DAERA uninterested in creating a future for local young farmers

Whatever the reasons for what appears a bizarre and mean-spirited decision over a small amount of money this puts very deep, clear water between here and the EU. There the priority for the farm commissioner “generational renewal”. This is not just about funding, but an all encompassing approach that makes creating a future for young farmers a priority. This starts with efforts to make not only farming, but living in rural areas an attractive proposition for young people; behind this comes funding, training, and other initiatives centred around the goal of getting more people to view agriculture as a sound career choice. Here and in every country in Europe there is a demographic time bomb under agriculture. The average age of farmers is well past the age when people would be retiring in other industries. This is partly because young people, for a variety of reasons social and financial, are shunning the industry. Tackling this is a priority if the industry wants to have a future. To date efforts at a UK level have been largely unsuccessful, but that is not a reason to give up even trying to do something by failing to provide funding to those who want to do so. DAERA is seemingly good and funding nature linked programmes, but less good at showing an interest in agriculture, beyond basic support; it is equally poor at making rural areas more attractive and economically viable. The problem comes down in part to a poor definition of the term investment. In economic terms this means something that delivers a financial return. Today the term has been blurred and spending money on green and other schemes is often described as an investment. It may yield a social return by making us feel better about living in a better environment, but it does not deliver a financial return for the money spent. By contrast, for a lot less money, it is hard to think of any scheme that could deliver more than a programme to get young people into agriculture. This would protect the long term foundations of the food industry which remains Northern Ireland biggest economic sector and private employer. So the next time any politician refers to an investment, ask the simple question as to what the financial return will be and when it will come. As a policy Brexit seems to be going through a political death by a thousand cuts. Even the dwindling band of its advocates cannot now muster economic arguments in its favour. It has become a victim of a world changing at an unimaginable pace. Conflict and geopolitical tensions get worse by the day; the international rule book has been torn up. Now is the time for strength and big power blocs, making the isolationism of Brexit potentially the biggest economic downside the UK faces. The big gamble for the government is whether to stick to its pro-Brexit manifesto commitments. An alternative would be to draw a line under the last government and its flagship policy by giving people a new choice around closer relations with the EU. This would not necessarily be about re-joining the EU as before Brexit, but getting closer by being part of the single market and new European defence policies. On defence, the UK is already having a big impact with no formal links. A new referendum would be the a huge gamble, but it is what Labour needs to put clear water between it, Reform and what is left of the Conservative Party. The EU commissioner for finance, Valdis Dombrovskis, was in London recently for the high level EU/UK group that tackles problems from Brexit. He said the EU was “open-minded” on the UK having a new single market relationship and joining its defence and security pact. Amongst those on the government side were Rachel Reeves, who as Chancellor knows the damage Brexit has done to hopes around economic growth. Open-minded is diplomatic-speak for “we would like this to happen” and Reeves would like to see the economic benefits of a customs union. This would be good for agriculture as it would ease trade with out still biggest market. Critics say it would curb UK freedom to agree trade deals, but the EU secures better deals, because it offers scale. Change could be popular, provided economic benefits flow before a general election. The question is whether the government has the nerve to duck manifesto commitments.