Food & Flood

[Jane Gillett]

THinking that there's been a lot of UK food production ruined in recent
floods and a lot of our farmlands are low land anyway eg I've heard that in
E.Anglia and Lincolnshire a sizeable amount of farmland is only 20ft or so
above sea level, I wondered how people here viewed govt payment for flood
protection of food production areas. Or, in simple English, should our govt
pay to protect farmland or let it flood?

Some factors are, AFAICS, (not in any order) but you tell me please:
. Over 50% of our food is imported so why not all?
. Should we simply abandon our farmers or compensate them?
. What should we do with the "released" land? WIldlife and housing are the
immediate candidates with less vulnerable industry not far behand. Govt is
already loosening planning permission for developers; perhaps farmers could
sell their land for housing at a better profit than they get from crops.

Look forward to hearing views.
Cheers
Jane

[Mike.. . . .]

Following a post by Jane Gillett

Post by Jane Gillett
I wondered how people here viewed govt payment for flood
protection of food production areas. Or, in simple English, should our govt
pay to protect farmland or let it flood?

coincidence, I just posted about R4 programme about this!

Post by Jane Gillett
. Over 50% of our food is imported so why not all?

because we need to do stuff thats productive in the countryside and to
have a degree of food security, also some things are better grown
locally and food miles are bad

Post by Jane Gillett
. Should we simply abandon our farmers or compensate them?

compensate those we buy out.

Post by Jane Gillett
. What should we do with the "released" land? WIldlife and housing are the
immediate candidates with less vulnerable industry not far behand.

wildlife, it only works if the land you buy if left to flood,you must
never build on it. Raise the defences elsewhere and lower the defences
on the chosen land, then the flood water has somewhere to go.

Post by Jane Gillett
Govt is already loosening planning permission for developers; perhaps farmers could
sell their land for housing at a better profit than they get from crops.

you would get massive profits from that *at first* but you would ruin
the countryside, no doubt the tories dont care or are too short
sighted.

[Jane Gillett]

Post by Mike.. . . .
Following a post by Jane Gillett

Post by Jane Gillett
I wondered how people here viewed govt payment for flood
protection of food production areas. Or, in simple English, should our govt
pay to protect farmland or let it flood?

coincidence, I just posted about R4 programme about this!

Yes!. Bringing this "into the fold" as it were......
There's been some recent thought along these lines as you say - abandoning
some cultivated land (farm or home) - and both overall efficiency of
solution and compensation will be factors.

Post by Mike.. . . .

Post by Jane Gillett
. Over 50% of our food is imported so why not all?

because we need to do stuff thats productive in the countryside and to
have a degree of food security, also some things are better grown
locally and food miles are bad

First of all "stuff that's productive" - not sure what you mean so can you
give examples? Are you talking about replacing an income for the owner?
Income for our community/society, maybe after compensating the owner?
Wildlife - specified or letting the land evolve naturally?

Post by Mike.. . . .

Post by Jane Gillett
. Should we simply abandon our farmers or compensate them?

compensate those we buy out.

Who <would> we buy out? Which producers do you save and which do you
abandon? The rest simply make whatever arrangements for their land and
their future that they can - any limitations? Does planning permission
still apply?

Post by Mike.. . . .

Post by Jane Gillett
. What should we do with the "released" land? WIldlife and housing are the
immediate candidates with less vulnerable industry not far behand.

wildlife, it only works if the land you buy if left to flood,you must
never build on it. Raise the defences elsewhere and lower the defences
on the chosen land, then the flood water has somewhere to go.

Leave it to nature at that point? Presumeably thise are flood plains which
would not get planning permission for housing.

Post by Mike.. . . .

Post by Jane Gillett
Govt is already loosening planning permission for developers; perhaps farmers could
sell their land for housing at a better profit than they get from crops.

you would get massive profits from that *at first* but you would ruin
the countryside, no doubt the tories dont care or are too short
sighted.

What countryside precisely? Completely left to nature? Managed for
something?

And for the food - the subject of this group? Import all? I know you've
given the disadvantages, Mike. The only logic of the food system, or any
other trading system, is the profit factor - imported because of low wage
systems for the majority of retail customers with a small but productive
sector which sells UK food to people who choose on the basis of:
. Local support
. Estimated quality
. Additive etc control
. Food miles
. Welfare control

Cheers
jane

[Mike.. . . .]

Following a post by Jane Gillett

Post by Jane Gillett

Post by Mike.. . . .
because we need to do stuff thats productive in the countryside and to
have a degree of food security, also some things are better grown
locally and food miles are bad

First of all "stuff that's productive" - not sure what you mean so can you
give examples?

farming!

Post by Jane Gillett
Who <would> we buy out?
Which producers do you save and which do you
abandon? The rest simply make whatever arrangements for their land and
their future that they can - any limitations? Does planning permission
still apply?

no reason to change planning permission. I can't say which farms you
buy out, the dutch flood engineers would have to work that out. They
would be the lowest lying ones and near rivers I assume. The other
farms would just carry on as normal but with less flooding.

Post by Jane Gillett

Post by Mike.. . . .

Post by Jane Gillett
. What should we do with the "released" land? WIldlife and housing are the
immediate candidates with less vulnerable industry not far behand.

wildlife, it only works if the land you buy if left to flood,you must
never build on it. Raise the defences elsewhere and lower the defences
on the chosen land, then the flood water has somewhere to go.

Leave it to nature at that point?

you manage for nature & flood relief with visitor facilities. No
problem finding wildlife charities to run if for free, it would bring
in wildlife tourism too. Cranes are just starting to recolonise UK,
they would love it. Beavers? There are no doubt other things you could
do but wildlife must be the best, its a good area for wildlife
already, a big reserve would enhance it and the surrounding areas no
end.

Post by Jane Gillett
Presumeably thise are flood plains which
would not get planning permission for housing.

shouldnt get it, no.

Post by Jane Gillett

Post by Mike.. . . .

Post by Jane Gillett
Govt is already loosening planning permission for developers; perhaps farmers could
sell their land for housing at a better profit than they get from crops.

you would get massive profits from that *at first* but you would ruin
the countryside, no doubt the tories dont care or are too short
sighted.

What countryside precisely?

the countryside you suggested might be sold for housing

Post by Jane Gillett
Completely left to nature? Managed for
something?

you were suggesting housing not nature. Have you mixed up points?

Post by Jane Gillett
And for the food - the subject of this group? Import all? I know you've
given the disadvantages, Mike. The only logic of the food system, or any
other trading system, is the profit factor - imported because of low wage
systems for the majority of retail customers with a small but productive
. Local support
. Estimated quality
. Additive etc control
. Food miles
. Welfare control

Food prices are going to rise, they stopped making land anymore, in
fact its retreating, so in the longer term our farming will be
profitable even if not the cheapest in the world. I see no reason to
stop now, is anybody saying we should?

[Jane Gillett]

Post by Mike.. . . .
Following a post by Jane Gillett

Answered this point by point then deleted it - long & boring. So I
summarise views and let you match points and answers.

Assume we're talking about food production and not about any other country
business which has suffered.

I assume that the consensus would be for govt - ie taxpayers - to pay to
keep running the farms which the Dutch Engineers recommended as feasible.
Maybe buy out the others affected? Yes/no?

The feeling I get from this is that other land should be used for wildlife,
either back to nature ie completely hands-off or managed for certain
species maybe with tourism facilities incorporated; costs in the second
case to be either covered by the farmer concerned or picked up AFAP by
wildlife charities together with govt as appropriate in individual
situations. Costs in the first case would be handled by govt and utilities
under Health & safety - no other costs needed.

No suggestion of govt paying costs for private housing.

Post by Mike.. . . .

Post by Jane Gillett
And for the food - the subject of this group? Import all?

Food prices are going to rise, they stopped making land anymore, in
fact its retreating, so in the longer term our farming will be
profitable even if not the cheapest in the world. I see no reason to
stop now, is anybody saying we should?

Two separate situations I think; short-term after the floods and longer
term.
I think there might be opposition if govt decided to pay to pay what it
will cost to get UK food production back into production ATM and some would
say we should expect farmers to get back on their own feet after this
disaster. Other businesses could probably expect to be left to go to the
wall in equivalnet circumstances. Does our need for food put UK food
production in a separate category? Would govt be paying to keep food
available or to alleviate personal tragedy? In the immediate future it's a
case of how much we should expect the govt ie taxpayers to pay for either -
and how much we say to the producers "It's <your> business, You fix it".
Longterm is another matter and we shall not know what it is going to be
until we see how future factory farming is going to develop. Just glad I'm
not a farmed animal. OTOH, maybe we <should> rethink Solent Green.....

Jane

[Mike.. . . .]

Following a post by Jane Gillett

Post by Jane Gillett
Assume we're talking about food production and not about any other country
business which has suffered.

Well, lack of flooding will help everybody

Post by Jane Gillett
I assume that the consensus would be for govt - ie taxpayers - to pay to
keep running the farms which the Dutch Engineers recommended as feasible.
Maybe buy out the others affected? Yes/no?

I assume farms that continue just continue as was. Farms to be flood
relief land are bought by govt.

Post by Jane Gillett
The feeling I get from this is that other land should be used for wildlife,
either back to nature ie completely hands-off or managed for certain
species maybe with tourism facilities incorporated; costs in the second
case to be either covered by the farmer concerned or picked up AFAP by
wildlife charities together with govt as appropriate in individual
situations. Costs in the first case would be handled by govt and utilities
under Health & safety - no other costs needed.

If you are talking about farms carrying on and being part managed for
wildlife, well, you can do that anytime. I see this as purely a matter
of taking some drained land out of agriculture and putting it back to
marsh for wildlife with the double win of alieviating flooding of the
remaining farms. We just need to reverse some of our unsustainable
drainage.

Post by Jane Gillett
No suggestion of govt paying costs for private housing.

I didnt see housing as being part of this scheme.

Post by Jane Gillett

Post by Mike.. . . .

Post by Jane Gillett
And for the food - the subject of this group? Import all?

Food prices are going to rise, they stopped making land anymore, in
fact its retreating, so in the longer term our farming will be
profitable even if not the cheapest in the world. I see no reason to
stop now, is anybody saying we should?

Two separate situations I think; short-term after the floods and longer
term.
I think there might be opposition if govt decided to pay to pay what it
will cost to get UK food production back into production ATM and some would
say we should expect farmers to get back on their own feet after this
disaster. Other businesses could probably expect to be left to go to the
wall in equivalnet circumstances. Does our need for food put UK food
production in a separate category?
Would govt be paying to keep food
available or to alleviate personal tragedy?

Both?

Post by Jane Gillett
In the immediate future it's a
case of how much we should expect the govt ie taxpayers to pay for either -

we need to apply to the EU disaster relief fund. Either that or
believe UKIP and ban gay marriage.

Post by Jane Gillett
and how much we say to the producers "It's <your> business, You fix it".
Longterm is another matter and we shall not know what it is going to be
until we see how future factory farming is going to develop. Just glad I'm
not a farmed animal. OTOH, maybe we <should> rethink Solent Green.....

well, we know food demand is going up and will continue to do so as
emerging economies suck in food imports

[Mike.. . . .]

Following a post by Mike.. . . .

Post by Jane Gillett
The feeling I get from this is that other land should be used for wildlife,
either back to nature ie completely hands-off or managed for certain
species maybe with tourism facilities incorporated;

forgot to answer this bit. Leaving it unmanaged isn't that good, you
can get a lot more wildlife with management and I think a lot more
flood protection. Visitor access will bring a fair bit of tourism.