Iceland review - 2015, Blaðsíða 47

ICELAND REVIEW 45
in which small-scale producers can thrive,
selling specialty products, while Tine holds
an 85 percent market share. “We want
more parties processing the milk, which
results in higher quality, more diversity and
a better price—positive competition,” he
explains. “MS has a social responsibility to
support diversity,” Sigurður agrees.
revaMP or revolUtion?
Everyone seems to agree that the Icelandic
agricultural system is obsolete and must be
changed to tackle future projects. Charging
the university of Iceland’s Institute of
Economic Studies with estimating the sys-
tem’s efficiency, the government is planning
a revamp in consultation with stakeholders.
“We want to increase production and the
system must be able to support that,” states
Sigurður. However, Daði believes the gov-
ernment’s efforts won’t amount to much.
“With the progressive party in control of
the Ministry of agriculture, there is no
interest in changing the system.”
Haraldur, on the other hand, whose party
is in coalition with the progressive party,
is more optimistic. Reasoning that times
are already changing with direct payments
to dairy producers having decreased by 30
percent in the past decade, “We’re moving
from overproduction into a new era,” he
says. Haraldur chairs a new agriculture
Cluster, aiming to bring farmers, producers
and consumers closer together and involve
farmers more in the processing and devel-
opment of their products, encouraging
innovation. “We’re looking at the great-
est revolution of the Icelandic agricultural
system in decades with extensive changes
to the work environment. But it will take
time. upheaval isn’t good.” Haraldur points
out that there are many who criticize
the agricultural system without suggesting
solutions and that many countries have
systems that are less transparent and more
complicated than here. “The agricultural
system is the heart of production—here,
in the far north—of half the food we con-
sume. We also import a high percentage of
our consumption. That we have one of the
most liberal agricultural systems in our part
of the world isn’t much talked about.”
The question is how to modify agricul-
tural support. Sindri reasons that while the
price of individual products varies greatly,
without support, farmers would generally
need to double the amount for their prod-
ucts. In his view, limitation on imports is a
condition for advances in agriculture. “If
there wasn’t any support from the state,
sheep farming wouldn’t exist as a profes-
sion,” predicts Jóhannes. “Our neighboring
countries support farming too, although it
may have a different form. We must keep
in mind that for every job in agriculture,
there are three to four related jobs. If we
want to keep the countryside populated,
sheep farming is the cheapest way to main-
tain production, employing many others in
servicing, processing and handling of the
product. If sheep farming was abolished,
the towns would collapse too. Fjallalamb
is a good example; it’s by far the largest
employer in kópasker,” he says of a slaugh-
terhouse and meat production company
specializing in lamb from the region in the
nearby 120-person village, in which his
family holds a stake.
Daði suggests that instead of supporting
certain types of farming, the state should
support everyone equally through funding
based on cultivated land. Jóhannes dis-
agrees. “It would go to suitcase farmers for
simply owning land. State funding should
be connected with production, not just for
the sake of existing.” His view is shared by
Haraldur. “In 2003 the Eu shifted fund-
ing from kilo of milk to cultivated land. It
led to the price of land shooting up and a
property bubble with the money no longer
going into subsidizing food, which is the
basic idea.” This has led to horrible conse-
quences for Danish agriculture, he states.
In its report ‘agricultural policy
Monitoring and Evaluation 2014’ published
last September, the OECD recommends
moving away from production-linked sup-
port. “To sustainably reduce the level of
support and its distortive effects, policies
need to be changed in favor of measures
less linked to production and away from
border protection. The focus should be on
efficiently targeting explicit policy objec-
tives, including environmental protection
and the conservation of natural resources,
while reducing market distortions.”
Whatever the future may hold, there are
those who remain passionate about farming.
“you’re tending to life,” excites Jóhannes.
“It’s an indescribable feeling when you’re
searching for sheep in blistering cold up in
the mountains on a ski-doo when all of a
sudden you find helpless sheep. It’s good to
observe that young farmers share that atti-
tude.” There is no better environment for
raising children, he argues. “When I think
back, I can’t tell where childhood ended
and adulthood started. The games that we
played were all based on what the adults
were doing and as soon as we could take
part we knew what to do.” Jóhannes doesn’t
hesitate when asked whether he would con-
sider a different profession if starting over.
“I would make the same choices.” *
FArmiNG
SoURcES:
Agricultural Policy Monitoring and Evaluation 2014 – oEcD countries.
Developments in Agricultural Policies and Support in Iceland (p. 111-117).
Bú er landstólpi. An article in issue 39-2014 of weekly business journal Vísbending by
Benedikt Jóhannesson (p. 1-4).
Íslenska landbúnaðarkerfið – staða, horfur, framtíð. A presentation by Daði Már Kristófersson
at a meeting held by political party Viðreisn in Reykjavík on October 21, 2014.
Landbúnaðarsaga Íslands, Volume 2 (2013). By Árni Daníel Júlíusson and Jónas Jónasson.
Svona er íslenskur landbúnaður – 2013. A report on the website of
the Icelandic Farmers Association, bondi.is.