Subsidy reminder for the 100,000 "farmers" claiming single farm payments.

Mary_Hartnell

This afternoon the outcome of your 3.5 billion subsidy review (and the tax of 4 billion levied on the rest of us to pay for it) will be announced. Have I done the maths right? I make that 35K each.

Looks like a bit of a hair cut for the really high rollers, but I doubt the tax payers contribution will be cut, probably will go up to pay for extra checks to make sure you are spending it "wisely" and complying with all the "cross compliance".

Pony ride anyone?

John_Pierpoint

I think I know where you are coming from BUT here are some figures from farmsubsidy.org

In 2008 United Kingdom received €3,755 Million in EU farm subsidies or approximately €12,517 per farm.

If you do the sums backwards you get over 300,000 "farmers".
Now I have this feeling that the number of farmers doing a "June Return" had fallen well below the 100K figure.

So it looks like there must be a 6 figure number of "hobby" land owners getting the subsidy, now that there is no need to report any food production in order to get the subsidy?

Mary_Hartnell

All of you really ought to take an interest in this subsidy, after all it is costing your family hundreds of pounds per year, unless you are one of the lucky beneficiaries.

Here is my take on what is proposed - I might well have got the wrong end of the stick in places.

Actually I have only a guess as to what this means:
Pillar 1 and Pillar 2 with 10% modulation.

These proposals seem to be an attempt to buy off all the pressure groups without cutting back on the expenditure.
However it totally fails to deal with the long established economic effect of the subsidy accruing to the land owner in the form of high land prices and increased rents.

{the text in braces like this} are my observations or clarifications, not in the proposal or others' comments.

There will be much horse trading before anything becomes law. Expect fudge and humbug along the way.

Announcement (The bureaucrats) 12oct11 for 2014 thru 2018:

• Targeting: Stimulate growth & employment. Over 150K per farm per year will be progressively cut with a cap of 300K. Fair allocation will take into account number of employees and will be administered by member state and region.
• Storage and intervention will stabilise the market prices.
• Only 50 – 60% will be paid as of right {for sofa farmers doing next to nothing}.. 30% will require sustainability and preservation and repair of eco-sytems.
• The current {small} budget for agronomy research and innovation will double.
• The food supply change will made more efficient and the power of the producer enhanced: organisations of producers, coordination between such groups plus more direct links prom producer to consumer.
• Effective resource use in the area of climate change and the preservation/restoration of ecosystems will be two of the six objectives of any development policy in a rural area.
• 5 years of enhanced support for new farmers under 40.
• Support for entrepreneurs to create rural employment by diversification. to get as grant(?) of up to 70,000 over 5 years. LEADER action groups to be supported.{ LEADER - Links Between Activities Developing the Rural Economy a pull yourself up by your bootstraps.}
• “Fragile Areas” (those with natural handicaps) will get extra support.
• Some simplification of mechanisms including cross compliance. {Hopelessly small} farms to get a subsidy of 500 – 1000 a year. Consolidation of the lands of such farms into larger neighbours, will be encouraged.

Notes and thoughts:
Dacion Ciolos is the commissioner.
Decision in theory must be made during the Irish 2013 presidency.
2011 is the reference year for the remaining element of historical payment, but there is a 40% shift away prom historical precedent.
7% of land (unless already permanent pasture) must be an “ecological focus area” {This feels a bit like the UK’s Entry Level Scheme but compulsory.}
Landscape features hedges, set aside, field margins, biotopes and woodlands, all count towards the 7%.
{A small area that is uniform in environmental conditions and in its distribution of animal and plant life. [bio- + Greek topos, place.}
Arable land must have a t least a 3 crop rotation within the limits of 70% of largest crop 5% of smallest and 25% of the rest.
Minimum activity to qualify is > 5% of receipts must be agricultural.

Pillar 1 and Pillar 2 with 10% modulation.

harryhound

Have you listened to today's "Farming today this week" programme - it is a good summary of this massive tax and subsidise scheme that apparently costs every breathing soul on this island £107 per year. Makes it sound more human from a farmers point of view.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b006qj8q

Mary_Hartnell

Thanks for that. I have made a few more notes:

Farming today this week comments:
600 pages of more tax/subsidy code.
55 billion for all of Europe is £ 107 per inhabitant per year in the UK..
Mixed family farm.
When “headage” went nearly 10 years go, what difference on the farm?
We tried to concentrate on profitable beef.
We got £66,000 last year {was that single farm payment or does it include ELS HLS?}.

“Here comes the market”
Rules to stop subdivision.
Range £150K – 300K payment reduction will be moderated by the numbers employed.
25% extra for newcomers under 40
HLS scheme for lapwings & curlews.
£140 an acre currently for the “green” schemes but current profitability is 180/190 per acre so it cost the farm £40-£50 per acre..

Will the British government take the opportunity to take back some of the ELS/HLS money; now that 7% of hectares are compulsory environmental?.

NFU: Plays the big farmer’s card and warns of population pressures and international scrabble for resources { yellow peril ?}

Slipper farming or sofa farming in the Celtic fringes, under threat from requirement to demonstrate agricultural turn over..

Rickards: Repeats the economists view of this nonsense.

33% of payout will be linked to environmental measures..

Danger of dilution as money goes to “fragile”, ie currently abandoned, areas.

opinions4u

So basically we pay tax, to subsidise farmers, to produce milk, some of which gets poured down the drain, to help inflate the price we pay in the supermarket?

Fab!

John_Pierpoint

I think it is a bit unfair to pick on the producers of a difficult to store, difficult to forecast, liquid commodity; which can be cheaper than water on the supermarket shelves.

The EU farm payments are a classic example of "to those who have shall be given" or "money goes to money" or "the price of land is high, when rents are high, rents are high when tenants can afford to pay them, because tenants are getting a grant each year" as Ricardo would have put it if he were still alive.

http://farmsubsidy.org/
(The little film sets you on the right track)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Ricardo

Devon_Sailor

opinions4u wrote: »

So basically we pay tax, to subsidise farmers, to produce milk, some of which gets poured down the drain, to help inflate the price we pay in the supermarket?

Fab!

No, we all pay tax (including farmers). If there was no subsidy to help keep farms afloat, then all milk would have to be sourced abroad, and prices would rocket (transport costs, etc).

People quibble at the price of milk yet do not bat an eyelid at spending £1 + on a 500ml bottle of water. The producers (farmers) are getting stiffed left right and centre by the large supermarket buyers, driving down at-the-gate purchase price to just a handful of pennies per litre.

So, despite what you have put, the opposite is actually happening. Supermarkets are using their monopoly over distribution and sales to drive down money paid to the producers, and then increasing their margins at the till - winning on both counts.

If you had any true idea of the labour and production costs to provide you with milk for your morning ceral/tea, you would not be rushing quite so hard to moan about what for most real farmers is a very small drip of subsidy.

If agriculture disappears in this country, just see how long it takes (or not) before your shopping bill becomes higher than your mortgage payments!

I love the fact you have opinions. But maybe do some research first before making pointless and misleading throw away quotes.

Oh, and to Mary (OP), yes, you did get your sums wrong. Badly wrong.

Mary_Hartnell

Devon_Sailor wrote: »

Oh, and to Mary (OP), yes, you did get your sums wrong. Badly wrong.

Please explain - which figure, how wrong and why do you think I am confused?

Devon_Sailor

Mary_Hartnell wrote: »

Please explain - which figure, how wrong and why do you think I am confused?

Well, your very simplistic division to come out with the figure of £35k each is pretty much a good starting point for mahoosive factual inaccuracy, and shows that you have little understanding of the topic about which you have chosen to pass judgement.

May i be so bold to ask what job you do for a living?

It does a great injustice to the tens of thousands of farmers who struggle working an average of 65-80 hours a week, often on their own, in some of the toughest economic conditions and markets in world industry. With your flippant comment you present them in an instant as high earnring Euro money fat cats. The VAST majority of farmers earn significantly below the minimum wage on a per-hour basis. They are the second most likely people in the country to suffer death or serious injury through industrial accident, and have the highest suicide rate out of any occupation in the country.

I do not disagree that the subsidy reforms designed by Europe are a complet dogs breakfast - taking away the link from per animal head (a pretty sensible way of doing things) to a per acre farmed formula, was stupid. It means that anyone with half an acre of "pony paddock" can claim to be "farming" and thus claim the money. Granted, per acre it is not a lot (indeed, for actual, real farmers, it tends to work out at a worse rate than the old per head system).

Like most things, there are extremes. There are indeed a handful of major landowners with tens of thousands of acres under cultivation or stewardship that are being paid very big sums of money, but it is only a handful. The vast majority of farms are still small to medium sized, and recieve nowhere near this.

The reason that the overall claimed figure is so high is because every man and his dog with a small plot of land can claim to be a farmer (and are often advised to do so by accountants) - so you get the green belt stockbrokers and bankers with acres of rolling garden sticking a horse in a corner of a bit of it and claiming Euro money!

UK farming has the highest welfare and regulatory standards in the world; why do you think british meats cost more than the cheap Brazilian or Argentinian stuff you get in supermarkets? If you do not assist in the massively increased production costs to support this level of animal welfare standards (as demanded, quite rightly, by UK consumers), it would be very difficult to compete on a like for like basis.

Which would you prefer in your burger or Sunday roast? Intensively and force farmed beef pumped full of steroids and growth hormones from Brazil, or traditionally raised, humanely reared UK produce?

For example my father's farm is about 175 acres. He received about £10000. He is 57, been running it single handed since he was 17, and doesnt look like he will be able to retire at any sort of normal age. There are many men in our area who are 75+ and still having to eak out a living off the land.

All i ask therefore, is that before putting up simple figures, you at least scratch the surface of reality before commenting.

Too much? I think, and hope not.

adouglasmhor

Devon_Sailor wrote: »

No, we all pay tax (including farmers). If there was no subsidy to help keep farms afloat, then all milk would have to be sourced abroad, and prices would rocket (transport costs, etc).

Really! But if the market would support this high cost of milk would it not then be profitable for farmers in the UK to produce milk at that price ▲ creating enough income that farms did not require subsidies? Also do farmers in the rest of the EU not also receive subsidies which could do with cutting as well.