Defra has started a consultation on reform of the Common Agricultural Policy – don’t panic, you have until 5 March to respond. But Defra only wants views from those who may be affected by these proposals. And that appears to mean English farmers, environmental groups, rural communities, non-governmental organisations and other interested parties. But there is no mention (except in ‘other interested parties’) of you, the taxpayer, despite the fact that you are paying for it.
The NFU is encouraging farmers to respond to this consultation on its website which is fair enough.
So Defra is seeking, and no doubt will receive, a lot of views from the recipients of public money but appears completely uninterested in getting views from those who provide that money. Isn’t that a bit odd? It’s certainly not very Big Society is it? And are we all in it together?
Of course the ‘other interested parties’ which do not have a voice are skylarks, harvest mice, pheasant eyes and the rest of our wildlife dependent on how farmland is farmed, and how your taxes go to encourage wildlife-friendly farming, so you may wish to respond on their behalves. We’ll come back to this subject – after all, we have until 5 March to come up with some views.
[registration_form]
ahem Pheasant’s eye Mark.
And please try to remember that half of English farmland is grassland and the wildlife that used to inhabit it.
Could 38 degrees organise a response to the consultation from the English public?
Happy Christmas!
Miles
At least you’ve got a consultation! In Scotland we have ‘roadshows’… and a predictable emphasis on production rather than growing food in conjunction with delivering ecological public goods (perhaps one could read “providing farmers with income support” for “production”).
There’s someone else blogging about CAP reform. It’s a depressing read: http://blogs.scotland.gov.uk/cap-reform/
PS – forgot to say, I opened my copy of ‘British Wildlife’ last night to find a certain Mr Avery had written a very thought-provoking and topical piece – the first of a regular series.
As per your closing remarks on the subject in that piece, Mark – I think it’s about time we demanded our money back from these people… or at the very least some measure of accountability for what’s happened on their watch. Maybe the same economic principles should be applied in reverse – we paid the custodians of biodiversity (a phrase I smirk every time I use it) to at the very least preserve, and at best, enhance the biodiversity of the British countryside. But that hasn’t happened. Meanwhile, Mr Kendall and his imps would like a return to production-based subsidy – using for example the simplistic mechanism of recoupling to headage payments…
…which gets me thinking, if the agricultural sector is happy to take public money on the basis of quantifiable output, perhaps we should tax them on the basis of quantifiable loss of biodiversity on their farms? An interesting concept, no? Fairer to the public purse, better for wildlife (those who follow the Hope Farm example and demonstrate good food production AND increases in biodiversity can go hand-in-hand get tax breaks… and those who want cereal or silage monocultures at the expense of wildlife can pay for them in cold, hard cash…)
What we really desperately need is some great people to have as much energy for our farmland birds as they manage for things that are certainly no more important such as Spoonbilled Sandpiper,birds on Henderson Island and loads more but of course farmland birds are not sexy enough for conservationists to make a name for themselves.Farmers problems are that what is needed seems to change and gets ever more complicated while not giving much money after all the expense of paying professionals to claim it and rules and regulations what they do get ever more complicated,indeed just reading all the options makes many in my estimation say cannot bother.Am not saying farmers could not do more but the options and paperwork make it too much for average farmer.
Why do not all those who complain start a campaign for easier understanding,surely about 5 things which most farmers could do would stand a chance of improving farmland bird numbers.
Why do so many people who comment on blogs about agri-environment schemes not understand that it is no good quoting Hope Farm as it bears absolutely no relevance to the 50% or whatever grassland farms,time to inform them with that knowledge I think Mark,they would believe you but not us farming folk.
Dennis,
With respect, you are making assumptions about the level of my understanding of the issues pertaining to agriculture (production, subsidy, environmental outcomes et al) which are somewhat ill-informed in their own right. If you *really* want me to comment about grassland farms and the spectacular damage some of the farmers who operate them have done in the past 50 years, I can quote chapter and verse, hard statistics and informed opinion. I’m from a farming background too. Think of me as a poacher turned gamekeeper (not that the latter label is a especially positive one given the crimes against wildlife perpetrated by the bad apples in that particular barrel).
Hope Farm was just an example to make a point, not a simplistic one-size-fits-all recommendation.
With respect…
Absolutely right as usual Mark. I wonder why DEFRA have drawn such an arbitary line in seeking comments. I am sure anyone who goes for a walk in the countryside wants to see a variety of birds and wildlife (in addition to crows and wood pigeons) and not a wall to wall vista of some particular crop as the NFU, maybe, suggest at times should be the case. Except, perhaps, those who never step outside a city or a large town, more or less everyone is therefore an interested party in the refom of the CAP. There is an old saying “he who pays the piper calls the tune”. Those who pay the piper in this case are apparently not being allowed to call the tune, hardly a democratic situation. Perhaps a slight echo of the recent elections in Russia which were claimed by many to be slanted in favour of one party?
We have had a Defra consultation here in Cumbria about the formation of Internal Drainage Boards run largely by the farming community and for their benefit but paid for by the people inhabiting the local council area where the drainage board area will have effect. I looked at this DEFRA consulltation which was extremely complicated and decided that i wasn’t one of the people whose views they required even though I monitor whooper swans on these areas annually. If the drainage pumps are switched off and ditch and river canalisation ceases we will have a fantastic wetland. The only information about the consultation I saw was a letter from the RSPB in the farming section of our local newspaper. I think that the only people that are finding out about this consultation are local farmers. local ratepayers who will finance it probably know nothing about what may happen. Why do Defra forms or consultations always have to be so complicated that the average person will either not understand or won’t want to waste the effort trying to understand.
DavidH,really interesting that you have almost identical problem to farmers trying to understand all about the parts of schemes that they could use to get more farmland birds.The rest does not apply to you personally
Part of trouble seems to always be that if E U make a leaflet of 10 pages when reproduced in this country it seems to always apparently be 3 times as big.
Think farmers want from DEFRA regarding farmland birds,1) clear,simple requirements 2)fair payments,surely fair and straight forward things to ask for.It is a bit much moaning about paying for what you are not getting on farms and what you are paying as lots of farmers are actually doing great things and filling all requirements of schemes.Ironically it is the schemes that are wrong in content or we would be getting better results.Something individual farmers have as little control over as Marks bloggers.
Jon,sorry if you thought my comment aimed at you as nothing further from the truth it was just meant for a general assessment of what is generally quoted.We all know the damage done on grassland farms and as I have said many times no one suggests to farmers a sensible solution as we are not going back to methods of farming early last century and grassland farmers in general have had to farm in the way they do today to survive which obviously you know.Unfortunately no one or any organisation or farmers has any ideas at all on what grassland farmers can do to halt the decline.All the present ideas have definitely not worked and are just playing around the edges of the problem.Farmers seem unable to solve the problem as it is possible to get the money by hedge trimming to the rules and other small things that may leave more berries on hedge but not do much in the end for farmland birds.Think what is needed is research on exactly the course of action to take and payment for that particular thing.
Sorry for the misunderstanding as you obviously saw it as a personal attack.
Quite honestly I wonder if you asked a hundred grassland farmers and a hundred conservationists what any of them could do to increase farmland bird numbers you would get a answer that would work.