Could government change its stance on subsidies?

The National Trust is worried that the Government may cave into pressure and preserve many subsidies to farmers. They and other green groups fear that the farm lobby has succeeded in ensuring that food production and agricultural productivity will also be listed as 'public goods'.

This would go beyond the definition of what is a public good in economics, but the definition tends to be elastic in public debate and tends to encompass what would properly be termed merit goods.

Of course, the political calculus behind using farm payments to incentivise environmental benefits was to appeal to the urban electorate (many of them members of the National Trust) and that calculation remains a powerful one.

I do not think that there is a general case for subsidies for food production (many food security arguments are spurious) but there is a case for doing more to boost agricultural productivity which is poor, particularly through encouraging the use of new technology.

There is a £60m Countryside Productivity Small Grant Scheme to assist the purchase of new farm equipment: Farming productivity fund. However, the maximum grant is £12,000 which doesn't go a long way to buying sophisticated kit. Also, farmers applying for the scheme consider that they get caught between demonstrating that the farm business is viable, but not too viable otherwise it would not need assistance.

Gove goes for low hanging fruit

The briefing surrounding today's consultation paper on domestic agricultural policy has made it clear that direct payments will be reduced to bigger farms to free up money for other purposes. The paper sets out various ways in which this might be done which then form the basis of consultation questions. At this stage I don't want to get bogged down in the detail, but instead consider the principle.

There is no doubt this will be politically popular. Why should wealthy individuals be subsidised to farm? My sense is that most of the public have rather a sentimental view of agriculture made up of small farms. Another issue here is the vegan campaign run on social media in January. I think this was rather effective and has rattled livestock farmers who often failed to respond very effectively. But that is another story.

I also think that one of the issues here is that tax breaks encourage individuals to buy farms and farmland for tax avoidance reasons. This is a complex subject, as one does not want a tax structure that inhibits succession.

What is interesting is that the issue of competitiveness has dropped off the agenda to some extent. It appears in a form in debates over poor productivity, but they are not a central focus in the way that public goods are. Competitiveness is mentioned nine times in the document, for example in relation to the opportunities offered by new technology, and productivity forty times.

Large scale grain farmers in Northern France and Northern Germany will continue to receive CAP subsidies, albeit somewhat reduced because of the loss of the UK contribution. To over simplify, the international grain market is driven by supply and demand considerations, but price is clearly a factor. The UK needs to be very careful not to use pesticides prohibited in the EU or they may find their exports of grain blocked.

I think there is a better clarity/hierarchy of objectives in the Government's thinking that one found in the CAP. I am not against caps on subsidies. But I do think we need to be aware of the consequences.

Dyson defends subsidies to big farms

Sir James Dyson has written to the Spectator in response to an article that said that subsidies 'absurdly' favour bigger farms.

He writes: 'My family's farming business, Beeswax Dyson Farming, farms 33,000 acres directly and has invested £75m in technology, training, soil improvement and environmental stewardship over the past five years. Subsidies we receive go directly into the activities they are designed to support but are dwarfed by our own investments.'

'If Britain wants an internationally competitive agricultural sector, rather than a domestic theme park, we must encourage investment in innovation and stewardship. Removing subsidies from efficient farms simply because they are large would remove their incentive to invest at scale. This will hurt the farming economy as we become increasingly uncompetitive against our EU counterparts.'

The 'big farms bad, small farm good' orthodoxy does need to be challenged. It is also important to raise the issue of international competitiveness which is rarely mentioned in discussion of the future of UK farm policy. Post-Brexit, UK farmers will be competing against farmers on the near continent still receiving CAP subsidies.

However, when one pays out blanket subsidies, there is no means of tracking or ensuring that they are used for investment rather than consumption. Sir James evidently does use them for investment, but this cannot be guaranteed.

Limits to Kiwi lesson learning

Attention is often drawn to how New Zealand benefited from the withdrawal of agricultural support, but this helpful briefing note from the AHDB points out that there are many differences between the situation in New Zealand in 1984 and that in Britain today: What can we learn from New Zealand?

In particular we should never forget that New Zealand has a particularly favourable climate for livestock with year round grazing.

There are some lessons that can be drawn:

• Should the structure of farm support change there is likely to be a challenging transition period
• In order for the UK agriculture industry to be successful post-Brexit there will need to be a focus on efficiency and streamlining
• There may be opportunities for the UK to carve out niches and for agriculture to thrive through increased vertical integration
• Agriculture operates most efficiently when decisions are based on actual market returns

Gove to outline farm subsidy plans

Michael Gove will outline his plans for the future of farm subsidies today: Green Brexit

Farmers will have to earn support in the future by providing environmental benefits, although it looks as if there will be some scope for assistance with investment and food promotion. Upland farmers will also continue to receive support.

Match fit for Brexit

Wyn Grant with Professor Rob Edwards (left), chair of the Farmer-Scientist Network at the Great Yorkshire Show.

'Match fit for Brexit' was the theme of a seminar sponsored by the Farmer-Scientist Network of the Yorkshire Agricultural Society at the Great Yorkshire Show, chaired by the writer and led by James Severn and Richard King of farm business consultants Andersons. They are offering a 'Match fit for Brexit' business review to farmers for £650 plus VAT.

Andersons realistically see area payments ending and they see the following possible forms of support in the future with a budget half of the current one:

• A wildlife and landscape scheme, agri-environmental, building on the platform of current schemes such as environmental stewardship
• Support for hill farmers which could be in the form of an area payment
• Productivity (research and development, knowledge exchange, training, capital investment
• Food promotion at home and abroad (my question here would be, is this cost effective?)
• Revenue insurance to guard against price volatility (I remain sceptical about whether this is the solution)
• Natural resources, focused on water and soil in catchment areas (more than one farmer I spoke to at the show highlighted the problem of soil exhaustion)

One point made in discussion was that the payments available in agri-environmental schemes might not be sufficient to motivate farmers to participate.

Andersons used their three 'model' farms to predict the impact of Brexit. (Note that their profit figures are after making allowance for 'drawings', i.e, a wage for the farming family). The arable 'Loam' farm makes a healthy £248 per hectare a year at the moment. This would go down to £108 in 2025 with good access to the EU and still over £60 with poor access. (My view is that cereal farms with no stream of income from non-farm businesses, which is the case for many of them in East Anglia, would be particularly exposed to price volatility).

The Freisian dairy farm makes a modest £4.4 per hectare at present, this would go down to £3.4 under good access and a bare margin of £0.6 per hectare under poor access.

The 'Meadow' mixed farm, which it was admitted in discussion, is not a well-run business, makes £35 a hectare at present. This would be a loss of £72 per hectare under good access and a big £233 under poor access.

The core message was that farmers should not worry about the figures they can't control like the Brexit negotiations and focus on how well prepared their own business is prepared to respond to the impact of change (albeit that the form of that change is very uncertain). There was a time window for adjustment, given a relative status quo over the next few years and a boost to prices from devaluation. Farmers need to step back from their businesses and review them. For example, farms need to look at their debt structure. Could machinery and labour be pooled with neighbouring farms?

There was some discussion about whether Brexit could lead to land abandonment, but it was felt that most available land would be farmed by someone who could do a better job with it. There was scepticism about whether there will be a big fall in land prices or rents given all the factors that are in play apart from CAP support.

Drones and precision farming

The following session dealt with this topic with speakers from Newcastle University. Precision farming was defined in terms of more correct decisions per area of land or unit of time.

Drones can provide very high resolution images across a wide spectrum, more so than near earth satellites, and they can fly under clouds. However, they cannot be used in anything more than light rain or winds above 23 mph (and winds are often higher above the ground).

The sophisticated cameras cost more than the drones, the cost of which is falling. A question that arose was whether the information gathered for an average sized farm for about £100 would bring a sufficient return in terms of lower inputs and higher outputs.

The biggest receipients of direct payments

Three conservation organisations are among the biggest recipients in the UK of area based payments. The National Trust receives £1.64m, although the bulk of that is for agri-environmental schemes. RSPB receives just under £1m and Natural England just over £850,000.

The biggest private recipient is Beeswax Farming owned by Sir James Dyson who has two big estates in Lincolnshire. He received £1.60m. He is listed 14th on the Sunday Times rich list with an estimated fortune of £7.8bn.

Scottish farmer Frank A Smart receives £1.45m. Farmcare Trading got £1.16m. It is owned by the Wellcome Trust and was formerly Co-op Farms.

These figures will increase the pressure for an end to area-based payments, reinforced by a likely reduction in CAP subsidies in the 27 member states which will undermine the argument that UK farmers need subsidies to create a 'level playing field'.

More time for farmers before subsidy phase out

The Conservative manifesto promises to keep farm support at current levels for the lifetime of the next Parliament. This means that farmers will have until 2022 to adjust to a reduction in subsidies, although the downside risk is that the longer time span may lead them to postpone necessary changes, especially when future policy remains uncertain.

According to farm manager George Eustice the intention is to focus on supporting small enterprises and those new to the industry. The introduction of government backed loans could see a revival of a version of the Agricultural Mortgage Corporation set up by Stanley Baldwin's government (it was sold to Lloyds in 1993).

The Government is also considering schemes to help older farmers retire and changes to tenancy legislation to create slightly longer tenancies.

Treasury ups war on farm subsdies

The following report appeared in the Sunday Times yesterday (extracts only).

'A “25-year plan for nature” calling for UK uplands to be allowed to revert to forests and wetlands and tough new restrictions on commercial fishing is predicted to spark a Whitehall battle when ministers publish it in the next few weeks. The plan is being driven by the Treasury’s natural capital committee (NCC), a group of economists and environmentalists tasked by the former chancellor George Osborne with helping to fulfil the Conservative Party’s election pledges to reverse 60 years of environmental decline.

At the heart of the plan is a key radical idea: that Britain’s natural assets, including mountains, rivers, fields and forests, can be given a monetary value and incorporated into the country’s national accounts. Each element of those natural assets, from fish stocks to the recreational value of mountains, can then be periodically revalued.

The NCC’s latest report says: “Despite only accounting for 0.7% of GDP, farming utilises 75% of total land area . . . and can produce large external costs to society in the form of greenhouse gases, water pollution, air pollution, habitat destruction, soil erosion and flooding. These costs are not reflected in the price of food. As a result, farming is responsible for net external costs to society that have been valued at £700m per annum.”'

Leaving aside the journalistic hyperbole, all this in consistent with the Treasury's targeting of farm subsidies which is nothing new.

What this is also about is the notion of paying farmers for providing so-called ecosystem services, an idea that is gaining traction. It is not my main area of expertise, but my hunch is that any scheme of this kind could well benefit upland farmers at the expense of lowland farmers who have obtained the biggest subsidies up to now. It might not also be good news for sheep farmers who are attracting increasing environmental criticism.

Without seeing the report, it is difficult to comment on it. What I do predict is that there are stormy waters ahead in 2017.

Goblygiadau Brexit i amaethyddiaeth Cymru

Yesterday I gave evidence to a Welsh Assembly committee on the implications of Brexit for Welsh agriculture. The paper I prepared for them is reproduced below. The standard of the questioning was high and a central theme was whether Wales would be able to develop a sufficiently differentiated agricultural policy that took account of its special needs and concerns.

Scenarios for the future relationship

Considerable uncertainty attaches to the nature of the relationship between the UK and the European Union after Brexit, and the form of that relationship will have considerable implications for agriculture. A worst case scenario would see tariffs imposed on exports of Welsh sheep meat to France, depressing the domestic price. It is quite possible that there will be a transitional period in which our relationship with the EU would be governed by WTO rules. However, the most likely outcome is a deal in which the UK has access to the single market but has make to concessions in terms of a contribution to the budget and relatively few limits on the access of EU labour, e.g., confining access to those with employment offers or providing for some kind of ‘emergency brake’.

Structural characteristics of Welsh agriculture

Clearly the sheep sector is of crucial importance to Wales which accounts for over a quarter of the total UK population. Cattle are also important with a greater share of the UK total than the share of the land mass. Milk is particularly important in Carmarthenshire. However, the horticulture sector is small so that migrant labour issues are of less significance in Wales.

It is important to bear in mind the importance of farming to the rural economy, particularly in the remoter parts of Wales where a traditional Welsh culture remains strong. The physical geography and climate in these areas is often challenging. Many people who are not farmers depend on the continued success of the farm sector for employment, e.g., agricultural contractors, tree surgeons, mechanics, veterinary practitioners etc.

Farm support

The Basic Payment in its present form and at its current level is to continue until 2020. For many far, businesses, this represents the difference between making a profit and running at a loss. What will happen after 2020 is uncertain, but there is a growing consensus among policy analysts that any future general support should be focused on marginal farms in upland areas where the need is greatest. Large-scale arable farms in East Anglia should be able to be competitive without the large subsidies that they receive at the present.

There is a case for some continuation of general support given that farmers remaining in the EU will continue to receive CAP payments and there will not be a competitive level playing field. Some attention also needs to paid to price volatility in terms of its impact on levels of production and hence on food security. Vulnerabilities to climate change could increase global price volatility.

Conservation and agri-environmental schemes will continue to be significant. There is a broader basis of political support for them. However, they are relatively short term, for example over periods of five years. All farms only have a limited area that can be taken out of production, or subject to special treatment; and still allow the farm to be a viable producer of food. Conservation and environmental protection will only be successful if the industry feels secure financially.

One sheep farmer I talked with noted, ‘if the family farms are not maintained then they will not be there in the future and then who is going to look after the environment?’ This farming family has been active in creating habitat areas with some grant help and noted ‘This was all possible because over the years we have had a fairly reliable income source which has allowed us to improve the farm.'

One issue with such schemes is that of ‘additionality’, whether payments lead farmers to behave differently from what they would have done in the absence of the scheme. Whether this is the case is very difficult to assess conclusively.

Mechanisms of support

Payments that are based on head of stock produce quantity rather than quality which is not the best outcome either for the industry or the environment and they may not be compatible with WTO rules. Whether it would be possible to devise a policy instrument that rewarded quality without placing too great an administrative burden on administrators and farmers is an interesting question.

Farmers in Wales have sought to move up market and add value by producing more speciality products that can command a higher return from the market. Anything that can be done to encourage and support these efforts would represent a good strategy. However, the buying power of the supermarket chains remains a challenge.

Regulations

The EU has devised a wide range of regulations that apply to agriculture. These are embodied in numerous EU directives such as the Nitrates Directive and the Water Framework Directive. These have been transposed into law by the introduction of primary legislation or by the introduction of statutory instruments under the European Communities Act 1972.

As well as environmental legislation, there are extensive measures relating to animal health and welfare reinforced by the recognition of animals as sentient beings in the Lisbon Treaty. There are 18 EU laws setting standards on the way farm animals are produced and reared, transported and slaughtered. There are 12 laws covering wildlife.

Existing regulations should remain in place after Brexit while they are reviewed in terms of their objectives and whether they are efficient means of achieving those objectives, in particular whether they place disproportionate compliance burdens on farmers.

Conclusions

How far Wales can pursue a differentiated policy after Brexit that is sensitive to Welsh needs and priorities depends in large part on funding arrangements. (The Barnett formula came up in discussion.

Pressure for green farm subsidies is mounting

Pressure for a greening of domestic farm subsidies after Brexit is mounting. Indeed, one might say that it is becoming the new conventional wisdom.

Such pillars of the agricultural establishment as former Defra ministers Caroline Spellman and Richard Benyon, along with agriculture select committee chair and former MEP Neil Parish, are among 36 MPs who have written to Theresa May urging her to shift farm subsidies towards protecting the environment. It may be that they think that this is the best way of maximising continuing payments for farmers.

The influential RSPB is expected to launch its 2016 State of Nature report this week, claiming that intensive farming methods are putting more than 120 species of wildlife at risk.

The NFU is seeking to put food security, which it sees as its strongest subsidy card, back at the heart of the debate. They claim that the food and farming industry is worth £108bn a year, but that includes second stage food processing which is not reliant on domestic ingredients and necessarily has to import ones like cocoa.

Tim Lang from City University admits that farmers are being squeezed by a vicious cycle of increasing costs and lower returns. He says that what we need is less farming and more horticulture.

However, the sector is being hit by a double whammy of the National Living Wage and difficulties in recruiting labour after Brexit. Wages are a particular problem in Scotland where the National Living Wage is not age banded so that you cannot pay less to under 25s. Foreign workers are concerned about Brexit and a large UK supplier of foreign workers to UK agriculture has seen applicants to its Bulgarian office drop by 70 per cent compared with a usual 25 per cent at this time of year.

It looks like a no brainer, but is it?

The latest phase in the debate about the future of agricultural policy in England is the call for a diversion of subsidies from large estates to smaller firms. It is easy to make both an intellectual and a populist case, but one also needs to consider countervailing arguments.

The Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE) argues that it is wrong to pay people more subsidy simply because they own more land: CPRE report It proposes that all farmers should receive a higher amount per hectare for the first 50 hectares they own but payments should reduce for the next 100 hectares and then continue to taper.

The CPRE argues, 'Good, resilient farming means cleaner water, less flooding and more carbon storage. It means abundant wildlife and rich soils that underpin beautiful countryside and assist efforts to tackle climate change. And it means a mix of farms more strongly connected to the local community.'

The countryside is, of course, more than an aesthetic asset to be enjoyed by urban populations, it is also a means of food production, although that food production needs to take into account environmental impacts. Particularly valued areas of countryside are designated as national parks, although even here farming contributes to their appearance.

The CPRE says that it is not engaging in 'big farm bashing', but size of farm is not necessarily related to how well farming is undertaken, although there is some evidence that larger farms tend to have higher animal welfare standards. Big estates can be well integrated into their local communities, not least as a significant source of employment.

Some of the payouts to big farms can be substantial, Last year, Farmcare Trading, the former Co-op farms bought by Wellcome Trust in 2014, received £1.7m. Beeswax Farming, owned by Sir James Dyson of bagless vacuum cleaner fame, received £1.4m. Blankney Estates in Lincolnshire got £1.1m. Lilburn Estates in Northumberland, owned by Duncan Davidson, founder of the house builder Persimmon, received £915,000. The Elveden Farms in Suffolk, owned the Earl of Iveagh and the Guinness family, received £915,000.

A recent report from Exeter University, commissioned by the Prince's Countryside Trust, argues that small family farms employ more people per acre (i.e., are less capital intensive), help sustain rural services and provide a wider variety of locally produced food. The number of such farms has fallen from 84,000 in 2000 to fewer than 67,000 in 2013.

What does one consider is how far competitiveness objectives should form part of any future policy. Large farms in countries such as France and Germany will continue to receive CAP subsidies, leaving English farms at a competitive disadvantage. The result could be more food requirements being met by imports and hence a decline in domestic food security.

What is clear is that the present level of subsidy to larger farms will not be affordable. However, a debate is needed about the priority given to different policy objectives, something that never really occurred with the CAP.

Balls in less farm subsidies shock

There was what I found to be a rather surprising exchange on agricultural policy at the end of the questioning of Ed Balls as Shadow Chancellor on Sky this afternoon. Someone from the farming industry asked him about declining self-sufficiency in UK agriculture, no doubt him expecting to say that targets to increase it should be set. The NFU has just tweeted that she is one of their members.

Instead he said that he believed in international trade and that this gave consumers a wider choice of products in the supermarkets and this kept prices down for consumers. He was also critical of the CAP, although that is standard for UK politicians.

He was then asked by the facilitator whether he favoured more farm subsidies or less and he unequivocally answered, 'Less'.

Subisdising oil seed rape

The threatened reduction of oil seed rape subsidies for biofuel from 10 per cent to 5 per cent is concerning some farmers who say that it will no longer make economic sense to grow the crop. Of course, one might ask whether such a market distorting subsidy was sensible in the first place which is why the UK and other member states such as the Netherlands would like to see it reduced.

However, for farmers on heavy land in particular oil seed rape has great advantages as a break crop. There aren't that many alternatives. Peas are very sensitive to weather conditions, particularly rain, and the returns on sugar beet are not that good.

Oil seed rape is also favoured by beekeepers as it flowers early in the season and produces plenty of pollen.

Farm subsidies up again across the world

A long-term trend towards a decline in farm support was reversed in 2012 according to the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD): OECD Report

This is perhaps a surprising development, given that government budgets are under pressure and farm subsidies offer a possible, although well-defended target. However, the OECD noted a particular trend towards increasing support in countries that emphasise self-sufficiency and they think that this has a poor relationship with food security.

This is a concern as self-sufficiency has been raised again recently in the UK debate by the NFU. Admittedly, there has been a decline in self-sufficiency in indigenous food between 1984 (95 per cent) and 2012 (76 per cent). (When foods from non-temperate climates are added in, the figure drops to 62 per cent). One might ask what the relevance of this is given that the UK operates within the CAP, but if the UK was to leave the EU this kind of discourse might become more relevant.

Admittedly, the overall increase in subsidies was 1 per cent, but that masked some sharp increases in emerging countries: 4 percentage points in China to 17 per cent of total income; 6 percentage points in Indonesia to 21 per cent; and 4 percentage points in Kazakhstan to 15 per cent. Norway provided the largest level of farm support with a 63 per cent share, up four percentage points. Switzerland, Japan and Korea were all over the 50 per cent of farmers' income level.

Farm support in the EU was consistent with the general trend, rising from 18 per cent to 19 per cent of farm incomes.

CAP reform deal not yet sewn up

This week’s Farm Council meeting highlighted more of the divisions that remain on the CAP reform process than many observers, not least the EU Farm Commissioner and Irish Presidency, would have liked, reports Agra Europe. This meeting was significant in that it was the last opportunity for an agreement between EU agriculture ministers prior to what many are billing as the ‘final showdown’ talks at the Luxembourg Farm Council on June 24-25.

The three big points of discussion were over the nature and scope of the new support systems for ‘young’ and ‘small’ farmers under the next CAP, as well as whether or not an ‘active farmer’ provision – aimed at excluding ‘undeserving’ recipients from receiving subsidies through an EU-wide ‘negative’ list that countries could add to – should be mandatory across member states.

The issue of whether young farmers should be given a 'leg up' has proved controversial for the UK. As for undeserving recipients, subsidy transfer arrangements represent a second best solution offering reallocation in an inherently unsatisfactory system in my view. Interestingly, despite the Presidency testing the water for potential compromise agreements on these issues, many governments were steadfast in their opposition in making the first two schemes compulsory to top-up direct payments, while there was also much disagreement over the third provision.

Simon Coveney, the Irish agriculture minister chairing the member state government talks, came away from the Council stating that he was 'reasonably positive' that compromises on the three proposals can be reached with MEPs and the Commission by the end of next month. Commissioner Dacian Ciolos was also confident of a political agreement but at the same time he reiterated his frustration at the reluctance of several ministers to accept a 'common' and compulsory approach for the targeted schemes.

UK farm minister Owen Paterson, who is engaged in his own battle to defend the Defra budget, also said he was optimistic of a deal this week, but there have been whispers that an agreement may not be as cut and dry as is hoped, with measures such as ‘greening’ likely to be major stumbling blocks. Scottish Liberal Democrat MEP George Lyon even suggested that the Irish Presidency may be given additional time to try and get a deal in July.

Although Lithuania will have taken over the EU Presidency for the first time in their history by that time of year, the view is that the Irish will be best-placed to secure an actual CAP reform agreement due to being relatively more experienced in such matters.

Farmers and the EU

Yesterday I spent a very interesting day in Yorkshire talking with a cross-section of farmers. As always, it was good to hear of the ingenuity that farmers deploy in diversification such as an upland sheep farmer who was producing honey using the summer heather crop, a bit hit with consumers. Another interesting point to come out of the discussion was that many farmers, perhaps egged on by banks, had gone for increasing the area of their farms and had not thought enough about how they could improve productivity on existing land, e.g., by grassland improvement which could yield gains of 50 to 100 per cent.

Many different topics came up, the availability of plant protection products being a particular concern, but among other things we discussed Britain's membership of the EU. There was concern about EU regulations, particularly from the poultry sector, in terms of whether they prevented British farmers from enjoying a level playing field in terms of competition.

When I said 'many' farmers could not survive without the single farm payment, I was corrected by the word 'all'. If this is the case, it is worrying in terms of the viability of British farming. But I accept that the availability of the SFP is built into business models and can make the difference between profit and loss. An arable farmer did emphasise that most farmers would prefer to earn a living from the market if they could get a fair price and this led us into a discussion of the economic power of the supermarkets.

It is quite likely that we will have a referendum on Britain's continued membership of the EU: Labour would be disadvantaged at the next general election if it was unable to offer this. It is also quite likely that the vote would be to withdraw. In terms of the single market, a lot would then depend on whether a satisfactory association agreement could be concluded with the EU. European countries have an incentive to do so given the exports they make to the UK, but the devil would be in the detail.

But what would happen to farm subsidies? It would be an opportunity to think again about what the objectives of such subsidies should be, and also to reduce them. One of the problems with EU policy has been that the objectives in the Treaty of Rome were contradictory, had no preference ordering (although one appeared in practice) and were never changed in treaty revisions (too much of a hot potato).

What could be done is to pay farmers a tapering percentage of their historic SFP, say 90 per cent in the year after exit and 80 per cent in the second year while there was a serious conversation about what sorts of subsidies were needed, for what purpose and how they could be reduced over time. Indeed, farmers could be offered a buy out of their subsidies through a bond scheme.

Farmers could not survive without subsdies

Almost three quarters of farmers say they could not survive without subsidies, according to a Farmers Weekly poll: Subsidies

How does one wean farmers off their subsidy dependence so that they become more like any other business that relies on returns from the market? No one is suggesting that they should be withdrawn overnight. The official Defra position is to phase out the single farm payment and that is resisted by most other member states.

Part of the solution must to be to ensure that farmers are better able to earn a return from the market through competition policy measures that redress the balance between them and supermarkets. But the politics of that are complicated as supermarkets deliver cheap food to consumers whose budgets are already under pressure.

Defra boss upsets farmers

Defra secretary of state Owen Paterson has upset farmers by calling for direct payments to them to be scrapped as possible. He argues that taxpayer subsidies should be limited to public goods: Paterson

His predecessor had a farm organisation background so such plain speaking may come as a shock.

Have farmers less to whinge about?

Sometimes I think that Farmers Weekly should be called Whingers Weekly. Often it's the weather - too hot, too cold, too dry, too wet. Admittedly, it is a challenge in the UK's variable climate. Then it's often prices (where dairy farmers have real concerns) or late payment of subsidies. After that it's vegetarians, defenders of the badger and opponents of GM crops (both of the latter two go way over the top on many occasions). Or it's retailer power, and that's where I have real sympathy with farmers. Let's hope the new supermarket ajudicator makes a difference.

Anyway the NFU has launched a new campaign to boost the image of British farming. Apparently the president is going to emulate the Jubilee by going up the Thames in a farm themed boat to the House of Commons: Farming

Last year farming was one of the most profitable industries in the UK, lifting aggregate net profits 25 per cent to £5.7bn. Measured against other sectors only mining and oil saw bigger growth according to UBS, the investment bank. Of course, farming can have bad years as well as good and not all sectors are doing well, but it does lead one to wonder whether such large blanket subsidies are needed.

As NFU presiden Peter Kendall points out, modern farms make a great deal of use of ICT and 'It's now a high-tech industry, not the way it was 10 years ago.' Pardaoxically, consumers may like a more bucolic image, but then they also want a ready supply of cheap food.

The good times may also be over before they beagn. Farming is fossil fuel intensive and in the long run prices are likely to rise in real terms despite the current dip. Farmers do, of course, pay a lower level of duty on 'red' diesel (sufficiently lower to lead to its occasional illegal use). Supplies of grain are rising which is likely to depress prices. Turmoil in the eurozone may hit exports and the rise in the value of the pound will reduce the amount received in subsidies. However, demand for food is likely to continue to rise, pushing up prices.