DAVID RICHARDSON

14 September 2001




DAVID RICHARDSON

The government has

turned its back on

British food production.

But encouraging crops

for green fuel would do

its electoral image no

harm at all

It has become clear that the government is not interested in the food production potential of British agriculture. Never mind the fact that UK farmers still produce 80% of the indigenous food commodities consumed by the domestic population. The perception continues and is gaining ground in the Treasury and elsewhere that it is cheaper and causes less trouble to import most of our food.

That perception is wrong and seriously inconsistent with demands for assurance and traceability. It must be urgently reversed by the united efforts of the entire agricultural sector. Meanwhile, farmers would do well to explore alternative uses for land that meet with more approval.

Areas to which the government pays lip service are the enhancement of the environment, the reduction of greenhouse gases, compliance with the Rio Treaty on climate change and other international conferences on the subject. Moreover, Chancellor Gordon Brown allowed special concessions to green fuels in his last budget. So, presumably he believes such matters are important – if only to impress voters.

But both he and the rest of the government fight shy of Draconian measures to cut fuel usage as proposed by some pressure groups. The reason is clear. They know the car is a convenience few electors want to give up. How much more acceptable it would be to keep our cars running if a significant proportion of fuel could be provided by environmentally friendly means. It would appeal to traditionalists who hanker for the old days when 20% of Britains farmland grew a fuel crop – hay. It would also enable this country to comply with EU proposals to reduce fossil fuel usage currently being formulated in Brussels.

Just a pipe-dream? Well, no it isnt. According to The British Association for Bio-Fuels and Oils it would be possible to produce 10% and probably more of this countrys fuel needs from farms. Furthermore, some other states within the EU are already heading in that direction. They are achieving this by reducing or abolishing excise duty on bio-fuels which, in turn, makes production and processing economic. By setting a zero rate Germany is on course to produce 1m tonnes by 2003 and Austria, Italy and Spain are following suit. France has a variable duty but still produces well over a quarter of a million tonnes. Here in the UK virtually nothing is being done to develop what could become a vital industry for the country, never mind its potential impact on farming.

Its not a new story, of course. Rudolf Diesel, the German who invented the diesel engine about 80 years ago, said at the time it could be fuelled by vegetable oil. I went to Austria about 10 years ago to look at bio-fuel developments there. Because of their governments genuine interest in the environment (allied to the fact that they had no North Sea oil or gas, no doubt) they were further advanced then than we are now. But there are new and pressing reasons for the UK government to look at the idea again.

One is foot-and-mouth disease. For you cannot slaughter 4m animals without freeing up a great many acres of land. Not all of it will be suitable for growing industrial rape as a feed stock for bio-fuel, of course. But some of it will and if an embarrassing surplus of grain is to be avoided, a viable alternative crop needs to be introduced urgently.

One answer might be to put a greater area down to set-aside. But we already have almost 600,000ha (1.5m acres) of set-aside and while I am the first to admit the environmental benefits gained from some of it, I also concede that a lot of it looks a mess. Far better, surely, to use more for the production of genuinely green fuel. But neither farmers nor processors can afford to do it without government assistance in the form, at least, of a zero excise duty together with a commitment to keep it that way for several years. If the Chancellor can cut duty for lead-free and low-sulphur fossil fuels why cant he do it for rape, or as I proposed to rename it a few months ago, canola oil for bio-fuel?

But that is not the only possibility. Short rotation coppice, burned through appropriate boilers, can generate electricity. Although I do detect a real reluctance from industry to fund the necessary plant – perhaps because the government does not take it seriously either. The possibility of using surplus straw in similar situations has hardly begun to be exploited. And what about windfarms? In some countries there are hundreds of them. Indeed the revenue from propellers in the sky over their land has kept many Danish and German farmers solvent. Here it takes years and piles of money spent on lawyers just to get planning permission.

The point is they all need land. They are all environmentally friendly and should fit in the green box of the WTO. They should all qualify as legitimate diversifications. If the government doesnt want food, does it want green fuel and power? If so lets hear more of whats going to be done about it.

If the Chancellor can cut duty for lead-free and low-sulphur fossil fuels why cant he do it for rape, or as I proposed to rename it a few months

ago, canola oil

for bio-fuel?


See more