Ahead of Groundswell 2018, I thought I would share some
thoughts on this year’s theme of soil health, and consider how this key idea
looks from the perspective of farmers, researchers and policy makers. It seems highly likely that payments to
farmers will be overhauled in the next decade with Michael Gove currently keen
to describe himself as “such an enthusiast for the idea of natural capital” (https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/green-brexit-a-new-era-for-farming-fishing-and-the-environment). With this is mind I think it is worth
considering: where the idea of natural capital comes from and what it means;
the relationship between soil natural capital and soil health; how farmers can
influence soil natural capital/health and what a policy based on soil natural
capital might look like. The natural
capital concept has been criticised where it is applied to all of nature. Whilst I recognise these criticisms, I would
argue that the natural capital perspective and soil management make a good
fit. That’s not to say that a policy
based on a natural capital perspective would automatically be successful, there
are many complications to be resolved and an evidence base which needs to be
developed further.
The natural capital approach is based on four simple and
connected ideas: 1) nature provides benefits (or costs) to humans; 2) we are
not very good at valuing these benefits and costs, often undervaluing them or
ignoring them completely; 3) undervaluing the benefits natural systems provide
to humans results in these natural systems being degraded or destroyed; and 4)
if the benefits of natural systems are better evaluated then natural systems
will be better managed.
The ecosystem
services framework is a way of thinking the work which nature does and
humans benefit from. This could mean the
production of food, improvements to our shared environment (e.g. reductions in
water pollution or flooding) and simply providing a spiritually or emotionally
fulfilling vista. Historically, the
benefits of nature’s work which could be harvested by one individual and sold
to another (e.g. food production) have been relatively well valued, whilst the ways in which nature
improves our shared environment have not. The capacity of a natural system to provide
benefits to humans will depend, in part, upon the state of that natural
system. In terms of soils, a compacted
soil will be less capable of storing water and supporting crop growth. This capacity of a soil (or other natural
system) to provide benefits to humans can be termed natural capital. For
reference, within academia, natural capital is defined as “stocks of natural
resources found on earth yielding a flow of valuable ecosystem goods or service
into the future.” (Jónsson and Davídsdóttir, 2016).
This brings us to the CAP reform and Michael Gove’s fondness
of the idea of natural capital. It’s
worth making clear that the language of natural capital, ecosystem services and
payments for ecosystem services were developed with the aim of being policy and
business friendly, and it appears to be working. The central idea behind Gove’s thinking seems
to be that the public money which will replace CAP funding should be used to
generate benefits which the public benefit from. This challenge produces two separate apparently
similar options with significantly different implications. The first is to pay farmers to improve the
natural capital of their soil, that is the capacity
to generate ecosystem services. After
all, a nation’s soil is an extremely valuable asset, so why not pay farmers to
preserve and increase the value of this asset?
The second option is to pay farmers for the ecosystem services they generate. Because this option is so context
dependent and responsive- where there is no storm then a soil won’t be able to
reduce downstream flooding- it doesn’t appear to be viable. Instead, a payment for effort (rather than
payment for results) model seems more sensible.
This brings me to the issue of how paying farmers to improve
their soil’s natural capital
overlaps with paying farmers to improve their soil health. As far as I am
concerned, they are exactly the same thing.
They both mean the capability of a soil to indefinitely do work (e.g. support
crops, mitigate flooding, not reduce water quality, store carbon…) which
benefits people. Indeed, it is the work
which soils can do to regulate carbon storage and water quality which John
Cherry discusses in his introduction to Groundswell 2018.
I want to finish on five points: 1) context is everything
when it comes to soil health, improving aggregate stability and protecting soil
from raindrop impact to prevent water erosion is more valuable on a steeply
sloping field next to a watercourse than on a heavier soil in Lincolnshire; 2)
soil health is complex with many different dimensions, whilst it can be
tempting to focus of a single aspect (like preventing erosion) it is important
to look at the bigger picture (especially for researchers and policy makers);
3) The onus is on researchers to provide the evidence base to support any
policies and 4) creating this evidence base won’t be cheap and will require
collaboration with farmers, collaboration which will be most effective when
farmers and researchers work together, respecting the knowledge and innovation
of the other; and 5) getting policy right is another problem in its own right.
Thank you for taking the time to read this. I would love for it to be the start of a
conversation so please come and grab me at Cranfield’s spot at Groundswell 2018
or write a blog of your own in reply.
Lastly, if you are interested in an example of the payment for ecosystem
services idea working well then check out how protecting woodland improved
water quality, saving New York billions of $s https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/200901/pb13932a-pes-bestpractice-annexa-20130522.pdf)
. Also, a recent estimate put the value
of money paid to individuals and organisations to manage natural systems to
improve water quality at $24.7 billion (https://sustainabilitycommunity.nature.com/users/85108-james-salzman/posts/31181-global-market-for-ecosystem-services-surges-to-36-billion-in-annual-transactions
).
P.P.S, for a counter argument to the idea of paying for
ecosystem services, see https://theecologist.org/2018/apr/23/why-michael-gove-musnt-regard-our-planet-just-natural-capital
No comments:
Post a Comment