Govt offers plenty of pledges.... but about pledges in the future
ANDREW CRITCHLOW looks ahead to a changing agriculture world once the Brexit transition period ends on December 31
LAST week, Secretary of State George Eustice made what was billed as a major announcement on the future of agricultural and environmental support as he outlined his Agricultural Transition Plan.
But it turned into an announcement about future announcements. The one bit of detail was how fast the current main support programme, the Basic Payment Scheme (BPS) would be removed.
By 2024 payments it will be halved and gone by 2028 – although the commitment is still there that during the lifetime of this parliament the total amount spent on agricultural and environment support will remain the same.
There were 15 new or revamped schemes mentioned, admittedly some are schemes within schemes, such as the Sustainable Farming Initiative which is part of the Environmental Land Management scheme (ELMS).
Please pronounce that as E.L.M., not elms – that sounds too much like a diseased tree. Within ELM there were going to be tiers but these are now ‘components’ as they sounded too Covid-related. Sorry to sound flippant but I have heard those reasons given.
It is over four years since the
EU referendum; two and half years since the Health and Harmony consultation which first floated the phrase, ‘Public money for public goods’. It is an aspiration that cannot be argued with – but doesn’t include food production in the list of public goods.
The definition of a public good is something the marketplace does not pay for. So clean water and air, access, biodiversity, soil health, natural flood management, landscape and heritage are not directly paid for by consumers, we get that.
Unless Government creates the right conditions for food production in the UK, as we are only 60% self-sufficient, more of our food will have to be imported.
We will end up exporting those environmental challenges that feeding a nation creates. All man’s activities have an impact on the environment and it is how we minimise that and agriculture can become part of the solution.
For example, we could capture more carbon than we produce with the right knowledge and investment. One of the few industries to be able to do that.
If food production is run down in the UK, more food is
imported from countries such as South America, threatening rain forests.
The plethora of initiatives announced by the SOS have potential if they are well designed and have ideas that can be implemented on the ground by the maximum number of farmers. That will require sufficient financial incentives. However, we are told we are stuck with calculations based on, ‘income foregone’.
That system largely worked for conservation schemes, that have been available to some farmers for over 30 years, while farming was under pinned by the Basic Payment
System and its predecessors. We are told that we will be paid for, ‘public goods’, ‘things the market does not pay for’, thus payment rates must be calculated on what it costs to deliver those goods and what they are worth to society.
Those calculations have to cover the overheads and back office costs, which currently covered by the profits from farming, when they exist, and the BPS payments.
Failure to get the payments right would force farmers to protect their businesses by making their land work harder and devoting less time to their environmental duties.