Farmers and environmentalists might not always be the easiest of bed-fellows, but at a conference last week organised by the NI Environment Link Brexit Coalition (a partnership of various conservation and land use organisations) there was general consensus that support must continue to farmers post-Brexit.

Among the speakers was Ulster Farmers’ Union (UFU) president Barclay Bell, who outlined the union’s long wish-list for post-Brexit policy as set out in its recent discussion document published in May 2017. It includes various policies designed to encourage improved productivity and efficiency such as capital grant schemes, as well as measures designed to reduce the effect of volatile prices on farmers.

But underlying all future policy is a call from the union for a broad environmental payment, open to all farmers, and linked to improved production efficiency.

“Farming needs future payments to help secure further environmental goals,” responded John Martin, conservation manager with the RSPB, and spokesman for the NI Environment Link Brexit Coalition.

He maintained that the money should be used to deliver on issues such as water quality, biodiversity and climate change.

He insisted that CAP policy to date has been dysfunctional, not fit-for-purpose, and that the decline in farmland birds, and the major problem of ammonia emissions in NI, was due to a combination of agricultural intensification and bad policy.

So, while he and Bell agree on the need for payments to continue, the challenge will be to come up with something that delivers for the environment and farmers.

Common ground

“We need to find common ground, something that works for both farmers and the environment. It will be to the detriment of both parties if we don’t,” insisted Barclay Bell.

He talked about the principle of “advocacy first” where farmers are given an opportunity to rectify a problem, rather than being hit by a harsh penalty, but acknowledged that he could not defend those farmers who blatantly disregard regulations.

Industry facing structural change

A study commissioned by the RSPB and undertaken by Paul Silcock from Cumulus Consulting has assessed the effect of Brexit on farms and farmland wildlife in the UK.

Due to be released later this month, the work considers the effect of a significant reduction in direct payments (33% and 66% of the current CAP), across two different post-Brexit trading scenarios (a Free Trade Agreement with the EU or trading under WTO rules).

As expected, the analysis predicts a significant reduction in farm business income, particularly on cattle and sheep farms in less favoured areas. So how might farm businesses respond?

According to Paul Silcock some farmers will decide to retire, while others will become part-time, or try to diversify their businesses. “Future restructuring will be accelerated. There will be fewer farm businesses,” he said.

On dairy farms, he expects there will be a greater focus on productivity and efficiency, and in the lowland, more land will switch over to milk production. But in the less favoured area, livestock numbers (particularly sheep) will reduce, so the changes could be more extreme. Land abandonment could occur, although he thinks that is less likely in NI than in Britain.

Overall, the environmental effect of these changes is mixed, said Silcock. Intensification in productive areas could harm biodiversity and water quality, but tighter incomes could improve the efficiency with which resources are used.

In marginal areas, land abandonment would be damaging, but less livestock could be environmentally beneficial, and lead to improved carbon storage, water quality and biodiversity. However, on high nature value farmland, livestock are an important component of managing that land to encourage birds such as the curlew. He emphasised that direct payments are critical to underpin our agri-environment, with public money being used to deliver a public benefit post-Brexit.

New policy direction for agriculture

Irrespective of Brexit, farming across Europe is facing a new policy direction, but in the UK there are some major challenges ahead, emphasised Dr Viviane Gravey from Queen’s University Belfast.

She pointed out that the British government has been calling for a significant reduction in CAP spending as far back as 2005, and that thinking hasn’t really changed in recent times. “In the UK, farmers have less influence on Treasury officials than in most other EU countries,” she warned.

She also highlighted the danger that policies are designed for England, with other devolved administrations an after-thought, and what might happen to agriculture here if support payments are radically different south of the Irish border.

Trade number one UFU priority

During his presentation, UFU president Barclay Bell also referred to other key Brexit priorities for his organisation. He described future trading relationships as the “number one priority” for the union, insisting that farmers will not accept food imports into the UK post-Brexit, which are produced to lower standards than that expected of farmers here. “It is a red-line for the four UK unions,” said Bell.

On access to EU labour, he said that Brexit was already having an effect (given the devaluation of sterling against the euro), and that there are reports some processors might not be able to cope with this year’s Christmas rush.

He also pointed out that there must be regional flexibility allowed when designing new policy. “Farming in NI is hugely different to farming a 5,000ac estate in East Anglia,” he said.