Lets hope policy makers have read this

[Flat 10]

I suspect we all knew this but at least its good to have some positive PR. Apologies if its already been on here...
https://www.cam.ac.uk/research/news...viously-thought-and-could-help-spare-habitats

 

[Agrivator]

That is exactly what some of us have been arguing for years.

Every productive farm should be encouraged to have two main focus areas:

1. A relatively intensive area producing livestock or crops reasonably efficiently.

2. A nature-friendly area with various measures to enhance biodiversity etc.

The problem is: how is it financed, and how can it be done without too much being creamed off by Bureaucrats and ardent ''Environmentists''.

 

[kiwi pom]

Land use is going to be a huge problem in the future. Regarding food production I think the science has always suggested that the best land should be used to produce as much food as possible using as much knowledge and technology we can, freeing up more non productive land for housing, renewable energy, conservation etc. I believe there has also been a lot of studies showing organic is not the answer. Unfortunately the organic lobby, soil association and food miles haters have been able to shout the loudest.

I do wonder how all this will balance itself out regarding the land owner? How can they be encouraged and properly compensated for using their land for the task its most suited to?

 

[solo]

The pressure from housing and industrial units followed by all the associated road and rail infrastructure it brings is eating vast chunks of our prime cropable land. There is no turning back of the clock. That land will be lost forever. For example the house building around Evesham, the Hs2 line and the road building along the A14 to Cambridge. Whether the politicians will ever take note I doubt it. Their Primary concerns are more industry and more houses. Food can always be imported seems to be the policy. It will all come to a head one day. It is not a case of IF but WHEN. The question is will it be too late?

 

[digger64]

The pressure from housing and industrial units followed by all the associated road and rail infrastructure it brings is eating vast chunks of our prime cropable land. There is no turning back of the clock. That land will be lost forever. For example the house building around Evesham, the Hs2 line and the road building along the A14 to Cambridge. Whether the politicians will ever take note I doubt it. Their Primary concerns are more industry and more houses. Food can always be imported seems to be the policy. It will all come to a head one day. It is not a case of IF but WHEN. The question is will it be too late?

Politicians are not worried about such practical things , they are interested in things that buy votes though and maintaining their personal capital portfolio .

 

[Canada Farmer]

Land use is going to be a huge problem in the future. Regarding food production I think the science has always suggested that the best land should be used to produce as much food as possible using as much knowledge and technology we can, freeing up more non productive land for housing, renewable energy, conservation etc. I believe there has also been a lot of studies showing organic is not the answer. Unfortunately the organic lobby, soil association and food miles haters have been able to shout the loudest.

I do wonder how all this will balance itself out regarding the land owner? How can they be encouraged and properly compensated for using their land for the task its most suited to?

Define nonproductive land....

 

[kiwi pom]

Define nonproductive land....

Probably should have said less productive.

 

[Canada Farmer]

Probably should have said less productive.

Does anything productive ever come oot of the city at the bottom of the top island? Or more spin than Trudeau??

 

[Clive]

That is exactly what some of us have been arguing for years.

Every productive farm should be encouraged to have two main focus areas:

1. A relatively intensive area producing livestock or crops reasonably efficiently.

2. A nature-friendly area with various measures to enhance biodiversity etc.

The problem is: how is it financed, and how can it be done without too much being creamed off by Bureaucrats and ardent ''Environmentists''.

Financing it should not be a problem at all

If a farmer provides a service that people need then they will happily pay for that

all we need is creation of a marketplace for these services between customer and farmer

Natural capital / carbon sequestration is more in demand that the food we produce right now yet the nonsense is none of us are selling it !

 

[DaveGrohl]

Politicians are not worried about such practical things , they are interested in things that buy votes though and maintaining their personal capital portfolio .

And of course the most important point is that politicians aren't in a position of authority for long so collectively have the attention span of goldfish. This short attention span is sadly the way of the world these days. There is no long-term thinking like there used to be on any level. I've have no idea how this can be turned around, I really don't think it can be.

 

[essexpete]

Define nonproductive land....

What would be wrong with applying the soil classification system?

 

[Bill the Bass]

Financing it should not be a problem at all

If a farmer provides a service that people need then they will happily pay for that

all we need is creation of a marketplace for these services between customer and farmer

Natural capital / carbon sequestration is more in demand that the food we produce right now yet the nonsense is none of us are selling it !

If it were in demand then the market would facilitate it. I have thought for a long time that carbon/public goods is a red herring, if there were markets for these things they would be far easier trader than they are now. It is all just obfuscated Policy think tank rubbish, I sincerely hope I am proved wrong.