Green tau restoring biodiversity as part of the bigger picture

27th July 2026

“According to the Natural History Museum’s Biodiversity Intactness Index, the UK ranks 189th out of 240 countries and territories for how intact its nature and biodiversity remain. Just 53% of the UK’s original nature is left intact – far below the Index’s safe limit of 90% and the global average of 79%. Each of the four UK nations sits near the bottom of this ranking, with England at 47%, Northern Ireland at 50%, Wales at 51%, and Scotland at 56%.” (1)

Worryingly the government’s State of  Nature Report suggests this decline is still ongoing: “…more indicators are deteriorating or showing no change than improving, over both the long and short term.” And: “No indicators which are deteriorating in the long term, are showing improvement in the short term.” (2) 

19% Across the UK species studied have declined on average by 19% since 1970.

16% Nearly one in six species are threatened with extinction from Great Britain

151 of 10,008 species assessed have already become extinct since 1500 (3)

Scientists warn that if we don’t reverse this decline imminently – the Kunming Montreal framework target is protect 30% 2030  – it will become near impossible to reverse. 

https://www.robeco.com/en-uk/insights/2024/07/bending-the-curve-investing-in-biodiversity-as-an-economic-necessity

Conversely if we don’t manage to turn the tide by 2030, the prospects for improving biodiversity are good.  

To make a bit of a leap, I’m going to interpret increasing biodiversity as meaning restoring nature. But this too may not be clear cut. To restore nature could mean:  

https://research.senedd.wales/media/z4alhnt5/biodiversity-fig-2-en.png

“In simple terms, restoration means bringing more nature and biodiversity back across different ecosystems, from forests, peatlands and agricultural land, to freshwater, marine and urban ecosystems.

Restoration is a process of assisting the recovery of an ecosystem that has been degraded, damaged, or destroyed. This could be through rewetting wetlands and peatlands, improving degraded soil and agricultural land by adding natural features such as hedgerows and trees, recreating lost natural forests, removing invasive species, planting native vegetation, removing obsolete barriers from rivers, increasing tree coverage in cities, and much more.” (4)

It could mean restoring landscapes to their wild, pre-human state:-

“At Rewilding Britain, we define rewilding as the large-scale restoration of ecosystems to the point where nature is allowed to take care of itself. Rewilding seeks to reinstate natural processes and, where appropriate, missing species – allowing them to shape the landscape and the habitats within. It’s focused firmly on the future although we can learn from the past.

“Rewilding encourages a balance between people and the rest of nature so that we thrive together. It can provide opportunities for communities to diversify and create nature-based economies; for living systems to provide the ecological functions on which we all depend; and for people to reconnect with wild nature.

“Our vision is at least 5% of Britain rewilding, with 25% returned to broader mosaics of nature-friendly land and marine uses — including farming, forestry and fishing. We see this expansion reversing biodiversity loss and enabling nature to bounce back, helping us adapt to climate change as our complex ecosystems find their own answers.” (5)

Or it could be a pragmatic approach:-

  1. Restore nature now – the Government must honour its commitment to manage 30% of land for nature by 2030. That means designating more space for nature and paying our farmers properly to help nature thrive. 
  2. Defend nature and wildlife – stop weakening the laws that protect them. Introduce a strong Water Reform Bill to clean up our rivers, streams and seas, and make polluters pay.  
  3. Build places to be proud of – demand that neighbourhoods are rich in nature and end unfair access to green space, starting by publishing the Government’s long-promised action plan by the end of the year. (6)

However what I want to suggest is that however we set about restoring nature and reversing biodiversity loss, we cannot address this issue in isolation. If we consider why biodiversity has been in such sharp decline, why it is that we have lost to so much of our natural environments, we will see that these losses are linked to:-

  • Expansion of the built environment where buildings, roads and other transport links, mines and quarries, have encroached on land where nature previously existed. Many species are in decline because their habitats are disappearing.
  • Pollution from smoke (causing acid rain), from vehicles exhaust pipes, from industrial processes, and  the run off from farms of slurry, fertilisers etc. 
  • From intensive farming where large fields have resulted in the loss of trees and hedgerows that once provided essential habitats for many species, and the proliferation of monocultures which do not support a diversity of other life forms.
  • Replacing mixed broadleaf woodlands with monocultures of coniferous plantations.
  • Overgrazing of uplands and the replacement of meadows with grass monocultures suited purely for grazing cattle – again reducing habitats for other species.
  • Increasing use of pesticides and herbicides that do what it says in the tin – kills insects and plants.
  • Intensive cultivation of the soil destroying its natural structures and resident populations of insects, grubs, fungi and micro-organisms – and requiring their substitution with fertilisers to maintain the fertility of the soil.
  • Climate change which is human-induced and which has depleted native species who have been unable to adapt or to adapt fast enough to the increasing heat/ floods/ droughts and wildfires.

Unless we can address these issues to, no amount of planting native trees, or sowing wildflower meadows, or reintroducing lost species, is going to work. Restoring nature and improving biodiversity has to involve us in reviewing and reforming our whole way of living. 

For example, we need to review the way we farm and therefore what we eat. Our current agricultural system is designed to produce increasing amounts of meat and dairy, with the parallel need to produce – or import – more  animal feed, which necessitates the intensive farming methods that are widespread. If we wish to reduce that scale and intensity of livestock production we need to eat less meat and dairy products and instead adopt diets that are rich in tasty, diverse UK grown fruits, vegetables, nuts and beans. 

We may want to look at how land is farmed. Would it be better for nature – and for us as communities – if we had more smaller farm units, employing more people and less heavy equipment? Would it be better to have more hedgerows, more ponds and pockets of woodland? Would it be better to have more publicly accessible green spaces? 

Yes there would be a cost – food prices would go up – and that might mean reducing the lower rates of taxation, but that cost would surely be less than the costs of the continued loss of biodiversity and the resulting negative impact on climate change, on floods and droughts, on the fertility of the soil, on clean air and clean waterways, and of the loss of essential pollinators leading to depleted harvests. 

These are all serious issues that we need to consider as a society and which we need to address collectively.

  1. https://policy.friendsoftheearth.uk/insight/how-britain-became-one-most-nature-depleted-countries-world

(2) ditto

(3) https://stateofnature.org.uk/

(4) https://www.restorenature.eu/en/faq-on-nature-restoration#What is nature restoration

(5) https://www.rewildingbritain.org.uk/why-rewild/what-is-rewilding/an-introduction-to-rewilding/defining-rewilding

(6) https://www.nationaltrust.org.uk/our-cause/nature-climate/nature-conservation/nature-is-our-future

Proper 10, 7th Sunday after Trinity

19th July 2026

Reflection with readings below.

We have heard in previous weeks of Paul wrestling because, although he know what he should do, he does what he shouldn’t do. We have heard Jesus and the Pharisees puzzle why a ‘good’ person chooses to mix with ‘bad’ people – and that it is those who are ill who need the attention of the doctor. We have considered that sin might be ignoring  – or being ignorant of – and pursuing the opposite of, God’s wisdom. And we have considered systemic sin – sin we are sucked into not by choice but because it is a sin that embraces the whole system or structure within which we live. 

For example, God’s wisdom tells us to welcome the stranger but we in the UK live within a system where the current law makes many strangers unwelcome – and indeed turns them away. This system makes it impossible to fully fulfil God’s word. This is not to say we shouldn’t repent of the sin, nor that we shouldn’t try to do as best we can to welcome the stranger, nor that we shouldn’t try to change the system. However as individuals are ability will be limited. 

The parable from today’s gospel may be one way of exploring the issue of systemic sin. We believe and trust that the world which God has entrusted to us, is inherently good.But we are also acutely aware that systems have grown up within our societies that are not inherently good. Systems that have different objectives from those desired by God. Think of our economic system. God’s desire is for the flourishing of all people alike, for the flourishing of the natural environment, for flourishing biodiversity. Our economic system is predicated on the objective of maximising profit. It is not concerned with who gets the profit but the systems bent is such that once someone has wealth they will tend to grow richer, whilst someone who hasn’t will start off from a disadvantage. The system is also bent in favour of things which have a clearly identifiable monetary value – it favours building houses which have a market determined price, rather than the value of family life. It favours things that can be bought and sold – it favours oil and gas which have a market determined price rather than clean air,  for air is too fluid and uncontainable to be bought and sold.

It would be lovely to be able to completely uproot the economic system that we have and get rid of its systemic evil. But to do so would – at least in the short term – lead to loss of jobs and livelihoods; it would cause the collapse of shops and supply chains leading to theft and rioting; it would lead to power cuts, the failure of water supply and sewage systems, the collapse of social care infrastructure etc etc. 

This stickiness should not prevent us from trying to prune and reshape – and overcome and replace – the economic system we have inherited. 

Last week, members of synod debated a motion calling on the Church Commissioners to restore and protect 30% of the land they control for nature – for the restoration and conservation of biodiversity. The motioned failed even though it is clear to everyone that we have already lost so much biodiversity that it threatens the health and wellbeing of our future. Declining biodiversity will lead to more flooding, poorer soils, more disease, less protection from the elements, poorer harvests, less happiness. 

The motioned failed because the way we farm the land is tied up within an economic system that can put a price on a tonne of wheat but not on sky full of swallows, that can put a price on a pint of milk but not on a stretch of clean river, that can put a price on a plank of wood but not on the life of an oak tree. 

The motion failed because farm tenants are paid to grow crops, not to supply clean air; to rear cattle, not to maintain flood plains; to produce eggs, not to protect pollinators. The motion failed because farm tenants have to maximise profits to pay rents, and because the Commissioners have to maximise returns on investment to finance the Church. The motion failed because we as consumers want cheap food or – as is often the case – because the economic system does not pay us enough to pay a fair price for fairly produced food. The motion failed because we as consumers don’t want to pay for clean air, for fertile soils, for flood management etc. Or maybe because there is no way as consumers we can buy these life-giving products? The motion failed because as consumers we want to eat more meat and dairy rather than eating more plant based items – and therefore require  a  land-use pattern which allocates land for livestock rather than nature. 

What then should we do? What then is the wisdom of God? The people of Ancient Israel took on board God-given laws that required that the land have time to rest and recover, that fields and trees should not  be stripped to the bone, that the harvest should be shared with the vulnerable. The prophets passed on God’s wisdom about caring for the land, caring for the vulnerable, and being in a good relationship with God and with all that God has created. Jesus taught the importance of questioning the rules and traditions we grow up with, about sharing what we do have, about avoiding greed, about caring for the vulnerable and for those society despises. We have the radical example of the early church pooling and sharing their resources. 

As Christians we have a wisdom that counters the systems we live within. It is not always a wisdom we can follow as individuals because we maybe so constrained by those systems – the degree of constraint depending upon personal circumstances – but as communities and as the Church we do have more scope to be counter-cultural. We could – surely – mandate the Church Commissioners to use funds to support tenants willing to restore and enhance nature on the land they farm. We could – surely – mandate that the Church Commissioners could accept a lower rate of return on farm investments. But at the same time we would have to accept a smaller distribution of funds for the Church and instead look to our own pockets to make up the shortfall (depending on our means as per the early church).

We could at the same time, look to our own lifestyles – choosing a diet that is compatible with the restoration of more land for nature. We could reprioritise our spending to support nature. 

As a Church – as a significant land owner and as a prophetic voice – we could challenge the system that allows the degradation of nature at the expense of profit. We could challenge the system that doesn’t provide every citizen with a fair wage. We could challenge the system that doesn’t ensure every citizen has access to affordable healthy food. We could challenge the system that doesn’t protect the environment for the wellbeing of generations to come.

As individuals and as a Church, we are called to speak out and act to bring in the reign  – the rule – of God so that God’s will is done on Earth as in Heaven.

Isaiah 44:6-8

Thus says the Lord, the King of Israel,
and his Redeemer, the Lord of hosts: 

I am the first and I am the last;
besides me there is no god. 

Who is like me? Let them proclaim it,
let them declare and set it forth before me. 

Who has announced from of old the things to come?
Let them tell us what is yet to be. 

Do not fear, or be afraid;
have I not told you from of old and declared it?
You are my witnesses! 

Is there any god besides me?
There is no other rock; I know not one. 

Psalm 86:11-17

11 Teach me your way, O Lord,
and I will walk in your truth; *
knit my heart to you that I may fear your Name.

12 I will thank you, O Lord my God, with all my heart, *
and glorify your Name for evermore.

13 For great is your love toward me; *
you have delivered me from the nethermost Pit.

14 The arrogant rise up against me, O God,
and a band of violent men seeks my life; *
they have not set you before their eyes.

15 But you, O Lord, are gracious and full of compassion, *
slow to anger, and full of kindness and truth.

16 Turn to me and have mercy upon me; *
give your strength to your servant;
and save the child of your handmaid.

17 Show me a sign of your favour,
so that those who hate me may see it and be ashamed; *
because you, O Lord, have helped me and comforted me.

Romans 8:12-25

Brothers and sisters, we are debtors, not to the flesh, to live according to the flesh– for if you live according to the flesh, you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body, you will live. For all who are led by the Spirit of God are children of God. For you did not receive a spirit of slavery to fall back into fear, but you have received a spirit of adoption. When we cry, “Abba! Father!” it is that very Spirit bearing witness with our spirit that we are children of God, and if children, then heirs, heirs of God and joint heirs with Christ– if, in fact, we suffer with him so that we may also be glorified with him.

I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worth comparing with the glory about to be revealed to us. For the creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the children of God; for the creation was subjected to futility, not of its own will but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to decay and will obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God. We know that the whole creation has been groaning in labor pains until now; and not only the creation, but we ourselves, who have the first fruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly while we wait for adoption, the redemption of our bodies. For in hope we were saved. Now hope that is seen is not hope. For who hopes for what is seen? But if we hope for what we do not see, we wait for it with patience.

Matthew 13:24-30,36-43

Jesus put before the crowd another parable: “The kingdom of heaven may be compared to someone who sowed good seed in his field; but while everybody was asleep, an enemy came and sowed weeds among the wheat, and then went away. So when the plants came up and bore grain, then the weeds appeared as well. And the slaves of the householder came and said to him, ‘Master, did you not sow good seed in your field? Where, then, did these weeds come from?’ He answered, ‘An enemy has done this.’ The slaves said to him, ‘Then do you want us to go and gather them?’ But he replied, ‘No; for in gathering the weeds you would uproot the wheat along with them. Let both of them grow together until the harvest; and at harvest time I will tell the reapers, Collect the weeds first and bind them in bundles to be burned, but gather the wheat into my barn.’” 

Then he left the crowds and went into the house. And his disciples approached him, saying, “Explain to us the parable of the weeds of the field.” He answered, “The one who sows the good seed is the Son of Man; the field is the world, and the good seed are the children of the kingdom; the weeds are the children of the evil one, and the enemy who sowed them is the devil; the harvest is the end of the age, and the reapers are angels. Just as the weeds are collected and burned up with fire, so will it be at the end of the age. The Son of Man will send his angels, and they will collect out of his kingdom all causes of sin and all evildoers, and they will throw them into the furnace of fire, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. Then the righteous will shine like the sun in the kingdom of their Father. Let anyone with ears listen!”

Tending the earth for all

18th July 2026

Trust in the Lord and be doing good; dwell in the land and be nourished with truth.
  Let your delight be in the Lord and he will give you your heart’s desire.
Commit your way to the Lord and put your trust in him, and he will bring it to pass. 

Psalm 37:3-5

You Lord are the bread of life;

feed us with your wisdom.

Our meat is to do the Father’s  will.

guide us in all we do

Whenever we eat or drink

Let it be to the glory of God.

A Reading  – Mark 4:3-8

 “Listen! A farmer went out to sow his seed. As he was scattering the seed, some fell along the path, and the birds came and ate it up. Some fell on rocky places, where it did not have much soil. It sprang up quickly, because the soil was shallow.  But when the sun came up, the plants were scorched, and they withered because they had no root. Other seed fell among thorns, which grew up and choked the plants, so that they did not bear grain.  Still other seed fell on good soil. It came up, grew and produced a crop, some multiplying thirty, some sixty, some a hundred times.” 

Pause for reflection

For as the rain and the snow come down from heaven,
    and do not return there until they have watered the earth,

So may we store water for when and for whoever needs it,

and safeguard those living with the threat of flooding.


As the earth brings forth and sprouts,
    giving seed to the sower and bread to the eater,

So may we harvest what is needed, 

sharing the bounty so no one goes hungry.

So shall God’s word be that goes forth; it shall not return empty,
but it shall accomplish that which is purposed
    and succeed in the thing for which it is sent.

May we pay attention to God’s word,

 following the ways of wisdom that God desires 

for the wellbeing of all creation.

For as the earth brings forth its shoots,

May we protect the fertility of the soil,

not polluting it with chemicals nor stripping it of nourishment.

And as a garden causes what is sown in it to spring up,

May we treasure those who tend and farm the land,

paying fair wages and sharing profits.

So the Lord God will cause righteousness and praise
    to spring up before all the nations:

May we welcome God’s kingdom with all our being,

following God’s law with hands, hearts and voices.

Based on Isaiah 55:10,11 and 61:11


The Grace

Counting on 2026 … day 8

16th  January

Reversing land system change needs to include both reforestation and the adoption of regenerative farming methods – ie methods that restore the fertility of the soil, restores fresh water cycles, protects the environment from pollutants such as pesticides, fertilisers, slurry etc, that promotes increasing biodiversity and produces healthy food. Somehow nations  need to find ways of valuing the role that trees and good agricultural practice play in maintaining the wellbeing of the earth systems on which we rely. 

This might be by levying a rate or tax to cover the cost similar to the water rate we used to pay for clean water – and which could be used to pay for planting trees and/or  for setting aside land for woodlands. In the UK farmers can be paid by the Government (and thus ultimately paid for by the tax payer) to protect and enhance the natural environment – eg through the Sustainable Farming Incentive – https://www.farmingadviceservice.org.uk/category/funding-support

In a similar vein, consumers can actively chose to support environmentally friendly farming by paying a premium for the products thus produced – eg organic fruit and vegetables, grass fed meat, wild flower honey. 

It might be by levying a fee on those whose businesses pollute the environment – eg levied against beef and dairy products, or against industrial chicken farms. Denmark – https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c20nq8qgep3o

Governments and other institutions- like health bodies, schools etc – might promote a switch to largely plant based diets (as per the Planetary Health Diet). Denmark is developing a concerted switch to a largely plant based diet with support for farmers as well as encouragement for consumers. https://rethinkpriorities.org/research-area/plant-based-diet-shift-initiative-case-studies-denmarks-plant-based-food-grant/

Governments and farming bodies can encourage a switch to crops better suited to the changing climate in their region – eg switchIng from olives and almonds to pistachios in the dryer Spanish climate, introducing agroforestry, replacing cotton with hemp (as is happening in Turkey – https://egedeniztextile.com/turkish-hemp/) etc. https://inspain.news/spains-green-gold-rush-and-why-pistachios-are-the-future-of-farming/

Governments could mandate that public purchasing should favour sustainably produced products – both food and timber based products. This report urges the use of timber in the construction industry: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/timber-in-construction-roadmap-2025/timber-in-construction-roadmap-2025

Conversely governments can implement legislation to limit or end land use and farming practices that damage planetary boundaries. The UK and the European Union have both introduced legislation that requires companies to ensure through the length of the supply chains that not products are derived from sources where deforestation is involved: https://www.clydeco.com/en/insights/2025/02/spotlight-on-deforestation-regulations-in-uk-eu

NB both sets of policies have yet to be fully implemented.

Counting On … 198

3rd December 2025

Phosphorus is another key mineral for the health of plants and animals. It derives from rocks and  through erosion finds its way into the soil, where as  soluble phosphates (HPO4 and H20P4) it is absorbed by plants, and through eating plants into plant eating creatures and so up through the food chain. Bacteria in the soil aid the absorption of phosphates.

Organic phosphorus is released back into the soil through defecation and the decay of plants and animals. During the process of decomposition the organic form of phosphorus is converted to an inorganic firm such that it can overtime  be reformed into sedimentary rocks. This comprises the natural phosphorus cycle. 

Because phosphorus improves crop yields it is added as an artificial fertiliser. This input disrupts the cycle. Excess of phosphorus is the primary cause of algal bloom in water sources, reducing the amount of oxygen present and so killing off many plants and creatures. (1)

The following data comes from Planetary Boundaries Science:-

“Before human intervention, phosphorus flows were low ~2.5 Tg P pa (tetragrams of phosphorus per year) from land to freshwater and ~1.3 Tg P pa of export to the ocean. Human activities have increased flows from land to freshwater systems through a global application of mined phosphorus to cropland of around 18.2 Tg P pa and have increased phosphorus flows to the ocean to around 4.4 Tg P pa, largely due to fertiliser use.” 

At the same time, the sage planetary boundary for phosphorus flow is between 6.2 and 11 Tg P pa. (2) 

  1. https://biologyteach.com/phosphorus-cycle/
  2. https://www.planetaryhealthcheck.org/boundary/modification-of-biogeochemical-flows/

Counting on … day 20

29th January 2025

Food waste occurs at all stages between field and the fork. 

At the field end, waste may occur because the crop has not grown to a saleable quality which could because of drought or excess water, frosts or excess heat, infestation by bugs or diseases. Food waste may occur  because of delays in harvesting (due to adverse weather) or a lack of workers or equipment. 

The increasing occurrence of adverse weather events caused by the climate crisis is going to be an issue for decades to come. Even if we can curtail carbon emissions, it will be  many decades before global temperatures will reduce to a level such that weather patterns will revert to what we would consider normal.

As regards harvesting, much of the work is done by people on short term insecure contracts earning minimal  wages. This is not good for them nor is it good for our food system. Maybe as consumers we should be willing to pay a fairer price for our food. But equally it maybe others in the supply chain need to be taking a smaller profit. The following Guardian article is interesting. But it is not just a UK issue. Similar problems happen in Spain where ‘cheap’  seasonal labour  is brought in from North Africa – https://www.ethicalconsumer.org/ethicalcampaigns/agricultural-workers-rights-almeria

“Employment tribunal hearings are due to begin this week to decide their claims for unlawful ­deduction of wages, unfair dismissal, discrimination and harassment against Haygrove, a business which runs five farms in the UK growing ­strawberries, cherries and other berries.

“It employs more than 1,000 ­people to pick fruit and uses the seasonal worker scheme, a visa programme introduced after Brexit when fruit was left rotting in the fields because there was no one to pick it. Haygrove disputes the claims.

“McAndrew said there was substantial evidence of “widespread exploitation” of people on the seasonal worker visa. Part of the reason is that growers are under extreme pressure from supermarkets to drive down prices, and seasonal workers are usually employed through third-party agencies.

“Research by the Landworkers’ Alliance into the fruit supply chain found that for a £2.30 punnet of strawberries, the farm received 50p, of which just 5p was profit, while workers received just 18p after deductions for tax, visa and accommodation.” (1)

(1) https://www.theguardian.com/global/2025/jan/26/protests-by-fruit-pickers-and-farmers-put-spotlight-on-price-of-cheap-food-in-uk?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

Green Tau: issue 100

14th December 2024

How we can make a just transition? Agriculture and land use

Approximately 12% (58MtCO2 as of 2020) of the UK’s greenhouse gas emissions come from farming but of that 10% more than half is methane from livestock and a further 30% is nitrous oxides from fertilisers (1). As the UK moves to a net zero economy, it is obvious that emissions from agriculture need to be reduced – the Climate Change Committee’s target is 21 MtCO2 by 2050. (Agriculture – including deliberate none cultivation of the land – offers opportunities to increase natural carbon absorption which should more than offset this remaining 21Mt of CO2).

The Climate Change Committee which draws up carbon budgets and roadmaps to advise the Government as to the means by which net zero targets can be achieved, recommended in its 2020 report Land use: Policies for a Net Zero UK, the following policy proposals:

  • Increase tree planting – increasing UK forestry cover from 13% to at least 17% by 2050 by planting around 30,000 hectares (90 – 120 million trees) of broadleaf and conifer woodland each year.
  • Encourage low-carbon farming practices – such as ‘controlled-release’ fertilisers, improving livestock health and slurry acidification.
  • Restore peatlands – restoring at least 50% of upland peat and 25% of lowland peat.
  • Encourage bioenergy crops – expanding UK energy crops to around 23,000 hectares each year.
  • Reduce food waste and consumption of the most carbon-intensive foods – reduce the 13.6 million tonnes of food waste produced annually by 20% and the consumption of beef, lamb and dairy by at least 20% per person, well within current healthy eating guidelines. (2)

In the summer of this year, 2024, the Climate Change Committee’s report on progress found that reducing emissions from agriculture and land use had slowed and that ‘total emissions from agriculture have not significantly decreased since 2008’! (3) Commenting on the Report, ADAS  notes “A key CCC recommendation is that  tree planting and peatland restoration must be accelerated. Under the CCC pathways to net zero, tree planting must be scaled up in the 2020s in order for abatement (carbon sequestration and storage) to be sufficient to meet later carbon budgets and reach net zero by 2050. This will require a doubling of current rates to get as close as possible to the targets of 30,000ha of new woodland creation per year by 2025 and 32,000ha of peatland restoration a year by 2026.” (4) As regards reducing livestock levels, whilst figures previously showed a decline, this seems to have plateaued, suggesting further focus here is needed. 

Whether through converting more arable or grass lands to woodland, restoring peatlands or by reducing livestock numbers, the farming world is going to have to face ongoing change. 

The demands of climate change, go beyond just reducing carbon emissions, and include further action in protecting land, properties and lifestyles from the impacts of increasingly adverse weather conditions and rising sea levels. Again referencing the latest CCC report ADAS notes “This latest CCC report comes after the wettest 18 months on record in England. Farmers and land managers have been among the most affected with thousands of acres of farmland flooded, crop yields down and harvesting delayed, as well as knock-on impacts into this season and likely longer-term.

“The impacts of this record rainfall highlight the urgent need to adapt to the physical risks of climate change, to avoid more costly and less effective adaptations further down the line. The CCC reports that currently the UK’s Third National Adaption programme (NAP3) lacks the ambition and pace to address the scale of climate risks we are already experiencing in the UK”. (6)

Under the terms of the Climate Change Act 2008 the UK is required to produce ‘national adaptation plans’ setting out how the government will protect the country from the impacts of climate change by   constructing flood defences, developing green spaces, cultivating drought-resistant crops, and building resilient infrastructure etc. NAP3 covers the period 2023 to 2028. To date most commentators note that the provisions made by NAP3 are inadequate, but clearly they will impact on the farming world whether through more farmland suffering the adverse consequences of droughts and floods, or through changing agricultural practices and changes to land use – eg restoring water meadows, planting more woodland and re-setting peatlands.

At the same time as the need to address climate change by transitioning to net zero, the UK also needs to address biodiversity loss which is another issue linked with the need for change in agricultural practices. As regards England (other parts of the UK have their own policies) the Parliament has noted that “the Environment Act 2021 … set legally binding biodiversity targets ….:

  • to reduce the risk of species going extinct in 2042, compared with 2022
  • to create or restore 500,000 hectares of wildlife-rich habitats by 2042
  • to ensure overall species abundance is increasing rather than decreasing by 2030, and increases by 10% by 2042, compared with 2030”(5)

These are in addition to the UK’s commitment to meet the international Convention on Biological Diversity’s ‘30 by 30 target’ – vis achieving effective conservation and management of at least 30% of land and sea by 2030.

Again these are targets which are going to impact the farming world, through adopting less intensive farming techniques, and through the restoration – and expansion of – hedgerows, ponds, woods, peatlands and meadows etc. 

Not all these changes are going to be self financing. It is possible that less intensive farming by reducing the amount – and therefore cost –  of inputs such as fertilisers, may be cost neutral, but in most cases less intensive farming will only be financially viable if the end product can be sold to,the customer at an enhanced price.  But weather restoring a pond in a field or rewetting peatland will be self financing is perhaps more doubtful. On the other hand the benefit to us as a whole will be significant – so may be we need to work out how we put a value on that benefit and how we work out who pays and how. 

It seems to me that we need a conversation that allows farmers and consumers to explore what the options are and how the transition to  climate and biodiversity friendly farming can be achieved. If farms are going to have less livestock, are we consumers going to eat less meat? If crops are grown less intensively, are we consumers willing to pay more? And is the government going to ensure that wages and benefits increase commensurately? If farmers are to convert grazing land to woodlands, are we as tax payers, willing to pay for loss of income? Might we instead see the cost as the cost of protecting our homes from flooding? Might those with the resources (financial and volunteering capacity) be willing to purchase farmland with the aim of rewilding it? Will the government provide funds to encourage new rural industries that would provide employment and maintain or reinvigorate rural communities? 

We certainly need to have these conversations urgently to ensure both a just transition and to protect our climate and environment for the wellbeing of current and future generations to come. The next five years look as if they are increasingly going to be when decisive action (not just plans) happens.

  1. https://ahdb.org.uk/knowledge-library/carbon-footprints-food-and-farming
  2. https://www.theccc.org.uk/2020/01/23/major-shift-in-uk-land-use-needed-to-deliver-net-zero-emissions/

(3) https://www.theccc.org.uk/publication/progress-in-reducing-emissions-2024-report-to-parliament/

(4)  https://adas.co.uk/news/credible-plans-and-actions-urgently-needed-to-decarbonise-uk-agriculture-sector/

(5) https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/biodiversity-loss-uk-international-obligations/

(6) https://adas.co.uk/news/credible-plans-and-actions-urgently-needed-to-decarbonise-uk-agriculture-sector/

The Joys and Sorrows of Civilisation 

12th October 2024

There shall come forth a shoot from the stump of Jesse, and a branch from his roots shall bear fruit. Isaiah 11:1

You Lord, are the source of all good things: 

We praise you.

You call us to tend and care for your creation: 

May we strive to do your will.

You have made us as brothers and sisters with all that lives: 

May we live together in peace.

A reading:  So Paul stood up and with a gesture began to speak: ‘You Israelites, and others who fear God, listen. The God of this people Israel chose our ancestors ….. he made David their king. In his testimony about him he said, “I have found David, son of Jesse, to be a man after my heart, who will carry out all my wishes.” Of this man’s posterity God has brought to Israel a Saviour, Jesus, as he promised. Acts 13: 16, 17a, 22b,23

Reflection 

Roots secure us to the past, ensure that we are part of the continuity of creation; shoots  and branches  take our lives forward into the as yet unformed future. Without the next generation there will be no ongoing continuity. The gospels of Luke and Matthew both locate Jesus within a human family tree;  the prologue of John’s gospel locates him as co existent with the beginning of all creation. Later in John’s  gospel, Jesus affirms his coexistence with the Father and the ongoing coexistence, through him, of all believers, all God’s children. 

For gifts of past generations

We thank you God:

For the gift of fire for cooking and heating

For the gift of clean water and sewers

We thank you God:

For the domestication of cattle and horses,

Cats and dogs, sheep and pigs, 

Hens and geese

We thank you God:

For the gift of gardening and arable cultivation,

sowing and reaping, 

growing and harvesting

We thank you God:

For the gift of healing and caring, 

of medicine and surgery

For the understanding of the intricacies of mind and body 

We thank you God:

For the gift of story telling and drama, 

of art and observation 

means of sharing grief and joy.

We thank you God:

For the gift of learning and research, 

of teaching and sharing

We thank you God:

For the gift of exploration and endeavour, of travel and communication 

We thank you God:

For the gift of worship, of self realisation and of the knowledge of God.

We thank you God:

But what shall we pass on to generations to come?

Do we offer gifts or burdens?

Merciful God forgive and inspire us.

Clean air or choking smog?

Merciful God forgive and inspire us.

Living water or dying oceans?

Merciful God forgive and inspire us.

Renewables or fossil fuels?

Merciful God forgive and inspire us.

Biodiversity or widespread extinction?

 Merciful God forgive and inspire us.

Fertile soils or inhospitable dust?

Merciful God forgive and inspire us.

Balmy summers or wild fires?

Merciful God forgive and inspire us.

Snow capped mountains or drowned coastlines?

Merciful God forgive and inspire us.

Homes for all  or camps for migrants?

Merciful God forgive and inspire us.

May we be wise guardians of what we have received 

Skilful custodians of what we consume

Generous donors of what we hand on

That the future of creation will be bright and beautiful, 

fair and just.

Amen

Counting on … day 190

11th October 2024

The left hand half of this diagram shows the amount of land used in the UK for different purposes – from providing grazing for beef cattle and sheep (the largest single use) to land cultivated as orchards (smallest alongside land used for growing Christmas tree!). 

The right hand half shows overseas land that we rely on (effectively use) to produce food stuffs that we import – and again land for beef and lamb production is the largest. 

Even just halving our meat consumption, would free up huge amounts of land that could be better used for rewilded biodiverse rich landscapes, as well as having space for increased horticultural production of a wide range of fruits and vegetables. 

Counting on … day 189

10th October 2024

Restoring biodiversity and protecting 30% of the UK is going to need a widespread reworking of farming practices and objectives. This will mean taking some land out of food production – eg to create peat bogs or woodlands – but on the other hand if we view land as the means of supporting not just food production but primarily as the means of supporting life, this makes sense. Should we be paying a life support tax to finance this? 

Restoring biodiversity will also mean reducing the intensity with which the land is farmed for food – widening existing, and planting new, hedges, cultivating the borders of fields as wild flower meadows, creating ponds and rewiggling rivers, reducing stocking levels (and reducing the total number of livestock to a proportionate level given that for every animal more land has to be used to grow feed crops), changing crop planting patterns to reduce the need for fertilisers that then pollute waterways etc. 

All this will mean a change in the way we eat. We need to switch to diets that are largely plant-based and dependent on locally grown crops. Diets that will in fact be both tasty and healthy.