Farming in the Uplands - ARCHIVE: Defra

More documents

Recommendations

Info

20 Farming in the Uplands and with Article 68 payments running at some €800m, this is an issue which we expected the Commission to tackle. 94 In oral evidence the Minister of State confirmed that the Government remains opposed to a return to production coupled payments and he did not want “to turn the clock back”. 95 45. However, there are arguments in favour of the approach. In The Road Ahead For Scotland: Final Report of the Inquiry Into Future Support For Agriculture, commissioned by the Scottish Executive, Brian Pack, recommended the re-introduction of headage payments in LFA areas in Scotland to support vulnerable parts of the farming industry. 96 The Pack Inquiry supported the European Commission’s Option 2, under which, in certain situations, coupled payments would be justified. 97 The final report argued that in respect of Scotland: The primary aim of the coupled payments in the LFA would be to stabilise cow and ewe numbers on marginal land thereby securing the basis for delivering public goods, recognising the challenges of maintaining livestock production on this land and avoiding the risk of land abandonment. It is considered essential that headage payments do not encourage the keeping of breeding stock solely to collect the subsidy cheque as happened pre-decoupling, particularly with ewes. It would be essential that the total budget for each type of coupled support was set at the outset. 98 46. The Tenant Farmers Association advocate a return to headage payments. Successive governments have resisted such a move. We are not convinced by the Government’s arguments for dismissing this option. We recommend that the Government look again at the arguments for and against headage payments and explain the evidence base and grounds for opposing this method of supporting hill farmers in limited and specific circumstances. We recommend that it set out under what conditions it would consider supporting a re-introduction of headage payments. Stocking rates EMBARGOED ADVANCE COPY: Not to be published in full, or part, in any form before 00.01am GMT Wednesday 16 February 2011 47. The upland environment can be highly sensitive to the density of grazing livestock, with both too many and too few grazing animals leading to environmental damage. The CRC’s report states: “opinions about the benefits or otherwise of destocking vary widely, with environmental scientists seeing it as a necessary step to protect biodiversity and hill farmers expressing concerns that it can do more harm than good.” 99 The CRC recommended that: 94 This can be found at http://www.parliament.uk/efracom/publications 95 Q 175 96 The Road Ahead For Scotland: Final Report of the Inquiry Into Future Support For Agriculture In Scotland, Brian Pack OBE 97 See Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions: The CAP towards 2020: Meeting the food, natural resources and territorial challenges of the future, Brussels, COM(2010) 672/5, November 2010; Q193 98 The Road Ahead For Scotland: Final Report of the Inquiry Into Future Support For Agriculture In Scotland, Brian Pack OBE, p 77 99 High ground, high potential , p 93
EMBARGOED ADVANCE COPY: Not to be published in full, or part, in any form before 00.01am GMT Wednesday 16 February 2011 Farming in the Uplands 21 Decisions on stocking rates should be made locally to reflect the distinctive needs of each place, local climate and the balance of public goods appropriate for particular areas. We are recommending a rapid review of the policy and its effects—informed by whatever monitoring evidence and scientific evidence is now available—to understand more about what is happening on the ground. 100 48. The Federation of Cumbria Commoners “wholeheartedly agree” that stocking rates should be decided locally. The Federation’s memorandum states that “Current stocking rates as prescribed in the schemes are reducing our ability to actively manage the commons. As a result we believe that the majority of commons are now undergrazed while some remain overgrazed.” Similarly, the South West Upland Federation notes the lack of local flexibility, stating that “Attempts to impose grazing regimes, designed for the northern hills, have reduced stock numbers to an unsustainable level and damaged those unique farming techniques”. 101 49. The Campaign to Protect of Rural England (CPRE) sounded a note of caution. While accepting that upland farmers would be keen to “capitalise on any rise in prices for their produce”, the CPRE warned that that “should not lead to restocking at levels that means the re-emergence of overgrazing”. 102 The Minister of State argued that “some areas of the uplands have been overgrazed and have suffered in the past. There is now increasing evidence that some areas are being undergrazed”. 103 He told us that he would wish to see greater local flexibility in agri-environment schemes, “so that schemes can be devised that are more appropriate for the local area”. 104 50. The CRC did refer to the need to make use of monitoring and scientific evidence when making stocking rate decisions, but it did not provide more detail on the process or who would take the decision. The Minister said he was working towards “…an approach whereby local NGOs, working with the conservation bodies […] working with the local farmers or commoners, […] and of course Natural England [...] will come to an agreement about the appropriate one for that area”. 105 He explained that agri-environment schemes should be moving from “prescription to outcome”. 106 51. We recommend that stocking rate decisions should be based on an agreed environmental outcome, for example achieving a set sward length rather than prescribing the number of livestock and the grazing season. Stocking rate decisions should be taken locally and involve local farmers. 100 High ground, high potential, p 16 101 Ev w1 102 Ev w27 103 Q 174 104 Q 178 105 Q 194 106 Q 194
Page 1 and 2: House of Commons Environment, Food
Page 3 and 4: House of Commons Environment, Food
Page 5 and 6: Contents EMBARGOED ADVANCE COPY: No
Page 7 and 8: Summary EMBARGOED ADVANCE COPY: Not
Page 9 and 10: EMBARGOED ADVANCE COPY: Not to be p
Page 23: EMBARGOED ADVANCE COPY: Not to be p
Page 39 and 40: 5 Upland communities EMBARGOED ADVA
Page 47 and 48: 6 Conclusion EMBARGOED ADVANCE COPY
Page 49 and 50: 4: A new approach to funding EMBARG
Page 59 and 60: Witnesses EMBARGOED ADVANCE COPY: N
Page 61 and 62: Oral evidence Environment, Food and
Page 63 and 64: Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
Page 75 and 76:
Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
Page 77 and 78:
Tom Blenkinsop Richard Drax George
Page 79 and 80:
walked they ain’t coming back, be
Page 81 and 82:
great, but there is the wider issue
Page 83 and 84:
Page 85 and 86:
Page 87 and 88:
Page 89 and 90:
Page 91 and 92:
Page 93 and 94:
to engage in a conversation with th
Page 95 and 96:
Q161 George Eustice: One of the com
Page 97 and 98:
Page 99 and 100:
Page 101 and 102:
Page 103 and 104:
Page 105 and 106:
Page 107 and 108:
Page 109 and 110:
Page 111 and 112:
Page 113 and 114:
Written evidence Environment, Food
Page 115 and 116:
Page 117 and 118:
Page 119 and 120:
Page 121 and 122:
Page 123 and 124:
Page 125 and 126:
Page 127 and 128:
Page 129 and 130:
Page 131 and 132:
Page 133 and 134:
Page 135 and 136:
Page 137 and 138:
Page 139 and 140:
Page 141 and 142:
Page 143 and 144:
Page 145 and 146:
Page 147 and 148:
Page 149 and 150:
Page 151 and 152:
Page 153 and 154:
Page 155 and 156:
EMBARGOED ADVANCE COPY: Not to be p
show all

Farming in the Uplands - ARCHIVE: Defra

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?