Farmers Weekly has a poll on its website (a website not usually visited by huge numbers of non-farmers) about whether it is right to transfer money that goes to farming from subsidies to green schemes. The answer has to be ‘yes’ because subsidies represent untargetted income support to rich and poor farmers, good and bad farmers, green and black farmers with precious few strings attached. On the other hand, green schemes go to environmentally friendly farmers when they provide public goods for public money. So, the answer is ‘yes’. Simples!
To have your say click here.
[registration_form]
Makes sense to reward the farmers who support the environment to invest in everyone’s future instead of propping up greedy wasters who drain natural resources & leave nothing for the next generation. To quote an old native American proverb “We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors, we only borrow it from our children” .
Those native Americans obviously didn’t have Excel, otherwise they would know about circular references
I had a quick look and was surprised to see the comment that money for ‘environmental vanity projects’ should come from other funding. I presume that means certain farmers would like the money twice. I use the word ‘certain’ deliberately because I am sure that is not the view of the majority of farmers.
“environmental vanity projects”
The farmer that made that comment will have netted £12,235 from the taxpayer for his ELS Agreement.
Would be worth putting the vote to a wider slice of the tax paying public – interesting to note that currently 61% think we should, unless that’s just extra traffic from this blog to a normally under used voting system? Also encouraging given that most marginal, upland and livestock farmers would probably vote yes but are less likely to visit the site.
http://www.fwi.co.uk/articles/30/10/2013/141761/farmers-weekly-poll-targeted-by-campaigners.htm
Also find Ian Kidsons comment ironic that money should be for ‘enabling our country to feed itself as much as possible from our own resources’, yet 68.88% of respondents to the FW poll (30/11/12-7/12/12) said they would sell land for housing development – gives the impression that this is double standards, more about money and less about feeding the country from our resources. Maybe its things like this that give rise to the results of the poll (10/5/12-17/5/12) where respondents overwhelmingly (94.23%) thought that the public don’t recognise the importance of farming to the economy.
Wouldn’t it be great to have farmers go on strike like other people seem to think is there right.
Guarantee everyone without exception would think differently about farmers as they rushed to the empty shelves in all the food shops.
Of course some farmers do really well from these payments but not the majority and do not try and tell me there are not overpaid fat cats in the rest of the population who do far less for their money and we never see anything about that in this blog.That money for those fat cats comes from our taxes just the same somewhere along the line and whereas we should have some say in that as our Government has to approve the payments we have really negligible control over the payments to farmers as the rest of EU runs the show more or less.
Makes a great blog though to kick farmers with a full stomach,not so easy if anyone is hungry desperate for food.
Put a environmentally threatened eatable bird in front of a desperately hungry family and almost without exception they will eat it,that shows what the majority want their taxes to go towards.
Easiest thing on Mark’s blog to get the dislike button worn out is to suggest that the conservation minded massive minority just want to impose their will on the majority of the population.Amazing arrogance.
Well said Dennis.
Dennis – hardly kicking farmers when the choice is between which farmers get the money, not whether they get the money.
How shameful that non-farmers feel they can campaign via an open invitation poll, I’m sure all those nice agri-industrialists wouldn’t dream of lobbying. Perhaps they quietly advocate in corridors instead that freedom of speech by the masses / tax payers is gagged?
Yes, they too are tax-payers but I don’t see Mark or others excluding them from voting in open polls or commenting on their blogs.
See
http://www.fwi.co.uk/articles/30/10/2013/141761/farmers-weekly-poll-targeted-by-campaigners.htm
Fact is majority of population by a big margin prefer food to wildlife and even though probably all on here are wildlife friendly that is no reason in a democratic society to ignore the views of vast majority.
Dennis – fact is, this blog wasn’t about preferring wildlife to food. And you have never explained how handing out the Single Farm Payment makes my food cheaper or better.
Dennis, you often complain that the RSPB has its head in the sand with respect to the issue of Hen Harrier persecution by grouse moor managers but could it be that you have a bit of a blind spot yourself? You must be aware that wildlife on farmland is much less diverse and abundant than it was a few decades ago and as a bird lover (I believe) that must surely be a concern to you. It is hardly an attack on farmers or farming to suggest that a higher proportion of the substantial amount of public money they receive should be directed towards environmental stewardship schemes.
You seem to think that we should not complain about farmers with our mouths full but does this mean then that we should also have no expectations about how oil companies manage their wells, tankers and refineries if we drive a car or heat our homes?
You are raising issues about democracy but who has said that farmers or anyone else are not allowed a point of view in this debate? It seems to me that it is you who is telling conservationists they should shut up not the other way round.
Dennis,
You appear to have waded into this debate without properly considering what exactly is being discussed. This is a not about giving more or less money to farmers, nor is it about giving farmers a kicking. Perhaps you have misunderstood.
The issue is should we continue to continue to modulate money from Pillar 1 to Pillar 2 ? Money diverted into the pillar 2 pot still comes back to the farming sector though agri-environment schemes schemes such as ELS or HLS or via grant schemes such as the Forestry and Farming Improvement Scheme.
In my experience the farmers that tend to benefit the most from these schemes are smaller grassland and mixed family farms, farms on marginal land and upland farms. I am very happy for my taxes to continue to support these farming systems, I know the benefits that they offer and consider it a win-win situation. Many of these farms would not be able to survive otherwise.
If these schemes were to be dropped in order to enable the larger, more productive farms to be paid more SPS, then I would consider it to be an utterly shameful act. Are you really arguing in favour of that happening ? This would surprise me.
Mr Ames talks of equality for farmers, cheaper food etc but sir you fail to understand that direct payments do neither if these things and stifles innovation and the world market. In fact reduce them over time and you’ll get those things given the right direction, but what we don’t have is a system that will save farming from itself, as farming needs wildlife and of course wildlife and the environment isn’t supported by the market and it is also a public benefit. Therefore I’m happy to have my taxes pay for it!
Dennis (after the last para we are on first name terms because you’ll now suddenly understand what’s wrong!) you can’t continually pay the richest the most and the poorest the least that’s not an equitable system that everyone in the industry seems to wish for (but in truth it’s not what they really are after?). So be equitable for tax payer and farmer and do something for huge amount of tax payers handouts the industry has had over the years damaging the smaller extensive operators and ensuring the big intensive guys get all the money.
If you want to farm intensively and operate as a big player on the world market – do it! But you’ll not be getting my public money for doing it so you get rich twice over……oh wait you do! Well I’ll not give you any money from my taxes for massive grain stores or can factories cos the market pays for that surely…..oh wait I did that too!
Yet give all of that you’ve had a moan about cheap food (illogical given that direct payments do exactly the opposite!) and then people get all jumpy when I as a tax payer want to have a teeny bit of the free handout agriculture plc get for delivery for my ailing wildlife.
UK agri is setting a head on collision with their consumers and tax payers first if it’s not Badgers it’s a neglect of the demo of their public worth for continued public investment.
If UK agriculture plc wants to go on strike that could be interesting, I’ll go on strike from paying their SFP/direct payment/money for NO rope payments and look to see who else on the world market will provide my food – which I can happily do today, unfortunately the SFP is more tricky (but famous comedians gave it a good go!)
Well I tried for an inordinate amount of time yesterday to make Firefox 22, 23 and 25 show me the poll details at FWi but to no avail – all I see is a blank space under the “Weekly Poll” header. Something to do with Java, probably.
Never mind though but I can participate in a proper consultation at this link: https://consult.defra.gov.uk/communications/cap-consultation
There are nearly 50 questions to be answered and the consultation is open to the public so it may be the biggest analysis of random knee-jerking in history.
With respect, I think Dennis and Filbert are a bit wide of the mark here.
Imagine a farm with about 10 acres of marsh and mire. If the farmer looks after that land, what do we get? Well, for starters, we get some great beef. And I love burgers. But the grassland soil will store water, and reduce flooding. The peat will store carbon, helping us with climate change. The flowers will support pollinators. And I love honey! The land will also provide a ‘cultural service’ in terms of landscape, and the wildlife that we enjoy seeing. So there is a public health benefit there too.
I’d argue that, as a society, we are benefiting from all these ‘ecosystem services’ – in the new jargon – but the cost of providing them falls on the farmer. So it stands to reason, in fact it’s only just, that if we want these services, we should pay for them. The farmers that produce the most services should get paid the most. In fact, I’d like them to get a lot more than they get right now.
The job description of farming is changing. We are starting to recognise that farming gives us a lot more than just food. As a trade unionist myself, I think it’s important that workers can join together to communicate with employers. I’d respect the right of farmers to join together to do the same. But who is the ‘employer’ in this situation? We all are, through the food we buy and the subsidies our taxes pay for. I think it is fair that we say to agriculture, yes, we want food, but we also want these other services that can be just as important. We will put our money where our mouth is, and reward you well for these other services you provide to us all.
This is not about ‘conservation vanity projects’, or food versus wildlife. It’s about understanding the total value of farming to the nation, and treating those who provide that value accordingly
Oh yes I take on board all the points raised by various people,I see both sides in this situation as I am or have been on both sides and certainly am personally happy for my part of taxes to go more for wildlife.However one fact is that lots of smaller farmers would probably get out of farms if Single Farm Payment was done away with or seriously reduced and it does in my opinion keep food prices lower by simply the law of supply and demand and that was the original intention of its predecessor.
Of course lets face it if conservationists maybe 5% of population got SFP reduced they wold crow and want it reduced more or completely done away with,we have to abide by what the majority want and I dislike lots of the ways my taxes are used for and the SFP share is a piffling small amount set by EU so I never understand the issue being the major point some people make it.
No I do not like the fact that larger estates get colossal amounts but it would be fairer to cap it at a certain level than keep taking it down.
What most conservationists fail to see and I do understand this point is that they think everyone thinks the same as they do,believe me that is as far from the truth as you can get.
To put it bluntly we are seen as weird,need proof then go into a workplace of at least 50 people and find out how many are true conservationists,with a bit of luck 4 in every 100 that means 96 in every hundred would prefer that money going into Pillar 2 to actually go into Pillar 1.
Can anyone explain how money into Pillar 2 helps those 96 in every 100 (approx of course)who could not care less about wildlife and why then should there taxes pay to supply pleasure for the conservationists.
It is a fact in this instance that the minority(of which I am part of)are trying to impart their will on the vast majority and in fact as the CAP is set by EU and there is no evidence I have seen that our partners in EU have similar thoughts it brings that minority well below 1% of EU population.
Not a hope of the EU taking notice of such a small group of people,they may well decide various things to help wildlife but trying to say we demand this or that will not work but anyway does tend to make us feel VIP but not very democratic.
“Imagine a farm with about 10 acres of marsh and mire. If the farmer looks after that land, what do we get?”
Well, for starters, the beef get footrot and flukes. Keep them off.
Marsh and mire when saturated are incapable of storing any more water and the excess moves to by surface flow to ditches or rivers but often causes flooding, especially when blocked by a vanity project, which is nice. Unless you live there.
The rate of accumulation of peat is extremely slow and you can forget about it having a worthwhile effect on the carbon cycle except on a geological timescale. On the other hand, nice wet anoxic soil readily loses carbon fixed in organic matter to methane emissions and even better, nitrogen as nitrous oxide.
The prospect of Rush and Sedge Honey is exciting and would indeed be extremely sought after, almost surpassing cockerels’ eggs in value and would clearly be the most profitable crop on the farm.
The attribution of values to intangibles is leading inexorably to an entry fee approach to landscapes – as witnessed by the “I want value for money approach”. Well – I say the answer is “A pox be upon all bean counters, for they know not the value of what they countetheth, and are in sore need of a poke in the eye with a sharp stick lest they getteth what they wisheth for”.
Filbert
Looks like my post could have done with greater clarity, as we are clearly talking at cross-purposes.
Here in south Wales, cattle grazing (Welsh Blacks if you can get them) is the standard traditional management for fen meadow and mire sites, usually referred to as ‘rhos’ and corresponding to NVC communities M22 – M25. In some of the valleys, pit ponies may also have been historically used.
Habitats of this type do indeed have rushes and sedges, but they can also be stunningly species-rich. It is not unusual to get over 30 species in a standard 2mx2m vegetation quadrat. Flowers can include such species as tormentil, devil’s bit scabious, meadow thistle, greater bird’s foot refoil, meadowsweet, whorled caraway, marsh orchid species, lesser spearwort, saw-wort, bog asphodel, angelica, water mint, ragged robin, and ericoids. The continuity of flower resource makes them excellent foraging habitat for pollinators.
Flooding occurs when the amount of water overwhelms the ability of a watercourse to carry it. The peaty soils in such sites act as a sponge, soaking up rainfall and releasing it more slowly, preventing the overtopping of rivers downstream.
Thanks for your comment.
Well there’s a thought lets put cockerel’s eggs into the Pillar 2 schemes,no more crazy than some of the things already there.
“Well there’s a thought lets put cockerel’s eggs into the Pillar 2 schemes,no more crazy than some of the things already there”
You really do talk an inordinate amount of [nonsense] Dennis, it has to be said. I suspect you haven’t got the slightest clue about ERDP schemes.
Note: one word has been changed in this comment to retain the sense but tone down the language – in square brackets.
There seems little doubt that many if not most farmers consider the subsidies ‘their’ money, not the taxpayers. Isn’t it ironic that it is the EU which the more conservative you are the more it seems you hate that has been the bastion that has shielded farmers from the cuts every other public service has faced ? When Dennis asks ‘food or wildlife’ it would be equally appropriate, surely, to look the other way and ask ‘food or life’ as Government slices billions off the health service. And the strike ? Well, Dennis, pause a moment and consider where your ‘cheap food’ is leading as the supermarket shelves seem to suggest that fruit from Spain, beans from Kenya etc etc is cheaper – and stock market driven megaliths like Tesco and Sainsbury’s prefer cheap to British….