Farming is an environmental business and farmers have a lot in common with ecologists - Andy Brown

Farming is an environmental business. It depends on the land and the dominant influence on the quality of that land is the work of our farmers. There is therefore an obvious need for anyone who is seriously interested in the future of our planet to be a passionate supporter of responsible farming. Ecologists and farmers have a lot in common. Indeed they are often the same people.

Most of the things that green activists lobby for are close to the heart of farming communities. The vast majority of environmentalists want to see more locally produced food, a fairer relationship between food producers and supermarkets and strong controls over the quality of imported competition.

Few farmers want to hand down to the next generation land that is of poorer quality or depleted soils. One of the great advantages of working in the countryside is the experience of seeing nature up close and personal. The quality of the land matters a great deal to most of those who tend it and there is no future in steadily depleting it.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

Most environmentalists want a much closer relationship between those who produce food and those who consume it. Better food security is a sustainability issue and there is a strong shared interest between environmentalists lobbying for better quality produce and farmers lobbying for realistic wholesale prices.

'Farming is an environmental business. It depends on the land and the dominant influence on the quality of that land is the work of our farmers.' PIC: Tony Johnson'Farming is an environmental business. It depends on the land and the dominant influence on the quality of that land is the work of our farmers.' PIC: Tony Johnson
'Farming is an environmental business. It depends on the land and the dominant influence on the quality of that land is the work of our farmers.' PIC: Tony Johnson

Left to their own devices markets don’t always produce a good outcome when it comes to food supply. Flooding supermarket shelves with mass produced chemical soaked imports drives prices down and puts local farmers at risk of going bankrupt. Once an international crisis breaks out it quickly becomes clear how short sighted that approach is.

Post Brexit trade deals have been signed with countries that allow cattle to be so intensively reared that they are effectively being battery farmed.

It harms the environment and harms farming communities if the government allows in meat from intensively reared animals routinely dosed with antibiotics and then fattened on soya grown on land that was once a rainforest. Nor does it help if our home grown seasonal fruit and vegetables are hard to find on supermarket shelves whilst flown-in produce dominates the shelves regardless of what is being harvested locally.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

The recent UN summary of world scientific opinion told us that there simply isn’t enough agricultural land on the planet to feed everyone on a diet dependent on grain fed meat. There is, however, more than enough land even in crowded England to feed everyone from arable farming, orchards and market gardening.

A change to producing more locally sold food and a closer relationship with consumers could provide farmers with a much better deal than is on offer from some of the supermarket wholesale buyers. Producing less meat from entirely grass fed animals requires less inputs and has proved a profitable option for significant numbers of farmers. It leads to higher prices for higher quality and cuts costs.

Yet however hard working, inventive and efficient a farmer is, the economics of modern farming means that most depend heavily on subsidies. If the public are going to support the necessary subsidies then they will expect to see significant benefits in return.

Tax payers in Leeds and Sheffield will be reluctant to pay more to provide subsidies if their money is used to maintain bare open hillsides that the water runs off so quickly that their city floods more frequently. It is well worth their while to pay taxes that are used to increase tree cover in the hills so that rainwater takes a lot longer to get downstream and their homes are safer.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

It is also hard to see why the public would pay lowland farmers to grow mile long fields of single crops that can only be brought to market after heavy spraying. Asking city dwelling taxpayers to finance market gardeners to provide them with a more reliable supply of healthy good quality fruit and veg will be a lot easier.

Most farmers understand that the public want the bulk of their subsidies to go on better environmental land management practices. They just want a fair deal and some respect for their knowledge. They also want the subsidies to be well designed, well financed and timely. Most sensible environmentalists understand that it is vital that we listen to farmers about how those subsidies are designed.

The idea that all farmers or that all environmentalists are the same is nonsense. The pages of the Yorkshire Post’s Country Section on a Saturday are full of examples of farmers who have done very well out of adopting new approaches that are lighter on the environment and an economic success.

Environmentalists and farmers need to be working together to find the best ways to help farmers to increase tree cover, reduce fertiliser run off and avoid harmful pesticides whilst maintaining a supply of food.

Andy Brown is the North Yorkshire Councillor for the largely rural area of Aire Valley and is a member of the Green Party.