Subsidy Anyone?

What is the purpose of farm payments and subsidies? Some of us thought that it was all about ensuring that production of food is a good deal for those working on the land which in turn leads to a continuous supply in the shops.

It has been complicated by the tendency for some farmers to over produce often by cutting corners and leading to industrial scale over-exploitation of the land. So to stop them they are offered sweeteners which say, for instance, leave that corner alone or don’t root out that hedge and we’ll compensate you for what you could have got.

This becomes crazy when you apply it to publicly owned non-agricultural land. Back in 2005/6 when people began discussing Sheffield Wildlife Trust’s plan to put cattle on Blacka there were a number of RAG meetings and a facilitated consultation which extended over 7 months. One of the things the opponents brought up was that doing this turned the land into farm land which at that time it was not. This was roundly denied by SWT’s supporters though it seems interesting in hindsight that SWT themselves were fairly muted about that preferring to let their followers speak for them. They have in fact never been keen to talk about this. They are a private organisation after all and disclosure doesn’t come naturally.

Some of that information is now available and can be published here. The first thing to say is that what was said in 2005/6 was already out of date. Blacka already was agricultural land and had been since 2002 when the Countryside Stewardship Agreement was signed. That was not made at all clear, but as we should know, one of the techniques of management is to keep key information close to your chest..

Each year SWT now claims funds from farm and agri–environmental schemes. It would be nice if this was transparent and if it was a simple arrangement. Some of us naively thought before looking into it that the Single Farm Scheme meant that you put cattle on the land and that made it farm land and you were given cash according to the number of hectares and perhaps the number of cattle. But that’s to reckon without character of bureaucracies which tend to complexity. Anyway the payments made to SWT by the Rural Payments Agency over the last 5 years have been
2005…..£520
2006…..£845
2007…..£745
2008…..£950
2009….. SWT seem to have forgotten to submit a claim
2010…..£4,988

These may not be huge sums but they should be put alongside Countryside Stewardship money which is paid from Natural England. There is also separate money for Single Farm Scheme which is paid to the grazier for putting sheep on the pasture land. One should also bear in mind that in combination, presumably with other land sites that SWT manage, they get more than £12,000 from the Rural Payments Agency. They are also constantly seeking out other funding opportunities from organisations such as the Forestry Commission and various polluting industries that pay to gain environmental brownie points by arrangement with NE by offsetting their dirty work elsewhere.

The most intriguing thing here challenges our understanding that the cattle grazing was linked to Single Farm Payments and Countryside Stewardship Agreement moneys. We’ve already mentioned the fact that CSA money was paid even in years where they broke the agreement.

In 2008 and 2010 there were no cattle on the moor yet more SFS money was claimed and paid than in other years. In 2010 for example £4,988 Single Farm payments were claimed and also £4,543 CSA when there was an understanding that this money was being paid on condition that cattle were grazed.

Whatever you make of the amounts and the years there can be no doubt that this part of the moors is now firmly agricultural land, having survived for many years developing its own character as an independent entity.

And we can’t wait to hear SWT tell us what a brilliant job the cattle are doing against all sorts of criteria.