Eustice wins trench warfare

Defra secretary George Eustice has won his battle with international trade secretary Liz Truss over protecting farmers from imports produced to lower standards than in the UK.  As so often the case, the devil is in the detail. 

An agriculture and trade commission will be set up to consider policies the Government should adopt in free trade deals to ensure UK farmers do not face unfair competition which would undermine high animal welfare and production standards.

Although the commission will be only advisory, it will report to Parliament.  Going against its recommendations would be awkward for the Government.   However, there remains a strong imperative to get a trade deal with the US and this will not be possible without concessions on agricultural trade.   President Trump is particularly reliant on votes from farm states.

It will be interesting to see who the chair.  I would expect the membership to include a working farmer with NFU connections and one of the few academics with expertise in international agricultural trade.

Don't resurrect the milk marketing board

Some dairy farmers have been hit hard by the slump in the liquid milk market after restaurants and cafes entered lockdown.  Some more milk was consumed at home, but not enough to make up for losses in the catering sector.  Some emergency help has been given to dairy farmers by the Government, but it has been criticised for not hitting the spot:https://www.nfuonline.com/sectors/dairy/dairy-news/dairy-response-fund-opens-for-applications/

Some farmers have been agitating for the return of the Milk Marketing Board.   The story of its demise is a bit more complicated than has been made out, e.g., in Private Eye..  It wasn't just down to the wicked EU - who rightly saw it as a state sponsored cartel.    Mrs Thatcher didn't like it, but Peter Walker defended it in England so the Scottish boards went first.

However, its demise was also favoured by the bigger dairy farmers who felt they could extract a better price if they weren't compelled to sell to a monopoly.   Remoter, smaller farmers tended to favour it because it ensured that they did have a market for their milk.

I wrote more about milk marketing than was good for my sanity, but here are a few key points:

• The price for manufacturing milk varied according to its final use, e.g., chocolate crumb v. yogurt. The milk supplied wasn't any different, but the price for manufacturing milk was lower than for the liquid market (roughly half of total output).  It's as if you charged more for steel if it was used in a Jaguar rather than a mini!
• Prices were determined by the Joint Committee in which each side - farmers and processors - had one vote.
• The franchise for the elections to the board rested with the cows, ten cows got one vote - the idea was to give bigger farmers more of a say.   Concerns about 'bovinisation' led to them being counted through occasionally.
• A big bureaucracy was necessary to operate the system.  Nice people, but as soon as they saw you expressing an interest, they tried to coopt you to their way of thinking.  They had the most to lose from dissolution.

Pesticide protections should not be given away in trade talks

UK consumers are likely to be exposed to larger amounts of more toxic chemicals in their food if trade negotiators from the US have their way, warns a new report out from the Pesticide Action Network (UK).  You can read the key findings here: https://www.pan-uk.org/toxic-trade/#key_findings 

The warning comes alongside new YouGov polling which reveals that almost three quarters (71%) of the British public want the UK Government to resist US attempts to overturn bans on pesticides, even if this means the “best” trade deal cannot be reached.  

Authored by Pesticide Action Network UK (PAN UK), Sustain and trade expert Dr Emily Lydgate, Toxic Trade highlights that a rise in exposure to hazardous chemicals could be unavoidable for UK consumers because pesticides are not mentioned on food labels.   

While far from perfect, the UK currently has some of the most stringent pesticide regulations in the world, meaning that many agricultural products produced elsewhere can’t be sold here.  However, concern is mounting that in the wake of the UK’s exit from the EU, trade deals currently under negotiation with the USA, and planned imminently for Australia and India, will drive down UK pesticide standards.  This not only risks damaging public health but also the environment as trade negotiators push the UK government to allow currently banned hazardous pesticides to be used in UK farms and gardens.

  

The YouGov poll reveals high levels of concern among consumers, with 71% of those surveyed concerned that a US trade deal will mean larger amounts of pesticides in their food; 79% concerned about impacts to health if UK Government caves to US pressure to lower pesticide standards; and 77% worried about negative impacts on the environment.  

Josie Cohen, Head of Policy and Campaigns at Pesticide Action Network, said: 

“Much attention has been paid to the dangers of ‘chlorinated chicken’, but the UK public is equally concerned about weakening pesticide protections. We know that US negotiators have our pesticide standards firmly in their sights, and with the talks happening behind closed doors the public has no way of knowing if health and environmental protections are being traded away.”  

Vicki Hind, farm campaign coordinator at Sustain said 'If UK farmers are forced into using pesticides to compete with a flood of cheap food imports, their exports will no longer meet EU standards and they'll lose one of their key markets.'

Big scale farmers feel hard done by

A new report from the Commercial Farmers Group examining the role of commercial agriculture in the UK says farming has the potential to solve sustainability challenges, generate employment and boost the post-pandemic economy. Yet it warns that commercial farmers are being systematically ‘written out’ of emerging policy in the rush to push environmental enhancement above all else.

‘Commercial Farming: Delivering the UK’s new Agriculture Policies’ has been released today by the Commercial Farmers Group to coincide with the second reading of the Agriculture Bill in the House of Lords. As well as laying out the areas farming can impact positively, it argues that UK farmers should be ready and willing to compete with food imports – provided there is clear labelling identifying differences in production standards.

James Black from the group, who runs the family farming business producing pigs and arable crops in Suffolk, explains that commercial farming is important as fewer than 10% of farming businesses currently produce over half the UK’s agricultural output.

“These businesses are also ideally-placed to stimulate local economies, support wider industries and address pressing problems such as use of finite resources, greenhouse gas emissions, climate change and biodiversity decline. However, they can only do this if allowed the chance,” he says.

“Unfortunately, UK history is littered with the results of so many great aspirational concepts which have been poorly delivered – because policy makers have not fully engaged with the people most involved in the implementation. We must avoid food and farming becoming a casualty of this too.”

Mr Black says commercial farmers should be seen as the solution, not ‘the enemy’. With their efficiency based on evidence-based decision making and best practice, they structure their operations to make optimal use of their natural resources – and where they are already engaged in delivering public goods, they do so with accountability towards the outcomes.

“In short, they can quickly bring about change through capability, data, scale and technology, to meet changing market demands,” he adds.

“This is the thrust of our report and why our group wants to be involved as the details for implementing new agricultural policy are identified – so that real public goods can be achieved alongside the imperatives of food security and economic viability.”

The report provides examples of areas where commercial farming can help to improve the success of future farming policy, such as: the ability to use resources efficiently with fewer emissions; provide land and capital to invest in renewable energy technologies; and deliver land improvement and biodiversity projects. These actions can stimulate rural development and the contribution of Gross Value Added arising from the food and drink sector. 

You can access the report here: https://www.commercialfarmers.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/Commercial-Farming-Delivering-the-UKs-new-Agriculture-Policies-June-2020-low-res.pdf

British workers challenged by picking tasks

In the past I have undertaken quite a lot of work which involved me talking to growers in the glasshouse and field vegetable sectors.  This included the work I did on biocontrol (ongoing) and a Defra funded project which looked at polytunnels among other issues.

I have seen this work being done and even with picking rigs in the field it is arduous, repetitive and requires high levels of concentration.

Everyone I interviewed was of the clear view that it was no use taking workers from the local unemployed pool.  They didn't turn up on time; they were less productive; and they soon gave up.  Anecdotally, this seemed to be confirmed by a programme that the BBC filmed in Wisbech.

It is therefore no surprise to learn from the Financial Times yesterday that although a local recruitment drive has been relatively successful, productivity among these workers is lower and in the case of one major grower a third have already left.  Half were not able to achieve the required picking rates.

This is a low margin business in which labour can account for 70 per cent of the costs.  According to the Pink 'Un net operating margins are just 9.5 per cent.

Normally there are 70,000 to 80,000 migrant workers in the sector.   A seasonal workers scheme this year let in 10,000 temporary non-EU farm workers.

Some crops such as asparagus have already been left unpicked this year because of the pandemic.  In the longer run, supplies could diminish and prices go up.   One doesn't have to be too impressed by food security arguments to realise that there is a case for having a good local supply of healthy fruit and vegetables.

Congratulations to Judith Evans who is a new FT reporter covering agriculture but has done some excellent reports.   I have spoken to her and she asks good questions.

Britain dangerously dependent on two countries for its food supplies

I have always been sceptical about food security arguments for farm subsidies, particularly as they have been framed by farming organisations.   They have always seemed to me to rather Soviet style in their domestic production targets and I am not fan of autarchy.  My classic response was that one should only worry about security issues if one was reliant on just one or two suppliers.

John Maynard Keynes is claimed to have said 'When the facts change, I change my mind' or something like that.  Presumably he didn't change his mind about supporting Aston Villa or disliking Ramsgate!   

I have been influenced by an important new study by the distinguished international political economist Tony Heron in.which he argues that Britain is 'dangerously dependent' on fruit and vegetable supplies from a small number of European countries with 60 per cent coming from the Netherlands and Spain.  The food system is not as global as we often suppose.

The Netherlands does, of course, draw some of its supplies from elsewhere because of its entrepot role. Many large scale fruit and veg producers up sticks and work from Spain in the British winter.  There is less carbon impact from growing tomatoes in Spain than using heated greenhouses on the Sussex coast.

You could read his article for yourself here: https://www.nature.com/articles/s43016-020-0097-7

It certainly has implications in current circumstances given the pinch points provided by the Channel ports which could become a more serious issue after a no deal Brexit.  It also has implications for migration policy in relation to seasonal agricultural workers.

What I hope does not happen is that the article is used to back up the argument for blunt policy instruments of the kind represented by the EU's Basic Payment.   We need to be much more sophisticated and targeted in our policies outside the EU.