Speech by the Rt Hon David Miliband MP - "One planet farming" at the Royal Agricultural Show, Monday 3 July 2006
Eight weeks ago, when the Prime Minister asked me to lead Defra, I was acutely conscious of how little I knew about farming. In many ways, I still am. But over the last eight weeks I have tried to listen and see and read, and I have learnt a lot.
I’ve learnt that farming is at the heart of our society, our economy and our cultural heritage. It’s about people, food, landscape and the environment. It touches every member of society every day. In a phrase I used in my first week that runs through everything I will have to say today, farming is important not just for the countryside but for the whole country.
I’ve learnt about the diversity of British agriculture – from the multi-million pound businesses to the hill farmers, from growers of bulk commodities like grain to small independent farmers selling direct to the public.
I have learnt too about the complexity of your lives – compliance with national and European rules, negotiation with supermarkets, understanding new business opportunities.
I have learnt about the skill, creativity and innovative spirit which many of our farmers display. There were some excellent recent examples celebrated in the National Farming Awards last week. Much of what you do is a real British success story, and we need to celebrate that success.
I’ve learnt that our farming community is a very proud community. For many, farming is a way of life above all else. But I also detect that many farmers feel undervalued and unappreciated by society – even victimised.
I’ve learnt about the difficulties in addressing affordable housing in rural areas, but also the need to do so, and this is an important matter on which Barry Gardiner is working closely with Yvette Cooper at DCLG.
I’ve also learnt in eight weeks how much I still have to learn.
About the difficulty in achieving a fair balance of power between consumers, retailers, manufacturers and farmers
About how the inter-relationships with the EU and the WTO affect the balance of power between farmers here and farmers abroad.
About how to balance the need to control disease with the need to protect animal welfare.
Goals
In this context, there are two temptations for a new Secretary of State. The first is to come along and say everything is up for grabs and announce the formation of a study group to advise the new Ministerial team. But that would be profoundly to mistake the real time in which you are making decisions about the future – you don’t have time for a year’s navel-gazing – and to mistake the strong policy base on which we have to build. I think in terms of CAP reform, the entry level environmental stewardship scheme, and some of the RDAs work to promote collaborative local working, there is real progress. A new Ministerial team does not mean year zero; we build on what we inherit, not ignore it.
The second temptation is to come to the Show, announce a new policy, preferably with a new pot of money attached, and get out alive. This is tempting but fundamentally not very serious. I think I do you more respect by coming here to share with you my thinking about our work together, armed with an argument not a spending pledge, and a desire to refine that argument into forward plan of action by listening to you and discussing with you.
My starting point is the Government’s ambitions for the country, because I am here as a member of the Government not just a representative of Defra. The Government was re-elected a year ago with three guiding lights at the heart of its manifesto – expanding economic opportunity in a world of change, deepening social justice in strong communities, and promoting environmental sustainability at a time of growing peril for the planet. So the first thing I want to emphasise is that my ambitions for agriculture are aligned with a Government wide strategy for the whole country.
Our goals for farming should be:
- To build a profitable, innovative and competitive industry meeting the needs of consumers;
- To fulfil its unique role in the countryside by making a net positive contribution to the environment, managing its risks, especially animal health risks, effectively
- And to contribute to the long-term sustainability of rural communities
If farming is to achieve these goals, both government and the sector itself must deal with new risks, challenges and opportunities. If you want to encapsulate the challenge and opportunities in a phrase, it is “one planet farming”. In other words, farming that reflects the need for us to live within the means of the planet, and farming which helps us live within the needs of the planet.
Thirty years ago, if you said the country was living beyond its means, people would have thought about economics. Now, if you talk about the country, or the planet living beyond its means, you think about the environment. We are taking out more than we are giving back. We are consuming energy, water, and other natural resources in a way that is leading to huge and often irreversible damage to the planet. So too are most other developed nations. And so too will China and India if they follow the same path of economic development as us.
One Planet Farming
WWF have calculated that our carbon footprint is not just a little bit out of sync with the capacity of the planet, it is hugely out of sync – to the tune of a three-fold difference. Put simply, we are living as if we had three planet’s worth of resources to live with, rather than just one. So if we are to build a sustainable future economically as well as environmentally – because make no mistake there are huge economic costs from this imbalance as well as environmental costs – we need to cut by about two thirds our ecological footprint.
For that we need ‘one planet farming’ as well as one planet living – one planet farming which minimises the impact on the environment of patterns of food production and consumption, and farming which maximises its contribution to renewal of the natural environment.
You know the challenge and the opportunity. The most recent study in 2004 concluded that the net environment cost of agriculture was around £400m a year.
- Farming employs around 1 to 2 per cent of our workforce and produces 0.7 per cent of national income. It is responsible for 7 per cent of this country’s greenhouse gases, notably nitrous oxide and methane. But the farming sector can also reduce food miles and replace fossil fuels with biomass to power over 4 million homes, saving nearly 4 million of carbon annually. The recent announcement of a new biobutanol plant in Norfolk producing biofuel from sugar beet illustrates this potential.
- Farmers and foresters look after 80 per cent of England’s land area. They are the guardians of our natural capital yet also have the capacity to erode them – after all the bill for cleaning up drinking water is £181 million a year.
- And three quarters of our landscapes are managed by farmers, 80% of England’s national parks, and nearly 90% of open-access land. Many of our most valued landscape features from stone walls to hedgerows are the result of farming practices over hundreds of years. They are man made.
One planet farming means respecting the limits of our natural resources, and nurturing them. Our goal should be farming as a net contributor to the environment. But the responsibility is not yours alone. We need your entrepreneurship and innovation, and you have a right to expect our help – funds to pay for environmental stewardship, regulation to help promote a profitable sector that shares the burden of preventing and responding to animal health risks, negotiation to deliver a level playing field in Britain, Europe and across the world, and persuasion to promote a higher level of demand for home grown produce. These issues are the focus of my speech.
But there is one other challenge for Government. It is basic. You will not be confident partners of us in ambitious projects if we do not deliver on the day-to-day necessities. The most pressing is the RPA. Jeff Rooker is working day-to day on this and is meeting industry representatives on a weekly basis. But let me dwell on this point for a minute.
I know Margaret Beckett thanked you last February at the NFU AGM for your patience. I am very conscious that for many this patience has been further tested over the last few months. Partial payments have gone out and interest payments promised. But frankly I know this is cold comfort. There are still claims outstanding. There has been immense hurt and frustration caused. And there has been a big dent to confidence.
I don’t know why people think it is difficult for me to apologise for this unacceptable situation. It is easy to apologise and necessary to do so – and I do it again. But apologies do not pay bills. That requires an efficient RPA, and that makes an apology seem very easy indeed.
I have two priorities: to pay those who have not yet received their full payment and also to ensure that we perform better in the next Scheme year. I share your desire for 2006 payments to reach people as early as possible and I am also exploring what options are available to improve the 2006 scheme. As a start I have already decided to simplify to the maximum possible the changes necessary from last November’s sugar reform. And I have asked my staff urgently to look at simplification of SPS applications, in particular the idea of a simple declaration for all farmers whose claims have not changed from the year before.
You should know that I know we will find it difficult to look farmers in the eye until this is sorted properly. I wish it was going to be quick. It isn’t; the 2006 scheme will be very challenging; but over time it needs to be sorted, and that it what we are determined to do.
Way Forward
Today, however, I would like to focus on the longer term – the roadmap to a profitable and sustainable future for farming that will make young people want to go into farming, and young farmers stay in it. There are four building blocks.
First, if Government wants farmers to stick in for the long haul, Government must do the same by setting out the parameters for future policy and sticking to them. The changes to the structure of the farming industry, the activities it will be engaged in, and the relationship with Government and the EU will be profound over the next ten to fifteen years. We must not overestimate what we can achieve in the short-term but equally we should not underestimate the change possible in the long term.
Government needs to provide a clear long term framework in return for clear commitments from the industry about embarking on transformational change. If we can do that we can create a confident and exciting vision for farming. It is not good that the number of people enrolling in agricultural studies is falling: this is not just about the courses, it is about the need for a vision for farming and how we manage land in this country that inspires future generations.
A long term framework means a road map for EU negotiations, leading to the CAP and Budget reform discussions in 2008 and 2009. That is why last December Defra and the Treasury published a very challenging vision for the CAP, taking a long term perspective through to 2020, and thinking through what it means to have a clear commitment to fair competition and clear recognition of the potential for farming to support the delivery of public goods. A long term framework also means consistency in policy making, helped by structures for discussion and engagement that command confidence. It means clear principles underpinning the Government’s financial and regulatory engagement with farmers.
The second building block is that change and reform must be backed by investment. This has been the basis of change in public services and the same principle can be applied to farming. This raises big issues for environmental stewardship and animal welfare.
Above the basic standards expected by cross-compliance, environmental stewardship is the primary means of delivering improvements in farmland bird populations, improving the condition of SSSIs, helping us protect our natural resources, and mitigating the effects of climate change.
On the Entry Level (ELS) strand, we have set out our intention to open the scheme open to all eligible farmers. So far, about 22,000 have joined ELS and, with the existing agri-environment schemes, we have over 4 million hectares of farmland under some form of funded environmental management – over 40% of the available farmland in England. This is an excellent response from the industry and we are well on track to achieve 60% coverage by ELS by the end of 2007. We also remain committed to the Higher Level Scheme which focuses on high value habitats and landscape features which deliver significant environmental benefits.
The same approach must apply to England’s upland farmers. Farming has played a key role in shaping the upland landscape, which is internationally recognised for its biodiversity and as a highly valued part of our national heritage. In due course we want to move towards rewarding upland farmers for the environmental benefits they provide. We are currently considering the responses to the recent consultation on future upland rewards, and will announce our response later this year. But to enable upland farmers to plan ahead I can confirm now that the existing Hill Farm Allowance will continue in 2007.
I know you are looking for some certainty about how these schemes will be funded. I am already in discussions on this package within Government and also, crucially, with the European Commission. This includes areas I know are very important to you, such as the rate of voluntary modulation that we apply in the coming years and the level at which we can provide co-financing.
It is very important that I emphasise that there is commitment across government to the fiscal strategy that the Chancellor has set out. I think his strategy is right for the country. We are all signed up to the tough public spending round that has been set out in successive Budgets, and for a root and branch efficiency and productivity drive. We all have to play our part in making the books balance, and Defra is as much subject to that as anyone else.
My job is to ensure that Defra is clear about its priorities, and I am happy to say to you that I recognise the integrity and power in the priorities you have set for the importance of a strong rural development programme. However, I also have to say clearly that the more Defra spends in one part of its budget, the less it has to spend elsewhere; the discussions with Treasury on voluntary modulation are not separate from our other discussions, they are linked to them.
For example, both our Animal Health and Welfare Strategy and our Farm Regulation and Charging Strategy emphasised the importance of sharing fairly the responsibilities and costs of animal health protection. In the coming years I will be looking to put this into practice in a very real way.
Historically, the Government has intervened in a variety of ways to help reduce the risks of animal diseases, including a considerable amount of regulation. At the moment the taxpayer spends over £530 million a year on animal health and welfare, and of course you all know the billions of pounds of cost arising from the outbreak of Foot and Mouth Disease in 2001 cost.
However, you know better than I that personal responsibility for biosecurity on the part of farmers is the starting point for any effective system of animal health and welfare; the more responsibility the better; the more responsibility the greater the gain for you individually and for the industry as a whole; and the greater the responsibility the greater degree of influence you should have on policy-making.
There will always be a role and a responsibility for government. We all want to ensure that the occurrence of animal diseases is as limited as possible, and that the spread of disease between farms is minimised. Livestock farmers individually and collectively need to have a clear understanding of the risks and of the costs these risks generate, and a genuine share in the ownership of the measures taken to control them. I am very much looking forward to seeing the recommendations of the Joint Industry and Government Working Group, set up by Lord Bach, which I expect to receive soon.
I know there is one area where farmers want to do burden sharing – the control of the badger population. We have recently held a major public consultation and I do not need to tell you the strong feelings aroused. Let me tell it as I see it.
First, any decision on culling must be based on a sound scientific and practical base. Second, the science shows badgers do spread Bovine TB, but this is not the only way it is spread. Third, the evidence base is an area of great complexity. For example there is strong evidence of a significant downward trend in incidence of Bovine TB since the beginning of the year, consistent across all regions, but the reasons for this fall are not as yet clear. Fourth, Bovine TB imposes national costs but is a localised problem. Fifth, the science shows that culling in a relatively small area – say 100km2 - can raise the incidence of bovine TB in a wider area. Sixth, there are major issues about organisation of and responsibility for any proposed cull.
There are too many unknowns to give a final decision today. I recognise the strong passions on the issue. My own judgment is that any decision needs the backing of scientific, practical, financial and organisational logic that has the confidence of farmers and animal welfare organisations. They may not agree on the outcome, but there has to be shared understanding of the facts.
Third, regulation . I am personally committed to a more risk-based and more focussed use of regulation. Under the Farm Regulation and Charging Strategy we have committed to using alternatives to regulation wherever possible; where regulation is necessary to ensure it is effective, transparent, proportionate and cost effective; to improve the way we inspect and enforce regulations and to ensure charges are transparent and consistent, not just for UK regulations but also in Brussels. The end of the beef export ban this year was a notable success in this direction.
But I recognise there is much more to do. I have already committed to the 2010 target of a 25% reduction in those administrative burdens we can control. I am now considering setting a target for achieving the same level of reduction in the burdens imposed by the EU by 2015. A good step in the right direction would be addressing the issue of set-aside, and we are working on this too.
Closer to home, the RPA will in future place the summary guidance it gives to its inspectors on cross compliance on its external website. This will let you see exactly what inspectors are looking for and will help you demonstrate your compliance – a small but not insignificant step for mankind.
The Whole Farm Approach (WFA) – a new single electronic gateway that will help farmers to reduce the burden of regulation and inspections by defra and other government agencies - will be an important asset. For the farmer it will identify where there is a regulatory requirement and the actions necessary to fulfil that requirement, supported by targeted help and guidance. Information will be used by regulators to inform the risk selection process that enables targeted enforcement. Modules already exist that include questions covering cross compliance, agricultural waste and natural resource protection. Further releases are planned that include the introduction of new modules covering catchment sensitive farming.
My approach is simple: if the NFU or anyone else makes a serious and well-founded complaint about a regulation, we will justify it, reform it, or ditch it. NFU representation on the ministerial challenge panel on regulation should help.
I should also mention the reform of the levy bodies. This constitutes a once in a lifetime opportunity to ensure these bodies deliver value and are fully connected with and accountable to their levy payers. It will be up to you, the levy payers to take advantage of this opportunity.
Fourth, one planet farming requires us to strengthen the links between production and consumption. The evidence from research is that consumers continue to be driven by value for money, taste and sell-by but that there is growing demand for fresh, healthy, organic and locally-sourced food.
To succeed you need to meet that demand. It is not enough to just say ‘Buy British’. Consumers are more discerning than that. They want value for money; they want quality; they want assurance; and they want to feel good about buying the food they choose. That may be because it is top quality, in season, organically produced, fair trade or because it is locally sourced. These are all opportunities for producers to exploit. You only need to look at the response to the Farmers’ Weekly campaign on reducing food miles to gauge the level of interest in locally sourced food. Or the success of farmers’ markets.
I am very supportive of Don Curry’s efforts to help farming re-connect with consumers. I also believe the public sector can take a lead. There are 617 million school meals served every year and the NHS food budget is £300 million. They provide a very good starting point for a sustainable procurement strategy.
Equally, because we ask farmers to invest across the seasons for crops and across years for livestock, and because you take the risk, you deserve a fair price on a level field with competitors. The food chain should offer fair rewards for those who take care of our countryside and offer good welfare conditions to food production animals.
I am well aware of the strength of feeling of many in the industry about farming’s relationship with the supermarkets, an issue to which the NFU’s recent submission to the Competition Commission drew attention. There is no doubt that if farmers are to be equitably rewarded for what they produce for the market, the concept of fair trade has to start at home. Corporate responsibility needs be borne by every link in the food chain, and be seen to be.
Farmers are not just part of the food chain, they are also part of a changing rural economy. Farm diversification – the use of farm assets for other activities in particular tourism – is an activity which has great potential for contributing to sustainable rural communities, not just to farmer incomes. I am pleased that we are setting up a small working group, including NFU, CLA and of course the RDAs, to explore the barriers to successful diversification and make recommendations about the means of overcoming them.
Conclusion
This is a big agenda. It was summed up on my first farm visit when someone said that today’s generation of farmers want to be entrepreneurs not victims, profitable businesses paying their way economically, socially and environmentally.
This is my response:
- I may not know much but I know more than I did.
- The future of farming depends on profitable production that lives within the limits of natural resources and, critically, helps others to do so as well.
- We need to work up a deal fair for all, based on long term commitments, investment for reform, risk-based regulation, and strong local food chains.
- And all of this requires a Government which listens and a farming industry ambitious for change.
The President of the RAS, Sir Stuart Hampson, says in the first sentence of his Foreword to the independent report Differentiation: A Sustainable Future for UK Agriculture, published today, “The sustainability of farming today will shape the face of Britain for our grandchildren”. I agree. And for that face of Britain to be a face of economic opportunity, social justice and environmental sustainability, we need farmers who are positive and confident authors of their own future.
There are big choices. The Sustainable Farming and Food Strategy, under the leadership of Sir Don Curry, has started the process. Now we need to take it forward – and take it forward together.
Page last modified: 4 July 2006
Page published:
3 July 2006