Martin Haworth is the NFU's Director of Policy.
Sometimes the reaction is more revealing than the action.
When the President of the NFU Peter Kendall remarked in a speech made to the Agriculture Industries Confederation conference last week that he didn’t think there was a biodiversity crisis in this country, but there was an agricultural productivity crisis, it was as though a fox had leapt into the chicken coop.
The RSPB’s official reaction was relatively mild, their Conservation Director saying he was “disappointed” and “saddened” by Peter Kendall’s words. An RSPB official tweeted to ask if this was the end of the NFU’s involvement in the Campaign for the Farmed Environment; voluntary action by farmers and landowners to improve the environment in which the NFU and RSPB are partners. Another blogger waded in with hysterical alliteration, accusing Peter Kendall of being “callous, casual and calculated.”
It is worth examining the background and possible causes for this extraordinary reaction and why Peter chose to compare the twin challenges of production and biodiversity.
There is some solid scientific theory behind the proposition that bird numbers are a good indicator of the health of wildlife populations in general. So it is perhaps surprising that while the farmland bird index has declined, other measures show significant environmental improvement: many mammals (otter and badger among them) are expanding range rapidly. English rivers are at their healthiest for 20 years, the use of agricultural pesticides and fertiliser has fallen and almost 70 per cent of the farmed area is under some kind of environmental scheme.
It appears that we have not a ‘crisis’ but specific biodiversity challenges related to some of our wildlife, most notably for farming, those ascribed as farmland birds.
Indeed close reading of the ‘farmland bird’ index itself, shows the extent of the challenge before farming. The British Trust for Ornithology categorises some 36 birds as being “farmland birds”, but only 19 of these species were included in the ‘official’ Farmland Bird Index. And many of these ‘excluded’ birds, as well as the ‘official’ 19, do show population increases. So the welcome evidence of expanding wildlife on farms doesn’t seem to tally with this official statistic: Buzzards and barn owls, for example, don’t seem to count.
Back to the reaction to Peter Kendall’s words. Note that he didn’t say “biodiversity doesn’t matter” or “farmers have no responsibility for caring for the environment”. He said he didn’t see a ‘biodiversity crisis’. At the heart of criticism of his comparison seems to be the belief that unless there is a crisis, and things can be claimed to be getting worse, no one will take matters seriously and nothing will be done.
In the case of farmers and landowners, at least, this is a profound misreading of the psychology. Most farmers are proud of the efforts they make to protect and enhance the environment. Showing them that their efforts are bearing fruit is the best way of encouraging more voluntary actions. Telling them that, despite everything that has been done, things are getting relentlessly worse is deeply demotivating.
The NFU remains firmly of the view that voluntary action like the CFE is the best way to achieve environmental improvement. We have been very impressed by work done by the Game and Wildlife Conservation Trust which shows that a relatively small area of land, actively managed for wildlife, can bring large benefits. It is unfortunate that current Common Agriculture Policy reform proposals would be very unhelpful to this kind of approach.
But if this episode has done any good it is to focus attention on the other part of Peter Kendall’s syllogism: the state of agricultural productivity. And this is important. It has become commonplace that the world has to increase its production of food by at least 70 per cent in the next 40 years. But it is unsustainable to bring more land into production; and reducing food waste, imposing new diets or distributing food more fairly can only go so far. Much of this expansion on food production must come about from producing more per acre - twice as much according to the Royal Society.
Sadly, we are nowhere near achieving that. Wheat yields in Europe, including the UK, have been flat-lining for some time. And the UK, often thought of as being particularly competitive in agricultural terms, has seen its total factor productivity decline relentlessly for the last 20 years, against both European and world competitors.
The Organisation of Economic Co-operation and Development itself was quoted last week as saying that productivity was now more important than sustainability. During a debate on the Big Food Challenge conference in London, Wayne Jones, OECD’s head of agri-food trade and markets division said: “The industry needs to increase productivity growth - that is the line we are taking rather than simply focusing on sustainability - although that growth would have to be more sustainable.”
So, let’s be clear. If bird numbers in this country remain stable for the next 40 years that could be counted as a fair achievement. If there is no improvement in agricultural productivity the consequences would be dire. That would, indeed, be a crisis.
- Alan Smallacombe - 14/12/2011
As the numbers of birds of prey and badgers foxes etc. increase and their natural food sources including other fallen birds and animals are cleared up these predators turn to the next available source which diminishes the numbers of smaller birds. There is also a great loss of habitat to urban and industrial development which is more damaging than Agriculture.
- Charlie Bransden - 28/11/2011
We have very little time for the creative statistics of the RSPB, but hold the BTO in high esteeem. Arguably on our 45ha tenanted patch of intensive veg and herbs, we are doing exactly as requested of us: high outputs £750,000 turnover, employment: 20 full time equivalents and one full time special needs, ticking all the environmental boxes (cf FW Awards this year, NFU Farming Excellence 2003, L.E.A.F Demo and Marque) and still the RSPB sneer at our achievements, saying we "are not representative" Rot, wildlife goes to where it can find food and shelter, it matters not a jot to them. The RSPB needs huge income to pay C.E.O rates, and doesn't mind who it slags off to tweak the heartstrings of the donating public.
- Caroline Corsie - 24/11/2011
Bird numbers, bees, earthworms , you name it, and improvements in productivity are both going to continue to spiral downwards whilst we have no policy to restore soil organic matter and associated biological activity.