UK Agricultural Policy Post-Brexit Editor: Will Melling Writers: Bence Borbely, Trevor Chow, Tom Nott, Yang Zuo
soils improve. Payment will therefore more than cover the costs of the transition and foregone income. This is especially true if the agricultural budget is maintained. As the National Farmers Union detailed in their post-Brexit consultation paper, “Eliminating direct support does not necessarily imply ending all policies which benefit farmers and growers. If the same total budget could be preserved, there would be considerable sums available for, to take one example, encouraging investment and improving competitiveness” 129. Overall, the business case for applying SICs should result in realised financial gains and improved livelihoods for farmers, and with the size of payments staying the same, there would be no aggregate loss to the agricultural sector on the whole. Instead, farmers will be rewarded with public money for improving soil quality, natural capital, and the long-term viability of agriculture, instead of for owning land.
3.4.1 Shifting to outcomes Initially, measured positive environmental outcomes could take the form of a reward ‘bonus’ for participation in the Tier 1 scheme. This would pay for demonstrated and measured improvements to soil organic matter, carbon emissions / sequestration, water quality and soil biodiversity. Meanwhile, improvements which mitigate flood risk would be paid by the river catchment system operator (see ‘Reducing flood risk’ section). Shifting to a pay for outcomes could build on existing government aims. For example, a bonus could be paid to farmers who achieve the governments ‘4 per 1000’ idea, of improving organic matter content by 0.4% per year130. Grants and bonus payments could also be paid to farms for becoming certified as fully organic. Over the decade the bonus payment would still be non-competitive, guaranteeing farm income, and could increase as a proportion of the Tier 1 payment at a prespecified rate, rewarding continuous improvement. With the simultaneous reduction in basic participation payments, outcomes would make up an increasing proportion of the payment. Positive environmental outcomes would therefore be directly incentivised and financially rewarded, loosely as ‘ecosystem services’. This makes the most economic logic in the medium-to-long term and gives farms adequate incentive and information with which to plan long-term business strategy and the transition to sustainable farming methods.
Possible outcomes which could be financially rewarded: Outcome
Proof
Payment
Increased soil organic matter content
Adherence to the global 4 per 1000 soil carbon initiative, aiming to increase soil organic carbon by 0.4% each year.
Yes
Regular soil organic matter monitoring and reporting by farmers to a national database.
National Farmers’ Union, 'Arrangements for English Agriculture and Horticulture outside the European Union. Policy options, circulated to members' (National Farmers' Union, 2016) pp15 130 The Soil Association, 'The future of British farming outside the EU' (The Soil Association, 20 March 2017) <https://www.soilassociation.org/media/10560/soil-association-report.pdf> accessed 4th January 2021 129
31
