This is Devon -- Outgoing National Farmers Union President Peter Kendall launched a scathing attack on successive British governments' agricultural policy yesterday as he made his last major public address before standing down next month. Mr Kendall spoke up for the original aims of the Common Agriculture Policy, (CAP) pointing out that its first priority when it was drawn up as part of the Treaty of Rome 55 years ago as to increase agricultural productivity through technology – not featherbed farmers or look after the environment. He told the Oxford Farming Conference – Britain's biggest gathering of the farming establishment – that he believed one of the greatest achievements of the NFU, with the help of others, had been to put food security back onto the political agenda in Britain. But he questioned whether reforms of CAP, including the most recent – negotiated in June – reflected this new reality or paid proper heed to the original aims of Europe's farming policy, which was to increase agricultural production. Mr Kendall congratulated the current secretary of State at Defra, Owen Paterson for rowing back on an initial commitment to push more CAP payments towards support for the environment and rural community projects and away from direct payments. But he made an indirect swipe at Farming Minister and Camborne and Redruth MP George Eustice. In his speech to hundreds delegates gathered in the New Examination Rooms of Oxford University, he said: "George Eustice has been going round the country saying farmers should stop complaining that the CAP isn't fair because it's never been fair or common." The NFU leader rejected that view, pointing out that the very first CAP was a price support policy to increase food production across Europe at a time of shortages. "A price support policy worked in a period of shortage," he said. "It couldn't work in a period of surpluses in the 1980s when we had the butter mountains and wine lakes that disappeared a quarter of a century ago, or when agriculture first came under world trade rules." He said switching from price support to payments coupled to production were established to compensate farmers for losing fixed prices – but eventually they distorted the market by encouraging farmers to produce in order to get the payment, not meet market demands. He said the end of that policy, coupling payments to production – championed by the then European Commissioner Franz Fischler – was the right policy but its implementation in England was a "pig's ear that pretty much wiped out the positives, at least for the first few years." Mr Kendall bitterly criticised the subsequent reforms of CAP and what he said were the failures, in June last year when the policy was last shaken-up. "Instead of a strategic vision we got a tactical defence of the budget with the introduction of populist elements – greening, capping, small farmer and young farmers aid and so on. This is a profoundly wrong direction and, in my view, the reform has failed, even in its own terms," he said. In what will be viewed with dismay by the environmental groups like the RSPB and the Wildlife Trusts, Mr Kendall called for a reform of CAP that would ditch the environmental support, at European level, and concentrate solely on the original aim of the policy, to increase agricultural productivity through the use of science and technology. He said: "I am absolutely clear that agricultural policy should remain a European competence...if we are competing in a single market we need a common policy to avoid distortions that 28 national policies would bring. "But I have a controversial proposal...why do we need a European Rural Development Policy? We don't have a common urban policy or even a common suburban policy. Rural development should be a national affair. "I am not being the least bit anti-environment," he went on. "The UK and other net contributors will save money from my proposal. It should be a national decision on how much will be spent on agri-environment schemes, without going through the divisive mechanism of modulation. Environmental protection should remain a European competence otherwise different national rules and regulations will distort competition. But why should environmental enhancement be dealt with at European levels? Different countries have different issues and priorities, let them decide for themselves. "If one of them wants to make it profitable to keep 12 cows on a mountainside, rather than providing doctors or schools, they should have that choice." He hit out at the UK Treasury for claiming direct support for farmers was "wasted" while spending money on rural development and environment schemes were about doing things for the public good. "Survey after survey shows the British public sees the number one priority for the CAP to be about helping farmers produce affordable food and to secure a domestic food supply."
Reported by This is 8 hours ago.
This is Devon -- Outgoing National Farmers Union President Peter Kendall launched a scathing attack on successive British governments' agricultural policy yesterday as he made his last major public address before standing down next month. Mr Kendall spoke up for the original aims of the Common Agriculture Policy, (CAP) pointing out that its first priority when it was drawn up as part of the Treaty of Rome 55 years ago as to increase agricultural productivity through technology – not featherbed farmers or look after the environment. He told the Oxford Farming Conference – Britain's biggest gathering of the farming establishment – that he believed one of the greatest achievements of the NFU, with the help of others, had been to put food security back onto the political agenda in Britain. But he questioned whether reforms of CAP, including the most recent – negotiated in June – reflected this new reality or paid proper heed to the original aims of Europe's farming policy, which was to increase agricultural production. Mr Kendall congratulated the current secretary of State at Defra, Owen Paterson for rowing back on an initial commitment to push more CAP payments towards support for the environment and rural community projects and away from direct payments. But he made an indirect swipe at Farming Minister and Camborne and Redruth MP George Eustice. In his speech to hundreds delegates gathered in the New Examination Rooms of Oxford University, he said: "George Eustice has been going round the country saying farmers should stop complaining that the CAP isn't fair because it's never been fair or common." The NFU leader rejected that view, pointing out that the very first CAP was a price support policy to increase food production across Europe at a time of shortages. "A price support policy worked in a period of shortage," he said. "It couldn't work in a period of surpluses in the 1980s when we had the butter mountains and wine lakes that disappeared a quarter of a century ago, or when agriculture first came under world trade rules." He said switching from price support to payments coupled to production were established to compensate farmers for losing fixed prices – but eventually they distorted the market by encouraging farmers to produce in order to get the payment, not meet market demands. He said the end of that policy, coupling payments to production – championed by the then European Commissioner Franz Fischler – was the right policy but its implementation in England was a "pig's ear that pretty much wiped out the positives, at least for the first few years." Mr Kendall bitterly criticised the subsequent reforms of CAP and what he said were the failures, in June last year when the policy was last shaken-up. "Instead of a strategic vision we got a tactical defence of the budget with the introduction of populist elements – greening, capping, small farmer and young farmers aid and so on. This is a profoundly wrong direction and, in my view, the reform has failed, even in its own terms," he said. In what will be viewed with dismay by the environmental groups like the RSPB and the Wildlife Trusts, Mr Kendall called for a reform of CAP that would ditch the environmental support, at European level, and concentrate solely on the original aim of the policy, to increase agricultural productivity through the use of science and technology. He said: "I am absolutely clear that agricultural policy should remain a European competence...if we are competing in a single market we need a common policy to avoid distortions that 28 national policies would bring. "But I have a controversial proposal...why do we need a European Rural Development Policy? We don't have a common urban policy or even a common suburban policy. Rural development should be a national affair. "I am not being the least bit anti-environment," he went on. "The UK and other net contributors will save money from my proposal. It should be a national decision on how much will be spent on agri-environment schemes, without going through the divisive mechanism of modulation. Environmental protection should remain a European competence otherwise different national rules and regulations will distort competition. But why should environmental enhancement be dealt with at European levels? Different countries have different issues and priorities, let them decide for themselves. "If one of them wants to make it profitable to keep 12 cows on a mountainside, rather than providing doctors or schools, they should have that choice." He hit out at the UK Treasury for claiming direct support for farmers was "wasted" while spending money on rural development and environment schemes were about doing things for the public good. "Survey after survey shows the British public sees the number one priority for the CAP to be about helping farmers produce affordable food and to secure a domestic food supply."
Reported by This is 8 hours ago.