PROPOSAL 15
Reform the Agricultural Transition Plan subsidy schemes to improve self sufficiency in food production
The post Brexit Agricultural Transition Plan has seen subsidy support for farmers go from a politically neutral land area-based scheme to one which incentivises non food producing nature focused ones justified by the need to reach net zero. Not only does this presuppose an unquestioning belief in a climate crisis being caused by human CO2 emissions but it is bad news for our food security and for the separation of powers between agriculture and the state. It is a blatant example of political coercion and it pushes struggling farm businesses into alignment with the U.N. derived climate emergency narrative. Furthermore, the plan states that farmers must now deliver public goods in the form of environmentally focused management actions in order to receive public money, this is misleading as it insinuates that farmers were previously not delivering a public good for their payments which is quite untrue. There have always been wide uptake of the many countryside stewardship programmes available and farmers have in fact always delivered a public good in return for their subsidy payments. They maintained their land and kept it available for its original intended purpose as a food producing asset for the nation. Even if you were not able to farm the land you still received your basic payment to ensure you kept it available and in the national reserve. The idea behind this contract was that should the need arise through war or any other form of disaster then agricultural production could be quickly increased to meet requirements.
In financial terms basic payment subsidy schemes are never anything more than a contribution towards the costs of maintaining a land-based asset and although they do make a valuable contribution to farm income sums of around £90 per acre are not much when improving field drainage, maintaining boundaries, clearing fallen trees and annual hedge trimming tasks, to name but a few, are considered.
It is my belief that subsidy payments should be sufficient only to cover the costs of maintaining land for use within the national utilizable agricultural acreage, they should not enable farmers to survive financially without producing food. The incentive to farm should come from economically viable circumstances created by price protections, better all-round business development funding, low interest loan schemes and other supportive policies. However, the concept of subsidy incentive is a good one if used in the right way, that is to encourage more agricultural production in sectors with the highest food security risk. Subsidy incentives should be pointed towards increasing production in areas with the lowest levels of self-sufficiency such as fresh vegetables 55%, fresh fruit 17%, pork 69% and sugar beet 57% to give a few examples. This would rapidly reduce our exposure to food security risk and bolster the economy through the creation of further employment within farming and its related support industries.
Our message is clear, although we welcome wildlife and nature friendly schemes which reward farmers for enhanced environmental stewardship, agricultural policy must be centred around food production and reducing exposure to food security risk. The reforming of our traditional land area based basic subsidy scheme is required. We now need one that is proportionate and dual purpose. In its primary function it must support farmers by sufficiently covering the costs associated with land asset management and in its secondary function it must create a fast track to maximum achievable self-sufficiency. Basic payment subsidy levels should never be high enough to remove the need for farmers to survive financially through the production of essential food crops however, incentives should be given to encourage growth in sectors which currently have the lowest food production to supply ratio and therefore carry the highest level of national food security risk.