I'm no fan of the Mail - in fact few newspapers make my blood boil with such regularity, but this week it has reached new heights.
This morning marks its third front page on the cloned cow revelations which have focused a media storm on one unsuspecting farmer in Inverness.
Under the headline 'Farmer with 96 Clones : As the big supermarkets vow NEVER to sell clone meat or milk, the Mail tracks down the farm at the centre of the controversy' it carries a picture of Steven Innes who runs Newmeadow Holsteins.
They have portrayed the poor man like a criminal as they whip up a frenzy about cloned milk and meat.
It's nothing short of disgusting.
Those 96 cows are NO DIFFERENT to any other cows. They are the offspring of the offspring of a cloned cow. They were born and have lived exactly the same way as any other cow.
Scientists have said their meat and milk is safe.
The FSA has said it is safe.
And the European Food Safety Authority says it is safe.
Yet the Daily Mail is convincing the public it is not.
That's not to say there are not issues over traceability, transparency for consumers and animal welfare - these are all perfectly legitimate.
But by stoking the fires of food safety concerns, the Mail engages in scaremongering of the worst kind and even the most intelligent consumers, normally immune to the scare stories the Mail comes up with, are falling for it.
Even Eamon Holmes (and I'm probably being a little kind calling him intelligent after this cracker!) said on Sky News this morning it was a little like BSE in that farmers put public health at risk for the sake of trying to boost production.
What a ridiculous suggestion!
No other national newspaper has gone for the story in the same way the Mail has, and no other journalist has framed the story quite like Sean Poulter (who we can thank for previous scares over 'Frankenfoods') has.
It begs the question, why is the farming industry not getting its point across? And the FSA and Defra too?
They should be moving to assure the public meat and milk that has entered the food chain is perfectly safe.
If they fail to do that the damage will be done and - as one consumer commented on the Mail's website on Monday (yes, for the purposes of research I was forced to read it) - people will switch to buying French meat and milk.
The industry can not afford to let this roll on and needs to act decisively to assure consumers there is no risk.
Only once it has done that can we have a reasoned debate about animal welfare and traceability to ensure procedures are put in place to ensure the LEGITIMATE concerns this has raised are properly addressed.
Otherwise the likes of the Mail will win the day and it will turn a very bad week for some farmers into a PR disaster for an entire industry.
]]>They are the signature of rural life.
But how would they vote? Let's consider the evidence.
Labour would have a very strong shout given that the head honcho at Defra - Hilary Benn - is a vegetarian. No cow could accuse him of eating one of the family - which is helpful in an election.
However, it is under the Labour Government that the dairy herd has dropped by 22 per cent and the beef herd has dropped by 13 per cent. (These are genuine Defra figures by the way). I don't see how the cow population would vote Labour when these stark figures are taken into account.
What about the Tories? Jim Paice, hoping to be next farm minister, would woo the cows by promising to tackle their arch enemy - the disease ridden badger. Assuming badgers don't get a vote in this animal election, Jim would pick up lots of votes here.
After all, just under 40,000 cattle were slaughtered in 2008, at huge cost to farmer and taxpayer. If Jim could tackle TB, that is a lot of extra Tory votes walking the British pastures.
But the obvious and awkward question for Jim Paice remains - why would I vote for you, you ate my brother.
No, cows won't vote Tory.
The Liberal Democrats would have a good chance of winning key votes because they have promised to redistribute CAP cash to
The cows will like this.
But the Lib Dems also want much greater integration with
A real vote loser.
The Green Party won't get a look in either - they always complain about the cow's flatulence problem. Which given most greens live on a diet of nuts and berries, is quite rich.
No, it is obvious who cows would vote for.
But I went canvassing in a field in
Most, if not all cows, said Moo...
And I am more than convinced they were trying to say the Moonster Raving Loony Party. So there you have it.
Cows vote for Loonies.
Either that or they were attempting to say Moove over humans, we want a go.
Or they were just cows and didn't understand me.
]]>I am not normally one to nail my colours to the political mast but I am now happy to admit it: I am seriously considering voting for the Liberal Democrat Party in the general election.
I have one Very good reason and I think you'll find it hard to disagree.
No, it's not because of that oh so cunning trick where they hid for 90 years in the ITV studios before jumping from behind the set and scaring the life out of Brown and Cameron. (Although that was brilliant).
My reasoning is simple: It is Lord Paddy Ashdown, the former SBS officer and king of cunning.
There is no single politician more suited to clearing the air to allow our gridlocked airlines to get back into the skies.
Only Paddy will get our food imports flowing again and only he will rescue our stranded citizens from the far reaches of the world (mostly Benidorm and the
Vote Lib Dems: vote Ash Down.
The Election is everywhere.
You can't turn a corner without seeing David Cameron's shiny Timotei hair, or Gordon Brown's stick on grin. I have even seen Nick Clegg who, it turns out, is the Lib Dem leader (I always thought it was Vince Cable).
Turn on the TV. It's Clegg. Turn on the radio. Brown. Look on the internet and I have been sent a mocked up version of Cameron dancing like a leprechaun across my screen.
I love it. I even listened intently to the leader of Plaid Cymru (the party of
The election is one long comedy sketch.
It was masterful the way Gordon Brown stone-walled Nick Robinson's repeated attempts last night to get him to repeat his view that the Tories had 'deceived' business leaders over National Insurance. Brown was brilliant and defiant. Using the oldest trick in the book he played deaf and point blank refused to answer the question.
Meanwhile David Cameron looked like a school boy as he free-wheeled into the House of Commons on his bike yesterday - although I was aghast to see his helmet swinging from the handlebars and not on his head.
I am now waiting for Clegg to re-affirm his GQ comments over how many people he has slept with ('no more than 30' he said at the time). Wow.
And what about the Labour billboard campaign with a smarmy looking David Cameron sitting on a red Quattro with the slogan: 'Don't let him take
The Tories liked the billboard so much they have adopted it for themselves with a more friendly expression from Cameron and the slogan changed to: 'Fire up the Quattro. It's time for change'.
This is great. And it has only just begun.
I now want the WAGs (Sam, Miriam and Sarah) to take part in a talent contest which will include modelling swimwear, telling their best joke and revealing a hidden talent.
And don't forget the three pantomime TV debates between the big guys.
We have got a whole month of this. Joy. Joy. Joy.
But apparently the fever is not catching on. I can't believe it.
The most recent YouGov poll found those 'already bored of the election' were way ahead of the Tories - 43% of the population want all politicians to disappear off the face of the earth compared to the 40% who would vote for Cameron.
Fearing this apathy, my rural county - Worcestershire - has taken the bull by the horns (or the lamb by its little legs) and launched a new campaign to get people out to vote.
Across the county there are pictures of sheep adorning busses, public buildings and notice boards with the slogan "Ewes your Vote". Genius. I expect a 100% turnout in Worcestershire.
I haven't decided who to vote for yet. I am still waiting for all parties to come out with their sign post policies. I will vote for the party that will eradicate signs - a blight on the rural landscape.
The sign posts on the way into my local town read: You are nearing the town, you are really near the town, slow down a bit, this road might flood, there is a bend ahead, slow down a bit more, this town is twinned with another town in Slovakia, this town came fourth in garden of the year competition in 1988, you are in the town, you are still in the town, you are leaving the town, you are out of the town, thank you for being in the town, speed up, speed up a bit more, you are approaching the next town etc ad infinitum throughout Great Britain.
It's simple.
Eradicate signs: Save £6 billion* in sign expenditure and associated work hours (*over an unspecified period of time).
Eradicate signs: Add £6 billion to the economy because drivers are less stressed and will be more productive at work.
Eradicate signs: More foreigners will ask us for directions which will help race relations and language learning.
Eradicate signs: The countryside looks a whole lot nicer.
Eradicate signs: Makes your journey a bit more exciting.
Job done.
]]>It was, after all, the present government that took it out in a highly symbolic gesture in 2001.
Actually, it was the letter 'A' but the effect was the same. In a post-election departmental revamp, Tony Blair replaced the disgraced Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Maff), with the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra).
'Agriculture' out, 'Environment' in. The NFU had to fight hard to even get the word 'food' onto the Nobel House nameplate, it is said.
MAFF, long seen as an agent of the industry, had paid the price for the foot-and-mouth disease calamity.
Defra arrived with a new agenda. It placed the environment at heart of all it controlled, including food and farming policy - all-too-often, farmers maintained, at the expense of their ability to produce food.
The Conservatives pledge to put 'Farming' or 'Agriculture' back on the Nobel House nameplate, if elected on May 6, is a neat ploy to state their farming credentials against this backdrop.
In reality, farming will not be a frontline issue during this General Election campaign. It never is. The economy, more than ever before, plus the likes education, health,
But, politically, farming is now higher up the agenda than it has been for a very long time.
The events of 2008 - soaring food prices at home and food riots across the globe - focussed minds on food security, while farming's intrinsic links with the environment, biodiversity, climate change, energy security and nutrition are now widely recognised.
The main parties are at least taking farming seriously, hence the Tories' judicious use of the 'F-word'.
"First and foremost we need to put British food production back to the top of the agenda," Shadow Agriculture Minister said recently, explaining the 'F-word' plan.
The Tories believe their traditional rural roots and current farming policies identify them as the natural industry allies.
It is not that straightforward, however. The events of 2008 led to a very real change within Defra, under Secretary of State Hilary Benn's leadership.
In October 2008, Defra lost its cherished climate change remit but was given a brand new focus - to drive government policy on food.
Mr Benn and his Ministers began championing farmers and British food production in public, never more so than when Farming Minister Jim Fitzpatrick described them as the nation's "future heroes" at the 2009 Labour Party Conference.
Mr Benn's core message at the 2009 NFU conference was: "I listened and I changed our approach."
He reeled off a long list of policy initiatives intended to show how that 'change' has worked through to farmers on the ground. From better food labelling, to the supermarket ombudsman, investment in agricultural research, the voluntary approach to replacing set-aside and his overarching Food 2030 strategy it was as if he was hailing 'New Defra' in the way New Labour was born in the mid-90s.
Impressive as it was, the reality is that a large credibility gap remains as far as many farmers are concerned. His attempts to convince sceptics we really are seeing a 'New Defra' are constantly undermined by one issue where farmers are adamant he has 'not listened' - bovine TB and badger.
The Liberal Democrats will also have a very big say in this election and, if the outcome is a hung Parliament, its aftermath.
The party is strong in rural areas and its pro-farming credentials were highlighted at the NFU conference, where Lib Dem Shadow Defra Secretary Tim Farron's populist speech received comfortably the best reception among the three main Parties.
In
The UK Independence Party (UKIP) will argue that the nation and its farmers would be better off without the 'ineffective and cumbersome 'Common Agricultural Policy, while other 'niche' parties - too many to mention here - will have their say on issues affecting farmers.
This is the most important General Election for the nation for almost a generation. It is hugely important for farming, too.
]]>JIM Fitzpatrick's comments on the next round of CAP reforms reinforce the impression that attitudes within Defra are changing.
His carefully worded comments are intended to stress forcefully that there will be no change of policy when it comes it comes to negotiating the future of the CAP over the next couple of years.
Defra, the Treasury and Downing Street will make it clear in any talks that their long-term goal remains the removal of Single Payments and other forms of direct support for farmers across the EU.
That farmers should only be paid ultimately for delivering public goods, largely in the form of environmental benefits, will remain the mantra.
What the Farming Minister has signalled, however, is a new approach to how the UK handles these negotiations in Europe. A 'pragmatic, realistic' approach, as he put it.
The 2005 Defra-Treasury document outlining the idealistic, and many would argue entirely unrealistic, Government vision for the CAP has won the UK few friends in Brussels and across the EU.
More importantly, it is seen to have cost the UK influence. The Government has, at times, appeared to be isolated in CAP discussions as fellow member states have preferred to talk amongst themselves as they seek common solutions.
Mr Fitzpatrick has acknowledged that the UK will get further by recognising the reality of the situation -the overwhelming desire across the EU to retain some form of direct support post-2013 - than by continuing to demand the impossible.
With an election looming, the issue may be taken out of Mr Fitzpatrick and this Government's hands.
But whoever takes on the mantle of negotiating these vital reforms, the principle he ahs outlined should be taken on board.
Talking 'in the room with EU partners' is bound to result in a better deal for UK taxpayers and farmers than yelling from the sidelines. And being ignored.
]]>IT WAS during the dark days of foot-and-mouth 2001 that the prospect of passing some of the public cost of animal disease control on to farmers was first raised by then agriculture Minister Nick Brown.
Yet nine years on, after various working groups, public consultations and seminars have grappled with how responsibility and cost sharing could work in reality, the subject is shrouded in more uncertainty than ever.
As one industry veteran remarked this week, each stage of this process seems to answer some questions but raise twice as many new ones.
Arguably, the biggest one to come out of this week's Draft Animal Health Bill is whether Defra has lost control of the cost sharing element of the equation.
From the very early days, the emphasis has been on ensuring responsibility and cost sharing are intrinsically linked.
Two sides of the same coin. One policy.
Industry figures close to the process therefore fully expected the Draft Bill to cover both sides of that coin.
It was a surprised to learn the cost sharing measures would be covered at a later date under a future Treasury Bill. A 12 page Q & A on the Bill made no attempt to explain why.
It is no secret that the Treasury was unimpressed with Defra's botched attempt last summer at cost sharing proposals that included an unworkable compulsory insurance plan, now ditched, and other figures that spectacularly failed to add up.
Has the Treasury now decided that if it wants the job done properly it needs to take ownership itself?
If that is the case, do farmers have more to fear from it than the Defra they know?
All we can say with any certainty is that, while the responsibility sharing plans are taking shape, we now know less about the cost sharing side than we did before.
It appears to be back to square one. Uncertainty still reins.
]]>IF Monday was the day the electioneering unofficially began with battle lines drawn on the issue of health and the NHS, then yesterday marked agriculture's turn to take centre stage.
The launch of the Government's food strategy and the Conservatives' commitment to establishing a supermarket ombudsman dominated the headlines as food and farming were thrust into the spotlight.
All this as the Oxford Farming Conference got underway.
But, for all the talk of focusing the mind on food production and standing up for Britain's farmers against the power of the supermarkets, how much action can we really expect?
First, to the Conservatives. Yes, they promised to establish an ombudsman but not as a separate body advised by the Competition Commission but as part of the OFT.
That in itself should set alarm bells ringing. After all, the OFT were the guardians of the previous code of conduct for retailers and have spent countless hours investigating the supply chain to very little avail in the past.
So why expect anything different under a Conservative government? The OFT is after all an independent body.
But that said, the sentiment is welcome and was well received by farmers as a real message of support for an industry which, as we know is now more important than ever.
That was a sentiment shared by Hilary Benn at Oxford yesterday as he lunched the Government's food strategy, 'Food 2030'.
He said we were at a pivotal moment in our history.
Food security is as important as energy security.
And we simply must produce more food, or face food shortages.
A stark warning.
And another message of support for British farmers one would assume? But alas, the cynics have been on overdrive. Firstly, they don't trust Government and secondly, they want to see real action to back up the statements.
Steady on!
I'm all for a bit of cynicism, and of course demanding a great deal more for the industry from the Government, but perhaps we should praise the fact they have (belatedly perhaps) recognised the importance of the industry and shown a willingness to take action.
One step at a time. First the strategy, then the action. Only then would it be right to make a final judgment.
But perhaps the biggest achievement of the food strategy (so far at least) is the coverage it received. Sky News, BBC, the Telegraph, Times, Guardian, Mirror, Sun - they all covered it.
And for farmers that has to be seen as good news.
Coverage in the national media will drive the strategy forward by bringing consumers on side, informing them of the situation and fingers crossed, encouraging them too to demand more action.
Only then will change be seen because despite the electioneering at Oxford yesterday, the fact remains that the rural vote is not the biggest priority for the UK's political parties.
Winning the votes of Britain's farmers is unlikely to prove the difference between success and failure come the spring, and judging from the comments we've had from farmers in recent weeks it would take a brave man to bet on Labour winning over the majority of rural Britain in the coming months.
]]>IT seems a little incongruous that the calamitous failings surrounding the Single Payment Scheme in England should once again be dominating the farming headlines this week.
It was, after all, only a few days ago that the Rural Payments Agency announced it had paid 80 per cent of claimants a total of £1.3 billion within the first two days of the window opening.
With hard evidence that the agency is finally getting on top of the problem, the time would seem to be ripe to move on, four years on from when it all started to go wrong. Certainly, Defra and the RPA would like to think so.
But the two reports on Defra and the RPA's handling of the scheme published this week raised some key points.
The Public Accounts Committee's report alleges that, while the speed of delivery has improved dramatically, all is not well beneath the surface.
Its focus is on value for money for taxpayers and its conclusions are damning. From the RPA's 'cumbersome' and soon to obsolete £350m IT system to the excessive cost of processing claims and the 'poor leadership' of the agency, its story is one of continued mismanagement and maladministration.
Worse are the accusations of complacency, neglect and attempts to obscure the true scale of the problem by Defra, a Department, according to the PAC, in denial.
This impression was only enhanced by Defra's extraordinary refusal to accept the recommendation of the Parliamentary Ombudsman to compensate farmers she found to have suffered personal and financial injustice as a result of the SPS failings.
The small show of accountability in the name of justice she requested would have gone some way to healing old wounds. Defra, however, saw 'no basis' for her suggestions and rejected them.
The progress made by chief executive Tony Cooper since he took over at the RPA has quite rightly been acknowledged by the NFU.
But the lack of accountability for what has gone before - not least the Ministerial choice of the SPS system that lies at the heart of the debacle - and the enormous problems that remain have once again been highlighted this week.
Until there is real progress here, the story will not go away.
]]>Last week, the French Agriculture Minster invited 21 'like minded' EU Member States to gather in Paris to discuss how best to dish out a CAP budget worth almost £50 billion.
Monsieur Bruno Le Maire said
It was an embarrassment for Defra, although the line from
Either way, invite or no invite, it is clear Defra has a mountain to climb if British interests are to be adequately fought during discussions of the CAP post-2013.
The memory lives strong of deal struck in 2002 between
It happened again in 2005 when the Government was promised a shake-up of farm subsidies in return for giving up the hard-fought budget rebate, worth around £7 billion.
Today the promised shake-up still seems far away but this year Britain's contribution to the EU budget will rise by 60 per as the rebate slips away.
The danger of being outmanoeuvred once again must demand a change in the Government's tactics.
The route of the problem is clear - it is Defra's wholehearted and ideological desire for a fundamental reform of the CAP.
It wants to remove all subsidies and protection so the market can reward farmers for their outputs and it wants the CAP to provide a reward for social benefits, such as environmental goods, that the market cannot provide.
To some the stance is admirable, perhaps even desirable, but it stands in direct opposition to France, and 21 other member states' who wish to protect their farmers from the market.
More importantly, it precludes the
If Defra is to influence policy in
France does not have British farm interests at heart and it would be naïve to think that by excluding Defra from talks, our farmers will be given a better deal. They won't.
Defra must to be engaged in
The United Nations estimates that livestock are responsible for 18 per cent of greenhouse gas emissions, a bigger share even than transport.
Next Monday, (December 7), world leaders from 192 nations will join 15,000 people from across the world in
Understandably, livestock will be high up on their agenda and rightly so - there is a monumental potential for the livestock industry to make significant greenhouse gas savings.
If world leaders in
Agriculture in the
Methane emissions from the sector have fallen by 17 per cent since 1990 and agriculture accounts for around one per cent of the
Yet the industry is still hell-bent on cutting that figure down further and on improving its green reputation.
A year ago the dairy industry launched its 'Milk Roadmap' to cut emissions. Twelve months on and huge progress has been made.
This week the meat industry followed suit.
The NFU, Defra, British Retail Consortium, British Meat Processors Association, Association of Independent Meat Suppliers, National Sheep Association and National Beef Association all joined with the English Beef and Lamb Executive (Eblex) to draw up a 'roadmap' to reduce the environmental impact of red meat.
The British Pig Executive (Bpex) followed suit two days later with its own strategy to cut emissions.
Increasingly British livestock farmers are using new breeding, feeding and management techniques to improve their efficiencies - which not only means less emissions but also greater returns.
If these technological efficiencies could be transferred to some of the world's most inefficient farmers, global greenhouse gas savings would be immense.
Anti-meat campaigners are missing the point - the
Together we need to export our ideas, not our production.
]]>ZMCZDNW3KFVG
]]>It is set to be an event like no other, and we have already been promised it will be the biggest and best we have seen to date.
Yes, Arla's proposed new milk processing plant is something which will place the
And one which could - for the dairy industry at least - be an event far more significant than the small matter of the Olympics taking place just the other side of the M25.
That sentiment will not be lost on the
It shows confidence in an industry which has been battered from pillar to post in recent years. It also demonstrates that Arla is in it for the long term as it cements its position as the biggest liquid milk processor in the country.
And with 1 billion litres of milk - that's enough to fill the Olympic swimming pool at
The announcement raises two big questions. First, where will Arla get the milk from, and second, is retail growth at Arla going to be strong enough to sustain those volumes?
The simple answer is not without big changes. One presumes they will need to recruit many more producers and they will also have to target retail and wholesale contracts already held by other processors.
That should set a cat among the pigeons as the other big players, Wiseman and Dairy Crest, look at their own liquids business wondering if they can sustain their position.
Wiseman, one would argue, can. With its impressive new dairy at Bridgwater producing 375 million litres a year it already has the strength of position to see off any challenge.
Dairy Crest however is a different matter. It would take a huge investment for it to match the two biggest players in the market and its liquids business is likely to be vulnerable from the anticipated onslaught from Arla.
But whatever happens in the processing sector one thing is for sure, the
I just got back from three days in
I was in the north, near to
I thought I was just going to learn about sugar beet - grown to perfection in the area - but I was also treated to a fascinating subplot.
'This land', I was told as a hand swept around a beet field and pointed into the distance, 'used to be divided right down the middle with the democratic capitalists in west and the communists in the east. But now we are united'.
He was, of course, talking about the division of the country after the Second World War.
Today all that signifies the old border, which dissolved precisely 20 years ago, is a signpost on the roadside, but the memories of division are still strong for all Germans.
It was tough in the countryside.
Families were torn apart, farms were split in half, businesses were destroyed and lives were sacrificed in a fight to end the division which only concluded in 1989.
On Tuesday this week, at the same time Barrack Obama, Gordon Brown and other dignitaries spoke about the defeat of communism and freedom of the Eastern Bloc to huge crowds in
OK, we weren't in
Our speaker was Dr Hermann Strube, head of the Strube seed company that has research facilities on both sides of the old border.
The fall of communism saved businesses like his, he said.
"Twenty years ago today we were allowed to cross the border for the first time - it was an incredible moment.
"We would not be here without the fall of the Berlin Wall so this is a very special day for us," he said.
Strube is now one of the world's foremost sugar beet experts.
Learn more about the company and its latest sugar beet developments in the paper and online over the coming weeks.
By asking 'the man in the grey suit' to move forward, as a hapless photographer discovered during the launch of the Campaign for the Farmed Environment.
His request was met by furrowed brows and worried looks as 10 out the dozen industry 'great and good' lined up across a six metre margin in a Bedfordshire field wondered if he meant them.
The incident, which generated much amusement afterwards, highlighted both the phenomenal success in getting to this point and challenge that lies ahead in getting those that don patched up farm jackets and muddy wellington boots for their work to buy into it.
That predominantly grey suited line-up shivering in a field on NFU president Peter Kendall's farm represented an unprecedented coming together of Government and farming, farming advice and the environmental interests.
Despite the bleak Bedfordshire weather, the mood was unremittingly upbeat and the sense of pride and achievement palpable.
With good reason.
As Defra Secretary Hilary Benn said once these suits had joined more among the 100 or so others gathered for the launch in a heated barn, it is has been a hard road getting here, but we are in a 'better place' than anyone had ever anticipated.
The debate over what to do after set-aside had been one of the most bitter and hard-fought in modern farming.
Mr Benn recalled how on one side he had the environmental lobby demanding that he 'regulates now' to preserve the environmental benefits of the policy, while, on the other, the farming industry pleaded with him not to.
In the end, Mr Benn chose to trust farmers. So the NFU and CLA got the decision they wanted, a voluntary policy.
The Campaign for the Farmed Environment, a national campaign to be played out at local level, is the nuts and bolts of that policy.
All the organisations present have now thrown weight and there as an indisputable will to make it work.
Words and phrases like 'watershed', 'unprecedented partnership' and 'historic' were banded about liberally. None of them seemed out of place.
But there was one nagging doubt lurking within the whole event.
That was the suspicion that the wider farming fraternity remains largely unaware of the campaign or, at best in many cases, indifferent to it.
Allied to this is the concern that some farmers are simply unaware of the battle that has taken place to get here.
While what is being asked of them may seem like an unnecessary burden to some, the truth is that it would have been much, much worse if that battle had not been won by the industry.
This was touched on only briefly, notably when the RSPB's Graham Wynne spoke of the need to mobilise the large number of 'recalcitrant' farmers. The real test of success will be what has changed in a year's time, he said.
Few disagreed. Because the reality, as everyone knows is that, while the 'suits' have got us this far, it is in the hands of the wellington booted masses to make this laudable partnership work.
]]>