The presidents of the National Farmers' Union and the Country Landowners Association have replied to the letter in the Guardian referred to earlier in this blog. What do we think of it?
Their reply is good in parts. We welcome the words about providing the leadership to correct the declines in farmland bird numbers and the expressions of concern about declines in biodiversity. This is a new language and we sincerely look forward to seeing it put into action.
However, their letter is misleading in talking about 'abandoning' land - good environmental management is not abandonment!
Their letter also gives the impression that land is suddenly going to be taken out of production whereas what actually may happen is that farmers who received a windfall of land to put back into intensive production when set-aside was suddenly abolished may now be asked to give a little back to the environment.
The last time that the NFU and CLA made such a fuss about 'regulation' was when government introduced the need for 2m margins around fields to protect hedgerows. Anyone would have thought that British (or at least English and Welsh) agriculture would go to the wall if these regulations were introduced but they were hardly noticeable in the budgets of most farms. At the RSPB's own arable farm we had to sacrifice about £80 per annum to safeguard our considerable Single farm Payment cheque (see What price bread and skylarks? below) - hardly a big price. There is a history of the NFU and CLA making a big fuss about very little.
The RSPB is acting as a voice for nature in this debate - not anti-farmer, but definitely pro-nature. The NFU and CLA exist to represent the interests of their members - not anti-wildlife, but definitely pro-farmer and landowner. Defra ministers are there to provide public benefits and to ensure that the taxpayer's investment in agriculture delivers good value for money - we should hear their decision in late June.