Mixed farmer Paul Temple warns that Defra’s Environmental Land Management (ELM) policies will not only affect UK food production, and increase our reliance on imports, they will also impact the infrastructure of the entire farming industry, for example in terms of its contribution to the rural economy, opportunities for the next generation, and its attractiveness for those investing in and bringing forward innovation. When the scientific evidence increasingly indicates that the best way to produce enough food, enhance biodiversity and tackle climate change is through high-yield, high-tech farming on as small an area as possible, the Government’s current policies risk irrevocably dismantling the fabric behind a productive farming industry, in favour of unproven and unmeasured environmental objectives. Defra’s own research has identified a high risk of displacement of food production as a result of yield-reducing ELM options, with unknown effects on either domestic food security or the environment. It’s time Ministers took heed and changed course, he argues.

 

Estimates vary as to the impact on UK food production of now three seasons of relentlessly wet conditions. I have never known a year like this in all my farming career, neither has my father.

 

After last autumn’s sowings were washed out, a typical grower with land normally yielding 10 tonnes to the hectare for winter wheat might reasonably have hoped to achieve 8t/ha for spring wheat sown in early March. But the harsh reality is that most spring plantings were delayed by the wet weather until well into April, limiting the yield potential to more like 5t/ha. Many heavy land hectares are growing nothing for the first time, and concerns over straw shortages for the livestock sector are already ringing alarm bells.

 

Replicated across the country, this makes forecasts that the UK wheat crop could be down by a third look decidedly upbeat. 

 

I fervently hope that this season will prove to be a one-off, but I am no longer confident that more ‘normal’ conditions will prevail. In Britain and across the world farmers are facing greater extremes more frequently – particularly in terms of too much or too little water – and yet there appears to be scant regard for any form of strategic planning in managing the effect.

 

It has happened before, and production has recovered. The UK wheat harvest in 2020 was a meagre 10 million tonnes, with crop yields hit by a combination of weather extremes – flooding, drought, heat and thunderstorms. This was down by a third from an average of 15 million tonnes over the previous five years, but yields bounced back in the following years.

 

But there has been a change in sentiment. Farmers no longer talk about their capacity to grow more. And yet a globally traded crop such as wheat is susceptible to volatile market reactions if the confidence of supply changes, as we have seen with the invasion of Ukraine. This should make domestic production more, not less, important.

 

For 2024, the Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board (AHDB) has predicted a 30% fall in wheat output from 14 million tonnes to 10 million tonnes. This seems almost certain to be replicated across other crops.

 

In the short-term, this will mean a need for increased imports of some crops, and could drive up prices to consumers. It will also mean exporting more of the environmental impact of our food supply to other countries.              

 

But imagine if UK agricultural production remained pegged at the levels forecast for this year – not because challenging weather conditions prevented crops from going in the ground, but because the Government was paying farmers not to produce food. That would be unthinkable, wouldn’t it?

 

Frighteningly, this is exactly the scenario we are facing in England under Defra’s Environmental Land Management (ELM) policies, whose rewilding, tree-planting and production-limiting SFI options have been introduced with no apparent idea of the likely impact on domestic food production, or on national agricultural productivity growth.

 

Indeed, some non-farming SFI options have proved so popular that Ministers rapidly announced a 25% cap by area per farm, citing food security concerns.  But this decision in itself was a nonsense, highlighting the ‘finger in the wind’ nature of how our farm policies are being developed, on the hoof, with no scientific rigour or evidence behind them. Why opt for a 25% cap? Why not 20%, or 27%?

 

More fundamentally, these policies will not only affect the trade balance of our food supply, and increase our reliance on imports, they will also impact the infrastructure of our entire industry, for example in terms of its contribution to the rural economy, opportunities for the next generation, and its attractiveness for those investing in and bringing forward innovation.

 

Diverting money from the farming economy, by taking land out of production, will mean fewer young people – the next generation of farmers and those that support farming up and down the supply chain - are trained and encouraged to join the industry. 

   

It will mean less need for advisory and contracting services. Concerns over ‘unforeseen consequences’ have already been raised by the Association of Independent Crop Consultants (AICC), who warned at their recent conference that placing large areas of productive arable land into SFI options could have devastating consequences not only for agronomists, but also for contractors and farmers reliant on contracting their neighbours’ farms. The impact will also be felt particularly by the tenanted sector in the vulnerable area of short term lets.

 

Applied research and extension services will undoubtedly be affected, since the levy boards are funded in relation to the tonnage of harvested crop, and levy-funded services such as the Recommended Lists of varieties remain pivotal to successful crop planning and decision-making.     

 

And as we read more and more reports of large landowners turfing tenants off their farms in favour of more lucrative tree-planting or rewilding schemes, we will be losing the contribution and influence of some of the most entrepreneurial and enterprising members of our industry. Their knowledge and experience cannot easily be replaced - their enthusiasm and passion is critical for the shape of farming in the future.

 

A smaller, less production-focused UK farming industry will also be less attractive to input suppliers and innovators. Leaving the EU has already made Britain a much smaller market-place, yet with the same (or higher) costs and bureaucracy of bringing forward new products.    

 

The British Society of Plant Breeders (BSPB) recently warned of an ‘existential threat’ to seed supply in the UK horticulture sector, with more than 200 vegetable varieties stalled in the registration process. According to BSPB, the increased costs, delays and uncertainties post-Brexit mean some breeders are simply opting not to register new varieties in the UK market. Inevitably this will reduce choice and access to innovation for British growers. It is a similar story for the crop protection sector. 

 

Farming policies focused on taking farmland out of production, or on encouraging farmers to adopt lower-yielding practices – such as not using approved insecticides or applying sub-optimal rates of fertiliser – will further deter UK-based investment and innovation by plant breeders and other input suppliers, the vast majority of whom are not based or headquartered in this country.  

 

Together, all these factors point to a downward spiral, terminally reducing future prospects for an innovative and competitive farming industry in England.

 

The scientific evidence increasingly indicates that the best way to produce enough food, enhance biodiversity and tackle climate change is through high-yield, high-tech farming on as small an area as possible.

 

I therefore worry deeply that the Government’s current policies risk irrevocably dismantling the fabric behind a productive farming industry, in favour of unproven and unmeasured environmental objectives, all the while knowing that this small island has a growing population, increasing demand for food and volatile food inflation, yet seemingly without responsibility.

 

I am not alone in those concerns. As Science for Sustainable Agriculture has previously highlighted, Defra’s own research has identified a high risk of displacement of food production as a result of yield-reducing ELM options, with unknown effects on either domestic food security or the environment.

 

It’s time Ministers took heed and changed course.

 

Paul Temple manages a mixed arable and livestock farm on the East Yorkshire Wolds, producing cereals for seed, oilseed rape, vegetables and beef. He is a past vice-president of the National Farmers Union, former chairman of the Copa Cogeca Cereals, Oilseeds and Protein Group, and founder of the European Biotech Forum. Paul is also a board member of the Global Farmer Network, which brings together strong farming leaders from around the world to amplify the farmers’ voice in promoting trade, technology, sustainable farming, economic growth, and food security.