self-sufficiency and united kingdom food policy

Agricultural Adminisrrarion II (1982) 107-125

SELF-SUFFICIENCY AND UNITED KINGDOM FOOD POLICY

STEPHEN J. FALLOWS & J. VERNER WHEELOCK

School of Science and Society, University of Bradford, Richmond Road, Bradford 807 lDP, Yorks, Great Britain

(Received: 20 November, 1981)

SUMMARY

Thepaperprovides a critical examination of the concepts offood self-sufficiency and considers the UK’sposition with regard to this issue. The paper is divided into three major sections. (I) The meaning of the term ‘self-sufficiency’ as it is applied to food is considered in some detail, as different authors and government agencies use definitions of self-sufJiciency which can d$er considerably and which have different uses. (2) UK self-sufficiency is considered historically in the context of the various foodpolicies usedand theprevailing internationalsituation. (3) A policy on UKfood self-suf$ciency for the future is formulated, and the criteria for the selection of this policy outlined. Consideration is also given to the question of how an increase infood self-suf$ciency might be achieved.

INTRODUCTION

International comparisons reveal that the UK produces an unusually small proportion of its food supplies and must rely on imports to a much larger extent than most other nations. O’Hagan’ considered the food self-sufficiency in 36 countries using FAO data; most countries were able to supply over 95 % of the food energy consumed by their populations whereas the UK was able to provide only 60 % of the food energy demanded.

The low degree of UK self-sufficiency in food supplies is, to a large extent, a consequence of government actions and inactions in the past; food self-sufficiency has only rarely been an issue in the UK and the free-trade ideals of successive governments have only given extensive consideration to food self-sufficiency in times of crisis. The crises which have effected a change in agricultural food policies have been of two types, military and economic. The two world wars each resulted in

107 Agricultural Administration 0309-586X/82/001 l-0107/$02.75 0 Applied Science Publishers Ltd, England, 1982 Printed in Great Britain

108 STEPHEN J. FALLOWS, J. VERNER WHEELOCK

a (temporary) increase in food self-sufficiency as governments reacted to the vulnerability of overseas supply lines to enemy attack. Economic crises have also tended to force an increased emphasis on home production; the most spectacular example of this occurred with the ‘World Food Crisis’ of the early 1970’s which stimulated the publication of the White Paper ‘Food From Our Own Resources’2 which, for the first time, positively encouraged an increase in food self-sufficiency rather than simply continuing the programme of increasing food production in line with increases in demand (and thus maintaining the existing levels of self- sufficiency).

The objective of this paper is to provide a critical examination of the concepts of food self-sufficiency and to consider the UK’s position with regard to this issue. The paper will be divided into three major sections: The question of what is meant by the term ‘self-sufficiency’ as it is applied to food will be considered in some detail, as different authors and government agencies use definitions of self-sufficiency which can differ considerably and which have different uses. UK self-sufficiency will be considered historically in the context of the various food policies used and the prevailing international situation. A policy on UK food self-sufficiency for the future will be formulated and the criteria for selection of this policy outlined. Consideration will also be given to the question of how an increase in food self- sufficiency might be achieved.

WHAT IS MEANT BY ‘SELF-SUFFICIENCY’?

There is no single answer to this question; self-sufficiency is a concept which, when applied to the food system, has invited a wide range of interpretations. In general, a unit is said to be self-sufficient when it is able to produce as much as it consumes. The degree of self-sufficiency achieved is therefore a measure which compares production with consumption.

Self-sufficiency = Production

Consumption

By convention the degree of self-sufficiency is generally expressed as a percentage value rather than as a fraction.

The simple basic equation given above may, however, be expressed in a range of ways using a number of different units.

O’Hagan’s paper,’ quoted previously, considers the degree of self-sufficiency in a number of countries using nutritional values (kcal/person/day) to quantify food production and consumption. O’Hagan’s equation for self-sufficiency is therefore :

Self-sufficiency = Food produced (kcal/person/day) Food consumed (kcal/person/day) (2)

SELF-SUFFICIENCY AND UNITED KINGDOM FOOD POLICY 109

Although this estimate uses nutritional measures, it provides no indication of the nation’s ability to provide an adequate diet for each of its citizens, and it is thus possible to envisage a number of scenarios in which the above calculation provides only inadequate, or even misleading, information.

Scenario I A poor country which simply does not have the foreign exchange to purchase

food abroad will exhibit a very high degree of self-sufficiency, even though a large proportion of the population may receive an inadequate diet or even suffer from malnutrition.

Scenario 2 A rich country may exhibit only a low level of self-sufficiency whilst consuming

basic food supplies sufficient to support a population far larger than that which is in fact supplied. In such a country a large quantity of food potentially edible by man may be fed to farm animals and pets or simply wasted.

These two scenarios are simply examples of the misinterpretation which is possible if nutritional estimates of self-sufficiency are taken at face value. A normative evaluation is necessary if any meaningful estimate of nutritional well- being is to be obtained. A normative measure compares production with a target- in this case with the nutritional requirements of the population. This assessment of the ability of a nation to provide basic nutrition is in fact a widely used concept (particularly within international organisations such as FAO), whilst the objective measurement of nutritional self-sufficiency is only rarely used.

Objective measures of self-sufficiency are, however, the measures which must be used with all other units as there exists no normative target which satisfies the required criteria. Perhaps the most widely quoted measures of food self-sufficiency in the UK are those published annually by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (MAFF) which aggregate the UK food supplies using financial values. In this case the general equation for self-sufficiency is interpreted:

Food self-sufficiency = Food produced (E million) Food consumed (&million)

The general equation for self-sufficiency may be further clarified by specifying the foods under consideration. It is realised that not all of the food items which the UK population demands can be produced in the UK and that such foods must always be imported from overseas. MAFF, therefore, publishes estimates which indicate the UK’s ability to meet the demand for those foods which may be regarded as ‘indigenous’; that is, those which may ordinarily be produced in the UK. A full list,


classifying the major food items into the categories indigenous and non-indigenous, was given by Angel: 3

Indigenous food Food produced (&million) Self-sufficiency = Indigenous food consumed (&million) (4)

The above definitions (eqns (3) and (4)) have only been adopted by MAFF relatively recently. Prior to 1979, foods produced in the UK and then exported were disregarded in the calculations, and only foods produced and consumed in the UK taken into consideration. In recent years, however, increases in food exports from the UK have meant that this convention was leading to increasingly misleading information. The effects of this change in methodology have been extensively discussed by Mordue and Parrett.4

The above illustrates that there is no uniquely valid method of estimating food self-sufficiency financially and, in fact, the estimates may be further improved to provide more detailed information by defining the financial units to be used. The degree of self-sufficiency may be estimated for each year using current prices, or as a time series estimated in terms of the prices applicable to a single year.

These measures are primarily indicators of economic independence, and are thus used to evaluate the economic progress made by the national food production system. Current price accounting provides an annual estimate of the food balance of payments, whilst constant price accounting allows any expansion or contraction of the industry to be noted as total consumption varies little in physical quantity from year to year in mature economies such as that of the UK.

MAFF applies both current and constant (1975 at present) price conventions to estimates of total and indigenous food self-sufficiency, and these estimates are given in Table 1. As stated above, these measures present an indication of the economic independence of the UK food system, but they omit one vital factor: a portion of the food produced in the UK is dependent upon the imports of certain agricultural inputs from abroad (for example, animals are fed on imported feed and crops grown from imported seed). To take account of this factor the estimates may be further modified to give a more realistic measure of self-sufficiency.

Food self-sufficiency = Food produced - Net imports ag. inputs (5)

Food consumed (E) ~ (5)

This equation may be applied to both total food self-sufficiency and indigenous food self-sufficiency using constant or current price accounting. The various estimates given in Table 1 illustrate the need to be clear what is actually being measured when self-sufficiency data is quoted.

The data presented in Table 1 show that there has been a progressive increase in self-sufficiency during the past 10 years and the current price and constant price estimates show virtually the same trends over the period. As the indigenous foods do

m

TABL

E 1

E U

K FO

OD

SELF

-SU

FFIC

IEN

CY

(Valu

es

pres

ented

ar

e pe

rcenta

ges)

z 2 At

Cu

rrent

Price

s 19

70

1971

19

72

1973

19

74

I975

19

76

1977

19

78

1979

$j

1. Se

lf-suff

icien

cy

in al

l foo

ds

z

(eqn

(3

)) 56

3 56

4 59

.0

59.5

57

.5

60.7

61

.7

58.9

59

.0

60.9

9

2.

Self-s

uffici

ency

in

indige

nous

foo

ds

(eqn

(4

)) 70

.7

70.3

72

.7

74.1

71.0

74.1

76

.1 74

.8

74.1

76.4

Fi

3.

Se

lf-suff

icien

cy.

All

foods

ad

justed

for

ne

t im

ports

inp

uts

C z (e

w (5

)) 49

.2

50.0

52

.9

52.9

51

.2

56.0

55

.5

52.7

55

.9

56.9

=i

4.

Se

lf-suff

icien

cy

in ind

igeno

us

foods

6

adjus

ted

for

net

impo

rts

inputs

61

.8 62

.3

65.3

65

.9

63.2

68

.3

68.4

66

9 70

.2

71.4

7: At

Co

nstan

t (1

975)

Pr

ices

5. Se

lf-suff

icien

cy

in al

l foo

ds

51.6

56

.8

58.6

59

.1 60

.2

60.7

59

.2

63.4

62

.9

63.1

c, ei

6.

Self-s

uffici

ency

in

indige

nous

foo

ds

72.0

71

.5 74

.4

75.5

74

.1 74

.1

74.4

77

.6

77.5

79

.1 7.

Self-s

uffici

ency

. ;

All

foods

ad

justed

for

ne

t im

ports

inp

uts

50.1

50

.1

52.9

53

.3

54.6

56

.0

52.9

57

.3

58.9

58

.5

8. Se

lf-suff

icien

cy

in ind

igeno

us

foods

g

adjus

ted

for

net

impo

rts

inputs

62

.6

63.1

61

.2

68.0

67

.3

68.3

66

.5

70.1

72

.5

73.4

u

Sour

ce:

MAFF

Fo

od

Facts

, No

. 7.5

‘2 c 2


not include commodities such as tea, coffee and oranges, it is to be expected that the degree of self-sufficiency calculated on this basis is considerably higher than it is for total foods. Obviously, it is not possible to become completely self-sufficient in all foods. However, this could be achieved in economic terms as foreign exchange earned by selling surplus indigenous food could be used to purchase foods which cannot be produced in Great Britain.

The concept of self-sufficiency may also be applied to individual food items. For example :

Self-sufficiency in butter = UK production of butter (tonnes)

UK consumption of butter (tonnes) (6)

This type of estimate can be used to indicate where the detailed emphasis of any change in agricultural policy ought to be placed as, for example, there is likely to be greater advantage gained from expansion of production of a commodity for which self-sufficiency is low than of a commodity for which a high level of self-sufficiency is already achieved.

The foregoing outlines the major ways in which different authors use the term ‘self-sufficiency’. It is necessary that a reader be aware of the need to confirm exactly what is indicated when statistics on self-sufficiency are presented. The major justifications for considering self-sufficiency are financial and strategic, and the authors of this paper intend to consider the question of UK food self-sufficiency with particular emphasis on the economic implications of, and reasons for, policies concerned with self-sufficiency.

In order to understand the mid-1970s revival of interest in national food self- sufficiency, it is necessary to examine the historical background to the present UK food system, and to consider whether the assumptions made in the past with regard to the provision of the UK’s food supplies still apply in the UK of the 1980s.

HISTORICAL SURVEY

Self-sufficiency in foodstuffs has only rarely emerged as an issue in UK agricultural and economic policy. It has, however, been implicit in the formulation of government actions on a number of occasions, and in this section the major policies applying to UK agriculture since the early nineteenth century will be discussed in connection with their implications for self-sufficiency.

Agriculture loses to free trade In the early part of the nineteenth century, food self-sufficiency was very high.

Imports of the major staple food, wheat, were effectively prohibited through the application of the Corn Laws of 18 15 which placed a large tax on imported wheat. Imports of perishable foods were precluded by the lack of the necessary technologies (refrigeration and fast transport).


By the mid-nineteenth century, the economic power in the country had shifted from the landowning classes to the owners of the new manufacturing industries; with this shift came demands for cheap food to feed the growing numbers of industrial workers and hence to keep industrial wages to a minimum. In 1846, the Corn Laws were repealed and subsequently there was period of decline in UK agriculture with food supplies increasingly supplied from overseas colonies and the United States of America. This decline in UK agriculture came at a time of expansion in the manufacturing industries which were able to absorb the workers displaced from agriculture. This shift in population to the urban centres further magnified the need to import food. The development of steamships and railways provided fast transport from all parts of the world and refrigeration enabled the import of such perishable foods as meat. The free trade attitudes of the nineteenth century and early twentieth century regarded self-sufficiency as unnecessary or even undesirable. Industrial expansion depended upon increasing exports of manufactured products to the primary producers who provided the UK with cheap food and raw materials. The depression in agriculture was not regarded as a calamity because the national economy was in overall surplus and the UK could exert considerable influence on the prices paid to the colonial producers. By the early part of the twentieth century the UK was importing the greater part of its food supplies. The proportion produced in Great Britain of a number of basic foods is given in Table 2 for the years 190551907.

TABLE 2 1905-1907 SELF-SUFFICIENCY IN FOODS

Per cent home produced

Wheat 24.8 Barley 59.8 Oats 73.8 Sugar net3 Potatoes 92.0 Butter 13.0 Cheese 24.2 Eggs 324 Beef/Veal 52.6 Lamb/Mutton 51.5

(Calculated using eqn. (6))

Source: MAFF.’

This great dependence on imported foods created no major problems during peace- time, but it made the UK vulnerable to blockade in times of war, particularly with the advent of submarine warfare. During both world wars food production was increased and, in addition, certain imports were restricted. After the First World War the progress made in agricultural production was allowed to lapse, but, after the Second World War, during which the UK was exceedingly vulnerable to


blockade, there was a change of policy and the agricultural output was not allowed to decline again.

Post-war support for agriculture The 1947 Agriculture Act provided the framework for maintaining the viability of

the UK agricultural industry. It did not set out to promote an increase in self- sufficiency, but the maintenance of the existing levels of food production (and hence self-sufficiency) was implicit in this and in the essentially similar Act of 1957. These Acts aimed to promote UK agriculture through a system of deficiency payments from the state, designed to ensure a fair rate of return for those engaged in farming. Increases in the output of particular foods could be encouraged by payment of relatively higher deficiency payments (thus ensuring a higher rate of return for the producer). The Acts provided for an annual review of the UK agricultural industry and an annual redetermination of the deficiency payments. The post-war period has also seen substantial investment in government-sponsored research and development, and an expansion of the farming advisory services. Together, these factors acted to promote investment in the agricultural industry which has resulted in substantial improvement in agricultural yields, many of which had changed little since the nineteenth century. Continued investment has maintained this progress to the present day (see Fig. 1). Much of the increase in UK production allowed the

t/ha BARLEY

t/ha WHEAT

, 1890 1900 1900 1920 1930 ‘1940 1950 1960 1970 1980

Fig. 1. Crop yields per hectare.6,’ Five year moving average.


continuance of existing self-sufficiency rates rather than a spectacular improvement. The increased yields of cereals allowed some of the inputs associated with the development of intensive animal husbandry in the UK to be provided from UK sources, therefore preventing an increase in feed imports. The development of the animal production industry has led to increased consumption of these products (particularly poultry) by the UK public.

During the 1960’s a selective expansion programme was formulated for agriculture in which ‘agriculture (was) expected to contribute to import saving by increasing production sufficient to meet a major part of the additional demand expected by 1970 for food for human consumption’.s At this time, the generation of the post-war ‘baby-boom’ was reaching adulthood and the programme was promulgated in response to the expected increase in demand for food. The programme was again designed to prevent a decline in self-sufficiency rather than promote any improvement.

Policy in the 1970’s By 1970 the UK was negotiating its entry into the EEC and it was realised that the

adoption of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) could result in large increases in the UK’s food bill, but still no large-scale expansion of agriculture with the aim of achieving self-sufficiency was proposed. The Government stressed the need to consider the (financial) resources used to produce food in the UK and to balance these against the likely cost of imports. Entry into the EEC did provide the stimulus needed for increases, in particular food products, as the UK food producers were more able to compete with the European producers of butter and cheese than they could with the low cost producers of New Zealand. The farming industry generally supported entry into the EEC as it was seen to provide a greater rate of return for farmers and would therefore boost production. The official attitude towards self- sufficiency, however, remained unchanged until 1975 when the document ‘Food From Our Own Resources’ was published, which generally encouraged an expansion of UK agriculture with the stated aim of increasing food self-sufficiency. By the end of the 1970’s this emphasis on achieving self-sufficiency had been weakened considerably, and the 1979 White Paper on UK agriculture, ‘Farming and the Nation’,g stated that ‘the case for devoting resources to agricultural expansion rests essentially on three factors:

1. The likely price and availability of imports. 2. The argument for greater self-sufficiency as insurance against unexpected

scarcity and high prices in a world of rapidly growing population. 3. The likely effect on national income and on the efficient allocation of

resources of the measures needed to produce higher agricultural output’.

By 1979 the official view on the UK agricultural industry had returned to the position prevailing at the start of the 1970’s; that is, agricultural expansion is


desirable ‘but not so strongly as to justify seeking the maximum output increase regardless of cost to consumer or to the economy at large or its impact on the environment’. The 1970’s, therefore, saw a change in emphasis in agricultural policy on two occasions, and it is necessary to consider the economic situation (especially that applying to food prices) in the mid-1970’s in order to understand the background to these events. The emphasis which future governments give to self- sufficiency will rest on similar information, and it is desirable to consider current economic parameters in order to formulate a policy for the future.

THE EVENTS OF THE 1970’S

Before examining the details of the events leading to the publication of ‘Food From Our Own Resources’ it is necessary to remember that the basic equation for the calculation of self-sufficiency (eqn. (2)) may be rewritten in the form:

Self-sufficiency = Food produced

Food produced and food imported

Self-sufficiency, therefore, rests not only on the value of the home-grown produce but, perhaps more important, also on the price paid for imports. The costs of food imports may also play a substantial role in the national balance of payments.

In 1973 the UK joined the EEC, and an increase in import costs was expected during the transition period to 1978 over which the UK would progressively adopt the Common Agricultural Policy. The general aim of UK agricultural strategy in 1973 was a slow steady increase in production to reduce effectively the economic consequences of the CAP to a minimum. Although the CAP was expected to result in higher prices for the UK consumer than if the UK was not a member of the community, the high level of community self-sufficiency in temperate crops can act to insulate member states from some of the effects of world price increases.

In 1973/74, however, the world prices for major foodstuffs increased considerably as a result of a rapid increase in world demand for traded foods which quickly reduced world stocks. The world trade in major foodstuffs, typically cereals, is relatively small in comparison with total world production (most food is consumed in the country of origin) and, therefore, small changes in total world production or demand can make a large difference to the ‘world price’. In 1973/74, reduced harvests in a number of major producing regions caused an explosion in the world price for cereals and was one of the major factors leading to the World Food Conference of 1974 called to discuss the ‘World Food Crisis’.

The EEC was unable to buffer these very large price increases and the UK, with its traditionally large imports from North America, was particularly vulnerable to the effects of the price increases. Figure 2 shows the changes in the UK’s import bill for


cereals. From 1950 to 1972 the total cost was relatively constant, but from 1973/74 the price rose steeply. The 1970’s were a period of high inflation generally (caused largely by the great increases in fuel prices) but the price of food rose faster than that of most other commodities. If the price paid for cereal imports is examined in constant 1975 pounds/tonne the effects of the general level of inflation may be eliminated. Figure 3 shows that since 1950 the real price of cereals has been falling and 1974 represented a major break with the trend from previous years. When the policy statement ‘Food From Our Own Resources’ was published in 1975 it was impossible to predict whether the vast increase in prices was simply a short-term phenomenon or a permanent reversal in the long-term trend of relatively declining food prices. In the light of the potential economic effects of a large increase in food prices it was essential for the government to take steps to promote an improved self-sufficiency.

f million

800 -

600 -

0 I 1 , 1950 1960 1970 1980

Fig. 2. UK cereal imports.“’

(1975) e/tonne

100

90

80

6C

, 0 1960 1970 1980

Fig. 3. Price of UK cereal imports.‘0 Measured in constant (1975) E/tonne.

Figure 3 also shows that since 1974 the price of cereals has subsequently fallen back again, and it may be seen that the price explosion which occurred in 1974 was only a short-term phenomenon. The world price of cereals continues to fall in real terms and, barring widespread war or disastrous weather, is likely to continue to do so in the future.

Just as the policy statement ‘Food From Our Own Resources” reflected the high prices of 1974, the changes in emphasis shown in the later statement ‘Farming and the Nation’g can be explained by examining the real price of food on the world markets.


POLICY FOR THE FUTURE

Which policy and why? The shifts of emphasis which occurred during the 1970’s can be largely explained

by examining the world prices for foodstuffs and the perception of future prices applying at the time of publication of the different White Papers. Major changes in the emphasis of a national food policy take a substantial period of time to work through the food system and provide greater output for the home consumer, whereas the events of 1973/74 show that major changes in world prices can take place very quickly. The end result of this is that a country which has a low degree of self-sufficiency in that most basic of all commodities, food, will always be vulnerable. The strategic implications of this vulnerability are most serious when world food stocks are low, as they were in 1974, and national stocks are insufficient to buffer any price fluctuations caused by supply doubts.

At present, world food stocks are good and so, in the short-term, the likelihood of major (real) price changes is low. The long-term, however, is impossible to predict with much accuracy; a major crop failure in any part of the world can result in a reduction in the stocks which are today depressing world prices. Previously, when world prices have been low, the major exporting countries (particularly the USA) have curtailed production to reduce stocks and thus raise prices (this was one factor leading to the price rises of the 1970’s). A nation importing a large proportion of its food, as the UK does, may be subjected to major changes in its economic well-being if prices rise and thus cause a drain on sources of foreign exchange. An increase in production in the currently deficient nations will not only improve the individual nation’s position but will also help to stabilise world prices by reducing the rate at which the demand for the traded foods increases. The world demand for foodstuffs is increasing with the growth of world population and the rising dietary aspirations of many Third World citizens who increasingly demand a diet comparable with that consumed in the West. Increased demand leads to increased prices unless there is increased supply, and in the medium-term it is likely that another price explosion will occur.

In the past, the UK was able to disregard its low degree of self-sufficiency because of the strength of the remainder of the economy. Today, the UK no longer has the degree of economic power which it possessed in the past. The UK economy has declined substantially and the trend has only been halted through the bonus of North Sea Oil. Several parameters may be examined to show that the UK may not be in a position to shrug off a major price shift as easily as in the past. The evidence, therefore, indicates that an increase in food self-sufficiency is desirable in order to reduce the potential strategic implications of a major price increase.

Figure 4 shows how UK industrial output has changed since 1950. There was a steady growth until the 1970’s when the output began to fall. This decline was temporarily halted and production increased from 1976 to 1979, largely due to


greater output of oil from the North Sea. 1980 again showed a fall in industrial production and the implication of this fact for the UK is that the country is less able to afford to purchase items such as food on world markets.

In order to purchase food overseas the UK has long relied on the export of manufactured foods. Figure 5 shows that in 1950 the UK exported three times the value of manufactured goods that it imported, thus providing a surplus from which to purchase food and other raw materials overseas. By 1979, however, the value of manufactured exports was barely greater than that of imported manufactures.

There is no longer a surplus from the manufacturing sector of the economy with which to buy food. The UK has always regarded itself as a great trading nation but the evidence shows that the UK’s influence on world trade has declined considerably, particularly in the post-war period. Figure 6 shows the post-war decline in the UK’s share of world trade. The graph shows that from 1960 to 1974 the UK’s share of world trade was almost halved as other nations built up their exports and the UK lost its competitive edge. This decline has also been stemmed to a certain degree by the products of the North Sea, but these effects can only be regarded as temporary.

The evidence presented above suggests that, in future, should a major price increase occur, the UK economy will be less able to provide the capital required to purchase food on world markets than has been the case in the past (including 1974). It is, therefore, desirable for the UK to aim to increase its ability to provide its food needs from its own resources.

It is interesting to note here that the change of emphasis shown in ‘Farming and the Nation’ was considered at a time of increasing economic confidence due to the prospects from North Sea oil, whilst the overtly pro-self-sufficiency ‘Food From Our Own Kesources came when the decline in the economy generally was only too apparent.

In addition to the factors associated with the long-term decline in the UK economy, there are several other points which favour an increase in national food production and self-sufficiency. These include:

1. The need to maximise the returns from the resources previously invested in agriculture and agricultural research and development.

2. The need to provide employment in the UK. The agricultural industry itself employs less than 3 % of the UK labour force, but many others are employed in servicing agriculture and in food processing and distribution. CarmichaelI estimated that, in total, 18 % of the UK work force was engaged in food related activity. UK production of the basic foods will stimulate the development of the food processing industry, thus providing more job opportunities.

Price stability and security of supply are major objectives in the formulation of national food policy and in view of the economic factors listed above, the raising of

,;slJ

odxa

~1

10~

JO

am+

an

‘9

‘%!.J

0861

0.

561

0961

O

S61

086L

O

f61

0961

O

S61 O

S

09

OL

08

06

001

011

WPU

l


self-sufficiency levels must be adopted as a long-term aim. It is therefore necessary to consider the means by which such a policy might be implemented.

The means to self-sufjciency The goal of complete self-sufficiency (that is, production of all the food consumed

in the UK), is an unrealistic target which fails to consider the underlying thesis used to justify self-sufficiency, that of economic security.

A number of authors have formulated schemes by which the UK population might be fed completely from the produce of this country. Their proposals have, for the most part, failed to consider the resources required in order to put such plans into action. Letts14 examined proposals for self-sufficiency made by Blaxter” and Mellanby16 using the technique of energy analysis, and showed that both proposals would require considerably more energy than current agricultural practice. They also disregarded the fact that today’s agricultural industry is highly capital intensive and so highly specialised that it would be unable to switch production patterns rapidly, as in the 1940’s. The proposed schemes would require major changes in the dietary patterns of the UK population. While many of these may be desirable from a nutritional viewpoint it is unrealistic to expect major dietary changes to occur in the short-term in the UK except at a time of extreme crisis. The rationing scheme of the Second World War was only acceptable in the context of events, and anything comparable is unlikely to be politically feasible.

The UK could aim (over the long-term) for self-sufficiency in those products which are indigenous whilst continuing to import such non-indigenous food items as are required to cater for the gastronomic desires of the population. The aim in promoting improved self-sufficiency is to provide economic stability in the food system and to achieve a greater level of economic independence. It is necessary to consider the two major factors which are involved in the concept of self-sufficiency:

1. Food production. 2. Food consumption (production and imports).

It has been shown that it is the imports which are most able to disrupt the national economy through swift price changes and yet the factor to which governments have repeatedly given prime consideration has been production, rather than consumption. The standard means of achieving greater self-sufficiency has been to increase production and ultimately to save on imports.

To take a hypothetical example.

If we consider commodity X and apply (eqn. 6):

Production X= 6 tonnes Imports X= 4 tonnes Consumption X = 10 tonnes


Therefore:

Self-sufficiency = i x 100 = 60 %

If production of X is increased by 2 tonnes, imports can be reduced by 2 tonnes.

Therefore :

Self-sufficiency = i x 100 = 80 %

There is, however, another means by which self-sufficiency may be improved; this is to reduce consumption.

If production of X remains at 6 tonnes but consumption falls 25 % to 7.5 tonnes, then imports can be reduced by 2.5 tonnes, thus saving foreign exchange.

Therefore :

Self-sufficiency = & x 100 = 80 %

Both the above strategies will raise self-sufficiency in X from 60 % to 80 %, but official consideration is only given to the former.

Reduction in consumption can be achieved, but may involve restriction of the consumers’ food choice or even rationing. Such actions are likely to prove unpopular with the public, or even totally unacceptable. However, a reduction in total consumption may be achieved without the need to restrict the UK diet by simply improving the efficiency with which the food available for consumption is actually utilised. It was pointed out several years ago that the quantity of food available to UK consumers is considerably greater than that required to satisfy nutritional requirements, and it was estimated that the UK ‘wastes’ 25 y0 of its available food.i7 In the hypothetical calculation given above, a 25 ‘A reduction in consumption achieved an increase in self-sufficiency from 60% to 80% and it is worth while considering the benefits in terms of self-sufficiency which could be achieved if the 25 % of food supplies which are ‘wasted’ could be utilised with maximum efficiency. It is worth remembering at this point that the UK’s current self-sufficiency rate (Table 1, line 1) is approximately 60 %.

The estimates of food supplies used to derive the 25 % ‘wastage’ rate are taken from MAFF’s Consumption Levels Enquiry which measures food at the point at which it is said to ‘move into consumption’; this is after processing in many cases and by this stage some extra loss of nutritional potential will already have occurred. There exist, therefore, two means of achieving self-sufficiency:

1. Increase production of indigenous foods. 2. Improve the efficiency with which all foods are utilised.


An effective policy on food self-sufficiency must consider both these facts and not simply the more obvious need to increase production. Governments have an enormous impact on the workings of the food supply system; in Great Britain most of this influence is directed towards the maintenance and improvement of production through substantial financial support and by legislation. There is little evidence that government involvement encourages efficient utilisation of the food produced, and there may be considerable scope for improvement. We consider that there is a need to evaluate all the different elements of the food supply system so that state intervention can be directed towards greater efficiency. This could make a significant contribution towards improving the degree of food self-sufficiency.

The aspect of increased production has been considered on many occasions, and much research and development work has been devoted to the question. This work has been rewarded by increases in the UK’s self-sufficiency in many food items. Table 3 gives some examples of improved self-sufficiency, the substantial improve- ments achieved during the 1970’s are particularly highlighted.

Examination of Table 3 allows the identification of some foods in which increased production can be expected to raise self-sufficiency by a significant proportion. Obvious ‘target foods’ include butter, cheese, lamb and bacon. (Sugar self- sufficiency is deliberately kept low by agreement with Third World producers.)

It is necessary to consider the feed requirements when planning an expansion of the animal husbandry industry and it is essential to increase production of the UK produced feed cereals and proteins so as ultimately to reduce the need to import maize and soya. These feed materials contribute substantially to the differences in the estimates of self-sufficiency produced by eqns (3) and (4) (see Table 1). A reduction in the feed requirements must be a target given serious consideration in a programme aiming for food self-sufficiency.

CONCLUSION

It is likely that, at some time in the future, another price explosion, similar to that of 1973/74, will occur. The UK economy has been shown to be in general decline for some years and it is only the bonus of North Sea oil which has provided a degree of temporary respite. In view of this fact, it seems probable that in the future the UK will be less able to cope with the economic burden of rapidly increasing food prices. Most of the UK’s major competitors have high degrees of self-sufficiency, and will be protected by the buffer of domestic supplies from the economic effects. There exists, therefore, a strong case for improving the UK’s self-sufficiency, and this can be most effectively achieved through a combination of improved efficiency with which foodstuffs are utilised and increased production.

An increase in food production sufficient to achieve a useful improvement in self- sufficiency, and hence a reduction in the UK’s food import bill and vulnerability to

TABL

E 3

POST

-WAR

UK

SE

LF-S

UFF

ICIE

NC

Y IN

VA

RIO

US

FOO

DST

UFF

S

Whe

at

Barle

y Oa

ts

Suga

r Po

tato

Bu

tter

Chee

se

Es@

Be

ef

Lam

b Po

rk

Baco

n g

1946

147

30

96

95

27

99*

8 10

51

58

24

36

’

1959

160

39

83

99

25

;z *

7 40

95

64

38

;:

2 19

69/7

0 42

;:

100

33

12

45

99

77

40

101

:i

7017

1 44

10

9 33

92

14

47

99

84

43

10

0 42

F

7117

2 56

89

98

39

92

17

50

99

81

97

43

72

173

:: 96

10

1 35

93

22

56

73

174

95

101

38

99:

22

66

;: 83

2

95

44

-2

83

54

101

45

>

1974

68

93

99

23

11

66

97

84

58

10

3 19

75

57

107

97

26

91

9 67

98

92

56

99

:;

3 19

76

56

94

94

29

75

20

61

100

89

57

100

45

2: 19

77

59

96

95

37

2 32

67

10

1 86

58

10

0 43

g

1978

71

12

1 99

40

40

72

10

2 85

96

42

19

79

75

106

47

92

47

65

102

86

2: 98

41

d

1980

pro

v 85

11

3 45

91

58

72

00

89

66

97

41

I!! c,

* Ma

in cro

p on

ly.

Sour

ces:

A Ce

ntur

y of

Agr

icultu

ral

Stat

istics

: Gr

eat

Brita

in,

186&

1966

.b

Annu

al Re

view

of Ag

ricult

ure,

19

81.’


price increases, cannot be achieved in the short-term. An increase in food self- sufficiency must be a long-term aim and not subjected to short-term policy changes which are switched on and off in response to price fluctuations, as has been the case in the past. A long-term strategy is essential in view of the time-lag which occurs before the benefits of a policy shift can be realised.

REFERENCES

1. O'HAGAN, J. P., National self-sufficiency in food. Food Policy, l(4) (1976), pp. 355-66. 2. MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD, Food From Our Own Resources, Cmnd 6020,

HMSO, 1975. 3. ANGEL, L. J., Measuring self-sufficiency for food and drink in the United Kingdom, Economic

Trends, No. 217 (1971), pp. vi-xii. 4. MORDLE, R. & PARRETT, J., United Kingdom self-sufficiency in food, 197%79,‘Economic Trends,

No.312 (1979), pp.151-5. 5. Self-sufficiency for food in the United Kingdom, 1979, MAFF Food Facts, No. 7 (15th September,

1980). 6. A Century of Agricultural Statistics: Great Britain, 18661966, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries

and Food, HMSO, 1971. 7. Annual Review of Agriculture, 1981, Cmnd 8132, HMSO, 1981. (Also previous editions). 8. Ann. Rev. Agric. and Determination of Guarantees 1967, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and

Food, Cmnd 3229, HMSO, 1967 (para 2). 9. Farminn and the Nation. Ministry of Agriculture Fisheries and Food, Cmnd 7458, HMSO, 1979.

10. Annual>bstrqct of Stat&tics, Central Statistical Office, HMSO, 1980. 11. STIRLING, D. C. K., The rebased estimates of the index of industrial production, Economic Trends,

307 (1979), pp. 93-101. (Also statistical section Economic Trends, No. 329, 1981). 12. UN Monthly Bulletin of Statistics, Statistics Office. United Nations. (Various editions). 13. CARMICHAEL, N. K., Physical resource flows within the UK food system, PhD Thesis, Bradford

University, 1978. 14. LETTS, C. R., Resource use in the UKfood system, PhD Thesis, Bradford University, 1979. 15. BLAXTER, K., Can Britain feed itself? New Scientist, 65(951) (1975), pp. 697-702. 16. MELLANBY, K., Can Britain feed itself? Merlin Press, 1975. 17. PEREIRA, H. C., Research and development for Britain’s future food supplies, Proceedings of the 12th

British Weed Control Conference, 1974, pp. 857-68.

self-sufficiency and united kingdom food policy

Documents