NS Food Production Supplement Jan 2015

Food production post-2015

Supported by

Will Labour Party policy leave us hungry for more?

?

01 CPA Cover_Jan15V2.indd 3 12/01/2015 14:02:52

2 | NEW STATESMAN | 16-22 JANUARY 2015

CONTENTS

How to feed the UK

CO

VE

R: S

HU

TT

ER

STO

CK

. DE

SIG

N B

Y S

TA

SSJA

MR

OZ

INSK

I

New Statesman3rd FloorFarringdon Place20 Farringdon Road London EC1M 3HETel 020 7936 6400Fax 020 7936 [email protected] inquiries, reprints and syndication rights: Stephen Brasher [email protected] 731 8496

Supplement EditorsBecky SlackCharlotte SimmondsDesign and ProductionStassja Mrozinski

Commercial DirectorPeter Coombs020 3096 2268Account DirectorJugal Lalsodagar020 3096 2271Partnerships Account DirectorDominic Rae020 3096 2273

The paper in this magazine originates from timber that is sourced from sustainable forests, responsibly managed to strict environmental, social and economic standards. The manufacturing mills have both FSC and PEFC certification and also ISO9001 and ISO14001 accreditation.

First published as a supplement to the New Statesman of 16-22 January 2015. © New Statesman Ltd. All rights reserved. Registered as a newspaper in the UK and US.

Last Sunday, as you tucked in to that delicious roast lamb while discussing the launch of David Cameron’s election strategy with family and friends, did you consider the journey that your food had made from field to fork?

The food production policies the next government introduces will have a critical impact on our ability to feed ourselves. From EU regulation to increasing costs and supermarkets driving down prices, there are many factors that are putting the UK farming industry under pressure. Overall, crop yields have plateaued, and combined with the £20bn deficit in the UK food and drink trade, our ability to feed ourselves starts to look a little weaker.

Nor can we ignore what is happening on the global stage: the spread of urbanisation, changing climate and volatile fuel prices are among the many factors that determine the amount of food the world is – and will be – able to produce. Our politicians would be foolhardy to ignore them.

How can these challenges be addressed? Science and technology potentially hold some of the answers, and the agri-tech industry is waving this banner firmly in the face of politicians as we approach the general election. But will they listen?

The coalition government’s agri-tech strategy has already demonstrated a willingness by both the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats to accept a role

for science and technology, but what of Labour? Little is known of its food production policies.

This supplement and the voices in it form the first in a series of conversations about food production to be held by the New Statesman in the lead-up to the May election.

The aim of the discussions, supported by the Crop Protection Association, is to explore the food production and agri-tech policies required to ensure the UK’s food supply is secure and affordable – with a particular focus on what the industry would like to see from the Labour Party. A round table with key Labour figures is to follow in the coming weeks, and its findings will be published in the New Statesman. l

3 CommentaryWhat’s on the menu from Labour?While their time in government has given the coalition parties time to refine their food production policies, less is known about Labour’s intentions

This supplement, and other policy reports, can be downloaded from the NS website at newstatesman.com/page/supplements

Food policies and the Labour Party: what the agri-science sector wants

5 The Industry PerspectivePolicies to feed the nationWhat are the main policy commitments the farming and agri-tech industry would like to see in the Labour Party’s 2015 election manifesto?

02 CPA Contents_Jan15FINAL.indd 2 12/01/2015 14:04:11

16-22 JANUARY 2015 | NEW STATESMAN | 3

COMMENTARY

The coalition parties have refined their food production policies in government, but less is known about Labour’s intentions

By Becky Slack

What’s on the menu from Labour?

In May 1997, as Tony Blair was giving his first speech to reporters outside 10 Downing Street, the media elsewhere

were reporting on a potential health haz-ard emerging around the country, linked to the recent BSE crisis. Despite an in-sistence that all cattle carcasses be burnt, roughly 6,000 had been buried, because too few incinerators were available. There were now fears that bovine spongiform encephalopathy could get into our water supply or food chain.

Throughout the 1990s, BSE and the subsequent ban on the export of Brit-ish beef had been disastrous for farmers. Many felt that the blame for this should lie at the door of the Conservative gov-ernment, which, too wrapped up in bick-ering over EU membership, had not han-dled the situation effectively – something that did not reflect well on the party’s 1997 election results.

Consequently, the farming sector Blair inherited was one in difficulty. The BSE scandal had resulted in the collapse of many farms and related businesses, not to mention a public crisis of confidence. Then in 2001 came the foot-and-mouth outbreak. It began to be felt, and not just by Labour but more broadly, that farm-ing presented a risk. Increased focus was placed on the role of farmers in protect-ing the environment and less on their role as food producers, with the rationale that Britain could import food instead.

It wasn’t until 2008, after world food-price spikes had given ministers the jit-ters, that food security came back on to the agenda. However, it took a further two years for Labour to publish its Food 2030 report, which explicitly recognised

the need for increased production. The policy was widely welcomed, but did not quite achieve all it had promised.

“Food 2030 was an attempt to address food security, but it wasn’t very success-ful because they tried to get consensus across too many stakeholders who had fundamental differences in opinion,” says Martin Haworth, deputy director general of the National Farmers’ Union.

How does today’s government com-pare? It has fared somewhat better; posi-tive statements about the need for sus-tainable production and modern farming methods have been made. After the launch of the 2013 agri-tech strategy, £160m was

invested in areas such as research, tech-nology and skills. However, many feel that funding has been short-term and there has been more talk than action.

The past five years have afforded both coalition parties the time to set out their stall with regard to food production. But what of Labour’s policies? So far little is known, and what has been said has re-ceived a mixed reception.

For example, Barry Gardiner MP wrote to the then secretary of state Owen Pater-son in July 2014 to state that Labour “fully supports the European-wide ban [on ne-onics] as a proportionate response to the scientific evidence of the serious risk that neonicotinoids pose to pollinators, and to bees in particular”.

This despite Sir Mark Walport, the government’s chief scientific adviser, de-scribing the ban to the Financial Times just a month earlier as potentially “harm-ful to the [European] continent’s crop production, farming communities and consumers”, and “based on a misreading of the currently available evidence”.

Equally, there has been little mention of agriculture in the last two conference speeches by the shadow Defra team, the shadow secretaries instead choosing to focus on food poverty, food banks and environmental issues – leading to suspi-cion that the challenge from the Greens is resulting in a more environmentalist approach from Labour.

That said, there have been some positive noises. As reported by the New Statesman (see our Feeding the World special sup-plement of 14-20 November 2014), the shadow farming minister Huw Irranca-Davies has called for more public money to promote innovation and to “reward the advances that have been made in our names to get good food on the table”.

Is this going to be enough to win the support of the farming and agri-tech in-dustries before May 2015? Probably not. According to the United Nations, food production must increase by 70 per cent if it is to keep up with demand. The UK’s role in meeting these requirements will be severely hampered if plateauing crop yields and the £20bn deficit in the UK food and drink trade are not addressed.

More conversation is required about the role of science and technology in en-suring a plentiful supply of safe and affor-dable food. This supplement aims to con-tribute to that discussion. l

Many feel that there has been more

talk than action

03 CPA Leader_Jan15V2.indd 3 12/01/2015 14:05:02


THE INDUSTRY PERSPECTIVE

The farmer’s view“Investment in capital infrastructure is needed to modernise farm buildings and reduce energy usage”Farming has come out of the shadows in the last decade. As concern about food security grows, UK farmers have been able to offer solutions. In the five years to 2013 our gross output increased by 31 per cent to £25.7bn. Our businesses now employ 464,000 people across the UK, and we supply 60 per cent of the nation’s food. Farming is the bedrock of the food industry, the UK’s largest manufacturing sector, and is central to the rural economy and environment.

Like many farmers I am optimistic for the future of our industry, but this op-timism needs early government action. I expect the next government to share this optimism and work with the indus-try to plan for sustained growth over the course of the next parliament. At the very least the government should aim to re-verse declining UK self-sufficiency.

This is part of a longer-term vision. The “perfect storm” of resource shortage, rising population and climate change, coupled with stagnant agricultural pro-ductivity, is here and now. The UK’s population will top 71 million by 2030, a 10 per cent increase on mid-2013 figures. I want to see a government with policies that enable UK farmers to feed this grow-ing population. Encouragement is needed for investment in capital infrastructure to modernise farm buildings and reduce our energy use. I want to see a government that commits to targets for buying more food locally from UK-assured farms. And I want to see policies based on robust

scientific evidence, rather than driven by populist campaigning – one of the reasons behind our Healthy Harvest campaign.

For many livestock farmers it is the short term that is most troubling. Bovine tuberculosis is endemic across much of western England and Wales. This is why cattle movement controls have been tightened as part of Defra’s 25-year TB Eradication Strategy. The NFU strongly supports this approach, but it involves control of TB in wildlife, especially badg-ers, too. That is why the NFU expects the next government to roll out the next stage of wildlife control in high-risk areas as soon as is practical. lMeurig Raymond is the president of the National Farmers’ Union

The scientist’s view“There is an economic case for the long-term funding of sustainable intensification in agriculture”We, and the animals that many of us eat, depend on plants for food. Achieving

sustainable production of crop plants in an era of massive global population growth and limited resources is essential for securing sufficient and affordable food while addressing concerns about the en-vironmental impact of agriculture. These are issues that a Labour manifesto must address creatively.

The yield of the UK’s principal crop – wheat – was static at two to three tonnes per hectare during the first half of the 20th century. Largely as a result of genetic improvements that included the develop-ment of semi-dwarfing varieties, yields rose to eight tonnes per hectare by the end of the century.

By “genetic improvements” I am refer-ring principally to non-GM approaches, such as selective breeding. Genetics not only underpins potential yield, but also the ways in which plants resist disease and the efficiency with which they use nutrient resources. Genetic improve-ments can reduce substantially the tonnes of pesticides and fertiliser that are spread across our fields each year and that enter the environment.

In the past decade however, wheat yields have plateaued, which corresponds with a near-cessation of funding for re-search into the genetics of crops in the 1990s and a complacent attitude that the UK could import such food as needed.

New investment for the sustainable intensification of agriculture in the UK is desperately required. The coalition government has done an outstanding job in pioneering agri-tech as an area for eco-nomic growth. But this investment was a one-off, and needs to be sustained by a commitment to the long term. A Labour

“What are the key policy commitments the farming and agri-tech industry would like to see within the Labour Party’s 2015 election manifesto, with regard to productive agriculture and support for domestic farming, which will provide enough food to meet demand and ensure adequate protection of the environment?”

Policies to feed the nation

The cutting-edge Fastrac JCB tractor

IMA

GE

BY

JCB

04-07 CPA Voxpops_Jan15VFINAL.indd 4 12/01/2015 14:06:26


SHU

TT

ER

STO

CK

administration would need to recognise that it generally takes at least 15 years to move a genetic trait from laboratory to field – whether this is for wheat or other major crops such as oilseed rape or leg-umes. Unfortunately, Defra funding for agricultural research has been largely transferred to Innovate UK, which focus-es on short-term gains.

A long-term commitment and novel funding mechanisms for the genetic im-provement of our key crops need to be achieved if we are to realise the goal of sustainable agriculture. This funding should not be at the expense of research into fundamental plant biosciences: such research provides the foundation on which genetic improvements of crops are based. The economic case for such an in-vestment is secure: at my own institute, for example, it is independently estimated that we return £12 to the UK economy for every £1 of public investment.

The societal, environmental, economic and resilience cases for enhanced and committed public investment in UK crop research are powerful. lProfessor Dale Sanders is the director of the John Innes Centre

The engineer’s view“We want regulation which balances the environment with both the market and the need for food security”The agricultural engineering industry leads in innovation and invention and is master of some of the world’s techno-logical advancements. The same applica-tion drivers for the technologies found in aerospace and in Formula 1 are also dominant in our sector, including mobile diagnostics, remote sensing, big data, ro-botics, autonomous systems and preci-sion applications.

The global population is set to increase to ten billion by the year 2050, but the area of viable productive farmland is de-creasing at a rapid rate. How can we feed the world with fewer inputs? Facing this challenge, equipment designers and sup-pliers are now working under new pa-rameters and frameworks – ones where the need for optimum yield is balanced with a sustainable environment, energy efficiency, and health and safety as pre-mier considerations.

How can a future government support our land-based engineering industry and enable it to reach the full expectations

of the UK and global context? There are a number of areas in which the AEA be-lieves progress can be made. For instance, a recognition of the industry as an “ad-vanced engineering” sector, integral to a national agri-tech strategy as a driver and platform for growth, will help give our sector the recognition it deserves. Mean-while, the continued development and application of technology that provides an appropriate platform for research and innovation will enable progress in the ar-eas of hybrid machines, robotics and pre-cision farming.

Incentives for capital investment need to be maintained, in particular the avoid-ance of any dramatic reduction from the current level of annual investment allow-ance. We also require clear and appropri-ate regulation that balances environmen-tal objectives with the market for goods and the need for food security – particu-larly allowing retention of essential plant protection products.

As with many other sectors, agricul-tural engineering is experiencing a skills gap. We would like to see careers in this field and the qualifications they require being promoted throughout the educa-tion hierarchy, providing a professional pathway for the UK’s young people through university programmes to grad-uate engineers and through Trailblazer apprenticeships to Landbased Technician

Accreditation (LTA) technicians.The promotion of “best practice” in

farming with commitments from the Red Tractor and Farm Assured schemes to seek only LTA- or Parlour Safe-accredited farms is also desirable.

Finally, we are looking for a govern-ment that fights for British farmers in the application of existing Common Agricul-tural Policy (CAP) regulations and backs their interests in forthcoming reviews of the CAP. lRuth Bailey is the director general of the Agricultural Engineers Association

The academic’s view“We need reform of the CAP so that it provides greater returns to society”What does society expect from its farmed environment? First, sustainably produced food for home consumption and to contribute to global food security. Second, economically and socially flour-ishing rural communities; and third, the production of a suite of other outputs, including flood protection, carbon stor-age, habitats for wildlife and biodiversity, as well as cherished landscapes and areas for recreation. The farmed environment is thus a multifunctional landscape pro-viding local livelihoods as well as public goods that benefit everyone.

Food prices have increased and become considerably more volatile since 2008, t

The BSE epidemic in the 1990s was disastrous for some British cattle farmers


THE INDUSTRY PERSPECTIVE

and most (though not all) commenta-tors believe this trend will continue, driv-en by higher global demand. Higher pric-es have sparked civil unrest in a number of countries, and were one of the causes of the Arab spring.

Higher prices are both an opportunity and a challenge for the UK food system, and there are two potential market fail-ures that I hope will be addressed in party manifestos. The first is an economi-cally inefficient response to price signals caused by deficits in technology and hu-man capital. Food prices have been so low for so long that we have allowed our agricultural research capacity to be run down, especially in areas that are not easily commercialised, and this needs to be reversed. The UK has some of the most sophisticated farmers on earth, but not all are in this bracket, and issues with the ageing of the farmer workforce and the need for “up-skilling” certainly need to be addressed.

The second market failure is an envi-ronmentally unsustainable response to price signals, leading to pollution and a reduction in all the other public benefits provided by the farmed environment. I would like to see new ideas to incentiv-ise and penalise respectively the produc-tion of these public “goods and bads”. In a high-wage economy we inevitably sub-sidise our farming communities through the CAP. Is it possible to use a much high-er proportion of CAP spending to reward farmer innovation in enhancing the pub-lic benefits produced by their land? Simi-larly, can we pay more to farmers who provide services such as the storage of water that would otherwise flood towns? I think we need leadership on reforming the CAP to get far greater societal returns for our justifiable investment of public money in the farming sector. lProfessor Charles Godfray is the director of the Oxford Martin Programme on the Future of Food at University of Oxford

The environmentalist’s view“We need to help farming become more resilient to our volatile weather”As Heraclitus once said: “Big results re-quire big ambitions.” To really make an impact on the global, European, national and local challenges we face over the next five years we are going to need a govern-ment with strong leadership, together with bold and ambitious plans to drive

and deliver change. These changes are necessary at so many levels to build eco-nomic viability, social empowerment and environmental health.

For many industries in the UK, the paths for delivering more sustainable business models are relatively straight-forward. However, for the food and farm-ing sector it is made all the more complex beyond the usual variances of global volatility and legislation. For instance, extreme weather and its impact on grow-ing conditions create challenges, as does our increasingly urban society, which not only encourages richer diets but is also more removed from the countryside. As such, there is less knowledge, under-standing and appreciation of nature, sea-sons and the environment, all of which make farming unique.

Over recent years we have seen some bold statements and new funding around the importance of science and technology for the food and farming sector, the UK’s largest industry. However, this needs to be stronger as there is a distinct lack of understanding and appreciation of science at a practical level within food and farm-ing businesses.

t

Following the next election we will be in the first year of a revised CAP, the next set of global sustainable develop-ment goals will be drawn up and govern-ments will be reviewing greenhouse-gas emission targets and world health issues, such as the growing impact of obesity and other non-communicable diseases.

Bold and ambitious targets that are fully integrated across government departments are going to be crucial. So many of the solutions for future chal-lenges lie with the food and farming sec-tor, and smart and inspiring leadership is required to bring together resolutions for improved health, more resilient farm-ing businesses and a thriving environ-ment, together with a more engaged society. Joint policies are going to be needed, bringing together Defra with the Departments of Health, Education and Business, Innovation and Skills.

This has the opportunity to start some very strong and novel approaches to ensuring we are growing the food we need, and to supporting seasonal national consumption alongside a thriving export market. At LEAF (Linking Environment and Farming), we are promoting more


The path to May 2015: would a new Labour government give agri-tech the boost that it needs?


For innovation to flourish there needs to be an

enabling environment

sustainable farming through the adop-tion of integrated farm management (IFM), the development of the environ-mental farm assurance scheme LEAF Marque, and the significant success of Open Farm Sunday – the industry’s big-gest open event. To address the challeng-es of the future we need farming systems that are flexible and site-specific – IFM de-livers just that, bringing together the best of modern and traditional methods. We need more enabling legislation to support business to be more resilient in the face of weather and market volatility, as well as less of the restrictive regulations that curb the innovation and technology so clearly required of the industry.

The future is challenging and there will be trade-offs, but what we would like to see in the Labour Party’s 2015 election manifesto is bold and ambitious leader-ship to help build more sustainable farm-ing through IFM and public engagement with food, farming and nature. lCaroline Drummond is the chief executive of Linking Environment and Farming (LEAF)

The farming champion’s view“An enabling environment is one that focuses on rational, evidence-based decision-making”There is a clearly identified need for global agricultural production to grow to meet the needs of an expanding population and dietary changes within it. The challenge is to achieve this with the minimum use of finite resources and least impact on the environment – all while still delivering affordable food to shoppers. The situa-tion in the UK is no different, no matter what the colour of the party in charge.

The agricultural industry needs to be able to invest to develop and deliver fu-ture productivity growth. A key driver in this area is the development of science and technology that can overcome the pest and disease constraints currently acting on the industry, so as to support an economically and environmentally viable industry that can provide safe and nutri-tious food for the UK population.

For innovation to flourish there needs to be an enabling environment where the risks and benefits of any technol-ogy can be assessed and decisions made that are based on science and social wel-fare using rational decision-making. The current movement in Europe towards a

hazard-based approach, with the inap-propriate application of the precautionary principle, will reduce the number of tools available to protect or increase produc-tion without necessarily leading to any real benefits. This is highlighted in crop protection, where pending EU legisla-tion will have an enormous impact on the availability of crop protection products. If the EU applied the same hazard-based approach to other areas of industry many everyday products such as whisky and kitchen cleaners would be affected.

This legislation may have unintended effects as farmers switch to alternative chemistry, which may have other im-pacts than those legislated for, or it may no longer be possible to apply pesticide

resistance strategies. The useful life of products will be reduced, as will the ca-pacity to integrate biological with chemi-cal control, which will result in additional pesticide use.

Producing food at acceptable price points is vital. Maintaining and growing a successful and socially relevant food pro-duction industry requires a considered, evidence-based approach to the issues around existing and future agricultural technologies, as well as a population edu-cated on the issues surrounding food pro-duction. We need a government to back the development of such an industry. lSir Peter Kendall is the chair of the Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board

The plant science industry view“We need a renewed commitment to science-based decision-making”It is crucial the next government, what-ever its hue, demonstrates it understands the complex and interrelated nature of both environmental and agricultural policy in their broadest senses. Too often we see attempts to protect the environ-ment coming at the expense of produc-tion. Instead we need an approach that seeks to balance both.

A commitment to protect and enhance the natural environment must be accom-panied by a commitment to back UK ag-

ricultural production. In Labour’s last manifesto, for the 2010 general election, the party said it wanted to see a profitable and competitive UK farming sector, pro-ducing “more food, nurturing our coun-tryside and biodiversity”. In 2015, there should be further mapping out of the detail of that commitment. In particular, there are three principles the next UK government should adopt.

First, policymakers must ensure the needs of domestic food production are properly considered in the development and implementation of all public policies and programmes. To this end, the next government should institute protocols, similar to established practices such as ru-ral proofing, to “food-proof” policymak-ing and avoid unintended consequences that can damage productivity.

Second, we need a renewed commit-ment to science-based decision-making. There is often a lot of lip-service paid to the role of evidence in policy but it is not always borne out by the actual poli-cies espoused by our politicians. In the crop protection sector, the recent debate about the impact of certain insecticides on bees provides a case in point, where the lack of evidence linking declines in bee populations with pesticides has not stopped many politicians calling for a permanent ban on these very important and safe products.

And third, we need a commitment to innovation through better regulation. There is serious concern across many in-dustry sectors, covering a range of tech-nologies, about approaches to regulation that rely on risk avoidance rather than risk management. Innovation is by defi-nition a risk-taking activity, but one that stimulates economic growth, creates jobs and provides solutions to the major chal-lenges facing society. As far as food secu-rity goes, it is innovation that will allow us both to protect the environment and to improve productivity over the coming decades. The next UK government must not only place innovation at the heart of its food and wider industrial strategies, but also lead the way in Europe, demon-strating a progressive and enlightened leadership among other member states in taking a proportional approach to risk – one that protects consumers and the en-vironment and also fosters innovation. lNick von Westenholz is the chief executive of the Crop Protection Association



increase in food production required by 2050

40% increase in UK foodprices without pesticides

30-40%of our food would be lost

to pest and diseases without pesticides

200,000more mouths to feed every day

60-70%50%

reduction in pesticide use on UK farms between

1990 and 2010

more land would be required to produce the same amount of food

without pesticides

70%

2 Swan Court, Cygnet Park, Hampton, Peterborough PE7 8GX

[email protected]

www.pesticidesinperspective.org.uk

T : 01733 355370

Follow us on Twitter @CropProtect

Pesticides in perspectiveIt’s time to put a fresh perspective on the essential role ofcrop protection in safeguarding our food supply, protecting the environment and improving our quality of life.

08 CPA backpage advert_Jan15.indd 8 12/01/2015 14:07:24

Documents

NS Food Production Supplement Jan 2015