Opinion: Land use proposals are largely reasonable
Chris Bennett © Johnny Houston Defra recently released its land use consultation, a call for a “national conversation” about how we use our land that will feed into a land use framework later this year.
While it was refreshing to see food production and farming featuring heavily, the proposals are less than reassuring for agriculture when you look a little closer.
See also: Chris Bennett – eyewatering kit pries should prompt buying review
About the author
The headline figure was that 9% of utilisable agricultural land will need to be removed from production for environmental and climate benefits, while the rest needs to adapt to become more nature friendly.
Productivity gains
This will be particularly alarming for farmers with land deemed as disposable to agriculture.
The justification is that the 9% of land only produces a relatively small amount of the nation’s food that, in theory, would be offset by productivity gains on the rest of the land.
The productivity gains required are in the region of 0.5% a year.
Whether these gains are achievable is up for debate given the numerous threats to production we currently face.
Threats to production
We have an increasingly erratic climate, arable yields have largely stagnated in recent years, the loss of active ingredients (such as neonicotinoids) have made crop losses more likely, and a shift to lower-input systems and regenerative agriculture often lowers production, even if margins and environmental outcomes improve.
I’d also argue that the goal of maintaining food production levels is insufficient.
With an ever-increasing population, simply standing still will lead to a reduction in our degree of self-sufficiency – we actually need to increase production substantially.
The problem is that the competing land uses, such as for biodiversity or climate, are based on legally binding targets.
Any commitments to food production are only based on warm words. We all know how little ministers’ words are worth these days when competing with legal targets.
Nutrition
The document also fails to acknowledge the nutritional value of beef and lamb as it considers food production as a whole.
The land proposed to be removed from agricultural production may have a small effect on arable production, but could have a significant effect on beef and lamb.
The incredible beef price seen this year highlights what a small shift in supply and demand can do to a market.
Whether the government will use a carrot or a stick to incentivise the required changes remains unclear.
Assurances
If land were to be taken permanently out of production through an environmental scheme, there would need to be some concrete assurances of long-term funding before many landowners would sign up.
Given the government’s track record for removing the capital grant payments, would anybody trust them not to do similarly again?
I certainly wouldn’t feel comfortable relying solely on government funding for my income.
Having been critical of the consultation, I actually thought the proposals were largely reasonable. This framework could provide the joined-up thinking we’ve been missing.
It finds a balance between land sharing and land sparing that is correct.
We can farm in an environmentally friendly way while still producing food, the most productive land should primarily be used to maximise production, and the areas with particularly high environmental value should, in some cases, be taken out of production.
It is positive that the first step is a consultation so we have the opportunity to provide our feedback before the full land use framework is published. Let’s just hope our responses are considered.