‘Reduce, restore, replace’ could be a new mantra for farms – Inside track

This post is by Tom Ash, Senior Policy Officer at Wildlife and Countryside Link.

Reducing our use of virgin resources is essential to meet climate and biodiversity targets: resource extraction and processing is responsible for 55 per cent of greenhouse gas emissions and 90 per cent of land-based biodiversity loss.

We’re all familiar with the mantra ‘reduce, reuse, recycle’ in our daily lives to keep resources in circulation longer. However, these principles need to be applied at every stage of production.

Nowhere is this clearer than in the food system. Enormous environmental damage is done on farms long before food reaches our kitchens. UK agriculture alone is responsible for 11 per cent of UK greenhouse gas emissions. Nutrient pollution from fertiliser use means agriculture has the largest impact of any sector on water quality.

Pesticides used in agriculture are causing the decline of farmland biodiversity. UK farming is also driving biodiversity loss overseas, as large amounts of soya is imported for animal feed and its production is linked to deforestation.

Fifty seven per cent of food eaten in the UK is produced in the UK. Circular economy principles applied directly to UK farms would reduce the environmental impact of our diet, and change them from a cause of biodiversity loss to a source of nature recovery. With the circular economy growth plan for England due to be published by the government early next year, this week Wildlife and Countryside Link has published a paper promoting a new mantra for farm circularity: ‘reduce, restore, replace’.

Reducing harm doesn’t have to mean radical shifts Most UK farms rely heavily on chemical fertiliser, pesticides and plastic. In fact, 97 per cent of UK agricultural land relies on artificial fertilisers. The first step in any circular economy approach must be to eliminate unnecessary resource use. On farms, there are opportunities to do this without dramatic shifts away from existing practices.

Around £400 million worth of fertiliser leaks unintentionally into the environment in the UK every year. Pesticides are also often applied without an assessment of need.

By better managing the application of fertiliser and pesticides so the right ones and amounts are applied, in the right place, at the right time, environmental impacts could be reduced while saving farmers money. Partly, this is about enforcing existing pollution regulations. However, funding via the Environmental Land Management schemes (ELMs) is crucial to support farmers to manage chemical use better.

Plastics are not just used for food packaging but also for packaging farm products and in the growing process. This leads to a high risk of microplastics in food. Just as Extended Producer Responsibility is being applied to packaging in supermarkets, those producing farm plastics should face the full cost of the environmental damage their products cause to disincentivise use.

Restoring nature cuts the need for expensive inputs True circularity on farms requires a shift to nature-friendly farming to allow resources such as water, soil nutrients and beneficial organisms to circulate naturally and sustain food production. This encompasses an extremely wide range of techniques, with just some examples being: minimising tillage to reduce damage to soil organisms; rotating crops and applying organic fertilisers to restore soil nutrients; agroforestry and silvopasture, where crops and livestock grow alongside trees; and allowing vegetation, ponds and flower rich habitat in field and borders to encourage wildlife.

Restoring natural processes cuts the need for chemicals. Nutrients in the soil are replenished and recycled, reducing the need for fertiliser. Soil biodiversity is restored, creating natural resistance to pests; and animals that feed on pests are welcomed back to wild areas on the farm, reducing the need for pesticides. Restored soils and ponds also retain water better, reducing the need for farms to take water from rivers during dry periods and harm wildlife.

Another part of restoring natural processes is a transition to mixed farming where livestock and crops are balanced on the same farm, so crops and grassland provide food for livestock, and manure fertilises crops. This avoids the use of large amounts of chemicals and the risk of manure being dumped elsewhere causing pollution away from the farm.

This would not only benefit the environment, it could also be good for farmers. Reducing chemical use to zero can increase commercial returns by 10-45 per cent. Such a transition will require consistent funding for ELMs, with the money spent in the right place, as well as additional regulation to limit intensive livestock farms.

Replacing products cuts waste In some circumstances, where use of resources can’t be reduced and natural processes can’t be restored to cycle resources naturally, it can be beneficial to swap harmful products for less harmful ones.

The biggest opportunity here is to replace crop-based animals feeds. Over half of the UK’s arable land is currently used to grow feed for animals. This is land that could be used to directly feed people. As only a small amount of the calories we feed to animals actually ends up as animal products, we are wasting almost as much food by feeding grain to animals as all other food waste combined. Instead of feeding animals grains that people could eat, we could increase the circularity of our food system by feeding animals by-products and food waste. This is already done safely in other countries through proper treatment of food waste but will require changes to the law to permit safe use.

Creating a circular economy requires actions along whole supply chains, not just by consumers. This means supporting farms and farmers to reduce their use of resources, restore natural processes that can cycle nutrients and replace harmful products with more sustainable ones.