UK: Agricultural Bulletin, November 2006

Last Updated: 8 November 2006

With the recent failure of the Doha world trade talks still fresh in our minds, we focus on the effect of trade on the agricultural sector and where income, if any, is coming from – with particular attention to the UK dairy industry.


UK dairy farmers are once again caught up in a dreaded cost/price squeeze. Milk prices have been tumbling whilst input costs have been escalating.

A long cold winter followed by a very wet spring and a summer drought will force many farmers to enter this winter with low forage supplies.

Tumbling Prices

The average weighted farm gate price for the 2005/06 milk year was 18.5 pence per litre (ppl), similar to the 2004/05 price of 18.4ppl. Unfortunately, this period of relative stability has been shattered by the substantial cuts (0.5-1.0ppl) made by purchasing dairies this summer.

These cuts are reflected in the monthly average prices, with June 2006 being down 0.5ppl on June 2005. The rolling 12-month average is likely to dip below 18ppl to 17.85ppl by March 2007, unless these cuts are restored across the board.

Escalating Costs

Farmers have to shoulder the burden of a falling market and, at the same time, incur cost increases in fuel, fertiliser and feed. A recent Milk Development Council report refuted the suggestion that milk production should decrease to only meet high-value processing and liquid consumption demand.

The report quite rightly pointed out that the effort and cost involved in decreasing production by 30%, and the number of producers by 40%, would not be worth it. Furthermore, UK producers are better placed than most EU farmers climatically, and in terms of herd size, to be more competitive in milk production.

Farmers need to work more closely with their milk buyers to determine levels of supply in terms of constituents, seasonality and quality, and they need to alter their production systems in order to improve cost efficiencies.

Poor Return On Capital

Net Farm Income (NFI) assumes that all farms are tenanted and that all tenant-type assets are owned by the farmer. It represents the return to the farmer and spouse for their manual and managerial labour and on tenant-type capital in livestock, crops, machinery, etc. The provisional UK average NFI for dairy farms in 2005/2006 was £26,000, a rise of some 9.7% over the previous year. Although an increase, it is still a relatively poor return on capital compared to other industries – in fact, if NFI is taken as a wage there is zero return to management or capital. Of course, averages must only be used as a guide to identify trends as performance varies significantly across dairy businesses.

The Squeeze On Profit

What is currently distressing the industry is the profitability ‘forecast’. Table 1 depicts figures for a fictitious farm,with a quota of 1.125m litres and above-average performance.

The budget shows an expected 0.8 ppl drop in the milk price, partially offset by better returns from cull cows and calves – the result of a strong beef market following the end of the Over Thirty Month Scheme and the lifting of the beef export ban. Output falls by 0.3ppl. Costs (including depreciation, rent, and interest and drawings) rise relentlessly over the period by 1.3ppl so that the deficit from production increases from -0.6 to -2.2ppl. It is only after bringing in the SP (and ELS) that the farm shows a profit in 2005/06 and 2006/07 of 1ppl and 0.6ppl respectively.

The business is budgeted to show a loss in 2007/08 if it makes no changes to its structure or performance. This is due to input costs increasing and output staying constant or decreasing, and the English SP peaking in 2006, but falling in subsequent years to 2012 on dairy farms.

Although an above-average performer, this business clearly needs to take action to improve cost efficiency if it is to remain a dairy business with no alternative income.

The Future: Alternative Forms Of Income

Indeed, many farms are looking to alternative ways of developing their future income streams. Taking steps into unknown ventures will involve new risks, but sometimes the potential long-term returns are either more rewarding or more reliable than producing highly perishable agricultural commodities with low margins.

The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) figures suggest that almost half of farm businesses have some kind of diversification enterprise alongside their agricultural production business. The bulk of these enterprises consist of the use of farm buildings in non-farming ways, but other farm resources are also being employed. The Total Income from Farming figures illustrate that, in real terms, the trading profitability from farming has been falling for 35 years. At the same time, the last decade has seen farming balance sheets strengthen on the back of rising land and property values. Many farmers are now seeing their future selves as ‘rural businessmen’ rather than food producers.

If this offers greater returns to their business, this is certainly the avenue to pursue, and one for dairy producers feeling the squeeze to consider.


When it comes to trade negotiations, what is preferable: failure or compromise? In the eyes of the negotiators of the major economic players, no deal is better than an aborted one.

The Doha world trade talks finally collapsed on 24 July after five years of discussions and minimal progress. In the end, it simply proved impossible to bridge the differences between the parties: the emerging and poorer countries pressing for dramatic cuts in agricultural tariffs without willingness to address their own; the US keen to cut the highest tariffs; thus putting the onus on the European Union (EU) with the higher tariffs, and the EU unprepared to move unilaterally by more than it had offered – clearly an insufficient offer in the eyes of the other countries.

The last round of the trade talks that was scheduled to take four years was completed in eight, and it was only concluded as the result of a compromise. Now, with more World Trade Organisation (WTO) member countries than ever before, and a more sophisticated set of players (the developing countries have had far greater input this time round).

Officially, the talks are not dead, merely ‘resting’. The WTO’s director general Pascal Lamy suspended further negotiations indefinitely, with no timetable planned for the talks to restart. It could be years rather than months before the political will is mustered to try again. In fact, it looks unlikely that anything will happen until after the next US president takes office in January 2009 and tries to secure a new Trade Promotion Authority from Congress (the present deal expires in June 2007).

The future remains unclear. Global trade is at its post-war peak, so does it really matter that the negotiations failed? The number of bilateral agreements between two countries/ trading regions has been steadily increasing and this could accelerate that trend further. However, weaker-negotiating countries will lose out from this trend, and stronger ones will benefit in certain aspects of trade.

With the talks suspended, the EU retains the bulk of its agricultural subsidy and blankets itself from international trade. Moreover, the opportunities for global trade are somewhat diminished and the net effect will be less choice for the consumer, higher prices, and potentially less productivity in the sector through a lack of competition. Although the US has already instigated discussion on how to rekindle the talks, any decisions are most probably many years away.

Furthermore, global trade is presently powered by the enormous spending capacity, and inclination, that the US consumer has had in recent years, coupled with the massive growth in production capacity of developing countries (particularly China) over the same time span. However, signs of weakness are starting to show on both sides of this double act, indicating that it lacks longterm sustainability and that one of these countries will sooner or later fall off the economic balance, sending the other tumbling too.

The implications of this will be widespread and, at that point, we might all decide that a trade agreement compromise would have been better than a failure.


Those working in the agricultural sector know that a lot of income coming into farming businesses does not actually come from farming.

Diversification, off-farm employment and investment income have all grown in recent years to offset the widespread fall in agricultural profits.

Defra is working on producing figures that more accurately reflect this situation and has recently published a report on farm household incomes in England for the 2004/2005 year (

The analysis is based on information gathered from 60,800 farm businesses of a minimum size of half of the standard labour requirement. These businesses actually sustain 79,000 households, because a single business might support two families, for example, a father and son. On average, farm households each drew £29,700 from their farm businesses in 2004/05. However, those same farm businesses only made a profit of £28,200 for the same period. Therefore, in aggregate, farmers are taking more out of their businesses in drawings than they are earning in profits.

In fact, because 61,000 farm businesses are supporting 79,000 households, the situation is worse than these figures suggest as the call on drawings for each farm business is higher than reflected. Based on this, the average drawing from a farm business is £35,300 – resulting in a shortfall of £7,100. On many farms this shortfall is being ‘covered’ through capital transfers funded by increased borrowing or asset sales.

At first glance, one could believe that this is just a one-off phenomenon and that 2004/05 was a particularly bad year for profitability; however, Defra figures show that private drawings have exceeded farm business income for seven out of the last ten years.


Voluntary Modulation

EU farm ministers have recently been discussing the issue of voluntary modulation. Whilst the 2005 pre-Christmas budget deal set out that Member States would be able to levy rates of up to 20% if they wished, no detail about the scheme was included.

However, the EU Commission is not in favour of the scheme, and appears to be trying to thwart it by imposing strict rules. They are planning on applying the same model as used for compulsory modulation: a €5,000 franchise, minimum spending on certain ‘axes’ and implementation at Member State level. Furthermore, an element of co-funding might still be required, and rates would have to be set for the entire 2007- 13 period. Obviously, all this makes the concept of voluntary modulation much less attractive.

The UK, as the only country currently using the provision, is arguing against these measures. It wants the present system to be rolled over almost unchanged: no franchise, maximum flexibility on spending and devolved regions able to set their own rates. One change that will be sought from the current system is a weakening of the co-financing provisions. The UK has support from other Member States, but it may not get all that it wants. Farm Commissioner Mariann Fischer Boel has indicated that whatever rules are agreed to now would still be up for review in the 2007/08 Health-Check, along with the rate of compulsory EU modulation.

SPS Appeals

Until now the Rural Payments Agency (RPA) has not had an Single Payment Scheme (SPS) appeals procedure, as there have not been any appeals to process. However, appeals are starting to occur now that some farmers have had penalties applied to their Single Payment for breaches identified in their cross-compliance inspections. The RPA has thus set up a formal appeals procedure consisting of three stages; we have provided guidance on the process below.

Prior To The Formal Stages

If there is an error with your entitlement allocation or payment, you should write to the RPA setting out your reasons for contesting the decision. If the RPA rejects your written petition it will notify you in writing of your right to appeal and enclose the Stage 1 form (SP6) and Guidance Booklet. The booklet is also available from the RPA website, click on ‘Customer Focus’ and then ‘Appeals Procedures’.

Stage 1

You must respond within 60 days of receiving the RPA letter by completing the SP6 form and sending it to the Customer Relations Unit (CRU). The CRU ‘aims’ to respond, in writing, within 90 days of receiving the SP6; if it rejects your appeal it will send you a SP7 form attached to a case summary.

Stage 2

Complete the SP7 form and return it to the CRU within 60 days with a cheque for £100 payable to the RPA. You can opt to put your case forward, in person, to the Appeal Panel (three independent members) who will consider your case. If your appeal is successful the £100 will be refunded. The panel makes a recommendation to a minister who will then make the final decision.

Final Stages

If the minister rejects your appeal you can challenge the decision through the Courts or, if there has been maladministration, you can get your MP involved with the Ombudsman. There are no definite time limits on the Stage 2 procedures, so the whole process could be lengthy and it is all at the appellant’s cost, even if the appeal is successful.

Top And Bottom Limits On Payments?

The proposal to impose an upper limit on payments (capping) may get a boost at the Health-Check with the inclusion of the disclosure of payments made under the CAP. Until now, Member States have had the right to keep payments made under the CAP confidential, but as part of its European Transparency Initiative 1 the Commission wants to make it compulsory for Member States to publish a list of all beneficiaries (the UK already does this). Commissioner Fischer Boel argues this point by stating that EU citizens have a right to know what their money is being spent on.

There may not just be limits at the top end either. Commissioner Fischer Boel has questioned the efficiency of thousands of very small payments to farmers, as the administration costs are higher than the amounts actually paid out, suggesting that a minimum cap may also be necessary.

Don’t Forget To Complete Your SPR

Farmers in England should by now have completed their Soil Protection Reviews (SPR), having passed the 1 September deadline. The SPR forms part of the cross-compliance rules, and those farmers who have not yet completed it stand to lose part of their Single Payment.

All SPS claimants in England should have been sent a SPR booklet that needs to be filled out (mainly tick-boxes and some text), kept on farm, and updated on a regular basis. It is not designed to be an arduous procedure, but rather a means for the farmer to identify areas requiring attention in order to minimise the chances of soil erosion. Anyone inspecting under crosscompliance is likely to ask to see it.

The SPR is available online at 802571CE004502B5. Warning: it can take a long time to download.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

In association with
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these terms & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.


Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.


Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.


A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.


This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.


If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.


This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.