The ongoing spat in Scotland over how best to support beef and sheep producers in vulnerable areas is a classic example of the tensions that can exist between single-interest and multi-interest lobby groups.
The issue has arisen because the Scottish government is consulting on whether or not to implement the "Article 68" provision of the CAP. This allows member states to take up to 10% from all farmers' SFPs and redirect the money to farmers in disadvantaged areas.
Rural affairs secretary Richard Lochhead is keen to do just that, transferring about £47m to claimants in areas at "high risk" of land abandonment.
Understandably the National Beef Association and the National Sheep Association see this as a golden opportunity to get more money to their members and have welcomed the idea.
In contrast, NFU Scotland is vehemently opposed to this "robbing Peter to pay Paul" philosophy. It points out that arable and dairy farmers are also facing huge pressures, while lowland beef and sheep producers would also be net losers under the scheme.
Given that NFUS represents the whole spectrum of farming, it would be surprising to find it saying anything else.
Far be it from me to get embroiled in Scottish affairs. Fellow Farmers Weekly scribe and south-coast inhabitant Stephen Carr gave it a whirl the other day - and look what trouble it landed him in!
But I have to admit, the NFUS does seem to have some pretty credible arguments.
The main one is that, while the Article 68 provision allows up to 10% of SFPs to be top-sliced, only 3.5% can be reallocated as a coupled headage payment (as is currently the case with the Scottish Beef Calf Scheme).
The bulk of the funds would therefore have to be given to the target farmers by topping up their existing SFPs. As NFUS points out, this is totally decoupled from production and there would be no onus at all on those farmers to keep more cattle or sheep - which is, after all, the whole point of the exercise.
Indeed, it could even have the reverse effect. If farmers in these high risk areas get a bigger SFP cheque, they may well decide that they need to keep even fewer beef and sheep in order to make a living.
There is no doubt that something needs to be done. Over a million breeding sheep have left the Scottish hills in the past decade and over 60,000 suckler cows. But the Article 68 measure does seem a bit like taking aim with your eyes shut.
* For more blog postings click here, and why not subscribe by e-mail (see right hand column)
| Tweet |
|
Leave a comment
Want a user icon? Get a Gravatar!