opinion KEEPING THE FUTURE IN VIEW


George Eustice, previously Minister of State at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, was appointed Secretary of State of the Department on 13 February 2020. He can hardly have anticipated that, barely a month later, the Prime


Minister, flanked on the one hand by Sir Patrick Vallance, Chief Scientific Adviser to the Government and, on the other hand, by Professor Chris Whitty, the Chief Medical Officer for England, would be outlining the British Government’s strategy for dealing with Covid-19, the disease caused by the coronavirus. By and large, the Prime Minister’s initial announcement was well


received – at least until, other governments announced measures that many regarded as significantly more rigorous than those promulgated by the UK authorities. Some bodies clearly felt they needed to go further than the official advice, most notably the decision by the bodies governing football and other sports to suspend their seasons until the extent of the infection became clearer. This was followed by further voluntary measures implemented by other private organisations, designed to limit the impact of the disease. A few days later, the Prime Minister announced to the nation the outcome of further decisions taken by the COBRA committee. These significantly extended the scope of the guidelines for keeping the spread of the virus in check, with a view to delaying and flattening the peak of the infection and thereby ensuring that the health services are better able to cope. Those measures included: isolation for 14 days of entire households when one person in the household showed symptoms of the disease; the avoidance of unnecessary social contact including at pubs, theatres, cinemas, restaurants and the like as well as sporting events; and vulnerable people (largely the elderly, those with pre-existing medical conditions and pregnant women) being asked to take particular care to distance themselves from others for a protracted time. Subsequently, a vast range of financial measures to support businesses and families was announced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. On Wednesday March 18, the announcement finally came that schools were to shut until further notice. One thing is crystal clear about the current situation; the disease


is spreading very rapidly, both in the UK and abroad. As yet, there is no authoritative indication as to the effect that this will have on agriculture in general and the livestock feed industry in particular, although for the indications presently available, some effects are inevitable, if only expressed in basic terms such as lost working hours. What is critical, however, is not to lose sight of the broader environment in which the feed industry operates. Prior to the coronavirus outbreak, it is likely that Mr Eustice, apart


from attending to the concerns of his constituents in his Camborne and Redruth constituency in Cornwall, will have been dealing with the measures that are to replace the current Basic Payments Scheme (BPS) whereby British farmers receive area-related subsidies under Common Agriculture Policy arrangements. BPS payments will be replaced by the


PAGE 2 MARCH/APRIL 2020 FEED COMPOUNDER


provisions of the Agriculture Act, once it is enacted. Plans have already been outlined by Mr Eustice to withdraw an


initial £1.65 billion a year in the Basic Payments Scheme currently paid to English farmers. The Agriculture Bill presaged a new system of support intended to replace the Basic Payments Scheme. This will come in the form of new Environmental Land Management Contracts that are intended to be the primary source of funding for farmers following the removal of the Basic Payments Scheme. The Bill provides the government with powers to provide financial assistance for ‘Public Goods’ which covers a number of environmentally-related activities including: the management of land or water in a way that protects or improves the environment; supporting public access to and enjoyment of the countryside, farmland or woodland; managing land or water in a way that maintains, restores or enhances cultural heritage or natural heritage; and mitigating or adapting to climate change. Public goods are further defined as ‘preventing, reducing or protecting from environmental hazards, protecting or improving the health or welfare of livestock and protecting or improving the health of plants.’ It is clear that there is scope for altering or adding to this list but


this has not been finalised; there is potential for further and potentially contentious additions to it. What is clear is that the principle underlying the payments will be to achieve ‘public benefits’ and that, primarily, the payments are not specifically for supporting farmers or farming activities. This raises obvious issues and has implications for the future shape


and structure of agriculture in the UK. For example, one particular aspect that has been dealt with by this column in previous issues is the question of maintaining quality standards in the post-EU environment in the context of securing trade deals with, for example, the United States. The importance of this issue has recently been emphasised by the Chartered Institute of Environmental Health, demanding that the Government ‘kept its word that it would not put the UK’s food and environmental standards up for negotiation during trade talks’. Within this overall context, it is inevitable that farmers and their


suppliers prepare themselves to address a changing environment as they move into the post-EU world. It is, self-evidently, a time of change. It is also time for a wider audience to consider the future of agriculture in the UK. Do we want British farmers to supply a significant or an increasing proportion of what we eat or are we content for the proportion of food we eat to be produced abroad? We live in challenging times. The longer-term effects of the


coronavirus episode are, at the time of writing, very uncertain but, judging from the current circumstances, seem likely to be both protracted and severe. Inevitably, the public debate will centre around the response to the immediate challenges raised by coronavirus but, in due time, it must turn to the longer-term issues raised by discussion of the future view of agriculture, and its suppliers, in the UK.


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