Applying a New Approach to English Agricultural Policy Public Payments for Public Goods – an Example of How It Might Work in the River Aire Catchment
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
November 2017 Applying a new approach to English Agricultural Policy Public payments for public goods – an example of how it might work in the River Aire Catchment A contribution by Yorkshire Wildlife Trust for a better post-Brexit English Agricultural Policy Rob Stoneman, Phil Whelpdale, David Gregory and Louise Wilkinson 1 Introduction This paper is designed as a contribution to an low intensity farming systems – typically grazing – immensely important debate – the development and includes three working farms. of English Agricultural Policy after the UK leaves the European Union (Brexit). This debate is fundamental 1.2 State of Nature to the quality of life of all UK citizens as agriculture is by far the most dominant land-use in the UK – Wildlife in the UK is in serious trouble. The State of occupying about 80% of England’s land surface. Nature Report² published in 2016 showed that 56% of all the species studied have declined over the The paper applies some emerging thinking to a last 50 years and 31% have declined strongly. practical case study. The wider context for this More than one in ten are thought to be under worked example is described and set within a range threat of extinction in the UK. of recent policy documents including: UK wildlife is in severe decline because of a n Future Land Management Policy range of issues of which the most important (The Wildlife Trusts England, August 2017) and systemic issues are intensive agriculture, n Headline Principles for Future Agriculture Land damaging development, atmospheric nitrogen Peatland restoration on High West Moor Management (Greener UK Coalition, April 2017) pollution, resource depletion (especially industrial n Agriculture at a Crossroads fishing at sea) and climate change. Well managed (Greener UK Coalition, October 2016) conservation projects are successful and can agriculture, especially arable agriculture, seeks to bureaucratic and poorly targeted, can be effective n New Markets and Public Goods reverse species and habitat decline. For example, create monoculture fields that are devoid of all but in conserving wildlife (for example having a very (National Trust, 2016) red kite have been successfully reintroduced into the crop. Much of lowland arable England is now significant impact in restoring damaged blanket bog n Farming and Land Management Policy England whilst the decline of bittern has been deeply hostile for wildlife. Even in less intensively in the English uplands). (Wildlife and Countryside Link, September 2017). arrested and reversed through habitat creation of farmed areas such as the uplands, agricultural reed-bed. However, the network of protected areas intensification has had a deep impact. For example, Agriculture also benefits from a range of other The paper uses the Aire Catchment in Yorkshire and nature reserves is inadequate to stem local most upland hay meadow has been destroyed, indirect subsidies including exemption from as a case-study to examine the impact of extinctions that are driven by habitat fragmentation³. leaving less than 1,000 ha remaining4, largely inheritance tax, fuel duties, business rate changing policy to direct contracting for public converted to monoculture (rye grass) grass used concessions, some planning restrictions and benefits and services. It concludes that a move 1.3 Current agricultural systems to make silage. Moreover, agriculture is by far the compensation for losses as a result of disease. away from subsidy to direct public contracts for biggest land-use in England, with 80% of England identified public goods, if managed well, would By far the biggest cause of wildlife decline is intensive given over to agriculture; its intensification has been Despite such enormous land subsidies and be transformational and dramatically secure agriculture. This is hardly surprising as intensive catastrophic for wildlife. This is, of course, not the special treatment, agriculture has declined as environmental, quality of life and economic benefit fault of individual farmers rather it reflects deliberate a proportion of the British economy and now for all, not least the UK’s farming industry. public policy to create a more efficient farming accounts for just 0.37% of GDP employing about industry even at the expense of the environment. 1% of the British workforce. On marginal and 1.1 Yorkshire Wildlife Trust wetter soils – the uplands and west of Britain – and the Wildlife Trusts Such intensification is, in part, the result of the agriculture is already in crisis with pastoral farms European Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). This losing money despite subsidy. Many of these farms Yorkshire Wildlife Trust is one of the 47 Wildlife policy has its origins in post-1945 food security are characterised by an ageing workforce with the Trusts who, with the Royal Society of Wildlife Trusts, concerns following the Second World War⁵. It make up the Wildlife Trusts partnership. Together, is now a remarkably expensive subsidy system the partnership is the largest UK voluntary consuming 40% of the EU budget and dispensing organisation dedicated to protecting wildlife and about £3 billion to land managers and farmers “The Common wild places everywhere – on land and at sea, across the UK. The budget is mostly spent on and supported by more than 800,000 members. income support – the amount of income is paid in Agricultural Policy is Nationally, the Wildlife Trusts advise over 3,000 relation to the amount of land owned (or tenanted) farmers and landowners every year and manage – the so called Pillar 1 Basic Payment Scheme. A not working for the over 200,000 hectares of land directly¹. Yorkshire much smaller amount is paid to Pillar Two reserved Wildlife Trust manages 103 nature reserves totalling for rural development. These are ‘co-funded’ 3,000 ha directly and works with many other land schemes some of which relate to environmental environment or for the managers across a further 6,000 ha per year. The The Cre8 Barn at YWT's Stirley Farm near Huddersfield objectives such as wildlife conservation. The higher Yorkshire Wildlife Trust estate is characterised by level/countryside stewardship scheme, though agricultural industry. ” ⁴ http://www.wildlifetrusts.org/wildlife/habitats/upland-hay-meadows ¹ http://www.wildlifetrusts.org/sites/default/files/final_pdf.pdf ⁵ http://www.dieterhelm.co.uk/natural-capital/environment/agricultural-policy-after-brexit/ ² http://stateofnature.wildlifetrusts.org/ ⁶ http://www.ncl.ac.uk/media/wwwnclacuk/agriculturefoodandruraldevelopment/files/Hill%20Farming%20in%20England%202013_14_V3_final.pdf ³ http://archive.defra.gov.uk/environment/biodiversity/documents/201009space-for-nature.pdf average age of upland farmers now at 57⁶. interested parties agree that the current Common Policy) cannot help to maintain food security or settlements from flooding, enhancing biodiversity The Common Agricultural Policy is not working for Agricultural Policy should not simply be replicated self-sufficiency as income support simply raises and improving access to wild places so that the environment or for the agricultural industry. into a new devolved English Agricultural Policy. land values making agriculture more expensive. people’s health and wellbeing is enhanced. Brexit gives an opportunity for reform. Helm sets out three main options: Food security and self-sufficiency are two entirely different policy objectives. Specific public goods are best defined by those 1.4 Options for reform 1. A continuation of income payments to maintain directly responsible for the public (rather than food security and self-sufficiency, as broadly The best route to British food security is through private) interest. There might be one body Professor Dieter Helm – an Oxford University advocated by the National Farmers Union⁹. global tariff-free trade ensuring a diverse global responsible for these public goods in land use, economist and Chair of the Natural Capital food supply. Self-sufficiency requires a ban on or perhaps many. They should decide which are Committee⁷ – considered options available for 2. A move away from Pillar 1 income support exports diverting export consumption to home the priorities in particular geographical areas agricultural policy after Brexit⁸. In this report, he payments to just Pillar 2 measures such as consumption (and production). This would and allocate the budgets accordingly. In essence lays bare the effects of the Common Agricultural environmental stewardship. massively increase food insecurity. Income support land managers, and especially farmers, become Policy for both the British countryside and its does neither, nor is self-sufficiency in any way contractors to the state providing a range of wildlife and for the agricultural industry. 3. A very different approach in which identified desirable to British taxpayers. public goods that cannot be procured through public goods are simply bought by the tax payer the market place (in the way that food can). A distribution of subsidy, mainly based on the through direct payments to whoever can deliver Option 2 – Environmental Subsidy Monies currently allocated to implementing the amount of land owned, ensures that most of those public goods in the most cost-effective way. The second option is critiqued as it runs counter to Common Agricultural Policy can be diverted to the gains of the Common Agricultural Policy go the commonly accepted principle that the polluter the provision of these public goods but may well to bigger and richer landowners, though are Helm demolishes