What Is The Land For?
This is a profound question. We see land put to all kinds of uses; left wild, farmed, tarmacked, and dumped on. But are any of these uses what the land is for?
At a conference organised by the South East Agricultural Society, this was the question put to a panel of people with various interests in land usage. The answers varied enormously, from the theoretical to the pragmatic. They were informed by economic reality, policy, market conditions and a consideration of future needs.
One thing that surprised me about the presentations and subsequent discussion was the complete absence of any climate denial. These are people who are engaged with the land and the weather every day. They know that conditions have changed. One farmer has land next to the River Ouse in East Sussex. This land floods so frequently that it is useless for growing crops. The only option is to use the land for grazing. As normally the land would have been rotated between crops and grazing, losing the option to grow crops is a significant loss.
This farm now has camping and accommodations units to bring in extra income. Some of the land is also set aside for use under the Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG) scheme. The farmer was quite clear; producing food was the least profitable thing he could do with his land. He made more money from accommodation, BNG and other diversification activities. His answer to the what-is-land-for question was simple. It is to provide a living for the people who own and work that land. If food production makes no economic sense, why do it?
I was quite shocked by this response and it was the main thing I took away from the conference. We are in a situation where it makes no economic sense to use land to grow food. Despite the reality that food is absolutely essential to every single one of us, there is no motivation to actually produce it.
We are used to the idea of the farmer producing food, but it seems this is a charming and anachronistic stereotype. Many farmers now seem to see themselves as land managers. They are not simply in the business of producing food, they are managing for the best returns. There are many ways to utilise land: growing food, keeping non-food livestock, leisure activities, housing, business premises, energy production. Is it not reasonable that the owner or manager of land should choose the activities that benefit them the most? This is basic Adam Smith economics.
What was missing from all the answers was a lack of a moral imperative to grow food. Many of the farmers grow food because they have always done so and that is what they know. Yet none felt obliged to produce food whatever the circumstances. All were open to making a living in other ways.
We should not be surprised by this. Farmers have never been obliged to grow food, certainly not in the UK. They have produced food because they have the opportunity to do so, because it is their family business or because they want to. Circumstances are now such that many farmers are reassessing how they make a living. Many referred to the challenges of climate change, to the stranglehold of the supermarkets and to the policy vacuum post-Brexit.
These changes could lead to an extraordinary outcome. Because there are so few incentives to produce food, farmers will stop doing so. Probably not all at once and probably not all of them, but there is a strong possibility that food production will diminish over time as farmers either quit the industry or turn their land over to other uses. What will that mean?
If farming land is taken out of food production, that will mean greater reliance on food imports and hence on lengthy supply chains. There’s nothing good about that. That’s not a little-Englander position, long supply chains and excessive food-miles have long been identified as a systematic problem in the current food system. The more food is driven around, the less fresh and nutritious it is. This is also a source of unnecessary CO2 emissions. Also, if small farmers sell up or opt out, we all become more dependent on big agribusinesses who will have less emphasis on quality and stewardship and a much greater focus on profit. Neither of these are desirable outcomes.
So perhaps the question should be, what are farmers for? Land just is, it has no agency. It simply responds to the forces applied to it. Farmers, on the other hand, are sentient beings with wishes, loyalties and limits. At a time of growing climate and political instability, shouldn’t we as a society get behind farmers? Let them know that we appreciate what they do and buy directly from them at prices that sustain their work.
I was deeply impressed by the farmers I heard speak at this conference. They are tough, resourceful and accept challenges as part of their chosen way of life. But we shouldn’t take their tenacity for granted. I suspect that many are one difficulty away from quitting. It might be the supermarkets, it might be government ineptness, or it may very well be climate change. Food security is a term that people love to throw around, yet it seems to be a concept with very little policy behind it. Food security in the UK seems to depend on farmers continuing to do what they have always done. I’ve heard them speak and I’m worried. We may find food becoming increasingly insecure in the next few years.
__________________________________
I have a newsletter. If you would like to sign up for news about what I am doing, please visit https://mailchi.mp/897dd025ab00/landing-page
