Panel to look at farm funding across UK after Brexit

The question of how farm funding should be divided up across the UK after Brexit has been a thorny political issue, not least because the Scottish Government in particular has been concerned about a loss of powers. It also has an ambition to continue some form of basic payment after Brexit, although that would depend on funding being available (the Welsh Government does not intend to maintain a form of basic payment).

The Government has appointed an independent panel chaired by Lord Bew to review the issue: Fair funding for farmers. Each of the devolved administrations will be represented on the panel.

It is also stated that the intention is not to maintain the Barnett formula in relation to agricultural spending after the end of the lifetime of the current Parliament.

Under the present distribution of funding, Northern Ireland does best on both a per capita and a per hectare basis: Funding for farming across the home nations

Devolution choices after Brexit

The Institute for Government has issued a report on relations with the devolved administrations after Brexit which focuses on agriculture as one of the areas in which key decisions will need to be made. Some of the main points are reproduced below. The report as a whole can be accessed at: Devolution after Brexit

In particular, how can funding be distributed? Option one would be to use the Barnett formula, which would give greater flexibility to the devolved administrations, but leave devolved budgets more vulnerable to UK government cuts.

Distributing this funding through the Barnett formula would mean that the future level of agricultural funding available for the devolved administrations would be tied to policy decisions made by the UK government. While the devolved administrations would gain greater day-to-day control over how their budget is spent, they would run the risk of their budgets being squeezed in the event the UK government chose to cut the English agriculture budget.

Option two: The UK could decide to create a ring-fenced agricultural support budget, which would be the least change to the current arrangement An alternative approach would be for the UK to establish a new agricultural support budget, protected and separated from the wider devolution budget settlement and ‘block grant’.

The initial distribution would likely reflect the current split through CAP and these levels would be maintained until 2022; reflecting Michael Gove’s commitment to match-fund agricultural support payments. After that, there would need to be an agreement on how the budget was agreed for future years.

The Barnett formula would be one option, but the creation of a new, separate budget is an opportunity to take a different approach. A new budget could allow the governments to create a new funding mechanism, taking into account some of the criticisms of Barnett. The budget could be negotiated periodically, formally and at a four-nation level, as part of the UK government’s spending review.

A ring-fenced agricultural budget for each nation would offer a greater guarantee to farmers in the devolved nations, with funding levels set for a specific period of time. It would protect them against money being reallocated to other policy priorities. A ring fenced budget would also make the UK rather than the devolved governments responsible for resolving the difficult trade-offs between agriculture and other policy areas. Ultimately, from the devolved administrations’ perspective, agreeing to this type of budget could be a missed opportunity for greater autonomy in spending decisions, preventing them from making their own decisions around policy priorities and funding.

An important first step will be reaching consensus on what the UK ‘internal market’ is, and where divergence becomes market distortion. Just as the EU’s single market contains provisions to ensure a ‘level playing field’, the UK Government and the devolved administrations will need to consider what a UK level playing field should look like.

Four new papers on Brexit and agriculture

The Brexit working party of the Farmer-Scientist Network of the Yorkshire Agriculture Society, which I chair, has produced four new papers on Brexit and agriculture. They can be found here: Brexit papers

I have written papers on the future of Pillar 1 subsidies and migrant labour; Michael Cardwell and Fiona Smith have written on agri-food trade; and Alan Greer has covered devolution aspects.

'Time to cut our greedy farmers down to size?'

I am required to be positive when I address the Future Farmers of Yorkshire on Wednesday at the Great Yorkshire Show and I will do my best. When I was going round talking to farmers before the referendum, many of them were confident that there would be plenty of money to carry on paying subsidies at much the same level, presumably from the alleged £350m a week that was going to the EU, and was in any case spent many times over.

The smarter farmers realised that there were a lot of political forces ranged against them and they would no longer have political back up from farmers elsewhere in the EU.

An opening shot was fired in The Times yesterday with an article by Emma Duncan, who is apparently the editor of 1843 magazine. She starts with a good joke about the recent headline on the NFU website, 'Brexit may not be beneficial to UK farmers' which reminded her of Emperor Hirohito's surrender statement in 1945, 'The war has not necessarily developed to Japan's advantage.'

She starts with a critique of the amount spent on the CAP as a proportion of EU spending and levels of tariff protection. Both in my view are higher than can be readily justified.

So far, so good. But then she apparently wants to remove all of this and 'let our farmers compete in world markets just like our manufacturers'. The problem is that most other countries subsidise and/or protect their farmers. The clear exception is New Zealand which has a very favourable climate for farming. Australia is not as clear a case as it appears as drought payments (no doubt justified) have been used as a less transparent form of payment to farmers.

If we cut subsidies, she says that food prices will fall (not necessarily if there is a sharp fall in domestic production). Land prices will fall and more will be released for housing (do we want the better quality land to be used in this way?) Some land will return to wilderness which will be a good thing (scrub and bracken is not good to look at and not good for biodiversity). The only losers will be the farmers, although she thinks that one problem is the strength of the NFU as a lobby.

Farmers do need to develop an evidence based case for support, and also about whether subsidies should be redeployed. Remember that we will now have an English agricultural policy as farming is a devolved matter which has hitherto constrained by CAP. I would expect the devolved administrations in Scotland and Northern Ireland to be willing to pay more to support agriculture and rural areas (the Welsh case is less clear).

What we do need is a debate that is based on policy objectives and identifying the best means of pursuing them.

Looking to a positive future

The emphasis will be on the positive aspects of Brexit when I join Meurig Raymond, president of the National Farmers Union for a breakfast presentation at the Great Yorkshire Show next Wednesday: Looking to the future

As I have said before, we need to have a debate about the objectives and mechanisms of what will be an Englsh agricultural policy given that agriculture is a devolved matter hitherto constrained by the CAP.

Complex picture on cutting payments to big farms

A common complaint about the CAP is that too high proportion of the subsidies go to already prosperous farmers. The counter argument is that these farmers are the most efficient and the most internationally competitive. It all comes down to what you think the CAP is for and there has always been confusion about the objectives and their relative preference ordering.

From this year all member states are obliged to apply a 5 per cent degressivity tax on payments over €150,000. Let us suppose that you are an East Anglian grain baron receiving €1m in subsidies. This means that you would appear to lose €42,500 of your subsidy, but then the 30 per cent greening subsidy is exempt, so the actual sum comes in at under €30,000 (obviously the amount received in pounds is sensitive to the pound-euro exchange rate). The amount lost would be significant but not devastating.

However, any member state or region can impose their own cap. This option has been chosen by all the devolved regions in the UK, but on a different basis in each case: It's your choice

Northern Ireland has imposed an absolute cap at €150,000. There are not many farms in Northern Ireland who would receive more than this. Wales has come up with a particularly complicated system, but again there are not that many farms in Wales who would qualify for relatively large payments. Scotland, where there are some large farms, has set the cap higher. Indeed, their €600,000 starting point is the highest notified by any EU country or region.

It's not difficult to work out the politics of this. Farmers in Northern Ireland who are Democratic Unionist or Sinn Fein supporters are unlikely to be affected. In Wales, the more Welsh-speaking parts of the country are unlikely to be hit (although other aspects of Welsh Assembly Government policy have been a source of complaint). In Scotland, the Scottish Nationalists do not want to upset any constituency, but the relatively small number of farmers likely to be affected are not significant in electoral terms.

Devolution and agriculture

Devolution raises some tricky issues about who can do what and this interesting and informative blog post looks at a dispute involving the Welsh Assembly Government and the Westminster government that has gone to the UK Supreme Court: Devolution

Scottish Government cracks down on sofa farmers

The Scottish Government is planning to crack down on so-called 'sofa' or 'slipper' farmers who use barren hillsides to claim Single Farm Payments. This proposal follows the short-term recommendations of the Pack Inquiry into Future Support for Agriculture in Scotland.

The proposals do not require EU approval and could be put in place by January. Minimum stocking rates would be established and farms that fell below them would find an inspector calling. They would then have 60 days to put things right. The Scottish NFU endorsed the plan as the best way forward.

It is also hoped that Scotland will secure a devolved animal health budget by next April which should help a number of innovations in policy that the Scottish Government has been pursuing in this area. Their policy experiments could provide lessons for the rest of the UK, although the fact that the UK is a single epidemiological unit poses some challenges.