Debate on the Address

My Lords, it could be that the world is on the verge of a profound change in its food markets. During the past 12 months, the global price of cereals and dairy products has doubled, for reasons, I believe, which have long-term consequences. Demand worldwide is running ahead of supply and some stocks are dangerously low. Global population continues to rise and, thanks to increasing prosperity, especially in China, people are eating more meat. The supply of food has been reduced in recent years by a series of bad harvests in various parts of the world. Meanwhile, many Governments have been encouraging their farmers to switch from food to energy crops. The livestock industry worldwide has been devastated by disease, Asian flu, blue ear disease in China, bluetongue in Europe, foot and mouth disease in Britain. With prices soaring, the CAP’s bedrock principles—farm subsidies and protection from cheap imports—have become obsolete and irrelevant. These momentous events require Governments nationally and collectively to carry out a radical review of policies affecting the agricultural environment, renewable energy crops, agriscience and technology and international trade. Let me start with the environment. Is climate change already restricting agricultural outputs? Droughts in various parts of the world and floods in others would suggest so. It is likely that climate change will create a drastic upheaval in patterns of global agricultural production, with an even greater reliance on farmers in northern hemisphere temperate zones. Ironically, agriculture is a major contributor to climate change. Some 22 per cent of the greenhouse gas emissions in this country come from farming, and farming produces 57 per cent of methane emissions. On its own, climate change will probably cause a global reduction in food production. On renewable energy crops, Governments are incentivising farmers worldwide to grow more energy crops by the use of tax breaks and regulation. They offer three reasons for switching from fossil to biofuels. First, the environmental impact of energy crops is supposed to be beneficial compared with oil. Secondly, domestically produced energy crops reduce the dependence on imports of oil from politically unstable parts of the world. Finally, for some countries it is a convenient way of subsidising farmers. I remain to be convinced on all three counts. The carbon footprint of many energy crops is not significantly better than oil when you take into account the energy needed to grow, process and transport the products. There will be an insignificant improvement in security, because energy crops are at any rate planned to supply only 10 per cent of the fuel market. We need to be phasing out farm subsidies, for the reasons that I gave earlier, rather than introducing new ones. Unless there is a radical technical breakthrough that gives energy crops an incontestable advantage over oil, I believe that we should move cautiously in promoting energy crops. Especially if food supplies are going to remain tight, it would be irresponsible to switch more land from food to energy production. In my lifetime the world’s population has trebled, but Malthus’s grim prophesies have not been realised because food production has risen even more than that 300 per cent. While there are famine disaster areas, mainly due to political and logistical failures, the world is better fed than ever before. That remarkable situation is due to spectacular scientific innovations in plant and animal breeding and disease and pest control, which have probably trebled outputs per hectare across the world. Equally remarkable technological advances in machinery that has helped farmers to beat the elements have made it possible to bring large amounts of new land into cultivation and to drastically reduce the cost of food, thereby making it more affordable to poor people across the world. We will need innovative science and technology as much in the future as we did in the past if we are to raise global food production by a further 100 per cent—probably the best estimate—in the next 40 years to meet the needs of 9 billion people. Why the dependency on science? Unless we start cutting down tropical forests, probably less than 10 per cent of land on the planet is spare and could be brought into cultivation, compared with 60 years ago when 40 per cent of the land might have been spare. Climate change on its own will reduce agricultural production, and yet in many parts of the developed world governments, in response to pressure-group concerns, are restricting scientific innovation. The GM controversy is the obvious example. Some previous scientific innovation has been reckless because of its damaging impact on the environment, animal welfare and even human health, but those failures have largely been dealt with by extensive regulation of the food chains. However, there could be a temptation for farmers to start cutting corners again if the prize is great. It is quite irresponsible for Governments to turn their backs on agricultural science. We must manage and invest in the science, not deny it. There is a real danger that over-intensive livestock production could lead to a major worldwide breakdown in animal health. Once again, the scientists, who are partly responsible for the problem, must find ways of solving it. Finally, few would disagree that the world has benefited enormously from more free trade and fewer barriers to trade. For various reasons, America and the EU have restricted the expansion of free trade in food. There have been modest indications of changes in these policies in recent years, but the danger is that trade in food will be restricted, not to protect farmers but to protect consumers from food inflation. It is already happening in Russia and Argentina. In fact the need for more fair and free trade in food will become even more important in the event that global food production polarises towards the northern hemisphere because of climate change. Given that situation, it will be essential to ensure a fair and constant supply of food from areas in surplus to those in deficit. The CAP comes up for radical review in 2013, which is not far away when you consider the long and tortuous negotiations ahead. The WTO talks on freer trade are in danger of collapse. The British Government should take a lead in highlighting these dramatic changes in global agricultural production and propose radical new policies to alleviate the Malthusian problem caused by the existence of between 2 billion and 3 billion more human beings on the planet and the consequences of climate change.