Ah, those sunlit uplands. In the post-Brexit transition from the Common Agricultural Policy’s land-based system, England moved, under ‘environment’ minister Michael Gove, from an agricultural-based food policy to an environmental one, under the so-called ‘public money for public goods’ principle.

It seemed progressive, in touch with the zeitgeist, albeit hideously complicated and predicated on ultimately wrong assumptions about the direction of farmgate prices and the value of land. But more seriously it entirely abandoned food productivity as a principle of food policy. On the contrary, the intention was to reduce land use for food production, with farmers actively rewarded for doing so. The subsequent supply chain shocks from Covid, the Ukraine-Russia war, and now trade wars and the rearmament of Europe, has shown the folly of this approach.

So the most generous interpretation of Defra’s abrupt termination this week of the Sustainable Farming Incentive (SFI) – the instrument set up to pay farmers these environmental subsidies under the broader Environmental Land Management Scheme (ELMS) – is that Labour wants to create a new scheme to support the principles of the National Food Strategy. It’s not out yet, but it’s expected to prioritise growth, health, the environment and resilience, with growth the most important of these.

But that’s being way too generous. It suggests there is a plan, when the reality is the government is simply slashing investment. Already the autumn budget had drastically scaled back the CAP-linked Basic Payment Scheme (reducing average payments by 76% on 2020 levels) and should have freed up funds. Meanwhile, the tiny Farm Technology Equipment Fund was also axed.

 

Read more:

 

But doing what Defra has done with the SFI, in the way it has done it, is entirely reprehensible: after boasting that a “record” 50,000 farmers have secured funds, pulling up the drawbridge at a moment’s notice leaves up to 50% of farmers, including many whose plans were still in the works, on the hook for more than £100k and with no meaningful subsidy support for the foreseeable future. Not to receive payment after opting under the terms of SFI to reduce productivity or forego income is morally repugnant and farmers should seriously consider litigation.

And crucially it has major repercussions for their customers, ie retailers, foodservice operators and suppliers, who will rightly be concerned as to the impact on supply and their suppliers and indeed for whom SFI was an important component of their own environmental policies.

It must be hoped, in the fullness of time, that Defra will adopt a food policy that incentivises productivity, via tax breaks, low interest loans and the like, so food security is addressed and UK farming can be profitable and viable.

But it seems unlikely. In the same week that the SFI programme was pulled, Labour’s planning and infrastructure bill was announced, promising the compulsory purchase of land. Between housing, energy and land sparing the fundamental resources required to secure food security – which is supposedly national security in Labour’s eyes – is under greater stress than ever.

Topics