Two commentaries from the Guardian

Another Countryside: Agricultural Subsidies in England

Editorial Comment, Guardian Weekly April 1 - 7, 2005

A little bit of history was made last week when the government finally published details of the £1.7 billion (US$3.2 billion) in support payments that farmers and agricultural companies in England receive from the taxpayer. The most glaring subsidy was more than £120 million received by Tate and Lyle in a single year. According to Oxfam, this was mainly in export subsidies, which enabled the company to dump excess production on world markets, thereby preventing poor countries from competing. Other recipients read like a roll-call from Debrett's: the Duke of Westminster (£799,000 over two years), the Duke of Marlborough (£1 million over the same period), and the Duchy of Cornwall (£30,000).

Two questions arise. The first is why payments of this kind by the taxpayer to subsidise agriculture were ever regarded as secret. In the United States such details can be read on an official website. The second, more important, question is why are we paying these subsidies at all? Globally, governments shell out US$350 billion a year - equivalent to 32 percent of farming revenues - to get domestic farmers to grow crops that often could be produced more cheaply by poor countries, generating huge job opportunities.

One of the worst abuses is Europe's sugar regime, from which the likes of Tate and Lyle earn big profits. According to Oxfam, the European Union (EU) spends 3.30 euros to export sugar worth 1 euro, a 300 percent subsidy that would be laughed out of court if applied to any other industry. The World Bank says that sugar costs 25 cents per pound to produce in Europe compared with 8 cents in India and 5.5 cents in Malawi. If Europe gave up sugar production, then everyone would gain not least some of the poorest nations in Africa.

It would be nice to think that the UK figures, showing that most subsidies go not to small farmers but to large agribusinesses and wealthy landowners, would at least kick off a serious debate. Europe needs a long-term programme to phase out subsidies and to use part of the money saved to manage the countryside in the interests of ordinary people. They are not even getting improved access rights to the former farming land that is supposed to be being managed in their interest.

Royal Farms get £1 million in Subsidies

David Hencke and Rob Evans, Guardian Weekly April 1 -7, 2005

Rich landowners reap bulk of taxpayers' cash at the expense of most needy farmers

The Queen and Prince Charles received a total of more than £1 million in European Union (EU) farm subsidies in the past two years, it was revealed last week.

The figure emerged as the government for the first time published the amount of subsidy each farmer in Britain receives, after a request from the Guardian under the Freedom of Information Act. It showed that major landowners receive the largest subsidies from the taxpayer. Seventeen farmers and agricultural enterprises received more than £1 million each last year in help from the taxpayer.

The figures also reveal that hundreds of millions of pounds go to subsidise Britain's agricultural exports, while many developing countries are unable to compete, adding to the huge debt facing Africa.

The largest export subsidy goes to Tate and Lyle, which over two years received £233 million from the taxpayer to sell sugar overseas.

A spokesman for Tate and Lyle said the company was put at a disadvantage by the European Union's pricing structure on sugar. "[The company's] only option is therefore to export sugar it is unable to sell in the European Union and these payments compensate the company for lower prices it can achieve in the world market."

The scale of taxpayers' subsidies has reopened the arguments on why wealthy landowners and multinationals should receive such generous help.

Michael Wills, the former minister in charge of freedom of information, now running the Help Africa campaign, said: "The release of these figures only reveals what we long suspected - that taxpayers' money is going to people who don't really need it. It is time this was changed."

Ministers brushed aside objections from landowners to publish the figures, which have for years been a closely guarded secret within Whitehall.

Phil Bloomer of Oxfam said the figures showed that "East Anglian grain barons and the landed gentry enjoy a bumper cash harvest, while small British farmers struggle to get by."

The Queen's main farm at Sandringham in Norfolk has been paid £769,000 in subsidies in the past two years. A spokesman for the Queen rejected any suggestion that she received too much money from the taxpayer. "The Queen is a landowner and a farmer. She receives subsidy, just as any other farmer would do."

A total of £168,000 was given to Prince Charles's organic farm at Highgrove in Gloucestershire during the past two years.

One of Britain's richest men, the Duke of Westminster, who is worth £5 billion, received £799,000 in the same period.

The Coop Group is one of the top companies receiving the subsidies, but has been pressing for reforms of the payments.

© The Guardian Weekly 2005 www.guardianweekly.com