[Closed] Post EU land/farming reforms. On the face of it, rather good...but educate me❓

Yeeeeeeeees..... sounds familiar

“Those words are in the government’s document, but a plan for actually delivering it is noticeably absent.” He said of the whole plan: “The overall impression here is an abiding lack of detail.”

It'd be great if these new payments encourage sustainable and environmentally friendly farming - but, as with all things like this, the devil is in the (absent) detail. The sentiment of these announcements could just as easily be describing the demise of UK farming, hidden behind a virtuous "green" façade

From my experience of Natural England are doing these kind of schemes as they already exist and have done for a long time. Not sure how it will stop big land owners getting most of the cash. For example many ‘farmers’ are just landowners who get money for owning land then let the land for others to farm.

There are many cases when the big landowners sign up to schemes, flout the rules, get the cash but because they have friends in high places no action is taken. Grouse moors, roads and heather burning come to mind here.

The other thing is we want cheap food so unless you ban imports that don’t meet your standards you are just shutting down your industry and moving the environmental problems elsewhere.

Most upland farming is uneconomic on a global scale. In many countries, for example Sweden, many of the big forests in the south were upland farms but were moved to commercial forestry a 100 years ago. But that causes issues. For example a commercial forestry plantation is a bit of a desert ecologically but you will get situations where the land owner gets money to plant a forest on a globally rare blanket bog.

I havent looked at any of the detail but the meadows are bit amused me. Just because you want one it doesnt mean you can have one. Meadows are practically impossible to recreate, 98% are gone already.

There are moves at WTO to ban agricultural subsidies, obviously the EU could to some extent ignore due to size the Uk less so. If unable to funnel money to farmers via food production, this might be simply a different route.

Its clear that Johnson and his cabal want lower standards to chase a US trade deal. If this happens UK farmers will either have to accept the lower standards and thus be no longer able to sell in the EU or be pushed out of the domestic market by lower prices from the US.

If no deal, tariffs are likely to kill off many farmers. On R4 Farming Today a while back, opinion was that given many farmers are near retirement and pretty conservative (small c) they will simply shut up shop. Looks like another populist announcement - good soundbite, short on substance and does nothing to prevent UK producers being displaced by cheap imports.

I'm no expert but it sounds good in principle. We need to pay farmers a viable wage to produce food (looking at you supermarkets and consumers in your drive to lower prices) and to improve the quality of the environment, which is a government role - less chemicals, less soil erosion, greater work upstream to reduce downstream flooding.

How that is done in practice I don't know. Can hill farmers produce at a price that keeps them viable? Or would they be better paid to maintain and improve the land in the wider environmental/recreational interests of the population? Has there been enough growth and interest in walking/cycling/ staycations to keep those communities and businesses going long term? I'm not sure.

Climate change over the next generation will make Brexit look like a walk in the park. Informed decisions now could help us deal with it better at a national level. I'm not sure any government/bloc has the balls though

IIRC Michael Gove was making some actually promising noises about farming and the environment etc when that was his brief. Not sure who's in charge now.

“Those words are in the government’s document, but a plan for actually delivering it is noticeably absent.” He said of the whole plan: “The overall impression here is an abiding lack of detail.”

I wouldn't be paying any attention whatsoever until the detail is filled in, have we learned nothing about how the Tories are operating yet?

IIRC Michael Gove was making some actually promising noises about farming and the environment etc when that was his brief. Not sure who’s in charge now.

George Eustice is in charge now. Speaking to my boss this morning (Farmer with a large amount of land) believes it should have happened over 20 years ago. The thought that landowners are being paid for not farming is ridiculous. He's of the notion that the supermarkets and consumers have driven down prices because they know the farmers get the subsidies and thus making farming without, not profitable. The tune may change when there's no food British food on the table as they've been forced out of business due to lack of subsidy/viability.

Its clear that Johnson and his cabal want lower standards to chase a US trade deal. If this happens UK farmers will either have to accept the lower standards and thus be no longer able to sell in the EU or be pushed out of the domestic market by lower prices from the US.

This is it. A modern economy relies on cheap energy and cheap food (which its self relies on cheap energy). Our food is already pretty cheap historically but middle of the road amongst developed nations but price is kept where it is due to good framing practice. Open it up to competition to lower practices and you get cheaper food => more disposable income for consumers, but most European quality farming becoming uneconomic.

I am sure someone will argue freedom of choice but when you lower standards the cheap will always drop to the low standard, the mid range to just above the low standard (as there can't be to big a gap) and the high quality ends up costing the same or perhaps more as its now even more exclusive.

I do think farming need a reform but not convinced by the lack of details and the open goal it leaves for the US deal.

Our food is already pretty cheap historically but middle of the road amongst developed nations

only the US and Singapore have cheaper food (as a percentage of household spend) than the UK

Well further proves my point for the lower cost desire

Back in the early 1960s (so before the UK joined the Common Market as was then) my father (hill farm on the edge of the Lake District) reckoned on two rough equivalences:

1. As a family we could live from the proceeds of his lamb sales. That would have been around 300 lambs a year.

2. The farming subsidy paid his taxes.

By the 1980s neither was true even though by then we'd be selling 400+ lambs. Current price at market for a lamb is around £70. Of course living standards have changed as well and I doubt any of us would want to turn the clock back in that regard.

There was an interesting section on the recent "Cornwall with Simon Reeve" short series where he looked at agriculture in the county. The view was that there was no way UK farmers could compete on price with US producers simply because of scale and lower animal welfare standards. Somewhat surprisingly the butcher he interviewed reckoned that the farmers that supplied him would be better aiming at quality rather than quantity as he'd rather sell less quality meat at a higher price than lots of cheap poor quality meat.

Any system will have winners and losers plus there'll be loopholes that get exploited, that's the nature of such schemes but so long as there are substantially more winners (financially and environmentally) and relatively few loopholes then things generally work. A classic loophole is milk quotas - the idea was to limit production to get rid of the "milk lakes" but the scheme didn't tie the quota to the land so farmers going out of milk production simply sold on the quota and kept the land so little or no reduction in the amount of milk produced.

Until there's flesh (sic) on the details it's hard to say whether this will be broadly good or not.

It sounds like a scheme to justify running down the UK agricultural industry whilst supporting enough organic/high welfare small scale farms to supply the chattering classes dinner tables. The supermarkets will still be able to fill their shelves with cheap food, with animal welfare issues offshored.

In many ways it's illogical for the UK to grow cereal grains such as wheat and barley at a high cost premium. Ignoring the sentimental nationalism that fuelled Brexit, the ability to produce a significant proportion of our domestic food needs is surely desirable?

the ability to produce a significant proportion of our domestic food needs is surely desirable?

why? I don’t think there’s ever been a time (certainly since the last ice age) when the inhabitants of this island haven’t imported food that we couldn’t grow here. It’s a simplistic argument to my mind, and the sort of sloganeering that ends with Brexit. What we want is successful farms and a healthy rural economy. Using that land to grow cereal crops is frankly daft. We don’t have the land that somewhere like Russia does.

Meadows are practically impossible to recreate, 98% are gone already.

This is absolutely right. I volunteer for our local wildlife trust and the amount of work that it takes to stop our reserves ending up as a set of identical scrublands of thorn, willow and bramble is striking. We attempt to manage reserves for diversity, as appropriately as possible for their location, aspect, topography and geology. So some for butterflies, some for birds, some for invertebrates, some for wildflowers. But all of those take a lot of effort.

only the US and Singapore have cheaper food (as a percentage of household spend) than the UK

Not sure how they get those numbers but whenever I do a supermarket shop in the Mid-Western US the bill is always shockingly high. My mother-in-law shares the same sentiment in reverse when she shops here.

the ability to produce a significant proportion of our domestic food needs is surely desirable?

See food security, and also food miles.

Somewhat surprisingly the butcher he interviewed reckoned that the farmers that supplied him would be better aiming at quality rather than quantity as he’d rather sell less quality meat at a higher price than lots of cheap poor quality meat.

The butcher is missing the fact that he is a niche. The expensive / top quality will stay the same. Middle and lower will drop. Ok if you supply the high end but the high end is not big enough to support all farmers.

We don’t have the land that somewhere like Russia does.

Russia's primary bread basket is Ukraine...

Food miles can be a red herring though. At times it is more efficient to grow a crop where it's suited and transport it than it is to use loads of resources making it grow somewhere unsuitable.

I do a supermarket shop in the Mid-Western US the bill is always shockingly high. My mother-in-law shares the same sentiment in reverse when she shops here.

My experience, all be it limited as I have only spent about 2 -3 months in the US in total (I know non scientific) is that high quality is more expensive cheap and mid quality is cheaper but with more crap in it. i.e additives etc.

Since we are supposed to be eating less meat anyway from a carbon emissions persepective, in principle it's a nice idea to think the UK as a whole would get used to paying more for better quality meat but eating it less often. I can't see that happening though. Also, most people will buy meat from supermarket, to what extent does the supermarket packaging, storage etc, minimise the taste benefits of better quality meat?

I worry what will happen to the land that farmers are given golden handshakes for?

Not sure how they get those numbers

because generally, the wealthiest countries spend less of a proportion of their income on food. Also it’s often cheaper to eat out in the US than it is to make your own food, so that accounts for some of the lack of spend on groceries as well.

I know nothing in the detail but I was under the impression that the subs were there to help farmers with un-usable land within their plots, so for example if a Welsh farmer in the north whose land is useless for anything but livestock because of the landscape and the weather, has various crags and outcrops on the land they get a sub based on the % of land that isn't usable for farming.

Not sure how they get those numbers but whenever I do a supermarket shop in the Mid-Western US the bill is always shockingly high. My mother-in-law shares the same sentiment in reverse when she shops here.

When I have visited the likes of Publix (US equivalent of Sainsbury's) or even Walmart in the US (Florida, Mass, Maine, Vermont) it's pretty bloody expensive.  This is artly down to the exchange rate and partly due to quality groceries (i.e. things that aren't packed with High Frucose Corn Syrup and Trans Fats) are very very expensive.

However, you can eat fast food and other associated junk for buttons.

Feels like the plan for Post-EU UK agri is 2 tiered, sustainable and organic for the well to dos and chlorine chicken and HFCS for the rest of us. Though I suspect they don't really have a plan because that would require pesky things like experts and details, they are just putting random ideas on a pdf and hoping for the best.

Somewhat surprisingly the butcher he interviewed reckoned that the farmers that supplied him would be better aiming at quality rather than quantity as he’d rather sell less quality meat at a higher price than lots of cheap poor quality meat.

Beaten to it, but this would also tie in with health, environmental and welfare aims.

I appreciate it is daft wasting resources to produce stuff not suited to UK conditions, but also daft not to make the most to grow here what we can. This may be influenced by my hatred of avocados but love of blackberry and apple crumble.....

@TheBrick - I don't think he was, one of the larger butcher operations in Cornwall from what was said in the programme, not a single shop but industrial estate sized abattoir and a chain of butchers shops. His general argument was to persuade those who'd go for medium quality to pick the higher quality. I agree that at some point on the price/quality scale people will just go for cheap but if more people can be persuaded to move up then it will help sustain those small scale producers.

@ferrals - my brother now runs the family farm and he gets a significant subsidy to maintain what many, including myself, would see as scrub land. We used to cut and burn the gorse off this land to encourage grass growth for grazing but it's an unusual type of gorse and it provides cover for a particular type of flower which in turn supports rare butterflies.

One point not covered in the discussion about price is food wastage - pay more for your food and you are less likely to throw stuff away.

The times I've been to the States, both tourist areas and generally around the country, you have to search out the quality food, mostly it's plentiful but bland and/or poor quality.

If the Tories are pushing it the agenda is to drive the small farmers to the edge so the big farming conglomerates (ie their mates) can snap up the land cheap.

His general argument was to persuade those who’d go for medium quality to pick the higher quality.

I don't think that's likely, you may get a few jump up but that many. People will be sticking to the mid range supermarket joints in general, and it in general that create the wider market and custom to most producers.

I’ve read the BBC article and on the face of it, it sounds good. Not rewarding the mega rich farmers* with subsidies, subsidising farming that restores/enhances the natural world around us.

mmm... I share you cynicism... it sounds thoroughly un-tory like for a tory policy. The end of that article suggesting the SNP would probably not follow suit to make it easier to rejoin the EU post-independence also set off my spidey senses. Nobody thinks the CAP is a good approach, and if there is a better alternative for the 5 years it would take to exit the UK and get into the EU then I'd have thought there might be sense... or is it that the type of farming it promotes isn't "Scotland friendly" or promotes some unhealthy behaviour...

That said, does sound like it will shaft many live stock farmers, to the point they will get a golden handshake to basically call it a day. Pretty extraordinary really.

Ah so a short term win for a bunch of pro-Tory farmers, and probably an agenda that suits the fake-meat business agenda and faux-vegan London-lovie crowd. Now its sounding more like a policy we can recognise.

If the Tories are pushing it the agenda is to drive the small farmers to the edge so the big farming conglomerates (ie their mates) can snap up the land cheap.

Or to make it easier to build houses on!