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 https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/jan/07/agricultural-policy-under-michael-gove
The article has changed 4 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
| Version 1 | Version 2 |
|---|---|
| Agricultural policy under Michael Gove | Agricultural policy under Michael Gove |
| (30 days later) | |
| Letters | Letters |
| Sun 7 Jan 2018 19.17 GMT | Sun 7 Jan 2018 19.17 GMT |
| Last modified on Wed 14 Feb 2018 15.28 GMT | |
| Share on Facebook | Share on Facebook |
| Share on Twitter | Share on Twitter |
| Share via Email | Share via Email |
| View more sharing options | View more sharing options |
| Share on LinkedIn | Share on LinkedIn |
| Share on Pinterest | Share on Pinterest |
| Share on Google+ | Share on Google+ |
| Share on WhatsApp | Share on WhatsApp |
| Share on Messenger | Share on Messenger |
| Close | Close |
| Please don’t use the word “subsidy” for payments to farmers who manage land for biodiversity and the ecosystem services it provides (Report, 3 January). A subsidy is generally considered a temporary assistance and often comes with an undertone that is negative and undeserved. There is now a large body of analysis and evidence to support paying for services that the market cannot supply. We don’t talk about subsidising nurses for health services, or teachers for educational services. So let’s pay for environmental services on a similar basis. | Please don’t use the word “subsidy” for payments to farmers who manage land for biodiversity and the ecosystem services it provides (Report, 3 January). A subsidy is generally considered a temporary assistance and often comes with an undertone that is negative and undeserved. There is now a large body of analysis and evidence to support paying for services that the market cannot supply. We don’t talk about subsidising nurses for health services, or teachers for educational services. So let’s pay for environmental services on a similar basis. |
| It is good that Michael Gove is supportive of this approach, but there is no need to leave the EU to do it. With strong UK leadership, the common agricultural policy has been adapted for over 20 years to enable governments to pay farmers for environmental services, and to do this under their own locally devised schemes. The resources allocated for this purpose have been decided domestically, and we could have done much more of this had we chosen. Let’s hope Mr Gove now delivers on his rhetoric.Allan BuckwellProfessor emeritus of agricultural policy, Imperial College, London | It is good that Michael Gove is supportive of this approach, but there is no need to leave the EU to do it. With strong UK leadership, the common agricultural policy has been adapted for over 20 years to enable governments to pay farmers for environmental services, and to do this under their own locally devised schemes. The resources allocated for this purpose have been decided domestically, and we could have done much more of this had we chosen. Let’s hope Mr Gove now delivers on his rhetoric.Allan BuckwellProfessor emeritus of agricultural policy, Imperial College, London |
| • Michael Gove’s announcements last week may sound superficially attractive. But his focus on maintaining the standards and quality of UK produce and exports sidesteps the issue of post-Brexit trade deals allowing cheaper, lower quality, produce into the UK. He doubtless welcomes the prospect of consumers being “free to choose” between premium UK products (Gove refers to cured smoked salmon, Botanist gin, and grass-fed beef from Devon in his speech) and inferior but cheaper imports from the US and elsewhere (why else have the US agriculture secretary alongside him on the platform?). He says food quality isn’t driven by government but by consumer preferences. What choices do people on limited – and shrinking – incomes really have? How can they express a preference for good quality food if they can’t afford it? | • Michael Gove’s announcements last week may sound superficially attractive. But his focus on maintaining the standards and quality of UK produce and exports sidesteps the issue of post-Brexit trade deals allowing cheaper, lower quality, produce into the UK. He doubtless welcomes the prospect of consumers being “free to choose” between premium UK products (Gove refers to cured smoked salmon, Botanist gin, and grass-fed beef from Devon in his speech) and inferior but cheaper imports from the US and elsewhere (why else have the US agriculture secretary alongside him on the platform?). He says food quality isn’t driven by government but by consumer preferences. What choices do people on limited – and shrinking – incomes really have? How can they express a preference for good quality food if they can’t afford it? |
| Meanwhile, those fortunate enough to own tracts of land – farmers or not – will, it seems, be paid by taxpayers not to degrade and abuse that land. Why not follow through on land being a key part of the nation’s “natural capital” and require owners to manage it for public benefit or face penalties? Mr Gove certainly doesn’t look set to return the CAP component of the £350m p/w “Brexit premium” to the public purse and the NHS. He seems committed to continuing to hand out much of it to many of the wealthiest people in the country.Jane MardellLittle Bealings, Suffolk | Meanwhile, those fortunate enough to own tracts of land – farmers or not – will, it seems, be paid by taxpayers not to degrade and abuse that land. Why not follow through on land being a key part of the nation’s “natural capital” and require owners to manage it for public benefit or face penalties? Mr Gove certainly doesn’t look set to return the CAP component of the £350m p/w “Brexit premium” to the public purse and the NHS. He seems committed to continuing to hand out much of it to many of the wealthiest people in the country.Jane MardellLittle Bealings, Suffolk |
| • Michael Gove’s “green Brexit” would reduce agricultural productivity, you tell us (Editorial, 5 January). What is “productivity” here? Probably labour productivity, driven in this sector by “green revolution” deceptions, based as they are on unsustainably cheap fossil fuel and externalised pollution costs. | • Michael Gove’s “green Brexit” would reduce agricultural productivity, you tell us (Editorial, 5 January). What is “productivity” here? Probably labour productivity, driven in this sector by “green revolution” deceptions, based as they are on unsustainably cheap fossil fuel and externalised pollution costs. |
| An alternative would be land productivity, where it is well established that labour-intensive, small-scale production using agro-ecological methods can produce more nutritional value per hectare than large-scale, capital-intensive chemical farming. Or perhaps a broader definition still, accounting for the “outputs” of all species under, on and above the soil and their interactions, on which humans, as part of the ecological whole depend. Methods drawn from permaculture come closest to this. | An alternative would be land productivity, where it is well established that labour-intensive, small-scale production using agro-ecological methods can produce more nutritional value per hectare than large-scale, capital-intensive chemical farming. Or perhaps a broader definition still, accounting for the “outputs” of all species under, on and above the soil and their interactions, on which humans, as part of the ecological whole depend. Methods drawn from permaculture come closest to this. |
| I am not sure where along this spectrum Gove’s thinking is located – most likely, I guess, somewhere within definition one, in a version with green margins organised around a core of techno-fixes such as robots and genetic engineering. But if we are serious about planetary health we shall have to move towards the second and even the third, provide the necessary fiscal support and plan the associated social changes. In the short term a more pressing question is how Gove intends to square his “revolution” with his well-advertised commitment to free-trade neoliberalism and aversion to “red tape”. There is considerable scope for suspicion here. | I am not sure where along this spectrum Gove’s thinking is located – most likely, I guess, somewhere within definition one, in a version with green margins organised around a core of techno-fixes such as robots and genetic engineering. But if we are serious about planetary health we shall have to move towards the second and even the third, provide the necessary fiscal support and plan the associated social changes. In the short term a more pressing question is how Gove intends to square his “revolution” with his well-advertised commitment to free-trade neoliberalism and aversion to “red tape”. There is considerable scope for suspicion here. |
| The only solution to this conundrum that I can see for him would further reduce UK food sovereignty and exacerbate our already existing “two nations” approach to food consumption: the better-off would buy the niche, high value foods of the green-subsidy sector while the poor would continue to be sold the products of unsupported agribusiness, increasingly derived from imports. Where this leaves the future of post-Brexit trade deals and of environmental regulation is anyone’s guess; but I imagine Liam Fox will have a view.Richard MiddletonCastle Douglas, Dumfries and Galloway | The only solution to this conundrum that I can see for him would further reduce UK food sovereignty and exacerbate our already existing “two nations” approach to food consumption: the better-off would buy the niche, high value foods of the green-subsidy sector while the poor would continue to be sold the products of unsupported agribusiness, increasingly derived from imports. Where this leaves the future of post-Brexit trade deals and of environmental regulation is anyone’s guess; but I imagine Liam Fox will have a view.Richard MiddletonCastle Douglas, Dumfries and Galloway |
| • Your editorial states that there was little in Michael Gove’s Oxford Farming Conference speech that was not in his previous speeches. There was at least one important difference. For the first time Mr Gove announced that “public access is a public good” and that it helps “reconnect urban dwellers with the earth” and “secure consent for investment in the countryside”. That is why the new agricultural payments need to provide new and better opportunities for informal public recreation.Vanessa Griffiths Chief executive, RamblersKate Ashbrook General secretary, Open Spaces Society | • Your editorial states that there was little in Michael Gove’s Oxford Farming Conference speech that was not in his previous speeches. There was at least one important difference. For the first time Mr Gove announced that “public access is a public good” and that it helps “reconnect urban dwellers with the earth” and “secure consent for investment in the countryside”. That is why the new agricultural payments need to provide new and better opportunities for informal public recreation.Vanessa Griffiths Chief executive, RamblersKate Ashbrook General secretary, Open Spaces Society |
| • Join the debate – email guardian.letters@theguardian.com | • Join the debate – email guardian.letters@theguardian.com |
| • Read more Guardian letters – click here to visit gu.com/letters | • Read more Guardian letters – click here to visit gu.com/letters |
| Farming | Farming |
| Michael Gove | Michael Gove |
| Food & drink industry | Food & drink industry |
| Commodities | Commodities |
| Brexit | Brexit |
| Article 50 | Article 50 |
| letters | letters |
| Share on Facebook | Share on Facebook |
| Share on Twitter | Share on Twitter |
| Share via Email | Share via Email |
| Share on LinkedIn | Share on LinkedIn |
| Share on Pinterest | Share on Pinterest |
| Share on Google+ | Share on Google+ |
| Share on WhatsApp | Share on WhatsApp |
| Share on Messenger | Share on Messenger |
| Reuse this content | Reuse this content |