This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2013/jul/04/uk-farming-subsidies-shortchange-public

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
UK farming subsidies shortchange the public, study says UK farming subsidies shortchange the public, study says
(3 months later)
UK farming subsidies are shortchanging the public that pay them by billions of pounds a year in lost environmental and social benefits, according to a major new study. But reforming the system to ensure most of the £3bn a year given to farmers is spent on improving access to attractive countryside, protecting wildlife and cutting greenhouse gases could produce annual benefits of over £18bn, an international team of 29 academics concluded.UK farming subsidies are shortchanging the public that pay them by billions of pounds a year in lost environmental and social benefits, according to a major new study. But reforming the system to ensure most of the £3bn a year given to farmers is spent on improving access to attractive countryside, protecting wildlife and cutting greenhouse gases could produce annual benefits of over £18bn, an international team of 29 academics concluded.
Three-quarters of all the land in the UK is farmed, producing goods worth £5bn. Only 30% of farming subsidies are linked to improving the environment for the benefit of all, with 70% linked to production. "It should be the other way around: the majority should go on public goods," said Prof Ian Bateman, who led the research published in the journal Science.Three-quarters of all the land in the UK is farmed, producing goods worth £5bn. Only 30% of farming subsidies are linked to improving the environment for the benefit of all, with 70% linked to production. "It should be the other way around: the majority should go on public goods," said Prof Ian Bateman, who led the research published in the journal Science.
His team looked at half a million land use records and found that, at present, UK land use represents poor value for society relative to subsidies given to farmers. They used computer models to adjust the payments to maximise the benefits for recreation, greenhouse gas reductions and wildlife diversity over the next 50 years and found that more than £18bn worth of benefits a year could be achieved for the loss of less than £0.5bn in UK agricultural production, equivalent to about 15% of current subsidies.His team looked at half a million land use records and found that, at present, UK land use represents poor value for society relative to subsidies given to farmers. They used computer models to adjust the payments to maximise the benefits for recreation, greenhouse gas reductions and wildlife diversity over the next 50 years and found that more than £18bn worth of benefits a year could be achieved for the loss of less than £0.5bn in UK agricultural production, equivalent to about 15% of current subsidies.
Bateman said switching the focus of subsidies would have only a small impact on food production: "The benefits far outweigh the costs." He said boosting future food production would depend much more on improving yields using new technologies than on ensuring every last field was in production. "The world has to produce more food for sure, but that is no excuse for squandering the payments we already make," he said.Bateman said switching the focus of subsidies would have only a small impact on food production: "The benefits far outweigh the costs." He said boosting future food production would depend much more on improving yields using new technologies than on ensuring every last field was in production. "The world has to produce more food for sure, but that is no excuse for squandering the payments we already make," he said.
Prof Ken Norris, at the University of Reading and not part of the study team, said: "The chancellor George Osborne often implies that protecting the environment is a barrier to economic growth. This research shows how wrong this view is. It tells us that focusing solely on the market value of farming risks damaging extremely valuable natural assets." He said the work was groundbreaking but did not take into account crucial aspects such clean air and water, which would increase the environmental benefits of subsidy reform even more.Prof Ken Norris, at the University of Reading and not part of the study team, said: "The chancellor George Osborne often implies that protecting the environment is a barrier to economic growth. This research shows how wrong this view is. It tells us that focusing solely on the market value of farming risks damaging extremely valuable natural assets." He said the work was groundbreaking but did not take into account crucial aspects such clean air and water, which would increase the environmental benefits of subsidy reform even more.
A political deal on reform of the EU's Common agricultural policy (CAP) subsidies was settled on 26 June, but conservation groups said the deal was "disastrous" and "a backward step" for the environment. Environment secretary Owen Paterson has long advocated reform of European farming subsidies. "I remain convinced that farmers' decisions about which crops to grow and which animals to raise should be left to the market," he told the NFU's annual conference in February. "I do believe there is a real role for taxpayer's money in compensating farmers for the work they do in enhancing the environment and providing public goods for which there is no market mechanism."A political deal on reform of the EU's Common agricultural policy (CAP) subsidies was settled on 26 June, but conservation groups said the deal was "disastrous" and "a backward step" for the environment. Environment secretary Owen Paterson has long advocated reform of European farming subsidies. "I remain convinced that farmers' decisions about which crops to grow and which animals to raise should be left to the market," he told the NFU's annual conference in February. "I do believe there is a real role for taxpayer's money in compensating farmers for the work they do in enhancing the environment and providing public goods for which there is no market mechanism."
A Defra spokesperson said the CAP reform deal reached by Paterson meant the UK could channel more subsidies into schemes that deliver environmental benefits.A Defra spokesperson said the CAP reform deal reached by Paterson meant the UK could channel more subsidies into schemes that deliver environmental benefits.
The NFU's Andrea Graham said every farmer wanted to be less reliant on direct payments. "It's also important to remember that it's not a question of either/or when it comes to food and the environment. We can have both," she said, adding that most biodiversity declines happened before the 1990s and that conservation since then is now beginning to deliver results.The NFU's Andrea Graham said every farmer wanted to be less reliant on direct payments. "It's also important to remember that it's not a question of either/or when it comes to food and the environment. We can have both," she said, adding that most biodiversity declines happened before the 1990s and that conservation since then is now beginning to deliver results.
"The biggest value you get for the lowest cost is de-intensifying agriculture near big cities," said Bateman, because citydwellers would have much more access to green spaces. "You get a very large recreational value for very little loss: you can think of something like Christopher Robin's 100-acre wood." The reverse is also true, he warned: "We find that sometimes very small increases in food output can only be bought at a very large cost in other factors.""The biggest value you get for the lowest cost is de-intensifying agriculture near big cities," said Bateman, because citydwellers would have much more access to green spaces. "You get a very large recreational value for very little loss: you can think of something like Christopher Robin's 100-acre wood." The reverse is also true, he warned: "We find that sometimes very small increases in food output can only be bought at a very large cost in other factors."
Bateman praised Paterson's desire to shift towards rewarding farmers for improving the environment, rather than subsidising food production. "There is some movement in this direction but it needs to be a lot more serious. If it was down to the UK, CAP reform would go much faster." He added: "We don't think farmers should pay for this: the farmer should not be out of pocket or it won't happen."Bateman praised Paterson's desire to shift towards rewarding farmers for improving the environment, rather than subsidising food production. "There is some movement in this direction but it needs to be a lot more serious. If it was down to the UK, CAP reform would go much faster." He added: "We don't think farmers should pay for this: the farmer should not be out of pocket or it won't happen."
Bateman acknowledged the study did not include the benefits of protecting water against agricultural pollution. "If you clean up the water, you reduce water treatment costs, which can be tremendous," said Bateman. The work also excluded the health and wellbeing benefits of a better environment, which other studies have valued at billions of pounds a year.Bateman acknowledged the study did not include the benefits of protecting water against agricultural pollution. "If you clean up the water, you reduce water treatment costs, which can be tremendous," said Bateman. The work also excluded the health and wellbeing benefits of a better environment, which other studies have valued at billions of pounds a year.
Bateman said the maximum benefits would come from converting farmland around all of the UK's cities to low-intensity farming which would also allow recreational use. "I'm not saying it will happen but it would be gorgeous."Bateman said the maximum benefits would come from converting farmland around all of the UK's cities to low-intensity farming which would also allow recreational use. "I'm not saying it will happen but it would be gorgeous."
Our editors' picks for the day's top news and commentary delivered to your inbox each morning.