It has all become a bit like squeezing on a rice pudding. If you want to get any truth with the environmental scientists who continue to berate farmers. They will say "not them".
They will simply resort to a generalization like bird numbers are down and it is due to intensive farming methods. They fail to provide a solution. Why has ecology and environmental science failed to come up with any answers on food production other than to regulate? In essence they must be looking in the wrong place. There is something absurd, almost venal in economics where there is an identification termed ‘drivers of change’. As man has an activity bias, the masterful art of doing nothing is not a way to solve problems – you have to do something. Equally we often resort to change when commentating on something; it is so much easier to observe changes and comment in relation to problem solving. The reality is the constant of still water is what we should be looking at, hard. Drivers of change presuppose control as we are driving – well we are not in control. Change happens and is most closely associated with time. When I stop to consider this I think of the sand dunes in Namibia. These giant dunes are moved by winds, a grain at a time and it takes 5,000 years to the grains deposited at the base of the dune. This is because I come from a world where farming is central to my being; time has a different meaning in agriculture. Gradually we have changed from an agrarian society to an industrial one, where less than 1% of the workforce works in agriculture, leaving 99% to abrogate their responsibility for obtaining food. For the past few decades the populous have been happy to leave this in the hands of their elected leaders, who in turn have been swept along by the broad generalizations in concerns of the environment. The environmental problems of agriculture are very difficult for either academics or policy wonks to resolve. For too long now the whole discussion has revolved around general approaches of one-size fits all. The introduction of new technologies as manifest in Integrated Farm management or nutrient budgeting requires great skill and expertise. This critical dependence on skill and judgement makes agriculture different from manufacturing in how it adapts to new technologies. The principal policy for tackling environmental problems like nutrient emissions, soil erosion and animal wastes has been to rely on public-sector development of new systems to provide technical solutions to these problems. What they never do is link with farmers and share knowledge. They simply regulate. In a nutshell new agricultural technologies – specifically new farming systems are necessary for further improvement in meeting the 4 great challenges of the 21st century which are oil price rises, water stocks reduction, ecological depletion and climate change. We have developed agriculture in Britain that fails to serve either producers or the nation. The whole thing has become wrapped up in what is referred to as agri-business. The government payments find their way into land prices, and expensive inputs of chemicals, drugs and machines. This will continue….. but like all things if it cannot go on for ever it will stop. The item over looked is food, which is in the hands of a few major corporations and is about to become short in the shops because of the failure of the banking sector to promote credit.
This was the title of a conference I attended on 4th June. This conference attempted to address some of the problems in land use. For the first time I heard that the problem in essence is about property rights, which is most pleasant. The audience and speakers were overwhelmingly political and academic concerned in the main with 'eco-system services'. Until society places a true economic value on the other services of land then farmers will continue to plough and seed. This audience had no clue how to take their academic theories and make them fly in the real world. There was absolutely no link of this academic work to farming. The link was to study a few selected farms like observing a mouse in a cage turning on a wheel. Well why is he doing that?
The answers to the problem centered around a particularly Stalinist view that central land planning was the answer, with Baroness Young in the Chair there is no surprise, added in this audience were plenty of socialist academics and NGOs. Others collected together were in essence the people who would sponsor or pay for further research. This work may influence policy, but it will not be taken up by farmers because they have not addressed the ways in which it could be used in agricultural husbandry, real ivory tower work.
The event had a series of speakers and two panel sessions, the buzz of the day was more political than scientific.
-
It was noted that 80% of landscape is farmed and 80% of land is privately owned
-
What would the impact be of more health diets? More sheep and less dairy, which in turn releases more productive land.
-
Uplands rely on public support, but if we go away from farming people do not want to pay for the landscape. It was suggested that this would lead to land idling. Well the large man from the RSPB became emotional about that at panel time. Birds are apparently not land idling. Perhaps fungi, insects and bacteria oh and people are?
-
A farmer (well more estate owner) questioned whether AONB was correct. To call land an area of beauty? This is the classic case of a farmer perception of what is beautiful and the remaining 98% of the population who have a very different view of what constitutes landscape beauty.
-
Speakers often concluded that their data was improved by undertaking advice of local knowledge. There is variability in farmers just as there is in wildlife.
-
The conclusions cited the complexity of introducing environmental management into agricultural management. If we cannot get society to pay for eco-system services in the uplands, then there is no chance anywhere else in Britain.
Generally there was some excellent information being generated which would be of interest to farmers. When you think about £20 million is being spent it is incomprehensible that there is no scheme to either engage farmers in this work as it is happening, nor is there more on-farm work shop and seminar activity included in the programme. Typical environmental scientists and environmental NGOs they don't like getting involved with people.
Nothing was more telling to this delegate than when 2 Professors put up a matrix that included a quadrant with Interest along the vertical axis, and influence along the bottom axis in regard to their areas of either eco-system services (Morris) or Biodiversity (Sutherland) - two nice political, as opposed to production uses of land. These quadrants were made up of
-
Crowd (bottom left quad) low influence and low interest
-
Subject (top left quad) high interest and low influence
-
Context setters (bottom right quad) high influence and low interest
-
Key players (top right quad) High interest and high influence
Farmers were not in the key players. These Professors identified government, or government bodies as the key players. What can I say.
It is good to attend these types of events. Refection can often make you feel frustrated by the lack of connection between science and farming in this country. Until there is more transparency in the communication between science and farming through education then the future is limited by this "iron curtain". The science community, government and farmers have to learn to trust each other again. Equally it is incomprehensible why farmers call for "the Science" when what they ware in fact calling for is some information to justify their side of the equation, at the expense of others.
At government level we have to make immediate policy change. The use of resources in agriculture of soil, water, energy, and political elements of climate change, biodiversity and food production are all inter-connected. This demands integrated policy making. This is beyond the capacity of this British parliament, and is unlikely to change in the near future. Until such time as the denial in economic analysis by flat earth economic treasury mandarins changes, we are on a hiding to nothing. What is required is to look at things differently. Decisions and policies are set by different government departments and agencies with little regard to the wider impacts on other sectors. Energy ministries will spend billions on bio-fuels with no care for biodiversity or water resources, or the effects on soils and food prices. Departments like Natural England will spend on whole farm plans for wildlife and not link to the economics of the farm business, advice which is well know to be best provided one-to-one to farmers is set out in generic leaflets, or WebPages. This programme at least tries to confront some of these problems. It fails to disseminate this knowledge outside their church. This programme needs to engage with the wider community.
Farmers have to accept that there is a role for multiple uses of land other than food production, scientists have to accept that farmer knowledge has a role, that they can persaude the government this is the case, is something farmers should take advantage of. The remaining 'players' i.e. RSPB, Environment Agency and Natural England have to accept that there is local knowledge and be less prescriptive and singular in their solutions. Land nationalization and land use strategies are a waste of energy, do something don't talk about it!
The conference was very well organized by Newcastle University which hosts the Rural Economy and Land use Programme (RELU). RELU is looking at the change in all land use decisions making, through an 'inter disciplinary approach' to research. The papers are available on the webpage www.relu.ac.uk I strongly suggest that FW should ask RELU to disseminate this information more widely and encourage them to engage with the farm community.
Some bedtime reading if you have made it this far.
http://www.relu.ac.uk/research/Land%20Use%20Consultation/Securing%20Integrated%20Land%20Man.pdf
I visited a friend in Czech with the spouse last week. He is close to the Austrian border and has a small vineyard. He had a Czech mother, so he is able to own property in Czech, as only Czech people are allowed to own property in Czech.
It was wonderful to get away from the perpetually apocalyptic news and feel of blighty. The Czech's are aghast at what is happening in the 'mother of parliaments'. I was also very pleased to be able to observe many younger folk going about their business, when for example visiting a supermarket or traveling on a train. Children are not seen as freaks. They play in the streets, travel alone on cycles, trains. Generally very relaxed and fun. We walked through road building, no hi-viz jackets, no hard hats, oh yes they were smoking! workers speak to you and smile, we walked on old buildings not cut off for public viewing, we walked through building sites, no fences, no hard hats, no chewing gum on the streets, no kids gobbing all the time in likeness of their favourite footballer on tv. Beer 50p for 0.5 litre, and they were smoking! The pace of life, if it is possible to measure is much slower. Less mobiles, less people jabbering into mobiles, none of the teenager angster with a earplug and wire attached to head, head down and covered. You can walk or cycle along roads with out cars roaring up to and at you.
I often wondered why I walk on farm foot paths here. Well it reminded me there is no where else to walk here in peace and quite.
In this particular part of Czech near Znojmo there is a wonderful national park of 200ha which in essence became wild because of the iron curtain. Wonderful old buildings, and remains of estates, from pre communist time, a time warp. It is really more like the 1960s than 2000. What comes to you is the dynamism and energy released because of a new way of working for these people. The grey hair prefers the communist way, well that is not an option any more. Therefore the young have it in their gift, the wall went down in 1989, so any one born after 1989 is already 20 and the nation is being driven forward by people under the age of 50 in the main. None of the baby boomer problem that we have here where the generation born after the war talk the talk BUT don't walk the walk as demonstrated so wonderfully by the present parliament dominated by the baby boomers, with the former supposed radical student leaders of the 1960's (Straw and Clarke).
We visited Vien (Vienna), not batches of cameras watching you, underground clean, air fresh (well relatively). No tattoos, no body piercings, no gangs of youths, no hi-viz jackets everywhere, friendly folk want to help you. Space on the trains. The fare for 3 of us was £25 for the 1 hour journey (Peterborough about equivalent distance is £70 return for one). They are building railways, stations, and infra-structure. Why do they get peak oil, and global warming and we don't? Visited a Vienna coffee house for coffee and cake, absolutely wonderful and worth the £25 for 3 of us. Same as out train fares! People are trusted to ride the underground in Vienna, no ticket then you get a 75 Euro fine, simple (if caught), not many risk it.
Visited and spoke with a vineyard owner in Austria and he explained to me that they too face succession problems, labour problems and a future that will be restricted by climate, oil and credit. the Austrians are budgeting on no more skiing in 30 years time and are putting things in place now. What is it we don't get about climate change? He also collaborates on use of machines, contracts out land and yes his father does not appreciate that times are different and yes the son is wrong. They have a family of 8 living off the 11ha of wine, so mix and match skills with working off farm. But they are all part of the farm still.
The agriculture was obviously dynamic in both countries. What was wonderful is the line on the border where you can see the massive fields of communist past, and small family fields in Austria right next door to each other, with a straight line crossing the landscape. There was more diversity of agriculture with fields of wheat, barley (spring and Winter), oil seed rape, sunflowers, soya (I think), Sugar beet, Potatoes, onions (no irrigation) Linseed, Borage all mixed in. therefore evidence of more wildlife. What was missing were animals, I saw three fields with cattle in and one of sheep on the whole visit. In the six days there I did not see one sprayer at work ( I know there is a lot of Organic in Austria), but in Czech equally nothing going on much with chemicals, and to look at the crops, I think there is less nitrogen used. Crops looked well they seem to get about 6t/ha of wheat. Though we did see fields decimated by hail. interesting one field of potatoes wiped out, next door field of wheat fine, then later wheat fields with areas damaged and others not so damaged by the storm.
I chatted with folk about things and it is my comprehension that the local accountability of politicians is the big difference. Even in erstwhile communist country there is significant local power for mayors and villages. We simply do not have this. It is too my mind much more Stalinist and centrally controlled here than in Czech for people's everyday living. Austria of course never had the dead hand of communism.
I am pro-Europe and what I have seen on my latest trip, there is much we could learn from our friends on the continent. How to get on with your neighbour, reduction in the dead hand of the state. Europe is seen as a positive good in Austria and Czech especially, not with standing the present travails of European elections. The opportunities are seen not the negatives. The trouble here is not Europe; it is big business, vested interests and big government in London. the answer is to give more power out to the people and spend less time oppressing folk with petty regulations. These regulations are blamed on Europe - they are Crash's (Gordon Brown) regulations, not Brussels. Why does our government have such a low level of trust in their people? It is so very interesting that Wales can adopt a different attitude to their farmers that Defra does in England.