Archive Article: 2000/01/22
The HGCA loses its audience
THE busy conference season is coming to an end. Pity the poor hacks who have to sit patiently through everything from the Oxford talking shop, heavy science at the Association of Applied Biologists (AAB) meeting, and the two-day HGCA marathon at Cambridge – to name but a few.
The key to a successful conference lies in matching platform output to the needs, and expectations, of the audience. Both the Oxford conference and the AAB event do exactly that – though they are at opposite ends of the spectrum. The front seats at Oxford are taken by industry leaders and global pontificators – it wouldnt be Oxford without them. Meanwhile the scientists at the AAB are talking to colleagues who are perfectly at home with the intricacies of long equations and scientific jargon.
But at the HGCA conference, it was clear that many speakers were in a muddle. Were they addressing a scientific meeting, an HGCA political rally, or a forum for farmers? No wonder the messages were blurred.
Yes, there were some useful technical nuggets that growers could take home from the event, but it was hard work to find them – many delegates gave up and left early. Empty seats bore witness to their dissatisfaction. The HGCA needs to take stock and re-think its objectives with this conference. It needs focus and direction – or those seats will still be vacant next time around.
The price of rural progress
WEVE all been too busy fighting flu, the millennium bug and the extended vacation to sit up and take notice – but the dreaded modulation has arrived.
It sneaked in, under disguise, during the run-up to Christmas. It was hidden in the small print of Nick Browns rural development announcement. Does this explain why reaction has been so muted?
To recap: in 2001, IACS payments will effectively be taxed by 2.5%, with deductions rising in steps to 4.5% in 2005. This isnt the extreme version of modulation which was most feared by the industry, and which would have penalised the larger farmer only: rather, its a flat-rate cut which applies to all.
The pill is further sweetened by the idea that this money will come back into farming, matched pound for pound by extra Treasury cash, via a range of environmental schemes. Extra money has also been won from the EU. Over seven years, the purse will hold £1.6 billion, all of which goes into rural development via hill farming support, organic aid, Countryside Stewardship, energy crops, farm woodland schemes and various farm marketing initiatives.
The news has been widely welcomed by rural lobby groups such as the Council for the Protection of Rural England (CPRE), the Farming and Wildlife Advisory Group (FWAG), and English Nature.
But in the euphoria, the real cost to the industry has been overlooked. Calculations done by Strutt and Parker show that cash taken from the growers over the seven years will amount to £344m. And the money coming back in works out at just £190m. The discrepancy arises because aid paid out within the various environmental schemes is to offset profits foregone – something which has conveniently been forgotten.
Its a case of political spin – with the cost of the exercise being paid for by agriculture.
Seattle battles
YOUVE got to hand it to the Americans – they really know how to play world politics. The FAIR Act (Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act) was a bold move. It swept away most of the trade-distorting policies of US agriculture in one fell swoop. Importantly, it gave the US the moral high ground following the Uruguay GATT agreement.
Then times got tough for US farmers. So support measures were re-introduced – but because these conform with WTO green box rules, the EU has no grounds to object.
In Europe, our policies have been muddled from start to finish. Just look at the botch job made of Agenda 2000 reform. The situation is understandable, given that any deal has to be a compromise, hammered out slowly after much angst, agony and effort, between very different member states. But the end result has been that the EU has only managed to haul itself two inches along the long road to reform. No wonder the US were so critical at the Seattle WTO round.
Europe must get its act together if it is not to be the underdog in world trade negotiations. Consensus is that we need free world trade. But we also need to sustain European agriculture – we cannot allow cheap US imports to kill off our farming. This would be madness. Therefore Brussels must find a sensible, "green box" route for decoupling support payments so that agriculture can survive, and thrive, in a global free market.
There are options such as crop insurance or compensation for rural access that have yet to be explored. Nick Browns Rural Development Plan is heading in the right direction, but its too small a step.
We mustnt allow the US to take the lead. We need bold, tough, imaginative policies from Brussels that conform to WTO rules, but also help us make the most of the new opportunities on the world stage. EU agriculture can compete with the US, but only if we fight for fair play.
Glittering prizes
Hes world class – and has the trophies to prove it. Colchester grower Robin Bartleet of Great Tey beat off strong competition to win our top prize, with a Riband crop boasting the lowest production costs per tonne, at just £51.15. Could you do any better? Find out by entering this years World Class Wheat contest. At stake is a tempting £1,000 cheque as well as the Crops cup and plaque. For an entry form, contact Four Seasons Publicity on 01869 338936; fax 338578.