by
Fisher German
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, ‘non-qualifying’ features, wildlife-rich habitats such as ponds, wetlands and wide hedgerows, are actually deducted from the area for which farmers can receive payment, thus 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 catch-and-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.
Read the full article, HERE.
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, ‘non-qualifying’ features, wildlife-rich habitats such as ponds, wetlands and wide hedgerows, are actually deducted from the area for which farmers can receive payment, thus 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 catch-and-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.
Read the full article, HERE.
The Global Miller
This blog is maintained by The Global Miller staff and is supported by the magazine Milling and Grain
which is published by Perendale Publishers Limited.
For additional daily news from milling around the world: global-milling.com
