Farming in the Uplands - ARCHIVE: Defra

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Ev 66 Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee: Evidence Farm Business Income (£) £ APPENDIX 1 FARM BUSINESS INCOME DATA FOR FARMS IN LESS FAVOURED AREAS 80,000 70,000 60,000 50,000 40,000 30,000 20,000 10,000 0 £20,000 £15,000 £10,000 £5,000 £0 -£5,000 -£10,000 -£15,000 -£20,000 October 2010 Average Farm Business Income in England by Farm Type Grazing Livestock (LFA) All Farm types Cereal Dairy 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 LFA Farm Business Income per Farm by Cost Centre Source: Defra Farm Business Survey Agriculture Agri-environment & other Diversification SPS Farm Business Income 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 EMBARGOED ADVANCE COPY: Not to be published in full, or part, in any form before 00.01am GMT Wednesday 16 February 2011 Supplementary written evidence submitted by the National Farmers’ Union The NFU welcomes the Committee’s invitation to submit supplementary commentary to our written and oral evidence provided earlier this autumn. The unusually cold start to winter 2010–11 following a dry cold spring, demonstrates the particular challenge and vulnerability of livestock farming, and especially so in the English Uplands, that we described to the Committee. The Committee secretariat has asked for additional views on upland farming. We address each of these below: What is required to assure the economic sustainability of upland farming? We have already submitted our analysis of Defra’s Farm business data. This shows that cattle and sheep farm businesses (the standard upland farming type) have relatively low returns compared with other farm types. As we explained, the continuation of upland farming, with the associated benefits to the environment, landscape and society requires that their economic situation becomes more favourable with more reliable
Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 67 returns from the market coupled to new income streams from diversified income sources. In the context of concerns about food security, interest in food authenticity and “food miles” coupled with climate change, we are convinced that the agricultural market place will provide a growing proportion of upland incomes especially. However increasing “agricultural” returns require a redoubled focus on production eYciency—an eVort that EBLEX should be well placed to support via its recently published sector roadmaps and knowledge transfer initiatives. We believe that these programmes (coupled to activity channelled through the RDPE axis 1 support) should enable more upland farms to become less reliant on Single Payment Scheme and more resilient to economic and agricultural challenge. This requires that farms can evaluate their competitive position, access novel and innovative farming techniques, collaborate as producers to cooperatively market food production within and beyond the processing chain; have available broad but appropriate range of income streams (ie diversification and conservation agreements). Can hill farming businesses respond to market signals as lowland farms respond? Upland farmers need strong business skills and entrepreneurial outlooks coupled with knowledge of the agronomic limitations of their farm. Those that are seeking to grow their business, perhaps as part of a succession strategy, have particular need to seek greater eYciencies, cut costs, diversify and maximise the income from their livestock enterprises. However, livestock farming does not provide the flexibility that characterises cropping farms, it would be a mistake to treat both alike. Production cycles are considerably longer (up to three years for finished cattle) which means swift responses to market signals are impossible while the land is less productive with greater restrictions on cropping choice and growing season. Our experience suggests that farmland is also less frequently exchanged meaning that physically growing a holding with contiguous parcels of land and so spreading fixed costs is problematic. (Cropping farms do not require daily access to growing crops for husbandry or feeding, so such farms able to exploit more disparate patterns of farming). Physical separation of land can make husbandry more diYcult and certainly adds to regulatory concerns (movement of livestock). Extending holdings also overlooks the character of livestock farming which can continue on a low output/low level of return with diversification/oV farm income subsidising the “livestock” business—so the opportunity to enlarge holdings is much lower. Can upland farms extensify their management and inputs? In principle more extensive herd management should reduce unit costs of production; but extensive management techniques can not imply a reduction on handling and animal welfare standards. All livestock farmers, including those in the uplands, are bound to legislative codes of good practice for welfare, which includes ensuring that at critical times (eg in winter for feeding and spring for lambing) regularly supervision is required. We doubt that the public would tolerate extensive farming of the uplands if this means semiferal flocks and “ranched” cattle herds. Indeed we perceive that environmental outcomes desired by Defra and Natural England require increased shepherding to ensure appropriate grazing across open moorlands and commons to achieve optimal habitat condition. In the absence of fences in such areas, shepherding of the right stock at the right times in the right locations is the only option. EMBARGOED ADVANCE COPY: Not to be published in full, or part, in any form before 00.01am GMT Wednesday 16 February 2011 In common with lowland farms those in the uplands are already using contractors to reduce cost of permanent staV and equipment, such as for dipping or shearing. However, there is little opportunity to contract out work for core business of day-to-day livestock husbandry. This is not to say that some are not collaborating with neighbours to share resources, indeed it is customary practice for neighbouring farms to “gather” a moorland or common. Given appropriate support and facilitation additional activities can be undertaken collaboratively, such as training, promotion and marketing of accommodation, collaborative input purchase or knowledge transfer. In our experience cooperation, especially involving commons, requires locally respected and independent mediators or facilitators to bring the variety of interested parties to the table. Building business trust and consensus for change, even where the outcome appears attractive to third parties, can be a time consuming. A frequent blockage to building consensus is the sharing of costs and benefits—while “win-wins” are attractive to all, more frequently gains are not evenly shared or even unattainable for farmers. For example, the “re-introduction” of rare breeds for environmental reasons may result in a swift outcome for habitat recovery but will require livestock keepers to establish new market outlets and delayed or reduced market returns reflecting the finishing condition of such breeds. December 2010
Page 1 and 2:
House of Commons Environment, Food
Page 3 and 4:
House of Commons Environment, Food
Page 5 and 6:
Contents EMBARGOED ADVANCE COPY: No
Page 7 and 8:
Summary EMBARGOED ADVANCE COPY: Not
Page 9 and 10:
EMBARGOED ADVANCE COPY: Not to be p
Page 11 and 12:
Page 13 and 14:
Page 15 and 16:
Page 17 and 18:
Page 19 and 20:
Page 21 and 22:
Page 23 and 24:
Page 25 and 26:
Page 27 and 28:
Page 29 and 30:
Page 31 and 32:
Page 33 and 34:
Page 35 and 36:
Page 37 and 38:
Page 39 and 40:
5 Upland communities EMBARGOED ADVA
Page 41 and 42:
Page 43 and 44:
Page 45 and 46:
Page 47 and 48:
6 Conclusion EMBARGOED ADVANCE COPY
Page 49 and 50:
4: A new approach to funding EMBARG
Page 51 and 52:
Page 53 and 54:
Page 55 and 56:
Page 57 and 58:
Page 59 and 60:
Witnesses EMBARGOED ADVANCE COPY: N
Page 61 and 62:
Oral evidence Environment, Food and
Page 63 and 64:
Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
Page 65 and 66:
Page 67 and 68:
Page 69 and 70:
Page 71 and 72:
Page 73 and 74:
Page 75 and 76: Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
Page 77 and 78: Tom Blenkinsop Richard Drax George
Page 79 and 80: walked they ain’t coming back, be
Page 81 and 82: great, but there is the wider issue
Page 93 and 94: to engage in a conversation with th
Page 95 and 96: Q161 George Eustice: One of the com
Page 113 and 114: Written evidence Environment, Food
Page 125: Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
Page 155 and 156: EMBARGOED ADVANCE COPY: Not to be p
show all

Farming in the Uplands - ARCHIVE: Defra

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?