Sir Donald Curry A sustainable future for farming and food ... · A sustainable future for farming and food in the UK: eight years on from the Policy Commission 5 The challenge Production

Sir Donald Curry

A sustainable future for farming and food in the UK: eight years on from the Policy Commission26th Edith Mary Gayton Memorial LectureMonday 16 November 2009, 8pmJohn Madejski Lecture Theatre, Agriculture Building

Farm Management Unit

Published by the Farm Management Unit, School of Agriculture, Policy and Development, University of Reading, New Agriculture Building, Earley Gate, PO Box 237, Reading RG6 6AR, United Kingdom

Copyright Farm Management Unit © 2009

Printed in the United Kingdom by Hart Digital, Fleet.

Designed by Waysgoose, Reading.

ISBN: 978 0 7049 1520 6

26th Edith Mary Gayton Memorial Lecture given by Sir Donald Curry KB, CBE, FRAgS

A sustainable future for farming and food in the UK: eight years on from the Policy Commission

Monday 16 November 2009, 8pmJohn Madejski Lecture Theatre, Agriculture Building

The Edith Mary Gayton Bequest: Memorial Lectures and Scholars

The Edith Mary Gayton Memorial Lecture series is sponsored from funds bequeathed to the University of Reading. Edith Mary Gayton was a student in the Department of Agriculture during the inter-war period. Her husband made a bequest in her memory. The Farm Management Unit has responsibility for these funds which it executes with a combination of research studentships and the Memorial Lectures.

These lectures are the Farm Management Unit’s flagship activity. The inaugural lecture was delivered by Professor John Nix of Wye College in 1984. The occasion is a well-known event in the agricultural diary and lectures are delivered to capacity audiences by invited speakers on topics of interest to members of the farming, rural and food industries, and the general public.

The bequest has sponsored the following scholarship research:

Richard Bolter: Formal and informal methods of learning farm management: their use and effectiveness in the UK (completed 1987)

Penny Perkin: An investigation into the relationship between farm and farmer characteristics and objectives among a sample of farmers in Berkshire (completed 1992)

Jason Beedell: Understanding the link between farmers’ attitudes and behaviours related to conservation practices in Bedfordshire, England (completed 1996)

Sharon Byles: Does Continued Professional Development of farmers have an impact on their businesses? (research in progress)

Ekkehard Hermann: Reasons and factors for economic success or failure of agricultural cooperatives in the eastern part of Germany (research in progress)

Gábor Fehérvári: Farmers’ selling strategies for grain (research in progress)


3

IntroductionIt is not sensible to consider a vision of the future without being influenced by the past. The Policy Commission report1 was a significant piece of work and led to a fundamental change in agricultural policy. I should like to start just by reviewing the background to it, the progress since it was released in 2002 and then comment on the way forward.

BackgroundThroughout the 1990s and leading up to 2001, farming was characterised by the way it seemed to bounce from one crisis to another – BSE2, E. coli3, salmonella4 in eggs, classical swine fever... and consumer confidence in farming was low. With a background of a constant state of crisis, the 2001 Foot and Mouth Disease outbreak should be seen not as the straw that broke the camel’s back but as the trigger, or catalyst for change.

The Foot and Mouth Disease (FMD) epidemic was a traumatic event not only for farming but for the Nation. It caused many people in the farming and food industry to pause and reflect about what they were doing and what might need to change to make for a better future. FMD had coloured the public’s view of the industry and the value it provided in return for the £3 billion agricultural support taxpayers provided. The position at the time was that the farm incomes were low, competiveness was slipping compared to EU partners and the rest of the world, and the CAP was seen as part of the problem and not the solution. Looking deeper than that, the management of the countryside and environmental aspects such as biodiversity were under threat or a perceived threat of deterioration. All sorts of drivers were at work: a strong pound, consolidation of industries upstream and downstream of farming – leaving farming

26th Edith Mary Gayton Memorial Lecture

4

lagging behind in a world where commodity prices were falling. Overall farming had declined in importance in common with manufacturing industries, as an economic activity.

Something needed to be done; the Government recognised this, and following FMD commissioned three inquiries to look at different aspects:

Dr Iain Anderson was asked to carry out a ‘Lessons •Learned’ inquiry;

A committee of The Royal Society, led by Sir Brian • Follett was asked to carry out a scientific review of the complex issues arising from serious animal disease outbreaks; and

I was asked to set up a Policy Commission on the •future for farming and food, specifically it was asked to advise the Government on the creation of, and I quote, ‘a sustainable, competitive and diverse farming and food sector which contributes to a thriving and sustainable rural economy, advances environmental, economic, health and animal welfare goals, and is consistent with the Government’s aims for Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) reform, enlargement of the EU and increased trade liberalisation’.

The picture that I and my colleagues found was that farmers had become subsidy dependent, and for the subsidised sectors their annual challenge was to maximise subsidy income. In fact, consultants built businesses on how to exploit the subsidy system! There was a disconnection from markets, from the population at large and, through the perverse incentives involved, the support system also encouraged a disconnection from environmental responsibilities. It may seem a harsh thing to say, because of course there were exceptions, but the overall condition of the farming sector was not a happy one, and no one, as a Treasury official informed me at the time, was happy about farming.


5

The challengeProduction subsidies had become part of the problem, dividing producers from their market, distorting price signals and masking inefficiency. What was needed was a system that encouraged change and the development of businesses focussed on the market – a rediscovery of a professional approach, encouraging enterprise and innovation and looking for new opportunities. There was a need to re-connect farmers with their markets and to encourage them to really focus on business solutions.

The environmentThe Policy Commission felt a change in direction was needed, decoupling support from production, moving from paying farmers production subsidies to paying them for public goods – in recognition of the role farmers play in maintaining the countryside as a visible and accessible national asset – and under the CAP this would be achieved through transferring resources from the stream of funding for production (Pillar 15) to the stream that supports rural development, environmental protection and biodiversity (Pillar 25) – as you know, the process of ‘modulation’.

We recommended 10% additional modulation in order to provide funds to ‘turbo-charge’ environmental stewardship. This was one of our more controversial recommendations in the Policy Commission Report, and it also had serious implications in the eyes of Her Majesty’s Treasury. I had to spend a significant amount of my time negotiating the whole package of recommended measures which we had calculated as needing £500 million. Eventually the Treasury agreed to the package and an article in the farming press at the time rejoiced in the heading ‘Curry gets £500m’!


6

The broad and shallow scheme recommended in the Report became the Entry Level Scheme (ELS). The Environmental Stewardship schemes that existed prior to the report were eventually wound up – although some of these so called ‘classic’ schemes are still in run-off. In place of the classic schemes we now have ELS and the Higher Level Scheme (HLS), the Organic Entry Level Scheme (OELS) and, most recently, the Upland Entry Level Scheme (UELS) and, despite the inevitable teething problems such as issues with mapping when the Schemes were launched, we have been successful – successful in that currently we have 65% of eligible land under stewardship management. That is a huge improvement on where we were in 2002. The Schemes are not perfect and need to evolve further and recently the challenge presented by the demise of set-aside has led to the establishment of the Campaign for the Farmed Environment, an industry-led voluntary approach that is aimed at better dovetailing of production with environmental benefits. This is a complex and difficult challenge.

Against the background of a real concern about food security, farmers must be able and be encouraged to produce food and, if appropriate, fuel, yet equally there is a strong desire not to lose the environmental benefits that Set Aside land previously contributed to and which could be lost had all Set Aside land returned to production. A balance had to be found, and that was the challenge that Hilary Benn set me when he asked me to chair a High Level Group to look at the issue. It has been hard work but we reached a stage where there were two potential options, one a combined cross compliance and ELS incentive scheme and the other an industry-led voluntary scheme building on incentives. Having chosen the latter option, it will be important to ensure it can deliver environmental benefits and to be ready for implementation to start from August 2010 when the first ELS schemes mature. The real challenge is


7

to have stewardship schemes in place designed to deliver better targeted outcomes, building on the enormous progress we have made to date. We are on the journey and need to look more closely at regional priorities and how best to target and achieve them. One obvious way is to use individual Farm Environmental Plans to deliver the desired outcomes, taking into account each farm system. The farm-land bird indicator and ecosystems are important (we are all concerned about bees), and we have a unique opportunity to demonstrate, across the broad acres of England, that we can seriously deliver productive farming and are able to make a major contribution to improving the farmed environment, both from a bio-diversity and from a resource protection point of view. This, of course, is what some people, e.g., LEAF have been advocating for years, so now we have the opportunity to move forward significantly in this respect (more of this later). I believe England has the potential to set a global example in reconciling pressures on land use and at the same time improve our environmental performance.

Economic changeIn a world where the Policy Commission recognised that farming would have to rely less on production subsidies, the need for farmers to look for alternative strategies to make their businesses profitable were seen to come under three broad headings: cost reduction and efficiency gains; adding value to products; exploitation of new markets.

As far as efficiency is concerned, one thing that concerned me in 2001, was that many farmers, particularly in the subsidised sectors, did not have an understanding of business efficiency. Benchmarking was not commonplace. Costs per tonne/kilo/litre were not as widely used as they needed to be, in order to understand how efficiency could be improved. To address such weaknesses, the Red Meat Industry Forum was set up


8

to provide useful information and data for the red meat sector, and the Food Chain Centre was also established to carry out important supply chain analysis and how to reduce waste and achieve better efficiency. It concluded that, in most supply chains, 20% of the costs were not adding value and that this could be greater than the whole chain profit. There is still significant potential to improve our farming efficiency: after all, no efficient business ever reaches the stage of saying it has reached its efficiency potential. Our competiveness as individual businesses and as an industry in a global market requires us to continue to strive to achieve new levels of performance.

In the Policy Commission report we recognised that we were dealing with industry composed of tens of thousands of small businesses and that we are a very independent race. We need to work together more. However, an Englishman’s home is his castle, and we prefer it surrounded by a moat! I well remember a quote from someone I met at a conference: ‘It’s all very well you encouraging us to collaborate more, but I can’t think of a neighbour of mine that I would trust.’

The world continues to be an increasingly competitive place, and as far as farmers are concerned ‘No man is an island’. For many farm businesses, survival will depend on collaboration. Farmers need to collaborate together to reduce costs by sharing labour and machinery and in purchasing their inputs. There is a need to share knowledge and experience and to work together to supply markets. English Farming and Food Partnerships was established as a direct result of a recommendation in the Policy Commission report and that organisation is working hard to encourage the actions I have just referred to.

But nothing is going to be easy in a global market situation and this year the milk sector has shown how difficult things can be. The collapse of Dairy Farmers of Britain threw into sharp focus the weakness of the


9

processing sector in Britain and the unsustainable competition inherent in that area. We have experienced the impact of global overproduction, and the possibility of a return of butter mountains amid dairy protests all over Europe because milk prices have been so low, not helped by the recession. There is an urgent need for further consolidation within the processing sector here in Britain so that we are not left struggling as small league players in a large global market place.

Turning to adding value: understanding market needs, and introducing products with special features provides opportunities for farmers to add value and help cushion them against market volatility. There is value in taking advantage of local pride and enthusiasm with local product marketing, which helps tie in the links between producer and consumer and the feeling of togetherness in supporting a local economy.

We still do not have a universally agreed definition for Local Food. It is assumed that local includes elements such as made by small-scale producers with strong community links or made from locally grown ingredients. But whether it is local or regional food, the opportunity for growing this market was clear in 2002, and as a result of the Policy Commission report the Government set up a Regional Food Strategy to help farmers add value. In the period from 2003 to 2007 the Quality Regional Food market among small/medium enterprises experienced growth of 30% and it continues to grow. The regional food groups therefore have made a positive difference, both for sustaining the profitability of the industry and for its development. There remains a huge potential for further progress and this is still the key even in these, currently, recessionary times. Local food helps sustain communities and businesses and is hopefully environmentally sustainable too.

There is also a need to differentiate on a national scale. The role of assurance schemes to help provide consumers with information on source and quality is


10

crucial. Schemes such as The Red Tractor have a role to play in underpinning consumer confidence in quality of products and also traceability. We made a number of recommendations on Assured Food Standards (AFS – responsible for The Red Tractor) in the Policy Commission report covering such things as bringing all schemes together into a single body with harmonised and relevant standards to which today’s consumer can relate. It has been hard work but I am delighted that Colin Smith and his team at AFS have virtually completed what we recommended in this area.

Also important has been the establishment of the Agricultural and Horticultural Development Board (AHDB) in restructuring the levy bodies that were in place to support the farming and food industry. The relationship between AHDB and AFS has been a matter of some debate, but I am encouraged that it is now much more settled. EU approval of The Red Tractor is an important step forward.

The success of our industries depends on having sound information to make decisions, investment in science and communication with the public. AHDB has this responsibility and I do hope it will now consider an integrated plan across the sectors to promote the benefits of home produced food to the public. The time is right and The Red Tractor provides a good base from which to mount a National Communications Plan. We have a great opportunity with a population of 60 million people on our doorstep whose attitude to farming is growing increasingly positive. We have the chance to deliver home produced food that is supporting local economies, sustaining communities and hopefully delivering environmental benefits – we need to communicate that much better than we have done to date.

We need to compete for the consumer’s purse and we have a good story to tell.


11

The third strategy to improve profit is to look for additional income streams, or to diversify the business so that it does not rely on food production alone, a cushion against commodity price volatility. The opportunities for diversification are likely to vary locally and will depend heavily on the drive and interest of the individual looking to develop an initiative. This is actually not a novel idea; the industry has always contained an element of part-time or hobby farmers who combine some farming activities whilst having other jobs that provide income.

We can no longer divorce agriculture from the wider rural economy. In the past diversification of farm businesses has commonly meant bed and breakfast and guided farm walks in many cases. Tourism is especially important in upland areas where accommodation is essential in attracting visitors and the tourist pound.

There are, of course, hurdles to be overcome in diversifying from agriculture, change of use of buildings or land has to be cleared through planning authorities, which may not always be sympathetic to an initiative. Too often, planning permission is cited as the main obstacle to progress. Greater flexibility and a better appreciation of the need for change in rural areas is needed from local planning authorities, which is not to say they should have a relaxed policy to initiatives, but a proactive stance in guiding diversification is a good approach and one we recommended in the Policy Commission report.

There has been a real expansion in farm diversification, with 50% of farms now having a source of income other than farming. Opportunities are endless – my brother has been a farmer for 30 years and has now also become a funeral director! Non-food crops are growing in importance: fuel, energy, pharmaceutical, fibres and so on. There is nothing new in this, coppicing wood for charcoal, and flax for cloth have been important in the past but with greater emphasis on renewable energy


12

and reducing carbon footprints, plant based fuels are important, however, their development rests on good science, technological advance and knowledge transfer. The role of the Non-Food Crops Centre at York – another Policy Commission body – is crucial to providing sound advice on this.

Land is an asset that can be used in many ways. We have seen some dramatic climatic events in recent years and flooding has been a serious issue in some areas of the countryside and rural towns. The use of land for water management purposes is important – floodplains after all are meant to be what their name implies! But flooding land has implications for those who look after it. Environmental planning that includes an element of sacrifice by farmers for the public good should recognise the financial loss involved and water management should increasingly be seen in the same light as an alternative crop. Farmers should be rewarded for engaging in the management of water.

Not all farm businesses are equal when it comes to diversification. Tenant farmers, particularly, can be at a disadvantage to those who own their own land. Landlords need to be sympathetic and supportive of the need for tenants to have sustainable businesses and support if possible opportunities to diversify.

And on this theme, one element – new blood – is an essential lifeblood for the future of the industry. Farm businesses outlive farmers, despite the fact that many farmers ‘never’ retire and die with their wellies on. It is essential that the industry attracts enthusiastic new entrants to keep it moving forward and adapting as it does so. But to do this successfully, the knowledge of experienced farmers also needs to be harnessed and passed on. If the image of farming is to be changed and it is not to be seen as an older man’s hobby but as a vibrant, forward looking sector, we have to have routes into it for new, younger farmers bringing in new ideas and initiatives and embracing technological


13

change. Initiatives such as share farming and mentoring, vocational training and the Fresh Start initiative, which I was responsible for, are all part of such an approach and should be supported and encouraged. The paper I produced not so long ago on the future of County Council farms is also important in this respect. Local Authority land holdings are almost unique now in providing an entry point for new entrants. Farming has an exciting future – we must promote it much more positively to encourage the best talent available.

CAP reform 2003 – decouplingI mentioned the need for change to the CAP earlier, and the deal that was agreed in June 2003 represented a real shift in agricultural policy. It was aimed at providing a more sustainable basis for European agriculture and to reflect the wider environmental and rural development objectives that society was perceived to want. As we know, farmers were also asked to maintain land in good agricultural and environmental condition as defined by the Member States, with a sample of farms having to be inspected each year on a systematic basis to ensure standards were met. Under modulation, direct payments were to be reduced with money transferred to Rural Development expenditure (Pillar 2).

The UK took the lead and has been among the first Member States in implementing complete decoupling of payments. Did we go too far, too fast? The shambles that surrounded the introduction of the Single Farm Payment would certainly indicate we were far too ambitious in the pace of the reform package. The move to an area basis was, however, the correct decision and provides a better basis for future reform negotiations. I do believe, despite the teething problems, that English farmers have gone through the pain barrier and are now better placed to


14

face the future than our competitors in the rest of the UK and Europe.

One of the concerns about the current system is the effectiveness of Pillar 2 expenditure on RDPE (Rural Development Programme for England). Farmers regard the Single Farm Payment (Pillar 1) as ‘their’ money and modulation is regarded as creaming off their entitlements and seeing it surrounded by bureaucracy within RDPE. It is of course tax-payers’ money and we need to justify it in delivering value for money.

Axis 2 of RDPE is channelled through Natural England and funds stewardship, SSSIs6 and other environmental packages. I spoke about this earlier. The remaining Axes 1, 3 and 4 are the responsibility of the Regional Development Agencies. Despite constant assurance that the funds are being effectively spent, concerns remain. The impression is of an overly complex, bureaucratic process with limited accountability. The rural economy has huge potential and government needs to set clear priorities for rural development spend and monitor the effectiveness of each region in a more rigorous way than currently. Farmers, however, should be ensuring they take advantage of funds available for training and business support so that their farms become platforms of enterprise contributing to employment and wealth creation.

This is a critical time as we prepare for further reform in 2012. Within Europe, I know, views differ on the scale of reform to be undertaken. It was ever thus! Public support for the public goods that agriculture delivers should be the driving principle. This is the basis we suggested in 2002. What has not been done in the intervening years is an adequate analysis of the definition of public goods and their value to the taxpayer. Defra is now on the case and doing some useful work. What is the value of caring for the diverse landscape of England? Is having a secure supply of food a public good? We need the evidence so that we enter negotiations on an informed basis rather


15

than be driven by, what I assume will be, the Treasury’s usual agenda to pursue a policy of reduced expenditure in return for trading the rebate. Reform may mean we have to consider how, in a de-coupled world, we manage risks. A focus on public goods may lead to some redistribution, with further support needed in the uplands (more of this later).

The Irish expression comes to mind ‘if I was going to reform the CAP, I wouldn’t start from here’. Radical reform would scrap Pillars 1 and 2 and redesign a support system to deliver the outcomes we desired, reducing mountains of bureaucracy in the process. I am sure it can be done!

Where we areTaking everything into account, most of what the policy Commission recommended has been done and it is pleasing to see the changes in culture that have taken place, and continue to take place. The positive things I see as coming out of the Policy Commission’s work are that:

Farmers are now adjusting to life in a de-coupled world•

There is an increased focus on the market place•

There is an increased interest in regional and local food•

The industry is becoming more professional in its •approach to business

Stewardship schemes have been very successful•

The public are beginning to reconnect to farming, •more than they did in 2002, through initiatives such as the Year of Farming and Food (which really made significant progress in opening the eyes of children to where their food comes from), Open Farm Sunday and Farmers’ Markets and lots of other initiatives. Overall, public attitudes to farming are much more positive.


16

Many farmers have diversified and many more are •now working together.

Healthy eating and obesity, which we were •also conderned about, are now high on the Government’s agenda.

There are other issues that remain to be addressed such as science, research and development and knowledge transfer, particularly as they relate to food security, which has risen up the agenda over the last couple of years.

Looking aheadThere is now recognition that we face a global challenge in securing future food supplies. As the Environment, Food and rural Affairs Committee Chairman said in July ‘The UK can play a leading role both in Europe and globally in making sure that our farmers and food industry can contribute effectively towards meeting the challenge of a world that will need to double its food output by 2050 whilst coping with the pressures of climate change as well as global plant and animal diseases. Every Region of the UK has a contribution to make.’ It is not just about how to go about producing sufficient food, it is also about how that food is produced – meeting the requirements of reducing greenhouse gas emissions from the food system, reducing reliance on fossil fuel-derived inputs and conserving soil and water. These are seriously important matters which are coming under increasing public scrutiny, as consumers take much more interest in how their food is produced and the environmental impact of production systems, so consumer engagement will also be a factor in finding solutions that work.

It was for these reasons that Hilary Benn, Defra’s Secretary of State, set up a new Council of Food Policy Advisers to provide input to future policy development


17

on food and I am one of those on that new group, which will be looking to help Defra address the myriad of key issues across the piece, (from nutritional values to seasonal availability, carbon cost to environmental impact, regional sourcing to affordable cost on the shelf). What can be in no doubt is that global pressures around food production need to be taken seriously, especially in the light of predicted population growth (9 billion by 2050) and the competing needs for the finite resource of land area, against the background of climate change and its effects (e.g., desertification, rising sea levels and the spread of pests and diseases).

It seems almost unbelievable to me now, but the Policy Commission Report did not make one reference to climate change. The fact that we are now living beyond our environmental limits was one thing that David Miliband recognised when he became Secretary of State at Defra. He saw the inherent threat of climate change and how important that was to human life and natural resources and realised it needed to be addressed as a priority. It is vital we do so, as the potential impact on water availability, land use, food production, energy and the marine environment is very serious. Nothing in this is going to be easy or straightforward. An example is greenhouse gas emissions from livestock (which seems to be a favourite subject for public debate at present). If the numbers of grazing ruminants were reduced significantly (in order to reduce methane output) what would the outcome be for the appearance of the countryside and its availability to the public for leisure and recreation? What would the environmental impact be and what would the economic inpact be on thousands of small businesses and the rural economy? The countryside that the public knows and loves is very much a product of the farming activities that shape it; change the farming and you stand to change the appearance of the land and how it can be used for additional activities. We need to have a debate on how we


18

reduce GHG (Green House Gas) emissions. It is important that debate around issues, such as grazing livestock and methane, is balanced and based on sound knowledge, so that what I call the ‘environmental balance sheet’ is better understood.

Some areas are under more pressure than others; influences on the uplands include, and go beyond, those of climate change. Modern living expectations, the draw of the city, the cost of providing infrastructure, changing and more competitive markets, are all shaping the future of the uplands, which remain a valuable public and natural resource. The uplands do not just provide for those who live and work there but also for those who live in urban centres – the tourist industry and its dependents are important contributors to regional and national economies. But like natural eco-systems, the economy of uplands is also under stress, so it is timely that the Commission for Rural Communities has been looking at the uplands and how changes, such as decoupling support, have impacted on farming businesses there. It is important, however, that change should not be seen as all negative. Change brings opportunities and the uplands may have important new roles to play in dealing with the influences associated with climate change. Opportunities inevitably need to be recognised and taken and where these relate to the landscape then the importance of teamwork across the wide range of bodies that have roles associated with landscape management cannot be understated. For positive progress, synergies need to exist among Government agencies such as the Environment Agency and Natural England, Local Authorities and National Park Authorities, as well as the RSPB, NFU, CLA, and the regional Development Agencies – ‘working in partnership’ in other words. It is crucial, also, that the next stage of CAP reform negotiations are successful in ensuring that future support goes where it is most appropriate to deliver desired public benefits, and


19

this might mean redirecting support from lowlands to uplands.

Whether uplands or lowland, the future for farming lies in the hands of those who work on the land. A qualified and well equipped work force working within professionally run businesses is essential if the challenges of change are to be met. In this country, as with other parts of the developed world, we have an aging population in agriculture. Many young people have been unimpressed with the financial returns from agriculture and have chosen to seek their careers and fortunes elsewhere. I believe there is the potential for resurgence in the fortunes of agriculture – a renaissance in its role within developed and developing economies. Agriculture has a huge contribution to make in helping to mitigate the impact of climate change and that natural resources are harnessed to contribute to economic, environment and social sustainability of society. We live in exciting times in this respect and we need to promote our core agricultural industry and those occupations that service it and those that help care for the countryside as providing exciting and rewarding career opportunities within a multi-functional rural economy.

The Policy Commission: retrospect and prospectLooking back at the vision the Policy Commission had for the future back in 2002, we said, we looked for a sustainable farming and food sector, competitive internationally, a good steward for the countryside and that provided good food and a healthy diet for people in England and around the world. Payments from the public purse would remain only for the public benefits that the public wanted and needed. Investments in farm businesses would have spread beyond the farm gate and some would have diversified beyond food production, but


20

the land and expertise for working it would remain, so food production could increase to meet greater demands. The principle of farmers as land managers would have to be embraced as a core business, and farming would be seen as a good career, with a sense of purpose, and as a career which is valued by the wider public. Decision-making on what crops to grow would be based on sound commercial reasons and standards of environmental management, food safety and animal welfare would be high. Regulation would be justified by need and not prove a competitive hindrance. Beyond the farm gate, food processing and marketing would be integrated and retail and catering sectors would participate in the chain of supply to result in products customers need, of the quality they require, where and when they needed them. Confidence in English food would be high, the market diverse and all would have access to a healthy and nutritious diet able to judge from information available e.g., on labels. The Government influence would be that of a facilitator through improving the implementation of regulation to aid business decision-making and able to clear the path to a functioning market. A key role for government would be in creating the market for environmental goods and it would continue to take responsibility for food safety, nutrition policy, animal welfare and regulation for environmental protection. Overall we looked for a varied and attractive countryside with a flourishing rural economy not just reliant on agriculture and tourism, but offering opportunities across a wide range of businesses.

If we revisited that vision today, we should want to add some focus on the role of climate change. We need to recognise that agriculture has a key role to play in mitigating the impact of climate change. Climate change will require changes in approach, and it will provide both challenges and opportunities; agriculture should be at the heart of helping to find solutions e.g., through adaptation and mitigation, having a flexible approach.


21

It will be vital that all those with an interest in the countryside, the environment and the rural economy generally look to work together to combine their resources to achieve agreed outcomes.

The way forward is not necessarily through regulatory requirements, but by working toward common agreed aims and in this respect the establishment of the Responsibility and Cost Sharing Advisory Group, chaired by Rosemary Radcliffe, is one which I welcome. This should provide an important step forward in working toward a better understanding of how best to manage animal disease outbreaks and I hope it results in identifying positive ideas of how to move forward together, and be prepared and ready to act in the event of any future major animal disease outbreaks. I think it is important, however, that great care is taken not to increase the regulatory burden, particularly on the livestock sector which is already feeling overburdened.

I and my fellow members of the Policy Commission met recently to review progress and there are some areas where insufficient progress has been made in implementing the report’s recommendations. Supply chain relationships are still not good enough within the food industry. Better communication, greater integration, the embedding of ‘The Code of Practice’ and the establishment of an ombudsman are issues needing attention. The regulatory burden is still a problem and the recommendations we made have not been addressed seriously enough. As mentioned earlier, an area of crucial importance is how we attract new entrants, encourage career development, promote apprenticeships and again progress is slow.

No one ever said life was easy, but I think UK agriculture has a great future as it has the confidence and the ability to meet the challenge; it certainly won’t fail for the want of trying.

NotesThe Policy Commission was set up by the Government 1 with Sir Donald Curry as its Chairman in September 2001. The other members of the Commission included: Helen Browning OBE, Sir Peter Davis, Ian Ferguson, Dame Deirdre Hutton CBE, DeAnne Julius, Fiona Reynolds CBE, Mark Tinsley, Graham Wynne and David Varney. The Commission consulted widely with the stakeholders in the Food Chain, before submitting its report, Farming and Food: a sustainable future, to the Cabinet Office in 2002. The report is available at: www.cabinet-office.gov.uk/farming.

BSE (bovine spongiform encephalopathy) is a 2 degenerative infection of brain and nerves in bovine animals caused by a protein called prion. It reached epidemic proportions among the UK beef cattle in 1986 and was brought under control in 1992.

E. coli (Escherichia coli) is a generally harmless 3 bacterium, found most commonly in the lower intestine of warm-blooded animals. A particular type of this bacterium O157:H7 can cause food poisoning in humans.

Salmonella are pathogenic bacteria which can cause 4 food poisoning, typhoid, paratyphoid and other diseases in humans and domestic animals.

Pillar 1 refers to all those measures of the Common 5 Agricultural Policy that support commodity production through various market mechanisms, whilst under Pillar 2 arrangements, farmers are rewarded for the production of environmental goods, and also receive support for diversifying their income through rural development initiatives.

Sites of Special Scientific Interest.6

22

23

The Farm Management UnitSchool of Agriculture, Policy and DevelopmentIn 1979, the Farm Management Unit (FMU) was established within Reading University’s then Faculty of Agriculture and Food, bringing together two groups of academics whose primary interest lay in the field of farm management, but who had hitherto operated fairly separately within their respective departments: Agriculture and Agricultural Economics and Management. Whilst there had always been some joint activities, the case for more formal collaboration was strong and representatives from other interested departments (Horticulture and Estate Management) were soon co-opted.

Without disrupting the responsibility of individuals to their parent departments, or usurping the role of existing university committees and boards, the Farm Management Unit (with 12 founding members) set about its brief “to develop excellence in the subject of farm management in the University of Reading”. Its influence would be felt in the three main areas common to most university endeavour: teaching, research (and associated publication) and the more disparate collection of activities which go under the broad label of “outreach”.

The Farm Management Unit at its inception in 1979 and after

Founding members

Agricultural Economics and Management1 AgricultureA K Giles2 (Director 1979–91) J M Stansfield (Director 1991–02)D J Ansell AJ Errington2

W I Buchanan R J EsslemontJ A L Dench D H Lloyd

A H Gill Tahir Rehman2 (Director 2002– )M Upton2

24

J A FinnM J GoodingT R Wheeler2

Agricultural Economics and Management1 AgricultureSubsequent members (in order of appointment to 2001)

M R Lewis P I Cockburn (farms)R J Loader P T DorwardS L Wiggins P R Street2

R M Bennet2 J D H Keatinge2

R L Vaughan J M Walsingham W B Traill2 J R ParkN F Beard M J Collis (farms)

Other departmentsR J Bisgrove (Horticulture)J L Dobson (Engineering)N Ravenscroft (Land Management and Development)R Gibbard (Land Management and Development)R B Tranter (Centre for Agricultural Strategy)

The Farm Management Unit since 2002School of Agriculture, Policy and Development Director – Tahir Rehman2

MembersA P Bailey Agriculture

N F Beard Agricultural and Food Economics

R M Bennet2 Agricultural and Food Economics

R T Crane Agricultural and Food Economics

P T Dorward Agriculture

R Gibbard Planning and Estate Management

P J Jones Centre for Agricultural Strategy

S R Mortimer Agriculture

J R Park Agriculture

R B Tranter Centre for Agricultural Strategy

R L Vaughan Agricultural and Food Economics

Emeritus membersD J AnsellEmeritus Professor A K Giles OBEJ M Stansfield (Visiting Professor, Royal Agricultural College, Cirencester)

Name of the Department subsequently changed to Agricultural and 1. Food Economics.

Professor at the time of joining the Farm Management Unit or appointed 2. to a Chair subsequently.

J A FinnM J GoodingT R Wheeler2

Farm Management Unit For more information,

please contact:

Bridget Green

School Administrator School of Agriculture, Policy and Development University of Reading New Agriculture Building Earley Gate PO Box 237 Reading RG6 6AR United Kingdom

[email protected] Tel (0118) 378 8482

Sir Don Curry KB, CBE, FRAgSSir Don Curry chaired the Policy Commission on the ‘Future of Farming and Food’ which reported to Government in January 2002. Government policy is now based on the report’s recommendations. He chaired a group that oversaw delivery of the Sustainable Farming and Food Strategy until 2009. He is chair of a High Level Group of farming and environmental stakeholders which was formed to address issues around the demise of compulsory set-aside (the Group was asked by the Secretary of State, in January 2009, to look at wider environmental issues beyond this scheme).

He was appointed to the Council of Food Policy Advisors in 2009.

He was awarded a CBE for his services to Agriculture in the 1997 New Year’s Honours list and a Knighthood in the Birthday Honours in 2001.

He has been awarded honorary doctorates by the universities of Cranfield, Gloucestershire, and Newcastle.

Sir Don is Chairman of the NFU Mutual Insurance Company and a former Crown Estate Commissioner. He chaired the Meat and Livestock Commission from 1993–2001. In 2009 he became chair of the Leckford Estate Management Committee – the Waitrose farm. He also farms 450 acres in Northumberland comprising arable and lowland grass.

Documents

Sir Donald Curry A sustainable future for farming and food ... · A sustainable future for farming and food in the UK: eight years on from the Policy Commission 5 The challenge Production