Changes to the Common Agricultural Policy
Discussion
Finally the Cap seems to be moving in the right direction.
Farmers will be paid an 'Environmental Steward' Grant, depending on how they maintain the land.
Eg maintaining hedgerows and dry stone walls, and leaving buffer strips at the edges of fields to help wildlife.
To my mind the only reason to pay Farmers any money at all is if they keep the countryside looking nice for the rest of us when we visit.
The sooner they switch all funding from production subsidies to simply maintaining the land the better.
>>> Edited by JagLover on Friday 4th March 12:41
Farmers will be paid an 'Environmental Steward' Grant, depending on how they maintain the land.
Eg maintaining hedgerows and dry stone walls, and leaving buffer strips at the edges of fields to help wildlife.
To my mind the only reason to pay Farmers any money at all is if they keep the countryside looking nice for the rest of us when we visit.
The sooner they switch all funding from production subsidies to simply maintaining the land the better.
>>> Edited by JagLover on Friday 4th March 12:41
I hope the view that you see is the one that you want!
The British Countryside reflects the management at that time. You want maintenance of hedges, thats fine, but remember they wern't always there they were put there by...............farmers.
So why should it be decreed that we keep it as it is today?
With no support for production you will see changes in what you see as you travel through the country.
The British Countryside reflects the management at that time. You want maintenance of hedges, thats fine, but remember they wern't always there they were put there by...............farmers.
So why should it be decreed that we keep it as it is today?
With no support for production you will see changes in what you see as you travel through the country.
JagLover said:
It's still like paying children to go to school though...
?
What I mean is, we agree it's daft to pay farmers to produce food that nobody wants. It's also daft to pay them to do nothing - setaside. I don't see why they should be paid for leaving hedges in place. If hedges are endangered then pass a law saying they can't be removed.
To adapt the principle: perhaps I should be paid to drive within the speed limit.
simpo two said:
simpo two said:
It's still like paying children to go to school though...
?
What I mean is, we agree it's daft to pay farmers to produce food that nobody wants. It's also daft to pay them to do nothing - setaside. I don't see why they should be paid for leaving hedges in place. If hedges are endangered then pass a law saying they can't be removed.
To adapt the principle: perhaps I should be paid to drive within the speed limit.
Careful, you're in danger of sounding: Thatcherite!
simpo two said:
JagLover said:
simpo two said:
It's still like paying children to go to school though...
?
What I mean is, we agree it's daft to pay farmers to produce food that nobody wants. It's also daft to pay them to do nothing - setaside. I don't see why they should be paid for leaving hedges in place. If hedges are endangered then pass a law saying they can't be removed.
To adapt the principle: perhaps I should be paid to drive within the speed limit.
as I understand it set aside payments are to encourage the farmer to leave some fields fallow to allow the ground to recover - they pay the farmer to discourage him using the land to gain extra income in the short term at the expense of long term viability
in the far off old days pre common agricultural policy the farmers would've just accepted that some fields were required to be left fallow some years and accepted the fact that those fields wouldn't make any money. since farming incomes have become eer more squeezed farmers have to be incentivised to retain the fallow land to avoid going tits-up (stop me if i'm becoming too technical
) all IMHO
>> Edited by minimax on Saturday 5th March 02:03
minimax said:
in the far off old days pre common agricultural policy the farmers would've just accepted that some fields were required to be left fallow some years and accepted the fact that those fields wouldn't make any money. since farming incomes have become eer more squeezed farmers have to be incentivised to retain the fallow land to avoid going tits-up (stop me if i'm becoming too technical
all IMHO
Nowadays fields are never left fallow because under the great, steaming heap of crap that is the CAP, rapseed is not classed as a crop. So they claim money for leaving the field fallow and grow a cash crop. This is why arable Europe is very yellow in the summer and hay fever suffers are very miserable.
Meanwhile of course, the poor third world countries who can't do much except grow crops are shafted because our farmers are paid to overproduce at subsidised prices, so the poorer farmer can't compete.
If we dumped this stupid system then small farms producing more natural products would be viable, and market forces would eventually allow a proper, diverse farming community to develop instead of the giant agricultural factories that are the current norm.
It was all the result of a bargain between the French and the Germans when they were setting up the European wet dream - "Ok, you ze bosch 'ave strong industries, so you geeve us money to be ze breadbasket (and winebottle) of Europe".
[quote=nel]
Nowadays fields are never left fallow because under the great, steaming heap of crap that is the CAP, rapseed is not classed as a crop. So they claim money for leaving the field fallow and grow a cash crop. This is why arable Europe is very yellow in the summer and hay fever suffers are very miserable.
Nel, you clearly lack an understanding of current agricultural practices and rules:-
1.Farmers are free to leave fileds fallow, this is most usually as set-aside or voluntary set-aside.
2.Oilseed Rape is classed as a crop. It is now the second largest arable crop in England & Wales after Wheat. It even has its own code when entered into the annual IACS (Integrated Administration Control System) which is RA1
3. Europe is very yellow because Rapeseed is a profitable break crop to grow. This means that Rape is grown as part of a rotation to ensure a better yield from the wheat that follows. There are many advantages to growing rape in a rotation, it is unfortunate that some people react adversely to the pollen. But then that problem also exists with pollen from trees and grass, it's just on eof those seasonal things we have to live with.
Nowadays fields are never left fallow because under the great, steaming heap of crap that is the CAP, rapseed is not classed as a crop. So they claim money for leaving the field fallow and grow a cash crop. This is why arable Europe is very yellow in the summer and hay fever suffers are very miserable.
Nel, you clearly lack an understanding of current agricultural practices and rules:-
1.Farmers are free to leave fileds fallow, this is most usually as set-aside or voluntary set-aside.
2.Oilseed Rape is classed as a crop. It is now the second largest arable crop in England & Wales after Wheat. It even has its own code when entered into the annual IACS (Integrated Administration Control System) which is RA1
3. Europe is very yellow because Rapeseed is a profitable break crop to grow. This means that Rape is grown as part of a rotation to ensure a better yield from the wheat that follows. There are many advantages to growing rape in a rotation, it is unfortunate that some people react adversely to the pollen. But then that problem also exists with pollen from trees and grass, it's just on eof those seasonal things we have to live with.
8Pack said:
To adapt the principle: perhaps I should be paid to drive within the speed limit.
No, bribing people to do what they're supposed to do anyway, using taxpayer's money, is socialist engineering. Thatcherism implies a modicum of common sense; bring it on
longwool said:
Nel, you clearly lack an understanding of current agricultural practices and rules:-
2.Oilseed Rape is classed as a crop. It is now the second largest arable crop in England & Wales after Wheat. It even has its own code when entered into the annual IACS (Integrated Administration Control System) which is RA1
In that case I stand corrected - it was certainly the case in the past that rapeseed did not count as a crop and farmers were claiming fallow field benefits while growing it. Doesn't alter my perception of the C(R)AP, a system that encourages maximised production, hence plentiful chemical use to ultimately collectively overproduce.
simpo two said:
simpo two said:
To adapt the principle: perhaps I should be paid to drive within the speed limit.
Careful, you're in danger of sounding: Thatcherite!
No, bribing people to do what they're supposed to do anyway, using taxpayer's money, is socialist engineering. Thatcherism implies a modicum of common sense; bring it on
That's what I said. You gonna' close 'em all down then?
simpo two said:
simpo two said:
It's still like paying children to go to school though...
?
What I mean is, we agree it's daft to pay farmers to produce food that nobody wants. It's also daft to pay them to do nothing - setaside. I don't see why they should be paid for leaving hedges in place. If hedges are endangered then pass a law saying they can't be removed.
To adapt the principle: perhaps I should be paid to drive within the speed limit.
If we were to abondon all support for farmers and abandon restrictions & tarrifs on food imports it is entirely possible that alot of farmers will go out of business and the land will effectively become wasteland.
Moving to a system where farmers are paid to maintain the 'look' of their land means that they are doing something that benefits the rest of us while not distorting the market.
JagLover said:
If we were to abondon all support for farmers and abandon restrictions & tarrifs on food imports it is entirely possible that alot of farmers will go out of business and the land will effectively become wasteland.
Moving to a system where farmers are paid to maintain the 'look' of their land means that they are doing something that benefits the rest of us while not distorting the market.
OK, you may be connected with farming; I can understand your views. Perhaps the problem is that the industry has been so propped up, subsidised and generally tampered with by various rules, Europe etc, that it is unable to operate as normal businesses do - this would mean growing crops/breeding livestock, then selling them to make a profit from which the farmers live. The other extreme is the Communist principle where all produce is given to the State in return for a basic wage.
A scarily simple and unachievable suggestion no doubt, but that's how the rest of us have to operate. Me? I'm off to see how much they'll give me to keep my garden mown
simpo two said:
If we were to abondon all support for farmers and abandon restrictions & tarrifs on food imports it is entirely possible that alot of farmers will go out of business and the land will effectively become wasteland.
Moving to a system where farmers are paid to maintain the 'look' of their land means that they are doing something that benefits the rest of us while not distorting the market.
OK, you may be connected with farming; I can understand your views. Perhaps the problem is that the industry has been so propped up, subsidised and generally tampered with by various rules, Europe etc, that it is unable to operate as normal businesses do - this would mean growing crops/breeding livestock, then selling them to make a profit from which the farmers live. The other extreme is the Communist principle where all produce is given to the State in return for a basic wage.
A scarily simple and unachievable suggestion no doubt, but that's how the rest of us have to operate. Me? I'm off to see how much they'll give me to keep my garden mown
For the record my only connection with farming is that I walk through fields every weekend becuase I am a keen walker.
My point is that if the taxpayer is to provide support-why not simply pay farmers to be 'groundsmen'
They can grow crops if they like or not if they don't want-the taxpayer will simply be paying to keep the countryside looking tidy.
It is one situation where the free market and more importantly supermarkets have f
d up the way the world works
It's cheeper to buy lamb from new-zealand than from wales - mad. And also why people have to use the quite awfull battery farming methods to make the situation work
IMHO farmers should be able to get a reasonable price for decent meat and veg from everyone. Being undercut by processed shit isn't good for anyone
d up the way the world works It's cheeper to buy lamb from new-zealand than from wales - mad. And also why people have to use the quite awfull battery farming methods to make the situation work
IMHO farmers should be able to get a reasonable price for decent meat and veg from everyone. Being undercut by processed shit isn't good for anyone
Gassing Station | The Pie & Piston Archive | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff