1. Meeting our global obligations

What do we want the UK’s role to be in the world, in response to the big global challenges that face us? That was the central question posed by our commissioners at the beginning of their deliberations. It goes to the heart of the leadership responsibility the UK could accept, as well as how we redefine our relationships with the rest of the world.

The issues we want to tackle

Several submissions to our Call for Ideas suggested that future trade agreements with countries outside the EU should make sure we avoid being flooded with cheap but low quality, low welfare, environmentally damaging food. But that is only one aspect of the problem.

Climate change, extreme weather and the disruption of natural systems are likely to lead to a two percent reduction in farming yields every decade. That puts farmers on the climate change front line. A recent IPCC report shows that governments must focus on limiting global warming to 1.5°C to help reduce the impacts of climate change on ecosystems, human health and well-being and make it more possible to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals. While the UK has played a pivotal role setting up global and national commitments to reduce greenhouse emissions to address the growing threat, it is also responsible for a large share of historical and current emissions, has a poor record of addressing agriculture emissions and must do much more to tackle this urgent problem.

Current rates of extinction are between 1,000 and 10,000 times the pre-human rate. The UK supports programmes like the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). But global biodiversity loss is driven by continued inequality, poverty, over-consumption, conflict and poor governance. Over-extraction, intensification and the expansion of farming, and climate change are all exacerbated by these. The UK draws heavily on land across the world for our food, fuel and fibres, and consumes fish from around the world with a huge impact on marine biodiversity.

As well as the questions arising for the UK’s relationship with the EU and the world, wider global trade rules are themselves under threat with President Trump’s protectionist approach to global trade. It is not yet clear whether this means a disastrous vacuum or a chance for a creative rethink.

“The market and state should serve people and place. There is tension between who controls the food market and systems, and who they serve. We need appropriate regulation to make markets serve the interests of people.” Community Farmer, County Antrim

Meanwhile, the concentration of power along the food chain has grown rapidly, and a small number of multinational corporations exercise huge influence over the national and supranational resources that are the basis of our food supply. Global commodities, finance and investment activity is changing patterns of land ownership and use in countries around the world, as well as exercising significant influence over national and international policy-making. This further reduces the role the public has in shaping the future of the nation and its countryside — making the stakes higher and our opportunity for influence lower.

Why these issues are so intractable

These competing tensions - between consolidating, upscaling, industrialising business models and concerns to protect more diverse, sustainable systems - are, nonetheless played out to different outcomes. TTIP negotiations floundered, arguably, after public actions drew attention to lack of transparency and ‘irreconcilable differences’ on attitudes to animal welfare standards and consumer protection, among other things.

The requirements of our future food system are extensive. We have to meet society’s desire for sufficient, nutrient dense food, whether produced here or overseas, and to make sure that wildlife can thrive, our climate is stabilised, and that future generations can meet their needs too. But it is also time we confronted the popular myth: that we must produce ever more food as cheaply as possible to feed a rapidly growing global population. We already produce all the food we need across the planet.

“The amount of waste food we receive from supermarkets is phenomenal. [The supermarket we work with] has a zero-waste policy. They don’t send food to landfill — it is discounted, given to staff or sent to us. But most of the food we receive is highly processed and often full of sugar. I don’t feel great when I’m handing this out.” Food waste charity, Central Scotland

This widely held belief has tended to blind policy-makers to the real issues that face us: over-production at serious cost to ecosystems; excessive food waste (up to one third of all food produced); a distribution system that itself requires too many resources in transport and packaging; and over-consumption by wealthier populations.

Towards more comprehensive solutions

The core principles of a UK farming system fit for the future and within safe environmental limits must include:

• Diversity (of farm size, crops types, genetics, people and growing systems) which maximises resilience in the face of an uncertain future.
• Maximising energy efficiency and carbon sequestration in soils and trees.
• Closed loop approaches so that nutrients are recycled and not lost into the wider environment where they may act as pollutants.
• Minimising risks to human health through inappropriate use of antibiotics, pesticides and herbicides, with their impacts on food safety and animal health.
• Avoiding ‘offshoring’ the environmental or social costs of our food production.

It makes sense, therefore, to grow the crops and animals that are best suited to different geographies, both in the UK and globally, so that their production is most resource efficient and least damaging. How much food will be produced in the UK, once direct payments for farmland maintenance have ceased, will depend on several factors: the trade environment, the availability of labour and the price the market will pay for UK food. Without subsidies, farm gate prices will rise, all other things being equal; almost all sectors will be affected.

New technologies such as gene editing or robotics, if handled in ways that do not generate new practical or ethical difficulties, could theoretically help us to overcome some challenges. Lab-produced meat, hydro/aquaponics and the use of novel ingredients from algae, fungi and insects may reduce the dependency on land to produce some of our food and other products, freeing more of it for wildlife, recreation and ecosystem services.

Meanwhile, there are improvements to be made to efficiency, which will benefit both the environment and farmers’ incomes. The spread between top and bottom performers across a range of metrics is very large, including on profitability. There is a skills and aptitude gap to close, and to bring the brightest and best into farming and growing — people who can deliver the best on farm and land management, including for environmental goods and services that will be as important a market as food in many places, and who are able to collaborate, innovate and add value.

While the UK won’t be the cheapest place to grow most foodstuffs, due to limited land, relatively high standards and labour costs, we can build a reputation for high quality products that will be welcomed in both domestic and export markets. There is simply no point in a ‘race to the bottom’ strategy. It is a race we cannot win, and the penalties of trying to do so are just too great.

“I reckon this year was one of the hardest ones we’ve had. In the years I’ve been farming I’ve seen difficult years. But they are getting more and more regular. It definitely feels like things are changing.” Salad producer, Shropshire

In any scenario, it is vital that the UK maintains the capacity to produce more food in the future, even if circumstances mean that it is not viable to do so now. Some scenarios, especially those facing up to the potential impacts of climate change, make food sovereignty just as important as ensuring a secure and resilient supply of food, and for which core skills, knowledge and infrastructure must be maintained. Moreover, to play our part in mitigating and adapting to climate change, soils must be protected and regenerated: it makes more sense to focus on healing the environment, rather than seeking to maximise production of low value commodities in ways that will induce further damage.

Next steps

Create food, farming and trade policies that improve standards

Here is the problem, which we heard on the UK tour. A US pork farmer produces pork at 84p/kg and his UK counterpart at £1.20/kg. With UK welfare standards, we simply cannot produce to the same price. There is clearly a risk that the production standards of our agricultural produce will get eroded under most Brexit scenarios. The US government has identified our standards as what they call “higher than necessary”. But within Europe, the UK ranks 8th out of 10 countries in the Food Sustainability Index which includes government policies on food waste and loss, agriculture-related conservation and research and nutrition education.

“[A trade deal with] no tariffs with the US would mean 20 percent cheaper pork on the market. Our pigs are reared outside. I’ve been to farms with sow cages and tiny stalls with a stick in as ‘enrichment’. And that was in Europe.” Pork producer, Norfolk

A fall in standards would threaten our countryside, animal welfare and public health, and fly in the face of public expectations. The government must set regulatory baselines which make sure that risk and rewards are shared better, and businesses that deplete public value should pay the costs for doing so, as set out in the government’s Environment Plan. That means, for example, clear labelling rules and pricing that makes sure the polluter pays.

To make sure that UK farmers and other businesses are not disadvantaged, these standards should also apply to imports. In developing and implementing these standards, we should work in partnership with low income countries and with reference to the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The UK has signed up to the SDGs — a collection of 17 global goals, and 169 targets — devised to achieve sustainable development. They are non-binding but represent the best consensus the world has so far, about what is necessary to confront the world’s most pressing challenges.

A 2018 assessment indicates we have achieved too little so far in food and environment related areas. If the UK intends to continue to lead in the world, it is vital that the government considers the potential impact of trade deals on them and publishes the findings. We have said we must not offshore the effects of our own national choices. We must also prioritise trade deals that allow developing countries to grow their own resilient and sustainable economies.

Our ambition is for the UK to lead the world in the quality of our food and environment, the health of our people and animals, and the sustainability and resilience of our economy. This will require us to improve our standards — and it will involve a transition and investment plan to move towards sustainable farming systems in ten years.

Commit to a transition plan for agriculture which meets UK commitments to the SDGs

Farmers and policymakers are understandably braced for the impending transition away from CAP payments. But everyone recognises that an even more significant transition will be necessary, which is the change needed to mitigate and adapt to climate change and other global challenges. Further, the combination of rising costs, public concern and evolving science is expected to restrict access to the fertilisers and pesticides that many farms currently rely on. Unless more active support is available to help farmers manage this change, it will hasten insolvencies and land abandonment, ‘offshoring’ the environmental costs of our food production to other countries.

It’s time for a managed transition plan for agriculture, which rises to the challenges of climate change, at the same time as tackling other pressing issues, such as the decline in soil health, biodiversity, water and air pollution, the low profitability of many farms and rising input costs. This must focus on building both the capacity and the capability to produce food which is a component of healthy diets, grown or raised in harmony with the environment, which reduce our dependence on imported foods and livestock feed grown in environmentally damaging ways, such as soya beans, palm oil and irrigated vegetables from countries suffering from drought or soil degradation. It is also essential that food and farming systems play their part in moving fast towards ‘net zero’ carbon emissions by 2050.

To achieve these objectives, we should aim to:

• Develop food and farming systems which increase diversity, use natural resources sustainably, and provide the best fit with local soils, topography and climate
• Maximise local processing and marketing potential, to reduce transport and fossil fuel use, while helping to maintain rural communities and cultural traditions
• Build soil organic matter, and therefore carbon levels
• Replace nitrogen fertiliser as much as possible by increasing use of forage and grain legumes
• Increase production of fruit, vegetables and nuts, especially where this can be integrated into rotations on livestock and mixed farms, to maintain soil carbon.
• End the use of pesticides and herbicides, to protect biodiversity, where the evidence supports this.
• Reduce livestock levels and prioritise ‘pasture fed’ systems

Crucially, farmers themselves must be fully involved in co-creating the transition plan, confident that such a transformation will get the investment it needs to speed the change towards a radically more sustainable farm system. But for this to happen in a transparent, inclusive and practical way, all kinds of farmers need a say, as well as others, who have an interest in how land is used and its impact on the environment.

“The consumer doesn’t care about the whole ecological story — rotation, hedges, 8 hour grazing cycles. They just want pampered cows.” Dairy Farmer, Norfolk.

Ultimately, farmers may respond by scaling up, or by collaborating with others to achieve efficiencies; by differentiating their offers, adding value and seeking novel or specialist markets, including direct to customers in an attempt to capture a larger share of the retail price; they may cut back on production, and the costs associated with it, and supply environmental goods instead, or reduce input costs to improve productivity that way, or they may choose other ways of contributing to a vibrant rural economy, such as agri-tourism or providing space for business through conversion of buildings to offices.

Such strategies should consider all parts of the food and farming value chain and what will work best in different parts of the UK. For example, without local abattoirs and thriving local markets, diverse local supply chains can’t develop and flourish. But — like any other successful transition (think energy or infrastructure) — proper investment now pays strategic dividends later, in making sure that the UK gets what it wants and needs from this critical sector and mitigates unintended or unforeseen consequences.

For this be effective, government must regulate agricultural advisory services to decouple them from product sales, similar to rules on financial advice. Technical and business advice is essential to farm decision-making, especially in these times of rapid and novel change. When agronomists rely on input sales for income (for example, from pesticides, herbicides, and other chemicals), it creates a structural incentive to oversell products that contribute to the environmental footprint of farming. The government must ensure that the UK has an independent advisory system that is equipped to lead farmers through a successful transition to sustainable agriculture.

Accelerate the decarbonisation of the economy across all sectors

While we talk about climate change in this report, perhaps we should instead be talking about climate breakdown. The message put out by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in a recent report could not be clearer: time is running out. Limiting global warming to an average 1.5C global temperature rise will require “rapid, far-reaching and unprecedented changes in all aspects of society”. This sort of news might be expected to cause public panic and rapid political action but has instead been met largely with silence. We have known about this crisis for decades, and although the Climate Change Act 2008 makes it a UK duty to reduce net carbon emissions by 80 percent by 2050, the act has been criticised for its lack of annual targets and absence of a long-term strategy to ensure advances towards decarbonisation.

The food system is a major contributor to climate change — as well as land use change and the depletion and degradation of natural resources. Its environmental impacts could increase by up to 90 percent between 2010 and 2050 if mitigation measures are not implemented to keep us within the planetary and social boundaries that define a safe and just operating space for humanity. Decarbonising the food system to reduce these impacts will require a ‘synergistic combination of measures’ including dramatic dietary changes (more plant-based diets, less intensive meat consumption), as well as reductions in food waste and loss and improvements in technologies.

There are many elements to decarbonisation (energy generation, transport, agriculture, etc.), and all sectors of the economy should be targeted — but one area that has seen some notable success is divestment. Over $7.17 trillion in assets have been divested from fossil fuels, with pledges to remove funds from coal, oil and gas investments being led by the insurance industry. Churches, pension funds (managed by councils), universities and philanthropic institutions have all started to divest, and targets are being expanded to include industries and businesses that are particular generators of carbon emissions. A significant push to force more companies and funds to divest, paired with industry pledges to ‘keep carbon in the ground’ and ensuring cities and towns become 100 percent renewable could all be implemented in the very near future. How then do we engage more people in more ways to move at a faster pace to fully decarbonise the economy before it’s too late?