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:
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.
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.
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]
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.
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.
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
And the bit you've all been waiting for - The references
No comments:
Post a Comment
Feel free to comment; or question....But be warned; you might get a reply...