Opinion: ‘Disappointment, pessimism and distrust’ on ag policy
© Johnny Houston It feels like a lifetime ago that I sat at the 2018 Oxford Farming Conference and listened to Defra’s plans to replace EU subsidies with a new system based on “public money for public goods”.
Although nervous about losing the direct payments, there was a feeling among farmers that the direction of travel was right, there was a vision for agriculture and a way forward with environmental improvements alongside food production.
See also: Opinion – animal welfare can’t be ‘collateral damage’
About the author
Fast-forward seven years and the mood now is dominated by disappointment, pessimism and a general distrust of agricultural policy.
Recent reporting that the Environmental Land Management (ELM) budget is likely to be severely cut and that only small farms will be eligible to apply confirmed what we already suspected.
This government doesn’t see ELM, the Sustainable Farming Incentive (SFI) or indeed the environment as priorities.
This news comes after we have already been through the closure of the SFI expanded offer, closure of capital grants and comments from Defra suggesting that we have to “learn to do more with less”.
ELM and the SFI had their issues, but were based on solid foundations and would significantly contribute to our legally binding environmental targets.
The worst thing is that we were so close to having world-leading environmental schemes.
All the hard work had been done and now, writing ahead of the Spending Review, it looks like it could be scrapped just as we begin to see the benefits.
It is the political equivalent of nurturing a beautiful crop of wheat, then mulching it all a day before harvest.
ELM and the SFI had their issues, but were based on solid foundations and would significantly contribute to our legally binding environmental targets.
Without them, it is nearly impossible to reach these targets, as agriculture occupies almost 70% of land in this country.
We should remember that payments through ELM are not and never were a subsidy. They were payments, based primarily on income foregone, for providing environmental benefits.
If the schemes were to cease, any loss to farming income would be secondary to the loss and damage done environmentally. No farmers have got rich from these schemes.
The primary winner was the environment and therefore the public.
As an industry, we have used all our enthusiasm and energy protesting on inheritance tax. If this rollback on ELM had come in any other year we would be taking to the streets for this issue alone.
Environmental damage
The public should join us in strongly opposing the cuts, but it is a concern that public interest in the woes of farmers may have worn thin, and this potential environmental damage will fly under the radar.
For more than a decade our farm has been in various iterations of the environmental schemes: Entry and Higher Level Stewardship, and now Mid Tier Countryside Stewardship and all three versions of the SFI.
We have margins and hedges around almost every field, winter bird feed and pollen and nectar plots, and traditional parkland that doesn’t get fertilised or reseeded.
Having access to this funding has allowed us to become more efficient by taking awkward corners and small fields out of production.
It has also brought a lot of enjoyment, seeing nature thrive and making the farm a more beautiful and interesting place as a result.
If the Spending Review does reveal the cuts that we suspect, it will be a truly sad day when we are forced to plough these areas back into our arable rotation in the drive for maximum production.