Quantifying the value of ecosystem services: a case study of honeybee pollination in the UK

There is concern that insect pollinators, such as honey bees, are currently declining in abundance, and are under serious threat from environmental changes such as habitat loss and climate change; the use of pesticides in intensive agriculture, and emerging diseases. This paper aims to evaluate how much public support there would be in preventing further decline to maintain the current number of bee colonies in the UK. The contingent valuation method (CVM) was used to obtain the willingness to pay (WTP) for a theoretical pollinator protection policy. Respondents were asked whether they would be WTP to support such a policy and how much would they pay? Results show that the mean WTP to support the bee protection policy was £1.37/week/household. Based on there being 24.9 million households in the UK, this is equivalent to £1.77 billion per year. This total value can show the importance of maintaining the overall pollination service to policy makers. We compare this total with estimates obtained using a simple market valuation of pollination for the UK.

Pollination services in the UK: how important are honeybees?

Pollination services are known to provide substantial benefits to human populations and agriculture in particular. Although many species are known to provide pollination services, honeybees (Apis mellifera) are often assumed to provide the majority of these services to agriculture. Using data from a range of secondary sources, this study assesses the importance of insect pollinated crops at regional and national scales and investigates the capacity of honeybees to provide optimal pollination services to UK agriculture. The findings indicate that insect pollinated crops have become increasingly important in UK crop agriculture and, as of 2007, accounted for 20% of UK cropland and 19% of total farmgate crop value. Analysis of honeybee hive numbers indicates that current UK populations are only capable of supplying 34% of pollination service demands even under favourable assumptions, falling from 70% in 1984. In spite of this decline, insect pollinated crop yields have risen by an average of 54% since 1984, casting doubt on long held beliefs that honeybees provide the majority of pollination services. Future land use and crop production patterns may further increase the role of pollination services to UK agriculture, highlighting the importance of measures aimed at maintaining both wild and managed species.

Investigating the phytotoxicity of the graminicide fluazifop-P-butyl against native UK wildflower species

BACKGROUND: The selective graminicide fluazifop-P-butyl is used for the control of grass weeds in dicotyledonous crops, and commonly applied in amenity areas to reduce grass productivity and promote wildflower establishment. However, evidence suggests that fluazifop-P-butylmight also have phytotoxic effects on somenon-target plants. This study investigates the effects of fluazifop-P-butyl on the emergence, phytotoxicity and above-ground biomass of nine perennial wildflower species and two grass species, following pre- and post-emergent applications at half, full and double label rates in a series of glasshouse experiments. RESULTS: While pre- and post-emergent applications of fluazifop-P-butyl caused reductions in seedling emergence and increased phytotoxicity on native wildflower and grass species, these effects were temporary for the majority of wildflower species tested, and generally only occurred at the double application rate. No differences in biomass were observed at any of the rates, suggesting good selectivity and no long-term effects of fluazifop-P-butyl application on the wildflower species from either pre-emergent or post-emergent applications. CONCLUSION: These results have direct relevance to the management of amenity areas for biodiversity, as they confirm the suitability of these wildflower species for inclusion in seed mixtures where fluazifop-P-butyl is to be applied to control grass productivity.

Do Integrated Arable Farming Systems provide a more sustainable form of agricultural production: the UK case

Integrated Arable Farming Systems (IAFS) projects utilise a range of novel and different farming techniques, often associated with optimising or reducing the use of inputs. Here, data is presented from the LINK-IFS project which suggests that, although input levels are being reduced, the overall profitability of the system can be maintained. The effect of thus reduction in inputs, however, in terms of impact on key environmental indicators is unclear.

Towards a method for the economic evaluation of environmental indicators in UK Integrated Arable Farming Systems

Integrated Arable Farming Systems (IAFS), which involve a reduction in the use of off-farm inputs, are attracting considerable research interest in the UK. The objectives of these systems experiments are to compare their financial performance with that from conventional or current farming practices. To date, this comparison has taken little account of any environmental benefits (or disbenefits) of the two systems. The objective of this paper is to review the assessment methodologies available for the analysis of environmental impacts. To illustrate the results of this exercise, the methodology and environmental indicators chosen are then applied to data from one of the LINK - Integrated Farming Systems experimental sites. Data from the Pathhead site in Southern Scotland are used to evaluate the use of invertebrates and nitrate loss as environmental indicators within IAFS. The results suggest that between 1992 and 1995 the biomass of earthworms fell by 28 kg per hectare on the integrated rotation and rose by 31 kg per hectare on the conventional system. This led to environmental costs ranging between £2.24 and £13.44 per hectare for the integrated system and gains of between £2.48 and £14.88 for the conventional system. In terms of nitrate, the integrated system had an estimated loss of £72.21 per hectare in comparison to £149.40 per hectare on the conventional system. Conclusions are drawn about the advantages and disadvantages of this type of analytical framework. Keywords: Farming systems; IAFS; Environmental valuation; Economics; Earthworms; Nitrates; Soil fauna

Integrated Arable Farming Systems and their potential uptake in the UK

Integrated Arable Farming Systems are examined from the perspective of the farmer considering the use of such techniques, and data are presented which suggest that the uptake of the approach may expose the manager to a greater degree of risk. Observations are made about the possible uptake of such systems in the UK and the implications this may have for agricultural and environmental policy in general.