On Sunday it was Open Farm Sunday, and we went to visit a farm. It was in a beautiful hilly, undulating part of Devon, a part I’m not too familiar with and so very different from around here. Red, dry, stony land that drains far too efficiently and as a result suffers from drought. The farmers there think of it as marginal land, though to me it looked like an answer to a prayer.
It was a large arable and grass farm sporting a huge renovated farmhouse surrounded by landscaped Japanese gardens, red brick walls, laid brick drives and wrought iron gates. It receives substantial payments from set-aside and various agri-environment agreements. It’s heralded as an environmental flagship farm.
My impressions? One of wealth and prosperity. The farm has served its owner well in acquiring all manner of subsidies which I felt were not an actual necessity in the survival of the farm or the farmer. What did I feel it was delivering in terms of environmental benefits? And value for money to the tax payer? Not a lot. True it was in a beautiful part of the country and the views were stunning, true it had a fine example of a catchwork meadow and true it had some interesting swards. But nothing spectacular or mind blowing. I felt the farm lacked purpose or soul and was being managed to prescriptions laid out on paper without any real raison d’être. No stock, no vibrancy, just neat, polite management filling coffers from the public purse.
I know I’m being harsh; there were plenty of people, especially families with young children, who were really enjoying their visit. It was a good day out. The farmer had worked hard to make it a success, and it was.
Nevertheless when I think of the thousands of farms on the poorer marginal soils of England that can deliver as much, or more, in terms of the environment, landscape and biodiversity by using only a fraction of the money that’s being handed out to some large prosperous farms, I wonder at the injustice of it. To these marginal farms government/public support can make the difference between sinking and swimming.
I know very well that subsidies are not there to bolster up bad business and I’m not suggesting for a moment that they should. But it seems fundamentally unfair that farms which have taken care of their environment over the years and kept flower-rich meadows and such like in tact should be low down on the list for receiving public support, while those, often more productive and more profitable farms, which have in the past ploughed up their meadows and removed their hedges should now be being paid, as a priority, for restoring such things.
4 comments
Comments feed for this article
June 4, 2008 at 2:49 pm
Jane
I guess the thing that hit me first about your post above was “huge renovated farmhouse surrounded by landscaped Japanese gardens, red brick walls, laid brick drives and wrought iron gates” Why? Why does a farm need these things? and why does it have them? As you say, it oozes wealth. I guess you can’t blame the farmer…. he’s done well out of it. But it does seem like the balance is all wrong. What can I say? just another example of the mixed up state that British farming finds itself. The “haves” and the “have nots”. Jane
June 4, 2008 at 5:13 pm
Mopsa
Oops - once you’d mentioned the laid brick drives and wrought iron gates I knew where you were going! I know where I’d prefer to live and farm - in the dust and the dirt and the weeds and with a distinct touch of less is more management.
June 5, 2008 at 8:41 am
paula
I think you have an interesting point there Jane.
The question is - Do farmers care for the environment? And if they do and are on productive, profitable farms should they ‘do the right thing’ by taking a little of their land out of production i.e. field margins, hedgerow management, maybe the odd smaller poorer field, without expecting to receive substantial moneys from the tax payers’ purse? Or should they be subsidised for the loss of earnings on that land given that these farms are some of the most profitable in the country?
There have been quite a few debates raging about just this with the NFU stating that the majority of farmers do care. But evidence this year shows that a high percentage of lucrative, prosperous farms in agri-environment schemes/agreements have opted out to benefit from soaring corn prices. No doubt they will want in again once the balances shifts. Should this type of trading - environment versus commodity price continue?
Whereas farms on marginal lands, which tend to have more natural diversity, are finding it increasingly difficult to make a living in these uncertain times. So should these farms be helped to nurture their environment - which is something they are rich in - or left to sink, after most probably having destroyed precious habitat in the effort to unsuccessfully glean a small income?
What’s right, what’s wrong? It’s a dilemma.
June 5, 2008 at 9:03 am
paula
No, the house etc was not exactly the reason for my posting mopsa - it was more to give you an idea of where money is available on a farm that’s profitable! Sometimes I’m required to walk on eggshells…
What surprised me somewhat is that this farm is an environmental flagship and I couldn’t see it. Maybe I’ve had my head buried in too much nature for too long…or, then again, maybe not