Can small-scale agriculture contribute to feeding 9 billion?

It is enlightening to learn that an estimated 70% of the worlds population is fed by local, small-scale agriculture, fishing and hunting.

In this case, can increasing wheat production in the west really improve food security in the south? Admittedly, there is evidence to suggest that increase in cereal yields (mainly in the west) over the last 20 years has reduced household % spends on food dramatically in the developing south. This has to be a good thing. The question is at what real cost? Our focus on exports (of subsidised production dare I say) has increased our reliance on imports, much of which is produced in the developing south and thus undermining the ability of other peoples to produce their own food, or their 'food sovereignity'.

It is also worth considering that many, if not most, of these farmers are unlikely to be able to access the 'tools' of modern agriculture - formal agricultural science and technology (although nitrogen, pesticides and GM are certainly getting out there), access to credit and favourable trade conditions to name but a few.  And yet they are able to feed quite a lot of people! It seems to me that their knowledge, skills and genetic resources are well worth protecting if we want to feed everybody, well, forever!

It also suggests that despite global food speculation, climate change and energy price rises, these food systems are fairly reliable and resilient. Very important in changing times. A bit of anecdote comes from a trip to Malawi in 2010. A huge Forex crisis had resulted in problems importing fuel to the country. Fuel was in extremely short supply and pretty much only available on the black market. Transport was very limited, people were rioting, the few supermarkets were struggling to get any stock on the shelves. This lasted for the best part of 2 years. Yet people were still able to buy locally produced food in their local markets
(although in some cases at inflated prices). Although it suffered a shock, entire food production and supply system was able to cope despite a sudden and complete cut off of fuel supply. In contrast, when fuel supply was cut off from the UK in 2000, meetings in Whitehall revealed that we only had 3 days of food due to 'just in time' import and distribution of food. That is, '9 meals from anarchy' according to the NEF report at the time.



However, I am not advocating that we hold agriculture in some kind of stasis! As Practical Action set's out in the article below, everyone should have a right to access technology, both to improve their own livelihoods and wellbeing (which seems to get missed out when we are focusing solely on a rather productivist goal to feed 9 billion..) and to improve local access to healthy food both now and into the future.  This example just shows that existing food and agriculture systems in the south have something that needs to be maintained if food security really is the aim.

Moreover, we don't simply need to feed people. We need to feed them healthy food, we need to protect resources for future generations (including protecting ecosystems and agricultural biodiversity) and we need to ensure they can make a living that lifts small-scale farmers and their communities out of poverty. As stated in the IAASTD report, agriculture is multifunctional - it provides livelihoods, eco-system services, biodiversity benefits to name but a few. But focusing soley on production, and feeding 9 billion, ignores these elements.

In summary. Rather than dismissing the food systems and skills of farmers in the South and seeking to replace local knowledge with formal science and technology, we should be seeking to protect and learn from these systems, creating a dialogue between research, and farmers in north and south.

Feeding 9 billion: A question of Technology Justice? View from Practical Action

A food crisis in the making
Despite one of the wettest years on record in the UK, droughts rather than floods were the prevalent feature of 2012 for some of the world’s major grain producing nations such as Russia and America, raising fears that there may be another global food crisis in 2013. The Telegraph reports that wheat and maize prices are close to or above the peaks of 2011, while corn and soya bean prices have recently hit new record highs#. In response the UK government's Chief Scientist Sir John Beddington has warned us once more that we face a long term global threat of food insecurity with 9 billion people to feed by 2050 and climate change likely to put a severe strain on food production systems#.

Although it is debatable how much current world prices are influenced by real shortages and how much by commodity speculation, there does seem to be general agreement that our food production system will have to change in the future if it’s to meet the twin challenges of population growth and climate change. Where there is less agreement however is what that change should be with, in broad terms, one camp arguing for a second green revolution based on the latest science can offer, whilst the other argues for a shift to a system of farming that works more with nature rather than trying to fight against it. A lot of this is, in essence, a debate about the efficacy of different production technologies (industrial intensification vs. agro-ecological approaches) as if this was the only variable that mattered. In reality the technological choices we make as a society have fundamental and far-reaching consequences.  As such, the debate needs to be reframed, I believe, in terms of justice, or rather technology justice.  A principle of Technology Justice would assert that:

Everyone should have the right to access the technologies they need to live the lives they value, provided this does not prevent others from doing the same now, or in the future.

Technology Justice and food production
Applying the principle of technology justice to the current debate around technology and food production systems would be a way of better understanding the wider consequences of the choices in front of us. It certainly prompts a different set of questions, one of which being: ‘how universal has the access to the benefits of 'modern' technology in agriculture been in the last 50 years?’ Since 1961, in the time it has taken for the world’s population to double, cereal production volumes have tripled and consumers in the developed world have seen the proportion of their household budget spent on food decline dramatically. Yet the Green Revolution has passed the majority of the world’s farmers by and we now face record numbers of hungry people. It’s no coincidence that three quarters of the one billion malnourished people in the world today live in rural communities# where agriculture provides a livelihood for nearly ninety per cent of the population.#

The mixed impacts of the Green Revolution reflect differing abilities to access and apply its new technologies. Income disparities have grown between those farming the best soils and able to invest in and benefit from the entire package of (often subsidised) irrigation, hybrid seed and agro chemical technologies, and those in rain fed (rather than irrigable) regions, or those working the most marginal soils, or those without access to credit to buy inputs (frequently women).

The number of farmers that fall on the wrong side of this divide is actually is very large. Globally, food provision is dominated by small-scale providers. An estimated seventy per cent of the world’s population, or nearly 4.7 billion people, are fed with food provided locally, mostly by small-scale farming, fishing or herding#. Eighty five per cent of the world’s farms are holdings of less than 2 hectares, worked by families. Frequently quoted figures place the number of small-scale farmers at 1.5 billion people. The importance of small-scale agriculture in securing the world’s food is therefore clear and has been frequently acknowledged. But it is often these small scale farmers who have not been able to invest in the new technologies and who are left attempting to produce enough food for themselves and for local markets in conditions that are harsh, with little or no external support.

Another technology justice inspired question therefore would be: what is research and innovation in agriculture doing today for these farmers, who feed nearly three quarters of the world's population? The answer to that question has to be "not enough". The FAO# reported in 2009 that just five countries (US, Japan, China, India and Brazil) accounted for 48% of $23 billion global annual public investment in agricultural R&D, whilst 80 of the lowest income countries consumed only 6% between them. In the case of the $16 billion global annual private sector investment in agriculture R&D, the FAO reports even less spent on research likely to impact on the poor, with just 2% of spend being in the developing world.
An alternative approach
So what would the application of the principle of Technology Justice to the debate around future technology choice for food production tell us?

Well, the first part of the principle is that ‘everyone should have access to the technologies they need to live the life they value’. By this measure the green revolution and the industrialisation of agriculture have fallen far short of the mark of achieving justice, with the benefits of technological innovation disproportionately accruing to larger scale commercial farming. We need to learn from this. In particular we need to re-examine a system which relies primarily on commercial incentives to drive the innovation and dissemination of technology. For low income marginal farmers many of the potential future improvements to productivity may come from better soil fertility and water management techniques and from the diversification and local production of seed and livestock for example, technical knowledge which may be difficult or undesirable to commodify and which will require different incentives to drive innovation and dissemination in.
The principle of Technology Justice however is not just that everyone should have access to the technologies they need to live the life they value, but that they should have that access in a way that does not prevent others now or in the future from doing the same.  But there are real concerns that current industrial agricultural practices are unsustainable and thus undermine the food security of future generations.  As the International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD) puts it: with 1.9 billion hectares of land suffering significant degradation, 1.6 billion people living in water scare basins, widespread salinization of soils from poor irrigation practices and with pesticides and fertilisers polluting groundwater and impacting on the biodiversity of rivers and coastal zones, the often unforeseen consequences of an exclusive focus on yields and productivity have undermined the very resources on which food production depends#:
The application of the principle of technology justice reveals a picture is of a global food system is that is not just unequal but also unsustainable, incapable of feeding the world today and undermining our ability to feed 9 billion people in 2050. Any discussion on the relative merits of different technological approaches to agriculture in the future has to address both issues.

Do UK wheat farmers have a moral responsibility to increase yields?!

This week I went to a conference with Dad organised by a fairly large UK agronomy company which sells seeds and chemicals and provides on farm agronomy advice to farmers.

We were told on more than one occassion that as British wheat growers we had a moral responsibility to increase our wheat yields. Because population is going to be 10 milllion by 2050 and we have to feed the world / Britain (whilst 1.1 million tonnes of wheat is needed for bioethanol production in the UK every year).

This was a powerful statement. I agree that we as a world population (not just British wheat farmers!) have a moral duty to ensure that we can feed everyone, good food, forever. And take this into consideration at all stages of the supply chain, as growers, consumers, corporate sector and policy makers.

However, there is a number of reasons this got my goat!

1. If we are trying to feed ourselves - how much wheat are we going to eat?! Admitedly wheat is a highly (perhaps overly) consumed part of our diets - and crops up in lots of different forms in processed food. However,  surely if UK food security is the objective we should be looking at our total food / nutrient production in this country and would likely consider reducing wheat production and producing other products we are currently reliant on importing? Fruit and vegetables for a start! At present we import the majority of our fruit and vegetables (and thus water and soil nutrients), reducing the ability of the counties of origin to feed themselves. The objective should be to be producing a varied diet for our own population on our own shores (there are many debates about whether this is possible - see Simon Fairlies article on 'Can Britain feed itself?'.

Admittedly - if we were to increase wheat yields on some of the land, this would open up more land for production of other foodstuffs needed for a nutritious diet. However it feels to me that this is not on the current agenda (EU policy does not encourage or support small-scale farming and horticulture).

2. If we really are being awfully compassionate about global food security - then increasing our wheat yields, (some of which will inevitably then be exported, after all its the balance of payments  the EU really care about here!) we are in effect, exporting subsidised (by CAP) grain onto the global market, which can actually undercut local production in other countries and compromise their own food sovereignity. That is the peoples right to feed themselves. Further increasing vulnerability of poorer nations to feed themselves.

3.  Increasing yield does not necassarily decrease hunger. Some people lack access to food regardless of the supply. It is a hugely complex issue, which has been incresasingly complicated by the inclusion of agriculture in the World Trade Organisation and the creation of the General Agreement on Trade and Tariffs. Opening the stock market up to food has opened it up to speculation, which also further complicates the issue with manipulation of supply and demand. It is a gross simplification to tell us that increasing our yields is going to feed the world and in many cases it may do just the opposite!

4. There is a limit to how much we can increase yields! We have already hit a yield plateau - the green revolution is loosing its might! A fuel and resource hungry agriculture is unsustainable in the long term and will inevitably create its own limits. We need to start learning more about our key resource; soil. Soil is a very under researched element of modern agriculture as most investment goes into developing new resistant seed varieties and chemicals that can create marketable products. There is evidence across the world to show that working with the soil and using agro-ecological methods works. Surely we should be looking at resource efficiency as much if not more than increasing yield.

5. Also is there really a problem with yield? We live in a world where 1 billion are hungry, yet 1 billion are obese. We waste 1/3rd of our food between field to fork. We feed over 30% of global grain to animals and then use some more to produce fuel!  If we really want to set out to feed everyone good food forever, then we need to change tact. We need to change what we eat (a little bit of meat, a lot of fruit and vegetables and maximum variety is the suggestion from scientist Colin Tudge).

6. To me this is clearly manipulation by the agri-business lobby to brainwash farmers (and consumers / policy makers) into thinking there is no choice but to increase yields. That we have to use their chemicals, buy their improved seeds and rely on genetic technology to do so. Because we have a moral duty.

It also feels like this lobby is undermining farmers confidence to produce food in the way they always have - because they are not producing enough. That their traditional knowledge of their land is not enough and they must rely on outside input. It feels a bit like this has already happened in much of Western Europe, but I hope that farmers of other parts of the world can manage to hang on to their agricultural wisdom and initimate knowledge of their soils, seeds and environments. It may well be that we need it!

Other elements of the conference included a poo pooing of the evidence against the impact of neo-nicotinoids on bee population and a general ridiculing of EU compliance policy!

On the bright side, I was really pleased to hear some more sensible perspectives; including Integrated Pest Management / Push -Pull factors, intercropping, green cover crops, weeds and pests as indicators of problems in the farming system, focus on soil biology and care (which always seems to get forgotten in the world of conventional farming!) and no till.

I was also, albiet controvesially, interested in some of the potential possibities for genetic technology, which if it were possible to lie outside the control of the seed and chemical industry (is that realistic?!), could potentially be an opportunity to reduce our dependency on chemistry to grow our food (or have I been brainwashed too?!)

A summers explorations

As the nights grow shorter I am reflecting on this summer of exploration! Sometimes it feels a bit like one step forward and two steps back.. but I think I have learned a lot about food, farming and myself! 

I have realised that this is a long-term project, and that although it feels as if progress is slow, we are trying new things - adding beans to the rotation, using compost and burnt chicken manure, trying out direct drilling on the heaviest land (so far so good! although the system depends on roundup...) and have 20% of our land in environmental stewardship, with wetlands and other habitat creation.

As I am not ready to stick my fork in the ground and settle on the farm (will I ever be?!), this seems good for now. Keep lobbying the old chap, learning and trying new things.

My journey has taken me through a number of perspectives of our food and farming system. From groups of passionate food campaigners and small scale growers to commercial lobbyists, Syngenta representatives and 8000 acre estate managers, from activists who cut GM maize to people who play about with DNA in their kitchens...

On one hand I have my ideals. Agroecological systems, food sovereignity, trade justice, local food economies, maintaining resources for future generations, access to land for young people...etc.

On the other hand, I can see the reality of the system in which we are operating. The need to keep making a living. Our dependency on chemicals and global markets. Trusting my dads experience and understanding of our land.

I think its important to keep a truly open mind, and look at this problem from all sides, and try not to feel overwhelmed by the complexity of the problem!


I shall continue my endeavours to learn and  to share my musings (i.e. actually write in my blog..!) and meet  others on a similar journey!

Sowing the seeds!

That's what we are up to on the farm at the moment... Or at least trying to, the weather has not really been on our side! But the direct drilled wheat pilot on the field I share with my sisters is a least drilled and sprouting! Hooray! One small victory.

It's also seed diversity day today! So seems only right to have a little ponder on the wonder and plunder of the seed!

According to the FAO the world has over 50,000 edible plants. Many of them have been domesticated by man over time. Farmers saving seeds,  crops to local environments, carrying seeds to new lands, evolving a rich diversity of varieties, landraces and charachteristics. But diversity is rapidly decreasing. 

60% of the worlds food comes from three plants. Wheat, maize and rice (FAO again!) and diversity within these is also being lost.

There have long been seed breeders growing seeds for sale. But the real change came in 1980, when unknown to much of the public the US Supreme Court ruled that living organisms could be patented, so long as they have been manipulated genetically.  That a company could own life. The rest of the world swiftly followed.

From a commercial perspective its clear to see the interests. Investment in research and technology for manipulating life needs to be returned on, fair enough. But this decision has been disastrous for seed and biological diversity and takes power away from farmers and under corporate control.

On Ferry Farm, like many many others, we buy seeds from the big companies like KWS who have huge budgets to develop new varieties. Some have more fungal resistance, some are shorter or have longer flag leaves. Equally some are also more prone to fungal disease,falling over and rust!

What this means is that KWS own the right to the seed. We cannot save it without paying them royalties (which are often not much less than buying the new seed). Moreover as many of them are hybrid varieties, we wouldn't really know what we were going to get next year.. And as they are not landraces (the traditional method of adapting wheat to local conditions) the wheat will not adapt to kcal conditions over time. So we lose a lot of the advantages too.. We have the choice of about 20 varieties of hard wheat that we can grow.

In conventional farming, the seeds will also be 'dressed'. That is dunked in chemicals which normally turn them a lovely fluorescent shade of orange. In wheat this is commonly with a fungicide to prevent common bunt, a very common and destructive fungal disease and often something to stop it tasting nice to slugs and birds. This also makes it hard for farmers to save seed (although a local farmer was telling me he ha a mobile seed dressing outfit that come to his farm and dress his own seed).

To my horror I discovered that our seed, and most others in the UK , are coated with 'redigo deter' This includes a neonicotinoid, a systemic pesticide which has been linked with colony collapse of bees.. Oh dear. I have been reassured by our 'agronomist' (who also happens to be the bloke who
sells us seeds and chemicals...) that as wheat does not flower it should not attract bees and that dressing the seed is much better than spraying the plant. Perhaps he is right but it is still a huge worry. 

In my travels I have been trying to find alternative solutions.. But found that many.. Including
 organic farmers are dressing the seed with something. Except for a wise lady biodynamic farmer I 
met in Brussels on the Good Food March. Who quite simply said that if you have a healthy soil and a well balanced system, you don't need to dress your seed. 

Here here. The problem is in reality, a wheat farmer that sells commercially cannot afford to take that risk. This certainly says more for the fact that specialisation lowers farm resilience and this creates more risk than anything. But for now, in order to survive, I don't think we can take the risk of not dressing the seed. But I shall keep lobbying for more soil improvers and increasing diversity and hope we get there one day and I shall keep searching for other organic alternatives (please do post if you know any!)

In terms of seed diversity. We do normally select three varieties to spread the risk a little. I am keen to mix these in one field to help with pest and disease resilience.. But it makes things more difficult from a chemical application perspective (ie we would probably end up using more than we need to as each has different requirements) so as long as you keep using chemicals... Seed biodiversity is compromised for his reason too. 

There are brave wheat farmers who save their seeds (and some anarchistic ones who don't pay their royalties!). Others who grow ancient varieties or mix up different varieties in one field.  Some who grow commercially but have a clear organic consumer market. I should really be hunting them down and finding out what they do! If you are one please own up a your secrets now! 

The problem is, if I am self-depricatingly honest, is that in order to survice you either need to find a unique market or you do what everyone else is doing to keep afloat. We have gone for the latter and the more I learn the more I respect those that haven't, but the more I realise just how hard it is. 

For now I have realised that we are doing what we are for a reason. Changing everything could lose all of my dad and Granada hard work. But we are continuing to try new things bit by bit and I hope we we are slowly finding a better way for the future. 

In the meantime we need policy to support us to do that and the political will to stop corporate control of seeds, and ultimately the food chain. 

Real farmers taking back control!

Here is a blog written by my co-cyclist Darren!

18th September

In Lille we headed to meet members and supporters of Confederation Paysanne at, what had been called, ‘à la Ferme du Sart’ – The Farm of Sart.  The son from the giant sports retailing family that owns ‘Decathlon’, which had branches in most high streets across France, had started this new enterprise.  The Confederation Paysanne and others questioned the use of a farm/farmers identity by a business which is proving to be primarily a retail operation and is manoeuvring to expand through franchises.  A previous protest at another branch saw a sign being pulled down by tractor and hearing about today’s planned visit the owner had decided to bow to pressure, dropping ‘à la Ferme’ from the beginning of the name.

On route we have also seen another way that food retailing can be organised.  We stopped in France, and then again in Belgium at farmers co-operative shops.

‘Au Panier Vert’ is a co-operative of 30 producers who decided to work together to directly retail their produce from a small shop they started on one of their farms, close to Lille.  80% of the sale price goes back to the producer the other 20% is kept for the costs of the co-operative.  Over the years they have built a shop and food processing facilities and then later expanded it.  Now they offer a large range of meat, diary, fruit, vegetables, plants and bakery produce.  Their produce sells at a similar price to that of the big supermarkets.

We also stopped at the abattoir of the co-operative ‘Coprosain’ at Ath in Belgium.  Coprosain was created following protests against the closure of the local diary.  A number of farmers decided to create a new co-operative diary business processing their milk and retailing their other produce from the premises.  Customers asked why they could not also purchase meat from the animals that the farmers reared and in response to this demand the co-operative made the necessary investment to open their own abattoir.  Eighty percent of the co-operative is owned by the producers.  The co-op has been extremely successful, opening two additional shops, also selling at 18 markets.  It employs 45 workers.  Despite much interest they decided not to expand their operation beyond the 45 producers involved now.  They don’t want to create another huge corporation but would rather see numerous local initiatives.

There is a clear contrast between this model, shops selling exclusively locally grown and processed produce with the growers getting a fair price for their work and the more common model where farmers produce for the commodity markets with large buyers and supermarkets occupying hugely powerful positions in the supply chain and making huge profits while growers struggle to make ends meet.

Peasants in search of land!

September 14th

After an eventful start to our voyage in Calais we headed off across the countryside towards Saint Omer.
One of our cycling companions, Martin lives and work the land at a small holding close to our planned route so we detour to visit his wonderful abode.

Flying the flag ‘Paysans enquete de terre!’ (Peasants in search of land!) he explained how he came to live there. The typical French farmstead had been a stop on a ‘cyclotour’ he made with a group of young people who want to get on the land.  The challenges they face are high land prices (particularly due to speculation), the lack of availability of small pockets of land in the area, diffficulty getting planning to live on their farms and the need for specific agricultural training (required in France in order to access social services).



Martin now lives there and grows vegetables for his keep, but is still on the hunt for his own pocket of land and is passionate about changing the situation for other young people across Europe!

He is joining us to Brussels to make his message loud and clear! There are thousands of young people and potential new entrants to farming all across Europe. The CAP must support them to make this important step to help create a future of good food and farming!