opinion FROM TACTICS TO STRATEGY


With barely six weeks before, at the time of writing, the UK is scheduled to leave the EU, either with or without a deal, the time has come for a thorough review, as an industry, as to where we might go from here. For many companies in the UK feed sector, the extension of the


UK’s departure date from the EU to 31 October will have been welcome, permitting a detailed examination of the options regarding the future sourcing of raw materials, particularly those imported from the EU, and the exporting of specialised feeds or the livestock to which their feed may be fed.


Currently, it seems unlikely that, according to Boris Johnson’s


pronunciations, there will be any further extensions to the UK’s leaving scheduled for 31 October, and it appears increasingly unlikely that a request for a further extension would be favourably received by the EU with the French government understood to be particularly adamant – although the possibility cannot be entirely discounted. An extension would require the unanimous approval of the EU’s remaining members. It thus appears appropriate to assume that the UK will leave the


EU at the end of October as currently scheduled and that the Common Agricultural Policy will need to be replaced by a British equivalent. Discussions as to what should shape the latter have been underway since the referendum and it is already evident that two principal strands of thought are emerging as to the future shape and direction of British agricultural policy. The first is what may be described as the minimalist approach, where


the UK would acquire its food supplies from wherever these could be sourced most cheaply. The alternative would be a policy not unlike the present situation where a variety of domestic legislative measures are put in place to secure a significant proportion of Britain’s food supplies from UK producers. The strategic outcome of the UK’s future agricultural policy would lie somewhere between these two parameters. And it will be immediately evident that the agricultural supply trade in general and the livestock feed industry in particular are positioned towards the second of the two parameters. How are current discussions as to the future of British agriculture


shaping up? It is unclear as to the direction of the Prime Minister’s thoughts


regarding agriculture, if indeed he has any. The previous DEFRA Secretary, Michael Gove, introduced a highly contentious Agriculture Bill which was described by one correspondent as representing ‘the biggest overhaul of UK farm policy since the end of the Second World War’. The Bill set out plans to abolish direct payments to farmers in England, replacing them with a new system of ‘public money for public goods’, rewarding farmers who undertook environmental measures rather than producing food; other UK nations would be expected to implement similar policies. Under Mr Gove’s Bill, Farm subsidies in England would be phased out over seven years, ending in 2027; there are, however,


PAGE 2 SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2019 FEED COMPOUNDER


no guarantees that money made available under the new system would match the total amount currently paid to farmers as direct payments. There is, so far, little if any indication as to the direction in which


Mr Gove’s successor, Theresa Villiers’ thoughts may lie. There can be little doubt, however, that the decision to divert agricultural funds towards the environment – public funds towards public good – will be politically attractive. Nevertheless, and while Mr Gove’s Agriculture Bill will form the basis of Britain’s agricultural policy in the immediate future, it will be strategically important to consider the direction of policy in the longer term. As has been observed on previous occasions in this column, the


livestock feed industry may be said to have a significant vested interest in the outcome of these considerations. It will be argued that the UK should concentrate on what it does best, leaving agriculture and food production to those who have a corresponding advantage in these fields. No one would argue that there are areas of agricultural production where other countries which have a significant advantage compared to the UK, such as Argentine beef and US soybeans and there are many other examples from where the UK chooses to source a proportion of its food supplies. The question as to what the UK does best may, it is true, give rise to some vigorous debate but this column adheres to the view that there are other considerations besides comparative economic advantage that have to be taken into account. Even in the present era, security of supply cannot be assumed.


While there are, perhaps, no wars or rumours of wars, harvests can be affected by inclement weather or other natural phenomena. But, apart from the vagaries of the climate, there are other important considerations to be taken into account, as far as the livestock feed industry and other components of the agricultural supply trade are concerned. Agriculture and its suppliers constitute an important part of the rural economy – an obvious but unavoidable fact. Apart from the measurable economic benefits, a subsidiary aspect is the avoidance of the countryside falling into disuse. Without farming, and in particular without livestock farming, the countryside would look very different and, to many, much less attractive. What effect would this have on tourism? Besides the immediate effect of livestock farming, both in terms of products produced and people employed on farm and within the whole breadth of agricultural and machinery supplies, there is also the benefit it brings to the rural environment. If tourists choose not to visit rural areas if they have changed (decayed?) from managed pastures to impenetrable wilderness, what cost would this have to the overall economy? Mr Gove’s Agriculture Bill is likely to constitute the basis of the


UK’s agricultural policy over the next few years but there is a need for a longer-term strategic horizon. It has been welcomed by many, including some farmers. The livestock feed industry should take a leading role in initiating the ensuing debate.


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