Supplementary memorandum submitted by
Chatham House (SFS 66a)
"Do you think the political cycle is compatible
with the nature of the long-term work which will have to be undertaken
if collectively the United Kingdom and its partners in the world
are actually to ultimately achieve the objectives set by those
two benchmark targets?"
The political challenges ahead lie less in supporting
the technical work on boosting yields hinted at by the question
than in the wider transformation of the food system that is needed
over the same period, and in particular the impact of that on
consumers, their diets and the price of food.
The patterns of demand for food, and the associated
environmental, health and other impacts are determined ultimately
by individuals' consumption choices. As diets shift there are
consequential impacts on overall demand for grain, for land, on
output of greenhouse gases, etc. Some foods seem to lead to consistently
higher impacts than others. Price, access and affordability matter
and will shape consumption trends, but so too will aspirations
and food culture. For example, is excess consumption and overt
wastage of food associated with higher, or lower, social status?
The array of cultural attitudes, behavioural norms
and personal values associated with food are less easily mediated,
and are far more difficult political territory, than the techno-centric
innovation systems that we may look to for the next generation
of higher yield, lower impact foods. What and who will catalyse
a global shift towards healthier and more sustainable diets? Under
what conditions will consumers accept application of novel technologies
to their food in the future? By what processes are these social
choices made?
To the extent that the domestic political cycle
can introduce discontinuities in the way that governments engage
with other partners in the governance of the food system, it may
be a hindrance. A shared understanding of "the problem"
across the political spectrum would clearly help. But there will
inevitably be differences of view in how far government should
be directly intervening or acting to catalyse change, whether
in agriculture or in matters of individual consumer choice.
That said, it is the complexity of the governance
arrangements in the food system—the distribution of powers
across many layers (from local to global) and across different
types of actors (private sector, public sector, NGOs, consumers)—that
is the real challenge. The danger is that the division of roles
and responsibilities impedes change and even leads to paralysis
as each party—consumer, retailer, national government, EU,
etc.—looks to another to take a lead, to decide the trade-offs
and make the difficult choices.
FOOD SECURITY
DEFINITION
The Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO)
defines food security as being "when all people, at all times,
have physical and economic access to sufficient, safe and nutritious
food to meet their dietary needs and food preferences for an active
and healthy life".[2]
This definition is generally accepted and widely
used. It focuses, appropriately, on the outcomes for consumers.
These outcomes require a set of (implicit) demand side conditions
(such as income, mobility) and supply side conditions (such as
food production capacity or functioning supply chains) to be met.
The EFRA inquiry is focused on food supply so
we concentrate our discussion here on the supply side aspects
of food security, though when considering aspects such as "affordability"
the status of the consumer cannot be ignored.
Food security is compromised if any of the following
are missing or deficient:
— availability—the provision of a
sufficient volume of safe and nutritious food;
— accessibility—the physical supply
mechanisms needed to facilitate the delivery of food to market;
— affordability—to which the food
supply chain contributes through the competitive pricing of food;
and
— resilience—the robustness of the
system to shocks and longer run systemic risks and uncertainties.
As highlighted above, food security outcomes
are also conditioned by the prevailing demand side conditions.
So changes that reduce consumers' economic access (e.g. joblessness)
reduce household food security. In the UK the welfare system buffers
these impacts; in much of the developing world no such safety-net
exists. Low income food-importing countries can experience equivalent
pressures on national budgets and their ability to pay. The UK
runs a sizeable trade deficit in food products but is better able
to finance it.
MANAGING FOR
FOOD SECURITY
As discussed in the original Chatham House written
evidence to EFRA, development of a comprehensive, forward-looking
approach to UK food security requires:
— an analysis of each of the above components;
— an appraisal of the associated risks—contingent
and systemic; short, medium and long term;
— determination of relevant indicators;
and
— targeted risk management and mitigation
strategies.
This activity will need to engage with the main
food supply chains in their own right as the risks and challenges
vary across cereals, horticulture, poultry, etc. But it will also
need to examine the wider system, its resilience to shocks and
stresses, and its long term sustainability. The inputs and drivers
of change need to be mapped to identify how exposure to risk could
be influenced by, for instance, changes in diet, water scarcity,
climate change mitigation policies and changes in sourcing that
might affect food safety.
If we are to build the resilience of the food
system in the longer run, we need to improve our ability to recognize
and respond to broader uncertainties inherent in the new operating
environment. Wider questions such as the availability of basic
resources—land, water, energy and skills—as well as
increased competition for raw materials will create a different
sense of what constitutes "risk".
Diversification is a core risk management strategy.
In a food system context this means retaining access to genetic
diversity—in crops, animals and supporting ecosystems. It
means having a diversified research portfolio on new techniques
and food production systems. It means retaining trading access
to markets outside the UK—in the EU and beyond. And it means
being alert to concentration within the supply chain that could
compromise consumer interest. There is a key role for government
in all these areas to secure, by setting appropriate frameworks,
the public goods that markets alone will not deliver.
The appropriate level of management and policy
response will range from the local to the global. The UK sources
most of its food imports from within the `single European food
market' and is subject to the Common Fisheries Policy and Common
Agricultural Policy. Policies set in Brussels are therefore at
least as important as those determined domestically.
Chatham House
March 2009
2 FAO. Rome Declaration on World Food Security and
World Food Summit Plan of Action. World Food Summit 13-17
November 1996, Rome. Back
| 
