Agriculture and World Views: An Inquiry Into Shifting Ecological Paradigms

Chapter 9 - Examples From the Grassroots

Gaia is prodigal in the profusion and diversity of plants which she makes available for the satisfaction of most human needs, physical as well as aesthetic, emotional, and spiritual needs (Hart 1996, p. 41).

Plants for a Future

In April this year and in July I visited and worked with Plants for a Future (PFAF) on their site in West Devon. PFAF is a charitable trust and non-profit making organisation with a site in Cornwall and one in Devon. The following account of their influences, principles, goals and activities, derive partly from these visits and partly from the extensive information that they make available to interested members of the public, for education purposes and to involve people in their vision. I will also describe my experiences and feelings of volunteering for PFAF as a comparison to working as a labourer for commercial organic producers last year.

Plants for a Future are concerned mainly with educational and research work by gathering and disseminating information on the useful properties of perennial plants. They combine woodland gardening, vegan-organic horticulture, permaculture and the use of perennial plants. PFAF point out that plants should be able to provide the majority of our needs and in terms of food there are at least 20,000 edible plants worldwide. Our present reliance on fifteen major crops is therefore extremely limiting. The project is currently growing around 1,700 edible or otherwise useful plants at the Cornwall site and holds a database of over 7,000 useful species (PFAF 2000).

This impressive database was developed by Ken Fern, the founder of PFAF and a former bus driver in London. His original idea was one of self-sufficiency in food and he obtained a small plot of land in Surrey with the hope of also being able to sell surplus crops. However he soon decided that growing food must be more simple than working against nature "as an enemy" (Fern 1997, p. xii) and less damaging to the environment. He was inspired by Robert Hart's work on forest gardening to start experimenting with perennial food crops. In 1989 he helped set up the demonstration site in Cornwall and he is now considered to be a leading expert in this field (Fern 1997). The influences behind PFAF are therefore predominantly ecological, stemming largely from the problems associated with commercial-scale annual monocultures. Their actions and principles are also driven by a compassionate attitude towards animals, as well as health and nutrition.

Following the development of the field in Cornwall, PFAF decided to purchase a further site in order to meet the growing demand for their work. In 1997, land at Blagdon Cross in West Devon was identified as being ideal for a research centre and demonstration gardens. The 84-acre site had been severely degraded by the persistent planting of subsidised monocultural flax and was therefore classified as unfit for agricultural use. As a result, planning permission had been granted for holiday chalets, a fishing lake and golf course. Instead PFAF purchased the land with a view to restoring it and developing a demonstration centre and gardens. Over forty years, Blagdon Cross should become the most productive, diverse and healthy land in the area, which is currently surrounded by conventional monocultures of both arable and pasture (PFAF 2000).

So far the land has been allowed to regenerate by allowing natural succession to take place. One field was so badly degraded by farming practices that just one weed grew after the field had been abandoned. After five years there is a scrubby vegetation of grasses, gorse and pioneer tree saplings such as willow (Figure 9.1). This type of community is the earliest stage of woodland succession (Peterken 1993). In addition to this, PFAF have planted around 22,000 trees, which are breaking up the compacted soil, while leaf litter is improving fertility and adding organic matter to the soil structure. The predominant tree species planted is common alder (Alnus glutinosa) because it requires the damp and acid soils that exist in this area. Alder also performs the function of fixing nitrogen, it grows very quickly and has a heavy leaf-fall thereby enriching the soil (Fern 1997). It is therefore an excellent pioneer species and provides shade and shelter for other species, particularly fruiting species that have been planted in gaps (Figure 9.2). As with the succession of a natural forest, the pioneer species will eventually give way to taller stands (Peterken 1993).

Figure 9.1 Scrubby vegetation at PFAF.

Figure 9.2 Walnut sapling among alders.

In this instance species such as monkey puzzle, walnut, oak, chestnut and others will eventually form the canopy. Other trees and shrubs planted include fruits such as plum, cherry plum, raspberry, fig, dogwood, apple, pear, hawthorn and others. Another very valuable species that has been planted is willow-leaved buckthorn (Hippophae salicifolia). It is also a pioneer species that fixes nitrogen and its aggressive root system quickly binds the soil preventing erosion and creating suitable conditions for other trees. Although the fruits are small and difficult to pick, they are thought to be the most nutritious fruit that can be grown in temperate regions. Research indicates that regular consumption prevents cancer and large quantities even reverse tumours (Fern 1997).

Permaculture methods have been used so that none of the ground has been tilled, instead where necessary mulching and composting has been used to prepare beds for shrubs such as raspberries (Figure 9.3). Around young trees, a mulch of cardboard and cut reeds is placed to prevent weeds crowding the young trees. Eventually this woodland garden will be fully planted with the seven layers defined earlier (Figure 8.1). PFAF have also started planting beds of perennial salads, vegetables and herbs (Figure 9.4). The construction of raised beds (Figure 9.5) mean that the underlying vegetation can be suppressed with mulch followed by the application of compost in which to grow the plants. All materials such as wood and stone for construction are locally obtained and are often reclaimed materials keeping the overall budget low and the project sustainable by utilising materials that would otherwise go to landfill. The compost if not made on site is purchased using peat-free organic sources.

Figure 9.3 Planting of raspberry canes among trees in April (left), then after 3 months growth (right).

Figure 9.4 Perennial salad and herb bed.

Figure 9.5 Construction of raised beds.

The creation of the woodland garden serves the purposes of restoring the land, researching the potential of different species and their interactions but most crucial to the plans of PFAF is the education aspect by using the area as a demonstration garden. Part of the value of this is to show how poor agricultural land can be restored by permaculture methods, particularly by the establishment of perennial plants. The range of demonstration gardens will include:

• Urban permaculture gardens - to illustrate what can be achieved in urban settings.
• Urban conventional garden - as a comparison in terms of productivity, appearance and work required.
• Urban wildlife gardens - designed for wildlife, one garden using native species only, the other including non-natives species.
• Permaculture garden for the handicapped - to accommodate those with restricted physical and mental abilities. Features such as raised beds for wheelchair access.
• Garden for the blind - distinctive aromas.
• Children's garden - area for children to play with safe plants, edible flowering lawns, plants to provide stimuli, living willow structure, water feature, edible maze and compost system for education. Plants for games, music, arts and crafts.
• The Garden of Love - dedicated to Robert Hart who died in 2000. To demonstrate a productive and educational woodland garden fairly quickly because trees are already growing on site and work has been commenced.

Other plans for the site include a nature walk, coppicing in parts of the native woodland, polytunnels, a nature reserve, a four-acre lake, wetland water treatment systems, low impact dwellings, camping pitches and a visitor centre. A maximum of thirty people would eventually live on site, the food being provided by one acre per person, taking up just thirty acres of the site. As described in the last chapter, forest gardens combined with more open areas of permaculture gardens and production of grains could provide a balanced, nutritious and healthy diet. Trees that can provide protein sources such as monkey puzzle nuts, walnuts, acorns, pine nuts and chestnuts have already been planted, as have the fruit trees and shrubs listed above. The site already provides herbs, vegetables and salads, although these beds eventually need to be extended.

The vision of PFAF illustrates a way of life that causes minimum impact to natural ecosystems and in fact through the process of establishment, restores the land. In addition, the community of people would be incorporated and thereby connected with the rest of nature. The existing natural ecosystems would remain intact while others would be created that mimic nature and provide healthy food. The project aims to demonstrate a feasible and beneficial way of life through education. The principles meet the criteria for a Gaian world view and also closely resemble the vision that I described in the last chapter, of human communities and crops within a predominantly forested landscape. This vision is in fact a world view change itself in terms of agriculture and lifestyle. PFAF are aware that their goals challenge conventional ways of life, current farming techniques and the infrastructure of political and economic life. This however is the motivation for their actions, in order to bring about a more harmonious, sustainable and compassionate world.

My own experiences working at Plants for a Future can be described as a 'shift in paradigm' because it was a significant departure from the status quo. I was able to help out on tasks around the site such as the construction of raised beds, the creation of a stone path for wheelbarrow use, clearance of scrub around a hedge, tree planting and tree mulching. I also did jobs to assist running the site and visitor centre such as cataloguing the library, cooking meals, washing up and gathering salads. There was also opportunity to network, talk and work with other volunteers, walk around the site, take photographs and discuss PFAF's work with Elaine who lives at the Devon site and Richard who works close to the Cornwall site on administration and the website. I found all of this a rich and rewarding experience, as I always have done with volunteer work on worthwhile projects.

For me this differs from most paid work because I was able to become truly immersed in the day to day life of the site and feel part of something that had long-term and worthwhile goals. I also felt satisfied to be carrying out constructive and creative work that would benefit the land and its wildlife, whilst contributing towards a food system that could improve our well-being, health and happiness. It was constructive to an extent that I could see the result of my work and creative because I worked mutually with other workers to design the path and walled garden in a way that was aesthetic and practical. We were able to share stories, views and humour while we worked, realising we were brought together by common ideals, thoughts and perspectives on the world. It could be said that our world view was the same - an appreciation of the ecological and social crisis in the world with the will to act for change. I found this inspiring and empowering. Where views did differ, constructive conversations arose that would approach the issues in a co-operative and attentive way.

The inspiring landscape, especially in the knowledge of its former condition, was seductive with the days drifting past in close harmony with nature, eating directly from the Earth, sleeping on the Earth and working with nature to restore her. The rhythm of life was more evident than the time of days and hours. The surroundings were peaceful and vibrant with wildlife flourishing in every niche. As I walked around the site, the distinct ecosystems felt different to me. I left the friendly alder woodland garden with its young and rapid growth and gradually reached the scrub which has regenerated. I think the first time that I visited this area a year earlier, it felt slightly barren probably because it was hot and dry and the vegetation offered no protection. Eventually on reaching the native woodland, the welcoming feel returned but this woodland was mature and well-established, it felt stable and the trees have a presence. I wandered through the slightly damp wood observing the bracket fungi, the knotted roots of fallen trees, the sun percolating through the trees and the birds flitting around. I was able to forage from the forest floor, tasting wild garlic and wood sorrel. I found this a truly nurturing experience and returned renewed for more tasks around the site.

On reflection, this experience can be contrasted with working as a labourer for a co-operative on organic farms last year. It indeed reflects a different world view to being immersed in Plants for a Future. Sadly this is our prevailing world view. I spent six weeks in this summer job, for most of the time on my knees weeding carrots for seven hours a day. The odd day of broccoli cutting and picking up potatoes was believe it or not, a welcome relief. In contrast to PFAF, the work felt monotonous, dull, uncreative and even destructive. Because of the commercial-scale organic production in south Devon, the workers are subject to division of labour. The job was so vast with row upon row of carrots entwined with weeds that changing jobs throughout the day would have benefited us but in such a commercial system, it would not have benefited the employers.

The contrast to PFAF was immense. Because this work was varied and skilled I was willing to put my full efforts into jobs. The day was organic, I worked alongside others around the weather, the way I felt and around what the jobs suggested. I felt job satisfaction in creating something worthwhile with the thought of returning in months and years to see the trees taller and the gardens well-established. In the carrot field, I worked only for money, I was part of that competitive and economic-based system where the contradiction highlighted by E. F. Schumacher was apparent. In his chapter 'Buddhist Economics' in 'Small is Beautiful', he notes how employers regard labour as "an item of cost, to be reduced to a minimum" whereas for the worker it is "a 'disutility'; to work is to make a sacrifice of one's leisure and comfort, and wages are a kind of compensation for the sacrifice" (Schumacher 1974, p. 45). This was certainly my experience, I would long for the end of the day although usually too shattered to enjoy any leisure and every last drop of work time was taken full advantage of for the minimum wage. Just as we would finish one endless field, we would be whisked off to the next. In contrast, at PFAF, work generated a feeling of usefulness and satisfaction rather than being regarded as a "disutility". Work in such a situation becomes part of life rather than a sacrifice to financially support a separate existence.

Working in the conventional system, I was painfully aware that the soil was being degraded in this monoculture of carrots. It was bare to the elements with any piece of vegetation except carrots quickly removed for fear of compromising the crop. The gradient of the land had not been given consideration when designing these fields, many of them had rows running down the slope so the soil could follow the same direction. Our supervisor one day showed me how to hoe the end of the rows. Fully aware of the implications, he said with a hint of irony "the aim is to create a barren wasteland where nothing can grow". I dutifully hoed away until my shoulder and back ached as much as my knees. The task was both soil and soul destroying. The work reflected the monoculture system so that nature and workers were subject to the homogenisation that is characteristic of the prevailing world view.

The social element was somewhat different to my experience at Plants for a Future. Instead of varied and inspiring discussions, the conversation revolved around the same type of gossip and slander. Sometimes we could banter for hours to pass the day but our supervisor was an unpredictable and suspicious character who would suddenly change from friend to foe and order us to work faster or start our row again. We would fall silent and the boredom would set in. I can only say that I felt exploited, disrespected and unfulfilled in this work. I was not allowed to express my creativity as just another worker in a vast system. Time or opportunity to appreciate nature was beyond hope. As well as being surrounded by carrots we were under constant pressure to work quickly. The emphasis did change when a bonus was introduced for weeding more rows of carrots. We amused ourselves by working frantically in competition with others, it was like a slow version of the 100m sprint as we worked our way up the rows. Whilst we had little pride in the quality of our work before, this was now completely gone and we would get away with us much as we could. Carrots went flying into the rows with the weeds and many weeds stayed in the ground. Here the competitive economic system generated the competitive nature of the work.

This experience confirmed to me that although organic agriculture is preferable by not using chemicals, it barely addresses any other detrimental effects of agriculture or social issues and therefore remains firmly in the prevailing world view. What felt destructive for me was also destructive to the ecosystem and the Earth. This reflects the role of modern agriculture in society and the impact on nature, it is destructive to both as I have already documented. It is only by addressing all the issues of the global world view in which agriculture is embedded and thereby solving for pattern that we can shift towards a new world view, as I was able to do by shifting from a system that represents the old, to one that represents the new.

Returning to Plants for a Future, it is the prevailing world view that has sadly restricted and delayed the project. The greatest barrier has come about with problems gaining planning permission for aspects of the project. With initial applications rejected, it took three years to obtain temporary permission for one temporary dwelling, five camping pitches, one temporary visitor centre, lakes, car park, new access, ancillary works and change of land use to research and demonstration gardens in connection with sustainable agriculture/horticulture. Bearing in mind that the previous owner had gained permission for the chalets, fishing lake and golf course, this battle for developments that are inherently lower impact and would improve the land, is unreasonable. While the council had originally been supportive before the land was purchased, local people had surmised that the site would be either a 'hippie' or 'travellers' commune. Without establishing what the real intentions were they expressed their prejudices to the council and from that time matters became problematic.

The consequence of these problems was not just delay but a drain of financial and material resources, as well as being soul destroying for those involved. During the hard times of the planning permission battle, many people lost interest so that two were left to spend all their time dealing with the planning process at the expense of liasing with the public and volunteers and working on the land. Added to this, local people destroyed their work through sabotage. A vehicle drove over a newly planted bed and newly erected fencing was stolen from the perimeter. All this has taken its toll on the two still working to continue the PFAF project and because the temporary planning permission ends in June 2003, there is considerable pressure to implement the large array of projects approved. Despite this, an impressive range of courses is commencing, which helps to show the level of interest in PFAF issues. These include a wetland ecosystem treatment course (thereby implementing creation of the lakes), nutrition and living foods, woodland gardening (implementing the planned woodland garden) and green woodworking.

The problems described can be attributed to the prevailing world view of economic gain, bureaucracy and an aggressive and competitive society. The bureaucracy effectively restricts forward-thinking initiatives because they do not align with conventional projects, despite ultimately benefiting society and nature. Planning permission should be a system that prevents ugly, unsustainable projects such as housing developments on green sites and instead assists projects that have integrity and long-term sustainability. Unfortunately it predominantly does the opposite and the planning permission battles to build low impact - or better-termed positive impact - dwellings, are common throughout the country.

The vandalism by local people can be related to the destructive nature of society that dominates our current world view. However it is more profound than this because the actions of these people shows a resistance to considering other perspectives, ways of life and growing methods. Although their actions seem to have been motivated by malicious prejudice, it also illustrates a lack of appreciation of current ecological and social problems or the need for improvement. This represents a significant barrier to change that needs to be addressed. Clearly the world views of both PFAF and local people represent polarised views that also exist in wider society. PFAF have been able to achieve some outreach work with the local community to these ends. Some local people are now expressing their support for the project instead of reacting in an antagonistic way. Their shift in view stems from the beneficial work that PFAF have carried out on the land in terms of restoration. This shift is encouraging for the potential of a wider shift in societal values.

Practical issues restricting the project now relate to lack of funding, sufficient volunteers and future planning permission issues. PFAF are still applying for permission for the dwellings and in June 2003, the current temporary permission will be reviewed. One restriction associated with planning is the requirement to make profit on the land, which makes it infinitely simpler to gain permission. However PFAF is non-profit making and clearly this is not one of their goals. Unfortunately the only project that would have gained revenue, the selling of edible plants, has been delayed due to the time taken to cope with planning issues. Apart from this, PFAF's system of work is to carry out tasks as and when funds, materials and people are available, which does not align with our current world view or the planning procedure.

It is this gap between the current paradigm and a Gaian perspective that results in the current difficulties being experienced by Plants for a Future. While changes in infra-structure and attitudes are needed to bridge this gap, PFAF are working from the grassroots level to contribute towards world view change through example, education and by challenging the current bureaucratic system.