Set-aside News Special: Birds and bees drive replacement
What is this all about?
DEFRA secretary Hilary Benn is determined to “retain the environmental benefits of set-aside“, requiring farmers in England to manage a proportion of their land for environmental purposes, rather than for food production.
Join the lively debate on set-aside on our forums |
|---|
Set-aside rates were reduced to 0% in 2007 before being formally abolished across Europe from January this year. But the UK negotiated the right to introduce new measures to boost wildlife habitats. It is this right Mr Benn now wants to exercise, but only in England.
At the heart of the issue is the farmland bird index, described by Mr Benn as a barometer for the health of the wider environment. Farmland bird populations have halved since 1970 and some species are at their lowest level since records began.
There are 19 species on the index, but it doesn’t include all farmland birds. Critics, including some farmers, claim DEFRA places too much emphasis on the index. But the government has rejected other “barometer” measurements as inadequate.
Concerns over declining bee numbers have also focused attention on the importance of insects as pollinators of agricultural crops. The past two years have seen recorded losses of 10-15% in bee numbers.
Providing insect-rich and seed-rich farmland habitats has been proven to boost the populations of declining wildlife. But the abolition of set-aside means less land is being left fallow and the government is particularly keen on retaining this benefit.
What are the options?
The government is considering two options: A compulsory approach forcing English farmers to take about 5% of arable land out of production or adopt low-input farming techniques and a voluntary approach encouraging more farmers to sign up to environmental schemes.
Developed by Natural England, the compulsory option would require farmers who receive the single farm payment to leave grass buffer strips alongside watercourses, establish reverted arable plots, reintroduce rotational set-aside or drill winter food areas for wild birds.
Alternatively, farmers who wanted to farm all their land would have to increase winter stubbles by moving towards spring cropping or low-input systems. DEFRA claims more spring cropping would be needed to produce the same benefit, so up to 6% of land could be affected.
In both these cases, farmers would be allowed to choose additional steps or “top-up” options under Entry Level Stewardship (ELS). These options would include planting wildflower mixes, regular cutting and removal of vegetation or the establishment of farm bird plots.
And the voluntary approach?
This is the option preferred by farm leaders. Details are still being worked up by the NFU and Country Land and Business Association. But it would involve the creation of a Farm Environment Action Plan to encourage more farmers to join ELS.
The plan would see an industry-led group set up to oversee its delivery, says NFU chief economist Tom Hind. It would promote ELS and non-ELS measures and in-field land management practices that address the habitat needs of farmland birds.
The voluntary approach could also involve demonstration farms, and training modules for farm advisers who would encourage farmers to take up stewardship.
What will success look like?
Exact targets for the voluntary scheme have yet to be finalised. But DEFRA wants to increase the uptake of agri-environment schemes to 70% of available farmland by March 2011. In some areas, including parts of eastern England, uptake is as low as 50%.
The government also wants a 40% increase in the in-field ELS options that particularly benefit farmland birds. This will entail specialist advice so that farmers can introduce options best-suited to their geographic area and the habitat needs of certain bird species within their locality.
DEFRA prefers to see this as better targeting rather than raising the bar. Either way, unless significant progress is made towards these targets within two years, it is likely the compulsory scheme will be implemented, even if the voluntary scheme is chosen first.
What is the timetable?
The timetable is extremely tight. Thousands of five-year ELS agreements are due to expire in summer 2010, so any changes must be in place before then if farmers are to take them into account when deciding whether to renew.
A 12-week consultation on the compulsory and voluntary options closes on 27 May. Ministers will then spend this summer deciding which option they prefer before submitting any proposed changes that need EU approval to Brussels for clearance in January 2010.
Even then, the government will be leaving it extremely late for producers who want to sensibly plan their autumn 2010 cropping decisions, warns Carl Atkin, head of research at Cambridge consultant Bidwells Agribusiness.
How much will it cost me?
Costs for farmers who undertake either option are unclear. DEFRA’s own figures suggest the compulsory option will cost the industry up to £40m alone in income forgone and £2-4m a year in administration.
Individual costs will be very farm specific, depending on whether farmers genuinely have to take land out of production or whether any mitigating measures can be dealt with through existing uncropped or fallow areas.
ELS payments are being reviewed and may be increased. But DEFRA must abide by EU rules limiting payments to compensate for income forgone, so the government can’t be as flexible as it might like.
There is simply not enough detail to quantify the cost of a voluntary scheme, says Mr Atkin. For many farmers, the cost of the compulsory scheme could be quite small, he adds. But the main issue will be dealing with additional bureaucracy and record-keeping.
This all sounds like more red tape
The compulsory approach is likely to mean a similar administrative burden to that of set-aside. The voluntary approach might be less onerous, depending on what it entails. But, again, Mr Atkin believes the devil will be in the detail.
Proposals to simplify soil management rules, bringing together existing requirements and removing the need for wet-weather derogations, are to be welcomed. But they could be more than offset by more onerous record-keeping for a new set-aside mitigation scheme.
For farmers, what will be important is that any policing of new policy is dealt with “sensibly” by Rural Payments Agency inspectors on the ground – and of course there is always the fear of an EU audit hanging over them – so it is important to find a middle ground.
It remains unclear about how any new set-aside will interact with industrial cropping. If this is allowed on the new set-aside, then it could mean additional bureaucracy that many farmers thought was going to be consigned to history.
What are the chances of a voluntary scheme being accepted?
Farm leaders have their work cut out to persuade the government that a voluntary approach is best. DEFRA says it welcomes the principle of a voluntary approach, but only if it delivers the same benefits as the compulsory option.
Privately, ministers are said to prefer the voluntary approach because is likely to be cheaper, involve less hassle and require no legislation. But senior civil servants who have invested time and effort in developing compulsory proposals are said to need lots of persuading.
Natural England, the Environment Agency and the RSPB have all voiced doubts about a purely voluntary approach. So farmers are under pressure to demonstrate willingness to embrace it or face the more onerous compulsory approach.
Are there any other obstacles?
The consultation also contains proposals to tackle the issue of water pollution from agriculture by establishing buffer strips next to watercourses. This is a requirement of a new Good Agricultural and Environmental Condition (GAEC) agreed as part of last autumn’s CAP Health Check.
The preferred option is for guidance to encourage farmers with arable land to site 6m-wide grass buffer strips in higher-risk locations. In addition, farmers would be required to adopt Nitrate Action Programme no-spread zones on all farmland.
The compulsory approach automatically incorporates the mandatory buffer strip requirement. But it is much less clear how the voluntary approach would address the same issue, especially on land where farmers refuse to join ELS.
How can I get involved?
- The NFU welcomes input from farmers. Email setaside@nfu.org.uk with your views.
- DEFRA is also seeking views. Consultation documents are available at http://bit.ly/setaside