Food Security (2009)

You are in > Home > SAC Rural Policy Centre > Rural Policy Centre Publications > Food Matters > Food Security (2009)

This briefing unpacks the issue of food security, highlights the positions taken on different sides and provides links to key sources.

Food security – what does it mean?

Food security is a term that is defined and used in multiple ways and with regard to different scales. In the UK, discussion about food security broadly refers to ‘consumers having access at all times to sufficient, safe and nutritious food for an active and healthy life at affordable prices’ (DEFRA 2008: 2).

Food security can be considered at the level of the individual or household, the region, the nation state or the global situation. At the national level, governments are concerned to ensure that the population has enough food. Key elements of this are:

Availability – ensuring sufficient and reliable supplies of food.
Access – ensuring that food can get to where it is needed through a well-functioning transportation and food distribution system.
Affordability – ensuring that food is available at prices that people can afford to pay and that people on low-incomes can afford enough nutritious food.

Additionally, any government seeking to ensure food security for its population would have to ensure that the food that is available is nutritious and safe, that the food supply system is resilient and able to withstand disruptions and that the public has confidence in the food system.

In a developed country like the UK – which imports approximately 40% of its food – debates about food security tend not to be about ensuring self-sufficiency but about ensuring both a continuing national food production capacity and stable and secure sources of supply.

Why has food security become a more important issue?

There are several reasons:

During 2008 food prices increased dramatically. These increases caused hardship for many of the world’s poorest people not least because they are likely to spend 50-80% of their income on food. As a consequence, there were food riots in thirty countries worldwide and there were also knock-on effects as eighteen major food exporting nations restricted exports to ensure domestic supplies. Prices increased for a variety of reasons. These included rising demand for food resulting from economic growth and higher incomes, restricted supply resulting from recurrent bad weather and subsidized production of bio-fuels that substitute food production. High energy prices also had a major impact on the price of food given the importance of oil in food supply chains. Although prices have subsequently fallen, the sharp rise and fall suggests that we are moving into an era of price volatility which itself presents food security problems.
Projected increases in global demand for food. In order to meet the demand from a growing population and the eating habits of a growing middle class, the FAO estimates that global food production needs to rise by 50% by 2030 and double by 2050.
Short-term weather events, such as the drought in Australia, can have significant impacts on food supply and price. The impact of such events has raised questions about the resilience of our food supply systems.
In the longer-term climate change is expected to affect agricultural production. Although the impact can only be estimated it is expected that changing productivity levels will impact on international trade and relations.

The approach to food security in the UK

In the global context, DEFRA suggests that the UK currently enjoys a high level of national food security. Although we are not self-sufficient, we are able to access the food we need on the global market. Recent increases in food prices have, however, focused attention on the short-term supply and long-term challenges to our food supply system.

Given that the UK government believes an emphasis on self-sufficiency is wrong and that international trade will continue to play a major role in our food supply, it has developed an approach to food security that has several strands:

Act to encourage agricultural productivity globally. Since we depend on global trade the government believes it must act internationally to encourage agricultural productivity since restricted supply will force up prices and affect consumers in the UK. Working to enhance production across the world is a way of ensuring continuing supply.
Diversification of sources of supply. Working to enhance production globally also potentially opens up a range of sources of supply which is thought to be more secure than obtaining our food from relatively few sources.
Seek enhanced liberalisation of global market. At the UK level, the Government believes that effectively functioning markets are fundamental to ensuring global food security. These markets are currently inhibited by trade distorting subsidies and protectionist policies currently imposed in the US, EU and other countries. The UK Government is therefore committed to continuing to liberalise markets through the Doha Development Round of trade negotiations and reform of the EU’s Common Agricultural Policy.
Promoting a competitive UK agriculture. In a recent discussion document DEFRA suggest that ‘one of the most important contributions the UK can make to global, and our own, food security is having a thriving and productive agriculture sector in the UK, operating in a global market and responding to what consumers want’ (Defra 2008: 28).

The approach to food security in the UK as set out by DEFRA is, however, contested. Industry organisations would like to see a higher priority given to support for UK agriculture. They emphasise the need for a robust agricultural sector by highlighting the fact that as prices increased during 2008 many countries imposed protectionist policies that were designed to feed their domestic populations first. Since imports to the UK could be threatened by such a situation the industry seeks to focus attention on the need to retain a vibrant UK sector instead of relying excessively on trade.

Equally, many in the agricultural industry are extremely worried about the potential impact of liberalisation. While the UK Government sees liberalisation of markets as a way of fostering trade and enhancing food security, many in the industry are concerned about the potential for oversees producers to undercut domestic producers and thereby threaten business viability for many.

In Scotland, the Scottish Government is developing its own National Food and Drink Policy. The Government consulted on the development of a food policy in early 2008 and has established a Leadership Forum to help steer the development of the policy, which should take shape during 2009. The Government claims that the ‘purpose of the National Food and Drink Policy is to promote Scotland's sustainable economic growth by ensuring that the Scottish Government's focus in relation to food and drink, and in particular our work with Scotland's food and drink industry, addresses quality, health and wellbeing, and environmental sustainability, recognising the need for access to affordable food for all’ (Scottish Government 2009).

The importance of the food supply chain

Given that the UK Government take food security to be about ‘consumers having access at all times to sufficient, safe and nutritious food’, food security cannot just be about the balance of imports and exports; it is also about the food supply chain in the UK, and how the food chain itself might enhance or weaken food security.

As the supermarkets have gained power food supply chains have been substantially reformed as they seek to achieve high quality, low prices and low costs. A notable example is the development of ‘Just-In-Time’ (JIT) principles of operation, which are intended to reduce storage and inventory costs. Logistical systems have been reformed to support this form of operation with almost all the major supermarkets using hub-satellite networks, involving large Regional Distribution Centres.

These modern supply chains have implications for food security. Although there is no such thing as a ‘risk-free’ food chain, the changing food supply systems change the potential risks. For example, JIT principles have reduced the role of stocks and ‘contingent capacity’ and put greater importance on distribution and transport. Even a short delay in supplies due to transport-related disruptions can have an impact.

There are many benefits to the modern food supply systems. A simpler, focused supply chain facilitates traceability and network planning for disruptions. But there are also trade-offs. While concentration of control in a few large companies can be beneficial because these companies have the resources to put in place the appropriate infrastructure and procedures, the concentration of power in a few retailers can make some areas of supply more vulnerable to company-specific supply shortages.

Events such as the fuel protests of 2000, which affected food supply, highlighted the potential risks to current food chains and the Government is working with retailers and food suppliers to strengthen the resilience of our food chains and reduce its vulnerability to shocks.

Can we leave food supply to the markets?

The UK Government’s emphasis on trade as a means of ensuring the UK’s food supply raises the question of the degree to which we can rely on markets to deliver the food we need and what the level of government intervention should be.

The Government’s argument is that a well-functioning market is the most efficient way of ensuring our food supply. From this perspective, the best way to avoid repeating the events of 2008 – where an unusual coincidence of poor weather in several parts of the world restricted supply at the same time as demand surged, resulting in high prices – is liberalisation of markets. If there are fewer barriers to trade, the market can work more efficiently and reduce volatility.

To support their argument, proponents of trade and open markets highlight several arguments. They point out that:

Key sectors of UK agriculture already operate in relatively liberalised markets. In Scotland this applies to potatoes, field scale vegetables, soft fruit, poultry and pigs (although there remains some import protection in place for pigs and poultry). Indeed, it could be argued that these sectors have succeeded despite government intervention in other sectors hindering their progress. Poultry and pig producers, for example, had to pay relatively high feed prices because of cereal price support. More recently, access to cheap GM soya has been blocked, adding to problems currently facing the pig sector as it struggles to adapt to market realities.
Other countries have managed to thrive under free markets. Although many experts predicted failure when subsidies were withdrawn from New Zealand agriculture in the mid-1980’s, New Zealand now has world class market-oriented dairy, lamb, wine and forestry industries.
Calls for a greater focus on domestic food production (and by implication less trade) are at odds with the national interest of any country, such as Scotland, whose agricultural economy depends on trade. Scotland’s beef and sheep industries, in particular, produce far more meat than the Scottish population consumes. If England adopted a food policy based on increasing domestic production, Scotland’s livestock industry would be badly affected.
Government intervention can often be counter-productive. While an unusual coincidence of poor weather in several parts of the world did contribute to high prices, it can be argued that government action magnified the problem in two main ways. On the one hand, government support for biofuels, particularly in America, resulted in a significant drop in the proportion of crops grown for food. On the other, by introducing policies to restrict exports to secure domestic food supplies, several commodity prices spiked with rice the worst affected. The consequence of such action can be seen in Argentina (domestic beef prices were deliberately kept low) where the beef industry has contracted sharply as farmers switch to growing crops.

In contrast to the UK Government’s position, many in the agricultural sector argue that liberalised markets would damage the industry and do not represent the best route to food security. Many farmers are concerned, for example, that agricultural trade reforms that enhance liberalisation would expose the country to cheaper imports produced to lower standards, thus putting UK farmers at a disadvantage. The Soil Association also questions the Government’s emphasis on markets and trade, but for different reasons. It argues that ‘today’s challenges of climate change and the longer-term shock of scarcer, costlier oil question the Government’s faith in global markets for providing the bulk of our foodstuffs over the long-term’ (Soil Association 2008; also see Ambler-Edwards et.al. 2009). Thus the degree to which we can rely on open markets remains highly contentious.

It is important to recognise, though, that debates about the role of markets in ensuring food security are not black and white. Although apparently contradictory, support for a market orientated industry is not inconsistent with a role for government. Indeed, as recent problems in financial markets show, good government regulation is key to competitive, efficient markets. Competition regulators have a particularly important role given the already concentrated sectors that farmers and growers buy from (e.g. fertiliser firms) and sell to (e.g. supermarkets). Consequently, debates about whether or not we should leave our food supply to the markets and how far governments should intervene revolve around the question of degrees: the extent to which we should promote open markets and how we can best support our producers.

Food security and ‘public goods’ – a subtle change in the debate?

The early emphasis of the Common Agricultural Policy on securing food supply and supporting rural communities bolstered a ‘productivist’ model that sought to increase food production. In order to secure production, farmers were financially rewarded for increased output. Gradually, however, the problems of over-production and the livestock disease problems of recent years have led many to question what the large amount of public money going in to agriculture is actually delivering.

As such, over recent years the emphasis has shifted away from a narrow focus on production towards ‘multi-functionality’ and the wider benefits that can be derived from land use. The increasingly used justification for public expenditure on agriculture now refers to the wider role that agriculture can play in delivering ‘public goods’ – in the form of water, landscape, biodiversity and access benefits. The logic has shifted from simply paying farmers to produce food to paying farmers to manage the environment. The latest manifestation of this gradual process in which ‘public goods’ have become central to the European model of agriculture can be seen in the Scottish Environment Link’s recent document 'Beyond the CAP' (Scottish Environment Link 2008), which argues for a redistribution of European funding based on the provision of public goods.

Richard Lochhead, Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs in the Scottish Government, recently affirmed this shift towards public goods by saying that ‘direct support for agriculture is justified where farmers deliver public goods’ (Lochhead 2009).

Notably, however, Mr Lochhead included ‘food production’ in his list of the public goods provided by agriculture. He said that ‘the central purpose of farming is to produce food for the world‘s growing population. So maintaining a capacity to produce food is not only a public good but a global responsibility’.

So, whereas the direction of travel in agricultural reform has been gradually to emphasise the importance of non-market public goods and to use this as a justification for paying farmers, the recent concerns about food security have arguably started to re-define ‘public goods’ to include the more market-oriented activity of food production.

This re-casting of food production as itself a public good does two things. On the one hand, it potentially presents difficulties for those that have argued for a re-orientation of agricultural policy towards the delivery of ‘non-market public goods’ (i.e. the environment lobby) because it removes any special focus on environmental management and draws attention back to the importance of traditional agricultural production.

On the other hand, re-casting of food production as a public good works to support arguments for limited change to the CAP. While the UK Government wants, in the medium-term, to end direct payments to farmers, preferring to see the money re-distributed towards targeted environmental and rural development schemes delivering public goods, the Scottish Government has argued that direct payments can be retained as long as they are linked to the delivery of public goods, one of which is food production. In effect, the re-casting of food production as a ‘public good’ allows it to be used as an argument to retain direct support payments to farmers with limited change to the CAP.

Will food security push the environment down the agenda?

High energy prices, poor harvests and rising demand from a growing population have all pushed up commodity prices and prompted claims that in order to feed the world's population agriculture needs to intensify and increase output. Although we have witnessed a gradual shift away from a straightforward focus on production towards a focus on environmental management, the renewed focus on production suggests that the environment might drop down the policy agenda again as the need to feed people rises up.

Several organisations have, however, sought to avoid any either/or choice preferring to argue that it should be possible to achieve both food and environmental security. James Withers, NFUS Chief Executive, argues that:

‘it would be disastrous to get to a position in which we had to choose between supporting farmers for environmental work and supporting them for food production. That has been the failing of agricultural policies for 60 years. After the Second World War, we had an emphasis purely on food production. That was tremendously successful for the first 20 years, but then it went too far and we ended up with grain mountains and wine lakes, which had environmental consequences. We then took a knee-jerk turn from that and said that the environment was the most important thing, because we had enough food. We thought that we could relax and go environmental, but now we are worried about food production again. That sort of ping-pong is dangerous’ (Speaking to the Scottish Parliament Rural Affairs and Environment Committee meeting on Food Policy on 9th September 2008).

Positions

Hilary Benn – ‘…UK farming is doing alright overall. We have just had a record wheat harvest. We are more self-sufficient now than we were before and after the Second World War, and we have shown during wartime what we can do to raise production when we need to. But to look at our food security in this way is only to think about part of the problem. Domestic food production is hugely important – we rely on it – but we cannot and should not look just to the UK for all the food we need. Rather, we should look to maintain the security of our sources of supply. And if we want to avoid too much demand chasing not enough world supply – which would raise prices for everyone, including consumers in the UK – then we need to help create a stable food market which can meet global demand for future generations’ (from a speech to the Fabian Society, December 2008).

Richard Lochhead – ‘Let me be clear - the central purpose of farming is to produce food for the world‘s growing population. So maintaining a capacity to produce food is not only a public good but a global responsibility. I firmly believe it would be irresponsible for any government to fail to make maintaining the ability to produce food a national priority’ (from a speech to the Oxford Farming Conference, January 2009).

RSPB – ‘It is important that concerns about food security are not used as an argument to decrease the sustainability of production. For long-term food security, we must consider our impacts on the environment and ensure we do not cause lasting damage to biodiversity and the ecosystem services provided by important habitats. Damaging the environment will eventually impact on our ability to produce food, for example through polluted water resources, increased droughts and flooding caused by climate change and a decrease in the numbers of pollinating insects necessary for the success of many agricultural crops’ (from an RSPB Scotland Parliamentary Briefing, April 2008).

Soil Association – ‘Today’s challenges of climate change and the longer-term shock of scarcer, costlier oil question the Government’s faith in global markets for providing the bulk of our foodstuffs over the long-term … The Soil Association is not ‘anti-trade’ nor seeking to return to the days of 100% UK self-sufficiency in home-grown and consumed foods. We accept that a wholly UK-based food supply would also be vulnerable, for example, to UK specific disease outbreaks or other national disruptions; that valuable and development driving export earnings would be lost to countries in the South, and our diet would certainly be duller. But given the vulnerabilities…we question the Government’s excessive faith in global markets’ (from An Inconvenient Truth about Food, 2008).