Are we redefining the role of the Farmer ?
Britain has had a cheap food policy since the war , but the time has come to re-evaluate our priorities . Pressure on prices has forced farmers to sacrifice ecological protection in the name of productivity . Government subsidies , while designed to encourage sustainable farming , have unfortunately failed to deliver tangible benefits to wildlife . With this in mind , Fisher German , a leading rural consultancy , takes a look at what the role of the farmer is and how it needs to change …
| Feature
T he new sustainable standard
Individual trailblazers are creating new models of sustainable farming , but a complete overhaul of the subsidy system is needed to ensure that all farmers are required to deliver environmental services . Brexit – while a threat to the protections enshrined in EU law – provides an opportunity to reset the balance , ensuring that British farmers are valued for their stewardship of the environment as much as for the food they produce .
Current ‘ sustainable farming ’ subsidies , under Pillar 1 of EU structures , consist of the Basic Payment Scheme ( BPS ) and Greening obligations . Under the BPS , farmers are paid a fixed flat rate per hectare , which varies between lowland , upland or moorland .
The Greening obligations , required for further payment , include the rotation of a minimum number of different crops ( Crop Diversification ), and the creation of Ecological Focus Areas . In addition , Pillar 2 grants support the UK ’ Countryside Stewardship scheme , aimed at maintaining areas of existing high biodiversity , such as limestone grassland or neutral meadows , or specific bird breeding habitats . The BPS under which farmers are paid regardless of what they produce , providing the land is maintained as farmland , has failed to deliver , because it offers no incentive to engage in ecological protection . Indeed , ‘ nonqualifying ’ features , wildlife-rich habitats such as ponds , wetlands and wide hedgerows , are actually deducted from the area for which farmers can receive payment ; encouraging their destruction . A fair system ?
With respect to Greening , the rules for Crop Diversification contain many loopholes , while the Ecological Focus Area ( EFAs ) obligation is poorly specified ; it does not enforce improvement , but allows farmers to claim for already existing ecological features , while catchand-cover crop obligations have failed to improve biodiversity due to narrow restrictions on the species permitted and the duration that they are grown for .
Ironically , frustration with the present system , in which even high inputs and production levels do not enable farmers to compete with cheap food from abroad , is driving innovation . It has encouraged a growing minority of farmers to experiment with more traditional systems , producing higher quality food that commands a premium in the market and simultaneously achieving a multitude of ecological benefits . Trial and error
One farm has been trialling with using grass and herbal leys utilising a rotational approach which gives nature the opportunity to restore soil health and faunal diversity between crop yields .
In 2011 an 11-hectare field , which had been in continuous arable cropping for over 30 years , was drilled with grass seed and white clover and left for 5 years , untouched save for grazing
www . farmingmonthly . co . uk sheep and cows . In 2015 the grass was removed and winter oilseed rape and winter wheat were direct drilled into the field . The direct drilling method precludes the need to cultivate the soil for 7 years , and so the field is currently acting as a carbon sequestration facility .
According to the farmer ’ s data , soil carbon has increased from 1.4 % in 2011 to 2.6 % in 2015 ; the earthworm population and the structural quality of the soil improved . This in turn provides the foundation for stable crop yields , improving commercial revenue .
On the farm ’ s other fields , the cropping programme has moved away from narrow , 2- crop rotations of wheat and rape to rotations of 8-10 diverse crops , including spring crops , linseed and catch-and-cover crops which act as green ploughs and cultivators . A suckler herd and sheep flocks now graze the rotational grass leys ; and close to 20,000 extra trees have been planted , the area under which will be used for free-range chickens .
The farm has implemented a monitoring programme to record achievements and failures , including annual soil tests and a bird survey to audit the farmland birds . Looking after the future
The grass leys have meant that soil is now in good enough condition to allow direct drilling for the foreseeable future . This has resulted in a 65- 70 % saving on establishment costs and reduced CO2 emissions previously caused by in field cultivations prior to drilling . The longer crop rotation has helped to improve the soil health , so that herbicide sprays across the farm have been reduced by 10 – 15 % as the ground becomes cleaner .
Other estates are experimenting with various forms of ‘ re-wilding ’, allowing natural rediversification and enhanced profitability ; whilst groups such as the Pasture-Fed Livestock Association ( PFLA ) are working to encourage the restoration of species-rich grasslands , and also producing higher value meat at lower cost . The Brexit effect
While it is widely understood that British environmental policy will initially be identical to EU legislation , the current farm subsidies are only guaranteed until 2022 .
Speculation suggests that , once farming subsidies are paid directly from the Treasury and not through the EU , the public may increasingly demand quantifiable tax-payer benefits in return for subsidy payments .
The recent indication from Mr Gove that farmers are likely to be paid by results – whether increases in the ’ natural capital ’ of the soil and water or better delivery of biodiversity across the countryside – certainly suggests that change is on the way .
Forty years ago , the respected Professor of Agriculture Gerald Wibberley was fond of saying that farmers will always respond to ‘ price signals ’, growing whatever society pays them to . This concept could form the basis of a new contract between farmers and their communities . An EU-funded pilot scheme in Wensleydale , for example , awards farmers with grants , dependent on the biodiversity they can produce in the dale ’ s hay meadows , including re-establishing meadow flora and increasing the population of wet grassland birds , such as the Curlew . Farmers are already discussing their achievements , and even competing for the best result .
To restore biodiversity and encourage a shift away from intensive farming methods , government subsidies need to be refocused along similar lines . A new eco partnership ?
Any new scheme will need to be more helpful both for farmers and for the environment . It seems highly likely that the declines of many species , and the catastrophic overall reduction in invertebrate populations , must be ascribed to changes in the chemical – and not just agrochemical – environment ; its scale is such that it cannot be due to habitat loss .
It will not be possible to restore biodiversity without addressing methods of production in the area of intensive farming . To do this , it seems clear that much of the BPS funding , ( around E25.1 billion over 2014-2020 ), could with advantage be re-directed towards CSS type schemes ( Pillar II grants ( E2.6 billion 2014-2020 ) which help to create and restore more biodiversity over a much wider area , as well as farm innovation .
It is not simply a matter of numbers , though . The administration of grants needs to be made simpler and cheaper , and targets need to be more integrated across landscapes . Regulatory focus in UK , unlike most of Europe , has tended to home in on details of individual fields , at the expense of a more comprehensive overview of the potential for reconnecting land and restoring soils and isolated or lost features across larger areas . Many other considerations
DEFRA ’ s focus on individual fields should be urgently replaced with discussions between groups of landowners ( inhibited by present confidentiality rules ) about implementing lowinput systems and restoring connected habitat systems across a suite of adjoining farms .
These groupings should reflect soils , geology and drainage , and semi-natural vegetation patterns . The countryside is one comprehensive unit , not just individual plots of farmland , and grants and cross-compliance checks should be designed accordingly . As the ‘ Making Space for Nature ’ report of 2010 , led by ecologist Professor Sir John Lawton , stressed , biodiverse areas need to be bigger , better , and betterconnected .
These concerns must feed into the promised overhaul of the system , to ensure that each and every farmer is required to deliver environmental services . These could include carbon sequestration , the storage of floodwater to prevent it flooding a town , and the conservation of biodiverse wildlife habitats . In short , DEFRA should change its philosophy from control to enabling .
February 2018 | Farming Monthly | 09