support cuts
Farmers will lose out over
support cuts
When farm minister, Nick Brown, announced that
modulation would be introduced at 2.5% he quipped that
there would undoubtedly be winners and losers.
farmers weekly found few that felt they would win but plenty
expecting a net loss after the announcement
THE bottom line is that a 2.5% cut in support, outlined in the farm ministers modulation package, is money lost.
And that could only be a bad thing for farming, argued Hants-based farmer and NFU council delegate Hugh Oliver-Bellasis.
Speaking from Manydown Farm, which he farms in partnership with other members of his family, Mr Oliver-Bellasis said the farm pioneered environmental measures that met the governments environmental requirements such as beetle banks.
But the beetle banks and conservation work was already completed before the government introduced schemes like the Countryside Stewardship Scheme.
"The stewardship scheme offered financial incentives to introduce environmental measures. There was no encouragement or reward for those who had already taken such measures.
"I assume that will not change under the new package outlined by Nick Brown last week so I – and I expect many others – will not be in a position to take advantage of the money that is pooled from the blanket cut in payments," he said.
"The only thing we face, therefore, is a cut. And that cut is significant and represents a good proportion of a mans wages."
He added that conservation work cost money and time. "You do not build walls and create beetle banks with bums on seats.
"There may be more money for farm woodland schemes. But tree planting and tree management does not just happen. Extra labour is expensive and it will be difficult for us, and other farmers like us, to recover those costs."
The cuts are estimated to knock about £6/ha (£2.50/acre) off cereal and set-aside payments in 2001 and £10/ha (£4.20/acre) in 2006. Beef Special Premium steer payments could drop by £2.10 a head in 2001.
Adrian Peck, who farms at Dry Dayton, in Cambridgeshire, said he estimated those cuts would cost him £2000 in 2001 and about £4000 in 2006.
"As an arable farmer I am heavily dependent on IACS payments. I have two incomes – my crops and my direct payments. I have already got a declining income because of declining prices, now I am going to have declining income because of declining direct payments."
Another farmer who thinks he will lose under the new arrangements is the NFU livestock committees vice-chairman, Les Armstrong, who has a family-owned, mixed farm in Cumbria.
Mr Armstrong reckoned the governments modulation plans were yet another example of its muddled thinking towards the countryside. And that the process was flawed and provided further evidence that it was doing its best to remove farmers from the countryside.
"It is absolute madness. The industry is showing no signs of an up-turn from this terrible crisis, yet the government is taking 2.5% away from money that is paid as compensation for price cuts," he said.
Mr Armstrong was also concerned about the way the modulated money was being redistributed.
He has looked into Countryside Stewardship schemes on his farm, but he has concluded that there would be no benefit for his farm. The scheme also requires the farmer to put money in, which he cannot afford. Many other farmers will be in the same position, he predicted.
"I can see why environment schemes are important, but the way the change is being done is taking money out of some pockets and putting it into others," he said.
He pointed to the irony that, as his margin was being cut by schemes like this and others supposedly geared towards helping the environment, he was having to increase the farm output to maintain his income.
Mr Armstrong would have liked the extra money available for Rural Development to be put towards early retirement schemes, which he sees as a step towards helping farming become more viable.
Many farmers, he added, were unable to retire at the moment, as they had used up their savings keeping the business afloat during the crisis.
Increased funding for schemes
Green schemes
Year 99/00 06/07 total (99-07)
Countryside Stewardship £29m £128m £580m
Organic farming £7m £23m £139m
Environmentally sensitive areas £43m £46m £334m
Farm woodland* £7m £22m £125m
*Includes £5m/yr for new energy crop scheme beginning 00/01
Other schemes
Year 01/02 06/07
Rural Enterprise Scheme £8m £36m
Rural Training Scheme £1m £5m
Processing and Marketing Scheme £4m £5m
Source: English Nature
Payment rate cuts in England proposed for funding rural development measures. Rates apply 2/12/99
Crop Aid/ha (£) 2.5% cut/ha (/ac) 4.5% cut/ha (/ac)
Cereals 227 5.68 (2.36) 10.22 (4.26)
Proteins 280 7.00 (2.91) 12.60 (5.25)
Oilseeds 322 8.05 (3.36) 14.49 (6.04)
Linseed 341 8.52 (3.55) 15.35 (6.39)
Set aside 227 5.68 (2.36) 10.22 (4.26)