Eu Farmers example essay topic

In the last century, there have been many changes in the process of farming and this has meant people having views on the countryside and the influence of farming on the landscape and wildlife. This has meant that farming has changed even further, as politicians in Brussels determine how farmers should manage the fields in the European Union, and London politicians in the United Kingdom. The main influencing factor on farmers decisions in recent years is the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), which was first implemented in 1962 by the European Government for farmers throughout the EU. CAP had three main aims: To protect the income of farmers To increase farm production and therefore reduce food imports To ensure reasonable prices for the consumer It was considered so important in the EU that 70% of the EUs budget was spent on CAP. In order to protect the farmer and increase production, the EU set a minimum price on each product, if the farmer could not sell his produce at this price or higher then the EU bought it from the farmer. This was then sold when the prices rose again, but in reality it was often sold at a loss, thus being subject to accusations of subsidising exports.

This guaranteed an income for the farmers and then as another method for reducing food imports, taxing is introduced, so that EU farmers were not undercut by cheap imports. CAP encouraged an increase in agricultural production and therefore intensification. Often more chemicals were used in order to get a larger yield, whilst to increase land capacity water meadows were drained and dry land was irrigated. Farms also used specialised machinery on larger fields with specialisation in one or two crops, as this encouraged efficiency. With the creation of large fields, hedges were cut down, so habitats were lost and soil erosion increased. Between 1951 and 1990 96% of lowland herb-rich grasslands habitats were lost due to the intensification, as all available land was used for farmland.

60% of lowland heath habitats were lost, and due to deforestation 50% of ancient woodland habitats were lost. The result of this was a grain mountain, a milk lake, a wine lake and a butter mountain. CAP had encouraged farmers to overproduce and so the EU now had to store all the produce that the farmers were unable to sell. CAP was also criticised for inefficiency, as it protected small farmers who would normally have been out of business. It also caused poorer countries to suffer: for example, economies with sugar cane had difficulties exporting, due to the taxation of imports into the EU and the subsidising of sugar beet production. Larger farms tended to benefit more than smaller farms, thus resulting in the amalgamation of smaller farms by large-scale agri-businesses.

Between 1950 and 1987, the number of farms smaller than 20 hectares decreased by 69 in Great Britain, farms of between 20 and 100 hectares decreased by 39, but farms of over 100 hectares increased by 154. Intensification also lead to a change in the treatment of livestock, as they were kept in smaller areas with larger numbers of animals, thus leading to fears of animal rights and the transmission of diseases. Although CAP had its bad points, there were also benefits: it reduced the rural unemployment and rural depopulation, as farm labourers were able to keep their jobs. Money was also made available in the countryside for the modernisation and therefore improved efficiency of agriculture, the farmer was also able to pocket more money for himself, as his income increased. CAP changed many aspects of agriculture in the United Kingdom.

Subsidies were paid for oilseed rape in order to reduce the amount of vegetable oil imports. Oilseed rape covered 8,000 hectares before the UK joined the Common Market, with subsidies in 1986 this had rapidly grown to 280,000 hectares. Witley park Farm in 1999 planted Linseed due to Area 8 payments under CAP, receiving 170 per acre on a yield of between and tonne per acre, although it was simply used as a cover crop and was then ploughed back into the soil. The sheep meat regime raised the guaranteed price of lamb by 25% and so farmers were encouraged to have sheep. This lead to a huge increase from 29.8 million sheep in the UK to 35.1 million between 1979 and 1984. Mislet Farm, in the Lake District increased its number of sheep from 120 to 210, although this has since been reduced to 200 due to quotas.

In 1984, Milk quotas were introduced to try to reduce the milk lake, which meant that farmers were limited to the amount of milk they could produce, and if they exceeded their limit then they were fined at 23 p per litre (1999 price). Between 1983 and 1986 the amount of milk produced decreased from 13.3 million litres to 11.9 million litres. However, this caused hardships for many European milk producers and so many dairy farmers were forced to slaughter a number of their herd. At Witley Park Farm the milking parlour was replaced in 1997, due to EU regulations at a cost of 60,000. The selling of 350,000 litres of milk quota at 47 p per litre financed this, although by 1999 the value of unused quota had fallen to 37 p. In 1992 CAP reforms hoped to solve all the problems that had arisen from CAP in the past.

With a huge surplus of food, the EU paid for every farmer to remove 15% of their land from agricultural production and into set-aside for five years, at a rate of 225 per hectare, with the hope that production would decrease by 15%. However, the reality was that farmers simply intensified even more on the other 85% of their land. Initially 1.5 million acres were put out of action and there were fears of developers, but the government encouraged extra payments for benefits. In Surrey, the Countryside Premium Scheme visited farms and allocated money to farms that set land aside for areas, such as wild-flower meadows and other areas of natural beauty, as 567,000 hectares of the UK are covered by set-aside. Payments were also given out to farms with Environmentally Sensitive Areas (ESAs). Mislet Farm is paid 40 per hectare on ESAs and 100 for specially protected ground.

As the ESA scheme also pays out for the maintenance of the landscape and environment, James Walling is also paid to rebuild dry-stone walls: 17 per metre. The reforms also encouraged farmers to diversify and use their land for other purposes. Some farmers went into the leisure and recreation industry with golf, stables, paint-balling and quad biking. Others stayed with farming, but tried other methods, such as venison, llamas or fish farming. In 1998, the BSE crisis hit the UK, beef exports were banned and beef-on-the-bone was banned, with public confidence in the meat very low. The price of beef in 1996 had been 700, this had plummeted to 450 in 1998.

Clive Swans farm in Mold, suffered a large overdraft of 100,000 with a loss of 50,000 in 1998 alone. The farm was struggling so badly that a labour force of 2 other contract labourers had to be released, as Clive Swann could not afford the wages. Instead, his wife gave up her job to help him and the situation was at such a crisis point that together they received less than the minimum wage, and so relied upon family credit. Anger brewed amongst the farmers as the UK government did not apply for the full EU compensation package.

Whilst 980 million was available, 85 million was asked for, as it was felt that the taxpayer would end up paying 800 million. The BSE crisis affected everyone, as has the present foot-and-mouth-crisis, it is not only the farmers that suffer, but also the auctioneers who have nothing to sell and the livestock hauliers who are unable to move livestock around. 100 million health and hygiene charges have to be paid for by the British farmers, and yet in the rest of the EU, their governments pay for it, so it is another factor in the desperate lifestyle of the farmer, who struggles to pay his bills. David Naish, President of NFU between 1991 and 1998 said: We are forced to compete with not just one hand tied behind our back, but two. The situation has become so severe for some farmers that in 1997, Glynn Pritchard a Bangor farmer committed suicide as his farm was struggling so badly. The USSR used a policy of collective farms in the 1930's, which meant that the government decided what each farm should grow and took a proportion of the produce, which was then used in the cities, such as Moscow.

In Uzbekistan, the average annual temperature is 40 oC and the total rainfall is less than 7 inches per year. In 1939 a large network of canals was put in to irrigate the fields, so that crops could be grown in the area. This meant that 60 hectares were won back from the desert, on which cotton was grown. In 1913, million tonnes of cotton were produced, but in 1940 this had grown to 6 million tonnes, with Uzbekistan accounting for 70% of the Users total cotton output. With water being extracted from the Syr Darya and Amu Darya, the amount of water running into the Aral Sea was greatly reduced.

With chemicals, both toxic and deadly, being used on the fields, these got into the water supply and ran into the Aral Sea. This meant that the sea-level was greatly reduced, but what was there was contaminated: The number of people affected with Typhoid increased by twenty-eight times, while 83% of children were affected by children, with breast milk contaminated with chemicals. Fishing in the sea became extremely difficult with many people moving away, the sea-level change meant that Muy nak, a former seaside village, became 50 km away from the waters edge. Thirty-four out of thirty-eight species of fishes also died, with what was left, contaminated with chemicals.

The people were dependent on the water and with no clean water left, many people were forced to move away: When the water ends, life ends. In the 1980's, Java was struggling with severe population pressures and so to combat this, the government sent people from Java to the outer islands, such as Kalimantan. With them, they sent seeds, farming equipment and the opportunity to work with the natives and set up small farming communities. As Kalimantan and other areas were covered in tropical rainforest, in order to set up these communities clearing had to take place. The inevitable result of this was deforestation covering a vast area of 152 million hectares. The role of subsidies in farming has come to the scenario where farmers are dependent on subsidies.

If subsidies were cut off, large farms were continue to survive but by cutting costs, smaller farms would simply struggle to even continue surviving. Agriculture is in a difficult spell at the moment and without subsidies, there would simply be no money in the business. The growth of organic farming has and will continue to lead to the de-intensification of farming, whether this is viable, is still to be seen. Farmers must make up the decision of the role of farming, they may feel that they can continue if they become dependent on the government. However with a disaster such as the foot-and-mouth crisis, there is no hope, and compensation is the only thing that farmers can use to get them back on track. Without government spending, farming would be in extreme danger of becoming distinct in the UK and the future of agriculture is looking extremely shaky.

Bibliography

Agriculture and Industry: Neil Punnet t Geography: Liz Hatters by Geography-An Integrated Approach: David Waugh British farming: E.S. Carter and J.M. Stansfield Agriculture and Food: Michael Raw and Peter Atkins Geography of the Worlds Major Regions: John Cole Country file: BBC Panorama: BBC Collective Farms: BBC Geo Factsheet: Number 3 Number 57 Lifelines: WWF-Summer 98 Charterhouse Intranet R.A. Bogdan.