Molly Biddell: Why we need to redefine the word ‘productive’
© Supplied by Molly Biddell “Our farmland is pretty poor – very unproductive” was a phrase frequently thrown around at our kitchen table when I was younger.
So poor, in fact, that my grandparents debated (more like dreamed of) selling up and buying something “more productive” in Lincolnshire.
And not without reason – much of our farm is classified as non-agricultural, with a few pockets of grade 5 and 4 dotted around.
See also: Opinion – farming should have an official retirement age
About the author
A productive farm conjures up images of brimming grain stores, wide udders and stocky sheep. Productive equals calories and nutrients, measured in tonnes and kilos, aka yield.
This makes total sense, considering the Cambridge Dictionary’s definition of the word is “resulting in or providing a large amount or supply of something”.
Productive is important. People are rewarded for being productive, productive businesses generate a return. Unproductive is the feeling of being stuck in a traffic jam on the M6 on a Friday night.
Productive has been around since the 1600s and even then meant “producing abundantly”.
In theory, therefore, a productive farm should have a healthy balance sheet and be able to reinvest in its operations.
But as we know, when farming costs and risks are high, and cashflow, let alone profits, are hard to come by, this is not always the case.
And this is why we need to rethink what productive means for our sector. We can use the word more broadly, more ambitiously.
What happens if we talk about being environmentally and socially productive?
If productive is about abundance, then it makes sense that increasing biodiversity, water cleanliness, carbon sequestration, flood reduction, clean air, access to nature, public health and wellbeing is being productive.
We all know that our farming businesses have the potential to – and already do – provide these environmental and social benefits (aka ecosystem services), but most of this goes unrecognised and unrewarded.
Farmers don’t get paid enough for calories, let alone these other critical services.
Our economic system short-changes our farming businesses, which struggle to deliver enough of a return to the point that a tax bill can send us straight to our knees.
That’s why we must continue to make the business case for ecosystem services – through Environmental Land Management (ELM) schemes, nature markets and supply chains that properly reward environmental value.
None of this is rocket science, especially not for farmers. The critical bit is how we can bring others with us, empower those who don’t work on land-based businesses to see the full range and abundance of services our sector can produce. The first step is in re-framing the word “productive”.
We all need to agree that our diverse rural landscapes and businesses are productive in many different ways – environmentally, socially and nutritiously.
Ideally all three, and more. This framing legitimises purpose-driven business and multifunctional land use, two things our sector could nail so brilliantly if properly supported.
So, where does this leave our kitchen table conversations?
Well, we feel confident in declaring our farm productive, not just for the tonnes of hops we grow and the kilos of beef that we sell, but importantly for the number of rare habitats we restore, the butterflies and breeding birds we record, our campsite visitor numbers, footpath usage, and schools hosted.
Grandpa was right, we’re never going to hit national arable yield records, but that doesn’t mean our landscape and business isn’t productive.