I have been delighted and maybe even moved by the numbers of people who read and comment on the writing here, and your numbers are growing pleasingly. My aim, apart from expressing myself in ways that may soothe my anguish at the state of the natural world, is for that expression to be a small part of a movement to restore the biosphere that I think is gaining in strength and power. As part of the riding of this wave, as I see it, I sometimes try to write pieces for the Guardian. It isn’t easy to get past the gatekeepers there, who may understandably be more likely to read and publish work by people who have a big reputation, like George Monbiot, but I keep trying.
Today the government has made announcements about its rewilding plans. These are very pleasing but not adequate and they do not include any significant plans to reduce the catastrophic impact of chemical farming, and the Guardian in its reporting does not make much use of a press release issued this morning by the Science Media Centre. I have sent them a piece incorporating the views of these leading scientists, but will probably fall off my chair if they publish it. I thought you might like to read it anyway:
Government Rewilding Plans Not Good Enough
Rewilding Plans Fail to Address Widespread Use of Chemicals.
“Farmers in England will be given taxpayers’ cash to rewild their land, under plans for large-scale nature recovery projects announced by the government. These will lead to vast tracts of land being newly managed to conserve species, provide habitats for wildlife and restore health to rivers and streams.” (Guardian 6 January 2022).
While government plans to support rewilding have been generally welcomed, a number of leading scientists have expressed some serious reservations. These focus mainly on uncertainty about the actual area and funding that will be involved, and about the inadequacy of the government response to the biodiversity crisis on land used for industrial or conventional farming.
The initial rewilding area will be only 10,000 hectares. The government says it aims to have up to 300,000 hectares of England covered by such “landscape recovery” projects, a target some scientists think is both inadequate and too vague. Prof Dave Goulson, of the School of Life Sciences at the University of Sussex, said: “The goal of ‘up to 300,000 hectares’ of habitat to be created is a slippery figure, since it has no lower limit”.
Dr Alexander Lees, Senior Lecturer in Conservation Biology at Manchester Metropolitan University said: “it would seem very hard to reverse biodiversity loss for the 'most threatened species' in just 10,000 hectares - an extent of habitat smaller than the Abernethy National Nature Reserve for instance. If we are serious then we need to be racing towards the 300,000 hectare target as fast as possible.”
Maybe more significantly leading scientists, in a reaction to information on government schemes for land-use change just released by Defra, stress the need to reverse biodiversity loss on conventional farmland, and the need to find ways to produce food without damaging the environment. At present many conventional farmers tend to accept uncritically the use of pesticides that harm the environment. Government, says Prof Goulson, now has very little involvement in agronomic research and development; government research stations have either gone or been privatised and 71% of the agronomists who advise farmers on ‘crop protection’ are employed by pesticide manufacturers. There is now no incentive to develop alternatives to chemical pesticides, such as breeding resistance to pests or the use of biological controls, and the idea of ‘integrated pest management’ that encouraged farmers to consider alternatives to pesticides and not to use them prophylactically has, in practice, been abandoned by British farmers.
Prof Goulson, who has previously gone on record saying that much of our farmland is ‘hostile to life’ and that the agrochemical industry has been ‘allowed to shape farming to its own ends’, said “The target that 60% of agricultural soils be sustainably managed by 2030 is disappointing. 100% of our farmed soils should be sustainably managed; anything less is to be irresponsibly damaging a vital resource.”
Crucial to reversing biodiversity decline on farmland is the need to develop innovative technologies that do not rely on harmful chemicals. Prof Jonathan Jones FRS, of The Sainsbury Laboratory, said: “Releasing land for wildlife must be accompanied by ensuring high yields in the land retained for agriculture. This requires regulatory approval and deployment of modern innovative methods to replace chemical pest and disease control with methods that incorporate resistance into the genetic constitution of the crop."
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/jan/06/englands-farmers-to-be-paid-to-rewild-land
http://www.sussex.ac.uk/lifesci/goulsonlab/blog/biodiversity
Kudos to you on the current post and your endeavours to obtain more profile in The Guardian. A continuing highlighting of the chemical farming issue is absolutely essential. I share your opinion on this... sustainability is something which cannot be achieved with our current reliance on agro-chemicals and the grip that the chemical industry has on the land will always run counter to achieving meaningful sustainability goals. Keep up the good work!
spot on, Richard. As always. We need you on stage at Hay: perhaps then the Grauniad will take note. Now.. who do I know...?...