Memorandum submitted by J P Agronomy Ltd
SUMMARY
The financial implications for the farming and
rural community especially small family farms will be severe and
the negative environmental considerations difficult to comprehend.
I am fearful about the effect on the third world from the proposals
and voice concern on the environmental damage to the world in
the countries that will take over sole production of sugar. We
should reform the system not destroy it.
INTRODUCTION
1. I believe the sugar regime is long overdue
for reform. We have dumped sugar on the world market for which
we should be ashamed! However I believe reform is necessary not
destruction of the industry as proposed.
2. I am an agronomist in North Norfolk and
visit many farms in the locality. I advise on both conventional
and organic systems with particular concern with low impact farming
to encourage wildlife, in particular insect life. Insects are
the glue of ecosystems, as I will explain later. If we increase
insects we will automatically increase higher order animals. Sugar
beet fit well into these ideals.
THE PROPOSED
REFORM
3. Financial impact of reform
— For most growers (who have become
more efficient in the last few years) the cost of production is
£17 per tonne in good years and rising to £18.5 in poorer
seasons. For the last few years we have not had severe droughts
which would increase the cost per tonne still further. I would
be happy to show my workings for this cost, if a desire to do
so.
— At the proposed level, of £17
(or less) most growers would be forced to give up growing sugar
beet, it will not be a difficult decision, the proposals will
give a negative return to the grower.
— The cost of haulage will go up in
the near future (oil price rises) so that if the local factory
gives up, there will be another increased cost which will make
it unviable.
— The costs to agriculture increase
as the prices they are paid reduce.
4. Alternate land use
— The crop will be replaced by `another'
break crop, most likely winter sown Oil seed rape. At present
this seems to be the logical switch. Very little oil seed rape
is grown in the sugar beet areas, it being the alternate host
for beet cyst nematode.
— This will reduce the spring crops
in the area.
— Our soil types do not take to 2nd
wheat crops well, the yield reduction is immense from diseases
such as take-all therefore a break crop must be used.
5. Implications for small family farms
— Without the sugar beet crop it will
make many small farms no longer viable, many of whom grow sugar
beet on a one in three basis, the crop has been the backbone of
the farms' income.
— To survive the farms will have to
increase the economies of scale, and consequently agribusiness
will increase at the expense of small farms.
6. Implications for the local economy
— There are many businesses reliant
upon the sugar beet crop who are not in the first instance farmers.
Obviously, in my case 25% of my income is derived from the crop
and, although some would transfer into other crops, I would still
lose income.
— The machinery involved in the production
of beet is high and the support services large.
— The haulage businesses are reliant
upon the crop locally and they would be greatly affected.
— Man power on farm is required to
grow the crop.
— The estimates are 10,000 jobs involved
both directly and indirectly will be lost from an already damaged
rural industry.
7. Implications for trading partners
— The Afro-Caribbean countries supply
us sugar at our inflated prices.
— The reform will destroy their whole
way of life
— Oxfam are so worried that these countries
will not be able to compete and wholesale devastation of their
economy will automatically occur.
— The proposed reform will create whole
countries that rely on aid rather than trade. I am glad this is
not on my conscience!
8. WTO
— To the uninformed, the WTO ruling
brought in the first instance by the rich producing countries/institutions
looks fair.
— However these producers are agribusinesses,
they have not regard for the implications in other countries.
— I would question how many families
are involved in sugar production in Brazil?
— Brazil is a country that is destroying
rainforest at an alarming rate!
— The poorer states of the world will
pay!
— The decision is totally financially
driven.
9. Environmental impact of the sugar reform
in the UK
— Perhaps this should be at the top
of the agenda, as it is a bigger concern of government than farming
at present.
— To remove the sugar beet crop will
change the amount of overwintered stubbles we have. It is so important
to maintain overwintered stubbles to allow birds to feed on them.
It gives many birds the food source they require to live over
the winter months. It is no good producing wonderful areas for
birds to nest and brood rear if we condemn them to starve in the
winter for lack of food.
— To created differing habitats throughout
the environment, a patchwork of crops is the best way of increasing
wildlife. It creates food supply and habitat for many important
species.
— Habitat of the crop is of great importance—the
skylark numbers in North Norfolk are extremely high. These will
be severely reduced without the breeding habitat.
— Stone curlews (thanks to farmers
such as Chris Knight) are making a very slow but sure increase
in numbers in the sugar beet crop.
— Brown hares are in numbers that can
be considered as a pest locally! This is partly due to the crop's
architecture.
— Pink foot geese. We are fortunate
enough to have one third of the worlds' population over-wintering
in North Norfolk. The feed on the discarded tops of the crop after
harvest. Most farmers leave the tops for them and plough and drill
the next crop after the have migrated. I suggest that members
of the committee who have not seen the most wonderful sight of
the geese coming in to roost on a winters' night should come up
to Norfolk this winter and witness it before it is diminished
by this review.
— The level of environmental benefit
is enormous.
— From my own work the species of carabid
& staphylinid beetles (ground beetles) changes dramatically
and positively when we change from winter cropping only to introduce
spring crops. Briefly, most beetle species are in the environment
for limited periods through the year and we increase the number
of pterostichus species under winter cropping regimes at the expense
of other species. If we increase the one species as mentioned
there will be a corresponding reduction in other species. Those
species adapted to the winter cropping regime proliferate. If
the beetle numbers are low in the early spring, then the resulting
food supply for song bird chicks is corresponding low. To produce
food for song birds we must have a constant supply of insects
through the spring and summer and the sugar crop will provide
this. Sugar beet itself harbours many insects that become bird
food.
10. The Sugar beet crop as it stands provides
benefits for us all but will be destroyed if the cuts go ahead
as proposed. Positive suggestions might be to
1. reduce the base price to £24 per
tonne;
2. to reduce the A & B quotas by 5-7%
and increase the level allowable from poorer countries by a corresponding
amount;
3. to stop `dumping' on the world market
by either having a quota system that allowed a tonnage of the
crop to be carried forward to the following year for an individual
grower. Thus if a grower over produced one year he would be required
to under produce the next and no money would be paid for the over
production until that following year, or
4. to create a bio-ethanol use for the "extra"
crop. This of course should have been done years ago but the system
was too easy simply to dump the excess on the world market.
I urge the committee to think positively about
the long overdue reform but in your deliberations please be very
aware of your responsibilities to this country as well as the
world stage.
J P Agronomy Ltd
July 2005
|
