By Dr Deborah Long, Chief Executive at Scottish Environment LINK
We live on a small island on the edge of the Atlantic ocean. Our landscape is highly diverse. There are very few other places in the world where you can physically walk from rainforest to alpine meadows in one day. But in Scotland you can.
But we live in times of change: climate change is bringing much more unpredictable weather, increased storminess and greater fluctuations in temperatures and precipitation. One in nine of Scotland’s species are at risk of extinction – driven by habitat fragmentation, climate change, the impact of non-native invasive species and pollution. As a result, we live in one of the most nature depleted countries in the world, despite our reputation for wildlife and landscapes. We will all have noticed the loss of biodiversity within our own lifetimes.
However, the clue to our future is in this diversity of landscape, topography and geology. Diversity makes us stronger, and a key part of our future depends on this diversity. But we need to defend that diversity. It’s time to change the trajectory of both climate change and biodiversity loss by acting together in solidarity, and acting now.
We can’t become net zero without nature. We know that acting to reconnect and restore our ecosystems is one of the most effective ways of addressing climate change, both in the carbon it stores and in the ways it helps us all adapt to an increasingly unpredictable climate. Tackling the nature crisis and working towards net zero in Scotland’s land use sector means better land use planning and food system change. Tackling both equals a resilient and more enjoyable future for all.
The thing is that achieving net zero is not just about emissions. We talk as if that is all it is. It’s only half of the issue and less than half of the response needed. We have developed a kind of tunnel vision, focussed on technological fixes. They are not enough and they won’t impact quickly enough either. If we take a systems approach – which is what farming is all about – moving to sustainable production in grass fed livestock for example and expanding nature rich habitats, including but not limited to woodlands and peatlands, these bring multiple benefits. It’s better for nature, it means better food and healthier animals and it brings a healthier, more resilient environment.
Talk about trade-offs is divisive and, I think, unproductive. It creates winners and losers and pits them against each other. Essentially, we are talking about trading the future’s environment to support our own unsustainable use of our environment today. The trade-off is ultimately that future generations are paying for our current choices. Instead, we should focus on what we all want – a healthy fully functioning environment able to support healthy individuals, businesses and communities into the future. Then we can talk about the opportunities and benefits we still have, with these conversations happening with space and time to plan changes and implement them effectively, fairly and to maximum effect. However, the longer we leave doing this the bigger the trade-offs, both in terms of how we use land now and what the future looks like for future generations.
So what are these opportunities and the trade-offs they bring or avoid?
The trade-off between meeting today’s needs without compromising the needs of future generations is a choice. The choice is: continue down the path we are on. We continue to tinker with a system that benefits very few in the short term, continues to contribute to climate change (when the land use sector is actually very well placed to mitigate and adapt to change) and that continues to contribute to nature loss and fragmentation.
This benefits no one in the long term: farmers and crofters are left unsupported to change, the climate becomes increasingly unpredictable, ecosystems teeter, and ecosystem services, like pollination and healthy soils disappear.
Or, we change: introduce well planned, well supported change, where farmers, crofters and land managers are supported for the services they produce – be that food, nature rich habitats, or rare orchids. Where the market pays a fair price for healthy food, where it pays dividends for nature friendly goods and where public funding is left to provide the support for those farmers able and best placed to deliver carbon storage and nature rich habitats.
Do we support a transition from where we are, with an unequal, unfair system that brings short term benefits to the few, does not do enough for nature or climate and is penalising future generations, to one that supports economically viable farms and crofts, farming for climate and nature and healthy food and leaving a legacy for the future? Or not?
We could do this: the Scottish Government already have their vision for sustainable and regenerative agriculture. If delivered, this takes us a long way to achieving net zero and improving biodiversity.
But there is a gap between the ambition and the action so far. The structures we currently use have so far failed and there is too little ambition to make the changes required. Trade-offs are holding us up. These are short term and preventing those in the best position to do more for nature and climate.
Instead, providing sufficient support for nature friendly farming, organic, extensive grazing and regenerative practices is much more likely to bring the changes we need. These deliver net zero gains through soil carbon sequestration, improving soil health, pollination and in turn restoring ecosystems,reconnecting nature and producing food.
Ecosystems are changing and becoming much less resilient. Acting now to address nature loss as well as climate change is less of a trade-off and more of a necessity, especially for future generations.
Image credit: Dan Paris