Last month I blogged here about some important decisions on essential funding for wildlife-friendly farming in England. We were expecting our Secretary of State for the Environment, Owen Paterson, to have made them by the end of this month. The great news is that the other week he made a clear statement to the entire House of Commons on one of these decisions. He confirmed clearly that he would transfer 15% of EU farming funds from the huge ‘Direct Payments’ pot, which goes straight to farmers with very few conditions attached, to the far smaller ‘Rural Development’ pot, which supports wildlife-friendly farming as well as lots of other investment in rural communities and economies, delivering great value for public money. This is exactly what we’ve been asking for together with your help, and we’re very pleased.
But the decision on transferring the funding wasn’t the only important decision to be made, and the deadline for others has been postponed, which means there is still time to write to your MP and ask them to encourage Mr Paterson to maintain this fantastic support for nature on farms across the rest of his decision-making. If you’ve not had the chance to write a letter yet and you’ve got 10 minutes to spare, write to your MP now.
It’s vital that the boosted ‘Rural Development’ funding for farmers and land managers prioritises spending on well-designed wildlife-friendly farming schemes that support our farmland nature where it needs it most. Protecting the natural environment that a healthy UK farming system so relies on just isn’t rewarded by the market, but these schemes go a long way to help address that failure.
Even with the 15% transfer of funds away from the ‘Direct Payments’ pot, it will still remain by far the largest source of funding for farming. Almost all farmers receive direct payments but they fund few public benefits. As I mentioned in my last blog, to qualify for these payments farmers must meet some requirements (such as EU rules on water, soil and animal health) and over the next seven-years that these funds apply, there will also be a new ‘greening’ requirement. This means that a certain proportion of each farm will need to be managed for environmental benefit. If put into practice well this could provide a big boost to wildlife across the UK because almost every farmer would have to take some basic measures for nature, which would also secure much better public value from direct payments.
Mr Paterson still has to make decisions on these two issues - how he spends the money he will transfer to Rural Development funds, and how the new ‘greening’ requirements work here in England. Here are a couple of points you could raise with your MP:
You can find out who your MP is and their email address at http://findyourmp.parliament.uk/, or send your message through http://www.writetothem.com/. Got questions? Leave a comment or email campaigns@rspb.org.uk. You can help us monitor the progress of our campaign by sending a copy of your letter and any responses you get to the same email address.
Thanks for your support!
From an economic point of view, investing in wildlife-friendly farming represents good value for money. As well as helping to enhance a range of ecosystem services of benefit to farmers and agricultural production, these investments help to reward those farmers that are producing things that the market will not provide on its own. Public money spent on agri-environment schemes delivers a number of vital public goods that underpin our economic prosperity and well-being. The ground-breaking UK National Ecosystem Assessment has shown that pollinators are worth many millions to the UK economy each year, while visits to the countryside and the wider natural environment (of which there hundred of millions each year) generate billions in local economic benefits.
Steph,while i support wildlife friendly farming absolutely we need to recognise that about 2% of the population give or take a small adjustment agree with us so the other 98% are primarily interested in cheap food and hi-tech gadgets and play no part with wildlife so it is fair that the majority of payments to farmers go to produce cheap food.
No other small group of people get their hobby financed by 100% of the population and if we want more money for our hobby it would be fairer if we put our hands in our own pockets.
Hi Sooty, thanks for your comment. We'd not disagree that supporting UK food production is important and Jenna, one of our agriculture policy officers, responded to this point in her reply to your comment in my last post.
As I've touched on here, food production is something that's rewarded by markets, but we don't generally pay for the environmental protection that supports a healthy farmland environment when we buy our food - the environment is an economic 'externality'. That's why we think it's so important that some of this taxpayers' money supports the great work so many farmers are doing to look after our wildlife and the wider environment.
The proportion of money devoted to wildlife-friendly farming is tiny by comparison to direct payments to farmers, but makes a dramatic difference to our wildlife because it's the biggest fund we have in the UK to protect it. UK farmers are delivering this fantastically in so many places, and they should be supported and rewarded to carry on doing it - because so much of our countryside is farmed their work makes a big difference to nature.
Presumably you eat food produced by U K farmers,maybe it is time you recognise that this is a public benefit.The arrogance of some at rspb never fails to amaze me.