Productivist Agriculture and Its Related Problems - Case Study Example

PRODUCTIVIST AGRICULTURE, ITS RELATED PROBLEMS, AND CHANGE OF AGRICULTURE IN THE UNITED KINGDOM Introduction In the United Kingdom context, productivist agriculture is a commitment to an intensive, industrially driven and expansion-oriented agriculture with state support promoting output and increased productivity. The primary aim of productivism was modernisation of the national farm for increased production. A productivist regime is the network of institutions oriented to raising food production from domestic sources, which became the dominant aim of rural policy following World War II. The productivist regime included not only the Ministry of Agriculture and other state agencies, but also the input suppliers, financial institutions, research and development centres, etc. which facilitated the continued expansion of agricultural production. Other conceptualizations have stressed on the frequently environmentally destructive nature of productivist agriculture, based on the maximisation of food production through the application of ever-more intensive farming techniques and biochemical inputs (Wilson, 2007: 80). Thesis Statement: This paper proposes to identify the implications of productivist agriculture, determine the problems related to productivist agriculture, and investigate the ways in which, and the reasons why agriculture is changing in the United Kingdom. Discussion Productivist agriculture is conceptualized mainly as industrially driven agriculture for production of high quantities of food, which is strongly supported by the state through subsidies and a productivist policy regime. Productivism should be seen as the practice of using farmland to its full potential, creating a mechanistic landscape appearance that reflects the production process. Productivism is also referred to as an era that is a significant part of 20th century historical development in agricultural change, mostly as a reaction towards food shortages after the Second World War” (Egoz et al, 2001: 177). The productivist era lasted from 1945 to mid-1970s. During the years of the second world war from 1939 to 1945, many rural areas underwent a marked increase in their economic conditions. As part of the war effort, the government initiated a “ploughing up” campaign in order to reduce reliance on imported food. In compliance with the Barlow and Scott reports the initiatives facilitated a transformation in the government’s approach to the rural economy in the post-war years. Governmental policy promoted the preservation of rural land for agricultural production. The economy entered the productivist era, while there was increasing tension between east and west and the development of the Cold War, making issues of national security of prime importance in guiding the drivers of governmental policy throughout this period. To reduce Britain’s dependence on foreign imports, a large number of measures were introduced, to raise production in primary industries in rural areas (Gallent et al, 2008: 66). Maximising production and farm modernisation are key components of productivism; similarly productivist institutional structures such as agriculture ministries, farmers’ unions, etc assist in production maximisation. The core features of productivist agriculture also include working towards quantity over quality of agricultural production with the aim to achieve national self-sufficiency. This is supported by the state through production-oriented agricultural policies such as the European Union Common Agricultural Policy (EU CAP). With no concern for environmental conservation, the EU CAP and other policies have formed the basis for intensification and specialisation of agricultural production (Wilson, 2007: 95). Problems Associated with Productivist Agriculture The success of productivist agriculture in the post-war period, is adversely impacted by problems emerging from intensification of production, the implications of increased efficiency and decreased need for manpower, which have affected both rural environments and communities (DEFRA, 2002). The consequent environmental and social problems have been emphasized by a consumption shift in the countryside which focuses on the consumption value inherent in rural areas, apparent in lifestyle aspirations, migration pressures, and the consumption of landscape and environmental goods (Gallent et al, 2008: 106). The Policy Commission on the Future of Farming and Food (PCFFF, 2002) in its Curry Report evaluates the current progress of British agriculture, and specifies guidelines on environmental issues linked to agriculture. It emphasizes that agriculture is not only fragile in terms of economic viability, but it is also a detrimental process in terms of the environmental sustainability (Gallent et al, 2008: 107). Cultivation methods that are intensive, and the increasing use of fertilizers and pesticides have resulted in a reduction of soil quality. Moreover, agriculture is considered responsible for one-third of the serious pollution incidents occurring in surface waters such as rivers and lakes. In compliance with the post-war productivist ideology, the use of pest control and the elimination of weeds came to be seen as “good farming practice”, and the years between 1950 and 1980 are considered to be Britain’s chemical revolution in farming. Besides contaminating potable water sources, pesticides affect biodiversity including wildlife (Gallent et al, 2008: 107). The Curry Report, however, maintains that agriculture and the environment should remain linked by the leading role played by farming. Since more that three-quarters of the British countryside constitutes farmed landscapes, agriculture plays an important role in its creation and maintenance. This makes farmers the main managers of the countryside. As a result, the report emphasizes that farming should reconnect with the environment in more benign ways. Also, because of the recent intensification of production methods, there have been an increasing number of problems related to “food safety” (Gallent et al, 2008: 107). Increasing environmental problems are not the only externality of the productivist philosophy, characteristic of the “golden age” of the productivist era. Because of mechanization and intensification of agriculture, there is a decline in the agricultural workforce. An increase in farm sizes has led to significant changes in rural communities as farm employees have been replaced by incomers from urban areas. The small number of farm labour have to be highly skilled, versatile and able to handle a wide variety of work. The modern farm manager would more likely have trained at an agricultural college (Gallent et al, 2008: 107). However, farming households are finding it increasingly difficult to make a living from farming alone. In the United Kingdom 61% of farmers use an alternative source of income, to farming. Diversification into tourism and recreation are commonly undertaken by farmers (DEFRA, 2006). Three bipolar dimensions to change are recognized: intensification to extensification, concentration to dispersion, and specialization to diversification. Diverse pathways of farm business development are seen to emerge. As the productivist network’s local structured network fails, serious concerns on the future of British farming arise. The composition of the new rural networks may be related to decentralized and relatively self-sufficient living patterns (Champion et al, 2004: 296). The adverse secondary consequences from productivist agriculture as a result of intensification are: development of supply cooperatives, increasing agricultural indebtedness, growing dependence on fossil fuels due to increasing energy intensity, overproduction for the domestic market, and destruction of environment and agro-ecosystems. The secondary consequences of specialization as a productivist agricultural measure are: food is consumed outside the region where it was produced, greater risk of system failure, changing composition of the workforce, and structural rigidity in farm production. The adverse effects of concentration, which is another productivist agricultural measure, is development of marketing cooperatives, new social relations in rural communities, inability of young to enter farming, division of the farm size structure, corporate ownership of land, increasing inequalities in farm incomes among farm sizes, types and locations. Further, state agricultural policies favour large farms and certain regions. The above adverse effects of productivist agricultural structural dimensions, make it necessary to implement reforms for transforming agriculture in the United Kingdom (Pacione, 1999: 275). How and Why Agriculture is Changing in the United Kingdom The crisis of British agriculture extends beyond the farm economy and is not purely economic in scope. The decline of public trust in the quality of British food is a worrying trend, because of its share of public funding. Although policy efforts have been focused on mitigating the negative environmental effects of farming, it has resulted in agriculture failing in its function of managing the rural environment for the public good. A political inability to curb farm subsidies because of the power of farming’s policy community, sustains farming’s productivist rationale and is a source of public frustration. CAP subsidied alone are not responsible for farming’s environmental failings, since there are several other driving forces behind the negative externalities of agriculture. In order to fully understand the reasons behind the present economic, social and environmental crisis of agriculture, it is important to address the concept of “embeddedness” of agriculture (Gallent et al, 2008: 108). Champion et al (2004: 296) argue that productivist rural network today is under immense and probably fatal strain. This is because British agriculture is in structural crisis, and cannot be rectified by the technical corrections that rescued it from earlier more minor conjunctural crises. All the characteristics of productivist rural network have been eroded. According to Ilbery & Bowler (1998: 70) there is a post-productivist transition characterized by reduced food production and state support, and the globalisation of the food industry within a more free market global economy; however, with increased environmental regulation placed on the industry. Reforms to regional government in England have been formulated in the White Paper: Your Region, Your Choice: Revitalising the English Regions (CLG, 2002). These reforms will improve decision-making and deliver better quality services. In the area of rural policy also, there are demands for decentralisation to improve service delivery and reflect the diversity of rural areas. So far, Whitehall’s approach in England has been to concede only limited powers; and subsequent to DEFRA’s Rural Strategy, 2004, most policy resources and influence remain in the domain of central government departments and their agents. Under these constraints, the capacity of the emerging regional structures to deliver a more coordinated approach to rural policy making in the English regions needs to be studied with caution (Pearce et al, 2005: 210-211). Multifunctional rural development programs are required to create a new agricultural sector by which there is increased remuneration from agriculture, while at the same time fulfilling the needs of the public, and uses rural resources for enhanced progress in rural conditions. Research evidence indicates that awareness of agriculture’s benefits in several dimensions has developed. This is due to the change from “a sectoral to a regional and territorial perspective that reintegrates farming into rural development” (Marsden & Sonino (2008: 422). It is significant that, on the other hand, the United Kingdom government has not been able to successfully channelise multifunctional activities for actual progress in the rural sector. In reality, the government is developing plans that are based on limited resources for agriculture. Hence, there is an increased need for innovative state measures “that provide opportunities for new, creative and more spatially embedded forms of supply and demand management in agri-food” (Marsden & Sonino, 2008: 422). Rural restructuring as a commendable approach is examined from two perspectives by Hoggart & Paniagua (2001: 41). One emphasizes the need for a holistic and analytic view of change processes, and the other perspective stresses the nature of change in the countryside. Rural restructuring needs to be approached from a broader range of perspectives than currently dominant visions which are based on political economy. The authors argue that the vision of English countryside as rurally restructured is not clearly articulated and there is no convincing support for this vision. Restructuring processes more often reconsolidate past measures and do not herald dynamically new processes. Radical rural projects such as counter-cultural back to the land, have the opportunity of being adopted today in Britain, due to the uncertainty of post-productivism. But the current challenge is to rise above the earlier method of diversion of surplus scraps of rural space. It is necessary to “achieve the production of a truly different rurality than that suggested by the emerging globalized countryside” (Halfacree, 2006: 331). Conclusion This paper has highlighted Productivist Agriculture in the United Kingdom. The implications and problems related to productivist agriculture have been determined. The reasons for undertaking reform measures to change agriculture in the U.K., governmental policy efforts and implementation of changes have been investigated. The research evidence indicates that multifunctional rural development programs are required to contribute to the construction of a new agricultural sector that adds income to agriculture, meets the needs of the wider society, and uses rural resources in ways that lead to wider rural development benefits. It is crucial that future research should focus on investigating the existing and potential role of both governments and producer networks in facilitating sustainable rural development through agricultural multifunctionality (Marsden & Sonnino, 2008: 422). Bibliography Champion, A.G., Hugo, G. & Champion, T. (2004). New forms of urbanization: Beyond the urban-rural dichotomy. England: Ashgate Publishing Limited. CLG (Communities and Local Government). (2002). Your region, your choice: revitalizing the English regions. Cities and Regions. Retrieved on 26th February, 2009 from: http://www.communities.gov.uk/publications/citiesandregions/yourregionyour DEFRA (Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs). (2006). Summary of U.K. food and farming. London: DEFRA Publications. DEFRA (Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs). (2004). Rural strategy. Retrieved on 26th February, 2009 from: http://www.defra.gov.uk/rural/pdfs/strategy/rural_strategy_2004.pdf DEFRA (Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs). (2002). The strategy for sustainable farming and food: Facing the future. London: DEFRA Publications. Egoz, S., Bowring, J. & Perkins, H. (2001). Tastes in tension: form, function and meaning in New Zealand’s farmed landscapes. Landscape and Urban Planning, 57: 177-196. Gallent, N., Juntti, M. & Kidd, S.M. (2008). Introduction to rural planning. The United Kingdom: Routledge. Halfacree, K. (2006). From dropping out to leading on? British counter-cultural back-to- the-land in a changing rurality. Progress in Human Geography, 30 (3): 309-336. Hoggart, K. & Paniagua, A. (2001). What rural restructuring? Journal of Rural Studies, 17: 41-62. Ilbery, B. & Bowler, I. (1998). From agricultural productivism to post-productivism. In B. Ilbery (Ed.). The geography of rural change. London: Longman, pp.57-84. Marsden, T. & Sonnino, R. (2008). Rural development and the regional state: Denying multifunctional agriculture in the UK. Journal of Rural Studies, 24: 422-431. Pacione, M. (1999). Applied geography. London: Routledge. Pearce, G., Ayres, S. & Tricker, M. (2005). Decentralization and devolution to the English regions: Assessing the implications for rural policy and delivery. Journal of Rural Studies. 21: 197-212. Wilson, G.A. (2007). Multifunctional agriculture: A transition theory perspective. The United Kingdom: Commonwealth Agricultural Bureaux International (CABI) Publishers. Read More