Twitter LinkedIn

Farming is part of a much greater whole

Appearing before the Commons European Scrutiny and Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committees and the Lords EU Energy and Environment Subcommittee recently, Minister for Agriculture George Eustice laid out the principles guiding his approach to the farming sector as we leave the Common Agricultural Policy.

April 2017

To their credit, both he and the Environment Secretary Andrea Leadsom have made some encouraging signs in the last few months. Before the Committees, Eustice name-checked environmental standards, animal welfare and the overall resilience of the farming system as key concerns for a new agricultural policy. These issues will only become more important as the UK is exposed to sharper international competition beyond the shelter of the EU single market while also having to meet its Paris Agreement commitments and rise to the challenge of climate change.

Today, with the majority of our land used for farming, a good agricultural policy is essential for safeguarding many of the public benefits we derive from rural areas. Indeed, there is a growing consensus between farmers and environmentalists that any new policy must be much more transparent about the benefits that farming provides to wider society, especially in the looming bunfight over post-Brexit state funding. The problem is that these benefits cannot be viewed in isolation; the risk of doing so is worse environmental outcomes and a higher cost to the public purse.

The most prescient case of this is flood management. Under our current agricultural system – with public payments favouring larger holdings and many farmers struggling to negotiate a fair price with processors and retailers – the incentive is to maximise the amount of land given over to production. This approach might yield short-term financial benefits in one area but the damage caused by soil degradation is systemic. If the town downhill from the farm floods after a heavy winter’s rainfall, it is the local authority, the regional utilities companies, the Environment Agency and still others who have to deal with the consequences. Quite apart from the human and environmental cost, this often means the taxpayer both pays farmers via the Common Agricultural Policy and then pays again to deal with the problems it causes. There is surely a way of balancing the different benefits of food production and flood mitigation to achieve the optimal outcome.

To take a more positive example, farming also has the potential to support public health at a time when the costs of curative healthcare are rising and the prevention of chronic ailments linked to diet and lifestyle is high on the political agenda. While there is already strong evidence in favour of shifting our diets to consume more fruit and vegetables and less highly-processed food, a recent study by IEEP and Friends of the Earth also identified a range of physical and mental health benefits enjoyed by those with access to green spaces. An agricultural policy that promotes both high production standards and access to the countryside for town- and city-dwellers could save a huge amount from the NHS budget further down the line.

In order to maximise the positive impact of farming, we need a joined-up approach that sees agricultural policy as part of a much wider analysis of costs and benefits. One such approach might be to adapt the highly successful Scottish model of a national land use strategy for other parts of the UK. While avoiding the difficulties of top-down control or full-scale nationalisation, a land use strategy could coordinate different public, private and charitable bodies to achieve the best outcomes most efficiently. To return to the example of flooding, public funds could be allocated to support agroforestry and initiatives to improve soil absorption rate, thereby reducing flood risk and saving vast sums in clean-up costs. The total savings to the taxpayer from a land use strategy are potentially huge.

Brexit presents a once-in-a-generation opportunity to rethink our approach to both farming and wider land use in this country. I think Eustice is heading in the right direction, but I also want to hear more about him hammering on the doors of his Ministerial colleagues – including at Number 10 – and starting conversations about how the new agricultural policy can be linked up with different initiatives across government. After all, farming and the public benefits it provides us are too important to be left to one Department alone.

James Bartholomeusz

Campaigns and Policy Assistant, CPRE

Find CPRE on Twitter: @CPRE

The opinions expressed in this blog are the author’s and not necessarily those of the wider Link membership.