Farming in the Uplands - ARCHIVE: Defra

Ev 38 Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee: Evidence
17 November 2010 James Paice MP, Jeremy Eppel and Dan Osgood
a loss then, arguably, the income forgone is a negative
figure as well.
Dan Osgood: Just to add to that, under EU rules we’re
able to pay for the income forgone from an activity
and also for any additional costs that the farmer may
incur as a result of carrying out the activity, and also,
in some cases, for transaction costs involved in the
kind of management that we’re looking for. That’s
essentially the limits of what we are permitted to do
under the EU rules.
Q173 Chair: Would that change at the next stage of
CAP reform?
Mr Paice: I’ve already said to commissioners that I
would like to see that changed. If we genuinely value
public goods, then personally I don’t have a problem
with the farmers being able to make a margin out of
that, just as much as any other activity. Obviously I
can’t tell you what the outcome will be.
Q174 Richard Drax: Your policy, so far as uplands
are concerned, is it to maximise food production and
concentrate on that element of it, or will it be to
manage the land for environmental and other reasons?
I may just add that, as you know, there’s a feeling
among many farmers, not least hill farmers, that
they’re turning into park keepers. What will your
strategy be so far as the hill farmers and the uplands
are concerned?
Mr Paice: We have to find the right balance. There is
no doubt, I’m sure from your own knowledge, Mr
Drax, you know 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
under-grazed. We are seeing bracken spreading in the
uplands because of a reduction in stocking rates. We
have to find the right balance, and I don’t believe we
have it yet. I’ve mentioned the Uplands Entry Level
Stewardship scheme, which the previous Government
brought in and we’re continuing to introduce. In
principle, I think it’s the sensible way forward, but I’m
not absolutely wedded to all the individual criteria. I
think we need to look at the minimum stocking rates
incorporated within it.
I think we need to understand that, if we are as a
country opposing, as we do—and all political parties
seem to share the view—subsidising production per
se, and we’re going to work on the issue of public
goods, then it’s not just a question of making the
farming profitable in terms of the cost to produce a
lamb or bullock or whatever it may be.
We have to look at the public benefits in terms of the
water retention in the uplands, the carbon sink that is
in the peat bogs, obviously the flora and fauna of the
uplands—all those things. Indeed, the water retention
feeds through to reducing flooding risks further
downstream. I think we probably need to do more to
put better values on those public benefits, as the
means of channelling more funding in. I don’t think
we can go back to the days when farmers were
persuaded or encouraged financially simply to fill the
hills with whatever stock they could find and as many
as possible. I don’t think it was helpful to farming and
it certainly wasn’t helpful to the uplands but, certainly,
you can’t maintain the uplands and the benefits of the
landscape, etc—I mentioned the bracken
encroachment, for a start—without adequate stocking
rates. There is evidence that certainly in some part of
the uplands stocking rates are now too low.
Q175 Neil Parish: Suckler cows are one of the big
problems, because they’re not terribly profitable on
the hills, but you’re not considering direct payments
for suckler cows, are you?
Mr Paice: No, we’re not considering direct payments
for any individual production, because that goes
completely against the trend of CAP development
since the mid-term review, back in the early part of the
decade. As you may be aware, the Scots are looking at
that; they’ve actually had an element of it for some
time. The latest report by Brian Pack, as far as the
Scottish CAP is concerned, is considering an
extension of that. I don’t believe that’s the right way
forward. Certainly if you’re going to talk about
stocking rates, then that creates the opportunity to
stipulate a balance of stock between cattle and sheep,
and that might be the right way to do it.
Q176 Neil Parish: I think the Irish have a particular
type of grazing, which they link to suckler cows and
make the payment on the type of grazing needed. I
don’t know whether you’d consider that at all. I don’t
think the Commission likes it a great deal, but it was
accepted by the Republic of Ireland.
Mr Paice: I’m not aware of it, sorry.
Q177 Chair: Could I just ask the Minister, do you
think there’s a disproportionate cost to upland farmers,
particularly dairy producers, in meeting the slurry
requirements of the new EU directives? I only ask
because one farmer showed me what he’s had to put
in.
Mr Paice: This is for the Nitrate Vulnerable Zones
(NVZ) regulations.
Chair: Yes.
Mr Paice: I haven’t seen any evidence that it’s
disproportionate. I appreciate that the NVZ
regulations are putting a lot of extra cost on a lot of
livestock producers. I’m not aware of any evidence
that it’s worse in the uplands. There may be examples,
I don’t know.
EMBARGOED ADVANCE COPY:
Not to be published in full, or part, in any form before
00.01am GMT Wednesday 16 February 2011
Q178 George Eustice: You touched earlier on the
fact that there’s quite a difference between different
upland communities. How easy is it to reconcile a
national strategy on the uplands with the Government
agenda of localism and allowing local communities to
lead policy on things like the economy, with the Local
Enterprise Partnerships and things like that? Have you
thought about how that will integrate with the new
localism?
Mr Paice: In so far as Local Enterprise Partnerships
are concerned, you’ll appreciate it is very early days.
The answer is we’re thinking about it, to use your
phrase. We haven’t actually got very far down that
road yet, about how we integrate with them. You’re
absolutely right to address the apparent conflict
between national policy and localism, but I don’t think
it is a real one. I think we need probably to improve
our framework, and that’s the substance of the