Transcription

• Speaker #0

  Sometimes we see ourselves as a human species, as kind of invasive, and we're bad, and we have a negative impact. And if only us humans would go out of the picture, then nature can thrive. You know, that's kind of the image that we get from also from media and from just the way we talk about it. Also, in the climate change discussion, it's very negative. You know, we need to fly less, eat less, be less. It's almost like you can't be there. Even though it's important to address our negative impact and be very conscious of it, I think it's way more attractive to also think about it more in a, how can we find our place again in the bigger whole of life, you know, in the bigger chain of events. And I think we can actually play a positive role, where we can connect to our community, we can connect to ourselves, we can connect to our environment and actually create beautiful things, healthy products from healthy soils. A healthy job, doing something that matters in connection to the community you're living in. Kind of a positive perspective on what it means to be human. Rather than, oh, I need to be less and I'm a bad person because I eat and I sleep and I go on holidays. But to rethink that, who are we as humans and how can we restructure society in such a way that we're positive. influence.

• Speaker #1

  Hi there, my friends. Welcome back to the Deep Seed podcast. Season two of the Deep Seed is now officially closed. We recorded and published more than 30 conversations this year with top regenerative farmers and experts in the field of regenerative agriculture. I'm really proud of the work done this year and I feel very, very grateful that I got to meet such amazing people all year long. And I also feel very grateful for you who's listening right now and for all of you who've been coming back every week to listen to the new episodes. So thank you so much for that. Because there has been so much great knowledge shared by my guests all year long, I thought it would be a shame not to take a moment now at the end of the year to go back, listen to every episode, and then handpick and select for you my favorite moments and re-release them, re-publish them as... a rewind series. So that's what you're listening to right now, episode one of that rewind series. And I started with a conversation I had with Willem-Anne de Jong from Commonland, where we talk about the role of humans as a keystone species who is capable of the very best. I mean, we know it's capable of the very worst, but here we focus on the positives and the positive impact that humans and farmers can have on ecosystems. with specific examples from the Netherlands. Really inspiring stuff. Really love that conversation. And I'm a big fan of Common Land as well and the work that they're doing. So here we go. This episode was made in partnership with Soil Capital. I am your host, Raphael, and this is the Deep Seat Podcast.

• Speaker #0

  The closest example to me, to what I've worked most with, is in the Netherlands. So in 2016, Commonland was asked to also explore this holistic approach in the Netherlands. Can you regenerate a region or a landscape based on this holistic four returns approach? And then after a whole mapping exercise and looking around, we landed. in the Western Peat Meadow landscape. So that's between Utrecht and Amsterdam, so to the west of the Netherlands, a very highly populated area. Millions of people live there. And quite soon after we landed there and started to test the ground, it also turned into an independent organization. It's called Weiland. So they're one of our key partners now. They're an independent organization with their own mission and vision, but it's really built on the same DNA of this idea of the four turns approach. So, What they did to start out with is just to sense into the landscape. Who's living here? Who's farming here? What are their dreams and hopes? What are their worries and challenges? So they spend a lot of time listening to the stories of farmers in the region. And the reason why they chose farmers is because 70% of the land in that region is managed or owned by farmers. So if you want to transition the land use on such a large scale, we're talking about 250,000 hectares. it's almost um Yeah, maybe one fifth of the Netherlands, you could say. That's a huge scale. So if you want to change the land use system, you need to work with the people that have access to land and can manage it differently. So they started with five farmers a couple of years ago, five, six years ago, and now they're working with 300 farmers in the region. So they started listening. They started experimenting, piloting. Can we do things differently? It's dominated by intensive dairy farming. Can that be more extensive? Can we move from monoculture ryegrass to maybe herb-rich grasslands? How can we try that out on one hectare, maybe two hectares? And the more farmers joined, the more the farmer learning network started to emerge. Of course, they also worked with festivals, citizen... activities involving communities also looking at the business model of farmers can can we create alternative forms of income so that you can change from a highly intensive one product based farm to a more diverse farm and what you're seeing is that because they're so highly practical and rooted in the place and listening to the people that live there this is also starting to attract attention from the municipalities, the water boards, the provincial government, the national government, because they have such rich knowledge and insight into what farmers want and need, that it's really grown to be a strong organization with really strong evidence that regenerative farming or nature-inclusive farming, as we call it in the Netherlands, makes a lot of sense. And actually, if you ask an average farmer in the Netherlands, I think most of them would say, I want to transition. I want to change. Except the rules are not clear. The rules are constantly changing. Plus, you need this transition period of at least five years to be able to switch from a highly intensive, high capital model to an extensive, more diverse model. So that's, I think, a really nice example of where they've worked a lot on the social values and created hope and inspiration by just trying out things. And then looking at the business model of the farmers and trying to see if there are alternatives possible. So that's the financial capital as well. And of course, how can we bring back meadow birds? Can we bring back the herb-rich grasslands? Because it used to actually a lot of ecology in that area kind of co-evolved with the way we were farming more extensively. So a lot of the meadow birds are there because of the way of farming.

• Speaker #1

  at least a couple decades ago and we're trying to bring that back so well this podcast the central topic of the podcast is regenerative agriculture or the question of how do we keep producing food to feed humanity but without degrading our ecosystems but instead regenerating them and you and so you mentioned that a big part of that project was to to work with farmers right because most of that land is farmers and there's sometimes a lot of opposition between nature and farming in debates or in the media. And I was wondering first, what do you think about that opposition?

• Speaker #0

  Yeah, it's staggering how we've managed to pull them apart, even though they're so connected. And even in the Dutch context, we have policies disconnecting them. So we have kind of, yeah, stemmingsplan. I don't know how to translate this. So we have rules for what you can use land for. And they're written by law. And you need to prove that you're going to use it for either nature, then it has lower value, then if you use it for production, then it has a higher value. And these plots of land are extremely expensive in the Netherlands, which is also a big problem, holding us back from moving to a more... uh, Yeah, a sustainable form of agriculture because farmers simply don't have access to land because it's too expensive. But what's interesting is how we've kind of separated them apart, also by law and through rules and regulations. And the two shall also never meet. But interestingly, farming is actually, in a way, you're farming nature. You're working with nature to grow things. Grass doesn't grow. because we want it to, it grows because it's a natural rhythm, you know, and, um, So in our model, we haven't talked about it yet, but we also have a thing called the three zones. It's kind of a way of looking at the landscape. So in general, you could say there's a natural zone, which is often like a forested area or a natural area that a lot of people know. You have an economic zone, which is mostly dominated by monoculture farming nowadays, very intensive, very high production oriented. I think this intensive agricultural model is seen all over the world. It's either nature or production. And we're trying to introduce this third zone, which we call the combined zone, just trying to open up our thinking around, oh, wait a minute, you can also combine the two, like agroforestry systems, silvopasture systems, regenerative agriculture forms. So this is where you work with nature and trying to move with. with nature rather than against it? And what if we increase that combined zone and decrease the economic zone of monoculture and let the economic zone be mostly a zone of infrastructure, living, and stuff like that, rather than this monoculture landscape with just one crop and zero biodiversity or limited biodiversity. So this combined zone is a way to open up our thinking from nature or production to... hey what if you combine it and actually have this kind of resilient vibrant thriving zone of production as well as a lot of natural values right so the the story is not to say we need to transition productive farmland to natural

• Speaker #1

  ecosystems but just to maybe open open up that third type of zone so some of that productive land becomes mixed land yeah but that is still highly productive. Yeah. But, But that includes a lot of nature, like agroforestry and things like that. Yeah,

• Speaker #0

  and maybe it's less productive, but that's okay, because a lot of other values are created. And if you combine it with kind of regionalization of our food system and redistributing our food equally, because there's actually a lot of food produced in the world, there's also a problem around distribution and fair sharing of the food all over the world, which is hampering our food security. so it's not necessarily production the question of are we producing enough, the question is are we organizing our food economies smartly in such a way that we can have a balance between local production and consumption versus global trade system, which is characterized a lot by bulk production and moving of bulk production to often one type of crop, maize, sugar. So we need to rethink our whole food system. So if you combine... like a lower focus on yields with a more balanced system, you can actually start to create balanced local food systems that are more healthy.

• Speaker #1

  And so that third zone you're trying to create, is that something that you're hoping will become a legal thing as well? That it will be seen officially as a type of zone that could potentially retain the value of that farmland, but bring in more nature?

• Speaker #0

  Actually, in the Netherlands, there's also a lot of organizations trying to plea for this combined zone. We call it landscape zone, but politically that concept hasn't been taken up as much as we would like to. I do understand that now in the Netherlands, there's also a crop code for food forests. So you can actually have a plot of land that can formally get a food forest code. So you're then allowed to have like high biodiverse. use of the land while creating healthy products. So it is shifting, but way too slowly. At least I'm speaking mostly for the Dutch context. But I think with EU regulations and the common agricultural policy in Europe, a lot of these issues around these boxes that we've created for, this is nature, this is production land, I wouldn't be surprised if it's all over Europe. I've heard about it in Spain as well. So this is definitely a problem all over that we box things in.

• Speaker #1

  A lot of the time, farmers seem to be quite against the idea of rewilding or transferring productive agricultural land to be regenerated in a completely wild way. Do you agree with that observation? And how would you explain it?

• Speaker #0

  Well, if there's one thing I've learned is the diversity of the farming community. So yes, definitely there are farmers that are reluctant or would feel reluctant to move towards a more integrated, less intensive model. But what I also observe is that there are so many farmers that want to, but are so stuck in this kind of high productive, highly high capital system that it's really hard for them to imagine. how to move forward, also because of the psychological bandwidth. So they're so stuck in this system that we've all created together. More food, more production. We need to feed humanity. And this kind of assignment was given to a lot of farmers, and a lot of them took it very seriously. And we all went for it through investments and government policies. And now we're coming to realize that it's way too intensive, and it's pushing the boundaries way too far. And now we need to shift. And now, so the whole public opinion is starting to shift towards, oh, yeah, why do we have so many animals? And why are we working so intensively with pesticides and herbicides? And so our consciousness is shifting. But how do you actually move out of that system that we've all created? That's, I think, where a lot of the barriers come from. Also that farmers, yeah, really don't know how. And are also not maybe supported in the most effective way in making that transition. And secondly, it's also an intergenerational thing again. So if your father did it this way and your grandfather did it a certain way and you've been taught this way, then it's really hard to shift those core beliefs. That takes time.

• Speaker #1

  Change is hard for everyone. I think change is really, really hard. We're not wired for change as humans, right? We don't like change. We don't like it. It's really tough. But it's the only constant. I can only imagine how hard it is to ask from someone to change something they've done their whole lives, that they've learned from their fathers and their grandfathers, that they've been told their whole lives by advisors, by society, that this is what they should be doing. And to ask of people like that now to change the way they do things, I mean, it's incredibly hard.

• Speaker #0

  And also consumers then also need to change their behavior. So if you want farmers to work more sustainably, then buy more sustainably. I know not everybody can afford it, but then we need to create solidarity systems for this. So we need to work. We all need to make this move. You know, it's not only the farmer's responsibility. So, yes, I'm sure there are farming communities where they're absolutely reluctant. But I mostly see a lot of farmers that actually want to create change, but are so stuck. They don't even know where to begin. So we all need to stand behind them or around them and create this kind of support system, including the whole value chain partners, all these big food and beverage companies, supermarkets, traders. They have so much power to help change the system towards a more localized one or a more balanced one. So everybody needs to chip in.

• Speaker #1

  So going back to the example of the Veyland projects, How does that work then? How do we enable the farmers to evolve their system in a way that benefits them first? And how do you bring in, you said, different actors, different stakeholders to support that vision?

• Speaker #0

  So what I've seen with Violent, their approach, but also in Spain and other countries that we work with partners, like I said, the kitchen table conversations, listening, And then also listening to where the energy is. So if a farmer indicates that he wants, he or she wants to know more about the soil, let's start there. So it really starting with where the energy is. So if you're interested in maybe introducing some perennial crops or perennial means multiple years rather than an annual crop. So perennial systems are really interesting to look into because they also have a great benefit for soil health in the long term. But that's a whole. It's a whole branch we can go into. So if a farmer is interested in perennial crops or introducing like trees or nuts or fruit trees, then let's see if that's possible and try it out, you know. So go where the energy is. I think that's a big lesson. Farmers are very, and this is a generalizing comment, but they really like action on the ground. They just really like seeing things with their own eyes, trying out things with their own hands or with their own equipment. trying out things on the land. They're just really common sense kind of people. Like, does this work? Could this work on my farm? So begin with just small experiments, sharing with other farmers. Farmers learn from other farmers. So let's minimize the external advice as much as possible and just let farmers exchange with other farmers and facilitate that.

• Speaker #1

  Right, okay. This conversation today, it really reminded me that regenerative agriculture is not just about soil health, soil science, agronomy and so on. It's also about rebuilding trust between farmers and the rest of society. One thing that really stuck with me here was the idea that landscape regeneration begins not with a master plan, but by sitting down at the kitchen tables with farmers and asking them what they care about, what they dream of, what they struggle with, and so on. I think the phrase Willemijn used was, change flows from where the energy already is, not from trying to impose a system from above. So yeah, really cool, really like that phrase. So yeah, I hope you enjoyed this episode, and if you did, please, please show me some love by leaving a 5-star rating right here. on Spotify, on Apple Podcasts, or wherever you're listening to this episode from. I'm currently dedicating 100% of my working life to this podcast. I'm working really hard to bring the best quality conversations possible to your ears every week. And I know it's not perfect, but I can promise you I'm trying my best. And little things like following the deep seed, leaving a comment, and even better, leaving a five-star rating. They make a huge difference for the podcast and they allow me to continue doing this work a little longer. So thank you so much in advance. Actually, you know what? There are right now on Spotify, there are 123 five-star ratings, which is already amazing. And thank you so much if you're one of these people. But I think we can do a lot better and it would be amazing if we could reach 200 by the end of the year. So that's... 77 more, if I'm not mistaken. 77. There are thousands of people listening to this podcast. I'm sure we can get there. That would be amazing. An amazing end of the year gift for me. You know what? Let's make a bit of a game out of it. I'll keep you updated in next episodes of the Rewind series to let you know how we get on with this goal. Yeah. Again, thank you so much. I wish you a wonderful rest of your day, a beautiful life, and see you soon.