Farming subsidies in Brexit Britain

[Sibboleth]

This is an interesting issue: although the CAP (which I should immediately note that I don't particularly like even if it is less heinous than it used to be) is not as generous as it used to be, it is still an excellent deal for farmers (as nightmarish as the bureaucratic aspect undeniably is) and as soon as we leave the EU the payments will end. I wonder what will replace it? A couple of points to consider...

1. One of the under-appreciated aspects of the CAP (from the point of view of farmers) was/is that it was not conditional on domestic political factors. The payments continue at the same rate no matter who is in office. Of course this was broadly speaking true of the pre-EEC system, but that was in a very different political era, one in which there was a consensus (driven largely by memories of the War) in farming policy. I don't think we can now be sure that a future Labour government would necessarily be that keen on paying vast sums of money on welfare payments to Conservative voters. I'm not even entirely certain if we can be sure that all future Conservative governments will be quite as keen on doing it as would once have been automatic. Farmers are in general now a pretty unpopular group (largely their own fault I'm afraid) and even those that do deserve public sympathy (e.g. dairy farmers) don't get a great deal. Certainly we can be sure that the common belief amongst farmers that the subsidies situation will remain the same (or even get better!) post-Brexit is tragically deluded.

2. Agriculture is now a devolved issue. The probability that devolved administrations in Wales and Northern Ireland than Westminster will be much more lavish when it comes to spending public money on farmers is roughly 100%. Agriculture is less important to the Scottish economy but there's still a decent chance of it happening there as well. At least in the case of Wales this will quite probably be targeted towards certain groups of farmers (in particular to those who keep sheep). There are certain obvious implications to this that have not been widely discussed. I do not think that sheep farmers in Shropshire will be particularly pleased when this dawns on them.

[boogieeck]

My favourite Labour poster.

[John Chanin]

Jul 17, 2016 16:26:40 GMT boogieeck said:

My favourite Labour poster.

Well that's the kiss of death from our resident troll.  Whoever made this idiot a moderator?

[boogieeck]

You would have to ask Kris, but I think it was moaning gits like you.

[hedgehog]

Jul 17, 2016 16:18:43 GMT Sibboleth said:

This is an interesting issue: although the CAP (which I should immediately note that I don't particularly like even if it is less heinous than it used to be) is not as generous as it used to be, it is still an excellent deal for farmers (as nightmarish as the bureaucratic aspect undeniably is) and as soon as we leave the EU the payments will end. I wonder what will replace it? A couple of points to consider...

1. One of the under-appreciated aspects of the CAP (from the point of view of farmers) was/is that it was not conditional on domestic political factors. The payments continue at the same rate no matter who is in office. Of course this was broadly speaking true of the pre-EEC system, but that was in a very different political era, one in which there was a consensus (driven largely by memories of the War) in farming policy. I don't think we can now be sure that a future Labour government would necessarily be that keen on paying vast sums of money on welfare payments to Conservative voters. I'm not even entirely certain if we can be sure that all future Conservative governments will be quite as keen on doing it as would once have been automatic. Farmers are in general now a pretty unpopular group (largely their own fault I'm afraid) and even those that do deserve public sympathy (e.g. dairy farmers) don't get a great deal. Certainly we can be sure that the common belief amongst farmers that the subsidies situation will remain the same (or even get better!) post-Brexit is tragically deluded.

2. Agriculture is now a devolved issue. The probability that devolved administrations in Wales and Northern Ireland than Westminster will be much more lavish when it comes to spending public money on farmers is roughly 100%. Agriculture is less important to the Scottish economy but there's still a decent chance of it happening there as well. At least in the case of Wales this will quite probably be targeted towards certain groups of farmers (in particular to those who keep sheep). There are certain obvious implications to this that have not been widely discussed. I do not think that sheep farmers in Shropshire will be particularly pleased when this dawns on them.

This is one of those occasions when you realise devolved administrations can be problematic.

Far cheaper to pay many Welsh hill farmers to get out of the sheep business, better for the enviroment, but politically impossible.

[Sibboleth]

Jul 17, 2016 23:21:26 GMT hedgehog said:

Far cheaper to pay many Welsh hill farmers to get out of the sheep business, better for the enviroment,

Um... what the fyck? How? In what way? If you reference that blinkered ignoramus Monbiot in your response I shall smite you.

but politically impossible.

Yes because it would be a social disaster. And actually not good news at all for the landscape and environment.

[pieandmash]

I've always been under the impression that we pay a lot of money to hill farmers so that they can lose it pretending to run a sheep business, and, indeed, that the whole thing is really an exercise in subsidy farming, to the benefit of big landowners, which is why it stays. But perhaps I'm completely wrong. Could you explain a little further what you mean Sibboleth?

[Sibboleth]

Uh... currently hill farmers are subsidised because the CAP subsidises almost all farms and what variation is allowed in Wales benefits small farmers at the expense of large landowners (this is not so in England actually) so I'm not really sure what you're getting at there...

[Ghyl Tarvoke]

Hard to see the consequences of a subsidy-free (or close to it) farming regime as leading to anything other than mass consolidation of land holdings.

[hedgehog]

Jul 17, 2016 23:37:59 GMT Sibboleth said:

Jul 17, 2016 23:21:26 GMT hedgehog said:

Far cheaper to pay many Welsh hill farmers to get out of the sheep business, better for the enviroment,

Um... what the fyck? How? In what way? If you reference that blinkered ignoramus Monbiot in your response I shall smite you.

but politically impossible.

Yes because it would be a social disaster. And actually not good news at all for the landscape and environment.

I agree with George Monbiot, our upland landscapes are entirely man made, they increase risks of flooding, make little sense, are only maintained because of subsidy.

I would favour a managed retreat, I recognise the culture, economic, history and identity aspects of hill farming in Wales, it is a major part of the fabric of communities in Mid and North Wales.

I would favour the Welsh government looking to create new business opportunities and when farmers retire possibly helping communities buy the land.

[hedgehog]

Jul 17, 2016 23:50:50 GMT Ghyl Tarvoke said:

Hard to see the consequences of a subsidy-free (or close to it) farming regime as leading to anything other than mass consolidation of land holdings.

I see the opposite, CAP payments encourage large landholdings, take away the subsidy, land prices would go down, and many more opportunities for entry level farming.

[jimboo]

Of course the Scottish MisGovernment forgot to fill in the forms for this years money, arseholes

[pieandmash]

Jul 17, 2016 23:50:04 GMT Sibboleth said:

Uh... currently hill farmers are subsidised because the CAP subsidises almost all farms and what variation is allowed in Wales benefits small farmers at the expense of large landowners (this is not so in England actually) so I'm not really sure what you're getting at there...

I thought that my post was fairly clear. Hill farming is unprofitable and only viable because of subsidies. Therefore, the more land one has, the more subsidies one can accrue, and thus it's an exercise in subsidy farming.

I'm afraid that I still don't understand this:

Yes because it would be a social disaster. And actually not good news at all for the landscape and environment.

Why?

[Sibboleth]

Jul 17, 2016 23:57:42 GMT hedgehog said:

I agree with George Monbiot, our upland landscapes are entirely man made,

Not actually true. The reality is more complicated and varies from place to place. Let's quote from an actual authority on landscape history...

Moorland evidently ranges from wholly natural to artificial in origin. Much of it is the effect of interactions between human activity and natural processes. Leaching and peat formation would by now anyway have turned large areas of wildwood to moorland; human activities have speeded these processes. In high-rainfall areas, as well as at high altitudes and in the far north, the balance of evidence is that moorland is mainly natural.

_{Oliver Rackham, The History of the Countryside, p. 307}

Of course in a country that has seen thousands of years of uninterrupted intensive agriculture whether a landscape is 'natural' or not is really not a particularly relevant or worthwhile question and certainly you could never hope to recreate whatever things were like before so...

I would favour a managed retreat, I recognise the culture, economic, history and identity aspects of hill farming in Wales, it is a major part of the fabric of communities in Mid and North Wales.

I would favour the Welsh government looking to create new business opportunities and when farmers retire possibly helping communities buy the land.

Ah, the usual romantic guff in lieu of an argument. Jolly good. Tell me, what exactly would these 'communities' do with this land they've bought?

[Sibboleth]

Jul 18, 2016 0:11:49 GMT pieandmash said:

I thought that my post was fairly clear. Hill farming is unprofitable and only viable because of subsidies. Therefore, the more land one has, the more subsidies one can accrue, and thus it's an exercise in subsidy farming.

Certainly most hill farmers need subsidies in order to remain afloat (let alone competitive) but it's total sh!t to claim that they are 'subsidy farmers'. The exact functioning of the CAP in Wales (but not England) is not quite as you presume, but that's barely relevant as this is about subsidies post CAP...

I'm afraid that I still don't understand this:

Yes because it would be a social disaster. And actually not good news at all for the landscape and environment.

Why?

[/quote]

What's hard to understand? The social disaster part is obvious enough, and the latter really ought to be as well; a well maintained landscape (something that is good for the environment as it is good for biodiversity, and the uplands are waaaaaaay more biodiverse than is widely believed) requires work.

[hedgehog]

Jul 18, 2016 0:27:44 GMT Sibboleth said:

Jul 17, 2016 23:57:42 GMT hedgehog said:

I agree with George Monbiot, our upland landscapes are entirely man made,

Not actually true. The reality is more complicated and varies from place to place. Let's quote from an actual authority on landscape history...

Moorland evidently ranges from wholly natural to artificial in origin. Much of it is the effect of interactions between human activity and natural processes. Leaching and peat formation would by now anyway have turned large areas of wildwood to moorland; human activities have speeded these processes. In high-rainfall areas, as well as at high altitudes and in the far north, the balance of evidence is that moorland is mainly natural.

_{Oliver Rackham, The History of the Countryside, p. 307}

Of course in a country that has seen thousands of years of uninterrupted intensive agriculture whether a landscape is 'natural' or not is really not a particularly relevant or worthwhile question and certainly you could never hope to recreate whatever things were like before so...

I would favour a managed retreat, I recognise the culture, economic, history and identity aspects of hill farming in Wales, it is a major part of the fabric of communities in Mid and North Wales.

I would favour the Welsh government looking to create new business opportunities and when farmers retire possibly helping communities buy the land.

Ah, the usual romantic guff in lieu of an argument. Jolly good. Tell me, what exactly would these 'communities' do with this land they've bought?

Yes I guess it is a bit knee jerk to say that without sheep the Welsh hill farms would all be covered in forest, but we would definatly have a more species rich ecosystem.

As for the land, communities might want to see the land revert to nature, if it cant be farmed without subsidy, we have to question its economic value and looks at its value enviromentally.

[hedgehog]

Jul 18, 2016 0:36:53 GMT Sibboleth said:

Jul 18, 2016 0:11:49 GMT pieandmash said:

I thought that my post was fairly clear. Hill farming is unprofitable and only viable because of subsidies. Therefore, the more land one has, the more subsidies one can accrue, and thus it's an exercise in subsidy farming.

Certainly most hill farmers need subsidies in order to remain afloat (let alone competitive) but it's total sh!t to claim that they are 'subsidy farmers'. The exact functioning of the CAP in Wales (but not England) is not quite as you presume, but that's barely relevant as this is about subsidies post CAP...

I'm afraid that I still don't understand this:

Why?

What's hard to understand? The social disaster part is obvious enough, and the latter really ought to be as well; a well maintained landscape (something that is good for the environment as it is good for biodiversity, and the uplands are waaaaaaay more biodiverse than is widely believed) requires work.
[/quote]
We should keep some of the uplands as they are today, but far better to remove sheep from many areas www.theguardian.com/environment/georgemonbiot/2013/may/22/britain-uplands-farming-subsidies

[boogieeck]

Yep, this going to be fun. And the Minister responsible is ......Andrea Leadsom. The most significant agriculture minister perhaps ever and one who will have to deal with devolved administrations run by parties who regard her as the anti Christ.

The Scottish Government will mostly want to do whatever it is that Westminster does not want done, so as to whine about not being given enough money and to portray itself as more caring. Big agri business will want tariffs maintained against the US, Canada, Australia, NZ and the developing world. Crofters will want to be paid to continue to live in poverty with a nice view.

For myself, I find myself in bizarre agreement with some aspects of the Green party, I want to see subsidies phased out mainly because I recognize the impossibility of simply abolishing them. I would like to see the budget very locally devolved.

In some locations the budget would be best spent buying farmers out, in some subsidizing them to do things that benefit society and the environment but which are economically damaging, such as retaining hedgerows, in some community ownership and a move to forestry, in some rural infrastructure such as social housing, flood prevention and road maintenance. What this means for the devolved administrations is Leadsom giving them control and then publicly regretting their use of it, in particular their failure to devolve it further down to local authorities. The downside obviously is that in some locales, farmers would still get subsidies while two miles away the subsidy was phased out. The problem with that is not that a farmer loses his subsidy, it it that he is having to compete with a farmer who still has one.

[right]

In the end both the UK and the rEU will want things to be as normal as possible for the term of this and the next Parliament. This means the Norway Option EEA framework. Agriculture is not covered in this. So I suspect there will be a "shadow CAP" framework. How much this can be devolved downwards is unclear to me.

[neilm]

Jul 18, 2016 0:36:53 GMT Sibboleth said:

Jul 18, 2016 0:11:49 GMT pieandmash said:

I thought that my post was fairly clear. Hill farming is unprofitable and only viable because of subsidies. Therefore, the more land one has, the more subsidies one can accrue, and thus it's an exercise in subsidy farming.

Certainly most hill farmers need subsidies in order to remain afloat (let alone competitive) but it's total sh!t to claim that they are 'subsidy farmers'.

It's an absolute that if you need a subsidy to stay afloat then you're a subsidy farmer (or shed manufacturer or whatever).