Size Matters?

IMG-20140417-00857 copyWell, that was interesting. The Landworkers Alliance (LWA) demo on Thursday 17th April (International Peasants’ Day) went pretty well, where we set up a market stall outside DEFRA headquarters in London, to show how productive smaller scale farms can be – and to ask very nicely that small scale farms be considered when making policy. The demo attendees were a small but select bunch of around 40-50 (I’m terrible at guestimating), and a few of us spoke about why the status quo needs to change, and it what direction.

The ‘demand’ (or polite request) we made was to ask DEFRA to implement the voluntary cap on Pillar 1 CAP EU payments, at an extremely generous £150,000 per farm; and to divert the resulting £200 million (or at least some of it) to smaller scale productive farms under Pillar 2 of CAP. I still can’t believe that DEFRA has recently chosen to redefine the size of farms receiving Pillar 1 payments (replacing the old direct single farm payment) to those over 5ha – that’s a huge minimum size of farm, over 12 acres; my market garden business is on just over 2 acres of land and producing a huge amount of food. EU Member states can apply limits or not at their own discretion. So the threshold for minimum claim areas has been increased by DEFRA in this country to the highest possible level of 5ha because, in the words of Owen Patterson, “the vast majority of those claimants with less than 5ha are not economic units. They are, in lay parlance, hobby farms.”

IMG-20140417-00856 copy IMG-20140417-00858 copyCue seething indignation and rage from those thousands of small- and micro-scale farmers and growers, who are told that their endless toil and graft in the face of an ever-industial agricultural landcape is a ‘hobby’. Apparently it’s a ‘hobby’ if you earn your living from your business, as I do, which is an interesting definitition of ‘hobby’. Many of the 16,650 holdings who are now excluded from the Pillar 1 payments also earn their living from the land; there may be some lucky individuals who do run their smallholdings as a hobby, and don’t have to make a profitable enterprise in order to survive; but going by land size only is in no way a accurate way of measuring this. The LWA estimate that this change of threshold for claimants will save DEFRA £16 million each year – which is still much less than it’s proposed solution of adding a cap to Pillar 1 payments for those landowners with vast estates, who can claim well over £150,000 per year in subsides.

It’s the (lack of) logic of the argument that I find particularly galling. DEFRA say, on the one-hand, that holdings under 5ha are uneconomic, and therefore should not be supported (although this is of course completely untrue, as thousands of small businesses will testify and would be happy to should Owen Patterson their accounts to prove it – plus many would be glad of the extra subsidy money to expand and develop their business, and employ more local people, produce even more local food, teach youngsters about farming…). However, at the same time, the implication of diverting the bulk of the EU subsides to asset-rich landowners of vast estates is that these landowners need these hundreds of thousands of subsides in order to remain viable and survive. Surely if any one business needs yearly no-strings grants of over £150,000, they are “not economic units.” They are the ‘hobby farms’, only in a massive and unsustainable (in every way) scale.

Mind you, I shouldn’t get too worked up because none of this really affects me, since I’ve never had CAP payments in the first place. Although of course, it does affect me in a number of ways, and not least because those macro business with EU subsides are able to sell their subsidised produce at a price lower than my cost of production if they want to. Fortunately my customers base is very loyal, and people appreciate having local, fresh and sustainable produce from just down the road (and I grow many things that larger producers don’t grow); plus my margins are so slim that my prices are pretty much the same anyway (I’m really not going to be rich growing veg). So therefore my tax money is paying larger producers to subsidise their produce, and keep my income right down. It does seem a little unfair to be taxed twice though?


3 thoughts on “Size Matters?

  1. That “hobby farms” reference is so insulting! What a tragedy it is that the Common Agricultural Policy – which started with such good intentions – now operates so blatantly against small scale, organic producers and in favour of wealthy landowner (as evidenced by the fact that multinational sugar company Tate & Lyle is the single biggest beneficiary from the CAP in the UK).

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s