The NFU is indeed a union working for the interests of its members and we should always remember that. And we should always remember that the money for which they are negotiating is our money, but that they do not negotiate directly with us. Unlike most unions who negotiate directly with an employer, whether public or private sector, whose interests probably do not coincide directly with that of the union, the NFU negotiates with a whole bunch of governments called the European Union to set income support levels and the levels of support for wildlife-friendly farming.
The UK government is just one of many governments involved in setting the EU budget, and when it comes down to it, the money going to farmers is just one element of the continental politics involved in the budget discussions which will involve bailing out the Greeks so as to protect the Irish and Spanish economies, who does what in Afghanistan, the future of the UK budget rebate and a whole range of other issues. And when it comes down to it, the Pillar 2 environmental payments are an even smaller part of the whole picture. That said, the CAP forms about half of the total EU budget so even tinkering around the edges with it is worth doing.
In the last CAP reforms, in the days of Tony Blair’s premiership, the UK was chairing the EU budget discussions and CAP reform and environmental payments got short shrift alongside the bigger political issues involved. Then an opportunity was missed to reform CAP and I always fear that similar outcomes are likely each time the opportunity arises.
It’s encouraging that Defra has such a clear and strong line on the CAP budget – if cuts are needed then cut P1 not P2 – but it will be No10 and the Treasury who actually do the negotiations. We have seen precious little sign that either George Osborne or David Cameron has the fate of the farmed environment high up their agendas whereas their French, German and Polish counterparts may well be thinking of their rural voters quite hard as they duck and dive on this issue.
So this is a negotiation where your money is at stake but hardly anyone will ask your opinion. Angela Merkle will be listening to German farmers but won’t ask British taxpayers what they would like; the UK Government hasn’t asked you what you think on the subject (nor has it really told you what it thinks either) and the NFU hasn’t really come clean on what it wants with your money.
So the RSPB is right to ask you to contact the EU President directly (and quickly please – do it now!), and through its Birdlife International membership other European citizens will be doing so too, but if the outcome, which will be announced this week, is unfavourable then you will have every right to make a fuss about it. Having come back recently from the USA then the phrase ‘no taxation without representation’ comes to mind.
[registration_form]
An excellent blog if I may say so Mark. As is fairly typical with politicians, the history of the CAP seems like a catalogue of missed opportunties for the environment. As you say, our money should not be spent trashing our environment and wildlife when with a little thought, and minimal money in terms of the overall sums spent, it can be avoided, without affecting farm yields. One has to be very broad hearted not to become somewhat cynical of politicians in cases like this.
Alan – I think you are right. The environment always seem to end up at the bottom of the pile – that’s why we must stand up for nature.
Spot on Mark. I was walking past a very wide wildflower margin next to a bright green field of wheat this morning. It struck me how far agricultural technology has come in producing near perfect high yielding crops and the stark contrast between this and the ramshackle wildflowers with butterflies and skylarks over. And then I felt a sense of dread that the margins of glorious mess might dissapear if the
environmental payments the farmer relies on to produce these are cut. Back to the bad old days of green factories as a norm? I hope not.
Gert – I hope not too.
If only it were that simple. The CAP is but one element in the decline of biodiversity. The agricultural share of the budget is clearly set to decrease still further at a time of rising inputs and shortages of natural resources. It is presently less than 50%. The percentage cost of household food budgets has also continued to decrease yet consumption and obesity has increased. More food for less money, it isn’t rocket science to work out who has been squeezed.
EU citizens were consulted on what they wanted from the CAP. Their answer came back loud and clear. They wanted farmers first and foremost to produce affordable food, in a sustainable way whilst also protecting the environment. A simple clear and sound message to Commissioners but do they really understand the complexities to achieving such an outcome and what hidden costs to the environment and farming would be?
To produce affordable food requires a fair supply chain and regulation of commodity markets. The EU has sleep walked into this through lack of regulation whilst at the same time being over zealous on farm and business regulations stifling economic growth. This is what is responsible for the unsustainable situation we find ourselves in not farmers struggling to survive global market pressures.
Sustainable production can only be achieved when stable markets and a fair return allow for long term planning and investment. Protecting the environment will only happen when farmers no longer have to rely on artificial fertilisers, pesticides and herbicides to boost their outputs to compensate for these increasingly unsustainable inputs and intensive production methods.
About time that the RSPB focussed its attention away from their constant and damaging criticisms of farmers and landowners, blaming them alone for the destruction of our environment. Focus even more please on getting your millions of members to remind their politicians what they voted for and that they look to their politicians to set a workable framework for our farmers that will ensure that outcome………….and while you’re at it, get them to lobby their supermarket to stop opposing the appointment of a supermarket ombudsman. Of course that may result in them having to pay a more realistic price for their over packaged, over processed instant foods so I won’t hold my breath.
Daye – welcome back. Great comment again – thank you.
The CAP in indeed but one element in the loss of biodiversity – one, but a big one.
Food is indeed cheaper than it used to be in real terms, like TVs, cars and even petrol (I think). And other industries have to cope with it too. Generally speaking it’s a good thing.
When were we all asked about what we want from the CAP? I must have missed that.
As far as I know, and certainly when I worked for them, the RSPB does not criticise farmers (athough they are not all saints) but does criticise agriculture policy. Your point about supermarkets has merit – but if the NFU showed any interest in the environment it would be far easier to get RSPB members to lobby supermarkets. Whilst the NFU claims to represent farmers and supports biofuels consistently and shuns biodiversity consistently it’s a bit difficult to see the supermarkets as the big shared enemy.
Thank you again for your comments.
Other industries are falling like ninepins. No way is petrol cheaper in real terms from our pockets thanks to the high tax on it. Of course food being cheaper in real terms is a good thing if you’re a consumer, BUT IT”S NOT SUSTAINABLE because those who grow it are not earning enough to sustain their farm businesses into the future and there aren’t enough people mad enough to want to invest in a loss making industry. Banks are foreclosing on farms which are then sold at astronomic sums bearing no resemblance to their productivity in real terms.Prices reflect an investment in land shortage and future food security opportunities. Even Oxfam says “the global food system is broke”.
RSPB criticised farmers collectively every time it put out a statement about the decline of farmland birds or even birds linking it to the use of pesticides and herbicides. A corollary to acknowledge the good work done by many farmers was always conspicuously absent. Farmer bashing along with landowner bashing was the preferred badge of RSPB and it will take some dramatic PR to cleanse them of that. Negative messages repel, positive messages attract. Even now a row is brewing about RSPBA and SSPCA sending out negative biased messages to pupils in Scottish Primary schools.
Greening will be embedded in one or other of the pillars so I’m a great deal more hopeful than you appear to be. The level of administration appears to me to be more key. If delivery is devolved down to River Basin Catchment Areas there is greater potential for integration. The EU appears mindful to the proposals to devolve down to Regions so it’s a short step to River Basin Management but I haven’t yet heard it mentioned.
Anyway Mark, so how would you divvy up the CAP in a way that will ensure what EU citizens voted for when Dacien Ciolos consulted them? The consultation was his first action after he became Commissioner. The UK has never engaged much with the EU where matters of Agriculture and Rural Affairs are concerned so I’m not surprised that you didn’t know about it. I certainly filled in my response.
In practical terms, how are you going to provide UK citizens with affordable food when their incomes are decreasing, there is less money to subsidise the growing of it, and the growers are facing increasing external input costs? You have yet to come up with a workable alternative solution to present to the Commissioners other than that cuts should be made in pillar 1 rather than pillar 2.
Daye – I hope you keep coming back to comment here – thank you.
Just a few comments. There is not much danger of farming becoming less common in a world of food shortage – there might be a continuing loss of farmers though. Bigger farms owned by fewer farmers. Not what I would want but some would say this is inevitable (think it’s been happening for years) and would lead to greater efficiency. So what does sustainable mean? Surely not maintaining the number of farmers?
The issue is not how to provide UK citizens with affordable food as we are rich. That may be why Oxfam think the world food system needs a bit of fixing. Certainly biofuels that take up land which could grow food are no part of that fix.
I would make cuts to Pillar 1 on the grounds of fairness and good value for money for the taxpayer – no one has suggested how the taxpayer (particularly the less well off) benefits from untargetted hand-outs which go to the richest as well as the poorest farmers. And I would use Pillar 2 to enure that public non-marketable goods (like nature) are delivered alongside food.
Thank you again for your thoughtful comments.