Farming Roadmap 2050: What comes next for farmers?

It is a rare sight to see a piece of policy that crosses the siloes of different government departments. The Farming Roadmap may be such a unicorn. 

Following closely on the heels of the Land Use Framework, the Roadmap endeavours to lay out a vision for English agriculture that crosses boundaries from food production to planning to employment to the environment (although it does stop short of mentioning tax).

It addresses the complaint the sector has had since the Brexit referendum that farmers require clarity and certainty on agricultural policy. 

There are not many new policy initiatives laid out in the document, but there are some environmental targets around soil, water pollution and biodiversity, and it does establish a clear direction of travel for both farmers and the Government.

In many ways, it is a blueprint for a new agricultural philosophy. It sets out a vision for the sector where commercial resilience and environmental stewardship are not competing interests, but mutual drivers of success.

By integrating high animal welfare standards, social responsibility, and a competitive edge in global food exports, the Roadmap aims to build a farming industry that is sustainable for society and taxpayers, while also being profitable for those who work in it.

What are the significant takeaways for farmers?

A large section of the Roadmap is devoted to resilience, with clear responsibility put on farmers to develop their own capability and preparedness to deal with market volatility and more extreme weather.  The Government’s role will be enabler (hopefully), not grant provider.

It talks about farmers needing to use tools like insurance, diversification, collaboration and benchmarking, alongside long-term planning, to more effectively manage risk. There is also an emphasis on a free market and private sector investment to empower and enable businesses. The need for greater use of precision technology and regenerative practices is also highlighted, positioning them as mechanisms to decouple farm viability from the brutal volatility of commodity markets, rather than just being about the environment.

The Roadmap also states that the current array of subsidies and premiums available should be seen as transitional, rather than permanent, and that (perhaps ominously for some) some current Sustainable Farming Scheme (SFI) actions may become embedded in regulation in future.  This echoes conversations we have been having within the agrifood supply chain, where it is apparent that while premiums will be paid now for regeneratively-farmed wheat, for example, in future if a high proportion of wheat is grown that way, farmers will not be able to expect premiums forever.  It will just be a requirement of a competitive market. However, the burden of evidencing farming methods, and the complexity of the ever-evolving science, will makes this less simple than it sounds.

The document also talks about policy shifting toward a “spatially targeted” model, particularly in relation to the SFI and elements of Countryside Stewardship Higher Tier (CSHT). While there is no real detail of what this means, it does sounds like over time some traditional farming practices may no longer be supported in certain regions. If this is the case, it will be better for those farming businesses to plan now rather than find themselves making decisions in the future under existential pressure.

Making the transition to the more targeted lower-input, lower-emission and more nature-friendly farming systems envisaged in the Roadmap will cost money. It is encouraging that the need for funding this is recognised, although we do have questions about the emphasis placed on role of the private sector to deliver it.  A current barrier to investment for businesses of all kinds is the increasing tax burden on individuals and employers – from inheritance tax and capital gains to NI contributions and the national living wage.

How can farmers respond?

Farmers should not be afraid of this transition, although it will be uncomfortable. The agricultural sector is effectively undergoing a systemic rebirth, moving away from 80 years of production and subsidy.

The definition of a successful farm is shifting from one that maximises yield to one that maximises value – economic, environmental, and social. By driving the industry toward a lower-input, high-tech system, the Government is signalling that the middle ground of farming “the way we’ve always done it” is no longer a viable economic strategy.

We are already advising our clients to de-risk their businesses, and the numbers support a more diverse approach to cropping, inputs and selling.  For example, a traditional high-input, high yielding milling wheat crop may suffer a 30% hit on its margin if energy and fertiliser prices soar as we have seen this year.  Whereas an intercropped, low input rotation of wheat, beans, oats and peas, whilst making less money in a good year, may only be affected 7-10%, ending up more profitable, in a bad year.  It is time to strip back your budget and rebuild it from scratch, imagining how you might farm if you were dealt today’s hand when your business was first conceived.

If you would like to talk about how you can build resilience and better manage risk in your farming business contact Natalie Gaibani.