By Henrietta Appleton, GWCT Policy Officer (England)
We will all remember the focus on the 3Rs at school – reading, writing and arithmetic. Not quite an alliteration! But in the new Green Age, we have a different set of 3Rs to consider – resilience, regenerative farming, and rewilding (including perhaps a fourth, reintroductions). They interconnect in conversations about the future and the challenges that climate change presents for sustainable land management. But what do these oft-used terms mean, and should we be concerned by how they are being applied in policy?
Resilience: the foundation of sustainable land management
I am starting with resilience as this is the force behind the other two in many ways. I find the concept of resilience fascinating, but I question whether it is being used to create ‘ideal’ ecosystems which simply do not exist. Much of our landscape is the evolution of centuries of natural and human disturbances and processes. Creating an environment that is resilient to climate change does not mean, in my opinion, looking backwards; it means looking forward. It means learning from the past, not returning to the past.
What does resilience mean in land management?
The concept of resilience in land management and conservation broadly equates to “the ability of an ecosystem to resist, and recover from, a disturbance,” whether that is due to climate change, natural events, or human activity. This means that an ecosystem needs the capacity to be able to react.
Some would, therefore, argue that, as no one can predict exactly how a disturbance will affect ecological and ecosystem function in a landscape, it is important to preserve all options for addressing that disturbance. I tend to agree, as ecosystems are the result of a range of abiotic and biotic interactions and so are constantly evolving and adapting to the environment around it.
The challenges of restoring ecosystems
This is why I am concerned if the concept of restoring an ecosystem is based on the past, not the future. We cannot expect to re-create ecosystems that have a millennial timeline in a matter of decades. We are only ever going to create ‘novel’ ecosystems.
The concept of novel ecosystems has gained traction over the last 20 years and for those interested in more detail, there is a useful article on the British Ecological Society website. One of the key characteristics of a novel ecosystem is that restoration to a previous condition is difficult due to considerable changes in the biotic and/or abiotic drivers.
Criticism of the novel ecosystem approach
Critics of this concept are concerned that this fails to support the idea that we need to restore and conserve nature to an ecosystem that approximates a previous ecosystem. I tend to disagree with this criticism as I think that restoration (i.e., back to its previous state) in some ecosystems is impossible as irreversible thresholds or tipping points have been reached. This means that we can throw all the money we like at the problem (and waste precious time), and we won’t achieve the desired outcome.
Wildfire and climate resilience
One area of climate change resilience that is the subject of much debate is wildfire. Currently, policy promotes just one approach – rewetting. But this is not proven and, as those who have better experience of the impact of wildfires suggest, it is important that we explore how society can coexist with wildfires and what a policy of rewetting means for that coexistence.
A suggested definition of a fire-resilient landscape is therefore “a socio-ecological system that accepts the presence of fire, whilst preventing significant losses through landscape management, community engagement and effective recovery.”
Proactive approaches to wildfire management
This would engender a more inclusive (to ensure trust in the outcome) and proactive approach to the management of the fuel load, using fire as a natural process (prescribed burning) alongside approaches such as cutting, rewetting and reconfiguring the structure of the vegetation across a landscape to make it more ‘resilient.’
The frustration is that I think all stakeholders agree that avoidance of loss and long-lasting damage because of wildfire is the ultimate aim of climate resilience in our semi-natural habitats. Yet there is no acceptance that there are different ways of approaching this shared outcome.
Regenerative Farming: building resilience in agriculture
Regenerative farming is one approach to making the farming system more sustainable and therefore more resilient to disturbance (climate change). This has gained traction as it is believed that it can help reduce farming’s environmental impact whilst restoring natural processes. There is no formal definition or standard for regenerative farming, unlike the organic system. The focus is on soil health underpinned by five principles:
- Biological diversity (both within the rotation and across the wider farmed landscape)
- Keeping the soil covered (whether with a growing crop or crop residue – or both)
- Keeping living roots in the soil for as much of the year as possible
- Reducing both mechanical and chemical soil disturbance as much as possible
- Integrating organic manures, ideally through grazing livestock.
Soil health and climate resilience
So, let’s relate this back to resilience against climate change. As Joe Stanley wrote in a blog in November 2023, improving soil organic matter (SOM) is one tool in improving soil health and therefore its resilience to climate change. SOM increases a soil’s ability not only to absorb and store water during rainfall events by improving the structure of the soil (its porosity) but also its ability to hold that water during droughts, both of which are forecast to increase due to climate change.
The limitations of soil resilience
Yet this improved resilience will, in some soil types, still be insufficient to cope with the extreme rainfall events that we have witnessed this autumn – and indeed in the last year. Consequently, there is, for some soil types, effectively little resilience left in the system.
We need, therefore, to look for supporting ‘tools’ as this is having an impact on our ability to grow food on these soil types due to impacts on weed control (blackgrass), winter wheat cultivation, and the maize harvest (which is harvested later in autumn and so soil damage in wet conditions can be significant).
The question of food security and land use
Post the Second World War, the solution to this problem involved providing grants for draining heavier land. These have now reached their natural end of life and many need replacing. Contractors will also tell you that, given current rainfall levels, a greater capacity pipework for the main drains are needed too. With no grants available, the payback on renewing drainage systems is unattractive to many farmers at current profit margins.
Critical questions for the future
So, we are faced with several questions: should heavier, poorly draining land continue to be used in food production or should it be repurposed or rewilded? In assessing the resilience of our country to climate change, should we be giving food security greater priority? Or are we happy to repurpose land that has reached its resilience threshold based on nature-based solutions and source our food from elsewhere?
If we outsource our food production, what are the consequences for biodiversity where it is produced? If the Government is serious about food security, it will need to consider such trade-offs.
(Please note: These monthly musings are intended as interest pieces and to provoke thought. I do not pretend to have deep knowledge about the subjects I am covering or indeed to be comprehensive in my coverage. I hope you enjoy reading them as much as I enjoy researching and writing them.)