Tag: State of Nature

Farmers are not the problem: I am, and you might be too

The recent State of Nature report paints a bleak picture of modern Britain. One in which wildlife populations tumble and wild spaces are hemmed in, degraded and destroyed. Unfortunately, most of us will recognise this as the norm and at a relatively youthful 26-years old, it worries me that this is all I have ever known.

I do not remember the halcyon days of old when verdant meadows buzzed with insect life; nor when the haunting cry of the Curlew was commonplace over farmland and hedgerows chimed with the song of countless farmland birds. These things are alien to me: a factor of life before my time. Truly, I wish I could recall such sights and sounds but the reality is that I have grown-up in a landscape denuded of its wildlife. A countryside in crisis, altered beyond recognition.

A whopping 72% of land in the UK is managed for agriculture, and changing agricultural practice is regarded as having the ‘single biggest impact upon nature in recent decades’. Changes which have seen meadows ripped up, root and stem, invertebrates annihilated with odious pesticides and larger fauna left bereft of habitat or adequate food supply. The blame for the demise of Britain’s natural heritage often falling squarely on farmers – those who alter the land, plant, plough and, if you listen to some commentators, continue to pillage what remains of our ‘wild’ land until this day.

It is very easy to blame farmers for the woes afflicting our countryside. To many, those of us dwelling contently in towns and cities, they are an alien race: found in the far-flung reaches of our land, seldom encountered yet responsible for providing the food we demand.  They are easily stereotyped and, as the hands that tend the land, are easy to label public enemy number one in times of crisis. They are, after all, those whom do the dirty, so to speak, and transform the landscape. Often to the detriment of wildlife.

Scouring social media in the wake of the aforementioned report, I noted a large number of people openly criticising the farming community. Not everyone, of course – and it was nice to observe some positive examples of cooperation between conservation bodies and farmers – but a fair few. I was tempted to join in, I confess; although upon further thought, I have come to realise that the issue is not so black and white.

The reality for farmers is that they are slaves to demand. They run businesses, large and small, which must compete and yield a profit in order to survive. When we demand cheap food in large volumes, farmers must comply or risk someone else filling the void. Our supermarkets play a sizeable role too, with rival brands competing to launch the latest ‘hot deal’ as a way to entice thrifty consumers. A cycle with knock-on effects for farmers who must then produce intensively to meet demand and ultimately, stay afloat.

It is wholly appropriate to say that it is our own shopping choices that have lead to the intensification of agriculture in the UK, and by default, our demand that directly drives the use of pesticides, the removal of hedgerows and replacement of wildlife-friendly meadows with miles upon miles of sterile crops. Looking inward, it is clear that I, as an irresponsible consumer, have played a part in the ecological crisis facing this country. And doubtless, some of you will have too.

Like a great many people I suspect, I am guilty of treating food as an afterthought. I buy what I can with what I have left, my weekly budget determined by the amount of spare money left over from the purchase of a whole manner of trivial goods – things I could likely go without. I buy as much as I can with what I have, which often means buying cheap and in bulk: meat, vegetables, fruit and grain-products all included.

clouds-194840

Part of me would like to claim that my stingy shopping habitats are born of necessity and that I simply cannot afford to pay extra for quality or ethics. It would be all-too-easy to use a modest wage in defence of my choices, as I suspect many others would too. Whether that line would hold up under scrutiny, however, is another story entirely.

Whilst I possess only a modest sum of money each month on which to ‘get by’ it is what I spend it on that really counts. Like many people my age, I splash out on leisure – nights out, restaurants, cinema trips and ridiculous, frothy coffee – and, without doubt, spend way too much on odds and ends I could really go without. Books and homeware, jeans and magazine subscriptions, even takeaways, god forbid. Whilst I make little, if I were to cut down on these expenditures, it is clear that I would have a surprising sum leftover.

The average Briton spends a relatively small portion of their income on food, at least compared to their combined spend on culture, recreation and ‘treat’ items. A trend which simply does match up with our oft-stated desire to protect and conserve nature. It would be disingenuous, farcical even, for me to sit at a computer screen, tucking into the cheap ham and cheaper bread of my favourite sandwich, while lambasting those working the far off fields.

It is clear that farming practices (and some farmers) need to change in this country, and that change they must before what little biodiversity we have left is pushed further towards the brink. Equally, however, it is apparent that for this to happen we, the thrifty consumers of this country, must change too. We must place a growing emphasis on our food and in doing so, incentivise the change we wish to see from sellers and producers alike.

Will I change? It will be difficult, but I will try. For a part of me is ashamed of the role I have played in looming [some may say ongoing] environmental catastrophe. If forsaking the odd bottle of wine, trip abroad, hotel stay or concert is the price I must pay to contribute to the preservation of nature in this country, I am ready and willing. I may not be willing to go vegan, or even vegetarian in pursuit of a clean conscience just yet, but this represents a way for me to make a small yet real difference. It may not be much but regardless, it counts.

The State of Nature report has taught me that whilst it is easy for an economical Millenial content to snatch a three for £10.00 offer on cheap meat in Asda, to condemn those producing my food for the wrecking of nature, doing so would be dishonest. In reality, I should be looking inwards. And others should too.

Agricultural Policy To Blame For The Sorry State Of Nature

The latest State of Nature report was released this week to widespread debate on social media, and widespread coverage in national media. Though not all chose to dignify it, with the BBC in particular, and rather shamefully may I add, deeming the topic unworthy of a spot on the prime-time news. Combining the expertise and hard work of 50 conservation bodies, the report gives a brutally honest overview of the health of nature in the UK, and beyond, in her oversea territories. And, truth be told, does not make for overly pleasant reading, setting out a sombre tale of widespread and often catastrophic declines, and highlighting sorry state of wildlife populations in the British Isles.

“Of the nearly 8,000 species assessed using modern Red List criteria, 15% are extinct or threatened with extinction from Great Britain.”

The overall message of State of Nature is not a positive one, with countless British species now at risk of extinction. With population trends suggesting that the UK has lost “significantly” more nature than the global average over recent years, and that between 2002 and 2013, that 53% of species have declined in the UK. A woeful set of observations by any standard, the blame laid predominately on the doorstep of policy-makers in the agricultural community, with changes in farming practice listed as a driving force behind many of the declines. And climate change coming in second, though the impacts of this have been mixed.

When talking specifically of farmland, the report states that “Over the long term, 52% of farmland species declined and 48% increased”, while over the short term, the overall picture was unchanged”. Ultimately reaching the worrying conclusion that, overall, “12% of farmland species are threatened with extinction from Great Britain”. With farmland birds and butterflies perhaps of greatest concern, declining by 54% and 43% respectively since the 1970’s. With the reasons for these worrying trends laid bare for all to see and including:

  • A switch from spring to autumn sown crops
  • A decrease in hay production and the subsequent rise in silage production
  • The increased use of insecticides, herbicides and fungicides
  • The loss of marginal habitats such as hedgerows and farmland ponds

If anything, State of Nature highlights a need for a rapid and radical overhaul of farming policy and a distinct change in how farmers  conduct their operations. No easy task, given the fact that we all need to eat, and that Britain’s population continues to increase each year. Yet I fear tough decisions must be made in order to protect species such as the High Brown Fritillary and Corn Marigold from further declines in the future. With many cherished species now standing on the edge of an abyss.

Obviously, the farming community did not take the findings of the report lying down, and many have come out fighting against the accusations. With both the NFU and former Environment Secretary Owen Patterson quick to highlight the beneficial changes in farming policy that have taken place in recent times. Which, to be fair, I agree with. Agriculture has, after all, come on leaps and bounds in the last few decades, through sympathetic management and environmental stewardships – which the report discusses in length. Though it is clear, to me, that this is simply not enough. And equally clear that Owen Patterson’s assertions that uncontrolled predator numbers are to blame for the downward trend in our wildlife, are completely ludicrous. Yes, predators can and will cause a problem from time to time – unlike many people in the environmental field, I accept this and often condone control – though would it not be better to tackle the fundamental, irrefutable problems faced by our farmland wildlife before shifting the blame?

I am not anti-farmer by a long shot, nor are those behind State of Nature it would seem. They do, after all, refuse to pin the blame on farmers themselves, choosing instead to tackle the dubious decisions of policy makers. Yet the findings of the report tell a worrying tale, and it is clear that action must be taken now. Action that I feel must centre on maintaining the existing subsidy system post-Brexit, and provide a clear financial incentive for farmers to make the right choice. Though the situation post-Brexit remains unclear, and the natural world could well suffer as a result of weaker environmental policies. Only time will tell.

It is important to remember that the situation on our farmland is not all doom and gloom. It is not great, by a long shot, but there are notes of positivity in which we may take some solace. As the Daily Mail (I cannot believe I am mentioning them here) were all too quick to point out in a recent article.

While the Mail’s apparent attempt to gloss over the woes of our countryside is troublesome, at best, and their dismissive stance in regards to the figures set out in State of Nature is nothing short of infuriating, I fear they do make a good point. For once. And one that fits with earlier statements made by high-profile members of the farming community. That a great deal of our wildlife is also increasing. Indeed, State of Nature shows that “44% of species increased, with 29% showing strong or moderate increases” with 48% of farmland species also increasingly over the long-term. With no change in the number of species threatened over a short-term period.

While “no change” may not immediately sound like a good thing, it is promising to learn that no new species have been added to the ranks of those facing impending doom, and with 48% of farmland species actively increasing, it is clear that some credit must be given to the farming community. So yes, Guy Smith’s statement that the “the environmental lobby should not criticise all the time but to also pay attention to the successes” may well be based in the realm of reality. Indeed it is very easy to criticise farmers, and I have seen many blog posts doing so over the past few days. Yet it should be remembered that they do, from time to time, conduct some wholly positive work, and, at the best of times, have a rather difficult job balancing the needs of feeding an ever-growing population with those of the natural world.

As Ben Eagle states a recent (and rather excellent) blog on the subject: “It is very easy to farmer bash and for farmers to take this personally and bring up the drawbridge“. Though in doing so, we shoot ourselves in the foot. The only way forward now is to build on past gains and work together, as a combined and effective force, to improve the state of nature. This will involve work with farmers, but also other groups with a stake in our countryside, and may prove difficult at times. It is, after all, not easy to forgive the slights inflicted upon the natural world. We must, however, pool our resources in an effort to sway policy in a more promising direction, and through education inspire cooperation, to achieve our goals in the future. Cooperation, of the kind demonstrated by the fifty or so NGO’s behind the State of Nature report, will be our only respite in the future.

Now many will disagree with me here, but to me it seems to that the time has come for conservationists to yield the moral high-ground, and take note of the positive achievements of others, and for additional factions, namely farmers, to take the warnings of conservationists on board. To abandon their entrenched positions and to help sway environmental policy in the right direction. The State of Nature report does not make for enjoyable reading, but it does contain glimmers of positivity, and provides a basis for unified work in the future. Work which our embattled wildlife so desperately needs if it is to surivive long enough to be enjoyed by future generations.