As you can see from this example it is more profitable , with regard to subsidies, for a farmer to have clear ground. Which if you think about it again is encouraging farmers to not be environmentally friendly.
I hope that with the new drives for regenerative farming techniques that this rather achaic way of looking at farm subsidies will be revised. Administration moves slowly so I am not holding my breath for a windfall or a global revelation. Balancing money, land and activity on said land is a constant dbate on farms.
In drought situations you have to ask for permission from the agricultural department to use land that a neighbour might want to loan you in a crisis, which of course means administrative delays. Meaning that as a farmer you have to look to yourself always to risk proof your business. Which naturally means investment to some degree or another. Sometimes subsidised, not always if it is something the administration thinks is not important. As I have already mentioned Administative thinking moves slowly so what is thought to be important by a farmer today, will be thought of as being important by administration in 10 years.
I am not an advocate of spraying with chemicals, never have been, but putting boot on the other foot, if you are a conventional farmer who has a debt to pay, and is relying on a successful harvest and has never known any other way of farming, and is halfway through the year, and is about to lose the entire crop to mildew unless it is sprayed then what would you do?
People cannot be expected to change on a whim when lives and livelihoods are at stake. Planning needs to come first. Investments may need too be made, help may need to be offered. The general public needs to recognise this and be a little less critical and a little more empathetic.
See you all soon