To what extent has sustainable intensification in England been achieved?

Land degradation neutrality: Testing the indicator in a temperate agricultural landscape

Land degradation directly affects around 25% of land globally, undermining progress on most of the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDG), particularly target 15.3. To assess land degradation, SDG indicator 15.3.1 combines sub-indicators of productivity, soil carbon and land cover. Over 100 countries have set Land Degradation Neutrality (LDN) targets. Here, we demonstrate application of the indicator for a well-established agricultural landscape using the case study of Great Britain. We explore detection of degradation in such landscapes by: 1) transparently evaluating land cover transitions; 2) comparing assessments using global and national data; 3) identifying misleading trends; and 4) including extra sub-indicators for additional forms of degradation. Our results demonstrate significant impacts on the indicator both from the land cover transition evaluation and choice or availability of data. Critically, we identify a misleading improvement trend due to a trade-off between improvement detected by the productivity sub-indicator, and 30-year soil carbon loss trends in croplands (11% from 1978 to 2007). This carbon loss trend would not be identified without additional data from Countryside Survey (CS). Thus, without incorporating field survey data we risk overlooking the degradation of regulating and supporting ecosystem services (linked to soil carbon), in favour of signals from improving provisioning services (productivity sub-indicator). Relative importance of these services will vary between socioeconomic contexts. Including extra sub-indicators for erosion or critical load exceedance, as additional forms of degradation, produced a switch from net area improving (9%) to net area degraded (58%). CS data also identified additional degradation for soil health, including 44% arable soils exceeding bulk density thresholds and 35% of CS squares exceeding contamination thresholds for metals.

Sustainable pathways towards climate and biodiversity goals in the UK: the importance of managing land-use synergies and trade-offs

Agricultural and environmental policies are being fundamentally reviewed and redesigned in the UK following its exit from the European Union. The UK government and the Devolved Administrations recognise that current land use is not sustainable and that there is now an unprecedented opportunity to define a better land strategy that responds fully to the interconnected challenges of climate change, biodiversity loss and sustainable development. This paper presents evidence from three pathways (current trends, sustainable medium ambition, and sustainable high ambition) to mid-century that were co-created with UK policymakers. The pathways were applied to a national integrated food and land-use model (the FABLE calculator) to explore potential synergies and trade-offs between achieving multiple sustainability targets under limited land availability and constraints to balance food supply and demand at national and global levels. Results show that under the Current Trends pathway all unprotected open natural land would be converted to urban, agriculture and afforested land, with the consequence that from 2030 onwards tree planting targets could not be met. In contrast, the two sustainable pathways illustrate how dietary change, agricultural productivity improvements and waste reduction can free up land for nature recovery and carbon sequestration. This enables a transition to a sustainable food and land-use system that provides a net carbon sink with up to 44% of land able to support biodiversity conservation. We highlight key trade-offs and synergies, which are important to consider for designing and implementing emerging national policies. These include the strong dependence of climate, food and biodiversity targets on dietary shifts, sustainable improvements in agricultural productivity, improved land-use design for protecting and restoring nature, and rapid reductions in food loss and waste.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s11625-022-01242-8.

The Role of Different Types of Actors In The Future of Sustainable Agriculture In a Dutch Peri-urban Area

Peri-urban areas support a broad range of multifunctional demands for public goods. In northwest Europe, peri-urban areas tend to overlap with intensive agricultural land, resulting in conflicts between agricultural use and the public good demands of residents. Sustainable intensification (SI) of agriculture might help reconcile agricultural and well-being goals, but it is unclear how the mix of actors in a peri-urban setting can trigger or restrain SI. In a Dutch case study, we explored how SI of agriculture can contribute to making peri-urban areas more sustainable, and which actors are key enabling factors for implementing SI. We used interviews, surveys, workshops, and empirical analysis to obtain insight into the stakeholder's vision of a sustainable future for the case study area, the farming system and actor network. We integrated these insights in a Bayesian Belief Network, where we linked the actor network to implementation of three SI measures (farm-level efficiency measures, small landscape elements, and direct sales), and used sensitivity analysis to model effects of support for implementation by different groups of actors. The case study has a dense stakeholder network, where, dependent on the SI measure, farmers are triggered by all actors to implement SI, or have a stronger role in uptake themselves. The sensitivity analysis suggested that the future preferred by the stakeholders requires broad support of all actors involved, with local actors without a formal role being essential for uptake. Overall, trade-offs among public goods are almost inevitable when taking up SI measures.

Sustainable Intensification of Maize in the Industrial Revolution: Potential of Nitrifying Bacteria and Archaea

Sustainable intensification is a means that proffer a solution to the increasing demand for food without degrading agricultural land. Maize is one of the most important crops in the industrial revolution era, there is a need for its sustainable intensification. This review discusses the role of maize in the industrial revolution, progress toward sustainable production, and the potential of nitrifying bacteria and archaea to achieve sustainable intensification. The era of the industrial revolution (IR) uses biotechnology which has proven to be the most environmentally friendly choice to improve crop yield and nutrients. Scientific research and the global economy have benefited from maize and maize products which are vast. Research on plant growth-promoting microorganisms is on the increase. One of the ways they carry out their function is by assisting in the cycling of geochemical, thus making nutrients available for plant growth. Nitrifying bacteria and archaea are the engineers of the nitrification process that produce nitrogen in forms accessible to plants. They have been identified in the rhizosphere of many crops, including maize, and have been used as biofertilizers. This study's findings could help in the development of microbial inoculum, which could be used to replace synthetic fertilizer and achieve sustainable intensification of maize production during the industrial revolution.

A framework linking farming resilience with productivity: empirical validation from Poland in times of crises

Farming sectors' resilience has been built over decades with the aid of policies and institutions. However, its actual standing can be assessed in times of crises when farms have to overcome particular challenges. We use a large-scale farming sectors dataset FADN spanning 2006-2015 in which two major economic crises occurred-the global economic crisis of 2008 and the Russian embargo of 2014-to exemplify our approach to resilience's assessment based on the Polish farming sectors. We introduce a distinction between "potential resilience" versus "revealed resilience" where the former is assessed based on resilience capacities (robustness, adaptability and transformability), while the latter is assessed based on the observed decomposition of total factor productivity (TFP) changes in response to the adverse economic shocks. Hence, the proposed framework directly links productivity with the two types of resilience. We applied the Färe-Primont method of TFP decomposition, into technological change and various types of efficiency changes and a detailed farm survey to distinguish between the drivers of technological changes in each farming sector such as specific innovations and ecosystem services. Our findings show that farms differ in their revealed resilience both among the sectors and between two different shock events. Only field crop farms and granivores farms (pig and poultry) maintained their resilience to both crises, staying robust and/or adaptable. The former had the most productive technology and were leaders in applying innovations while the latter were second best in innovations and fairly good in their application of ecosystem-based services into their technology. Other farm types failed to be resilient to the first crisis but proved robust during the second. The outcomes of the study have implications for sustainability oriented policies.