In their vision, the Commission looked for "a profitable and sustainable
farming and food sector, that can and does compete internationally,
that is a good steward of the environment, and provides food and a healthy
diet for the people of England and around the world."
The Commission detailed a range of recommendations and although these
have been generally well received, UKagriculture.com believes that the
Commission's report was short on economics and short on solutions.
First off is the Commission's failure to understand that "profitability"
is an inherrent part of "sustainability". It is not, as their
vision suggests, an extra. Sustainability is about broadly satisfying
the perceived needs of stakeholders over the longer term where the stakeholders
include farmers and the wider agricultural industry. Profit is as much
a stakeholder interest as any other.
The Commision further, in addressing the future of farming have failed
to understand the fundamental weakness of agriculture in the UK. Namely
that the industry has no market strength. This is derived from the fact
that 250,000 farming businesses make up a small industry in an indifferent
urban society where the food chain is in oligopolistic hands. A solution
for farmers may well lie in their growing their businesses but it provides
no solution for agriculture. A farmer farming all of Surrey would produce
just 1% of farming output - far too small to have any presence in the
market place.
The report talks at length about farmers diversifying into other markets.
However well intentioned, this is not a solution for farming or agriculture,
although it may be for individuals. It is easy to talk of diversification
and ignore the reality of very high failure rates in business diversification.
If multinationals have to admmit defeat and "return to core activities"
- why should an ageing population of farmers be expected to do better?
Diversification also carries risks not identified by the Commission.
Traditional farm buildings converted for tourism, office, retail or
accomodation needs no longer provide housing for swallows, sparrows
and barn owls and their loss represents a significant cost to our agrarian
heritage. The rush to diversify is unsustainable.
A number of potential solutions offered by the Commission in their search
for "reconnecting with the consumer" seem to have overlooked
the fact that they have existed for sometime. To establish a network
of demonstration farms ignores the work of LEAF and the existing network
of hundreds of farms that disseminate information either formally or
on a more casual basis while solutions to utilise the internet seem
to have passed by the work of UKagriculture.com and others.
A number of recommendations are dressed up as economic solutions but
in reality offer only cosmetic change. Receiving subsidy payments in
Euros has not the slightest affect on underlying business efficiency
and ignores that currency hedging is already available.
The report has made useful proposals to simplify and enhance environmental
schemes and these meet with our support. As too does their caution for
a plethora of schemes and marques that confuse the consumer. It is easy
to talk of "eating the view" but which view if you one of
the 90% of urban dwellers? And if North Downs lamb is best, what is
wrong with South Downs lamb?
The Commission's request for a lowering of duty on biofuels meets with
our strong approval even though the Commision have failed to identify
the particular significance of the biofuel opportunity. Biofuels offer
farmers a unique opportunity to provide real environmental gain at the
heart of consumer society - by fuelling the car.
Rather than trying to find solutions for an industry in a global market
place, the Commission seem to believe that a cottage industry of niche
products is the way forward. We believe they are wrong. Find
out what they could have said.
User comments - post a comment
