Iceland review - 2015, Page 44

Iceland review - 2015, Page 44
42 ICELAND REVIEW agriculture. people employed in the indus- try number 4,800, which is 2.9 percent of the labor force. Overall, 11,000 jobs in Iceland are connected to farming in one way or another, such as in the dairy indus- try and service sectors. Most farms either produce milk or lamb, or both, which together account for almost half the agri- cultural production. There are 2,000 sheep farms in the country with an annual yield of 9,000 tons of lamb—plus mutton, wool, pelts and offal, and 640 dairy farms, aim- ing to produce 140 million liters of milk in 2015. “production must increase by 20 per- cent to meet domestic demand, mainly in products high in fat,” explains Sindri. This is due to growth in tourism and a changed consumption pattern among Icelanders. “In august 2013 the sale of butter and cream increased by 20 percent between months and it remains high,” elaborates Sigurður. “Twenty to 30 years ago, saturated fat was considered to be unhealthy, but not any- more.” caSH coWS and black SHeeP There are two main pillars of agricultural support in Iceland: market price support, maintained by border control measures, and direct payments based on payment entitlements to cattle (mainly dairy) and sheep farmers, and on a smaller scale to certain greenhouse producers. Market price support is provided for all livestock products and some horticultural products. The OECD estimates that in 2013, overall support totaled ISk 19.2 billion (uSD 155 million), of which direct state funding was ISk 12.1 billion. This accounts for 41.3 percent of the income of farmers, down from 50.8 percent in 2008. Still, agricul- tural support remains higher in Iceland than in most other OECD countries apart from Japan, South korea, Norway and Switzerland. Wholesale prices are managed for approximately half the dairy products, meaning that the producers obtain an 82 percent higher price for the milk than they would have without state interven- tion, the OECD concludes. Every year, a government-chaired committee, repre- senting the Farmers association and labor unions, determines the guaranteed min- imum prices for milk delivered within production quotas. “The Competition authority says that price management lim- its the retailers’ flexibility for premiums,” justifies Mp for the Independence party Haraldur Benediktsson, a dairy farmer and former chair of the Farmers association. “according to the price survey of the Icelandic Confederation of labor, there is a 12 percent difference in the price of milk between stores but a 70 percent difference in some types of vegetables.” Both quotas and entitlements for support payments are tradable between farmers. “If our intention is to reward former dairy farmers, this system is excellent,” Daði says ironically, reasoning that it’s expensive for newcomers to start out as they have to buy quota and retired dairy farmers profit from selling theirs. He’s not the only one critical of the system. “Controlled production was relevant at the time—we were looking at mountains of meat and butter—but it has become obsolete and a hindrance,” states Ástvaldur lárusson, vice-chair of the Icelandic association of young Farmers, which is independent of the Farmers association. When the quotas were established in the early 1980s, they were a response to overproduction. Haraldur maintains that the quota sys- tem is on its way out. Due to increasing demand, the production limit no longer applies, he says. “It hasn’t mattered in two or three years.” yet this doesn’t lead to more farmers entering the industry. “Everyone who wants to can produce milk, but they won’t get funding unless they hold quota, so it’s mostly existing dairy farmers who are increasing their production. They used to get a lower price for additional milk but now the price is the same,” explains Sindri. “This may be the first step towards abolishing the quota but we will always need a tool to control production so that the milk won’t be wasted.” In the mid-1990s, output payments for sheep meat were replaced by payments based on historical entitlements, which are tradable between farmers. “Those who are already in a good position accept direct payment from the state and the sale of entitlements results in those who are well- off buying more while young farmers are facing difficulties. I have witnessed this, unfortunately, that market control of the entitlements leads to inequality,” reveals sheep farmer Jóhannes Sigfússon. The Sheep Farmers association can publish reference prices for meat but these have no binding effect on slaughter companies’ pricing. Sheep farmers receive a 25 percent lower price than the world market price for lamb, says Haraldur. “Farmers are fighting for a higher production price—the pricing is not in line with expenses,” adds Sindri, a sheep farmer himself. “When comparing a sow and a ewe, the sow produces two tons of meat per year, but the ewe 30 kilos.” Icelandic lamb is a unique product, he rea- sons. Roaming free in highland pastures in the summer, the lambs feed on wild herbs and “season themselves,” as he puts it. broke bUt HaPPy? The annual monthly salary of a dairy farmer, excluding profits, is ISk 218,000 (uSD 1,770), and ISk 129,000 for the average sheep farmer, as calculated in issue 39-2014 of weekly business journal Vísbending. Ástvaldur, an agriculturalist by education, says there is significant interest among young people in farming, “but it isn’t attractive being a farmer, unless you can live with being broke.” While agricul- tural trade agreements are up for review, Ástvaldur doubts revolutionary changes are on the horizon. agricultural policies in Iceland are determined by renewable multi-year agreements for dairy, sheep and horticulture between the government and the Farmers association. The agreement on horticultural production is up for renewal in 2015, on dairy production in 2016 and on sheep production in 2017. “I hope that the new agreements will be modernized, but the older generation is too comfortable. The system wraps them up in cotton wool and prevents progress, neither benefiting farmers nor consumers.” a farmer’s son from the West Fjords, Ástvaldur has aspi- rations of venturing into farming himself, but not under the current circumstances. FArmiNG
Page 1
Page 2
Page 3
Page 4
Page 5
Page 6
Page 7
Page 8
Page 9
Page 10
Page 11
Page 12
Page 13
Page 14
Page 15
Page 16
Page 17
Page 18
Page 19
Page 20
Page 21
Page 22
Page 23
Page 24
Page 25
Page 26
Page 27
Page 28
Page 29
Page 30
Page 31
Page 32
Page 33
Page 34
Page 35
Page 36
Page 37
Page 38
Page 39
Page 40
Page 41
Page 42
Page 43
Page 44
Page 45
Page 46
Page 47
Page 48
Page 49
Page 50
Page 51
Page 52
Page 53
Page 54
Page 55
Page 56
Page 57
Page 58
Page 59
Page 60
Page 61
Page 62
Page 63
Page 64
Page 65
Page 66
Page 67
Page 68
Page 69
Page 70
Page 71
Page 72
Page 73
Page 74
Page 75
Page 76
Page 77
Page 78
Page 79
Page 80
Page 81
Page 82
Page 83
Page 84
Page 85
Page 86
Page 87
Page 88
Page 89
Page 90
Page 91
Page 92
Page 93
Page 94
Page 95
Page 96
Page 97
Page 98
Page 99
Page 100
Page 101
Page 102
Page 103
Page 104
Page 105
Page 106
Page 107
Page 108
Page 109
Page 110
Page 111
Page 112
Page 113
Page 114
Page 115
Page 116

x

Iceland review

Direct Links

If you want to link to this newspaper/magazine, please use these links:

Link to this newspaper/magazine: Iceland review
https://timarit.is/publication/1842

Link to this issue:

Link to this page:

Link to this article:

Please do not link directly to images or PDFs on Timarit.is as such URLs may change without warning. Please use the URLs provided above for linking to the website.