If the CAP fits it might be a Tam O’Shanter
Which breed of sheep is it best not to keep under the subsidies of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP)? This and other intriguing questions are discussed in this piece published at aggravations.org on 9 August 2016.
One of the important questions arising from the Brexit vote in the United Kingdom is what will now happen to the system of subsidies (or transfer payments) made to UK farmers under the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP).
In 2015, UK farmers received almost €3.1bn in direct payments under the CAP, which is one of the cornerstones of the European Union (EU).
The CAP costs nearly 40 per cent of the EU’s budget – or €58bn a year. At €3.1bn, payments under the CAP represent an astonishing 55 per cent of the UK’s farm income.
The CAP provides financial support to 12 million farmers across Europe.
It was set up in 1957 to sustain the European Economic Community’s food supplies. It was so effective in boosting market prices that it led to over-production and the so-called ‘butter mountains’ and ‘wine lakes’ of the 1980s.
This in turn led to the introduction of production quotas on everything from milk to sugar beet, and to payments being made directly to farmers rather than to farm production. By this means farmers could be ‘rewarded’ for particular land use, which has been described as paying farmers for ‘producing countryside’.
Management of natural resources and climate action is now one of the three principal objectives of the CAP.
Following the Brexit decision, the question is whether the range of EC agricultural subsidies to farmers in the UK will be replaced by domestic transfers. If they are not, land prices will fall and some farmers will be forced out of business.
One of the most famous or infamous parts of the CAP was the set-aside scheme. Between 1988 and 2008 it, in effect, paid farmers to take some of their land out of production in order to help melt those butter mountains and drain the lakes of wine. (That’s one of the reasons why Chateau Dudley is not yet a household name.)
Set-aside also helped to reduce the damage to agricultural ecosystems and wildlife resulting from the intensification of agriculture
The benefits of the set-aside schemes were obviously greatest for farmers whose land was intrinsically low in productive capacity. These included those in the Scottish Highlands. (Might this help to explain the strong Scottish ‘remain’ vote in the recent referendum?)
This is what lies behind the critical – but dated – question of whether Scottish hill farmers will still be paid for not keeping sheep.
Secretary of State
Department of Agriculture
London
1 April 1990
Dear Sir
I have a friend who farms in the Scottish Highlands who has just received a cheque for £12,000 from the CAP for not keeping sheep.
My friend is very satisfied with the new business. He has been keeping sheep for nearly 40 years and the most he ever made was £6,500 in 1968.
So getting £12,000 this year for not keeping any is a good deal.
He suggested that I should join the not keeping sheep business so I am writing to you for advice.
What is the best size of farm for me to not keep sheep and does the amount paid per sheep not kept vary from one region to another?
I am keen to know which is the best breed not to keep. Are there any advantages in not keeping rare breeds such as the Greyface Dartmoor or the Leicester Longwool, or are there already too many people not keeping them?
Presumably I will need to keep records about the number and type of sheep I don’t keep. Can you recommend training courses for that?
My friend tells me that this year he has not kept 50 head. Will he get £24,000 next year if he decides not to keep 100?
I plan to operate on a small scale at first, but as I become more expert in not keeping sheep I plan to be more ambitious, perhaps increasing to 200 not kept in a year or two.
I understand that you also pay farmers for not growing crops. Will I qualify for payments for not growing crops to not feed the sheep I don’t keep?
Thank you in anticipation of your advice.
Yours faithfully
John Smith