Humans have massively altered flows of nitrogen on our planet, leading to both benefits for food production and multiple threats to the environment. There are few places on Earth more affected than South Asia, with levels of nitrogen pollution rapidly increasing. The result is a web of interlinked problems, as nitrogen losses from agriculture and from fossil fuel combustion cause air and water pollution. This damages human health, threatens biodiversity of forests and rivers, and leads to coastal and marine pollution that exacerbates the effects of climate change, such as by predisposing reefs to coral bleaching. Altogether, it is clear that nitrogen pollution is something we should be taking very seriously. The amazing thing is that so few people have heard of the problem. Everyone knows about climate change and carbon footprints, but how many people are aware that nitrogen pollution is just as significant? One reason for this is that scientists and policy makers have traditionally specialised. Different experts have focused on different parts of the nitrogen story, and few have the expertise to see how all the issues fit together. This challenge is taken up by a major new research hub established under the UK Global Challenge Research Fund. The "GCRF South Asian Nitrogen Hub" is a partnership that brings together 32 leading research organisations with project engagement partners from the UK and South Asia. All eight countries of the South Asia Co-operative Environment Programme (SACEP) are included. The hub includes research on how to improve nitrogen management in agriculture, saving money on fertilizers and making better use of manure, urine and natural nitrogen fixation processes. It highlights options for more profitable and cleaner farming for India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nepal, Afghanistan, Sri Lanka, Bhutan and the Maldives. At the same time, the hub considers how nitrogen pollution could be turned back to fertilizer, for example by capturing nitrogen oxide gas from factories and converting it into nitrate. The fact that all the SACEP countries are included is really important. It means that lessons can be shared on good experiences as well as on whether there are cultural, economic and environmental differences that prevent better management practices from being adopted. It is also important from the perspective of international diplomacy, and provides an example to demonstrate how working together on a common problem is in everyone's interest. It puts the focus on future cooperation for a healthier planet, rather than on the past. The South Asian case provides for some exciting scientific, social, cultural and economic research challenges. The first is simply to get all the researchers talking together and understanding each other. There are dozens of languages in South Asia, matching the challenge met when different research disciplines come together. This is where developing a shared language around nitrogen can really help. There are lots of nitrogen forms ranging from unreactive atmospheric nitrogen (N2), to the air pollutants ammonia (NH3) and nitrogen dioxide (NO2), to nitrate (NO3-) which contaminates watercourses, and nitrous oxide (N2O) which is a greenhouse gas. The impacts of each of these are being studied to provide a better understanding of how they all fit together. The result is an approach that aims to give a much more coherent picture of the nitrogen cycle in South Asia: What is stopping us from taking action, and what can be done about it. One of the big expectations is that the economic value of nitrogen will help. India alone spends around £6 billion per year subsidising fertilizer supply. It means that South Asian governments are strongly motivated to use nitrogen better. At which point research from the South Asian hub can provide guidance on where they might start.

We propose to establish a multi-disciplinary Centre for the Understanding of Sustainable Prosperity (CUSP). Led by the University of Surrey, CUSP will work with a range of academic and non-academic partners to establish a rich international network of collaborative research. The aim of this research will be to explore the economic, ecological, social and governance dimensions of sustainable prosperity and to make concrete recommendations to government, business and civil society in pursuit of it. Our guiding vision for sustainable prosperity is one in which people everywhere have the capability to flourish as human beings - within the ecological and resource constraints of a finite planet. Our work will explore not just the economic aspects of this challenge, but also its social, political and philosophical dimensions. We will address the implications of sustainable prosperity at the level of households and firms; and we will explore sector-level and macro-economic implications of different pathways to prosperity. We will pay particular attention to the pragmatic steps that need to be taken by enterprise, government and civil society in order to achieve a sustainable prosperity. The CUSP work programme is split into five themes (our MAPSS framework). Theme M explores the moral framing and contested meanings of prosperity itself. Taking a broadly philosophical approach we examine how people, enterprise and government negotiate the tensions between sustainability and prosperity. Theme A explores the role of the arts and of culture in our society. We will look not only at the role of the arts in communicating sustainability but at culture as a vital element in prosperity itself. Theme P addresses the politics of sustainable prosperity and explores the institutional shifts that will be needed to achieve it. We will work closely with both corporate and social enterprise to test new models of sustainability for business. Theme S1 explores the social and psychological dimensions of prosperity. We will work with households and individuals in order to understand how people negotiate their aspirations for the good life. As part of this theme we will engage with UNEP in a major study of young people's lifestyles across the world. Theme S2 examines the complex dynamics of social and economic systems on which sustainable prosperity depends. We will address in particular the challenge of achieving financial stability and high employment under conditions of constrained resource consumption. Alongside our MAPSS work programme, we will initiate a major international Sustainable Prosperity Dialogue (chaired by Dr Rowan Williams - former Archbishop of Canterbury and Master of Magdalene College Cambridge). We will also establish an international network of CUSP Fellows from both academic and non-academic institutions.

Zafy lives in a village on edge of the forest in Madagascar. He wants the best for his family and so uses the resources and options he has open to him and clears a patch of forest to grow hill rice. His hard labour pays off and he is able to sell a small surplus. Rakoto farms rice on the valley floor. In good years, when there is plenty of water, he produces more than his family can eat. However as the forest on the slopes continues to be cut, water in the dry season is reduced, and there are fewer and fewer good years. That tropical deforestation threatens species' survival is well known to the general public. There is also increasing awareness that it contributes to climate change (through the release of carbon stored in trees and soils). Zafy's story demonstrates that although cutting down forest is often presented as wanton destruction, it may well be a perfectly sensible choice for the people directly involved. It also shows that some negative impacts of deforestation may be felt locally as well as globally. In recent years a new approach to conserving tropical forests has evolved. The central idea is that those who benefit from the existence of forest should pay those who would otherwise cut it down. This concept is known as payment for ecosystem services and has come to dominate discussions about rainforest conservation. People who support this approach argue that it will benefit poor people like Zafy, who will be compensated for not clearing forest, through cash payments or development activities in their area. In addition, the land-use changes which will be encouraged under the payment schemes (protecting forest or planting new forest) may benefit other poor people in the area; for example Rakoto may benefit from increased forest cover through improved flow of water to his rice fields. Unfortunately nothing is ever as simple as it seems. While these payments for ecosystem services schemes are attracting millions of dollars, and there is a commitment by many involved to ensure they are beneficial for poor people, questions remain both about the impact current schemes are having on the poor and about how these schemes could be designed to realise any potential for alleviating poverty while avoiding harm. These vitally important questions need a research approach which brings together specialists with a range of expertise. Our team involves sociologists, economists, ecologists, hydrologists, remote sensing experts and modellers who will explore the complex ways in which international ecosystem service payments affect the lives of poor people. Specific questions we will address include quantifying the benefits which lowland rice farmers may expect from increasing forest cover, exploring the costs (and who bears them) of reduced access for wild-product harvesting, and investigating how politics and social structures influence how any benefits from payments are distributed. We focus on a single area (the eastern rainforests), in a single country (Madagascar). Such a narrow focus is necessary to get the complete picture which takes account of all the interactions between ecological and social systems. Although we focus field work within Madagascar, and our results will directly influence payment schemes in the country, our project's findings will also have a much wider impact. We are working closely with those involved in developing the policies which underpin payment schemes, and in implementing them on the ground both in Madagascar and worldwide. Our project will result in scientific papers which push the boundaries of interdisciplinary research, and interesting coverage in the media and on our project website. However through this wider engagement our project will also result in concrete changes to the design of payment schemes which should improve the lives of people like Rakoto, Zafy and their families, wherever they live in the world.

Despite the fact that approximately 85% of total agricultural output across the African continent is produced by small-holder farmers, with the small-holder farming sub-sector accounting for 75% of Kenya's total agricultural output, there remains a persistent imagining amongst some academics, policy makers and NGOs that African farming practices are static, inefficient and inherently vulnerable in the face of environmental change and population growth. These ideas have in turn supported a longstanding modernising paradigm whereby African agriculture is argued to require a host of 'new' technical inputs such as mechanisation, chemical fertilisers and pesticides, and hybrid and GM crops. This process has deep colonial roots and, in the wake of pressing issues surrounding climate change and population growth, has re-emerged in recent calls for a new African Green Revolution. However, this 'modernising' paradigm has failed to deliver sustainable prosperity, suggesting that alternative frameworks are required. By analysing how small-holder farmers in Eastern Africa innovate in daily practice, this project will reconsider why wholesale attempts at modernisation have often failed and, in the process, offer alternative ways toward prosperous rural livelihoods. Working with multisectoral partners currently active in food systems research and delivery, we challenge the 'modernisation' imperative by historicising contemporary farming practices in Kenya and diachronically exploring ongoing processes of innovation and ingenuity that seem to have been characteristic of African farming for centuries, arguing instead that these may offer crucial insights into the future of farming practice in the region. The premise that African farming systems have historically been diverse and highly adaptive draws upon a wealth of archaeological and historical material that demonstrates how they have developed in dynamic ways over several thousand years, continuously diversifying as they became integrated into expansive inter-continental exchange networks with SW Asia, India and China. Such processes continued into the 19th century when, with the formalisation of colonisation, new waves of domesticates and concepts surrounding soil and forest conservation were introduced by 'professional' colonial agricultural officers. Whilst many of these colonial interventions understood African agricultural systems as resistant to change (Anderson 2018; Beinhart 2000), we argue here for a more nuanced narrative wherein small-holders selectively adopted and propagated new ideas, practices, crops and materials (Moore 2018). In this view farmers experiment, generate knowledge, and selectively adopt the ideas of others on a daily basis. We argue that this historic process of creative innovation, selective valuation and intelligent (re-)combination is what constitutes what are often referred to (and often brought into opposition) as both 'tradition' and 'modernity' and that this historical reconceptualization offers an important new starting point for revaluing, supporting and extending farmers capabilities. Working with diverse partners we will co-design original empirical research with small-holder 'digital farmers' in Elgeyo-Marakwet Kenya. We have specifically chosen to work with partners from both the UK and Kenya and from academic, NGO, international and policy sectors so as to share diverse institutional practices and agenda and to co-design and deliver research that will stimulate institutional responses and specific policy recommendations. By working with, challenging, and supporting partners active in food systems research and delivery we aim to have multiple tangible impacts on policy making and farming livelihoods more broadly, thus demonstrating the important value of arts and humanities led multidisciplinary and transdisciplinary research.

The COVID-19 pandemic is having substantial consequences on UK and global food and nutrition security (FNS). This project will undertake world-leading research to provide government, business and decision makers with the evidence that they need to develop a robust FNS response to the current pandemic. The pandemic is causing major shocks to the four pillars of FNS: access; availability; utilisation and stability. Examples include reductions in productivity (labour limitations), breakdown of norms of food systems (distribution, changed demand) and supply chain restrictions (e.g. shortages of agri-chemicals for crop management). Economic impacts are altering both supply, distribution and demand. Collectively these shocks are substantially altering food systems whilst in the longer-term normal processes of trade may not adapt appropriately leading to changes in the balance of traded commodities, reduction in food reserves and price increases. The issue of FNS is relevant to all members of society, particularly for those most vulnerable to shortages or price increases. The food sector is also a major part of the UK economy, as it contributes approximately £111 billion a year and accounts for over 13% of national employment. It is the UK's largest manufacturing sector. The project focusses on UK FNS which is heavily dependent on global markets. Nearly half of the food we consume is imported and UK livestock industries rely heavily on imported feed. Some countries have already restricted exports in order to supply home markets. Normal market forces, transportation and distribution networks may no longer be appropriate to provide national requirements. A priority is to understand how to increase capacity for self-reliance to maintain civic stability, a healthy population and to understand the ramifications for third countries. The aim of this study is to conduct an initial rapid FNS risk assessment and explore options for changes in agricultural production, trade and distribution to protect FNS without jeopardising wider ecological and climate goals. The Research Programme will deliver seven key outputs: 1. Report on rapid risk assessment of the global food system considering how direct and indirect COVID-19 impacts and responses are propagating risks to food and nutrition security. 2. Report on Rapid risk assessment of UK food system responses and vulnerabilities and consequences on access, availability, utilisation and stability. 3. A set of plausible scenarios to explore the cascading risks and consequences of pandemic impacts on food sand nutrition security. 4. Report on alternative land use and management options that will increase resilience. 5. Report and maps of the spatial assessment of the alternative land use and management options. 6. Report including infographics reviewing lessons learned from the pandemic to improve Food and Nutrition Security. 7. Two workshops and other dissemination events and report with recommendations. The knowledge and foresight generated will be applicable to and of value across multiple sectors of the economy. It will inform policy support and development within UK and devolved Governments and help industry and business make informed decisions and plan adaptations. Information generated will support the UK's strong position in global trade. Identifying data gaps now will enable improved monitoring of impacts, both at UK and global scales.