Re: "Ninety-eight per cent of farm income now comes from EU direct payments"

"Cat(h)" <cathy_ie@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
A wilderness is, in the British Isles, another name for a wildlife
habitat. Or a forest, which is the natural state of most of both
islands AFAIAA.

There is plenty of evidence (see burrenbeo.ie) that some areas of our
isles would lose out significantly in terms of biodiversity if it
were not for livestock grazing them. How many of our "wild"
landscapes are actually wildernesses utterly unaffected by humans?

There might be ecosystems where grazing promotes biodiversity, but
they are the exception. In general, preparation of land for grazing
involves the removal of wildlife habitat.

That's not necessarily a disaster, in proportion, but the more
intensive the farming, the more herbicides, pesticides, destruction of
habitat etc eliminate wildlife that isn't part of the means of food
production.

The disadvantage to farming subsidies is that -

They destroy third world economies, forcing billions to live in
abject poverty


This is pretty simplistic. Let me put the following to you: in the
last year, all EU export subsidies for dairy products have been
removed. In the same period, the cost of importing dairy products
for any non-EU customer has doubled, and in some cases more. So
affordability of dairy products purchased on the world market
(whatever its provenance) has diminished dramatically for third world
countries - who make up a significant element of global dairy
products demand. It is a fact that export subsidies, a majorly
criticised form of EU supports, used to make products cheaper.
I'm not saying that subsidies have no negative impact - I am merely
saying that it is uninformed and simplistic to state blankly that
they kill poor Africans.

It may be simplistic, but it's an unavoidable conclusion. There are very few
areas where Africa can compete with the North. They can't industrialise from
scratch. They do have an advantage in agriculture, in that they can work for
nothing, and often have geographical advantages for growing certain crops.
That advantage is removed when Northern agriculture is cross-subsidised from
Northern industry. Add in tariffs on food imports, and dumping of surplus
goods onto the world market, and there's little prospect of African
agriculture developing.

That's not to say that the EU and USA can fix Africa. Zimbabwe had a
successful farming system, and Mugabe destroyed it for the hell of it. But
not every country in Africa has genocidal leaders.

They encourage farming practices that damage the environment

True in the past - but this has been significantly addressed, and
most supports received by farmers nowadays are subject to pretty
stringent environmental standards specifically inspected each year,
with failure to comply resulting in substantial reductions or even
withdrawal of any direct payment to the farmer concerned.

They cost ordinary taxpayers billions of euro and dollars that
could be used for other things

It is a matter of what priorities society and governments choose for
themselves. You could say that we should not spend money on art
either and instead build hospitals with the money.

I don't mind the state spending money on art which is available for the
entire community. I do object to special privileges being given to artists
that allow them to avoid taxes. It's the difference between spending money
and giving it away.

They cause obesity and ill-health by promoting additives such as
corn syrup


That's far more true of Tate and Lyle and other multizillion food
corporations than it is of farm supports.

It's all part of the same system. Archer Daniels Midland pours corn syrup
into the American diet because it gets massive subsidies to do so, and
tariffs to protect them.

Farming subsidies are an example of how governments can do enormous
harm for no particular reason. It isn't as if the farmers form a
huge electoral bloc.

They still count in terms of territorial development, though.
Industry tends to be more urban than rural. If you don't want
deserts between your towns and cities, you have to make sure people
will earn a living there.

The small towns in Ireland can't survive on agriculture alone, which uses
comparatively small numbers of people nowadays.

In any case, I'm not proposing that farms be banned. Just to operate on the
same basis as other industries.

For an example of the consequences of abolishing farm subsidies,
look at New Zealand.

You might perhaps expand as to what you mean about New Zealand being
a particularly good example.

I mean that farming flourished without significant subsidy.

Environmental standards on farming are quite a bit laxer than they
are in Europe. I have seen with my own eyes some of the acceptable
methods of dealing with slurry in NZ, and I assure you that the
lagunas I've seen would be closed down in a jiffy here.

That may be the case. But that's due to lax enforcement of regulations. The
regulations should be enforced. But it's up to New Zealand to decide how
they want to manage their environment.

New Zealand is a significant exporter of food products into third
world countries (many in Asia). They do not subsidise their exports,
but they are mostly carried out by monopolies - e.g. Fonterra for
dairy products. If your fundamental argument to say that EU
subsidies to food exports into third world countries are evil, then
there is little enough difference between EU and NZ exports which
compete on the same world markets.

If New Zealand are selling unsubsidised food on the open market, and they
are importing food on the same basis, then in the long run, that will allow
the poorer countries a chance. They just need to get their agriculture
operating more cheaply and efficiently than New Zealand. If subsidies and
tariffs intervene, then they will never be able to compete.



J/

SOTW: "Suspect Device" - Stiff Little Fingers

http://www.thepuppinisisters.com/
http://www.azcars.eu/wdfdi/



.

Relevant Pages