One of the co-founders of the annual Oxford Real Farming Conference, Colin Tudge, reflects on its phenomenal growth and impact since its tentative launch in January 2010. Does the obvious success of the ORFC reflect a global mindshift? Is this a much-needed “green shoot”?
Even if the ORFC folded tomorrow (which heaven forfend!) it will still have been a landmark in the history of agriculture. It has helped – is helping — significantly to re-democratise humanity’s most important endeavour, which was and is in serious danger of being reduced, like everything else, to just another exercise in the pursuit of material wealth. So why has the ORFC worked as well as it has — and still is working, and seems set fair to continue far into the future?
In the beginning
The idea of the ORFC came from the agricultural journalist, author, and erstwhile scriptwriter for The Archers, Graham Harvey, in 2009. He saw that the well-established and much publicised Oxford Farming Conference, the OFC, simply did not provide an accurate picture of the state of Britain’s agriculture, and still less of the world’s agriculture or the general state of the world. The OFC was in reality a showcase for the government and the corporates to promote their own thoughts on how agriculture should be run, and by whom. The prevailing thought was (and is) that “agriculture is just a business like any other”; and within the prevailing framework of the neoliberal economy, business has been re-conceived, not as the necessary and heterogeneous underpinning of a modern democracy but simply and single-mindedly as a means to maximise wealth and to concentrate that wealth in fewer and fewer hands (although the concentration of wealth is not generally emphasised, at least in public). The OFC, and indeed the government, has modified this attitude somewhat of late, and is wont to stress the role of agriculture in protecting and even enhancing “the environment”, which is the favoured term for the natural world. Even so, successive governments of both hues have made it clear that money must take the lead or at least be the final arbiter — that nothing can be promoted that does not return a profit, and preferably a maximum profit, and preferably immediately. This hard-line materialism was and is said to be “realistic”, the only plausible line to take.
Graham saw the short-sightedness of all this. He also saw that farms run on agroecological lines – treating all farms as ecosystems, as one farmer has put the matter – could also be profitable, even in the present hostile economic environment, and would also bring enormous social benefits. He and I had worked together briefly on Farmer’s Weekly in the early 1970s and had stayed loosely in touch, and I and my wife Ruth (nee West) were living in Oxford, and he asked us if we would care to help him launch an alternative – not to say an antidote — to the OFC. So in 2009 (I think in Exeter if memory serves: Graham is Devon-based) he and I and Ruth met to mull over the idea over coffee. I had already written books in which I coined the expression “Enlightened Agriculture”, which combined the ideas of Agroecology and Food Sovereignty (every society should have control of its own food supply). But others felt that “Enlightened Agriculture” had too many syllables so we shortened it to “Real Farming”. And so our proposed alternative conference became the ORFC.
So Graham and Ruth between them, with excellent help from a lot of other people, some of whom Graham knew and some that Ruth and I knew, convened the ORFC on a bleak snow-bound afternoon in January 2010 – timed to coincide with the OFC. It attracted about 80 farmers and other interested parties, packed damply into a mediaeval library in Oxford (where there is no shortage of mediaeval libraries), with an overflow into an organic café conveniently sited downstairs. It was a memorable meeting with seriously excellent speakers including some of the leading agricultural thinkers of our times (some of whom alas have now passed on). Tim Bearder made a film of the proceedings which can still be viewed here. Well worth it!
At first, as is the way of things, ORFC was seen in established circles simply to be an upstart: maverick and mildly irritating but fairly harmless. Since then, however, ORFC has grown and grown and now attracts around 2000 delegates in situ in Oxford in the magnificent, municipal neo-Baroque town hall, and seven other venues, with thousands more from all around the world tuning in online. (The OFC meanwhile is stuck on around 800. Just for the record.) In short, the ORFC is now a force to be reckoned with. It is probably the world’s biggest and most diverse gathering of farmers and growers and other interested parties from among the many millions of people the world over who see the flaws in the status quo, and who want the world to be different, and see the central importance of agriculture (it’s not just a business like any other), and want to put it to rights, and have a much better idea of what needs to be done than most of the people who are now in charge of it.
Graham, Ruth, and I are seen as the co-founders of ORFC. In truth it was Graham’s initiative, and although scores of excellent people have helped, Ruth more than anyone has held the whole thing together and overseen its continuing development and expansion over the past 15 years. I have been content just to feed in some thoughts – the main one of which is as follows:
The big idea
I take it to be more or less self-evident that agriculture is by far the most important thing that human beings do. It supplies most of our food, occupies most of the world’s most fertile land, is the biggest single consumer of the world’s fresh water, and is the world’s biggest employer. At its best, farming also provides vast numbers of people with agreeable and sustainable ways of life, or certainly has the potential to do so; and although agriculture is bound to have a negative effect on the living world (the biosphere) it can certainly be a great deal more wildlife-friendly than it is at present and can enhance the fortunes at least of some wild species. With appropriate agriculture (meaning real farming) human beings really could live agreeably and in great numbers in harmony at least with the majority of our fellow creatures for aeons to some. As things are, however, agriculture worldwide, increasingly money-oriented and corporatised, is a prime cause of global warming and of mass extinction, and is the direct cause of much human misery, inequality, stress, and privation. For good measure, according to the United Nations, it leaves a billion people chronically undernourished or ill-nourished, while another two billion are in some respects over-nourished or otherwise nutritionally compromised.
For all these reasons therefore, agriculture is right at the heart of all the world’s affairs, the thing we absolutely have to get right. And yet, in practice, to a large extent, it is the thing we are getting most wrong. It is at the root, or thereabouts, of all the world’s ills. Farming should be a prime concern or indeed the prime concern of governments the world over but at least in countries like Britain it is low in the political pecking order, and in particular of course ranks well below the Treasury.
Many excellent institutions and individuals are developing the kinds of ideas and methods that could provide humanity with all the good food we need without wrecking traditional and agreeable ways of living and without wrecking the natural world. But in this tightly integrated world, where everything is related to everything else, nothing can be put to rights ad hoc. We cannot put agriculture to rights, and make agroecology and food sovereignty the norm, unless we put everything else to rights as well. We need different farming techniques and different technologies. In the end Enlightened Agriculture must be, primarily, an extended exercise in organic farming and in permaculture. All this requires plenty of hands-on tender-loving care, which means plenty of skilled farmers and growers; low to zero inputs of agrochemistry; which means there are few or no advantages in scale-up, so re-creation of small to medium-sized, preferably mixed farms and small holdings; pasture feeding as opposed to custom-grown crops; and so on. Real farming may make use of the highest of high technologies when this is appropriate – absolutely not is this a gratuitous exercise in nostalgia. But agriculture overall should be seen as a craft, or a family of crafts; and real farming might reasonably be classed as “science-assisted craft”.
All this is virtually the diametric opposite of the kind of “Neoliberal-Industrial” agriculture that is now beginning to prevail, which is designed primarily to maximise short-term wealth, an exercise at its worst in al fresco industrial chemistry, with minimum to zero labour, on the largest possible scale.
Farmers worldwide have been and are encouraged to adapt to the demands of the prevailing economy – in other words, as the hugely influential erstwhile US agricultural adviser Earl Butz put the matter, “Get big or get out!”. In practice of course this means that most must get out, as they continue to do in vast numbers, not least in Britain, which sees itself and is seen to be among the most progressive of all the world’s states. Most are then obliged to seek their fortunes in the city, if there is one, or eke out their lives in the favelas. Many, alas, are driven to suicide. All in all, neoliberal-industrial agriculture is doing immense damage, ecologically and socially, and is clearly not sustainable. To promote NI uncritically seems grossly irresponsible. Enlightened Agriculture (Real Farming) surely could do what the world needs – but it cannot become the norm within the present, neoliberal economy, which renders the things we need to do unprofitable and therefore, in the eyes of our leaders, “unrealistic”. Yet the obvious horrors that seem to lie in store for us if we continue on the present track with the present mindset — the (neoliberal) economy and the ideology that goes with it — is given priority. It seems indeed that humanity is embarked on a strategy of suicide, and taking much or most of the natural world with it – and all for the sake of an ideology, and one that is so obviously crude. Daft or what?
However: we cannot put the economy to rights unless we have a government, or a system of governance, that sees the need to change and has some idea of what we need to change to. And we will never install such a government unless we have a change of mindset, and re-define our priorities, and explore the reasons why this is necessary.
Thus it seems that to put the world to rights we need to put agriculture to rights – but that we cannot put agriculture to rights unless simultaneously we put the infrastructure of the world to rights; and to do that we need to change the Zeitgeist; and to do that we need to approach our problems at all levels: technical, economic, political, legal, scientific, moral, and indeed metaphysical (a term that includes “spiritual”).
In short, though without losing focus, a conference that truly aspires to provide the kind of farming that really would make the world a better and more secure place, must attack the issues on the broadest possible front.
And that, I suggest, is what the ORFC aspires to do. The thinking behind the agenda is not always formally spelled out, but the vast majority of the participants get the point anyway. This is what makes the ORFC so special. Overall, the day-to-day practicalities of life are seen to depend on a sympathetic economic and political infrastructure, and the infrastructure is seen to derive from the deepest moral, scientific, and metaphysical roots (given that all big ideas are rooted in ideas of a metaphysical nature).
Yet the content of the sessions is not the only reason for the ORFC’s success. It is also a significant social event, with all that that connotes.
“A good way to start the year”
The ORFC is held in early January to coincide with the OFC – and both are held when they are because early January at least for a lot of farmers and growers is a relatively quiet time of year. It is packed with good ideas which makes it worth going to – but it is also very sociable and upbeat – very convivial. And so, as many a delegate has commented, it helps to get the New Year off to a good start.
The convivial tone of the ORFC derives in large part from the way it is conceived and organised – which is largely the inspiration of Ruth. For she felt it should be modelled in the manner of the Edinburgh Fringe. The subject matter is decided not by some power-group seeking to promote its own interests. Rather, the subjects are proposed and the sessions are run by the delegates themselves. Yet the ORFC is not a free-for all. The underlying philosophy is clear and consistent: to develop and share the ideas and experiences of farming of a kind that is rooted in the principles of agroecology and food sovereignty.
Importantly, too, the speakers and session organisers are not paid to take part. Indeed, all the speakers and session organisers must buy a ticket to the conference, like everyone else. So no-one is encouraged simply to drop in and say their piece and then clear off. Of course, everyone is free to come and go as they choose (we don’t issue asbos) but all are encouraged to stay for the whole thing, and contribute to the whole conversation, and partake of the conviviality. The ORFC organisers do accept and to a significant extent depend on sponsorship (not least to ensure that ticket prices are as low as possible – and would-be participants with no funds of their own may be subsidised, sometimes in toto). But the sponsors are all friends of the conference, very much in tune with the philosophy. Absolutely not does the ORFC accept corporate sponsorship. (Beware of Greeks bearing gifts.)
The resulting atmosphere is wonderfully uplifting. Although the delegates including those on-line come from all over the world, there is a great sense not simply of common, constructive purpose but of family; of oneness.And that is what is really needed to make the world a better and more secure place.
Where do we go from here?
The trouble, of course, is that the ORFC lasts only two days (plus the odd add-on) and then everyone must return home to battle with the problems of growing good food in an uncertain climate and within an essentially hostile economy. What’s needed, I suggest, is to continue the social buzz and the intellectual excitement of the ORFC throughout the year, and to continue to develop the necessary ideas and forge the alliances and friendships. To some extent this is happening: several times a year the Real Farming Trust (which has become the parent body of the ORFC) runs a residential meeting on a farm under the general heading of “ORFC-in-the-Field”. Each held for around 70 people, they allow exploration of an area of agroecological farming in greater depth than the conference permits.
But there is much more that could and surely should be done. It was for a long time my dream to establish what I wanted to call “The College for Enlightened Agriculture”. Alas, this idea at least as originally conceived has died a death or at least has petered out, at least for the time being – but Ruth and I endeavour to keep the spirit of it alive with this website (www.colintudge.com). The website follows the structure and builds on the ideas of my book, The Great Re-Think, published in 2021, which attempts to do what surely needs to be done – which is to show an apparently forgetful world just how important farming really is, and why it must be rooted in and guided by the ideas of agroecology and food sovereignty, which is to say of “Real Farming”; but also to show that we can never make real farming the norm unless we re-design the economic and political framework in which we are all obliged to operate, and re-think the underlying mindset.
Nowadays, however, the word “College” is commonly taken to mean a place, a building where people go to learn things from people who know more than they do. But that is not the original meaning. A college properly conceived is not real estate but is more like a forum in which like-minded people can exchange ideas. Websites can achieve a great deal of what’s required. The best ones are platforms for lively and informative exchanges on all kinds of topics (the upside of IT). If our own website could achieve this it would be most pleasing — and would indeed help to ensure that the spirit of ORFC is felt throughout the year.
Yet that of course should not be seen as the endpoint. The grand ambition is to help shift the Zeitgeist and create an infrastructure and encourage a mindset in which agroecology is accepted as the norm. To achieve such a world we need nothing less than a global Renaissance, led by people at large. The chances of success are remote but the prize is very great and the price of failure is catastrophic – and alas the catastrophe is already well in train. The ORFC cannot alone bring about the Renaissance but it can surely make a difference.
(Please write to the website address if you would like to be added to the contact list. These are early days but you never know where these things might lead).
Leave a Reply