Everything is in flux, but if we really are leaving the EU then the biggest conservation opportunity is bound to be through changing our financing of agriculture.
We spend £3bn per annum on agricultural support at the moment (in England and Wales). We can spend more or less than that post Brexit because we are net contributors to the EU coffers (about which I have no complaint) so we will have at least as much money at our disposal. And those decisions will be ours in future.
Today, most of that £3bn is given to farmers as income support with hardly any strings attached – there is the requirement not to break the law and to keep the land in good nick for agriculture (that seems to me to be some of the palest pink of red tape that anyone could imagine). Those payments, let’s call them Pillar1 payments, apply right across the ununitedUK and to almost every type of farming. You can think of them as a ‘shadow’ of former subsidies which were more dependent on how much stuff (milk, meat, cereal) your farm produced. Those Pillar1 payments are paid whether you are a good farmer or a bad one, whether you are large or small, whether you are farming according to best practice or not. They are a remarkable form of income support for one section of society which comes from all the rest of us.
The rest of the money, a much smaller proportion, is spent on Pillar2 payments. These include the payments to farmers and landowners, and grouse moor managers, to manage their land in various ways that are thought to be good – managing field margins, organic farming etc. There are lots of details but they don’t matter really because this is the current system, we can tear that all up and start again.
So we may well have around £3bn per annum to spend in whatever way we wish. We can spend it on building a wall between the north and south of Ireland and another between Scotland and England; we could invest in the England football team; we could spend it on teachers’ salaries, or nurses or give junior doctors a pay rise; we could spend it on a nuclear submarine or on anything else we can think up in our new freedom to decide our own destiny.
What we should not do is continue to waste it in the way that we have been doing for so long.
What might happen if we just stopped giving any of it to farmers – because we can once we leave the EU.
A lot of farmers, the small ones and the inefficient ones, would go out of business because the current income support is often their biggest source of income: all that farming doesn’t pay at all, it’s the handouts from the rest of us that keep many small farming businesses afloat. That wouldn’t necessarily mean less farming in the ununitedUK because other farmers, particularly large and efficient ones, would be likely to want to increase their land holdings to spread their fixed costs over larger areas. And without the annual cheques from the taxpayer the value of farmland would decrease, so buying land, whether for farming, built development, wind turbines, forestry or nature reserves would be cheaper. If we just pulled the plug on all that money, as we could, then land prices would drop and that would be good for some people and some industries, and we’d have the £3bn per annum in our pockets, or in George Osborne’s successor’s pocket anyway, as well.
But pulling the plug completely would also remove the ‘good’ portion of what is currently Common Agricultural Policy money. There would be no grants for farmers to do ‘good’ things on their land so we would have to rely on the unpredictable market consequences of this change to be good for the environment or somehow imagine that farmers, with less income, and sitting on a lower capital asset, would fork out for the environment out of altruism (just as so many have in the last years when there has been a financial carrot?).
Fancy that scenario?
No? Let’s try another one then. How about if we spend all the £3bn on environmental grants – encouraging farmers to take much greater account of wildlife, carbon, flood risk, water quality etc etc? That would take quite a lot of thinking about but it would be a superb bonus for the environment if done properly. If we did it properly then we might easily make a paper profit on it too – by reducing costs imposed by agriculture on other industries (eg water suppliers) and therefore the taqxpayer might get a real result from spending that money differently. Of course, the Brexiteers don’t seem to like experts so they might get a couple of Special Advisors to come up with a new scheme, or ask the grouse moor managers to write it, or have some chums round for a dinner party and sort it all out there – now that there is no red tape from the EU to constrain us, we have the freedom to screw it up mightily all on our own.
This is a conundrum – we could use our freedom very well or very badly. Freedom is a bit like that.
There is a common fault in thinking about policy change – and we all fall into it until experience beats it out of us – and that is that the best will happen if it might. It’s more often the case that something a bit rubbish is mixed up in good things, and that takes the shine off things.
Brexit will focus the minds of us all, but particularly all those townies, on why we give so much money to farmers, and get so little in return. Anyone who comes to that view will choose one of two things (or both at once): ‘Let me have my money back’ and/or ‘You need to deliver more for my contribution if you are going to keep receiving it’. You can start thinking about what you would like right now – and remember you have a clean sheet – there are no external rules (not completely true because of international trade laws, but pretty close). Here are some ideas to stimulate your own thoughts:
- put a cap on payments to any land owner so that we don’t pay large landowners lots of money – watch out for any land-owning wildlife NGOs’ views on this!
- give all the money to grouse moors because the rich deserve as much help as the rest of us can give them, and anyway, they tend to vote Conservative with a large dash of UKIP so they are our mates
- remove all payments from the lowlands and transfer them to the uplands to pay for rewilding, carbon storage, flood reduction etc
- use the money to buy land in National Parks, it will be quite cheap, and give it to National Park authorities to manage sustainably
- support organic farming
I am sure that this audience, a very special and well-informed audience after all, will come up with some great ideas for spending the money better. but there is a massive chance that most normal people will say ‘I’ll have my money back – I’ll need it more in this post-Brexit world and I can’t see why I should give it to farmers’.
So, if I were the NFU (what a thought!) I’d start sucking up to wildlife NGOs so that they do some of my lobbying for me. It will take quite a lot of doing, but that is a good idea. But my guess would be that farmers will go a different way – and just ramp up the ‘We’re all poor. We’re all doing a great job. We all need your money and you owe us a living for some strange reason that I can’t quite remember’ route. If I were more deeply in this game in an NGO I would tell the NFU, CLA etc that their behaviour over the next three months would determine whether they got any support from the environmental movement at all.
[registration_form]
Better environmental outcomes from the Tory govt (or indeed a Labour one) “regaining control” of £3bn in agricultural subsidies? Fat chance. Remember that they both had the chance to improve matters within the CAP (eg cap max grant per landowner) and actively fought against such suggestions.
The birds are already coming home to roost over the non-existent extra £350m a week for the NHS. If there is indeed any spare cash (also fat chance) that’s where it’ll go – I support the NHS as much as the next lefty potential patient but it’s a bottomless maw for spending. Maybe a token few £m to the Steel Industry just for the PR – “re-balancing the economy” and all that.
And if money does continue to go to agriculture, it’ll go to the “most efficient” farmers, maybe with a little optional greenwash but mostly to the biggest and wealthiest who run the CLA and the NFU and write the UK’s agricultural policy. We might actually be better off as environmentalists if any cash really did go to the NHS and not to these robber barons of deregulated hyper-intensive industrial agriculture.
Is that burning bridges or burning books I can smell?
This is such a mess. At least if Scotland leaves the FUK I can emigrate there.
I do hope I can see a brighter side eventually but right now the lining of every cloud I can see is cold, black, and wet.
Let’s say for the sake of argument that a subsidy system can be agreed that meets the needs of the environment and enables farm businesses to compete with their European and American counterparts – is there then really a sound justification for capping payments? I don’t believe that there is, particularly if we are aiming for an agri-support system that rewards outcomes (as has been proposed by George Eustace) and can deliver environmental benefits on a landscape scale. As I see it, capping payments is only likely to significantly increase the costs of administration, as well as penalising many of the wildlife NGO’s.
One point I would also make, is that I would hope that the policy makers take a long hard look at the inadequacies of calculating payments principally on income foregone, particularly when there is a seeming lack of transparency over the process. To my mind, dubious income foregone calculations, which often seem to ignore the ‘hassle factor’ seem to favour arable farmers rather then their pastoral counterparts. Is it right to pay an arable farmer to manage a species-poor cereal field margin twice as much as we would pay for the maintenance of a species-rich hay meadow?
Mark – you will probably have already read this paper by Jeremy Franks, ‘Some implications of Brexit for UK agricultural environmental policy’, but I’m sure many readers of this blog will not have done and will find it interesting, particularly the prominence of Payment for Ecosystem Services (PES) in the discussion and the implications of PES re WTO rules.
http://www.ncl.ac.uk/cre/publish/discussionpapers/pdfs/dp36%20Franks.pdf.pdf
Ernest – I think there are reasons to cap Pillar1 payments but not Pillar2 payments.
One reason to cap Pillar1 would be to save money! Another would be if it could be shown, I’ve never seen this convincingly done, that small farms are more environmentally friendly than large ones. Another would be simply on the grounds that everything is tipped in favour of large units already and we want a more diverse farming system. But none of these is a particularly good reason.
Pillar2 payments – no justification for capping them at all if they are doing any good.
Payments by results – I’d be keen in principal but the problem is how to measure lapwing pairs, or soil carbon, or water quality in a way that fairly identifies the farm’s responsibility (rather than the contribution of the neighbourhood.
I’d be very happy for Pillar1 payments to vary in line with the farmland bird index for the region of the country.
Payment by results – not easy I know particularly where wildlife is concerned, but probably easier regarding protection of water and soil – especially the latter and particularly SOC. Measuring water quality in a way that fairly identifies a farm’s responsibility is surely likely to be easier on a larger scale?
Farm size / environmental impact – very difficult to quantify. It may be that there a difference between the arable and pastoral sector in that regard. In the arable sector some of the most innovative and resource efficient farming methods I have seen (conservation tillage, controlled traffic, precision farming etc) tends to have been on the bigger units – often they are the businesses that can afford to invest in the specialist machinery because of their increased scale.
I suspect that with capping, many of the bigger businesses would find a way around it anyway, the end result would be the same but with increased admin costs to the taxpayer.
Grain and lamb prices are the same now as 40 years ago. Even a journalist would expect to be making more moeny than 40 years ago? If you want to know where your food comes from and the high welfare and traceability British farming offers the population then you have to support British farming to get what you want. Farm land prices will never go down as they are not making any more and large businesses and pension funds which profit from the increase in land value pass this increase on to pensioners – rural or urban. So so sooooooo much of what you have written is misinformed/untrue. Why do you think it is a good idea to have huge farms but equally balk at the idea of huge multi national businesses running everything? Small farmers have looked after the wildlife and flora for hundreds of years. They wouldn’t do it for a living if they didn’t like it. Don’t lump everyone in the same category, it is sloppy and lazy journalism. I farm a flock of 150 rare breed sheep – some bright spark asked me if they were rare because they were ‘crap’. Derrrrrr no…. it’s because they are just a bit slower to mature, but they are organic, anti biotic free and the lower stocking density means they cope with disease and illness better. Keep eating the ready supermarket meals ……….. and then go for a walk in the uplands and let a few lynx chase you.So good for the environment. How about vetting how the National Trust spends their £12 million in agricultural payents. You obviously subscribe to the small is ‘ugly and incompetent’ lobby.
LL Burrows – thank you for your comment
“then go for a walk in the uplands and let a few lynx chase you.So good for the environment.”
Lynx don’t chase, hunt, or attack humans (unless you corner them or go after their young.) Please don’t spread this NFU untruth.
I have a feeling the Franks paper plays fast and loose with millions and billions
It gets even more complicated.
At present grain prices even the ‘most efficient’ farmers would struggle to make anything without EU subsidies. But don’t worry, Iain Duncan-Smith won’t allow you guys to be out of pocket any more than he’d want to be. The problem, identical to the Grouse Moors, is that the harder farmers dig in under a friendly Tory Government the more vicious the backlash will be when the political wind changes.
But there are other considerations: in reality, our subsidies merely create a level(ish)playing field with the USA which not only massively subsidises its farmers but allows unchecked technology like hormone treatment, antibiotics and GM.
And, rarely mentioned, is the impact it has all had on the poorer countries, often dependant on farming: since 1945 as they’ve struggled to raise themselves, globalisation has continually reduced the value of what they produce – whilst often raising food prices to their own people.
Not a happy picture.
Last Saturday morning BBC radio’s Farming Today looked at this new situation briefly – the NFU representative didn’t seem to have a clue what they wanted (apart obviously from lots of our cash), one or two farmers implied that this country’s higher animal welfare standards would need subsidising, and Owen Patterson, other than being an extremely happy man, had no idea either. So it does seem there is a need here for RSPB, other conservation organisations, and all of us, to start pushing the kind of case you are making.
Not to worry folks! Keith Cowieson has just set out the post-brexit policies for the RSPB on Martin Harper’s blog, so it’s all sorted.
Initially the idea of throwing myself to the mercy of the environmental lobby and having another raft of compliance to deal with doesn’t really appeal. After all a sizeable proportion of farmers voted leave even though they suspected that they would be at risk from no subsidies and this was motivated mainly by their frustration at the EU agricultural policy which is regressive. Personally I feel that my business would ultimately be better off unsubsidised and within a UK controlled system. I have become increasingly frustrated with the massive knowledge gap which has grown between Eu policies and the reality on the ground within my own and other UK farming businesses. Single issue NGO,s have dominated the agenda on GM crops, Roundup, organics and the Enviroment and have shown that generally their practical and scientific base is very weak. The argument has distilled itself down to almost as simple as small scale farming, organic is good; large scale, however you define that, bad and especially bad if non organic.. This is simplely a myth which sits well with social media campaigns and NGO press campaigns. There are plenty of large scale farmers using modern methods to cut pesticide and fertiliser use and we are one of them. We have achieved fantastic results, cut our fuel usage by 65%, cut our use of slug pellets dramatically, reduced our herbicide use and so on. None of this was driven by legislation, EU or otherwise but by a need to cut costs and the desire to farm in a better way…the last thing I want now is another mass of experts controlling my business thank you.. I’ve had quiet enough of that to last me a lifetime..
P.s I think the author of this blog is Herts or Beds based ? If so this Thursday at http://www.groundswellag.com/how-to-get-to-the-notill-show/ you might find some of your answers as some like minded farmers are getting some very interesting speakers in from the USA. Cost you £40 but you can put it on expenses
jr – that’s fair enough (well, some of it is, and it’s certainly fair comment). But this time I get my money back then.
Interesting comment – I know many farmers who feel the same. If only there was the appetite in Europe to drop Pillar 2.
I’m looking to forward to Groundswell – particularly the mob grazing demos.
EM- if you are interested in mob grazing Rob Richmond’s Nuffield report is worth a read. You can download most of the Nuffield scholar output free: http://nuffieldscholar.org/reports/
Make sure you get to hear Amir Kassam too.
No-till appears attractive but … initial machinery cost, reliance on glyphosate, blackgrass, narrow weather windows are challenging
Challenging yes, but not insurmountable.
Rob Richmond’s report – I have read it, interesting. I’m following the progress of some mob grazing trials on a friends farm with great interest.
Amir Kassam – noted.
Meant Pillar 1 !!!
We are at a watershed in this country. We, as environmentalists are expecting farming to save nature, when the role of a farmer is to produce food. With agri-environment we are trying to preserve and promote a type of farming that has generally ceased to exist, and in many cases paying farmers to do things that they would not choose to do, as so therefore have little investment in. The time has come to acknowledge that farming is not nature conservation and vice versa. I’m not casting blame, as famers have an important job to do. But we cannot expect them to carry the weight of conservation. If there was a strong trend towards extensive systems, then there might be more hope. But the reverse is true, and why should it be any other in a industrialised country with many mouths to feed? Perhaps the time has come to look at land sparing for nature and not land sharing. As nature’s share is continually and inevitably declining under that scenario.
Peakaboo, no offence but I think your wrong actually. You can’t limit conservation to reserves while the majority of land is just dedicated to food production. While I agree that farmland may not be your ideal it can and is in some cases a lot more valuable than you suggest. Again I come back to what I see as the central issue what I feel is a disconnect between environmentalists and the practical reality on the ground. Frankly I get the impression that arable farmers are just viewed as “uneducated” by the environmental lobby. There is a massive chance going on in arable farming at the moment with a willingness to change our methods to a more advanced and resilient model which has and will bring massive changes to farmland wildlife. At the moment, despite these methods having proven environmental benefits I see no interest at all from any NGOs or Government bodies. (not that I’m that concerned about that, I’m enjoying improving my own farms’ wildlife in peace and quiet !)
JR – thanks. I don’t deal with many (any!) arable farms in the peak, mainly intensive dairy. But what I do see here is a landscape already bereft of wildlife, with reserves being the only place where wildlife thrives. But what I was trying to say (unsuccessfully it seems!) is that we appear to have placed most of our eggs in one large agri-environment shaped basket, which will never deliver a step-change increase in wildlife, as there is always a trade-off between production and nature. I would think that arable probably has the scale to do this more, due to farm size, certainly for farmland birds. The main point is that with agri-environment we are trying to push farmers down a route that they don’t really want to go, and trying to maintain and replicate habitats of a bye-gone age when in reality the industry has moved on.
Part of the answer of what to do regarding environmental payments to land owners could be related to our river systems. There could be a large buffer zone between rivers and intensively grazed or arable areas (in the tens of metres) which would not be cultivated and payments could go towards loss of productivity with extra payments available for favourable wildlife habitat management.
Further payments could be made available for wide native shrub shelter belts or uncultivated rough grassland belts linking areas of other good woodland, grassland and wetland habitats.
This approach could go some way to undoing the fragmentation of habitats and reducing damage to water courses caused by some farming systems.
I entirely agree with Mark that now is the time to really think about how to get the most wildlife value out of farm payments if the next government decide to keep them. It is also a really good time to think of some truly groundbreaking and innovative options (such as re-wilding if appropriate) and make sure that that the young generation get their say in what they want for their future.
https://www.gov.uk/countryside-stewardship-grants/riparian-management-strip-sw11
https://www.gov.uk/countryside-stewardship-grants/12m-to-24m-watercourse-buffer-strip-on-cultivated-land-sw4
https://www.gov.uk/countryside-stewardship-grants/arable-reversion-to-grassland-with-low-fertiliser-input-sw7
https://www.gov.uk/countryside-stewardship-grants/management-of-intensive-grassland-adjacent-to-a-watercourse-sw8
https://www.gov.uk/countryside-stewardship-grants/nil-fertiliser-supplement-sw14
Thanks Ernest. I feel that much of the problem with the current agri environment schemes is that much of it isn’t mandatory and doesn’t really go far enough especially in relation to watercourses. A 24 metre buffer (which is the maximum) is a pretty narrow strip of habitat especially if it containes a public right of way.
The current schemes don’t seem to have done anything to reverse the declines in many species and I’m not sure what the evidence is of even slowing down the decline on a national level.
Re-hashing current schemes doesn’t really feel to me like something that will radically alter the state of our wildlife.
I rather expect that whatever the environment groups lobby for we will only get a small proportion of what we ask for. We may as well be bold and push hard for something really positive because this opportunity may not come along again for a generation.
We need to have a positive message for people to get behind of how things could be rather than more doom and gloom about what we have already lost.
Peakaboo yes I agree with you 100% actually. I suppose that each landscape is to an extent it’s own ecosystem but I hasten to add I’m no expert and that to achieve a meaningful change you do need scale. However I suppose reserves can be an inoculant for an improved overall landscape. Stewardship has actually I think delivered more than the figures show for some areas. Certainly I see a very different species mix on our area today than I did say ten years ago. Some species have disappeared completely or at least thin on the ground like Grey Partridge or Turtle Doves but others have done amazingly well. Barn Owls were non existent and now hardly worth a mention as we are over run with them, Buzzards and Kites have introduced themselves or been introduced not sure which but they seem to rub along quite well with everything else as far as I can tell. I don’t see the massive losses which the mainstream seem to suggest as overall it’s good. (Skylark are a nightmare on sugar beet seedlings now as they peck off the cotyledons bloody things ! We never used to have a problem with them.
So overall I’m not as pessimistic as most and cover crops, catch crops and reduced tillage has benefited a lot of species from snipe to brown hares.