Post-Brexit subsidies a priority for UFU

With the current system of farm subsidies in NI set to continue for at least another two years, thoughts are now turning to what support might be made available to farmers in the post-Brexit era.

In a realistic assessment of the current situation, the leadership of the Ulster Farmers’ Union (ufu) told MLAs on the Stormont agriculture committee last Thursday that the British government must put in place a subsidy system once the UK leaves the EU.

While farmers would much prefer to receive a sustainable return from the market rather than rely on direct support, the UFU argues that with a cheap food policy in place within the UK, it does not foresee any significant rise in food prices. “We need some form of support to bridge the gap,” UFU chief executive Wesley Aston told MLAs. An internal debate has begun this week within the UFU on what form a new subsidy system might take post Brexit.

The UFU would also like the government to get the capital grant element of the farm business improvement scheme and new agri-environment schemes, rolled out as quickly as possible, and progress also made with setting up a new marketing body for NI. “If there is ever a time for a marketing body, it is now,” said UFU president Barclay Bell.

With the tone around the table mostly negative towards the impact of Brexit on the local agri-food industry, it was left to DUP members of the committee to try to highlight potential opportunities that Brexit might bring. “We are starting with a clean slate, so there probably are opportunities there. I would like to think new regulations would be less bureaucratic,” accepted Bell.

When it was suggested by DUP MLAs that the UFU was “badly out of touch” with its membership during the campaign, Bell pointed out that there was acceptance that change was required, but some wanted to try to change from within, while others wanted to leave. He described the final vote as a “knee-jerk reaction” given the state of the industry at present.

He also pointed out that it was wrong to think that all regulations would disappear under a new arrangement, and that, in some cases, farmers may have “false expectations”. Often, it is not EU standards that are the issue, but more exacting requirements set by retailers, suggested Bell.

Pathetic

However, his responses did not go down well with DUP MLA Edwin Poots who later described Bell’s answer to a question on EU red tape as “pathetic”. “If that is leadership from the UFU that is disastrous,” said Poots.

He would like to find out what types of subsidy support are possible under World Trade Organisation (WTO) rules, and said that he would prefer the reintroduction of suckler cow and ewe premiums over the current land-based support payments. He would also like to see the industry rid itself of rules that restrict hedgecutting and slurry spreading to certain dates.

Strong rural policy needed

Also at Stormont last week were representatives from rural development groups keen to emphasise that wider rural issues must remain a policy priority post Brexit.

They are in a difficult position given that most of their funding historically comes from the EU. They highlighted their “fear and concern” about the future of rural development and urged MLAs to ensure that the current level of funding into rural areas is protected post Brexit.

“We need a strong locally developed rural policy that protects agri-food, but not at the expense of rural development. It should not become the casualty,” said Teresa Canavan from the Rural Development Council.

NIAPA argues for minimum prices

Joining the UFU in front of the agriculture committee at Stormont last week were Michael Clarke and Jim Carmichael from the NI Agricultural Producers’ Association (NIAPA). In his presentation, Clarke told MLAs that aside from Brexit, farmers need guaranteed prices for what they produce. In recent months, the NIAPA has joined Farmers For Action in calling for minimum farmgate pricing legislation in NI.

Clarke also rejected the suggestion that food prices will have to increase post Brexit, instead arguing that processors and supermarkets are taking too much at the expense of farmers.

On red tape and bureaucracy, he maintained that a lot of these regulations are important but, in some cases, they have been “gold-plated” by local Government departments. He also acknowledged that he “did not know where farmers are coming from if they think they are going to be better off” by leaving the EU.

Environment groups want inquiry

Following the farmer lobby organisations at Stormont last week were representatives from various environmental groups working under the banner of the NI Environmental Link (NIEL).

They told MLAs that in a post-Brexit scenario, it was “crucial that NI retains the highest level of environmental protection possible”. They also called on the committee to undertake an inquiry looking at the social, economic and environmental effect of a reduction in farm support payments to farmers.

One scenario put to the groups was that it might be possible to reduce payments to farmers, but target the money in a different way so that it goes directly to those that produce the food. However, that idea was dismissed by NIEL chair Patrick Casement who said that it could have a serious environmental impact.

The environmental groups also expressed concern at the complex task that lies ahead to disentangle what is EU legislation, national legislation and international commitments related to the environment.

Business as usual for DAERA

While acknowledging that there are considerable unknowns and challenges ahead, for now it is “business as usual” within DAERA, its permanent secretary Noel Lavery told MLAs at Stormont last Thursday.

“It could take years to exit. We can’t put our plans on hold,” said Lavery. That means CAP payments to farmers will continue, while the Department will continue to roll out the current Rural Development Programme. Where applicants have made a successful case for funding, letters of offer will be issued and the Government will continue to meet its obligations insisted the head of DAERA. But he acknowledged that he could not give any longer-term guarantees about various programmes to 2020 and beyond. “That will depend on future UK policy and how it is devolved down to NI. I am in contact with my counterpart in Defra and we will be involved in negotiations,” said Lavery.

In the meantime, he has tasked senior officials to take the lead in assessing the potential effect of Brexit across a number of areas. That includes a need to review all existing legislation to see what is enforced through an EU Directive or through national legislation. “It is a very significant issue,” acknowledged Lavery.

There is also an assessment to be undertaken on the economic impact of EU funding in various programmes, including the current £623m Rural Development Programme, which comes with £186m of EU money. In terms of CAP payments to farmers, NI receives 9% of the total UK pot, but under the Barnett formula (which dictates how much money NI gets from Westminster) we would only get 3%. It is all part of the negotiation with Westminster.

The other main priority relates to trade, and is an issue to be led by chief vet Robert Huey.