Avoiding unintended policy consequences

Alarmism is never a positive tactic. Suggesting that various regulations and impositions on farming are damaging the viability of the industry is not helpful. Unless there is some truth in the commentary. The Nitrates Derogation reduction is a case in point. It does impact several thousands of, mainly, milk producers. To a point, it can be managed, with some loss of income and productivity. That is not an alarmist reaction, merely a statement of fact. What we should be even more concerned about is the direction of travel, both perceived and actual, in the governance of agriculture. Farmers, researchers and advisors are running just to stand still in attempting to accommodate the regulatory changes being imposed on farming. Sudden upheavals are the most difficult to manage. Again, the nitrates changes are a prime example. Logic would suggest that changes impacting the number of cows a farm can carry should be implemented across the lifecycle of a cow, not an arbitrary calendar date of the first day of a year. If a cow becomes pregnant on May 1 and is expected to calve on February 1, there is a legitimate argument that the implementation period of a regulatory change made during her pregnancy should at least reflect that fact. Instead, we have a situation where cows, heavy in calf, would have to be culled prematurely, so that farmers can comply with lower nitrates restrictions. This is bad for farmer morale, bad for animal welfare, and bad for public perception. A lead-in that reflects the natural course of farming and livestock management must be welcomed.
Premature change imposition does not stop there. Calf care is a priority for farmers. Extended age limitations on the movement and sale of calves are necessary, even if it means significant additional workload for calf breeders. Problems arise in providing additional accommodation and feeding facilities at short notice. Add in extra labour requirement and the stress on calf carers increases substantially. Include serial objectors to farm developments, resulting, in many instances, in long delays or rejection of farm-building projects, and we can all too easily see a wall of worry descending on farmers. There is every likelihood that there will be animal-welfare repercussions on some farms with all the associated fall-out, both for individual farmers as well as the reputation of the industry. We should spend less time attempting to stop the unstoppable and more time negotiating rational and reasonable timescales and support measures to deliver change with minimal farmer stress and negative consequences for all involved.
In other policy areas, the consequences of imposing unilateral actions without addressing the wider consequences are equally regrettable and confounding. We encourage more tillage while at the same time making access to land for tillage farmers more expensive and less available because of impositions on livestock farmers. We seek more forestry, yet impose further restrictions on tree species and mix, as well as the soil types deemed eligible for planting. Few, if any regulatory impositions are subjected to impact statements outlining the economic effects on those directly affected and the sector as a whole. Consideration is rarely taken of the potential for unintended consequences, even though, time and again, there are examples of more harm than good being done when the broader picture is considered. Where is the big picture? Where is the all-important holistic approach to the regulatory management of the farming sector? 

As Christmas approaches, I hope we can all enjoy a little respite from the stresses of life and farming for a few days, at least! Happy Christmas, everyone, see you all in 2024.