Public should help pay food production costs

As the warmth of the spring sun starts to hit the land and calves and lambs are being born, moods are uplifted as a new cycle begins.

But the farming year is not the only thing on a cycle. Through the darks of winter, the farmer-led groups on climate change have been extremely busy thinking about the next cycle of policy support and making great progress in providing practical suggestions and solutions as to how agriculture and wider land management can play their role in meeting global challenges over the next decade and beyond.

But who is going to pay for the changes required to deliver these objectives and how does it fit into the post-brexit globalisation agenda of free(er) trade?

In this new policy cycle of “public (tax) monies for public goods” there are many proponents across the UK that believe it is simple – the solution lies in redirecting public monies to environmental provisioning.

I believe the consumer should bear some of the cost of embedding environmental enhancement into food production. But rising food prices are a bitter pill for the public and, more importantly, politicians to swallow – meaning it may remain hard to extract more from the market despite the additional efforts and costs from the sector in delivering for society.

It is also hard to extract more from a market that is likely going to be increasingly exposed to global agri-food competition as more Free Trade Agreements are concluded by Liz Truss and her team.

A new cycle of freer trade was one of the Brexit promises, and while I agreed with many of the assertions in Defra’s Health and Harmony white paper, I vividly remember this entry: “Opening up our own markets can also benefit consumers by offering more choice and strengthening the discipline of competition that helps keep food affordable.”

While global trade deals will undoubtedly present access to new markets, we are on the back foot compared to the likes of the United States, New Zealand, Australia and Ireland who are already embedded in global export networks and have experience in penetrating markets and building product demand. We, on the other hand, have become accustomed to largely dealing with exports to the EU or satiating demand south of the border. Thus a lot of effort and funding will be required to build a meaningful trade presence in new markets if free trade agreements indeed “open the door”.

We are all aware that trade deals come with significant risks for the agri-food sector – and you have all heard the noises over chlorinated chicken and hormone beef.

However, the issues go way beyond those headlines into other matters such as food labelling, antibiotic use, pesticide use, and so on. My simple interpretation of the recent recommendations from the independent Trade and Agriculture Commission is that they are saying yes to freer trade but imports should have to meet the standards we set, and those standards need extended to include climate change.

That is a step change from current rules governing international trade, but likely a vital evolution that is required to provide protection against cheap imports as our farmers and crofters embark on a “greening” process.

It appears that a cycle of change is inevitable – and while change is challenging, endeavours across the sector will be vital – else we may be told to “get on yer bike” and find funding realigned more radically.

WHITE PAPER: ‘Opening up our markets can also benefit consumers by offering more choice and strengthening the discipline of competition that helps keep food affordable.’