Scientists fear cuts to the EU budget could threaten the continued persistence of wildlife on agricultural landscapes. Up to £400 million worth of funding provided through the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) could be stopped as a result of government spending cuts. Conservation groups are warning such action could prove disastrous for some farmland species, and threaten the recovery of those already endangered such as the cirl bunting and turtle dove.

Under the current terms of the CAP, farmers are able to receive payments in return for developing projects on their land that are designed to encourage local biodiversity. Such incentives have seen great success, and played a vital role in the conservation of species sensitive to agricultural practices that may have otherwise experienced a population decline. However as part of the current CAP reform ‘Pillar 2’ funding – the money available to farmers who practice methods beneficial to the environment and biodiversity could be scrapped.

Martin Harper, Conservation Director of the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB) said he was “staggered” by the idea, fearing that wildlife corridors such as hedges and water ways could also be affected.

The government has however stated that the current biodiversity subsidies in place are ‘good value’ and that cuts should be targeted towards CAP subsidies assigned for food production instead. Proposals for the new EU budget will be announced later this month on 29th June.

The BES policy team yesterday attended a meeting of the All party Parliamentary Conservation and Wildlife Group. The meeting commenced with a talk about future priorities of Natural England from Dr Helen Phillips, Chief Executive of Natural England, followed by a question and discussion session. The talk focussed on the effects of the budget cuts on the services that natural England provides, and the direction of Natural England’s efforts over the coming years. The recent reform of Natural England has resulted in budget cuts, a ban on lobbying activities, and a keener focus on customer service. However there has been no legislative change and the main purpose of natural England remains the government’s independent advisory body on the natural environment. Dr Phillips explained to the group how Natural England will continue to provide this service despite the funding cuts.

Dr Phillips started by focussing on the successes of Natural England in the past five years, of which there have been many. A survey of farmers enrolled in agri-environment schemes revealed that 84% thought that Natural England gave good or excellent customer service. 70% of agricultural land is now under some sort of environmental management which is up from 45% in 2006. This has made a noticeable difference to protected species and habitats on which agricultural land has an important impact. 96% of (Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs) are in good or excellent condition compared with only 73% 5 years ago. A slowing of farmland bird decline has occurred with signs of recovery. 30% of the UK landscape is under some form of protection whether that be SSSIs or national parks. There have also been a variety of very successful programmes to connect people with their environment.

However Natural England faces many challenges in protecting the natural environment. England is still experiencing ongoing habitat losses and biotic homogenisation, with many once common species rare and declining. The natural environment is also experiencing increased pressures from an increasing human population demanding more from the same land area. Importantly Lawton’s vision of more, bigger, better, and joined protected areas still has not been realised. There are lots of imminent opportunities to respond to these challenges: the Defra white paper, European biodiversity strategy, the National Ecosystem Assessment. Natural England aims to make sure that people reconnect with nature, our natural assets are protected and we maximise the opportunities offered to society by a green economy. Dr Phillips noted that there is also strong cross party support for these ideas, improving the chances of success.

The talk ended with Dr Phillips outlining the main strategies Natural England will employ to achieve these goals over the coming years:
• Improving protection of priority species and habitats.
• Continuing the success of the agri-environment schemes.
• Establishing a coherent network of Marine Protected Areas.
• Taking a landscape scale approach to conservation.
• Creating “ecological restoration zones” led and funded by a wide variety of organisations.
• Forming partnerships with businesses, local authorities, and NGOs.

One of the main themes to the questions was the effect of budget cuts on the ability of Natural England to provide sound advice to local people, who have become more involved in local decision making because of the Government’s “Big Society” initiative. Natural England have collaborated with the Environment Agency, Forestry Commission, and Wildlife Trusts to share information and identify priority areas in which to act. Defra is also developing an evidence portal for local people to enable access to sound scientific evidence to empower local communities to make more decisions.
Dr Phillips suggested that the BES could also have an important role to play in ensuring good decisions are made at the local level, by providing accreditation for learning and education programmes. This could be particularly useful when training members of local authorities tasked with making decisions about protected species and habitats in planning applications. She also suggested that the BES could support and contribute to research work done by Natural England, by providing quality assurance or peer review.

The announcement of a badger TB vaccination trial on the National Trust’s Killerton Estate has been welcomed by both farmers and local environmental groups. The four year programme which will commence this May aims to show that vaccination is a viable alternative to culling programmes, particularly in places where Defra’s culling criteria cannot currently be met.

Bovine tuberculosis is a major burden for both farmers and taxpayers in the UK. Last year the cost of the disease to the taxpayer was almost £63 million, mainly paid out in compensation to farmers who had cattle destroyed as a result of the disease. However farmers say that this sum does not cover the cost of replacing lost animals, and more needs to be done to prevent the spread of the disease.

Badger culling, the current recommended strategy for control of bovine TB, has been shown to be effective within culling sites but can have detrimental knock on effects for surrounding areas, which often see an increased incidence of the disease. As a consequence of the Randomised Badger Culling Trial (RBCT) which showed these effects Defra introduced stringent criteria to set the conditions under which badger culling can take place, which require farmers to demonstrate that they can minimize any potential edge effects, and cull within a minimum area size of 150km2. There are very few instances when these criteria can be met. When these criteria cannot be fulfilled it seems that vaccination may be the only viable option but so far there is little evidence to show how effective it might be.

The new programme funded by the National Trust aims to demonstrate to the government and farmers that vaccination is a viable alternative to culling. It also aims to stimulate research into an oral vaccine, such as the type which has been used with great success to treat rabies, which would be a cheap and easy to administer option for carrying vaccination out on a larger scale. Mark Harold from the national trust said that he hopes that this project can “pave the way for more widespread use of vaccination as an effective alternative to culling”, and also noted that “the National Trust is in a unique position as a major landowner in rural areas” allowing them to pioneer the scheme.

The vaccination programme will involve 18 tenant farmers on 20 km2 farmland in the Killerton estate, a prime example of a site that cannot meet current DEFRA criteria for badger culls. It is expected to cost around £80,000 per year and run until 2015. Badgers will be trapped, vaccinated and marked by licensed experts.

The European Nitrogen Assessment (ENA), a major new investigation, today released its findings revealing the environmental and economic cost of nitrogen pollution in Europe.

The ENA, conducted by over 200 international experts, estimated that nitrogen pollution is already costing Europeans up to £650 each every year – amounting to a total of £280 billion. This cost reflects the value of damage to essential services, (known as ‘ecosystem services’), such as climate regulation and the supply of clean water and air provided by healthy ecosystems that are rich in biodiversity.

For decades nitrogen fertiliser has been used to increase agricultural food production in order to meet rising demands and feed the planets growing human population. The use of nitrogen fertiliser to improve crop yields has however had negative environmental impacts. Much of the nitrogen pollution associated with agriculture is linked to its use as a fertiliser to produce crops used to feed livestock intended for meat production. As a result, large areas of forest are cleared each year to make space for soy beans grown to feed Europe’s chickens, cows and pigs.

In terms of climate, up to 60% of the economic cost of nitrogen damage is derived from fossil fuels burnt in order to generate energy and from transport (with the remiaing 40% coming from agriculture). Nitrogen fertilisers also cause the release of nitrous oxide, one of the fundamental green house gases responsible for global warming. Furthermore, nitrogen also contributes to air pollution with negative implications for human health, reducing life expectancy and causing problems such as asthma and cancer.

Despite this, there remains a great need to use nitrogen fertiliser, and demand for fossil fuel combustion. Consequently, there is now more than ever, a need to improve the efficiency of processes associated with nitrogen pollution so as not to cause unnecessary damage to the environment. The ENA report addresses these issues and suggests we minimise future damage by reducing fossil fuel emissions through investment in clean energy for homes and transport, and by reducing our demand for meat. The report discusses altering the western diet by decreasing meat consumption, in order to ease the environmental pressures associated with its production. Present figures show that in Europe people currently eat 70% more meat and diary products than required for a healthy diet and therefore reducing meat intake could be beneficial for both human health and the environment.

The report concludes that the overall costs of damage to the environment at the expense of nitrogen pollution far out-weigh the direct economic benefits of using nitrogen in agriculture alone. In light of these developments a move towards a more sustainable lifestyle by individuals, institutions and government is needed. Defra’s Chief Scientist, Professor Bob Watson, remained positive commenting that “things are going in the right direction, [the UK has reduced nitrous oxides by 60% since 1990] but we do need to move faster to avoid this environmental damage”.

Eight months ago plans to implement a badger cull in west Wales were put on hold following a winning appeal from the Badger Trust. The case has since been revived, and will tomorrow call upon Welsh Assembly Members (AMs) to vote on a legislative order. If votes are found to be in favor, the new legislation will allow authorities to proceed with a badger cull in north Pembrokeshire, and parts of Ceredigion and Carmarthenshire, Wales.

The controversial plans to cull badgers are part of a government attempt to help eradicate bovine TB, which is spread to cattle from badgers who are known carriers of the disease. There has been extensive research and much debate into the matter, with arguments over whether or not a cull offers an effective solution to controlling the disease making national headlines.

Welsh Rural Affairs Minister Elin Jones said “we must continue to pursue a comprehensive approach towards the eradication of bovine TB from Wales” and that she had decided to go ahead with the order subject to “substantial scientific evidence”. Opposition groups such as the Badger Trust and Pembrokeshire Against the Cull (PAC) argue that cases of infected cattle are falling, and that vaccination offers a more effective and humane method of control. The practical problems and costs associated with doing so however often limit vaccination success. Additionally, they argue that implementing a badger cull may actually increase the incidence of bovine TB, as culling badgers encourages their dispersal, and as a result spreads the disease further.

If AMs do not object at tomorrows vote, the legislative will come into force as of 31st March 2011, however if the voting indicates opposition to the cull, it could lead to further debate and a vote in the Senedd.

The 2008 Climate Change Act commits the UK to 80% statutory greenhouse gases emissions (GHG) reduction by 2050. The agricultural industry is responsible for approximately 25%, 50%, and 80% of global anthropogenic emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), and nitrous oxide (N2O) respectively. In the UK farming and land use are accountable for 7.4% of total UK emissions and therefore represent a good opportunity to make progress toward GHG reduction targets.

Reducing GHG emissions within the agricultural sector however faces significant obstacles driven by the growth of the human population. As human population numbers rise, more people need feeding, and as the wealth of nations increase so does the demand for meat with the ‘westernisation’ of diets putting pressure on the agricultural industry to produce more food. Furthermore, the dwindling availability of land suitable for farming limits expansion of the industry. As a result, agriculture must as increase productivity by 70-100% by 2050 in order to avoid future food security crisis.

The combination of increasing food production on limited land while reducing GHG emissions consequently presents a unique scientific challenge. To address this, a meeting attended by the BES was held at the Royal Society in London this week to discuss the options for ‘Reducing green house gas emissions from agriculture’.

Expert speakers gave presentations on how to create ‘climate smart agriculture’ and discussed potential solutions and opportunities including:

• Improving land management through intensification of agricultural practices to avoid further carbon dioxide release from expansion into remaining suitable land such as tropical forests.
• Improving soil management to conserve stocks of nitrogen and enhance carbon capture/sequestration.
• Reducing unnecessary over use of nitrogen fertilizers responsible for carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide emissions.
• Replacing fossil fuel use with bioenergy feedstocks.
• Exploring genetic modification of rice cultivars and cattle to reduce methane production.
• Altering rice cultivation management practice and cattle diet to reduce methane production.
• Improving manure management to reduce methane and nitrous oxide emissions.
• Decreasing food wastage and changing western dietary behaviours by encouraging people to decrease meat consumption to reduce demand.

The meeting highlighted that reducing emissions across the agricultural industry provides a significant opportunity to help achieve the UK emissions reduction targets. Speakers additionally drew attention to the fact that the agricultural industry has until present, not been a central part of climate change talks, and suggested that the future inclusion of agriculture as a central part of the climate change agenda would be beneficial. Speakers further noted that subsequent policy should consider all demands on land, provide incentives for implementation of more environmentally friendly practice across farming, and include raising awareness to encourage decreased meat consumption in western society.

Today scientists warned that rising pressures on global resources threaten the future security of the planets food, after the results of the most comprehensive investigation into food security ever were published this morning.

Chief Scientific Advisor, Sir John Beddington emphasised the need for urgent action in response to increasing demands for food today, as the current system is failing. By 2050 the human population is predicted to reach 9 billion individuals, which when combined with climate change and the decreasing availability of land, will seriously increase the pressure on food production.

Over the next 20 years government officials need to work alongside the agricultural industry to increase the efficiency of food production and deliver approximately 40% more food, and 30% more fresh water to meet demands, and ensure future food security.

Governments now face the huge challenge of increasing production efficiency, and reducing pressures such as climate change in order to protect food security for the next generation. Failing to do so however, will mean that many more people are likely to go hungry in the future.

Press Notice from the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee:

The Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee will undertake an inquiry into the European Commission’s proposals for reform of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) after 2013. The inquiry will consider the impact of the proposals on agriculture in the UK.
At a cost of about €57 bn in 2010, the CAP is the EU’s single largest item of expenditure. It affects almost 50% of the EU’s land area and nearly 14 million agricultural holdings. The CAP is due to be reformed by December 2013. The European Commission will outline their options for a new CAP framework in November, prior to issuing draft legislative proposals in summer 2011.
The Committee is seeking evidence from interested parties on the Commission’s proposals, including:
• How will the Commission’s proposals affect the ability of UK agriculture to be competitive in a global market?
• Do the proposals ensure fair competition for British agricultural products within the European Union?
• Will the proposals achieve the correct balance between productivity and sustainability?
• Do the proposals place the UK in a good position to help meet future food supply challenges?
• Will the proposals redress the imbalance in support to different sectors created by the historic basis of payments?
• What aspects of the proposals should be made a common policy, and which are best left to Member States?
• Can the proposals be implemented simply and cost-effectively, within a short time-scale?

The Committee may revise this information or release additional Terms of Reference following the publication of the Commission’s proposals.
The Committee invites all interested parties to address these and related matters in writing by Friday 3 December 2010. More information about the required format of submissions is given on the Committee’s website.

From the Society of Biology’s Science Policy weekly news update:

Key results

• The unsmoothed farmland bird population index for England, covering 19 species, decreased by 5 per cent between 2008 and 2009. The index is now at its lowest recorded value, at 53 per cent lower than its 1966 starting value.
• Twelve species (almost two-thirds of those included in the index) declined between 2008 and 2009 – Kestrel, Lapwing, Grey Partridge, Skylark, Starling, Greenfinch, Tree Sparrow, Yellow Wagtail, Linnet, Wood Pigeon, Corn Bunting and Rook. This decline was significant for the first six species listed. For many species, the decline between 2008 and 2009 is a continuation of downward trends evident over at least the last four or five years.
• Seven species increased between 2008 and 2009 – Goldfinch, Jackdaw, Reed Bunting, Stock Dove, Turtle Dove, Whitethroat and Yellowhammer. Most of these, for example Goldfinch and Jackdaw, have shown long-term upward trends.

Bird populations are considered to be a good indicator of the broad state of wildlife because birds occupy a wide range of habitats, they tend to be near or at the top of food chains and there is considerable long-term data on changes in bird populations which helps with the interpretation of shorter term fluctuations.

Further information.

Researchers in Switzerland have successfully inoculated rice with selectively bred mychorrhizal fungi which helps the plant grow faster in the acidic soils of tropical regions. Such fungi are known to help plants by extracting nutrients – in this case phosphate – from the surrounding soil, receiving sugars in return.

To date studies have only been conducted in temperate climates, but greenhouses were used to recreate conditions in the tropics where phosphate fertiliser gets bound to the soil. Ian Sanders, a biologist at the University of Lausanne, Switzerland, said that harnessing this method could become increasingly important if predicted shortages in global soil phosphate ring true.

Sanders is also collaborating with researchers from the National University of Colombia on field trials of economically important crops such as potato and cassava. Early results are promising; the same amount of potato can be grown with less than a third of the phosphate fertiliser normally applied.

Whether or not the technique used for rice will be viable in the field remains under question. Roland Buresh, a principal scientist at the International Rice Research Institute specialising in nutrient management, highlighted that the fungi require oxygen for growth, hence might not perform so well in submerged soils. The technique, he continued, is not expected to allow more rice to be grown in a year.

Original article: Scientists harness ‘good’ fungi to boost staple crops by Mićo Tatalović