opinion PULLING TOGETHER
As far as agricultural matters are concerned, things are beginning to move, albeit slowly, on the Brexit front. Michael Gove has had two opportunities to give some indication
as to the future development of agriculture in the UK: the Oxford Farming Conference and, more recently, the NFU’s Annual General Meeting. He reiterated the government’s already stated intention to maintain the current level of farm support until 2022. As regards the general direction of British farm policy, detail was thin on the ground – albeit he did confirm that the frequently onerous inspections to which British farmers are subject would be reviewed and that animal welfare should constitute a public good for which farmers would, in future, be rewarded. Given the fact that agriculture is a complex business and that
DEFRA is planning, in the next few weeks, to embark on its own official consultation as to the future shape and scope of farm support in the UK, it is perhaps, understandable that Mr Gove was unwilling to discuss some of the possible options in his addresses. However, the devil is in the detail and farmers, to say nothing of the agricultural supply trade, have businesses to run and strategies to develop. At present, they have very little to go on. There would appear to be the potential for two extreme positions
being taken as regards the future of agriculture in the UK, following this country’s exit from the EU. The first is best described as the extreme free trade option,
whereby all tariffs on imported materials would be scrapped and the market place left as supreme arbiter as regards the economy. It has long been the contention of this publication and others that such a strategy would mean the end of agriculture in the UK as we have known it for past decades. Given the natural advantages possessed by other countries, UK farmers would simply be unable to compete, given the fact that price would become the sole arbiter of sourcing across a broad swathe of the market. The outcome would be a significant contraction of the agricultural sector in the UK. It goes without saying that the effects of this development would, self- evidently, not be confined to farming but would reverberate up the supply chain, including the manufacture and distribution of animal feedingstuffs, to say nothing of other elements of the agricultural supply industry. If this appears to be alarmist, it needs to be remembered that
precisely this view of a post-Brexit future is posited by free traders who are enabled to present such a view as the result of the continuing lack of a coherent strategy in high places, particularly in government. For example, there is so far no evidence of how government views
PAGE 2 MARCH/APRIL 2018 FEED COMPOUNDER
the fundamental question of food self-sufficiency which has been declining in recent years or, indeed, food security. This vacuum, as regards fundamental aspects of food supply, provides the channel through which untempered free market views may percolate. The polar opposite of the foregoing is best described as an ‘as
is’ scenario where, apart from some minor adjustments to reflect local conditions, agricultural policy in the UK would remain largely unchanged from its Common Agricultural Policy manifesto, albeit under a new name. This seems an unlikely outcome, given the fact that, according to many sources, the CAP and its alleged deficiencies, including the payment of subsidies to already well-off farmers, is believed to have been a major motivator leading to the referendum outcome. The conclusion thus reached is clear: a new agricultural policy developed with regard to UK conditions and sentiments is the preferred outcome and the debate, as to how these sentiments will shape agricultural policy post-Brexit, needs to start without delay. It is clear that representative bodies such as the Agricultural
Industries Confederation have already been hard at work with other organisations in an effort to get the needed meaningful discussion underway. The newly elected President of the National Farmers Union, Minette Batters, has called for the creation of Team Agriculture which, she initially suggested, would work more closely with organisations such as the Tenant Farmers Association and the Country Land and Business Association. There is no reason why Ms Batters should not enlarge this to cover other representative bodies, including those representing the agricultural supply trade, thus enhancing the effectiveness of the NFU’s influence of the evolving debate over the future of British agriculture. Indeed, there is already clear evidence that bodies representing the broader swathe of agricultural institutions in the UK are getting together the better to represent their view of how agriculture in the UK should go forward. This is a highly desirable outcome, not just in economic terms but also in the context of a prosperous agricultural sector and its spin-off into the wider context of the rural economy. Make no mistake – the debate which must soon get underway
is of elemental importance to the future of British agriculture – and to the agricultural supply trade. As regards feedingstuffs, the feed industry is, by some distance, the largest supplier of inputs by value to British farmers. Although far from perfect, the existing structure of the Common Agricultural Policy has facilitated the development of a livestock industry which provides a customer base of significant value to the feed industry over the years. Although change is inevitable, the sooner the industry sets out its stall, the better.
Comment section is sponsored by Compound Feed Engineering Ltd
www.cfegroup.com
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68