GWCT welcomes ‘ambitious, nuanced and provocative’ National Food Strategy

Written by Joe Stanley, Head of Training and Partnerships, GWCT Allerton Project

3 Minute Read

Sven -scheuermeier -4R1Ypm GO52I-unsplash

The GWCT welcomes the scale and scope of Henry Dimbleby’s National Food Strategy – there can be no doubt that our diets, the way in which we produce our food and its impact on the environment are all inextricably linked and for too long all have been left almost entirely to the unloving care of the free markets, which place far too little value on good diets, sustainable farming practices and thriving, biodiverse ecosystems.

For thirty years the GWCT’s Allerton Project – a working demonstration farm in Loddington, Leicestershire - has been at the forefront of research into optimising nature-friendly farming systems alongside productive agricultural food production, and we were delighted to host Mr Dimbleby during the course of his deliberations. As such, we are pleased to see many of the recommendations in Part Two of his strategy. On those specifically relating to land use, we agree that at a time of unprecedented change for the industry, farmers require some certainty above all else, and therefore welcome the call to guarantee the budget for agricultural payments until at least 2029. Farming operates to very long timescales, and such a guarantee will enable farmers to invest in nature friendly farming with confidence in the coming years through ELM and other schemes as direct payments are withdrawn.

We also welcome the recommendations on trade; it’s self-evident that government cannot ask British farmers to operate to ever-higher levels of environmental, welfare and ethical standards without setting similar expectations of food to be imported from abroad. This would do nothing except undercut our world-leading production standards at home and create a two-tier food system that would risk not only driving high-quality domestic production to the wall but also merely offshoring our environmental footprint abroad and reward environmentally destructive practices beyond our shores.

We broadly welcome a review into our national land use framework; as a nation, we need to take stock of national priorities and factor both climate and biodiversity into our thinking in a way that has not previously been the case. It’s doubtless true that there is room for an optimisation of how we use our land, but we would caution against too broad-brush an approach in categorising entire landscapes as unsuitable for food production or suitable only for reforestation in an attempt to sequester carbon. It must be considered that some of our least productive farmland is also home to some of our most delicate, highly biodiverse ecosystems which have evolved in symbiosis with current land use practices: when it comes to natural regeneration or afforestation, it must very much be a case of the right tree in the right place rather than focussing on the narrow metric of calories produced/hectare, or we risk losing more than we gain. It must also be remembered that there is huge potential to store carbon and restore biodiversity in even the most productive farmed landscapes.

Finally, we welcome the report’s acknowledgement that grazed livestock are a vital element to both healthy soils and, in many cases, healthy ecosystems, and also that here in the UK we produce some of the most climate-friendly meat and dairy in the world. As the report points out, there is still much that can be done to further improve our production techniques – such as research and investment into methane-reducing feed additives – but we would sound a note of caution over an arbitrary target to reduce meat consumption. What we know is that we need more livestock in our farming system in a return to more traditional mixed landscapes, and that meat and dairy are an essential part of a healthy diet. Our focus should be on reducing our consumption of unsustainably produced meat produced in the ashes of the world’s rainforests or through the unsustainable overuse of antibiotics while promoting ourselves as world-leaders in the production of healthy, climate-friendly meat and dairy.

Henry Dimbleby’s Food Strategy is an ambitious, nuanced and provocative document that deserves a wide audience. We hope it will be carefully studied by government.

Help the GWCT come out of the pandemic even stronger


Response to Dimbleby report

at 13:24 on 20/07/2021 by Mike

I must congratulate you on your measured and subtle response to the excellent Dimbleby report. The Government's pursuit of trade deals 'at any price' raises the unethical probability of exporting our environmental problems. An issue you highlight. Food production operates in the free market while the environment does not, even if some aspects can be monetised, like carbon capture and better flood management. There is then the inescapable conflict between the market and public goods with the market winning at the expense of the environment unless the environment is given equal priority. At what point does food production become a public good in a country that still has food poverty?

Agricultural budget

at 10:31 on 20/07/2021 by John Charles-Jones

We must not lose sight of the fact that the agricultural budget has already diminished as a result of it being fixed and not taking any account of inflation. Current farmgate inflation is rampant, and freezing any budget until 2029 would only mean one thing

Make a comment

Cookie Policy

Our website uses cookies to provide you with a better online experience. If you continue to use our site without changing your browser settings, we'll assume you are happy to receive cookies. Please read our cookie policy for more information.

Do not show this message again