A UK exit from the European Union (EU) means the UK agricultural sector is facing the most significant changes to policy since joining the European Economic Community (EEC) and the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) in 1973. These changes will predominantly impact upon upland livestock farmers currently heavily reliant on direct subsidies. In future, farmers wishing to access public money, will have to deliver the ‘public goods’ needed to enable the government to reach biodiversity and net-zero carbon emission targets. This thesis focuses on agricultural policy change and the sustainability of farming in the uplands concentrating on the social, human and natural capital aspects of adapting to change.
First, CAP payments data was used to assess Pillar 1 payments structure and distribution and explore the potential impact that subsidy removal may have on land use in Wales. This approach enabled me to present a comprehensive picture of farm holdings, land areas and livestock numbers at risk from direct subsidy removal. It shows livestock farmers in Less Favoured Areas (LFA) being the most vulnerable to changes in CAP payment structure.
Overlay and geoprocessing techniques in Geographic Information Systems (GIS), and an analysis of the Welsh Glastir agri-environment schemes (AES) were used to explore Pillar 2 payment structures and AES design and structure to identify strengths and weakness in the system. An analysis of option uptake for the Glastir Advanced and Entry level schemes found a few options, which fitted the current farming system, to have the highest uptake levels. This means that in upland areas where Glastir uptake is highest, there is little or no change to farming practice. I concluded that whilst AES helps maintain the status quo, they do little to contribute to improving biodiversity and reducing carbon emissions. Similarly, through a qualitative study into the barriers to the uptake of the English Countryside Stewardship Scheme (CSS), I found high transaction costs and poor ‘goodness of fit’ to current farming practice, forcing farmers to leave AES. One solution identified was to lower transaction costs and improve relationships between the scheme provider and deliverer through the decentralisation of AES policy.
A survey was used to identify farmer attitudes to subsidies and policy change. It found most farmers thinking the current subsidy system is unfair and that it should change, but it also showed that many, especially upland livestock farmers, stating they could not survive without direct payments. Policy makers will need the cooperation of farmers and landowners if they are to implement the level of public goods delivery required to reach Net Zero carbon by 2050. To explore how networks and access to social capital hinders or helps in adapting to change, I conducted a social capital analysis of farmers in and out of AES, and with farmers delivering high nature value farming objectives above and beyond that required of state-run AES. I found production-focused farmers not in AES, and many in AES, having high levels of bonding social capital. These groups were inward looking and mistrusting of anyone outside of the immediate network. Farmers in the high nature value group had higher levels of bridging and linking capital and wider networks and were more trusting. I concluded that this group is more adaptable to change and more likely to remain viable post-policy change.
Finally, carbon footprinting and case studies were used to explore how upland farmers might adapt to policy change and remain socially, economically and environmentally sustainable. This research provides a detailed understanding of the impact of policy change and the complexities surrounding the farmers’ ability to adapt to change and deliver policy targets. Farming practice will have to change, and the shape and nature of farming in the uplands is likely to be significantly different after an EU departure. However, results suggest that upland farmers can help deliver net zero carbon emissions and other similar sustainability targets through a move to more extensive farming practices and a reduction in overall livestock numbers.