Posted on behalf of Tom Lancaster, Senior Policy Officer
For everyone interested in agriculture and agriculture policy, attempting to keep up with Government policy developments recently has felt like a thankless task. In England, delays to the 25 year plans for the environment and food and farming have led to jokes about them being 24, or even 23 year plans when they’re finally published. The announcement of a General Election on 8th June is likely to further derail Defra’s plans for consulting on the future of food, farming and fisheries policies in the coming two months.
Across the UK, there is deep uncertainty about what policy will look like after we have left the EU, and what degree of commonality or difference there will be between the four countries of the UK.
For those of us interested in getting a good outcome for farming and nature after we have left the EU, this degree of uncertainty can make you feel discombobulated to say the least. It can lead to a sense of drift, as we wait to see what governments do. But it is becoming increasingly apparent that no one really knows what’s going on.
So if we assume that to be the case, we can either put our feet up and take a nap until someone in a government somewhere arrives with a plan, or we can crack on and start figuring out what we want.
We’ve opted for the latter.
Cirl bunting habitat. Image: rspb-images.com
In February we set out, with sixteen other organisations, top level principles for a future Sustainable Farming and Land Use policy in England. Across the UK, we have been working with others to set out our stall on more detailed asks for a future policy, with a recent paper published through Scottish Environment Link calling for a Future Farming and Rural Land Use Policy to renew Scotland’s rural areas.
Common to all of these positions is the argument that public money invested in agriculture should secure genuine public goods, such as more wildlife, better flood risk management and resilience to climate change. This would be a step change from the status quo of area-based subsidies, but one that is needed if the taxpayer is to see real value flowing from their investment in farming and land management.
Farming and nature both need long-term stability, but now more than ever, every pound of public money spent needs to be justified. The need to secure the future of our natural resources commands support across the political spectrum, and delivers tangible benefits for society that can’t be paid for over the counter.
Yellowhammer. Image: rspb-images.com
Because of this, we believe that making the environment the central focus of future agriculture and land use policies in the UK is not just needed to maintain and restore our natural environment; it is also the best way of securing long-term, stable support for the sector.
Do you agree? We’d love to hear what you think.