Panorama: 10 points it should have made
A BBC Panorama programme on farm subsidies has sparked debate within the farming community since it was screened on Monday (5 March). Farmers Weekly editor Jane King sets out what points the programme should have made but didn’t.
The BBC’s Panorama programme boasts that it is the world’s longest-running investigative TV show. Longevity isn’t always a good thing.
Last Monday night’s screening, The Money Farmers, attempted to shed light on the failings of the single farm payment system by focusing on the problem of “slipper farmers” in Scotland. If you did not watch it, the summary of its argument was that taxpayers are getting a raw deal. Too many people abuse a loophole by buying entitlements and claiming subsidies without actually farming.
Few would dispute that the SFP is far from perfect and the definition of active farmers has to be resolved. But Panorama’s narrow theme did not present an entirely accurate view of UK agriculture and may have troubled many viewers.
It was in favour of smaller farmers getting support, but overall the audience was left with a negative view of the SFP. This is a great pity given the need to help the public understand why direct payments are necessary.
So here are 10 things that Panorama should have said about the SFP, which would have presented a more balanced picture.
1. Farmers themselves are among the fiercest critics of the slipper farmer system, with many arguing strongly that support payments should be aimed at those people who actually do the work of producing the nation’s food.
2. The problem only really affects Scotland and Wales because of the availability of large tracts of less-productive land or “naked acres” and high historic entitlements.
3. Most SFP recipients are ordinary, hard-working farmers who are a million miles away from the few wealthy beneficiaries depicted in the programme.
4. Farmers receive SFP in return for delivering public goods: producing food, managing the countryside, caring for wildlife, and providing rural employment. It is not money for nothing.
5. SFP claimants have to comply with a detailed set of 18 Statutory Management Requirements (SMRs) and 19 Good Agricultural and Environmental Conditions (GAEC).
6. Without the SFP, a large number of UK farms would not be able to survive. As consultants Andersons point out this week, many traditional, family-run farms rely on payments to get anywhere near making a profit.
7. Panorama suggested 889 claimants received more than £250,000 in SFP in 2010. This means well over 100,000 farmers received less. Many of these significantly less.
8. Most UK farmers want to be less dependent on the SFP and be more market focused. But without supportive agricultural policies and a fairer supply chain, they won’t remain competitive.
9. As part of CAP reform we need a new debate about what support is designed to do. Are direct payments there to secure food supplies and buy public goods or income support?
10. Maintaining and protecting agricultural land for food production is vital given that we face an uncertain future with climate change, global political unrest and population growth.
Panorama’s focus on slipper farmers highlighted an issue that many farmers find as unacceptable as the public do. What it should have made clearer is that there are far more ordinary farmers in the UK than money farmers.
Editorial by FW editor, Jane King
