local and regional levels in cereal crop fields in eight European countries: Estonia, France, Germany, Ireland, Netherlands, Poland, Spain and Sweden. The total diversity of species at field, farm and regional scales was estimated from the average diversity within communities and from the average diversity between different communities at all three scales.

AI was estimated from fertiliser and pesticide inputs, tillage operations and mechanical weed control used by farmers in the study areas. Based on this information, AI was divided into low, medium and high levels in each region and the impact of AI on biodiversity in the landscape was assessed.

For all regions studied at all three scales (field, farm and regional), AI was linked to reduced diversity of plants and birds, but not ground beetles. This suggests the impact of AI on biodiversity is not uniform and some groups of species are more affected than others. In addition, how mobile the different groups of species are, plays an important role in the pattern of diversity found across the landscape.

• High levels of AI affected plants at all scales: plants are not mobile and the more simplified the landscape became (with associated loss of diverse habitats), the greater the loss of plant diversity.
• High levels of AI especially affected birds at the farm and region scale. However, with low levels of AI, the diversity of birds was increased. Less intensive agricultural management of fields (e.g. less weed control), maintaining a diversity of field margins (such as hedgerows and woodland) and providing semi-natural habitats in arable landscapes are all important for bird diversity.
• Ground beetle diversity found within fields probably benefitted from having various types of field margins and near-by semi-natural areas, which would supply habitats for new recruits of beetles to the fields.

Although the level of intensive agriculture practised locally by farmers affected species diversity at the field scale, biodiversity (especially of birds and ground beetles) found among different communities at the farm scale was more important in terms of regional biodiversity. Therefore, different local farming practices significantly affect the pattern of the landscape structure and the biodiversity found in agricultural landscapes.

Understanding the detailed impacts of AI on different groups of species at field, farm and regional scales is important for the development of effective agri-environmental schemes. Resources can be targeted at areas where high levels of diversity occur and would be affected by a further simplification of the landscape structure through high intensity farming methods.

Source: Flohre, A., Fischer, C., Aavik, T. et al. (2011) Agricultural intensification and biodiversity partitioning in European landscapes comparing plants, carabids, and birds. Ecological Applications. 21: 1772-1781.

[Taken from Science for Environment Policy]