United Kingdom-The changes in farming since BSE (Mad Cow) in 1996.

UNITED KINGDOM-FARMING SINCE THE FIRST BSE DISASTER.

is not sensible to consider a vision of the future without being influenced by the past. Throughout the 1990s and leading up to 2001, farming was characterised by the way it seemed to bounce from one crisis to another – BSE, E-coli, salmonella in eggs, classical swine fever, and consumer confidence in farming was low. With the background of a constant state of crisis, the foot and mouth disease outbreak should be seen not as the straw that broke the camel’s back, but as the catalyst for change.

THE CHALLENGE:

Production subsidies had become part of the problem, dividing producers from their markets, distorting prices signals, and masking inefficiency. What was needed was a system that encouraged change and the development of businesses focused on the market – a re-discovery of a professional approach, encouraging enterprise and innovation and looking for new opportunities. There was a need to reconnect farmers with their markets and to encourage them to really focus on business solutions.

THE ENVIRONMENT:

A change of direction was needed, decoupling support from production, moving from paying farmers production subsidies to paying them for public goods.

The broad-and-shallow scheme recommended became the Entry Level Scheme (ELS), and we now have the Higher Level Scheme, the Organic Entry Level Scheme and most recently the Upland Entry Level Scheme, and despite the inevitable teething problems when the schemes were launched, we have been successful, in that currently we have 60 per cent of eligible farms under stewardship management. That is a huge improvement on 2002.

The schemes are not perfect and need to evolve further, and at present I am involved in the set-aside debate. This is a complex issue. Farmers must be able and encouraged to produce food and, if appropriate, fuel, yet equally there is a strong desire not to lose the environmental benefits that set-aside land contributed to, and which could be put under jeopardy if all set-aside land were to return to production.

There is a balance to be found, and that was the challenge that Hilary Benn (Environment Secretary) set me when he asked me to chair the High Level Group. It has been hard work, but we have reached a stage where there are two potential options, which are set out in the Defra consultation that will end on May 27. They are a combined cross-compliance and ELS incentive scheme, and an industry-led voluntary scheme, building on incentives. Which ever option is favoured, it will be important that it can deliver environmental benefits to the appropriate scale, distribution and range. The challenge is to have stewardship schemes in place designed to deliver better-targeted outcomes, building on the enormous progress we have made to date.

We need to look more closely at regional priorities and how best to target and achieve them. One obvious way is to use individual farm environmental plans to deliver the desired outcomes, taking into account each farm system and the region it is in. We have a unique opportunity to demonstrate we can seriously deliver productive farming, and are able to make a major contribution to improving the farmed environment, both from a bio-diversity and a resource-protection point of view.

I believe the voluntary option on the table can deliver the desired benefits, and if farmers get behind it enthusiastically it has the potential to deliver more than the compulsory approach would. Wouldn’t it be good for England to be seen to be leading the way in Europe on how to marry productive farming with real benefits for the environment?

ECONOMIC CHANGE:

There is still significant potential to improve our farming efficiency. After all, no efficient business ever reaches the stage of saying it has reached its efficiency potential. Our competitiveness as individual businesses and as an industry in a global market requires us to pay continual attention to our efficiency.

The world continues to be an increasingly competitive place, and so far as farmers are concerned "no man is an island." For many farm businesses, survival will depend on collaboration. Farmers need to collaborate to reduce costs by sharing labour and machinery and in purchasing their inputs. There is a need to share knowledge and experience and to work together to supply markets. English Farming & Food Partnerships was established as a direct result of a recommendation in the Policy Commission report and is working hard and doing a good job.

ADDING VALUE:

Understanding market needs and introducing products with special features is an opportunity for farmers to help cushion themselves against market volatility. There is value in taking advantage of local pride and enthusiasm with local marketing initiatives, which help tie in the links between producer and consumer – and the feeling of togetherness in supporting a local economy. And we’ve seen fantastic progress. But we still do not have a universally agreed definition for "local food."

In the period from 2003 to 2007 the quality regional food market among small and medium enterprises experienced growth of 30 per cent, and it continues to grow. The regional food groups have made a positive difference, both for sustaining the profitability of the industry and for its development. There remains a huge potential for further progress, and this is the right strategy even in these recessionary times. Local food helps sustain communities, businesses, and is hopefully environmentally sustainable too.

The time is right and the Red Tractor scheme provides a good base from which to mount a national communications plan. We have a great opportunity with a population of 60 million people on our doorstep, whose attitude to farming is growing increasingly positive – very different to what it was in the early 2000s. We need to compete for the consumer’s purse, and we have a good story to tell.

DIVERSIFICATION:

Crucially we can no longer divorce agriculture from the wider rural economy. But too often planning permission is cited as the obstacle to progress. Flexibility and an appreciation of the bigger picture is needed from local planning authorities. A pro-active stance in guiding diversification is a good approach.

There has been a real expansion in farm diversification, and a broader range of initiatives is now emerging, with over half of all farms now having a different source of income. Opportunities are endless. Non-food crops are growing in importance – fuel, energy, pharmaceutical, cloth, and so on. There is nothing new in this, but with greater emphasis on renewable energy and reducing carbon footprints, plant-based fuels are important, although their development rests on good research, technological advance and knowledge transfer.

Environmental planning that includes an element of sacrifice by farmers for the public good should recognise the financial loss involved – and water management should increasingly be seen in the same light as an alternative crop.

Landlords need to be sympathetic and supportive of the need for tenants to have sustainable businesses and support, if possible, opportunities to diversify.

It is essential that the industry attracts enthusiastic new entrants to keep it moving forward, and adapting as it does. But to do this successfully the knowledge or experienced farmers also needs to be harnessed and passed on. If the image of farming is to be changed, and it is to be seen as a vibrant, forward-looking sector, we have to have routes into it for new, younger farmers, bringing in ideas and initiatives and embracing technological change. Initiatives such as share farming and mentoring, vocational training and Fresh Start are all part of such an approach, and should be supported and encouraged.

CAP REFORM AND DECOUPLING:

The UK took the lead and has been among the first Member States implementing complete decoupling of<