Responding to the new food security
challenges in the South West
Research Report
August 2011
Prepared by
Dr Robert Fish*
Dr Allan Butler
Dr Matt Lobley
Professor Michael Winter
Sustainable rural futures
Research Programme 2009-2014
2
Citation
Fish, R., Butler., A, Lobley, M., & Winter, D.M. (2011) Responding to the new food security
challenges in the South West. Research Report for the Sustainable Rural Future Research
Programme (CRPR: University of Exeter)
3
“The solution is about placing land owners or managers right at
the heart of a creative, innovative, entrepreneurial, environment-
centred, food-centred, landscape-centred kind of reformation, if
you like, renaissance. We need a pressure cooker of ideas and
practices which finds the solutions”
Participant at the DCC Food Security Workshop 2010
4
Executive Summary 6
1. Introduction
1.1 Overall aims of report 9
1.2 Context and approach 9
2. Policy and academic context
2.1 Introduction 12
2.2 Definitions and policy framings 12
2.3 Growing more food in the UK? 15
2.4 Food security and the new ‘fundamentals’ 17
2.4.1 Contributing to wider public health agendas 17
2.4.2. Minimising environmental impacts of farming and reducing fossil fuel
dependency
18
2.4.3 Ensuring a fair price for producers and consumers 19
2.5 Summary 20
3. What do farmers make of the food security agenda?
3.1 Introduction 21
3.2 Methodological approach and context 21
3.2.1 Approach to extensive survey 21
3.2.2 Approach to deliberative poll 22
3.3 Understandings of food security (i): insights from extensive survey 24
3.4 Understandings of food security (ii): insights from deliberative polling 28
3.4.1 General findings of the deliberative poll: first round 28
3.4.2 Farmer discussion groups 30
Producing more food in the UK? Incentives and priorities 31
Producing more food in the UK? Sustainable intensification 33
Producing more food in the UK? Building domestic resilience 37
3.4.3 General findings of the deliberative poll: second round 38
3.5 Summary 39
Responding to food security.....
Contents
5
4. Priorities for research and policy
4.1 Introduction 41
4.2 Findings from the workshop 41
4.2.1 General issues arising 41
4.2.2 Enabling the land based sector to respond to the challenges of food security 42
Building the scientific/research evidence base 44
Fostering the skills and knowledge agenda 44
Developing payments for ecosystem services 45
Advocacy of local food/procurement within the public sector 46
4.2.3 Other remarks 47
4.3 Summary: Next steps for the programme
4.5.1 Understanding better the food economy in Devon 46
4.5.2 Knowledge Exchange at the North Wyke Farm Platform 47
4.5.3 Payments for Ecosystem Services 48
4.5.4 Food security and young farmers 49
Figures
Figure 1 - Ecosystem services: general framework (after MA, 2005) 10
Figure 2 - Variations on a theme: some definitions of food security 13
Figure 3 - Food Security equals Food policy? 14
Figure 4 - Deliberative Poll on Food Security: March 2011 23
Tables
Table 1 - Farmer Understanding of Food Security 29
Table 2 - The association between farm size and farmer understanding of food
security
29
Table 3 - The association between farm type and farmer understanding of food
security
29
Table 4 - The association between geographical sales orientation and farmer
understanding of food security
29
Table 5 - Key propositions of deliberative poll and summary results
30
6
Overall context
• The purpose of this research report is to characterise and assess the nature of the
‘food security’ challenge and its relationship to futures for farming in South West. It
brings together findings from research and knowledge exchange activities that have
been conducted in the context of the Sustainable Rural Futures research
programme. (Nov 2009 – October 2014).
• The overall aim of this programme is to help secure a sustainable future for the
agro-food sector and land-based rural economic activities in Devon and the wider
South West area, and is supported financially by Devon County Council and the
University of Exeter.
An ecosystem services approach
• The research we present in this report is designed to sit within a wider synthesising
research agenda for the programme based on the framework of ecosystems services. This
framework, which is now being adopted in a wide range of policy and decision making
contexts, enables us to examine future possibilities for sustainable rural land use in the
region in a critical and integrated way.
• In this report food is understood to be a “provisioning ecosystem service” that has to be
managed in relation to other benefits derived from the natural world, such as water
quality, carbon sequestration, soil formation, disease control and recreation.
Food security - key issues
• Food security is a key concern of emerging UK food policy and may challenge
prevailing wisdoms about the meaning of sustainable rural land use.
• Food security is often interpreted as first and foremost about driving up global food
production to meet rising and changing patterns of demands.
• For some food security is a market opportunity through a potential contribution to
the world food basket. For others it is a moral undertaking: a way of delivering on
international obligations – such as the Millennium Development goals.
• Debates about UK self-sufficiency have also emerged. The long term picture of UK’s
self-sufficiency in food is one of decline. The spike in world food prices between
2006-2008 reinforced concerns about stability and resilience in national food
supplies.
• This view of food security may challenge a multifunctional/public goods model of
the countryside. It is also a context in which debates about improving yields
through scientific and technological fixes are being reasserted.
Responding to food security.....
Executive Summary
7
• In a wider sense, food security is about producing more food in ways thatcontribute
to: broader public health agendas; safe & nutritious food,; active lifestyles;
minimise environmental impacts of farming; reduce fossil fuel dependencies and
ensure a fair price for both producers and consumers.
Farmer understandings of the food security agenda
• Empirical research was conducted by the programme team to consider how
farmers infer different meanings from the idea of ‘food security’ and how key
propositional claims embedded in food security policy relate to underpinning
farmer ‘world views’.
• Findings were based on i) an extensive survey of 1543 farmers in the South West
Area; ii) a novel methodological experiment in ‘deliberative polling’ undertaken
with a group of 33 farmers in Mid Devon and iii) a survey of the farming community
at a Young Farmers Debate held at the Devon County Show.
• The research highlights the essentially varied ways in which farmers are making
sense of food security discourse, and points to some discrepancies between policy
appeals to food security and the values and priorities of those seeking to reconcile
the idea of ‘sustainable intensification’ with a viable farming future.
• The extensive survey asked the open question “what do you understand by the
term food security?” which was put to respondents with no accompanying
information or explanation. In total 838 farmers (54%) responded to this question:
o 48% of these respondents associated food security with security of food
supplies: 20% defined food security in terms of the reliability or guaranteed
nature of supplies regardless of origin; many others (28%) explained their
understanding of food security in terms of improving self-sufficiency.
o Over 35% of farmers associated the term food security with issues of food
safety, quality and traceability.
o A much smaller group - 7% - put forward more complex definitions based
on multiple criteria, often combining quality, affordability and sustainability.
• Farmers’ understanding of food security is at least partially conditioned by their
own farming situation:
o Farmers defining food security in terms of food safety farmed significantly
smaller holdings on average.
o The operators of the largest farms were more likely to see it as an issue of
guaranteed supply or self-sufficiency.
o Farms with significant livestock enterprises were much more likely to be
operated by farmers that emphasised the food safety and traceability aspects
of food security.
8
o Those respondents with a local market orientation were much more likely to
interpret food security in terms of food safety & traceability and less likely to
see it as an issue of guaranteed supply.
• The farmer discussion groups revealed that many farmers understand this
challenge in terms of historical precedent. Parallels were often drawn from living
memory: for instance the experience of war-time food production and the idea of
‘dig for victory’.
• Farmers generally accepted the realities of the food security challenge. A general
emphasis of discussion was to critically interrogate the underpinning assumptions
and priorities that guide political and economic responses to it.
• A key message emerging from discussions was that, while many farmers align
themselves with the productive goals of this agenda, there is fundamental concern
that current arrangements for food supply are predicated on a system that is
jeopardizing the very systems of local agriculture that can rise to the challenge of
sustainable intensification. However, as emerging trends in food security begin to
unravel some viewed prospects for the future of agriculture in the UK, and regional
livestock agriculture in particular, as potentially quite positive.
Enabling the land based sector to respond to the challenges of food security
• For policy makers in the region food security raised fundamental challenges for the
future of the regional land economy. There are a number of percieved “limits to
production” including: high dependency on phosphates and oil; soil degradation;
climate change; market competition for non-food uses of land and poor market
incentives to produce.
• Rising to the challenge of food security requires fundamental innovation rather
than incremental change. The overriding theme was of the requirement to marry
together the need to expand productive capacity in the region with environmental
goals. Responding to issues of food security was about fostering in Devon and the
wider South West an “environmental economy” or “environmental land use
economy”.
• Key areas for innovation involved:
o Building the scientific/research evidence base: It was argued that the UK
could become a global leader in developing new methods of managing
agricultural and land resources and that the South West could be a key part
of this.
o Fostering the skills and knowledge agenda: Farmers and others in the land
based sector should be supported so that they could maintain and develop
the skills needed to adapt and thrive to the new food security imperative.
9
o Developing payments for ecosystem services: There is need to develop
mechanisms that can better capture the value of the wider (non-food)
benefits of agriculture and reflect these in farmer “bottom lines”.
• Aspects of these stakeholder recommendations are being taken forward in the
wider research programme.
10
1.1 Overall aims of report
The purpose of this research report is to characterise and assess the nature of the ‘food
security’ challenge and its relationship to futures for farming in the South West. It brings
together findings from research and knowledge exchange activities that have been
conducted in the context of the Sustainable Rural Futures research programme. The
programme is designed to help secure a sustainable future for the agro-food sector and
land-based rural economic activities in Devon and the wider South West area, and is
supported financially by Devon County Council and the University of Exeter.
Emerging policy imperatives for food security provide a context in which issues of regional
and sub-regional food production can be critically examined. This has provided an
important early emphasis to the work of the research programme. This report is the
culmination of an initial phase of research. It encompasses materials from desk top review,
interviews with policy makers and survey and group discussions with farmers. In this
section we contextualise the research in the context of wider programme aims and
approaches, and present an overview of the approaches deployed specifically in support of
this strand of work.
1.2 Context and approach
The research we present in this report is designed to sit within a wider synthesising
research agenda for the programme based on the framework of ecosystems services (See
Figure 1). This framework, which is now being adopted in a wide range of policy and
decision making contexts, enables us to examine future possibilities for sustainable rural
land use in the region in a critical and integrated way. Ecosystem services have been
classified into:
• Provisioning services: the products obtained from ecosystems, including food,
fibre, fuel, genetic resources, biochemicals, natural medicines, pharmaceuticals,
ornamental resources and fresh water;
• Regulating services: the benefits obtained from the regulation of ecosystem
processes, including air quality regulation, climate regulation, water regulation,
erosion regulation, water purification, disease regulation, pest regulation, pollination,
natural hazard regulation;
• Cultural services: the non-material benefits people obtain from ecosystems through
spiritual enrichment, cognitive development, reflection, recreation and aesthetic
experiences – thereby taking account of landscape values.
Provisioning, regulating and cultural services are what are commonly referred to as final
services, that is, services directly consumed by humans in order to derive well being
benefits,
Section 1
Introduction
11
Figure 1 - Ecosystem services: general framework (after MA, 2005)
such as the consumption of clean drinking water or nutritious food. In addition the
framework also identifies a further categorization:
• Supporting services: services that are essential to the maintenance of the integrity,
resilience and functioning of ecosystems and therefore necessary for the production
of all other ecosystem services. Examples of supporting services include soil
formation, photosynthesis, primary production, nutrient cycling and water cycling.
In general terms, many of those now utilising an ecosystems services framework tend to
focus on the management of provisioning, regulating and cultural services on the
assumption that, by focusing on final services, supporting services are indirectly accounted
for/valued in decision making. In this report food is understood to be a “provisioning
ecosystem service” that has to be managed in relation to other benefits derived from the
natural world.
In methodological terms the geographical focus of the programme’s activities is region
wide, though a particular focus of empirical inquiry is on the area of countryside located
Provisioning Services
Services extracted from ecosystems as
‘products’
For example:
food, fuel, fibre, fresh water Supporting services
Ecosystem services
necessary for the
production of all other
ecosystem services.
For example:
biomass production
soil formation
nutrient cycling
Regulating services
Services that provide benefits by regulating
ecosystem processes
For example:
soil erosion and fertility, carbon
sequestration
flood control
Cultural services
Services providing non-material benefits from
ecosystems
For example:
spiritual enrichment, cognitive development,
reflection, recreation and aesthetic
experiences
Constituents of human
well-being
Ecosystem services provide
benefits to human well
being:
For example:
Security
Livelihoods
Shelter
Health
Social cohesion
12
between Exmoor, Dartmoor and Bodmin Moor: the “land between the moors”. Techniques
for research are social-scientific rather than ecological and include:
• Desk top analysis and review of key debates in the policy arena drawing on
discussion and evidence based resources in the academic and grey literature;
• Interview and questionnaire survey techniques to examine the values, attitudes,
insights or experiences of stakeholders working within the practical and policy
contexts of land management;
• Participatory research techniques, based on qualitative discussion and debate among
stakeholders;
The programme’s work on food security follows this three-fold methodological structure
and combines both general regional insight and work between the moors. Thus in the
report we present:
1. A review of the policy context to food security (Section 2). In this review we
consider definitions that underpin policy framings of the food security debate and
outline some of the recent efforts of UK policy makers to develop strategic policy for
fostering sustainable food and farming systems. The review goes on to explain how
food security? is often interpreted as an issue of how to meet growing and changing
patterns of demand in the light of changing social, economic and environmental
realities. In the UK, this argument finds expression not only in the context of national
contributions to global food availability, but also as a debate surrounding national
self-determination over food supplies in an era of increasing market uncertainty.
2. Explore prevailing attitudes to food security amongst stakeholders (Sections 3
and 4). This research involved direct engagement with the farming community to
assess how different land managers and policy makers understand and engage with
the issue of food security based on exposure to current research evidence and policy
developments. This was based on a combination of extensive and deliberative
surveys. In these sections we highlight the essentially varied ways in which farmers
and policy makers make sense of the food security agenda and its implications for a
viable farming future.
The implications of this work are then considered in the context of follow-on research for
the programme.
13
2.1 Introduction
The idea that prospects for more sustainable systems of land use turn, to a significant
extent, on addressing problems of food insecurity, is a key motif of emerging UK food
policy. Policy makers and practitioners seeking to wed futures for rural land to ideas of
sustainability ignore this new imperative at their peril, for it is one in which prevailing
wisdom regarding the meaning and functions of rural land are being gradually recast.
Hitherto, this new agenda has mostly engaged the national and international policy and
science communities, but there are potentially important local policy implications for
land use planning, local economic development, the delivery of ecosystem services, and
renewable energy, as well as policies that directly impact on agriculture and food. Thus
while any of the drivers of change may be global or national in nature their implications
will be felt differently in different places. It is important therefore to introduce a local
dimension to this analysis. For instance, in the context of Devon agriculture we know
that there is a:
• long term trend of declining labour (but recent increase in part-time labour)
• continuing loss of dairy farms (but at slower rate than rest of region)
• marginal (downward) change in dairy production levels
• long term trend of increasing farm size coupled with a large and expanding small
farm/lifestyle sector
• frequently low and volatile incomes but with considerable variation by sector
• continued high dependency on public funds: around 50% of Farm Business
Income on Devon’s farms is derived from the Single Payment Scheme. Agri-
environmental payments contribute an additional 13%.
• significant organic sector: Devon has more organic farms, more land under
certified organic production and more land under conversion than any other
county in England and Wales
• developing and vibrant ‘local food’ culture
The purpose of this section is to provide a context in which different futures for rural
land use in Devon and the wider South West can be assessed in the light of this
emerging food security agenda.
Section 2
Policy & Academic Context
14
2.2 Definitions and policy framings
Food security is a multidimensional and malleable term within the policy and academic
literature , tending to incorporate appeals to one or more of the following themes:
1. Availability the amount of food a given unit (household, region, nation,
planet) has at its disposal to consume;
2. Allocation the mechanisms governing where, when, and how food can
be physically accessed by consumers;
3. Value the capacity of a unit to buy food at a fair and affordable
price;
4. Quality the nutritional benefit and safety of the type of food
available;
5. Sustainability the environmental impact of food production.
Different configurations and combinations of these themes have been developed over
time. The Department of Environment Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) describes food
security as a situation in which, “consumers hav[e] access at all times to sufficient, safe
and nutritious food for an active and healthy life at affordable prices” (Defra 2008: 2).
This definition chimes with that of widely asserted definition of the Food and
Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, though many variants on the term exist
(Figure 2).
Figure 2 - Variations on a theme: some definitions of food security
“Availability at all times of adequate world supplies of basic food-stuffs..., to sustain a
steady expansion of food consumption . . . and to offset fluctuations in production and
prices" (UN, 1975).
“A basket of food, nutritionally adequate, culturally acceptable, procured with human
dignity and enduring over time.” (Oshaug, 1985)
"The ability . . . to satisfy adequately food consumption needs for a normal and healthy
life at all times" (Sarris, 1989).
"Access to food, adequate in quantity and quality, to fulfill all nutritional requirements
for all household members throughout the year" (Jonsson and Toole, 1991).
“Food security exists when all people, at all times, have physical and economic access to
sufficient, safe and nutritious food to meet their dietary needs and food preferences for
an active and healthy life” FAO (2003)
In a UK context strategic policy work on food security has emerged in recent years to
inform some of the key tenets of the government’s overarching vision for a sustainable
15
food system (Defra, 2010a). The history of this vision, and the role of food
securitywithin it, can be traced back to the government’s Strategy for Sustainable
Farming and Food (SFFS), (Defra, 2002) and the Policy Commission on the Future of
farming and Food (PCFF, 2002). The political momentum for this work was, of course,
in the economic and social fall out of the foot and mouth outbreak of 2001 and it is
perhaps not surprising that only one passing reference to the term food security is
made in either document. Yet the importance of this work lies in the way it served to
promulgate and cement the view that, as part of the process of ‘reconnecting’ farmers to
the market, the security of UK food supplies lay in the fate of globalised and liberalized
trading regimes.
It is precisely because of this view that Defra, in outlining how they would take the SSFF
forward in the context of CAP reform (Defra, 2006a), embarked on an evidence and
analysis paper for examining food security in the context of emerging UK farming and
food priorities (Defra, 2006b). This paper reasserted the view that “as a rich country,
open to trade, the UK is well placed to access sufficient foodstuffs through a well-
functioning world market” [Ibid: iii] The report was prescient insofar as it was
published during the onset of a significant period of volatility in markets for food, with
the FAO Food Price Index reaching a record 219 points in June 20081 (Ambler-Edwards
et al., 2009), though it could exemplify nothing of these emerging trends in its analysis.
1 Although prices fell by the end of 2009 the FAO Food Price Index has since reached a subsequent high of
238 in February 2011 reinforcing the view that we have entered a period of higher but also more volatile
prices.
Food Matters: towards a strategy
for the 21st Century
Ensuring the UK’s Food Security in a
Changing World
Food Matters: 1 year on UK food security assessment
Government’s new food strategy:
Food 2030
UK food security assessment
(Updated)
July 2008
Aug. 2009
Jan 2010
Indicators for sustainable food
systems/food security
Figure 3 - Food Security equals Food policy?
16
Such developments have since provided an important backdrop within which the idea
of food security has been re-invigorated as a policy and political imperative, both
globally and in terms of its particular implications for the security and resilience of the
UK food system (e.g. Ambler-Edwards et al., 2009; Bridge and Johnson; 2009; EFRA,
2009; HM Government/Defra 2009). This imperative has been propelled by debate both
within and beyond government and spans the political spectrum. For example, in 2008
the Treasury assessed the origins and implications of these trends as part of its ‘vision
for stable, secure and sustainable global markets’ (HM Treasury, 2008) Similarly, Defra
published a discussion paper ‘[e]nsuring the UK’s Food Security in a Changing World’
(Defra, 2008); essentially a follow-on paper to the 2006 publication written on the back
of these market developments. Importantly, both these analyses coincided with the
publication of the Cabinet Office’s Strategy Unit’s report Food Matters , an “across the
board” analysis of government approaches to food policy (PMSU, 2008: i) and which
positioned food security as one of its four strategic priorities for food
policy. It is this report that set in train a further round of strategic policy work through
which the current vision ‘Food 2030’ has emerged (Defra 2010a). Notably, Defra’s
subsequent assessments of UK food security have continued to shadow the published
outcomes of this policy work, (see Defra 2009a/b; Defra 2010a/b) and indeed, it is
significant that the formation of indicators for assessing progress towards a sustainable
food system share premises embedded in assessments of food security (Defra, 2010c)
(See Figure 3 above)
2.3 Growing more food in the UK?
While food security has many facets to it, for many the term is equated with the issue of
producing more food in order to meet rising and changing patterns of demand. There
are global and national drivers for this view.
Global drivers centre on five key propositions:
• as global average temperatures rise the suggestion is that there will be declining
yields in warmer and low latitude areas of the world, reducing the ability of
those parts of the world to feed themselves.
• the world’s population is also growing. It is commonly asserted that production
may need to double by 2050 to feed a projected world population of 9 billion
(although the Soil Association has recently challenged this thinking).
• the growing conversion of food staples into biofuels in response to rising oil
prices allied to many state based incentives to reduce national dependency on
finite resources carries with it the implication that food supplies may decline in
the long term and prices will rise.
17
• growing populations in newly industrialising countries are leading to changing
patterns of demand. Some have written of a “nutrition transition” in which the
rising middle classes of countries such as India and China, reduce dependency on
grain based diets in favour of those based on meat, oil, fat and sugar.
• growing demands on scarce resources such as water, oil, and phosphates.
Food security is thus often centred on the question: how will the world be able to feed
itself?
For wealthier countries located in colder and higher latitude areas of the world what is
particularly significant in all of this is that, under a projected 30C rise in global mean
temperature, production yields can be expected to increase. The UK is thus implicated
in this by its potential contribution to the world food basket in terms of commodities
which can exploit its natural advantages – potatoes, cereal, and sugar, and to some
extent meat – to meet rising demand elsewhere. This idea is reinforced by the view that
many areas of the United States and Australia, countries historically supporting world
markets in terms of grain production – are now jeopardized by the same repercussions
of climate change affecting poorer nations
Food security is therefore an issue that embeds national economic rationales into a
deeper moral undertaking: at one and the same time a way of delivering on
international obligations – such as the Millennium Development goals - and realizing
new opportunities within the global market.
National drivers centre on three key propositions:
• while current levels of UK self-sufficiency are considered by Defra “pretty normal
by historical standards”, the long term picture of UK’s self-sufficiency in food is
one of decline with the fruit and vegetable sectors typically cited as major areas
of food system weakness.
• demographic projections in the UK increasingly conclude that populations will
rise in the light of net in-migration, the ONS suggesting that the UK population
could reach 71.6 million by 2033. This has served to re-open debate about the
sufficiency of national resources across all sectors of the economy.
• increasing concern about the stability and resilience of national food supplies,
particularly in the context of absorbing unanticipated ‘shocks’ in commodity
markets. The recent spike in world food prices has not only served to
demonstrate the political and social importance of affordable food, but potential
vulnerabilities in a UK food system built on global interdependencies.
18
These global and national drivers have provided fertile ground for the argument that UK
food production must be driven up. It is for this mix of reasons that the UK’s Food 2030
strategy argues that: “[w]e need to increase food production to feed a growing world
population [and] “[w]e want UK agriculture to produce as much food as possible”.
There are a number of consequences that flow from this particular view of food
insecurity, of which two stand out.
First, for the first time in many years this view is starting to challenge ideas of a
multifunctional/ public goods model of the countryside: the idea that as some academic
commentators recently described it, the “balance has been tipped too recklessly
towards environmental sustainability and away from food production”. The idea of
nature conservation as a prime policy objective (agri-environment) is now under
scrutiny.
Second, this view has provided a context in which debates about improving yields
through scientific and technological ‘fixes’ have been reasserted. The use of modern
biotechnological techniques are increasingly presented as a fundamental part of food
system futures. This not only includes the calls to underpin the capacities of food
systems through techniques of genetic modification, but also the application of nano-
technologies in agricultural systems to secure greater productivity and efficiency gains.
2.4 Food security and the new ‘fundamentals’
Yet food security is not just about producing more food, but about producing food in
ways that deliver on wider goals of sustainability. Among these include:
• contributing to wider public health agendas: safe & nutritious food; active
lifestyles.
• minimising environmental impacts of farming and reducing fossil fuel
dependencies.
• ensuring a fair price for both producers and consumers.
These are what some have termed the new “fundamentals” that characterise food
security and present opportunities as well as challenges for patterns of sustainable land
use in Devon. We consider each of these in turn.
2.4.1 Contributing to wider public health agendas
For some a significant strand of debate is that global crises in food supply are unlikely to
be resolved if we continue to follow existing patterns of food consumption. For many
the issue is as much about how to change patterns of consumption as it is about
responding to emerging demand. Just as malnutrition has long been cited as a
fundamental challenge facing many developing world countries, the issue of weight gain
19
and the prevalence of obese, often nutritionally inadequate, populations in the
developed world has also been well documented.
The transition away from grain based diets to those governed by consumption of meat
and dairy products, as well as processed commodities high in sugar content and
saturated fat, is considered significant when accompanied by increasingly sedentary
lifestyles, for a range of long term implications for human health: increased risk of
coronary heart disease, cancer, diabetes and strokes. The implications for public health
expenditure are considered significant. In the context of changing patterns of land use
and agricultural production this concern has two key manifestations:
First, it has resulted in a renewed concern to promote growth in the fruit and vegetable
sectors. Domestic production of fruit and vegetables in the UK was estimated to meet
only 37 per cent of demand in 2008 and only 11% of fresh fruit and 58% of fresh
vegetables consumed in the UK were produced here. At one level the World Health
Organization’s campaign to promote the health benefits of consuming five 80g portions
of fruit and vegetables every day is well established in the UK, but mobilizing
populations to respond to these preventative measures is also about addressing
systemic weaknesses in the production and distribution of these foods to UK markets. It
is for this reason that in October 2009 a Task Force was set up by Defra to assist growth
in these sectors. In food supply terms these developments may serve to increase
resilience of UK food systems for it implies less dependency on imports and therefore
less exposure to market shocks.
Second, it has resulted in renewed interest in promoting meat consumption with a
leaner fat profile. Were this idea to be translated into real dietary patterns markets for
intensively produced red meat may be squeezed at the expense of poultry, while new
markets for pasture based livestock, based on lower input and extensive systems of land
use may emerge. Some, for instance, have written of the growth of markets in ‘naturally
embedded food products’; meat and cheese commodities that utilise grassland
biodiversity to enhance product quality and value. That these pasture-based systems
are also highly valued in amenity terms is of related significance. Moves towards less
sedentary, more active, lifestyles is opening up these landscapes to new recreational
and leisure opportunities and fostering the idea of a natural health service.
2.4.2. Minimising environmental impacts of farming and reducing fossil fuel
dependency
A consistent thread within the wider food security debate concerns the need to foster
patterns of land use that can simultaneously limit the effects of agriculture on wider
climate change processes and reduce dependencies on natural resources - finite
20
resources such as oil and phosphates and renewable resources such as clean water.
Both are serving to reinforce the view among some that new models of farming and land
use will be needed. There are two key expressions of this.
First, this has led to calls to foster lower-input farming systems, partly because these
systems can reinforce wider public health agendas but also because of the wider
benefits they provides: protecting against losses in soil quality, water resources and
biodiversity as well as supporting positive feedbacks on climate change processes, such
as retaining, enhancing and creating carbon sinks, and sustaining the productive
capacities of land. The need for low energy agriculture may take surprising forms – e.g.
perennial fruit/nut crops.
Second, the idea of local food networks has been put forward as a way in which
producers and consumers can be ‘reconnected’ to positive environmental and economic
effect: reducing environmental foot prints, supporting local economic prosperity,
acquiring health benefits, propagating biodiversity, promoting animal welfare; as well
as understanding food provenance.
However, there is a danger that lower inputs and more localised farming systems are
confined to the more prosperous parts of the world, stimulated by both consumer
demand and regulation. It is possible to envisage a future for Devon agriculture very
much along these lines. But might this lead to pressures for intensification on land
elsewhere in the world? It may well do so if the more environmentally friendly farming
systems are also less productive. Thus the challenge for many parts of the world,
including Devon, as set out so well in the Royal Society (2009) report Reaping the
Benefits, , is to achieve “sustainable intensification”: “the production of more food on a
sustainable basis with minimal use of additional land. … we define intensive agriculture
as being knowledge-, technology-, natural capital- and land-intensive. The intensity of
use of non-renewable inputs must in the long term decrease.” (ibid 2009: 46)
2.4.3 Ensuring a fair price for producers and consumers
Both the agendas above carry with them implications for ideas of developing markets
for agricultural goods and services that can ensure a fair price for both producers and
consumers. For instance, cultivating markets for food based on lower input and
extensive systems of land use results in higher prices for food products, perhaps
representing the true cost of environmentally sustainable farming. Yet if the cost of
producing food were to remain on an upward trajectory, which some suggest it will,
higher-end value products within the meat sector may be impacted negatively, reducing
growth in the sector and having repercussions for marginal areas.
21
Evidence is suggesting, for instance, that as food prices increased between 2006-8
consumers reacted by turning to cheaper foods with dubious health credentials (sugar,
fat and salt laden) and that health enhancing foods with strong associations with
sustainability have been impacted as people seek to reduce their budget expenditures.
The point is that in a scenario of high food prices there is an underlying need to drive
unit costs down. Industrialised and concentrated models of food production, such as in
the livestock sector, may seem problematic in the wider context of sustainable
development, but underlying patterns of demand across large segments of growing and
potentially less affluent populations, both in the UK and elsewhere, may still support
growth in them. While there is unlikely to be a sudden return to ‘all-out production’,
pockets of intensification will occur, especially on better land.
Another issue is the relative power of both producers and consumers to other actors
along the food chain. Supermarkets play a particularly significant role in determining
the price producers receive and consumers pay. Their economic weight means that they
can drive down the price they pay for food supplied by producers and processors, and
they play a regulatory role as they often demand more specific qualities of products
than governments.
2.5 Summary
The food security debate raises many questions about the future of farming in Devon.
Many of the drivers of change may be global or national in nature but their implications
will be felt differently in different places. Therefore it is important to introduce a local
dimension to this analysis. In the following section we begin this process by reporting
on empirical research exploring attitudes to the food security agenda among the
farming community.
22
3.1 Introduction
Agricultural uses of land are key contexts in which emerging agendas for food security
will find their practical expression, yet we know very little about how these agendas are
being understood by the farming public in the South West.
This third section reports on two components of our recent research examining
farmers’ understanding of food security. First, we present some descriptive findings
from an extensive postal survey of 1543 farm enterprises across the South West region,
detailing the way farmers interpret the term ‘food security’ and drawing out some basic
patterns of response according to enterprise and farmer characteristics. This provides
the context for a more in-depth analysis of farmer attitudes to key premises of the food
security debate based on a process of deliberative polling. This second element of the
research involved a group of 33 farmers living and working in the area of mid-Devon
responding to different propositions associated with the idea of food security before
and after a process of extended group discussion.
By deploying these techniques the paper is able to draw out some qualitative and
quantitative conclusions about the way farmers are reacting to, and reasoning about,
the food security imperative. The research highlights the essentially varied ways in
which farmers are making sense of food security discourse, and points to some
discrepancies between policy appeals to food security and the values and priorities of
those seeking to reconcile the idea of ‘sustainable intensification’ with a viable farming
future.
3.2 Methodological approach and context
3.2.1 Approach to extensive survey
A postal survey was conducted in April 2010 using a structured questionnaire format.
Its general purpose was to assess current states and trends of farm households and
businesses and their enterprise characteristics and behaviour, as part of a longitudinal
research process in the South West. The questionnaire was also designed to elicit
attitudinal information on emerging farming issues. This included the open question
“what do you understand by the term food security?” and was put to respondents with
no accompanying information or explanation.
The questionnaire was sent to a sample 4182 farmers drawn from commercial
directories, such as Yellow Pages and Thomson Local and a database of organic farmers.
After a number of adjustments to exclude ‘farms’ with no evidence of business activity,
the final number of useable responses to the survey was 1543. Overall, this represents a
Section 3
What do farmers make of the food security agenda?
23
response rate of 39%, although this varies. For example, the response rate from organic
farmers was 44% and that of uplands farmers was 36%. Overall, the farmers
responding to the survey account for 5% of all farm holdings in the SW and 11%
(211,855 ha) of farmland.2
The survey captured a good range of farming situations in the region. For instance, in
terms of farm type 26% of respondents operated dairy farms, 39% livestock farms and
35% operated mixed farms. In terms of farm size, just under 54% of respondents
operated farms of less than 100 ha, although a significant minority (20.6%) controlled
farms of 200 ha or greater. Turning to the farmers themselves, with a mean and median
age of around 57 those in the SW survey are similar to the national average3. Most
(62%) ran the business as some form of family partnership, while 28% described
themselves as sole proprietors. Just over 5% described their role as being that of
Director or Manager. The vast majority of the respondents came from established
farming families, with only 19% being the first generation of their family to farm in this
part of the country. Of those 48% had previously farmed elsewhere. The majority (63%)
of respondents had diversified their activities, with the most commonly occurring
diversified enterprises being tourist accommodation and long term residential lets. As a
result of diversification and other sources of income (e.g. savings and benefits),
agriculture contributed an average of 67% to the household income of respondents.
3.2.2 Approach to deliberative poll
Deliberative polls involve participants being surveyed individually about an issue
before and after a process of extended group discussion. The general approach is useful
in the way it allows explanatory narratives about food security to be inferred in a way
that the structured survey approach cannot. That is to say, like an interview or group
discussion process the technique enables the researcher to explore the underlying
reasoning behind the descriptive outputs of the survey. The specific novelty of the
process arises in the way it allows researchers to chart whether and how views change
about food security discourse when exposed to wider interpretations of issue. That is,
by way of formal information being introduced to the deliberative process by those
hosting the poll, as well as through the assertions and arguments of the participants
themselves. In other words, through the process it is possible to chart the extent to
which particular views about food security are stable or not.
2 The Defra June survey records the number of holdings. The SW survey data records farm businesses. It is likely that
some businesses consist of more than one holding.
3 Data from the Farm Business Survey (FBS) data builder facility
(http://www.farmbusinesssurvey.co.uk/DataBuilder/) indicates that in 2009/10 the average age of principal
farmers in the survey was 55.3
24
Figure 4. Deliberative Poll on Food Security: March 2011
25
Our deliberative poll involved a small group of farmers voting electronically (and
anonymously) on a number of key propositions surrounding issues of food security
before and after group discussion. This included propositions about issues of
production put to respondents in the survey as well as addressing wider concerns. The
poll was located in the sample area for the extensive survey. It took place in mid-Devon
between Exmoor and Dartmoor National Parks. One hundred farmers from this area
were invited to participate in this study. They were selected randomly from within a
five mile radius of where the event was held. Invitations by letter recruited 33
participants in total. The event took place in the evening and lasted four hours (see
Figure 4). A mix of different farming systems and farmers were represented. There was
an approximately even split between dairy enterprises, cattle and sheep enterprises and
mixed farms at the event (together accounting for over 90% of participants). Just under
a quarter of participants were organic farmers. There was a good mix of farm sizes; just
under half were 200 acres or less. The age profile was more skewed: over 80% were
over the age of 50.
3.3 Understanding of food security (i): insights from extensive survey
In the extensive survey a total of 838 farmers (54%) offered an explanation of their
understanding of the term food security. Of the remainder most left the question
unanswered whilst 35 stated that they did not know what food security meant. From
the 54% that offered a description of their understanding of the term it is possible to
identify a range of different understandings of food security (see Table 1). It is apparent
from Table 1 that, to an extent, the different understandings of food security held by
farmers mirror some of the different ways in which the term has been described in
policy circles. For instance, just under 20% defined food security in terms of the
reliability or guaranteed nature of supplies regardless of origin such as:
“Certainty of food availability for feeding people into the future”.
“The production of enough food globally to feed the world population.”
“Ensuring secure supplies from a variety of sources and systems.”
Many others (28%) explained their understanding of food security in terms of
improving self-sufficiency:
“The production of food that can be produced in the UK to reduce the need to
import such food.”
“Being able to be less dependent as a country on IMPORTED FOOD.” (emphasis in
original)
“Britain to be self -sufficient in food and not influenced by external matters.”
26
Table 1: Farmer Understanding of Food Security
Food security defined in terms
of:
% of respondents offering
explanation of food
security
Guaranteed supply 19.5
Self-sufficiency 28.2
Safety, quality & traceability 35.4
Access & affordability 1.2
Multiple criteria 7.3
Other 8.5
Total 100.0%
Table 2: The association between farm size and farmer understanding of food
security
Farmer understanding of food security
Farm size Guaranteed
supply
Self-
sufficiency
Safety, quality
& traceability
Total
Very small (< 25 ha) 20.9 40.3 38.8 100.0%
Small (25 <50 ha) 14.3 29.7 56.0 100.0%
Medium (50< 100 ha) 19.7 27.9 52.5 100.0%
Large (100 <200 ha) 22.3 38.3 39.4 100.0%
Very large ( = > 200 ha) 35.4 36.0 26.6 100.0%
Table 3: The association between farm type and farmer understanding of food
security
Farmer understanding of food security
Farm Type Guaranteed
supply
Self-
sufficiency
Safety, quality
& traceability
Total
Dairy 17.7 34.9 47.4 100.0%
Livestock 22.4 30.8 46.8 100.0%
Arable 38.6 27.3 34.1 100.0%
Pigs and poultry 25.0 12.5 62.5 100.0%
Mixed 27.7 39.1 33.2 100.0%
Other (including
horticulture)
22.2 38.9 38.9 100.0%
Table 4: The association between geographical sales orientation and farmer
understanding of food security
Farmer understanding of food security
Main focus of sales
Guaranteed
supply
Self-
sufficiency
Safety, quality
& traceability
Total
Local 18.8 33.7 47.6 100.0%
Regional 20.4 32.5 47.1 100.0%
National 30.4 33.9 35.7 100.0%
27
A much smaller group (7%) put forward more complex definitions based on multiple
criteria, often combining quality, affordability and sustainability, such as:
“The ability to provide adequate good quality food without depleting the world’s
resources whilst maintaining or improving soil quality and the environment.”
“To provide a supply of food for the UK population at prices that are affordable
and in a sustainable way.”
Several respondents in this category, whilst identifying multiple facets of food security,
also emphasised the importance of home production and reducing dependency on
imports. Consequently, the importance ascribed to increasing self-sufficiency is
somewhat greater than is implied in Table 2:
“Ensuring the food from UK farms is ethically produced with proper provenance
in sufficient volume to decrease our home reliance on importing non-regulated
foods from across the world.”
“The availability of plenty of affordable, home produced, quality assured food in
the UK”
Somewhat surprisingly, however, the most frequently occurring approach to the term
food security revealed by the survey was based on issues of food safety, quality and
traceability, with just over 35% of farmers responding in this way. Comments such as
“traceability from birth to plate” were common:
“Food produced that is safe and healthy for people to eat”
“We can trust the food we eat is of good safe quality”
“Good quality food and safe to eat and traceable”
“Traceability and high hygiene”
“Traceability, feeding regime, safety to consume”
“How we produce our milk safely within Farm Assured Guidelines”
“Food produced by recognised good agricultural practice, with every care to
eliminate disease or contamination”
“Traceability. Accountability. Bio-security”
“Knowing where and how the food has been produced and what has been used to
produce it. And ensure it has been produced to high animal welfare standards”.
28
Clearly, the way in which a farmer understands food security is likely to be influenced
by a multitude of factors relating to sources of information, exposure to policy debates,
participation in agricultural politics and so on and is not easily reduced to simple
explaination. However, the large proportion of farmers understanding food security
predominately in terms of food safety was striking and further analysis4 revealed that
there are some distinctive differences (in terms of basic farm and farmer
characteristics) between the different groups.
Farmers defining food security in terms of food safety farm significantly smaller
holdings on average: 118.5 ha compared to 217.3 ha for those defining food security in
terms of guaranteed supply. Indeed, as Table 2 indicates the operators of the largest
farms (in excess of 200ha) are much less likely to understand food security in terms of
food safety and traceability and are more likely to see it as an issue of guaranteed
supply or self-sufficiency.
As well as an association between the understanding of food security and farm size,
Table 3 indicates a significant association with the type of farm. It is quite clear that
farms with significant livestock enterprises are much more likely to be operated by
farmers that emphasise the food safety and traceability aspects of food security. In turn,
this might explain why this particular approach to understanding food security is so
prevalent in the sample as a whole given that 65% of respondents operated either a
dairy or livestock farm. Indeed, in an area that is dominated by livestock farming and
which has been impacted heavily by animal disease (eg FMD and bTB), the association
between food security and food safety and traceability is perhaps easier to understand.
Furthermore, as Table 4 indicates, there is an association between the way in which a
farmer understands food security and the market orientation of their business. As can
be seen, compared to those who described themselves as serving a national market,
those with a local market orientation are much more likely to interpret food security in
terms of food safety and traceability and are less likely to see it as an issue of
guaranteed supply.
This analysis points to a variety of farmer understanding of food security and also
provides some evidence to suggest that their understanding is at least partially
conditioned by their own farming situation. Those that interpret food security in terms
of safety and traceability are quite distinct: they are smaller farms, serving the local
market for which issues of traceability, provenance and quality are already probably
4 This was restricted to the three largest groups explaining food security in terms of Guaranteed supply;
Self-sufficiency; and Safety, quality & traceability as the numbers in the other groups were too small for
further analysis.
29
quite important. On the other hand, those defining food security in terms of guaranteed
supply operate the larger farms that are arguably already more closely aligned to
national, even global, markets. It is only by utilising more in-depth methodologies that
some of the reasoning behind interpretations of food security may be revealed.
3.4 Understandings of food security (ii): insights from deliberative polling
The deliberative poll provides a mechanism by which general understandings of food
security can be explored more directly with the emerging terms of wider policy and
political debate. Unlike the extensive survey, our deliberative poll introduced an
explicit a priori framing of different tendencies within food security agendas. The
approach was less about eliciting de-contextulised understandings of these agendas
than exploring reactions to pre-given claims embedded within it through a process of
personal and collective reasoning. Even so, it is worth noting that participants initially
responded to claims about aspects of food security with initially minimal corresponding
information on the topic. Participants knew they were attending an event on the topic
of ‘food security’, but this was not embellished as an idea in the written invitation, and
only to a limited extent in the introduction to the deliberative poll itself.
The propositions put to our 33 participants before and after discussion are summarized
in Table 5, together with overall polling results. In effect, the survey component of the
poll was a short structured – closed – questionnaire presented visually to the group as a
whole before and after discussion. In both instances the collective results of the
electronic polling exercise were viewed live by participants. The non exhaustive nature
of these propositions should be emphasized. The process concentrated on claims
relating to food production goals - national self-sufficiency, moral responsibilities and
market opportunities - allied to some basic statements regarding other markers of
sustainability implicated in food security agendas - such as environmental impacts, food
quality and safety. We also asked respondents to reflect on prospects for a viable
agricultural economy, both nationally and locally.
3.4.1 General findings of the deliberative poll: first round
The first round of polling generated generally strong agreement for the production
imperative of food security discourse. Within this, the proposition that the UK should
be ‘producing more of its own food’ resonated most strongly with participants in the
poll. The overwhelming majority of farmers responded affirmatively to this self-
sufficiency premise in contrast to the related proposition of “feeding a growing world
population”, where the poll reveals more doubt and uncertainty. This finding
corresponds well with the extensive survey where concern over the security of food
supplies and national self-determination in food production looms large. Interestingly,
when the premise of ‘responsibility’ to produce more food is substituted with that of
BD = Before deliberation; AD = After Deliberation
To what extent do you agree with the following
statements....
% Strongly
agree
% Tend to
agree
% Not sure % Tend to
disagree
% Strongly
disagree
BD AD BD AD BD AD BD AD BD AD
1. The UK should be producing more of its own food. 70 45 21
34 6 7 0 10 3 3
2. The UK has a responsibility to increase food
production to help feed a growing world population 29 13 29 25 26 25 10 31 6 6
3. Rising world demand for food is a market
opportunity for UK agriculture 44 26 31 39 19 19 3 13 3 3
4. The food we produce in the UK is the most nutritious
it has ever been 12 13 24 19 42 41 15 19 6 9
5. The food we produce in the UK is the most
“environmentally friendly” it has ever been 16 3 25 24 22 24 25 39 13 9
6. We cannot produce more food in the UK without also
compromising its quality 3 3 9 10 22 19 50 48 16 19
7. We cannot produce more food in the UK without also
compromising the environment 13 3 10 16 23 22 35 44 19 16
8. We cannot produce more food in the UK without also
compromising animal welfare goals 6 6 12 9 12 19 52 41 18 25
9. The long term future for UK agriculture looks
generally positive 3 3 34 30 34 39 22 24 6 3
10. There is a viable future for farming in this area
9 12 30 36 36 39 18 9 16 3
Table 5: Key propositions of deliberative poll and summary results
31
exploiting ‘opportunities’ on world markets, reactions shift again, with more of the
group finding overall agreement with this sentiment.
Participants were then asked to assess food production in the UK by other markers of
sustainability; those wider aspects of the food security agenda picked up by a significant
minority of the extensive survey. These propositions elicited a more uneven set of
reactions. No clear view emerged regarding the nutritional value and environmental
benefits associated with current food production and how these might change under a
scenario of expansive production. The poll was essentially divided. It is notable and
perhaps not surprising that these participants - mainly from a livestock farming
background - were more optimistic about the implications of expanding production for
animal welfare. Here the vast majority agreed that welfare goals would not be
compromised, with many agreeing strongly with this statement.
These propositions were closed by some more general assessments regarding national
and local prospects for agriculture in the light of these reactions. Again the responses to
these propositions generated no clear picture. A significant burden of responses
gathered around uncertainty; there tended to be more in agreement with these
propositions than not. Overall, depth of agreement and disagreement were strongest
and more contested in terms of the viability of local farming.
3.4.2 Farmer discussion groups
This first round of the polling process provided the context for group discussion.
Participants were allocated randomly to four groups of approximately equal size. All
had a mix of farming systems represented in them. While the general structure of these
discussions was not designed to be prescriptive, propositions and polling results were
actively drawn upon by facilitators to stimulate debate among participants. At the
outset an explicit science policy statement on the food security agenda was introduced
in order to encourage participants to relate their views directly to the emerging
contours of the debate. It was suggested that:
“The challenge is to deliver nutritious, safe and affordable food to a global population
of over 9 billion in the coming decades using less land, fewer inputs with less waste
and a lower environmental impact. All this has to be done in ways that are socially
and environmentally sustainable”
(UK Research Councils, 2011: iv)
Before elaborating on the polling process in detail it is worth underlining from the
outset that ‘food security’ was a term well recognised by the group. There was near
universal awareness of this term among participants with many participants
32
understanding this challenge in terms of historical precedent. Parallels were often
drawn from living memory: the experience of war-time food production and the idea of
‘dig for victory’; early post war austerity and agricultural modernisation; third world
famine and the green revolution in the 1960s; ‘food from our resources’ in the 1970s;
and so forth. While a small number of participants persistently expressed some degree
of mistrust about the claims made by the above challenge - particularly the premise of
nine billion people by 2050 - the tone of reactions tended to be quite rhetorical and
couched in terms of a wider scepticism of any statement deemed ‘official’. The general
direction of discussion was less to dispute food security as an issue per se, but to
critically interrogate the underpinning assumptions and priorities that guide political
and economic responses to it.
Although the dynamics of group discussion served to produce quite different
emphasises and patterns of reasoning - both between and within groups - about the
food security agenda, three key lines of reasoning emerged which we discuss below.
Importantly, all proceed from the issue of ‘producing more food in the UK’. While
polling results suggested generally high support for this idea these three lines of
reasoning point to a view among farmers that does not blithely accept the terms on
which imperatives to produce occur.
• The first line of reasoning involved participants making an essentially critical
assessment of incentives and priorities to produce.
• The second line of reasoning involved participants making a wider, and again
generally critical, assessment of the sustainability contexts in which
expanding productive capacity would occur.
• The third line of reasoning involved participants interpreting the longer term
consequences of geo-political change for agricultural prospects in the UK.
Perhaps unsurprisingly, a key aspect of discussion was to assess what this food security
challenge meant for local enterprise viability. In this a key message emerging from
discussions was that, while many farmers align themselves with the productive goals of
this agenda, there is fundamental concern that current arrangements for food supply
are predicated on a system that is jeopardizing the very systems of local agriculture that
can rise to the challenge of sustainable intensification. However, as emerging trends in
food security begin to unravel some viewed prospects for the future of agriculture in the
UK, and regional livestock agriculture in particular, as potentially quite positive.
Producing more food in the UK? Incentives and priorities
According to a large number of participants across all groups, food production goals
within farming - particularly livestock farming - were not sufficiently incentivised, and
33
in many respects, actively de-incentivised. This is a key finding when we reflect on
overall group support for productive goals. There is a mismatch between some
respondents normative ‘world view’ of this agenda and capacities to respond. It was
argued consistently that it is prices secured for commodities that dictate whether
farmers choose to produce more food. For some, the record showed that appropriate
incentives were not yet there: rising demand for food would surely translate into a
better deal for farmers, it was asserted, yet there was little evidence of this occurring.
As one put it “they say we’re low, but they keep selling us short”. All of the groups set
the problem of ensuring a fair price in the context of the high input costs now
surrounding livestock farming - diesel, fertiliser and feed. Prices did not reflect the real
cost of producing food. Mechanisms for farmer support, most notably the Single
Payment, were argued to camouflage the fact that food production was based on losses.
Two of the groups reasoned that an agro-food system based on the concentrated power
of supermarkets within the food system was at the heart of these barriers to produce. It
was suggested that the concern of supermarkets was simply to source cheap food on
world markets and this served to hold back production. It was also suggested that there
was little political will to change this arrangement. Government’s abiding concern was
to provide UK consumers with food at the low price to which they had become
accustomed but this was felt to be incongruent with the incentives needed for farmers
to increase production.
A related argument arising within two groups was the idea that governmental priorities
for agriculture were not about facilitating returns from land via food production. The
Single Payment scheme was again singled out. It was regarded by some as symptomatic
of policy makers increasingly divorcing land management from food production goals.
For a small but vocal minority food production goals had become subservient to
environmental stewardship and the need to meet wider environmental protection goals
embedded in regulatory activity. Parallels were sometimes drawn with the ‘war effort’
to make the argument that the mentality of the state was nowadays too obstructive:
“The war came around and the government said ‘you will plough that field, that
one there will go to roots, that one there will go to.....’, it was positive, now the
government are saying ‘what we really want is ten tonne an acre of wheat grown
but we don’t want you anywhere near the headlands and we have got to take the
set aside out’ and all of a sudden half of the fields, and you can’t put on the inputs
to get to [produce], because your nitrate vulnerable zone comes in. They need to
make rules allowing us to do something again rather than keep making rules to
stop us.”
34
It is tempting to infer from this an unambiguous ‘environment versus food’ strain within
some participant responses, yet the reasoning tended to be more complex. The
argument was that the environmental benefits delivered through the state apparatus
were dubious on their own terms (“They are not delivering what they pertain to
deliver”) and further, that environmental schemes and regulations were getting in the
way of productive farming that would otherwise be delivering environmental benefits
more efficiently.
All groups were consistent in arguing that, given current market arrangements for
agriculture, the trend in the industry was towards achieving economies of scale:
growing and intensifying the enterprise substantially in order to drive unit costs down
and increase margins. Yet in terms of economic viability and enterprise planning many
participants were keen to caution that growth of this kind implied a level of investment
not only difficult to unlock on favourable banking terms, but representing a substantial
‘gamble’ since investments could not be planned for by way of assured prices. Another
suggested that it would place local livestock producers in a situation where they would
be faced with competing with producers better placed to exploit economies of scale.
Competing unsuccessfully with industrial scale ‘beef lots’ of North America was cited as
an example of where this process would lead.
Taking a longer term view two groups speculated that, even if adequate market and
state incentives were to emerge for food production goals, these may only ever be
transitory. For instance one participant, an organic farmer who openly questioned
general support for expanding productive capacity in the polling process, asserted that
prices would ultimately deflate as more people would seek to capitalise on emerging
market opportunities. It was argued that an increasingly integrated global food system,
with world food producers chasing the same market signals only tended to magnify the
problem. The food security agenda was essentially a pretext on which overproduction
would occur and which therefore would be ultimately self-defeating: it did not
automatically translate into a situation of long term economic prosperity for farmers.
Producing more food in the UK? Sustainable intensification
This sense in which incentives and priorities to produce are not, and may never be,
sufficient (or indeed desirable), introduces an interesting critical dimension to how
farmers assess general food security imperatives when set against lived economic
realities. As discussions unfolded there were quite divergent positions held regarding
how farmers should practically respond. At one end of the spectrum, a view develops
that there is a need to accept and work with industry trends towards growth. For
example, one new entrant to dairy farming developed a positive narrative of change:
35
“I’m quite optimistic really. I mean you’ve got to be, you know, to be up there and
willing to produce more and get bigger you know, the farm you have now, you want
to get more cows, if you’re not increasing, you’re not standing still you’re going
backwards, so….You have got to have that mentality now. You can’t just say, ‘oh
well sod it’, you know and not do anything. If you’re not going forward what are
you doing? Nothing.”
Yet this type of reasoning can be contrasted with the view that productive agendas
embedded in food security discourse should be resisted and inverted. For instance, on
economic grounds negative precedents were cited to make the argument that, “we
ought to keep the price up by low production”:
“We've been there before - ‘Food from our own resources’ - the seventies. We upped
food production to round about 70% to 80%. What we got from that was a massive
overproduction, a downturn in price and huge turnout of the industry…[ ]…you
know, when I first became a student dairying, we had 135,000 dairy farmers. I'm
not a dairy farmer any more but I bet we haven't even got - you know - I bet we
haven't 35,000 - I bet we haven't even twenty [thousand]. And that was the result of
producing more food”.
Most commonly, however, discussions tended neither to untainted optimism nor
dismissive pessimism about this imperative. For the majority it is less that productive
goals are an and of themselves problematical, but rather, the agro-food context in which
farmers were expected to currently compete and grow. The dearth of market incentives
to realise growth is only one expression of this problem. It is also the case that the agro-
food system was viewed as systemically failing in terms of its resource dependencies,
inefficiencies and negative externalities. Here we pick up on a strand of reasoning that
speaks quite directly to the compound definitions of food security discerned in the
wider extensive survey and, in the context of the polling process, the tendency of
respondents to be far less certain about whether goals can be aligned with wider
markers of a sustainable food system: food quality, safety, animal welfare and
environmental goals.
First, participants in all groups sought to square the goals of increasing food production
with the finite nature of farm inputs that increasingly characterise industrialised
systems of production. While this claim is only tacitly addressed in the polling
propositions, it emerged as a key theme in discussion. The consistent view was that a
system producing abundant cheap food was predicated on the availability of cheap oil
and minerals but that the availability of these resources was declining in absolute and
relative terms. It was suggested that competition for scarce resources would increase in
36
the light of population and economic growth in newly industrialising countries. Many
participants envisioned a world where input costs would inevitably spiral. Thus, the
very basis of production in the agro-food system was seen to be problematical.
Participants were generally well attuned to the ‘peak’ oil and phosphate debates.
Second, in three of the groups participants developed a concerted critique, often by
making a series of statistical claims, of the problem of food waste. Participants
frequently spoke of a UK system that: did not allow edible food to enter the food
distribution on grounds of its appearance; cultivated consumers to throw away food
because of food dating; made food seem disposable because it was cheap and seemingly
abundant. The implication was that the problem of food security was as much a
question of better utilisation of available food resources as simply increasing
production.
Third, in two of the groups a food system based on global integrated industrial style
production was readily equated with environmental, animal welfare and biosecurity
risks. Participants drew particular attention to the waste handling issues of intensified
production, both in terms of water quality and the nuisance of odour. Local references
were made to intensive poultry and dairy units, but also to wider popular debate in the
press regarding the possible emergence of US style ‘super dairies’ in the UK in which
animal welfare and environmental goals may be compromised. Concerns over
biosecurity were equated by some with the concentrated production of cheap poultry
and it was suggested this was evidenced by a recent Avian Influenza outbreak in the UK.
Within these allusions to risk, many also spoke of food being less assured. Noticeably,
this was embodied in the idea of the cheap food import: the premise that farmers were
competing in a market where large scale and highly industrialised world producers
would flood the UK with products of dubious quality. This type of reasoning
corresponds with the strong sentiment in the extensive survey that food security is
about issues of food safety, quality and traceability. Finally, some participants also felt it
was the case that large intensive farms tended to ignore the basic environmental
conservation of landscapes that should routinely occur. The maintenance of hedgerows
was cited as a case in point.
Importantly, a significant underpinning feature of these types of critiques was to
suggest that the modern agro-food system is effectively dismantling the very systems of
local agriculture - variously referred to as ‘organic’, ‘small’, ‘mixed’ and ‘family’ - that
could intensify production in an otherwise more sustainable way. Organic livestock
farmers within the group were highly vocal here and spoke persistently of the way their
practices of land management yielded more productive grass based systems than could
be realised through systems based on the routine application of chemicals and
37
fertilisers. They spoke of the way organic farming was less dependent on expensive
finite inputs and drew contrasts with those on the industrial treadmill:
“We can grow grass in this county and I feel that, you know, we are organic. We
get about, just over thirty pence a litre …bought in seed and no fertilizer, no
reseeding. It is just permanent pasture and I think we are left with about twenty
six pence a litre and I don’t see there is anything wrong with that really. Whereas
you know, I’ve got a brother-in-law that is very intensive and the cows are kept
indoors all the year round and he is finding now that, you know, with all the inputs
and bought in feed and fertilizer he is left with very little and he is selling his dairy
herd”
Part of the issue was for farmers to be patient in waiting for these benefits to be
realised. According to one “it only takes six seven years to get the biology in the soil
right”. Corresponding claims about moving away from continental animal breeds was
also asserted. Rearing native cattle using sympathetic land management produced high
herd health and more meat and milk.
However, many participants spoke of the way in which historic patterns of farming
rooted in networks of small family farms were organic “in all but name”. The general
tone was that many of the problems associated with highly intensive agriculture would
be addressed routinely by family farms: fewer chemicals were used; slurries and
manures were utilized more effectively; animal husbandry was better since people
knew their stock more intimately; hedgerows were maintained as a matter of course.
The whole basis for land utilization was more efficient and the product was of better
quality. Again allusions to food standards and quality discerned in the extensive survey
are present here. Perhaps most notably it was the ‘better utilisation of pasture’ that
emerged as the consistent theme across the groups. Many saw in this a latent and
neglected potential:
“Grass is a big un-utilised resource on many farms. I mean, a dairy farm has
probably got the best utilisation. But certainly on livestock farms generally, grass is
not being utilised fully to its full potential. The power of a reseed to produce milk or
build meat by far outweighs anything else that we can ever do to our farms to
produce more food”
Indeed, for many it was the utilization of grass that would underpin the survival of the
family farm. As one suggested “if you concentrate on growing grass and feeding grass to
your dairy cows, I think you’re assured of the family farm future really”. Or as another
38
put it: “I am sure if you want the family farm to continue you have got to utilise your
grass”. From the perspective of food production the practical premise was that fields
were under-stocked and that opportunities to intensify pasture based systems
remained there without the need to “hit the environment hard”.
Producing more food in the UK? Building domestic resilience
A third and final strand of discussion, in which some of the above arguments are
brought together, was the idea that prospects for an agriculture more in step with
traditional patterns of activity may begin to emerge as demographic and environmental
trends begin to take shape and assert influence. This type of reasoning was made
forcibly by one group, though was articulated at points in others. The essential
reasoning was that, as resource dependencies of the agro-food system became more
acute, and as demand for food from growing economies increased, UK agriculture would
need to adapt. A food system predicated on unfettered access to cheap imports could be
not guaranteed in a world order where competition for food - indeed the resources for
producing more food - would magnify. Thus the very basis for systems of farming that
were less intensive in terms of their inputs may, in time, be realised. According to one “I
can see West Country extensive farming coming into its own”.
A very important dimension that serves to consolidate this favourable long term view,
and is consistent with the wider results of the extensive survey, was the idea that
projected trends in food security discourse would translate into a threat to UK food
supplies. The scenario for the UK food consumer was considered bleak in this respect:
“We are an island. They [sic] could easily cut [food] off, you know, from coming in
here”
“I think what is frightening really is the Chinese and the Indians are a third of the
world population…[ ]…and if their economies keep going up, they are going to
cream off all the food that is available”
“It is going to be a bit of a risk relying on imported cheap food, that is what is my
opinion”
“Can we rely on being able to afford to import things? That is the thing, we [once]
had an empire...[ ]… cheap food was available. Can we rely on it in the future?”
One of the enduring images of this dimension of discussion was of “empty supermarket
shelves” and the idea of people panicking to buy bread. For these participants such
threats are therefore the pretext upon which a more normative set of arrangements for
food systems would emerge. Prices for domestic food production would be more
buoyant. Consumers would waste less, eat better, and do so in season. The
environmental footprint of the food economy would be reduced. Wider economic
39
prosperity would follow because money would be kept within the national system.
Food quality would be enhanced because it was rooted in more assured domestic
production. And most significantly, the viability of local farming would be secured. Such
reasoning goes some way to explain why responsibilities to produce more food for the
world were interpreted less enthusiastically in the wider polling process. Faced with
these global threats some participants suggested, for instance, that “charity begins at
home” and that in the UK “we should be seeing ourselves right first”. If producing more
food from domestic resources is a way of building national prosperity in agriculture vis.
the ebbs and flows of a globally integrated food system it also betrays an insular strain
of reasoning regarding moral claims over food security discourse.
3.4.3 General findings of the deliberative poll: second round
The results of the second round of polling provide an interesting counterpoint to those
occurring before deliberation (Table 5). They revealed a decisive softening of views
regarding productive premises associated with food security discourse. While overall
support for the idea of being more self sufficient in food remained high, what we
observe is opinion shifting away from highly affirmative support to that of a tendency to
agree. This overall decline in agreement can be set against emerging disagreement. This
pattern is repeated in the context of producing more food to meet growing world
demand. A sense of responsibility wanes. Equally, the idea of responding to a market
opportunity is met with a softening of agreement. Overall agreement with this
proposition drops, with corresponding tendencies to disagree rising.
There is, in short an overall transition to more uncertainty with the productivist claims
at the heart of the many interpretations of food security. The qualitative complexity
arising over four discussions make firm conclusions regarding why this situation arises
difficult. Certainly we noted above a distinct tone to the discussion that equated food
production with price deflation; the sense that these developments may reinforce a bad
deal for farmers. The sometimes strident and insular views regarding “putting ourselves
first” appear to be translated in to hardening resistance to any moral appeals to food
security embedded in policy discourse.
Views asserted about the nutritional attributes of food remain broadly similar after
deliberation; essentially uncertain. This is consistent with the way the groups reasoned
about the quality of food; strong support for UK food quality coupled with an implied
critique of the food quality arising from cheap imports. This idea is played out in an
assessment of the future too. There is a very marginal shift towards the idea that food
quality will not be jeopardized, arguably reflecting sentiments about a possible shift to
national self sufficiency. Animal welfare views remain highly stable with a very
marginal shift away from positive sentiments about change. This may reflect
discussions about the possible emergence of factory farming.
40
In contrast the environmental dimension of the discussion reflects continued
uncertainty across the sample as a whole. There was a slight shift in opinion towards
the idea that environmental outcomes have been worsening: strong agreement with this
idea in the first round drops and tendencies to disagree rise slightly. This development
is perhaps indicative of the general critiques of industrial farming arising in the course
of discussions. Equally, views on the future were similarly mixed, though prospects
became slightly positive. We witnessed a slight softening of overall support for the
negative proposition being asserted here and a corresponding rise in tendencies to
disagree. The reification of family farming as a context in which food security
imperatives could be risen to is arguably the basis for this change. This may also go
some way to accounting for the marginally more optimistic responses of participants
concerning the viability of farming in the area. However, the overall picture regarding
confidence in the future, both nationally and regionally, remains fairly stable.
3.5 Summary
In the 1940s and 1950s, the food production challenge led to a determined effort on the
part of the UK state to engage with farmers. Farmers were enrolled in the food
production campaign, through direct involvement in county and district committees
which provided a strategic steer to publicly funded, national advisory and experimental
husbandry initiatives. The productivist logic had a beguiling simplicity that is certainly
very different to the ‘wicked’ problems of ‘sustainable intensification’ and ‘perfect
storms’. Nonetheless, the absence of a grounded farmer voice from the current debate is
striking and potentially worrying, given the productive resources so essential to a
sustainable food supply are in farmers’ hands,. This section of our research has
attempted to bring in the farmer voice as an essential but neglected presence within the
food security agenda and to do this within the context of local - South West – concerns.
The process of survey and discussion based investigation described in this paper
reveals a constituency of the farming community in the UK as generally very alert to the
emerging contours of the wider food security debate. To what extent this discourse is
translated by farmers into a set of priorities that also speaks well to the prevailing
wisdoms of policy developments in this area is far less certain. Food security carries
with it a range of associational meanings for farmers. The related issues of ensuring
adequate food supplies and building domestic resilience in food production were key
tendencies of note in the extensive survey which were also replicated in the context of
in-depth group research. Appeals to issues of food standards and safety, which stood
out in the survey, were not only important to discussion but tended to sit within a
broader critical assessment of whether and how productive goals should be realized.
41
At one level participants view food production goals as inhibited and constrained given
current market and state arrangements for agriculture, but there is also a longer term
view that suggests that these goals may themselves be self-defeating. As participants
reason more about this issue many express highly critical statements about the wider
sustainability context in which this imperative is assumed to occur. Importantly, these
more complex renderings of a food security challenge are consistently used to set local
patterns of farming activity against the actual, and impending, failings of a highly
industrialised and globalised agro-food system.
If part of the sentiment that arises from this body of reasoning is the need to build
greater domestic resilience in food supplies this is because some farmers see in this a
means by which these failings can be reconciled with viable farming activity. This is not
just a question of economic prosperity. Farmers see in their structures of enterprise,
and approaches to farming, the potential to utilize land resources in ways that can meet
the wider goals of ‘sustainable intensification’. The paradox is that while this self-
sufficiency strain finds no expression in UK governmental policy discourse, it is based
on a style of critical reasoning that is in many ways consistent with the complexities of
the food security challenge.
42
4.1 Introduction
In this section we set the analysis of farmer attitudes above against the views and
priorities of the wider policy community. In particular we report here on the outcomes
of a facilitated workshop debate on food security held at County Hall in 2010. The
facilitated workshop was held at Devon County Council. Involving approximately 20
participants the workshop comprised primarily DCC staff with interests in this policy
area but also included the participation of external environmental organisations (such
as the RSPB) and representatives from the farming community (such as the NFU and the
Dartmoor Commoners’ Association). The results of this workshop process reinforced
the need for encouraging innovation within the farming community based on two key
areas: ‘building the scientific/research evidence base’ and ‘fostering the skills and
knowledge agenda’ . The sustainable rural futures research programme provides a
context in which the issues can be taken forward.
4.2 Findings from the workshop
Participants in the facilitated workshop were given a briefing on the key dimensions of
the food security issue. This was presented at the workshop by Professor Michael
Winter and responses were invited by three different speakers to stimulate wider
discussion. These were:
• Mel Hall, National Farmers Union
• Mark Robins, RSBP
• Rob Hetherington, Devon County Council
4.2.1 General issues arising
Participants at the event were generally of the view that the food security agenda raised
fundamental challenges for the future of the regional land economy. An important initial
focus of discussion was on “limits to production”:
• Resource dependencies: Many participants expressed alarm at the prospect of a
‘business as usual’ scenario in which farming was highly dependent on
phosphates and oil. The proportion of business costs spent on finite energy
sources was considered untenable and likely to worsen. This was as true of
livestock farming as it was of arable. The question of where energy inputs would
come from in the future was therefore often raised.
• Soil degradation: There was related concern that patterns of farming in the
South West, and across England and Wales more generally, had steadily
Section 4
Priorities for research and policy
43
degraded soils. Dependency on nitrates and phosphates (and neglect of
techniques such as rotation) had meant that soil health was often now poor.
• Climate Change: Early recognition was given to the problem of a changing
climate, with particular concern for the way farming landscapes may change in
the lowland areas as a result of global warming. There was concern that farm
below 200 metres would be ‘hit hardest’ by environmental change and may not
be ready to adapt.
• Under-utilised land: Concern was expressed that the markets for land were free
of regulatory control. No mechanisms existed to ensure that when productive
land was purchased it would be used for food production purposes. It was felt
that owners of land could claim payments for land that was not then being
utilised effectively. Social trends based around the in-migration of non farming
publics were felt to be reinforcing this.
• Poor market prices: Some participants expressed concern that food production
was not sufficiently incentivised for livestock farmers. Farmers had to be
ensured of a fair deal if they were to be encouraged to produce.
• Environmental goals: It was suggested that responding to the challenge of
increasing production had to be set within the context of a highly protected
regional landscape. As one put it:“40% of the South West is protected landscapes,
agriculture has to operate within probably some of the most demanding
constraints, in terms of SSSIs, national parks and nature conservation
designations... How can agriculture move itself from where we are now to where
we want to be, within quite a constraining environment, in terms of policy?”
In discussion these arguments about ‘limits to production’ were set against perceived
threats to UK food supplies and how South West farming would respond given these
limits to produce. It was felt that UK food system was highly dependent on imported
commodities, but competition for these was increasing. The example of food supplies
from New Zealand to Europe being radically changed by growing demand from China
was cited to emphasis the point that food supplies were less than guaranteed.
4.2.2 Enabling the land based sector to respond to the challenges of food security
“Are we really ready to meet these big challenges? Are we really ready as a society - you
know - to really acknowledge that things will change in farming practices. possibly
landscape, and all the rest. I think the answer is we're not”
For many participants it was not enough to take an ‘incrementalist’ or ‘gradualist’ view
on how to respond to the challenges of food security. There was a need to be bold. If the
44
challenge of “sustainable intensification”5 was daunting it was also the case that society
has tended to rise to similar issues before. For instance, it was highlighted that over the
19th and 20th Centuries food production had kept pace with population through
technological innovation. Yet this was not a reason for complacency. There remained a
need to encourage innovation within these changing circumstances; to take, as one put
it “a big leap forward” and to “raise the bar”.
What does this big leap forward entail? The overriding theme was of the need to marry
together expanding productive capacity in the region with environmental goals. A
general underpinning theme of debate was whether this meant ‘partitioning’ the South
West landscape in to areas that emphasised production and those that emphasised
nature conservation goals. The follow exchange is illustrative of different visions:
“There's a kind of very crude choice: do you do environment here and food there? And
do we move towards a much more dichotomised countryside, where we say okay in the
protected places let's do those environmental things, but everywhere else we're going
for food and we'll regulate it? I mean, that is a real choice. There's going to be
intensification in some places, to allow space in others”
- “That is a choice, but I think it's an appalling choice. And I think it's an appalling choice
for Devon, I suppose. Because I think even in the most intensive - sustainably intensive
farmland, you can find space for nature. You have to find space with it underpinning the
ecosystem and things which make that piece of ground operate. So - we need to keep
that clearly in mind. The environment in this question, right at the centre of it. And
right at the centre of Devon's choices. If you marginalise it - you know - we're going to
throw away a central issue for this county.”
Discussion tended to focus on the latter of these interpretations; that responding to
issues of food security was about fostering in Devon and the wider South West an
“environmental economy” or “environmental land use economy”. The region was well
placed to capitalise/exploit further its “natural capital” in the context of food security
goals. As one put it:
“The solution is about placing land owners or managers right at the heart of kind of
creative, innovative, entrepreneurial, environment-centred, food-centred, landscape-
centred kind of reformation, if you like, renaissance. [We need] a pressure cooker of
kind of ideas and practice which finds the solutions”
5 Some felt the term “sustainable productivity” was a better term for describing this challenge than “sustainable
intensification”.
45
A sentiment expressed in the group was that a compelling vision of change had already
started to develop with the Curry Commission and corresponding strategic
conversations about constituents of sustainable food and farming systems in Devon and
the South West. Yet there was sense that this “conversation” had stuttered and
gradually “faded away”. While there existed many isolated pockets of good practice, one
suggested that “they're locked away, they're not part of the mainstream, they're not
supported, there’s not enough”.
Key areas for innovation involved:
Building the scientific/research evidence base
It was argued that the UK could become a global leader in developing new methods of
managing agricultural and land resources and that the South West could be a key part of
this. There was a need to foster experimentation in pasture based land management
systems drawing on a strong scientific evidence base. The general focus was how to
develop a livestock agriculture that had fewer inputs whilst producing more food. The
view expressed by some was that the existing system was underutilised. As one
suggested: “we can produce more within our environmental limits, I've got no doubt
about that”.
Innovations included: experimenting in mixed rotation systems so that farmers were
more self sufficient in their own feedstuffs; examining how different breeds of livestock
could produce leaner meats and help utilize grasses more efficiently. Harnessing the
insights of genetic science was also regarded as important: for example exploring the
use of perennial crops that helped avoid soil degradation; wheat plants that fix their
own nitrogen. It was felt that British expertise could be “exported” to other parts of the
world to help others and that the West Country could be taking a lead. Building
research capacity to respond to the food security challenge through the regional HE
sector (e.g. Exeter and Bristol) and by way of collaborative working with North Wyke
Research (especially its Farm Platform) were cited as contexts in which this science
could develop in applied ways.
Fostering the skills and knowledge agenda
Farmers and others in the land based sector should be supported so that they could
maintain and develop the skills needed to adapt to and thrive in the new food security
imperative. There was concern that many farmers may struggle with the implications of
these issues and how they should respond. Those managing the land need to have the
training and competencies to make the right decisions and capitalise on them
appropriately; “so we can trust them to do the right thing within that context that we
understand” as one put it.
46
A running theme was the idea that stakeholders (such as regulators, local authorities
and agricultural colleges) should be cultivating training partnerships based around the
principle of ‘Continuing Professional Development’. An innovative example was cited of
Dartmoor farmers, prompted by the National Park Authority, setting themselves up as a
limited company to run an apprentice scheme which has since developed and grown.
One reflected in this context: “Don't underestimate [farmers] ability to change, and
upskill, and take advantage of new kits and technologies”.
It was also suggested that incentive mechanisms (such as CAP) could be arranged in
such a way that it rewarded people who innovated through learning. Thus, “continuing
professional development might be ten farmers facilitated in Holsworthy to look at
equipment training or soil management in East Devon. But then you get some points for
the single farm payment. So points mean prizes. You start to raise the bar”. The view
was taken that we need to ensure that agriculture is viewed in a similarly professional
way to other industries, such as the pharmaceutical industry or the chemical industry. It
was not about “gaining a PhD in Agriculture” but about “bringing things up to a
standard”.
Developing payments for ecosystem services
There is need to develop mechanisms that can better capture the value of the wider
(non food) benefits of agriculture and reflect these in farmer “bottom lines”. While
progress had been made in terms of payments for water quality there is a need to
extend this into other areas of benefit, such as carbon sequestration and recreation. As
one participant explained:
“It's one of the things I struggle with; this idea of value and allocation; allocating things
to price, and of course you can only allocate it through price if you can capture the
ownership of it. If you have something you can sell, you can put a price to it. If it's a
public good - you can't stop people using it. The allocation mechanisms are really
crucial to this: how do you capture that value and then put a price on it, and then
charge for it and recapture the value?
Mechanisms suggested were:
• Common Agricultural Policy - supporting the delivery of these wider benefits of
support through the CAP.
• Retailers - influencing concentrations of power in the food supply chain. These
have strong roles in shaping the nature of those markets and ensuring that those
providing the services are rewarded.
• Tourism taxes - while these may not be very popular, they are a way of
capturing some of this wider value and returning it as an investment in farming;
47
• Habitat banking/offsetting projects - funding conservation actions intended to
compensate for and mitigate the unavoidable environmental impact caused by
development projects.
Advocacy of local food/procurement within the public sector
The role of Trading Standards within the local authority was cited in particular as an
example of the way the public sector could take a pro-active advocacy role. It was a way
of trying to ensure local suppliers of food are used where possible e.g. local authority
catering, schools; and encouraging people to buy locally and consider food miles.
Trading standards was cited as a potential “honest broker”, for example where there is a
reputation issue to overcome. They have the capacity to endorse a particular product, or
a particular manufacturer or specific producer –so that buyers are satisfied that the
food has been produced in a particular way, and is locally produced.
4.2.3 Other remarks
There was a feeling at the event that the public image of the agricultural sector had “see-
sawed” in the post war period and that a new food security agenda may serve to foster a
poster image for farmers. One suggested that the image of farmers had improved
“dramatically” in recent years and this trend was likely to continue in the context of
Food Security Concerns: “If we're held in respect and understanding by the population
that we're trying to feed, or partially feed, it'll make a lot of difference to how
agriculture is viewed”. To educate the public about the wider environmental benefits
provided to people through farming was also seen to be key.
4.3 Summary – Next steps for the programme
The programme’s work on food security is not exhausted by the insights of this research
report. Indeed they are designed to inform aspects of future empirical work. Four key
elements of further work are to be undertaken:
• A detailed and critical assessment of the food economy in Devon.
• To explore the environmental repercussions of different land management
systems in the future in conjunction with the North Wyke Farm Platform.
• To further examine the attitudes toward food security amongst different farming
publics including young farmers.
• Payments for Ecosystems Services
4.5.1 Understanding better the food economy in Devon
This component of research will add further empirical detail on the food economy of
Devon and the South West. It widely recognises that the food economy plays an
48
important role in the wider economy, tourism and in the development of local and
regional food cultures. Food businesses closely linked to the local economy can aid local
economic development, while those focusing on the national and international economy
bring important export income into the county. Despite an acceptance of the importance
of Devon’s food economy, a better characterisation of it would help policy makers and
those supporting businesses in Devon to identify and grasp opportunities associated
with developing the food chain. The objectives of the research will be met through a
combination of analysis of existing data sources and through a series of semi-structured
interviews with Devon food producers, processors and key informants.
Follow up contact: [email protected]
4.5.2 Knowledge exchange at the North Wyke Farm Platform
The new and unique national capability for agro-ecological research – the North Wyke
Farm Platform – is being developed with BBSRC support in Devon. It will allow the
detailed study of how agriculture interacts with the environment under different social
and economic scenarios. Researchers will be able to explore biophysical processes that
influence agricultural production, environmental benefits and pollution using state of
the art facilities.
The experimental research planned at North Wyke provides a context in which the land
management community can both learn about the practical repercussions of strategic
policy imperatives for sustainable land use, but also help inform underpinning
approaches. This may include farmers, advisors, agro-food industry groups, as well as
those with responsibility for policies for sustainable agriculture within the public
sector.
Fostering a process of reciprocal learning and knowledge exchange between scientists
and this community of stakeholders is considered a logical follow-on theme for the
programme which will assist not only in the development of experimental scientific
evidence but in enhancing practical learning responses among farmers as they
endeavour to innovate, and respond, to their changing circumstances.
The programme team envisage a knowledge exchange activity that can begin the
process of brokering effective knowledge exchange between scientists and wider
stakeholders as this national research capability moves towards operational status in
2012. In summary its objectives will be to:
• initiate the development of a practical learning environment in which scientists
and land stakeholders can exchange knowledge and ideas about the nature of
research being conducted on the Farm Platform and its relevance to real world
farming systems;
49
• promote general awareness of agro-ecological research conducted at the North
Wyke Farm Platform among different sectors of the agricultural economy in the
South West of England including farmers, professional groups and policy makers.
In sum, the activity is designed to be generative of a longer term programme of
knowledge exchange ensuring that the insights of the land management community will
be a guiding concern of the activity and the legacy envisaged.
Follow up contact: [email protected]
4.5.3 Payments for Ecosystem Services
There are a number of regional projects of note, relating to payments for ecosystems
services, being developed in the context of water quality. For example for the past five
years the Westcountry Rivers Trust has been liaising with South West Water to develop
an initiative called ‘Upstream Thinking’ to improve raw water quality and all ecological
aspects of the region’s rivers. Alongside the Upstream theme there is the Wetted Land:
the Assessment, Techniques and Economics of Restoration(WATER) project which aims to
identify both delivery and funding mechanisms to lever private investment for
catchment restoration. It has a three-year timeframe and is funded through the Interreg
mechanism. There is also the Wetland Example of Payments for Ecosystem Services
(WEPES) project which is part funded by the Natural England Wetland Vision Fund. This
is a two-year project that has been underway since late 2009 and involves the
monetisation of the costs and benefits of a wide range of ecosystem goods and services
that are, or could be, generated on a section of historic floodplain on the river Fal in
West Cornwall. It also involves identifying organisations, groups or individuals willing
to pay for ecosystem goods and service benefits
It is therefore proposed that a third key platform for research is to work with partners
to examine the potential for, and implications of, the further development of novel
markets for ecosystem services, with a specific focus on the issue of water quality at the
interface of food production. We currently know very little about the long term
sustainability of this market development, what level and type of contribution it might
make to the economic viability of land based sectors in the region, and further, how we
can devise appropriate governance structures that can ensure these developments
reflect wider (state) policy goals. The programme anticipates taking the work of the
West Country Rivers Trust as our starting point, but will draw on examples from other
areas as appropriate to foster practical learning experiences that enhance regional
work.
Follow up contact: [email protected]
50
4.5.4 Food security and young farmers
Follow up contact: Either: [email protected]
The insights of the deliberative
polling process detailed in
Section 3 rested primarily on
the claims of farmers who were
either in the middle or latter
stages of their farming careers.
The programme team will be
deploying this technique again
to elicit the views of new and
recent entrants into farming. A
trial run of this exercise was
conducted at a Young Farmers
debate on “feeding the future”
at the 2011 Devon County Show (see photo). This aspect of our work is being taken
forward in conjunction with Dartmoor National Park and the Young Farmers’
Organisation.
51
Ambler-Edwards S., Bailey, K. Kiff, A., Lang, .T Lee, R. Marsden, T., Simons, D., Tibbs, H.
(2009) Food Futures: Rethinking UK Strategy; (Chatham House: London)
Bridge, J and Johnson, N (eds.) (2009) Feeding Britain (The Smith Institute: London)
Defra (2002) The Strategy for Sustainable Farming and Food: Facing the Future (Defra:
London)
Defra (2006a) Sustainable Farming and Food Strategy: Forward Look (Defra: London)
Defra (2006b) Food Security and the UK: An Evidence and Analysis Paper (Defra: London)
Defra (2008) Ensuring the UK’s Food Security in a Changing World. (Defra: London)
Defra (2009a) Food Matters: One year on (Defra: London)
Defra (2009b) UK Food Security Assessment: Our approach (Defra: London)
Defra (2010a) Food 2030 (Defra: London)
Defra (2010b) UK Food Security Assessment: Detailed Analysis (Defra: London)
Defra (2010c) Indicators for a Sustainable Food System (Defra: London)
EFRA (2009) Securing food supplies up to 2050: the challenges faced by the UK (House of
Commons: London)
UK Research Councils (2011) Global Food Security Strategic Plan 2011-2016 (RCUK:
Swindon)
HM Government/Defra (2009) The 2007/08 Agricultural Price Spikes: Causes and Policy
Implications (HM Government/Defra: London)
MA (2005) Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (Island Press)
PCFF (2002) Farming and Food: a sustainable future Policy Commission on the future of
Farming and Food (Defra: London)
PMSU (2008) Food Matters: towards a strategy for the 21st Century, Cabinet Office,
London
Royal Society (2009) Reaping the benefits: Science and the sustainable intensification of
global agriculture (Royal society: London)
References
52
