A study concluded that reserving farmland for nature had no negative impact on food security.
A ten-year study conducted by the UK’s Centre for Ecology and Hydrology demonstrated that nature-friendly farming practices increase biodiversity without affecting average yields.
In Hillesden, a 1,000-hectare commercial arable farm in Buckinghamshire, scientists spent a decade closely observing the effects of a government-funded, massive experiment. Beginning in 2005, this entailed the creation of many habitats for wildlife, such as seed-bearing plants for birds, wildflowers for pollinators, and tussocky grass edges to support a variety of birds, insects, and small mammals.
In the longest-running study of its kind, researchers were able to increase the populations of pollinators and predators of crop pests, which are crucial to agricultural productivity.
Some butterfly species, including the gatekeeper and green-veined white, saw their populations treble, and birds that normally feed on insects, such as the great tit and blue tit, benefited from the protection afforded by hedges and grass margins.
Despite the loss of agricultural land for habitat construction, they discovered that total yields at Hillesden were preserved, and even increased for some crops. The regions removed from production were difficult and unprofitable to farm, whereas the other areas benefited from an increase in pollinators and insects and birds that consume pests.
This contradicts the assertions of numerous MPs that new post-Brexit agri-environmental programs would “pay farmers to produce less food” and harm food security.
Former chancellor and current prime minister candidate Rishi Sunak recently stated that he would “defend” farmers from rewilding their land for nature.
Jake Fiennes, head of conservation at the Holkham estate in Norfolk and author of the book Land Healer on nature-friendly farming, was unsurprised by the report’s findings.
He told the Guardian, “Historical English policy aimed to have us produce food everywhere. Now, however, we recognize that we can raise our average output by ceasing to cultivate unproductive parts of the land, so creating space for nature.
We are aware of the benefits of having more nature on a farm, and we are aware that we can increase agricultural biodiversity without harming crop production.
Fiennes remarked, “Select a field. If there is a forest on the southern edge of the field, the first 15 to 20 meters of that edge will invariably give a yield that is between 50 and 75 percent of the average.
However, since there are so many species that would benefit from that forest edge, it is a no-brainer to return it to nature. This is the land with the lowest potential for food production; ignoring it increases the average output in the remainder of the field.
“We are aware of a biodiversity catastrophe, a climate crisis, and the connection between the two; this is a chance to improve our yields while also caring for nature.”
Dr. John Redhead of the UK Centre for Ecology & Hydrology and lead author of the research published in the Journal of Applied Ecology stated, “Investigating changes in populations over a significant period and comparing these to other sites gives us confidence that agri-environmental options can bring long-term benefits to bird and butterfly populations.”
“Hillesden is a typical, huge arable farm employing traditional agricultural methods, situated in an unremarkable environment devoid of large sections of natural habitat.
Therefore, it is probable that the outcomes of our long-term study indicate what might be accomplished on other commercial farms through careful design, implementation, and administration of Agri-environmental measures.”
