Hi Mudsticks,
I am inclined to agree. With area payments being reduced the quickest for the largest landowners (one in the eye for the Duke of Westminster!!!) I am sure within the tax-shielded agri-inheritance land community they will be looking at ways to maximise their income from the taxpayer for just owning the land. And let's face it, once imports of cheap food produced to lower standards kicks in, as is the plan as stated by Gove ("Brexit means cheaper food!") there won't be much point in employing farmers to produce expensive food that can't even be sold to the EU, and so low input things like tree growing will be very much on the cards - plant trees, mulch them (if they are lucky two years in a row!!!) and then sit back and wait for the public goods subsidies to roll in! After 30 - 50 years you can harvest them, by which time we will have come to our senses and rejoined the fight against Russia with our european pals, and domestic food production may even have become a priority once again....
I don't know who is more cynical, me or you, I suspect we could spend a few hours in the pub (after July) comparing notes!!
all the best
NfC
PS round here the EA is actually using satellite images as well as the reporting hotline to find and fine the worst offenders, especially with regard to soil erosion from winter run off. So much maize is being cultivated on riverside meadows now for the anaerobic digester plants that rivers and roads frequently run red after heavy rain. Short term gain for long term soil loss always seemed like perverse logic to me, but I gather some just will do anything for a twice annual Caribbean holiday....
I know, I try, and then invariably fail, not to get very cross about the maize for biomass travesty.
So using diesel + other inputs with consequent soil damage / carbon losses to produce feedstock for supposed environmentally freindly power generation...
The original intention was good perhaps, the execution terrible.
What we need (imho) is properly agro-ecology, biodiverse, mixed farming systems, producing our food, integrated alongside ecology..
In fact utilising, good soil management, nutrient recycling, ecology and contemporary sunlight (mostly) to produce that food.
Not 'rewilding' patches here and there with supposed 'sustainably intensified agriculture' elsewhere.
We could have a far better food production and supplies, at regional, and national level, and do all the good ecology sh1t too, and employment, and health benefits +++ other public goods, if only we could get out of our "food grows here, nature lives there" silo mindset.
It's not like lots of us aren't already quietly doing this stuff already, most of it is just common sense resource use, and some sound methodology.
But it's all a bit unglamorous (and unprofitable) for the high tech bods who want to patent, and sell us some whizz bang IP products.
Greenwaste compost, winter cover crops, homemade biochar, and soil conserving minimum tillage systems are a bit 'uncommodifiable' for the likes of Bayer et Al.
Where's the profit, in all that, for the 'extractive' middleman, and input manufacturer ??
So anyway, we'll see if this rivers thing gets anywhere.
But there are already, so many well intentioned, and sound thinking organisations all trying to help advance this transition towards better food farming, climate change solutions, and enhanced ecology.
Is
another one going to make much difference??
Who after all. has the overarching lobbying power??
Us hairy agroecologists are getting our voices heard just a little more now, even in defra - funnily enough it was Gove who 'let us in' apparently in part cos he was bored of the NFU..
But it still most often feels like a David and Goliath standoff.
And of course you get accused of being 'anti tech' or 'anti science' which is total. bollix, but it's still regularly levelled at us. .
Oh well gotta keep on keeping on, I guess..
And yes, getting back down the pub, for a bit of light relief from it all now and then, would be very nice too
