.jpg)
🤓 DEEP-DIVE ALERT 🤓: The way we use land is changing rapidly - just like it did in the 16th Century. What can we learn from history? 📖👇
Inspired by Anton Howes’ superb piece on how the shift from wood to coal power reshaped England’s land use in the 16th Century, I couldn’t help but see parallels to today’s land-use debate.
Back then, coal became cheaper, and landowners deforested vast areas, turning woodlands into farmland which now offered better returns.
Today, there’s an ironic twist: farming, once the displacer, is now the established land use being displaced. And just to bring it full circle, today it’s (partly) tree planting - for environmental benefits and rewilding initiatives, not for firewood - that is competing with agriculture.
Changes in the energy mix (this time away from fossil fuels to renewables rather than the reverse in the C16th) are again driving change (https://t.ly/OOlji). Alongside these, some parts of the government's new 'Sustainable Farming Incentive' (SFI) pay farmers to use their land for environmental purposes rather than for food production.
(NB DEFRA have tried to make sure this effect is limited: they've capped the land a farmer can claim these 'non-farming' payments on: https://t.ly/1a8C2. & most actions, like Soil Management Plans, pay well without taking land out of farming: https://t.ly/BbMNj)
Here are my key takeaways from the comparison:
💰 Economics, not government frameworks, drive land use:In the 16th century, landowners didn’t deforest because the government told them to. They did it because coal became cheaper, and farming land became more profitable than selling wood for fuel. Similarly, today’s farmers will shift their land use based on where they can get the best return.
Whether it’s government incentives like SFI, rewilding initiatives, or solar farms, farmers will follow the money. While a government Land Use Framework (being discussed tomorrow: https://t.ly/OFLV2) can set targets, the actual shifts in land-use will be driven by financial incentives. If renewables or environmental schemes pay more than food production, landowners will pivot.
🤔 Unintended consequences are long-lasting:When land was converted from woodland to farmland in the 16th century, it wasn’t easy to reverse, even when the price of wood later rose. Today, we face the same risk. If we take land out of food production (and away from tenant farmers in many cases) for solar energy, rewilding, or biodiversity projects, it may not be easy to switch back quickly if there’s a sudden crisis, like a war or a pandemic, that requires us to increase food production.
The lesson is clear: major land-use changes, driven by short-term economic pressures, can have long-term impacts that are hard to undo. If too much land is taken out of food production now, it could be difficult to revert quickly when circumstances change.
You can read Anton's full piece here: https://t.ly/MsKzJ
