This isn’t just Clarkson’s Farm

As I previously reported here, farmers are having to diversify in order to stay afloat, with non-farming income on UK farms increasing by 50% in just one year. That tells us two things: a) that producing food in the UK isn’t profitable in many cases, and b) farmers aren’t just highly resilient, they can be highly adaptable too. And, having just watched the Clarkson’s Farm episode about the planning application for his restaurant, it highlighted that farmers can also be highly collaborative.

Clarkson’s vision is to sell only locally produced food in his restaurant. But his own farm doesn't have the capacity or diversity to offer the punters a full menu all year round, so he’s gathered several neighbouring farmers together to form an alliance. As it turned out, they all need the restaurant more than Jeremy does, because they can’t compete with the cheap imports that the supermarkets use to dictate prices.

The case for a ‘local fare’ restaurant is almost flawless:

• Farmers win, because by selling directly they can charge more
• Customers win, because their food’s provenance is traceable and it has that ‘feelgood’ factor that connects them with what they’re eating
• The restaurant wins, because it’s got a significant point of differentiation and it’s cutting out the middlemen and global supply chain costs
• The environment wins, because the food has a lower carbon footprint
• The locals win, because it creates jobs in the restaurant and in the farms. And there’s the potential ‘halo’ effect of diners spending at other local venues during their visit

But there’s a problem. Clarkson’s Farm is situated in an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

Some residents of the picturesque Cotswold village of Chadlington don’t want extra visitors, or extra car parking, or light pollution that would affect their view of the night sky. Clarkson’s point is that it is farmers who have maintained the outstanding natural beauty of the area but that, without the restaurant, there is a very real risk that these custodians of the land will go bust.

I spent a decade helping farmers feed the world. But I’m also lucky enough to live in a picturesque village. What I saw in Clarkson's Farm was very familiar; the case for change and the kind of resistance that arises when people feel their security is threatened.

I can understand people not wishing to commercialise their neighbourhood to make a rich media star richer. But this isn’t about Clarkson. This is about the need for all of us in the UK to understand that if we want cheap imported food, we must be prepared to let our own farmers do different things with the countryside to make a living. And surely the breakdown of global supply chains during Covid was enough of a wake-up call for us all that cheap imports are great until the moment they can’t be imported.

He’s not trying to sell the farm to a housing developer. He’s proposing to sacrifice a tiny percentage of his estate to help support the rest of his farm, and those of his neighbours too.

Those who opposed planning consent for Clarkson’s restaurant might assume that farming will continue as it has for the last few hundred years. Or that the National Trust will mop up any land freed up when farms go under. As is overwhelmingly the case in business, in the public sector, in life, those who resist change think they’re voting for preservation, but nothing could be further from the truth. It is arguably Clarkson’s plan that gives that Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty the most chance of least change.

Rich Alderton specialises in Adaptability Intelligence, so to learn how to become more adaptable call us on 07873 823 800, email us or complete our enquiry form.

And you can download Rich's new e-book here.