Farm chief slams post-Brexit subsidy regime

The post-Brexit farming subsidy scheme in England has failed to improve on the old EU system and large landowners are still benefiting disproportionately, according to the president of the National Farmers Union. In an interview with the Financial Times, Minette Batters, who is due to step down as president of the NFU in February, slammed post-Brexit agricultural policy, which has been overseen by seven different environment secretaries since the UK voted to leave the EU in 2016. 

One of the biggest criticisms of the EU subsidy scheme run as part of the Common Agricultural Policy was that it unfairly benefited large landowners. Brexit was seen as an opportunity for the payment system to be overhauled. But the replacements in England, the Environmental Land Management schemes (ELMs), have been slow to be implemented and criticised for placing too much emphasis on the environment at the expense of food production. “The focus at the moment is on growing a crop for the environment and not producing food . . . I think that’s going to be really hard with the cost of living crisis,” said Batters, adding that consumers cared more than ever about food security.   [Not sure about the evidence for that claim].

She went on to criticise the government for failing to build a more equitable system. “Large landowners effectively living off the state is not going to wash going forward,” said Batters.  While the new scheme differs from the EU system in that funding is awarded in exchange for environmental actions — “public money for public goods” — the system is still area based. Access to land is a pre-requisite to access the scheme and the more land a farmer has the more funds they will be able to secure. 

The phaseout of the EU Basic Payment Scheme has left many farmers who were reliant on the subsidies with lower payments than they had previously. Meanwhile, take up of the flagship payment under ELMs — the Sustainable Farming Incentive — has been low, with only a fraction of the 82,000 farmers who are eligible having signed up.

UK was a voice for animal welfare in the EU

The UK was one of the strongest advocates of animal welfare measures and its voice is no longer heard in the EU, changing the political calculus.

The EU is considering scrapping plans to impose regulations designed to improve animal welfare in the farming industry over concerns about the impact it could have on food inflation, according to senior officials.

The European Commission had promised to act after public pressure to stop practices such as the use of cages for livestock, the killing of day-old chicks, and the sale and production of fur. But concerns that the proposed changes could add to food costs, which rose sharply after Russia invaded Ukraine last year, have led Brussels to reconsider the plans.

Three EU officials with knowledge of the matter told the Financial Times that the Commission had dropped the proposals completely — along with a sustainable food law designed to boost green food production across the bloc. But another official said it was reviewing the animal welfare plan and would propose a scaled-back version.   This sounds like a trial balloon to judge reactions.

“Some in the commission are worried about the cost,” said Joe Moran, director of European policy for Four Paws, an animal welfare campaign group. The legislation is among the few remaining parts of the EU’s Green Deal climate package, laid out in 2019 to pivot the bloc to a more sustainable economy. But ahead of EU-wide elections in 2024, conservative politicians have pushed back against the environmental regulations.

Typically, the reaction of farm organisations is to call for more subsidies.  Pekka Pesonen, secretary-general of Copa-Cogeca, the EU farmer’s group, told the FT it could support many of the changes as long as they received financial aid to implement them, and if imported meat was subject to the same standards. That would in effect ban many imports from trading partners such as Brazil, Ukraine and Thailand. Such a measure would also be opposed by trade commissioner Valdis Dombrovskis.

Farmers find life without subsidies difficult

Farmers, particularly those in England, are find it difficult to adjust to life with reducing subsidies.  

A Farmers Weekly of 500 farmers survey showed farmers across the UK continue to rely heavily on support scheme money, with almost 90% receiving some funding.

On average, BPS revenue accounted for 29.3% of farm incomes in the 12 months up to spring 2023, only slightly down on the 31.7% recorded for the same period a year earlier.   For more than two in five (41%), BPS money made up one-quarter of incomes.  But for 16%, BPS funding still accounted for three-quarters or more of total revenue, a slight increase on the figure for spring 2022 when it stood at 14%.  

Dwindling support levels continue to cause widespread concern.  A growing number of farmers (49% – up from 45% last year) are now “very concerned” about how they will replace lost revenue from support.

Overall, eight out of 10 farmers registered some level of concern.  Concerns ran so deeply that 87.5% said they were uncertain whether their farms would even survive without BPS support.  More than half (55%) forecast it would be difficult to survive and one-quarter went further, saying survival would only be secured with great difficulty.

More than one-third (37%) are looking to an off-farm revenue to bolster incomes.  Almost two-thirds already have a source of off-farm income, with 22% in outside employment while 19% own another business and 15% hold investments unrelated to agriculture.

Regrets? I have a few.

The voting behaviour of UK farmers in the Brexit referendum mirrored that of the population as a whole, but quite a few are now regretting their choice according to a Farmers' Weekly survey of 950 farmers and those in ancillary industries. 

Three-quarters of respondents said that Brexit had been negative for the UK economy and 69 per cent said that it had been very or fairly negative for their own businesses.   If the vote could be held again, there would be an eight per cent swing from leave to remain.   65 per cent said that it made it less likely they would vote Conservative.

Both arable and livestock farmers seemed equally disappointed   Even more negative were those growing vegetables (81 per cent) or keeping pigs  (79 per cent).

A clear majority said that despite pre-Brexit promises of 'a bonfire of red tape' once Britain left the EU, the reverse had been true.   My talks to farmers around the north of England convinced me that some had a very surprising view of the regulations that could be discarded.

The phasing out of the Basic Payment Scheme in England attracted a lot of criticism, it being claimed that farming could not survive without support.    Arguably this shows an industry that had become too reliant on subsidies not tied to outcomes.

Two-thirds of those surveyed thought that the UK was better off when the EU devised policy, ironically a view strongest among those growing non-supported crops such as potatoes, sugar beet and fruit.

Rural voters move away from Conservatives

Never mind the blue wall and the red wall.  Is the Conservative 'green wall' collapsing?

A survey of over 1,000 in England's 100 most rural constituencies for the Country Land and Business Association revealed a 18 per cent swing away from the Conservatives and a 16 per cent boost for Labour compared with the 2019 general election.   The Liberal Democrats won just 13 per cent of the support of those polled.

If replicated in 2024 20 of the most 96 rural seats held by the Conservatives would change hands.    Among the most vulnerable are Defra farming minister Mark Spencer (Sherwood); Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset); Liam Fox (North Somerset); and Jeremy Hunt (South West Surrey).

More here: https://www.cla.org.uk/news/rural-wall-collapsing-as-conservative-support-in-rural-england-falls-by-18-points/

How has UK agricultural policy changed since Brexit?

Some thoughts here: https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/europpblog/2023/05/24/how-has-uk-agricultural-policy-changed-since-brexit/

Farm policies a Brexit success?

Responding to Nigel Farage, Downing Street yesterday said that Brexit has been a success, citing the ability of the UK to shape its own farm policies as a benefit.

Really?  A hollowed out Defra has found this a challenging task.   The new policies have been rolled out slowly.  The ELMS scheme is complicated and the relationship between policy instruments and desired outcomes is uncertain, albeit that is not an unfamiliar problem.  Measures to tackle the farm productivity problem are limited in scope and funding.

Downing Street also held its much vaunted food summit yesterday.   The farming press dismissed it as a 'talking shop' and admittedly my heart sinks when I hear the phrase 'breakout groups'.  All too often this means poorly focused discussions and brief feedbacks lacking clarity.   However, one needs to talk to identify feasible policies, although acting on ideas is another matter.

Rishi Sunak did offer an extra 10,000 visas for seasonal workers next year on top of the 45,000 already available.  It is estimated that £60m of produce remained unpicked last year.

The National Farmers' Union would like a minimum five year rolling scheme.   This would allow greater certainty to plan forward production.

Meat processors have struggled to recruit butchers because of the language requirements posed by immigration rules.  The sector has become reliant on butchers from the Philippines (also a source of labour for the dairy sector) but each work costs £12,000 to bring to the UK.