DEFRA has launched its set-aside consultation today.

Having had a quick peak at the set-aside consultation page on the DEFRA website, you'd be forgiven for thinking it's a bit inpenetrable! Even the title of the page puts you off.

Participation in the consultation is really important to ensure farmers get the outcomes they want, so if you're struggling with the process, have views on the consultation or just want to get something off your chest about the way DEFRA is dealing with this post-set-aside issue, feel free to air it here...it will help us get to the bottom of some of the key issues over the coming weeks.

Julian - FWi editor

 

I trust that the farming industry bodies will be able to decode this (as opposed to just Defra and the RSPB) and be able to protect our interests in whatever Defra wish to impose.

 

On the plus side, having environmental measures linked to the Singe Payment means a) it should be easier to justify receipt of the Single Payment to those who pay it to us and b) it hopefully means that a payment (at a worthwhile level) is likely to continue after 2012/13 when the current CAP runs out.

 

One thought on the ‘voluntary’ option – presumably there was nothing stopping farmers doing voluntary options before (and a great number have put in environmental measures – just not in-line with the current Defra/RSPB tickboxes) but if enough hasn’t been done in the past, I cannot see what will make farmers take a voluntary approach now?

 

The consultaion paper is very offputting - but don't let that put you off sharing your views on the matter. Anecdotally, I get the impression that this is an issue that is really maddening people. It is vital that the industry responds clearly to the consultation we'll get steamrollered into a system that suits no one.

Here's what Peter kendall has to say about the set-aside consultation:

NFU President Peter Kendall today acknowledged Defra's willingness to work with the industry in developing a voluntary approach to set-aside replacement and called on industry stakeholders to get behind that proposal in the consultation exercise.

Defra has published a full consultation on proposals to amend cross-compliance provisions under the SPS, including proposals designed to address the presumed environmental benefits associated with set-aside. The proposals confirmed the Secretary of State's intention, announced at the recent NFU Conference, that Defra would be prepared to consult on an industry-led alternative to cross-compliance measures following lobbying by the NFU.Mr Kendall said: “I am very pleased that Defra Ministers have thrown their support behind our alternative industry-led approach to addressing the environmental consequences that might arise due to the removal of set-aside.“There is a clear choice - between an option that we think will adversely impact on farmers’ existing stewardship options, add to regulatory burdens, and force land out of production and an option that will champion those farmers who are already doing the right thing and encourage others to do their bit to promote a sustainable, productive environment.“Ministers have stated that they see the potential of an approach that does not rely on regulation. This is a very positive signal and I look forward to Defra's support in the development of our proposals. We will need all our partners, especially those in Government, working with us and I am determined to work with them to show the industry can succeed in its aims.“In the same way as the consultation document says that the benefits of any measures put in place may not be apparent for a number of years, equally the same argument has to be applied to the impact of set-aside removal. Regardless, the industry takes its environmental responsibilities seriously and believes that a chance has been presented to show again how voluntary, industry-led approaches like the Voluntary Initiative and Environmental Plan for Dairy Farming can win the hearts and minds of farmers and achieve lasting change.”The consultation document also includes important proposals in respect of buffer strips, soil management, abstraction licences and management of land not in production.In respect of soil management, the consultation document includes welcome proposals to simplify the existing cross-compliance criteria, notably by obviating the requirement to apply for waterlogged field derogations. The NFU has also welcomed the intention to simplify conditions in respect of uncropped so-called GAEC 12 land and will be submitting further proposals to allow it to fit into the voluntary approach outlined in option A in the consultation.

Right. I've had a go at deciphering what DEFRA is suggesting and what it might mean on the ground. I do not have all the answers (this is one of the most complicated consultaions I have ever read). But here is my brief assessment:

The government has suggested two options:

 

Option A1 – Farmers would be asked to keep 4-5% of eligible land* out of production. They would need to choose between leaving grass buffer strips alongside waterways, establishing arable plots in less profitable areas of the farm, re-introducing rotational set-aside or drilling wild bird winter food areas. Farmers could then choose to take additional steps under ELS such as planting wildflower mixes or cutting and removing vegetation.

 

Option A2 – Farmers would be able to choose any of the options in A1. Alternatively, they could choose to use the land, but move to spring cropping or low input systems so there are more winter stubbles. DEFRA claims A2 will need more land to produce the same environmental benefit as A1 so 5-6% of eligible land could be affected. Top-up options under the ELS would be available.

 

The industry is pushing for a voluntary solution and DEFRA has said they'd go down this route if they

 

Option B: Details are still being worked up by NFU/CLA, but likely to involve the creation of a Farm Environment Action Plan. A five-point plan would be promoted to help provide winter food for birds and to get more skylark plots. The voluntary approach could also involve demonstration farms, training modules for farm advisors and an industry led Farmland Bird Action Plan to promote ELS and non-ELS measures that address the needs of birds.

  *Temporary grass would be excluded from the calculation of eligible land which is different to the system previously used with set-aside.

 

 

When a substantial proportion of the children in Africa do not have enough to eat it is incomprehensible and genocidal to be removing land capable of producing nutrient for Human Beings in order to allow more pests and more weed to flourish. The whole scheme is unthinkable and potentially very cruel to the starving millions. Why is the NFU involved in the participation of such foolishness? The world needs more food not more beetle banks, nobody eats beetles if they are given the choice. Shame on the environmental nutters who insist on such schemes being reintroduced.

Dick

 

The reason DEFRA wants to "retain the environmental benefits of set-aside" is because it wants to reverse a decline in farmland bird numbers.

 Agricultural practices are often blamed for declining farmland birds.

But climate change is influencing bird populations - and species:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/4932380/Exotic-birds-to-colonise-Britain.html

how soon before the wake up call comes and governments realise we are not keeping up with consumption. It will be how much can you supply, not to what standard .  

The whole thing is another nonsense dreamed up by a cabal of UK farmings implacable enemies (DEFRA, RSPB, Natural England). These farmer-hating bullies are set on total control of all decisions made on UK farmland (and an unspoken wish to see it return to some 18th century utopia), hence their predictable horror at the thought of a workable voluntary scheme. Another nail in farmings coffin, another kick in the teeth. God help us all.

chalky:

how soon before the wake up call comes and governments realise we are not keeping up with consumption. It will be how much can you supply, not to what standard .  

 

Presumably if this were to happen, then farming would be nationalised to protect the population, similar to the War Ag. or more recently like most of the major UK banks?

The upside of this is that farmers would effectively be working for the Government (as opposed to Tesco's as now), there would be very little accountability and farmers would receive bonus' and nice taxpayer funded final salary pensions.

 So what are you worried about ?

 

The Consultation Document blows itself out of the water as far as the contention that setaside assists maintaining/increasing the population of ground nesting birds.

At S3.5.2 the last sentence states : "Breeding farmland bird numbers in England are 52% lower than 1966 levels" 

At S2.2 it is stated that defra must consult because of EU rule changes, and also that they will go further under the pretext of "rationalisation" and "simplification". Even the Eurocrats in Brussels will boggle at the way defra is going to mess us about this time round under the pretext of rationalising and simplifying, indeed they have always boggled at what defra does to UK/English farmers.

Does anyone know how we can get hold of the French documentation that relates to the payment of their farming subsidies?

I've just been sent this response by email by Robert which I think raises a couple of interesting points. The one about the news spray regs is one that I haven't heard before.

"The RSPB say that there is less wild birds now than there were 15 years ago.  This is about when SAS became widely used.  This surely proves that SAS does not encourage birds, therefore I don't believe there is a need to increase SAS.  There will be more weed seeds in crops as the new EEC spray regulation bite, which will be more beneficial to birds anyway."

craman:

Does anyone know how we can get hold of the French documentation that relates to the payment of their farming subsidies?

 Flash Jacques may be able to help?

I had a look at the consultation document and response form last night and it is mind boggling to say the least. My brain was addled by the end of it!

As I've said in otther threads, the Government only seem to commit to a consultation process when they can be sure the outcome will be in their favour or they can get away with ignoring the findings and doing what they want anyway.

A case in point (if you'll forgive me straying from the point a little) was the abolishon of Cornwalls' District and County Councils in favour of one, unelected Super Council. They consulted. There was a unanamous "No" from the "stake holders" and general public, but they went ahead with it anyway, and on April the 1st we get an unelected coucil that no one wants.

I fear this will be the same situation. DEFRA, English Nature and the RSPB know exactly what they want and they will get it regardless of ratioanl opinion to the contrary. (See also TB fiasco) I still think it's important to register your opinion but I doubt it will have any effect over the end result.

Democracy is a wonderful thing!

Thought this Article on the BBC website might interest a few of you.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7921936.stm

I've just shared a couple of emails with Essex farmer Guy Smith who is happy for me to share his thoughts.

 

The scene is St Gothian Sands, Cornwall. The twitchers have taken up positions with cameras and binos after a report that a very rare visitor to Britain is having a wade - it is the Grey Phalarope. There it is! Well, it was - down comes a Buzzard and takes it. Peter Exley of the RSPB comments "Buzzards are not really active hunters" and "For a Buzzard to prey on a rare visitor like a Phalarope - it's a one in  a million chance".

They are made of meat aren't they?

The sooner DEFRA and the RSPB come out of denial that the raptor effect on farmland birds, and rare visitors to Britain, is decreasing numbers of ground and hedge nesting birds the sooner we will have more of same. A simple control scheme is all that is required - thus this element of the Consultative Document could be achieved at relatively small cost - certainly less than the millions it will cost to consult "stakeholders", have a second draft, consult stakeholders final version, annually revised publications being sent to farmers and enforcement of a largely ineffective regime.

Acknowledgements to Richard Savill of the Telegraph for the "real nature" story.

isobel, do you have the text of guy smiths speech at the conference?

You mean the question he put to Hilary Benn? Afraid not, but I could try asking him tomorrow.

I tape-recorded Hilary Benn's speech and Guy Smith's subsequent question, as well as Benn's response.

Highlights of this esteemed recording (which is not available in the shops) include:

Guy: "I don't know how much of a twitcher you are, Mr Benn..."

Guy: "What sort of weird world do you and your department inhabit when you don't think the barn owl is a farmland bird? There is, after all, a clue in the title."

Hilary: "Can I just say that I don't live in a weird world and neither do the officials at Defra."

Full transcript and Hollywood film rights available to the highest bidder...

It seems most of the wildlife on our farm is taken out by domestic cats, sparrow hawks, magpies  and road kill. Buffer strips encourage cats and sparrow hawks. When we had set a side on the farm any nesting birds where at more risk to preditors ,they have more cover in growing crops.

A very succinct summary 6499. Unfortunately neither the NFU nor the CLA, as consultees to the present document, have managed to get their heads round what you say so as to gather evidence that will educate the public and change the mindset at DEFRA.

We do have to bear in mind that the whole subsidy game has been wrapped up as an environmental payment so as to appease the USA who objected to the previous european subsidy system as unfair - whilst, of course, continuing to subsidise their own farmers. The proof of our pudding is that for many of us the subsidy (currently eco taxed at about 18% per annum) forms a major part of our profit - and then gets taxed again anyway. It is factored into our product pricing by processors, retailers and market makers which makes us as vulnerable as a ground nesting bird on setaside, or a Grey Phalarope on a marsh.

An unsubsidised food supply would mean the taxpayer would have to contribute more to the 2 million benefit claimers of our nation so that they can eat. This would be a set-off against the present system, but think of the job losses among the eco greenies, whose only hope of employment is within state, or quasi state, organisations, propounding flawed policies. 

I enjoyed reading your piece craman. Some may see it as a polemic, but I'm sure readers can see that you have pulled together some really good thoughts about subsidies, taxes, Euro and US politics, employment and the vested interests of the publicly funded 'eco' warriors

I think you have hit a lot of nails on the head with one hammer. Good for you.

 

 

A Defra insider today told me the department acknowledges that cats, climate change and suburbanisation are all contributors to the decline in farmland birds. But they are no reason for farmers not having to do their bit to reverse the decline.

It's a bit like saying that driving a gas guzzling car is ok because global warming is also being caused by jumbo jets, coal-fired power-stations and the like.

Johann Tasker:

A Defra insider today told me the department acknowledges that cats, climate change and suburbanisation are all contributors to the decline in farmland birds. But they are no reason for farmers not having to do their bit to reverse the decline.

I would have liked to have heard them also acknowledge the role of raptors, magpies and crows etc, and the decisions by local authorities to 'tidy up' verges and significant areas of 'public' land around roads. (see another thread where I give location on a country road, of a 2 acre plot from which bramble and scrub had been totally removed simply to clear out a 100 yd culvert.

 

Johann Tasker:

But they are no reason for farmers not having to do their bit to reverse the decline.

Do Defra top brass never visit farms to see what has been done and is being done to encourage birds, or is it that whilst in discussions with the RSPB and similar bodies they find it easier to agree with their analysis than argue a case for balance and truth?

 

 

Hi there

           With 2 or 6 metre strips in most fields now uncultivated it seams to me that enough land has allready been taken out of production for the use of wild life to balance up the previous set aside has D E F R A ever took the trouble to calculate the number of acres/hectares that the environmentle strips come to and should not the production of food be their main remit if the get thousands of starving people camped on their doorstep they will wonder what went wrong.

           Mike Morey a common sense cornishman