The Royal Society yesterday published ‘People and the Planet‘, a report which marks the end of nearly two years of work by a group including both the British Ecological Society’s current President, Professor Georgina Mace FRS and a past-President of the Society, Professor Alastair Fitter FRS. Speaking to the Radio 4 ‘Today’ programme yesterday morning, Professor Mace warned that we are eroding the earth’s vital support systems through over-consumption and unfettered economic growth and that as a consequence we are not doing a very poor job of ‘gardening the planet’.

The study examines the links between global population and consumption and the implications for our finite planet. The aim of the report is to provide policy guidance to decision makers and to inform interested members of the public. Yesterday’s publication led to very interesting coverage on the Guardian’s environment blog, with members of the working group, including the group’s chair, Nobel Prize-winning geneticist Sir John Sulston FRS, commentators and others offering their views on the content. Some of those commenting contended that the scientists were too negative in their assessment and that economic growth should not always be viewed as having negative consequences for the environment. One suggestion was that economic growth means that natural resources such as timber could be replaced with man-made materials for development purposes, so reducing environmental degradation. Another was that economic growth means technological and scientific advances, with humanity thereby innovating our way out of a crisis.

Aside from any external comment on the project’s conclusions, the overriding message of the study is that we must examine population growth and consumption patterns together and that it is the combination of these two factors that has an effect on the planet. The human population is set to reach 10 billion people, from the current seven billion, by the middle of this century. Over 1.3 billion people currently live in abject poverty, on less than $1.25 per day. It is clearly not desirable to see a world in which both the population increases and inequalities are exacerbated. Inequality must be addressed, people must be lifted out of poverty, but as their wealth and living standards increase, so too will the consumption of resources. Reducing consumption whilst also reducing inequalities and ensuring that those in poverty achieve an adequate living standard is a dilemma, and one which seems intractable.

Yet, speaking to the Today Programme yesterday morning, Sir John Sulston described tackling these pressures on the planet, what he characterised as ‘planning to flourish’, as ‘very simple’. Echoing the conclusions of the report he stated that we need to ‘dematerialise’ our economy, for example by investing in zero carbon forms of energy and by moving beyond GDP as a measure of economic growth to price in natural capital. In addition, tackling population growth will require countries to work together constructively, rather than the developed somehow lecturing the developing world in how to address birth rates. Contraception should be made available to those who want it in Africa, where two thirds of the anticipated growth in population is projected to occur, for example, but representatives of some African nations, such as Kenya, are requesting this, rather than this being imposed from outside.

Top priority is afforded to lifting people out of poverty, in the report’s conclusions. The international community is urged to address inequality through investment in education, family planning and economic development. The other recommendations are (to paraphrase):

- Most developed and developing economies must stabilise and reduce material consumption levels (de-coupling economic growth from environmental impacts and improving the efficiency of resource use, for example);
- Reproductive health and voluntary family planning programmes should be supported by political leadership and financial commitments;
- Population and the environment should not be considered separately. Demographic changes should be factored in to Rio +20 negotiations, for example;
- Governments should invest appropriately in urbanisation, for example supporting waste collection, which has the potential to reduce environmental impacts through allowing resource efficiencies;
- High quality primary and secondary education should be available for all young people;
- Governments should accelerate the development of a comprehensive wealth measure, including improving national natural asset accounting;
- Governments should collaborate to develop socio-economic systems and institutions not dependent on continued material consumption.

Natural and social scientists have an important role to play. The seventh recommendation calls for scientists to increase their research into the interactions between consumption, demographic changes and environmental impacts, providing policy-makers with the information they require in order to ensure that both the planet and the human population under pressure can continue not only to survive but also to thrive.

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

A recently published review paper in Nature draws attention to the dangers of globalisation and international trade which facilitate spreading of fungal diseases. The authors collected data from all over the world and showed that fungal infections had increased, caused extinction of several species and even contributed to climate change in the last few decades. They claim that immediate action is needed to prevent devastating impacts of the spreading of fungal diseases mainly by more research and better implementation of science into policy and practice.

The scientists looked at the problem holistically and pointed out some unusual links. They state for example that fungal diseases can contribute to climate change through killing or damaging trees that otherwise would have absorbed significant amount of CO2. They also highlight that biodiversity loss is accelerated by fungal pathogens. Due to small population effects and decreased ecosystem diversity, a fungal disease can wipe out entire species as it is seen in the case of amphibians. In case of animal species, fungal infections already account for 72% of infection-related extinctions which is more than viral and bacterial caused extinctions altogether.

Fungal pathogens can even facilitate invaders’ success. In the well known case of the North American signal crayfish in the UK a fungus-like disease (Crayfish Plague) helps the invader. The signal crayfish is tolerant to the infection which is lethal to the indigenous white-clawed crayfish. By spreading the disease around and wiping out the native crayfish the invader can occupy more and more habitats.

Food security is also in danger. Fungal infections of our five main food crops (rice, wheat, maize, potatoes and soybeans) are already causing serious problems and destroy a significant amount of the yield each year. Newly emerging fungal diseases can affect agriculture directly while new pathogens affecting animals can also have an indirect effect on crop production. Estimations suggest that White Nose Syndrome which decreases bat populations in North America can cause huge extra costs ($3.7 billion) to agriculture through the lack of bat control on insect pests.

The authors point out that human behaviour (international travel and trade) is the major cause of the recently recognised expansion of fungal diseases. Therefore, they call for stronger international biosecurity by strengthening international trade regulations, quarantining more rigorously and tackling illegal trade more effectively through trade control organisations. They also emphasise that integrated research on identifying, monitoring and mitigating the impacts of these diseases is much needed to get ahead of fungal epidemics.

For more on the subject, listen to the latest Planet Earth Online podcast.

The original paper: MC Fisher et al. Emerging fungal threats to animal, plant and ecosystem health. Nature, 12 April 2012. DOI 10.1038/nature10947

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.

That was the question posed by an evening lecture at the Zoological Society of London on Tuesday, held as part of the ‘Communicating Science’ series. A panel of four speakers, including Prof. Charles Godfray, current President of the BES, considered whether, and how, ecologists and conservation scientists should assist industry in identifying areas of land ‘best’ to develop.

Prof. Godfray began by outlining the major challenge which ensuring food security will pose to global conservation. As chair of last year’s Foresight report on the Future of Food and Farming, Prof. Godfray was well-placed to reflect on the volatility likely to hit food prices as water scarcity and climate change become increasing concerns, and the impact that this might have on biodiversity. Prof. Godfray argued for ’sustainable intensification’, using existing and investing in new, knowledge in areas such as soil science and agronomy. Society must support a vigorous, efficient, globalised food supply, with greater access to markets for the poorest. In many senses, food security isn’t about a huge increase in food supply, but about minimising waste and ensuring the adequate distribution of produce. On the relationship between food and biodiversity, Prof. Godfray was clear that ‘if we fail on food, we fail on everything’; if global food prices rise to a great extent due to shortages, any gains in biodiversity will be wiped out by rampant land-grabbing to provide areas for food production.

Dr Christopher Stewart, Associate Director of Proforest, examined the benefits offered by certification schemes, allowing consumer choice and driving Corporate Socal Responsibility. The Round Table on Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO) was highlighted in particular. He argued that palm oil actually represents an efficient, highly productive crop, with a large yield from a single plant; arguing for the replacement of palm oil with other, lower yielding plants requiring greater areas for production may not therefore make sense. Instead, conservationists and consumers, and Governments, should be working with RSPO to encourage producers to adopt sustainability standards and avoid deforesting the most biodiverse areas of Indonesia, Malaysia and, latterly, Africa and Amazonia, where palm oil cultivation is beginning.

Prof. Kathy Willis from Oxford University demonstrated how a very interesting tool, the Local Ecological Footprint Tool (LEFT) can be used to help developers and producers do just that; targetting where their developments can be placed to minimise ecological damage. At a resolution of 300m2 for vegetation cover, the tool draws on various readily available global datasets to create a composite picture of a particular site under consideration. For example, the FRAGSTATS programme allows the extent of habitat fragmentation in the target area to be examined, whilst GBIF has 2 million species records globally which can be interrogated. Comparison with ground-truth data in Honduras and Madagascar reveals that LEFT has a tendency to overestimate the number of threatened species in an area, never underestimate. Prof. Willis expressed real concern that the Environmental Impact Assessments (EIA) run at the sites examined by LEFT hadn’t picked up the diversity of species and ecological damage which would have been caused were damage to go ahead, indicating that traditional EIA methods are insufficient at present to inform developers about precisely where will do least ecological harm.

And what to do if impacts are unavoidable? Kerry ten Kate, the Business and Biodiversity Offsets Programme (BBOP) discussed the merits of ‘biodiversity offsetting’; measureable conservation outcomes resulting from measures to compensate for the loss of biodiversity once damage to biodiversity has been ameliorated as far as possible. The BBOP consortium, which includes ZSL and Defra, along with banks, is aiming to create an international standard for biodiversity offsets, which will be shortly be available for consultation. Kerry ten Kate argued that there is a clear business case for corporates to engage with offsetting, as to not compensate for their negative impacts on biodiversity will damage their reputation, their bottom line and ultimately their license to operate. Interestingly, Kerry ten Kate said that the loan conditions for project finance have recently changed, obliging ‘no net loss’ and a postive gain for biodiversity.These have been endorsed by banks which provide 90% of major project finance. However, the conservation and ecological science communities will be required to assist the banks in assessing whether these obligations have been met, as banks do not have the specialist expertise to do so.

All speakers agreed that conservationists and ecologists had a duty to engage with businesses at an early stage of project planning, acknowledging that this could sometimes be uncomfortable but that pragmatism was necessary. The ‘elephant in the room’, suggested Kerry ten Kate, was however whether governments would have the political will to reconcile the competing agendas of biodiversity conservation, development and food security. Without this, a degree of market regulation, and without strategic approaches to land-use planning, the choice over what we can ‘afford’ to destroy will no longer be open to us.

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.

Can GM technology cure the world’s growing pains? On Thursday, 21 January, the BES attended an evening meeting at the British Library at which members of the public, academics, industry representatives and food producers gathered together to discuss this question, considering the contribution which GM crops might make to securing the world’s food supplies. The ‘cafe scientifique’ style event, the latest in the ‘Talk Science’ series organised by the Library’s science, technology and medicine division, was led by Prof. Rosie Hails, CEH and Chair of the Natural Capital Initiative.

Prof. Hails’ main point, in an opening talk which focused on the relationship between agriculture and the environment, was that assessments of the costs and benefits of GM crops have focused too rigidly on biodiversity as an indicator of environmental impact, at the expense of considering other parameters. In assessing these crops, a more holistic viewpoint should be adopted, with consideration of a whole suite of ecosystem services.

Prof. Hails outlined the results of farmscale evaluations, set up in the UK to assess the impact of GM crops on biodiversity. The trials had shown that growing herbicide resistant GM crops did have an impact on biodiversity, as competing weeds were removed. However, if other ecosystem services are taken into consideration, on balance it might be worth adopting these crops and mitigating the impacts on biodiversity in some way – through the introduction of diverse field margins for example. Herbicide resistant crops might be more compatible with low tillage systems and the consequent benefits of these systems for soil structure, nutrient, water and carbon retention may mean that these crops have an overall environmental benefit compared to standard methods of growing crops. Greater data is needed on the environmental impact of GM crops, taking this more holistic view.

Prof. Hails made another important point, not often raised in debates around GM: that GM crops are introduced into variable economic and social conditions. For example, evidence supports the conclusion that those who grow Bt cotton in China (engineered to express a protein toxic to the cotton borer) spray less insecticide. However, it is also possible that because Bt cotton seed is more expensive than non-GM seed, some farmers may adopt a highly protective attitude to their crop and spray it regardless. Prof. Hails stated that ACRE (Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment) has developed a matrix which assesses a suite of costs and benefits, including social factors, in more detail.

During the course of the ‘Question Time’ style discussion which followed Prof. Hails’ presentation a number of points were put to an audience member representing Monsanto. It was clear that protectionism and monopoly of GM technology by a few large agrochemical companies was a point of contention and source of unease for many. The point was made that EU regulations, currently very strict, should be relaxed to allow small and medium sized businesses to capitalise on GM technology and develop competing products.

Speaking at the Oxford Farming Conference yesterday the Government’s Chief Scientific Advisor, Professor John Beddington, made clear the Government’s view that using the latest advances in science, such as GM and nanotechnology, is vital to make sure that the world can produce enough to feed a growing population by 2030. The world will need to produce 50% more food in the next twenty years. Prof. Beddington said that more crops will need to be produced on less land, and that GM offers a way to achieve this.

Speaking to farmers at the conference Prof. Beddington said “we need a greener revolution, improving production and efficiency through the food chain within environmental and other constraints”. He stated that action to improve crop yields is necessary now, due to time lags in developing and implementing new technologies, and that GM is critical in meeting economic, environmental and social goals.

Prof. Beddington’s speech attracted criticism from some, including in the Guardian’s editorial yesterday. The Guardian calls for Ministers to themselves be more explicit about the Government’s belief that GM is vital to ensure food security, communicating this directly to the public rather than relying on the Government CSA to make such speeches. The newspaper also questioned whether the evidence base really does support GM technology as ‘vital’ to food security, as outlined by Prof. Beddington, alluding to the International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development (IAAST), led by Professor Bob Watson, Defra’s Chief Scientist. The report found that GM technology was unlikely to have more than a limited role in tackling hunger and that global hunger is as much to do with power and control over food supply as with growing enough to eat.

See more: Daily Telegraph, 7 January 2010

As part of its 350th anniversary celebrations, the Royal Society has invited leading scientists to contribute to a special issue of their journal Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B: Environment and Evolution with their personal analysis of areas of high current relevance and interest. The wide ranging topics include gene function and neural processing, stem cell research, social cognition and ageing.

In line with the growing concern over environmental sustainability and food security (see Defra’s Food 2030 report published yesterday), almost a third of the articles deal with this theme, analysing the current challenges from ecological, social and economic perspectives. In his article, the Government Chief Scientific Advisor Professor John Beddington analyses the factors threatening our capacity to feed the future world population, and echoes the Royal Society ‘Reaping the Benefits’ report published at the end of last year in calling for increased scientific input to tackle these problems. Lord Robert May focuses on the increasing pressure humanity is placing on the natural environment, measured in terms of its ‘ecological footprint’, and its effect on biodiversity, while the Cambridge economist Sir Partha Dasgupta highlights the need for increased recognition of the role of intact ecosystems in providing vital ‘natural capital’ if these areas are to be given the protection they deserve.

The full articles are available free to download from the Royal Society’s website.