Food security dominated the agenda at the National Farmers Union (NFU) conference in Britain this week with predictions that self-sufficiency in food was heading for just 50%. While stark, it will come as little surprise to those in the sector. A cheap food policy, centred on sacrificing domestic production in favour of what were perceived to be cheaper imports, has been central to policy in Britain since the early 1980s. Over the course of this period, self-sufficiency has declined from 80% to 60% today. A 10% reduction over the next 15-20 years would merely see the continuation of the well-established trend.
With little point in appealing to the UK government for help, the focus of the industry has been on the consumer with a heavily backed “Buy British” campaign. The campaign has allowed British farmers secure higher market prices, particularly for pork and beef products sold under the Red Tractor quality-assurance logo.
The natural response from an Irish perspective is to be sceptical of any move by the British to protect the domestic market from imports. However, Ireland may be benefiting. The Buy British campaign has pushed domestic beef prices, not only to record levels, but some of the highest in the world. Irish beef prices are benefiting from sitting in the slipstream of this rising market – best measured by the fact that Irish factories are third-ranked on beef price across the EU, with only Britain and NI higher.
The trend in British food production raises perhaps a much bigger question. While the focus of the NFU conference was on who will be feeding Britain in 2040, the question should be extended to who will be feeding Europe. British agriculture is an excellent test case for assessing the impact of EU policy on agricultural productivity. While other countries, including Ireland, have benefited from direct support from national governments, the British have been left totally exposed.
Like in Britain, the European agenda throughout successive CAP reforms has been to break the link between support and production – again in the belief that any drop in production would be offset through increased imports. Such was the belief that the basic principles on which the CAP was established have now been totally sacrificed:
To increase productivity.Deliver a fair standard of living for farmers.Safeguard food supply.The result has been a severe erosion of direct payments that were once focused on compensating EU farmers for higher production costs and standards. Today’s global food market looks very different from what was envisaged when Europe embarked on the move to what is now a basic farm payment scheme. With Europe no longer in a position to out-price competitors in a more complex global market, the flaws in relying on imports are clear. This is evident in the extent to which price premiums that were once being returned in the EU market are now either severely eroded or have even been surpassed by other regions.
In relation to regulation by the EU, we have seen a lack of investment in technology and innovation along with high energy costs. This has seen yields stagnate and production costs rise to the extent that EU competitiveness has fallen sharply against global competitors.
It is clear that Commissioner Hogan is acutely aware of the flaws in the current model and the risk that a drop in EU agricultural output now poses to food security in the region. In delivering the keynote address to the NFU conference, he linked the importance of the CAP to food security. Ironically, his comments come in the same week that productive farmers in Ireland get an insight into the severity of the cut in direct supports under the basic model.
So, who will feed Europe in 2040? The answer is European farmers, but only if future policy re-establishes the link between the CAP and production, and competitiveness is addressed through a science-based regulatory approach.
Food security dominated the agenda at the National Farmers Union (NFU) conference in Britain this week with predictions that self-sufficiency in food was heading for just 50%. While stark, it will come as little surprise to those in the sector. A cheap food policy, centred on sacrificing domestic production in favour of what were perceived to be cheaper imports, has been central to policy in Britain since the early 1980s. Over the course of this period, self-sufficiency has declined from 80% to 60% today. A 10% reduction over the next 15-20 years would merely see the continuation of the well-established trend.
With little point in appealing to the UK government for help, the focus of the industry has been on the consumer with a heavily backed “Buy British” campaign. The campaign has allowed British farmers secure higher market prices, particularly for pork and beef products sold under the Red Tractor quality-assurance logo.
The natural response from an Irish perspective is to be sceptical of any move by the British to protect the domestic market from imports. However, Ireland may be benefiting. The Buy British campaign has pushed domestic beef prices, not only to record levels, but some of the highest in the world. Irish beef prices are benefiting from sitting in the slipstream of this rising market – best measured by the fact that Irish factories are third-ranked on beef price across the EU, with only Britain and NI higher.
The trend in British food production raises perhaps a much bigger question. While the focus of the NFU conference was on who will be feeding Britain in 2040, the question should be extended to who will be feeding Europe. British agriculture is an excellent test case for assessing the impact of EU policy on agricultural productivity. While other countries, including Ireland, have benefited from direct support from national governments, the British have been left totally exposed.
Like in Britain, the European agenda throughout successive CAP reforms has been to break the link between support and production – again in the belief that any drop in production would be offset through increased imports. Such was the belief that the basic principles on which the CAP was established have now been totally sacrificed:
To increase productivity.Deliver a fair standard of living for farmers.Safeguard food supply.The result has been a severe erosion of direct payments that were once focused on compensating EU farmers for higher production costs and standards. Today’s global food market looks very different from what was envisaged when Europe embarked on the move to what is now a basic farm payment scheme. With Europe no longer in a position to out-price competitors in a more complex global market, the flaws in relying on imports are clear. This is evident in the extent to which price premiums that were once being returned in the EU market are now either severely eroded or have even been surpassed by other regions.
In relation to regulation by the EU, we have seen a lack of investment in technology and innovation along with high energy costs. This has seen yields stagnate and production costs rise to the extent that EU competitiveness has fallen sharply against global competitors.
It is clear that Commissioner Hogan is acutely aware of the flaws in the current model and the risk that a drop in EU agricultural output now poses to food security in the region. In delivering the keynote address to the NFU conference, he linked the importance of the CAP to food security. Ironically, his comments come in the same week that productive farmers in Ireland get an insight into the severity of the cut in direct supports under the basic model.
So, who will feed Europe in 2040? The answer is European farmers, but only if future policy re-establishes the link between the CAP and production, and competitiveness is addressed through a science-based regulatory approach.
SHARING OPTIONS