Alt+Land Peripheral Stakeholders

“Farmers are not just responsible for producing food but they are the caretakers of the land, the environment and their choices affect us more than we imagine” (Rose, 2016)

Alt + Land proposes a new model of farming and housing, which work together to provide a more sustainable and equitable future. This essay will explore the role of peripheral stakeholders in the feasibility of the model.

Farmland currently covers about 64% of the UK (Ryder, 2017), and many of these farms have turned to industrialised methods: there was “a 26% rise in intensive factory farming between 2010–16, a shift that is transforming the British countryside” (Wasley et al., 2017). Industrialised, large scale farming relies on static land ownership and optimised production of a single crop or livestock. These methods contribute to climate change, loss of biodiversity, nitrate pollutants, soil erosion and poor animal welfare.

We are proposing an alternative land ownership framework: a dynamic model that considers soil value and fertility, in which land use rotates between productive and fallow. Agricultural production is local, seasonal, varied and more responsive to demand. During a fallow period, land is used for non-invasive, temporary residential developments. The idea is to create a symbiotic relationship between farmers and other community member which ensures long term soil vitality, biodiversity and crop resilience to disease.

The timescale for development is cyclical and determined by fallow periods and soil rejuvenation. We propose that a quarter of the farmland is set aside to recover whilst being utilised for housing. After the soil beneath the lot has had time to restore, the housing will be relocated to adjacent fields, a process which occurs every three to four years. The farmer, residents and soil all benefit from the improved model.

Existing models for integrated farming and living:

There has been an expanding interest in growing local produce amongst residences, mostly in the form of urban farming. The link between health and architecture is increasingly important, even to corporate developers. Henry Gordon-Smith, an advisor on integrating farming and gardens into the built environment, says: “The building has to be productive. All of that creates better occupants, and better citizens. Food is the next frontier in this” (Holt, 2015). Developers are beginning to see the value added to their projects with the implementation of green space and food. While this shift is undeniably positive, there are also issues. These gardens are private, and therefore not accessible to the majority (Holt, 2015). Instead, our proposal looks to make the change at the source. Rather than promoting healthy food production in urban privatised gardens, the project believes healthy food should be produced by the growers in the first place.

Stakeholders:

This essay will explore the peripheral stakeholders and project management of Alt+Land. First, it is important to address the idea of ‘non-human stakeholders’ as a key shift from traditional stakeholder relationships. In 1995, a paper titled ‘Should trees have managerial standing? Toward a stakeholder status for non-human nature’ argued that non-human entities could, and should be categorised as stakeholders:

“Most definitions of the concept of “stakeholder” include only human entities. This paper advances the argument that the non-human natural environment can be integrated into the stakeholder management concept. This argument includes the observations that the natural environment is finally becoming recognised as a vital component of the business environment, that the stakeholder concept is more than a human political/economic one, and that non-human nature currently is not adequately represented by other stakeholder groups” (Starik, 1995).

In our current climate, facing ecological collapse, more and more attention has been paid to the welfare of our non-human environment. We now understand the interconnectedness and dependence of our own welfare on the welfare of the environment. This new model highlights this interconnectedness. Without a healthy soil microbiome:

1. Nutritious food cannot be grown, which leads to poor human health

2. The soil cannot embed carbon, leading to further warming

3. The soil cannot retain water, which exacerbates flooding

Therefore, this model takes this new perspective on stakeholders as the starting point, placing the soil as the key player.

Internal stakeholders

The key stakeholders of Alt + Land are the soil, the farmers, and the tenant. We want to position soil as the key stakeholder, defining the relationships between the other players. By this we mean that the health of the soil is the most pivotal aspect of the project, and the key end beneficiary. The second most crucial stakeholder is the farmer, often appearing a dying profession due to economic pressure; “figures provided by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) show that in 2015 the total income from farming fell by £3.8 billion, representing a drop of 29% from the previous year” (Tully, 2020).

However, by providing the opportunity for the soil to regenerate, the farmers can invest in long term sustainability of their craft and livelihood. The rotational method of farming to allow regeneration creates vacant space. We see this as an opportunity for the land to be used as shares for a hybrid cooperative between the tenant and the farmers. Based on this, we have been looking groups which might need housing. This is varied, and needs further consideration, however we have looked into various groups:

Climate migrants — this idea is based on statistics showing that numerous coastline towns in the UK will be flooded and will therefore result in climate refugees within the UK. The location of many of these towns are on the periphery of the nitrate vulnerable farms.

The housing crisis — due to rising rents and a lack of suitable housing, many within cities are looking for alternative accommodation and ways of living.

External stakeholders and their relative incentives:

Climate, public human health, and microorganisms: On the periphery of the health of the soil are many other non-human beneficiaries or stakeholders: the climate, organisms within the soil, and public human health. Additionally, governmental bodies should have direct interest in soil health as it provides a low-cost carbon absorption.

Organisms within the soil: Soil should provide an environment for an expansive ecosystem of microorganisms, which in turn fertilises the soil; also known as biological fertility. There may be billions of microbes within on gram of soil; including but not limited to bacteria, fungi, and soil algae. This community is collectively referred to as the soil microbiome (Johns, 2017). The microbes create substances which act as a type of soil cement. This promotes structure within the soil, creating a defence against erosion. Fungi creates filaments which add to the structure, acting like threads through the soil, netting parts together. Furthermore, the soil microbiome decomposes organic matter, fertilises the soil, and provides nutrients to plants.

Public human health: A nutrient rich soil — which is based on the existence of this ecosystem within topsoil — provides us with nutrient rich food, directly effecting public health. When the soil microbiome is damaged, the process of providing nutrients to plants is disrupted. Over the past 50 years, “zinc in vegetables had plunged 59%, magnesium fell 26%, and iron tumbled 83%” (Behar, 2020).

Climate: The health of the soil is crucial in embedding carbon from the atmosphere, directly effecting our climate. When plants photosynthesise, they are removing carbon dioxide from the air. This carbon is used for growth, and excess is then deposited into the soil. These deposits allow for the ecosystem within the soil, feeding microbes and fungi. If left untouched, carbon would remain in the soil without causing damage. However, farming practices involving ploughing releases said carbon back into the atmosphere (CRP). Regenerative practices rotate crops, allowing part of the land to lay fallow. This allows soil to maintain health and avoids risk of depletion. A focus on regenerative practices makes the climate a ‘peripheral stakeholder’.

Government:

Issues of climate, public human health and housing are of course governmental responsibilities — and with the issue of Brexit food and farming practices have become evermore topical for decision makers. The Government recognises the need for more housing, the damage of unsustainable farming models, and could benefit from a sustainable model which increases land value, producitivity, and longevity.

Food as an issue of National Security:

In the past year issues of food importation due to covid-19 along with the uncertainty of Brexit, food has become highlighted as an issue of national security, making the Government directly involved in farming practices. Almost a third of UK food supplies come from Europe. More specifically, almost 100% of the fresh produce come from Europe (Lane, 2020). If a free trade deal isn’t agreed, which seems more and more likely, consumer prices will rise on imported goods. This will have a negative impact on existing issues with nutrition: “A full 10% of Britain’s population is nutritionally impoverished, with 6.6 million individuals lacking the physical or economic access to sufficient sustenance. Troublingly, a quarter of these — 1.7 million — are children” (Lane, 2020)

Change in subsidy system:

UK farms often find it challenging to keep up with a global market and resulting low food costs, and additionally often lag behind the levels of productivity often seen in comparable European farms (Evans, 2020). As such, monetary support for UK farms has existed since the 1960’s in order to protect farmers.

In 2019 the UK has received support 3 billion annually for the agricultural industry (Farmers’ £3 billion support confirmed in time for 2020, 2019). Following Brexit, farming subsidies will change dramatically. It appears that these subsidies will be replaced with national environmentally based pay-outs; with the sum reflecting the environmental intentions of the farm rather than the scale (Evans, 2020).

With this shift has come new legislation. The Environmental Land Management Scheme is a cornerstone to the new agricultural policy, focusing on public good: “The scheme means farmers and other land managers may be paid for delivering the following public goods: clean air, clean and plentiful water, thriving plants and wildlife, protection from environmental hazards, reduction of and adaption to climate change” (Behar, 2020)

Overall, the new agricultural bill aims to create more sustainable and self-sufficient farms. Payments will be focused on environmental outcomes such as the prevention of flooding or the fostering of wildlife habitat. A government consultation document released earlier this year even suggested that the payments would not be hinged on actual production of food — a massive shift in approach to the industry (Evans, 2020).Now, environmental health is placed above productivity. This will be key to our model, in which soil is the key player and stakeholder.

Due to smaller pay-outs with more specific outcomes, many farmers face losing their farms. While this poses difficulties for many, it may be positive for our model in creating incentive for farmers to find alternative incomes for their land (Evans, 2020).

John Cherry, a regenerative farmer in Hertfordshire, argues that the bill lacks detail. As he sees it, there is a fundamental lack of understanding of the importance of soil. He asks: “why not pay farmers for the carbon they sequester in their soil?” (Cherry, 2020). These new conversations around farming show the relevance of our model; farmers could be rewarded for protecting the environment and providing housing rather than compensated for productivity and produce.

Through this research, we have concluded the Government will be involved as a peripheral stakeholder in our new model. The government could provide new ecological subsidies to farmers wanting to make the transition from destructive to regenerative and rotational farming, and perhaps extra subsidy to those willing to allocate fallow lots for temporary housing. These subsidies could also be used to fund the construction of the temporary housing. By putting soil health and productive landscapes first, the project will inherently respond to many other concerns. It will address the struggling agriculture industry, the current housing crisis, and the climate.

Project management:

“Stakeholder relations is the practice of forging mutually beneficial connections with third-party groups and individuals that have a “stake” in common interest. These relationships build networks that develop credible, united voices about issues, products, and/or services that are important to your organisation.” (Chen, 2020)

The understanding of human and non-human stakeholders highlights that the success of a project relies on the complex interdependency of all players. As such, the sustainability of the proposal depends on relationships being mutually beneficial:

Symbiotic relationships

The farmer allows soil to regenerate and in return the soil provides nutrient rich food, protection against flooding, productivity, and long-term sustainability.

The fallow lots provide space allocated to housing, and the non-farmer protects the soil

The non-farmer benefits the farmer either by government funding via social housing, or contributing to a cooperative system, and the farmer provides land for the non-farmer.

Interview:

Hertfordshire Cherry Farm: John Cherry

In 2010 brothers John and Paul Cherry began to move away from commercial farming practices and toward regenerative farming to save the health of their soil. The transition involved a ‘no-till’ method (never ploughing the land), mob-grazing (rotating livestock around different plots) and herbal leys (diverse crops) (Rose, 2016). I got in contact with John to get his opinion on the feasibility of our new model:

Question 1: It has been really inspiring to read about your work, and your break away from conventional methods in order to put soil health first. It seems that this has been really successful both environmentally and for productivity. Why is the kind of farming you do at Hertfordshire not more recognised? Do you think regenerative farming and crop rotation will become a more popular method of farming in the UK in the foreseeable future?

John Cherry: The agricultural industry is very conservative. Farmers love ploughing, its deep in the psychology, which makes a shift to regenerative farming a cultural issue. Additionally, soil degradation happens very slowly; it’s not immediately noticeable. There is a vested interest in keeping status quo, particularly by those invested in industrial farming. Those profiting from the retail of machinery and fertiliser are particularly interested in maintaining traditional farming methods. Suppliers of these products are often tied into governmental advisory bodies, making the problem even more systemic.

Question 2: Our current proposal is based on a rotational farming method in which we would use the fallow land for temporary housing, ideally lightweight with minimal footings. However, we understand from our research that minimising disturbance of the topsoil is crucial to soil health. We wanted to hear your opinion on whether lightweight structures would this be too damaging to the top layer of the soil to make our model viable?

John Cherry: The structure of the house itself wouldn’t be a huge problem, instead it would be the traffic — cars, roadways, etcetera could pose a problem by compacting the soil. Additionally, for soil to be healthy, there needs to be growth all the time.

Question 3: If certain crops remain fallow, and are therefore in a narrow sense of the word ‘unproductive’, would this provide incentive to make these pieces of land financially beneficial?

John Cherry: Yes, however because the planning system is so stifling it could be an issue. In truth, farmers dream of building houses on land as it increases value astronomically. However, planning permission is the major issue. Farmers would be very keen to impose this kind of model as they might see temporary housing as a way in for more permanent structures. Planning issues arise as governmental bodies worry about maintaining the green belt and therefore do not want to allow farmers in certain areas to develop. There is huge demand for housing, but difficult to find land to place houses on.

Question 4: From my understanding, the initial switch to regenerative farming (restoring the soil to its full potential) can result in lower yields for the transition period. If the British government subsidised this transition, could this be a helpful push for farms to change farming practices?

John Cherry: With our farm, output is down, but profits are better because less money is being spent on machinery and fertiliser. I think it [subsidies] would help- they do something similar in Switzerland in which transitions are subsidised — specialised no till drill equipment tends to be quite expensive. Personally, I am nervous about subsidies and grants because people will do things to get the money rather than for the benefit of the soil.

Question 5: With the new farming subsidies being implemented following Brexit, do you see sustainable farming practices becoming the norm?

John Cherry: Yes; more and more people come to our conference every year and are successfully implementing these tactics. Additionally, a shift is beginning to happen in government; an MP is contacting me tomorrow to understand how to promote this type of farming.

Question 6: We understand from the new Environmental Land Management Scheme that “farmers and other land managers may be paid for delivering the following public goods: clean air, clean and plentiful water, thriving plants and wildlife, protection from environmental hazards, reduction of and adaption to climate change”. This is a shift in the typical scheme which rewards productivity and produce. How do you see this effecting regenerative farming?

John Cherry: Theres land on most peoples farms which doesn’t produce a lot — because of the old subsidy scheme it was in farmers interest to ‘pretend’ to farm, but actually it would make more sense in many instances to simply re-wild them. A lot of people will be likely to take this offer up, because a lot of the land is no longer productive. Something to get the government to talk about is to maximise the productive fields and re-wilding the rest of it. The evidence shows that productive soil can outyield commercial farms, but it may take 20–30 years to get soil to restore to its full health.

Bibliography

Akiki, J. (2020) Our Integrated Farm Design, Medium. Available at: https://medium.com/farms-not-arms/our-integrated-farm-design-db9c3802a0a5 (Accessed: 24 December 2020).

Bauer, E. (no date) Regenerative Farm, Bau Land. Available at: https://bauland.us/regenerativefarm (Accessed: 24 December 2020).

Behar, M. (2020) Soil health means better human health, Successful Farming. Available at: https://www.agriculture.com/crops/soil-health/soil-health-means-better-human-health (Accessed: 24 December 2020).

Chen, J. (2020) Learn What Stakeholders Are and the Roles That They Play, Investopedia. Available at: https://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/stakeholder.asp (Accessed: 24 December 2020).

Cherry, J. (2020) A chance for British farming to break a vicious cycle. Available at: https://www.ft.com/content/945cdf57-fab4-4fe6-be39-6530bb5e4c36 (Accessed: 24 December 2020).

Evans, J. (2020) England’s farmers braced for post-Brexit subsidy gap, Financial Times. Available at: https://www.ft.com/content/81009ae6-b825-49e4-8b95-c68cdf2a69b6 (Accessed: 24 December 2020).

Farmers’ £3 billion support confirmed in time for 2020 (2019) GOV.UK. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/farmers-3-billion-support-confirmed-in-time-for-2020 (Accessed: 24 December 2020).

Holt, S. (2015) How Real Estate Developers and Urban Farmers Are Shaping the Future of Food, Bloomberg. Available at: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-10-06/how-real-estate-developers-and-urban-farmers-are-shaping-the-future-of-food (Accessed: 24 December 2020).

Johns, C. (2017) ‘Living Soils: The Role of Microorganisms in Soil Health’, Future Directions International, 20 June. Available at: https://www.futuredirections.org.au/publication/living-soils-role-microorganisms-soil-health/ (Accessed: 24 December 2020).

Lane, A. (2020) Food Security Fears As Britain Heads For No-Deal Brexit, Forbes. Available at: https://www.forbes.com/sites/alasdairlane/2020/07/31/food-security-fears-as-britain-heads-for-no-deal-brexit/ (Accessed: 24 December 2020).

Rose, A. (2016) The Glastonbury of Farming: John Cherry, Medium. Available at: https://medium.com/@abby_super/the-glastonbury-of-farming-john-cherry-bb0113a8aafc (Accessed: 24 December 2020).

Ryder, A. (2017) 7 things about farming in the UK that may surprise you — Cambridgeshire Live. Available at: https://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/business/7-things-farming-uk-surprise-13547743 (Accessed: 24 December 2020).

Starik, M. (1995) ‘Should Trees Have Managerial Standing? Toward Stakeholder Status for Non-Human Nature’, Journal of Business Ethics, 14(3), pp. 207–217.

Tully, K. (2020) A guide for farmers when facing Financial distress and insolvency, Real Business Rescue. Available at: https://www.realbusinessrescue.co.uk/articles/business-insolvency/a-guide-for-farmers-and-agriculture-workers-when-facing-financial-distress-and-possible-insolvency (Accessed: 24 December 2020).

Wasley, A. et al. (2017) ‘UK has nearly 800 livestock mega farms, investigation reveals’, The Guardian, 17 July. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/jul/17/uk-has-nearly-800-livestock-mega-farms-investigation-reveals (Accessed: 24 December 2020).