When someone thought of paying farmers not to produce something, people must have thought it was bad idea.  Quite so.  When people get hold of the idea that farmers get paid to do nothing they tend to become somewhat vexed!

Take Two!

Actually we are paying for the privalege of not having vast over-production and we are paying for farmland to be kept in a good state and to provide sustainable habitats for wildlife.  There is a definite grace to killing two birds with one stone. But was the policy really about keeping production down in a time of plenty - and so avoiding bad PR associated with dumping food on world markets or in the North Sea.  Or was it about biodiversity and sustainability?

Take Three!

In 2007, we saw the true colours shining through.  The EU decides to set the compulsory level of set-aside to 0%!  The climate of rising food prices and world shortages in 2008 will ensure that most farmers will not be unhappy with this.  As one put on the "Farming Today" BBC website - "With wheat at £150/tonne why shouldn't farmers maximise their profits?".  Indeed, as "rational" economic agents, it is the correct decision for them - individually.

Take Four?

Sure - set-aside might not be the final solution.  But these events seem to tell us that biodiversity and sustainability are "would-be-nice" outcomes while perpetuation of the status quo is the ultimate priority.  It will come as no surprise that I am of the opposite opinion.  I hope as many farmers as possible can overcome base-economic instinct and retain the set-aside while we as consumers recognise this in our choices.

View and Add Comments