Welcome to the new version of European Tribune. It's just a new layout, so everything should work as before - please report bugs here.
Display:
EU accused of 'bribing' farmers to quit the industry: theparliament.com
Scottish MEP Alyn Smith has accused the EU of "bribing" farmers to quit the industry.

The SNP member was speaking after a parliamentary committee this week approved a report on reform of the EU's agricultural policy.

The report contains a proposal to pay up to €35,000 for farmers who are willing to leave the sector and "permanently transfer their holding to another farmer".

The measure is part of a wide ranging package of proposals aimed at boosting the competitiveness of the farming sector.

The report was approved by parliament's agricultural and rural development committee.
by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Sun Jun 24th, 2012 at 12:03:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I remain as always a stupid commoner. It is beyond me why a farmer should get out of business by transfering his holding to another farmer, nor can I understand why that should "boost competitiveness." It appears to me that trusts are encouraged in place of cooperatives but, as I said, I'm too dim to figure out the fine print. I don't see trusts all that competitive. Does it mean they can lower produce prices and clinch special deals with distributors to eliminate all the remaining small farmers?

And, of course, I could not give a damn about "boosting competitiveness." What's so good about "competitiveness"- or "rural development" for that matter?

by de Gondi (publiobestia aaaatttthotmaildaughtusual) on Sun Jun 24th, 2012 at 05:01:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]
In the USA they want small farmers to sell to large farmers who are more closely tied to agribusiness, which dominates the political aspects of farming with contributions to the political class. I can only imagine that some similar dynamic is at work in the EU, but how the dominance of the bureaucracy was obtained and is maintained is something on which I would like to be educated.

As the Dutch said while fighting the Spanish: "It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."
by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Sun Jun 24th, 2012 at 10:46:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]
The move from small to larger and larger holdings has been a constant of agricultural policy in Europe and North America for decades. Generally speaking, it's been enough to rely on old age retirement and bankruptcy to get rid of the smaller farmers and allow bigger ones to grow by eating up their holdings.

Reasons? Economies of scale; increased opportunity to redefine field boundaries in favour of large plots of land; increased mechanisation; generally greater integration into agro-industry production lines; "competitive" attitudes prevalent among the upwardly mobile new kulaks at the head of enterprises with higher capitalisation than the older generation of farms.

In other words, a radically smaller number of workers on the land replaced by high-energy inputs; industrial productivism; the drive to ever-lower prices with no respect for food quality or the environment.

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Mon Jun 25th, 2012 at 03:37:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I'm not sure how much additional cost savings you get once the farms are about a square mile in size. The limiting factor on mechanization is the amount of ground that a combine harvester can cover during the acceptable harvesting window. Beyond that, you need additional equipment and people at the same rate.

My sources say that beyond that point, what is being done is shortcuts that result in less efficiency. Unskilled workers don't optimize the irrigation system and treat the capital equipment poorly, so the savings in lower wages are cancelled out by less production...

by asdf on Mon Jun 25th, 2012 at 10:27:49 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Bargaining power? Cheaper logistics to bring production to the market? Ability to vertically integrate (producing cheese, spirits...)?

That's on top of my head. I'm no expert.

Earth provides enough to satisfy every man's need, but not every man's greed. Gandhi

by Cyrille (cyrillev domain yahoo.fr) on Mon Jun 25th, 2012 at 10:46:32 AM EST
[ Parent ]
There surely is a point at which upsizing becomes less efficient. But increasing farm size has been and still is, in the EU at least, government and agro-industry policy.

The combine harvester isn't the only criterion, btw - farmers aren't all pure grain producers. There's a drive in most of the EU to wipe out smaller dairy producers, for instance. It works mainly by scheduled reductions in milk prices paid to producers. That is, planned elimination of the smaller units.

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Mon Jun 25th, 2012 at 11:20:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]
It is beyond me why a farmer should get out of business by transfering his holding to another farmer, nor can I understand why that should "boost competitiveness."

Well, I imagine that it has to do something with farm size.

In the US, the average farm size is around 170 hectares. In Britain it's less than a third that.

Why does size matter?

Farming is increasingly a business that relies upon large field sizes in order to justify investment in highly expensive equipment.

Last July, Iowa-based Kinze Manufacturing gathered its dealers to debut a new on-farm toy: a John Deere tractor pulling a grain cart. The scene might have been unremarkable--dealers have seen the cart in action countless times--except that there was no one at the wheel.

The driverless tractor won admirers at NPR, Wired, and the Wall Street Journal. But Midwesterners saw Kinze's system as a welcome but predictable upgrade in the über-mechanized world of commodity growing. For more than a decade, farmers have enjoyed the advances of precision agriculture. The highest-tech farm vehicles across the country now boast real-time kinematic GPS and auto-steer technology. Farmers are just along for the ride, accompanied by  Beyoncé videos.

There's no doubt that big bots are the future of big ag. The question is whether autonomous technologies will ever penetrate the rest of the market--smaller-scale, diversified, labor-intensive operations.

This is probably what the EU is trying to push along by encouraging small farmers, who probably can't afford all this, to sell out, consolidating holdings.


And I'll give my consent to any government that does not deny a man a living wage-Billy Bragg

by ManfromMiddletown (manfrommiddletown at lycos dot com) on Mon Jun 25th, 2012 at 05:28:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]
1 square mile is 259 hectares. Because of the public land survey system, most farms in the U.S. are sized in increments of 1/4 sections, which is around 65 hectares. That's basically the smallest size chunk of farmland you can get in the midwest...
by asdf on Mon Jun 25th, 2012 at 10:34:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]
If my understanding is correct, here in Norway not only is combining farms not encouraged, it's illegal. Farmers can buy equipment together, share a barn, etc, but if you want to get out of the business you have to find some budding young farmer, or whatever, to sell to.
It's understood that small farmsteads are integral to a functioning egalitarian society.
by Andhakari on Sun Jun 24th, 2012 at 11:34:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Lip service is paid to this quaint notion in France, but reality is quite different.
by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Mon Jun 25th, 2012 at 03:39:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]
In the twenty years I lived in a small valley in the monts du Lyonnais, the number of working farmers in the valley (dairy and mixed cropping, average herd size under 20) decreased from around 10 to basically... one. Retirement of a generation of peasant farmers that lived in paltry material comfort with little cash income but modest needs. The younger man who now farms the valley lacks the capital to buy up the land, but leases it from the retired farmers or their inheritors. He spends ten hours a day six days a week on his tractor, and would no doubt have a better income if he had a steady factory job.

Is the productive output of the valley higher than twenty years ago? I have no idea. A lot less people are making a living off it, that's for sure.

It is rightly acknowledged that people of faith have no monopoly of virtue - Queen Elizabeth II

by eurogreen on Mon Jun 25th, 2012 at 04:04:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]
"He spends ten hours a day six days a week on his tractor"

Probably more like 20 hours a day, 7 days a week on his tractor during planting and harvesting seasons, and pretty much idling the rest of the year...

by asdf on Mon Jun 25th, 2012 at 10:37:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]
If he was a grain farmer in Iowa ;)
by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Mon Jun 25th, 2012 at 11:23:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Occasional Series