Radical Agriculture in the UK: Soil as Social Property (Part Five)

“The factory floor must yield to gardening and horticulture.” – Herber, 1964

A difficult part of our future agriculture concerns imports/exports versus self-sufficiency, especially in the context of island nations like the UK. While a future anti-capitalist society (and resulting agriculture) would be internationalist, it is important to appraise the environmental costs of transport, at least until a conversion to 100% renewables is well underway. As mentioned previously the climate shocks to global food production which could regularly cause the “UN’s food price index” to “rocket by 50%” (Howard, 2015) would hinder the UK’s ability to feed itself under capitalism, and “there is no guarantee that the abundance in international food markets will last” (Koning et al., 2008: 245). Additionally, shocks in oil prices would also affect agricultural production as World Bank research found that “a 10 per cent rise in crude oil prices translates into a 1.6 per cent increase in agricultural commodity prices” (HM Treasury, 2008: 21). Post-capitalism, it would still be prudent to be somewhat self-sufficient.

As Heinberg and Bomford explain however, “No one advocates doing away with food trade altogether” (2009: 15) but a trend towards relocalisation would be beneficial:

Relocalisation means producing more basic food necessities locally…what is needed is a prioritization of production so that communities can rely more on local sources for essential foods, and long-distance imports are used largely for luxury foods. Regionally-adapted staples, which tend to have a low value and a long shelf life, should be grown in all areas as a matter of food security. (15)

Debbie Barker (2007) envisages something similar under the idea of “subsidiarity”:

“whenever production can be achieved by local farmers, using local resources for local consumption, all rules and benefits should favor that option, thus shortening the distance between production and consumption.” (35)

Not only does this principle remove the long convoluted chains of marketing and transport associated with modern agriculture, but would also reduce the energy costs of transport, storage, and refrigeration of foodstuffs. However, an appropriate balance must be met between relying on trade and relying on local resources. As Bookchin said:

“No community can hope to achieve economic autarky, nor should it try to do so…Far from being a liability, this interdependence among communities and regions can well be regarded as an asset…Shared needs and resources imply the existence of sharing and, with sharing, communication, rejuvenation by new ideas, and a wider social horizon that yields a wider sensibility to new experiences.” (1995)

Sundkvist et al. (2005) go further and detail the risks of relying on either extreme:

“Too strong a dependence on local resources makes the system vulnerable to production failures due to climate fluctuations or disease outbreaks. A complete reliance on food imports, on the other hand, would be detrimental in a situation of global resource shortages and escalating prices of food products. Thus, a balance between the two extremes has to be sought.” (232-233)

Historically the UK was virtually self-sufficient in the early 1800s due to a lack of trade and relative isolation, but since then self-sufficiency has varied between 40-60% (Maynard, 2008) peaking at 75% in the 1970s (Angus et al, 2009). Theoretically, deriving all food from UK agricultural land seems feasible though there are issues regarding dietary choices and possible additional land requirements (Cowell & Parkinson, 2003; DEFRA, 2008) and it is possible that the UK could become self-sufficient in certain fertilisers (DEFRA, 2010). Even if self-sufficiency is possible it should only be sought for regarding “a greater degree of prudence in dealing with material resources…Localism should never be interpreted to mean parochialism” (Bookchin, 1995). However there are benefits when food is sourced as locally as possible – one peer-reviewed paper found that in the UK “If all food were sourced within 20 km of homes or other places of consumption” then environmental damages equivalent to over £2 billion would be avoided (Pretty et al., 2005: 15).

Other authors focus on localism being less a choice and more a necessity due to the peaking of fossil fuels – “Localism is the required modus operandi for the post oil-peak world, just as globalism was for the cheap-oil era” (Newman, 2007: 25). Newman continues to describe possible adaptations such as favouring local produce over imported foods to reestablish “regional identity”, the bulk transport of wheat and grains via rail, and the connection of cities to their respective “bioregions”.

Similarly, localism would necessitate dietary changes due to reductions in imports. It is important to keep in mind diets containing meat usually require more energy and inputs than vegetarian diets, as well as producing more greenhouse gases (Groot et al., 1998: 185; Pimentel & Pimentel, 2008: 133; Scarborough et al., 2014) – and as discussed earlier, most of this energy comes from environmentally-damaging fossil fuels and associated inputs. Additionally they require more land – Gerbens-Leenes et al. (2002) for example found that an “increase of the consumption of meat by only one mouthful (10 g) per capita per day will increase the agricultural area required by 103 m2 per household per year (54). Adopting organic agriculture would also alter diets:

“[In the UK] we would buy most of our food seasonally and locally. We would eat less, but better quality eggs and dairy products, more grass-fed beef and lamb, more fruit and vegetables, and far less energy-intensive, grain-fed and industrially-reared chickens and pigs, ending practices that raise significant animal welfare concerns.” (Jones & Crane, 2009: 10)

Incidentally, at least in the UK, encouraging vegetarianism where possible and reducing meat consumption could offset the extra land use required for organic agriculture as crops grown for livestock feed could be replaced with cereals and horticulture – although behavioural change and public awareness would be a vital part in ensuring this transition is as smooth as possible (Cowell & Parkinson, 2003).

Radical changes in energy systems would have to made in tandem with radical agricultural models, improving sustainability and phasing out fossil fuels. The use of renewable energy side-by-side with farming has already been proven compatible in studies of “agrivoltaics” where crops partially shaded by nearby solar panels did not suffer any loss of productivity (White, 2014), and in the use of solar-powered drip irrigation systems (SELF, 2008). As mentioned more efficient modes of transportation will have to be adopted, with trucks and planes being replaced by shipping and rail, the latter having the benefit of partial electrification (Heinberg and Bomford, 2009). Weaning our food system off fossil fuels may require anticipating a degree of “simplification” due to the reduction of energy available for processing, transport etc. (Bomford, 2011).

Juxtaposing, or perhaps enhancing this potential necessity of simplification, localisation, and decentralisation are the concepts of urban and vertical farming. Urban agriculture, generally defined as intra-/peri-urban industries which produce and distribute food and non-food products (Mougeout, 2000; USDA, 2000) already produce around 15% of the world’s food (Mougeot, 2006) and is not a new concept, it’s history stretching back to Mesopotamia and ancient Egypt (probablyasocialecologist, 2014). In 2009 urban humanity surpassed rural humanity in population size (UN Population Division, 2010), making the sourcing of food from local areas doubly important. Encouraging the sourcing and production of food inside of city spaces would be a step in reducing the country-city divide/alienation typified by modern civilisation as well as making productive use of otherwise useless space such as abandoned inner-city areas. As Dale Allen Pfeiffer estimates “rooftops comprise 30 percent of a city’s total land area” on average, which “could provide a substantial portion of urban dwellers’ food” (Pfeiffer, 2006: 71-2). Urban agriculture would enhance a community’s food security and urban sustainability as:

“A key ecological principle is that nutrient and energy flows are cyclical, rather than linear, and thus the practice of consuming resources close to where they are produced sustains ecosystem integrity.” (MacRae, 1999)

Successful examples of urban agriculture systems can be found in Cuba (Companioni & Hernández, 2002), the Ohio City Farm, and Rosario in Argentina (Guénette, 2006).

A part of sustainable urban agriculture is the idea of “vertical” farms, where food is grown in multi-storey buildings to reduce the land footprint needed for agriculture in dense spaces like cities (e.g. Chow, 2015). Such vertical farms reduce pesticide use and spoilage, as well as maximising growth via controlled light levels, enhancing production without any corresponding environmental degradation (Gray, 2015). Indeed, it is common for “vertical greenhouse yields” to “outpace the expected yields of their footprint area” (Pati & Abelar, 2015). As Dickson Despommier, a key thinker in vertical farming explains,

“It has been estimated that it will require approximately 300 square feet of intensively farmed indoor space to produce enough food to support a single individual living in an extraterrestrial environment. Working within the framework of these calculations, one vertical farm with an architectural footprint of one square city block and rising up to 30 stories (approximately 3 million square feet) could provide enough nutrition (2,000 calories/day/person) to comfortably accommodate the needs of 10,000 people employing technologies currently available.” (2006)

If such numbers are true, vertical farming would greatly contribute to reducing pressures on existing agricultural land as well as reducing energy expenditures. Where appropriate vertical farms could be a key part of the urban section of our future radical agriculture.

Radical agriculture involves not only production but also distribution (Bernstein, 2010). Everybody deserves their irreducible minimum (Bookchin, 1982) – as the protagonist in Ursula Le Guin’s The Dispossessed explains “existence is its own justification, need is right” (1974: 261). To this end it would be appropriate both during and after the transition to a new agricultural model for the rationing of food to occur until supplies rendered it unnecessary.

The ration system in Cuba was seen by Wright (2009) as a good system, where she described it as “rather lacking in variety, but [it] did guarantee a basic food security for all” (62) [although such a system relies on the benevolence of the state, which cannot be relied on (e.g. see Lambie-Mumford et al, 2014; Butler, 2015)]. Anarchist theorists have explicitly touched upon the problem of rationing – Alexander Berkman in his description of Communist Anarchism said “during the process of reconstruction, we must take care to supply the people as best we can, and equally, which means rationing” (1929). Expanding further,

“’But suppose there is not enough of a certain product to go around. What will you do then?’ Then we’ll do what is done even in capitalistic society in time of war and scarcity: the people are rationed, with the difference that in the free community rationing will be managed on principles of equality.”

Peter Kropotkin also addressed the problem at length. Although his comments addressed the rationing of all societal goods, they naturally encompass the distribution of food:

“…in the future society, even if obliged to adopt rationing, we would remain communists: that is to say rationing would be carried out not according to merit, but according to need … Even during scarcity, this principle of rationing according to need is applied in the family. Would it be otherwise in the great family of the future.” (quoted in Cahm, 1989: 57)

To emphasise the point it is good to read again Bookchin’s quote that “To deny [the means of life] to people is more than ‘theft’ … it is outright homicide” (1989: 187).

Emerging technologies may yet play a role in our future agriculture – as Bookchin told us,

“Blaming technology for the ecological crisis serves, however unintentionally, to blind us to the ways technology could in fact play a creative role in a rational, ecological society. In such a society, the intelligent use of sophisticated technology would be direly needed to restore the vast ecological damage that has already been inflicted on the biosphere, much of which will not repair itself without creative human intervention.” (1994b)

What is required is to be critical about new and existing technologies, with communities and regions democratically assessing their suitability, sustainability, and EROEI (Murphy and Hall, 2010). To this end the use of biofuels (sometimes known as agrofuels) would be rejected except on small-scales, as the existing technologies and practices rely on monocultures to maximise production and the use of agricultural waste “removes nutrients which in sustainable farming practices would be returned to the land” (Fauset, 2008: 33), as well as competing with land for food production or forestry (the desire to use “waste” or “surplus” land betrays an anti-ecological productivist approach to land management – see Dauber et al., 2012). As Brian Tokar explains:

“On a hobbyist or farm scale, people are running cars and tractors on everything from waste oil from restaurants to homegrown oil from sunflowers. But industrial-scale biofuels present a very different picture…Running American cars on ethanol fermented from corn, and European vehicles on diesel fuel pressed from soybeans and other food crops, has contributed to the worldwide food shortages that brought starvation and food riots to at least 35 countries in 2007-8. The amount of corn needed to produce the ethanol for one large SUV tank contains enough calories to feed a hungry person for a year.” (Tokar, 2010: 62; emphasis added)

On top of this clearing forested land to produce biofuels releases significant amounts of carbon dioxide that was previously “locked in”, contributing to further anthropogenic climate change despite promised reductions in greenhouse gases (HM Treasury, 2007; Fargione et al., 2008). Large-scale biofuel development has no place in sustainable agriculture.

The encouragement of entomophagy – the eating of insects – is an “outlandish” approach that we would do well to consider due to its “high protein level, low carbon footprint and [low] production cost” (Hickey, 2015). Indeed, insect-derived protein could substitute for the reduction in red and white meat (due to conversion of land and adoption of more vegetarian diets) as “pound to pound, the production of insect protein takes much less land and energy than the more widely consumed forms of animal protein” (Premalatha et al., 2011: 4357), as well as producing far lower amounts of greenhouse gases compared to pigs or cattle during growth (Oonincx et al., 2010). Additionally many insect species “can be reared on organic side-streams” such as human waste, helping to create closed-loop farming systems and reduce environmental contamination associated with agricultural activities (van Huis et al., 2013: xiv).

Though there is a growing awareness for the need of entomophagy, there is still a “cultural” taboo in Western consumers, with only one out of five meat consumers saying they’d be ready to adopt insect consumption (although those who already plan to reduce meat intake are “4.5 times more likely to adopt insects”) (Verbeke, 2015: 147). A significant part of the taboo is due to “cultural exposure” which must be overcome for sustainable insect-eating attitudes to be widely adopted (Tan et al., 2015).

The harvesting and consumption of micro- and macro-algae may also aid a future sustainable form of food production and distribution. Widely consumed in societies such as Japan and China (Vidal, 2012) as well as in traditional UK recipes such as Welsh Laver Bread, algae is a nutrient-rich substance including vitamins and minerals, amino acids, and fatty acids (Priyadarshani and Rath, 2012) and can be used as a healthier substitute in processed foods, such as replacing salt (Winterman, 2012). Algae in the form of seaweed is an “under-used” resource in the UK, with potential for sustainable coastal management of algae farms to displace more carbon-intensive agriculture (Schlarb-Ridley and Parker, 2013: 37; Flannery, 2015; Schiller, 2015). Algae has in fact been a part of the human diet for centuries (Chacón-Lee and González-Mariño, 2010), but the fact that it doesn’t require freshwater or arable land, both of which may face increased stress in a climate chaotic future, is an obvious benefit. However much work is needed in scaling up production in a sustainable manner (Draaisma et al., 2013) and advancing the production capability of macro-algae as a source of protein and carbohydrates (Enzing et al., 2014).

However, after reviewing these alternatives and changes necessary to make radical agriculture possible, it is extremely important to add that these techniques and technics are not radical in themselves. Corresponding social change must develop parallel to the introduction of holistic and sustainable methods of food production, embracing “a new non-Promethean sensibility toward land and society as a whole” (Bookchin, 1994a). Bookchin expanded this further in The Ecology of Freedom:

“That a society is decentralized, that it uses solar or wind energy, that it is farmed organically, or that it reduces pollution – none of these measures by itself or even in limited combination with others makes an ecological society.” (1982: 3; emphasis added)

Such a problem can be seen creeping into modern organic agriculture. In one peer-reviewed study of different agricultural management practices:

“Some authors argue that as organic farmers enter large distribution system they may be forced to shift once again into monoculture and industrial agriculture. That is because of the pressure from agrifood corporations that buy and distribute their organic products, and from the market itself.” (Gomiero et al., 2011: 97)

So despite organic agriculture’s focus on long-term sustainability and ecological cycles there is a real risk that market pressures would force aside these goals in order to meet consumer demands and profit margins. It is potentially Altieri, the agroecology professor quoted earlier, who put it best and is worth quoting at length:

“The development of sustainable agriculture requires significant structural changes in addition to technological innovation and farmer-to-farmer solidarity. This is impossible without social movements that create the political will among decision-makers to dismantle and transform the institutions and regulations that presently hold back sustainable agricultural development…ecological change in agriculture cannot be promoted without comparable changes in the social, political, cultural and economic arenas that conform [sic] and determine agriculture.” (2010: 128-9; emphasis added)

A truly sustainable agriculture for the UK (and elsewhere) would reject the organic/GMO and natural/artificial duality, characterised by Vandana Shiva and La Via Campesina on the one hand and biotechnology multinationals on the other, and instead focus on the concept of bricolage and cyborg ecology (Out of the Woods, 2015). It is “capitalist social relations which pit agricultural technology against agricultural workers”, and there is no reason why a future agricultural model cannot appropriately combine “modern” and “archaic” technologies. Similar to what Bookchin (1994b) said earlier, Albert Camus told us, “the machine is bad only in the way that it is now employed” (Camus, 1991).

Expanding this line of thinking allows us to identify and counter not only issues where stand-alone techniques of sustainable agriculture can be subsumed by capitalist rationality, but also see the dangers where, especially in the UK countryside, ideals of localism, small-scale agriculture, and self-sufficiency can be twisted into right-wing populist attitudes, or at the least into green conservatism. Bookchin warned of the dangers of parochialism and of the mistake of thinking that localism and decentralism are virtues in themselves, where communities could via regressive localism easily “bury themselves in it to the exclusion of cultural stimuli from outside their community’s boundaries” (1995). Intra-community differences of “labour, power, gender and race” do not disappear “if tied to local places” (Winter, 2003: 30). In fact

“The ‘‘valorization of the ‘local’… may be less about the radical affirmation of an ethic of community or care, and more to do with the production of less positive parochialism and nationalism, a conservative celebration of the local as the supposed repository of specific meanings and values.’’ (Holloway & Kneafsey, 2000: 294)

Such a phenomenon has been characterised as a “politics of conversion” (Childs, 2003) where local agriculture is “being promoted as a practice of consumer conversion” rather than as “a project of contestation and systemic political challenge” (Busa & Garder, 2015: 324). As this happens the mantle of localism is being adopted by far-right movements, detailed by Mi Park (2013) who explored the troubling connections between localism and far-right movements. They found a dangerous trend of far-right groups e.g. the BNP in the UK adopting ideas of “environmentalism and popular democracy” in order to take advantage of popular anti-globalisation rhetoric (337), as well as using ideas of localism in “anti-immigration discourse”. In doing so they highlight the critical point made by Pendras (2002) that “no strategy is in itself ‘progressive’ or ‘socially just’” (830).

Part Six coming soon

Part One | Part Two | Part Three | Part Four


  • Altieri, M.A., (2010). Scaling up agroecological approaches to food sovereignty in Latin America. In Wittman, H., Desmarais, A. A., Wiebe, N., eds. 2010. Food sovereignty. Reconnecting food, nature and community, 120-133. Food First Books, Oakland.
  • Angus, A., Burgess, P. J., Morris, J., Lingard, J. (2009). Agriculture and land use: Demand for and supply of agricultural commodities, characteristics of the farming and food industries, and implications for land use in the UK. Land Use Policy 26 (1), S230-S242.
  • Barker, D. (2007). The Rise and Predictable Fall of Globalized Industrial Agriculture. International Forum on Globalization, San Francisco.
  • Berkman, A. (1929). What Is Communist Anarchism? http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/anarchist_archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html Accessed 31 October 2015.
  • Bernstein, H. (2010). Class dynamics of agrarian change. Fernwood, Halifax NS.
  • Bomford, M. (2011). Getting Fossil Fuels Off the Plate. http://www.postcarbon.org/publications/getting-fossil-fuels-off-the-plate/ Accessed 30 October 2015.
  • Bookchin, M, (1982). The Ecology of Freedom. Cheshire Books, California.
  • Bookchin, M. (1989). Remaking Society. Black Rose Books, Montreal.
  • Bookchin, M. (1994a). Radical Agriculture. http://www.ainfos.ca/A-Infos95-2/0152.html Accessed 31 October 2015.
  • Bookchin, M. (1994). The Ecological Crisis, Socialism and the Need to Remake Society. Society and Nature 2 (3), 1-10.
  • Bookchin, M. (1995). Libertarian Municipalism: The New Municipal Agenda. http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bookchin/libmuni.html Accessed 30 October 2015.
  • Busa, J. H., Garder, R. (2015). Champions of the Movement or Fair-weather Heroes? Individualization and the (A)politics of Local Food. Antipode 47 (2), 323-341.
  • Butler, P. (2015). Food bank use tops million mark over the past year. http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/apr/22/food-bank-users-uk-low-paid-workers-poverty Accessed 31October 2015.
  • Cahm, C. (1989). Kropotkin: And the Rise of Revolutionary Anarchism, 1872-1886. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
  • Camus, A. (1991). The Rebel, trans. Anthony Bower. Vintage, New York.
  • Chacón-Lee, T. L., González-Mariño, G. E. (2010). Microalgae for “Healthy” Foods—Possibilities and Challenges. Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety 9 (6), 655-675.
  • Childs, J. B., (2003). Transcommunality: From the politics of conversion to the ethics of respect. Temple University Press, Philadelphia.
  • Chow, L. (2015). 5 Ways Vertical Farms Are Changing the Way We Grow Food. https://ecowatch.com/2015/03/10/vertical-farms-grow-food/ Accessed 31 October 2015.
  • Companioni, N., Hernández, Y. O. (2002).The Growth of Urban Agriculture. In Funes, F., Garcia, L., Bourque, M., Perez, N., Rosset, P., eds. 2002. Sustainable Agriculture and Resistance, 220-236.. Food First Books, Oakland.
  • Cowell, S. J., Parkinson, S. (2003). Localisation of UK food production: an analysis using land area and energy as indicators. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 94 (2), 221-236.
  • Dauber, J., Brown, C., Fernando, A. L., Finnan, J., Krasuska, E., Ponitka, J., Styles, D., Thrän, D., Van Groenigen, K. J., Weih, M., Zah, R. (2012). Bioenergy from “surplus” land: environmental and socio-economic implications. BioRisk 7, 5-50.
  • DEFRA (2008). Ensuring the UK’s Food Security in a Changing World. DEFRA, UK.
  • DEFRA (2010). UK Food Security Assessment: Detailed Analysis. http://groupedebruges.eu/sites/default/files/publications/downloads/defra_foodsecurityassessment_2.pdf Accessed 30 October 2015.
  • Despommier, D. (2006). The Vertical Farm: Reducing the impact of agriculture on ecosystem functions and services. http://aerofarms.com/wordpress/wp-content/files_mf/1265411733TheVerticalFarmEssayII.pdf Accessed 31 October 2015.
  • Draaisma, R. B., Wijffels, R. H., Slegers, P. M., Brentner, L. B., Roy, A., Barbosa, M. J. (2013). Food commodities from microalgae. Current Opinion in Biotechnology 24, 169-177.
  • Enzing, C., Ploeg, M., Barbosa, M., Sijtsma, L. (2014). Microalgae-based products for the food and feed sector: an outlook for Europe. https://biobs.jrc.ec.europa.eu/sites/default/files/generated/files/documents/2014%20JRC%20IPTS%20Microalgae%20produscts%20for%20food%20feed.pdf Accessed 5 November 2015.
  • Fargione, J., Hill, J., Tilman, D., Polasky, S., Hawthorne, P. (2008). Land Clearing and the Biofuel Carbon Debt. Science 319, 1235-1238.
  • Fauset, C. (2008). Techno-fixes: a critical guide to climate change technologies. Corporate Watch, London.
  • Flannery, T. (2015). Seaweed could save the world’s oceans from becoming too acidic. http://qz.com/534553/seaweed-could-save-the-worlds-oceans-from-becoming-too-acidic/ Accessed 12 November 2015
  • Gerbens-Leenes, P. W., Nonhebel, S., Ivens, W. P. M. F. (2002). A method to determine land requirements relating to food consumption patterns. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 90, 47-58.
  • Gomiero, T., Pimentel, D., Paoletti, M. G. (2011). Environmental Impact of Different Agricultural Management Practices: Conventional vs. Organic Agriculture. Critical Reviews in Plant Sciences 30 (1), 95-124.
  • Gray, K. (2015). How We’ll Grow Food In The Future. http://www.popsci.com/farms-grow-up-thanks-to-technology Accessed 31 October 2015.
  • Groot, J. J. R., de Vries, F. W. T. P., Uithol, P. W. J. (1998). Food supply capacity study at global scale. Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems 50, 181-189.
  • Guénette, L. (2006). CASE STUDY: Rosario, Argentina — A city hooked on urban farming. http://www.idrc.ca/EN/Resources/Publications/Pages/ArticleDetails.aspx?PublicationID=529 Accessed 31 October 2015.
  • Heinberg, R., Bomford, M. (2009). The Food and Farming Transition: Toward a Post Carbon Food System. http://www.postcarbon.org/publications/food-and-farming-transition/ Accessed 29 October 2015.
  • Herber, L. [Bookchin, M.] (1964). Ecology and Revolutionary Thought. http://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/lewis-herber-murray-bookchin-ecology-and-revolutionary-thought Accessed 9 November 2015.
  • Hickey, S. (2015). Are Britain’s foodies ready to eat insects? http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/feb/01/eating-insects-britain-foodies-wahaca Accessed 5 November 2015.
  • HM Treasury (2007). The King Review of Low-Carbon Cars. Part I: the potential for CO2 reduction. http://www.unep.org/transport/gfei/autotool/approaches/information/2008_King_I.pdf Accessed 4 November 2015.
  • HM Treasury (2008). Global commodities: a long term vision for stable, secure and sustainable global markets. http://www.cftc.gov/idc/groups/public/@swaps/documents/file/plstudy_48_hmt.pdf Accessed 30 October 2015.
  • Holloway, L., Kneafsey, M. (2000). Reading the Space of the Framers Market: A Case Study from the United Kingdom. Sociologia Ruralis 40 (3), 285-299.
  • Howard, E. (2015). Food production shocks ‘will happen more often because of extreme weather’. http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/aug/14/food-production-shocks-will-happen-more-often-extreme-weather Accessed 30 October 2015.
  • Jones, P., Crane, R. (2009). England and Wales under organic agriculture: how much food could be produced? http://www.soilassociation.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=5vDDWGCb84U%3D&tabid=313 Accessed 29 October 2015.
  • Koning, N. B. J., Van Ittersum, M. K., Becx, G. A., Van Boekel, M. A. J. S., Brandenburg, W. A., Van Den Broek, J. A., Goudriaan, J., Van Hofwegen, G., Jongeneel, R. A., Schiere, J. B., Smies, M. (2008). Long-term global availability of food: continued abundance or new scarcity? NJAS – Wageningen Journal of Life Sciences 55 (3), 229-292.
  • Lambie-Mumford, H., Crossley, D., Jensen, E., Verbeke, M., Dowler, E. (2014). Household Food Security in the UK: A Review of Food Aid. https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/283071/household-food-security-uk-140219.pdf Accessed 31 October 2015.
  • Le Guin, U. K. (1974). The Dispossessed: An Ambiguous Utopia. Harper & Row, New York.
  • MacRae, R. (1999). Policy Failure in the Canadian Food System. In Koc, M., MacRae, R., Mougeot, L. J. A., Welsh, J., eds. 1999. For Hunger-proof Cities: Sustainable Urban Food Systems, 182-194. International Development Research Centre, Canada.
  • Maynard, R. (2008). An inconvenient truth about food – Neither secure nor resilient. https://www.soilassociation.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=EttWlupviYA%3D&tabid=215 Accessed 29 October 2015.
  • Mougeot, L.J.A. (2000). Urban agriculture: definition, presence, potentials and risks. In Bakker, N., Dubbeling, M., Gündel, S., Sabel-Koschella, U., de Zeeuw, H., eds. 2000. Growing cities, growing food, urban agriculture on the policy agenda, 1-42. DSE, Feldafing.
  • Mougeot, L. J. A. (2006). Growing better Cities: Urban Agriculture for Sustainable Development. International Development Research Centre, Ottawa.
  • Murphy, D. J., Hall, C. A. S. (2010). Year in review—EROI or energy return on (energy) invested. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 1185, 102-118.
  • Newman, P. (2007). Beyond Peak Oil: Will Our Cities Collapse? Journal of Urban Technology 14 (2), 15-30.
  • Oonincx, D. G. A. B., van Itterbeeck, J., Heetkamp, M. J. W., van den Brand, H., van Loon, J. J. A., van Huis, A. (2010). An Exploration on Greenhouse Gas and Ammonia Production by Insect Species Suitable for Animal or Human Consumption. PLoS One 5 (12), e14445.
  • Out of the Woods (2015). Contemporary agriculture: climate, capital, and cyborg ecology. https://libcom.org/blog/contemporary-agriculture-climate-capital-cyborg-ecology-17072015 Accessed 1 November 2015.
  • Park, M. (2013). The trouble with eco-politics of localism: too close to the far right? Debates on ecology and globalization. Interface 5 (2), 318-343.
  • Pati, R., Abelar, M. (2015). The Application and Optimization of Metal Reflectors to Vertical Greenhouses to Increase Plant Growth and Health. Journal of Agricultural Engineering and Biotechnology 3 (2), 63-71.
  • Pendras, M. (2002). From local consciousness to global change: asserting power at the local scale. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 26 (4), 823-833
  • Pfeiffer, D. A. (2006). Eating Fossil Fuels: Oil, Food and the Coming Crisis in Agriculture. New Society Publishers, Gabriola Island.
  • Pimentel, D. & Pimentel, M. H. (2008). Food, Energy, And Society, 3rd edition. CRC Press, Florida.
  • Premalatha, M., Abbasi, T., Abbasi, T., Abbasi, S. A. (2011). Energy-efficient food production to reduce global warming and ecodegradation: The use of edible insects. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 15 (9), 4357-4360.
  • Pretty, J. N., Ball, A. S., Lang, T., Morison, J. I. L. (2005). Farm costs and food miles: An assessment of the full cost of the UK weekly food basket. Food Policy 30, 1-19.
  • Priyadarshani, I., Rath, B. (2012). Commercial and industrial applications of micro algae – A review. Journal of Algal Biomass Utilization 3 (4), 89-100.
  • probablyasocialecologist (2014). Urban Agriculture: a brief primer. https://fightingthebiocrisis.wordpress.com/2014/07/13/urban-agriculture-a-brief-primer/ Accessed 31 October 2015.
  • Scarborough, P., Appleby, P. N., Mizdrak, A., Briggs, A. D. M., Travis, R. C., Bradbury, K. E., Key, T. J. (2014). Dietary greenhouse gas emissions of meat-eaters, fish-eaters, vegetarians and vegans in the UK. Climatic Change 125 (2), 179-192.
  • Schlarb-Ridley, B., Parker, B. (2013). A UK Roadmap for Algal Technologies. https://connect.innovateuk.org/documents/3312976/3726818/AB_SIG+Roadmap.pdf Accessed 5 November 2015.
  • Schiller, B. (2015). Vertical Seaweed Gardens Are The New Way To Feed Ourselves From The Overfished Oceans. http://www.fastcoexist.com/3052949/vertical-seaweed-gardens-are-the-new-way-to-feed-ourselves-from-the-overfished-oceans Accessed 12 November 2015.
  • SELF (2008). Solar-Powered Drip Irrigation. http://web.stanford.edu/group/solarbenin/solarirrigation.html Accessed 4 November 2015.
  • Sundkvist, A., Milestad, R., Jansson, A. (2005). On the importance of tightening feedback loops for sustainable development of food systems. Food Policy 30 (2), 224-239.
  • Tan, H. S. G., Fischer, A. R. H., Tinchan, P., Stieger, M., Steenbekkers, L. P. A., van Trijp, H. C. M. (2015). Insects as food: Exploring cultural exposure and individual experience as determinants of acceptance. Food Quality and Preference 42, 78-89.
  • Tokar, B. (2010). Movements for Climate Action. Perspectives on Anarchist Theory 12 (2), 56-74.
  • UN Population Division (2010). Urban and Rural Areas 2009. http://www.un.org/en/development/desa/population/publications/urbanization/urban-rural.shtml Accessed 29 October 2015.
  • USDA (2000). Urban Agriculture: An Abbreviated List of References & Resource Guide 2000. http://pubs.nal.usda.gov/sites/pubs.nal.usda.gov/files/urban_0.htm Accessed 29 October 2015.
  • van Huis, A., Van Itterbeeck, J., Klunder, H., Mertens, E., Halloran, A., Muir, G., Vantomme, P. (2013). Edible insects: Future prospects for food and feed security. FAO, Rome.
  • Verbeke, W. (2015). Profiling consumers who are ready to adopt insects as a meat substitute in a Western society. Food Quality and Preference 39, 147-155.
  • Vidal, J. (2012). The future of food. http://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2012/jan/22/future-of-food-john-vidal Accessed 5 November 2015.
  • White, C. (2014). Agrivoltaics: Farming food and fuel, side by side. http://conservationmagazine.org/2014/07/agrivoltaics/ Accessed 30 October 2015.
  • Winter, M. (2003). Embeddedness, the new food economy and defensive localism. Journal of Rural Studies 19 (1), 23-32.
  • Winterman, D. (2012). Future foods: What will we be eating in 20 years’ time? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-18813075 Accessed 5 November 2015.
  • Wright, J. (2009). Sustainable Agriculture and Food Security in an Era of Oil Scarcity. Earthscan, London.

Radical Agriculture in the UK: Soil as Social Property (Part Four)


Radical Agriculture 

“The future does not belong to individual property, to the peasant penned in a fragment of land that barely sustains him. It belongs to communist cultivation.” — Kropotkin, 1885

As ecologist Bob Scholes said in part one, soil “is social property because humankind depends heavily on it for food production”. We have seen how capitalism has disregarded the integrity and life of our soil. To escape this we need, as Bookchin expounded, a model of “radical agriculture” which

“seeks to transcend the prevailing instrumentalist approach that views food cultivation merely as a “human technique” opposed to “natural resources.” This radical approach is literally ecological, in the strict sense that the land is viewed as an oikos – a home. Land is neither a “resource” nor a “tool,” but the oikos of myriad kinds of bacteria, fungi, insects, earthworms, and small mammals. If hunting leaves this oikos essentially undisturbed, agriculture by contrast affects it profoundly and makes humanity an integral part of it.” (Bookchin, 1994)

This agricultural model is radical not only in opposing the dominant industrial capitalist approach to agriculture, but also in opposing the existence of the state and capitalism and their presence in our food systems, as well as identifying their inability to adapt or change sufficiently to rectify their damaging effects – as Dr Julia Wright reminds us, “To date, organic and localized systems have occurred often in the face of prevailing policy and institutional arrangements, rather than because of them” (Wright, 2009: 26). It is up to us, the “multitude” (Hardt & Negri, 2004), to ensure that our agricultural systems are managed “not for the profit of a few, but in the interest and for the security of all” (Proudhon, 1840). A rational, sustainable form of agriculture is “incompatible with the capitalist system” (Marx, 1894).

It is important to remember that capitalism uses the threat of hunger or starvation as a weapon to control the working class, weakening their power and demands. As autonomist Harry Cleaver described,

“Internationally, famine in one part of the world has come to serve as a stern lesson to workers everywhere on the extent of capital’s power: if, given today’s high agricultural productivity and the sophisticated means of transportation, a group of people can still be allowed to starve, then workers everywhere are threatened by the same possibility.” (1997: 31)

Proudhon seems especially relevant here when he said “every man who makes a profit has entered into a conspiracy with famine” (Proudhon, 1840). The threat of hunger can be seen in contemporary times, through the return of rickets (McVeigh, 2014) and the increased numbers of UK families requiring food aid (Lambie-Mumford et al, 2014). As the Out of the Woods collective noted, hunger is not “an incidental problem in capitalism but a condition of its possibility” (Out of the Woods, 2014).

It is also important that we confront the issues of food security and self-sufficiency, concepts that have much in common but are not identical. Although there are parallels, self-sufficiency refers to “the extent to which a country can meet its own food needs from home-grown production” (Maynard, 2008), whereas food security can be met via either domestic production or imports, and has a broader definition:

“Food security exists when all people, at all times, have physical and economic access to sufficient, safe and nutritious food to meet their dietary needs and food preferences for an active and healthy life.” (FAO, 1996).

As will be described further on, there is a trade-off between complete reliance on imports and an autarkical reliance on domestic production – our model radical agriculture must find a balance between the two poles (Sundkvist et al., 2005), aiming to provide food security for all people.

We can turn to some of the previously mentioned thinkers for inspiration for our radical agriculture. The FAO Rome Declaration on World Food Security (see above) echoes Murray Bookchin’s declaration of freedom, where “True freedom, in effect, is an equality of unequals that does not deny the right to life of those whose powers are failing or less developed than others” (1974). It is a directly egalitarian and anti-capitalist statement, underlying the anarchist notion that all members of a community should be supported regardless of contribution – a principle Bookchin studied known as the “irreducible minimum” (Bookchin, 1982: 56). As Italian anarchist Errico Malatesta said, “The lame, the weak and the aged should be supported by society, because it is the duty of humanity that no one should suffer” (1981: 10-11). To achieve this a revolution in agriculture would require expropriation of land, being careful not to produce “large-scale cultivation as certain authoritarian reformers image” but to “expropriate all land that was not cultivated by the hands of those who at present possess the land” (Kropotkin, 1885). But the small-scale farms (which we will learn more about later) would not be touched. As Kropotkin explains

“…when we see a peasant who is in possession of just the amount of land he can cultivate, we do not think it reasonable to turn him off his little farm. He exploits nobody, and nobody would have the right to interfere with his work. But if he possesses under the capitalist law more than he can cultivate himself, we consider that we must not give him the right of keeping that soil for himself, leaving it uncultivated when it might be cultivated by others, or of making others cultivate it for his benefit.” (1998: 104)

Not only that, but our future agriculture must be more humble and holistic, embracing not just different methods of cultivation and food production but “a new non-Promethean sensibility toward land and society as a whole” (Bookchin, 1994). This will alter both our view of the environment and of the social world à la social ecology, but should stray away from the misguided and potentially devastating attempts of primitivism to reestablish the human-nature relationship via the abolition of agriculture (Sheppard, 2003).

A future, fairer form of agriculture non-dependent on fossil fuels is not a new concept – Heinberg (2007) lists several permutations of the same concept, including “ecological agriculture, Biodynamics, Permaculture, Biointensive farming, and Natural Farming”, all linked through a reduction in mechanisation and an increased knowledge of soil biology, climate, and ecological interactions. But such a transition requires planning, forethought, and education – the sudden absence of fossil fuels before an appropriate alternative system was in place would be catastrophic (Heinberg and Bomford, 2009) as some primitivists would hope. As Wright (2009) detailed earlier, policy reform and existing institutions cannot be trusted to change our agricultural systems for the better. Some actions appropriate for a future “radical agriculture” will be detailed below.

Firstly, as Warner explains, the farms of our future will be forced to “operate on ecological principles”:

“Farms of the future will likely have to be energy conserving, feature both biological and genetic diversity, be largely self-regulating and self-renewing, be knowledge intensive rather than energy intensive, operate on biological synergies, employ adaptive management strategies, practice ecological restoration, and achieve optimum productivity through multi-product, synergistic production systems that feature nutrient density, rather than monocultures that feature maximum yields.” (Warner, 2006: xii-xiii)

A focus on holism versus industrial productivism is necessary, and there is a need for new metrics of efficiency – Pimentel & Pimentel (2008) find that the closer an agricultural system “resembles the original natural ecosystem” the less energy and inputs it requires (28), a key requirement in a potentially resource-constrained future. Similarly in the interests of those who work the land, farms that run on organic (1) principles typically demonstrate lesser environmental impacts (Hansen et al., 2001; Tuomisto et al., 2012), such as reducing inputs and building soil carbon and nitrogen stocks (Pimentel et al., 2005). Similarly, permaculture (“permanent agriculture”) revolves around mimicking ecological relationships in producing food, timber, fibres etc. whilst emphasising self-sufficiency and environmental sensibility (Cribb, 2010).

But what of our ability to feed ourselves? As we mentioned, modern agriculture has become dependent on non-renewable sources of energy and nutrients. In this regard, according to one peer-reviewed paper, organic agriculture systems usually have lower yields than non-organic, but are capable of almost matching yields via “good management practices” (Seufert et al., 2012: 229). Another paper modelled global food supplies under different agricultural methods and found that “organic methods could produce enough food on a global per capita basis to sustain the current human population…without increasing the agricultural land base” (Badgley et al., 2007: 86). They also found that due to the over-saturation of soils with fertilisers and biocides, conversions to organic agriculture typically produce the oft-reported decline in yields which is then reversed “as soil quality is restored” over time (92).

However other analyses report greater yield disparities – in England and Wales for example, wheat and barley yields would drop by about 30%, and “there is wide consensus that organic production results in yields perhaps 40% lower” (Jones & Crane, 2009: 13). Another meta-analysis reported “organic yields of individual crops are on average 80% of conventional yields” but there was substantial variation between different crops (de Ponti et al., 2012: 1).

These yield gaps can be rectified through the more efficient recycling and waste minimisation that would characterise our future agriculture. For example, the 500 litres of waste a human body produces annually contains enough nutrients to grow the crops that would feed that person for a year (McEachran, 2015). Capturing these lost nutrients would help substitute for previously applications of inorganic inputs, and help mitigate potential threats such as peak phosphorus (Beardsley, 2011), and have a variety of processing and application methods as well as being renewable and reducing transport issues due to their local nature (Cordell et al., 2009). On top of this there is potential for massive waste minimisation – food waste caused by sales promotions and marketing standards for “cosmetically perfect foodstuffs” (IME, 2013: 25) would be eliminated, and the practice of throwing away “surplus food” by supermarkets would be prevented.

Anaerobic digestion (AD), “the process of decomposition of organic matter by a microbial consortium in an oxygen-free environment” can be utilised to treat food waste and produce crop fertiliser and biogas (Ward et al., 2008: 7928). Although there are government strategies to facilitate increased AD (DEFRA, 2011) there is much room for improved adoption of this technology. Additionally sensible use of AD would focus on food waste that could not be utilised in any other way (Linehan, 2014) rather than the use of farmland to produce “energy crops” (Amon et al., 2007).

An integral component of radical agriculture is the breaking-up of land ownership and the reversal of centralisation for political-ecological reasons. There is a large body of research that finds that despite the economic efficiencies of monocultures, smaller farms are more productive if “total output is considered rather than yield from a single crop” (Altieri, 2009: 105). Altieri, a professor of agroecology, also asserts that “redistributing farmland may become central to feeding the planet” especially with the recent rise of agricultural land being used to grow biofuels (106). His assertions are backed up by Peter Rosset (2006), who reports on data that shows “small farms almost always produce far more agricultural output per unit area than larger farms, and do so more efficiently…This holds true whether we are talking about industrial countries or any country in the Third World” (315). He also cites a report that found that “relatively smaller” farms produced up to two to ten times more than larger farms (315). Other studies report similar inverse relationships between farm size and productivity (Rosset, 1999; Naranjo, 2012).

Land redistribution would reduce the power of agricultural capitalists and absentee landowners and give people greater autonomy and freedom regarding agricultural management techniques and desired foodstuffs. Like the anarchist society in Ursula Le Guin’s The Dispossessed, there should be “no controlling centre…no establishment for the self-perpetuating machinery of bureaucracy” (1974: 77). However it is important to remember as Bookchin said that in reducing farm size we do not need to “surrender the gains acquired by large-scale agriculture and mechanization” but must treat agricultural land “as though it were a garden”, with careful attention and ecological sensibility (Herber, 1964). As Rigby & Cáceres (2001) explain, “it is undoubtedly mistaken to simply equate sustainable agriculture with low- yield farming” (32).

The decentralisation and size-reduction of farms will also be required in order to adapt to our potential unstable climate. With land degradation and yield reductions predicted in the future (see introduction) it is imperative that we have a resilient form of agriculture that can survive new unpredictable weather systems. As Heinberg describes, farms have previously relied on “relatively consistent seasonal patterns” but now face “climate chaos: droughts, floods, and stronger storms in general” (2007). In an agricultural context, the risk of major “shocks” to global food production “will be three times more likely within 25 years because of an increase in extreme weather brought about by global warming” (Howard, 2015). In the UK specifically:

“Average annual temperatures across the UK could rise by 2° to 3.5°C or more by the 2080s, depending on future levels of greenhouse gas emissions. The unprecedented heatwave that affected Europe in 2000, when crop yields fell by 25- 30% across France and Italy, gives an unpleasant foretaste of what is predicted to become a more frequent event.” (Maynard, 2008: 8)

Adaptations to future sea level rise and increased flood risk may also entail “the abandonment of prime agricultural land” via “managed land retreat” and developing new flood plain areas (Rounsevell & Reay, 2009: S163). About 57% of high quality agricultural land in the UK is less than 5m above sea level  and as such is at increasing risk from flooding, erosion and saltwater intrusion as sea levels rise (Harrison et al., 2008).

To this end the conversion to smaller farms is even more necessary as they tend to be more resilient to climate shocks, exhibiting more stability and smaller yield declines in extreme weather. Altieri (2009) cites evidence where after Hurricane Mitch hit Central America in 1998 smaller farms with intercropping and diversification “had 20 to 40 percent more topsoil, greater soil moisture, less erosion, and experienced lower economic losses than their conventional neighbors” (108; see also Holt-Gimenez, 2002). Similarly, one study comparing organic and conventional farming systems found the higher levels of soil carbon in the organic system “helped conserve soil and water resources and proved beneficial during drought years” (Pimentel et al., 2005: 580). Another study identified the issue that most comparisons between conventional and organic agriculture

“have been made under optimal conditions, and extrapolations of future crop yields must take into account the high likelihood that climate disruptions will increase the incidence of droughts and flooding in which case, based on evidence presented earlier, OA [organic agriculture] systems are likely to out-yield CA [conventional agriculture] systems.” (Lotter, 2003: 10-11)

It is even clearer then that to survive the coming climate chaos a new form of agriculture will be required.

Part One | Part Two | Part Three

Part Five coming soon

(1) “Organic agriculture refers to a farming system that enhance soil fertility through maximizing the efficient use of local resources, while foregoing the use of agrochemicals, the use of Genetic Modified Organisms (GMO), as well as that of many synthetic compounds used as food additives. Organic agriculture relies on a number of farming practices based on ecological cycles, and aims at minimizing the environmental impact of the food industry, preserving the long term sustainability of soil and reducing to a minimum the use of non renewable resources.” (Gomiero et al., 2011: 96) However, it is important to note that “it is a common misconception that organic crops are necessarily pesticide free. Some traditional but highly toxic, persistent, and broad spectrum synthetic pesticides – such as copper sulphate – are often allowed, as is the ‘natural’ Bacillus thuringiensis bacterium (from which transgenic Bt maize’s toxins are derived)” (Out of the Woods, 2015).