In Friday's Farmers Weekly I wrote about how pointless the Single Payment Forms are in that they don't actually acheive anything for anyone. I suggested more should be done to promote to the taxpayer the benefits farmers bring to the countryside and we should do away with the pointless accounting for silly little parcels of land.

Well a report launched today goes some way towards redressing that. It's a report on progress of the Environmental Stewardship Scheme. Here's what WE'VE achieved, gents (yes, that's English farmers, not Defra, Natural England or anyone else):

Tom Allen-Stevens:

Instead, give me a sense that the things I'm doing - the margins, the hedgerows, the wildflower bits - are actually achieving the bigger objective and I could do so much more

I understand what you are saying but I really do not think that we need paid members of an expsensive quango to tell us what to do or to say this for us.

KF in previous articles mentioned the concept of us all being Stewards of the Earth and needing to leave the world as we found it. These concepts in one form or another are, I would suggest, pretty well burned into most of us who work with the land. Natural England and Defra would do better to turn their attention to those whose love of concrete, tarmac, bricks and night lighting are doing irreparable damage to our natural landscapes. Words of encouragement to those people might prove more cost effective that telling Tom Allen Stevens how great his achievements are. After all Tom, my guess is that, you don't need inspiring although a thank you would be appreciated now and again.

Peter, it's a good point - we are pretty aware of what we're doing and I'm certainly not advocating that the "expensive quango" we have is the right vehicle to either tell us what to do or to say this for us. But I don't think pointing a finger at those who are not effective stewards would help much.

My point is that, although we're aware of what we're doing, the public isn't, which is why most people gawp in astonishment at the size of the cheques we receive. Equally I'd say we have a pretty poor idea of what the public's requirement is from us, and that's down to the fact that we receive our information and feedback through Defra's drab and mind-numbing forms and guidance notes.

If there really is a public requirement for us to use ESS to combat climate change I believe we can deliver it by the bucket load. We probably already are - it's yet another one of the unrecognised services we offer. I'd like to turn round to Natural England and say "look how many tonnes of carbon I locked up last year". The thing is, I don't actually know the actual figure, I don't know how to work it out, and I'm not sure the public is actually interested in that figure - maybe there's something else I should do or say that will make them realise how well-spent their money is. It certainly has nothing to do with filling in pointless forms.

Yes a thank you would be appreciated, but it goes much further than that. Taxpayers are paying us for a service and we're providing one. The thing is, there's currently no effective two-way communication to ensure we're actually providing the service taxpayers think they're paying billions of pounds for. If that was a product and a national multi-billion pound brand we were talking about, the consequences could be disastrous, as indeed they could be...

Tom Allen-Stevens:

The thing is, there's currently no effective two-way communication to ensure we're actually providing the service taxpayers think they're paying billions of pounds for. If that was a product and a national multi-billion pound brand we were talking about, the consequences could be disastrous, as indeed they could be...

Forgive me Tom. You are right of course in a way, it is just that our problem is the same as every other group that wants the public to think well of it.

My starting point is to ask if it matters whether the public thinks good or ill?  I know however, that if they think ill the politicians then make our lives unbearable, whereas if they think well we might get left alone. (except for all the rules and regs flowing across the channel)

We might ask ourselves why the public thinks ill of us and conclude that it is because we receive money from the politicians and because organisations such as the Badger Trust, RSPB, RSPCA. WWF and Labour etc give us a bad name. To counter that bad name we pay subscriptions to the NFU and CLA to argue our side of the case. When that is inadequate, various Quango's then take our money to argue both sides of the case. It seems to be never ending and all because we care what others think about us.

Your central point seems to be that the reality of the benefits we create should be exposed and revealed to the Public,and in this I agree with you. However, in the world of New Labour and Marketing Wizards, Perception is everything and I doubt they have an interesting in the cost benefits on our reality.

There is however a lot happening that may change perceptions. Possible food shortages, Farm diversification, FWI could try editorial linkages with lifestyle magazines, Interest in how food is grown and cooked, the growth in demand for allotments etc. All could be positive influences and do not cost us as much as one week of a quango's wage bill.

I could say more but must rush off

All the best

Tom, Peter,

Perhaps Farming Futures can help? We're a partnership project set up to communicate the impacts of climate change to farmers and land managers - and in doing so, seem to be managing to communicate to the public too.

We've got loads of case studies on our website - www.farmingfutures.org.uk - championing just a few of those farmers who are already doing good work to adapt to and reduce the impacts of climate change in the UK.

Farming Futures provides fact sheets for all farming sectors on how you can reduce costs and risks by taking action now - whether you're a cereal grower or interested in AD, we have a fact sheet for you (and if we haven't - let me know!).

In terms of the wider public - our case studies and survey results have secured media coverage in the mainstream national press (BBC, Radio 4, Sunday Times, Independent, Guardian) and lifestyle magazines - as well as the sector and trade press aimed more specifically at farmers themselves.

Yes - there is a need to communicate the good work going on, but we also need more farmers to come forward and tell us their stories about how they are adapting to and mitigating climate change.

As I say, Farming Futures is a partnership communications project which aims to provide inspiration and information on climate change. Partners include: NFU, CLA, AIC, AHRF (all the levy boards), Forum for the Future and Defra. The project is also endorsed by all members of the Rural Climate Change Forum (Forestry Commission, RSPB, National Trust, Natural England, NFU, CLA, Carbon Trust and Environment Agency) - so perhaps this is an example of how partnerships can work...?

We're about to launch a whole series of new fact sheets, case studies and survey results, so keep an eye on www.farmingfutures.org.uk and let me know how we can be of more use to you. In the meantime, I'm busy trying to get the message out to a wider audience!

Best wishes

Katie - Farming Futures project manager, Forum for the Future 

PS - I can assure you that we're not an "expensive quango"! I manage the project at Forum for the Future (a sustainable development charity) and the whole reason for the partnership is to keep costs down by using partner channels to communicate messages and the website to host information.

Sounds good, Katie, and I've seen some of your stuff - large spreads in the Guardian championing what farmers are doing to help combat climate change. Just the ticket.

But do we actually know if this is what the public wants us to be doing? Your point about perception is well-made, Peter. We can only be perceived to be delivering the goods if we know exactly what the requirement is in the first place.

We can't afford to hope the criticisms just go away or to rely on NFU and CLA to justify the billions we receive from the public purse - there's simply too much at stake.

We do need more channels like Forum for the Future and hopefully in time such initiatives will become a more refined and clearer two-way communication channel. In fact, just what does Natural England actually do?

Tom

Oh, and one other thing, Peter.

Food shortages - that's exactly why our subsidies are so untenable at present. Price support was brought in to provide Europe with food security. That has now been disbanded. We are no longer paid to provide food security. The SP rewards us for the other multifunctional roles that European farmers fulfil.

Once taxpayers realise the money they are paying into a pot no longer provides food security, won't they wonder what it does provide as food prices spiral, quite literally, out of control?

As food prices spiral we need to very robustly make the case that our costs are also out of control and we would happily forego subsidies if we could farm with minimal interference from the authorities in our activities.  For those who recieve subsidies (I don't) these are a degree of compensation for the levels of interference in the business that government makes.  Just looking at the thread further down where we discuss (amongst other things) EID you can see clearly the fear generated by government that arguing against the political decisions will lead to the loss of the compensation.  To live in a climate of fear is simply wrong!

Well, done, townie, for ridding yourself of the subsidy ball and chain. I, unfortunately, can't live without it, and I don't believe these high food prices will last. All sorts of areas of the globe supporting marginal agriculture have gone under the plough to feed an apparently desperately hungry world. In a year or so this will flood the market and prices will come crashing down. It was all so simple when we had grain mountains.

With the removal of price support and a stable market, we can't rely on turbulent food prices to make our living. That's why we need to acquire the communication skills to promote the services we offer that reach beyond the basics of food production, for which we're paid our subsidy.

As I am in a ring fence, I asked the RPA if I could have a single field number for the whole lot, and just split it up every year. They said no. I didnt think I could make it any simpler, so capitulated. Their loss. Why they cant just ask me how big my farm is and what I have drilled I dont know.

Tom Allen-Stevens:

Well, done, townie, for ridding yourself of the subsidy ball and chain.

Like Townie we also farm without subsidy. Not through choice, we just farm a species (red deer) which attracts no attention here in sheep land. We have also discovered that in 2009 we will also lose our entitlement to Tir Mynnydd (LFA payment) as we dare to be different and have no sheep or cattle on the farm. All the money we recieved from the Welsh Assembly used to go back into the farm to plant trees, fence off hedgerows, and care for tweety birds and cuddly wildlife. With the rising input costs and the cutting of this payment, I now have nothing spare to do all these things. Who, or what, will be the loser now?

From my personal view subsidies are a good thing as long  as they are viewed as an extra and not as a right which some people round here seem to do. I know on some places they make the difference between staying on the farm and having to sell up, but I have come across a few people whose view seems to be 'I farm, so I should be given money to do with as I want'

Having stated that, I do believe that there must be an easier way to distribute the cash without having to jump through all the hoops and fight through the ridiculous forms. And when we find that way, would it be ok if I could have a share......? Please......? I need something to believe in that makes me want to get out of bed in the morning and carry on with this life!

It is ridiculous, katndog, that you don't get any subsidy, yet someone with hardly a hedgerow to break up great plains of wheat still retains theirs. It's the kind of injustice that will make people begin to question why there are agricultural subsidies at all.

In essence they actually make up such a small part of the tax burden (a seventh of VAT, I think?) that taxpayers would probably agree to leave them be, rather than gain back the insignificant difference it would make to the overall household budget. But offer a choice - "would you like to give £2.75 billion to British farmers, 47% of which will go to the top 10% of landowners, or would you rather it went to improving schools, hospitals, reducing petrol tax, ensuring your local post office wasn't closed" the perceived benefit people get from farm subsidies would sudenly rank pretty low on the list. Let's face it, subsidies don't deliver the basic requirement of food security any longer, so they could be viewed as a dispensible luxury in the scheme of things.

Now I think £2.75 billion to preserve our rich rural heritage is pretty good value for money, but then I see it every day and I can see where the money is spent. The UK actually receives a total of £3.38 billion, with 80% going on direct payments. If I was Natural England, that exists to conserve and enhance the natural environment, and relies almost totally on farmers to ensure that's delivered, or RPA, that simply exists to adminster the payments, I'd be moving heaven and earth to justify the sum coming into the coffers and ensure the money was well spent.

It's not a question of policing, it's a question of communicating the needs and the benefits, and that job simply isn't being done. All I'm suggesting is that some of the money that is currently spent on mind-numbingly pointless forms should be diverted into an effective communications budget.

Tom Allen-Stevens:

Well, done, townie, for ridding yourself of the subsidy ball and chain

We never had one in the first place.  Prior to the CAP reform, goats were not (in the UK at least) considered worthy of supporting, nor were camelids: they still aren't, but anyone can now claim land-based subsidy.  When we bought the bigger property, the previous owners had not farmed it for many years, renting out grazing on a seasonal basis, so there was no historical element.  We had only started down the bovine route when the reform started, so didn't have any history for that enterprise either.  Thus we looked hard at the cost-benefit of being new entrants on the lowest possible tarrif and it simply wasn't attractive.  The livestock side of our business (sales of meat, fibre and breeding stock) makes a profit, although on it's own wouldn't support us; with subsidy we would be a little better off but would have to balance that against the time and hassle of following the paperwork trail, often for things we do anyway but probably not the the exact bureaucratic specification.  We would still be supplementing with the other enterprises: trekking the llamas, fibre courses, finished fibre products, holiday let.  Being slave to bureaucratic nonesense would eat into time we would otherwise be spending profitably.

I am not knocking people who do claim subsidies; I fully understand that many enterprises can only survive with support.  Furthermore, in some areas I understand that perserving fragile natural environemnts dictate paying people not to over-farm them, in essence compensation for lost production.  I guess for me I look at our enterprises, which are all niche, and see that they would be classed by longer-established farmers as diversifications.  As such they fall outside the traditional targets for subsidy.  When you hear all the hot air about the benefits of diversification then look at the risible levels of support and assistance for people who try them I can fully understand why most end up relying on the traditional incomes.