Subsidies to continue for hill farmers

Defra secretary Michael Gove has told the House of Commons Defra committee that subsidies for hill farmers will continue beyond 2022. He said, 'Farmers in less favoured areas, and upland hill farmers who are producing sheep meat as well as wool ... will need support for several years to come.'

Whether payments would still be made on an area basis is unclear.

Mr Gove was not sympathetic to the NFU argument that subsidies were needed to prevent the UK becoming more reliant on imports. I have always been sceptical about the idea of self-sufficiency targets.

Confusion over CAP exit

Theresa May has said that Britain will leave the Common Agricultural Policy at the same time as it leaves the EU in March 2019. She said, 'The relationship we have on [the CAP] continuing through the implementation period with the European Union will be part of the negotiation of that period, which will start very soon.'

She added: 'Leaving the CFP and leaving the CAP gives us the opportunity to actually introduce arrangements that work for the United Kingdom.' What these arrangements might be remains unclear, as is the issue of whether the basic payment would cease in 2019.

Michael Barnier has said that Britain would remain in the CAP in the transition period. In practice the political priority, certainly for Michael Gove, might be getting out of the Common Fisheries Policy. In any event there is now more uncertainty about the future of British farming.

Conservationists estimate cost of new agri-envirionmental policy

A new report Assessing the costs of environmental land management in the UK commissioned by The Wildlife Trusts, RSPB and the National Trust, shows how much Government might need to pay farmers and land managers for their role in looking after our natural heritage.

The report estimates that meeting existing government commitments to improving natural assets such as water quality, soil health and biodiversity will cost £2.3 billion per year. But meeting existing commitments will not be sufficient to halt the decline of the UK’s wildlife and reverse this trend.

£2.3 billion is five times more than is currently spent through agri-environment schemes – the source of most current environmental land management funding. This figure does not include wider financing required in the farming sector, for example for research and development or providing advice to farmers.

The total includes £876m for protecting and improving priority habitats, which include woodlands, marshes, bogs and fens; £402m for hedges and stone walls; and £78m for flood plains.

Ellie Brodie, Senior Policy Manager, of The Wildlife Trusts said: 'Farmers can sell the food they grow through the market. But they can’t sell a whole range of services that society needs them to provide, whether it’s reducing the risk of floods downstream, creating habitat for bees or improving the health of our soils. The Wildlife Trusts believe that farmers should be paid for this as it benefits us all. A healthy, wildlife-rich natural world is valuable in its own right and is also at the core of people’s well-being and prosperity. We must be prepared to pay for these benefits.'

Christopher Price, head of policy at the Country Land and Business Association said that government agri-environmental schemes were over bureaucratic and fragmented and drew attention to the CLBA's vision of a land management contract.

The associated policy briefing can be found here: Policy briefing

Hard Irish border would be difficult for food trade

A hard border between Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic would create particular problems for the agriculture and food sectors.

Food and live animals account for the largest share of trade with Ireland. Northern Ireland is reliant on the republic for more than 60 per cent of its food and live animal exports. Agri-foods are particularly important to Northern Ireland and the sector is 'one of the few economic bright spots' according to the CBI.

Aiden Gough of InterTradeIsland told the Financial Times that 'The food industry is absolutely predominant in the cross-border trade in the island. The vast majority of trade is supply chain and goods cross the border multiple times before coming final products.'

A quarter of Northern Ireland milk and more than one-third of its lamb are processed at plants across the border. Baileys liqueur is produced in Ireland and sent north for bottling before returning to the republic for export.

Shaun Murphy at KPMG says that agriculture is 'the sector that is most at risk' because 'integrated cross-border supply chains are complex and costly to unravel'.

Given that the UK Government is not prepared to countenance Northern Ireland staying in the customs union or internal market, it is apparently prepared to consider continued regulatory convergence between the north and south of Ireland to prevent border problems.

However, that solution is unacceptable to the DUP whom the Government depends on for its majority. It would in effect create a border in the Irish Sea. It might also attract objections from other member states who could portray it as giving an unfair advantage to Northern Ireland.

Glyphosate gets a reprieve

The controversial herbicide glyphosate which is used by Monsanto in its Roundup products has been given a reprieve. It has been the subject of a battle between agrochemical and farming interests and environmentalists. However, the EU has given it a five year licence after Germany changed its position.

German environment minister the SDP's Barbara Hendricks has been against renewal of the licence while Christian Schmidt, the conservative agriculture minister has been in favour. Schmidt decided to change the vote from abstain to in favour, Hendricks accusing him of acting behind her back.

Up to now the Christian Democrats have been constrained by their 'Jamaica' coalition negotiations with the Greens, who are against the herbicide, but these have now broken down.

After Germany changed its vote, and following some tweaking to the wording of the licence, Bulgaria, Romania and Poland followed suit and switched their vote from abstain, allowing the EU committee for plants, animals, feed and food to give its approval for another five years by qualified majority vote.

Despite their apparent victory, farming organisations are concerned that renewal was only for five years rather than the 15 years they think was justified.

NFU 'disappointed' with Budget

The NFU is 'disappointed' with the Budget which it saw as offering little to help farmers to prepare for life outside the EU or to help rural communities more generally: Budget response

The NFU should not be that surprised at the urban focus of the budget. The more general question that arises is whether tax reliefs are a better policy instrument than direct support payments.

If we gave farmers more tax allowances, it would not alter their behaviour in any way in accordance with policy objectives, but it would give them an additional financial cushion against the effects of Brexit.

Big Blue goes for green farm policy

Liberal Conservative think tank Big Blue has produced the latest analysis of the future of agricultural support in Britain, A Greener, More Pleasant Land. It's certainly in tune with the emerging conventional wisdom. Read the full report here: Green and pleasant

It sets out a vision for a new market-based commissioning scheme for rural payments after Brexit, which would replace the EU’s Common Agriculture Policy (CAP) and fund ecosystem services, such as woodland creation, restoration of peatlands and removing invasive plant species. Under the scheme, ‘suppliers’ would bid to supply ecosystem services to paying ‘beneficiaries’ in specific catchments via online market-places. Suppliers would include farmers, landowners, and land managers.

Beneficiaries would include the general public (represented by central, devolved, and local government), private interests (such as water companies, other land managers, and insurers), and other groups (such as conservation NGOs, civil society groups, land trusts, philanthropists, local communities via town and village halls, or crowd funders). Contracts for supplying ecosystem services would pay quarterly based on results, potentially with incentives to encourage performance.

It calls for ensuring that as current CAP subsidies are phased out, public funding for market-based commissioning scheme and means tested livelihood support is phased in pound for pound.  It advocates the creation of a single rural payments budget from central government that identifies exactly and merges existing government budgets for production and land management support (under CAP), natural flood management, and payments for ecosystem services. Merging these current expenditures into a single rural payments budget would result in at least £3.1 billion being made available per year. It appears that prices for ecosystem services would be derived through an online market place designed by users for users. Striking a price may not be as straightforward as the paper assumes.

Three forms of income for farmers

The elimination of all production subsidies in agriculture would ensure instead that farmers have three forms of income available to them. The first from the new market-based commissioning scheme for rural payments, the second from a form of means-tested livelihood support, and the third from agricultural produce or other monetisable services sold at market prices without production subsidies. These sources of income are not mutually exclusive.

In my view means-tested livelihood support is a matter for the benefits system and not for specific policies directed at farmers. It seems that these are meant for small farmers, but there is a case for keeping area based payments in some form in marginal upland areas.

 

All things bright and beautiful

It is claimed that market-based commissioning of rural payments combined with a properly enforced system of environmental regulations, targeted livelihood support (particularly for smaller farmers), and consumer demand for high-quality UK produce will together drive higher environmental standards across the UK.

Senior Associate Fellow Ben Caldecott, who co-wrote the report, says: 'Commissioning ecosystem services efficiently and effectively using the dynamism of market-based approaches will bring significant public benefits, including a more sustainable farming industry, enhanced natural beauty and landscapes, greater biodiversity, increased carbon sequestration, improved natural flood defences, better water quality, better mental and physical health, and better air quality.'

Commenting, Zac Goldsmith MP, member of the Environment Audit Committee, said: 'The biggest opportunity by far [on leaving the EU] is the ability we now have to redesign the way we subsidise rural activity via whatever regime replaces the Common Agriculture Policy, something environmentalists have long dreamed of being able to do. Instead of simply paying people for owning land, no matter what they do to it, we can finally tailor that support to reward good stewardship of the land to boost biodiversity, minimise floods, improve water quality and access, and deliver food security.' Of course, it could be argued that one of the things that the current system does is support food security.

The usual targets

Press commentary on the report has inevitably brought up the £1.6m in subsidies going to Sir James Dyson. In a sense he is fair game, but he has been investing money in his farms and losing money on them.

No one wants to retain blanket area based subsidies in their present form, but we have little practical experience of pricing ecosystem services (there is one public-private scheme covering forests and peat bogs). As it is, area based subsidies represent the difference between profit and loss for most farms, so one has to be careful how one replaces them if one doesn't want to see a forced restructuring of the industry which might hit food production and would certainly disadvantage smaller farmers.

Who will pick fruit and vegetables after Brexit?

I return to this issue in a contribution to the LSE Brexit blog: The migrant labour dilemma

The pros and cons of land management contracts

Talking to farmers recently, it is clear that quite a few of them see merit in the idea of land management contracts put forward by the CLA. This 'would be a legal agreement between the farmer and the government for provision of goods and services that the market doesn't pay for but provide valuable benefits to society.' Examples include safeguarding and increasing carbon storage; mitigating or reducing flood risk; creating better connectivity of habitats and species; maintaining the distinctiveness of historic landscapes and heritage; managing soil structures to maintain productive capacity of land for future generations.'

The motivations of the CLA are clear. President Ross Murray states, 'The best retort to accusations that the acreage payment merely rewards the wealthy is to promote a compelling and revolutionary new system based on contract where the farmer or manager is rewarded for public service'.

Policy instruments that are envisaged are:

• Multi-channel advice to increase adoption of new technology and practices
• Business skills development and encouraging collaboration
• Capital grants, loans and tax incentives for investment in infrastructure, equipment and buildings, farmer led research and collaboration
• Support for new entrants and succession and retirement planning support [this is an under developed area of policy]
• Promoting UK food in domestic and international markets
• Resilience funds and compensation for unforeseen events [some might think that was the role of insurance]

There would not be a standard contract. 'Farmers will choose what sort of land management activities are right for them and their rural business ... The importance of specific outcomes will vary across the country ... The land management contract will be locally adaptive'.

This is reasonable enough, but it does raise the question of the transaction costs of negotiating contracts with individual farm businesses with variable payments reflecting the public benefits delivered. The CLA calls for 'simplicity of administration' and 'keeping bureaucracy to a minimum'.

However, public money is involved and accountability is necessary. It is admitted that 'new and existing evidence from mapping' is involved which invariably involves a checking process. Proposed outcomes need to be realistic and there needs to be some means of checking that they have been achieved.

This is an ingenious idea and a good one in principle, but how would it work out in practice?

Post Brexit model could mean major disruption for farmers

Chatham House (the Royal Institute of International Affairs) has produced a new paper on the implications of Brexit for UK, EU and global agricultural reform: Chatham House

The briefing paper looks at four broad agricultural policy options for the UK after leaving the EU. It considers how these four models might perform in the context of future EU agricultural policy decisions and wider global trends and challenges.

The paper argues that for the UK, only a market-oriented model – aligned and integrated with a more effective commitment to the environment and climate change mitigation – would enable the country to benefit from free trade while keeping the government’s promise to improve the environment for the next generation. Applying such a model in the UK could lower prices for consumers, lift the economy’s productivity and allow for substantial budget savings to support the environment and public finances.

It would mean significant disruption for agricultural producers, and the political challenge of market reform should not be underestimated, but, the paper concludes, implementing a sustainable, market-oriented agricultural policy is a genuine opportunity for UK global leadership outside the EU in the next decade.

It is admitted that, 'A move to a genuinely market-oriented model would result in imports displacing UK products, and the removal of all forms of subsidies would cause some farming operations to fold. While the resulting lower prices would benefit consumers, importing businesses and the economy overall, it would also mean unviable agricultural businesses closing, being taken over or having to reinvent themselves. The livestock sector in particular is vulnerable in this regard, with rural communities, especially upland areas, likely to suffer the most commercially.'

Does Gove speaked with forked tongue?

Defra secretary Michael Gove has become something of an unlikely hero with green activists. Some of this reputation has been achieved by grabbing low hanging fruit such as stopping the sale of ivory antiques or banning the use of plastic microbeads in personal care products.

However, this week he delighted greens by condemning farmers who 'drench' their fields with chemicals and damage soil fertility. In my experience most farmers don't over apply chemicals as it would be a waste of money. Never mind, the Soil Association said they had been 'bowled over' by his comments.

So are farmers unhappy with him? No, because he has giving them assurances behind the scenes. Moreover, he has matched his words with actions. He ensured that the UK voted in favour of retaining glyphosate in the EU and has ordered the biggest cull of badgers ever.

Mr Gove is an ambitious man and he is trying to win support in as many areas of political life as he can.

Future of key pesticide in doubt

The future of glyphosate, a key ingredient in pesticides, is in doubt in the EU. Arable farmers say they cannot do without it if they are to farm successfully, but environmental lobbies such as Pestcides Action Network Europe (PAN) have been working hard on the issue: Weedkiller decision

A standard ten year renewal no longer seems achievable, but it may be possible to get agreement on a three year phasing out period. However, Angela Merkel's need to involve the Greens in a German coalition government is a complicating factor. In any event, its future seems in doubt and the search for alternatives will need to begin. The scientific evidence is contested, but the politics are leading the way with President Macron favouring its withdrawal.

PAN's statement can be found here: Policy recommendations

The perspective of the National Farmers Union can be found here: Questions and answers

New SAWS scheme not ruled out

The Government has now responded to the House of Commons Defra committee report on the agricultural labour market: Response

It argues that the sector faces a 'challenging situation' rather than a crisis. However, it does not rule out a new version of the SAWS scheme and says that such a scheme could be introduced within months of it being needed.

Farmers incomes could halve after Brexit

The AHDB has produced a report looking at alternative scenarios for Brexit and the impact on farmers: Brexit Scenarios

Agricultural incomes could halve after Brexit unless the UK strikes a free-trade agreement with the EU, according to a new report that urges farmers to prepare for Britain’s departure from the bloc by boosting their productivity.The average UK farm is predicted to have its income fall from a current level of £38,000 per year to £15,000 should the UK unilaterally open its borders to low-cost food producers.

The AHDB also found that in a second scenario of the UK erecting protectionist trade barriers, farm incomes would fall to £20,000. However, if the UK succeeded in its objective of securing a free-trade deal with the EU, the AHDB said the average farm income could rise slightly to £41,000, because an increase in trading expenses would push up costs of imports and therefore the prices that farmers can charge for their products.

Which scenario is most likely remains to be seen, although the odds of a hard Brexit appear to have increased. However, judging from an interview in the latest Farmers Weekly with a farmer who voted 'Leave', many remain optimistic. His 'Remain' colleague, a tenant farmer, feared he may have to leave farming and was already taking a Law degree.

Thinking about domestic farm policy after Brexit

Brexit is going to occur, but we do not know what form it will take or when it will be completed. The chances of a very hard Brexit seem to be increasing which would not be good news for farming in particular and the economy more generally.

Last week I gave a presentation in the Entente Cordiale room at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office on options for a domestic agricultural policy after Brexit. Staff from a number of government departments were there including Brussels and UKRep Brussels. There were some very good questions, as one would expect.

Policy objectives

I suggested that what we needed to learn from the CAP was the need to have a clear and hierarchically ordered set of objectives. We should avoid poorly designed and overly complex policy instruments that imposed high transaction costs on both government and farm businesses.

Policy should seek to support an economically, socially and environmentally sustainable agriculture:

• Economic: profitable, productive and internationally competitive
• Social: the need to support marginal farmers in upland areas and to avoid depopulation in remote rural areas, especially island communities. Often the biggest boost that could be given to these communities was in the form of infrastructure, especially fast broadband. I gave the example of how the Isles of Scilly had benefited from this: Take up of fast broadband. A theme that emerged in discussion was that a sustainable rural life depended on many things apart from farming. Discussion centred on what role local authorities might take. The Orkney Islands have been successful at attracting returning graduates: Going back home. This is not just a question of the renewables industry: I know from reading The Orkney Farmer that it is happened in agriculture and food processing.
• Environmental: minimise environmental damage from farming activity and promote beneficial effects.

What will go and what the emphasis will be

Area payments would disappear, except possibly in upland areas. There has been resentment at large sums paid to big scale farmers, often investors from outside the industry who may have tax planning motivations. However, it should be remembered that big farms are generally the most competitive, and they will be competing against, for example, North European grain farmers who will still be receiving EU subsidies.

The emphasis in the future will be on public goods, as is evident from remarks made by the Secretary of State (Michael Gove) at the Conservative Party conference and elsewhere. These would include the maintenance of valued landscapes and resilience in relation to climate change. There is a lot of interest in ecosystem services. Payment for them would mainly benefit upland farmers, but how does one price them?

Technological revolution

Farming is on the verge of a digital technological revolution which is likely to be as important as earlier revolutions which saw the introduction of crop rotation and agronomy; mechanisation; and artificial fertilisers/agrochemicals. Data from near earth satellites has been used for some time, but drones offer more precise information to guide decisions in relation to crops. There will be an ability to monitor the condition of cattle ín the fields. Advances are being made in robotic ploughing, planting and cropping.

Accelerating this trend may be an area where the Treasury would be willing to provide some support. Knowledge transfer and training is key with an important role for the existing four Centres for Agricultural Innovation.

There might be a case for supporting investment in buildings and equipment, particularly for sectors that did not receive much CAP funding, e.g., pig farming. This could run up against the additionality problem of paying farmers to do things they would have done anyway, but it would be a mechanism for helping farms to remain internationally competitive.

I noted that migrant labour was one one of the biggest concerns raised with me by farmers as its availability was already declining. This was a particular issue for the horticulture and field vegetable sectors. However, dairying had become increasingly reliant on EU and Fillipino labour. In a time of full employment, recruitment from the local unemployed pool was not possible, even if it ever was. Further mechanisation was some way off. What was needed was a new version of the SAWS scheme, but the difficult political question would be which countries to include.

Elephants in the room

The devolved administrations feared that Westminster was using Brexit as an opportunity to repatriate functions that were rightly theirs. However, we did need a UK policy framework to maintain a level playing field. The whole question of the trade settlement, largely dealt with by fellow presenter Carmen Hubbard, was clearly crucial. One issue that arose in discussion was whether the shelf life of fresh products could be extended to offset delays at the ports.

Succession planning

One issue that was raised in discussion was the advanced average age of farmers (which has been high for some time). I pointed out the statistics may not reflect the reality of a farm business. For example, my brother-in-law is 75, but my nephew has just turned thirty and is driving the farm business forward. Succession planning is nevertheless perhaps an issue under researched by academics, notwithstanding all the advice available from consultants and the farming press. I suggested that The Archers had offered some good fictional treatments of the inter generational tensions that can arise in a farm business.

Thanks

Palmerston and Larry discuss their differences over policy

Thanks to the FCO for offering me a tour of the building, but above all the chance to meet Palmerston the Foreign Office cat who was basking in the sunshine surrounded by a semi-circle of admirers. We peeped into Downing Street, but could not see his adversary Larry.

TRQ deal knocked on head

Hopes that the UK and the EU had reached an agreement in principle on the tricky topic of tariff rate quotas (TRQs) have been knocked on the head by an intervention by the United States. The Trump administration is leading a group of countries challenging British plans to retain EU import restrictions on agricultural goods after Brexit. The other six countries who sent a letter to the UK's WTO representative and his EU counterpart were leading agricultural exporters: Argentina, Brazil, Canada, New Zealand, Thailand and Uruguay.

New Zealand's former high commissioner in London has given it large on the issue saying that the row would make Brexit look 'like a kids' Christmas party' if access was scaled back.

The risk for the UK is that part of the post-Brexit transition in the WTO it may have to accept opening up access to agricultural goods from third countries far more than it wants, even before it agrees the much vaunted new trade deals with such countries.

The UK has tried to smooth ruffled feathers by saying that the plans would be discussed extensively with partners in the WTO before proceeding. This is the opening stage of a process in which countries have staked out their starting position in what is likely to be a long negotiation.

Farmers don't drive land prices

It is often claimed that Brexit will bring down the price of farmland and make life easier for new entrants. However, according to Strutt & Parker, lifestyle buyers and tax-savvy investors are about to overtake farmers as the primary buyers of agricultural land. This conclusion is based on an analysis of every public sale of over 100 acres since 1996.

Farmers bought 68 per cent of the holdings for sale in 1998 but they bought over 51 per cent of those sold in the first six months of this year. Private investors have increased from 4 per cent of buyers in 1998 to 20 per cent this year. Lifestyle buyers have stayed largely constant at 25 per cent of sales [most of these sales in England are within reasonable travelling distance of London]. Overseas and institutional investors fluctuated around 4 per cent combined.

Stamp duty is capped at 5 per cent when a country house comes with land, otherwise a mansion is liable for up to 12 per cent. Agricultural land is also exempt from inheritance tax.

Sir James Dyson, who bought 33,000 acres (of admittedly good quality land) in Lincolnshire, Oxfordshire and Gloucestershire, is believed to have paid £15,000 an acre in 2013. Average prices peaked at £10,100 in acre in 2015 and, because of many years of poor prices and Brexit uncertainties, have dropped to around £9,600 an acre.

James Beedell, head of research at Strutt & Parker, said that investors have turned to farmland after the 2008 financial crisis because they wanted something safe. 'Lifestyle buyers and investors set prices because what they are prepared to pay for land isn't necessarily related to the profit it can produce.'

If there is a fall in land prices in Brexit, it could lead to greater consolidation as those with capital or access to it buy up smaller farms. Some think that would lead to productivity gains, others that it would have an adverse effect on rural communities and landscapes.

TRQ deal agreed

Tariff rate quotas have always been one of the more difficult aspects of the negotiations between the UK and the EU over agricultural issues arising from Brexit. However, it looks as if an understanding about a deal has been reached. It may, however, not please third countries which could cause trouble down the line. The proposed deal would not expand overall quotas, and hence market access.

TRQs set the amount of goods that can be exported at low or zero tariffs, and are hence valued by agricultural exporters. The UK and the EU need to share out the quotas by the time Brexit takes place in 2019. Countries such as Australia and New Zealand have been pushing for an increase in combined UK-EU quotas after Brexit.

The deal would divide up quotas according to where goods were previously consumed. For example, the UK would take a larger quota for products such as New Zealand lamb. Consumption patterns would be measured over a three year period. This outcome would reduce additional competitive pressure on sheep farmers in particular.

Australia and New Zealand will challenge any outcome they think reduces their current levels of market access. Other major agricultural exporters such as Brazil and the US want more market access. However, if they decide they want to take matters to the dispute settlement mechanism of the WTO, they may be in for a disappointment. The US has been blocking the appointment of new judges and the quasi-judicial tribunal may soon have insufficient judges to function.

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

Not so sweet?

This article examines the implications of the end of EU sugar quotas: Sugar deluge?

European refiners are seeking to increase production and secure more exports. However, the EU price is likely to fall in line with the lower global price, so it may not be good news for those who grow sugar beet. Less sugar may also be imported from least developed countries in Africa and the Caribbean.