A new analysis suggests that paying farmers to restore natural habitats on England’s least productive agricultural land might increase farmers’ earnings while reducing carbon emissions and dwindling bird populations.
The least productive 10% of land in England provides less than 0.5% of the food we consume, according to the most recent National Food Strategy.
Green Alliance, an environmental think tank, asserts that assisting farmers to restore native woodland, peatland, and heath on this low-quality land may reduce carbon emissions and raise wild bird populations by nearly 50 percent by 2050.
Green Alliance asserts that allowing farmers to combine income from food production with compensation for environmental benefits might increase their incomes by around 20 percent.
Therefore, the think tank urges the government to invest £600 million of its existing £2.4 billion budget for rural payments to the restoration of natural habitats on land that generates the least amount of food.
Seventy percent of England’s land is utilized for agriculture, and the industry is responsible for around 12 percent of the United Kingdom’s greenhouse gas emissions.
According to the ‘Land of Opportunity report published by the Green Alliance on Monday, the strategy has the potential to generate more than half of the required carbon savings from agriculture and land use by 2035.
For the entire economy to reach “net zero” by 2050, land use must be carbon negative, according to a study by the government’s climate change advisory committee.
Green Alliance stated that its strategy for a ‘three-pronged’ agricultural system will assist farmers in coping with escalating fuel and fertilizer costs, record heat, and severe drought.
Under the approach, the least productive land would be utilized to absorb greenhouse gases and improve wildlife habitats.
The bulk of food would be farmed in the most fertile area, with farmers helping to minimize their use of fertilizers and pesticides to improve sustainability without reducing yields.
Even if it results in a decline in productivity, farmers of the remaining land would be granted incentives to create additional room for nature.
It is predicted that habitat restoration will result in a 48 percent rise in the average number of bird species, compared to a 6 percent fall under England’s current trajectory.
The land is a limited resource that is subject to competing demands. We need space for wildlife, climate change mitigation and adaptation, food production, and timber production, according to Tom Lancaster, RSPB’s head of farming and land management strategy.
This paper demonstrates the crucial role that farmers and land managers will play in accomplishing all of these goals and more. They require more assistance to address the nature and climate challenges, while also meeting our current and future food needs.’
Green Alliance emphasized that rewilding farms en masse are not the solution, as many species thrive in nature-friendly agricultural settings rather than in wilder areas.
It was stated that the scheme would not require any new funds and would assist farmers to adjust to the departure of the Common Agricultural Policy’s Basic Payment Scheme, a system of EU-wide subsidies.
The program is being replaced by a set of environmental land management systems that provide farmers with “public money for public benefits,” such as the restoration of natural habitats.
The UK Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) has pledged to invest £2.4 billion annually in the three-strand plan for nature, which consists of large-scale landscape recovery projects, incentives for sustainable farming, and local projects such as the creation of meadows and hedgerows.
However, Green Alliance cautioned that delays to the reforms leave producers in limbo, with many risking financial losses in the coming years.
Each component was anticipated to get one-third of the agricultural budget, or £800 million.
The government stated in June that it will only spend £50 million on the landscape recovery component over the next three years, with plans to choose up to 15 pilot projects from 51 proposals this summer.
Officials emphasized that the scheme’s intentions had not changed, but stated that they will not have defined cash allocations for different components because they desire budgetary flexibility.
Green Alliance stated that under its plan, farms in ‘least favored areas’ (LFAs) would receive £775 per hectare every year for habitat creation.
According to its calculations, repairing 50 hectares of land on a property would provide yearly returns of £28,000 if the approach were adopted, once expenditures are accounted for.
It compares to the current average returns of £23,400 for the entire farm enterprise.
James Elliott, the senior policy adviser at Green Alliance, stated that when formulating new plans for agriculture, the government intended to capitalize on a genuine Brexit opportunity.
“However, there are now fears that we may revert to a climate-destructive EU-style system or spark a race to the bottom in which both farmers and the environment suffer.”
This refers to ensuring that the least productive land is utilized optimally, so enhancing farmer incomes, restoring the environment, and beginning to combat the more catastrophic consequences of climate change.
The Environment Agency went even further than Green Alliance last month when it proposed allocating one-fifth of the agricultural land in the United Kingdom to programs that decrease emissions and absorb carbon.
However, some farmers have responded angrily to the government’s plans to rewild vast swaths of the United Kingdom’s fields, arguing that they place too much emphasis on restoring natural ecosystems rather than bolstering the British food supply.
Tom Bradshaw, vice president of the National Farming Union, stated in January, “We have always cautiously embraced the notion of public funds for public goods, but it should not solely focus on environmental delivery; it must also support sustainable food production.”
My greatest concern is that this approach will diminish food production in the United Kingdom, forcing us to purchase from countries with lower standards.
This is morally unacceptable.
