Editor’s View: Stability is the new subsidy for farmers
© GNP If there’s a common thread running through the headlines in this week’s News section, it’s not the future of environmental schemes, the latest trade disputes, or even the size of farm support budgets. It is uncertainty.
The confirmation of a launch date for SFI26 should, in theory, be good news. After months of speculation, farmers have something concrete to work with.
But the reaction in most quarters has been less relief, more caution, with years of policy turbulence leaving farmers reluctant to trust government promises.
See also: SFI 2026 launch date confirmed as new details emerge
About the author
At the same time, the pressure being piled on ministers to extend support arrangements for the Ensus bioethanol plant highlights another uncomfortable reality.
Modern agriculture relies on a surprisingly small number of strategically important assets. Whether the issue is fertiliser, CO2, energy or processing capacity, resilience increasingly comes at a price.
Meanwhile, in Scotland, ministers have sought to reassure farmers by committing to retain about 70% of agricultural support as direct payments.
Even there, though, concerns remain that inflation has eroded the value of the budget, and other plans for price caps on food staples have rung alarm bells across the industry.
Individually, these stories appear unrelated. But together, they tell us something important about the state of British agriculture.
For years, the political conversation after Brexit centred on freedom. Freedom to design new support schemes, to strike new trade deals and to regulate differently.
Today, the focus has shifted: government policy is less about creating opportunities and more about managing risks.
Food security, environmental delivery, energy resilience and climate change now dominate the discussion.
That is not necessarily a criticism – recent years have demonstrated how fragile global systems can be. But it does explain why many farmers are starting to view stability as more valuable than subsidy.
Farm businesses have done a remarkable job at adapting to lower support and changing markets.
What they struggle with is constant uncertainty, because investment decisions in agriculture are measured in years, often decades.
The encouraging news is that agriculture has rarely been more important to policymakers.
Food security, climate targets, energy production, public health and even defence policy all lead governments back to farming – even though they might not like it.
In an era of geopolitical volatility, the sector is rapidly reaching the point where it can no longer be viewed as a niche interest, but as critical national infrastructure. That should be a source of optimism.
But certainty will not solve every problem. Farming cannot deliver affordable food and public goods on warm words alone.
Soon politicians will have to decide whether they are prepared to match rhetoric with resources. Until then, stability remains the next best thing.
Because if government is unwilling to put its money where its mouth is, the least it can do is stop moving the goalposts.