On Sat, 21 Dec 2002 21:29:01 +0000, Tim Lamb
wrote:

My understanding of the CAP was that support payments would allow time
for inefficient holdings to catch up and that such payments were not
permanent. In the event, world agriculture has moved ahead such that
European inefficiencies remain as they were. We farm more land, we use
less labour/more chemicals but we are still not as efficient as our
Kansas competitor or as cheap as our Ukrainian one.

The original intents of the CAP was laid down 1957
in the Treaty of Rome:

- to increase agricultural productivity
- to ensure a fair standard of living for farmers
- to stabilise markets
- to assure availability of supplies
- to ensure reasonable prices to consumers

The practical policy has been dominated by attempts to increase farmer
income, implicitly aiming at bringing it -- from a falling behind
position -- to parity with other income groups of society.

Additional intents of the CAP was laid down with McSharry
- to maintain a max. of farmers on the land and preserve
rural communities
- to preserve the environment/countryside
- to avoid food mountains
- to maintain good trading relations with other countries
- to meet commitments made in international trade treaties.
- to phase out subsidy related to farm production.

In article , Torsten Brinch
writes
On Sat, 21 Dec 2002 21:29:01 +0000, Tim Lamb
wrote:

My understanding of the CAP was that support payments would allow time
for inefficient holdings to catch up and that such payments were not
permanent. In the event, world agriculture has moved ahead such that
European inefficiencies remain as they were. We farm more land, we use
less labour/more chemicals but we are still not as efficient as our
Kansas competitor or as cheap as our Ukrainian one.

The original intents of the CAP was laid down 1957
in the Treaty of Rome:

- to increase agricultural productivity
- to ensure a fair standard of living for farmers
- to stabilise markets
- to assure availability of supplies
- to ensure reasonable prices to consumers

Intents 2 and 5 are in conflict.

The practical policy has been dominated by attempts to increase farmer
income, implicitly aiming at bringing it -- from a falling behind
position -- to parity with other income groups of society.

This is not resolvable. Farmers choose to farm and go to extreme lengths
to stay in business. Most other professions are rewarded by the
supply/demand system.

Additional intents of the CAP was laid down with McSharry
- to maintain a max. of farmers on the land and preserve
rural communities
- to preserve the environment/countryside
- to avoid food mountains
- to maintain good trading relations with other countries
- to meet commitments made in international trade treaties.
- to phase out subsidy related to farm production.

yes.

regards


--
Tim Lamb

On Sun, 22 Dec 2002 12:49:06 +0000, Tim Lamb
wrote:

In article , Torsten Brinch
writes
On Sat, 21 Dec 2002 21:29:01 +0000, Tim Lamb
wrote:

My understanding of the CAP was that support payments would allow time
for inefficient holdings to catch up and that such payments were not
permanent. In the event, world agriculture has moved ahead such that
European inefficiencies remain as they were. We farm more land, we use
less labour/more chemicals but we are still not as efficient as our
Kansas competitor or as cheap as our Ukrainian one.

The original intents of the CAP was laid down 1957
in the Treaty of Rome:

- to increase agricultural productivity
- to ensure a fair standard of living for farmers
- to stabilise markets
- to assure availability of supplies
- to ensure reasonable prices to consumers

Intents 2 and 5 are in conflict.

Perhaps, but that is rather academic. The policy has clearly failed
both intents.

The practical policy has been dominated by attempts to increase farmer
income, implicitly aiming at bringing it -- from a falling behind
position -- to parity with other income groups of society.

This is not resolvable. Farmers choose to farm and go to extreme lengths
to stay in business. Most other professions are rewarded by the
supply/demand system.

I don't quite understand what you are saying here. The main ingredient
in the CAP has been artificially increased prices of farm products,
fixed at levels above what supply/demand would direct. If there is
something farmers have been screaming for all those years it is to be
insulated from being 'rewarded' by the supply/demand system.

Additional intents of the CAP was laid down with McSharry
- to maintain a max. of farmers on the land and preserve
rural communities
- to preserve the environment/countryside
- to avoid food mountains
- to maintain good trading relations with other countries
- to meet commitments made in international trade treaties.
- to phase out subsidy related to farm production.

yes.

... to phase out subsidy related to farm production

Torsten Brinch wrote in message
...
On Sun, 22 Dec 2002 12:49:06 +0000, Tim Lamb
wrote I don't quite understand what you are saying here. The main
ingredient
in the CAP has been artificially increased prices of farm products,
fixed at levels above what supply/demand would direct.

only in some years, in other years it has held prices below what supply
and demand would direct. This has happened with sugar, and has happened
with cereal where levies were put on EU grain to stop farmers exporting
it and getting a higher world price.

--
Jim Webster

"The pasture of stupidity is unwholesome to mankind"

'Abd-ar-Rahman b. Muhammad b. Khaldun al-Hadrami'

Xref: 127.0.0.1 uk.business.agricultu104812 sci.agricultu61605

In article , Torsten Brinch
writes
The practical policy has been dominated by attempts to increase farmer
income, implicitly aiming at bringing it -- from a falling behind
position -- to parity with other income groups of society.

This is not resolvable. Farmers choose to farm and go to extreme lengths
to stay in business. Most other professions are rewarded by the
supply/demand system.

I don't quite understand what you are saying here. The main ingredient
in the CAP has been artificially increased prices of farm products,
fixed at levels above what supply/demand would direct. If there is
something farmers have been screaming for all those years it is to be
insulated from being 'rewarded' by the supply/demand system.

There is no shortage of people wanting to farm.

Where there is a shortage of teachers, police, traffic wardens or even
consultant gynaecologists numbers can be adjusted by offering more
money.

regards


Additional intents of the CAP was laid down with McSharry
- to maintain a max. of farmers on the land and preserve
rural communities
- to preserve the environment/countryside
- to avoid food mountains
- to maintain good trading relations with other countries
- to meet commitments made in international trade treaties.
- to phase out subsidy related to farm production.

yes.

.. to phase out subsidy related to farm production

I am in a position where I could withhold my production from the market.
If sufficient other producers around the world were prepared to do the
same farmgate prices could be adjusted to what the market will bear.

In reality most farm businesses have outgoings; rent, wages, loan
interest which make a *production strike* impracticable. To say nothing
of government interest in the merest hint of a disruption to supplies.

Currently, Australian wheat is trading at more than twice what I am paid
but this is an indication of instability in international trade rather
than a benefit of no subsidy.

regards


--
Tim Lamb

On Sun, 22 Dec 2002 16:37:04 +0000, Tim Lamb
wrote:

In article , Torsten Brinch
writes
The practical policy has been dominated by attempts to increase farmer
income, implicitly aiming at bringing it -- from a falling behind
position -- to parity with other income groups of society.

This is not resolvable. Farmers choose to farm and go to extreme lengths
to stay in business. Most other professions are rewarded by the
supply/demand system.

I don't quite understand what you are saying here. ..

There is no shortage of people wanting to farm.
Where there is a shortage of teachers, police, traffic wardens or even
consultant gynaecologists numbers can be adjusted by offering more
money.

Huh? What I read you as saying is that the number of farmers has been
something like a linear function of the subsidy -- each time the
subsidy was increased, the number of farmers/farmworkers went up, such
that per head income remained at a low level.

Additional intents of the CAP was laid down with McSharry
- to maintain a max. of farmers on the land and preserve
rural communities
- to preserve the environment/countryside
- to avoid food mountains
- to maintain good trading relations with other countries
- to meet commitments made in international trade treaties.
- to phase out subsidy related to farm production.

yes.

.. to phase out subsidy related to farm production

I am in a position where I could withhold my production from the market.

Nice feeling, eh. So am I.

If sufficient other producers around the world were prepared to do the
same farmgate prices could be adjusted to what the market will bear.

Yes, that's the same in my field of business. If we fixed the prices
between us, the market could probably bear about three times what I
can produce for, and about twice what my competitors can, before we
would get into serious trouble with upcoming underbidders.

In reality most farm businesses have outgoings; rent, wages, loan
interest which make a *production strike* impracticable.

That's also how I see it. Things go around.

To say nothing
of government interest in the merest hint of a disruption to supplies.

There's a difference, government would not interfere if we stopped
production, but we also don't get 200% of our net profit from
government subsidies. Our customers would be unhappy with a production
strike, though. If it weren't for them, I guess we wouldn't have the
strength of will to carry on servicing them, day after day. Sigh.

Currently, Australian wheat is trading at more than twice what I am paid
but this is an indication of instability in international trade rather
than a benefit of no subsidy.

How much wheat are you sitting on, Tim?

In article , Torsten Brinch
writes
I don't quite understand what you are saying here. ..

There is no shortage of people wanting to farm.
Where there is a shortage of teachers, police, traffic wardens or even
consultant gynaecologists numbers can be adjusted by offering more
money.

Huh? What I read you as saying is that the number of farmers has been
something like a linear function of the subsidy -- each time the
subsidy was increased, the number of farmers/farmworkers went up, such
that per head income remained at a low level.

Er.. no. The number of farmers is decreasing steadily. Because food is
in surplus and there are plenty of willing farmers there is no need for
govt. to apply financial incentives.


Currently, Australian wheat is trading at more than twice what I am paid
but this is an indication of instability in international trade rather
than a benefit of no subsidy.

How much wheat are you sitting on, Tim?

None. Last load went in early December.

Holding cereals in barely adequate on floor stores is not sensible. It
will get harder as insecticides for bulk use are phased out.

regards

--
Tim Lamb

On Mon, 23 Dec 2002 09:41:31 +0000, Tim Lamb
wrote:

In article , Torsten Brinch
writes
Huh? What I read you as saying is that the number of farmers has been
something like a linear function of the subsidy -- each time the
subsidy was increased, the number of farmers/farmworkers went up, such
that per head income remained at a low level.

Er.. no. The number of farmers is decreasing steadily. Because food is
in surplus and there are plenty of willing farmers there is no need for
govt. to apply financial incentives.

?! You were commenting (quote below) the perceived problem, that
farmers are falling behind in income, leading to the aim of the common
agriculture policy, CAP, to attempt to bring farmers up to some form
of income parity with the rest of society. You commented that this
problem cannot be resolved by CAP because -- because --- because
what??

****
The practical policy has been dominated by attempts to increase farmer
income, implicitly aiming at bringing it -- from a falling behind
position -- to parity with other income groups of society.

This is not resolvable. Farmers choose to farm and go to extreme lengths
to stay in business. Most other professions are rewarded by the
supply/demand system.
****

In article , Torsten Brinch
writes
?! You were commenting (quote below) the perceived problem, that
farmers are falling behind in income, leading to the aim of the common
agriculture policy, CAP, to attempt to bring farmers up to some form
of income parity with the rest of society. You commented that this
problem cannot be resolved by CAP because -- because --- because
what??

****
The practical policy has been dominated by attempts to increase farmer
income, implicitly aiming at bringing it -- from a falling behind
position -- to parity with other income groups of society.

This is not resolvable. Farmers choose to farm and go to extreme lengths
to stay in business. Most other professions are rewarded by the
supply/demand system.

I don't know what income a farmer should expect so I don't know with
which group parity is intended. However, as there surpluses of our
products and there is little likelihood of farmers leaving the industry
from choice, bulk commodity purchasers are under no pressure to raise
prices. As the alternative is further transfers from taxpayers via the
exchequer I see no prospect of the *parity* objective being achieved.

regards
****

--
Tim Lamb

On Mon, 23 Dec 2002 17:50:44 +0000, Tim Lamb
wrote:

In article , Torsten Brinch
writes
?! You were commenting (quote below) the perceived problem, that
farmers are falling behind in income, leading to the aim of the common
agriculture policy, CAP, to attempt to bring farmers up to some form
of income parity with the rest of society. You commented that this
problem cannot be resolved by CAP because -- because --- because
what??

****
The practical policy has been dominated by attempts to increase farmer
income, implicitly aiming at bringing it -- from a falling behind
position -- to parity with other income groups of society.

This is not resolvable. Farmers choose to farm and go to extreme lengths
to stay in business. Most other professions are rewarded by the
supply/demand system.

I don't know what income a farmer should expect so I don't know with
which group parity is intended.

You are old enough to admit having some political clue, Tim.

However, as there surpluses of our
products and there is little likelihood of farmers leaving the industry
from choice, bulk commodity purchasers are under no pressure to raise
prices. As the alternative is further transfers from taxpayers via the
exchequer I see no prospect of the *parity* objective being achieved.

Ah, you are speaking prospectively, from the present situation, asking
what could -from now on- increase farmer income to some form of parity
with other income groups of society. I agree, further transfers seem
to have fallen out of vogue, which would seem wrong, if it could fix
the problem, as you suggest it might.

Now, historically further transfers from taxpayers have most certainly
been a real political option, to say the least. Why didn't that fix
the problem?

Torsten Brinch wrote in message
...

Now, historically further transfers from taxpayers have most certainly
been a real political option, to say the least. Why didn't that fix
the problem?

that is to obvious a question even to ask.

The money basically went straight into the pockets of the retailers.

--
Jim Webster

"The pasture of stupidity is unwholesome to mankind"

'Abd-ar-Rahman b. Muhammad b. Khaldun al-Hadrami'

"Torsten Brinch" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 23 Dec 2002 17:50:44 +0000, Tim Lamb

I don't know what income a farmer should expect so I don't know with
which group parity is intended.


One of the problems with parity with other professions is deciding what
is equivalent.

Most professions the salary is the only compensation component. Farmers
also have an asset (the farm) growing in value (long term). Ease of travel
to work, Home provided by the bussiness and a pleasant peaceful place to
live.

It is rather complex to work out a formula for what parity is.

NEW YEAR MESSAGE OF NFU PRESIDENT BEN GILL

16 December 2002

For farmers and those with an interest in the countryside, 2002 will
be remembered as the year of the inquiry - one after another they have
reflected on the past and reassessed the way forward.

In the meantime, another 15,000 jobs were being lost from farming in
England alone.

2003 must be the year that Government finds its way and gets behind
the wheel of what is one of Britain's last remaining primary
industries.

We must move on from deliberation to implementation of policies that
allow British agriculture to recover profitability, competitiveness,
and deliver sustainability.

Farmers have been working hard to respond to the general soundings for
change by developing branded regional products, by entering
environmental schemes, by getting closer to their customers and
developing farm assurance schemes for the industry.

Indeed, there was a slight increase in the total income from farming,
mainly from the reduction in the wages bill resulting from so many
leaving the industry, but also from increased efficiency. This was
very welcome, but was built on individuals working unsustainably long
hours for desperately poor returns. This has to be addressed.

Farmers want to see action from a Government that demonstrates its
intention to work with the industry and to nurture the formation of
"grown-up relationships" across the food chain and with environmental
organisations where partners respect the need for all participants to
make a profit.

The creation of the Food Chain Centre and more recently the English
Farming & Food Partnerships will be critical in turning around the
lack of profitability in the farming industry. These two organisations
have the potential to deliver answers that are so desperately needed.
Crucially, they must resolve one key issue: how is it that with food
prices in Europe no higher than in Britain (even including a VAT
element) that their farmgate prices are higher than ours? In the last
five years while UK farm incomes have fallen by 42%, in Germany they
have risen by 34%. Solve that and we can go a long way to putting the
entire UK food industry on to a secure footing for the future.

There must also be greater recognition by Government of the impact of
regulation on the industry's bottom line and its decision to remain
outside of the euro.

Only a profitable agriculture can deliver for the environment and the
economy. Just over 70% of the British countryside is agriculturally
managed - through a diverse range of food and energy crops or native
woodland and grassland.

The new "entry level" scheme is a step in the right direction in
recognising the environmental contribution and the cost of additional
environmental work to farmers. But the issue of chronic under funding
for the UK's rural development plans and agri-environment schemes must
be challenged. UK farmers should not suffer from the funding shortage
created by the UK's decision of more than a decade ago not to draw
down structural funds. Currently, France and Ireland, for example,
have five times as much developmental funding.

Farming has demonstrated its skill not just in producing food,
wildlife habitats, and the backdrop for our tourism and rural
industries but also as a producer of alternative green fuels and the
raw materials for products based on natural fibres and oils. These
crops are the critical new element of future farming that have the
potential to transform the whole industry’s profitability base. And
yet the promises of Government continually seem to fall tantalisingly
short of the target.

2003 must be the year in which the Government acts to re-ignite the
country-wide pride. It must be the year in which it puts at the top of
its agenda the rebuilding of the trust that has been so badly damaged
in recent times. Trust not only between sections of the food chain,
but also between the food industry and Government. To do anything else
would be short sighted, futile and costly for us all.

Above all it must be the year when the framework is created that
allows us to achieve a fair price from the market for the top quality
goods we produce. The year when we put the profitability back into
British food and farming.

NNTP-Posting-Host: 217.135.102.245
X-Trace: newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk 1040746088 7568 217.135.102.245 (24 Dec 2002 16:08:08 GMT)
NNTP-Posting-Date: 24 Dec 2002 16:08:08 GMT
X-Complaints-To:
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2014.211
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2014.211
Path: text-east!binarykiller.newsgroups.com!propagator2-la!news-in-la.newsfeeds.com!syros.belnet.be!news.belnet.be!co lt.net!diablo.theplanet.net!news.theplanet.net!not-for-mail
Xref: 127.0.0.1 uk.business.agricultu105033 sci.agricultu61614


Torsten Brinch wrote in message
news
On Tue, 24 Dec 2002 13:06:20 -0000, "Hamish Macbeth"
wrote:

Most professions the salary is the only compensation component.
Farmers
also have an asset (the farm) growing in value (long term).

That is afaik not measured in with farm income, since it is not income
from farming, not compensation for farming. I think it is better
expressed, farmers tend to be also land owners.

depends entirely on the country. Even in the UK a very high proportion
are tenants.

--
Jim Webster

"The pasture of stupidity is unwholesome to mankind"

'Abd-ar-Rahman b. Muhammad b. Khaldun al-Hadrami'

"Torsten Brinch" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 24 Dec 2002 16:48:37 -0000, "Michael Saunby"
wrote:


"Tim Lamb" wrote in message
...
In article , Torsten
Brinch
writes
?! You were commenting (quote below) the perceived problem, that
farmers are falling behind in income, leading to the aim of the
common
agriculture policy, CAP, to attempt to bring farmers up to some form
of income parity with the rest of society. You commented that this
problem cannot be resolved by CAP because -- because --- because
what??

****
The practical policy has been dominated by attempts to increase
farmer
income, implicitly aiming at bringing it -- from a falling behind
position -- to parity with other income groups of society.

This is not resolvable. Farmers choose to farm and go to extreme
lengths
to stay in business. Most other professions are rewarded by the
supply/demand system.

I don't know what income a farmer should expect so I don't know with
which group parity is intended. However, as there surpluses of our
products and there is little likelihood of farmers leaving the
industry
from choice, bulk commodity purchasers are under no pressure to raise
prices.

Production volume is not affected in a meaningful way by the number of
farmers. The labour (including management) required to produce a tonne
of
any commodity is constantly falling. Farmers are forced to leave the
industry due to ever increasing production efficiency. To reduce the
volume of production you must take land out of use, either temporarily
by
creating wildlife reserves or similar, or permanently by creating
woodlands, housing estates, airports, roads, etc.

Farmer income is not affected in a meaningful way by the production
volume. The labour (including management) required to produce a tonne
of any commodity is constantly falling. Farmers are forced to leave
the industry due to ever increasing production efficiency. This means
fewer farmers remain to share the total income from farming between,
and each of them can get more. To reduce the number of farmers you
must aid the restructuring of farm businesses, amalgamation, transfer
to other jobs, retirement etc.


Why waste money on reducing the number of farmers? It happens naturally as
production efficiency increases.

There's no need to spend taxpayer's cash on restructuring farm businesses
to keep farmers employed. It seems the vast majority of UK citizens would
rather there were no farmers - anywhere.

Michael Saunby