Abstract
There is a growing awareness of the beneficial effects of organic farming practices on biodiversity and environment (Bengtsson et al., 2005; Hole et al., 2005), as well as the potential cost effectiveness of an organic approach (Cobb et al., 1999). However, to date research on organic farming has concentrated on lowland arable and stock farming (Feber et al., 1997; Fuller et al., 2005; Hole et al., 2005). It is unclear how this work can be applied to the situation in the hills and uplands, and whether the environment benefits of organic farming will be as great in this context. The majority of hill and upland farms are within Less Favoured Areas (LFAs), which account for 42 % of agricultural land in the UK (DEFRA, 2002). The grazing land resource within LFAs can be divided into two categories: semi-natural rough grazing (SNRG), which accounts for two-thirds of the land area, and improved grassland, which accounts for the remaining third. A combination of altitude, soil characteristics and climatic conditions restricts most farms within the hills and uplands to sheep and cattle production, and many such livestock farms have relatively low fertiliser and chemical input when compared to lowland equivalents. There is therefore a widespread assumption that upland and hill farming is essentially organic by default (OCW, 2004). This assumption arises partly from the perception of hill and upland farming as traditional, pastoral and natural. It is also based on the generalised concept of organic farming as a system of agriculture that does not use agrochemicals. In reality fertiliser applications are often crucial in determining the provision of winter forage on hill and upland farms as the growing season is substantially shorter than for lowland systems, and herbage yields lower. Conversion to organic farming generally requires reduction of stocking rates to the natural carrying capacity of the farm (Sibbald et al., 2004, OCW, 2004). This is held to have a benefit for the health of animals, principally in terms of a reduction in internal parasites (Keatinge, 1996; 1999), but may also influence biodiversity (Gardner & Brown, 1998; Stopes et al., 1999). Reducing grazing pressure will lead to changes in vegetation composition and structure within areas of SNRG, and there is potential for floristic diversity to be reduced if invasive grasses such as Molinia caerulea or Nardus stricta come to dominate. However, the likelihood of this happening is greatest under sheep only grazing regimes. Organic farms are reported as being more likely to carry cattle and operate mixed grazing regimes than convention farms, and there is increasing evidence of the environmental (Hayes and Holl, 2003, Rook et al., 2004) and production (Fraser et al., 2006) benefits of incorporating grazing by cattle into management systems in the hills and uplands. There is also reportedly a greater use of traditional breeds on organic farms, since hardier animals are anticipated to require less winter forage. While there is a perception that the grazing behaviour of these breeds is different to that of modern breeds, and that this will benefit biodiversity, there is as yet no compelling scientific evidence to support this. Organic farming is supported at EU and national government levels in part because it may provide “public goods linked to rural development” (EC 2002). The socio-economic benefits deriving from organic farming have been identified as increasing farm incomes and creating employment opportunities in rural areas (CRER, 2002). A recent Defra-funded study by Exeter University (2005) on the impact of organic farming on the rural economy in England found that a) organic farming carries a significant employment dividend, however with less job stability and lower pay than on conventional farms; b) the impact of organic farming on the local value added is similar to that of conventional farms; c) organic farms operate a more diverse range of economic activities (esp. processing and retailing); and d) farms operating short supply chains have a distinctive socio-economic footprint. It is also proposed that organic farming benefits the regional economy through on-farm processing, direct marketing and the development of short food supply chains (Darnhoffer, 2005). As with biodiversity, much of the research indicating socio-economic and rural development benefits from conversion to organic farming has either failed to distinguish between different sectors, or has focused on dairying and vegetable production. These enterprises are more likely to have opportunities for adding value and direct marketing than in hill and upland livestock farming. There is some evidence that conversion to organic farming in some upland situations has been unable to deliver sufficient farm income at the end of the 5-year organic conversion subsidy period (Frost et al, 2005; Soil Association, 2006). Recent data from the Defra-funded Farm Business Survey shows that most organic farm types maintained or improved incomes in 2004/5 compared to 2003/4, and performed better than conventional producers. The LFA cattle and sheep sector was an exception to this trend. Net farm income (NFI) for organic LFA cattle and sheep farms slipped back in 2004/5 and had the lowest NFI of all the organic farming sectors (OCW, 2006). This project has been set up against this background and the recent ACOS (2006) recommendation that research be conducted into the impact on biodiversity of organic conversion in the hills and uplands. The objectives are to quantify differences in biodiversity between organic and conventional farming systems in hills and uplands, to assess the importance of duration under organic management and scale effects, to identify features of organic systems that are associated with biodiversity benefits in the hills and uplands, and to quantify the socio-economic impact of organic conversion in these areas.
United Kingdom