Howard’s way
Despite his misgivings over decoupling from Europe, Philip Howard is increasingly hopeful that a reformed agricultural sector will deliver positive outcomes
IAM currently finishing off a monstrously expensive restoration of a small tower in the big house. I am hoping that diversifying into higher-end residential tourism will provide me with enough extra spondulics to keep The Media Queen in oysters and the young adults with the funds to perpetuate their seemingly unlimited student careers.
I have been conscious for a few years that much of the income I have been obtaining though agriculture derives from subsidies and bears little resemblance to the real world. The wise thing to do when storm clouds loom is to try and mend the roof while the sun still shines. All things considered, the project has gone pretty well so long as you exclude the horrors of dealing with electricity companies. More time, money and angst was spent dealing with them than with the rest of the scheme, culminating in us being cut off for two days. But now, despite their best endeavours, we are fully powered up.
Excusing the electrical pun, we seem to be going through an interesting phase in both Cumbrian and UK farming. More than 25% of our dairy farms have gone out of milk in the past few years. Following the Brexit vote there are signs that the pace is not only quickening but enveloping the whole farming sector. Change is coming. Often it is difficult to handle and especially hard in the farming sector, which is essentially long term and subject to environmental as well as economic fluctuations. It has also been propped up by a ridiculously complex and, arguably, corrupt subsidy system that has transformed farming into a wholly dependent benefit culture, albeit of multimillionaires. The average age of the UK farmer is 59, which, incidentally, is the number of farming suicides a year. No surprise then that some farmers are beginning to extract themselves from potentially dwindling income and cash in on the astronomical price of land.
It will be fascinating to find out what our political masters have in store for the countryside and how they are going to fund it. If that last sentence sounds complacent, it is not meant to be, it is pragmatic. I just hope that this time around they create a system that is based on positive outcomes and that any subsidies or grants go to the individuals who implement and achieve them.
A friend of mine, passionate about grouseshooting, has been involved in organising a heather restoration scheme in the Peak District for the past 30 years. The landowner is
But what had the stewardship scheme and state investment actually achieved?
a utility company and the land is let to a hill farmer. They are now toward the end of their third 10-year stewardship scheme and were discussing the likelihood of a further term. Ostensibly, the stewardship scheme concerned turning white grass to heather. But what had they actually achieved with their state investment of £100,000 per annum plus a hefty contribution of capital works? The answer was probably not a lot.
The farmer wasn’t really bothered whether the heather returned nor that the company who did the reseeding was possibly not the best – it had been prepared to offer him an indemnity should the work be deemed to have not complied. The utility company saw the benefit of the capital grants and an increased rent from the grazier. But, frankly, the only person who was really interested in the outcome of the heather regeneration was my grouse-shooting friend, who facilitated it, and he was not allowed to be part of the agreement.
And that is the nub of the problem relating to a huge number of these schemes. They have developed into large box-ticking exercises. Despite my misgivings about decoupling from Europe I am beginning to get excited about the potential of a reformed agricultural sector, especially if it allows some innovation and young blood to enter the market. But it would be helpful to know, in the not too distant future, what those reforms will be.