Sustainable agriculture and the land question - some notes

For sustainable agirculture to be developed it is key that newcomers to farming have access to land. Land access is a major barrier for young people who want to work in sustainable agriculture not being able to establish their own farms. Collective access to land can overcome some of the difficulties related to land access.

A problem that existing sustainable farms are facing is that, if they have to be sold, it is likely that they will not be maintained under sustainable agricultural practices, and therefore much of the benefits built up during sustainable management are lost again (such as built up soil fertility). Therefore it is important that land keeps under sustainable production methods into the future, regardless of who farms it. Group ownership of land can help resolve this, with contracts that assure that the land is kept under sustainable management, regardless of who the farmer is at a particular moment.

Examples of community connected agriculture are some CSA farms. The land is owned by shareholders who cooperate with the farmer to define production and management practices and receive a share of the harvest. One view put forward is that of a large farm, with a number of employees, that is owned collectively by the nearby community, which it feeds and to which it provides environmental services and leisure ammenities.

Good will or ill

One thing that I've noticed, but can't in any way proof or assume to be a fact, is that in this lovely garden next to the sea (Portugal) things work exclusively out of good will or they simply don't. 'No one' feels bound to keep up their promises, or better, 'no one' feels like promising anything, 'cause 'they' follow the whims of the moment and hate nothing more than to commit to something or being held responsible.

When I've worked in the NGO here it was very obvious. "Let's see what happens" was sort of the major conclusion of all meetings set up to solve a specific problem. "Who does what?" was a tabu question. Volunteers might say "I'll try to do XYZ." But they would say it in a way like "I might have the generosity to contribute by doing XYZ", but giving no certainty that they would actually do it. Therefore it would be very impolite to ask next meeting "Have you done XYZ?". No, we would have to wait, talk about the problem and hope the person would by himself reveal whether he did XYZ or not. It was impossible to organize, because no one could be held responsible for doing anything, so tasks could not be shared effectively.

Quite common, very commonly, people help freely in the way they feel to be right, they might give generously all their harvest. But if you ask them for one single potato they feel cornered and that the impossible is being asked from them. In consequence they become defensive. "How do you dare to ask me for the poatato that is lying forgotten in a corner?" And they will pretend they are forgetful, they can't bend to pick it up and whatever, just to not do what you kindly asked them. They love being generous and doing things out of good will, and they do loads of things like that. But if you ask them to please do something, the good will evaporates as fast as frozen nitrogen in room temperature.

I remember that friends found it even impolite if, sitting in their car, I asked where they were driving to. One clearly always ignored the question, never replied. Maybe he felt this as an afront, that I did not trust him to drive to a good place or that I was trying to interfere in his decision to drive somewhere, when in fact he was being so generous to take me with him.

Am I making an elephant out of some minor and unrepresentative anecdotes?

How environmental policies usually work

Ususally it works like this:
1. A problem was created as a by product of some well-intended policies;
2. The problem is recognized and after a very long time some people decide to do somehting about it;
3. A comittee is established to address the problem with specific policy measures;
4. The policies that caused the problem stay in place.

Richterstimmung

Richterstimmung hat jemand der meint mit seinem Verstand, anhand aeusseren Manifestationen, objetiv Urteilen zu koennen - und das auch staendig tut.