CAP vision ‘devastating’ for UK beef and sheep sectors
DEFRA is facing calls to retract its stance on Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) reform in light of research showing its plans would wipe out large sections of the UK beef and sheep sectors.
The Government’s position is outlined in a 2005 Defra/Treasury ‘Vision for the CAP’ document, which proposes the abolition of production subsidies alongside a big reduction in import tariffs within the next 10 to 15 years.
However, an impact assessment led by Belfast’s Food and Agricultural Policy Research Institute (FAPRI), has concluded the vision would have ‘dramatic consequences’ for the UK beef and sheep sectors.
While the researchers suggest there will be relatively little impact on the dairy, arable and unsupported pig and poultry sectors, modelling work suggests the plan would reduce UK beef production by 12 per cent by 2018 and sheepmeat production by 18 per cent.
The researchers say tariff cuts would result in a trebling of EU beef imports, mainly from South America, to nearly two million tonnes by 2018, forcing a 26 per cent cut in the beef price, while sheep imports would rise by 60 per cent.
With the added impact of losing Single Payments - which, although decoupled still have a ‘production stimulating effect’ in the beef and sheep sectors - suckler cow numbers would fall by 26 to 29 per cent across the UK. Ewe numbers would fall by 17 per cent in the UK.
The researchers say the effect of removing Single Payments could be partially alleviated if producers received equivalent environmental payments. However, they warn abolishing them without enhanced agri-environment payments would ‘dramatically reduce total farm receipts and trigger significant structural change’.
They warn that allowing beef and sheep numbers to decline would have ‘wider implications on the environment, economy and social cohesion of rural areas’.
Backtrack
Politicians in the devolved regions and UK farming groups have seized on the report to urge the Government to backtrack on its ‘damaging’ vision, which they say leaves it isolated in Europe in the current CAP negotiations, especially in light of food security concerns.
NFU head of economics and international affairs Tom Hind said the research showed the Government’s plans were ‘ideologically driven and politically and economically damaging’ and would be ‘devastating for farmers, rural communities and sensitive ecosystems’.
A Defra spokesman said the vision was ‘designed to deliver lower food prices for consumers, significant savings for taxpayers and a competitive agricultural industry’ not reliant on subsidies. She said farmers would have ‘many years to adjust’ to the changes.
Also in: CAP vision ‘devastating’ for UK beef and sheep sectors
Farmers Guardian newsletters
Get the best of Farmers Guardian delivered straight to your inbox. Click here to sign-up today
-
General news and breaking news alerts
Minimum weekly delivery -
Livestock, arable, dairy and young farmers
news and features
Monthly delivery



By unlocking the export potential China offers the pig industry, not to mention the red meat sector as a whole, we could gain entry into a marketplace which comprises a fifth of the world’s population.
Readers' comments (2)
rolyj | 9 October 2009 11:41 pm
So history repeats itself, yet again. Short sighted policies for agriculture from ignorant politicians and officials from the urban sprawl who understand nothing about farming, nor how to produce food. Defra really should be disbanded.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
joseph Michel | 12 October 2009 1:47 pm
The farming practice and exchange of goods like agriculture products must be linked with the comparative advantages that a farm, a region or a country have but fair competition doesn’t exist.
Most farms in Europe and Great Britain have natural comparative advantages with the climate, good soil, water availability and constructed advantages with efficient well organized food chain (upstream and downstream). So, most European farmers should realize interesting revenue and gain market shares without subsidies. But the economic laws are worldwide bypassed by dumping: economic dumping with subsidies and tax heaven for headquarter, social dumping (weak social law), environmental dumping (no respect of the environment), exchange dumping (currency rate favorable for exportation) and sometimes food security dumping. This alchemy now, is the basis for the global market share and farm revenue, so the market is unfair and doesn’t give us the right indicators for trading, producing or not for consuming or not.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment