agroecology briefing - references - for those who really need to know ...

In truth... click here to find out where the real fun starts ..

References

 

1.            DEFRA, Health and Harmony: the future for food, farming and the environment in a Green Brexit: Consultation Document, F.a.R.A. Department for Envrionment, Editor. 2018, HM Crown.

2.            Gliessman, S., Agroecology: Ecological Processes in Sustainable Agriculture ed. E. Engles. 1998, Washington, DC: Lewis Publishers.

3.            Lampkin, N.H., et al., The Role of Agroecology in Sustainable Intensification 2015, Land Use Policy Group: Scotland.

4.            Francis, C., et al., Agroecology: The Ecology of Food Systems. Journal of Sustainable Agriculture, 2003. 22(3): p. 99-118.

5.            Wezel, A., S. Bellon, and T. Doré, Agroecology as a science, a movement and a practice. A review. Agronomy for Sustainable Development, 2009. 29(4): p. 503-515.

6.            Rivera-Ferre, M.G., M. Ortega-Cerda, and J. Baumgartner, Rethinking Study and Management of Agricultural Systems for Policy Design. Sustainability, 2013. 5(9): p. 3858-3875.

7.            Altieri, M.A. and V.M. Toledo, The agroecological revolution in Latin America: rescuing nature, ensuring food sovereignty and empowering peasants. Journal of Peasant Studies, 2011. 38(3): p. 587-612.

8.            Ravenscroft, N.H., R., Tablehurst and Plaw Hatch Community Farms, in Access to Land for Community Connected Agriculture in Europe, Project 2010-1. 2011, Terre de Liens, Forum Synergies.

9.            Goulson, D., J. Thompson, and A. Croombs, Rapid rise in toxic load for bees revealed by analysis of pesticide use in Great Britain. PeerJ, 2018. 6: p. e5255.

10.          RSPB, State of Nature Report. 2016, Royal Society for the Protection of Birds: https://ww2.rspb.org.uk/our-work/stateofnature2016/.

11.          Technology, P.O.o.S.a., Diffuse pollution of water by agriculture, in POST Note 2014, House of Parliament.

12.          Gilad, S. Brighton ChaMP for Water: Rural Issues and Interventions. 2018.

13.          Farnworth, G., Melchett, P. , Runaway Maize: subsidized soil destruction. 2015, Soil Association: Bristol.

14.          FAO, Status of the World’s Soil Resources. 2015, Food and Agricultural Organisation (FAO) of the United Nations: Rome, Italy.

15.          Perfecto, I., J. Vandermeer, and A. Wright, Nature’s Matrix: Linking Agriculture, Conservation and Food Sovereignty. 2009, London: Earthscan.

16.          Botias, C., et al., Neonicotinoid Residues in Wildflowers, a Potential Route of Chronic Exposure for Bees. Environ Sci Technol, 2015. 49(21): p. 12731-40.

17.          Foundation, F., Veg Facts: A briefing by the Food Foundation. 2016, Food Foundation: London.

18.          IHME. Global Burden of Disease Compare. 2016; Available from: https://vizhub.healthdata.org/gbd-compare/

19.          Monteiro, C., et al., Household availability of ultra-processed foods and obesity in nineteen European countries. Public Health Nutrition, 2017. 21(18-26).

20.          Hinks, R., et al., Veg facts, A briefing by the Food Foundation. 2016, The Food Foundation: London.

21.          Foundation, F., Written Evidence Submitted by the Food Foundation (BRT0051) to the Select Committee Inquiry on Brexit Trade and Food, EFRA, Editor. 2017, House of Commons: London.

22.          Fitzpatrick, I. and R. Young, The Hidden Cost of UK Food. 2017, Sustainable Food Trust: Bristol.

23.          DEFRA, The CAP towards 2020: Meeting the food, natural resources and territorial challenges of the future: UK response to the Commission Communication and Consultation. 2011.

24.          Wasley, A. and M. Davies, The rise of the ‘megafarm’: how British meat is made. 2017, The Bureau of Investigative Journalism.

25.          Willis, G., Uncertain harvest: does the loss of farms matter? 2017, Campaign for the Protection of Rural England.

26.          Winter, M.a.L., M., Is there a future for the small family farm in the UK? Report to The Prince’s Countryside Fund. London: Prince’s Countryside Fund. ISBN 978-902746-36-7  2016.

27.          Defra, Active farmer status: guidance and procedures for accountants 2017, Rural Payments Agency

28.          Laughton, R., A Matter of Scale: A study of the productivity, financial viability and multifunctional benefits of small farms. 2017, Centre for Agroecology, Water and Resilience (CAWR): Coventry.

29.          Alliance, L.W., Production Case Studies: UK, in Horticulture Renewal Programme. 2018.

30.          Pretty, J., et al., Resource-Conserving Agriculture Increases Yields in Developing Countries. Vol. 40. 2006. 1114-9.

31.          Dangour, A.D., et al., Nutritional quality of organic foods: a systematic review. The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 2009. 90(3): p. 680-685.

32.          Barański, M., et al., Higher antioxidant and lower cadmium concentrations and lower incidence of pesticide residues in organically grown crops: a systematic literature review and meta-analyses. British Journal of Nutrition, 2014. 112(5): p. 794-811.

33.          Średnicka-Tober, D., et al., Composition differences between organic and conventional meat: a systematic literature review and meta-analysis. British Journal of Nutrition, 2016. 115(6): p. 994-1011.

34.          Guthman, J., Raising organic: An agro-ecological assessment of grower practices in California. Agriculture and Human Values, 2000. 17(3).

35.          DEFRA, et al., Agriculture in the United Kingdom, F.a.R.A.D.o.A. Department for Envrionment, Environment and Rural Affairs (Northern Ireland); Welsh Assembly Government Department for Rural Affairs and Heritage; The Scottish Government Rural and Environment Science and Analytical Services Editor. 2017, HM Crown: London, UK.

36.          Eurostat, Agriculture, forestry and fishery statistics. 2017, Publications Office of the European Union: Luxembourg.

37.          Panel, F., Transitions to Agroecological Food Systems Project. August 2016: Bristol, UK.

38.          DEFRA. CAP Payments Data 2015; Available from: http://cap-payments.defra.gov.uk.

39.          van der Zee, B., Radical ecologists v Big Agriculture: the rival factions fighting for the future of farming, in The Guardian 2018: Online.

40.          Scotland, N., Wanted: Land for New Farmers. 2017, Scottish Farm Land Trust.

41.          Shurbsole, G., How the extent of county farms has halved in 40 years, in Who Owns England?

42.          Harries, R. and B. Raskin, Access to land and market gardens in the UK, in Access to Land. 2017, Soil Association

43.          Jaevicious, A., S. Huston, and A. Baum, Two centuries of farmland prices in England?, in Said Business School Research Papers. 2015, University of Oxford: Oxford.

44.          Merlet, M., The tenant farming statute in France: A successful experience in making farm producers’ land use rights secure. 2008: Online Knowledge Base Blog.

45.          Ferguson, C., E. Wach, and C. Smaje, What can promote access to land for agroecological farming in the UK? , in Transitions to Agroecological Food Systems. 2018, Institute of Development Studies and Land Workers' Alliance: Brighton.

46.          Wach, E., C. Ferguson, and C. Smaje, Why access to land is vital for sustainable, healthy and fair food systems: Strategies for increasing access to land for agroecological farming, in Transitions to Agroecological Food Systems. 2017, Instituet of Development Studies Brighton, UK.

47.          DEFRA, Health and Harmony: THe future for food, farming and the environment in a Green Brexit - policy statement F.a.R.A. Department for Envrionment, Editor. 2018.

48.          Scotland, G.o., Young Farmers and New Entrants Start-Up Grant Schemes, R.P.a. Services, Editor. 2018.

49.          representative, N.E., E. Wach, Editor. 2018.

50.          Pimbert, M., Transforming knowledge and ways of knowing, in Towards Food Sovereignty. Reclaiming Autonomous Food Systems, M. Pimbert, Editor. 2009, International Institute for Environment and Development: London.

51.          Wibbelmann, M., et al., Mainstreaming Agroecology: Implications for Global Food and Farming Systems, in Centre for Agroecology and Food Security Discussion Paper. 2013, Centre for Agroecology and Food Security: Coventry.

52.          Defra, Total Income from Farming 2017 First Estimate, statistical notice, F.a.R.A. Department for Envrionment, Editor. 2017: London.

53.          Murphy, S. and D.C. Burch, J. , Cereal Secrets: the world's largest grain traders and global agriculture, in Oxfam Research Reports. 2012, Oxfam.

54.          Millner, N., Can we afford cheap food? What are the alternatives? , in The future of food and challenges for agriculture in the 21st century. 2017, ICAS - etxalde: Vitoria.

55.          Ferguson, C. and E. Wach, Local food strategies: what has led English councils to develop sustainable local food strategies and what have these entailed? , in Transitions to Agroecological Food Systems. 2017, Institute of Development Studies and Land Workers' Alliance Brighton, UK.

56.          Ferguson, C.W., E. , Strategies for markets and finance to support agroecological farming in the UK, in Transitions to Agroecological Food Systems. 2017, Institute of Development Studies and Land Workers' Alliance Brighton, UK.

57.          Bonefield, P., A plan for public procurement: Enabling a healthy future for our people, farmers and food producers 2014, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.

58.          Soldi, R., Sustainable Public Procurement of Food. 2018, European Committee of the Regions.

59.          Sonnino, R., Creative public procurement: Lessons from Italy and the UK ND.

60.          Swensson, L., Institutional Procurement of Food from Smallholder Farmers: The Case of Brazil. 2015, Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations: Rome.

61.          Cone, C.A. and A. Myhre, Community-Supported Agriculture: A Sustainable Alternative to Industrial Agriculture? Human Organization, 2000. 59(2): p. 187-197.

62.          Saltmarsh, N.M., J.

Longhurst, N. , The impact of community supported agriculture, in Soil Association CSA Support Project, Making Local Food Work. 2011, Soil Association.

63.          representative, C.N., Number of CSAs and their members in the UK, E. Wach, Editor. 2018.

64.          Musgrave, R.A., The theory of public finance: a study in public economy. 1959, Tokyo: McGraw Hill Kogakusha.

65.          Kay, A., Gove admits Defra has neglected food production in formulation of policy, in Farmers Guardian. 2018: UK.

66.          Juniper, T., Need for public money for public goods, in WWF UK Blog. 2018, World Wildlife Fund UK.

67.          Trust, N., Response to the consultation on the future for food, farming and the environment in a Green Brexit, Defra, Editor. 2018: https://www.nationaltrust.org.uk/documents/defra-future-of-farming-consultation-may-2018---nt-response.pdf.

68.          Tisdell, C., C. Wilson, and C. Tisdell, Why Farmers Continue to Use Pesticides Despite Environmental, Health and Sustainability Costs. Vol. 39. 2001. 449-462.

69.          Union, E., Farm structure survey (FSS). 2010.

70.          Holt-Giménez, E. and M.A. Altieri, Agroecology, Food Sovereignty and the New Green Revolution. Journal of Sustainable Agriculture, 2012.

71.          Timmermann, C. and G.F. Félix, Agroecology as a vehicle for contributive justice. Agriculture and Human Values, 2015. 32(3): p. 523-538.

72.          IAASTD, International assessment of agricultural knowledge, science and technology for development (IAASTD) : synthesis report with executive summary : a synthesis of the global and sub-global IAASTD reports, B.H. McIntyre, H.

Wakhungu, J. and R. Watson, Editors. 2009.

73.          Fairlie, S. and J. Fernandez, Micro-dairying, in Oxford Real Farming Conference. 2016: Oxford, UK.

74.          Forbes, A. A new grain revolution. in Oxford Real Farming Conference. 2016. Oxford, UK.

75.          Ely, A. and E. Wach, The Downland Estate: Contributing to more sustainable food systems for Brighton & Hove.  Report on workshop held on 12 July 2018. 2018, STEPS Centre, University of Sussex: Brighton, UK.

76.          Carpini, M., F. Cook, and L. Jacobs, Public Deliberation, Discursive Participation, and Citizen Engagement: A Review of the Empirical Literature. Annual Review of Political Science, 2004. 7: p. 315-344.

77.          Ferguson, C. and E. Wach, Food Systems Mapping Workshop Report in Transitions to Agroecological Food Systems 2016, Institute of Development Studies Brighton, UK.

78.          UK Food Sovereignty Gathering, E. Wach, Editor.: Hebden Bridge.

Agroecology Part Four - onwards

Agroecology promotes health and harmony but is not supported in Defra’s proposed policies

Agroecology has been demonstrated, globally and in the UK, to maintain or increase the production of healthy food while also enhancing the environment and providing meaningful on-farm employment.  Agroecology thus offers potential, both on farm and in the wider food system, to address the ecological, social and nutritional challenges which Britain currently faces, and which could be exacerbated with Brexit.  While the Defra Policy Statement and White Paper discuss the importance of meeting these challenges, it provides no account of how those goals could be achieved. It does little to address the core constraints to agroecological farming outlined in the previous section. 

Our key concerns are outlined briefly here:

1.       Healthy food

Food security and farm security are not well served by current policies.  The Defra Policy Statement and Health and Harmony White Paper do not indicate that they will be adequately addressed in coming years.  While food security was completely absent from the Health and Harmony White Paper, the Health and Harmony Policy Statement makes a bold assumption that innovation and technology will increase productivity, and that this will result in food security.  This claim is unsupported by evidence.  Food security and productivity are not directly coupled in our current society, particularly when productivity is measured in economic terms.[ref] 

Further, it is unlikely that this approach will do anything to reduce the production of highly processed, nutritionally devoid commodity crops.  The UK does not need high-tech innovation to ‘increase productivity’.  Instead, it needs more farmers on the land, with the right skills and incentives and support to produce healthy food ecologically.  

A ‘public good’ is not the same as the ‘public interest’ or the ‘public benefit’.  In economic terms, a ‘good’ is not used to denote a value judgement but rather a ‘thing’ and a ‘public good’ has a narrow definition. 

While it is important that the Government supports the provision of public goods related to environmental services, other ‘goods’ and services also need to be provided.  The economist who developed the theory of public goods advocated for public finances to be used for both public goods and merit goods.[64]    Healthy, nutritious food can be considered a ‘merit good’ in economic terms.

Defra needs to support the merit good of healthy and nutritious food.  If the focus is narrowly on public goods, then we can expect further polarisation of Britain’s countryside between nature conservation and intensive and unsustainable farms, with a few small agroecological farms on the margin.  In that scenario, unhealthy diets would continue, and environmental degradation would increase.  If the UK decides to prioritise ecology over food (rather than integrating them), an increased reliance on imports will contribute to the degradation to other countries’ ecologies, while also increasing the vulnerability of consumers to fluctuating availabilities and prices. 

In June 2018, Secretary of State Michael Gove acknowledged the oversight of food security in the Health and Harmony White Paper and announced the preparation of a ‘food policy’, which has yet to be released.[65]  This new proposed focus on food is welcome.  However, Defra needs to ensure that this policy does not reinforce the environmental problems of the post-war ‘productivist’ era.  

What is urgently needed is an integration of both public goods and merit goods.  Explicitly supporting and promoting agroecology would achieve this and should be integral the UK’s new food policy.  Until there is clarity that Defra will support food production in environmentally sound ways, the risk remains that the new regime could too closely resemble the old regime, which pits conservation against food production.

2.       Fairness in the supply chain

The policy statement and evidence pack indicate that for farmers to make a living, they must cut their input costs, increase productivity and/or diversify in order to stay out of the red after subsidies are removed.  Defra estimates that the farms in question would, on average, need to reduce their input costs by 31% - no small feat if you are a farmer reliant on buying seeds, animals and trying to pay a decent wage to your labourers if you have them. 

An urge to increase productivity, cut costs or diversify does nothing to address the root of low farming incomes.  Primary producers receive a small percentage of the money that consumers spend on food.  Combined with low food prices, this makes it near impossible for farmers to earn a living from selling what they produce, unless they intensify. 

Some contend that increasing access to information, as proposed in the White Paper, might help farmers increase their margins, but that will not be enough.  More active measures will be needed to transform our food system to one with shorter, more direct supply chains.

3.       Ecology and true support for public goods

Defra’s support for ‘public goods’ has been applauded by some environmental groups, such as the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) and the National Trust.[66],[67]  However, without a dual focus on both food and ecology, integrated together throughout farms (and not just around the margins), trends of increasing degradation to soils, water and biodiversity are likely to continue.  The effects of unsustainable farming cannot be mitigated through hedgerows and wildflower margins. 

The proposed enforcement of ‘polluter pays’ implies greater accountability of farmers for adverse environmental effects of their farming.  Two additional considerations should also be taken into account.  Firstly, it will be important to ensure that payments are structured in a way to ensure that environmental taxes are not simply incorporated into large business budgets, enabling the continuation of pollution (i.e. ‘those who can pay, pollute’). Secondly, the environmental damages included for which agricultural polluters will pay should include those related to the use of pesticides and inorganic fertilisers.  The September policy statement indicated that Defra may support a reduction in pesticide usage and this is welcome.  More details are needed on how it will happen in practice.  Defra’s Health and Harmony documents have made a few references to fertilisers, focussing on slurry management, but not on the high rate of usage of inorganic nitrates which are polluting drinking water and water ways, and costing the public billions.[11]  Polluter pays’ mechanisms can be part of a strategy for reducing the use of pesticides and inorganic nitrates, but need to be combined with agroecological training and advice for farmers who may currently be ‘locked in’ to using these inputs.[68] 

   

4.       The next generation of farmers

Across the UK, the number of farmers decreased by 20% between 2000 and 2010, and one quarter of farm holders are over 65 years old.{Union, 2010 #218}  Unless more is done to support new generations of farmers, it is likely that high attrition rates will continue and may even accelerate.  Without enough farmers on the land, Britain risks a high reliance on imports or on migrants and industrial, automated farms.  This could mean more monocultures, industrial horticulture and Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations, none of which would result in a ‘green Brexit’ or a healthy food supply for Britain.

Supporting agroecology could help to reduce the attrition in farming.  Research in the UK has shown that agroecological farmers tend to have a ‘sense of enjoyment and satisfaction on their farms’ due to the variety of work, social nature of working at a small scale, the ability to see through entire food production processes, the variety of skills required and the meaning that their farm work provided, in that it was, ‘skilful and interesting (problem solving), health and safe, contributing to environmental care and social benefits.’ [28]:27.  One farmer interviewed on a study compared her current work on an agroecological farm as preferable to a farm where ‘30,000 table birds were fed automatically by tractor and cows were milked by a robot…[she] expressed a sense of disempowerment about being part of a system that relies on complex machinery that she was unable to fix.’ (Ibid). Other studies have indicated that life satisfaction is higher for British farmers on less than 50ha than for those on larger farms.[26]

Globally, research has indicated that agroecological farming provides meaningful work for many farmers, given the ongoing need to acquire and develop capabilities (including physical, social, sensory and intellectual), the knowledge-intensive nature of agroecology and the sense of self-determination it fosters.[70]  While these qualities and attributes will likely resonate with most types of farmers, the nature of agroecological farming has been claimed to provide a greater sense of meaning and fulfilment than conventional farming.[71]  In an age where farmers are disappearing, supporting agroecological farming could help in attracting the younger generation and reverse the trends of attrition.  

5.       Tech for food and the environment

References to technology and innovation in the White Paper focus primarily on technologies appropriate for large-scale, industrial approaches to farming (e.g. precision farming and automation).  However, to support agroecology, investments need to be made in other technologies, to take innovations in a different direction. 

Agroecology requires technological innovation just as most other type of farming does.[72]  However, agroecological farmers in the UK, because of the lack of public or private investments in agroecological technologies, tend to use old and sometimes unreliable machinery, or import equipment from mainland Europe, or even India in the case of dairy farms.[73]  They are also at a disadvantage in terms of plant varieties, given that limited support is provided for the maintenance, development and promotion of varieties that can work well in poly-cropping, mixed farms and/or low input farms.

Given that investments in agroecological innovation have been minimal, many innovations are initiated by the farmers themselves.  For example, one British farmer has been mining libraries of heritage cereal varieties to cross them and create new varieties suitable for low input agriculture.[74]  Such grassroots innovation increases the resilience of our farming sector, and therefore deserves to be supported.  Farmers’ innovation could also benefit from engagement of relevant academics.  Such engagement, to be most effective, needs to be participatory, focussing on the needs of agricultural producers. 

The corporate sector is unlikely to support agroecology, given that agroecological farming tends to reduce requirements for inputs.  Therefore, it is important for the public sector to support agroecological research and innovation.

6.       Democratic process, beyond consultations

The overwhelming number of responses to the Health and Harmony consultation process indicates that many people and organisation have a big stake in future of UK food and agricultural policies.  It remains to be seen if Defra actively incorporates the perspectives of critical voices or whether the consultation was required to ensure that box had been ticked, without it actually influencing the direction of policy. 

In-person interactions are essential for going beyond individual responses and feedback to convening events and workshops whereby diverse stakeholders can come together, reflect on evidence and different viewpoints, and engage discussion and deliberation.  A recent farmer-led inquiry into agroecology in England{participants, 2017 #309} and a recent multi-stakeholder event in Brighton concerning the use of farmland surrounding the city[75] have highlighted an overall lack of opportunities for farmers, citizens, local authorities and civil society organisations to come together to discuss issues related to farming – what is produced, how it is produced and where it is sold.  While farmer autonomy is important and is to be respected, too many assume that conventional high-input (unsustainable) practices are the only options.  Moreover, their practices have adverse effects far beyond their farms.  Defra needs to create opportunities for regular, constructive dialogue can enable people to understand different perspectives, learn about ways to support one another and facilitate practices and policies to evolve and improve.  Investment by Defra in dialogue and deliberation would enable our food system to become more democratic and accountable.[76] 

To ensure policy is responsive to the needs and realities of farmers, consumers and communities, Defra needs to be engaging with its stakeholders on an ongoing basis.  Defra also needs to make more effort to ensure that all types of stakeholders can participate.  Smaller-scale farmers have expressed that they feel un-represented in policy making and that their views are not captured by organisations such as the National Farmers Union (NFU).[77]  People without salaries (e.g. waged earners and unsalaried farmers) find more difficult to participate in events such as consultations without compensation for their time[78].  Given that their perspectives are essential to ensuring policies respond to current social and ecological needs, Defra needs to make provisions to ensure that these people are included in policy processes.

Conclusions

Agroecological farms in the UK are already demonstrating the potential of agroecology—which has been well documented elsewhere in the world—to produce healthy and nutritious foods while regenerating (not just sustaining) the ecosystems on which they depend.  Agroecology has also demonstrated potential for better supporting farming livelihoods and rural communities.  However, at present, little to no support for agroecology is provided by Defra, and there is little evidence of support to come from the Health and Harmony Policy Statement and White Paper.  While Health and Harmony can be applauded for its inclusion of environmental considerations, there are doubts that the proposed policies of ‘public money for public goods’ and ‘polluter pays’ will adequately reorient farming towards ecologically regenerative practices. There are also questions about whether and how the proposed policy framework will support healthy food production.  If imports become less reliable and/or more costly with Brexit, there will be even more need to ensure that the production of healthy British food increases rather than declines.

Agroecology can be practiced by any farmer, old or new.  However, adequate support needs to be in place for this to happen.  This includes support for trainings to develop knowledge and skills; access to land (including considerations of affordability, appropriateness, housing and security); access to capital (particularly in the case of new entrants and young farmers but possibly also for those transitioning to agroecological approaches); and shorter, more directs supply chains to provide a greater market share to farmers while also keeping food affordable for consumers—objectives which can be achieved through Public Procurement, Community Interest Intermediaries and Community Supported Agriculture.  Defra can also support agroecology through investing in the research and development of agroecological knowledge, technology and innovation.

Brexit presents challenges but also enormous opportunity to articulate new policies which address the shortcomings of previous policies which have not adequately integrated healthy food, agriculture, the environment and producer livelihoods.  This briefing has outlined practical, feasible strategies for Defra to support approaches that integrate rather than separate, ecology and the production of healthy food which is accessible to all in the UK.


And the bit you've all been waiting for - The references