2. FHA-Food & Beverage: Smart Energy Management Systems & Guest Comfort
Explains how IoT sensors and Smart Energy Management Systems (SEMS) integrate with HVAC and lighting to automate consumption based on real-time occupancy and guest behaviour – driving significant savings (22%-35% annually), while improving guest comfort.

3. Switch Hotel Solutions: Predictive Maintenance for HVAC (IoT)
Focuses on how IoT sensors monitor HVAC equipment health (vibration, temperature, energy draw) to predict issues before they occur. This predictive approach extends equipment lifespan, prevents costly emergency downtime, and cuts maintenance costs by 20–30%.

4. Blueprint RF: IoT and Indoor Air Quality (IAQ)
Discusses how motion and air quality IoT sensors automate lighting and thermostat controls, while also managing IAQ and ventilation rates based on real-time occupancy. This creates a healthier environment, while avoiding unnecessary energy use.

5. Reed Smith LLP: ESG Reporting for Hospitality in the Caribbean
Article underscores the critical business and governmental drive for ESG in the Caribbean region, noting that tourists often demand hard data on sustainability. IoT data collection for energy, water, and waste is the foundation for the credible, transparent reporting needed to meet the expectations of eco-conscious travellers.

6. Switch Hotel Solutions: AI-Powered Sustainability Energy, Water, and Supply Chain Optimisation
Details how AI-powered systems revolutionise resource management by adjusting HVAC/lighting based on occupancy, detecting water leaks, and even streamlining procurement to prioritise sustainable, ethically sourced suppliers.

7. MDPI – Sustainability: Research on AI & IoT for Operational Efficiency
Examines the synergistic effects of integrating Artificial Intelligence (AI) and the Internet of Things (IoT) to enhance both operational efficiency and sustainable business practices.

8. Hospitality Net: AI in Sustainable Hotel Operations
Outlining how AI-powered energy management systems and smart waste tracking can help hotels meet ESG goals by optimising resource allocation, while minimising carbon emissions.

9. Mews: Key Hotel Technology Trends in 2025
Summary of key technology trends shaping the hotel industry – highlighting the essential roles of AI, IoT (Smart Technology), and energy-saving solutions.

10. TrustYou: Defining Hospitality AI
Comprehensive guide that explains what AI truly means in the hotel and travel sectors – covering its use in guest engagement, data interpretation, and operational improvements like predictive maintenance and dynamic pricing.

11. US EPA: Guide for Commercial Waste Reduction
Official U.S. Environmental Protection Agency resource providing a systematic waste reduction guide for commercial buildings, including hotels.

12. Hotel Yearbook: Sustainable Technology Edition
Covers topics such as carbon management, circular economy practices, and AI-driven ESG reporting standards.

13. IJSRA: AI-Driven Food Waste Management Research
Research paper exploring how AI, through predictive analytics and computer vision, can revolutionise food waste reduction in the hospitality and broader food sector supply chains.

14. Schneider Electric: EcoStruxure IoT Solutions for Hotels
Details the EcoStruxure platform, showcasing how an integrated system of IoT solutions can optimize entire hotels for sustainability, hyper-efficiency, and a better guest experience.

15. Basel Institute on Governance: Illegal Waste Trade and Governance
An article focusing on the severe environmental and developmental impacts of waste criminality, underscoring the importance of responsible, transparent waste management and disposal practices, which IoT tracking can help address.

Why sustainability compliance matters
Sustainability compliance is a fundamental requirement for companies and other organisations, large and small, mitigating significant financial and legal risks (e.g., heavy fines for non-compliance with SECR or Waste Duty of Care), while unlocking performance-boosting opportunities.

Furthermore, effective compliance protects brand reputation by demonstrating responsibility to investors, customers, and employees.

Key sustainability compliance services offered:
• Regulatory navigation: Assistance with a wide range of environmental and sustainability regulations.
• Reporting and disclosure: Supporting sustainability reporting, climate risk disclosures, and preparing reports for stakeholders or investors.
• Auditing and assessment: Conducting compliance assessments, impact assessments, and lifecycle analyses to identify risks and areas for improvement.
• Strategy and integration: Integrating sustainability compliance, strategy, management and reporting with core operations – boosting sustainability and overall business performance and efficiency.
• Environmental management: Developing and implementing environmental management systems including Green Dragon, EMAS and ISO 14001 – on one site, or across multiple sites.
• Product compliance: Ensuring products and services meet sustainability standards and labelling specifications.

Benefits of more effective sustainability compliance:
• Risk mitigation: Reduces risk of penalties, legal disputes, and reputational damage associated with non-compliance.
• Improved efficiency: Boosts operational efficiency and resource utilisation.
• Enhanced reputation: Demonstrates a commitment to social and environmental responsibility, which in turn boosts reputation.
• Strategic advantage: Moving beyond basic sustainability compliance gives our clients the potential to boost their commercial performance, and differentiating their offering from competitors.

Examples of EcoCognito’s sustainability compliance services:
Our integrated environmental compliance services are many and varied, and bespoke to specific clients – they include:

• Streamlined Energy and Carbon Reporting (SECR) compliance
EcoCognito helps qualifying clients meet their mandatory annual reporting obligation on energy use, and associated greenhouse gas emissions – enabling businesses to track energy performance, identify cost-saving energy efficiency opportunities, and demonstrate their commitment to corporate responsibility.

Relevant Legislation: The Companies (Directors’ Report) and Limited Liability Partnerships (Energy and Carbon Report) regulations 2018.

• Energy Savings Opportunity Scheme (ESOS) audits
An ESOS audit is an energy assessment of buildings, industrial processes, and transport – carried out once every four years – that identifies cost-effective energy-saving measures; this process helps clients significantly reduce their energy consumption and achieve compliance, even where they are not required to publicly report their energy efficiency performance.

Relevant Legislation: The Energy Savings Opportunity Scheme Regulations 2014.

• Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) for packaging compliance
Companies who produce (manufacturers and sellers) significant amounts of packaging are now required to cover the cost of managing packaging waste through to the end of its life – this new obligation encompasses data reporting on packaging materials, and adequate labelling to facilitate recycling.

Relevant Legislation: The Producer Responsibility Obligations (Packaging and Packaging Waste) regulations 2024.

• Net Zero & Carbon Reduction planning (PPN 06/21)
EcoCognito works to helps businesses measure their Scope 1, 2, and 3 emissions, set science-based reduction targets, and develop credible Carbon Reduction Plans. Crucially, this service ensures contractors comply with Public Procurement Notice (PPN) 06/21, which is essential for bidding on major UK government contracts.

Relevant Legislation: The Climate Change Act 2008 and Public Procurement Notice (PPN) 06/21 (For government contracts).

• Waste Management Duty of Care compliance
This compliance service from EcoCognito ensures all businesses, regardless of size, meet their legal obligation to manage their waste correctly, including storage and separation, using registered waste carriers, and the management of Waste Transfer Notes – ensuring clients avoid significant fines for mismanaging commercial waste.

EcoCognito can also add independent layers of direct waste monitoring, by applying IoT and other technologies that enable companies to directly monitor their waste, rather than simply trusting waste management contractors.

Relevant Legislation: The Environmental Protection Act 1990 and The Waste (England and Wales) Regulations 2011.

NEXT STEPS: Contact EcoCognito to find out how your organisation can best achieve bulletproof sustainability and environmental compliance.

Looser mortgage lending rules will allow first time buyers to secure larger mortgages, inflating house prices – which will burden first time buyers with more debt, while pushing the dream of homeownership even further from future purchasers.

The current UK Government has repeatedly promised to tackle the housing crisis by increasing supply and making homes more affordable, at a time when average UK house prices have already reached a record high of £270,000 according to recent data from the ONS.

“Yet house prices will rise if you stimulate demand by easing mortgage lending rules in a supply-constrained market, harming first time buyers trying to get on the ladder,” said a spokesperson from EcoCognito, a consultancy that works with housing issues.

“Which begs the question: Where is the due diligence? Where is the modelling utilised by HM Treasury, the Bank of England, and FCA, to evaluate the harmful impact of looser mortgage rules on first time buyers and the wider economy? We have requested this information but have received no detail.”

“And what role did the banks and other mortgage lenders play in the formulation of this looser mortgage lending approach from the government? How did they lobby for this shift?”

“The UK Government’s approach demonstrates a fundamental disconnect – they are attempting to create the impression of progress without addressing a key driver of the housing affordability crisis: the pumping of mortgage-lending cash into a finite market, which has increased house prices to unaffordable levels.”

“Instead of joined up thinking, it appears we are getting yet more policy failure from the UK Government – harming first time buyers like so many other initiatives over the last few decades.”

“A significant loosening of mortgage lending rules, without any corresponding increase in housing supply, will inflate house prices significantly while leaving mortgage borrowers over-leveraged and at an increased risk of default and repossession.”

“Moving beyond the issue of first time buyers, the current UK Government has a very poor overall track record when it comes to affordable housing, yet now we are hearing speculation they may water down affordable housing targets and also note that the number of homeless children in temporary accommodation has just reached a record high of 172,420 in England.”

ENDS 1

Contact: Luke Rowlands, Director, EcoCognito: Mob: +44 (0)7966 729775 / Email: Luke@ecocognito.com – https://www.ecocognito.com

Background Information:
A litany of political and regulatory failure… Britain’s housing crisis
https://www.ecocognito.com/twitawoo/post/britains-housing-crisis-political-regulatory-failure/

The housing crisis – there’s nothing we can do… or is there?
https://www.ecocognito.com/twitawoo/post/housing-crisis-explained-nothing-we-can-do/

Looser LTI limits without higher housing supply risks raising house prices: BoE Bailey
https://www.mortgagefinancegazette.com/market-news/looser-lti-limits-without-higher-housing-supply-risks-raising-house-prices-boe-bailey-22-07-2025/

Brokers reject looser limits on mortgage lending – Landbay
https://www.introducertoday.co.uk/breaking-news/2025/08/brokers-reject-looser-limits-on-mortgage-lending-landbay/

Brokers don’t back plans for looser limits on mortgage lending
https://ifamagazine.com/brokers-dont-back-plans-for-looser-limits-on-mortgage-lending/

Watchdog warns Rachel Reeves looser lending for first time buyers could mean home repossessions double
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/fca-rachel-reeves-mortgages-lending-repossessions-b2685118.html

Industry warns FCA to take care in loosening mortgage rules
https://www.thebanker.com/content/bd81047d-5b3b-45da-9149-f5869212102b

Santander becomes first major bank to loosen key mortgage rule over customer borrowing limits
https://www.independent.co.uk/money/mortgage-affordability-rules-santander-stress-test-b2723176.html

Mortgage Revolution – government urges relaxation of lending rules
https://www.introducertoday.co.uk/breaking-news/2025/01/mortgage-revolution-government-urges-relaxation-of-lending-rules/

First-time buyers put at the heart of Treasury mortgage talks
https://mortgagesoup.co.uk/first-time-buyers-put-at-the-heart-of-treasury-mortgage-talks/

ENDS 2

In 2023, the last year for which we could readily access government data, water companies in England spread around 819,001 tonnes (dry solids) of sewage sludge – 93.8% of which was applied to over 375,000 acres of agricultural land. The spreading of sewage sludge on farmland is also widespread across Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland.

Yet current environmental regulations specify this sewage sludge is tested only for potentially harmful heavy metals, with no requirement to routinely test the sludge for microplastics – this legislative gap means avoidable microplastic pollution takes place when sewage sludge is applied to UK agricultural land.

“Today we are calling for the urgent tightening of regulations relating to microplastics in the sewage sludge spread on agricultural land, to protect our environment and human health from this harmful and avoidable pollution. There is extensive research that points to the problem, yet our politicians are failing to step up and take action to rectify the situation”, said a spokesperson from EcoCognito.

“Human health is harmed by microplastic pollution, through the ingestion and inhalation of microplastic particles, and via contaminated water; as well as being directly harmful, microplastics can potentially absorb, carry, and amplify other harmful substances such as pesticide residues, heavy metals and pathogens”.

“Research also reveals that microplastics damage and disrupt ecosystems, damage soils and aquatic environments, and harm wildlife and other biota, so urgent action is needed to stop microplastics entering our environment in sewage sludge”.

This call to action follows a recent evaluation of the European Sewage Sludge Directive by the European Commission, which recommends a review to consider the regulation of new categories of pollutant in sewage sludge such as microplastics, organic compounds, pathogens and pharmaceuticals.

For additional background information, and relevant research, visit EcoCognito’s online resources.

ENDS 1

CONTACT: Luke Rowlands, Director, EcoCognito
Phone: +44 (0)7966 729775
Email: Luke.N.Rowlands@btinternet.com
Website: https://www.ecocognito.com/

NOTES FOR EDITORS:

Relevant research:
Accumulation of microplastics in soil after long-term application of biosolids and atmospheric deposition:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0048969723075125

Effects of microplastics on the terrestrial environment: A critical review:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0013935122000615

Evidence of microplastic accumulation in agricultural soils from sewage sludge disposal:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30933797/

Microplastics: a real global threat for environment and food safety: a state of the art review:
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9920460/

Microplastics in sewage sludge: a review:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37079238/

Municipal sewage sludge as a source of microplastics in the environment:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2468584419300832

Potential health impact of microplastics: a review of environmental distribution, human exposure, and toxic effects:
https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/envhealth.3c00052

Prediction of future microplastic accumulation in agricultural soils:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0269749124013010

Additional details:
Microplastics Everywhere – The tiny particles are even in our bodies. What might this mean for our health?:
https://magazine.hms.harvard.edu/articles/microplastics-everywhere

Plastic planet: How tiny plastic particles are polluting our soil:
https://www.unep.org/news-and-stories/story/plastic-planet-how-tiny-plastic-particles-are-polluting-our-soil

‘For 2023 the 9 water companies dispatched 819,001 tonnes (dry solids) of sewage sludge – 93.8% of this was used in agriculture (across 151,921 hectares of land)’

Regulatory control information:
The application of sewage sludge to agricultural land is currently controlled by the Sludge (Use in Agriculture) Regulations 1989; these regulations require that the sludge producer routinely tests both the sludge to be applied and the soil receiving the sludge to ensure that the regulatory limits of specified heavy metals are not exceeded – but does not cover other key categories of pollutant found in sewage sludge.

ENDS 2

2. Solar Photovoltaic (PV) Panels with Battery Storage: PV panels generate electricity from sunlight, and integrating a battery allows homeowners to store excess energy for use when the sun isn’t shining, maximising self-consumption and reducing reliance on the grid. https://www.fmb.org.uk/homepicks/solar-panels/cost-of-solar-panels/ and https://www.solarwatt.co.uk/knowledge-base/home-energy-management-systems

3. Enhanced Insulation and Airtightness (Passivhaus Principles): Going beyond basic building regulations to create a highly insulated and exceptionally airtight building envelope, dramatically reducing heat loss and energy demand for heating. This is central to the Passivhaus standard. https://www.passivhaustrust.org.uk/

4. Rainwater Harvesting Systems: Collecting and storing rainwater from roofs for non-potable uses like flushing toilets, watering gardens, and washing clothes, thereby reducing mains water consumption. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/rainwater-harvesting-regulatory-position-statement/rainwater-harvesting-regulatory-position-statement

5. Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS): Incorporating features like permeable paving, rain gardens, and swales to manage surface water runoff naturally, reducing flood risk and often enhancing local biodiversity. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/national-standards-for-sustainable-drainage-systems/national-standards-for-sustainable-drainage-systems-suds

6. Greywater Recycling Systems: Treating wastewater from baths, showers, and washing machines for reuse in non-potable applications like toilet flushing and garden irrigation. https://www.edie.net/definition/greywater-recycling/

7. High-Performance Triple Glazing: While double glazing is standard, triple glazing offers superior thermal insulation, further reducing heat loss through windows and improving comfort. https://www.norrsken.co.uk/newsitem/future-homes-standard-guide

8. Smart Home Energy Management Systems (HEMS): These systems monitor and control a home’s energy consumption in real-time, optimising the use of renewable energy, managing appliances, and potentially interacting with smart tariffs to reduce costs. https://www.solarwatt.co.uk/knowledge-base/home-energy-management-systems and https://www.mrisoftware.com/uk/blog/what-is-smart-energy-management/

9. Mechanical Ventilation with Heat Recovery (MVHR): Essential for highly airtight homes, MVHR systems extract stale air and supply fresh filtered air while recovering up to 90% of the heat from the outgoing air. https://www.passivhaustrust.org.uk/

10. Use of Sustainable and Locally Sourced Building Materials: Prioritising materials with lower embodied carbon, such as recycled content, natural insulation (hemp, wood fibre), and timber from sustainable sources. https://www.ecomerchant.co.uk/ and https://naturalbuildingstore.com/ and https://fsc.org/en

These approaches, often combined, contribute significantly to creating homes that are not only more environmentally friendly but also more comfortable and cost-effective to run for their occupants.

ABSTRACT

Key findings include:
• Overgrazing is ill-defined so one of the key challenges is to provide an accurate definition
• Many methodologies and techniques are utilised to both identify overgrazing, and measure the impacts of overgrazing – however, these often lack breadth – partly because of the complexity of the many dynamic and variable aspects that relate to overgrazing, which restricts the scope of research
• There may be an opportunity to develop agritech that would empower land managers by communicating overgrazing-related data to graziers and land managers in real time.

INTRODUCTION

One challenge is the issue of definition, the complexity of which is highlighted by Fielding and Haworth (1999) who assert that overgrazing does not mean the same thing to ecologists and farmers, noting how ecologists may see overgrazing as something that moves vegetation away from its natural state, whereas agriculturalists often assess overgrazing by focusing on productivity and profitability.

Despite the broad and significant environmental impacts of overgrazing, which is one of the key ecological problems confronting graziers and land managers internationally, many studies tend to focus on a limited number of overgrazing indicators and impacts, in very specific geographical areas; this reality is noted by Eldridge and Delgado-Baquerizo (2017) who overcome the issue by synthetizing relatively focused research to draw conclusions relating to ecosystem impacts on a larger geographical scale.

In this literature review I examine some of the key literature to understand what overgrazing is, where the research sits, and where there may be gaps that need filling.

DEFINING OVERGRAZING – complexity unleashed…

To set the scene… grasslands and savanna biomes cover around 40% of the terrestrial surface, of earth as referenced by Banerjee et al. (2023), and are dominated by grasses (Poaceae) together with grass-like and herbaceous plants.

More than 25% of the earth’s surface – over 33 million square kilometres – is managed grazing according to Asner et al. (2004), whose paper defines managed grassland as “as any geographically extensive operation designed for the production of animals for consumption, including for meat, milk, and any major animal products.”

As with the term overgrazing, there are challenges associated with the definition of grassland, due to inexact and varying definitions, as overviewed by Dixon et al. (2014) – also, it should be noted that grazing, and hence overgrazing, can take place in biomes that are not classified as grassland and savanna.

Mysterud (2006) emphasises how the definition of overgrazing is determined by the management and/or conservation objectives – on that basis, grassland farmers, forestry managers, wildlife managers and nature conservationists should apply varying definitions that focus on and align with their end goals.

Carrying capacity is often used to define the point above which overgrazing occurs and MacNab (1985) provides a traditional agricultural-sector definition to the carrying capacity of land: “For range management, the density of cattle providing maximum sustained production of beef is the carrying capacity of the land” before making a similar point to Mysterud (2006) above by highlighting how carrying capacity will be determined by the end goal, so – for example – the optimal carrying capacity for maximising agricultural productivity on land will likely differ from the optimal carrying capacity for biodiversity maximisation.

Wilson and Macleod (1991) argue that defining overgrazing is problematic because of its broad range of impacts on aspects such as botanical composition, forage cover, erosion, livestock production and wildlife habitat, which underlines the need for overgrazing definitions to be specifically aligned with management goals, while encompassing the breadth of such objectives.

Wilson and Macleod (1991) apply a relatively narrow definition of overgrazing in their paper: “Overgrazing ls defined as occurring where there is a concomitant vegetation change and loss of animal productivity arising from the grazing of land by herbivores” – indeed, much of the literature on overgrazing is the practice of grazing livestock in a way that exceeds the carrying/productive capacity of the land – for example, see the definitions used in the papers by Niu et al. (2019) and Fragnière et al. (2022). Yet these definitions may in themselves be too narrow because, for example, the management objective may not relate to livestock/agricultural productivity, and livestock many not even be the key grazing animals.

In conclusion, the concept of overgrazing could be better understood if a suitably broad and all-encompassing definition could be universally agreed upon and applied – alongside sub-definitions that could be applied to accurately define the term in a way that aligns with specific management objectives. Much of the literature and research that relates to overgrazing fails to explore in detail what overgrazing is, in terms of general and in-context definitions, so there is certainly an opportunity to explore definitions further, and support the application of accurate and relevant definitions that better communicate overgrazing.

IDENTIFYING OVERGRAZING – a varied picture…

Sales-Baptista et al. (2016) identifies many of the challenges associated with identifying and preventing overgrazing in the Montado in Spain, such as the complexity arising from spatial and temporal variations; this paper proceeds to make the point that overgrazing is to do with more than just animal numbers, and that grazing pressure is a better early indicator of overgrazing risk than stocking rate, because it captures more of the complexities that need to be grappled with.

This paper overviews many of the complex interactions that need to be assessed when identifying and preventing overgrazing, ranging from tree cover and feed supplements to grazing management and wildlife grazing competition:

Sales-Baptista et al. (2016) also argues that knowledge is needed at a paddock scale rather than whole farm or regional scale, and that technologies such as a WSNs (wireless sensor networks) and GPS could be used to monitor paddock pressures by monitoring long term pasture and animal stocking rates, and variations.

Meanwhile, Hilker et al. (2014) studied an area of 2 million square kilometres, using daily MODIS data from the Aqa spacecraft (satellite data) to identify changes, including overgrazing issues, in the Mongolian Steppe. And a paper by Hao et al. (2018) outlined the use of satellite lead area (LAI) data to map grazing patterns and temporal dynamics to better understand the impacts of grazing, and potential overgrazing, on the upper reach of the Heihe River in China.

And Harmse et al. (2022) outlines how imagery from the Sentinel-2 satellite, constellation combined with GPS location data, can be used to monitor semi-arid rangelands – and identify and quantify overgrazing; in contrast, Liu and Lu (2021) apply a very different approach to assess grassland degradation in the Tibetan Plateau, applying methodologies and calculations to pre-existing mapping work.

Meanwhile Wang et al. (2020) conclude that metabolites in plant roots change in response to overgrazing – a finding that could potentially be utilised to identify overgrazing; furthermore, Huhe et al. (2017) confirm that soil bacteria/fungi are responsive to, and sensitive to, grazing activity.

Primary and secondary data sources were identified and synthesized via a specific methodology, overviewed by Gebeyehu et al. (2021) in their attempt to identify overgrazing hotspots in Ethiopia’s Lower Omo Valley – ranging from questionnaires involving graziers to satellite data.

Meanwhile, in an unusual approach Kakonge (2012) applies chaos theory to both understand and address environmental degradation – including overgrazing, in Lesotho, Africa, arguing that chaos theory helps us both understand and respond to highly complex, dynamic and variable environmental challenges, such as overgrazing.

Omuto et al. (2014) have developed a framework for assessing land degradation in Somalia, utilising a mix of remote sensing and expert opinion to create the framework for both national and more localised assessments that encompass land degradation from overgrazing.

While Sartorello et al. (2020) has carried out a systemic review and meta-analysis to provide an overview and insights into the impact of pastoral activities on biodiversity – encompassing aspects relating to overgrazing; concluding that Arthropoda (particularly insects) can be monitored to detect overgrazing.

The most extreme cases of overgrazing can result in soil erosion and the loss of plant nutrients, leading to a long-term decline in productivity, as outlined by van de Koppel et al. (1997) who describe how what they term ‘catastrophic vegetation shifts’ occur.

In conclusion, there are a broad range of different approaches and methodologies used to identify overgrazing – from the traditional to the hi-tech – however, they often lack breadth in terms of the aspects and impacts covered, because of the complexities involved in examining overgrazing; also, I question how actionable much of this work is by graziers and other land managers. It would be good to see more of a research focus on actionable early-warning indicators of overgrazing that can be responded to in good time by graziers and land managers.

Finally, it is clear from the literature that I have examined that that economics is a key driver- a paper by Fang and Wu (2022), focused on the overgrazing of the grasslands of inner Mongolia, discovering that herders attributed land degradation to a variety of causes, including economic pressures.

Boles et al. (2021) also highlights the role that economic pressure plays as a driver of overgrazing in Kenya, and argues that adaptive mobility is key to protect both the rangeland ecosystems and the livelihood of the pastoralists themselves. While Bonn (2010) identifies rural subsidies and payments as key drivers of overgrazing in Britain’s uplands.

So, beyond the identification of overgrazing in the practical terms… if we are to prevent overgrazing, it is clearly essential to understand the bigger picture, including key contributory factors and drivers that occur beyond the specific biomes we are studying and working with.

THE BROAD IMPACTS OF OVERGRAZING – a quick overview…

Breidenbach et al. (2022) studies the Tibetan Plateau’s Kobresia pastures, noting that overgrazing and climate change make the topsoils vulnerable to irreversible degradation; the paper identifies the critical threshold of grazing intensity, on a microbiological basis, above which pasture degradation and the associated negative environmental impacts, become irreversible.

Kemp et al. (2013) refers to problems on 90% of China’s grasslands, such as decreased ground cover and increased erosion – in part driven by overgrazing.
And Dlamini et al. (2016) asserts that grasslands store around 10% of the world’s SOC (soil organic carbon), while the degradation of grassland soils reduces SOC, illustrating how the SOC pool is strongly determined by grassland management, with strong implications for climate change; meanwhile Dlamini et al. (2014) examines the way in which overgrazing depletes soil nitrogen.

And a paper by Donovan and Monaghan (2021) highlight that it is globally recognised that overgrazing is a key contributor to accelerated soil degradation while Fragnière et al. (2022) points out that livestock farming is a key driver of worldwide biodiversity loss.

While Sartorello et al. (2020) examined the impact of pastoral activities on biodiversity in Europe and uncovered a generalised negative impact from overgrazing across all the habitats and geographical areas examined, other than mountain shrubland.

Whereas Wang and Tang (2019) found that “the key drivers for the response of diversity to grazing intensity were varied among taxa, which indicated that comprehensive factors, including multi-taxa diversity and multi-functionality, should be considered when applying grazing management in grasslands.” – underlining the complexity in terms of the response of biodiversity to grazing intensities.

Finally, it is important to point out that grazing and hence overgrazing is not limited to pastureland – there is plenty of research that examines the impact of grazing on non-grass biomes, such as the paper by Li and Jiang (2021) that examines the impact livestock can have on forests.

In conclusion, overgrazing is a huge environmental challenge as overviewed by the papers above, yet the interactions between grazing and the environment are highlight complex and variable.

CONCLUSIONS

Having reviewed some of the key aspects in this literature review, which covers the definition of overgrazing alongside the identification of and impacts of overgrazing, I would advocate additional research to guide graziers and land managers on how to define, identify and mitigate overgrazing.

Regarding the identification of overgrazing, a broad range of techniques are advocated and utilised by researchers, both in-the-field and in terms of desk research – varying from satellite data through to field work, yet – despite the variety of approaches – I could find very few options that could be utilised in the field in real time, by graziers and land managers.

So I advocate a three pronged approach to fill the literature and research gaps surrounding overgrazing, empowering graziers and land managers seeking to get to grips with, protect against and reverse overgrazing:
• The development of a broad and all-encompassing definition of overgrazing, supported by sub-definitions specific to land management plans
• A synthesis of early warning indicators into a single database to support graziers and land managers who need help identifying the early warning signs of overgrazing
• Research into the development of a practical on-farm/on-land agritech solution that identifies overgrazing in its complexity, and in context – providing real-time feedback and guidance to land-managers and graziers – perhaps even utilising AI; this research project could draw on the world of precision livestock farming tech, such as that detailed by Aquilani et al. (2022).

** ENDS **

APPENDIX

Asner, G. P., Elmore, A. J., Olander, L. P., Martin, R. E., and Harris, A. T. (2004). Grazing systems, ecosystem responses, and global change. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 29, 261–299. doi: https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.energy.29.062403.102142

Banerjee, Das, D., Zhang, H., & John, R. (2023). Grassland-woodland transitions over decadal timescales in the Terai-Duar savanna and grasslands of the Indian subcontinent. Forest Ecology and Management, 530, 120764–. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2022.120764

Boles, Shoemaker, A., Mustaphi, C. J. C., Petek, N., Ekblom, A., & Lane, P. J. (2019). Historical Ecologies of Pastoralist Overgrazing in Kenya: Long-Term Perspectives on Cause and Effect. Human Ecology : an Interdisciplinary Journal, 47(3), 419–434. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10745-019-0072-9
Bonn. (2010). Drivers of environmental change in uplands. Routledge.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-010-9471-4

Breidenbach, A., Schleuss, P. M., Liu, S., Schneider, D., Dippold, M. A., de la Haye, T., Miehe, G., Heitkamp, F., Seeber, E., Mason-Jones, K., Xu, X., Huanming, Y., Xu, J., Dorji, T., Gube, M., Norf, H., Meier, J., Guggenberger, G., Kuzyakov, Y., & Spielvogel, S. (2022). Microbial functional changes mark irreversible course of Tibetan grassland degradation. Nature communications, 13(1), 2681. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-022-30047-7

Díaz-Pereira, Romero-Díaz, A., & de Vente, J. (2020). Sustainable grazing land management to protect ecosystem services. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, 25(8), 1461–1479. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11027-020-09931-4

Dlamini, Chivenge, P., & Chaplot, V. (2016). Overgrazing decreases soil organic carbon stocks the most under dry climates and low soil pH: A meta-analysis shows. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 221, 258–269. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2016.01.026

Dlamini, Chivenge, P., Manson, A., & Chaplot, V. (2014). Land degradation impact on soil organic carbon and nitrogen stocks of sub-tropical humid grasslands in South Africa. Geoderma, 235-236, 372–381. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2014.07.016

Donovan, & Monaghan, R. (2021). Impacts of grazing on ground cover, soil physical properties and soil loss via surface erosion: A novel geospatial modelling approach. Journal of Environmental Management, 287, 112206–. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2021.112206

Dixon, Faber‐Langendoen, D., Josse, C., Morrison, J., Loucks, C. J., & Ebach, M. (2014). Distribution mapping of world grassland types. Journal of Biogeography, 41(11), 2003–2019. https://doi.org/10.1111/jbi.12381

Eldridge, & Delgado‐Baquerizo, M. (2017). Continental‐scale Impacts of Livestock Grazing on Ecosystem Supporting and Regulating Services. Land Degradation & Development, 28(4), 1473–1481. https://doi.org/10.1002/ldr.2668

Fielding, & Haworth, P. F. (1999). Upland habitats. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203061152

Fragnière, Gremaud, J., Pesenti, E., Bétrisey, S., Petitpierre, B., Guisan, A., & Kozlowski, G. (2022). Mapping habitats sensitive to overgrazing in the Swiss Northern Alps using habitat suitability modeling. Biological Conservation, 274, 109742–. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2022.109742

Gebeyehu, Ben G. J. S. Sonneveld, & Denyse Snelder. (2021). Identifying Hotspots of Overgrazing in Pastoral Areas: Livestock Mobility and Fodder Supply–Demand Balances in Nyangatom, Lower Omo Valley, Ethiopia. Sustainability (Basel, Switzerland), 13(3260), 3260–. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13063260

Hao, Pan, C., Fang, D., Zhang, X., Zhou, D., Liu, P., Liu, Y., & Sun, G. (2018). Quantifying the effects of overgrazing on mountainous watershed vegetation dynamics under a changing climate. The Science of the Total Environment, 639, 1408–1420. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.05.224

Harmse, Hannes Gerber, & Adriaan van Niekerk. (2022). Evaluating Several Vegetation Indices Derived from Sentinel-2 Imagery for Quantifying Localized Overgrazing in a Semi-Arid Region of South Africa. Remote Sensing (Basel, Switzerland), 14(1720), 1720–. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs14071720

Hilker, Natsagdorj, E., Waring, R. H., Lyapustin, A., & Wang, Y. (2014). Satellite observed widespread decline in Mongolian grasslands largely due to overgrazing. Global Change Biology, 20(2), 418–428. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.12365

Huhe, Huhe, Xianjiang Chen, Fujiang Hou, Yanpei Wu, & Yunxiang Cheng. (2017). Bacterial and Fungal Community Structures in Loess Plateau Grasslands with Different Grazing Intensities. Frontiers in Microbiology, 8. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2017.00606

Kemp, Guodong, H., Xiangyang, H., Michalk, D. L., Fujiang, H., Jianping, W., & Yingjun, Z. (2013). Innovative grassland management systems for environmental and livelihood benefits. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences – PNAS, 110(21), 8369–8374. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1208063110

Kakonge. (2002). Application of chaos theory to solving the problems of social and environmental decline in Lesotho. Journal of Environmental Management, 65(1), 63–78. https://doi.org/10.1006/jema.2001.0519

van de Koppel, Rietkerk, M., & Weissing, F. J. (1997). Catastrophic vegetation shifts and soil degradation in terrestrial grazing systems. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 12(9), 352–356. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-5347(97)01133-6

Li, & Jiang, B. (2021). Responses of forest structure, functions, and biodiversity to livestock disturbances: A global meta‐analysis. Global Change Biology, 27(19), 4745–4757. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.15781

Liu, & Lu, C. (2021). Quantifying Grass Coverage Trends to Identify the Hot Plots of Grassland Degradation in the Tibetan Plateau during 2000-2019. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(2), 416–. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18020416

MacNab. (1985). Carrying Capacity and Related Slippery Shibboleths. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 13(4), 403–410. https://www.jstor.org/stable/3782664

Mysterud (2006). The concept of overgrazing and its role in management of large herbivores. https://doi.org/10.2981/0909-6396(2006)12[129:TCOOAI]2.0.CO;2

Niu, Zhu, H., Yang, S., Ma, S., Zhou, J., Chu, B., Hua, R., & Hua, L. (2019). Overgrazing leads to soil cracking that later triggers the severe degradation of alpine meadows on the Tibetan Plateau. Land Degradation & Development, 30(10), 1243–1257. https://doi.org/10.1002/ldr.3312

Omuto, Balint, Z., & Alim, M. S. (2014). framework for national assessment of land degradation in the drylands: a case study of somalia. Land Degradation & Development, 25(2), 105–119. https://doi.org/10.1002/ldr.1151

Sales-Baptista, d’Abreu, M. C., & Ferraz-de-Oliveira, M. I. (2016). Overgrazing in the Montado? The need for monitoring grazing pressure at paddock scale. Agroforestry Systems, 90(1), 57–68. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10457-014-9785-3

Sartorello, Pastorino, A., Bogliani, G., Ghidotti, S., Viterbi, R., & Cerrato, C. (2020). The impact of pastoral activities on animal biodiversity in Europe: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal for Nature Conservation, 56, 125863–. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jnc.2020.125863

Wang, Delgado‐Baquerizo, M., Zhao, X., Zhang, M., Song, Y., Cai, J., Chang, Q., Li, Z., Chen, Y., Liu, J., Zhu, H., Wang, D., Han, G., Liang, C., Wang, C., Xin, X., & Veen, C. (2020). Livestock overgrazing disrupts the positive associations between soil biodiversity and nitrogen availability. Functional Ecology, 34(8), 1713–1720. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2435.13575

Wang, & Tang, Y. (2019). A global meta-analyses of the response of multi-taxa diversity to grazing intensity in grasslands. Environmental Research Letters, 14(11). https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ab4932

Wilson, & Macleod, N. (1991). Overgrazing: present or absent? Journal of Range Management, 44(5), 475–482. https://doi.org/10.2307/4002748

Xuening Fang, & Jianguo Wu. (2022). Causes of overgrazing in Inner Mongolian grasslands: Searching for deep leverage points of intervention. Ecology and Society, 27(1), 8–. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-12878-270108

** ENDS 2 **

“Avoiding and minimising direct environmental damage should be the first step, so the British Government’s planned shift to an offsetting approach is deeply concerning – it is in fact anti-environmental, and likely to worsen the UK’s biodiversity crisis” – Luke Rowlands, Director, EcoCognito

These offsetting payments will remove onsite environmental obligations from developers – enabling the Labour Government, and private companies, to move ahead more rapidly with their developments, by-passing existing levels of environmental protection and scrutiny.

Sadly this new approach will weaken environmental protections and outcomes by shifting Britain from the ‘polluter-pays’ principle to a ‘pay to pollute’ offsetting model – undermining current best practice, which focuses on applying the ‘proximity principle’ which minimises and addresses environmental damage where it originates; an approach seen as more effective at protecting biodiversity, and the wider environment.

‘The prevailing narrative from the Government often suggests that we must choose between building homes for people and protecting our natural environment, and that nature is somehow a blocker to growth’ – excerpt from letter written by ecologists, architects and engineers expressing concern to Keir Starmer and Rachel Reeves

Worse still, sources close to government tell us some political insiders have questioned whether the flagship biodiversity net gain (BNG) policy policy is needed, if their new Nature Restoration Fund is adopted, as reported by ENDS – if that change comes to pass, biodiversity outcomes are likely to deteriorate further still; biodiversity net gain currently means all new development projects must achieve a 10% net gain in either biodiversity or habitat, although there are some exceptions.

We will address Rachel Reeves’ comments on airport expansion in due course… and we will update the British Government’s environmental policy shifts here on this blog, as the emerging situation develops.

With Richard Schmalensee adding that “even if energy storage becomes more affordable, running an electric grid entirely on solar and wind is always going to be more complicated than what we have now.”

This emphasises how important it is to scrutinise sustainability-related issues in the round… sadly, activists and politicians often make promises that fail to materialise – so, when renewable energy fails to deliver lower electricity bills, public trust is eroded; against this backdrop, it is little wonder to see the word greenlash gaining ground, which refers to the mounting backlash against environmental policies.

The overall usage of agricultural plastic mulches worldwide is hard to accurately gauge, because of a dearth of available research and data – although a paper by Liu et al. (2014) details that around 20 million hectares of plastic film were used in China each year – approximately 1.25 million tons during 2011 alone.

During 1997, agricultural plastic mulches made up an estimated 25% of the 500,000 tons of plastic films used in agriculture in Western Europe according to Hussain and Hamid (2003). And usage is increasing worldwide, with this trend driven by demand in the Middle East and China Narancic and O’Connor (2019).

Waste plastic mulches provide very specific challenges, including: relatively low levels of waste per holding, the contamination of the waste, the low value of the waste, the scattered location of producers, and the seasonality of waste production. Because of this, it’s very clear that much plastic mulch is diposed of illegally… additionally, there are issues relating to the plastic residues left behind in the soil after its use.

If you would like us to research and mitigate the impacts of plastic mulch within your business – whether you’re producing crops with plastic mulches, or producing/retailing products that have utillised plastic mulches through their life cycle, we can help… get in touch with our Director, Luke Rowlands today – on +44 (0)7966 729775.

Ref:

Blanco, Loisi, R. V., Sica, C., Schettini, E., & Vox, G. (2018). Agricultural plastic waste mapping using GIS. A case study in Italy. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 137, 229–242. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2018.06.008

Liu, He, W. Q., & Yan, C. R. (2014). “White revolution” to “white pollution”-agricultural plastic film mulch in China. Environmental Research Letters, 9(9), 91001–. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/9/9/091001

Hussain, I., Hamid, H., & Andrady, A. L. (2003). Plastics and the Environment.

Narancic, & O’Connor, K. E. (2019). Plastic waste as a global challenge: are biodegradable plastics the answer to the plastic waste problem? Microbiology (Society for General Microbiology), 165(2), 129–137. https://doi.org/10.1099/mic.0.000749

• British Government – Help To Buy

• Bank of England – Quantitative Easting, which has driven house prices higher and widened economic inequality

• British Government – Rishi Sunak’s Stamp Duty Holiday

• British Government + Bank of England – Covid response which is suffering mounting issues with fraud, with the likelihood that many fraudulent Covid payments have ended up “hidden” in the housing market.

Moreover, there are political and regulatory moves afoot that will drive house prices even higher, deepening the housing crisis… for example:

• British Government + Bank of England (PRA) – are considering policy moves that will give smaller lenders greater access to the mortgage market, which will increase mortgage lending and worsen the housing crisis

• Bank of England (FPC ) – may withdraw its mortgage affordability test requirements – again, this will release more mortgage cash to borrowers – further inflating house prices: here’s a broad overview.

Policy moves from the Bank of England have worsened the housing crisis:
Many of the Bank of England’s policies have increased house prices, worsening the housing crisis; the Bank of England argues it’s not their job to target house prices, while claiming to: “…work to maintain financial stability by protecting and enhancing the resilience of the system as a whole. And we supervise banks and insurers, to ensure that individual firms are run in a safe and sound way.”

Yet inflated house prices threaten financial stability, as experienced during the 2007/8 financial crisis – so the Bank of England’s remit does in fact require them to control house price bubbles where they heighten economic risk and threaten financial stability.

Indeed, analysts have warned of a major housing bubble in the UK, with house prices in London as much as 50% overvalued according to the ratings agency, S&P Global Ratings, who also assessed that UK housing outside London is around 20% overvalued.

The banks are profiting from the housing crisis
Mortgage lenders such as Lloyds Bank and Natwest have profited from the rapid increase in mortgage lending, supported by British Government and Bank of England policy. Working from the evidence, it could be argued that driving mortgage lending to ever-greater heights may in fact be a policy goal for both the British Government and Bank of England, while they seemingly turn a blind eye to the broader social and economic consequences.

Many banks and mortgage lenders are doing everything they can to push lending further, such as by extending the length of mortgages; despite the risks posed by mortgages that require repaying deeper into retirement – risks further amplified by the UK’s recent pension reforms, enabling those with private pensions to draw them down early; sadly, we were unable to secure a meaningful response when we asked the Bank of England whether its internal risk analysis and mortgage lending guidance had been tightened in response.

A litany of political failure…Britain’s politicians turn housing into a commodity
Britain’s politicians have facilitated the turning of housing in a commodity – an investment asset, while deflecting us from the negative consequences by suggesting the main issue driving the housing crisis is the lack of new housing supply, which sounds logical to the voting public… yet isn’t grounded in reality, as outlined here on our blog by Steve Keen, and also by this report from The UK Collaborative Centre for Housing Evidence (CaCHE), researched and written by Ian Mulheirn.

By stressing the need to hit some phantom number of new homes, politicians have successfully deflected our attention from the core fact that they themselves have created the housing crisis, and appear intent on driving it to new extremes.

Only I’m not talking about US gun deaths and the Second Amendment. I’m talking about overpriced housing and the subservience of politicians to the finance sector, virtually everywhere in the developed world.

The story told by politicians (and most pundits) is that, as with all other commodities, the price of housing is set by supply and demand, and the main problem in the housing market is inflexible supply. Here they lay the blame at the feet of local councils (or whoever is responsible for zoning laws) for not allowing more building approvals. If this issue is dealt with, they tell us supply would become more flexible and prices would fall.

And politicians do want house prices to fall don’t they, for the sake of the young people who can no longer afford to buy? Of course not – if they did, the wealth of generally older property owners wealth would decrease, as would their votes for the said politicians at the next election.

Since these older and more economically powerful property owners dominate the electorate, politicians are reduced to doing their best Man of La Mancha impersonations: they “Dream the Impossible Dream”, and aspire to bring about “affordable” expensive housing.

The best way to do that is to give young people a government handout to let them climb onto the property ladder. A name evocative of concern for the young, such as the “First Home Buyers Grant” in Australia, or even more evocative, the “Help to Buy” Scheme in the UK, helps make the policy look worthy.

This way, politicians are seen to be doing something to help the young, deflecting blame onto others (as they rail against rigid supply, which is not their responsibility), while actually fuelling the engine that drives house prices higher faster than consumer prices (and household incomes).

That fuel is leverage – the rising level of household debt compared to income. Not only can politicians do something about this by changing the regulations on bank lending – they have done something about it in the past, by changing the regulations in ways that allowed this bubble to form in the first place.

House prices only took off when politicians followed the advice of economists – and the special pleading of the finance sector – that the economy would work so much better if the heavy hand of government regulation was lifted, and industry was allowed to innovate. However, the innovations we got were not industrial but financial, as banks found ever more ways to persuade households (and also corporations) to take on more debt.

Here the UK data is remarkable, even in the context of a worldwide trend to higher levels of leverage. Between 1880 and 1980, private debt in the UK fluctuated as a percentage of GDP, yet it never once reached 75% of GDP. But in 1982, both household and corporate debt took off.

In 1982, total private debt was equivalent to 61% of GDP, split equally between households and corporations. 25 years later, as the global financial crisis unfolded, private debt was three times larger at 197% of GDP, again split 50:50 between households and corporations.

The key changes to legislation that occurred in 1982 is the UK let banks muscle into the mortgage market that was previously dominated by building societies. This was sold in terms of improving competition in the mortgage market, to the benefit of house buyers – allegedly, mortgage costs would fall.

But its most profound impact was something much more insidious: it enabled the creation of credit money to fuel rising house prices, setting off a feedback loop that only ended in 2008. Building societies don’t create money when they lend, because they lend from a bank account that stores the accumulated savings of their members. There’s no change in bank deposits, which are by far the largest component of the money supply.

However, banks do create money when they lend, because a bank records a loan as their asset when they make an identical entry in the borrower’s account, which enables the property to be bought. This dramatically inflates the price of housing, since, as the politicians themselves acknowledge – housing supply is inflexible, so prices increase far more than supply.

So, far from tight housing supply being an excuse for national politicians to do nothing, it’s a reason for them to reverse the effect of the decision they made, decades ago, to let banks create money and inflate house prices in the first place. “Supply and demand” is a reason for politicians to act on the monetary demand side of the housing market (the following argument summarises an as yet unpublished technical paper by myself, Paul Ormerod and Rickard Nyman).

The supply side of the housing market has two main two factors: the turnover of the existing stock of housing, and the net change in the number of houses (demolition of old properties and construction of new ones). The turnover of existing properties is far larger than the construction rate of new ones, and this alone makes housing different to your ordinary market.

The demand side of the housing market has one main factor: new mortgages created by the banks. Monetary demand for housing is therefore predominantly mortgage credit: the annual increase in mortgage debt. This also makes housing very different to ordinary markets, where most demand comes from the turnover of existing money, rather than from newly created money.

We can convert the credit-financed monetary demand for housing into a physical demand for new houses per year by dividing by the price level. This gives us a relationship between the level of mortgage credit and the level of house prices. There is therefore a relationship between the change in mortgage credit and the change in house prices – this relationship is ignored in mainstream politics and mainstream economics.

But it is the major determinant of house prices: house prices rise when mortgage credit rises, and they fall when mortgage credit falls. This relationship is obvious even for the UK, where mortgage debt data isn’t systematically collected – so I am forced to use data on total household debt (including credit cards, car loans etc.). Even then, the correlation is obvious (for the technically minded, the correlation coefficient is 0.6).

The US does publish data on mortgage debt, and there the correlation is an even stronger 0.78 – and standard econometric tests establish that the causal process runs from mortgage debt to house prices, and not vice versa (the downturn in house prices began earlier in the USA, and was an obvious pre-cursor to the crisis there).

None of this would have happened – at least not in the UK – had mortgage lending remained the province of money-circulating building societies, rather than letting money-creating banks into the market. It’s too late to unscramble that omelette, but there are still things that politicians could do make it less toxic for the public.

The toxicity arises from the fact that the mortgage credit causes house prices to rise, leading to yet more credit being taken on until, as in 2008, the process breaks down. And it has to break down, because the only way to sustain it is for debt to continue rising faster than income. Once that stops happening, demand evaporates, house prices collapse, and they take the economy down with them. That is no way to run an economy.

Yet far from learning this lesson, politicians continue to allow lending practices that facilitate this toxic feedback between leverage and house prices. A decade after the UK (and the USA, and Spain, and Ireland) suffered property crashes – and economic crises because of them – it takes just a millisecond of Internet searching to find lenders who will provide 100% mortgage finance based on the price of the property.

This should not be allowed. Instead, the maximum that lenders can provide should be limited to some multiple of a property’s actual or imputed rental income, so the income-earning potential of a property is the basis of the lending allowed against it. A hypothetically sustainable level is where the maximum debt secured against a property would be ten times the annual rental income, so a property rented for £20,000 a year would have a maximum loan amount of £200,000.

Given that gross rental yields in the UK are between 4-6% (see: https://www.cityam.com/266735/uk-house-prices-best-and-worst-areas-buy-let-investments-uk), the price for such a property would fall into the £300,000-£500,000 range – with a maximum mortgage to price ratio of 67%, rather than the current 100% or more.

The main function of such a rule would be to break the reinforcing cycle between debt and house prices that has given us globally over-valued housing and over-indebted households. Today, when two buyers compete for a property with identical incomes, the one who gets the higher level of leverage wins – giving us a strong and perverse incentive to actually want to be in more debt.

Yet things would work very differently under this new approach – in a contest between two identical income earners over a property, the winner would be the one who saved a larger deposit. Of course, such a rule could not be imposed overnight: it would cause a house price crash which would result in a recession that would, in all likelihood, see the policy change reversed.

However, it could be introduced at a higher level (say a 20:1 ratio) and reduced over time – used to transition us from a world in which we treat housing as a speculative asset rather than what it really is, a long-lived consumption good.

This would need to be introduced along with other measures to wean the financial sector off its current role as an enabler of asset bubbles, and back to what it should be: a Servant of society, rather than its Master.

Will it happen? I won’t hold my breath… but the next time politicians say there’s nothing they can do about house prices, suggest this new approach and make them squirm.

PS. You can see more of Professor Keen’s work – and support him – via this crowdfunding site: https://www.patreon.com/ProfSteveKeen.

Though sometimes purposeful, much greenwashing takes place simply because of a lack of understanding of sustainability issues – and how best to communicate them.

• Before you start communicating your credentials, your sustainability performance should be strong in general terms, or you could be accused of misleading customers by cherry-picking the few positive attributes.

• Always back up you sustainability claims with strong technical/scientific evidence, and verify that evidence via an independent third-party organisation/scheme, where possible.

• Words such as “green”, “eco-friendly” and “low carbon” are perfectly OK, if you back them up with concrete evidence, including technical/scientific evidence. Comparative and absolute claims must also be substantiated with evidence. Unqualified claims are best avoided, however accurate they are. CAP has produced useful guidance on green claims.

• Choose your third-party sustainability endorsements and eco-labels wisely, and avoid misleading labels.

• When communicating sustainability credentials, it is good practice to ensure the whole supply chain – and product lifecycle – is sustainable – how sustainable are your suppliers? If you manufacture a “green product”, have you performed a Life Cycle Analysis and audited your manufacturing facility and its supply chain?

• Proceed carefully if there’s a lack of scientific consensus over a potential sustainability credential. Otherwise, your claim could be seen as misleading, and may well be disputed.

• When using images to communicate your credentials, ensure they accurately portray your impact, without over-emphasising sustainability performance. Fluffy green images are a favourite of greenwashers.

• It’s usually best not to communicate the sustainability credentials of a product or service with a powerfully negative image. Also, unless your company is a real trailblazer, it’s rarely a good idea to claim sustainability leadership in a poorly performing niche/sector.

This is just a quick overview – for more detailed and specific advice on green and sustainability claims, and how best to avoid greenwashing, contact EcoCognito today.

The deal consists of a binding 27 percent renewable energy target accompanied by a voluntary energy savings goal in order to reach an overall target of 40 percent carbon emissions reduction by 2030. This in turn should offer an opportunity for continued investment in the renewable energy sector and might also stimulate a global treaty on climate change in 2015. If an ambitious agreement is concluded in Paris next year, the target could even be raised again to a 50 percent cut by 2030, a target favoured by the UK and Germany.

The summit was marred somewhat by disagreements over energy efficiency targets and climate policy. A number of countries, including Poland and Portugal, asked for their ‘special circumstances’ to be taken into consideration. They also threatened to veto the agreement if their demands were not recognised. For example, Poland remains heavily dependent on coal. For this reason, the Polish government requested 15 billion to 20 billion euros (£12 billion to £16 billion) in concessions 2020 to 2030.

Connie Hedegaard, the outgoing Climate Action Commissioner, said that she was proud of the EU deal and that it was an ‘ambitious step forward’ given that the new target requires a transformation in our society and the difficulties that entails. However, green pressure groups and charities such as Greenpeace and Oxfam condemned the agreement for being too weak.

Renewable energy investors welcomed the deal although they noted that a number of ‘vague clauses’ would create difficulties when it comes to writing ‘big cheques’.

A ‘cap and trade’ approach was adopted in order to address Danish concerns such as agriculture, transport and buildings, sectors which contribute around 31 percent of total EU emissions.

Emissions from shipping could soar by 250 percent by 2050

In 2012, emissions from the shipping sector represented 2.2 per cent of the total global emissions, compared to 2.8 percent in 2007. However, a new UN-backed report has found that the sector’s emissions are likely to climb again, as a result of increasing global trade, unless remedial action is taken.

The report by the International Marine Organisation (IMO) found that the sector emitted 796 million tonnes of carbon dioxide in 2012, compared to 885 million tonnes in 2007. However, this was most likely to have been the result of a slowdown in international trade, which means that under a ‘business-as-usual’ scenario they are likely to rise by between 50 percent and 250 percent by 2050.

The IMO has now adopted a series of important guidelines intended to support the mandatory measures already in place to increase energy efficiency and reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. This will also pave the way for other regulations to be introduced by governments and the industry.

Development funding has now been closed to new investors, but development funders to date have included Prudential and Good Energy, alongside a number of high net worth individuals and members of the local community. In addition, Macquarie Capital has been appointed as financial adviser and debt arranger for the project.

The Severn Estuary possesses the second highest tidal range in the world and Swansea Bay benefits from an average tidal range of 8.5 metres during spring tides. Tidal Lagoon Power intends to construct a 320MW tidal lagoon to harness this energy which would help the UK transition to a low carbon future with greater energy security and reduced electricity costs.

The project will generate over 495 gigawatt hours (GWh) of electricity per year for the next 120 years, enough to provide nearly all the domestic electricity for the Swansea Bay region. It will also prevent more than 236,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide per year from entering the atmosphere.

When it opens in 2018, the plant will be a world-leading infrastructure project and the world’s largest tidal energy provider. It is the first step in a tidal energy network which is expected to generate up to 8 percent of UK total electricity demand.

Prudential’s investment in the project is part of the company’s commitment to invest, alongside five other major UK insurance companies, a total of £25 billion in UK infrastructure over the next four years. The company’s long-term insurance funds will provide the funding through Prudential’s European asset management arm, M&G Investments.

“The financing of this power station is emblematic of the role that Prudential plays in transforming the hard-earned savings of millions of our customers into long-term, productive investment in the UK economy” said Tidjane Thiam, Group Chief Executive, Prudential plc.

“Such investments provide our customers with strong and sustainable returns, create good jobs and increase productivity and economic competitiveness. Prudential is committed to invest in infrastructure projects that benefit the national economy. We are also proud to play our part in the development of this world-leading renewable energy technology.”

Construction of the power station is scheduled to begin in 2015 and will create almost 2,000 jobs during the construction phase, providing economic benefits to the local community.

“Securing the backing of a world-renowned investment institution marks another major milestone for the Swansea Bay project and is a clear endorsement of our vision to introduce tidal lagoon infrastructure into the UK’s low carbon energy mix” added Mark Shorrock, Chief Executive, Tidal Lagoon Power.

Further information available from:

Prudential PLC – http://www.prudential.co.uk

Tidal Lagoon Power – http://www.tidallagoonswanseabay.com

We retain the copyright. If you would like to use this questionnaire free of charge, please contact us today.

Independent Retailer – Supplier Questionnaire

Social and Environmental Performance

Date:

Company Name:

Company HQ Address:

Company Non-HQ Address(es):

Company Registration Number(s):

Limited by Guarantee / PLC / Partnership / Sole Trader? (delete as applicable)

Is your company part of a group of companies?

YES

NO

If YES, please provide details:
Please detail the product(s)/service(s) your company provides:

A. SOCIAL PERFORMANCE

(1) Does your company monitor and manage its social performance by running SA8000 / ETI or similar certified schemes and monitoring programmes, or through other formal procedures?

YES

NO

If YES, please provide details – If NO, please explain your position and complete the ILO Conventions Checker supplementary questionnaire on page 16:
If YES, please provide evidence together with information on implementation.

(2) Does your company actively monitor and evaluate the social performance of its suppliers on an ongoing basis?

YES

NO

If YES, please provide details, including information about certified schemes and formal monitoring procedures, if they are used – If NO, please explain your company’s position:
If YES, please provide evidence together with information on implementation. Please specify whether you are monitoring performance internally and/or through third party verification.

(3) Are your company’s suppliers monitoring their own social performances by running SA8000 / ETI schemes, or similar schemes and monitoring programmes?

YES

NO

Some

If YES, please provide details where possible – If NO or some, please explain your company’s position:
If YES or some, please provide evidence together with information on implementation.

(4) Does your company communicate its social commitments, responsibilities and performance to its suppliers?

YES

NO

If YES, please provide details, including info about how and when – If NO, please explain your company’s position:
If YES, please provide evidence together with information on implementation.

(5) Does your company oppose the use of sweatshops? (see appendix for definition)

YES

NO

If YES, please provide details – If NO, please explain your company’s position:
If YES, please provide evidence together with information on implementation.

(6) Does your company always pay workers at least the legal national minimum wage?

YES

NO

If YES, please provide details – If NO, please explain your company’s position.
Please detail the relevant national minimum wages that apply to your company’s site(s):
If YES, please provide evidence together with information on implementation.

(7) Has your company implemented a living wage policy (a living wage is a wage sufficient to meet the basic needs of personnel, and provide some discretionary income – see appendix for further info)?

YES

NO

If YES, please provide details including information on how the living wage is calculated. If NO, please explain your company’s position:
If YES, please provide evidence together with information on implementation.

(8) Are normal (not overtime) working hours, within your company, always less than (or equal to) the national legal maximum or in any event less than 48 hours per week?

YES

NO

If YES, how is this monitored or enforced? If NO, please explain your company’s position. Please also detail any seasonal peaks in working hours:
If YES, please provide evidence together with information on implementation.

(9) Is all overtime work within your company (in excess of normal working hours) always paid at a higher rate than normal work?

YES

NO

If YES, please provide details – If NO, please explain your company’s position:
If YES, please provide evidence together with information on implementation.

(10) Does your company support local organisations and community groups and schemes? E.g. through financial donations, staff community work, etc.

YES

NO

If YES, please provide details – If NO, please explain your company’s position:

(11) Does your company support national and international charities, and other organisations, that work to improve the welfare of others?

YES

NO

If YES, please provide details – If NO, please explain your company’s position:

(12) Has your company produced a CSR or social performance policy?

YES

NO

If YES, please e-mail the policy to [retailer info] – If NO, please explain your company’s position:

(13) Please include additional ‘Social Performance’ information below:

B. HEALTH AND SAFETY PERFORMANCE

(1) Does your company comply with all health and safety laws?

YES

NO

If YES, please provide evidence together with information on implementation.
If YES, please provide details – If NO, please explain your company’s position:

(2) Has your company undertaken a health and safety risk assessment for all activities?

YES

NO

If YES, please provide details and date – If NO, please explain your company’s position:
If YES, please provide evidence together with information on implementation.

(3) Do you run a certified Health and Safety management scheme? (OHSAS 18001, etc.)

YES

NO

If YES, please provide details – If NO, please explain your company’s position:
If YES, please provide evidence together with information on implementation.

(4) Please provide additional ‘Health and Safety Performance’ Information below:

C. ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE

(1) Has your company produced an environmental policy?

YES

NO

If YES, please e-mail your latest policy to [retailer e-mail] – If NO, please explain your company’s position:

(2) Is your company committed to a process of continual environmental improvement?

YES

NO

If YES, please provide further details. If NO, please explain your company’s position:
If YES, please provide evidence together with information on implementation.

(3) Does your company monitor and manage its environmental performance by running an externally certified environmental management system at its HQ – such as EMAS, ISO14001, Green Dragon and Acorn certified systems?

YES

NO

If YES, please provide further details – if NO, please explain your company’s position:
E.g. Certification Body, Standard, Approval Date, etc.

(4) Does your company run externally certified environmental management systems at any other company sites?

YES

NO

NOT APPLICABLE

If YES, please provide further details – If NO, please explain your company’s position:
E.g. Certification Body, Standard, Approval Date, are all company sites covered? etc.

(5) Does your company use externally set targets in its environmental management programme?

YES

NO

If YES, please provide further details – If NO, please explain your company’s position:
E.g. One Planet Living Targets / Government-Set Carbon Reduction Targets.

(6) Are your company’s main suppliers running externally certified environmental management systems?

YES

NO

Some

If YES or Some, please provide further details – If NO, please explain your company’s position:
E.g. Certification Body, Standard, Approval Date, etc.

(7) Does your company actively monitor and evaluate the environmental performance of its suppliers?

YES

NO

If YES, please provide further details – If NO, please explain your company’s position:
If YES, please provide evidence together with information on implementation.

(8) Does your company communicate its environmental commitments, responsibilities and performance to its suppliers?

YES

NO

If YES, please provide further details – including info about how and when – If NO, please explain your company’s position:
If YES, please provide evidence together with information on implementation.

(9) Does your company use products derived from GM crops?

YES

NO

If YES, please provide further details – If NO, please explain your company’s position:

(10) Does your company use products derived from organically produced crops?

YES

NO

If YES, please provide further details – If NO, please explain your company’s position:

(11) Does your company Eco-Label any of its products?

YES

NO

If YES, please provide further details – If NO, please explain your company’s position:
If YES, please include info on whether ISO 14001 guidelines followed.

(12) Does your company, and its suppliers, minimize the use of / ban the use of any substances that are harmful to the environment and/or human health (e.g. Phthalates, PVC, etc.)?

YES

NO

If YES, please provide further details – If NO, please explain your company’s position:

(13) Does your company reduce, reuse and recycle waste, and encourage the reuse and recycling of products sold to your customers, including the packaging?

YES

NO

If YES, please provide further details – If NO, please explain your company’s position:

(14) Does your company integrate principles of sustainable design into its buildings and/or products?

YES

NO

If YES, please provide further details – If NO, please explain your company’s position:

15) Please provide additional ‘Environmental Performance’ information below:

D. QUALITY ISSUES

(1) Does your company run any quality management systems? (UKAS, etc.)

YES

NO

If YES, please provide details – If NO, please explain your company’s position:
E.g. Certification Body, Standard, Approval Date, etc.

(2) Please provide additional ‘Quality Issues’ information below:

Thank you for completing this questionnaire. Please finish off by completing the information below:

Name:

Position:

Signature:

Date:

If you have any general feedback, please include this here:

This survey has been approved by Your details
-Tel: Your phone number
-E-mail: Your e-mail

Please complete and return this form to Your company name

If you require any clarification, please phone Your contact info

FOR RETAILER TO COMPLETE
Corporate Critic Information:

ON SYSTEM?

YES

NO

If YES, score =

APPENDIX
Sweatshop definitions and additional information:
• http://www-personal.umich.edu/~alandear/glossary/s.html
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweatshop
• http://www.thefreedictionary.com/sweatshop
• http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sweatshop
• http://www.labourbehindthelabel.org

Living Wage definition and additional information:

http://www.labourbehindthelabel.org/background/rights/living-wages

http://www.labourbehindthelabel.org/background/glossary

‘Living Wage. Where the earnings from a standard working week are sufficient to meet the basic needs of workers and their dependents, and to provide some discretionary income. Distinguished from both the minimum wage and prevailing industry wage.’ – Labour Behind The Label

• If answer A1 is NO, please complete this supplementary supplier questionnaire:*

ILO CONVENTIONS CHECKER

(1) Does your company allow freedom of association?
As defined in the ILO Conventions:
-Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organize Convention, 1948 (No. 87)
-Right to Organize and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98)
Please state YES or NO and provide further details. If YES, how do you ensure that this right is implemented and what external verification can you offer?

(2) Has your company abolished the use of forced labour?
As defined in the ILO conventions:
-Forced Labour Convention, 1930 (No. 29)
-Abolition of Forced Labour Convention, 1957 (No. 105)
Please state YES or NO and provide further details. If YES, how do you ensure that this has been implemented and what external verification can you offer?

(3) Does your company support equality in the workplace?
As defined in the ILO Conventions:
-Discrimination (Employment and Occupation) Convention, 1958 (No. 111)
-Equal Remuneration Convention, 1951 (No. 100)
Please state YES or NO and provide further details. If YES, how do ensure that this has been implemented and what external verification can you offer?

(4) Has your company abolished the use of child labour
As defined in the ILO conventions:
-Minimum Age Convention, 1973 (No. 138)
-Worst Forms of Child Labour Convention, 1999 (No. 182)
Please state YES or NO and provide further details. If YES, how do ensure that this has been implemented and what external verification can you offer?