A 113 page document from the Cabinet Office, "Food - An Analysis of the Issues", was published a couple of weeks ago. What does give pause for thought is the document's perspective on farming related issues. Of the 8 conclusions it draws, (see page 15) three impact directly on farming, and all three could affect consumption, production and prices paid.
The first farming conclusion is that "the full climate related impact of farming, and especially livestock and dairy, warrants much more attention". This is based on a DEFRA finding that agriculture contributes 7% of greenhouse gas emissions compared with total food at 18%, livestock being the worst culprit. No answers are provided, but already some concerning straws are blowing in the outside wind.The Soil Association, Sustain pressure group and a few eco writers are advocating eating less meat. A consultancy firm hired by a major supermarket is recommending that cows are pushed harder to calve younger, and to give more milk daily, which sounds no fun for the cows. These sorts of suggestions highlight the need for farming leaders to work with government and urgently formulate a strategy for farming in an environmentally beneficial way. Equally, farmers themselves should start thinking about their own strategy if demand for meat drops.
The second conclusion is that biofuels may not be the way forward because of their impact on food prices for developing countries. An unsurprising finding and one which is being increasingly picked up, for example by the all party MP committee which reported recently.
The third conclusion is that self sufficiency in food is not important, rather what is required is good contingency planning in the event of a problem. The document sees the level of self sufficiency as relating more to how competitive UK producer prices are versus imports, and how much consumers are demanding foods which cannot be produced here, not with a need to ensure its citizens are fed. So, no return to a CAP type system which pays for production.
Buried in the body of the document are statements that could influence consumer demand. There is a claim that local food is not necessarily environmentally better. But it is based on just one report, and is hotly contested by the Soil Association who feel the base data is flawed. Another concern is the way data is presented, possibly leading to unfavourable consumer impressions of farming. An example is the statement that whilst agriculture, and livestock in particular, is responsible for 7% of greenhouse gas emissions it delivers only 0.7% of GDP. Difficult to see the relevance of linking these, particularly when another chart shows that meat, eggs and dairy account for over 30% of consumers expenditure on food. Quite important then to the economy. The report acknowledges the debate about farm gate prices dropping as a percentage of retail, but dismisses the issue saying that a reduction is only to be expected as more value is added downstream. No figures are provided to support their view, yet common sense would say that the processing value added on core staples such as meat and dairy is relatively small.
Lest paranoia set in, the report does point out that livestock farming can contribute to preserving the nature of the landscape and biodiversity, and recognises that the outlook for some farming sectors such as livestock is gloomy.
All thinking people will recognise that the farming industry is no more entitled to favourable financial treatment than any other, and the report is another reminder that a farmer's future lies mostly in the farmer's hands. But after reading the report, one is left with a nagging worry that government sees farming as a series of problems, and that generating positive energy to help deal with the issues will be a challenge.
No comments:
Post a Comment