Anthony Morton said:
Exactly what do we mean when we quote 'changing farming practices' as one of the reasons for the population decline of Britain's wild birds? And which of these present-day farming practices do members consider to be individually responsible for causing the most damage to wild birds?
Anthony
From a farmer's point of view :
I think the main thing is loss of diversity. Several people have listed mechanisms behind this very well. The most important have, I believe, been the trend towards simpler farming systems; and the loss of pockets of habitat in the quest to utilise 100% of the land and make mechanical operation easier with ever larger machinery.
The reasons for these changes (IMHO) are entirely economic. It would be easy to blame the CAP, but that is only one facet of the economic pressures facing farmers. I (like one contributor) had high hopes for the change to the Single Farm Payment system, but I fear that we will be forced by powerful economic forces to carry on much as before. The reason ? I see three main ones - full decoupling as envisaged by Franz Fischler was rejected by important parts of Europe (the French), so we will not be competing on a level playing field (we're used to that now, but birders won't like the results of our coping strategy). Secondly farmers are bred / reared with abundant pride and optimism derived from the 1947 Agriculture Act. It will take many generations to remove the "can produce, will produce" mentality. IT goes deeper than that too. Opting not to produce would mean devastation of the business - loss of jobs, infrastructure within the business, making it incredibly expensive to re-start should there be an upturn (remember that optimism ?).
The jobs situation is the third reason in itself and perhaps the most important. Many farmers do not employ anyone. They would have to find alternative income. Most consider that an unsurmountable hurdle. The employed labour situation in UK agriculture is critical. We do not have enough workers, because we cannot afford them. We cannot attract workers, so the supply is declining (it is highly skilled work, becoming ever more so). Farmers like me are terrified of letting a worker go because they are irreplaceable. You only cut labour when your system has been adapted to cope with less under all circumstances. Stopping production is not "under all circumstances". You want to keep your labour, so must generate income to pay for it.
Back to the economic pressures on farmers. Recently we have seen dairy companies who supply the supermarkets imposing price cuts on farmers despite the fact that farmers' costs are rising. Farmers have no option - they must sell their product because the system cannot be switched off and on at will. A decision to produce is usually taken about 12 months before the actual production.
That is a fairly typical example of the economic pressures on farmers. We tend to have significant quantities to sell, far more than can easily be disposed of through retail sales to individual members of the public (e.g. through farmers' markets). The buyers for these significant quantities hold the whip hand. In many cases their buyers have similar power over them. This has little to do with the CAP except that perhaps the CAP has enabled farmers to restructure more rapidly to meet these challenges.
Environmental schemes are being set up as a conduit to provide a real economic benefit to farmers. I see this as being helpful but certainly not a miracle cure. There are three reasons for this :
1. payments from schemes are minimal;
2. bureaucracy is burdensome;
3. range of practices encouraged is too limited.
I'll admit a vested interest here - I have weighed up the pros and cons and decided it is not worth my while joining. The activities I undertake are often outside the scheme rules. Meeting the rules as well would be burdensome !
Another particular grouse is that farmers' own efforts cannot be claimed as a cost. This has been a general rule of UK grant schemes all the time I have been farming. It was acceptable when grant schemes were generous, and farming itself yielded a good income. In today's climate it seems a ridiculous barrier, particularly as the bureaucracy involves huge amount of effort from the farmer.
Could go on for ever :-(
Mike.
