What can promote access to land for agroecological farming in the UK? Findings from participatory research and deliberation as part of the Transitions to Agroecological Food Systems project

This report has been prepared as part of the UK component of the Transitions to Agroecological Food systems project, in partnership between the STEPS Centre at the Institute of Development Studies and the Land Workers’ Alliance. For more information, please contact Elise Wach, [email protected] emerged strongly, from the panel discussions, as a major issue for new entrants to agroecological farming. Access to land has long been a key barrier to new entrants to farming and has become more difficult in the last decade or so. A member of the farmers’ panel commented that, back when she set up her business, it was possible to take out a loan to buy the land and pay that back with the profits from farming, but that route is now completely out of reach for the majority of farmers, especially small- and medium-scale farmers. Land ownership, in the UK, has been heavily skewed towards the very richest for hundreds of years. In 2011, Kevin Cahill, found that over two-thirds of the land was owned by 0.36% of the population, or 189,000 families. High land prices, due to speculation, combine with planning obstacles and typically short tenure agreements to block access to land for would-be farmers. The existing system incentivises land consolidation which further compromises the ability of new entrants to acquire land and presents challenges for small-scale farmers to maintain viability. In addition, to obtaining the land itself, finding somewhere to live is also a major difficulty for many would-be producers. Acquiring planning permits, for both agriculture and housing, is difficult due to regulations that were originally intended to ensure the availability of agricultural land. Meanwhile, new farm businesses often do not generate enough income to support a mortgage on a home nearby. Beyond the costs, the inability to live onsite is also problematic for engaging in agroecological approaches (e.g., in small-scale dairies and horticulture production), as they often require regular contact with the land. In order to address these land access challenges, the panel discussed the potentials of both (a) working within the existing system (i.e. navigating existing policies, regulations and institutions), and (b) working to change the system (i.e. revising or introducing new policies, regulations and institutions). Approaches for working within the system, for example, included trying to match landowners who have unused land with new landless entrants looking to get into farming. This is an initiative, which the LWA has been planning to start and which is also carried out by organisations such as the Fresh Start Land Enterprise Centre. The Ecological Land Co-op is also working from this angle by acquiring larger pieces of land and making them accessible to tenant small-scale ecological producers by gaining the necessary planning permissions and installing utilities and road access. In terms of change at a higher level, some approaches include revising tax and other policies to facilitate more widespread change in access to land, for new entrants and ecological farmers (who often operate at smaller scales). This report explores both of these approaches in further detail based on a review of documents and a series of interviews. It then provides details of the presentations given by two key witnesses and a summary of the outcomes of the farmer panel deliberation.Daniel & Nina Carasso FoundationNew Field Foundatio

The Transformative Potential of Agroecological Farmers: An Analysis of Food System Strategies Developed through Participatory Processes in Nicaragua and the UK

Short paper submission for 8th AESOP-Sustainable Food Planning Conference, Coventry (UK) 2017: Re-imagining sustainable food planning, building resourcefulness: Food movements, insurgent planning and heterodox economics. A longer version of this paper can be submitted upon request.In the current social system which tends to marginalise small scale producers, frame the interests of consumers as antithetical to those of producers, and force producers to compete against one another, there are questions about the extent to which strategies and alliances identified by agroecological farmers would be sufficiently transformative (or ‘radical’ according to Holt-Giménez and Shattuck, 2011) to address the problems of our existing food systems. In the context of our globalised and unequal food system, there are also questions about the extent to which strategies of farmers in the so-called global south might complement or contradict those of farmers in the so-called global north. Building on a participatory farmer-led research initiative, this paper analyses the strategies developed by small-scale agroecological producers in the global south (Nicaragua) and north (UK), and the extent to which they might sufficient for transforming food systems to become socially and ecologically regenerative

Learning from Participatory Research and Action Approaches to Transforming Food Systems

Now more than ever, evidence overwhelmingly concludes that our food systems are not currently working to nourish our populations, ecosystems, economies, or social connectionNow more than ever, evidence overwhelmingly concludes that our food systems are not currently working to nourish our populations, ecosystems, economies, or social connections. Agroecological approaches have been shown as having potential to address many of these problems in the mainstream food system, particularly when combined with concepts of food sovereignty, which localise control, and place producers and consumers at the centre of decision-making (Pretty et al 2006, Chappell and LaValle 2009, Sevilla Guzman and Woodgate 2003). However, knowing the principles and the end goals, while invaluable, is not enough. We need to transition from the food systems we currently have to the food systems we envision for future generations. Where do we begin and who should lead that process? In line with principles of food sovereignty, that transition needs to be led and owned not by outside experts or researchers but by the people most directly affected by and typically excluded from decision making within the current food system (i.e. small- and medium -scale farmers, workers involved in harvesting and food processing, cottage manufacturers and consumers across socioeconomic classes). It must also respond to the current level of globalisation of our food systems. For example, a decision to localise consumption in one country can greatly affect export-focused producers and economies in another

Ethnicity, equity and the use of health services in the British NHS

This paper addresses the extent to which equity of treatment is received by people of different ethnic groups from the British National Health Service. Using data from the General Household Surveys of 1984-1991 it examines the use of general practitioner, outpatient and inpatient services using three different methods to adjust for need and for other possible confounding variables. The results do not suggest there is any gross pattern of inequity between ethnic groups, except perhaps with respect to the Chinese population which displays consistently low levels of utilisation. However, while use of GP services by minority ethnic groups is in general as high or higher than the white population, use of outpatient services is low. Some of the results also suggest that there may be important ethnic differences underlying the broader finding of equity. For example, females of Pakistani origin report low levels of GP use. More generally, excess use of GP services among several minority ethnic groups appears to be associated with need, while people from most minority ethnic groups who do not report illness display especially low use of outpatient services relative to the corresponding group in the white population. The paper examines the implications of these findings.equity health care utilisation ethnic groups General Household Survey Britain