Issuu

[AA Landscape Urbanism 23/24]

Https://www.ukri.org/blog/ the-climate-for-change-in-ukagriculture/

[01]

Global footprint of UK UK Land & Conditions City growth and Precedents. Urban and Rural (Existing conditions) Green belt of UK’s cities.

Abstract

In the UK, approximately 70% of the land is destined for agriculture, with conventional monoculture dominating being the dominant form. Despite such a large proportion of agricultural land, the UK is heavily dependent on international food imports. This reliance on monoculture and international imports contributes to a considerable global footprint and also generates ecological disruptions, such as loss of biodiversity. Greenbelts, due to their strategic location adjacent to cities—the primary drivers of demand—, are uniquely positioned to address these challenges. This thesis aims to investigate how existing policies can be modified to generate an agroecological transition, placing greenbelts at the centre. This will, in the process, strengthen the bond between urban centres and the surrounding rural areas, as well as redefining “intensification” within the context of sustainable agriculture. This transition promises the advantage of shortened supply chains and creating closer connections between local businesses and the land. First, selected precedents that have shaped the proposal will be explained. Subsequently, we will examine the prevailing circumstances causing the disconnect between cities and greenbelts. An exploration into the current policies and their implications on agroecology will follow. Finally, we will explain our proposal for potential policy modifications, with a specific focus on the context of the Bristol Green Belt and its relevance to cereal crops.

Planet of Fields

(Ajl 2021)

[AA Landscape Urbanism 23/24]

Contents [01] �� 6 Precedents �� 6 Reactions to the Industrial City �� 7 Sebastién Marot - Taking the Country’s Side �� 9 Cuban peri-urban farming revolution �� 11 [02] �� 14 UK Context �� 14 Green Belts in the UK �� 15 Soil Grading and Land use �� 21 UK Food System �� 25 UK Land Ownership �� 31 [03] �� 36 The Agricultural Transition �� 36 Introduction �� 37 The 7 Year Plan �� 37 Visualizing ELM Schemes �� 39 Fig .1

The Site: Avon Green Belt �� 66 Soil �� 67 Types of green in the Green Belt �� 69 Mapping Bristol’s Corridors �� 71 [06] �� 76 Policy Proposal �� 76 Overview �� 77 Farm Succession �� 79 Council Farms and Community Ownership �� 81 Farm Clusters �� 83 [07] �� 92 The Case of Cereals �� 92 Perennial Grains �� 93 Regenerative Beer - Case Study �� 95 Proposal Implementation in the Bristol Greenbelt �� 99 [08] �� 110

[04] �� 44

Acknowledgements �� 110

Agroecology �� 44 Overview �� 45 Case Studies �� 49

[09] �� 112

Monoculture fields of UK Https://www.istockphoto.com/photos/uk-farm-aerial

References �� 112

Planet of Fields

[05] �� 66

[AA Landscape Urbanism 23/24] [AA Landscape Urbanism 23/24]

[AA Landscape Urbanism 23/24]

Fig 2 Urban Farming in La Havana Https://www.architectural-review.com/essays/cubas-urban-farming-revolution-how-to-create-self-sufficient-cities

[01] Precedents

Planet of Fields

Reactions to the Industrial City Sebastién Marot - Taking the Country’s Side Cuban peri-urban farming revolution

Fig 3

Fig 4

Garden city, Territorial map

Garden city, Artist impression by Sara Dunn

Ebenezer Howard

https://www.behance.net/gallery/15865643/ The-Garden-City-Utopia

Fig 5

Fig 6

Broadacre city plan

Broadacre City Perspective

Frank Lloyd Wright

Both The Garden City and Broadacre City came about as reactions to the industrial city, depicting ideal cities but combining aspects of urban and rural living in different ways.

when housing and access to open space were of prime importance and, although those are still relevant, policymakers today have a very different context to which they must respond.

With the Garden City in 1898, Ebenezer Howard proposed highly planned, self-contained communities that combined the best elements of town and country. His approach was highly influenced by the idea of decentralization and polycentricity, proposing a “radial distribution of small cities around a larger central city, with each city separated by a form of proto-Green Belt.” (Bishop et al. 2020). This distribution was aimed at striking a balance between residence, industry, and agriculture and the concentric design prioritized efficient transportation and preservation of the natural landscape (Kapoor 2022).

“While decent housing and access to open space are still important, other issues such as social inequality, the exclusion of sectors of society from the opportunities of their neighbours, poor employment prospects, poor quality housing, disparities in health and life expectancy, obesity, air quality, and sustainability are the new ‘wicked issues’ facing urban policymakers.” (Bishop et al. 2020)

Within this model the green belt prioritized local agriculture, serving the dual purpose of preventing urban sprawl and also providing a space for farming. However, the vision of a fully self-sustaining garden city was not realized. This was in large part due to the heavily planned topdown approach that it inherently had and that implied financial challenges, changes to housing policy, and vast urban migration (Miller 2005). Furthermore, the concept came about at a time

Frank Lloyd Wright’s concept for Broadacre City, meanwhile, was introduced in 1932. His approach was, in contrast, highly decentralized, emphasizing individualism and the importance of the automobile. In Broadacre City, every family owns an acre or more of land allowing them to cultivate their plots. This combination favoured a horizontal sprawl of roads and highways which, potentially, exacerbates environmental degradation (Fishman 2016).

Planet of Fields |

Reactions to the Industrial City

[AA Landscape Urbanism 23/24] [AA Landscape Urbanism 23/24]

Infiltration: “This is the approach, engaged in the many ‘urban agriculture’ initiatives, which invests the surplus or neglected surfaces of existing conurbations: wastelands, rooftops, parks, embankments, etc. Without questioning the logic and realities of the current urban condition, these initiatives take hold of food production, supply and consumption in order to initiate collectives and solidarity practices in the uprooted territories of metropolises.” (Catsaros 2020)

Negotiation: “Agricultural areas are thought of as integral components of cities, which in turn are designed from the territories that feed them. In this perspective of ‘agricultural urbanism’, the approaches of town planning and agriculture renegotiate their respective jurisprudence and renew them in order to reinvent each other.” (Catsaros 2020)

Incorporation: “This is the orientation of those who believe that the solution lies in pursuing urban concentration and the intensification of the technological path. Super greenhouses, vertical farms, GMOs, above-ground production, hydroponics. In this futuristic scenario, metropolises become the control towers of a countryside emptied of its inhabitants.” (Catsaros 2020)

In 2019, Sebastién Marot and his team opened an exhibition titled “taking the Country’s Side”. In it, they propose four possible urban scenarios for a future relationship between city and countryside, with each one fundamentally differing in its attitude towards growth. (Catsaros 2020)

Fig 7, 8, 9, 10

The remaining sections of this thesis will work towards similar visions, but specifically doing so in relation to greenbelt and agricultural policy.

Sebastien Marot, https://archis.org/ volume/taking-the-countrys-side-sebastien-marot-christophe-catsaros/

Secession: “This is the more radical and willingly agrarian approach of those who question the hegemony of the metropolis. Leaving the city in search of autonomy. To this nebula of initiatives can be attached a whole series of movements of emancipation and/or community rooting of a political nature, such as the ‘Zones to Defend’ or the groupings of voluntary communes.” (Catsaros 2020)

[AA Landscape Urbanism 23/24]

Taking the Country’s Side

Planet of Fields |

Sebastién Marot - Taking the Country’s Side

Fig 11 Peri-Urban Farms in La Havana https://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/22/dining/cuba-us-organic-farming.html

Cuban periurban farming revolution

The Cuban model thrived, in large part, because it combined community participation, organic farming practices within urban contexts, and governmental support for industries that these first two rely on, making it more resilient to rapid socioeconomic changes.

Fig 12 Peri-Urban Farms in La Havana https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/ oct/28/organic-or-starve-can-cubas-new-farming-model-provide-food-security

Prioritizing organic farming, an emphasis on edible crops, and leverage of peasant labour, The Cuban Government, together with grassroots citizen participation achieved a transformation from conventional farming to what is now posited as the “world’s largest working model of a semi-sustainable agriculture”, with over 35,000 hectares for urban farming (Clouse 2014). In the years following the crisis, the government subsidized and backed facilities that supported urban farming and organic methods, such as agricultural stores, compost production sites, and urban veterinary clinics.

The Cuban model came about from necessity and has demonstrated proven success, whereas the agricultural philosophies of the Garden City and Broadacre City have remained largely theoretical. While the Garden City envisioned self-contained cities it fails to integrate localized agriculture at the scale of Cuba, and the concept of Broadacre City relied heavily on the automobile, contrasting with Cuba’s reduced dependence on mechanized transportation.

Planet of Fields |

In 1989, Cuba became disconnected from the soviet bloc, facing food and oil shortages which unravelled its green revolution system of agriculture. The machinery, pesticide production, and transportation networks that were so important to Cuba’s agricultural sector, were effectively paralyzed.

[AA Landscape Urbanism 23/24]

Fig 13 Mega-farm in the UK Https://ecostorm.tv/portfolio/therise-of-the-megafarm/

[02] UK Context

Planet of Fields

Green Belts in the UK Soil Grading and Land use UK Food System UK Land Ownership

In the UK the Green Belt is a land use designation that surrounds urban centres. Its main purpose is to maintain open green spaces and prevent the city’s uncontrolled outward expansion, but has other tangent effects, such as promoting urban regeneration and helping to reduce demand for local service infrastructure. In practice, areas that have been designated as part of the “Green Belt” have strict restrictions as to the type of developments that are allowed within them. In general, new developments in these areas are not permitted unless exceptional criteria have been met. However, the area that the green belt covers is subject to revision and can change in response to local council objectives (Great Britain. Ministry Of Justice 2021), with demand for housing being one of the key drivers in recent times.

Fig 14 Cities & Green belts

Planet of Fields |

Green Belts in the UK

By Khusbhoo Prashant

[AA Landscape Urbanism 23/24]

Origins of the Green Belt

Green Belts as an urban containers

Greenbelt policy emerged as an important part of UK urban planning after the Second World War. Its popularity and acceptance amongst the public were centred around a worry of losing natural green spaces for recreation, as well as the growing importance of sustainability.

Government policy on Green Belts is contained in Planning Policy Guidance 2 (PPG2) which is the current responsibility of the department of Levelling up, Housing and Communities. (Great Britain. Ministry Of Justice 2021) The five purposes of Green Belts, set out in PPG2, are:

However, popular perception has evolved since the policy’s original conception. What was initially conceived as a ring of the countryside that was resistant to urbanization has, with time, come to be seen by some as an urban container, setting aside its ecological relationships and quality as an area of resource management for the city. This change in perception can be traced to the ideals of the “Garden City” by Ebenezer Howard, towards the beginning of the 20th century, where he emphasized the physical limit of the city, as well as the physical limit of agricultural space. (Bishop et al. 2020)

1. To check the unrestricted sprawl of large built up areas, 2. To prevent neighbouring towns from merging with one another, 3. To assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment, 4. To preserve the setting and special character of historic towns, and 5. To assist with urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land.

Despite its achievements, such as the conservation of small villages around the city and the containment of urban sprawl, some argue that Green Belts contribute to today’s housing crisis. Recent political visions suggest an uncertain future for greenbelts, with tendencies to see peri-urban land as potential development areas rather than areas for ecological safe-keeping.

1898

Garden City movement – Ebenezer Howard proposes Garden Cities surrounded by Green Belts.

1926

Formation of CPRE, one of whose earliest campaigns was against urban sprawl

1935

First Green Belt proposed in an official planning policy by the Greater London Regional Planning Committee “to provide

Green belt

Urban centres

Golf course

Agriculture

Environmental designation

a reserve supply of public open space and of recreational areas and to establish a Green Belt or girdle of open space.”

1938

Sheffield Green Belt designated by local government.

1947

Town and Country Planning Act, allowed local authorities to

40% increase in England’s

control changes in the use of

population

land from undeveloped to developed uses.

1951

1955

Green Belt policy for England was set out in Ministry of

Roadways and buildings

Housing and Local Government Circular 42/55 which invited local planning authorities to consider the establishment of Car ownership

Income

increases 14

increases 3 fold.

Green Belts in their area.

fold.

1959

Metropolitan Green Belt fully designated in local plans.

1986

Completion of M25 motorway, running largely through the

Increase in housing demand

Within 2 km of rail stations 1995

Parks and public access

PPG2 amended to add positive objectives for Green Belt land.

2001

Current version of PPG2 issued.

Fig 15

Fig 16

Metropolitan Road network map

London Greenbelt Profile

A.Paolo masucci.

By Khusbhoo Prashant

[AA Landscape Urbanism 23/24]

Planet of Fields |

Metropolitan Green Belt.

[AA Landscape Urbanism 23/24]

Green Belts as Urban Containers According to CPRE, the majority of the area within green belts have mainly been used for agriculture. In principle, this is a use that, not only preserves the green and “open” character of these areas, but it also facilitates the production of food in close proximity to urban centres (Campaign To Protect Rural England and Natural England (Agency 2010). However, as we will see in coming chapters, due to the nature of the UK’s food system this is not necessarily the case at present. Alongside agricultural land the greenbelts are also host to water bodies and to woodland, (both recent and historical) which play integral roles, not only in terms of biodiversity and carbon capture but also as areas for recreation and management of resources to the city (e.g.. water reservoirs). Lastly, the greenbelt is also made up of villages and similar small urban agglomerations, most of which have a historical character of preservation associated to them.

Bristol

Fig 17,18,19,20,21

Fig 22,23,24,25,26

London & It’s Greenbelts

Bristol & Its Green belts

By Jegan Muralidharan

Manchester

Birmingham

Fig 27,28,29,30

Fig 31,32,33,34

Manchester & Its green belts

Birmingham & Its Green belts

By Jegan Muralidharan

Urban areas Forests Agricultural areas Green belt boundary

Planet of Fields |

London

Water bodies

[AA Landscape Urbanism 23/24]

ALC Grade The Agricultural Land Classification (ALC) is a system employed within England and Wales, and used to grade the quality of farmland. It revolves around the long-term limitations imposed by either physical or chemical characteristics, considering factors such as climate, soil characteristics, and flood susceptibility. (LRA, n.d.) It is a system that becomes instrumental in deliberating planning decisions because the National Planning Policy Framework mandates authorities recognize the benefits of prime agricultural land during development proposal evaluations. The ALC categorizes land into five distinct grades with and that is graded 1 considered to be the most adaptable and able to support a wider variety of crops requiring the lowest input to produce a higher yield:

Soil Grading and Land use

Fig 35 ALC Soil grading By Khusboo Prashant

In terms of elevation, England is divided into highland, midland and lowland areas. Lowland being more suitable for agriculture and covering the majority of South eastern UK. The cropping pattern is also influenced by soil, where Agricultural land grading is an important figure.

[AA Landscape Urbanism 23/24]

Grade 1

Grade 5

Grade 2

Urban

Grade 3

Exclusion

Grade 4

Non - Agricultural

[AA Landscape Urbanism 23/24]

Planet of Fields | UK Food System

Grade 1: Premium land of impeccable quality, virtually free from limitations. Grade 2: High-quality land with minor impediments, potentially influencing crop yield and cultivation processes. Sub-grade 3a: Respectable quality land, presenting moderate constraints that can guide crop choices and their respective yields. Sub-grade 3b: Moderately quality-stricken land, grappling with pronounced limitations that dictate both crop choices and yields. Grade 4: Sub-par land plagued by profound limitations, severely capping the range and yield of crops. Grade 5: Inferior land, besieged with extreme constraints, relegating its use primarily to perennial pastures or rudimentary grazing, bar occasional pioneer forage crops.

Land-use Urban areas, which include buildings, roads, and other infrastructure, cover about 6-7% of the UK and these areas are home to a significant majority of the population. With regards to forests and woodlands, they cover about 13% of the land area in the UK, as the island’s large forested areas were cleared over centuries. This percentage accounts for both commercial forestry and conservation efforts.

Planet of Fields | UK Food System

As mentioned previously, more than half of the UK’s total land is classified as being for agricultural use. This includes both pasture land for livestock and arable farmland. Considering that the ALC grading locates the highest graded land towards the east it stands to reason that most of the arable farmland is also in this area while most of the grazing land is located in the west where there is a generally lower ALC grading. This leads us to the topic of the UK’s food system and looking with more detail at the composition of this agricultural land, as well as its relationship to its immediate context and the rest of the world.

Fig 36 Land Cover By Khusboo Prashant

Major cities in England Permanent crops/ Arable/ Heterog. Agricultural land Pastures Industrial/ Commercial/ Transport Forests

England

[AA Landscape Urbanism 23/24]

UK Import percentages compared to a country’s overall export

Global crop land gain 2010-2022

Global crop-land loss 2010-2022

Food and Land Use

“The United Kingdom’s heavy reliance on food imports from far-flung corners of the world is not only unsustainable, but it also disconnects us from the land, the people who cultivate it, and the seasons that govern its bounty.” (DEFRA 2020) As is made evident by the National food Strategy, A large part of the Uk’s agricultural land is used to produce animal feed and almost half of the land required to feed the UK is located overseas. The latter is referred to as an “Extended Footprint.” This leads to a heavy dependence on international imports, relying on imports especially for out-ofseason produce, certain staples, and specialty products. (DEFRA 2020) Because the cost of farming is outsourced, nationally grown food is very dependant on government subsidies in order to compete, and it ends up being sold at supermarkets with prices that don’t reflect its real cost of production. Along with the environmental impact that these globalized supply chains have, all this puts the Uk in a challenging situation with regards to long term food security.

Fig 37

Fig 38 Routes and impact of UK’s food

Area required for UK’s Food National Food Strategy, Part 1

By Jegan Muralidharan

[AA Landscape Urbanism 23/24]

Planet of Fields | UK Food System

UK Food System

Arable land, Grassland and Mono-culture

Population Growth

Beyond the globalized supply chains, there is another concern: These supply chains, guided by market dynamics, predominantly favor the mono-culture of crops that promise the highest profitability. Such an approach is highly detrimental to soil health, it accelerates waterway pollution, and precipitates a notable loss in biodiversity especially. While the most conducive opportunities for diverse agriculture reside in the east of England (based on the ALC grading), it’s alarming to note that a significant part of this versatile land is allocated to the mono-culture cultivation of specific crops. Predominantly, these are oilseed, wheat, oats, and barley, which collectively represent the most part of the UK’s cultivated produce.

Since the industrial revolution, England has had a distinct concentration of the population in cities and urban areas and, today, the population of England grows exponentially with a rise of 0.34% every year. The Greater London area alone is home to over 8 million residents, making it not only the most populous city in the UK but also one of the most populated in Europe (Greater London Authority 2021). The chart below shows population of England’s 8 largest cities.

Arable/ Horticulture

Because of this population density, most of the demand that drives the UK food system is coming from cities. This puts greenbelts are in a unique position to play a role in addressing the problems associated to a globalization food system and leads us to explore the relationship between cities and their hinterlands.

Oil seed

Oats

Fig 39

Fig 49

Arable/ Horticulture

London city growth

By Antonio Garaycochea

A.Paolo masucci.

Wheat

Barley

Fig 40,41,42,43 Oats, Oilseed, Barley, Wheat Newcastle

By Antonio Garaycochea

Leeds

Grasslands

Poultry

Cattle Sheffield

Liverpool

Birmingham

Grasslands By Antonio Garaycochea

Sheep

Pigs London Bristol

Fig 45,46,47,48

Fig 50

Poultry, Cattle, Sheep, Pigs

Population growth and Greenbelts

By Antonio Garaycochea

By Khusboo Prashant

Planet of Fields | UK Food System

Fig 44

[AA Landscape Urbanism 23/24]

Food Zones Proposal Exactly how much of the food consumed in cities could we aim to produce in the Greenbelt? In response to this question, Growing Communities puts forward a proposal called “The food zones” aimed at addressing the challenges of a sustainable food and farming system. The objectives of the model are to minimize the energy, fossil fuel, and resource requirements intrinsic to the current food system while simultaneously bolstering community and job creation in both urban and rural locations. The model functions as a spatial hierarchy that differentiates where and how different types of food should be sourced. It begins in urban centres, emphasizing the need to cultivate foods best suited for close proximity growth, and then incrementally expands outward with 17.5% of production allocated to the peri-urban. Seasonal and regional variations give way to the growing of prioritized food items ensuring minimal waste and processing, as well as optimal food distribution (Greater London Authority 2021). The envisioned farms within this model prioritize: A) Minimal input, verging on organic methodologies. B) Predominantly human-scaled operations, encapsulating small to medium farms. C) A diversity in farming practices, integrating various crop and livestock systems. D) A focus on human labour, complemented by judiciously chosen technological and machine assistance, all anchored in robust scientific principles.

Fig 51 Growing Communities Food Zones Diagram By Antonio Garaycochea

1: URBAN Salads, leafy, greens, Fruit 2: PERI-URBAN Fruit and veg: horticulture, some ﬁeld scale 3: RURAL HINTERLAND Mainly Field-scale (inc. N ﬁxing legumes). Some arable, livestock, agroforesty, orchards 4: REST OF THE UK Mainly arable, livestock, agroforestry

1: URBAN Salads, leafy, greens, Fruit

15%

3 35%

4: REST OF THE UK Mainly arable, livestock, agroforestry

17.5%

5 15%

6: FURTHER AFIELD Coffee, chocolate, spices, tropical fruit

35%

20%

15%

35%

20%

15%

25km

200km

1000km

3: RURAL HINTERLAND (Within 100 miles)

4: REST OF THE UK

5: REST OF EUROPE

40%

30%

20%

200km

25km

1000km

25km

200km

1000km

10%

40% 0%

30%

1: URBAN

2: PERI-URBAN

20%

6: FURTHER AFIELD

10% 5%

1: URBAN

3: RURAL HINTERLAND (Within 100 miles)

15%

20%

35% 17.5%

4: REST OF THE UK

7.5%

35% 17.5%

5: REST OF EUROPE

7.5%

35% 17.5%

6: FURTHER AFIELD

7.5%

15%

20%

6: FURTHER AFIELD

35%

17.5%

7.5%

35%

17.5%

7.5%

15%

5: REST OF EUROPE

15%

20%

35%

15%

20%

15%

4: REST OF THE UK

2: PERI-URBAN

15%

20%

35%

17.5%

7.5%

[AA Landscape Urbanism 23/24] 7.5%

Planet of Fields | UK Food System

5: REST OF EUROPE Fruit and hungry-gap veg

6: FURTHER AFIELD Coffee, chocolate, spices, tropical fruit

25km

4: REST OF THE UK Mainly arable, livestock, agroforestry

6 5%

5: REST OF EUROPE Fruit and hungry-gap 17.5% veg

7.5% 5%

6 5%

7.5%

3 35%

4 20% 3: RURAL HINTERLAND Mainly Field-scale (inc. N ﬁxing legumes). Some arable, livestock, agroforesty, orchards 5 15%

4 20%

20%

3: RURAL HINTERLAND Mainly Field-scale (inc. N ﬁxing legumes). Some arable, livestock, agroforesty, orchards

2: PERI-URBAN Fruit and veg: horticulture, some ﬁeld scale

2 17.5%

6: FURTHER AFIELD Coffee, chocolate, spices, tropical fruit

2: PERI-URBAN Fruit and veg: horticulture, some ﬁeld scale

2 17.5%

1 7.5%

5: REST OF EUROPE Fruit and hungry-gap veg

1: URBAN Salads, leafy, greens, Fruit

1 7.5%

[AA Landscape Urbanism 23/24]

Fig 53. England Ownership By Jegan Muralidharan

99 % 55 Million

25000 owners

4.5 % Royal family/ Conservation charity / Church of england 5 % Home owners 8.5 % Public Sector

17 % Unaccounted

99 %

17 % Oligarchs/ City Bankers

UK Land Ownership

18 % Corporations

25000 owners

As demand dynamics push larger landowners towards intensive farming, the issue of how the UK obtains it’s food becomes related to the issue of concentrated land ownership.

30 % Aristocrasy and gentry

Fig 52 Rise of MegaFarms article https://www.theguardian.com/ environment/2017/jul/18/rise-ofmega-farms-how-the-us-modelof-intensive-farming-is-invadingthe-world

According to who owns England half of the country is owned by 1% of the population and the details of said ownership are prohibitively expensive to obtain (Evans 2019). However, Recent Investigations by “Who Owns England” have allowed to shed light on the issue.

Planet of Fields | UK Food System

55 Million

[AA Landscape Urbanism 23/24]

Council Farms County Farms were historically devised to facilitate the entry of young farmers into a capital-intensive agricultural sector. This was achieved by offering them lands and infrastructure, occasionally even at submarket rental rates. These farms were perceived as the ‘initial step’ into and industry where the mean age of farmers is roughly 60 years (Who Owns England 2018). Although the proliferation of council farms was especially pronounced from the 20th century’s commencement until World War II, the post-1970s period witnessed a pronounced reversal, with substantial tracts of these council-owned smallholdings being sold. As we’ve seen, this is characteristic of broader shifts in English agriculture over recent decades; the disappearance of smaller private farms and their integration into larger industrial agricultural entities. Between 1977 and 2017, the area of council farms has gone from 426,695 acres to only 215,155 acres. Who Owns England indicates that the decline of County Farms can be attributed to fiscal cuts to local authority budgets by the central government. There exists a correlation between the selling of these farms and policy measures initiated by Margaret Thatcher in the 1980s, and there is currently an urgent need to alter the trajectory of the current trend, ceasing further sales.

Fig 54 Decline of council Farms

Planet of Fields | UK Food System

The Uk is at a significant moment in time in relation to all the issues mentioned because the country is currently going through what has been described as an agricultural transition.

Https://whoownsengland.org/2018/06/08/how-the-extentof-county-farms-has-halved-in-40-years/

Fig 55

[AA Landscape Urbanism 23/24]

Decline of Council Farms in Norfolk Https://whoownsengland.org/2018/06/08/how-the-extentof-county-farms-has-halved-in-40-years/

[AA Landscape Urbanism 23/24]

Fig. 56 Agricultural Transition Plan announcement Https://www.edwinthompson.co.uk/agricultural-transition-plan-2021-2024-announcement/

[03] The Agricultural Transition

Planet of Fields

Introduction The 7-year plan Visualizing ELM schemes

2021 Launch of the Agricultural Transition Plan

2022 Introduction of ELM Scheme

Introduction

The 7 Year Plan

As part of the post-Brexit era, the department of environmental, food and rural affairs has introduced a series of new agriculture policies, which include Environmental Land Management schemes. Although these represent a step in the right direction, they may be fall short of supporting localized food systems and the idea of food sovereignty. This section will attempt to visualize the functioning of ELM schemes as of the most recent proposals, and then present an evaluation of how effective these schemes are; especially at fostering food sovereignty and local food systems, their possible impacts and the gaps that remain to be addressed in order to promote a more sustainable and equitable food future.

Following Brexit, the Department for Environment, Agriculture and Rural Affairs (Defra) has been working towards rolling out a set of agricultural policies to replace the Eu’s Common Agriculture Policy (CAP). The first part of this is the “7-year agricultural transition plan”, which is closely related to the “25-year environmental plan” and the 2050 net zero commitments. This entails gradually phasing out direct payment schemes (BPS), which were part of the CAP, and replacing them with a new set of payment schemes called ELM schemes.

The concepts of food sovereignty and local food systems are complimentary. Both emphasize the importance of sustainable agricultural practices and equitable access to resources. They are part of alternative approaches to the dominant industrial and globalized food system. It could be thought of as one concept being a means to the other. On one hand, the concept of Food Sovereignty refers to the right of communities to control their food and agriculture systems. This involves localized food systems and promotes equal access to resources like land, water and seeds through democratic decision making. (Patel 2009) Meanwhile, a local food system is the network through which food is produced, distributed and consumed within a local or regional area, shortening supply chains between producer and consumer. The objective of this is to create resilient networks that include diversified agricultural production and contribute to local economic and social development. (Feenstra 1997)

Direct payments to farmers, began to be phased out

2023-2024 Expansion of ELM Scheme and Other Grant Programs Expansion of programme with more farmers and more options available.

2025 - 2027 Full policy Implementation

DEFRA investment planned in productivity grants, skills development, and pilot programs to support innovation and technology adoption in agriculture.

New agricultural policy expected to be fully implemented, with the focus on environmental outcomes and public goods. Direct payments continue to be phased out.

While payment sums under CAP were largely based on the size of farmland, ELM schemes aim to move towards linking them to certain agroecological farming practices, seeing farmers as stewards of the landscape rather than food producers, therefore theoretically moving away from favouring large scale industrial farming operations. (DEFRA 2020)

2027 Transitions completion Direct payments completely phased out, and replaced with the new support system.

“We know that the move away from Direct Payments will be a big change for some farmers, so we are going to make the changes over a 7-year transition period to give everyone time to plan and adjust. We will be offering help to those who need it to plan and manage their businesses through the transition. (…) We will make the money we save from Direct Payment reductions available through schemes, grants and other types of support for farmers to manage land and their businesses more sustainably.” (DEFRA 2020)

Fig 57 Timeline of the 7 year plan

Planet of Fields | UK Food System

Consisting of three components: Sustainable Farming Incentive (SFI), Countryside Stewardship (CS), and Landscape Recovery.

DEFRA introduced the 7-year plan, outlining the future of agriculture in the UK, post-Brexit.

By Antonio Garaycochea

[AA Landscape Urbanism 23/24]

Manage 75% of conserved forage area as hay meadow

Provide habitat for wading birds

Manage 50% of conserved forage area as hay meadow

Apply fertilisers and pesticides with precision equipment

Reduce nutrient inputs

Allow ryegrass to bear seed

Manage grazing on improved grassland

Introduce diverse grass, herb and legumes on 20% of improved grassland

Complete a whole farm nutrient budget

Limit inputs of liquid manures

Use low emission technologies

Introduce clover and other legumes on 15% of improved grassland

Test your manures and soils

Allow tall vegetation and scrub to develop on 5% of grassland

Control cutting on silage ﬁelds

Manage ditches

Allow tall vegetation and scrub to develop on 2% of grassland

Use a nutrient management plan

Improved Gassland Soil Standard Maintain permanent grassland on land at risk of erosion or surface runoﬀ minimum of 15% of land

Add or retain a mix of legumes, herbs and grasses on at least 15% of improved grassland

Maintain permanent grassland on land at risk of erosion or surface runoﬀ minimum of 10% of land

Add or retain a mix of legumes, herbs and grasses on at least 10% of improved grassland

Create a soil management plan

Manage livestock density on grassland at risk of erosion or surface runoﬀ to a minimum of 15% of land

Maintain areas of tall vegetation, scrub and wet features

Support croppest predators

Provide resources for birds and pollinators on 10% of eligible land

Create buﬀers around 75% of your in-ﬁeld trees

Arable and horticultural soils standard

Water Body Buffering Standard Add a wildflower mix to at least 20% of the total length of water body grass buffers

Establish grass buﬀer strips 6 metres wide on at least 20% of the total length of water bodies

Establish grass buﬀer strips 10 metres wide on at least 30% of the total length of water bodies

Maintain areas of tall vegetation, scrub and wet features

OPTIONAL: Establish in-ﬁeld grass strips or blocks on cultivated land

Manage ﬁelds for grazing average sward height of at least 8 to 12cm over at least 50% of the area

Manage rushes in grassland

Manage nutrient inputs on your grassland

Manage ﬁelds for grazing average sward height of at least 5cm over at least 75% of the area

Manage ditches

Manage supplementary feeding

Manage livestock density on grassland at risk of erosion or surface runoﬀ to a minimum of 10% of land

Manage ditches

Manage livestock density on grassland at risk of erosion or surface runoﬀ to a minimum of 5% of land

Do soil mapping

Complete a whole farm nutrient budget

Provide resources for birds and pollinators on 8% of eligible land

Support a wide range of farm wildlife

Adding organic matter on a minimum of 20% of land entered into standard

Having green cover on at least 15% of the land in the standard over winter

Adding organic matter on a minimum of 15% of land entered into standard

Having green cover on at least 10% of the land in the standard over winter

Producing a soil management plan

Tillage practices, including no till and direct drilling

Hedgerows standard

£50-125 p/ha

Establish grass buﬀer strips 6 metres wide on at least 50% of the total length of water bodies

Do a runoﬀ and soil erosion risk assessment

Manage grazed pasture with limited nutrient inputs

Introductory level actions: £21 per 100M Intermediate level actions: £37 per 100M Advanced level actions: £43 per 100M

AB: 15

GS1

GS2

GS3

GS4

GS5

GS6

GS7

GS8

GS9

GS10

GS11

GS12

GS13

GS14

GS15

GS16

GS17

£333 p/ha

£151 p/ha

£474 p/ha

£382 p/ha

£98 p/ha

£182 p/ha

£235p/ha

£428 p/ha

£353 p/ha

£217 p/ha

£547 p/ha

£450 p/ha

£152 p/ha

£432 p/ha

£37 p/ha

£79 p/ha

£23 p/ha

AB1

AB2

£614 p/ha

BE: 7

£58 p/ha

OT: 6

AB6 £522 p/ha

AB7

AB8

AB9

AB10

AB11

AB12

AB14

AB15

AB16

£584 p/ha

£673 p/ha

£732 p/ha

£822 p/ha

£550 p/ha

£669 p/ha

£236 p/ha

£593 p/ha

£637 p/ha

BE4

BE5

BE6

BE7

£264 p/ha

£373 p/ha

£379 p/tree

£113 p/tree

SP2

SP3

SP4

£185 p/ha

SP5

£347 p/ha

SP6

£9 p/ha

£39 p/ha

SP7

SP8

SP9

SP10

£279 p/ha

£167 p/ha

£171p/ha

£6.07 p/ha

SW1

SW2

SW3

SW4

SW5

SW6

SW7

SW8

SW9

SW10

SW11

SW12

SW13

SW14

SW15

SW16

SW17

SW18

£451 p/ha

£235 p/ha

£658 p/ha

£612 p/ha

£172 p/ha

£129 p/ha

£326 p/ha

£207 p/ha

£115 p/ha

£77 p/ha

£596 p/ha

£781 p/ha

£396 p/ha

£156 p/ha

£493 p/ha

£281 p/ha

£449 p/ha

£417 p/ha

WD2

WD3

WD4

WD5

WD6

WD7

WD8

WD9

WD10

WD11

WD12

£100 p/ha

£402 p/ha

£198 p/ha

£371 p/ha

£544 p/ha

£88 p/ha

£149 p/ha

£74 p/ha

£212 p/ha

£316 p/ha

£333 p/ha

UP1

UP2

UP3

£121 p/ha

UP4

£55 p/ha

£10 p/ha

UP5

UP6

£25 p/ha

£19 p/ha

OP2

OP3

OP4

OP5

£768 p/ha

£887 p/ha

£115 p/ha

£306 p/ha

OR1

OR2

OR3

OR4

OR5

£187 p/ha

£89 p/ha

£296 p/ha

£703 p/ha

£1254 p/ha

OT2

OT3

OT4

OT5

OT6

£36 p/ha

£132 p/ha

£471 p/ha

£1920 p/ha

£69 p/ha

SB5

SB6

£190.90 p/ha

£5500 p/ha

WT1

WT2

WT3

WT4

WT5

WT6

WT7

WT8

WT9

WT10

WT11

WT12

£311 p/ha

£594 p/ha

£44 p/ha

£119 p/pond

£211 p/pond

£81 p/ha

£328 p/ha

£35 p/ha

£537 p/ha

£185 p/ha

£960 p/ha

£459 p/ha

PA3

WS: 4 BN: 5 CT: 7 LH: 3

ELM Schemes

ED: 1

Funds longer-term, larger-scale, bespoke projects to enhance the natural environment and deliver signiﬁcant beneﬁts. Agreements are awarded through competitive application rounds focused on outcomes best delivered through these types of projects.

2005 05 Environmental Stewardship schemes

2014

WS3

WS4

£50 p/ha

BN3

BN4

BN12

£20.59 p/meter

£10.54 p/meter

£31.91 p/meter

CT1

CT2

CT3

CT4

CT5

CT6

CT7

£339 p/ha

£474 p/ha

£97 p/ha

£670 p/ha

£494 p/ha

£117 p/ha

£494 p/ha

LH2

LH3

£229 p/ha

£607 p/ha

HE: 2 WOODLAND GRANTS: 2

AC2 £277.26 once p/agreement

HS2

HS3

HS4

HS5

HS6

HS7

HS8

HS9

£476 p/ha

£92 p/ha

£175 p/ha

£44 p/ha

£960 p/ha

£808 p/ha

£6.93 p/m2

£211 p/ha

HE1

HE2

Up to 100% of actual costs

Up to 80% of actual costs

WD1

EWCO Woodland Creation

Up to £350 p/ha

Up to £10,200 p/ha

CS Woodland tree health grants

WPCG £1000 - Stage 1 £150 p/ha - Stage 2 £30,000 cap p/project

£Variable

Actions in2005 development

Manage historic features under permanent woodland cover

Permissive access

£10 - 50 p/ha 2024

£10 - 50 p/ha TBC

2014 Managing and restoring coastal cliﬀ habitats

£50 - 100 p/ha 2024

Managing existing access pressures on land and water

TBC TBC

CS (since 2015)

Managing invasive nonnative animals

Creating and managing engineered threedimensional buffer strips in order to buffer waterbodies more effectively than grass strips

Maintain drystone walls in good condition

Enhance and restore priority woodland habitats

£10 - 100 p/ha 2024

£450 - 650 p/ha 2024

£15 - 20 p/100m 2024

£50 - 100 p/ha 2024

Minimising bare ground for carbon storage, biodiversity, water quality and to protect historic features

Managing grassland for water quality, ﬂood and drought resilience

Maintain stonefaced hedgebanks in good condition

Enhance woodland resilience to climate change, wildﬁres and other stressors

£100 - 200 p/ha 2024

£15 - 20 p/100m 2024

£50 - 100 p/ha 2024

Expanding education access beyond groups of school pupils and care farming visitors

£200 - 300 p/visit TBC

Increasing or maintaining roughness of ground to slow the ﬂow of water

Managing features such as swales, bunds, silt traps and constructed wetlands to intercept and slow surface runoﬀ

Maintain earth banks in good condition

Managing woodlands for ﬂood and drought mitigation

£450 - 650 p/ha 2024

£5 - 10 p/100m 2024

£10 - 50 p/ha 2024

Maintaining sphagnum moss for carbon capture and to slow the ﬂow of water

2024

£200-300 p/ha 2024

Managing scrapes and gutters for waders and wintering waterfowl

Managing historic features in woodlands

£10 - 50 p/ha 2024

Managing riparian and water edge habitats to provide varied vegetation, including grasses, wildﬂowers, scrub and trees

New actions being tested through Tree Health Pilot

£450 - 650 p/ha 2024

See Tree Health Pilot TBC

Do a runoﬀ and soil erosion risk assessment

Planet of Fields | UK Food System 39

classified into “standards”. 5 Several

AB4 £10.38 p/ha

AB5

AB6

£587 p/ha

£522 p/ha

AB9

AB10

AB11

AB12

AB14

AB15

AB16

£822 p/ha

£550 p/ha

£669 p/ha

£236 p/ha

£593 p/ha

£637 p/ha

SP3

SP4

SP5

£347 p/ha

SP6

£9 p/ha

£39 p/ha

SP7

SP8

SP9

SP10

£279 p/ha

£167 p/ha

£171p/ha

£6.07 p/ha

SW2

SW3

SW4

£235 p/ha

£658 p/ha

£612 p/ha

SW5

SW6

SW7

SW8

SW9

SW10

SW11

SW12

£172 p/ha

£129 p/ha

£326 p/ha

£207 p/ha

£115 p/ha

£77 p/ha

WD2

WD3

£596 p/ha

£781 p/ha

WD4

WD5

WD6

WD7

WD8

WD9

£100 p/ha

£402 p/ha

£198 p/ha

£371 p/ha

£544 p/ha

£88 p/ha

£149 p/ha

£74 p/ha

OPTIONAL: Maintain woodland under 15 years old

OPTIONAL: Expand your woodland

identify and record the soil and vegetation types and condition, and presence of historic and archaeological features

+£100 one-oﬀ payment

UP1

UP2

Create temporary open spaces and manage rides

Create and manage dead wood in woodland

+£40 one-oﬀ payment

UP3

£55 p/ha

WD10 Complete an integrated pest management (IPM) assessment and produce an IPM plan

WS: 4 BN: 5

£10 p/ha

UP5

UP6

£25 p/ha

£19 p/ha

OP1

OP2

OP3

OP4

OP5

£176 p/ha

£768 p/ha

£887 p/ha

£115 p/ha

£306 p/ha

OR1

OR2

OR3

OR4

OR5

£187 p/ha

£89 p/ha

£296 p/ha

£703 p/ha

£1254 p/ha

OT1

OT2

OT3

OT4

OT5

OT6

£20 p/ha

£36 p/ha

£132 p/ha

£471 p/ha

£1920 p/ha

£69 p/ha

SB4

SB5

SB6

£270.90 p/ha

£190.90 p/ha

£5500 p/ha

WT1

WT2

WT3

WT4

WT5

WT6

WT7

WT8

WT9

£311 p/ha

£594 p/ha

£44 p/ha

£119 p/pond

£211 p/pond

£81 p/ha

£328 p/ha

£35 p/ha

£537 p/ha

PA3

CT: 7

WS1

WS2

£90 p/ha

£70 p/ha

WS3

BN3

BN4

£20.59 p/meter

£10.54 p/meter

CT3

CT4

CT5

CT6

CT7

£97 p/ha

£670 p/ha

£494 p/ha

£117 p/ha

£494 p/ha

LH3 £607 p/ha

Establish and maintain ﬂowerrich grass margins, blocks, or in-ﬁeld strips

SW15

SW16

SW17

SW18

£493 p/ha

£281 p/ha

£449 p/ha

£417 p/ha

£333 p/ha

£316 p/ha

£673 p/ha

SW14 £156 p/ha

Nutrient management standard

WD12

WD11

Establish a companion crop

No use of insecticide

Complete a nutrient management (NM) assessment and produce an NM review report

Establish and maintain a legume fallow (arable land)

Establish and maintain legumes (improved grassland)

£55 p/ha

£45 p/ha

£489 p/year

£102 p/ha

£593 p/ha

WT10

WT11

WT12

£185 p/ha

£960 p/ha

£459 p/ha

* Combined Pilot and Rolled out standards for the most recent data

385 Actions BN12

CT2 £474 p/ha

LH2

£23 p/ha

£31.91 p/meter

CT1 £339 p/ha

£229 p/ha

AC: 2

HE: 2 WOODLAND GRANTS: 2

EL Sche

ED1

AC1

AC2

Actual Cost

£277.26 once p/agreement

HS1

HS2

HS3

HS4

HS5

HS6

HS7

HS8

HS9

£4.42 p/m2

£476 p/ha

£92 p/ha

£175 p/ha

£44 p/ha

£960 p/ha

£808 p/ha

£6.93 p/m2

£211 p/ha

HE1

HE2

Up to 100% of actual costs

Up to 80% of actual costs

WD1

EWCO Woodland Creation

Up to £350 p/ha

Up to £10,200 p/ha

CS Woodland tree health grants

WPCG £1000 - Stage 1 £150 p/ha - Stage 2 £30,000 cap p/project

£Variable

Total: 151 + 4 EWCO = 155 Revenue Options

Use eﬃcient precision application equipment

Actions in development

(since

Reduce nutrient inputs

Allow ryegrass to bear seed

Manage historic features under permanent woodland cover

Permissive access

Managing and restoring coastal cliﬀ habitats

£10 - 50 p/ha 2024

£10 - 50 p/ha TBC

£50 - 100 p/ha 2024

Managing invasive nonnative animals

Creating and managing engineered threedimensional buffer strips in order to buffer waterbodies more effectively than grass strips

Maintain drystone walls in good condition

Enhance and restore priority woodland habitats

£10 - 100 p/ha 2024

£450 - 650 p/ha 2024

£15 - 20 p/100m 2024

£50 - 100 p/ha 2024

Managing other invasive non-native plants beyond those whose management is already funded under existing CS options

Managing grassland for water quality, ﬂood and drought resilience

Maintain stonefaced hedgebanks in good condition

Enhance woodland resilience to climate change, wildﬁres and other stressors

TBC TBC

£200 - 350 p/ha 2024

£100 - 200 p/ha 2024

£15 - 20 p/100m 2024

£50 - 100 p/ha 2024

Expanding education access beyond groups of school pupils and care farming visitors

£200 - 300 p/visit TBC

2024

SFI

Complete a whole farm nutrient budget

Limit inputs of liquid manures

Maintain permanent grassland on land at risk of erosion or surface runoﬀ minimum of 15% of land

Add or retain a mix of legumes, herbs and grasses on at least 15% of improved grassland

Create a soil management plan

Create buﬀers around 75% of your in-ﬁeld trees

Establish grass buﬀer strips 10 metres wide on at least 30% of the total length of water bodies

Maintain areas of tall vegetation, scrub and wet features

OPTIONAL: Establish in-ﬁeld grass strips or blocks on cultivated land

Manage ﬁelds for grazing average sward height of at least 8 to 12cm over at least 50% of the area

Manage rushes in grassland

Manage ﬁelds for grazing average sward height of at least 5cm over at least 75% of the area

Manage ditches

Test your manures and soils

Manage nutrient inputs on your grassland

Allow tall vegetation and scrub to develop on 5% of grassland

Control cutting on silage ﬁelds

Allow tall vegetation and scrub to develop on 2% of grassland

Manage supplementary feeding

Add or retain a mix of legumes, herbs and grasses on at least 10% of improved grassland

Maintain permanent grassland on land at risk of erosion or surface runoﬀ minimum of 10% of land

Manage ditches

Manage livestock density on grassland at risk of erosion or surface runoﬀ to a minimum of 10% of land

Manage livestock density on grassland at risk of erosion or surface runoﬀ to a minimum of 5% of land

Use a nutrient management plan

Do soil mapping

Complete a whole farm nutrient budget

Support a wide range of farm wildlife

Provide resources for birds and pollinators on 8% of eligible land

Adding organic matter on a minimum of 20% of land entered into standard

Having green cover on at least 15% of the land in the standard over winter

Adding organic matter on a minimum of 15% of land entered into standard

Having green cover on at least 10% of the land in the standard over winter

Establish grass buﬀer strips 6 metres wide on at least 50% of the total length of water bodies

Manage grazed pasture with limited nutrient inputs

Manage weeds and invasive or competitive species

Create buﬀers around in-ﬁeld trees

Leave margins uncut

Introductory level actions: £22 per hectare Intermediate level actions: £127 per hectare Advanced level actions: £133 per hectare

Leave margins uncut to encourage ﬂowers and seed

Manage historic features in grassland

Add or retain a mix of legumes, herbs and grasses on at least 5% of improved grassland

Maintain permanent grassland on land at risk of erosion or surface runoﬀ minimum of 5% of land

Manage ﬁelds for grazing

Introductory level actions: £29 per hectare Intermediate level actions: £70 per hectare Advanced level actions: £97 per hectare

Aleviate soil compaction

Use low emission technologies

Completing a soil assessment

Introductory level actions: £31 per hectare Intermediate level actions: £53 per hectare Advanced level actions: £84 per hectare

Use a nutrient management plan

Land parcels you use for this standard can also be used for

Cross Cutting

Farm Woodland Standard OPTIONAL: Maintain woodland under 15 years old

OPTIONAL: Expand your woodland

Moorland standard Identify opportunities to maintain or enhance the public goods provided by the moorland

Integrated pest management standard

+£300/ha/year

Assess the public goods the moorland is already providing

identify and record the soil and vegetation types and condition, and presence of historic and archaeological features

Introductory £265 per agreement and £10.30 per hectare

Completing a soil assessment

Attend a woodland threats webinar

+£100 one-oﬀ payment

+£40 one-oﬀ payment

Create temporary open spaces and manage rides

Create and manage dead wood in woodland

Create buﬀers around 50% of in-ﬁeld trees

Provide resources for birds and pollinators on 5% of eligible land

Introductory level actions: £30 per hectare Intermediate level actions: £57 per hectare Advanced level actions: £79 per hectare

Nutrient management standard

Complete an integrated pest management (IPM) assessment and produce an IPM plan

Establish and maintain ﬂowerrich grass margins, blocks, or in-ﬁeld strips

Establish a companion crop

No use of insecticide

Complete a nutrient management (NM) assessment and produce an NM review report

Establish and maintain a legume fallow (arable land)

Establish and maintain legumes (improved grassland)

£989 p/year

£673 p/ha

£55 p/ha

£45 p/ha

£489 p/year

£102 p/ha

£593 p/ha

£49 p/ha entered into standard

Adding organic matter on a minimum of 10% of land entered into standard

Aleviate soil compaction

for intermediate and 385advanced Actions Levels are cumulative in the sense that the upper levels also require completion of the actions in the previous levels. Farmers are able to upgrade their SFI standards agreement annually to increase levels for existing standards in their agreements. Agreements apply to individual land parcels, so it is possible to farmers to select different levels and/ or standards for different land parcels, provided they have the correct land type. For example, one parcel can be entered into an introductory level for “low input grassland”, the adjacent one can be entered into the intermediate level of the same standard, and the next one can be entered into the intermediate “arable and horticultural land standard”. In the case of most standards, there is compatibility with at least one other standard, meaning that 2 or more different standard agreements can be applied to the same parcel of land, provided that it meets requirements. For example, a parcel with the grassland land type, that is adjacent to a water body can apply to the “water body buffering standard”, the “improved grassland standard” and the “improved grassland soil” standard. This is in addition to the crosscutting “pest management standard” and the “nutrient management standard”

Managing moorland to support particular species and water features

£TBA 2024

TBC TBC

4 5

2021

SFI

England

Improved grassland standard Do soil mapping

Use eﬃcient precision application equipment

Reduce nutrient inputs

Allow ryegrass to bear seed

Manage grazing on improved grassland

Introduce diverse grass, herb and legumes on 20% of improved grassland

Complete a whole farm nutrient budget

Limit inputs of liquid manures

Use low emission technologies

Introduce clover and other legumes on 15% of improved grassland

Test your manures and soils

Allow tall vegetation and scrub to develop on 5% of grassland

Control cutting on silage ﬁelds

Manage ditches

Arable and horticultural land standard

Provide habitat for wading birds

Apply fertilisers and pesticides with precision equipment

Improved Gassland Soil Standard Maintain permanent grassland on land at risk of erosion or surface runoﬀ minimum of 15% of land

Add or retain a mix of legumes, herbs and grasses on at least 15% of improved grassland

Maintain permanent grassland on land at risk of erosion or surface runoﬀ minimum of 10% of land

Add or retain a mix of legumes, herbs and grasses on at least 10% of improved grassland

Create a soil management plan

Manage livestock density on grassland at risk of erosion or surface runoﬀ to a minimum of 15% of land

Support croppest predators

Maintain areas of tall vegetation, scrub and wet features

Create buﬀers around 75% of your in-ﬁeld trees

Provide resources for birds and pollinators on 10% of eligible land

Complete a whole farm nutrient budget

Support a wide range of farm wildlife

Provide resources for birds and pollinators on 8% of eligible land

Water Body Buffering Standard Add a wildflower mix to at least 20% of the total length of water body grass buffers

Establish grass buﬀer strips 10 metres wide on at least 30% of the total length of water bodies

Maintain areas of tall vegetation, scrub and wet features

OPTIONAL: Establish in-ﬁeld grass strips or blocks on cultivated land

Manage ﬁelds for grazing average sward height of at least 8 to 12cm over at least 50% of the area

Manage rushes in grassland

Manage ﬁelds for grazing average sward height of at least 5cm over at least 75% of the area

Manage ditches

Manage nutrient inputs on your grassland

Allow tall vegetation and scrub to develop on 2% of grassland

Manage supplementary feeding

Manage livestock density on grassland at risk of erosion or surface runoﬀ to a minimum of 10% of land

Manage ditches

Manage livestock density on grassland at risk of erosion or surface runoﬀ to a minimum of 5% of land

Use a nutrient management plan

Do soil mapping

Arable and horticultural soils standard Adding organic matter on a minimum of 20% of land entered into standard

Having green cover on at least 15% of the land in the standard over winter

Adding organic matter on a minimum of 15% of land entered into standard

Having green cover on at least 10% of the land in the standard over winter

Hedgerows standard

Producing a soil management plan

Tillage practices, including no till and direct drilling

Hedgerows standard

£50-125 p/ha

Manage hedgerows, including annual incremental cutting or leaving hedgerows uncut for longer

Assessing and recording hedgerow condition

Maintain hedgerow trees, or establishing new ones

£10 p/100m (one side)

£3 p/100m (one side)

£10 p/100m (Both sides)

New CS Updated Pre-existing CS SFI Related action in SFI 2023

Do a runoﬀ and soil erosion risk assessment

Establish grass buﬀer strips 6 metres wide on at least 50% of the total length of water bodies

Manage grazed pasture with limited nutrient inputs

Introductory level actions: £21 per 100M Intermediate level actions: £37 per 100M Advanced level actions: £43 per 100M

Manage weeds and invasive or competitive species

Create buﬀers around in-ﬁeld trees

Leave margins uncut

Introductory level actions: £22 per hectare Intermediate level actions: £127 per hectare Advanced level actions: £133 per hectare

Leave margins uncut to encourage ﬂowers and seed

Manage historic features in grassland

Add or retain a mix of legumes, herbs and grasses on at least 5% of improved grassland

Maintain permanent grassland on land at risk of erosion or surface runoﬀ minimum of 5% of land

Manage ﬁelds for grazing

Introductory level actions: £29 per hectare Intermediate level actions: £70 per hectare Advanced level actions: £97 per hectare

Aleviate soil compaction

Use low emission technologies

Completing a soil assessment

Introductory level actions: £31 per hectare Intermediate level actions: £53 per hectare Advanced level actions: £84 per hectare

Use a nutrient management plan

Introductory level actions: £30 per hectare Intermediate level actions: £57 per hectare Advanced level actions: £79 per hectare

Create buﬀers around 50% of in-ﬁeld trees

Provide resources for birds and pollinators on 5% of eligible land

Adding organic matter on a minimum of 10% of land entered into standard

Having green cover on at least 5% of the land in the standard over winter

Introductory level actions: £26 per hectare Intermediate level actions: £41 per hectare Advanced level actions: £60 per hectare

Aleviate soil compaction

Completing a soil assessment

Manage hedgerows, including annual incremental cutting or leaving hedgerows uncut for longer

Assessing and recording hedgerow condition

Maintain hedgerow trees, or establishing new ones

£10 p/100m (one side)

£3 p/100m (one side)

£10 p/100m (Both sides)

Land parcels you use for this standard can also be used for

Cross Cutting

Farm Woodland Standard OPTIONAL: Maintain woodland under 15 years old

OPTIONAL: Expand your woodland

Moorland standard Identify opportunities to maintain or enhance the public goods provided by the moorland

Integrated pest management standard

+£300/ha/year

Assess the public goods the moorland is already providing

identify and record the soil and vegetation types and condition, and presence of historic and archaeological features

Introductory £265 per agreement and £10.30 per hectare

Completing a soil assessment

Attend a woodland threats webinar

+£100 one-oﬀ payment

+£40 one-oﬀ payment

Create temporary open spaces and manage rides

Create and manage dead wood in woodland

Nutrient management standard

Complete an integrated pest management (IPM) assessment and produce an IPM plan

Establish and maintain ﬂowerrich grass margins, blocks, or in-ﬁeld strips

Establish a companion crop

No use of insecticide

Complete a nutrient management (NM) assessment and produce an NM review report

Establish and maintain a legume fallow (arable land)

Establish and maintain legumes (improved grassland)

£989 p/year

£673 p/ha

£55 p/ha

£45 p/ha

£489 p/year

£102 p/ha

£593 p/ha

£49 p/ha entered into standard

* Combined Pilot and Rolled out standards for the most recent data

Gra Arab Perman Moorland an Lowla Woodland, T ree Boun Wate Wetland Coasta Lowland Annual animal heal Her

Fig 58

General Diagram of ELM schemes

Total SFI Actions: 95

Species Recovery Access and

By Antonio Garaycochea

New CS & Jegan Muralidharan Updated SFI

385 Actions *

of these standards contain levels – Introductory, intermediate and advanced. Farmers are required to complete all the actions corresponding to a given level in order to receive the payment associated to that level within the standard, however it is worth noting that there 7 Some of the actions contained within the SFI are some actions which, independently, offer a standards are related to an action in CS, in which payment upon their completion, similar to CS case it is not possible to do both. The total annual agreements. Between the rolled out SFI standards, payment value for the revenue options is divided the standards currently in pilot phase and the into 4 equal instalments and paid on a quarterly standards that planned to be rolled out in the near basis. future, there are a total of 10 standards (2 of them being cross-cutting).

[AA Landscape Urbanism 23/24]

woodl

Aims to support landowners and farmers i incentives for the planting and establishme the creation of new woodlands, with variou maintaining them for a speci ﬁc period. Als riparian buﬀ er strips, and priority habitats

Manage 50% of conserved forage area as hay meadow

Species Recovery and Management Access and Engagement

£TBA 2024

Protecting and supporting natural populations of native ﬁsh species in lakes

Grassland Arable Land Permanent Crops Moorland and Upland Peat Lowland Peat Woodland, Trees and Agroforestry Boundaries Waterbodies Wetland Habitats Coastal Habitats Lowland Heathland Annual animal health and welfare review * Combined Pilot and Rolled out standards for the most recent data Heritage

Total SFI Actions: 95

202

2024

Total in development: 36

Establish grass buﬀer strips 6 metres wide on at least 20% of the total length of water bodies

Completing a soil assessment

2024

Maintaining restored peatland

TBC TBC

Tillage practices, including no till and direct drilling

Having green cover on at least 5% of the land in the standard over winter

£684 - pig review £436 - sheep review £522 - beef cattle review £372 - dairy cattle review

Retaining and managing individual or scattered trees and scrub to allow for succession

TBC TBC

Producing a soil management plan

Introductory level actions: £26 per hectare Intermediate level actions: £41 per hectare Advanced level actions: £60 per hectare

New actions being tested through Tree Health Pilot

See Tree Health Pilot TBC

Managing water levels in lakes

£TBA 2024

Arable and horticultural soils standard

Manage ditches

Managing riparian and water edge habitats to provide varied vegetation, including grasses, wildﬂowers, scrub and trees

£450 - 650 p/ha 2024

Establishing more natural shorelines and edges on lakes

low input grassland standard

Provide resources for birds and pollinators on 10% of eligible land

2024

£TBA 2024

Managing moorland to support particular species and water features

Managing scrapes and gutters for waders and wintering waterfowl

£TBC p/ha 2024

Managing grassy vegetation so it has a varied sward and dwarf shrubs have a range of heights, including tall woody vegetation

Restoring degraded peatland

[ Maintain areas of tall vegetation, scrub and wet features

Maintaining sphagnum moss for carbon capture and to slow the ﬂow of water

Managing historic features in woodlands

£10 - 50 p/ha 2024

Establishment and maintenance of silvoarable and silvopastoral agroforestry

Manage 75% of conserved forage area as hay meadow

Support croppest predators

Managing woodlands for ﬂood and drought mitigation

£10 - 50 p/ha 2024

£50 - 300 p/ha 2024

2021

Manage livestock density on grassland at risk of erosion or surface runoﬀ to a minimum of 15% of land

Maintain earth banks in good condition

£5 - 10 p/100m 2024

Enhancing ﬂoodplain ﬂoodwater storage

£75 - 125 p/ha 2024

Managing enhanced river and ﬂoodplain habitat connectivity, allowing the development of a variety of naturally changing ﬂoodplain habitats

£TBA 2024

£200-300 p/ha 2024

2024

£650 - 850 p/ha 2024

Improved Gassland Soil Standard

Introduce clover and other legumes on 15% of improved grassland

Use low emission technologies

Managing features such as swales, bunds, silt traps and constructed wetlands to intercept and slow surface runoﬀ

£450 - 650 p/ha 2024

Farm visit from a vet to complete an annual review of the health and welfare of a farmer’s livestock

Managing ﬂoodplain meadows

2024

Increasing or maintaining roughness of ground to slow the ﬂow of water

£TBA 2024

Apply fertilisers and pesticides with precision equipment

Introduce diverse grass, herb and legumes on 20% of improved grassland

Minimising bare ground for carbon storage, biodiversity, water quality and to protect historic features

Managing existing access pressures on land and water

Restoring degraded peatland

6 7

Manage grazing on improved grassland

Funds longer- term, lar enhance the natural en beneﬁts. Agreements are award rounds focused on out these types of projects

2015)

Arable and horticultural land standard

Provide habitat for wading birds

202

Other CS grants = 100

2014

£684 - pig review £436 - sheep review £522 - beef cattle review £372 - dairy cattle review

£TBC p/ha 2024

Aims to support landowners and farmers in creating new woodlands, providing financial incentives for the planting and establishment of trees. The scheme offers multi-year payments for the creation of new woodlands, with various grant options covering the costs of planting trees and maintaining them for a specific period. Also provides additional contributions for agroforestry, riparian buffer strips, and priority habitats.

Do soil mapping

Maintain hedgerow trees, or establishing new ones

£10 p/100m (Both sides)

£50 p/ha

BN2 £163.26 p/meter

LH1

Assessing and recording hedgerow condition

£3 p/100m (one side)

WS4

£50 p/ha

BN1 £67.25 p/meter

£366 p/ha

£212 p/ha

£989 p/year

UP4

£49 p/ha entered into standard

£121 p/ha

SW13 £396 p/ha

Integrated pest management standard

Attend a woodland threats webinar

Completing a soil assessment

Manage hedgerows, including annual incremental cutting or leaving hedgerows uncut for longer

£10 p/100m (one side)

Cross Cutting

Farm Woodland Standard

SW1

£79 p/ha

£732 p/ha

BE7 £113 p/tree

£451 p/ha

£37 p/ha

BE6 £379 p/tree

Completing a soil assessment

OTHER GRANT OPTIONS

£432 p/ha

AB8

BE5 £373 p/ha

£185 p/ha

£152 p/ha

£673 p/ha

BE4 £264 p/ha

SP2

£450 p/ha

AB7

BE3 £10 p/100m for one side of hedge

£547 p/ha

£584 p/ha

BE2 £295 p/ha

£20 p/ha - ﬁrst 100ha £10 p/ha - thereafter minimum £1500 pay

HS: 9

EWCO

New CS 1 ELM Schemes are subdivided into 3 categories: 6 Actions

4 SFI agreements are groups of actions that are

AB3 £667 p/ha

£217 p/ha

Maintaining restored peatland

SFI

Introductory level actions: £21 per 100M Intermediate level actions: £37 per 100M Advanced level actions: £43 per 100M

agreements contain individual actions that are locally-targeted and are directed towards land managers but can be done alongside food production.

AB2 £58 p/ha

BE1

Aleviate soil compaction

GS10 GS11 GS14 GS15 also be GS16 used GS17 Land parcels youGS12 use for GS13 this standard can for

2024

£50-125 p/ha

3 CS

AB1

£503 p/ha

Having green cover on at least 5% of the land in the standard over winter

£318 p/visit

England woodland creation oﬀer

Establish grass buﬀer strips 6 metres wide on at least 20% of the total length of water bodies

land cover

GS9 £353 p/ha

TBC TBC

Add a wildﬂower mix to at least 20% of the total length of water body grass buﬀers

2 Each action is associated to one or more types of

GS8 £428 p/ha

Protecting and supporting natural populations of native ﬁsh species in lakes

Total in development: 36

Adding organic matter on a minimum of 10% of land entered into standard

Introductory level actions: £26 per hectare Intermediate level actions: £41 per hectare Advanced level actions: £60 per hectare

Retaining and managing individual or scattered trees and scrub to allow for succession

Establishment and maintenance of silvoarable and silvopastoral agroforestry

£50 - 300 p/ha 2024

Water Body Buﬀering Standard

Provide resources for birds and pollinators on 5% of eligible land

Create buﬀers around 50% of in-ﬁeld trees

2021

Managing enhanced river and ﬂoodplain habitat connectivity, allowing the development of a variety of naturally changing ﬂoodplain habitats

£650 - 850 p/ha 2024

TBC TBC

Manage 50% of conserved forage area as hay meadow

Updated Pre-existing CS

Use a nutrient management plan

Introductory level actions: £30 per hectare Intermediate level actions: £57 per hectare Advanced level actions: £79 per hectare

Managing grassy vegetation so it has a varied sward and dwarf shrubs have a range of heights, including tall woody vegetation

Enhancing ﬂoodplain ﬂoodwater storage

£75 - 125 p/ha 2024

TBC TBC

[

2024

Use low emission technologies

Completing a soil assessment

Revenue options + Grants: 254 Farm visit from a vet to complete an annual review of the health and welfare of a farmer’s livestock

Managing ﬂoodplain meadows

2024

Managing other invasive non-native plants beyond those whose management is already funded under existing CS options

£200 - 350 p/ha 2024

Establishing more natural shorelines and edges on lakes

Manage 75% of conserved forage area as hay meadow

SFI Sustainable Farming Incentives (SFI), Landscape Recovery (LR) and Countryside Stewardship (CS) Related action in SFI 2023 (Previously referred to as Local Nature Recovery). In coming years, agreements that are part of the EWCO will also be integrated into the ELM framework. Together, these categories contain over 380 actions relating to specific habitats and features which farmers and land managers can perform, either individually or as a part of group of actions, in order to receive a payment in exchange.

GS7 £235p/ha

PA: 1

Environmental Stewardship schemes

low input grassland standard

Species Recovery and Management Access and Engagement

GS6 £182 p/ha

£45 p/ha

ED: 1

Improved grassland standard

Visualizing ELM Schemes

UP: 6

WT: 12

Revenue options + Grants: 254

2021

GS5 £98 p/ha

Total SFI Actions: 95 OR: 5

Related action in SFI 2023

Managing water levels in lakes

Introductory £265 per agreement and £10.30 per hectare

Other CS 2023 grants = 100

Total: 151 + 4 EWCO = 155 Revenue Options

SFI

England woodland creation oﬀer

GS4 £382 p/ha

+£300/ha/year

Assess the public goods the moorland is already providing

ELM Schemes

2021

EWCO

Identify opportunities to maintain or enhance the public goods provided by the moorland

AC1

HS1 £4.42 p/m2

CS (since 2015)

ED1

Actual Cost

WD: 12

]

AC: 2 HS: 9

GS3 £474 p/ha

Moorland standard

LH: 3

LH1 £366 p/ha

GS2 £151 p/ha

£127 p/ha

£50 p/ha

BN2 £163.26 p/meter

Aleviate soil compaction

act

ental ship es

WS2 £70 p/ha

BN1

£318 p/visit

] 2023

WS1 £90 p/ha

£67.25 p/meter

Add or retain a mix of legumes, herbs and grasses on at least 5% of improved grassland

Maintain permanent grassland on land at risk of erosion or surface runoﬀ minimum of 5% of land

Manage ﬁelds for grazing

Introductory level actions: £31 per hectare Intermediate level actions: £53 per hectare Advanced level actions: £84 per hectare

SP: 9 SW: 18

New CS Updated Pre-existing CS SFI

£20 p/ha - ﬁrst 100ha £10 p/ha - thereafter minimum £1500 pay

Manage historic features in grassland

GS1

SB: 3

SB4 £270.90 p/ha

Leave margins uncut to encourage ﬂowers and seed

Introductory level actions: £29 per hectare Intermediate level actions: £70 per hectare Advanced level actions: £97 per hectare

£333 p/ha

£614 p/ha

BE: 7

OT: 6

OT1

Create buﬀers around in-ﬁeld trees

Leave margins uncut

REVENUE /GRANT OPTIONS INCLUDED IN GUIDE GS: 17 AB: 15

Species Recovery and Management Access and Engagement

£20 p/ha

PA: 1

OP: 5

OP1 £176 p/ha

SB: 3 WT: 12

AB5 £587 p/ha

BE3 £10 p/100m for one side of hedge

£45 p/ha

OR: 5

AB4 £10.38 p/ha

BE2 £295 p/ha

WD: 12 UP: 6

AB3 £667 p/ha

BE1

£127 p/ha

OP: 5

£503 p/ha

SP: 9 SW: 18

Create buﬀers around in-ﬁeld trees

Package of £120-150 p/ha

GS: 17

Arable Land Permanent Crops Moorland and Upland Peat Lowland Peat Woodland, Trees and Agroforestry Boundaries Waterbodies Wetland Habitats Coastal Habitats Lowland Heathland Annual animal health and welfare review Heritage

Package of £120-150 p/ha

Grassland OTHER GRANT OPTIONS

REVENUE /GRANT OPTIONS INCLUDED IN GUIDE

Manage weeds and invasive or competitive species

Introductory level actions: £22 per hectare Intermediate level actions: £127 per hectare Advanced level actions: £133 per hectare

[AA Landscape Urbanism 23/24]

Reports and Evaluation Despite ELM being a step forward from BPS, farms need to have a minimum area of 5 ha in order to participate in the schemes; a detail that causes the exclusion of several small holdings. Furthermore, the interactions between the actions, as well as the way in which they are classified can be troublesome. CS and LR are geared towards land managers while SFI agreements are directed mainly at farmers. This creates a separation between food production and the management of nature, drawing on a debate of land sparing vs land sharing. While both CS and SFI provide farmers with a list of actions to chose from, there is a lack of support for farming in a way that integrates it into nature, regenerating local ecosystems through food production and habitation of the landscape. In terms of its effect on the farming business, a study conducted by AHBD concluded that “While the net payments for most of the standards in the SFI standards were positive, the overall impact on the farms’ net profit levels was negative once land taken out of production was considered.” (Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board 2022). The report goes on to mention that, with their current SFI payment rates, it is unlikely to be financially beneficial to farmers to participate in certain standards unless they are already undertaking at least some of the actions required. This is mainly due to the up front costs that many actions require. A report by Rob Booth, titled “Farming the Future” can provide key points about the future of farming with which to begin making some inferences as to how ELMs relate to the concepts of Food sovereignty and local food systems. The report puts forward 3 key processes for food systems change:

Booth suggests that there are two pathways for agriculture moving forward. In the first, existing concentrated corporate ownership is maintained, as are the inequalities driven by it. In the second, agroecology acts as a driver for social change, where producers and citizens are put in control of food systems through the democratization of local economies and alternative models of ownership such as co-operatives and community land trusts. According to Booth, within the latter, community knowledge exchange and open, publicly facilitated data are central to driving shorter supply chains in regional food systems, as well as creating jobs and reducing emissions. (Booth 2021) From this standpoint, it’s possible to point out that, because CS and SFI standards are so specific, it seems that they might be overly prescriptive and action oriented instead of results oriented. By taking such an approach R/D for agricultural methods is disincentivized regardless of ownership. Secondly, there is no emphasis on actions to help drive regional economies (such as farmer knowledge exchange and participatory politics), thereby

In the case of LR, the scheme is competition based instead of action based which avoids the prescriptive nature of SFI and CS. However, in order to participate, one needs to already be an actor with capital (Heron 2023), a fact which could potentially continue to consolidate land in the hands of multinationals that look to become net zero through their landscape recovery schemes. Lastly, within the current schemes, there is a lack of land reform and access, with the closest being “lump sum exit grant”. Through this grant, farmers surrender their entitlement to subsidies in exchange for a lump sum payment which aims to act as a retirement incentive for farmers. This could potentially be an instrument to motivate the sale or gifting of land into community forms of ownership. (Farming UK 2022) An independent review of the UK’s food sector titled “The National Food Strategy”, suggests the creation of a mixed rural land use framework – the “three compartment model” which equally divides high yield farmland, low yield (agroecological farmland) and semi-natural land in order to strike a balance between food yield and benefits to the greatest number of animal species. In this view agroecological farming and mechanized farming are not viewed as mutually exclusive provided the mechanization takes advantage of technology as well as crop mixing in order to make it less destructive. (The National Food Strategy 2021).

Fig 59 Example CS actions By Jegan Muralidharan

CONCLUSIONS While the UK’s ELM schemes mark a move away from the EU’s CAP and towards more sustainable practices, there are still areas that need improvement. There is a lack of emphasis on developing regional economies and local networks, as well as insufficient support for land reform and access. The approach to land use provided by the National food strategy could serve as a starting point to help reconcile the need for sustainable intensification alongside agroecology in order to meet local demand and serve as a transition strategy. However, it is also necessary to find new ways for democratic access land by part of communities. As we’ve seen up to this point, the disconnect between cities and their peri-urban land revolves around 3 main issues: 1. Concentration of ownership 2. Fragmented land management schemes and 3. Industrial farming leading to global supply chains. Agroecology has numerously been mentioned as a key element of this ongoing transition, which leads to posit the question “What is Agroecology”? Fig 60 Example SFI actions By Jegan Muralidharan

Planet of Fields | UK Food System

Research and development (R&D) for new agricultural methods, Production, analysis, and ownership of agricultural data, and Agricultural Knowledge and Information Systems (AKIS).

limiting the development of local networks and supply chains necessary for a sustainable and equitable food system.

[AA Landscape Urbanism 23/24] [AA Landscape Urbanism 23/24]

[AA Landscape Urbanism 23/24]

Fig 61 Agroecological Farm Https://www.arc2020.eu/comparing-organic-agroecological-and-regenerative-farming-part-2-agroecology/

[04] Agroecology

Planet of Fields

Overview Case Studies

Key Principles of Agroecology Reduced input

Animal Health

Economic diversification

Social Value & Fairness

Connectivity

Bio Diversity & Recycling

Soil Health

Synergy

Co-Creation of Knowledge

Land & Resource governance

Fig 62 Key Principles of Agroecology By Jegan Muralidharan

Mono-culture vs Agroecological farm

Overview

But what precisely is agroecology? At its core, it’s an expansive term that encompasses a myriad of techniques. Each technique, however, adheres to a fundamental principle: producing food in harmony with, and complementary to, natural systems.

“Agroecology is a holistic and integrated approach that simultaneously applies ecological and social concepts and principles to the design and management of sustainable agriculture and food systems. It seeks to optimize interactions between plants, animals, humans and the environment while addressing the need for socially equitable food systems within which people can exercise choice over what they eat and how and where it is produced” (FAO, n.d.)

Fig 63 Mono-culture vs Agroecological farm

By Jegan Muralidharan

Planet of Fields | UK Food System

In preceding chapters, we have consistently encountered agroecology as an important part of the solution to food system challenges. This is evident not only in the Cuban farming revolution but also in aspects of the methods endorsed by the new ELMs. Building on this perspective, the forthcoming proposal in this thesis aims to use agroecology as a guide for sustainable growth and food production within the green belt.

[AA Landscape Urbanism 23/24]

Intensification The term “intensified farming” is commonly associated with factory farming, pointing towards farming methods that demand greater inputs and outputs per unit of agricultural land. ”In an industrialized society this typically means the use of pesticides, fertilizers, and other chemicals that boost yield, and the acquisition and use of machinery to aid planting, chemical application, and picking” (FFAC 2021). However, in the context of agroecology, this thesis re-frames the term. What if “intensifying” agriculture shifted its focus from heavy mechanization to profound human input? And instead of evaluating a farm’s success by its crop yield, what if it was assessed by the social value it produces? Under this paradigm, when “intensification” aligns with agroecological principles and is considered in relation to the peri-urban character of the green belt, it could be characterized by the following three criteria: Community and Urban Infrastructure: This involves rethinking models of land ownership, water and waste management, energy generation, public transport, Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (SUDs), and other nature-based solutions. Enterprise Stacking: A concept where multiple activities coexist on a single farm, often referred to as mixed farming. It implies shorter supply chains and the re-purposing of agricultural by-products across varied industries and businesses.

Sustainable intensification By Jegan Muralidharan & Antonio Garaycochea

Planet of Fields | UK Food System

Agroecological Techniques: This includes methods such as permaculture, vertical farming, agroforestry, organic farming, and circular systems, among others.

Fig 64

[AA Landscape Urbanism 23/24]

Fig 65

To gain a deeper understanding of these techniques and inform our proposal, we have compiled a catalogue of case studies. The remainder of this chapter will go on to further detail these examples.

Case study locations

By Jegan Muralidharan

Planet of Fields | UK Food System

Case Studies

[AA Landscape Urbanism 23/24]

Wild seam attracting pollinators and other essentials elements to maintain biodiversity

Woodlands with dominant undergrowth.

Fobbing Farm Fobbing Farm is a 1,200 acre (485 hectare) zero tillage and zero insecticide arable and livestock farm in south Essex. They have introduced linseed, beans, heritage cereals, buckwheat, lentils, hemp, and are experimenting with sunflowers, millet, heritage corn and tiger nuts. They have also established 20% of the farm into herbal lays, and are currently investigating whith a dual purpose beef and dairy herd. Maintained soil health.

Fig 67 Section through Fobbing farm By Khusbhoo

Wild Seam Wild seam carving through the middle of the farm, which interconnects each field together. This area will be planted with sporadic trees and shrubs, and under-sown with local grasses from the Fobbing marshes.

Fig 66 Physical layers of Fobbing Farm By Antonio Garaycochea

dla

o Wo

Fruit bushes like black current and red currant growing in the wild margins

tion

iza

n rba

Fig 68

Section through Fobbing farm By Khusbhoo

Wild Margin This edge is planted with native trees and fruitbushes, which over a ten to fifteen year period should become wild, and the farmers will harvest less of the fruit. These wild margins connect to the wild seam, ensuring permanent organic cover and plenty of permanent dense habitat for the animals on the farm.

als

n Ca

p Cro

typ

Pollinators getting attracted to the agroecology belts

rad

CG AL

Strengthening of the soil to prevent soil erosion

Fig 69 Section through Fobbing farm By Khusbhoo

Belts

Entomologist state that insects only venture out around 20m from the margin of any field into the unknown. Due to this, the farmers decided to divide the field into agroforestry belts: 6m wide belts for trees, and 36m wide alleys for arable cropping,

Planet of Fields | UK Food System

Wheat plantation along to the herbal leys

[AA Landscape Urbanism 23/24]

Wakelyns Farm Wakelyns is a 22.5-hectare progressive farm, founded by the esteemed plant pathologist Prof. Martin Wolfe. The farm incorporates trees for timber, energy, and fruit into an organic crop rotation. For over two decades, Wakelyns has been at the forefront of research in organic crop production and agroforestry. In addition to its pioneering agroforestry methods, the farm utilizes business stacking and collaborates with various enterprises, including a bakery and bee-keeping operation. Wakelyns maintains a localized distribution system, ensuring its produce is consumed within a 10-mile radius. They follow a four year cycle; on the first year they grow wheat, which is replaced by lentil on another year and, afterwards, a herbal lay for two years. Agroforesty belts

Agroforesty belts

Wheat

Fig 70 Physical layers of Wakelyns

Agroforesty belts

Wheat

1 year

By Antonio Garaycochea

Wheat

Herbal lay

Lentil

2 year

1 year

dla

o Wo

atio

iz an

Urb

Fig 71

Fig 72

Section Through Wakelyns

Section through Wakelyns

By Khushboo Prashant

p Cro

rad

Agroforesty belts

Lentil

Agroforesty belts

Lentil

1 year Wheat

Herbal lay 2 year

Lentil 1 year

utio

ib istr

Planet of Fields | UK Food System

CG AL

[AA Landscape Urbanism 23/24]

Eco-Farm Nottingham The farm spans for 450 acre in East of Trent valley. After looking for ways to diversify the business, the farm began to transition into a mixed enterprise with cereals and sheep, as well as the creation of an edible woodland for the local community (Caldbeck 2021). They are Woodland Trust Ambassador and host agroforestry research on the farm - there are two main trial areas on the farm: 1. silvoarable - apple trees and elderflower within a block of arable land 2. silvopastoral - sheep grazing within an edible woodland area.

Fig 73 Physical layers of Nottingham By Antonio Garaycochea

dla

o Wo

Fig 74 Section through Nottingham By Khushboo Prashant n

tio

iza

n rba

Key Practices

t rop

Rotational grazing Minimum Tillage Undersowing Mixed farming Agroforestry Companion crops Direct drilling Diversified rotation

Habitat creation Integrated Pest Management

r CG AL

Planet of Fields | UK Food System

Soil monitoring

[AA Landscape Urbanism 23/24]

Hooke Park Hooke Park is a 142 hectare woodland in Dorset, South West England located near the town of Beaminster and within the Dorset Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. The site is designated as ancient woodland and historically comprised a deer hunting estate. An educational campus is located at Hooke Park that was developed by the Parnham Trust following its purchase of the site in 1983. The park emphasizes the use of circular systems wherever feasible. It features a small-scale horticultural farm that provides a portion of the food consumed by the students. Seasonal wood is dried and processed, allowing students to work with it and, finally, the wood chips that result as a by-product are incinerated to heat the facility’s water.

Fig 75 Physical layers of Hooke Park By Antonio Garaycochea

dla

o Wo

rni

u db

o Wo

for

ati

Seas

and oning

drying

of wo

Fig 76

Seasoned wood

Supply cycle of Hooke Park

for construction

By Khusbhoo Prashant

Wood chipping unit

atio

iz an

Urb

Mix forest, board leaf and pine tree

Woods from the

forest

rad

CG AL

Planet of Fields | UK Food System

Cro

typ

[AA Landscape Urbanism 23/24]

Hooke Park Pine Plantation

Mixed Forest

Pine plantations create a thick mulch on the ground and the dense upper foliage does not allow light to penetrate as deeply.

In this section, the introduction of various broad-leaf species creates a diverse ground environment. This promotes healthy soil, supports micro-organisms, prevents soil erosion, and fosters the growth of other shrubs and under-brush species. Fig 77

Fig 78

Section through Hooke Park

Section through Hookepark

By Khusbhoo Prashant

Sunlight penetrating through broad leaf deciduous species enhancing the soil biodiversity.

The soil section for this area depicts reduced soil biodiversity. Horizon A is a combination of pine leaves while horizon B is only narrow band.

Fig 79

Fig 80

Soil section under pine plantations

Soil section under mixed forest

By Khusboo Prashant

Thanks to a variety in grasses, shrubs, and sunlight permeation, there is a noticeable difference in soil health compared to the earlier example. The mulch is composed of leaves, shrubs, pine, and other organic materials, leading to considerably thicker A and B soil horizons.

By Khusboo Prashant

Horizon C with minimal or no

Horizon A with thick pine

microbiological activities

leaves mulch.

And grass holding soil

Earth worms and other microbiological activity within soil

B C

Planet of Fields | UK Food System

Roots structure of shrubs

[AA Landscape Urbanism 23/24]

The Community Farm, Bristol The Community Farm is a non-profit, organic farm located in the Bristol Greenbelt (also known as the Avon Green Belt). The farm cultivates and obtains food for delivery within Bristol via their acclaimed veg box programme. The farm receives over 1,000 people each year for well-being courses, social gatherings, and volunteer opportunities. It is also worth noting that it is registered as a community benefit society, which is also the legal structure under which many Community land trusts are registered. Fig 82 Section through Community farm By Khusbhoo Prashant

Section 1 Fig 81

The farm has made use of companion cropping, cultivating complementary species side by side in the same field. This method harnesses the interactions between species to yield a robust crop. Trials with Oats, Peas, and Barley have shown promising results.

Physical layers of Community farm By Antonio Garaycochea

Peas, being legumes, have the ability to fix nitrogen in the soil, a vital nutrient for plants and the combination of oats and peas offers structural advantages as

dla

o Wo

Important road network connections with Bristol and Bath.

tio

iza

n rba

Chew manga lake

12 different species of herbal lays

als

typ

Tillage radish

Fig 83

rad

CG AL

Section through Community farm By Khusbhoo Prashant

Section 2

By incorporating herbal leys into their practices, the farm has been able to draw in pollinators, augmenting soil nitrogen, and enriching soil biodiversity. The farm cultivates 12 varieties of herbal leys, with the tillage radish standing out. As the tillage radish withers in the autumn, it leaves a void in the soil, which creates air circulation through the soil

Planet of Fields | UK Food System

p Cro

[AA Landscape Urbanism 23/24] [AA Landscape Urbanism 23/24]

The Community Farm, Bristol

Distribution

Social Value Index

In the comparative analysis, The Community Farm distinguishes itself from the other case studies. Beyond cultivating their own produce, they act as a hub for the distribution of goods from various neighbouring smallholdings to consumers in Bristol and Bath. A significant portion of the farm’s revenue is derived from the sale of vegetable boxes which are delivered on a subscription scheme. In addition to catering to individual buyers, they maintain partnerships with 14 local restaurants in Bristol and Bath. While their primary distribution remains within the Bristol green belt, it’s worth noting that they source most produce from farms located as far as 45 kilometres away.

Fig 84 Community Farm location and network By Antonio Garaycochea Khushboo Prashant Jegan Muralidharan

The concept of “Social Value” is used to gauge forms of value that go beyond conventional financial metrics, offering a more nuanced understanding of the effects of specific policies or developments. In order to appraise the wider benefits derived from thee multifaceted activities of the community farm— relative to standard farming practices—a Social Value Index was calculated. This was done by using a variation of the methodology previously employed in the case of a public-commons partnership at Wards Corner, London, also known as the Latin Village. This methodology itself was in turn inspired by a 2020 research paper wherein the authors examined an urban farm near Paris, and translated its social activities and benefits into tangible economic metrics (Almeida 2023). The analysis carried out on the community farm evaluated the social value generated in 4 different categories: Direct Financial revenue, Increased capacity and labour, provision of social needs and downstream benefits. The aggregated social value for the community farm was found to be more than double when compared to a traditional vegetable farm of a comparable size. In spite of this, the community farm grapples with financial constraints and is heavily dependent on volunteer labour. An additional lies in the fact that the farm’s land area falls short of the 5-hectare threshold required for eligibility in the Environmental Land Management (ELM) scheme. Moreover, even if the farm were enrolled in ELM schemes, many of its valuable contributions are not considered within the ELM’s predetermined actions. Fig 86

This analysis leads into the question: What modifications are necessary in order to make this model both feasible and prevalent within the greenbelt? To answer this, it is necessary to first study the composition of Bristol’s greenbelt.

Social Value Index in Tottenham Https://www.common-wealth.org/publications/ social-value-index-building-the-case-for-thedemocratic-commons-in-tottenham

Location of the community farm, Near to one of Bristol’s main water reservoirs: Chew Lake

Diversity

Planet of Fields | UK Food System

The farm’s diversity extends beyond its agroecological practices. It embraces a number of activities, some only tangentially related to agriculture and others entirely independent of it by capitalizing on its proximity to Bristol and its innate attraction of the sites natural beauty. For instance, each summer, the farm becomes the venue for a music festival. Additionally, it offers team-building workshops tailored for local businesses and conducts gardening workshops. Most significantly, the farm is equipped to facilitate psychological retreats, which have recently emerged as an valuable resource in providing support to refugees.

Community Farm Video

Community Farm Isometric

Social value calculation

By Antonio Garaycochea

Fig 87

Fig 85

[AA Landscape Urbanism 23/24]

Fig 88 Photo mosaic of Bristol Green Belt By Khushboo Prashant

[05] The Site: Avon Green Belt

Planet of Fields

Soil Types of green in the Green Belt Mapping Bristol’s corridors

[AA Landscape Urbanism 23/24]

Fig 89 Soil Grades within Bristol Green Belt By Khusboo Prashant

Urban

Grade 3

Non - Agricultural

Grade 4

Grade 1

Grade 5

5km

10km

Grade 2

Fig 90 Bristol Soil types By Khusboo Prashant

“From the red clay soils of the south to the sandy loams of the north, Bristol’s diverse range of soil types plays a vital role in supporting the city’s unique ecosystems and agricultural heritage.” (BathNES Council, n.d.) Due to Bristol’s presence near the coast it has soils ranging from clay, loam, and sandy soils. This wide range of soil supports the wide range of natural systems, ecology and wildlife. The clay soils, prevalent in some parts of the greenbelt, retain water well but can become compacted, requiring careful management to maintain soil structure suitable for crop growth. The loamy soils offer a balanced mixture of sand, silt, and clay, making them versatile for a variety of crops (RHS 2023).

Fen Peat soils

Non - Agricultural

Freely draining lime-rich loam

Salt marsh soil

Freely draining slightly acidic

Sand dune soil

Lime rich loamy

Slowly permeable seasonally

Loamy and clayey flood plain

Water

5km

Loamy and sandy soil

[AA Landscape Urbanism 23/24]

10km

Most of the area within the greenbelt has an assigned ALC grade of 3. However, some areas with 1 and 2 grades are also present.

Planet of Fields | UK Food System

Soil

[AA Landscape Urbanism 23/24]

62%

Bristol GB

Oats 1% Field Beans 2% Oats 1% Solar Field Panels Beans 1% 2%

Bristol GB Bristol GB

Bristol GB

Wheat 10%

Peas + Potatoes <1% Solar Panels 1%

Barley 7%

Other Crops Peas + Potatoes 2% <1% Oilseed Rape 1% Other Crops Maize 2% 3% Oilseed Rape 1% Maize 3%

Barley 7%

Wheat 10%

UK Grass 73%

UK 25km

Grass 73%

Bristol GB

Oats 1% Field Beans 2% Wheat Barley

Bristol GB

62% 62%

Wheat Barley

Grass

Oats Field Beans Solar Panels Potato Peas Oats Crops Other Field Beans Oilseed Rape Solar Panels Maize Potato Peas Other Crops Oilseed Rape Maize

Solar Panels 1%

57% 57%

62%

25km

Wheat Oats 10% 1% Barley 7%

Peas + Potatoes Solar Panels <1% 1% Peas + Potatoes Other Crops <1% 2% Oilseed Rape Other1% Crops 2% Maize Oilseed Rape 3% 1% Maize 3%

Types of green in the Green Belt

Planet of Fields | UK Food System

Bristol GB

Wheat 10% Solar Panels

57%

Oats 1% Field Beans 2%

Grass 73%

Solar Panels 1%

Wheat 10%

Other Crops 2% Oilseed Rape 1% Maize 3%

Grass 46%

Field Beans 3% Grass 73%

Solar Panels <1% Potatoes 1% Peas 1% Other Crops 5%

Oats 2%

Grass

Maize 3%

Beet 1%

Other Crops 2% Oilseed Rape 1% Maize 3%

Wheat 23%

Beet

Oats Field Beans Solar Panels Potato Peas Other Crops Oilseed Rape Grass Maize

Wheat Barley

Solar Panels Peas Other Crops

73%

Beet

Oilseed Rape

Wheat

Wheat Barley Barley

20km

25km

Grass

Oats Field Beans Oats Solar Panels Field Beans Potato Solar Panels Peas Potato Other Crops Peas Oilseed Other CropsRape MaizeRape Oilseed Maize

20km

Wheat 10%

23%

Barley

Grass 73%

Oats 2%

Grass 46%

Field Beans 3% Barley 11% Solar Panels <1% Potatoes 1% Peas 1% Other Crops 5%

Grass

Oats Field Beans Solar Panels Potato Peas Other Crops Oilseed Rape Maize

Oilseed Rape 4%

Other Crops

Grass Beet Oats Wheat

Field Beans Solar Panels

20km20km

Barley

Potato Peas Other Crops Oilseed Rape

Fig 91 Types of Green in the Green Belt by Antonio Garaycochea

Grass

[AA Landscape Urbanism 23/24] Beet

Maize 3%

Maize

Maize 3% Oilseed Rape 4%

[AA Landscape Urbanism 23/24]

Peas

Wheat Wheat

Barley 7%

Barley

Other Crops

Grass

Beet 1%

25km 25km

Wheat

Oilseed Rape Oilseed Rape Maize Maize

Grass Grass

Bristol GB

Barley 11%

Solar Panels Beet <1% Oats Oats PotatoesField Beans 1% Field Beans Peas Solar Panels 1% Solar Panels Potato Other Crops Potato 5% Peas

Wheat

Barley

Grass 46%

Field Beans 3%

Potato

Barley

Oilseed Rape 4%

Oats 2%

Field Beans

Wheat

UK Maize 3%

Maize 3%

25km

Barley 7%

Grass 46%

Barley 11%

Solar Panels Barley <1% 11% Solar Panels Potatoes 1% Oilseed Rape <1% 4% Peas Potatoes 1% 1% Other Crops Peas 5% 1% Other Crops 5%

Oats Field Beans Solar Panels Potato Peas Other Crops Oilseed Rape Maize

Grass 46%

Field Beans 3%

Barley 11%

Bristol GB

Wheat 23% Wheat Oats 23% 2%

Maize

Oats 1% Field Beans 2%

Peas + Potatoes <1%

Beet 1%

Oats

When analysing the land composition of the greenbelt, it’s evident that built-up areas and parks are limited, with approximately 60% of the total area catalogued as agricultural land. This 25km statistic positions the Bristol greenbelt slightly above the national average in terms of agricultural land distribution. However, this statistic could be somewhat deceptive, as nearly 40% of this agricultural space is grassland that is used for grazing. Solar Panels 1%

20km

Oats 2%

Grass 73%

Barley

Wheat 23%

Grass

Examining the crops within the arable categories, the Bristol greenbelt appears to mirror national tendencies. Cereal farms dominate the scene, with primary cultivation of wheat and barley.

20km

Barley 7%

Other Crops 2% Oilseed Rape 1% Maize 3%

20km

Beet Wheat

Wheat 10%

Peas + Potatoes <1%

The Bristol greenbelt historically stands out in the national context for its horticultural activity. However, since 1985, suburban horticulture in the region has seen a decline by 30% (Carey 2011). Additionally, there is a significant demand for land 62% among new farmers.

20km

Bristol GB

Field Beans 2%

Barley 7%

Grass

Grass 73%

57%

20km

Bristol GB Bristol GB

25km

Barley

Other Crops 2% Oilseed Rape 1% Maize 3%

20km

25km Oats 1% Field Beans 2% Oats 1% Field Beans Solar Panels 2% 1%

Wheat Barley

Barley 7%

Grass

25km 57%

62%

Wheat 10%

Peas + Potatoes <1%

Grass

25km

Wheat

Bristol Woodland Strategic Network

Fig 93 Bristol Woodland Strategic Network By Jegan Muralidharan 0

Greenbelt boundary Ancient woodlands

Mapping Bristol’s Corridors

5km

10km

Source : West of England nature partnership

Woodland Strategic Corridor

Fig 92 Bristol Peri-urban Woodlands by Jegan Muralidharan

Bristol Wetland Strategic Network

“WENP is a cross-sector partnership hosted by Avon Wildlife Trust and funded by North Somerset Council, Bristol City Council, South Gloucestershire Council, Bath & North East Somerset Council, Wessex Water and Bristol Water.” (West of England Nature Partnership n.d.) The strategy outlined by the WENP offers a framework for guiding investment towards the restoration of ecological corridors, taking into account the area’s inherent geography. Following the examination of ecological corridors’ potential, the study explored the possibility of conceptualizing businesses within a similar corridor framework.

Fig 94 Bristol Wetland Strategic Network by Antonio Garaycochea

To start this exploration, a representative selection of businesses from diverse industries was mapped with the aim of providing insights into the spatial dynamics that might exist within a localized business corridor for the city. Each business category was linked to potential activities that could occur on a farm.

Greenbelt boundary

5km

10km

Source : West of England nature partnership

Wetland Strategic Corridor

Planet of Fields | UK Food System

Approximately 13% of the green belt region consists of woodlands. The West England Nature Partnership has identified specific areas within these woodlands that hold potential for the consolidation of woodland corridors. Similarly, they have pinpointed areas for the development of grassland and wetland corridors, collectively naming this initiative the “Nature Recovery Network”.

[AA Landscape Urbanism 23/24]

Bristol Grassland Strategic Network

Despite the existence of these strategic networks for ecological corridors, the map below demonstrates that the areas with potential for woodland corridors don’t align with the plots entering woodland agreements. This disparity highlights the scarcity of a systematic approach in the current ELM schemes.

Fig 95 Bristol Grassland Strategic corridor By Antonio Garaycochea

Greenbelt boundary

Grassland strategic corridor

Source : West of England nature partnership

5km

10km

Businesses Related to Food

Fig 96 Agri-schemes and woodland strategic network in the vicinity of Community Farm

Fig 96 Businesses related to food in Bristol By Jegan Muralidharan

Educational institutions working with Agro-ecology

5km

10km

Food Markets Dairy based business Eateries

Planet of Fields | UK Food System

by Jegan Muralidharan

[AA Landscape Urbanism 23/24]

Fig 98 Village in Green Belt Https://www.istockphoto.com/ photos/aerial-view-uk

[06] Policy Proposal

Planet of Fields

Overview Farm Succession Council farms & community ownership Farm Clusters

PART 1 PRECEDENTS

Modified instruments

PART 2 CONTEXT

PART 3 AGROECOLOGY

PART 4 AVON GREENBELT

PART 5 POLICY PROPOSAL

PART 6

Planet of Fields | UK Food System 77

PLANET OF FIELDS

PRECEDENTS

PART 1

[AA Landscape Urbanism 23/24]

CONTEXT

By Antonio Garaycochea

PART 2

Fig 99 Policy proposal overview

PART 3

The over-arching aim of the proposed modifications, which will be detailed in the subsequent pages, is to incentivize farmers to sell their land into community ownership. Once these farms transition into community ownership, the policy will further encourage them to establish farm clusters. These clusters will then integrate with the city’s ecological corridors, at the same time fostering relationships with local businesses.

PART 4

To achieve these, the proposal’s strategy impacts both top-down and bottom-up structures. From a top-down perspective, modifications will be made to the Lump Sum Retirement Scheme and council farms. Meanwhile, from a bottom-up viewpoint, the proposal impacts Community Land Trusts (CLTs) and farm clusters.

AGROECOLOGY

3. Strengthening farm clusters: Empower farm clusters will facilitate their integration to the city’s ecological corridors.

PART 5

2. Promoting models of shared ownership: Changes to the farm succession scheme will facilitate models of shared ownership.

AVON GREENBELT

1. Creating localized business corridors: This will be achieved through enterprise stacking and funding of intermediate industries

Ownership

POLICY PROPOSAL

In response to the 3 issues that were previously mentioned, the specific objectives of the policy proposal are:

[AA Landscape Urbanism 22/23]

CEREAL

Overview

PLANET OF FIELDS -

PART 6

[AA Landscape Urbanism 22/23]

CEREAL

Current Structure Succession scheme favours larger land owners

Proposal Structure Farm succession favours sale of land to local owners and exiting farmers enter a mentorship scheme

There are some issues to take into account with this current scenario. Firstly, The present scheme appears to be more beneficial to wellestablished farmers aiming to expand rather than accommodating new entrants. New farmers not only need land but also require housing, which the current scheme doesn’t effectively provide for. Furthermore, there is a competitive disadvantage for new entrants during the purchase of the land. If retiring farmers opt to sell their land to the highest bidder, larger corporations often have greater financial capacities.

To address these concerns, this thesis’ proposal recommends the following modifications: A) Landowners would only be eligible for the lump sum retirement payment if they sell to communitybased buyers – whether it be a Community Land Trust (CLT), a new entrant farmer, or the council.

Fig 101 Current and proposed structure of farm succession By Antonio Garaycochea

B) In scenarios where the landowner is in a hurry to finalize the sale, the council will purchase the land at market value. If the seller decides to retain ownership of the farmhouse, they would be obligated to participate in a mentorship program for a set duration.

Fig 100 Planned farm succession By Antonio Garaycochea

According to the Office for National Statistics (ONS), two-thirds of farmers who are retiring do not have a succession plan (Oldham n.d.). Under the current retirement scheme, these farmers have the option to either sell or gift their land in exchange for a lump sum payment based on a portion of what they would have received from BPS payments in the following years. Additionally, they are allowed to retain ownership of the farmhouse and up to 15% of the land that it is on (DEFRA 2022). The latter is a measure taken to address housing concerns for the outgoing farmer.

Planet of Fields | UK Food System

Farm Succession

[AA Landscape Urbanism 23/24]

Current Structure Council farms to larger land owners

Council Farms and Community Ownership

Fig 103 Current and proposed structure of council farms By Antonio Garaycochea

Fig 102 NE Somerset council owned farms within Avon greenbelt By Antonio Garaycochea

Proposal Structure Local businesses hold shared tenancy of council farms and have access to a right to buy scheme after a predetermined number of years

As has been mentioned in previous sections, there has been a notable trend in councils selling off their farm properties. In the majority of these cases, the land often ends up consolidated under large landowners (Who Owns England 2018). The alternative offered by this thesis allows entrant farmers to co-lease farms with local businesses. This approach makes leases more attainable for newcomers but also ensures that councils do not need to reduce their leasing revenues. In this context, the type of businesses likely to co-lease council farms are those that would benefit from the land use, such as small scale honey producers or artisanal juicers. In addition, we suggest expanding the “Right to Buy Scheme”, which presently only applies to council housing, so that it also includes council farms. The idea behind this is to empower tenants with the ability to purchase the farm after fulfilling a specific tenancy duration. This purchase could be done independently or in collaboration with their co-leasers. This cyclical system – where the council acquires land, leases it for a period, then sells it for collective ownership – not only enables the council to recover its initial investment but also allows it to purchase additional farms. Incrementally, this strategy would transition more land parcels into community ownership.

Planet of Fields | UK Food System

By implementing the measures previously described, there could be an increase in the number of farms acquired by councils. Data available from the North East Somerset council was extrapolated to the rest of the green belt area and it suggests that there are approximately 18 council-owned farms within the entire Bristol green belt.

[AA Landscape Urbanism 23/24]

Current Structure

The last stage of this proposal is centred on the formation of farm clusters. Because of their larger scale and cooperative nature, farm clusters have great potential in creating sustainable and democratic agriculture. Currently, clusters are conformed by a group of farmers, with one taking the role of the lead farmer. This group then collaborates with a facilitator, who becomes responsible for guiding them towards accomplishing their self-determined objectives for the cluster (“Starting a Farmer Cluster” 2018). Although there are others, the main source of funding for clusters is the natural England facilitation fund. It operates on a competitive basis, wherein clusters submit proposals for funding consideration (“Funding Information” 2020). The intervals between each selection process can be inconsistent, sometimes spanning up to a year. Extended and unpredictable time-frames for funding can pose challenges for the formation of clusters and the delivery of their goals.

Fig 104 Current structure of farm clusters By Antonio Garaycochea

Planet of Fields | UK Food System

Farm Clusters

[AA Landscape Urbanism 23/24]

Current Structure

Proposed Structure

Based on interviews we conducted with facilitators, we noticed some problems in the way facilitation funds are structured. At the moment, these funds only cover training-related expenses, for example workshops. This does not address the funding needed for other associated actions such as tree planting or land surveying. Consequently, facilitators and farmers are compelled to resort to additional funding channels, like local councils. This chain causes inefficiencies by introducing unnecessary intermediaries and extending the time-line of projects.

In the proposed scheme, farm clusters receive legal recognition. This enables the democratic management of government funding within the cluster, similar to the way it is done in community benefit societies. With this system, clusters can directly apply for funds that are specifically directed towards their planned actions.

Fig 105 Proposed participants of cluster farms By Antonio Garaycochea

Instead of tying funding to particular prescribed tasks, the amount allocated is determined through a standardized social value index that values both ecological and social criteria. This approach would hopefully help cluster farms to integrate ecological corridors and promote shared resources, such as machinery and labour.

Fig 104

Fig 106

The Selborne Landscape Partnership and agri- schemes

Farm Clusters connecting woodland corridors

By Antonio Garaycochea

Plots subscribed to CS agreements

Planet of Fields | UK Food System

Another issue that became evident through these interviews is the fact that, even though farmers come together to form a cluster with shared goals, it is normal for them to independently enter Environmental Land Management (ELM) agreements. Keeping this in mind, one of the main challenges with farm clusters is being able to achieve consensus among a diverse group of farmers. A structure where every farmer has distinct ELM agreements, exacerbates the challenge because farmers will have differing priorities, resulting in a more convoluted decision-making process.

[AA Landscape Urbanism 23/24]

Planet of Fields | UK Food System

We can project and visualize the future landscape that results from applying these dynamics to woodland corridors within the greenbelt. Using our agroecological farm case studies as a starting point, we can estimate an approximate 26% increase in tree cover within the WENP woodland strategic corridor.

Fig 107 Calculation of resulting woodland increase

by Jegan Muralidharan

[AA Landscape Urbanism 23/24]

Over time, retiring farmers sell their land either to the community or directly to the council. In this scenario the council acts as a form of incubator that holds these lands temporarily before facilitating their sale to the tenants and these tenants then combine efforts, forming clusters that lay the groundwork for creating habitat links through sustainable farming practices.

Planet of Fields | UK Food System

Up to this point we’ve discussed land ownership and ecological corridors but have not detailed the aspect of local business corridors. In the upcoming chapter, we will develop this topic, focusing specifically on the case of cereals.

Fig 108 Bristol Greenbelt evolution over time

by Antonio Garaycochea

[AA Landscape Urbanism 23/24]

Fig 109 Annual Wheat Https://www.britannica.com/plant/wheat

[07] The Case of Cereals

Planet of Fields

Perennial Grains Regenerative Beer - Case Study Proposal Implementation within Avon Green Belt

Fig 111 Thinopyrum intermedium Https://kernza.org/whatis-kernza/

As has been discussed in previous sections, Cereals make up the majority of the Uk’s agricultural production and make up a significant portion of the world’s caloric intake. Today, the majority of wheat and barley is cultivated as annual crops, which can be taxing on the soil. However, perennial wheatgrass presents a compelling alternative. It has been gaining traction, especially in recent years, thanks to advancements from Danish researchers and the Land Institute in the US. The varieties these two have developed are showing promising results and have the potential to replace products derived from both wheat and barley, such as beer and bread (Westerbergh 2023). This investigation will focus on the variety developed in the US, scientifically named “Thinopyrum intermedium” and commercially distributed as “Kernza.” While annual wheat has roots that grow to a depth of approximately 40cm, Kernza’s roots can reach up to 3 meters depth. These deep root systems fix nitrogen into the soil over their lifespan of 3+ years and, beyond the ecological benefits, perennial wheat-grass can be cultivated with fewer inputs which leads to reduced operational expenses for farmers, such as tillage and planting (“Kernza® Grain & Perennial Agriculture,” n.d.).

2% Potatoes 3% Horticulture 6% Uncropped Arable Land

12% Other Arable Crops 7% Oilseed

Fig 112 50% Cereals

Hordeum bulbosum Https://www.slu.se/ en/ew-news/2023/5/ slus-breeding-of-perennial-barley-receives-major-support-from-innovation-fund-Denmark/#:~:text=SLU’s%20breeding%20 of%20perennial%20 barley%20receives%20

Fig 110 20% Temporary Grass

Breakdown of UK Croppable area, June 2020 Https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/ system/uploads/attachment_data/file/946161/structure-jun2020final-uk-22dec20.pdf

Breakdown of UK Croppable area, June 2020

[AA Landscape Urbanism 23/24]

Planet of Fields | UK Food System

Perennial Grains

Fig 113 “A new Beer From Aslan Brewing Uses a game-changing grain” Https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/ https:// washingtonbeerblog.com/a-new-beer-fromaslan-brewing-uses-a-potentially-game-changinggrain/#:~:text=The%20Bellingham%2Dbased%20 brewery%20just,Aslan%20Brewing%20created%20

Beer production involves four primary ingredients: water, malt, yeast, and hops. The malt refers to the grain that has gone through the initial stages of germination, a process triggered by exposure to specific levels of heat and humidity. By managing these conditions, the germination is halted and the grain can be considered malt that is suitable for brewing. A substantial volume of malt is needed for brewing, and this volume has caused malting to become its own distinct industry. This specialization allows breweries and distilleries access to a key ingredient without dedicating extensive resources to the malting process individually.

Fig 114 Malt and brewing process

Aslan’s partnership with Patagonia for their perennial beer indicates that the malt composition must include 15% kernza grain. This relatively low percentage is the result largely from cost considerations. Kernza malt is priced at nearly six times that of the brewery’s regular malt. This price difference can be attributed, in large part, to a limited supply because there are few farms currently cultivating kernza when compared to the growing demand. Additionally, the kernza grain’s unique, thin shape doesn’t align well with standard malting machinery designed for conventional round and larger grains. This incompatibility means a more labour-intensive malting process for kernza, further driving up costs.

Regenerative Beer - Case Study Currently, there are 11 breweries globally that are using kernza. We reached out to one such brewery, Aslan Brewing in Washington State, and interviewed the founder, Jack Lamb, to find out more.

Fig 115 Annual and perennial grain comparison By Antonio Garaycochea

Planet of Fields | UK Food System

By Antonio Garaycochea

[AA Landscape Urbanism 23/24]

“Patagonia has a source and works with the farmers (…) beer is malted barley, hops, water and yeast and they’re really tackling the barley side (…) the agreement was that we had to use Kernza for 15% or more of our malt bill.”

“The ROC Certified farms from where we source the Kernza are located in Minnesota which is far (…) The rest of our malt comes from a specialty malting facility here in Skagit Valley. The fact that it’s local… the shipping is free and direct is really convenient. The price really jacks up at the malting facility. They (Washington State) started giving huge grants and funding to Skagit Valley Malting to support local agriculture industry and bring tourists.”

“We pay 5 dollars a pound for this krenza malt which means it’s 6x the cost our regular malt. So expecting a brewer to use 100% Kernza in the malt bill is not possible right now”

“We’re paying the bill directly to the farm. Patagonia’s job is more about making the connection (…) From all our sales we have to give 10% of our royalties to Patagonia. What Patagonia is doing is assuring that these farms will have customers. They’re creating the supply by connecting the vendors to the producers”

Fig 116 Extracts from interview with Aslan Brewing By Antonio Garaycochea

Patagonia’s role within the previously described process in to close the gap between the farmer and the brewer. In return for making the connection between the two parties Patagonia receives a portion of the royalties that Aslan obtains from the sale of the perennial beer. This arrangement provides farmers with the assurance of a guaranteed market, ensuring the economic viability of continued kernza growth. However, the high cost of Kernza remains a significant expense for brewers.

Fig 117 Partnership between Aslan and Patagonia

Planet of Fields | UK Food System

By Antonio Garaycochea

The malting facility that supplies Aslan with malt for their regular brews is conveniently located just 40 km away from the brewery. Conversely, the Kernza malt travels a distance of over 2000 km from farms in Minnesota. This difference considerably inflates transportation costs and raises concerns about ecological impact, potentially offsetting the advantages of using perennial wheat. What this case study makes evident is that support for intermediary industries is crucial for a successful transition process. Whether it’s malting and flour milling for the case of cereals, textile mills for the case of hemp, or similar, these middle stages play an important part in ensuring viability at either end of the supply chain.

Fig 118

Distance comparison between Minnesota and Skagit Valley Malt By Antonio Garaycochea

[AA Landscape Urbanism 23/24]

Malt distributions to North America (2 Distributors)

Malting facilities

6 5

16% Crisp Tonnes of malt used per week

46% Simpson’s Malt 38% Crisp

4 3 2

Crisp malt Simpson’s malt

Wallminister’s ma

1 0

Simpson’s malt Storage facilties Malting facilties Breweries of Bristol

Malt distributions to Europe (7 Distributors)

Malt distributions to North America (2 Distributors)

Crisp malt Simpson’s malt

Malt distributions to Asia & Africa (3 Distributors)

Wallminister’s malt

Fig 120 Simpsons malt distribution By Antonio Garaycochea &Jegan Muralidharan

Storage facilties Malting facilties Breweries of Bristol Breweries of Bristol

Three engineers brewery

5 4

Portishead brewery

Mean

2 1 0

Great western brewing` Wiper & True Fierce & Noble Arbor Ales Little giant brewery Good Chemistry Lost and grounded Hare brewery

New bristol brewery Asles down brewery Croft ales Zero degrees brewery Left handed giant King street brewhouse Bristol beer factory

Incredible brewery

Little Martha brewing

Cocksure

Moor beer co. Breweries Sampled

Abbe ales brewery

Butcombe brewery Fig 121 Fig 119

Bristol’s craft breweries and land requirement for malt supply

Perennial wheat land requirements based on local malt consumption

By Antonio Garaycochea & Jegan Muralidharan

By Antonio Garaycochea

Total area of perennial Barley to cover demand

To place this in context with the “growing communities” food zones model referenced earlier, in an ideal scenario, 17% of the barley utilized for brewing would be locally sourced from Bristol’s peri-urban areas (i.e. greenbelt). When we translate the aggregate malt consumption of these breweries into cultivation requirements, about 222 hectares of perennial wheat cultivation would be necessary to meet the malt demand of these 32 local craft breweries, which is just over two and a half times the size of the average English farm (“Agricultural Facts: North West Region” 2023).

[AA Landscape Urbanism 23/24]

100

In the case of Bristol, there are 32 craft breweries. After conducting a survey of a representative number it was determined that most of these get 16% their malt from Crisp Simpson’s Malt which means that, although these breweries 46% operate on a local scale, Simpson’sexpansive. Malt their supply chain is more Simpson’s 38% Malt has a network of six malting facilities across the Crisp country and acquires grain from farms spanning the UK which it then distributes both domestically and internationally.

Wickwar brewing

Tonnes of malt used per week

Planet of Fields | UK Food System

Proposal Implementation in the Bristol Greenbelt

Site Selection What might a supply chain like this look like? This final section aims to integrate and visualize all the previously discussed concepts within the context of the Bristol Green Belt. The first step in this process is to map all the wheat and barley farms in the green belt. Subsequently, these mapped areas are overlayed with the grassland strategic network that was developed by the West England Nature Partnership. Through this method, we can isolate select farms as preferred candidates for cultivating perennial wheat within a highly diversified agroecological setting.

Fig 123

Wheat and Barley farms in Bristol Greenbelt

Wheat and Barley farms within WENP Grassland Strategic Network

By Antonio Garaycochea

Planet of Fields | UK Food System

Fig 122

Fig 124 Section Through selected Wheat Farm

102

101

By Antonio Garaycochea

[AA Landscape Urbanism 23/24]

Intervention

These farms stand out from conventional monoculture farms, hosting a diverse range of agroecological practices — from agroforestry to no till organic farming. The absence of pesticides is not problematic, as the rich biodiversity in alignment with the regions natural ecology bolsters crop resilience.

Fig 125 Section through agroecological wheat farm after policy modifications By Antonio Garaycochea

2 3

There is enterprise stacking with other businesses that Benefit from being on the farm such as bee keeping

Perennial wheat Grass is Under-sown with clovers and inter-cropped with legumes. Longer root systems are developed and the soil horizons are thickened.

The strips of perennial wheat are grazed twice a year by animals from another farm in the cluster. The field benefits from the animals’ fertilizer and, in return the second farmer’s animals receive forage.

Multi-purpose spaces are used for psychological retreats and workshops

Shared machinery and resources within the cluster also extends the methods of distribution. Veg boxes are delivered by a shared van which collects produce from all the participant farms

Farms require more human input eventually leading to public transport networks that extend from the city out to the green belt.

104

103

Planet of Fields | UK Food System

up to 3m

[AA Landscape Urbanism 23/24]

Site Selection The subsequent phase in the cereals’ life-cycle involves either milling for flour or malting for beer. Milling operations can benefit from proximity to rivers, utilizing hydro-power from the water’s flow. On the other hand, malting generates substantial wastewater. Fortunately, this wastewater isn’t heavily contaminated since it’s primarily used for grain washing, making it a good candidate for treatment and re-purposing for the restoration of wetland corridors. After taking this into consideration, our focus shifted to potential sites for establishing a malting facility, where Brownfield sites stand out as ideal candidates. By identifying publicly owned brownfield sites and overlaying them with the potential wetland corridors proposed by WENP, we are able to short-list the most suitable locations.

Fig 128 Section through intermediate malting facility By Antonio Garaycochea

This facility can be developed through public-commons partnerships, incorporating a phyto-depuration system which can effectively treat the water before it being released into adjacent wetlands.

Fig 126

Fig 127

Potential candidates for cereal intermediate industry By Antonio Garaycochea

Routes from origin farm to selected brown-field sites

Planet of Fields | UK Food System

By Antonio Garaycochea

105

[AA Landscape Urbanism 23/24] [AA Landscape Urbanism 23/24]

106

Results

The malt and flour are subsequently distributed to local breweries and markets, respectively. Originating at the farms, the resulting supply chains are the basis of a local cereal business corridor that works in conjunction with the restoration of local ecological pathways within a highly productive peri urban farming landscape.

Fig 129 Cereal corridor evolution

108

107

Planet of Fields | UK Food System

By Antonio Garaycochea

[AA Landscape Urbanism 23/24]

Thank you to:

[08] Acknowledgments

Planet of Fields

Jose Alfredo Ramirez Eduardo Rico Clara Oloriz Sanjuan Daniel Kiss Elena Luciano Suastegui Carlotta Olivari Khushboo Prashant Jegan Mudalidharan The Community Farm, Bristol Jack Lamb, Aslan Brewing Tracy Adams Robin Leech

109

110

[AA Landscape Urbanism 23/24]

Bibliography. Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board. 2022. “Assessing the Impact of the Sustainable Farming Incentive on Farm Businesses.” “Agricultural Facts: North West Region.” 2023. GOV.UK. May 17, 2023. https:// www.gov.uk/government/statistics/agricultural-facts-england-regionalprofiles/agricultural-facts-north-west-region#:~:text=(Sourced%20from%20 Defra%20Aggregate%20agricultural. AHDB. 2023. “Six Additional Standards Announced for the SFI.” January 26, 2023. https://ahdb.org.uk/trade-and-policy-six-additional-standardsannounced-for-SFI. Ajl, Max. 2021. A People’s Green New Deal. London: Pluto Press.

Great Britain. Ministry Of Justice. 2021. National Planning Policy Framework. London: Ministry Of Justice, July. Greater London Authority. 2021. “London’s Population – London Datastore.” London Datastore. 2021. https://data.london.gov.uk/dataset/londonspopulation. Growing Community. 2021. “The Food Zones | Growing Communities.”

BathNES Council. n.d. “Area 1: Thrubwell Farm Plateau.” https://www.bathnes. gov.uk/sites/default/files/rural_landscapes_-_chapter_7.pdf.

Heron, Kai. 2023. Farm Subsidies and the Green Transition Interview by Adam Calo. https://podcasts.google.com/feed/ aHR0cHM6Ly9mZWVkcy5saWJzeW4uY29tLzMyMTk4Ni9yc3M/episode/. MjA5ODRmN2UtZjFlMC00MTFmLWFlNWQtMjBmYzMzZGQ2MmE2?ep=14.

Booth, Rob. 2021. “Farming the Future: Transforming the Ownership of Food Systems Research and Data.” Caldbeck, Janie. 2021. “David Rose.” Agricology. August 2021. https://www. agricology.co.uk/field/farmer-profiles/david-rose. Campaign To Protect Rural England, and Natural England (Agency. 2010. Green Belts : A Greener Future. London: Cpre ; Sheffield. Carey, Joy. 2011. “Who Feeds Bristol? Towards a Resilient Food Plan Production • Processing • Distribution • Communities • Retail • Catering • Waste.” https://bristolgreencapital.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Whofeeds-Bristol-report.pdf. CATSAROS, CHRISTOPHE . 2020. “Taking the Country’s Side. Common Trajectories in Agriculture and Architecture.” Archis. April 10, 2020. https:// archis.org/volume/taking-the-countrys-side-sebastien-marot-christophecatsaros/. Clouse, Carey. 2014. “Cuba’s Urban Farming Revolution: How to Create Self-Sufficient Cities.” Architectural Review. March 17, 2014. https://www. architectural-review.com/essays/cubas-urban-farming-revolution-how-tocreate-self-sufficient-cities. DEFRA. 2020. “The Path to Sustainable Farming: An Agricultural Transition Plan 2021 to 2024.” www.gov.uk/defra.

Growingcommunities.org. zones.

2021.

https://growingcommunities.org/food-

Kapoor, Ujjwal. 2022. “Article in Focus: Garden City by Sir Ebenezer Howard.” RTF | Rethinking the Future. September 19, 2022. https://www. re-thinkingthefuture.com/rtf-architectural-reviews/a7864-article-in-focusgarden-city-by-sir-ebenezer-howard/. “Kernza® Grain & Perennial Agriculture.” n.d. The Land Institute. https:// landinstitute.org/our-work/perennial-crops/kernza/. LRA. n.d. “Agricultural Land Classification and Land Quality Surveys - Land Research Associates.” Www.lra.co.uk. http://www.lra.co.uk/ services/agricultural-land-classification#:~:text=Agricultural%20Land%20 Classification%20(ALC)%20is. Miller, Mervyn. 2005. Letchworth Garden City. Stroud, Gloucestershire: Nonsuch Publishing Limited. Oldham, Olivia . n.d. “Family Farm Succession.” Www.stirtoaction.com. Accessed September 21, 2023. https://www.stirtoaction.com/family-farmsuccession. Patel, Raj. 2009. “Food Sovereignty.” Http://Dx.Doi. Org/10.1080/03066150903143079 36 (3): 663–706. https://doi. org/10.1080/03066150903143079. RHS. 2023. “Soil Types.” Www.rhs.org.uk. 2023. https://www.rhs.org.uk/soilcomposts-mulches/soil-types. “Starting a Farmer Cluster.” 2018. Farmer Clusters. July 10, 2018. https://www. farmerclusters.com/advice/starting-a-farmer-cluster/.

DEFRA. 2020. “The National Food Strategy - The Plan” DEFRA. 2022. “How to Apply for a Lump Sum Payment to Leave or Retire from Farming.” GOV.UK. November 30, 2022. https://www.gov.uk/government/ publications/apply-for-a-lump-sum-payment-to-leave-or-retire-from-farming/ how-to-apply-for-a-lump-sum-payment-to-leave-or-retire-from-farming.

Planet of Fields | UK Food System

“Funding Information.” 2020. Farmer Clusters. June 15, 2020. https://www. farmerclusters.com/facilitation-fund/funding-information/.

Almeida, Adam. 2023. “Social Value Index: Building the Case for the Democratic Commons in Tottenham | Report | Common Wealth.” Www.common-Wealth. org. April 27, 2023. https://www.common-wealth.org/publications/socialvalue-index-building-the-case-for-the-democratic-commons-in-tottenham.

Bishop, Peter, Alona Martinez Perez, Rob Roggema, and Lesley Williams. 2020. Re-purposing the Green Belt in the 21st Century. UCL Press.

111

Fishman, Robert. 2016. Urban Utopias in the Twentieth Century Ebenezer Howard, Frank Lloyd Wright, and Le Corbusier. Cambridge, Mass. The Mit Press [C.

Evans, Rob. 2019. “Half of England Is Owned by Less than 1% of the Population.” The Guardian, April 17, 2019, sec. Money. https://www. theguardian.com/money/2019/apr/17/who-owns-england-thousand-secretlandowners-author#:~:text=Half%20of%20England%20is%20owned%20 by%2025%2C000%20landowners. FAO. n.d. “Overview | Agroecology Knowledge Hub | Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.” Www.fao.org. https://www.fao.org/ agroecology/overview/en/.

[09] References

West of England Nature Partnership. n.d. “West of England Nature Partnership.” WENP. Accessed September 21, 2023. https://wenp.org.uk/#whatwedo. Westerbergh, Anna . 2023. “SLU’s Breeding of Perennial Barley Receives Major Support from the Innovation Fund Denmark.” SLU.SE. May 2, 2023. https:// www.slu.se/en/ew-news/2023/5/slus-breeding-of-perennial-barley-receivesmajor-support-from-innovation-fund-denmark/#:~:text=There%20are%20 now%2049%20of.

Bibliography List of Figures

Who Owns England. 2018. “How the Extent of County Farms Has Halved in 40 Years.” Who Owns England? June 8, 2018. https://whoownsengland. org/2018/06/08/how-the-extent-of-county-farms-has-halved-in-40-years/.

Farming UK. 2022. “Defra’s New Lump Sum Exit Scheme Broken Down.” February 2022. https://www.farminguk.com/news/defra-s-new-lump-sumexit-scheme-broken-down_59830.html. Feenstra, Gail W. “Local Food Systems and Sustainable Communities.” American Journal of Alternative Agriculture 12, no. 1 (1997): 28–36. doi:10.1017/S0889189300007165. FFAC. 2021. “Intensive Agriculture: Characteristics, Examples, and Why Is It Bad? | FFAC.” Ffacoalition.org. December 14, 2021. https://ffacoalition.org/ articles/intensive-agriculture/.

[AA Landscape Urbanism 23/24]

112

List of Figures. 01. Precedents

agricultural-industry-survey-notes-and-guidance#completing-the-june-census-ofagriculture-and-horticulture.

01. Monoculture fields of UK. Source: https://www.istockphoto.com/photos/uk-farm-aerial

104. The Selborne Landscape Partnership and agri- schemes- By Antonio Garaycochea Source: https://www.farmerclusters.com/

74. Section through Nottingham - By Khushboo Prashant 75. Physical layers of Hooke Park - By Antonio Garaycochea

02. Urban Farming in La Havana Source: https://www.architectural-review.com/essays/cubas-urban-farmingrevolution-how-to-create-self-sufficient-cities

45, 46, 47, 48. Poultry, Cattle, Sheep, Pigs - By Antonio Garaycochea Source: “Structure of the Agricultural Industry: Survey Notes and Guidance.” n.d. GOV.UK. Accessed April 30, 2023. https://www.gov.uk/guidance/structure-of-theagricultural-industry-survey-notes-and-guidance#completing-the-june-census-ofagriculture-and-horticulture.‌

03. Garden City, Territorial map Source: Ebenezer Howard

49. London city growth Source: Paolo Masucci

79, 80 - Soil sections of Hooke Park - Khushboo Prashant

105. Proposed participants of cluster farms - By Antonio Garaycochea 76. Supply cycle of Hooke Park - By Khushboo Prashant 106. Farm clusters connecting woodland corridors - By Antonio Garaycochea 77, 78 - Section of Hooke Park. by Khusbhoo Prashant 107. Calculation of resulting woodland increase - By Jegan Muralidharan 108. Bristol Greenbelt evolution over time - By Antonio Garaycochea 81 - Physical layers of Community farm - By Antonio Garaycochea

04. Garden city, Artist impression by Sara Dunn Source: https://www.behance.net/gallery/15865643/The-Garden-City-Utopia 05. Broadacre city plan Source: Frank Lloyd Wright 06. Broadacre city Perspective Source: Frank Lloyd Wright 07,08,09,10. Taking the Country’s Side Source: Sebastien Marot, Sebastien Marot, https://archis.org/volume/taking-thecountrys-side-sebastien-marot-christophe-catsaros/ 11. Peri-Urban Farms in La Havana Source: https://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/22/dining/Cuba-us-organic-farming.html 12. Peri-Urban Farms in La Havana Source: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/oct/28/organic-or-starvecan-cubas-new-farming-model-provide-food-security 02. UK Context 13. Megafarm in the UK Source: https://ecostorm.tv/portfolio/the-rise-of-the-megafarm/ 14. Cities and Greenbelts. By Khusboo Prashant Data Sources : Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government. 2022. “English Local Authority Green Belt Dataset.” Www.data.gov.uk. October 6, 2022. https://www.data. gov.uk/dataset/ccb505e0-67a8-4ace-b294-19a3cbff4861/english-local-authoritygreen-belt-dataset.

50. Population growth and GreenBelts - By Khushboo Prashant Data Sources: a) 2021. Office.net. 2021. https://statics.teams.cdn.office.net/evergreen-assets/ safelinks/1/atp-safelinks.html b) Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government. 2022. “English Local Authority Green Belt Dataset.” Www.data.gov.uk. October 6, 2022. https://www.data. gov.uk/dataset/ccb505e0-67a8-4ace-b294-19a3cbff4861/english-local-authoritygreen-belt-dataset.

07. The Case of Cereals 82, 83 - Sections through Community farm - By Khushboo Prashant Source: “The Community Farm - Organic Veg Box Delivery Bristol Bath Weston-SuperMare Frome.” n.d. Www.thecommunityfarm.co.uk. https://www.thecommunityfarm. co.uk/. 84. Community Farm location and network - By Khushboo Prashant, Jegan Muralidharan and Antonio Garaycochea

109. Annual Wheat Source: https://www.britannica.com/plant/wheat 110. Breakdown of UK Croppable area, June 2020 Source: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/ uploads/attachment_data/file/946161/structure-jun2020final-uk-22dec20.pdf 111. Thinopyrum intermedium source: https://kernza.org/what-is-kernza/

51. Growing Communities Food Zones Diagram - by Antonio Garaycochea

85. Community Farm Isometric - By Antonio Garaycochea

52. Rise of Megafarms article Source: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/jul/18/rise-of-mega-farmshow-the-us-model-of-intensive-farming-is-invading-the-world

86. Social Value Index in Tottenham Source: https://www.common-wealth.org/publications/social-value-index-buildingthe-case-for-the-democratic-commons-in-tottenham

53. England Ownership - By Jegan England Ownership Source: Who Owns England

87. Social Value Index Calculation - By Antonio garaycochea 05. The Site: Avon Green Belt

54. Decline in Council Farms Source: https://whoownsengland.org/2018/06/08/how-the-extent-of-county-farmshas-halved-in-40-years/

88. Photo mosaic of Bristol Green Belt- By Khushboo Prashant

55. Decline of Council Farms in Norfolk Source: https://whoownsengland.org/2018/06/08/how-the-extent-of-county-farmshas-halved-in-40-years/

89. Brisol soil grades. Natural England. 2021. by Khusbhoo Prashant Source: “Guide to Assessing Development Proposals on Agricultural Land.” GOV.UK. February 5, 2021. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/agricultural-landassess-proposals-for-development/guide-to-assessing-development-proposals-onagricultural-land.

112. Hordeum bulbosum source: https://www.slu.se/en/ew-news/2023/5/slus-breeding-of-perennialbarley-receives-major-support-from-innovation-fund-denmark/#:~:text=SLU’s%20 breeding%20of%20perennial%20barley%20receives%20 113. “A new Beer From Aslan Brewing Uses a game-changing grain” source: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/ uploads/ https://washingtonbeerblog.com/a-new-beer-from-aslan-brewing-usesa-potentially-game-changing-grain/#:~:text=The%20Bellingham%2Dbased%20 brewery%20just,Aslan%20Brewing%20created%20 114. Malt and brewing process - By Antonio Garaycochea 115. Annual and perennial grain comparrison- By Antonio Garaycochea

03. The Agricultural Transition 56. Agricultural Transition Plan announcement Source: https://www.edwinthompson.co.uk/agricultural-transition-plan-2021-2024annoucement/

90. Bristol soil type. Source. University, Cranfield. 2013.by Khusbhoo Prashant Source: “NATMAP - National Soil Map.” Www.data.gov.uk. October 3, 2013. https:// www.data.gov.uk/dataset/ea1442bf-ba77-42cc-80e7-2ea339ccb28a/natmapnational-soil-map.

15. Metropolitan Road Network Map Source: Paolo Masucci

57. Timeline of the 7 year plan - By Antonio Garaycochea Source: DEFRA

91. Types of Green in the Green Belt - By Antonio Garaycochea Data Source: https://digimap.edina.ac.uk/roam/map/agcensus?unifiedClient=true

16. London Greenbelt Profile Source: Khushboo Prashant

58. Genera Diagram of ELM schemes - By Antonio Garaycochea & Jega Muralidaran Source: DEFRA

92. Bristol Peri-Urban Woodlands - By Jegan Muralidharan Data Source: https://digimap.edina.ac.uk/environment

17 - 34. London, Bristol, Manchester, Birmingham and its Green belts. by Jegan Source :“CORINE Land Cover Map Datasets for the UK, Jersey and Guernsey.” n.d. EIDC. https://catalogue.ceh.ac.uk/documents/2fad7f16-6585-438a-9fe3a7d68ff642f9.

59. Example CS actions - by Jegan Muralidharan Source: DEFRA

93 - 95- Bristol woodland, Grassland, wetland strategic corridor by Jegan Muralidharan& Antonio Garaycochea Source : “Nature Recovery Network.” n.d. WENP. https://wenp.org.uk/nature-recoverynetwork/. 96. Businesses related to food in Bristol - By Jegan Muralidharan

116. Extracts from interview with Aslan Brewing - By Antonio Garaycochea 117. Partnership between Aslan and Patagonia - By Antonio Garaycochea 118. Distance comparrisson between Minnesota and Skagit Valley Malt - By Antonio Garaycochea 119. Perennial wheat land requirements based on local malt consumption - By Antonio Garaycochea 120. Simpson’s malt distribution - By Antonio Garaycochea &Jegan Muralidharan

35, 36. ALC Soil Grading, Land cover by Khushboo Prashant Source: “Guide to Assessing Development Proposals on Agricultural Land.” GOV.UK. February 5, 2021. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/agricultural-landassess-proposals-for-development/guide-to-assessing-development-proposals-onagricultural-land.

Planet of Fields | UK Food System

37. Area required for UK’s Food Source: National Food Strategy, Part 1

113

38. Routes and impact of UK’s food, by Jegan Muralidharan Data Sources: a) “United Kingdom Food Products Imports by Country 2020 | WITS Data.” n.d. Wits. worldbank.org. https://wits.worldbank.org/CountryProfile/en/Country/GBR/Year/LTST/ TradeFlow/Import/Partner/by-country/Product/16-24_FoodProd. b) Globalforestwatch.org c) “United Kingdom Food Products Imports by Country 2020 | WITS Data.” n.d. Wits. worldbank.org. https://wits.worldbank.org/CountryProfile/en/Country/GBR/Year/LTST/ TradeFlow/Import/Partner/by-country/Product/16-24_FoodProd.

60. Example SFI actions - by Jegan Muralidharan Source: DEFRA 04. Agroecology

121. Bristol’s craft breweries and land requirement for malt supply - By Antonio Garaycochea & Jegan Muralidharan 122. Wheat and Barley farms in Bristol Greenbelt - By Antonio Garaycochea Data Source: https://digimap.edina.ac.uk/agcensus

97. Agri-schemes and woodland strategic network in the vecinity of Community Farm - By Jegan Muralidharan Sources: a) “Nature Recovery Network.” n.d. WENP. https://wenp.org.uk/nature-recoverynetwork/. b) https://magic.defra.gov.uk/

123. Wheat and Barley farms within WENP Grassland Strategic Network - By Antonio Garaycochea Data Sources: a) https://digimap.edina.ac.uk/agcensus b) https://wenp.org.uk/strategy/

62. Key principles of Agroecology - By Jegan Muralidharan Source - FAO.

06. Policy Proposal

124. Section through selected wheat farm - By Antonio Garaycochea

63. Monoculture vs Agroecological farm - By Jegan Muralidharan Source: Stray Dog Institute

98. Village in Greenbelt Source: https://www.istockphoto.com/photos/aerial-view-uk

125. Section through agroecological wheat farm after policy modifications - By Antonio Garaycochea

64. Sustainable intensification - by Jegan Muralidharan & Antonio Garaycochea

99. Policy proposal overview - By Antonio Garaycochea

65. Case study locations - by Jegan Muralidharan

100. Planned farm succession - by Antonio Garaycochea Source: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/ uploads/attachment_data/file/431645/fbs-farmsuccession-03june15.pdf

126. Potential candidates for cereal intermediate industry - By Antonio Garaycochea Sources: A) https://wenp.org.uk/strategy/ b) https://www.bathnes.gov.uk/services/business/property-project-delivery/land-andproperty-asset-register c) https://n-somerset.gov.uk/ d) https://www.southglos.gov.uk/ e) https://www.wiltshire.gov.uk/

61. Agroecological farm source: https://www.arc2020.eu/comparing-organic-agroecological-andregenerative-farming-part-2-agroecology/

66. Physical layers of Fobbing farm - By Antonio garaycochea

39, 44. Arable/ Horticulture & Grassland. by Antonio Garaycochea Source: “Structure of the Agricultural Industry: Survey Notes and Guidance.” n.d. GOV.UK. Accessed April 30, 2023. https://www.gov.uk/guidance/structure-of-theagricultural-industry-survey-notes-and-guidance#completing-the-june-census-ofagriculture-and-horticulture.

67 to 69 - Sections through Fobbing farm. by Khusboo. Source : “George Young (FarmingGeorge).” n.d. Agricology.https://www.agricology. co.uk/field/farmer-profiles/george-young-farminggeorge.

40,41,42,43 -Oats, Oilseed, Barley, Wheat., By Antonio Garaycochea Data Source: “Structure of the Agricultural Industry: Survey Notes and Guidance.” n.d. GOV.UK. Accessed April 30, 2023. https://www.gov.uk/guidance/structure-of-the-

71, 72 - Section through Wakelyns. by Khusbhoo.

70. Physical layers of Wakelyns - By Antonio Garaycochea

101. Current and proposed structure of farm succesion - By Antonio Garaycochea 102. NE Somerset council owned farms within Avon Green Belt - By Antonio Garaycochea Data source: https://www.bathnes.gov.uk/services/business/property-projectdelivery/land-and-property-asset-register 103. Current and proposed structure of council farms - By Antonio Garaycochea

127. Routes from origin farm to selected brownfield sites - By Antonio Garaycochea 128. Section through intermediate malting facility - By Antonio Garaycochea 129. Cereal corridor evolution over time - By Antonio Garaycochea

73. Physical layers of Nottingham - By Antonio Garaycochea

[AA Landscape Urbanism 23/24]

114