Robigus
Member
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/n...rn-their-taxpayer-cash-after-brexit-bddslrjz5
Farmers will lose most of their direct subsidies after Brexit and must do more to prove that any remaining support delivers public benefits, a farmers’ leader has said.
More than £2 billion a year is paid to farmers based on the amount of land they own but Minette Batters, deputy president of the National Farmers’ Union, accepted that these payments would all but disappear once Britain left the EU. The National Trust and many campaign groups have already called for an end to these “basic payments”. Ms Batters revealed that the farming industry also accepted the need for radical reform of subsidies.
In an interview with The Times, she admitted that farmers faced fierce competition for limited public funds after Brexit. The most likely outcome of the government’s review of subsidies was a “very narrow layer similar to basic payment but probably a lot, lot less”.
She said: “We have got to look at this from a really economic angle: what are we delivering? The trouble with the European model, the basic payment, is that nobody has any idea where that money is going and what they are getting for it. When you have others fighting for funds, such as the NHS, you have to have far closer analysis of where those funds are going, and rightly so.”
She said that most farmers recognised the need for reform. “On the whole our farmers embrace the opportunity to have something that works for the UK. We can now do something that is actually going to work for the UK whereas before we were trying to work with appeasement that keep 28 countries on board.”
Ms Batters, who has a beef herd on a 120-hectare farm in Wiltshire and is tipped to be the next NFU leader, said there was a strong case to maintain subsidies but farmers would have to work harder to justify them. The EU’s common agricultural policy costs the average citizen 23p a day, she added.
“You have to look at what you are getting for that 23p. That’s quality water, healthy soils, a safe food system. I think you can make a new case for what we are all getting for that investment.”
The Treasury has pledged to maintain subsidies at the same level for the next four years but the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is considering how to reform the system after 2020.
Ms Batters said that more subsidy should be directed to attracting young farmers, with a “top-up” payment for those under 30. “We have got to look at how we bring young people into the sector. We have an ageing farming population,” she said. The average age is 59; many work into their eighties.
She dismissed claims by pro-Brexit campaigners, including Nigel Farage, former Ukip leader, that leaving the EU would result in cheaper food. “What do they mean by that? Presumably they mean [from] countries that have very different standards to what the UK has.”
EDITORIAL
The average British farmer makes more money from European subsidies than from farming. When Britain leaves the EU, that money will vanish. Ministers have promised to cover the shortfall until 2020, but as Minette Batters, of the National Farmers’ Union, says in The Times today, it is time to start thinking about what comes next. Britain should keep its promises to farmers, but agricultural subsidies need to become smarter. A better policy would protect the countryside and raise productivity.
There are many goals to be reconciled in agricultural policy. Food needs to be affordable for consumers. Farmers need a reasonable income. With uncertain trade negotiations ahead, Britain needs to produce food at home. Meanwhile, there must be robust incentives to keep the countryside in good shape. On top of all that, ministers will not want to fleece the taxpayer.
Some believe that this final objective should dominate. Subsidies should be scrapped altogether when Britain leaves the EU, this argument runs, since they only prop up failing businesses. That would be a mistake. Many farms, particularly hill farms and small farms in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, would no longer be viable. Large rural areas would be overtaken by brambles, thistles, nettles and scrub. Productive potential would be lost and landscapes sullied. Emissions would rise as Britain sent lorries and aircraft to fetch food from abroad. Prices in the supermarket would shoot up too. That hits the poorest hardest, as more of their income goes on food.
Ministers are left with two main questions to answer: which farmers to subsidise and what strings to attach. Under the present regime, the Common Agricultural Policy subsidises farmers of dairy, meat and crops alike. For the sake of maintaining some degree of domestic food security, that breadth should continue. The CAP’s main condition is on land ownership: the bigger the farm, the bigger the subsidy. Ms Batters reckons that this is unlikely to go on after Brexit. Neither should it. Bigger farms are normally those least in need of the subsidy to survive. Supporting smaller farms also avoids mass consolidation which narrows the gene pool and renders crops less resilient against disease.
The focus should be on providing farms of all sizes with the capital to invest in more productive equipment and training to use it. Opponents of subsidies get one thing right: they can stifle innovation. When New Zealand abolished its subsidy in 1984, productivity growth doubled. Britain’s went up by scarcely a quarter in the same period.
The government can help to reverse this trend. More farms could benefit from “precision agriculture”, which uses sensors and satellites to ensure that fertilisers and pesticides are targeted where they are needed. Engineers say that driverless tractors and harvesting robots are coming within a few years. Investment in technology like this now will be economic in the long term. As ever, more mechanisation does not necessarily mean fewer jobs. It should mean different jobs, and government should help with the retraining.
It is also vital to protect the rural environment. Subsidies can incentivise farmers to maintain the numbers of endangered species in their area and set aside more land for wildlife to flourish in. Policies like these can help to keep the land green and pleasant. With a bit of long-term thinking and ambition, it can be profitable too.
You must earn your keep after Brexit, farmers told
Ben Webster, Environment Editor
November 12 2016, 12:01am, The Times
Minette Batters said that farmers faced fierce competition for limited funding following Brexit BEN GURR/THE TIMES
Ben Webster, Environment Editor
November 12 2016, 12:01am, The Times
Minette Batters said that farmers faced fierce competition for limited funding following Brexit BEN GURR/THE TIMES
Farmers will lose most of their direct subsidies after Brexit and must do more to prove that any remaining support delivers public benefits, a farmers’ leader has said.
More than £2 billion a year is paid to farmers based on the amount of land they own but Minette Batters, deputy president of the National Farmers’ Union, accepted that these payments would all but disappear once Britain left the EU. The National Trust and many campaign groups have already called for an end to these “basic payments”. Ms Batters revealed that the farming industry also accepted the need for radical reform of subsidies.
In an interview with The Times, she admitted that farmers faced fierce competition for limited public funds after Brexit. The most likely outcome of the government’s review of subsidies was a “very narrow layer similar to basic payment but probably a lot, lot less”.
She said: “We have got to look at this from a really economic angle: what are we delivering? The trouble with the European model, the basic payment, is that nobody has any idea where that money is going and what they are getting for it. When you have others fighting for funds, such as the NHS, you have to have far closer analysis of where those funds are going, and rightly so.”
She said that most farmers recognised the need for reform. “On the whole our farmers embrace the opportunity to have something that works for the UK. We can now do something that is actually going to work for the UK whereas before we were trying to work with appeasement that keep 28 countries on board.”
Ms Batters, who has a beef herd on a 120-hectare farm in Wiltshire and is tipped to be the next NFU leader, said there was a strong case to maintain subsidies but farmers would have to work harder to justify them. The EU’s common agricultural policy costs the average citizen 23p a day, she added.
“You have to look at what you are getting for that 23p. That’s quality water, healthy soils, a safe food system. I think you can make a new case for what we are all getting for that investment.”
The Treasury has pledged to maintain subsidies at the same level for the next four years but the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is considering how to reform the system after 2020.
Ms Batters said that more subsidy should be directed to attracting young farmers, with a “top-up” payment for those under 30. “We have got to look at how we bring young people into the sector. We have an ageing farming population,” she said. The average age is 59; many work into their eighties.
She dismissed claims by pro-Brexit campaigners, including Nigel Farage, former Ukip leader, that leaving the EU would result in cheaper food. “What do they mean by that? Presumably they mean [from] countries that have very different standards to what the UK has.”
*******************************************************************************************************************
EDITORIAL
November 12 2016, 12:01am, the times
Betting the Farm
leading article
Brexit presents an opportunity to craft a smarter agricultural policy
Betting the Farm
leading article
Brexit presents an opportunity to craft a smarter agricultural policy
The average British farmer makes more money from European subsidies than from farming. When Britain leaves the EU, that money will vanish. Ministers have promised to cover the shortfall until 2020, but as Minette Batters, of the National Farmers’ Union, says in The Times today, it is time to start thinking about what comes next. Britain should keep its promises to farmers, but agricultural subsidies need to become smarter. A better policy would protect the countryside and raise productivity.
There are many goals to be reconciled in agricultural policy. Food needs to be affordable for consumers. Farmers need a reasonable income. With uncertain trade negotiations ahead, Britain needs to produce food at home. Meanwhile, there must be robust incentives to keep the countryside in good shape. On top of all that, ministers will not want to fleece the taxpayer.
Some believe that this final objective should dominate. Subsidies should be scrapped altogether when Britain leaves the EU, this argument runs, since they only prop up failing businesses. That would be a mistake. Many farms, particularly hill farms and small farms in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, would no longer be viable. Large rural areas would be overtaken by brambles, thistles, nettles and scrub. Productive potential would be lost and landscapes sullied. Emissions would rise as Britain sent lorries and aircraft to fetch food from abroad. Prices in the supermarket would shoot up too. That hits the poorest hardest, as more of their income goes on food.
Ministers are left with two main questions to answer: which farmers to subsidise and what strings to attach. Under the present regime, the Common Agricultural Policy subsidises farmers of dairy, meat and crops alike. For the sake of maintaining some degree of domestic food security, that breadth should continue. The CAP’s main condition is on land ownership: the bigger the farm, the bigger the subsidy. Ms Batters reckons that this is unlikely to go on after Brexit. Neither should it. Bigger farms are normally those least in need of the subsidy to survive. Supporting smaller farms also avoids mass consolidation which narrows the gene pool and renders crops less resilient against disease.
The focus should be on providing farms of all sizes with the capital to invest in more productive equipment and training to use it. Opponents of subsidies get one thing right: they can stifle innovation. When New Zealand abolished its subsidy in 1984, productivity growth doubled. Britain’s went up by scarcely a quarter in the same period.
The government can help to reverse this trend. More farms could benefit from “precision agriculture”, which uses sensors and satellites to ensure that fertilisers and pesticides are targeted where they are needed. Engineers say that driverless tractors and harvesting robots are coming within a few years. Investment in technology like this now will be economic in the long term. As ever, more mechanisation does not necessarily mean fewer jobs. It should mean different jobs, and government should help with the retraining.
It is also vital to protect the rural environment. Subsidies can incentivise farmers to maintain the numbers of endangered species in their area and set aside more land for wildlife to flourish in. Policies like these can help to keep the land green and pleasant. With a bit of long-term thinking and ambition, it can be profitable too.
Last edited: