Memorandum submitted by FARM (SFS 43)
BACKGROUND
FARM is a nationally based organisation, established
in 2002, that represents and campaigns on farming issues. Ours
is a democratic organisation, run by volunteers actively involved
in farming and it is specifically intended to promote common values
and objectives between farmers, consumers and environmentalists.
The NFU (National Farmers' Union) are by far
the most influential farming body in terms of their ability to
present their view of the challenges ahead within food and farming
and how they should be met. The NFU do however represent a very
diverse range of farming interests and it is understandably difficult
for them to represent all of these in an important process such
as this. FARM aims to provide a balance where there is a deficit
and this response reflects the views of a significant section
of the farming community, which are often characterised as family
farms that base their farming practice on traditional values of
good animal and crop husbandry. We work closely with both the
FFA (Family Farmers' Association) and the SFA (Small Farmers Association).
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 We support the objectives of the Committee
in recognising the importance of strategic planning by identifying
the role of the UK in securing the long-term future of food supplies
both in this and other countries.
1.2 The objectives of increasing food supplies
by 50% by 2030 and a total of 100% by 2050 are based
on a number of assumptions and guesses. Similar extrapolations
in growth could be made of the need to produce cars, electrical
goods or virtually any other traded commodity, with the accompanying
infrastructures needed to support them. One of the clear messages
from the past 10 years is that the model of lifestyle currently
enjoyed by the average American or European would require between
three and eight planets in order to sustain our current world
population, let alone any increase.
1.3 Therefore the most important objective
must remain one of sustainability. Although we welcome this inquiry,
we recognise that there are inherent dangers in accepting the
FAO report's assumptions of population growth, increasing prosperity,
and the future demand for food, as well as accepting the predictions
of the FAO report as an objective that must be met at all costs.
We suggest that the most responsible objective should be that
of increasing production as far as necessary to meet production
shortages, but to do so in a way that does not deplete non-renewable
resources, reduces current levels of pollution and stabilises
the man-made effects of climate change.
2. CONFLICTING
OBJECTIVES
2.1 We believe that farming within the UK
has the potential and ability to meet any realistic challenge
of producing food and other products required of it and to do
so to the highest standards. Equally, we believe that ability
can be seriously compromised by a lack of clarity concerning the
objectives and by a confused array of interpretations of the various
means by which they may possibly be achieved.
2.2 Farming is currently being asked to
respond to a bewildering number of objectives, some of which are
often difficult or impossible to reconcile. Furthermore these
objectives (in particular those of production and the environment)
change within relatively short periods of time, depending upon
the prevailing economic climate. This can lead to significant
levels of uncertainty that affect farming business, which in turn
adds considerable doubt to areas of business planning and the
investment required to make the necessary changes to prepare for
future challenges.
2.3 We therefore believe that it is vital
that Government policy and how that is implemented through the
work of its various departments and agencies begins to form a
more coherent strategy. In recent years, the work of the Treasury
and the Office of Science and Technology appears to reflect a
strategy for food and farming that is based on international commerce
and the knowledge economy. This has often appeared to have little
in common with the more immediate practical farming challenges
upon which the Environment Agency and DEFRA are focussed. Without
a coherent strategy, our farming businesses will increasingly
find that what constitutes good business practice and what constitutes
good farming practice will become even further detached.
2.4 The principal objective of feeding an
increasing world population presents farming with a clear challenge,
but we recognise that it presents a significant opportunity for
those in other areas of the food chain to promote potential solutions
that would benefit their own preferred business model. It also
provides an opportunity for countries such as the UK to promote
technology as the central pillar for delivering change in farming,
and to reap benefits through the knowledge economy without fully
understanding the impact that the technology will have when applied.
In our experience, the Government tends to overestimate or over-promote
the benefits of technology and to under estimate potential negative
impacts.
2.5 It is therefore not surprising that
with so many vested interests competing for their voice to be
heard, that the needs of both producers and consumers (particularly
in developing countries) have become so distorted when articulated
through business and politics, especially when complex scientific
issues are selectively reduced to convenient "yes?"
or "no?" fragments.
2.6 Both the Government and its Departments
must recognise that the free market is not going to deliver the
sort of sustainable models of agriculture needed to provide food
security whilst also supporting the countryside and the wider
rural economy.
2.7 With these points in mind, we therefore
urge the government, through this enquiry, to make the recent
IAASTD (International Assessment of Agricultural Science and Technology
for Development) reports the central pillar upon which to base
future strategy. Within the findings of the report, we recognise
the importance of considering social and economic factors as an
integral process of developing appropriate technologies. The relatively
muted response by the Government and industry to the findings
of this report has been a disappointment and we believe suggests
an increasing disconnect that has developed between science and
those whom it is intended to serve.
3. THE STRENGTHS
AND WEAKNESSES
OF OUR
CURRENT POSITION
3.1 Through our work in recent years, we
have identified the four areas of most concern as being those
of scientific research and technology development, education and
skills, the role of commerce and finally the problems of balancing
production with responsible environmental stewardship. Although
our response reflects the situation in the UK, the same four areas
are often quoted as being of equal importance in both developed
and developing countries.
3.2 There have been a number of recent reviews
concerning the role of science, conducted by both the Government
and parliamentary groups. However, within the area of agricultural
science and research there appears to have been little change
in the way that science is funded, guided and interrogated. Amongst
the consultations that FARM has been involved is a review of DEFRA
science, conducted by the OST (Office of Science and Technology).
In this and other similar reviews, it has appeared to us that
the value of science is treated as the end in itself and measured
in purely economic terms. Public trust in science continues to
be eroded by the increasing commercial ties developed with business
and this is particularly the case within food and farming. In
order to meet the objectives of sustainability set out within
the IAASTD reports, we feel that a radical change is required
in the way that science is funded, procured, evaluated and applied.
3.3 As the number of those employed within
farming has declined, colleges and other centres of learning have
changed the courses that they offer to reflect a more diverse
range of non-farming enterprises. Currently we do not have a strong
educational base upon which new entrants can be encouraged into
farming and those already within farming can access the necessary
ongoing training that reflects the changing nature of farming
businesses.
3.4 The tendency for farms to work as independent
businesses is a distinct weakness, particularly on smaller farming
units and it leads to an unnecessary proliferation of machinery
and other resources that could otherwise be shared with compatible
businesses. Many farmers are capable of running their own farming
businesses with a high degree of confidence, but their ability
to engage in effective collaborative partnerships, inter-business
dealings or effective marketing strategies can often prove to
be poorly developed. It is within business relationships where
there is the greatest imbalance of negotiating power, such as
dealing with supermarkets, where the need for greater collaboration
and cooperation is most needed.
3.5 Although a great deal of attention is
placed on the ability to produce food, IAASTD makes the important
point that the ability to afford food is of equal importance,
if not greater. Within the UK, food still accounts for a relatively
modest proportion of expenditure for most families, but at the
lower end of the range of incomes, the ability to afford enough
food to survive is an ongoing challenge. Therefore, fluctuations
in food prices are something that can have a profound effect of
the ability to access food both in developed and developing economies.
We recognise the arguments made in support of futures trading
in agricultural produce and the role of food within commodity
markets, but we have also seen severe short-term fluctuations
in price of major food staples that have more to do with perceptions
of shortage than any real threat to supplies. Earlier in this
submission, we referred to the undermining effect that uncertainty
has on the ability to plan farm business and to make the necessary
investment in infrastructure. Whilst some might argue that variations
in commodity prices such as wheat, milk or beef are inevitable
in today's global market, we see them as a significant threat
towards planning our food supply and the ability to produce it
when it is most needed.
3.6 In the introduction to this consultation,
the EFRA Committee makes reference to the increasing demand for
meat and dairy products, particularly in developing countries
such as China and India. We feel there is an important distinction
to be made between the role of livestock within farming systems:
As grazing animals they provide a useful means of turning a non-food
crop such as grass, into a variety of useful products including
meat, milk and wool, whilst at the same time playing an important
role in the maintenance of uncultivated areas of farmland. This
is in stark contrast to the intensive production of livestock,
where high-protein and high-starch diets are used as the principal
sources of feed, and because animals are kept in purpose built
housing, they have little or no role in the management of uncultivated
areas. The efficiency of livestock to convert protein crops that
could otherwise be used for human consumption (for instance wheat
or soya) is relatively poor and production of both crops to feed
livestock and the rearing of the livestock themselves involve
a considerable quantity of water and energy. We believe that a
more sustainable approach to livestock production within the context
of the FAO targets of increasing populations and shifts in diet
is one where ruminant livestock are reared on a grass- and forage-based
diet that is grown on land unsuitable for food crops.
3.7 The need for a balance between production
and responsible environmental stewardship has been further complicated
by a similar need to prioritise land use between fuel and food.
There have been a number of recent suggestions that in order to
deliver the sort of production increases suggested by the FAO,
we would not be able to also afford the luxury of environmental
management. We do not believe that production and environmental
objectives are as irreconcilable as this position would tend to
suggest. In recent years, farmers have successfully adopted a
range of integrated crop management techniques, whereby good environmental
stewardship is integrated within crop management. There is considerable
scope for continuing to build on this success, given the necessary
research and support.
3.8 We also believe that there should be
an opportunity for any productive farmland to be farmed and therefore
we have welcomed the removal of the requirement for land to be
set aside from production. However, farming continues to loose
valuable capacity, as good productive land is lost to development,
infrastructure and leisure use.
4 SUMMARY
4.1 The FAO objectives of increasing food
supplies by 50% by 2030 and a total of 100% by 2050 are
based on a number of assumptions and guesses that we believe may
not withstand scrutiny in the light of recent events within the
global financial system.
4.2 We believe that DEFRA needs to take
on board the recommendation of the IAASTD that an over-reliance
on some of the new biotechnologies may not help in the challenge
of increasing food production. As food producers we need access
to well funded research over the full range of technologies—genetic,
cultural and mechanical—to assist us in meeting the challenge
of ensuring a proportionate level of national food security from
limited or decreasing resources.
4.3 In summary, the most important role
that we believe the UK farming sector can play in contributing
towards the future needs of a growing world population is to use
its inherent skills and ability to develop sustainable systems
of farming and to lead by example.
FARM
January 2009
| 
