Search
Feeds
Recent Posts
- test
- The Standing of Sustainable Development in Government
- Leaders will be shocked into climate action
- US position on Copenhagen may be treaty-wrecking
- George Monbiot, The Guardian & population
- £10 million will fund best low-carbon community initiatives
- Cadbury fights for "principled capitalism"
- Sarkozy launches crusade against obsession with growth
- NHS 'Fit for the Future' Report
- My debt to Teddy Goldsmith
- Looking back on nine years at the SDC
- Sandbrook Lecture
- Ashden Awards
- Nuclear comes clean
Categories
- Aviation
- China
- Climate change
- Consumption
- Crime
- Economics
- Energy
- Government
- Health
- Housing
- News
- Politics
- Population
- SD History
- Society
- Sustainable Food
- Transport
- USA
- Waste
Archives
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
Articles
Other Blogs
News Links
Organisations
« The Third Runway | Main | Don’t always trust The Guardian! »
Agricultural Employment
Nearly two million unemployed. Another 240,000 redundancies already announced over the last couple of months. Heading inexorably towards three million – perhaps even by the middle of the year.
That changes everything. For those at risk, anxiety turns to fear. For those already affected, shock turns to anger. For policy makers, the rules of the game change dramatically. "What contribution will this policy make to protecting existing jobs or creating new jobs?" – that’s the question that now dominates. And that of course is why the Prime Minister organised his Jobs Summit earlier in the month.
Many commentators have already pointed out that there are not many sectors in the UK economy capable of generating many new jobs – and you can guarantee that the one place the Government will not be looking at is Agriculture. Having spent the last few decades fixing the system to reduce the people involved in farming and food production (there’s been an 80% drop in farm workers over the last fifty years, and a 40% decline in the number of farms), I don’t suppose there’s a single person in either Defra or Treasury with any real concern for employment in this critical sector.
So I suspect the Soil Association’s admirable contribution to the Job Summit will have got very short shrift. That’s a shame, as it makes some telling points, based on extensive research carried out by the University of Essex:
• UK Organic farms provide, on average, nearly 2.5 times as many full time equivalent jobs as non-organic farms in the UK.
• Jobs per 100 hectares were 14% higher on organic farms (at 2.49 jobs compared to 2.19 jobs on non-organic farms). Small organic farms with an average size of 36 hectares supported the greatest number of jobs (5.23 jobs per farm).
• Organic farms are 3 times more likely to be involved in direct or local marketing (39%), compared to non-organic farms (13%).
• Organic farming is attracting younger people into farming compared to the farm industry as a whole. On average, organic farmers in the UK are 7 years younger than non-organic farmers (whose average age is 56).
• If all farming in the UK became organic, over 93,000 new jobs directly employed on farms would be created.
Somewhat forlornly, the Report concludes: "Government policy for UK food and farming should explicitly encourage farming systems that provide greater employment in agriculture and in farm-based or local food processing and retailing."
Fat chance. I suspect that the total pool of talent inside government, looking at this or any other sector of the economy, that is capable of advising on "job generation", must be very shallow indeed. It's a very long time since the spectre of very large numbers of people unemployed over very long periods of time was causing Ministers sleepless nights.
Indeed, for the best part of 20 years, it's been ideological heresy to argue that it's legitimate to use taxpayers’ money either to protect existing jobs or create new jobs – except in exceptional circumstances. The ruthless pursuit of increased productivity (in terms of per capita Gross Value Added) at almost any social cost ensured that all the brownie points went to those who helped shed jobs rather than create them.
Now that the Government has been forced into some kind of rolling, cumulative stimulus package, there is at last a new reality dawning.
Posted by Jonathon Porritt on January 27, 2009 10:39 AM | Permalink
Comments (4)
Jobs per 100 hectares were 14% higher on organic farms (at 2.49 jobs compared to 2.19 jobs on non-organic farms). Small organic farms with an average size of 36 hectares supported the greatest number of jobs (5.23 jobs per farm).
That *sounds* nice, but it actually means that they are less efficient. That means that people who buy their produce have to pay more. Not a problem for rich lefties, but for the rest of us it's a bit of an issue. It also condemns people to a life of exceptionally hard work for no real point.
Rather have them build a road network. It seems like an appropriate way for this government to end.
Posted by Obnoxio The Clown | January 29, 2009 10:20 PM
If it only creates 93,000 new jobs, that's not enough to make up for the recent job losses. I believe we should be more ambitious in our battle against unemployment: for every productive worker, there should be at least ten others also being paid. They could make documentaries about the worker, for example, or stand nearby with a handkerchief to mop the worker's brow when necessary.
Brilliant though this suggestion is, it is not entirely original. I believe the ship-building industry tried the same thing, under the wise guidance of their unions, who naturally only had the long term interests of their industry at heart. And of course, it is already the case that landowners are paid by the EU to grow nothing on a proportion of their fields, so this is in a way just an extension of that idea.
Posted by Arthur Clugh | January 30, 2009 8:13 AM
Jobs are a cost of making something... if organic farming "creates" more employment it is because it is less efficient and focusing on it at the expense of traditional farming would make us all poorer.
Posted by ari | January 30, 2009 12:52 PM
Obnoxio and ari - your not understanding our predicament/climate economics. Organic farms are more 'efficient' it's just that at the moment the end user of non-organic farm produce isn't paying the full cost - that cost will be paid by the economies of the next/future generations as climate change takes hold.
Our present farming/food system only works because we are not charged the 'real cost' of using fossil fuels involved in fertilizers/ farm machinery / processing / distribution/ retail etc. During the next decade as oil supplies to countries without their own production (e.g. UK) starts to dry up, which will in turn push oil/gas/coal/ well all energy prices up, then organic farming will be the only viable choice in the UK.
If I was you I'd get an allotment now and get digging!
Posted by Spikey | March 22, 2009 12:02 AM
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.jonathonporritt.com/jpblog/mt-tb.cgi/86
