Current and Emergent Economic Impacts of Covid-19 and Brexit on UK Fresh Produce and Horticultural Businesses
Lilian Korir, Archie Drake, Martin Collison, Tania Carolina Camacho-Villa, Elizabeth Sklar, Simon Pearson
CCurrent and Emergent Economic Impacts ofCovid-19 and Brexit on UK Fresh Produce andHorticultural Businesses
Lilian Korir , Archie Drake , Martin Collison , Tania CarolinaCamacho-Villa , Elizabeth Sklar , and Simon Pearson Lincoln Institute for Agri-food Technology (LIAT), College of Science, University ofLincoln, UK, { lkorir,esklar,spearson } @lincoln.ac.uk Collison & Associates Limited
Abstract.
This paper describes a study designed to investigate the cur-rent and emergent impacts of Covid-19 and Brexit on UK horticulturalbusinesses. Various characteristics of UK horticultural production, no-tably labour reliance and import dependence, make it an important sec-tor for policymakers concerned to understand the effects of these disrup-tive events as we move from 2020 into 2021. The study design prioritisedtimeliness, using a rapid survey to gather information from a relativelysmall ( n = 19) but indicative group of producers. The main novelty ofthe results is to suggest that a very substantial majority of producerseither plan to scale back production in 2021 (47%) or have been un-able to make plans for 2021 because of uncertainty (37%). The resultsalso add to broader evidence that the sector has experienced profoundlabour supply challenges, with implications for labour cost and quality.The study discusses the implications of these insights from producers interms of productivity and automation, as well as in terms of broadereconomic implications. Although automation is generally recognised asthe long-term future for the industry (89%), it appeared in the study asthe second most referred short-term option (32%) only after changes tolabour schemes and policies (58%). Currently, automation plays a lim-ited role in contributing to the UK’s horticultural workforce shortage dueto economic and socio-political uncertainties. The conclusion highlightspolicy recommendations and future investigative intentions, as well assuggesting methodological and other discussion points for the researchcommunity. UK horticultural production is experiencing significant changes as political andeconomic conditions shift. Whilst Covid-19 impacts dominated 2020 [Mitchellet al., 2020], the closing months of the year have seen questions about Brexit-related issues around labour supply, trade and competitiveness return to theforeground. The sector is noted for its dependence on seasonal migrant labour, a r X i v : . [ ec on . GN ] J a n Korir, et al. not only in the UK but globally. Furthermore, UK fresh food supplies gener-ally have a high dependence on imports which peaks in the winter and earlyspring [Grimwood and McGuinness, 2017, Defra, 2019].The Current and Emergent Economic Impacts of Covid-19 and Brexit on UKFresh Produce and Horticultural Businesses, especially soft fruit production, isthe main reason for agriculture needing to find about 64,000 seasonal workerseach year (by DEFRA’s estimate) [ONS, 2018]. Employment is growers’ singlemost important cost, and Covid-19 restrictions have increased that cost signifi-cantly [Pelham, 2020]. Meanwhile, changes in the immigration regime as part ofBrexit are disrupting the supply of EU workers on whose skills and experiencemany producers have come to rely.Accordingly, seasonal labour supply has become the main focus of policy inthis sector, reflected in evidence to the Environment, Food and Rural AffairsCommittee (EFRA’s) inquiry into labour in the food supply chain [UK Parlia-ment: Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, 2020a].In its evidence to the EFRA Select Committee the government emphasisedthe potential for substitution from the UK’s domestic labour supply, supportedthrough schemes like‘Pick for Britain’ [AHDB et al., 2021]. Industry experiencethrough 2020 indicates that this is only a very partial solution though, and inparallel with the publication of the EFRA Select Committee report, the gov-ernment announced that the Seasonal Agricultural Workers Scheme (SAWS) for2021 would be increased to 30,000 places compared to 10,000 in 2020 [Defra,2020e]. However, this is only a one year scheme and there remains consider-able uncertainty about how many places will be allowed under SAWS from 2022onwards.Furthermore, the NFU report on the Potential Implications of Covid-19 forthe Cost of Production of UK Fruits and Vegetables in 2020 [Pelham, 2020] givesa good impression of some of the issues that farmers have reported in practice:there are not as many suitable UK resident workers available as many imagine;UK residents like the idea of this work but then are much less likely than migrantworkers to show up, stay for the agreed period; and, overall, UK residents areless productive workers in these roles.What remains unclear is whether supply chain vulnerability and the potentialfor price increases could represent an opportunity for UK industry expansion.However, the negatives impact of price rises has also been noted if healthy eatingbecomes more difficult [Garnett et al., 2020, Seferidi et al., 2019]. In some cir-cumstances labour constraints might spur innovation and consequently improvedproductivity [Acemoglu, 2010].Around the world, the highly disruptive conditions of 2020 have promptedscientists to work more quickly; and specifically in agricultural and food systemsresearch to consider ‘short-term effects as well as those that may be long-lastingor permanent’ [Kupferschmidt and Cohen, 2020, Stephens et al., 2020]. Thisstudy was designed to provide timely evidence for UK policymakers drawn di-rectly from UK horticultural producers’ perspectives in late November 2020. Itsprincipal goal was to analyse the current and emergent impacts related to Covid- conomic Impacts of Covid-19 and Brexit on UK Horticulture 3
19 and Brexit on UK horticultural businesses, especially domestic producers offruit and vegetables.
This study used a rapid survey instrument to gather information from UKproducers. A short questionnaire was developed, consisting principally of open-ended questions focused on three key themes:1. The impact of Covid-19 and Brexit on 2020 labour availability and on busi-nesses’ 2021 production plans;2. Changes observed in labour productivity during 2020 and associated impactson market competitiveness; and3. Market growth expectations and the means to address any growth in demandover the short- and long-term.The questionnaire was offered to an initial list of 21 participants comprising ex-isting business contacts of the Lincoln Institute for Agri-Food Technology , andthe sample then developed using snowballing. Data collection was undertakenbetween November 19th and December 1st, offering a choice of online, email ortelephone response. A final total of 19 producer responses were obtained. Theinformation collected was mainly qualitative and subjected to thematic analy-sis, with frequency description for those questions generating quantitative data.Analysis was supported by a detailed review of secondary information from re-search publications, as well as policy material and social media. The method inthis study is consistent with the current global uptick in the use of rapid surveysand appraisals [Eriksson et al., 2020, Harris et al., 2020]. These methods aim togenerate best-available information to support decisions in a timely manner, es-pecially responding to policymakers’ interest in current evidence to help reduceuncertainty [Shaxson, 2005]. The analysis of this study was prefaced with reflections on strengths and weak-nesses. Total responses covered about one sixth of total domestic horticulturalproduction by value, over 5% of the land area used for fresh produce and horti-culture, and about 15% of total UK employment of seasonal workers. In total,there were 19 responses.
This descriptive analysis section provides an overview of the participants in-volved in this study. All 19 participants were UK businesses, mainly engaged inthe production of horticultural crops in the UK. The businesses reported thatthey employ about 1,700 staff full time and about 9,500 seasonal workers. University of Lincoln, UK,
Korir, et al.
Fig. 1.
Employment of staff
As shown in Figure 1, the total number of seasonal workers represented bythese 19 businesses is a considerable share of the overall employment of seasonalworkers in UK agriculture: about 15% of the national total for agriculture and24% of the total for the fruit sector only (fruit is ≈
40k of ≈
64k total) [ONS,2018]. The recruitment of seasonal workers has been dominated by migrantsfor several decades and participants reported using multiple channels to recruitseasonal workers. Most use a combination of recruitment agencies (14 out of 19)and direct recruitment (13 out of 19). Seven out of 19 specifically mentionedusing the Seasonal Agricultural Workers Scheme (SAWS). Only a few (5 out of19) mentioned engaging UK citizens for seasonal labour, with one recruiting UKworkers nationally/online and the others more on a ‘local’ basis.
In this section participants’ information about current (2020) labour availabil-ity and the implications it has for the future (2021) production planning wasanalysed. The main purpose was to investigate current labour challenges andpotential implications for the 2021 growing season.
Impacts of Covid-19 and/or Brexit during 2020 were mainly related to labourshortages, particularly for those who had not anticipated the magnitude of thechallenge they would face and who had to make do with the available labourers.This had a direct impact on output and increased the costs of production, i.e.training cost and low productivity from workers who were not used to this kindof farm work. The majority of participants (14 out of 19, or 74%) reportedmoderate or severe labour shortages during 2020. The sector was faced withdramatic reduction in the number of available labourers, high turnover, and areduction in the number of returnees. Some of the common responses were: conomic Impacts of Covid-19 and Brexit on UK Horticulture 5 – ‘We only received half of our returnee numbers in the spring . . . ’ – ‘Reduced dramatically’ – ‘Significant shortages’ – ‘Higher turnover’ – ‘we tried to employ British staff this season and for us it did not work dueto poor production and work ethic.’ While labour shortages and associated factors were observed by a majorityof the businesses, 5 out of 19 participants reported that their labour was lessaffected by the impact of Covid-19 and Brexit because of the existing labourplans the business had in place. In general, Covid-19 impacts were clearer inthe responses than Brexit-related ones, with a more severe impact apparentfor participants needing or securing labour later in the year. Reported impactslargely included travel disruptions and general worker incentives. For example: – ‘Both of these events have created a large amount of uncertainty and fearamongst workers from abroad which has reduced the amount of people avail-able and also increased unplanned/early departures from the farm leaving usshort staffed.’ Brexit-related impacts were mainly discussed as emergent, contributing towider 2020 labour availability issues dominated by Covid-19 impacts. However,it was apparent from responses that some participants had already undertakensubstantial preparatory work for the end of the Brexit Transition period.Two participants cited efforts in 2020 to maximise EU worker settlementin the UK to mitigate impacts. However, others mentioned concerns that theyhave been unable to exploit the settlement scheme in this way because workershave not signed up for the required status or because the exchange rate is notattractive to overseas workers. Although the question was explicitly limited to2020, Brexit tended to be treated as a prospective impact in participants’ re-sponses. However, it should be noted that the survey was conducted before theUK and EU Deal was negotiated, when there was considerable uncertainty as towhether a deal would be concluded and, even if it was, what it would contain.Many responses regarded the potential longer term impacts from Brexit as moresignificant than those felt in 2020 due to Covid-19. For example: – ‘Very significant concerns about labour availability for 2021.’ – ‘For 2021 Brexit will be major problem in absence of SAWS scheme.’ A clear majority of the respondents (14 out of 19, or 74%) predicted that thelabour challenges experienced in the industry will have an impact on their 2021production plans, while the remaining 26%, were still unsure if labour supplyissues would have any impact on their production plans. Particularly interestingwas that some businesses said that plans had not been affected because ‘we donot know how to change’ as opposed to any lack of need to change.
Korir, et al.
The dominant impact on production plans in 2021 was reported to be scal-ing back production. Other cited actions were: increasing efforts to secure newsources of workforce; accelerating automation; and, over a third were adopting await and see approach (or had no plans to change). In terms of scaling back pro-duction, most responses indicated that absolute production levels are expectedto fall in 2021.
Table 1.
Impact on 2021 plans
Response Scale back Increase labour Accelerate Unknown / wait and seeproduction related efforts automation (or no plans to change– see text)
As indicated in Table 1, three of the participants included in the ‘unknown/ wait and see’ category simply reported no plans to change and provided nofurther information; and a further participant’s responses simply indicated gen-eral uncertainty without providing much further detail. Responses showed thatbusinesses felt that greater automation and reduced labour reliance would be theright direction for longer term production plans, but many felt that this policyis currently impossible to deliver as a result: – ‘[We need to] reduce [our] need [for] staff by [using] more machines. . . [butthere is] no security from customers to make those investments.’ Sensitivity to the need to appeal to local British labour pools and to draw onthem in competitive ways (including through increased automation) was alsoapparent: – ‘[local] pool of people so we want to be most attractive (pay and conditions)for available labour’ – ‘in heavy competition with Amazon, losing staff to them and so had to put[wage] rates up’. Responses which focused on plans to increase labour supply included reflectionson the need for government pilot schemes to continue, to use labour supplyagencies or to adopt new strategies to recruit staff. They also reflected on theneed for managerial challenges associated to language skills, work ethics andCovid-19 social distancing requirements. Only 2 participants gave answers whichmentioned automation as a key action for 2021.
In this section, participants responded about workforce productivity trends andthe wider impacts of productivity i.e. on costs or quality of work (e.g. due to less conomic Impacts of Covid-19 and Brexit on UK Horticulture 7 skilled workers). 74% of participants (14 of the businesses) had seen changes inthe productivity of their workforce in the 2020 growing season, while 26% (5)had not seen any changes.Of the fourteen respondents who had seen changes in productivity: two par-ticipants answered exclusively in terms of decreased worker quality and efficiency;two answered exclusively in terms of increased costs – one estimated the increaseof 8% and the other claiming a year-on-year labour cost increase of about 20%;with ten participants observing both changes in terms of quality and cost. Forexample: – ‘Our inability to access enough skilled workers and having to “make do” witha proportion of lower/no experience level people . . . has reduced the productiv-ity of the farm by increasing costs both directly (the worker is less productive)and indirectly (the worker requires much more supervision and training) aswe strive to maintain our standards.’ – ‘[In] quarantine teams [it is] difficult to drive productivity. People movementcosts up significantly. Costs up. Quality of work down.’ Participants explained quality and efficiency challenges in different terms, forexample social-distancing regulations have had a differential impact on field andpacking work while the most pronounced trend was towards reports of loweravailability of experienced workers and reduced work ethic: – ‘Of the less experienced workers: productivity is 40% lower than experiencedworkers’ – ‘Ongoing drop in motivation.’ – ‘The drive is less noticeable.’ – ‘The main [bulk] of pickers has been less productive and keen to go for thepiece work rates that [enable] them to earn more than basic hourly rate, whenpicking.’ Whilst some responses attributed these observations to the increasing employ-ment of UK nationals, others clearly concerned changes in the profile of non-UKworkers: – ‘Employment of UK nationals was problematic. Training costs, make up payand raised piece work rates.’ – ‘Getting people to take on more responsible tasks is proving problematical dueto various reasons, which include, lack of language, understanding, length oftime here, i.e. is it worth spending on training courses for staff that may notbe back next season.’ One participant also reported that an increase in worker average age has beenrelevant to fitness. Another participant estimated productivity falls of 10-20%depending on type of work. Eleven of the participants reported that changesin productivity impacted overall competitiveness in the marketplace while fourresponded no impact, and one participant responded that they did not know. Sixparticipants reported an impact on their profitability, one in terms of reducedmargins, two in terms of the elimination of profit and three in terms of outrightloss. Another response cited an impact on investment and growth:
Korir, et al. – ‘Quite simply our increased cost of production has reduced/eliminated anynet profit that the business relies upon to reinvest and grow’ Three participants mentioned lack of higher prices as a factor in this context,one reporting some success in forming a cooperative preventing undercutting byother producers but the others simply stating: – ‘Higher prices are hard to achieve.’ – ‘our customers, don’t want to put prices up, as result of covid’ In this section participants responded about their expectations on the futuredemand for UK production of their crops and options to meet this demand inrelation to the anticipated workload in the short (2021) and longer term (2022onwards).
A substantial majority of participants expected that demand will increase. Fif-teen participants expected an increase, while three responded Don’t know andnone expected a decrease. In terms of participants expectation to changes in de-mand, both in the short (2021) or the longer term. Participants expected threeaspects of demand to change: (i) quantification of the change, (ii) direct causesof the change, and (iii) interaction between demand and production. Some par-ticipants used only one aspect, but others include all three.The quantification of the change: participants justified their expectation onthe increase of demand based on their 2020 experience when demand was boostedby 2-3% on vegetables, 20% on fruits and 40% on flowers. Based on these results,they were expecting that future demand will increase by 3% in fruits and 30%on flowers. This is in line with news reports on the increase in demand for fruitin supermarkets/retailers [BBC, 2020] and, on flowers on-line [May, 2020] duringthe stay-at-home order.Direct causes of the change - participants reported three reasons for theincrease in the demand for domestic production: Changes towards a healthierdiet and lifestyle during and because of the pandemic was the main cause referredto by seven fruit producers. Three participants, all from the flower sector, alsocited limited EU imports due to Brexit/Covid-19 restrictions and high exchangerates as drivers of increased demand. Two producers commented on cooking athome as a factor that increased the demand for fruit and root vegetables. Finally,one participant considered that their customers’ strategy to reduce risks in thesupply chain made them adopt procurement policies which are more reliant ondomestic production.Respondents also highlighted that increased year round demand was alsoencouraging changes in production systems; like extending the growing seasonby using tunnels in soft fruits production and thus reducing imported volumes. conomic Impacts of Covid-19 and Brexit on UK Horticulture 9
This complex interaction between multiple sources of supply and demandwas also important to describe the influence of supermarkets in affecting pro-duction by offering imported fruits during the British fresh fruit season. Threeparticipants from the fruit and one from the vegetable sector used this type ofinteraction in the supply chain to explain that although they expect an increasein demand for UK production, they will not expand their production becauseof a lack of clarity about labour availability and the future of a seasonal labourpermit scheme.For companies who adopt this position, their strategy to tackle the problemof labour shortage is by maintaining or reducing the cultivated area, ratherthan expanding, and/or by switching to less labour-intensive crops. Participants,especially the ones who responded that they do not know what changes willoccur in future UK demand for their crops, cited general economic recession orthe negative impact of higher production costs (implicitly felt to imply higherconsumer prices) as key factors in determining their position.
In the short term (i.e. 2021), participants selected the main options they wouldadopt to meet increased demand from amongst the following options: Changes inlabour schemes and policies; Automation; Changes in crop/farm management;and Clients’ (ie retailers’) commitment. Some respondents contemplated usingseveral options together and others focused only on one. The results are sum-marised in Table 2.Changes in labour schemes and policies were the most cited short-term op-tion (58%). Comments on how to address this topic included: Six participantsreferred to the need to have clarity in policies ‘that allows the 70,000 seasonalworkers to travel into and out of the UK’ and asked for a Seasonal AgriculturalWorkers Scheme (SAWS) enabling the continued recruitment of EU and non-EUseasonal workers. New labour schemes with more stable access to reliable andskilled labour by recruiting more local workers and transitioning from seasonalto permanent jobs were discussed by four participants. Even with the popularityof this solution, two participants from the fruit sector expressed their concernsabout recruiting local workers due to their lower productivity and poorer per-formance in comparison to migrant seasonal workers.Automation appeared as the second most preferred short-term option formeeting increased short-term workloads, selected by 32% of respondents. Fur-ther comments included the following: one participant referred to ‘existing au-tomation or new technologies that are sufficiently developed now i.e. autonomousvehicles to fetch and carry, thus reducing the fatigue on workers’.
Another de-scribed the gradual transition to mechanisation depends on farmers’ investmentpotential as technology becomes cost-effective and decreases the labour require-ment. For another interviewee automation is the only option as he does not see ‘staff as an option’.
Similar to labour supply actions, three respondents consid-ered that automation was not an option because: – ‘Solutions are not available or unaffordable [for the flower sector].’ – ‘High specifications [on soft fruit tasks that] can only be obtained by manualpicking.’ – ‘Our [vegetable] sector will take a long time to embrace technology and drivelabour requirements down.’ Despite concerns about the ability to adopt automation solutions in theshort term (i.e. 2021) and a focus instead on labour market solutions, in themedium to long term (i.e. 2022 onwards), participants considered that thesestrategies needed to be swapped. Virtually all participants saw automation as akey medium to long term solution to increased workload, selected by 17 out of19 (89%), whereas only 3 out of 19 (16%) thought that labour market solutionswere still a main option in the longer term. Results are tallied in Table 2.
Table 2.
Summary of responses: short vs. medium and long term options for industryto meet increased demand.
Options Short term (2021) Medium to Long term(2022 onwards)
Automation 6 (32%) 17 (89%)Farm/crop management 4 (21%) 1 (5%)Labour supply schemes 11 (58%) 3 (16%)Clients’ commitment 1 (5%) 2 (11%)
Automation was the dominant response for long term options to meet theworkload demand. Six of the seventeen participants who responded that automa-tion was a major option did not elaborate their answers, but answers from therest of the respondents focused on different aspects of automation and its rela-tionship with labour. Six of them gave details on the production processes, tasksand methods that can be automated. Another five interviewees highlighted howautomation will become the solution for the labour shortage, reduce the relianceon seasonal workers, respond to the scarcity of skilled and capable workers and,decrease labour costs. Furthermore, two interviewees argued that automationwill need to be aligned with changes in labour schemes such as upskilling currentworkers and ensuring the supply of staff who can operate the equipment effec-tively. Three participants discussed how important it is that technology becomes ‘more cost-effective’ to reduce input costs (fertiliser, chemicals, and labour) andto contribute to environmental Key Performance Indicators (KPIs). Two alsohighlighted the need for a commitment from retailers to establish longer-termworking and more collaborative relations with suppliers to give certainty andsupport investment, as profit margins are too small to make big investmentsunless they have a secure long term market. One respondent emphasised therole of crop/farm management changes by ‘focusing more on cut flower typeswith lower labour requirement’ . Two participants did not suggest automation asa long-term option for labour shortage: one did not elaborate on their reasons; conomic Impacts of Covid-19 and Brexit on UK Horticulture 11 one focused on labour saying ‘We would be given a license to recruit our ownworkers’.
Participants’ responses concerning the types of jobs to automate referred bothto the generic type of job function (e.g. handling) and/or the crop manage-ment practices/tasks these were applied to (e.g. weeding, harvesting etc). Croptasks were the most referred to followed by joint explanations using type of jobfunction and crop tasks. Nine participants reported types of job functions likerepetition, transportation, simplification of tasks, and their contribution to im-proving efficiency and process flow as being important drivers for automation.Transportation was the most cited (6) with phrases like: – ‘autonomous transport’ , – ‘movement of trays/pallets, etc.’ , – ‘fruit movement from picker to end of field’ , and – ‘moving fruit from field to coldstore’ .All but 3 respondents talked about both pre- and post-harvest practicessuch as: planting, crop protection (plant cleaning/weeding), husbandry, pruning,picking-harvesting, processing and, packing and packhouse as important areasfor automation, showing that there is demand for automation at every stage ofthe production cycle. They also cited fruit retrieval, crop scouting and flowergrading. The most cited crop tasks were: – Picking-harvesting cited by eleven participants; – Packing and packhouse cited by six respondents; – Crop protection (plant cleaning and weeding) cited by four interviewees.Participants tended to include in their responses two or more crop tasks. Thestudy received complementary responses associated with the use of data scienceand machine learning for yield prediction and labour recording. Some partici-pants consider that other factors will be key considerations in the automationjourney, including: – Growers and worker capacity development; – Technology multitask attributes; and – Crop prioritisation.The Integration of technology attributes and crop prioritisation were concernsexpressed by farmers with particular crops like cut flowers or root vegetables.There were some participants who expressed a clear integrated, or systems based,approach to how robots and autonomous systems can offer improved decisionmaking across a range of crop tasks.
The overall indication from this rapid survey is that British horticultural outputis at risk of falling substantially in 2021 unless solutions to labour supply chal-lenges can be found. The industry welcomed the December 2020 announcementby government that the SAWS programme would be expanded to 30,000 workersin 2021. However, there are concerns that even this limit will fail to meet labourdemand, there are concerns that flower production has been excluded from the2021 scheme and considerable uncertainty about what the plans are for SAWSfrom 2022.The study concludes that production in the fresh produce and horticulturesector is currently profoundly affected by a combination of Covid-19 and Brexit-related impacts. For producers the short-term uncertainty surrounding theseimpacts appears to outweigh the longer-term expectation that demand will grow,which is leading to a reluctance to invest and decisions being taken to reduceproduction in the short term to reduce risk.
The primary novel result from this study is an indication that UK horti-cultural production may contract in 2021 to a far greater degree than expected.
Nearly half (47%) of respondents reported plans to scale back production in2021 due to labour availability challenges. A further third (37%) reported thatit is too early to decide given the uncertainties they face. More than two-thirds(69%) reported negative competitiveness impacts due to changes in labour sup-ply. Other results tended to conform with observations from secondary sources,indicating that this sector is experiencing; severe problems with labour availabil-ity; and a combination of associated labour cost and quality issues [Bradley andHill, 2017, Duong et al., 2020].Overall, the results of this study suggest that chronic short-term uncertaintyis preventing UK horticultural producers from exploiting Covid-19 (e.g. the de-mand for healthier food) and Brexit (e.g. potential increases in the demand forUK products) impacts as opportunities. They appear to be unable to plan or tojustify investment due to labour supply constraints in the context of persistentsupply chain precariousness, despite confidence about general demand growth inthe sector and the potential of automation as the means to address that growthover the longer term.Our discussion focuses on sectoral productivity through automation, ground-ing the challenge of global competitiveness in more localised labour issues. Theseresults suggest a sector obliged to compete over a lower-quality and higher-costlabour supply. Rather than one that is supported to innovate in ways that re-duces reliance on labour, develops better-quality jobs and delivers on the globalobjective of making supply chains more resilient to future disruptions [Aday andAday, 2020, Henry, 2020].A contraction in the scale of UK fresh produce would also restrict the domes-tic supply of products, which can deliver environmental benefits (UK productionis typically lower carbon and lower water use) and address public health needsfor dietary change. UK consumer preferences are also increasingly focusing onthe UK local and regional supplies. However, if productivity goes down, imports conomic Impacts of Covid-19 and Brexit on UK Horticulture 13 will go up (along with GHG cost) and food prices (whether UK produced orimported); a regressive tax on society, especially low-income individuals, andmoves them from eating healthy food (“fresh produce”). The exact opposite ofall UK government policy on many fronts and counter argument to Dimbleby’sPart one of the National Food Strategy [Dimbleby, 2020], particularly the needto address public health needs for dietary change.Closing observations focus on the policy recommendations suggested by thisstudy. It is clear that growers favour a policy which combines short term laboursupply commitments with the acceleration of medium and long term investmentsin automation, aligned with UK Agri-Tech Strategy [Defra et al., 2013] and theIndustrial Strategy. A proactive automation agenda would both meet growers’workload needs at the same time as delivering higher quality jobs which are moreattractive to UK workers.The study also suggests additional discussion points for the research commu-nity: methodological standards for timely, policy-oriented research on the role ofshort-term effects as determinants of economic outcomes are needed because ofthe increased speed of response which is needed. Whilst Industry 4.0 and similarchanges in the workforce were already leading to this need, Covid-19 and BrexitTransition have both accelerated the speed of change, across all industries, driv-ing a need for more responsive policy making.
Acknowledgments
This study was supported by the
Lincoln Agri-Robotics grant, funded by UKRIResearch England under the Expanding Excellence in England programme.
References
Acemoglu, 2010. Acemoglu, D. (2010). When Does Labor Scarcity Encourage Innova-tion?
Journal of Political Economy , 118(6):1037–1078.Aday and Aday, 2020. Aday, S. and Aday, M. S. (2020). Impacts of COVID-19 onFood Supply Chain.
Food Quality and Safety , August 2020. .AHDB et al., 2021. AHDB, Association of Labour Providers, British Growers, De-fra, Greater Lincolnshire LEP, and NFU (2021). Pick For Britain. https://pickforbritain.org.uk/ .BBC, 2020. BBC (2020). Coronavirus: Fruit and veg box demand increases.
BBCNews, Wales , April 2020. .Bingham, 2015. Bingham, J. (2015). Berry good news for strawberry lovers asBritain set for bumper crop. . 18 May 2015.Bradley and Hill, 2017. Bradley, D. and Hill, B. (2017). Quantitative Modelling ForPost Brexit Scenarios,
Institute of Agricultural Management . .4 Korir, et al.Costa-Font and Revoredo-Giha, 2020. Costa-Font, M. and Revoredo-Giha, C. (2020).Covid-19: the underlying issues affecting the UK’s food supply chains. LSE Busi-ness Review , March 2020. https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/businessreview/2020/03/25/covid-19-the-underlying-issues-affecting-the-uks-food-supply-chains/ .Defra, 2019. Defra (2019). Results from the labour in horticulture survey 2019 for Eng-land. .Defra, 2020a. Defra (2020a). Agriculture in the United Kingdom 2019. .Defra, 2020b. Defra (2020b). Farming statistics – land use, livestock popula-tions and agricultural workforce as at 1 June 2019, England. .Defra, 2020c. Defra (2020c). Latest horticulture statistics. .Defra, 2020d. Defra (2020d). National Food Strategy - Part One. .Defra, 2020e. Defra (2020e). Up to 30,000 workers to help reap 2021 har-vest. .Defra et al., 2013. Defra, BEIS, and DFID (2013). UK agricultural technolo-gies strategy. .Dimbleby, 2020. Dimbleby, H. (2020). The National Food Strategy: Part One. nationalfoodstrategy.org .Duong et al., 2020. Duong, L., Al-Fadhli, M., Jagtap, S., Bader, F., Martindale, W.,Swainson, M., and Paoli, A. (2020). A review of robotics and autonomous systemsin the food industry: From the supply chains perspective.
Trends in Food Science &Technology .Eriksson et al., 2020. Eriksson, H., Ride, A., Boso, D., Sukulu, M., Bat-alofo, M., Siota, F., and Gomese, C. (2020). Changes and adapta-tions in village food systems in Solomon Islands: A rapid appraisal dur-ing the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic,
WorldFish Publications . .Garnett et al., 2020. Garnett, P., Doherty, B., and Heron, T. (2020). Vulnerabilityof the United Kingdom’s food supply chains exposed by COVID-19. Nature Food ,1(6):315–318. .Grimwood and McGuinness, 2017. Grimwood, G. and McGuinness, T. (2017). Mi-grant workers in agriculture. https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-7987/ .Harris et al., 2020. Harris, J., Depenbusch, L., Pal, A. A., Nair, R. M., and Ramasamy,S. (2020). Food system disruption: initial livelihood and dietary effects of COVID-19on vegetable producers in India.
Food Security , 12(4):841–851.Henry, 2020. Henry, R. (2020). Innovations in Agriculture and Food Supply in Re-sponse to the COVID-19 Pandemic.
Molecular Plant , 13(8):1095–1097.HM Government, 2019. HM Government (2019). Implications for business andtrade of a no deal exit on 29 March 2019. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/781768/Implications_for_Business_and_Trade_of_a_No_Deal_Exit_on_29_March_2019.pdf .conomic Impacts of Covid-19 and Brexit on UK Horticulture 15Klerkx et al., 2012. Klerkx, L. W. A., Mierlo, B. v., and Leeuwis, C. (2012). Evo-lution of systems approaches to agricultural innovation: concepts, analysis andinterventions.
Farming Systems Research into the 21st Century: The New Dy-namic , pages 457–483. https://research.wur.nl/en/publications/evolution-of-systems-approaches-to-agricultural-innovation-concep .Kupferschmidt and Cohen, 2020. Kupferschmidt, K. and Cohen, J. (2020). Race tofind. Covid-19 treatments accelerates.
Science , 367(6485):1412–1414.May, 2020. May, R. (2020). The SEO landscape of the UK online florists market2020. https://connective3.com/blog/the-seo-landscape-of-the-uk-online-florists-market-2020/ .Mitchell et al., 2020. Mitchell, R., Maull, R., Pearson, S., Brewer, S., and Collison,M. (2020). The impact of COVID-19 on the UK fresh food supply chain. http://arxiv.org/abs/2006.00279 .NHS, 2018. NHS (2018). Why 5 A Day? .OECD, 2021. OECD (2021). Real minimum wages. https://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DataSetCode=RMW . Retrieved 26-Jan-2021.ONS, 2018. ONS (2018). Labour in the agriculture industry, UK. .Pelham, 2020. Pelham, J. (2020). The Potential Implications of Covid-19 for the Costsof Production of UK Fruit & Vegetables in 2020. Technical report.Revoredo-Giha and Costa-Font, 2020. Revoredo-Giha, C. and Costa-Font, M. (2020).The UK’s fresh produce supply under COVID-19 and a no-deal Brexit.
LSE BusinessReview , June 2020. https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/businessreview/2020/06/22/the-uks-fresh-produce-supply-under-covid-19-and-a-no-deal-brexit/ .Seferidi et al., 2019. Seferidi, P., Laverty, A. A., Pearson-Stuttard, J., Bandosz, P.,Collins, B., Guzman-Castillo, M., Capewell, S., O’Flaherty, M., and Millett, C.(2019). Impacts of Brexit on fruit and vegetable intake and cardiovascular dis-ease in England: a modelling study.
British Medical Journal Open , 9(1):e026966. https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/9/1/e026966 .Shaxson, 2005. Shaxson, L. (2005). Is your evidence robust enough? Questions forpolicy makers and practitioners.
Evidence & Policy: A Journal of Research, Debateand Practice , 1(1):101–112.Stephens et al., 2020. Stephens, E., Martin, G., M, W., J, T., and V, S. (2020). Edito-rial: Impact of Covid-19 on agricultural and food systems worldwide and on progressto the sustainable development goals.
Agricultural Systems , 183 102873.UK House of Lords, European Union Committee, 2018. UK House of Lords, Euro-pean Union Committee (2018). Brexit: food prices and availability.UK Parliament: Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, 2020a. UK Parlia-ment: Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee (2020a). Labour in the foodsupply chain - Committees - UK Parliament. https://committees.parliament.uk/work/190/labour-in-the-food-supply-chain/https://committees.parliament.uk/work/190/labour-in-the-food-supply-chain/