 |
2003 National Agriculture Awareness Conference"Keeping Good Things Growing"
Highlights |
| Photos | Speakers | Conference Highlights |
Opening Keynote Address - Sir Donald CurryCan Canadian Agriculture learn from the Sustainable Future for British AgricultureIntroductory Remarks May I firstly give my thanks for the kind invitation to open your conference today, and to congratulate the organisers, for putting together such an excellent event. It is a real pleasure to take part - particularly as I have been able to take the opportunity to spend a few days exploring your wonderful country. It is my first visit and I am particularly honoured to have been asked to open proceedings this morning. Conferences such as this are important. It gives us chance:
I look forward to being a part of that over the next 3 days both in the formal sessions, and the social events - and hearing the many distinguished guests that will be speaking to us. Canada I met with the Canadian High Commission recently in London and was very interested to learn about the development of your new Agricultural Policy Framework in Canada, and learn more about your farming and food industry. As expected there are lots of interesting parallels and some significant contrasts between Canada and the UK. For instance hogg production is powering ahead in Canada. In 2002 this was 22 million with another 5.3 million being exported to the USA live. In contrast, production in Britain contracted by over 30% over the past 3 years. The strength of sterling coupled with a unilateral decision by the UK Government to ban the use of stalls and tethers in the late 90's, has led to pork and bacon being largely uncompetitive in the global market which has had devastating effects on British pig producers. The Challenge for British Agriculture I have been asked to speak to you today about how Britain has responded to the impact on consumer confidence in the face of the severe challenges the agriculture sector have faced. And the severity of those challenges cannot be underestimated - the 1990's saw consumer confidence in the UK hit by the BSE crisis, followed by swine fever in 2000 and in 2001 with the first foot and mouth epidemic in the UK since 1967. The UK was not alone in facing such problems - other countries in Europe have been affected too - by BSE and by outbreaks of swine fever over the last ten years or so. The impact in Britain however has been deeper and more prolonged. These problems led to an overall feeling of unease in the minds of the public that has become very remote from farming and its practices, a distrust of agricultural practises. The challenge has been how to face up to the legacy of the past - and formulate a clear and positive future. We need to create a sustainable (that includes profitable) modern, diverse and adaptable farming and food industry in which consumers and the wider public have confidence. Consumers I think it's worth spending a little time thinking about consumers and what they expect from a modern farming and food sector. Just to remind you that we have twice as many of them as you have on a land mass that is about 40 times smaller than yours. Consumers in Britain demand sound standards of hygiene, animal welfare and food quality. They want transparency, information and advice. And while they expect to get good value from the food they buy, they are becoming increasingly resistant to paying twice - both as taxpayers and consumers - in the way the present food subsidy of support within E.U's Common Agricultural Policy is directed. I also believe that the public has become more aware of farming's impact on the environment but also more conscious that good husbandry can help mitigate that impact. And if it becomes clear that better land management or growing non-food crops are part of the contribution farming can make to adsorbing the impact of climate change or improving bio-diversity and our countryside - it would increase both public awareness and public willingness to support 'public goods' where the marketplace might not. Consumers are clearly key stakeholders in this process. As taxpayers and as customers of end products produced by the food and farming industry they have a huge influence - ultimately by the purchasing decisions they make. BSE I have been following the saga here with interest and nothing could illustrate the break down between the industry and the public in the UK, more powerfully than the BSE crisis during the 1980s and 1990s. It was an epidemic which ultimately led to terrible consequences for human health and one which had an unprecedented impact on the industry. BSE was first identified as an animal disease in 1986. At this stage it was regarded as an animal disease and the link to CJD was not considered to be a serious risk. It was not until March 1996, 10 years later, when BSE was announced in Parliament as "the most probable cause of nvCJD in humans" [by the then Secretary of State for Health (under the previous Government)]. The announcement was followed by a dramatic and understandable media and consumer response and an immediate 30% drop in total of sales of beef. The reaction of the general public was one of a betrayal of trust - the unquestioning assumption for most people that food was safe was suddenly challenged. For the industry it was sales of minced beef and hamburger that were most badly affected - this is where consumers felt the lowest level of trust in the product. Between March and May 1996 monthly sales of minced beef dropped by over 40% from 7000 tonnes to 4,000 tonnes. The devastating nature of disease and its impacts on public health led to the establishment at the time of the crisis of an independent inquiry - chaired by Lord Phillips. Lord Phillips examined the events leading up to the epidemic, the consequent human health and social impacts and made recommendations to Government on how such catastrophes can be avoided in the future. Most critically, the BSE crisis and previous food scares, led to the establishment of the independent Foods Standards Agency. The Agency is an independent food safety watchdog set up by an Act of Parliament in 2000 to protect the public's health and consumer interests in relation to food. The F.S.A. has legal powers necessary to enable it to act in the consumer's interest at any stage in the food production and supply chain. In addition, the Agency operates in an open way - its advice to Government on issues is published openly. Indeed it has set new standards of openess. It also has powers to notify the results of tests for food-borne diseases. The Agency's independence and its transparent way of working mean that it is an organisation in which the public can have faith. Recent consumer research is confirming that the F.S.A. led by their Chairman Sir John Krebs is gaining their confidence. The top priority is of course to safeguard public health. The Government took action aimed at removing the incidence of BSE in animals - backed up by measures introduced in 1989 and strengthened since then to make sure that the parts of animals most likely to carry BSE are removed from the human or animal food chain (specified risk material, SRM including the spinal cord, spleen, head, tonsils, etc) - backed by rigorous independent inspection in abattoirs. We also banned the use of mechanically recovered meat (MRM) Effective controls on animal feed are the key to the eradication of BSE in cattle, and the UK introduced tougher controls in 1996 to keep potentially infectious meat and bone meal out of livestock feed completely. Any breach of these controls can result in a fine or even imprisonment. Human exposure to the BSE agent has also been greatly reduced by the introduction of the over thirty months schemes in the UK. The scheme keeps meat from cattle aged over 30 months at slaughter out of the food chain. This accounts for over 20% of all beef production. Farmers are compensated and a proportion are tested (on fallen stock and casualty animals) the OTMS is being reviewed and may be dismantled and replaced by testing. BSE levels are now significantly lower than 1988 levels, when the disease was first made notifiable. The controls in the UK are working -reported suspected new cases running at 5 per cent of 1993 levels the peak of the epidemic. Since 1986 we have had about 170,000 confirmed cases. This year approximately 600 will be confirmed. the number is falling by about 30% a year (last year900) With 3 /4 years, we will be down to very low numbers. The industry led the work to identify where consumers had their biggest concerns and communicated to consumers what Government and the industry were doing to ensure that the product was safe. This focussed on the development of the Minced Beef Quality Mark. Rigorous standards were applied. The product had to comply that complied with all the legal requirements and a rosette was introduced which included 3 statements -
This was applied to mince first, then extended to burgers. Samples were taken from supermarkets and butchers to guarantee standards. As a result of the Government and industry working together to face this challenge, part funded by Government and part funded by Industry - confidence in British beef has returned and grown - and beef consumption is now greater than it was in 1995. Foot and Mouth I want to now turn to the Foot and Mouth epidemic in the UK and the lessons learned by that experience. FMD hit the UK in February 2001 in one of the worst epidemics of FMD the modern world has seen. The epidemic of 2001 left an indelible mark on communities, businesses and consumers. The countryside was shut down with devastating affect on rural businesses, particularly tourism. All in all:
It was during the foot and mouth epidemic, following on from the BSE crisis that I believe there was a consensus that British agriculture had reached a crossroads. Things could not continue as they had been. It was against this backdrop that, in August 2001, the Government established - rightly- an independent enquiry process - with three strands. These were:
The Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs - who established this independent process - asked each of us to focus on different aspects. I was given 5 months to report back to Government. The other 2 studies were given a little longer. All of us adopted an open approach to our work - making it a key priority to collect written and spoken evidence. All three of us, with our teams, separately visited groups of stakeholders and the general public, right across the country. We asked for written statements from industry and stakeholder groups, including consensus groups. In my case we held about 50 stakeholder meetings, had 6 regional visits and received 1,300 written responses. All three of us published our findings and recommendations in detailed public reports. The Government accepted the work and recommendations of the two inquiries in statements to the House of Commons. In the case of the Policy Commission report the Government responded by publishing its Strategy for Sustainable Farming and Food - and I'd like to take a little more of your time to tell you about that in more detail. The Policy Commission The Policy Commission was made up of representatives from across the food chain, including environmental and consumer groups. It was a challenging, stimulating and lively group (some suggested it was an impossible group to manage!) - and I believe that our report reflects the distillation of the very real and forceful debate - and, importantly, the consensus that we reached in the group. A consensus on the analysis of the present position based on the evidence we had collected from stakeholders - and our vision for the future. Disconnection Our analysis of the farming and food industries revealed a situation which was characterised by disconnection: Disconnection:
The Policy Commission report, which was published in January 2002, set a vision for the sustainable future of the Farming and Food industry. The scope of the report was ambitious and wide-ranging - with 105 recommendations for shaping change in the farming and food sectors. Perhaps, not surprisingly, given our analysis of the problems British agriculture faced - the central theme was reconnection:
I'm pleased to say that the report was well received, and generated broad support from stakeholders. It was welcomed by the Government at a seminar hosted by the Prime Minister in March 2002 where a number of initiatives to begin to take forward the Strategy immediately were announced The Policy Commission recommendation has a price tag - and we estimated that the implementation of the recommendations of the report would cost £500 million. After intense lobbying of the Treasury - I was delighted that the Chancellor announced that money would be made available to take the recommendations forward. This gives us the real opportunity to turn the vision set out in the Policy Commission report into reality In responding to the Policy Commission report the Government published its Strategy on Farming and Food in December last year. The Government's Strategy establishes a new settlement with the farming and food industries, setting a clear and strategic direction towards a more sustainable future. This means addressing the three pillars by which sustainability is judged - the economic, environmental and social impacts of food and farming. The Strategy builds on - and includes a full response to the recommendations of the Policy Commission on Food and Farming. I was personally very pleased that of the 105 recommendation we made, 100 are being taken forward. And I believe that this Strategy sets a framework with which Government and industry can work together to deliver real change in the real world. Both the Policy Commission's report and the Government's Strategy make it very clear that the challenge of delivering a sustainable future for the Farming and Food sector can only be met if both Government and the industry are committed to deliver change. The Implementation Group Following the publication of the report I was then asked to Chair an Implementation Group to oversee and drive delivery of the Government's Strategy on Farming and Food. Like the Policy Commission, the Group is made up of nine leaders in a range of different fields covering a wealth of expertise and experience across agriculture, the food industry and consumer issues. We had our first meeting in October last year and have met monthly since then. The Group is working in an open way and has establishing a website, giving information about the Group and summaries of the outcome of meetings. I have asked each member of the Group, to lead on particular work areas as follows:
We are also keeping an eye on the global context and how this affects delivery of the Strategy - focussing on the CAP reform and the WTO negotiations. The Group is monitoring progress of the Strategy using a delivery planning approach. Good planning will be a key element of keeping delivery on track - which in plain language that means that we are:
We are focussing our efforts on delivering the parts of the Strategy, which are critical to its success. There are different time scales for achievement of the individual elements of the strategy- and we are driving progress. We will challenge where necessary if delivery is stalling. Both Government and industry are committed to this task. I have weekly meetings with Ministers and I meet with the Prime Minister every 6 months. Keeping in touch with stakeholders through this process is very important - you can't oversee delivery on the ground from behind a desk. I and other members of the Implementation group have just embarked on a number of regional visits. Over the next few weeks we will be visiting farms and regional stakeholder groups across England. They are engaged in the process and want to help. Trying to harness the resources and energy to move the process forward in a co-ordinated way is a major challenge. Healthy Eating We recommended in the Policy Commission Report that the Government should produce a strategy for nutrition and healthy eating. There is increasing concern in Britain about rising levels of obesity and the potential consequences for health. There are real opportunities to produce healthier, more nutritious food and to encourage healthy eating. The food service sector has a particular role to play here, in using fresh produce and encouraging the consumer to understand the links with the producer. The Government also has a role to play -in England for example through the purchase and supply of fruit and healthy food to schools. The production of fresh healthy food and its procurement by public bodies such as schools and hospitals can also really make a difference to diet. Linking public procurement of fresh healthy local food to supply of local schools which can be linked to the schools curriculum. Where this happens children have a better understanding of healthily eating - and how and where food is produced. Such initiatives can lead to long term changes in eating habits and really contribute to the challenge of re-connecting. Conclusion At the beginning of my speech to you today I described the challenges that faced British agriculture and the steps that are being taken to address those challenges. We won't meet those challenges unless the industry meets this head on - looking for new ways of working, understanding what consumers expect from a responsible modern industry, and looking for new market opportunities. We also need to be aware of the impacts of the global market, and be committed to the success of the WTO negotiations opening up markets. We know that global trading means increased competition. This is as true for Canada as it is for England - and in England we also have to deal with relatively high compliance costs and a strong currency for the past 5 years. In conclusion ladies and gentlemen the Farming and Food Industry in England has largely accepted that change must be embraced, that production subsidies should now be relegated to history, that the future lies in re-connecting with tax payers and consumers. With the former it means convincing them to provide public support for delivering public goods - a sound environmental policy together with managing habitats and countryside features. Re-connecting with consumers means being consumer focused, addressing their concerns and exploring and exploiting market opportunities whether they be local, regional, national or global - food or non-food. We are using the 'Little Red Tractor' as a symbol of assurance to communicate the values and quality of our food. The Government has an important role to play here - in setting the framework for success. But Government should not and could not be entirely responsible for delivering change in the farming and food industry. Government needs to be able to step back and allow an enterprise culture focussed on the needs of its customers, to develop and flourish - and that will only take place if the industry itself rises to the challenge. |
||