Sometimes it helps to look outside one’s own boundaries for new ideas.

England and Wales have a long history of farming on limited land surrounded by water. They are also under similar pressures as other farmers: produce food while working within European Union regulations, earn money, and use best farming practices that will sustain the land and water.

So it’s worth looking at programs they have implemented that both help preserve the environment and cut costs.

A series of case studies is available on the United Kingdom’s Environment Agency’s web site. The Agency is responsible for the whole of England and Wales: about 15 million hectares of land, 22,000 miles of river and 3,100 miles of coastline seawards to the three-mile limit, which includes 2 million hectares of coastal waters.

It’s worth taking a look at this 100-page booklet (free and available in PDF format). It’s well designed, easy to read, points out all the aid and funding available to farmers, and describes how each farmer (whether involved in horticulture, pigs, or poultry) tackled a particular problem, solved it, and saved money in the bargain.

The areas covered include using water wisely, combatting floods, crop protection, nutrients, livestock, ditches and riverbanks and reducing waste.

What might be interesting is creating a link between farmers in this program with farmers in the Chesapeake Bay watershed so they can discuss ideas, problems and solutions, in a public forum that readers/consumers could see.

As a journalist, it is always useful to compare how different people approach a similar conflict. I also like the idea of getting outside opinions and commentary, as the science/environment/federal agency/business/advocacy community focused on the Chesapeake, by the very nature of their constant interaction, appears to be a touch familial at times.

Clearly, the EA is an interested party, so its reports have to be considered with that in mind. And in the past, the UK agency has come under criticism for a lack of clarity, leadership and accountability. Experts have also said that the agency faced too great a conflict between its roles as habitat protector and planning regulator. But those criticisms should not detract from the successful work that has been done.