While 2014 maintained its alliterative high with Monday's fracking announcement (following debates about offsetting, flooding, food and farming), I want to offer a flashback to events at the end of 2013.
If you remember, in December, the UK Government and devolved administrations had the chance to bolster progressive widllife-friendly farming by moving up to 15% of direct farm subsidies (in the so-called Pillar 1 of the Common Agriculture Policy) to support rural development programmes (Pillar II of the CAP which finances agri-environment and which delivers the best value for taxpayers' money).
While the amount of money at stake varied across the UK, we had urged all administrations to transfer the maximum amount to help address international and national commitments to recovering farmland wildlife and protecting water bodies. It was clear that decisions made would have a massive consequence of the future of our countryside for years to come.
And this is what they decided...
Wales: 15%
England: 12% with a commitment to move to 15% in 2017/8
Scotland: 9.5%
Northern Ireland: 0%
You can get a sense of the different moods across the UK by reading our press releases. In Wales (here), there was joy, in England (here) and Scotland (here) there was dismay, while in Northern Ireland (here) there was, quite rightly, outrage.
Peter Kendall, the outgoing President of the NFU, has at times been the Moriarty to the RSPB's Sherlock Holmes. He has been an impressive operator but he has occasionally said some very silly things and he saved the silliest for his final speech at the Oxford Farming Conference last week (see here). Having started with a disingenuous swipe at the RSPB, he had the nerve to argue that creating Pillar II was a mistake and would make "farmers permanently dependent on public support". I think some in the audience choked on their hobnobs.
The facts speak for themselves - for England, for example, only £3.5 billion of the £15 billion of subsidies going to farmers over the next seven years will support Pillar II measures: agri-environment and rural development. Put it another way - only £93 of £400 of the annual taxpayers' contribution to the CAP will support things which benefit the public such as an attractive countryside rich in wildlife to which people have access.
But, having led the lobby against transfering money into agri-environment schemes, the NFU and their counterparts across the UK, let down those farmers that wanted to continue to farm progressively.
I had a number of conversations with farmers last week who were fearful for the future of their farms. These were farmers who were proud of what they had been able to do for wildlife thanks to financial support offered through agri-environment schemes. Yet, when theses schemes come to an end, there is no guarantee that the money will be available to allow them to continue to manage their land with wildlife in mind. For some, they may have to follow a different path to maintain viable farm businesses. While this would ultimately be a business decision, I know that some would find this heartbreaking and it would, of course, be devastating for wildlife on their farms.
So, what to do?
Five things:
- in England, Scotland and Wales, we will work with officials to make sure the new agri-environment schemes (funded through Pillar II) work hard for wildlife. We now have 20 years of experience of using these schemes and we know what makes them work. I am confident that we can still get great results for wildlife through well-designed and well-targeted schemes and we will continue to do what we can to ensure farmers receive the advice they need.
- in Northern Ireland, we will continue to urge the NI Executive to provide the funds to protect the environment and recover threatened wildlife. The CAP cupboard is bare, so they will have to look elsewhere.
- we need more food companies to source their ingredients from and reward farmers that manage their land for wildlife (confirmed through certification schemes such as Conservation Grade - see here).
- explore innovative ways of rewarding farmers for protecting and restoring those services that nature gives us for free: for example flood protection, carbon storage and clean water while penalising those that use these services unsustainably
- from now, develop an irresistible force for change in the next round of CAP reform through building a wide-ranging coalition of NGOs and farmers who value nature both here and across Europe. Our High Nature Value Farming coalition (see here) is just the start.
But, you may have other ideas.
What else do you think we should be doing to help farmland wildlife and progressive farming?
It would be great to hear your views.
[Image shows Andy Hay's image of small scale trials of potential solutions to farmland bird decline before use in larger scale research trials or agri-environment scheme options, RSPB Hope Farm, Cambridgeshire, England, July 2012]
My concern Martin about the offsetting issue is the RSPB's use of "yes if...". Your six criteria are excellent and must be met and each case taken on it's merits. I can't see, for example, that any attempt to offset ancient woodland can possibly be viable. I suggested on a previous response (10th Jan) that you use "no unless..." as your objective. Using the word "yes" just leaves you vulnerable to politicians saying that they have you on side which diminishes your conservation status in the eyes of the public. I do not doubt that your objectives are sound and deeply held.
Mr Ibis - we have looked very closely and will continue to do so. As I wrote previously, our six tests of a viable scheme are clear and these would need to be met to attract our support. Remember that we essentially already have an offsetting scheme not just through the Nature Directives but also through existing planning - section 106 agreements and community infrastructure levies. I have always said that if this is about making existing compensatory habitat schemes work better, then great, let's explore the options, but if it is about growth, count us out.
Rob - on food prices, or indeed energy prices, there needs to be an open and honest debate about true cost. No prospect of that any time soon...
Love your Moriarty v Holmes scenario - so much so that I've linked this to my resume of the Oxford Farming Conference (OFC) appearing soon on the RICS website as a personal view.('More quiet conversations behind the waterfall than trying to throw each other off the cliff')
I did note that Kendall mentioned his speech as not reflecting NFU policy and Nightjar (twice over) might note there are a number of ways of calculating self sufficiency
www.foodsecurity.ac.uk/.../seasons-greedings-self-sufficiency-and-the-uk-food-system
There was much uncertainty at the OFC which was reflecting in some of the speakers at the conf. No one enjoyed my final question to the panel on the second day 'would food prices go up to reflect environmental costs of food production or go down to avoid Arab Spring insurrection and avoid afflicting those at food banks?
Your call? Tough one.
"What else do you think we should be doing to help farmland wildlife and progressive farming?"
For a start look very closely at your attitude to the government's offsetting objectives
Peter Kendall's speech is well worth reading. He says that the CAP's key objective - solely to increase food production - is as right now as it was 55 years ago. That, I think is the line in the sand because within that statement is the assumption and the in-practise reality that increasing production is at the cost of damage to any other interest - wildlife, water resources, the landscape - and that is exactly, precisely what CAP has achieved. Peter Kendall is also proud to have introduced food security to the political agenda - and if ever there was a more spurious, scare story based premise please tell me ! Food production in Europe has gone through the roof - Britain is 70% sufficient - France, with the same population, but much larger land area produces 3 times as much as Britain - work it out, then bear in mind that we aren't talking about national survival as were the authors of our farming policies in 1947, we are talking about super, luxury food production where a high proportion of our grain goes into meat at a nutritional ratio at best of 4:1. What that means is that at the WW2 level of nutrition this country is way, massively in surplus in terms of the food we need to survive. Kendall argues, as is his right, for the narrowest of single interests - and, with NFU, has over many years persuaded many people that their's is the only valid voice. It is up to the rest of us whether we accept that view or not. I don't and I think its as damaging to farming as it is to the rest of our environment.