What now for the environment with set-aside at zero…?

Set-aside is outdated and unnecessary in a world of decoupled payments, especially with Environmental Stewardship and comprehensive cross-compliance.

Even our sternest critics must recognise that the countryside is totally different from how it was when set-aside was made compulsory in 1992, different even from March 2005 when Entry Level Stewardship was launched.

Surely the phenomenal growth in ELS agreements – over half of English farmland is now entered into such schemes – is testament to farmers’ willingness to give space to wildlife?

Significantly, these agreements offer security and are not the “policy accident” that set-aside has become. Combine this with cross-compliance rules – soil protection reviews for all Single Farm Payment recipients, margin strips alongside hedges and watercourses – and we have a countryside which is wildlife-friendly as never before.

But what of the future? EU agriculture commissioner Mariann Fischer-Boel has correctly described set-aside as “a hammer to do a screwdriver’s work”. In a post-CAP “health check” world, with set-aside no longer part of the bureaucracy, we need policymakers to use their “screwdrivers” carefully.

We’re sure that more land will go into Environmental Stewardship agreements, while farmers will retain strips and uncultivated field corners because it makes agricultural sense to do so.

What is needed now is encouragement, not regulation.

We need a pragmatic way forward, ensuring that the ELS is flexible enough to include set-aside areas farmers see as valuable, with free advice to identify such areas.

We need to move on, recognising that only a small part of set-aside has ever had great environmental value – even DEFRA’s Environmental Observatory estimated this extends to only 14,000ha out of 360,000ha in set-aside.

And we should recognise that, with set-aside gone, the real priority should be to ensure all of our farmland is well-managed, both for food production and the environment.

The recent decision by the EU Commission to set a zero rate of set-aside for next year has not only reminded us that decisions can be taken fairly quickly on policy issues in Brussels when there is a will, but has also sparked a heated debate on the biodiversity value of set-aside.

But this is the first policy manifestation in England of a much wider debate which has been building a head of steam throughout this year. The global tension between food, fuel and the environment is a growing concern, as commodity prices have risen to unprecedented levels.

Price rises were inevitable as global stocks decline, climate change really begins to impact on production, the world population continues to grow, patterns of food consumption change, and biofuels compete with food production.

It is against this background that the decision on set-aside is important. After all, it was taken so that more land could be brought back into production.

How do we make sure that we look after habitats and wildlife and maintain the improvements in biodiversity and water quality made in recent years? To what extent is cross-compliance and Environmental Stewardship through ELS now contributing to this improvement? How robust is our evidence base on the benefits of set-aside?

These are questions we will need to consider and which DEFRA secretary Hilary Benn has asked me to help think through with stakeholders. But we will also need to look longer term. The pressures on land use look set to continue and we need sustainable solutions.

Sue Armstrong Brown RSPB Head of Conservation

Seed-rich stubbles for hungry winter birds. Open nesting areas full of juicy insects for growing chicks. Grass and flowers in field corners. This isn’t any production control mechanism. This is the UK’s set-aside mechanism.

Of course, we all know that most set-aside is not a wildlife haven. So why have environmental groups been so concerned about its going? Why has DEFRA secretary Hilary Benn delivered such a clear challenge to farmers, to protect wildlife in the move to 0% set-aside?

One of the strengths of set-aside was simply that there was lots of it. It made the whole countryside more varied, and wildlife loves variety.

Of course, those same benefits could be delivered on a much smaller area if it was specially managed for wildlife. And this is the key to how can farmers answer Mr Benn’s challenge – to take advantage of 0% set-aside while protecting farmland birds.

Uncropped, rotational land is the secret jewel in the old set-aside crown. Weedy set-aside stubble is the best winter food source for birds and, if spraying is delayed until late May, can be the most important summer habitat, too.

Agri-environment measures such as skylark plots, over-winter stubble and spring fallow replicate these opportunities, but have had very low take-up. Our concern over losing set-aside would turn to relief if farmers chose more of these field centre options.

The new challenge is clear. If every farmer with a set-aside entitlement pro-actively creates some compensating habitat, this could yet become an environmental good news story.

If not, the widespread grumbles about the CAP will only get louder, as farmers keep £173m in set-aside entitlements but shed their set-aside requirements.

The end of set-aside must not be accompanied by a loss of farmland birds. Regulation will follow if environmental benefits aren’t retained voluntarily.