Land for the Many
It’s seventy odd pages long and its subtitle
sets out what they’re trying to achieve, "Changing the way our fundamental
asset is used, owned and governed.”
It’s got some good stuff in it. It’s got some not so good
stuff in it. And it’s got stuff that is outside my sphere of expertise and about
which I hesitate to comment. I hope that their analysis of the housing
market is correct and I hope that
their plans to make housing affordable work. I was interested to read that the
number of dwellings in the UK has been rising faster than the number of households,
even though house prices have also risen, as has overcrowding and homelessness.
One of the principle themes of John’s gospel is about “abiding” and we all need
a place where we can belong. Good luck
with that aspect of the policy.
Good luck also with the pledge to halt the sale of County
Council Farms, and indeed to reverse the decline in numbers by acquiring more. That is a welcome recognition of the vital
roles that County Council farms have played and can continue to play in the
future.
On a personal level I welcome the proposal to increase
access to land other than land growing crops. The psalmist writes that “The
earth is the Lord’s and all that it contains” (psalm 24) and for me that implies
that those who “own” land hold it in trust for all God’s children
(including generations not yet born) and so for all people to have access to
land is something I welcome. However what the document doesn’t address is how
to safeguard the land as the farmers’ work place. Access is one thing, but
farmers being able to move sometimes dangerous livestock or large machinery isn’t
considered. Nor does the paper consider the ways in which existing access to land from footpaths and bridle
paths has been abused by militant animal rights protesters. In some of the
badger cull areas farming families have been
harangued by loud noise and abuse late at night. It’s easy to understand
why farmers will be reluctant about further rights of access without accompanying
responsibilities for reasonable behaviour.
That lack of appreciation for farming runs through the
document and is a major flaw. It’s flawed because of what it misses out and it’s
flawed because some of what it says is just plain wrong. When it says “You
merely need to keep your land in ‘agricultural condition’,
which means that it looks as if agriculture is or could be practised there.”
(p 69) it is factually incorrect. There are myriad regulations known as “cross-compliance” which farmers must fulfil before their land
is considered in ”good agricultural and environmentall condition” and so
attract a subsidy .
So when the report says:-
“An alien observer contemplating our current farm subsidy
system would assume we had
taken leave of our senses. Under the EU’s Common Agricultural Policy, payments are made by the hectare: the more land you
own or rent, the more public money you are
given.” (p 69)
again, the report is flawed. Payments are only made if
there is environmental benefit and larger farms producing larger environmental
benefit have a larger subsidy than smaller farms producing a small benefit and
attracting a smaller subsidy.
Perhaps the biggest weakness with the document is what it
doesn’t say. It almost entirely fails to mention food production! It gets mentioned twice, once in relation to
allotments to grow food and also community food growing projects on green belt land.
Admirable as both of those are, they won’t feed the nation. The report says:-
"There are many ways of transforming our use of land to
benefit wildlife, ecosystems and
the climate: from strengthening regulations on pesticides, to sparing more land
for nature and rewilding our
national parks." (p 68)
If we transform our land use, where is our food to come
from? If we end up effectively exporting food production overseas to countries with lower environmental
standards we do the planet no favours quite apart from the food miles to get food here. If we rely on allotments and community
food growing projects we will be hungry.
The report uncritically describes farmland bird numbers
as having “plummeted” without any awareness that it depends on which birds are
described as “farmland”. It attributes the decline of hedgehogs to “farming has become mechanised and
industrialised, powered by petrochemicals
and armed with an array of artificial fertilisers and pesticides.” but ignores
the explosion in numbers of hedgehog predators. Farmers, in this report, are not to be trusted
or valued but will need planning permission to plough up a field!
Jesus taught us to pray “give us this day our daily
bread.” He shared food with hungry crowds - bread and fishes. He had meals with undesirables and
with friends. He was, and is, recognised in breaking bread. Food is integral to
Christian faith and should be valued. Sadly this document fails to value food
and food producers as it should.
Comments
Post a Comment