Here come the robots

I am always a little sceptical of technological fixes.   They are always accompanied (understandably) by a certain amount of boosterism, not just from the innovator or the operating company, but also from politicians.   Technological adoption is in practice socially mediated.

There is no doubt that the fruit and vegetable sector has been hit hard by Brexit in terms of his ability to secure labour need for picking, sorting and packaging.  Far fewer workers than in the past will be let in under the seasonal workers scheme and many regulars have been put off by the fall of the euro against the pound.

The usual response from British politicians is to recommend the use of more local labour.  However, relatively few of those who express an interest sign up and many of those that do don't last.   Even when they do, their picking rates are poor.   It is monotonous, backbreaking work.

The second type of argument used by politicians is that the answer lies in the use of new technology and that indeed a scarcity of labour could help to force its adoption.   I am all for new technology if it is appropriate and affordable.

Devising robots to pick and service, for example, soft fruit is no easy task and it has to be recognised we are some way off effective availability at an affordable price.  We would also need people with the right skills to programme and maintain the robots, although usually that service is provided by the manufacturer.   

The capital cost issue can be dealt with by growers not buying the robots but paying a fee based on the crops harvested.

The estimable Judith Evans had a long article on the topic in the Financial Times yesterday.   Without breaching the Pink Un's pay wall or copyright, I think that I can quote a few key points:

1. For now we are really at an 'advanced research and development stage'.   Claims about commercial availability vary, but we are at best a few years off in terms of any substantial impact. Norway's Sage Roberts hopes to have 10 to 15 robots in the field next year to fight mildew on strawberry plants, followed by a harvesting function in 2022.
2. Eventually, robots should be able to reduce the number of workers required for harvesting by 50 to 70 per cent.
3. Robots do not necessarily pick faster than humans, but they can operate around the clock.

The Government is funding several robot projects, e.g., a demonstration farm in Kent.

Read more from a leading company here: https://xihelm.com/

Agriculture and food move further apart

The Covid-19 pandemic has seen a massive increase in supermarket power in the food chain with much of the hospitality sector closed down, says Tim Lang of City University.  I would add, how far will people revert to their former habits of eating and drinking out when we eventually return to a version of normality, a date that is advancing into the future.

Lang also says: 'UK food policy has fragmented despite talk of "levelling up". English farm policy now says next to nothing about food. It’s focused on ecosystems. Northern Ireland’s border is becoming the Irish Sea, not 310 land miles. The Agriculture Act anticipates dramatic cuts in farm subsidies. At last, say some. Me too, as they kept farmers in serfdom, producing too cheap commodities from which others took the value – but no-one wants more expensive food.'

Some real dilemmas there.   I have started work on a commissioned book on a radical analysis of agriculture and food policy.  One of the challenges is to see how far we can integrate the two, as happened during and after the Second World War.  Given the tendency of government to operate in 'silos', I am not too hopeful.

Biden presidency will slow down US trade deal

An article I wrote for South-East Farmer on the Biden presidency and a US-UK trade deal:

What will the Biden presidency mean for the trade deal with the United States and Brexit more generally?   One thing that is clear is that it will not proceed as quickly as it would have done in the absence of a change of administration.  

There are a number of reasons why this is the case.  First, Joe Biden has made it clear that the emphasis in the early phase of his presidency will be on domestic issues, specifically the Covid-19 pandemic.    International trade will not be a priority. Second, a new administration means a change of personnel.   A new US Trade Representative will need to be appointed to run what is in effect the US’s Department of International Trade and that will take at least two months after the inauguration.   Once that person has been approved by the Senate, they will need to work out their strategy.   Trade relations with China will be an early priority.

It is the case that there have been quite detailed technical negotiations between the UK and the US and it is understood that draft chapters of a potential agreement have been mapped out.   However, the issues have always been political rather than technical.  If there is political agreement, the legal language to fulfil it can be provided.  The biggest obstacle here is the effect of Brexit on the Good Friday agreement, about which Joe Biden has expressed concern.   Biden identifies strongly with his Irish heritage.   Asked a question by a BBC reporter, he replied: ‘BBC?  I’m Irish.’   Ireland is also a concern for the House of Representatives which would have to approve any agreement and which still has a Democrat majority.

It is unlikely that a UK–US deal will be reached before the president’s 'fast track' authority to sign trade deals (formally Trade Promotion Authority, TPA) expires on 1 July 2021. Its absence makes the congressional approval procedure much longer and more troublesome. Biden may find that he has more important things on which to use his limited capital with Congress than trying to renew TPA.

Even if an agreement was reached, there is no reason to suppose that it would be any more favourable to UK agriculture than one reached under President Trump.    Nick Clegg claims that Joe Biden said to him ‘very unsentimentally – in that folksy way he does – “‘We are not going to sign anything that the chicken farmers of Delaware don’t like!”’   Delaware is one of the largest chicken producing states in the US and the product is washed with chlorine.

Joe Biden’s personal links with chicken farmers’ aside, there are more fundamental reasons why any agreement is likely to favour US agricultural interests.    Unlike the UK, where Defra has a multitude of tasks and does not necessarily treat farming as a priority, the US Department of Agriculture is a powerful department with a focus on farming that has the lead on the agricultural dimension of trade negotiations.   It is not yet known who the new Agriculture Secretary will be, but they are likely to have some kind of farm industry background.    

They will be backed up by the agriculture committees in each house of the Congress that usually have a preponderance of members from areas that have significant agricultural businesses, while the agribusiness lobby remains strong.   In summary, any agreement that is reached will reflect US agricultural interests, particularly given the willingness of the UK to make sacrifices on agriculture to make gains elsewhere.

As far as Brexit more generally is considered, Biden has made it clear that he thinks it was an historic mistake and he would have voted against it if he could have done.   There is wider disappointment in the US because the UK could be relied upon to bring a perspective to EU discussions that took account of American viewpoints.    However, Brexit will be completed one way or another before Joe Biden is inaugurated and his views are likely to be peripheral to any subsequent discussions between the UK and the EU.

New consultation on pesticides

Defra has launched a consultation on a new national pesticides action scheme: https://consult.defra.gov.uk/pesticides-future-strategy/sustainable-use-of-pesticides-national-action-plan/

One of the interesting aspects of the plan is the lack of reference to the European Union and the switch away from participation in EU regulations.   However, if the UK gives approvals to products that are not permitted in the EU that could affect exports.

The section on biopesticides is relatively downbeat: 'The use of biopesticides supports IPM and can have a number of benefits including reduced impact on some non-target organisms and humans, resistance management, and minimising residues in food. Yet, biopesticides are generally more expensive for the user, and require a greater need for specific technical guidance, for example on storage and application. It is important to note that biopesticides do not inherently pose less risk to human health and the environment and, as such, should be assessed and utilised with the same care applied to chemical pesticides.'

The case for regenerative farming

An interesting article by an experienced farmer in the Weekend Financial Times on how farmers are caught in a vicious cycle of low margin, environmentally damaging farming underwritten by a subsidy regime which is to be phased out.

John Cherry noted that the price of wheat is much the same as when he started farming in the 1980s, but input prices have shot up.  'Yields are a bit higher, but not enough to keep the margin remotely generous. Many livestock farmers are similarly trapped in a high-input/high-output/low-return system.'

On his farm they have adopted a regenerative approach that focuses on improving the soil rather than chasing yields.   'Healthy soil will absorb all but the heaviest downpours of rain, which can prevent floods and store water to keep plants growing through droughts.  It also enables farmers to grow nutrient-dense food with a minimum of artificial inputs.'

He co-founded the charity Groundswell to explore ways in which farmers can work with nature in a profitable way: https://groundswellag.com/about/