Farmers must feel proud of feeding the population!

http://viacampesina.org/en/index.php/our-conferences-mainmenu-28/6-jakarta-2013/1419-we-want-people-to-feel-proud-of-feeding-the-population
 

Putting the Soul back into Science: Can agricultural research help feed 9 billion people by 2050?

"The ultimate source of happiness for human society very much depends on the humans spirit, on spiritual values. If we do not combine science and these basic human values, then scientific knowledge may sometimes create troubles, even disasters"

The Dalai Lama

Pedalling around New Zealand I have two books. One on Buddhism and Science and Colin Tudges 'Good Food for Everyone Forever'. Beleive it or not in the last couple of days both authors touched on the same topic, one which I have been pondering for a while..

They both point out that science is a wonderful thing.  In the past, science was an almost religous art. It has brought us many advances that improved the well-being of the whole planet.

We could be using advances in modern science and technology to create a better world. However, to a large extent we are now deploying science and high-technology with the aim of advancing short-term profit and human greed. Science has become dominated by that 20th century monster. The Corporate Interest.

Thats just the way the world is. Profit is king. Its true. But is there not another way? Where is our scientific moral compass?!

In the context of agriculture I beleive that in the right hands, modern advances in science; understanding soil biology, genetics, plants and animals could help us to feed the 9 billion by 2050, if that was the we set out to do. However, in the increasingly complex global market, it is not as simple as that.

Nowhere is this more apparent than in the field of genetic engineering. We are continually told how we will all starve without them. I do beleive that modifying plant varieties, by transgenetics, gene marking or something we havent thought of yet, could potentially support a chemical free agriculture, help improve yields nutrition or food security (although technology on its own is not a silver bullet) if such research and technology was in the right hands, independently owned and funded and publically available. However, such science and research is an expensive endeavour. Someone has to pay. And as it stands, less than 10% of the research into GM crops is independent.

As such, manipulation of a life form warrants ownership not only of the research, but of life itself. Of genetic codes, seeds and organisms, and the rights to use them can then be sold to farmers.

The vast majority of research and development in Agriculture is funded by corporates, directly or indirectly. Most of it can be traced back to the likes of Syngenta, KWS and Monsanto. It is pretty much impossible for the British farmer to access truly independent research these days. Even if they think it is independent (I had a hard time convincing Dad of this until he found out that trusty old ADAS has long since been privatised on the quiet!)

So science has to pay for itself. The objective of the scientific endeavour becomes about creating products.

As such, lets be honest, modern agricultural research and development is primarily with the intention of generating ongoing profits. Hybrid seeds will not regerminate, and even if they do, you better pay your royalties or face a huge fine if they are found in your field! High yielding varieties improve productivity, but ensure that farmers buy the required cocktail of agricultural chemicals to make them grow into 'healthy plants'.

We know very little about what is happening in our soils and yet they are one of the mainstays of civilisation. Rarely do we talk about soil biology in mainstream agriculture. Modern agricultural science sees the soil as a blank canvas to add chemicals to. If farmers know too much, they might not need to buy so many expensive products. Thats no good!

If the advancement of science and genetic technology lies solely in the hands of companies whose prime aim is making a profit, without any kind of moral regulation, that is clearly putting ourselves in a hugely vulnerable position. I fear, like the Dalai Lama, that with profit as the main (and pretty much only) objective of science. With corporate interests literally owning life. Then we will create a disaster.

But what is the solution?

We need truly independent research, publically available, open-source and transparent. Truly compassionate science, whose main objective is the greater good of mankind and the planet.

We need deeper understanding of soil biology, plant and animal genetics and to be able to share information freely with farmers. Colin remembers fondly that in the 1970s Britain had over 30 government-supported research stations and Experimental Husbandry Farms providing new insights into all aspects of agiculture, developing new crops and finding new ways of doing things. It was all shared directly with Britains farmers. In the 1980s they were closed down or privatised. Revitalising them could be a powerful way of reliquishing a bit of control!

Farmer led research in Nepal with local drought resistant rice

On a recent trip to Nepal I was impressed by the work of LIBIRD (http://www.libird.org/), who (in partnership with CGIAR and Bioversity International)  conduct on farm research into local knowledge and agricultural biodiversity and actively work to its protection, promoting seed diversity and farmer-to-farmer knowledge sharing.

The Soil Association, funded mainly by its members, has an interesting programme of on-farm research and funds some academic research into soil preparations such as Biochar. At the Oxford Real Farming Conference I was delighted to meet John Letts, who has field trials of ancient landraces of wheat and proving (excuse the pun) that they make an excellent loaf!

Of course farmers themselves are also always experimenting on their own farms and sharing knowledge (and seeds where they are allowed!). Despite the fact they are all essentially in competition, at every opportunity; out of tractor door, at the cattle market or even on the internet, I have seen how they are always keen to share learnings and better ways of doing things with each other. As in Nepal, this knowledge could be documented, formalised.

The challenge is credibility. Its all too easy for the other interests to dismiss such 'anecdotal' research, or refute studies such as those linking cancer with GM. These studies need much more funding.

If we can't change the legislation to protect life from patents, then public research could create public or 'open-source' patents. Patents that can only be used within certain social criteria. To enable seed sharing, open use of science and technology advances. Farmer-to-farmer learning.

Its a huge challenge. But I think it is doable. We just need to put the soul back into science!



High hopes: small scale cash cropping in the middle hills of Nepal



Feeding a growing World population is a huge moral concern of our times. Some believe that the only way to achieve this is through the industrialisation of farming.

Increasing productivity demands more technology in particular plant improvement, improved agricultural chemistry and increased mechanisation. By default this paradigm assumes that economies of scale are necessary and as such farm size will increase and the number of people engaged in farming will decrease. Small scale 'traditional' farms are inefficient and must commercialise in order to facilitate global food security.


In contrast, others argue that small-scale farmers can and already do contribute significantly to local (and thus global) food security. The IAASTD report found that small-scale farmers feed more than 70% of the population.

I suggest that in the context of Nepal, rural depopulation and a growing urban population mixed with extremely remote communities a number of approaches are necessary in different contexts to enhance local and global food security in the long term. It is not as simple as increasing productivity.



In February I was lucky to talk to small-scale farmers, agricultural researchers and work alongside a local agricultural cooperative in the Kaski region of Nepal. This has cast a new light on the issues surrounding feeding a growing population.

This case looks at the middle hills in the Pokhara region where there is improving access to local urban markets and cash cropping is growing.

Blessed with a huge diversity of agro-ecological zones due to dramatic topography, Nepal is able to produce a large variety of foodstuffs over a relatively small area. However, once self-sufficient in food Nepal has become increasingly dependent on imports to meet demands, making it ‘exceedingly vulnerable to price shocks” FAO, 2013.

An estimated 3.4 million people in Nepal are highly to severely food insecure as a result (FAO, 2013). A number of factors have been attributed to this including natural disasters such as drought and landslides, rural-urban migration (which reduces the population available to work whilst creating a growing urban population which needs feeding) and inability to compete with imported food prices (often from India) due to high costs of accessing inputs and the market.

In the Gurung village of Bhadaure in the Middle Hill region of Nepal most farmland in the village lies between 1200 and 1800ft and dramatic terraces make steep hillsides productive. Traditional agricultural systems combine the use of rain-fed upper lands around the village (known as Bari) and lower irrigated lands (known as Khet) for the production of staple crops namely finger millet, wheat, oilseed rape, rice and maize. Home gardens compliment this with the production of local fruit, vegetable and pulses such as lentils and beans and the use of wild foods all for home consumption (with excess being sold locally). 

Fields of Tori (Oilseed) in Bhadaure

Bhadaure is a 2 hour walk from the main road along steep mountain tracks. The only way in and out is walking, horseback or on expensive  4WD ‘Jeeps’ that run in the morning and evenings. Many young people have left – to work in Pokhara and Kathmandu,  in the British and Indian Army or even in Qatar, Malaysia and Afghanistan.

I met Raj Kumar Gurung. He lives in Bhadaure with his wife, his two sons have moved away to work. Two years ago he was growing staple food (maize, millet, wheat, oilseed rape and rice) kept a buffalo and a grew vegetables in his home garden.  

Raj Gurung

His main income came from his Indian Army pension. Now he is growing organic vegetables for sale in Pokhara city, 3 hours by jeep. He grows a range of crops year round including potatoes, cucumbers and coriander. He combines  traditional farming techniques  with skills he learned through training from the local PEACE project (Pokhara Ecological Agriculture Community Enterprise, co-funded by CIDA). He collects urine from his buffalo and prepares composted manure to maintain soil fertility. He combines the use of local varieties, such as Bhaktapur Local (a local cucumber variety which grows year round) with imported hybrid seeds provided by PEACE.

Twice a week Raj takes his produce to a collection centre in Bhadaure where it is weighed and transported by jeep along steep mountain tracks to The Bazaar Agricultural Cooperative in Pokhara. 

The Bazaar was established by local social entrepreneurs Tulsi and Tanka. They are aiming organic local and fair trade produce at Pokharas growing middle classes and ex-pats. One of their retail points is in the popular Saleways supermarket where they rent the grocery section.

 Raj explained how this access to market has transformed his life and brought economic growth to the community.

 “Before we started working with The Bazaar we had nowhere to sell our produce. Transport is difficult and we did not have the links to sell at a good price. Now our income has increased"

 
From this standpoint,by providing the rural poor with access to markets projects such as The Bazaar are helping make markets work for the poor. This could be a valuable opportunity to improve livelihoods and reinvigorate rural areas.

Here is an example of how small-scale agriculture is feeding growing populations. And hopefully at minimal cost to the environment and farmers (who don't need to buy expensive chemical inputs). What worried me a little is if moving to cash-cropping could make these individuals and communities more vulnerable. Firstly because in many cases farmers are taking land out of staple food production, this increasing dependency on bought food and reliance on incomes. From a local food security perspective this could be risky.

There is also  a concern about what happens after the PEACE project ends. Farmers currently receive seed, financial and management assistance (including coordinating  collection and transport to Pokhara) through the project. Although many farmers stated they planned to keep going only time will telI if this is possible.

In addition, production in Bhadaure is currently somewhat informal. There is no specific coordination of supply to meet demand and as such there are no contracts at present. There have been cases where overproduction has led to wastage and others when lack of supply has forced The Bazaar to source produce from India to ensure continuity of supply. Such losses could be potentially catastrophic for small scale farmers.

This is an area The Bazaar are very conscious to improve. During my time in Bhadaure we conducted participatory research to map the seasonality of production in a crop calendar and the farmers requested training and support in crop planning for the market. The Bazaar are planning to hold a workshop with representatives of all their producer groups and other local stakeholders to agree contracts and manage supply across the season. In theory with Nepals diverse agroecological zones it should be possible to ensure continuity of supply of most fruit and vegetables from within a 200 mile radius of the city. The complexity lies in the complicated planning and logistics.

Moreover, the move to cash production, particularly using imported hybrid seeds risks eroding local crop genetic diversity - or agricultural biodiversity. This is a huge concern as local varieties although often lower yielding, have evolved over generations to local conditions, pest and disease. Reducing crop varieties to a few imported hybrids will make farmers more vulnerable to disease and climatic shocks in addition to creating the burden of buying new seed.

Increase in income also does no necessarily equate to an improvement in livelihoods per se. It is an indicator of progress out of poverty, but not an end result in itself.  If it is to persued as a way out of poverty attention must be paid to improvements in overall health, nutrition and well being of cash-cropping communities.

But Raj has high hopes. He told us that his vision for the future is to expand his production. The project has opened his eyes to the potential of horticultural production to transform their community. I hope he is right.

The alternative is that small scale producers continue to produce at a subsistence level. This will ensure local food security, but will not necessarily attract young people to stay or return to their communities, and also means that the cities will become increasingly dependent on food imports. 

In summary, the  contribution of small-scale producers to local and even global food security is often over looked. Locally appropriate efforts to sustainably enhance production and improve market access could have the dual impact of improving rural livelihoods and food security. 

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!