Comments for Farming - Resilience & competitiveness http://engage.defra.gov.uk/resilience Profitability and risk management in the agricultural industry Sat, 26 Dec 2009 20:08:27 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1 Comment on Resilience and the key risks by Bernard Clayson http://engage.defra.gov.uk/resilience/key-risks/comment-page-1/#comment-156 Bernard Clayson Sat, 26 Dec 2009 20:08:27 +0000 http://sandbox.defra.gov.uk/resilience/?page_id=170#comment-156 John, a brief comment (to find a conclusion one needs to expand it to include society). Who is controlling who, both are a product of education, principally agricultural colleges where the belief is that science is the solution to everything. Reality is, science has dug us in to a hole, and as per common sense - when you are in a hole, stop digging. The next escalation will be GM, as if we have not interfered with nature enough already. That leads nicely to climate change. It always has changed and humans will have to evolve/adapt to what ever it does, warmer or colder, my 'money' is on mother nature throwing a bout of PMT to put things right. Forty seven years in farming, sixty nine years at the university of hard knocks have taught me panic resolves nothing, assessing the situation and start implementing correction processes pays dividends. The start has to be a good risk assessment (and that does not mean what comes out of the risk management training manual), it means start with your worse nightmare, like no diesel, and what you can do about it before it happens. Second, identify the basic criteria, third, start experimenting. But as I said, whether farming can change is another question so I will throw a challenge in to the discussion - Is there anyone, DEFRA and or farmer/s, with the guts to try farming a different way, you'll get laughed at, I was ..... right up to the point where they started doing it themselves. You do not have forever, when government notices we have a looming food, water, energy crisis you know it is nearly too late. John, a brief comment (to find a conclusion one needs to expand it to include society).
Who is controlling who, both are a product of education, principally agricultural colleges where the belief is that science is the solution to everything. Reality is, science has dug us in to a hole, and as per common sense – when you are in a hole, stop digging. The next escalation will be GM, as if we have not interfered with nature enough already.
That leads nicely to climate change. It always has changed and humans will have to evolve/adapt to what ever it does, warmer or colder, my ‘money’ is on mother nature throwing a bout of PMT to put things right.
Forty seven years in farming, sixty nine years at the university of hard knocks have taught me panic resolves nothing, assessing the situation and start implementing correction processes pays dividends. The start has to be a good risk assessment (and that does not mean what comes out of the risk management training manual), it means start with your worse nightmare, like no diesel, and what you can do about it before it happens. Second, identify the basic criteria, third, start experimenting. But as I said, whether farming can change is another question so I will throw a challenge in to the discussion –
Is there anyone, DEFRA and or farmer/s, with the guts to try farming a different way, you’ll get laughed at, I was ….. right up to the point where they started doing it themselves.
You do not have forever, when government notices we have a looming food, water, energy crisis you know it is nearly too late.

]]> Comment on What drives resilience by Chris Peachey http://engage.defra.gov.uk/resilience/what-drives-resilience/comment-page-1/#comment-151 Chris Peachey Thu, 24 Dec 2009 10:06:24 +0000 http://sandbox.defra.gov.uk/resilience/?page_id=172#comment-151 Resilience: In the 1930s recession one Grandfather had been losing money farming, was in his 60s-- he got out; the other was in his 40s, had started farming at 16 and was very "hungry" for success; he took farms that no one else would and ended up with 10.000 acres (he was Free church with a strong work ethic and low personal expenditure!) During FMD 2002 many farmers were given help by various charities, despite being what the pundits would describe as "non-viable"-- and are still farming today. Resilience or foolishness?-- both probably! Resilience: In the 1930s recession one Grandfather had been losing money farming, was in his 60s– he got out; the other was in his 40s, had started farming at 16 and was very “hungry” for success; he took farms that no one else would and ended up with 10.000 acres (he was Free church with a strong work ethic and low personal expenditure!)

During FMD 2002 many farmers were given help by various charities, despite being what the pundits would describe as “non-viable”– and are still farming today.
Resilience or foolishness?– both probably!

]]> Comment on Knowledge transfer & new technology by Sean Rickard http://engage.defra.gov.uk/resilience/bolstering-improving/knowledge-management-new-technology/comment-page-1/#comment-150 Sean Rickard Wed, 23 Dec 2009 19:43:45 +0000 http://sandbox.defra.gov.uk/resilience/?page_id=168#comment-150 Given the many challenges faced by the farming industry in not only contributing to feeding a growing and increasingly affluent world population but also doing this against rising energy prices and water shortages it is impossible to imagine how it can succeed without the aid of science and technology. In this respect it is disgraceful that a virulent campaign by a minority with a vested interest has managed to slow – if not ultimately prevent – the adopting of GM. There is no living person who can foresee all the potential benefits and costs that biotechnology in all its forms will bring to the industry – just as even today we cannot foresee all the possible future for ICT. But of one thing we should be clear. British agriculture has a proud record in combining science with the production of food and it is both illogical and potentially devastating to the industry to frustrate its take up of new science and technology. Given the many challenges faced by the farming industry in not only contributing to feeding a growing and increasingly affluent world population but also doing this against rising energy prices and water shortages it is impossible to imagine how it can succeed without the aid of science and technology. In this respect it is disgraceful that a virulent campaign by a minority with a vested interest has managed to slow – if not ultimately prevent – the adopting of GM. There is no living person who can foresee all the potential benefits and costs that biotechnology in all its forms will bring to the industry – just as even today we cannot foresee all the possible future for ICT. But of one thing we should be clear. British agriculture has a proud record in combining science with the production of food and it is both illogical and potentially devastating to the industry to frustrate its take up of new science and technology.

]]> Comment on Structural change by sean rickard http://engage.defra.gov.uk/resilience/bolstering-improving/structural-change/comment-page-1/#comment-149 sean rickard Wed, 23 Dec 2009 19:32:26 +0000 http://sandbox.defra.gov.uk/resilience/?page_id=138#comment-149 I agree that productivity is heavily dependent on larger farm size and specialisation. But it is also influenced by the farmer’s management and entrepreneurial skills and the workforce’s experience and skills. Most importantly it is positively related to a culture of investment not only in fixed capital but also in human and knowledge capital. New entrants are a proven source of new ideas and techniques and high land prices – in large measure a direct consequence of public support – are a barrier to this entrepreneurial lifeblood. In the absence of direct payments the industry would undergo significant productive structural change as more land was worked by farmers with a mindset tuned to the adoption of new systems and technologies. Structural change would not mean an end to what might be described as ‘hobby or lifestyle’ farms – they currently account for approximately two-thirds of farm holdings and produce less than 3 per cent of the industry’s value added – but it would mean the demise of many smaller scale ‘full-time’ businesses that are frankly not very efficient and even with public support lack the funds and skills to improve the competitiveness and resilience of their farms. We face a clear, if hard choice. We cannot have a thriving, dynamic farming industry while most of its businesses are run by individuals who have succeeded their fathers regardless of their farming and management skills and who have been indoctrinated into a dependency culture. No other industry would expect to succeed on this basis and ultimately farming is a business and should be viewed and treated as such. I agree that productivity is heavily dependent on larger farm size and specialisation. But it is also influenced by the farmer’s management and entrepreneurial skills and the workforce’s experience and skills. Most importantly it is positively related to a culture of investment not only in fixed capital but also in human and knowledge capital. New entrants are a proven source of new ideas and techniques and high land prices – in large measure a direct consequence of public support – are a barrier to this entrepreneurial lifeblood. In the absence of direct payments the industry would undergo significant productive structural change as more land was worked by farmers with a mindset tuned to the adoption of new systems and technologies. Structural change would not mean an end to what might be described as ‘hobby or lifestyle’ farms – they currently account for approximately two-thirds of farm holdings and produce less than 3 per cent of the industry’s value added – but it would mean the demise of many smaller scale ‘full-time’ businesses that are frankly not very efficient and even with public support lack the funds and skills to improve the competitiveness and resilience of their farms. We face a clear, if hard choice. We cannot have a thriving, dynamic farming industry while most of its businesses are run by individuals who have succeeded their fathers regardless of their farming and management skills and who have been indoctrinated into a dependency culture. No other industry would expect to succeed on this basis and ultimately farming is a business and should be viewed and treated as such.

]]> Comment on Business management skills by Sean Rickard http://engage.defra.gov.uk/resilience/bolstering-improving/business-management-skills/comment-page-1/#comment-148 Sean Rickard Wed, 23 Dec 2009 18:42:35 +0000 http://sandbox.defra.gov.uk/resilience/?page_id=164#comment-148 It is beyond dispute that the knowledge and skills required to grow crops or raised livestock are essential for individual farmers but competitiveness and resilience also require management skills – in a broad business sense - and this is an area of neglect where farming is concerned. The reason for the neglect can largely be explained by the industry’s dependence on government support. Farmers as a group, with many notable exceptions, do not display the management skills that are commonly found amongst senior managers in non-farming businesses. It is not viewed as a priority by farmers, their representatives or the government. Yet there is a fundamental conflict between the government’ desire for farm businesses to become not only more competitive and resilience but also less reliant on public support and its lack of emphasis on building the management skills of farmers. The starting point in discussing competitiveness and resilience must be the willingness and opportunities for farmers to obtain necessary levels of broad management skills such as accounting, finance, marketing and people skills. It is beyond dispute that the knowledge and skills required to grow crops or raised livestock are essential for individual farmers but competitiveness and resilience also require management skills – in a broad business sense – and this is an area of neglect where farming is concerned. The reason for the neglect can largely be explained by the industry’s dependence on government support. Farmers as a group, with many notable exceptions, do not display the management skills that are commonly found amongst senior managers in non-farming businesses. It is not viewed as a priority by farmers, their representatives or the government. Yet there is a fundamental conflict between the government’ desire for farm businesses to become not only more competitive and resilience but also less reliant on public support and its lack of emphasis on building the management skills of farmers. The starting point in discussing competitiveness and resilience must be the willingness and opportunities for farmers to obtain necessary levels of broad management skills such as accounting, finance, marketing and people skills.

]]> Comment on Knowledge transfer & new technology by Mary Quicke MBE http://engage.defra.gov.uk/resilience/bolstering-improving/knowledge-management-new-technology/comment-page-1/#comment-147 Mary Quicke MBE Wed, 23 Dec 2009 15:07:33 +0000 http://sandbox.defra.gov.uk/resilience/?page_id=168#comment-147 We are lacking not only in near market, applied research to support economically and environmentally sustainable farming, but also in the infrastructure, particularly human to generate it: production researchers have largely left the field, and many have retired. The new generation of farmers have never seen a useful research establishment: they see R&D as either driven by commercial interests that are not their own, or environmental and of little value to themselves or too blue sky to be of any value to them. Colin Spedding said that R&D should be 1/3 literature review, 1/3 research and 1/3 knowledge transfer; current research eg at SAC has very limited funding for lit review and for KT. The graphs on UK's falling actual & relative agricultural productivity show the danger of lack of practically applicable knowledge. For instance, the drop in sow numbers despite higher than European product prices demonstrate in large measure our lack of knowledge in dealing with PWMS disease, which the Dutch and the Danes put enormous resource into fixing. Other sectors will suffer similar losses if we don't address this huge lack. Lack of underlying knowledge can look like lack of training, competitiveness or some other aspect, but we need to develop the tools of knowledge, knowledge exchange and transfer or face gradual attrition. We are lacking not only in near market, applied research to support economically and environmentally sustainable farming, but also in the infrastructure, particularly human to generate it: production researchers have largely left the field, and many have retired. The new generation of farmers have never seen a useful research establishment: they see R&D as either driven by commercial interests that are not their own, or environmental and of little value to themselves or too blue sky to be of any value to them. Colin Spedding said that R&D should be 1/3 literature review, 1/3 research and 1/3 knowledge transfer; current research eg at SAC has very limited funding for lit review and for KT. The graphs on UK’s falling actual & relative agricultural productivity show the danger of lack of practically applicable knowledge. For instance, the drop in sow numbers despite higher than European product prices demonstrate in large measure our lack of knowledge in dealing with PWMS disease, which the Dutch and the Danes put enormous resource into fixing. Other sectors will suffer similar losses if we don’t address this huge lack. Lack of underlying knowledge can look like lack of training, competitiveness or some other aspect, but we need to develop the tools of knowledge, knowledge exchange and transfer or face gradual attrition.

]]> Comment on Bolstering resilience and improving competitiveness by Albanwise Limited http://engage.defra.gov.uk/resilience/bolstering-improving/comment-page-1/#comment-146 Albanwise Limited Wed, 23 Dec 2009 12:30:17 +0000 http://sandbox.defra.gov.uk/resilience/?page_id=136#comment-146 1. DEFRA and government should adopt a light touch only by setting the framework for the direction of the industry as per a revised vision ie one for a food focused agriculture, whilst enhancing environmental features as per current course set with CPRE etc. 2. Structural change is vital and can only be accelarated with a. reduced SFP and b. taxation which artificially inflate rents and land values. We must drop the vision of needing to support 'the family farm' (they will survive if there is a business case and desire). So Govenment must drop APR and CGT rollover relief to reinvigorate the land market at historic low supply volumes. 3. DEFRA must support the key infrastructure investments we need ie a. sea defences (eg The Wash grade 1 and other lands will be lost otherwise) b. water storage c. d. improved soil structures/humus and worm level collapses and e. dramatically reduced dependence on oil in production - the latter must have a price signal to make private investors and technology and systems adapt ie carbon taxes.(that will spawn the replacments eg biodiesel from secondary quality land or localised small scale but numerous horticulture initiativesand farming by hand/horse using 7.2m economically inactive people wasted in this country, who can also assist with a defensive timber shortage crisis by planting up every hedegrow in Uk with quality oaks or similar resistant to temperature rise. 3. R&D should be sponsored working with Universities and Industry. 4. Similarly sponsor only benchmarking, but do not try to over monitor 'resilience targets'. 5. Encourage via grant aid collaboration and cooperative ventures to capture value up supply chain and protect our physical crop in better condition throughout year, and to reduce price taking. In Summary, we need much more boldness about the country we want to be and the food/energy/climate crisis upon us. The most important industry to the UK is in fact farming. We are now not sefl sufficient. The approach we must adopt is akin too Churchillian or the Dutch draing the fens ie we are at war - a war for survival, and making sure we can do so in the Uk as one of the few safe places in the world to be, that can pull up the drawbridge as needs be and feed itself, from a low carbon input base. The same principles need adopting on our vital fish resource where the EU and DEFRA has failed the people, the marine environment and fish stocks. Too radical - no, all the signs are there - common sense dictates. Do not be scared to scare the public or fear being different than other EU countries - we need and want scaring so businesses can focus on investing in our security. We would regain national pride and purpose. 1. DEFRA and government should adopt a light touch only by setting the framework for the direction of the industry as per a revised vision ie one for a food focused agriculture, whilst enhancing environmental features as per current course set with CPRE etc.
2. Structural change is vital and can only be accelarated with a. reduced SFP and b. taxation which artificially inflate rents and land values. We must drop the vision of needing to support ‘the family farm’ (they will survive if there is a business case and desire). So Govenment must drop APR and CGT rollover relief to reinvigorate the land market at historic low supply volumes. 3. DEFRA must support the key infrastructure investments we need ie a. sea defences (eg The Wash grade 1 and other lands will be lost otherwise) b. water storage c. d. improved soil structures/humus and worm level collapses and e. dramatically reduced dependence on oil in production – the latter must have a price signal to make private investors and technology and systems adapt ie carbon taxes.(that will spawn the replacments eg biodiesel from secondary quality land or localised small scale but numerous horticulture initiativesand farming by hand/horse using 7.2m economically inactive people wasted in this country, who can also assist with a defensive timber shortage crisis by planting up every hedegrow in Uk with quality oaks or similar resistant to temperature rise. 3. R&D should be sponsored working with Universities and Industry. 4. Similarly sponsor only benchmarking, but do not try to over monitor ‘resilience targets’. 5. Encourage via grant aid collaboration and cooperative ventures to capture value up supply chain and protect our physical crop in better condition throughout year, and to reduce price taking. In Summary, we need much more boldness about the country we want to be and the food/energy/climate crisis upon us. The most important industry to the UK is in fact farming. We are now not sefl sufficient. The approach we must adopt is akin too Churchillian or the Dutch draing the fens ie we are at war – a war for survival, and making sure we can do so in the Uk as one of the few safe places in the world to be, that can pull up the drawbridge as needs be and feed itself, from a low carbon input base. The same principles need adopting on our vital fish resource where the EU and DEFRA has failed the people, the marine environment and fish stocks. Too radical – no, all the signs are there – common sense dictates. Do not be scared to scare the public or fear being different than other EU countries – we need and want scaring so businesses can focus on investing in our security. We would regain national pride and purpose.

]]> Comment on Resilience and the key risks by Mr John Harlow http://engage.defra.gov.uk/resilience/key-risks/comment-page-1/#comment-145 Mr John Harlow Wed, 23 Dec 2009 12:20:39 +0000 http://sandbox.defra.gov.uk/resilience/?page_id=170#comment-145 Bernard, yes yes yes, any rational mind knows this to be true. Peak oil and climate change should be dominating any future farming discussion yet still large agri-buisness control the thought process of Defra. How can something be so blantantly obvious yet Defra fail to even speak of it? Bernard, yes yes yes, any rational mind knows this to be true. Peak oil and climate change should be dominating any future farming discussion yet still large agri-buisness control the thought process of Defra. How can something be so blantantly obvious yet Defra fail to even speak of it?

]]> Comment on Structural change by Norman Coward http://engage.defra.gov.uk/resilience/bolstering-improving/structural-change/comment-page-1/#comment-140 Norman Coward Tue, 22 Dec 2009 18:37:06 +0000 http://sandbox.defra.gov.uk/resilience/?page_id=138#comment-140 Structural Change The Commercial Farmers Group (www.commercialfarmers.co.uk) agrees completely that "farm size and structure must be able to adjust in response to market signals" (p. 40). We agree also that a "significant degree of consolidation and restructuring" is needed to increase overall productivity. However, the paper confuses farm size and farm business size. The ownership of land and the number of farms is not especially relevant in this debate. What is important is the total area farmed by one farming business. There are many thousands of formal contract farming agreements in place, which allow one farm business to farm the land of a number of individual farmers. And there are countless (literally) informal farming agreements of this type. This is a highly desirable situation. The original owner of the farm can stay in his farm home, taking a pride in his physical assets while his land is farmed by a (generally) more successful neighbour, who can thus benefit from economies of scale and be more competitive. This process supports the structure which many consumers prefer, of a countryside of small farms, whilst allowing productivity increases. It also means that there is no real fear of large-scale "corporate" US style farming in the UK - the successful contract farmers in the UK are almost all still family businesses. The development also reduces the number of new entrants required - and changes the skill-set needed by new entrants. Their skills must include man management and business management as well as agronomy and livestock husbandry. Our view therefore is that no publicly funded promotion is needed to encourage farm business structural change. The only need is for improved training. Structural Change

The Commercial Farmers Group (www.commercialfarmers.co.uk) agrees completely that “farm size and structure must be able to adjust in response to market signals” (p. 40). We agree also that a “significant degree of consolidation and restructuring” is needed to increase overall productivity. However, the paper confuses farm size and farm business size.

The ownership of land and the number of farms is not especially relevant in this debate. What is important is the total area farmed by one farming business.

There are many thousands of formal contract farming agreements in place, which allow one farm business to farm the land of a number of individual farmers. And there are countless (literally) informal farming agreements of this type. This is a highly desirable situation. The original owner of the farm can stay in his farm home, taking a pride in his physical assets while his land is farmed by a (generally) more successful neighbour, who can thus benefit from economies of scale and be more competitive. This process supports the structure which many consumers prefer, of a countryside of small farms, whilst allowing productivity increases. It also means that there is no real fear of large-scale “corporate” US style farming in the UK – the successful contract farmers in the UK are almost all still family businesses.

The development also reduces the number of new entrants required – and changes the skill-set needed by new entrants. Their skills must include man management and business management as well as agronomy and livestock husbandry.

Our view therefore is that no publicly funded promotion is needed to encourage farm business structural change. The only need is for improved training.

]]> Comment on Labour market & skills by Phil Bicknell, Senior Economic Adviser, NFU http://engage.defra.gov.uk/resilience/bolstering-improving/labour-market-skills/comment-page-1/#comment-139 Phil Bicknell, Senior Economic Adviser, NFU Tue, 22 Dec 2009 15:39:53 +0000 http://sandbox.defra.gov.uk/resilience/?page_id=158#comment-139 Comments on skills were included in the business management section. Skills has been identified as a potential springboard for productivity but the perennial challenge is how to involve farmers in developing skills. As the discussion document identifies, there are issues surround the longevity of the SAWS quota (particularly important for horticulture) that merit further consideration. Labour market issues bring the focus on the Agricultural Wages Board. The legally binding orders it makes are increasingly confusing and act as a barrier to employment and personal development, as well as being costly to run. Its abolition would help put UK agriculture and horticulture on a more competitive footing. Comments on skills were included in the business management section. Skills has been identified as a potential springboard for productivity but the perennial challenge is how to involve farmers in developing skills. As the discussion document identifies, there are issues surround the longevity of the SAWS quota (particularly important for horticulture) that merit further consideration. Labour market issues bring the focus on the Agricultural Wages Board. The legally binding orders it makes are increasingly confusing and act as a barrier to employment and personal development, as well as being costly to run. Its abolition would help put UK agriculture and horticulture on a more competitive footing.

]]> Comment on Animal health & welfare by Phil Bicknell, Senior Economic Adviser, NFU http://engage.defra.gov.uk/resilience/bolstering-improving/animal-health-welfare/comment-page-1/#comment-138 Phil Bicknell, Senior Economic Adviser, NFU Tue, 22 Dec 2009 15:39:20 +0000 http://sandbox.defra.gov.uk/resilience/?page_id=156#comment-138 Some of the conflicts and issues relating to AHW have been picked up elsewhere in this discussion. It is worth noting that farm health planning has been one of the areas focused on under the Rural Development Programme for England. However, the delivery through RDAs has resulted in a sporadic approach (not all regions have developed an animal health themed programme) and some differences in implementation across the regions that have instigated a dedicated programme. Whilst the discussion document talks of cross-industry campaigns and a proactive approach to planning, there is an inherent inconsistency in how this particular mechanism is being used to address health and welfare issues on farm. Some of the conflicts and issues relating to AHW have been picked up elsewhere in this discussion. It is worth noting that farm health planning has been one of the areas focused on under the Rural Development Programme for England. However, the delivery through RDAs has resulted in a sporadic approach (not all regions have developed an animal health themed programme) and some differences in implementation across the regions that have instigated a dedicated programme. Whilst the discussion document talks of cross-industry campaigns and a proactive approach to planning, there is an inherent inconsistency in how this particular mechanism is being used to address health and welfare issues on farm.

]]> Comment on Infrastructure by Phil Bicknell, Senior Economic Adviser, NFU http://engage.defra.gov.uk/resilience/bolstering-improving/knowledge-transfer-and-new-technology/comment-page-1/#comment-137 Phil Bicknell, Senior Economic Adviser, NFU Tue, 22 Dec 2009 15:38:59 +0000 http://sandbox.defra.gov.uk/resilience/?page_id=152#comment-137 We acknowledge that broadband access is an issue in some areas and the potential benefits it offers to businesses. Whilst use amongst farmers is increasing, technology limits access in some rural areas. This can limit diversification opportunities (e.g. office and workshop space for small businesses) and also impact on existing farm businesses. This constraint needs to be aligned with the fact that Government is increasingly heading online. For example, the compulsory switch to online filing of VAT returns online from April 2010 for businesses with turnover greater than £100,000 will also impact many farmers. Many dairy and arable farms face the prospect of online filing. In the specialist sectors (such as poultry, pigs and horticulture), a high proportion of farmers face this compulsory switch regardless of their access to broadband. In subsequent work, this section should be expanded. Exploring the infrastructure of the food manufacturing sector would be a priority. A consideration of the planning environment would also be warranted and there is a need to align policy at both the national and local level with the challenges agriculture faces. Continued capital investment at farm level and a desire for English agriculture to produce more will all impact on the built infrastructure in rural areas, yet the draft Planning for Prosperous Economies document by DCLG failed to consider farming. We acknowledge that broadband access is an issue in some areas and the potential benefits it offers to businesses. Whilst use amongst farmers is increasing, technology limits access in some rural areas. This can limit diversification opportunities (e.g. office and workshop space for small businesses) and also impact on existing farm businesses. This constraint needs to be aligned with the fact that Government is increasingly heading online. For example, the compulsory switch to online filing of VAT returns online from April 2010 for businesses with turnover greater than £100,000 will also impact many farmers. Many dairy and arable farms face the prospect of online filing. In the specialist sectors (such as poultry, pigs and horticulture), a high proportion of farmers face this compulsory switch regardless of their access to broadband.
In subsequent work, this section should be expanded. Exploring the infrastructure of the food manufacturing sector would be a priority. A consideration of the planning environment would also be warranted and there is a need to align policy at both the national and local level with the challenges agriculture faces. Continued capital investment at farm level and a desire for English agriculture to produce more will all impact on the built infrastructure in rural areas, yet the draft Planning for Prosperous Economies document by DCLG failed to consider farming.

]]> Comment on Business management skills by Phil Bicknell, Senior Economic Adviser, NFU http://engage.defra.gov.uk/resilience/bolstering-improving/business-management-skills/comment-page-1/#comment-136 Phil Bicknell, Senior Economic Adviser, NFU Tue, 22 Dec 2009 15:38:34 +0000 http://sandbox.defra.gov.uk/resilience/?page_id=164#comment-136 In some ways, this is linked to the issues regarding self-assessment. As the document identifies and has been made previously, part of the issue is the lack of availability of financial risk management tools given relative stability in key agricultural markets until recently. However, there is a point to be made that when their businesses are becoming more specialised and arguably more technical, is it realistic for farmers to broaden their skill base? Few businesses would send 100% of their employees to training at any one time, yet that is effectively what farming businesses have to do. In addition, there is the challenge that farmers would be developing skills that may be little utilised on a day to day basis, so turning learning from training into standard behaviour does represent a hurdle. In some ways, this is linked to the issues regarding self-assessment. As the document identifies and has been made previously, part of the issue is the lack of availability of financial risk management tools given relative stability in key agricultural markets until recently. However, there is a point to be made that when their businesses are becoming more specialised and arguably more technical, is it realistic for farmers to broaden their skill base? Few businesses would send 100% of their employees to training at any one time, yet that is effectively what farming businesses have to do. In addition, there is the challenge that farmers would be developing skills that may be little utilised on a day to day basis, so turning learning from training into standard behaviour does represent a hurdle.

]]> Comment on Knowledge transfer & new technology by Phil Bicknell, Senior Economic Adviser, NFU http://engage.defra.gov.uk/resilience/bolstering-improving/knowledge-management-new-technology/comment-page-1/#comment-135 Phil Bicknell, Senior Economic Adviser, NFU Tue, 22 Dec 2009 15:38:01 +0000 http://sandbox.defra.gov.uk/resilience/?page_id=168#comment-135 As the document identifies, investing in R&D is a challenge for small businesses and limits the development and adaption of new technology, whilst translation to on-farm activity remains a key issue in ensuring effective uptake. NFU views on the need for committed funding in R&D have been made regularly over recent months, with the ongoing debates on food security serving to highlight the need to produce more and impact less. As the document identifies, investing in R&D is a challenge for small businesses and limits the development and adaption of new technology, whilst translation to on-farm activity remains a key issue in ensuring effective uptake. NFU views on the need for committed funding in R&D have been made regularly over recent months, with the ongoing debates on food security serving to highlight the need to produce more and impact less.

]]> Comment on Self-assessment by Phil Bicknell, Senior Economic Adviser, NFU http://engage.defra.gov.uk/resilience/bolstering-improving/self-assessment/comment-page-1/#comment-134 Phil Bicknell, Senior Economic Adviser, NFU Tue, 22 Dec 2009 15:37:42 +0000 http://sandbox.defra.gov.uk/resilience/?page_id=150#comment-134 The AIDA model (awareness / interest / decision / action) is used regularly in marketing communications when considering the decision making process. With regard to prompting change in agriculture, the industry needs to take action and benchmarking has a clear role to play in creating awareness of relative competitiveness of farmers and helping signpost the future options available to them. This is not a challenge of data availability (despite what SFFS indicators may say), and the information available for benchmarking already exists whether it is from publications such as EBLEX Business Pointers or Defra’s Farm Business Survey. However, more consideration must be given to uptake by farmers and the formats presented. How easy is it for farmers to take existing information and compare it with their own key business metrics? Is there a straightforward process for identifying key differences between farms? Does the process generate appropriate actions? Providing the information is only part of the process and ultimately this requires some understanding of where the disconnect exists between information provision and on-farm action occurs. Although the document talks of benchmarking being at a farm business level, an element of international benchmarking would be of benefit to the sector. It would be particularly relevant given the potential to evaluate our competitiveness and productivity against competitors. This would also be an essential tool for flagging up the gaps between England and other member states in terms of implementation of CAP, relevant regulation and fiscal policy, which ultimately shape industry competitiveness and resilience. Also, benchmarking could be expanded beyond the farm level, acknowledging the wider supply chain and including comparative assessments of our food manufacturing and processing sectors. The AIDA model (awareness / interest / decision / action) is used regularly in marketing communications when considering the decision making process. With regard to prompting change in agriculture, the industry needs to take action and benchmarking has a clear role to play in creating awareness of relative competitiveness of farmers and helping signpost the future options available to them. This is not a challenge of data availability (despite what SFFS indicators may say), and the information available for benchmarking already exists whether it is from publications such as EBLEX Business Pointers or Defra’s Farm Business Survey. However, more consideration must be given to uptake by farmers and the formats presented. How easy is it for farmers to take existing information and compare it with their own key business metrics? Is there a straightforward process for identifying key differences between farms? Does the process generate appropriate actions? Providing the information is only part of the process and ultimately this requires some understanding of where the disconnect exists between information provision and on-farm action occurs.
Although the document talks of benchmarking being at a farm business level, an element of international benchmarking would be of benefit to the sector. It would be particularly relevant given the potential to evaluate our competitiveness and productivity against competitors. This would also be an essential tool for flagging up the gaps between England and other member states in terms of implementation of CAP, relevant regulation and fiscal policy, which ultimately shape industry competitiveness and resilience. Also, benchmarking could be expanded beyond the farm level, acknowledging the wider supply chain and including comparative assessments of our food manufacturing and processing sectors.

]]> Comment on Joint-venture farming by Phil Bicknell, Senior Economic Adviser, NFU http://engage.defra.gov.uk/resilience/bolstering-improving/joint-venture-farming/comment-page-1/#comment-133 Phil Bicknell, Senior Economic Adviser, NFU Tue, 22 Dec 2009 15:37:27 +0000 http://sandbox.defra.gov.uk/resilience/?page_id=148#comment-133 The fact is that markets for agricultural produce tend to have a very limited number of buyers. The assessment of current/recent initiatives would be invaluable in exploring the potential issues surrounding this theme. Although the focus of much work by different stakeholders, establishing such ventures has been particularly challenging and greater awareness of the issues involved would facilitate any future work. Clearly such ventures create opportunities to improve competitiveness and resilience whether it is from optimising use of inputs or benefiting from larger scale, longer term supply contracts. Identifying the shared objectives behind successful collaborative ventures would be invaluable. There are also lessons to be learnt from the failures (such as DFB), which prove a reminder that joint ventures are not the panacea for moving up the value chain. It would also be interesting to find out what tools/resources are available from government to stimulate collaboration and to learn if they have been effective elsewhere. If not from Government, then identification of where the impetus will come from is needed. Some consideration of the mixed messages with regard to farming and food should also be made. For example, collaboration and closer integration in supply chains is being encouraged, yet Government could do more to place British farm assurance standards at the heart of public procurement strategy. Government encouragement for grocery retailers to adopt more responsible procurement practices with suppliers would also support collaboration and help deliver a more balanced sharing of risk and reward through the supply chain. It is also worth mentioning the slow progress in the establishment of a Grocery Market Ombudsman. This is important when considering the wider issues of resilience and competitiveness, given that the Competition Commission report identified that excessive risk and unexpected costs by grocery retailers to their suppliers will have an adverse effect on investment and innovation in the supply chain. The fact is that markets for agricultural produce tend to have a very limited number of buyers.
The assessment of current/recent initiatives would be invaluable in exploring the potential issues surrounding this theme. Although the focus of much work by different stakeholders, establishing such ventures has been particularly challenging and greater awareness of the issues involved would facilitate any future work. Clearly such ventures create opportunities to improve competitiveness and resilience whether it is from optimising use of inputs or benefiting from larger scale, longer term supply contracts. Identifying the shared objectives behind successful collaborative ventures would be invaluable. There are also lessons to be learnt from the failures (such as DFB), which prove a reminder that joint ventures are not the panacea for moving up the value chain.
It would also be interesting to find out what tools/resources are available from government to stimulate collaboration and to learn if they have been effective elsewhere. If not from Government, then identification of where the impetus will come from is needed. Some consideration of the mixed messages with regard to farming and food should also be made. For example, collaboration and closer integration in supply chains is being encouraged, yet Government could do more to place British farm assurance standards at the heart of public procurement strategy. Government encouragement for grocery retailers to adopt more responsible procurement practices with suppliers would also support collaboration and help deliver a more balanced sharing of risk and reward through the supply chain.
It is also worth mentioning the slow progress in the establishment of a Grocery Market Ombudsman. This is important when considering the wider issues of resilience and competitiveness, given that the Competition Commission report identified that excessive risk and unexpected costs by grocery retailers to their suppliers will have an adverse effect on investment and innovation in the supply chain.

]]> Comment on Structural change by Phil Bicknell, Senior Economic Adviser, NFU http://engage.defra.gov.uk/resilience/bolstering-improving/structural-change/comment-page-1/#comment-132 Phil Bicknell, Senior Economic Adviser, NFU Tue, 22 Dec 2009 15:36:55 +0000 http://sandbox.defra.gov.uk/resilience/?page_id=138#comment-132 The premise in the paper is that if you are old, you are not highly skilled, motivated, etc. Whilst this may be true in some instances, previous discussion has highlighted the complexity of structural change. Not least, farms and land represent an asset, and there is an important psychological aspect to take into account when considering structural change. In essence, owner occupiers that leave agriculture consider themselves to be effectively ‘selling the family silver’ and limiting future generations’ potential to farm. Also mentioned previously were potential changes to land prices as a result of policy changes. The scale and rate of any adjustment are important issues, given that they will impact the net worth of the farming sector, its asset value, access to credit, etc. The paper looks at the current situation for funding, but does not review credit access issues prior to 2007 when farm income (as measured by TIFF) was at historically low levels and fails to look at future scenarios for lending. In addition, a fiscal structure in the UK that stimulates investment in agriculture and allows the management of land to transfer readily will be critical to facilitating structural change. This section also highlights the potential for driving productivity through increased farm size. Whilst economies of scale are important, it is worth questioning the compatibility unit size with the public goods that are currently expected of agriculture. The premise in the paper is that if you are old, you are not highly skilled, motivated, etc. Whilst this may be true in some instances, previous discussion has highlighted the complexity of structural change. Not least, farms and land represent an asset, and there is an important psychological aspect to take into account when considering structural change. In essence, owner occupiers that leave agriculture consider themselves to be effectively ‘selling the family silver’ and limiting future generations’ potential to farm. Also mentioned previously were potential changes to land prices as a result of policy changes. The scale and rate of any adjustment are important issues, given that they will impact the net worth of the farming sector, its asset value, access to credit, etc. The paper looks at the current situation for funding, but does not review credit access issues prior to 2007 when farm income (as measured by TIFF) was at historically low levels and fails to look at future scenarios for lending. In addition, a fiscal structure in the UK that stimulates investment in agriculture and allows the management of land to transfer readily will be critical to facilitating structural change.
This section also highlights the potential for driving productivity through increased farm size. Whilst economies of scale are important, it is worth questioning the compatibility unit size with the public goods that are currently expected of agriculture.

]]> Comment on Bolstering resilience and improving competitiveness by Phil Bicknell, Senior Economic Adviser, NFU http://engage.defra.gov.uk/resilience/bolstering-improving/comment-page-1/#comment-131 Phil Bicknell, Senior Economic Adviser, NFU Tue, 22 Dec 2009 15:35:54 +0000 http://sandbox.defra.gov.uk/resilience/?page_id=136#comment-131 The areas for exploration presented appear sensible options given the issues highlighted in the previous discussion topics. To help advance these identified themes to demonstrable action, some attempt should be made to prioritise these areas. This should include an assessment of current/recent initiatives based around these themes, their impact, and who has been involved in the planning and delivery of them. Given likely limited resources, it would be practical to identify where actions would yield the most beneficial results within sectors as well as identifying potential partners at an early stage. Further work should seek to identify the characteristics of farmers at the frontier of productivity. If our farmers are world beating at this level, effort should be made to map the characteristics that these farms possess, as well as simply including them in benchmarking. In terms of where action should be targeted, this will vary depending on the themes explored, but wherever possible, the starting point should be the wider food chain. Even for themes where competitiveness and resilience will be improved at the individual farm level, the whole food chain has the ability to act as the catalyst for positive change. In addition, there is a clear vested interest and responsibility to ensuring that the supply base is both competitive and resilient in the future. In fleshing out the detail around the themes for further exploration, the some further thoughts are included for consideration in the individual areas for discussion. The areas for exploration presented appear sensible options given the issues highlighted in the previous discussion topics. To help advance these identified themes to demonstrable action, some attempt should be made to prioritise these areas. This should include an assessment of current/recent initiatives based around these themes, their impact, and who has been involved in the planning and delivery of them. Given likely limited resources, it would be practical to identify where actions would yield the most beneficial results within sectors as well as identifying potential partners at an early stage.

Further work should seek to identify the characteristics of farmers at the frontier of productivity. If our farmers are world beating at this level, effort should be made to map the characteristics that these farms possess, as well as simply including them in benchmarking.

In terms of where action should be targeted, this will vary depending on the themes explored, but wherever possible, the starting point should be the wider food chain. Even for themes where competitiveness and resilience will be improved at the individual farm level, the whole food chain has the ability to act as the catalyst for positive change. In addition, there is a clear vested interest and responsibility to ensuring that the supply base is both competitive and resilient in the future.

In fleshing out the detail around the themes for further exploration, the some further thoughts are included for consideration in the individual areas for discussion.

]]> Comment on Competitiveness by Jim http://engage.defra.gov.uk/resilience/competitiveness/comment-page-1/#comment-129 Jim Tue, 22 Dec 2009 14:19:48 +0000 http://sandbox.defra.gov.uk/resilience/?page_id=142#comment-129 Just querying the statement “Some may say too resilient because it has been possible for many inefficient farmers to survive – thus holding on to assets which could have passed to more efficient farmers.” This begs the question “what is an efficient farmer”. An efficient farmer could be defined as one whose business is so structured that he can survive increasing bureaucracy, market prices that for beef and sheep remained at 1980s levels until the last year or so and still managed to keep a roof over the head of his family. Indeed if you were to define a farm as efficient by return on capital, one where they maximised food production could well be less efficient than one where they padded out a bit of dog and stick farming with a combination of ‘horsey-culture’, caravan storage and rough shooting. After all, given the low priority food production has had in the eyes of government for the last few decades, we could hardly define agricultural efficiency in terms of quantity of food produced Jim Just querying the statement “Some may say too resilient because it has been possible for many inefficient farmers to survive – thus holding on to assets which could have passed to more efficient farmers.”

This begs the question “what is an efficient farmer”. An efficient farmer could be defined as one whose business is so structured that he can survive increasing bureaucracy, market prices that for beef and sheep remained at 1980s levels until the last year or so and still managed to keep a roof over the head of his family.

Indeed if you were to define a farm as efficient by return on capital, one where they maximised food production could well be less efficient than one where they padded out a bit of dog and stick farming with a combination of ‘horsey-culture’, caravan storage and rough shooting.

After all, given the low priority food production has had in the eyes of government for the last few decades, we could hardly define agricultural efficiency in terms of quantity of food produced

Jim

]]> Comment on Competitiveness by Commercial Farmers Group http://engage.defra.gov.uk/resilience/competitiveness/comment-page-1/#comment-128 Commercial Farmers Group Tue, 22 Dec 2009 14:02:47 +0000 http://sandbox.defra.gov.uk/resilience/?page_id=142#comment-128 The Commercial Farmers Group ('CFG') has produced a paper "Let Agriculture Compete" which is available on its website www.commercialfarmers.co.uk This paper highlights the growing importance of world-wide food security and hence the need for a competitive UK agricultural industry . The recent food price riots in food deficient countries demonstrated this, both directly, and perhaps more importantly through the total or partial food export bans which 40 countries subsequently introduced in response to the perceived food shortage in their own countries. The UK cannot assume that imported supplies will always be available at an affordable price. The CFG paper goes on to list 10 factors affecting competitiveness of UK farming. In most of these, UK farmers are at a disadvantage compared with their main competitors in the EU and beyond. The paper then concentrates on 3 of these factors: - The UK government approach to implementation of EU Common Agricultural Policy policies - Research, development and technology transfer - Education, training and skills. There is, of course, a relationship between resilience and competitiveness - but the consultation places undue emphasis on resilience and insufficient emphasis on competitiveness. Competitiveness and Resilience - Over the years the UK agricultural industry has proven to be highly resilient. Some may say too resilient because it has been possible for many inefficient farmers to survive - thus holding on to assets which could have passed to more efficient farmers. The paper lists some factors which have provided a high degree of resilience. Of these, the capital structure is the most important. Over 90% of farmers own at least some of the land which they farm plus one or more houses. The value of agricultural land and the associated housing is strongly inflated by factors unrelated to the profitability of farming - especially the attraction of the rural life style to non-farmers. As a result, the industry is financially very low-geared (10-20% depending on the values used). Exceptions to this generalisation are in the pig and poultry sectors and, to some extent, horticulture. Often these use specialist buildings and very little land - so resilience is lower in these sectors. This has been demonstrated clearly over recent years with pigs and poultry where there has been high price and input cost volatility and many UK producers have not been able to compete with imports from their continental counterparts where animal welfare standards are lower. For most farmers, however, resilience is high - and they will be able to withstand the increasing price (and perhaps yield) volatility which we anticipate in future due to lower world stock:use ratios and lower levels of support. However, where greater resilience is needed, the strongest method of encouraging it is through greater competitiveness. Greater competitiveness leads to higher profits which can be retained in the business to cushion future stocks - or can be invested in fixed assets, diversification, vertical integration or business restructuring - all of which will normally enhance resilience. This is why CFG believes the majority of the emphasis, by far, should be on improving competitiveness. The Commercial Farmers Group (‘CFG’) has produced a paper “Let Agriculture Compete” which is available on its website http://www.commercialfarmers.co.uk

This paper highlights the growing importance of world-wide food security and hence the need for a competitive UK agricultural industry . The recent food price riots in food deficient countries demonstrated this, both directly, and perhaps more importantly through the total or partial food export bans which 40 countries subsequently introduced in response to the perceived food shortage in their own countries. The UK cannot assume that imported supplies will always be available at an affordable price.

The CFG paper goes on to list 10 factors affecting competitiveness of UK farming. In most of these, UK farmers are at a disadvantage compared with their main competitors in the EU and beyond. The paper then concentrates on 3 of these factors:
- The UK government approach to implementation of EU Common Agricultural Policy policies
- Research, development and technology transfer
- Education, training and skills.

There is, of course, a relationship between resilience and competitiveness – but the consultation places undue emphasis on resilience and insufficient emphasis on competitiveness.

Competitiveness and Resilience – Over the years the UK agricultural industry has proven to be highly resilient. Some may say too resilient because it has been possible for many inefficient farmers to survive – thus holding on to assets which could have passed to more efficient farmers. The paper lists some factors which have provided a high degree of resilience. Of these, the capital structure is the most important. Over 90% of farmers own at least some of the land which they farm plus one or more houses. The value of agricultural land and the associated housing is strongly inflated by factors unrelated to the profitability of farming – especially the attraction of the rural life style to non-farmers. As a result, the industry is financially very low-geared (10-20% depending on the values used). Exceptions to this generalisation are in the pig and poultry sectors and, to some extent, horticulture. Often these use specialist buildings and very little land – so resilience is lower in these sectors. This has been demonstrated clearly over recent years with pigs and poultry where there has been high price and input cost volatility and many UK producers have not been able to compete with imports from their continental counterparts where animal welfare standards are lower.

For most farmers, however, resilience is high – and they will be able to withstand the increasing price (and perhaps yield) volatility which we anticipate in future due to lower world stock:use ratios and lower levels of support.

However, where greater resilience is needed, the strongest method of encouraging it is through greater competitiveness. Greater competitiveness leads to higher profits which can be retained in the business to cushion future stocks – or can be invested in fixed assets, diversification, vertical integration or business restructuring – all of which will normally enhance resilience.

This is why CFG believes the majority of the emphasis, by far, should be on improving competitiveness.

]]> Comment on What drives resilience by Phil Bicknell, Senior Economic Adviser, NFU http://engage.defra.gov.uk/resilience/what-drives-resilience/comment-page-1/#comment-127 Phil Bicknell, Senior Economic Adviser, NFU Tue, 22 Dec 2009 10:59:03 +0000 http://sandbox.defra.gov.uk/resilience/?page_id=172#comment-127 John - should work now http://www.nfumutual.co.uk/business/business-insurance/risk-managment.htm John – should work now

http://www.nfumutual.co.uk/business/business-insurance/risk-managment.htm

]]> Comment on What drives resilience by Charlie Clutterbuck http://engage.defra.gov.uk/resilience/what-drives-resilience/comment-page-1/#comment-126 Charlie Clutterbuck Tue, 22 Dec 2009 10:53:27 +0000 http://sandbox.defra.gov.uk/resilience/?page_id=172#comment-126 In the examples of risk management, we should not forget 'controlling occupational hazards'. We are still twice as likely to be killed while working on a farm as any other workplace. I suggest everybody signs up to "Make the Promise" - google for website. Cheers Charlie In the examples of risk management, we should not forget ‘controlling occupational hazards’. We are still twice as likely to be killed while working on a farm as any other workplace. I suggest everybody signs up to “Make the Promise” – google for website.
Cheers Charlie

]]> Comment on Links and tensions by Phil Bicknell, Senior Economic Adviser, NFU http://engage.defra.gov.uk/resilience/links-and-tensions/comment-page-1/#comment-125 Phil Bicknell, Senior Economic Adviser, NFU Tue, 22 Dec 2009 09:03:19 +0000 http://sandbox.defra.gov.uk/resilience/?page_id=143#comment-125 Individually, resilience and competitiveness are complex issues to consider. Taken together, they also introduce some contradictions into the debate. There is a value to reviewing them simultaneously given that a more competitive agriculture should be more resilient (although the reverse is not always true). However, it remains important to distinguish them as far as possible, both now and in future. An objective of this work should be to identify key, discrete actions that government, the industry and stakeholders can take that will improve competitiveness and bolster resilience. Issues need to be analysed to their key elements to make this achievable. Diversification and specialisation is the most obvious tension. In theory, if you diversify, you are spreading your business risk. By contrast, specialisation and focus should provide efficiencies and contribute to competitiveness. That said, diversification introduces an inherent risk for farming businesses. Defra’s Farm Diversification results for 2009 showed that if letting buildings is discounted, a staggering 20% of diversified activities were discontinued during 2007/08. In addition, the majority of diversification enterprises tend to provide low levels of income. With this in mind, the ability of diversification to mitigate risk has to be questioned, particularly given that risk management may not be the key driver of diversification on-farm. Issues such as utilising family labour and making use of existing space are also likely to be prevalent reasons for diversifying farming businesses. It is not necessarily a tension between competitiveness and resilience, but there is a conflict with production and the increasing environmental compliance. Farming responds not solely to market signals, but to the overall framework in which it operates. Policy measures (particularly related to the environment) are a growing feature of this framework. Increasing output is a way of improving productivity but may not always be compatible with the policy objectives that farming is expected to meet. Successive CAP reforms can be argued to have changed farmers’ approach to risk and future evolution of policy will continue to impact on business risk. On a related point, there is also an issue of responsiveness of sectors to consider. A similar point was made in another discussion topic, but response to market and policy signals in agriculture can be dampened by the length of production cycles and indivisibility of resources. By its very nature, regulation does not seek to add value to an industry. Instead it aims to limit part of its activity in order to reduce the impact on some other segment of society. As such, all regulation impacting agriculture could be interpreted as a brake on productivity to some degree. Rather than consider specific regulation in this discussion, perhaps more attention should be paid to the distortion of regulation across member states. This relates to both the extent of regulatory controls and their timing (e.g. caged hens directive). Already the inherent flexibility of the current CAP means that farmers in member states have different levels of support available. Devolution has arguably exaggerated this still further. Farmers in Scotland’s LFAs are rumoured to face the prospect of increased support payments, which clearly them at a commercial advantage over English producers in LFAs. Ultimately, such flexibility in regulation and policy impact on the comparative advantage of farmers in England and limit the ability of farmers to take advantage of free movement of farm products Future CAP reforms should seek to re-establish a more common framework, where there is consistency across Europe. It was interesting to note that the recent assessment of the cumulative impact of forthcoming regulatory proposals argued that farm businesses have a high asset-value base, with the implication that regulation in general has relatively little impact on farm business incomes. Whilst this could be debated at length, the competitiveness paper presents an argument that the high asset base allows farmers access to funding to encourage reinvestment and underpin improvements in competitiveness. This is not true of tenant farms that don’t benefit from such a capital-rich base yet arguably faces the same borrowing requirements as many owner occupiers. Of course, this paper also presents an argument that policy distorts land prices, making land more expensive. Whilst this view is simplistic (e.g. ignores competition for land; price differentials versus some other member states; attitudes to land purchasing), there are clearly some conflicting issues here that need considering. The CAP plays a major positive role in providing leverage for finance to farming, and Defra pursuing a policy of phasing out direct payments could have a negative effect on lending to agriculture. In terms of roles and responsibilities, it is important to note that the Campaign for the Farmed Environment marks something of a watershed in terms of policy. It is an example of a way forward that encourages more industry ownership of problems without recourse to regulation. In future, it would be anticipated that the industry takes on more responsibility from government. Instead, government should set the framework in which farming operates, ensure that it is one that creates a level playing field across Europe and show effective leadership. Individually, resilience and competitiveness are complex issues to consider. Taken together, they also introduce some contradictions into the debate. There is a value to reviewing them simultaneously given that a more competitive agriculture should be more resilient (although the reverse is not always true). However, it remains important to distinguish them as far as possible, both now and in future. An objective of this work should be to identify key, discrete actions that government, the industry and stakeholders can take that will improve competitiveness and bolster resilience. Issues need to be analysed to their key elements to make this achievable.

Diversification and specialisation is the most obvious tension. In theory, if you diversify, you are spreading your business risk. By contrast, specialisation and focus should provide efficiencies and contribute to competitiveness. That said, diversification introduces an inherent risk for farming businesses. Defra’s Farm Diversification results for 2009 showed that if letting buildings is discounted, a staggering 20% of diversified activities were discontinued during 2007/08. In addition, the majority of diversification enterprises tend to provide low levels of income. With this in mind, the ability of diversification to mitigate risk has to be questioned, particularly given that risk management may not be the key driver of diversification on-farm. Issues such as utilising family labour and making use of existing space are also likely to be prevalent reasons for diversifying farming businesses.

It is not necessarily a tension between competitiveness and resilience, but there is a conflict with production and the increasing environmental compliance. Farming responds not solely to market signals, but to the overall framework in which it operates. Policy measures (particularly related to the environment) are a growing feature of this framework. Increasing output is a way of improving productivity but may not always be compatible with the policy objectives that farming is expected to meet. Successive CAP reforms can be argued to have changed farmers’ approach to risk and future evolution of policy will continue to impact on business risk. On a related point, there is also an issue of responsiveness of sectors to consider. A similar point was made in another discussion topic, but response to market and policy signals in agriculture can be dampened by the length of production cycles and indivisibility of resources.

By its very nature, regulation does not seek to add value to an industry. Instead it aims to limit part of its activity in order to reduce the impact on some other segment of society. As such, all regulation impacting agriculture could be interpreted as a brake on productivity to some degree. Rather than consider specific regulation in this discussion, perhaps more attention should be paid to the distortion of regulation across member states. This relates to both the extent of regulatory controls and their timing (e.g. caged hens directive). Already the inherent flexibility of the current CAP means that farmers in member states have different levels of support available. Devolution has arguably exaggerated this still further. Farmers in Scotland’s LFAs are rumoured to face the prospect of increased support payments, which clearly them at a commercial advantage over English producers in LFAs. Ultimately, such flexibility in regulation and policy impact on the comparative advantage of farmers in England and limit the ability of farmers to take advantage of free movement of farm products Future CAP reforms should seek to re-establish a more common framework, where there is consistency across Europe.

It was interesting to note that the recent assessment of the cumulative impact of forthcoming regulatory proposals argued that farm businesses have a high asset-value base, with the implication that regulation in general has relatively little impact on farm business incomes. Whilst this could be debated at length, the competitiveness paper presents an argument that the high asset base allows farmers access to funding to encourage reinvestment and underpin improvements in competitiveness. This is not true of tenant farms that don’t benefit from such a capital-rich base yet arguably faces the same borrowing requirements as many owner occupiers. Of course, this paper also presents an argument that policy distorts land prices, making land more expensive. Whilst this view is simplistic (e.g. ignores competition for land; price differentials versus some other member states; attitudes to land purchasing), there are clearly some conflicting issues here that need considering. The CAP plays a major positive role in providing leverage for finance to farming, and Defra pursuing a policy of phasing out direct payments could have a negative effect on lending to agriculture.

In terms of roles and responsibilities, it is important to note that the Campaign for the Farmed Environment marks something of a watershed in terms of policy. It is an example of a way forward that encourages more industry ownership of problems without recourse to regulation. In future, it would be anticipated that the industry takes on more responsibility from government. Instead, government should set the framework in which farming operates, ensure that it is one that creates a level playing field across Europe and show effective leadership.

]]> Comment on What drives resilience by John Hodkinson http://engage.defra.gov.uk/resilience/what-drives-resilience/comment-page-1/#comment-124 John Hodkinson Tue, 22 Dec 2009 08:54:24 +0000 http://sandbox.defra.gov.uk/resilience/?page_id=172#comment-124 Anyone having trouble accessing the link provided by Phil, you need to remove the closing bracket Anyone having trouble accessing the link provided by Phil, you need to remove the closing bracket

]]> Comment on Resilience and the key risks by Bernard Clayson http://engage.defra.gov.uk/resilience/key-risks/comment-page-1/#comment-120 Bernard Clayson Mon, 21 Dec 2009 20:31:43 +0000 http://sandbox.defra.gov.uk/resilience/?page_id=170#comment-120 Retired from farming, was a vegetable manager, then a senior operations manager for an international food company. Modern farming, like society, is addicted to diesel, steel, chemicals, and glossy advertisements. It does not have to run out of diesel to cripple the industry, all it needs is a shortage, farming would grind to a halt. Big tractors use less per acre, but they are a vicious circle that requires ever increasing horse-power. Ditto with chemicals. Efficiency is based on man-power, the one thing the world is not short of. If it was based on energy a different picture emerges, if a EROEI (energy returned on energy invested) analysis was done on the food industry it would prove we are eating oil i.e. it consumes more calories than it produces. Big farms require big tractors and big distribution systems to distribute the volume produced. TOTAL dependence on diesel. It's a risk management issue that no one is addressing. Farming can have no resilience whilst it has a vulnerability of that magnitude, all the other issues fade in to the category of 'occasional hiccups' which one expects when working in a natural environment. I wrote the article on the website thirty years ago, and have watched the dependence grow exponentially ever since. The calorie ratio has to change, whether farming can change is another question. Retired from farming, was a vegetable manager, then a senior operations manager for an international food company.
Modern farming, like society, is addicted to diesel, steel, chemicals, and glossy advertisements.
It does not have to run out of diesel to cripple the industry, all it needs is a shortage, farming would grind to a halt.
Big tractors use less per acre, but they are a vicious circle that requires ever increasing horse-power.
Ditto with chemicals.
Efficiency is based on man-power, the one thing the world is not short of.
If it was based on energy a different picture emerges, if a EROEI (energy returned on energy invested) analysis was done on the food industry it would prove we are eating oil i.e. it consumes more calories than it produces.
Big farms require big tractors and big distribution systems to distribute the volume produced.
TOTAL dependence on diesel.
It’s a risk management issue that no one is addressing.
Farming can have no resilience whilst it has a vulnerability of that magnitude, all the other issues fade in to the category of ‘occasional hiccups’ which one expects when working in a natural environment.
I wrote the article on the website thirty years ago, and have watched the dependence grow exponentially ever since.
The calorie ratio has to change, whether farming can change is another question.

]]> Comment on Competitiveness by Ian Smith RASE http://engage.defra.gov.uk/resilience/competitiveness/comment-page-1/#comment-118 Ian Smith RASE Mon, 21 Dec 2009 15:46:15 +0000 http://sandbox.defra.gov.uk/resilience/?page_id=142#comment-118 The competitiveness of England’s farming industry is something that needs to be addresses, as has been mentioned this has not improved much since the mid 1980s and there are some factors such as the weather that should give England a competitive advantage. In addition to the factors that have been mentioned already one factor that has not been identified as the drivers to improving productivity is confidence. If you have an industry that is confident about its own future, with the people and the businesses around it also confident about its future it will have a huge impact on the productivity and competitiveness of the industry. An industry that is confident about its future will attract people to work in the sector with higher skills levels because they see interesting and challenging industry with good career prospects. If you have an industry that is confident about the future with good people working in it, it is easier to attract physical capital. Currently often even people directly involved in agriculture do not have the confidence to invest in the sector. The uptake of new innovations and technology transfer often has a short term cost, although there can often, but not always, be significant long term gains. Again farmers need confidence to make the investment and take the risks involved in innovation and technology transfer. In recent history agriculture has lacked this confidence about its future, yes poor profitability in some sectors may have been a factor but there are many other reasons, such as: the big challenges it has faced with BSE, Foot and Mouth, Blue Tongue, Swine Flu etc to mention a few, the negative publicity the industry has received, the fact that agriculture is so entwined with politics and Government, the comments and actions of the Government with relation to agriculture can have a big impact on its confidence about the future, which effects its confidence to invest and so effecting competitiveness in the long term. Increasing confidence in a whole industry will not be an easy job however, some of the talk recently about world food security have enabled farmers to see started to see they do have a future and give them the confidence to invest in that future. The competitiveness of England’s farming industry is something that needs to be addresses, as has been mentioned this has not improved much since the mid 1980s and there are some factors such as the weather that should give England a competitive advantage. In addition to the factors that have been mentioned already one factor that has not been identified as the drivers to improving productivity is confidence. If you have an industry that is confident about its own future, with the people and the businesses around it also confident about its future it will have a huge impact on the productivity and competitiveness of the industry. An industry that is confident about its future will attract people to work in the sector with higher skills levels because they see interesting and challenging industry with good career prospects. If you have an industry that is confident about the future with good people working in it, it is easier to attract physical capital. Currently often even people directly involved in agriculture do not have the confidence to invest in the sector. The uptake of new innovations and technology transfer often has a short term cost, although there can often, but not always, be significant long term gains. Again farmers need confidence to make the investment and take the risks involved in innovation and technology transfer.

In recent history agriculture has lacked this confidence about its future, yes poor profitability in some sectors may have been a factor but there are many other reasons, such as: the big challenges it has faced with BSE, Foot and Mouth, Blue Tongue, Swine Flu etc to mention a few, the negative publicity the industry has received, the fact that agriculture is so entwined with politics and Government, the comments and actions of the Government with relation to agriculture can have a big impact on its confidence about the future, which effects its confidence to invest and so effecting competitiveness in the long term.

Increasing confidence in a whole industry will not be an easy job however, some of the talk recently about world food security have enabled farmers to see started to see they do have a future and give them the confidence to invest in that future.

]]> Comment on Competitiveness by Jim http://engage.defra.gov.uk/resilience/competitiveness/comment-page-1/#comment-113 Jim Sun, 20 Dec 2009 15:16:07 +0000 http://sandbox.defra.gov.uk/resilience/?page_id=142#comment-113 Just to follow up on the example given that “one person milking 100 cows cannot increase to 120 cows” This is one area where regulation has impacted directly on competitiveness. In the 1970s and 1980s we expanded cow numbers gradually. We might have a cubicle house suitable for 60 cows, but we increased numbers to 80 cows because 10 of the extra would be dry and housed in an old shippon whilst the other ten could be high yielders pampered in another shippon. Very sub-optimal because we were carrying silage to them in wheelbarrows but it meant that we had the extra 20 cows producing milk, and therefore an increased income stream, which allowed us to put up the next cubicle house for 40 cows bringing up the numbers we could cope with to 100. Of course slurry storage didn’t increase but we carted it more often because when you know your land you know where you can get on with a couple of loads first thing in the morning. With numbers up to 100 cows you then have the increased income stream to put in bigger slurry facilities which can cope with 140 cows, and you then up your numbers to 120 because, again, you can have 10 cows dry in one shippon and ten pampered high yielders in the other, and the wheelbarrow and fork came back into use. We could fund expansion from the income the expansion was already generating. Planning and environmental regulations mean that now the whole process has to be ‘big bang’ in that you always have to have adequate slurry storage at all times and ‘creeping expansion’ is an awful lot more difficult to organise. Bringing in extra labour was easier because you could build gradual expansion round a young family member going through school and college, slowly training up an existing young employee, or the use of a contract milker to give you the chance of a weekend off occasionally, but with the big bang approach you’re stuck with having to fetch a new person into the team from day 1 with the extra costs that that cause. Just to follow up on the example given that “one person milking 100 cows cannot increase to 120 cows”

This is one area where regulation has impacted directly on competitiveness. In the 1970s and 1980s we expanded cow numbers gradually. We might have a cubicle house suitable for 60 cows, but we increased numbers to 80 cows because 10 of the extra would be dry and housed in an old shippon whilst the other ten could be high yielders pampered in another shippon. Very sub-optimal because we were carrying silage to them in wheelbarrows but it meant that we had the extra 20 cows producing milk, and therefore an increased income stream, which allowed us to put up the next cubicle house for 40 cows bringing up the numbers we could cope with to 100. Of course slurry storage didn’t increase but we carted it more often because when you know your land you know where you can get on with a couple of loads first thing in the morning.
With numbers up to 100 cows you then have the increased income stream to put in bigger slurry facilities which can cope with 140 cows, and you then up your numbers to 120 because, again, you can have 10 cows dry in one shippon and ten pampered high yielders in the other, and the wheelbarrow and fork came back into use. We could fund expansion from the income the expansion was already generating.
Planning and environmental regulations mean that now the whole process has to be ‘big bang’ in that you always have to have adequate slurry storage at all times and ‘creeping expansion’ is an awful lot more difficult to organise. Bringing in extra labour was easier because you could build gradual expansion round a young family member going through school and college, slowly training up an existing young employee, or the use of a contract milker to give you the chance of a weekend off occasionally, but with the big bang approach you’re stuck with having to fetch a new person into the team from day 1 with the extra costs that that cause.

]]> Comment on What drives resilience by Jim http://engage.defra.gov.uk/resilience/what-drives-resilience/comment-page-1/#comment-106 Jim Sat, 19 Dec 2009 10:44:30 +0000 http://sandbox.defra.gov.uk/resilience/?page_id=172#comment-106 Today in the post we received two ‘letters’ from Defra/RPA One envelope (or more properly bundle) contained “news about the Single Payment Scheme and changes to cross compliance”. The other letter contained a folder titled “Important information from the Department of Environment, Food and Rural affairs on sheep and goat identification and recording from 31st December 2009. Together these two packages weighted three and a half pounds! Well I suppose it makes a change from Christmas cards, but how exactly does swamping small businesses with both that sheer weight of paper (all of which we will at some point have to read!) and a complex mass of new and repeatedly updated regulation help them or improve their resilience? Jim Today in the post we received two ‘letters’ from Defra/RPA
One envelope (or more properly bundle) contained “news about the Single Payment Scheme and changes to cross compliance”. The other letter contained a folder titled “Important information from the Department of Environment, Food and Rural affairs on sheep and goat identification and recording from 31st December 2009.
Together these two packages weighted three and a half pounds! Well I suppose it makes a change from Christmas cards, but how exactly does swamping small businesses with both that sheer weight of paper (all of which we will at some point have to read!) and a complex mass of new and repeatedly updated regulation help them or improve their resilience?

Jim

]]> Comment on What drives resilience by Phil Bicknell, Senior Economic Adviser, NFU http://engage.defra.gov.uk/resilience/what-drives-resilience/comment-page-1/#comment-100 Phil Bicknell, Senior Economic Adviser, NFU Fri, 18 Dec 2009 17:31:25 +0000 http://sandbox.defra.gov.uk/resilience/?page_id=172#comment-100 With continued volatility of input and output prices, the lack of risk management should be a concern for the industry. Exposure to risk jeopardises farm viability in the short term, questions industry potential to contribute to food security in the long term and also impacts on our ability to deliver environmental goods. That said, the current assessment of resilience assumes that the take up of risk management practices in the farming sector is relatively low and is presumably based on responses to the 2008 Farm Business Survey. In fact, methods for managing risk have become ingrained in farming practice. Simple crop rotation is one form of risk management, so too is providing winter shelter for animals in certain circumstances. Therefore, the number of farmers using some form of on-farm practice to manage risk will be high, although there is clearly scope for improvement. Some farmers take advantage of risk management tools that are made available by the insurance industry. The NFU’s sister company, NFU Mutual, provides a bespoke risk management service. (see http://www.nfumutual.co.uk/business/business-insurance/risk-managment.htm). These tools might have a wider application. The use of professional agronomists and advisers ensures a strong focus on physical risks (disease, pests, etc) in some sectors. The farm health planning currently offered to livestock producers in selected regions under the rural development programme is another example of where on-farm, bespoke advice plays a key role in building awareness of risk management and ultimately prompting action. It should be added that the challenge of prompting action will be a particular challenge on farms which have had disease issues in the past or face ongoing disease issues. The business decisions necessary to continue farming could conflict with risk control (e.g. buying in of replacement stock constitutes an inherent risk), whilst the lack of central action in controlling TB vectors will also have influenced attitude to risk control in some areas of the country. The situation becomes somewhat more challenging when looking at market risks. Outside of arable crops, farmers have few tools to mitigate their financial risk when selling farm outputs. Even within the arable sector, the potential window for crop marketing is not mirrored by the availability of tools to manage the risks associated with purchasing inputs. Adoption of risk management measures is not necessarily the issue, but rather the availability of applicable measures in the first instance. Globally, there are examples of where regulators have sought to stimulate the adoption of futures markets in certain sectors with varying degrees of success. Subsequent stages of exploring resilience should review these options and identify any lessons learnt. Should tools become more available, there is also the challenge of building uptake. Few sectors have experience of using futures markets and some instruction and guidance will be needed. Whilst the providers of risk management will obviously be active in this area, AHDB could also support this role (as they currently do in the cereals sector with risk management workshops). The food supply chain could play a much bigger role in creating resilience. Risks could be reduced if forward pricing contracts were more widely available and end customers (especially major retailers) were more willing to underwrite prices. Despite the short-term competitive nature of grocery retailing, it should be possible for longer-term agreements to emerge where these mechanisms can be more closely aligned to consumer/ customer objectives (eg in terms of ensuring fair prices). Good examples exist in the liquid milk sector especially and there is no reason why retailers should not be encouraged to adopt these approaches more widely. The likelihood of greater and more permanent market volatility suggests there will be a long-term imperative for manufacturers and retailers to adopt such approaches in order to secure supplies and manage their raw material costs. A recent report by the CBI also pointed to suppliers looking more towards supply chain finance. This may also happen in the food industry with major retailers seen not only as the profit centre of the supply chain but possessing substantial financial leverage that could be deployed downstream. Supply contracts themselves could be improved in some sectors to give farmers more opportunity to hedge risk. A good example is in the dairy sector where milk contracts currently transfer all risk to producers through exclusivity clauses and complete lack of predictability over pricing. The NFU is leading a major campaign for an overhaul of these contracts and would not exclude the possibility that regulation could play an important role in driving greater fairness in contracts. The Defra discussion paper is largely (and unfairly) dismissive of the CAP as a risk management instrument. For the NFU this is, in fact, perhaps the most important role of decoupled direct payments, i.e. to provide a degree of income stability to farmers to allow them to stand back from the market, absorb limited financial and market shocks and indeed assist in leveraging finance. The European Commission may be expected to examine how direct payments might be adapted to encourage more sophisticated risk management tools such as revenue insurance schemes or mutual funds. The challenge of measuring resilience should not be understated. However, it is worth considering that changes to resilience may only reveal themselves historically, by which time there could be limited scope to reduce the impact or reverse the trend. There are a number of potential measures that immediately spring to mind when considering how to gauge industry resilience. These include profitability, production costs, investment levels and gearing. With some effort, factors such as herd health status and land nutrient status could be included into the metrics. Measuring institutional risks is clearly a more difficult challenge, but one that definitely needs including given the potential impact that regulations and compliance can have on farm businesses. It would appear that a follow-up exercise that seeks to establish resilience indicators would be the sensible next step, just as Defra has done for food security and sustainability. With continued volatility of input and output prices, the lack of risk management should be a concern for the industry. Exposure to risk jeopardises farm viability in the short term, questions industry potential to contribute to food security in the long term and also impacts on our ability to deliver environmental goods.

That said, the current assessment of resilience assumes that the take up of risk management practices in the farming sector is relatively low and is presumably based on responses to the 2008 Farm Business Survey. In fact, methods for managing risk have become ingrained in farming practice. Simple crop rotation is one form of risk management, so too is providing winter shelter for animals in certain circumstances. Therefore, the number of farmers using some form of on-farm practice to manage risk will be high, although there is clearly scope for improvement.

Some farmers take advantage of risk management tools that are made available by the insurance industry. The NFU’s sister company, NFU Mutual, provides a bespoke risk management service. (see http://www.nfumutual.co.uk/business/business-insurance/risk-managment.htm). These tools might have a wider application.

The use of professional agronomists and advisers ensures a strong focus on physical risks (disease, pests, etc) in some sectors. The farm health planning currently offered to livestock producers in selected regions under the rural development programme is another example of where on-farm, bespoke advice plays a key role in building awareness of risk management and ultimately prompting action. It should be added that the challenge of prompting action will be a particular challenge on farms which have had disease issues in the past or face ongoing disease issues. The business decisions necessary to continue farming could conflict with risk control (e.g. buying in of replacement stock constitutes an inherent risk), whilst the lack of central action in controlling TB vectors will also have influenced attitude to risk control in some areas of the country.

The situation becomes somewhat more challenging when looking at market risks. Outside of arable crops, farmers have few tools to mitigate their financial risk when selling farm outputs. Even within the arable sector, the potential window for crop marketing is not mirrored by the availability of tools to manage the risks associated with purchasing inputs. Adoption of risk management measures is not necessarily the issue, but rather the availability of applicable measures in the first instance. Globally, there are examples of where regulators have sought to stimulate the adoption of futures markets in certain sectors with varying degrees of success. Subsequent stages of exploring resilience should review these options and identify any lessons learnt. Should tools become more available, there is also the challenge of building uptake. Few sectors have experience of using futures markets and some instruction and guidance will be needed. Whilst the providers of risk management will obviously be active in this area, AHDB could also support this role (as they currently do in the cereals sector with risk management workshops).

The food supply chain could play a much bigger role in creating resilience. Risks could be reduced if forward pricing contracts were more widely available and end customers (especially major retailers) were more willing to underwrite prices. Despite the short-term competitive nature of grocery retailing, it should be possible for longer-term agreements to emerge where these mechanisms can be more closely aligned to consumer/ customer objectives (eg in terms of ensuring fair prices). Good examples exist in the liquid milk sector especially and there is no reason why retailers should not be encouraged to adopt these approaches more widely. The likelihood of greater and more permanent market volatility suggests there will be a long-term imperative for manufacturers and retailers to adopt such approaches in order to secure supplies and manage their raw material costs. A recent report by the CBI also pointed to suppliers looking more towards supply chain finance. This may also happen in the food industry with major retailers seen not only as the profit centre of the supply chain but possessing substantial financial leverage that could be deployed downstream.

Supply contracts themselves could be improved in some sectors to give farmers more opportunity to hedge risk. A good example is in the dairy sector where milk contracts currently transfer all risk to producers through exclusivity clauses and complete lack of predictability over pricing. The NFU is leading a major campaign for an overhaul of these contracts and would not exclude the possibility that regulation could play an important role in driving greater fairness in contracts.

The Defra discussion paper is largely (and unfairly) dismissive of the CAP as a risk management instrument. For the NFU this is, in fact, perhaps the most important role of decoupled direct payments, i.e. to provide a degree of income stability to farmers to allow them to stand back from the market, absorb limited financial and market shocks and indeed assist in leveraging finance. The European Commission may be expected to examine how direct payments might be adapted to encourage more sophisticated risk management tools such as revenue insurance schemes or mutual funds.

The challenge of measuring resilience should not be understated. However, it is worth considering that changes to resilience may only reveal themselves historically, by which time there could be limited scope to reduce the impact or reverse the trend. There are a number of potential measures that immediately spring to mind when considering how to gauge industry resilience. These include profitability, production costs, investment levels and gearing. With some effort, factors such as herd health status and land nutrient status could be included into the metrics. Measuring institutional risks is clearly a more difficult challenge, but one that definitely needs including given the potential impact that regulations and compliance can have on farm businesses. It would appear that a follow-up exercise that seeks to establish resilience indicators would be the sensible next step, just as Defra has done for food security and sustainability.

]]> Comment on Knowledge transfer & new technology by Ian Smith RASE http://engage.defra.gov.uk/resilience/bolstering-improving/knowledge-management-new-technology/comment-page-1/#comment-98 Ian Smith RASE Fri, 18 Dec 2009 16:38:04 +0000 http://sandbox.defra.gov.uk/resilience/?page_id=168#comment-98 The UK is a world leader in Agri food research however this knowledge does not feed through to the farmers on the ground. There are a number of reasons for this, the main ones are; • We have focused funding on high level research and not followed this through with applied research to demonstrate to farmers what new technology and techniques are available to them and the benefits they have. • The farming industry does not challenge the research community and the funders of research enough, to ensure that their work is helping to address the barriers they face in increasing competitiveness. • The industry has also lacked the profitability and confidence to invest in knowledge transfer and new technology. There are some good examples of knowledge transfer but they are few and far between. It is not enough to just publish a journal article or leaflet about research or new technology, people learn a lot more by seeing and being involved projects that demonstrate what can be done. Yes this type of knowledge transfer is expensive but what is the point in Society funding research if it does not benefit from it. The UK is a world leader in Agri food research however this knowledge does not feed through to the farmers on the ground. There are a number of reasons for this, the main ones are;
• We have focused funding on high level research and not followed this through with applied research to demonstrate to farmers what new technology and techniques are available to them and the benefits they have.
• The farming industry does not challenge the research community and the funders of research enough, to ensure that their work is helping to address the barriers they face in increasing competitiveness.
• The industry has also lacked the profitability and confidence to invest in knowledge transfer and new technology.

There are some good examples of knowledge transfer but they are few and far between. It is not enough to just publish a journal article or leaflet about research or new technology, people learn a lot more by seeing and being involved projects that demonstrate what can be done. Yes this type of knowledge transfer is expensive but what is the point in Society funding research if it does not benefit from it.

]]> Comment on Resilience and the key risks by Neil McRoberts (SAC) http://engage.defra.gov.uk/resilience/key-risks/comment-page-1/#comment-97 Neil McRoberts (SAC) Fri, 18 Dec 2009 12:44:57 +0000 http://sandbox.defra.gov.uk/resilience/?page_id=170#comment-97 Resilience and Sustainability Both of these terms have technical definitions from systems theory which underpin their value as concepts in policy debate. They are relatively easy concepts to grasp in the abstract, but difficult to measure in practice. A useful simplification for keeping a clear view of how they are connected is to think of the sustainability of a system as its “life span”. Carrying on with the health analogy, resilience can be thought of as an overall measure of the healthiness of a system; it balances current well-being and capacity to deal with future challenges. Resilience, then, is a component of sustainability, not the other way round. A generic property of resilient systems (whether we’re thinking about ecology or economics) is that some proportion of growth processes is diverted to maintaining a reserve which is isolated from the dynamics of the system and which then acts as buffer against shocks: think of seed banks or savings accounts. There is an obvious trade-off between maintaining reserve capacity. A couple of useful points to bear in mind here are that: (1) systems which have a reserve built into them don’t necessarily have smoother dynamics than ones which don’t, and; (2) deciding on the right balance between growth and reserve functions is probably an open-ended optimisation problem. That is, in natural systems for example, the “correct” amount of resource that a species should allocate to reserves depends on dynamic properties of it’s environment so evolutionary processes may result in a never-ending hunt for an optimum value which is not constant. In general, resilient responses to high levels of uncertainty in opportunities for growth might be either to (1) re-locate to a different, more stable, environment (e.g. switch to a different set of production activities), or; (2) increase reserves at the expense of growth. Both of these responses can be thought of as dependent on adaptive capacities, the first case perhaps demanding a more comprehensive adaptation capacity than the second. Both strategies also rely on the existence of heterogeneity/fragmentation/compartmentalisation in the environment (or economy) in order to be successful; in an imploding economy your savings might need to be in a box under the bed in order to be isolated from bank failures. This is one of the lessons from theoretical ecology which might apply more generally to resilience: for a given number of interacting components in a system, stability increases if the system as a whole is constructed from a set of partly isolated sub-systems. The practical implications of this type of result for UK agriculture are unclear at present. Finally, an important but somewhat overlooked aspect of the resilience debate generally is the diagnosis and characterisation of current agricultural systems for their resilience properties. A minimum set of diagnostics would seem to be one for each of the domains of sustainability (i.e. the familiar threesome of environmental, economic, and social domains). Resilience and Sustainability

Both of these terms have technical definitions from systems theory which underpin their value as concepts in policy debate. They are relatively easy concepts to grasp in the abstract, but difficult to measure in practice. A useful simplification for keeping a clear view of how they are connected is to think of the sustainability of a system as its “life span”. Carrying on with the health analogy, resilience can be thought of as an overall measure of the healthiness of a system; it balances current well-being and capacity to deal with future challenges. Resilience, then, is a component of sustainability, not the other way round.

A generic property of resilient systems (whether we’re thinking about ecology or economics) is that some proportion of growth processes is diverted to maintaining a reserve which is isolated from the dynamics of the system and which then acts as buffer against shocks: think of seed banks or savings accounts. There is an obvious trade-off between maintaining reserve capacity. A couple of useful points to bear in mind here are that: (1) systems which have a reserve built into them don’t necessarily have smoother dynamics than ones which don’t, and; (2) deciding on the right balance between growth and reserve functions is probably an open-ended optimisation problem. That is, in natural systems for example, the “correct” amount of resource that a species should allocate to reserves depends on dynamic properties of it’s environment so evolutionary processes may result in a never-ending hunt for an optimum value which is not constant. In general, resilient responses to high levels of uncertainty in opportunities for growth might be either to (1) re-locate to a different, more stable, environment (e.g. switch to a different set of production activities), or; (2) increase reserves at the expense of growth. Both of these responses can be thought of as dependent on adaptive capacities, the first case perhaps demanding a more comprehensive adaptation capacity than the second. Both strategies also rely on the existence of heterogeneity/fragmentation/compartmentalisation in the environment (or economy) in order to be successful; in an imploding economy your savings might need to be in a box under the bed in order to be isolated from bank failures. This is one of the lessons from theoretical ecology which might apply more generally to resilience: for a given number of interacting components in a system, stability increases if the system as a whole is constructed from a set of partly isolated sub-systems. The practical implications of this type of result for UK agriculture are unclear at present.

Finally, an important but somewhat overlooked aspect of the resilience debate generally is the diagnosis and characterisation of current agricultural systems for their resilience properties. A minimum set of diagnostics would seem to be one for each of the domains of sustainability (i.e. the familiar threesome of environmental, economic, and social domains).

]]> Comment on What drives resilience by Neil McRoberts (SAC) http://engage.defra.gov.uk/resilience/what-drives-resilience/comment-page-1/#comment-96 Neil McRoberts (SAC) Fri, 18 Dec 2009 12:41:33 +0000 http://sandbox.defra.gov.uk/resilience/?page_id=172#comment-96 As uncertainty increases, so do risks and the quality of decision-making goes down: more bad decision get made which increases losses. Economists and ecologists alike make use of some fairly simple tools which allow uncertainty and risk to be taken into account when making risky decisions. These techniques have not penetrated into the farming industry despite being easy to grasp. Part of the reason for this is that too much emphasis has been placed in the past on developing overly-complex decision tools which try to encompass too much information and ignore risk and uncertainty completely. As uncertainty increases, so do risks and the quality of decision-making goes down: more bad decision get made which increases losses.
Economists and ecologists alike make use of some fairly simple tools which allow uncertainty and risk to be taken into account when making risky decisions. These techniques have not penetrated into the farming industry despite being easy to grasp. Part of the reason for this is that too much emphasis has been placed in the past on developing overly-complex decision tools which try to encompass too much information and ignore risk and uncertainty completely.

]]> Comment on Links and tensions by Neil McRoberts (SAC) http://engage.defra.gov.uk/resilience/links-and-tensions/comment-page-1/#comment-95 Neil McRoberts (SAC) Fri, 18 Dec 2009 12:31:36 +0000 http://sandbox.defra.gov.uk/resilience/?page_id=143#comment-95 It is important to distinguish between resilience and competitiveness as they are different concepts. Resilience is a measure of the healthiness of a system; it balances current well-being and capacity to deal with future challenges. This includes the profitability of the farm, but also includes other aspects of the farming systems including staff resources, ability of the farming system to cope with extreme events, maintenance of the soil etc. However, they are linked as a competitive business is likely to have the financial resource to be able cope with a short perturbation, assuming the cause can be rectified with money. As has already been correctly identified, risk management is a key factor in maintaining a resilient farming system, and this has costs associated with it. Therefore increasing the resilience of the system does not necessarily result in an increase in competitiveness of the farming system. It is important to distinguish between resilience and competitiveness as they are different concepts. Resilience is a measure of the healthiness of a system; it balances current well-being and capacity to deal with future challenges. This includes the profitability of the farm, but also includes other aspects of the farming systems including staff resources, ability of the farming system to cope with extreme events, maintenance of the soil etc. However, they are linked as a competitive business is likely to have the financial resource to be able cope with a short perturbation, assuming the cause can be rectified with money.

As has already been correctly identified, risk management is a key factor in maintaining a resilient farming system, and this has costs associated with it. Therefore increasing the resilience of the system does not necessarily result in an increase in competitiveness of the farming system.

]]> Comment on Resilience and the key risks by Phil Bicknell, Senior Economic Adviser, NFU http://engage.defra.gov.uk/resilience/key-risks/comment-page-1/#comment-93 Phil Bicknell, Senior Economic Adviser, NFU Thu, 17 Dec 2009 14:57:03 +0000 http://sandbox.defra.gov.uk/resilience/?page_id=170#comment-93 Broadly speaking, the definition of resilience that has been employed by Defra is useful (i.e ability to respond to acute disturbances). That said, as this work develops, it will be useful to attach some probabilities or some commentary relating to the specific risks that farming faces. This should be at both the aggregate level and individual business level impacts. With one or two exceptions, at an aggregate level the physical risks surrounding production are relatively small. A range of factors contribute to this, be it the relatively benign, maritime, knowledge-base of the farming sector or the relatively developed agricultural infrastructure. As a whole, UK agriculture is relatively consistent in terms of output. However at the specific business level, these risks become greater, especially the risks of extreme weather events which tend to be localised (perhaps with the exception of the wet 2008 harvest). When looking at key risks, the attempt made in the discussion document is a good starting point, but could be built on further. For example, more detailed consideration of commercial risks are needed, given they may be more prevalent as the changing business and financial climate puts greater strain on food manufacturers and input suppliers. The ability to raise finance to consolidate or to invest has become more difficult and costly for many businesses. Some are already highly exposed through very high levels of gearing. There is a very real risk of manufacturers being forced into rationalisation and at the extreme into receivership. The consequences may be positive if this leads to long-overdue efficiency in manufacturing. Yet this could come at a price in terms of loss of competition for supply/ markets as well as more direct risks to farmers in the case that the business contains substantial farmer investment (as was the case with Dairy Farmers of Britain). At the very least, the lack of finance is likely to lead to a less competitive manufacturing industry in future, an issue considered elsewhere on this discussion forum. Market risks might appear to be both greater and more likely than others highlighted in the discussion document. The experiences of the food crisis 2007/08 represented a watershed for agriculture and many farm businesses will have experienced unprecedented peaks and troughs in prices. It is hard to say whether such extremes in price swings (witness the dairy sector across Europe) will be seen again however we believe it is inevitable that there will be greater volatility in many commodity markets owing to various factors including: - Running down of global stocks to use and tighter supply/ demand situation - Climatic risks in many exporting regions - Reduction of market supports - Imposition of barriers to trade, especially export restrictions - Commodity market movements and relationship between food and other tradable commodities (notably oil) Volatility inhibits the transmission of clear long-term signals that are needed to make the long-term investments that are characteristic of farming businesses. Furthermore, many farms, especially livestock, operate on lengthy production cycles making it hard to react to short term changes in market situations. Risk in the agricultural context is a complex subject. As an example, consider the livestock sector, where disease is a significant threat to the viability of farming. Even where businesses have developed sophisticated approaches to manage risk of disease, there is a limit to the on-farm measures that can be taken to control all vectors of disease. Admittedly, some sectors currently have scope to improve their capability of managing disease risk but it is important to recognise that there are limits to on-farm risk strategies. Further adding to the complexity is the fact that farmers tend to be small businesses. This reduces their ability to hedge financial risk, except for releasing capital that might be tied up in land, buildings and so on. Tenant farms face the additional challenge of not having a land-based asset that they can utilise to manage their exposure to short term financial risks. In terms of subsequent work, an area to focus on is differentiating resilience to external shocks from adaptation to evolving trends. Perhaps foremost amongst the latter are climate change and policy reform, where the eventual outcomes could be better anticipated. A distinction should be made where farmers have the ability to adjust on-farm practices in line with evolving trends versus those where shocks cannot be widely anticipated. This could link into a risk mapping exercise that considers the nature of risk (shock v trend) and the level of impact it has (industry v individual farmer). There is certainly value to seeking to break down risk further, given that the interventions and impetus required to address different risks are likely to vary. Fundamentally, farmers can more easily plan and budget where risk is more strongly linked to evolving trends. Perhaps most importantly, they can take discrete actions to make their businesses more resilient to risk. By contrast, it is more of a challenge for individual businesses to manage risk that is more sporadic and impacts on the industry as a whole. Ultimately, this work should seek to help agriculture to reduce, mitigate and cope with risk. This is a complex subject and is worthy of further understanding of the issues that would help identify the most critical risk areas and highlight the potential scope for action by the industry and stakeholders. Broadly speaking, the definition of resilience that has been employed by Defra is useful (i.e ability to respond to acute disturbances). That said, as this work develops, it will be useful to attach some probabilities or some commentary relating to the specific risks that farming faces. This should be at both the aggregate level and individual business level impacts. With one or two exceptions, at an aggregate level the physical risks surrounding production are relatively small. A range of factors contribute to this, be it the relatively benign, maritime, knowledge-base of the farming sector or the relatively developed agricultural infrastructure. As a whole, UK agriculture is relatively consistent in terms of output. However at the specific business level, these risks become greater, especially the risks of extreme weather events which tend to be localised (perhaps with the exception of the wet 2008 harvest).

When looking at key risks, the attempt made in the discussion document is a good starting point, but could be built on further. For example, more detailed consideration of commercial risks are needed, given they may be more prevalent as the changing business and financial climate puts greater strain on food manufacturers and input suppliers. The ability to raise finance to consolidate or to invest has become more difficult and costly for many businesses. Some are already highly exposed through very high levels of gearing. There is a very real risk of manufacturers being forced into rationalisation and at the extreme into receivership. The consequences may be positive if this leads to long-overdue efficiency in manufacturing. Yet this could come at a price in terms of loss of competition for supply/ markets as well as more direct risks to farmers in the case that the business contains substantial farmer investment (as was the case with Dairy Farmers of Britain). At the very least, the lack of finance is likely to lead to a less competitive manufacturing industry in future, an issue considered elsewhere on this discussion forum.

Market risks might appear to be both greater and more likely than others highlighted in the discussion document. The experiences of the food crisis 2007/08 represented a watershed for agriculture and many farm businesses will have experienced unprecedented peaks and troughs in prices. It is hard to say whether such extremes in price swings (witness the dairy sector across Europe) will be seen again however we believe it is inevitable that there will be greater volatility in many commodity markets owing to various factors including:
- Running down of global stocks to use and tighter supply/ demand situation
- Climatic risks in many exporting regions
- Reduction of market supports
- Imposition of barriers to trade, especially export restrictions
- Commodity market movements and relationship between food and other tradable commodities (notably oil)

Volatility inhibits the transmission of clear long-term signals that are needed to make the long-term investments that are characteristic of farming businesses. Furthermore, many farms, especially livestock, operate on lengthy production cycles making it hard to react to short term changes in market situations.

Risk in the agricultural context is a complex subject. As an example, consider the livestock sector, where disease is a significant threat to the viability of farming.
Even where businesses have developed sophisticated approaches to manage risk of disease, there is a limit to the on-farm measures that can be taken to control all vectors of disease. Admittedly, some sectors currently have scope to improve their capability of managing disease risk but it is important to recognise that there are limits to on-farm risk strategies.

Further adding to the complexity is the fact that farmers tend to be small businesses. This reduces their ability to hedge financial risk, except for releasing capital that might be tied up in land, buildings and so on. Tenant farms face the additional challenge of not having a land-based asset that they can utilise to manage their exposure to short term financial risks.

In terms of subsequent work, an area to focus on is differentiating resilience to external shocks from adaptation to evolving trends. Perhaps foremost amongst the latter are climate change and policy reform, where the eventual outcomes could be better anticipated. A distinction should be made where farmers have the ability to adjust on-farm practices in line with evolving trends versus those where shocks cannot be widely anticipated.

This could link into a risk mapping exercise that considers the nature of risk (shock v trend) and the level of impact it has (industry v individual farmer). There is certainly value to seeking to break down risk further, given that the interventions and impetus required to address different risks are likely to vary. Fundamentally, farmers can more easily plan and budget where risk is more strongly linked to evolving trends. Perhaps most importantly, they can take discrete actions to make their businesses more resilient to risk. By contrast, it is more of a challenge for individual businesses to manage risk that is more sporadic and impacts on the industry as a whole.

Ultimately, this work should seek to help agriculture to reduce, mitigate and cope with risk. This is a complex subject and is worthy of further understanding of the issues that would help identify the most critical risk areas and highlight the potential scope for action by the industry and stakeholders.

]]> Comment on Competitiveness by Andy - Defra http://engage.defra.gov.uk/resilience/competitiveness/comment-page-1/#comment-91 Andy - Defra Wed, 16 Dec 2009 23:22:53 +0000 http://sandbox.defra.gov.uk/resilience/?page_id=142#comment-91 Thank you for all of your comments to date. These will really help us but in the final week we’d like to get as many contributions as possible to help us develop our thinking. Although we haven’t analysed and assessed the responses in detail, some general points are beginning to emerge. There appears to be widespread agreement amongst contributors that key to improving resilience is increasing and sustaining profitability, with diversification also being seen as helpful. There is a wider range of views on what should be done in addressing the competitiveness of the industry. Some contributors have suggested that we need to move to more localised and smaller scale production whilst others have noted how small scale farmers can become tied to the business and unable to draw income from other activities. We have also seen views expressed on a need for larger and more efficient farms. With respect to benchmarking, some concern has been expressed about its practical application and the need for IT infrastructure. Key risks of animal disease and price volatility have been identified by many contributors, as have impacts on the soil and water availability. The impact of ‘peak oil’ is another risk which has been raised by some contributors. A number of you have expressed concerns over the impacts of regulation on farm businesses and we have received suggestions on how regulation might be better targeted for the industry. There seems to be a large measure of agreement about the key areas that we identified for development to improve resilience and competitiveness. The relevance of developing and applying R&D has drawn a number of views, with a number of contributors seeing a need to enable cutting edge technology to be applied. The requirement for increased skill levels in the industry and to develop career paths has also been noted, though concerns over the ability of time-poor farmers to access training have also been raised. The usefulness of joint ventures has been discussed but better marketing strategies and the use of derivatives have been said by some to be more appropriate for managing risks. Although the summary above doesn’t capture everything that is in your posts, we will be drawing on the detailed and nuanced points to develop our analysis. We also look forward to seeing more post on these issues as we enter the last week of the discussion. Andy Thank you for all of your comments to date. These will really help us but in the final week we’d like to get as many contributions as possible to help us develop our thinking.

Although we haven’t analysed and assessed the responses in detail, some general points are beginning to emerge.

There appears to be widespread agreement amongst contributors that key to improving resilience is increasing and sustaining profitability, with diversification also being seen as helpful.

There is a wider range of views on what should be done in addressing the competitiveness of the industry. Some contributors have suggested that we need to move to more localised and smaller scale production whilst others have noted how small scale farmers can become tied to the business and unable to draw income from other activities. We have also seen views expressed on a need for larger and more efficient farms. With respect to benchmarking, some concern has been expressed about its practical application and the need for IT infrastructure.

Key risks of animal disease and price volatility have been identified by many contributors, as have impacts on the soil and water availability. The impact of ‘peak oil’ is another risk which has been raised by some contributors.

A number of you have expressed concerns over the impacts of regulation on farm businesses and we have received suggestions on how regulation might be better targeted for the industry.

There seems to be a large measure of agreement about the key areas that we identified for development to improve resilience and competitiveness. The relevance of developing and applying R&D has drawn a number of views, with a number of contributors seeing a need to enable cutting edge technology to be applied. The requirement for increased skill levels in the industry and to develop career paths has also been noted, though concerns over the ability of time-poor farmers to access training have also been raised.

The usefulness of joint ventures has been discussed but better marketing strategies and the use of derivatives have been said by some to be more appropriate for managing risks.

Although the summary above doesn’t capture everything that is in your posts, we will be drawing on the detailed and nuanced points to develop our analysis. We also look forward to seeing more post on these issues as we enter the last week of the discussion.

Andy

]]> Comment on What drives resilience by Andy - Defra http://engage.defra.gov.uk/resilience/what-drives-resilience/comment-page-1/#comment-90 Andy - Defra Wed, 16 Dec 2009 23:22:27 +0000 http://sandbox.defra.gov.uk/resilience/?page_id=172#comment-90 Thank you for all of your comments to date. These will really help us but in the final week we’d like to get as many contributions as possible to help us develop our thinking. Although we haven’t analysed and assessed the responses in detail, some general points are beginning to emerge. There appears to be widespread agreement amongst contributors that key to improving resilience is increasing and sustaining profitability, with diversification also being seen as helpful. There is a wider range of views on what should be done in addressing the competitiveness of the industry. Some contributors have suggested that we need to move to more localised and smaller scale production whilst others have noted how small scale farmers can become tied to the business and unable to draw income from other activities. We have also seen views expressed on a need for larger and more efficient farms. With respect to benchmarking, some concern has been expressed about its practical application and the need for IT infrastructure. Key risks of animal disease and price volatility have been identified by many contributors, as have impacts on the soil and water availability. The impact of ‘peak oil’ is another risk which has been raised by some contributors. A number of you have expressed concerns over the impacts of regulation on farm businesses and we have received suggestions on how regulation might be better targeted for the industry. There seems to be a large measure of agreement about the key areas that we identified for development to improve resilience and competitiveness. The relevance of developing and applying R&D has drawn a number of views, with a number of contributors seeing a need to enable cutting edge technology to be applied. The requirement for increased skill levels in the industry and to develop career paths has also been noted, though concerns over the ability of time-poor farmers to access training have also been raised. The usefulness of joint ventures has been discussed but better marketing strategies and the use of derivatives have been said by some to be more appropriate for managing risks. Although the summary above doesn’t capture everything that is in your posts, we will be drawing on the detailed and nuanced points to develop our analysis. We also look forward to seeing more post on these issues as we enter the last week of the discussion. Andy Thank you for all of your comments to date. These will really help us but in the final week we’d like to get as many contributions as possible to help us develop our thinking.

Although we haven’t analysed and assessed the responses in detail, some general points are beginning to emerge.

There appears to be widespread agreement amongst contributors that key to improving resilience is increasing and sustaining profitability, with diversification also being seen as helpful.

There is a wider range of views on what should be done in addressing the competitiveness of the industry. Some contributors have suggested that we need to move to more localised and smaller scale production whilst others have noted how small scale farmers can become tied to the business and unable to draw income from other activities. We have also seen views expressed on a need for larger and more efficient farms. With respect to benchmarking, some concern has been expressed about its practical application and the need for IT infrastructure.

Key risks of animal disease and price volatility have been identified by many contributors, as have impacts on the soil and water availability. The impact of ‘peak oil’ is another risk which has been raised by some contributors.

A number of you have expressed concerns over the impacts of regulation on farm businesses and we have received suggestions on how regulation might be better targeted for the industry.

There seems to be a large measure of agreement about the key areas that we identified for development to improve resilience and competitiveness. The relevance of developing and applying R&D has drawn a number of views, with a number of contributors seeing a need to enable cutting edge technology to be applied. The requirement for increased skill levels in the industry and to develop career paths has also been noted, though concerns over the ability of time-poor farmers to access training have also been raised.

The usefulness of joint ventures has been discussed but better marketing strategies and the use of derivatives have been said by some to be more appropriate for managing risks.

Although the summary above doesn’t capture everything that is in your posts, we will be drawing on the detailed and nuanced points to develop our analysis. We also look forward to seeing more post on these issues as we enter the last week of the discussion.

Andy

]]> Comment on Resilience and the key risks by Andy - Defra http://engage.defra.gov.uk/resilience/key-risks/comment-page-1/#comment-89 Andy - Defra Wed, 16 Dec 2009 23:17:13 +0000 http://sandbox.defra.gov.uk/resilience/?page_id=170#comment-89 Thank you for all of your comments to date. These will really help us but in the final week we’d like to get as many contributions as possible to help us develop our thinking. Although we haven’t analysed and assessed the responses in detail, some general points are beginning to emerge. There appears to be widespread agreement amongst contributors that key to improving resilience is increasing and sustaining profitability, with diversification also being seen as helpful. There is a wider range of views on what should be done in addressing the competitiveness of the industry. Some contributors have suggested that we need to move to more localised and smaller scale production whilst others have noted how small scale farmers can become tied to the business and unable to draw income from other activities. We have also seen views expressed on a need for larger and more efficient farms. With respect to benchmarking, some concern has been expressed about its practical application and the need for IT infrastructure. Key risks of animal disease and price volatility have been identified by many contributors, as have impacts on the soil and water availability. The impact of ‘peak oil’ is another risk which has been raised by some contributors. A number of you have expressed concerns over the impacts of regulation on farm businesses and we have received suggestions on how regulation might be better targeted for the industry. There seems to be a large measure of agreement about the key areas that we identified for development to improve resilience and competitiveness. The relevance of developing and applying R&D has drawn a number of views, with a number of contributors seeing a need to enable cutting edge technology to be applied. The requirement for increased skill levels in the industry and to develop career paths has also been noted, though concerns over the ability of time-poor farmers to access training have also been raised. The usefulness of joint ventures has been discussed but better marketing strategies and the use of derivatives have been said by some to be more appropriate for managing risks. Although the summary above doesn’t capture everything that is in your posts, we will be drawing on the detailed and nuanced points to develop our analysis. We also look forward to seeing more post on these issues as we enter the last week of the discussion. Andy Thank you for all of your comments to date. These will really help us but in the final week we’d like to get as many contributions as possible to help us develop our thinking.

Although we haven’t analysed and assessed the responses in detail, some general points are beginning to emerge.

There appears to be widespread agreement amongst contributors that key to improving resilience is increasing and sustaining profitability, with diversification also being seen as helpful.

There is a wider range of views on what should be done in addressing the competitiveness of the industry. Some contributors have suggested that we need to move to more localised and smaller scale production whilst others have noted how small scale farmers can become tied to the business and unable to draw income from other activities. We have also seen views expressed on a need for larger and more efficient farms. With respect to benchmarking, some concern has been expressed about its practical application and the need for IT infrastructure.

Key risks of animal disease and price volatility have been identified by many contributors, as have impacts on the soil and water availability. The impact of ‘peak oil’ is another risk which has been raised by some contributors.

A number of you have expressed concerns over the impacts of regulation on farm businesses and we have received suggestions on how regulation might be better targeted for the industry.

There seems to be a large measure of agreement about the key areas that we identified for development to improve resilience and competitiveness. The relevance of developing and applying R&D has drawn a number of views, with a number of contributors seeing a need to enable cutting edge technology to be applied. The requirement for increased skill levels in the industry and to develop career paths has also been noted, though concerns over the ability of time-poor farmers to access training have also been raised.

The usefulness of joint ventures has been discussed but better marketing strategies and the use of derivatives have been said by some to be more appropriate for managing risks.

Although the summary above doesn’t capture everything that is in your posts, we will be drawing on the detailed and nuanced points to develop our analysis. We also look forward to seeing more post on these issues as we enter the last week of the discussion.

Andy

]]> Comment on Self-assessment by Jim http://engage.defra.gov.uk/resilience/bolstering-improving/self-assessment/comment-page-1/#comment-79 Jim Sat, 12 Dec 2009 19:48:42 +0000 http://sandbox.defra.gov.uk/resilience/?page_id=150#comment-79 While agreeing that benchmarking can be an excellent thing, it should be remembered that it isn’t entirely without its’ down side. I have been part of several schemes and I have noted over the years that a ‘competitive’ element can creep in, so that certain participants creep up the league table. Also the usefulness of the benchmarking is limited by the accuracy of the figures used. If a scheme is to be set up, the parameters chosen should be easily verified and simple to collect. Finally it should be remembered that by introducing benchmarking you are imposing an extra workload onto someone who is already working far too many hours. Agriculture has shed labour due to low profitability, and at the same time bureaucracy has imposed an even greater burden. The extra work benchmarking brings will normally be done at the end of the day, after the person has already done a full days work. It should be seriously questioned whether imposing even more paperwork on these people is good of their physical and psychological health. I would suggest that a lot of people in agriculture would improve their risk management if they had more time to think and discuss things, and spent less time chasing their tails frantically trying to catch up. Jim While agreeing that benchmarking can be an excellent thing, it should be remembered that it isn’t entirely without its’ down side. I have been part of several schemes and I have noted over the years that a ‘competitive’ element can creep in, so that certain participants creep up the league table.

Also the usefulness of the benchmarking is limited by the accuracy of the figures used. If a scheme is to be set up, the parameters chosen should be easily verified and simple to collect.

Finally it should be remembered that by introducing benchmarking you are imposing an extra workload onto someone who is already working far too many hours. Agriculture has shed labour due to low profitability, and at the same time bureaucracy has imposed an even greater burden. The extra work benchmarking brings will normally be done at the end of the day, after the person has already done a full days work. It should be seriously questioned whether imposing even more paperwork on these people is good of their physical and psychological health.

I would suggest that a lot of people in agriculture would improve their risk management if they had more time to think and discuss things, and spent less time chasing their tails frantically trying to catch up.

Jim

]]> Comment on Bolstering resilience and improving competitiveness by Andrew Colquhoun http://engage.defra.gov.uk/resilience/bolstering-improving/comment-page-1/#comment-76 Andrew Colquhoun Wed, 09 Dec 2009 09:20:41 +0000 http://sandbox.defra.gov.uk/resilience/?page_id=136#comment-76 I am writing as chair of the National Horticultural Forum. I would like to endorse Mark's point about R&D. For the last 25 years, HMG has taken a laissez faire approach to food supply, assuming that the market would provide and that it was therefore safe to cut R&D expenditure for agriculture and horticulture. The food price spikes of 2007 and 2008 showed that a hands-off approach by our Government to food security is no longer a sustainable strategy. Defra now accept that food production must rise in the UK, but are not yet showing the leadership needed to ensure that there is an effective two-way research pipeline which translates strategic research findings into knowledge and technology which help farmers and growers to produce. In the face of food security concerns and climate change, the sector cannot be resilient over the longer term unless there is an effective national research policy. I am writing as chair of the National Horticultural Forum. I would like to endorse Mark’s point about R&D. For the last 25 years, HMG has taken a laissez faire approach to food supply, assuming that the market would provide and that it was therefore safe to cut R&D expenditure for agriculture and horticulture. The food price spikes of 2007 and 2008 showed that a hands-off approach by our Government to food security is no longer a sustainable strategy. Defra now accept that food production must rise in the UK, but are not yet showing the leadership needed to ensure that there is an effective two-way research pipeline which translates strategic research findings into knowledge and technology which help farmers and growers to produce. In the face of food security concerns and climate change, the sector cannot be resilient over the longer term unless there is an effective national research policy.

]]> Comment on Infrastructure by Jim http://engage.defra.gov.uk/resilience/bolstering-improving/knowledge-transfer-and-new-technology/comment-page-1/#comment-74 Jim Tue, 08 Dec 2009 12:09:20 +0000 http://sandbox.defra.gov.uk/resilience/?page_id=152#comment-74 Just to agree with the previous writer, IT is important, but for agriculture it is often driven by the need to communicate with government not with suppliers or customers. ‘Real’ infrastructure is also vitally important. We need decent rural roads, bridges that are wide enough to take modern agricultural machinery (or in the case of North and West Cumbria, any bridges at all). It will be interesting to watch developments in Cumbria and see how fast vitally needed bridges are put in place. This will give us a good idea of how firm governments’ commitment to ‘infrastructure’ actually is Jim Just to agree with the previous writer, IT is important, but for agriculture it is often driven by the need to communicate with government not with suppliers or customers.
‘Real’ infrastructure is also vitally important. We need decent rural roads, bridges that are wide enough to take modern agricultural machinery (or in the case of North and West Cumbria, any bridges at all).
It will be interesting to watch developments in Cumbria and see how fast vitally needed bridges are put in place. This will give us a good idea of how firm governments’ commitment to ‘infrastructure’ actually is

Jim

]]> Comment on What drives resilience by Jim http://engage.defra.gov.uk/resilience/what-drives-resilience/comment-page-1/#comment-73 Jim Tue, 08 Dec 2009 12:02:26 +0000 http://sandbox.defra.gov.uk/resilience/?page_id=172#comment-73 And just to agree with Mark, I'd also stress that balance sheets are healthier if government doesn't impose increased costs through over-regulation. Farmers are far more resilient if they have money available to deal with the problems as they arise, than if they have already had to spend the money coping with some previous gold plated directive. Jim And just to agree with Mark, I’d also stress that balance sheets are healthier if government doesn’t impose increased costs through over-regulation. Farmers are far more resilient if they have money available to deal with the problems as they arise, than if they have already had to spend the money coping with some previous gold plated directive.

Jim

]]> Comment on Labour market & skills by Vic Croxson http://engage.defra.gov.uk/resilience/bolstering-improving/labour-market-skills/comment-page-1/#comment-72 Vic Croxson Mon, 07 Dec 2009 16:08:58 +0000 http://sandbox.defra.gov.uk/resilience/?page_id=158#comment-72 Landex is the national association of land-based colleges. Its 34 member colleges in England (and 8 associates in the devolved administrations) invest considerable resources in promoting farming as a career and informing school leavers about opportunities for further education (FE) in land-based subjects. In fact, the total number of enrolments to FE Agriculture (livestock and crops) funded by the Learning and Skills Council increased from 2478 in 2004/05 to 3841 in 2007/08 - an increase of 55%. Over 82% of these enrolments were in Landex member colleges. The recent strategy "Towards a new professionalism" in agriculture and horticulture is welcomed by Landex as major step forward. It is hoped that, amongst other things, it will lead to a better articulation of training needs by the industry to which colleges will be keen to respond. Landex is the national association of land-based colleges. Its 34 member colleges in England (and 8 associates in the devolved administrations) invest considerable resources in promoting farming as a career and informing school leavers about opportunities for further education (FE) in land-based subjects.
In fact, the total number of enrolments to FE Agriculture (livestock and crops) funded by the Learning and Skills Council increased from 2478 in 2004/05 to 3841 in 2007/08 – an increase of 55%. Over 82% of these enrolments were in Landex member colleges.
The recent strategy “Towards a new professionalism” in agriculture and horticulture is welcomed by Landex as major step forward. It is hoped that, amongst other things, it will lead to a better articulation of training needs by the industry to which colleges will be keen to respond.

]]> Comment on Knowledge transfer & new technology by Vic Croxson http://engage.defra.gov.uk/resilience/bolstering-improving/knowledge-management-new-technology/comment-page-1/#comment-71 Vic Croxson Mon, 07 Dec 2009 15:52:26 +0000 http://sandbox.defra.gov.uk/resilience/?page_id=168#comment-71 Landex is the national association of land-based colleges. Its 34 member colleges in England (and 8 associates in the devloved administrations) represent a significant resource for knowledge transfer and application of new technology from which farm business can draw. Defra and farm business owners and managers should articulate more clearly their needs and support colleges to meet them. Landex is the national association of land-based colleges. Its 34 member colleges in England (and 8 associates in the devloved administrations) represent a significant resource for knowledge transfer and application of new technology from which farm business can draw. Defra and farm business owners and managers should articulate more clearly their needs and support colleges to meet them.

]]> Comment on Competitiveness by Jim Godfrey http://engage.defra.gov.uk/resilience/competitiveness/comment-page-1/#comment-70 Jim Godfrey Sat, 05 Dec 2009 15:57:58 +0000 http://sandbox.defra.gov.uk/resilience/?page_id=142#comment-70 I will comment on the sectors of agriculture that I have experience: cereals, oilseed rape, potatoes, sugar beet, peas for freezing and pigs. Resilience in business is the ability to withstand shocks such as adverse trading conditions or major adverse weather events. Our business has built in some resilience by diversity of both geographical location and agricultural sectors. However a major part of resilience is the financial reserves built up over many years of profitable trading which provides the ability to finance shocks. Our and any other business can only remain competitive in the medium and long term if it is profitable, a profitable business is a competitive business and will be a resilient business, so the key to resilience and competitiveness is sustained profitability over a number of years. Pig efficiency continually improves, we have the advantage of being close to our market but have been disadvantaged by the unilateral welfare regulations on stalls and tethers that the UK Government passed in the early 1990’s which came into force in 1997, this was a major cause of the decline in the size of the UK pig breeding herd from around 800,000 sows in 1997 to around 400,000 sows in 2009. This introduction of UK unilateral legislation (not EU legislation) to the pig sector whilst still allowing imports into the UK from welfare systems banned in the UK has had a catastrophic effect on the competitiveness and hence profitability of the UK pig industry. The pig sector has come through this “leaner but wounded” after several years of heavy financial losses and has only recently made up those losses and at the cost of several years of little re-investment in buildings which in the longer term will affect competitiveness. Unilateral legislation which damages a sector’s competiveness must never be allowed to happen again. The UK has some of the most productive and highest yielding soils and beneficial climate for rainfed temperate agriculture in the world producing some of the highest global yields per hectare of wheat, barley, oilseed rape, potatoes (significant proportion now irrigated) and peas for freezing. However the UK has static productivity (yields) over the last 20 years in wheat, potatoes, oil seed rape, and peas. Year on year we are losing our competitive advantage. Sugar beet has been the exception with large yield increases over the last 20 years. On a global scale there have been substantial improvements since 1996 in productivity of oilseed rape, soya, cotton, maize and barley. 4 of these crop productivity gains are largely due to GM technology, barley has been a catch up from the advances made with wheat in the 1970’s. We in the UK cannot use this technology, some of the problem is the EU regulatory regime for GM. The EU and the UK must adopt the commercial use of this technology as soon as possible, although there will be a time lag between approval of the technology and its application to crop varieties adapted to UK conditions. The switch from funding research along the whole R&D chain which started prior to the Barnes report of 1989, to that of only funding basic research has put UK agriculture and horticulture at an increasing competitive disadvantage as each year goes by and must be reversed. We must encourage basic research scientists to focus their research towards industry problems, in other words move away from research for publication to research for development. We must attract young scientists into agricultural science as a career path, and create/maintain at least one specialist research institute for basic and applied research in each sector of agriculture (ruminants, pigs, poultry, cereals, potatoes, legumes, fruit, vegetables and horticulture). One of the basics which many forget or do not know is the importance of the genebanks (seedbanks) as a resource for future breeding programmes particularly for traits that will help us feed the world with the challenges of climate change and more sustainable use of natural resources (water, soil, nutrients, changing pest and diseases etc). These genebanks require funding both for maintenance and characterisation of traits so that they are there and understood when required to provide the diversity of genetic material to help mitigate the effects of climate change and the more efficient use of natural resources. There is tension between the production of food and the environmental schemes. In the UK it can be argued that both the Agricultural Policy has failed over the last 20 years as demonstrated by the falling level of self sufficiency of UK food production and the Environmental Policy has also failed by the decline in the indicator species used in the measurement of biodiversity. I pose the questions, can one policy deliver both food production and environmental benefits? Should there be one policy instrument for agriculture and another policy instrument for the environment? There is inevitably conflict between maximum food production and maximum biodiversity as both are competing for the same resources therefore an optimal balance has to be struck, this must take into account that best quality land produces the food so leaving more other land for nature. The existing environmental schemes are very bureaucratic and many argue do not deliver substantial environmental benefits and are not cost effective, a better solution must be found. I will comment on the sectors of agriculture that I have experience: cereals, oilseed rape, potatoes, sugar beet, peas for freezing and pigs.
Resilience in business is the ability to withstand shocks such as adverse trading conditions or major adverse weather events. Our business has built in some resilience by diversity of both geographical location and agricultural sectors. However a major part of resilience is the financial reserves built up over many years of profitable trading which provides the ability to finance shocks. Our and any other business can only remain competitive in the medium and long term if it is profitable, a profitable business is a competitive business and will be a resilient business, so the key to resilience and competitiveness is sustained profitability over a number of years.
Pig efficiency continually improves, we have the advantage of being close to our market but have been disadvantaged by the unilateral welfare regulations on stalls and tethers that the UK Government passed in the early 1990’s which came into force in 1997, this was a major cause of the decline in the size of the UK pig breeding herd from around 800,000 sows in 1997 to around 400,000 sows in 2009. This introduction of UK unilateral legislation (not EU legislation) to the pig sector whilst still allowing imports into the UK from welfare systems banned in the UK has had a catastrophic effect on the competitiveness and hence profitability of the UK pig industry. The pig sector has come through this “leaner but wounded” after several years of heavy financial losses and has only recently made up those losses and at the cost of several years of little re-investment in buildings which in the longer term will affect competitiveness. Unilateral legislation which damages a sector’s competiveness must never be allowed to happen again.
The UK has some of the most productive and highest yielding soils and beneficial climate for rainfed temperate agriculture in the world producing some of the highest global yields per hectare of wheat, barley, oilseed rape, potatoes (significant proportion now irrigated) and peas for freezing. However the UK has static productivity (yields) over the last 20 years in wheat, potatoes, oil seed rape, and peas. Year on year we are losing our competitive advantage. Sugar beet has been the exception with large yield increases over the last 20 years.
On a global scale there have been substantial improvements since 1996 in productivity of oilseed rape, soya, cotton, maize and barley. 4 of these crop productivity gains are largely due to GM technology, barley has been a catch up from the advances made with wheat in the 1970’s. We in the UK cannot use this technology, some of the problem is the EU regulatory regime for GM. The EU and the UK must adopt the commercial use of this technology as soon as possible, although there will be a time lag between approval of the technology and its application to crop varieties adapted to UK conditions.
The switch from funding research along the whole R&D chain which started prior to the Barnes report of 1989, to that of only funding basic research has put UK agriculture and horticulture at an increasing competitive disadvantage as each year goes by and must be reversed. We must encourage basic research scientists to focus their research towards industry problems, in other words move away from research for publication to research for development. We must attract young scientists into agricultural science as a career path, and create/maintain at least one specialist research institute for basic and applied research in each sector of agriculture (ruminants, pigs, poultry, cereals, potatoes, legumes, fruit, vegetables and horticulture).
One of the basics which many forget or do not know is the importance of the genebanks (seedbanks) as a resource for future breeding programmes particularly for traits that will help us feed the world with the challenges of climate change and more sustainable use of natural resources (water, soil, nutrients, changing pest and diseases etc). These genebanks require funding both for maintenance and characterisation of traits so that they are there and understood when required to provide the diversity of genetic material to help mitigate the effects of climate change and the more efficient use of natural resources.
There is tension between the production of food and the environmental schemes. In the UK it can be argued that both the Agricultural Policy has failed over the last 20 years as demonstrated by the falling level of self sufficiency of UK food production and the Environmental Policy has also failed by the decline in the indicator species used in the measurement of biodiversity. I pose the questions, can one policy deliver both food production and environmental benefits? Should there be one policy instrument for agriculture and another policy instrument for the environment? There is inevitably conflict between maximum food production and maximum biodiversity as both are competing for the same resources therefore an optimal balance has to be struck, this must take into account that best quality land produces the food so leaving more other land for nature. The existing environmental schemes are very bureaucratic and many argue do not deliver substantial environmental benefits and are not cost effective, a better solution must be found.

]]> Comment on Resilience and the key risks by James Tiverton http://engage.defra.gov.uk/resilience/key-risks/comment-page-1/#comment-69 James Tiverton Sat, 05 Dec 2009 09:24:37 +0000 http://sandbox.defra.gov.uk/resilience/?page_id=170#comment-69 I came here to try to say that we should be focusing on food security. I tried to read defra's document, but kept running across things like " A European Size Unit (ESU) is a measure of the economic size of a farm business based on the gross margin (enterprise output less variable costs) imputed from standard coefficients for each commodity on the farm. The application of these standard coefficients results in the Standard Gross Margin (SGM) for a farm or group of farms. 1 ESU = €1200 SGM. The Standard Gross Margin may be different from actual margin on a farm because of the wide variation between farms with the same physical composition but the above table should give a reasonable approximation of the distribution of farms by economic size. " Why is describing that we want food security and support for our farmers so hard. Frankly I find the whole thing incomprehensible. I came here to try to say that we should be focusing on food security. I tried to read defra’s document, but kept running across things like ” A European Size Unit (ESU) is a measure of the economic size of a farm business based on the gross margin
(enterprise output less variable costs) imputed from standard coefficients for each commodity on the farm. The
application of these standard coefficients results in the Standard Gross Margin (SGM) for a farm or group of farms.
1 ESU = €1200 SGM. The Standard Gross Margin may be different from actual margin on a farm because of the wide
variation between farms with the same physical composition but the above table should give a reasonable approximation
of the distribution of farms by economic size.
”

Why is describing that we want food security and support for our farmers so hard. Frankly I find the whole thing incomprehensible.

]]> Comment on Bolstering resilience and improving competitiveness by Mark Tinsley( PC Tinsley Ltd) http://engage.defra.gov.uk/resilience/bolstering-improving/comment-page-1/#comment-64 Mark Tinsley( PC Tinsley Ltd) Thu, 03 Dec 2009 13:02:07 +0000 http://sandbox.defra.gov.uk/resilience/?page_id=136#comment-64 Having been involved with the production of field salads and vegetables for almost 40 years, we can reflect with a degree of practical authority on why horticulture/freshproduce is the UK Agriculture industry Cinderella. It has been the poor relation at Government level, a production area much abused by the Retail sector, and until recently the sector given less consideration by the NFU! Generally it was seen as a specialist area which should generate reasonable reward in relation to investment and risk and that the "market" would operate effectively. However a combination of less support from Government in terms of effective Research and Development, the fact that Retailer dominance has resulted in the laws of Supply and Demand largely being overridden and the fractured nature of Fresh Produce, resulting in less effective grower collaboration have all led to inadequate rewards being received by growers in relation to investment and risk. In resilience terms would we be encouraging the next generation to be involved with primary Fresh Produce growing? The answer is No- unless the Government takes the opprtunity to recognise the importance of Fresh Produce in the UK, tackles the vexed question of Retailer dominance and invests particularly, in applied Research. On that latter point the government should take note of the National Horticultural Forum's respose to Go-Science. Having been involved with the production of field salads and vegetables for almost 40 years, we can reflect with a degree of practical authority on why horticulture/freshproduce is the UK Agriculture industry Cinderella. It has been the poor relation at Government level, a production area much abused by the Retail sector, and until recently the sector given less consideration by the NFU!
Generally it was seen as a specialist area which should generate reasonable reward in relation to investment and risk and that the “market” would operate effectively.
However a combination of less support from Government in terms of effective Research and Development, the fact that Retailer dominance has resulted in the laws of Supply and Demand largely being overridden and the fractured nature of Fresh Produce, resulting in less effective grower collaboration have all led to inadequate rewards being received by growers in relation to investment and risk.
In resilience terms would we be encouraging the next generation to be involved with primary Fresh Produce growing? The answer is No- unless the Government takes the opprtunity to recognise the importance of Fresh Produce in the UK, tackles the vexed question of Retailer dominance and invests particularly, in applied Research. On that latter point the government should take note of the National Horticultural Forum’s respose to Go-Science.

]]> Comment on Links and tensions by Mark Tinsley( PC Tinsley Ltd) http://engage.defra.gov.uk/resilience/links-and-tensions/comment-page-1/#comment-63 Mark Tinsley( PC Tinsley Ltd) Thu, 03 Dec 2009 12:40:59 +0000 http://sandbox.defra.gov.uk/resilience/?page_id=143#comment-63 Those of us involved with Fresh Produce recognise that as well as increasing productivity we must do this in a sustainable manner. We believe however there is a lack of understanding that there is, in some respects, a tension between enhancement of biodiversity and successful Fresh Produce Production. We are in direct competition, in relation to yield and quality, with a plethora of animals and birds that also find our products desirable. Pigeons,crows, hares, rabbits, rats and moles all benefit from the habitat that has been created through schemes such as ELS, OELS, and HLS. Having said that encouraging pollinating insects and aphid predators has to be positive and maintainance of "healthy" soils gives very positive economic benefits. There is a slight tension between some peoples perception of the importance of local production and reality. Whilst encouragement of "grow your own" and food mile reduction is sensible; for most of the potential market, growing produce where the resources such as soil and infrastructure are best suited is likely to be economically and environmentally advantageous. Those of us involved with Fresh Produce recognise that as well as increasing productivity we must do this in a sustainable manner. We believe however there is a lack of understanding that there is, in some respects, a tension between enhancement of biodiversity and successful Fresh Produce Production. We are in direct competition, in relation to yield and quality, with a plethora of animals and birds that also find our products desirable. Pigeons,crows, hares, rabbits, rats and moles all benefit from the habitat that has been created through schemes such as ELS, OELS, and HLS. Having said that encouraging pollinating insects and aphid predators has to be positive and maintainance of “healthy” soils gives very positive economic benefits. There is a slight tension between some peoples perception of the importance of local production and reality. Whilst encouragement of “grow your own” and food mile reduction is sensible; for most of the potential market, growing produce where the resources such as soil and infrastructure are best suited is likely to be economically and environmentally advantageous.

]]> Comment on Competitiveness by Mark Tinsley( PC Tinsley Ltd) http://engage.defra.gov.uk/resilience/competitiveness/comment-page-1/#comment-62 Mark Tinsley( PC Tinsley Ltd) Thu, 03 Dec 2009 12:25:22 +0000 http://sandbox.defra.gov.uk/resilience/?page_id=142#comment-62 The priorities identified in the Commercial Farmers Group Competitiveness paper are relevant to Fresh Produce but we would put less emphasis on CAP Reform and even more on the Research and Development and Training, Education and Skills priorities. For Fresh Produce there are other very important elements. We have a fragile supply chain, primarily due to the apparent lack of interest in the wellbeing of UK primary Fresh Produce producers shown by the UK Retailers.This lack of concern in a "market" which does not operate freely (generally prices are dictated) results in a continual squeeze on Fresh Produce prices with a resultant lack of reinvestment and innovation at field level. At some stage Government, who have of course appreciated the retailers ability, through their dominance, to hold down prices, will have to decide whether medium and long term this retailer pressure is good for consumers. The second important element for Fresh Produce is the availability of people to work in the field with the desire to perform capably and with relevant skills. Government through the SAW Scheme has been very helpful on this. The third element for Fresh Produce, particularly, is the availability of water; this will undoubtedly become an ever more pressing issue. Finding alternatives for the Pesticides that are being lost will be critical for competitiveness in the future. Finally the industry itself has not been good at collaborating whether it be on marketing or promotion or behaving as efficient businesses. This latter point is illustrated by the lack of enthusiasm for cost benchmarking and even when it is done, doing it inadequately. The priorities identified in the Commercial Farmers Group Competitiveness paper are relevant to Fresh Produce but we would put less emphasis on CAP Reform and even more on the Research and Development and Training, Education and Skills priorities. For Fresh Produce there are other very important elements. We have a fragile supply chain, primarily due to the apparent lack of interest in the wellbeing of UK primary Fresh Produce producers shown by the UK Retailers.This lack of concern in a “market” which does not operate freely (generally prices are dictated) results in a continual squeeze on Fresh Produce prices with a resultant lack of reinvestment and innovation at field level. At some stage Government, who have of course appreciated the retailers ability, through their dominance, to hold down prices, will have to decide whether medium and long term this retailer pressure is good for consumers.
The second important element for Fresh Produce is the availability of people to work in the field with the desire to perform capably and with relevant skills. Government through the SAW Scheme has been very helpful on this. The third element for Fresh Produce, particularly, is the availability of water; this will undoubtedly become an ever more pressing issue.
Finding alternatives for the Pesticides that are being lost will be critical for competitiveness in the future.
Finally the industry itself has not been good at collaborating whether it be on marketing or promotion or behaving as efficient businesses. This latter point is illustrated by the lack of enthusiasm for cost benchmarking and even when it is done, doing it inadequately.

]]> Comment on What drives resilience by Mark Tinsley( PC Tinsley Ltd http://engage.defra.gov.uk/resilience/what-drives-resilience/comment-page-1/#comment-61 Mark Tinsley( PC Tinsley Ltd Thu, 03 Dec 2009 10:12:17 +0000 http://sandbox.defra.gov.uk/resilience/?page_id=172#comment-61 Resilience is driven by a "healthy" Balance Sheet and effective use of resources. This use must be sustainable in the medium and long term. Resilience is driven by a “healthy” Balance Sheet and effective use of resources. This use must be sustainable in the medium and long term.

]]> Comment on Resilience and the key risks by Mark Tinsley( PC Tinsley Ltd http://engage.defra.gov.uk/resilience/key-risks/comment-page-1/#comment-60 Mark Tinsley( PC Tinsley Ltd Thu, 03 Dec 2009 10:07:07 +0000 http://sandbox.defra.gov.uk/resilience/?page_id=170#comment-60 It is always helpful when assessing on-line discussion responses to know what involvement a respondent has with the industry, particularly whether they make a living from the industry and if so in what form. The Competitiveness Paper recently put by the Commercial Farmers Group on their web site sums up our own business view on the issues affecting the Competitiveness of English Agriculture and Horticulture as a whole. It indicates that the three priorities that need addressing are CAP Reform after 2013, Research and Development and Training , Education and Skills. We understand why Government is interested in Industry Resilience but maintain that the primary reason why English Agriculture and Horticulture will or will not be resilient will be its ability to compete and therefore be profitable. The bahaviour/ lifestyle issues have been important and to a lesser degree will remain so but they pale into insignificance in relation to the ability to earn a reasonable income. This is particularly so for the area we are involved in, field Grown Fresh Produce . We have seen over the last 12 years a greater than 20% decline in of our degree of self sufficiency for most Fresh Produce categories. In relation to the Secretary of State's exhortation for productivity increases this is clearly a major issue and the decline needs to be halted. It is always helpful when assessing on-line discussion responses to know what involvement a respondent has with the industry, particularly whether they make a living from the industry and if so in what form. The Competitiveness Paper recently put by the Commercial Farmers Group on their web site sums up our own business view on the issues affecting the Competitiveness of English Agriculture and Horticulture as a whole. It indicates that the three priorities that need addressing are CAP Reform after 2013, Research and Development and Training , Education and Skills. We understand why Government is interested in Industry Resilience but maintain that the primary reason why English Agriculture and Horticulture will or will not be resilient will be its ability to compete and therefore be profitable. The bahaviour/ lifestyle issues have been important and to a lesser degree will remain so but they pale into insignificance in relation to the ability to earn a reasonable income. This is particularly so for the area we are involved in, field Grown Fresh Produce . We have seen over the last 12 years a greater than 20% decline in of our degree of self sufficiency for most Fresh Produce categories. In relation to the Secretary of State’s exhortation for productivity increases this is clearly a major issue and the decline needs to be halted.

]]> Comment on Infrastructure by Jeremy http://engage.defra.gov.uk/resilience/bolstering-improving/knowledge-transfer-and-new-technology/comment-page-1/#comment-52 Jeremy Tue, 01 Dec 2009 16:36:23 +0000 http://sandbox.defra.gov.uk/resilience/?page_id=152#comment-52 Infrastructure has to support structure, and that is sadly lacking in land use policy at the moment. There are also more important things than IT. We also need a low carbon distribution system and far less wasteful ways of managing water use, producing , preparing and retailing food to the final consumer. IT of course has an important part to play but it will only enable the efficient working of 'real' activity, not replace it. Infrastructure has to support structure, and that is sadly lacking in land use policy at the moment. There are also more important things than IT. We also need a low carbon distribution system and far less wasteful ways of managing water use, producing , preparing and retailing food to the final consumer. IT of course has an important part to play but it will only enable the efficient working of ‘real’ activity, not replace it.

]]> Comment on Resilience and the key risks by Marie Francis http://engage.defra.gov.uk/resilience/key-risks/comment-page-1/#comment-48 Marie Francis Mon, 30 Nov 2009 09:14:55 +0000 http://sandbox.defra.gov.uk/resilience/?page_id=170#comment-48 Fundamental to production is soil, its management and maintaining/improving its capacity for production. Care for soil must be included in the risk assessment. Fundamental to production is soil, its management and maintaining/improving its capacity for production. Care for soil must be included in the risk assessment.

]]> Comment on What drives resilience by Jim http://engage.defra.gov.uk/resilience/what-drives-resilience/comment-page-1/#comment-46 Jim Sun, 29 Nov 2009 23:23:29 +0000 http://sandbox.defra.gov.uk/resilience/?page_id=172#comment-46 I think that you are looking at ‘finance’ as something rather grander than it would appear on the farm. At our level ‘finance’ means that after paying off the mortgage and the interest payments on the overdraft we still have enough money to support the family and keep the business viable. When looking at the soil, beware of romance, there are areas in this country which have gone in and out of agriculture over the millennia depending upon the economic and political pressures of the time, thin soils have been depleted, abandoned, and have come back into cultivation again. I would also beware of talking about talking about “four millennia” when we don’t actually have the records for that far back. When talking about sustainability, you have to define what is to be sustainable. If you start off by saying we want to support of population of five million, you have far more options as to how to support that population ‘sustainably’ than you do if you wish to support a population of seventy million. Your agriculture has to be a function of your population; it is your population that has to be sustainable, not your agriculture. We can have a population which is sustainable using organic systems, we have done it, but the larger the population you decide you want, and the higher the standard of living they expect, the harder it is to do. Jim I think that you are looking at ‘finance’ as something rather grander than it would appear on the farm. At our level ‘finance’ means that after paying off the mortgage and the interest payments on the overdraft we still have enough money to support the family and keep the business viable.

When looking at the soil, beware of romance, there are areas in this country which have gone in and out of agriculture over the millennia depending upon the economic and political pressures of the time, thin soils have been depleted, abandoned, and have come back into cultivation again.
I would also beware of talking about talking about “four millennia” when we don’t actually have the records for that far back.

When talking about sustainability, you have to define what is to be sustainable. If you start off by saying we want to support of population of five million, you have far more options as to how to support that population ‘sustainably’ than you do if you wish to support a population of seventy million.
Your agriculture has to be a function of your population; it is your population that has to be sustainable, not your agriculture. We can have a population which is sustainable using organic systems, we have done it, but the larger the population you decide you want, and the higher the standard of living they expect, the harder it is to do.

Jim

]]> Comment on What drives resilience by Jane Wilding http://engage.defra.gov.uk/resilience/what-drives-resilience/comment-page-1/#comment-43 Jane Wilding Sat, 28 Nov 2009 10:02:40 +0000 http://sandbox.defra.gov.uk/resilience/?page_id=172#comment-43 In response to Mark: I agree that people are an asset, but I don't agree that finance can be considered an asset these days; our entire system is based on debt and on continual growth, and neither of these is a sustainable concept, and as such will not provide for resilience. I'm intrigued that you have missed out completely our most important asset (and for many farmers around the world, their only asset), and that is the SOIL. The soil is the basis for all life on earth, and is itself a highly complex living entity, and we trash it at our peril. Up until the last century, farmers in India and China produced highly intensively (and organically, with a net gain in fertility) for forty centuries with no other 'asset' than the soil, and we would do well to take heed. I'm not sure we should be looking at competitiveness in the same discussion as resilience, since they are worlds apart. Competitiveness belongs with the unsustainable systems of the modern world - the monetary system, based on debt and continual increase, and consumerism - the creation and 'satisfaction' of unnecessary wants by companies for profit, and consumption above and beyond need. These things are not sustainable, and need businesses to strive for competitiveness in order to bolster them. Competitiveness itself is, therefore, a construct. I believe it's time to let go of our constructs and think about what's real. Sustainability is what we should really be pursuing. No unsustainable system will provide for resilience in the economic world of the rest of this century. In response to Mark: I agree that people are an asset, but I don’t agree that finance can be considered an asset these days; our entire system is based on debt and on continual growth, and neither of these is a sustainable concept, and as such will not provide for resilience. I’m intrigued that you have missed out completely our most important asset (and for many farmers around the world, their only asset), and that is the SOIL. The soil is the basis for all life on earth, and is itself a highly complex living entity, and we trash it at our peril. Up until the last century, farmers in India and China produced highly intensively (and organically, with a net gain in fertility) for forty centuries with no other ‘asset’ than the soil, and we would do well to take heed.

I’m not sure we should be looking at competitiveness in the same discussion as resilience, since they are worlds apart. Competitiveness belongs with the unsustainable systems of the modern world – the monetary system, based on debt and continual increase, and consumerism – the creation and ‘satisfaction’ of unnecessary wants by companies for profit, and consumption above and beyond need. These things are not sustainable, and need businesses to strive for competitiveness in order to bolster them. Competitiveness itself is, therefore, a construct. I believe it’s time to let go of our constructs and think about what’s real.

Sustainability is what we should really be pursuing. No unsustainable system will provide for resilience in the economic world of the rest of this century.

]]> Comment on Links and tensions by Mark Reader http://engage.defra.gov.uk/resilience/links-and-tensions/comment-page-1/#comment-42 Mark Reader Fri, 27 Nov 2009 12:09:29 +0000 http://sandbox.defra.gov.uk/resilience/?page_id=143#comment-42 Conflict exists between: buffer stocks versus dynamism (and hence capacity to adapt); - distortions in signals to producers versus structural change (that is: adaptation to new circumstances); - stocks: also give ability to ignore incentives (so norms/ values and the 'bigger picture' are especially important) UK has high costs and competes in a world with long term distortions (consider: exchange rates; and labour costs). Demand for environmental goods (nature): leads to ---> regulations and policing ---> which affect: the values and norms of farmers. - does it matter who gets benefits (consider long run adjustments (over 20-100 years))?: But 'rent seeking mentality' versus 'efficiency' [---> conspire for advantage (can cause big losses)]. - corporations and limited co's: have existed a long time; incentive for efficiency; ? adjust too quickly ?; pathological love of profits; elites; no sooner meet than start thinking about how to benefit themselves. - unions: special interests; elites; incentive against efficiency [?]; pathological love of 'status quo'; no sooner meet than start thinking about how to benefit themselves. A 'good' system needs cooperation from all stakeholders (and so all must feel they benefit and have responsibility). Conflict exists between: buffer stocks versus dynamism (and hence capacity to adapt);

– distortions in signals to producers versus structural change (that is: adaptation to new circumstances);
– stocks: also give ability to ignore incentives (so norms/ values and the ‘bigger picture’ are especially important)

UK has high costs and competes in a world with long term distortions (consider: exchange rates; and labour costs).
Demand for environmental goods (nature): leads to —> regulations and policing —> which affect: the values and norms of farmers.

- does it matter who gets benefits (consider long run adjustments (over 20-100 years))?: But ‘rent seeking mentality’ versus ‘efficiency’ [---> conspire for advantage (can cause big losses)].
- corporations and limited co’s: have existed a long time; incentive for efficiency; ? adjust too quickly ?; pathological love of profits; elites; no sooner meet than start thinking about how to benefit themselves.
- unions: special interests; elites; incentive against efficiency [?]; pathological love of ‘status quo’; no sooner meet than start thinking about how to benefit themselves.

A ‘good’ system needs cooperation from all stakeholders (and so all must feel they benefit and have responsibility).

]]> Comment on Bolstering resilience and improving competitiveness by Mark Reader http://engage.defra.gov.uk/resilience/bolstering-improving/comment-page-1/#comment-41 Mark Reader Fri, 27 Nov 2009 11:38:49 +0000 http://sandbox.defra.gov.uk/resilience/?page_id=136#comment-41 To improve resilience: - rewards [not penalties] for good behaviour (ie: Aristotelian 'virtue') - ensure land is used by best individuals (flexibility) - maintain dynamism - ensure some buffer stocks exist (of: people/ skills/ tech capacities/ physical stocks/ econ clout/ surplus demand {eg biofuel: so have capacity to meet food demand in event of crisis seasons}) - Truly productive enterprises not driven out by 'random' (irrational/ not benefit driven) economic fluctuations - Not exporting problems (global spread of ethics/virtue) - Help resolve global problems ('bigger picture') To improve resilience:

- rewards [not penalties] for good behaviour (ie: Aristotelian ‘virtue’)
- ensure land is used by best individuals (flexibility)
- maintain dynamism
- ensure some buffer stocks exist (of: people/ skills/ tech capacities/ physical stocks/ econ clout/ surplus demand {eg biofuel: so have capacity to meet food demand in event of crisis seasons})

- Truly productive enterprises not driven out by ‘random’ (irrational/ not benefit driven) economic fluctuations
- Not exporting problems (global spread of ethics/virtue)
- Help resolve global problems (‘bigger picture’)

]]> Comment on Competitiveness by Mark Reader http://engage.defra.gov.uk/resilience/competitiveness/comment-page-1/#comment-40 Mark Reader Fri, 27 Nov 2009 11:35:38 +0000 http://sandbox.defra.gov.uk/resilience/?page_id=142#comment-40 Competitiveness of English Agric: - good rain/ evapotranspiration balance - yields not determined by rainfall - good soils - yeoman farmers/ productivist ethic - flexible - technical capacities - economic integration ( dynamic/ adapt to 'world as it is' [signals]) - favourable public perception of farming and farm environment - ample, and technically efficient, supplies of sprays and fertilizers Competitiveness of English Agric:

- good rain/ evapotranspiration balance – yields not determined by rainfall
- good soils
- yeoman farmers/ productivist ethic – flexible
- technical capacities
- economic integration ( dynamic/ adapt to ‘world as it is’ [signals])
- favourable public perception of farming and farm environment
- ample, and technically efficient, supplies of sprays and fertilizers

]]> Comment on What drives resilience by Mark Reader http://engage.defra.gov.uk/resilience/what-drives-resilience/comment-page-1/#comment-39 Mark Reader Fri, 27 Nov 2009 11:32:01 +0000 http://sandbox.defra.gov.uk/resilience/?page_id=172#comment-39 Stocks of real assets (that provide capacity to adapt): people/ finances/ values & norms/ technology (including social & market system (consider incentives))/ plant/machinery and equipment/ energy-sources --- dynamism - respond to real changes --- Stocks of real assets (that provide capacity to adapt):

people/
finances/
values & norms/
technology (including social & market system (consider incentives))/
plant/machinery and equipment/
energy-sources

— dynamism – respond to real changes —

]]> Comment on Resilience and the key risks by Mark Reader http://engage.defra.gov.uk/resilience/key-risks/comment-page-1/#comment-38 Mark Reader Fri, 27 Nov 2009 11:29:10 +0000 http://sandbox.defra.gov.uk/resilience/?page_id=170#comment-38 1.) Crowding out (or decreased sense of responsibility to help on the part of individuals)/ cynicism / greed - less motivation to care for next generation - "take what you can get, and don't give a damn" [?] / "do what you're paid to do, and no more" [?] / "ignore the bigger picture" 2.) Water Framework Directive: nitrates; RB209 (official fertilizer recommendations). [FSA nitrites risk; Japanese pickled seaweed correlation]; economic optimum of fertilisation; with some global allocation of fertilizers 3.) Food PRODUCTION (use of resources) not being assigned the correct level of priority - due to transient (random [?]) economic factors driven by 'irrational' considerations (ie not creating the most wellbeing - 'silly fads'). --- mispricing of inputs or outputs (to beyond capacity of buffers) --- 1.) Crowding out (or decreased sense of responsibility to help on the part of individuals)/ cynicism / greed – less motivation to care for next generation – “take what you can get, and don’t give a damn” [?] / “do what you’re paid to do, and no more” [?] / “ignore the bigger picture”

2.) Water Framework Directive: nitrates; RB209 (official fertilizer recommendations). [FSA nitrites risk; Japanese pickled seaweed correlation]; economic optimum of fertilisation; with some global allocation of fertilizers

3.) Food PRODUCTION (use of resources) not being assigned the correct level of priority – due to transient (random [?]) economic factors driven by ‘irrational’ considerations (ie not creating the most wellbeing – ‘silly fads’).

— mispricing of inputs or outputs (to beyond capacity of buffers) —

]]> Comment on Structural change by Barry Nee http://engage.defra.gov.uk/resilience/bolstering-improving/structural-change/comment-page-1/#comment-35 Barry Nee Thu, 26 Nov 2009 12:48:11 +0000 http://sandbox.defra.gov.uk/resilience/?page_id=138#comment-35 Section 9 of the documents talks about the impediments to structural change that are inherent in the industry. It also asserts that removal of the SPS would lead to a drop in land prices and a consequent easing in one of the key barriers to new entrants to the industry. However the SPS should be seen in a wider context, in terms of the certainty that it provides for farmers and prospective farmers. Removing the SPS will remove this certainty, and thereby create a further, new barrier to entry. However there is a wider point about how best to facilitate the wide structural change that is required in the industry if the UK is to play its part in meeting the challenges envisaged by John Beddington's 'Perfect Storm', and more specifically the challenges around rising global populations and food security concerns. Agriculture is at a cross-roads, with a clear need to increase production, whilst at the same time not jeopardising the public goods associated with protecting and promoting environmental outcomes. In some ways, the scale of change facing UK Agriculture is similar to the scale of change that governments addressed in the post-war era, with far-reaching and comprehensive (and interventionist) Agriculture acts. Government's approach to agriculture in the past 2 to 3 decades has been developed from a philosophical orientation towards the market, and the market's ability to deliver change throughout the vertical value chain. The danger inherent in this approach is the short-term nature of the market and the outcomes and returns it seeks. Individual decisions are aggregated into the voice of the market, and these can change from day to day let alone year to year. The pursuit of short-term outcomes in financial markets delivered a set of outcomes that culminated in a global recession, which we are still only beginning to recover from. Market decisions in Agriculture are at best annualised, as (for the arable sector) they are driven by cropping choices and annual harvest prices. Governments should carefully consider whether the market is the right mechanism to deliver the type of long-term, investment heavy structural change that is required of the industry. Our ability to provide for our own future food security relies on our response to these challenges and the confidence of farmers to invest in the changes needed to allow us to increase production in an environmentally sustainable manner. Government, and governments acting together internationally can have an important role to play in addressing these issues, but the impact will be limited if this is undertaken through a market focused 'laissez-faire' approach. Under the section on CAP reform the background document suggests that fixing output prices will tend to increase income volatility, given the correlation between input and output prices. A more nuanced approach, and one that would give farmers a high level of confidence to invest for the future, would be to link Government support to input prices, allowing farmers a relatively guaranteed income, and encouraging government to manage its own cost risk by investing in R&D to find ways of decreasing input costs in ways that can be applied at an industry-wide level. There is no reason why this could not also be framed in an environmentally responsible framework that encouraged and motivated sustainable practices that enable UK Agriculture to deliver its part of the bargain on global food security. Section 9 of the documents talks about the impediments to structural change that are inherent in the industry. It also asserts that removal of the SPS would lead to a drop in land prices and a consequent easing in one of the key barriers to new entrants to the industry. However the SPS should be seen in a wider context, in terms of the certainty that it provides for farmers and prospective farmers. Removing the SPS will remove this certainty, and thereby create a further, new barrier to entry. However there is a wider point about how best to facilitate the wide structural change that is required in the industry if the UK is to play its part in meeting the challenges envisaged by John Beddington’s ‘Perfect Storm’, and more specifically the challenges around rising global populations and food security concerns. Agriculture is at a cross-roads, with a clear need to increase production, whilst at the same time not jeopardising the public goods associated with protecting and promoting environmental outcomes. In some ways, the scale of change facing UK Agriculture is similar to the scale of change that governments addressed in the post-war era, with far-reaching and comprehensive (and interventionist) Agriculture acts. Government’s approach to agriculture in the past 2 to 3 decades has been developed from a philosophical orientation towards the market, and the market’s ability to deliver change throughout the vertical value chain. The danger inherent in this approach is the short-term nature of the market and the outcomes and returns it seeks. Individual decisions are aggregated into the voice of the market, and these can change from day to day let alone year to year. The pursuit of short-term outcomes in financial markets delivered a set of outcomes that culminated in a global recession, which we are still only beginning to recover from. Market decisions in Agriculture are at best annualised, as (for the arable sector) they are driven by cropping choices and annual harvest prices. Governments should carefully consider whether the market is the right mechanism to deliver the type of long-term, investment heavy structural change that is required of the industry. Our ability to provide for our own future food security relies on our response to these challenges and the confidence of farmers to invest in the changes needed to allow us to increase production in an environmentally sustainable manner. Government, and governments acting together internationally can have an important role to play in addressing these issues, but the impact will be limited if this is undertaken through a market focused ‘laissez-faire’ approach. Under the section on CAP reform the background document suggests that fixing output prices will tend to increase income volatility, given the correlation between input and output prices. A more nuanced approach, and one that would give farmers a high level of confidence to invest for the future, would be to link Government support to input prices, allowing farmers a relatively guaranteed income, and encouraging government to manage its own cost risk by investing in R&D to find ways of decreasing input costs in ways that can be applied at an industry-wide level. There is no reason why this could not also be framed in an environmentally responsible framework that encouraged and motivated sustainable practices that enable UK Agriculture to deliver its part of the bargain on global food security.

]]> Comment on Resilience and the key risks by Elizabeth James http://engage.defra.gov.uk/resilience/key-risks/comment-page-1/#comment-32 Elizabeth James Tue, 24 Nov 2009 15:47:29 +0000 http://sandbox.defra.gov.uk/resilience/?page_id=170#comment-32 I would like to further support the comments already made. I too would very much welcome the opportunity to buy local, organic and seasonal food at a reasonable price. Furthermore, the increased level of interaction between customer/consumer and producer on a CSA (Community Supported Agriculture) model would have many benefits, as I can personally attest. Importantly, social capital is increased through the direct link. Consumers are more likely to understand their food better and how it is produced if they know their grower, and are typically producer loyal, thus providing a solid financial basis for a producer in adverse market conditions. It's clear to me that it's time to stop seeing food production in a vacuum. The production and consumption of food should link us all directly to our land and wider environments; good diet, based on good quality ingredients, is a key part of good health; good social links between different members of society are key to a healthy, functioning society; good (organic) farming is key to healthy biodiversity and decreased carbon emissions. It's time to see agriculture as an interlinked part of the social, cultural and economic web, and therefore as a supremely important factor to get right if we are to face the challenges of peak oil and climate change with any confidence at all. I would like to further support the comments already made. I too would very much welcome the opportunity to buy local, organic and seasonal food at a reasonable price. Furthermore, the increased level of interaction between customer/consumer and producer on a CSA (Community Supported Agriculture) model would have many benefits, as I can personally attest. Importantly, social capital is increased through the direct link. Consumers are more likely to understand their food better and how it is produced if they know their grower, and are typically producer loyal, thus providing a solid financial basis for a producer in adverse market conditions.

It’s clear to me that it’s time to stop seeing food production in a vacuum. The production and consumption of food should link us all directly to our land and wider environments; good diet, based on good quality ingredients, is a key part of good health; good social links between different members of society are key to a healthy, functioning society; good (organic) farming is key to healthy biodiversity and decreased carbon emissions. It’s time to see agriculture as an interlinked part of the social, cultural and economic web, and therefore as a supremely important factor to get right if we are to face the challenges of peak oil and climate change with any confidence at all.

]]> Comment on Resilience and the key risks by Caroline Davis http://engage.defra.gov.uk/resilience/key-risks/comment-page-1/#comment-29 Caroline Davis Sun, 22 Nov 2009 18:20:13 +0000 http://sandbox.defra.gov.uk/resilience/?page_id=170#comment-29 I agree with Frances Beaumont and Darren Trent. The only way for sustainable farming in the future is for the production of low environmental impact food. My family and all of my friends families desperately want to be able to buy organic local seasonal food at reasonable prices, from local farms or food co-operatives. There are many people working towards these goals ie the Transition Towns , The Permaculture Association etc who would be delighted to talk to Defra . There has been a lot of amazing work done growing food crops in really inhospitable places without chemicals ie next to the dead sea in the driest saltiest place ever, see utube Permaculture in action, Greening the Desert Geof Lawton, project in Jordan. Its time to think outside the conventional boxes and educate our Farmers how to provide our food, make a living ,and improve the soil for the future. I agree with Frances Beaumont and Darren Trent. The only way for sustainable farming in the future is for the production of low environmental impact food. My family and all of my friends families desperately want to be able to buy organic local seasonal food at reasonable prices, from local farms or food co-operatives. There are many people working towards these goals ie the Transition Towns , The Permaculture Association etc who would be delighted to talk to Defra . There has been a lot of amazing work done growing food crops in really inhospitable places without chemicals ie next to the dead sea in the driest saltiest place ever, see utube Permaculture in action, Greening the Desert Geof Lawton, project in Jordan. Its time to think outside the conventional boxes and educate our Farmers how to provide our food, make a living ,and improve the soil for the future.

]]> Comment on Joint-venture farming by Simon http://engage.defra.gov.uk/resilience/bolstering-improving/joint-venture-farming/comment-page-1/#comment-28 Simon Sat, 21 Nov 2009 19:32:23 +0000 http://sandbox.defra.gov.uk/resilience/?page_id=148#comment-28 Joint venture farming is just one of many tools available to farmers to manage risk and resilience. Arrangements have been common for at least 30 years (much longer if you count co-operatives) and for many, JVs have provided a valuable solution to a problem. However, there is an increasing tendency to consider JVs as an end in themselves irrespective of value they provide (and even a new idea). There is hardly a farmer, and certainly no business consultant, who is not aware of the opportunities they can provide. It is important to respect non-participation based on understanding of the possibility. After all, if it proves to be the wrong decision the major loser is the decision maker. There is a clear self interest where the JV is worthwhile and consequently is there really a need for yet more intervention in this area? Marketing strategy and use of derivatives is likely to be more rewarding. Joint venture farming is just one of many tools available to farmers to manage risk and resilience. Arrangements have been common for at least 30 years (much longer if you count co-operatives) and for many, JVs have provided a valuable solution to a problem. However, there is an increasing tendency to consider JVs as an end in themselves irrespective of value they provide (and even a new idea). There is hardly a farmer, and certainly no business consultant, who is not aware of the opportunities they can provide. It is important to respect non-participation based on understanding of the possibility. After all, if it proves to be the wrong decision the major loser is the decision maker. There is a clear self interest where the JV is worthwhile and consequently is there really a need for yet more intervention in this area?

Marketing strategy and use of derivatives is likely to be more rewarding.

]]> Comment on Resilience and the key risks by Helen Miller http://engage.defra.gov.uk/resilience/key-risks/comment-page-1/#comment-25 Helen Miller Fri, 20 Nov 2009 17:19:31 +0000 http://sandbox.defra.gov.uk/resilience/?page_id=170#comment-25 I agree with the surprise expressed that Peak Oil is still not being addressed. It was raised in at least one response to the previous consultation but does not appear to have been picked up on. The government does recognise the challenges posed to the resilience of local government and the NHS by peak oil so it seems odd that the challenges posed by peak oil to agriculture are not included in this consultation. I agree with the surprise expressed that Peak Oil is still not being addressed. It was raised in at least one response to the previous consultation but does not appear to have been picked up on. The government does recognise the challenges posed to the resilience of local government and the NHS by peak oil so it seems odd that the challenges posed by peak oil to agriculture are not included in this consultation.

]]> Comment on Labour market & skills by Jim http://engage.defra.gov.uk/resilience/bolstering-improving/labour-market-skills/comment-page-1/#comment-24 Jim Fri, 20 Nov 2009 16:25:26 +0000 http://sandbox.defra.gov.uk/resilience/?page_id=158#comment-24 Just too back up the previous correspondent, with regard to training I would refer people to “FARMING LIVES, Using the Sustainable Livelihoods Approach in the Peak District Farming Community” To quote from the document “farmers are time poor. There is a constant stream of work to be done on their farms, many cannot afford to employ staff as they did in the past and many families have members working outside the farm, also adding to the work pressure. The weather plays a significant role in the work load at certain times of the year. When weather conditions are unpredictable or extreme, farmers could not commit time or make plans to meet project staff in case the weather improved to give them a window of opportunity to get on with their work” Being ‘time poor’ means that they will be wary about having to sign up for courses in advance because they may be unable to attend due to pressure of work. Also courses have to be timed to fit in with the sort of farming in the area. If running a talk for dairy farmers it might be best to fit it in between 11am and 3pm. However in a primarily arable area you might find more people can make 5pm to 8pm. Note also that the courses will be judged harshly, someone who has put in a twelve hour day and then turned out on a miserable night to attend a course only to discover it is a ‘tick box exercise’ is unlikely to attend the second evening. Just too back up the previous correspondent, with regard to training I would refer people to “FARMING LIVES, Using the Sustainable Livelihoods
Approach in the Peak District Farming Community”

To quote from the document “farmers are time poor. There is a constant stream of work to be done on their farms, many cannot afford to employ staff as they did in the past and many families have members working outside the farm, also adding to the work pressure. The weather plays a significant role in the work load at certain times of the year. When weather conditions are unpredictable or extreme, farmers could not commit time or make plans to meet project staff in case the weather improved to give them a window of opportunity to get on with their work”

Being ‘time poor’ means that they will be wary about having to sign up for courses in advance because they may be unable to attend due to pressure of work. Also courses have to be timed to fit in with the sort of farming in the area. If running a talk for dairy farmers it might be best to fit it in between 11am and 3pm. However in a primarily arable area you might find more people can make 5pm to 8pm.
Note also that the courses will be judged harshly, someone who has put in a twelve hour day and then turned out on a miserable night to attend a course only to discover it is a ‘tick box exercise’ is unlikely to attend the second evening.

]]> Comment on What drives resilience by Jim http://engage.defra.gov.uk/resilience/what-drives-resilience/comment-page-1/#comment-23 Jim Fri, 20 Nov 2009 16:12:35 +0000 http://sandbox.defra.gov.uk/resilience/?page_id=172#comment-23 Whilst in theory having multiple sources of farming income should make the business more resilient we run into the problem that small farms may not be large enough for each particular income stream to cover the fixed costs of that stream. Also the small farm can suffer if the person/people working on it are too busy working in food production to have time to earn money off the farm. So an entirely arable farm could be more resilient that a mixed farm of the same size because the arable farmer can work off farm for considerable periods. The big weakness of small dairy farms is that looking after dairy cows is a 27/7 job and it is rare that you can be spared from the farm to earn money. One problem with small farms, which I’ve spent my life on, is that the labour is family labour, and trying to organise holidays and days of is virtually impossible because, strangely enough, husband, wife and children want to take their holidays and days off together. If we are not careful the romantic picture of the small family farm can actually obscure a situation where the family is tied to the farm, unable to enjoy the sort of time off that the normal family accepts as a right. In fact this begs the question, is a food production system that relies of people working long hours for a low rate of return sustainable? As a final note, with regards the dairy farm that buys in its food, actually this process accumulates fertility on that farm. The farm that grows its own food recycles the nutrients within the farm, the one that buys feed in not only recycles the nutrients within the farm but also tops up that nutrient ‘pool’ with the bought in feed. Whilst in theory having multiple sources of farming income should make the business more resilient we run into the problem that small farms may not be large enough for each particular income stream to cover the fixed costs of that stream.
Also the small farm can suffer if the person/people working on it are too busy working in food production to have time to earn money off the farm. So an entirely arable farm could be more resilient that a mixed farm of the same size because the arable farmer can work off farm for considerable periods. The big weakness of small dairy farms is that looking after dairy cows is a 27/7 job and it is rare that you can be spared from the farm to earn money.
One problem with small farms, which I’ve spent my life on, is that the labour is family labour, and trying to organise holidays and days of is virtually impossible because, strangely enough, husband, wife and children want to take their holidays and days off together.
If we are not careful the romantic picture of the small family farm can actually obscure a situation where the family is tied to the farm, unable to enjoy the sort of time off that the normal family accepts as a right. In fact this begs the question, is a food production system that relies of people working long hours for a low rate of return sustainable?
As a final note, with regards the dairy farm that buys in its food, actually this process accumulates fertility on that farm. The farm that grows its own food recycles the nutrients within the farm, the one that buys feed in not only recycles the nutrients within the farm but also tops up that nutrient ‘pool’ with the bought in feed.

]]> Comment on What drives resilience by Jane Wilding http://engage.defra.gov.uk/resilience/what-drives-resilience/comment-page-1/#comment-21 Jane Wilding Fri, 20 Nov 2009 07:43:38 +0000 http://sandbox.defra.gov.uk/resilience/?page_id=172#comment-21 The secret to resilience of any sort is in diversity. A diverse ecosystem is resilient by definition: if one species fails then there are many others to take its place. Thus a farm run on principles of diversity will be more resilient than one that produces only one crop or product. A farm based on a diversity of inputs and outputs and run on the basis of integration and interdependence between those components will be resilient, whereas a farm that grows two thousand acres of wheat and nothing else will not. Similarly a dairy farm that buys in all its feed will suffer before one that grows its own and returns the 'waste' to the fields. Only when farms become smaller, localised centres of mixed food production (small, highly diverse and intensive organic farms have been determined to be the most productive, globally) will true agricultural resilience be the norm. The land is naturally diverse and resilient, it is only our de-naturalisation of it by monocropping and the use of pesticides and nitrogen fertilisers that makes it otherwise. The secret to resilience of any sort is in diversity. A diverse ecosystem is resilient by definition: if one species fails then there are many others to take its place. Thus a farm run on principles of diversity will be more resilient than one that produces only one crop or product. A farm based on a diversity of inputs and outputs and run on the basis of integration and interdependence between those components will be resilient, whereas a farm that grows two thousand acres of wheat and nothing else will not. Similarly a dairy farm that buys in all its feed will suffer before one that grows its own and returns the ‘waste’ to the fields. Only when farms become smaller, localised centres of mixed food production (small, highly diverse and intensive organic farms have been determined to be the most productive, globally) will true agricultural resilience be the norm. The land is naturally diverse and resilient, it is only our de-naturalisation of it by monocropping and the use of pesticides and nitrogen fertilisers that makes it otherwise.

]]> Comment on What drives resilience by Jim http://engage.defra.gov.uk/resilience/what-drives-resilience/comment-page-1/#comment-20 Jim Thu, 19 Nov 2009 21:11:06 +0000 http://sandbox.defra.gov.uk/resilience/?page_id=172#comment-20 The three main things that drive resiliance are 1) Hard work and long hours 2) Poverty (the annual incomes for most farming families are pretty low) which drives them to diversify and seek out new options just to survive 3) A general distrust of government initiatives and similar, based on the sound reasoning that if government tells you to do one thing, in five years they'll be telling you to do something totally different. You have to remember that in Farming we work on a lot longer timescale that much of industry, and certainly far longer that just the next general election. As an example of this, take global warming. There is no point farmers taking action now, because it hasn't happened, but as it happens and as conditions change farmers will change their cropping to match. It isn't rocket science, we have been altering to cope with changing weather patterns, consumer demand and arbitrary politicial dictat for years. The three main things that drive resiliance are
1) Hard work and long hours
2) Poverty (the annual incomes for most farming families are pretty low) which drives them to diversify and seek out new options just to survive
3) A general distrust of government initiatives and similar, based on the sound reasoning that if government tells you to do one thing, in five years they’ll be telling you to do something totally different.

You have to remember that in Farming we work on a lot longer timescale that much of industry, and certainly far longer that just the next general election.
As an example of this, take global warming. There is no point farmers taking action now, because it hasn’t happened, but as it happens and as conditions change farmers will change their cropping to match. It isn’t rocket science, we have been altering to cope with changing weather patterns, consumer demand and arbitrary politicial dictat for years.

]]> Comment on Resilience and the key risks by Mr Darren Trent http://engage.defra.gov.uk/resilience/key-risks/comment-page-1/#comment-19 Mr Darren Trent Thu, 19 Nov 2009 11:07:13 +0000 http://sandbox.defra.gov.uk/resilience/?page_id=170#comment-19 We need smaller scale farms based nearer to towns providing local food. Qualified young farmers and growers need to be able to access affordable land to grow. There needs to be allocations of new agricultural ties with 'low environmental impact' criteria given to start new farms. This is the only way forward. Looking for resiliance or sustainability in large scale agriculture is an oxymoron! We need smaller scale farms based nearer to towns providing local food. Qualified young farmers and growers need to be able to access affordable land to grow. There needs to be allocations of new agricultural ties with ‘low environmental impact’ criteria given to start new farms. This is the only way forward. Looking for resiliance or sustainability in large scale agriculture is an oxymoron!

]]> Comment on Resilience and the key risks by Frsnces Beaumont http://engage.defra.gov.uk/resilience/key-risks/comment-page-1/#comment-18 Frsnces Beaumont Wed, 18 Nov 2009 20:04:30 +0000 http://sandbox.defra.gov.uk/resilience/?page_id=170#comment-18 Hi , I am surprised the risk of peak oil is not mentioned .(This is when oil production reaches its peak of profitable and easy extraction ) This would mean increased costs for fuel for tractors , farm machinery and lorries, as well as increaed production costs of fertilizers and Pesticides. In Cuba when Oil was cut off by the Russians and USA agriculture suffered badly . Horses and ploughing oxen were brought back on to the land and fertilizers were local and organic. Im not saying we will have the same scenario, but heavily increased oil prices or oil shortages need to be considered as a risk element in my opinion. Hi , I am surprised the risk of peak oil is not mentioned .(This is when oil production reaches its peak of profitable and easy extraction ) This would mean increased costs for fuel for tractors , farm machinery and lorries, as well as increaed production costs of fertilizers and Pesticides.
In Cuba when Oil was cut off by the Russians and USA agriculture suffered badly . Horses and ploughing oxen were brought back on to the land and fertilizers were local and organic. Im not saying we will have the same scenario, but heavily increased oil prices or oil shortages need to be considered as a risk element in my opinion.

]]> Comment on Labour market & skills by Julia Hawley http://engage.defra.gov.uk/resilience/bolstering-improving/labour-market-skills/comment-page-1/#comment-16 Julia Hawley Mon, 16 Nov 2009 18:26:34 +0000 http://sandbox.defra.gov.uk/resilience/?page_id=158#comment-16 Most teachers, careers advisers and other influencers have little realistic idea of the range of careers available within the supply chain and dissuade young people from entering the industry; parents, unless they are familiar with the industry, are the same. We farm under CSS and do Ed Access and with NE's agreement I do 'outreach' attending school careers fairs talking about careers in the industry (eg agronomists, nutritionists to researchers and farm workers) which enables me to talk to teachers, students and parents. I also work with the local Education Business Company as a STEM ambassador (Science, Technology, Engineering, Maths) which gets me into both primary and 2ndry schools. Teachers and students alike are amazed at how challenging and exciting our industry is. More farmers need to be able to be funded to do this sort of activity to present a positive image of our industry. On the other hand, where, now, can a young person learn to milk a cow, so many ag colleges do not teach this any more and farmers do not have the time or inclination to train them and then bemoan the lack of good staff. I am NOT from a farming family but have worked as a farm worker and after qualifying, as an accountant and an adviser in the industry for many years and other family members also have successful careers in the industry. Getting this sort of message across is key to getting new blood into the industry. On another matter, I do believe that some form of CPD should be adopted within the wider industry in the same way that it is for some elements at present eg FACTS, BASIS, the professions, to keep farmers and their staff up to date with training and personal development. Most teachers, careers advisers and other influencers have little realistic idea of the range of careers available within the supply chain and dissuade young people from entering the industry; parents, unless they are familiar with the industry, are the same. We farm under CSS and do Ed Access and with NE’s agreement I do ‘outreach’ attending school careers fairs talking about careers in the industry (eg agronomists, nutritionists to researchers and farm workers) which enables me to talk to teachers, students and parents. I also work with the local Education Business Company as a STEM ambassador (Science, Technology, Engineering, Maths) which gets me into both primary and 2ndry schools. Teachers and students alike are amazed at how challenging and exciting our industry is. More farmers need to be able to be funded to do this sort of activity to present a positive image of our industry. On the other hand, where, now, can a young person learn to milk a cow, so many ag colleges do not teach this any more and farmers do not have the time or inclination to train them and then bemoan the lack of good staff.
I am NOT from a farming family but have worked as a farm worker and after qualifying, as an accountant and an adviser in the industry for many years and other family members also have successful careers in the industry. Getting this sort of message across is key to getting new blood into the industry. On another matter, I do believe that some form of CPD should be adopted within the wider industry in the same way that it is for some elements at present eg FACTS, BASIS, the professions, to keep farmers and their staff up to date with training and personal development.

]]> Comment on Animal health & welfare by Andrea Jones http://engage.defra.gov.uk/resilience/bolstering-improving/animal-health-welfare/comment-page-1/#comment-15 Andrea Jones Mon, 16 Nov 2009 14:20:34 +0000 http://sandbox.defra.gov.uk/resilience/?page_id=156#comment-15 The biggest threat to animal health at the moment is bovine TB and this currently burdens farmers with large costs due to being forced to keep animals which would have been sold on their farm and receiving a reduced price if they are forced to sell them through a 'red market'. Even an inconclusive reactor can close up a herd for weeks and problems like delays in analysing culture samples can increase the period of restrictions, even if the farm is subsequently found to be free of TB. Government MUST deal with this issue and take a good look at the Welsh government's badger cull. Even if they are worried that badger culling will make them unpopular with the voters, something must be done to control a diseased badger population otherwise there will be damage to human health as well as farming industries. Farmers feel powerless to do anything to control bovine TB on their holdings when they have no way of stopping diseased badgers entering their land, badgers have also been known to attack lambs but the farmer has no recourse he can take against the badger. The biggest threat to animal health at the moment is bovine TB and this currently burdens farmers with large costs due to being forced to keep animals which would have been sold on their farm and receiving a reduced price if they are forced to sell them through a ‘red market’. Even an inconclusive reactor can close up a herd for weeks and problems like delays in analysing culture samples can increase the period of restrictions, even if the farm is subsequently found to be free of TB. Government MUST deal with this issue and take a good look at the Welsh government’s badger cull. Even if they are worried that badger culling will make them unpopular with the voters, something must be done to control a diseased badger population otherwise there will be damage to human health as well as farming industries. Farmers feel powerless to do anything to control bovine TB on their holdings when they have no way of stopping diseased badgers entering their land, badgers have also been known to attack lambs but the farmer has no recourse he can take against the badger.

]]> Comment on Competitiveness by Martin Jenkins http://engage.defra.gov.uk/resilience/competitiveness/comment-page-1/#comment-14 Martin Jenkins Sun, 15 Nov 2009 14:21:33 +0000 http://sandbox.defra.gov.uk/resilience/?page_id=142#comment-14 My comments are made with reference to the UK grain sector. Grain yields have ceased to improve since the early 80's. The scientific revolution of the 60's and 70's delivered huge advances in Plant Breeding and Agrochemicals in particular. These advances allowed UK farmers to improve their technical performance by some quantum. In the mid 80's Europe went into surplus and from this time there have been disincentives to increase production. In the era of the early 80's UK grain farmers were prosperous, their production was wanted, the consumer was still paying an ever lower proportion of disposable income on food and in terms of relative global efficiency UK grain farmers were near the top of the pile. During the period between the mid 80's and today, efficiencies in food production to the UK grain farmer have been restricted to a more knowledgeable (and hence lower volume) use of agro-chemicals, big improvements in machinery design, tractor horsepower and efficacy at transferring that horsepower to the soil. This has continued to reduce the real and relative cost of food to our consumers. Simultaneously it has enabled an improvement in the environment of our farmland. However these technologies have also been available (and largely invented by) our competitors. However in a context of remaining globally competitive, Europe (And the UK in some instances more particularly than the rest of the EU) has become, and continues to become increasingly uncompetitive, for it does not have access to the best of modern day scientific advances. Competitor crops yields continue to show significant year on year yield gains, whereas Uk yields are stagnant at best. New legislation, coupled with the forces of nature, will probably even make our yields fall whilst our costs of production will rise. (Here I am thinking of the removal of many agrochemicals and legislation to prevent the most economic use of fertilizers. At the same time, natures ability to manipulate weeds, insects and diseases to become resistant to our current and reducing armoury will cause an increasingly expensive and complex farming challenge.) Because of the EU attitude to science in food production, little conventional science or plant breeding is being undertaken to benefit the UK cereal grower. In contrast Maize, Soya, Sugar Beet, Cotton and many other crops that are being grown outside of Europe, are seeing significant gains in both yield terms and reduced costs of production. In particular both Genetic modification and hybrid plant seeds lead to the ability of our competitors to remain profitable at prices that now see our UK grain production in financial cuckoo land. The environmental and financial benefits to a recession hit, population increasing and environmentally challenged world, where less inputs can produce more food at less cost of production per tonne are available to virtually all the worlds farmers other than Europe. Moreover if the world is to pull out of the global recession successfully, the increasing population will have increased expectations of how much food it desires! Somewhat hypocritically The EU consumer can benefit from global food production methods and prices today even as EU farmers are not allowed to use the very techniques that allow for such low food costs! As a UK grain farmer all I wish for is the chance of equal access to the cutting edge technology that would once again make UK farmers able to exploit the natural advantages of our soils and climate to the full. As a world citizen I recognise the finite nature of our fossil fuel and fossil feedstock supply. Even the most skeptical citizen would admit the distinct possibility that the use of this feedstock is responsible for environmental damage. Therefore the most efficacious trapping of sunlight on our planet will be necessary to produce a sustainable solution to mankinds needs and aspirations. My comments are made with reference to the UK grain sector.

Grain yields have ceased to improve since the early 80′s. The scientific revolution of the 60′s and 70′s delivered huge advances in Plant Breeding and Agrochemicals in particular. These advances allowed UK farmers to improve their technical performance by some quantum. In the mid 80′s Europe went into surplus and from this time there have been disincentives to increase production. In the era of the early 80′s UK grain farmers were prosperous, their production was wanted, the consumer was still paying an ever lower proportion of disposable income on food and in terms of relative global efficiency UK grain farmers were near the top of the pile.
During the period between the mid 80′s and today, efficiencies in food production to the UK grain farmer have been restricted to a more knowledgeable (and hence lower volume) use of agro-chemicals, big improvements in machinery design, tractor horsepower and efficacy at transferring that horsepower to the soil. This has continued to reduce the real and relative cost of food to our consumers. Simultaneously it has enabled an improvement in the environment of our farmland. However these technologies have also been available (and largely invented by) our competitors. However in a context of remaining globally competitive, Europe (And the UK in some instances more particularly than the rest of the EU) has become, and continues to become increasingly uncompetitive, for it does not have access to the best of modern day scientific advances. Competitor crops yields continue to show significant year on year yield gains, whereas Uk yields are stagnant at best. New legislation, coupled with the forces of nature, will probably even make our yields fall whilst our costs of production will rise. (Here I am thinking of the removal of many agrochemicals and legislation to prevent the most economic use of fertilizers. At the same time, natures ability to manipulate weeds, insects and diseases to become resistant to our current and reducing armoury will cause an increasingly expensive and complex farming challenge.) Because of the EU attitude to science in food production, little conventional science or plant breeding is being undertaken to benefit the UK cereal grower. In contrast Maize, Soya, Sugar Beet, Cotton and many other crops that are being grown outside of Europe, are seeing significant gains in both yield terms and reduced costs of production. In particular both Genetic modification and hybrid plant seeds lead to the ability of our competitors to remain profitable at prices that now see our UK grain production in financial cuckoo land.
The environmental and financial benefits to a recession hit, population increasing and environmentally challenged world, where less inputs can produce more food at less cost of production per tonne are available to virtually all the worlds farmers other than Europe. Moreover if the world is to pull out of the global recession successfully, the increasing population will have increased expectations of how much food it desires!
Somewhat hypocritically The EU consumer can benefit from global food production methods and prices today even as EU farmers are not allowed to use the very techniques that allow for such low food costs!
As a UK grain farmer all I wish for is the chance of equal access to the cutting edge technology that would once again make UK farmers able to exploit the natural advantages of our soils and climate to the full.
As a world citizen I recognise the finite nature of our fossil fuel and fossil feedstock supply. Even the most skeptical citizen would admit the distinct possibility that the use of this feedstock is responsible for environmental damage. Therefore the most efficacious trapping of sunlight on our planet will be necessary to produce a sustainable solution to mankinds needs and aspirations.

]]> Comment on Bolstering resilience and improving competitiveness by michael topham http://engage.defra.gov.uk/resilience/bolstering-improving/comment-page-1/#comment-12 michael topham Sat, 14 Nov 2009 01:58:32 +0000 http://sandbox.defra.gov.uk/resilience/?page_id=136#comment-12 Cereal farmer, East Anglia Choice/range of varieties with different yield/quality/disease resistance charachteristics important for diversification/competitiveness. Need on-going/sufficient level of investment in plant breeding. International competitiveness affected by availability/non-availability of GM crops. Cereal farmer, East Anglia
Choice/range of varieties with different yield/quality/disease resistance charachteristics important for diversification/competitiveness.
Need on-going/sufficient level of investment in plant breeding. International competitiveness affected by availability/non-availability of GM crops.

]]>