AGRICULTURAL ETHICS: A DECISION MAKING TOOL FOR FARMERS? (PART 1)
Written by Ralph Early ''No one will protect what they don't care about; and no one will care about what they have never experienced.'' David Attenborough. Not so long ago, wildlife in Britain was so much more abundant than it is today. Back in the 1960s, in early summer, one could walk the fields of most counties from Land’s End to John O’Groats and quite literally trip over wildlife: rabbits, hares, pheasants, partridge, and many other species hiding in knee-high grass. A stroll through meadows carpeted with stunningly beautiful wild flowers would fill the air with butterflies, as once disturbed they departed the sweet nectar in one location to alight on blossoms in another. At night the same meadows would be filled with moths, swarming uncontrollably to the light of a torch. For anyone who remembers such experiences, this was Britain’s countryside at its most glorious. Sadly, in 2020, that world no longer exists, which is an undeniable calamity. The loss of so much of Britain’s wildlife over the last half century, and with it many irreplaceable ecosystems, undermines the capacity of Britain’s natural environment to support planetary ecosystem services. This is a moral issue of immense importance to the future of humanity and the innumerable species with which we share the planet. It is also, distressingly, an incontestable catastrophe for young people today, for they will never experience British wildlife of the quality and diversity routinely encountered less than a lifetime ago. They will never know nature’s wonders common to the Britain of their grandparents and greatgrandparents. A land where skies were filled with birds, hedgerows buzzed loudly with insects, and countless small mammals, reptiles and amphibians scurried in search of food. That world has passed into history and tragically may never return.
The past is the key to the future If we are wise we will learn from the diminution of Britain’s natural heritage: a disaster that was so clearly avoidable, but which we chose not to see even as it was unfolding. Indeed, we have a moral duty to learn from it not just for ourselves, but for future generations whose rights we may deny through our 8 DIRECT DRILLER MAGAZINE
own thoughtlessness and selfishness. We must learn from the past and in doing so must find ways to chart an ethically sound and ecologically sustainable course for the future. In this we should recognise that the word ‘sustainability’ is itself morally instructive. Sustainability as a term is now part of common usage in the agrarian lexicon. This is a positive sign. It confirms recognition that we are prepared to admit that aspects of farming practice, as we have employed them for decades, are in fact environmentally harmful. They are demonstrably unsustainable. Importantly, by being prepared to admit we got things wrong, we express understanding that we know we must change the way we farm. We also need to change the way we think about agricultural food production such that we find better ways to work with nature, not against it. In this respect we need to dispose of irrational perspectives, such as the perverse idea that by divine moral right mankind has dominion over nature. Such archaic notions are embodied in many of the farming and land use practices that created the problems we now face. If we are to manifest a truly sustainable future, a paradigm shift and definitely an ethical shift in our thinking about food and farming will be needed. Happily this is underway, as evidenced by many practical actions being employed by enlightened, progressive and morally aware farmers, such those using zero tillage methods to restore soil quality and fertility. It is also seen in the way ethical thinking is being used overtly and in less obvious ways to guide agricultural food production more broadly. Notably, we are witnessing the development of agricultural ethics as a specialised branch of moral philosophy, and a decision making tool, accessible to farmers, agrifood businesses, policy makers etc. This article is then the first part of a twopart article on agricultural ethics which, it is hoped, will be of particular value to everyday farmers as the professionals to whom we remain constantly indebted for keeping us fed. The aim of the article
is to explain something of the concept of agricultural ethics and how it can be of practical value. However, before we immerse ourselves in ethical theory in part two, in this part we should first reflect a little on the history that has brought us to this point.
Change and acceleration Change is inevitable. During the last century it has occurred at an almost unimaginable rate, particularly in the industrialised world. Since the end of World War II, significantly as a consequence of Norman Borlaug’s Green Revolution, British agriculture has been transformed almost beyond recognition. Britain’s rural landscape began to change markedly in the 1960s, with a pace that accelerated through the 70s and 80s. Post-war agrifood policies aimed at enhancing Britain’s food security were partly responsible, as was the EEC’s Common Agricultural Policy which aimed at maximising agricultural productivity. These factors catalysed a momentous shift in perspective with respect to the purpose of farming and, significantly, the end of the 1960s began to see the transference of elements of farm decision-making from farmers themselves to a new breed of off-farm, agricultural specialist, the farm consultant. These advisors employed by agribusiness corporations, banks and ADAS (Agricultural Development and Advisory Service), among others, introduced new perspectives to British farming which centred on ‘efficiency’, ‘productivity’ and ‘profitability’. These terms became watchwords for the industry. But nature is not efficient, productive or profitable in any way that agricultural economists, especially ones wedded to the neoliberal capitalist ideology of Friedrich Hayek and Milton Friedman that now shapes the British economy, would appreciate. A consequence of the development of agriculture as a movement centred almost exclusively on productivity, efficiency and profit, was that big came to be regarded as beautiful. Small-scale, mixed farms were regarded as a thing of the past. Large ISSUE 10 | JULY 2020
