The UK Government’s recent land use framework consultation for England follows the science in pursuing more of a land-sparing approach. But the consultation falls short in its simplistic assumption that the yield increases and productivity improvements needed to compensate for farmland spared for nature restoration and climate mitigation will happen by default, as if by magic. It fails to acknowledge the evidence that growth in national crop yields has stalled, and that current farm policies, for England at least, are projected to reduce yields and displace food production. This is primarily because they are focused on a land-sharing approach, with farmers rewarded for adopting agri-environment schemes, leaving land fallow, reducing input use, and growing food for birds and insects, rather than for humans. The underlying message from the land use framework consultation is clear. To deliver the best outcomes for food security, nature and the climate, a radical new policy approach is needed, focused on helping farmers produce ‘more from less’, argues Norfolk arable farmer David Hill.  

  

Two and a half years ago, I warned in an article for Science for Sustainable Agriculture that the development of a coherent land use framework – providing an evidence-based assessment of the competing demands and priorities placed on this precious resource – should have preceded the development and introduction of post-CAP farm policy options under Defra’s Environmental Land Management schemes (ELMs).   

 

My reasoning was clear. The scientific evidence is now compelling that a land-sparing approach – concentrating high-yield food production on a smaller area of land to leave more room for intact nature and carbon sequestration – is by far the most effective policy approach to deliver a sustainable balance between food production, resource use, nature restoration and climate change mitigation.

 

I cautioned against the Government’s headlong rush, egged on by conservation NGOs, into so called ‘nature-friendly’ land-sharing options which incentivise farmers to adopt lower-yield farming practices, or to take productive land out of food production.

 

I wrote at the time: “It’s vitally important to have an early idea of what a science-based assessment of future land use allocations might look like, before too much of our productive land is consigned to re-wilding, tree planting or low-yield farming systems such as organic, and before too much public money is designated to reward less productive farming systems when the scientific evidence tells us to focus on high yield farming.”

 

Fast forward 30 months, and we have seen a succession of reports and studies, including from the House of Commons Public Accounts Committee, the National Audit Office, the Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, and Natural England, all warning that Defra’s farming and countryside programme has essentially been developed on the hoof, without proper impact assessment, and that the Government’s current policy approach risks reducing and displacing domestic food production without delivering on national climate and biodiversity objectives.

 

Last week, Environment Secretary Steve Reed finally unveiled the Government’s long-awaited consultation on a land use framework for England.

 

On first sight, from a scientific perspective, much of it makes a lot of sense.

 

In line with the Prime Minister’s repeated pledge that ‘food security is national security’, the consultation document highlights the importance of protecting our most productive farmland for food production, emphasising the need to increase agricultural yields and productivity, and underlining the critical role of applied research and knowledge transfer in accelerating the uptake of new technologies and practices at farm level.

 

Crucially, the consultation document also recognises that policy actions which lead to reduced domestic agricultural production will not only increase dependence on food imports, but will also “tend to encourage an expansion in agricultural production in other countries, possibly with significant negative environmental impacts.”     

 

Central to the Government’s plan for land use is a recognition that a significant proportion of currently farmed land (760,000 ha, or 9 per cent) needs to be taken out of agricultural production for habitat restoration and climate mitigation. More than half as much again (430,000ha, or 5 per cent) needs to be managed primarily for environmental and climate benefits, with limited food production.           

 

Overall, the consultation document provides a strong endorsement of the scientific case to pursue more of a land-sparing approach, with a clear recognition that land taken out food production must be compensated by corresponding yield increases elsewhere to avoid off-shoring the environmental impacts of our food system, with potentially even more damaging consequences for biodiversity and carbon emissions elsewhere.

 

Where the consultation falls short, however, is in its simplistic assumption that these yield increases and productivity improvements will happen by default, as if by magic.

 

The consultation document and accompanying information chart trends in UK agricultural productivity dating back to 1973, and simply project these forward.

 

They appear to overlook the fact that average UK wheat yields have remained stubbornly unchanged at around 8 tonnes per hectare for the best part of 20 years. Or that domestic potato production is at its lowest for more than a decade. Or that our self-sufficiency in vegetable oil is set to hit a record low of 15%, having previously been 40%. The impact of the Government’s neonic seed treatment rejection on domestic sugar production remains to be seen, although some experts are predicting that reduced productivity and higher costs could potentially lead to some growers abandoning the crop altogether. 

              

Looking forward, there appears to be no recognition in the document that current farm policies, for England at least, are predicted to reduce yields and displace food production. That is primarily because they are focused on a land-sharing approach, with farmers rewarded for adopting agri-environment schemes, leaving land fallow, reducing input use, and growing food for birds and insects, rather than for humans.

 

Farmers can hardly be blamed for following the money, however much it goes against our instincts as food producers. One independent study estimated that a model 830 ha farm in the East Midlands would see crop yields fall by 24% after six years as a result of optimising income from current Sustainable Farming Incentive options. 

 

So, the underlying message from the land use framework consultation is clear. To deliver the best outcomes for food security, nature and the climate, a radical new policy approach is needed.

 

I have one immediate suggestion. Farmers and growers of a certain age will recall the days of state-funded agricultural extension and advisory services, which were regarded as a trusted, independent source of advice on issues such as agronomy, rotations, variety choice and so on.

 

In recent years, both the Scots and the Welsh have invested in re-creating such programmes, through their Farm Advisory Service and Farming Connect programmes respectively. England should look to do the same.

   

One of the most urgent challenges facing UK crop producers is to close the gap between actual and potential yields. Independent research has shown that genetic improvement is the single most important factor driving crop yield and productivity improvements, yet while National List trials data show that plant breeders have continued to deliver yield improvements in the order of 0.5 – 1% per year, on-farm yields have flat-lined, as the following graph shows.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Declaring an interest as a member (but with the best of motives), I believe the Government could do much worse than to pay for all farmers to have access to the independent trialling, advisory and extension services provided by NIAB.

 

NIAB currently delivers independent agronomy advice to a network of farmer members representing around 20% of the UK arable area. This makes a demonstrable contribution to closing the yield gap among NIAB’s farmer members, whose average crop yields are more than 9% above the national average. Worth noting that 9% is also the amount of farmland that the Government’s land use framework document recommends taking out of production! 

 

Ministers must be bold. The Government must send clearer signals about the policy direction needed to deliver the most effective use of our precious land resource for food, nature and the climate.  

 

Again, the Government could do much worse than to embrace the 30:50:50 Innovation Agenda for UK Agriculture launched last week by the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Science and Technology in Agriculture.

 

Responding to Defra food security minister Daniel Zeichner’s confirmation that he wants the country to produce more food, this sets out an ambitious vision for Britain’s farmers to produce 30% more food by 2050 while reducing UK agriculture’s environmental footprint by 50%. It also discusses the policy changes needed to deliver on the 30:50:50 vision.  

 

As farmers, we are the nation’s most significant managers of land. This is the kind of long-term clarity and consistency of objective we urgently need.

 

David Hill farms in central Norfolk growing early generation cereal seed, grass seed, oilseed rape, sugar beet and spelt wheat. The farm also operates three processing plants, adding value to its own and other farmers’ crops. David is a Nuffield Scholar and a member of the Global Farmers Network. A keen advocate of new technology in agriculture, he was one of the first farmers to host UK trials of GM sugar beet as part of the Government’s GM crop Field Scale Evaluation trials in the late 1990s.