FARMER 13May 2009
BBoowwmmaann''ss
bblloogg
TToo rreeaadd tthhiiss aanndd ootthheerr aarrttiicclleess
ffrroomm CCuummbbrriiaa FFaarrmmeerr oonnlliinnee,, ggoo
ttoo wwwwww..ccuummbbeerrllaanndd--nneewwss..ccoo..uukk
Is Government
just hoping to
offload costs?
C
ost-sharing and responsibility is proba-
bly the hottest topic in the livestock
industry at the moment.
Gordon Brown's government wants to move
away from the public purse picking up the entire
tab for many of the costs associated with live-
stock diseases and develop a partnership
approach with industry.
This, at first, seems reasonable, given the huge
cost of foot and mouth in 2001. There is some
evidence, particularly last year with the threat of
bluetongue, that government and industry can
work together effectively.
Part of the government's proposed solution is
that farmers could take out insurance against the
costs. Again, this seems fair until you consider
that the insurance industry has indicated that
they will not be willing to take on this risk.
The Government also wants farmers to con-
tribute towards the cost of running various parts
of Defra, but it hasn't provided the NFU with
detailed information about the cost of this.
Defra's staffing levels seem remarkably high
and it is completely unacceptable for us even to
consider helping towards running costs if we
have no control over the operation.
There is also the question of political inter-
ference in livestock disease control. Defra min-
ister Jane Kennedy recently indicated that there
was little or no chance of the politics being taken
out of issues such as TB in cattle and wildlife.
This again should be a no-go area for our
union; as the lack of willingness to tackle TB in
wildlife is clearly political we should have no
truck in picking up any of the bill.
Over the last few years, there have been seismic
changes to our industry brought about by new
legislation. At first, there was the abolition of sub-
sidies and a requirement for farmers to be more
market-orientated. Markets have not responded by
and large, and this has led to a dramatic reduction
of livestock numbers in the UK.
We also have the introduction of Nitrate Vul-
nerable Zones and electronic identification of
sheep. These two measures alone are only just
beginning to have an effect on livestock numbers,
but that effect is inevitably a further contraction.
Cost-sharing with government may well turn
out to be a tax on production and a means of
government off-loading cost as opposed to cul-
tivating a meaningful relationship with industry.
So what does this mean for the general public?
At a time when global food production is under
huge pressure to increase, we are prevented from
reacting to these signals by legislation that does
little more than add cost to a producer who is
unable to pass this cost on.
Consumers will have noticed that many food-
stuffs have increased in price, but this has noth-
ing to do with supermarket buyers paying more
to reflect our costs and everything to do with
buyers fighting over ever more scarce supplies.
It cannot be long before the general public
begin to question why their domestic farming
industry is contracting when it should be
expanding to meet future demands.
RUSSELL BOWMAN
NFU Cumbria chairman and dairy farmer
h Heritage puts these listings on, someone has to pay to protect these buildings' PICTURES: RACHEL MILLER
FarmingLife

Page 1Page 2Page 3Page 4Page 5Page 6Page 7Page 8Page 9Page 10Page 11Page 12Page 13Page 14Page 15Page 16Page 17Page 18Page 19Page 20Page 21Page 22Page 23Page 24 Produced by PageSuite