Current patterns of land use reflect the post-war consensus on maximising productivity and yield, from grouse moors to barley and everything in between. It is even reflected in urban planning and design in areas zoned for specific uses.
‘Nature’ is one of these compartments, vying for its ‘fair’ share and competing with the main purpose. People are viewed as mainly apart from, and dominant over, nature. This policy and practice, developed over the last 70 years, assumes a mainly stable and predictable climate. The current compartmentalised use of land, mainly for single benefits or purpose is vulnerable to an array of climate risks and is a net source of greenhouse gas emissions. Now that climate is both warming and becoming more chaotic, both within and across years, we must review policy and practice so that it is fit for the present and future – designed mainly for resilience and working with nature for multiple benefits.
Climate action for net zero is mainly viewed through the national greenhouse gas inventory. For land use, this comprises agriculture, forestry, grassland, cropland, wetland, and settlements, with little or no mixing between them. This both reflects and reinforces the post-war settlement on what land is for, and constrains the multiple benefits needed from land at fine scales to manage multiple and cascading risks in a more volatile climate.
Today, this lens limits our imagination, vision and ambition for what land use is for, and the distribution of public and private goods and associated benefits, burdens and risk that come with those choices.