The Scottish Government

« Previous | Contents | Next »

Listen

DRAFT RURAL DEVELOPMENT REGULATION
ANALYSIS OF RESPONSES TO CONSULTATION

CHAPTER 5 - RESPONSES TO AXIS 11, LAND MANAGEMENT (articles 34-48)

The axis II strategy included agri-environment schemes as a compulsory component and supports the sustainable use of agricultural and forestry land.

The draft regulation proposed Member States redefine the existing Less Favoured Areas (LFA) delimitation of intermediate zones (currently partly based on socio-economic data which in many cases have become outdated). The new delimitation is to be based on:

• significant natural handicaps, notably low soil productivity and climatic conditions and where maintaining extensive farming activity for land management is important; or

• low soil productivities and poor climatic conditions giving an indication of the difficulty of maintaining agricultural activity.

It was proposed that natural handicap payments in mountain areas and payments in other areas with handicaps should contribute, through continued use of agricultural land, to maintaining the countryside, and the maintenance and promotion of farming systems. Objective parameters for fixing the level of LFA payments should be laid down in order to ensure the efficiency of this support scheme and ensure that its objectives are achieved.

The axis II strategy also included a sub-section focusing on the sustainable use of forestry land. Measures have largely been transferred from previous regulations and encompass afforestation, forest-environment payments and support for non-productive capital investments in forests.

The draft regulation also proposed that farmers should continue to be encouraged to adopt high standards of animal welfare by providing an option to support farmers who undertake to adopt standards of animal husbandry which go beyond the relevant mandatory standards.

Beneficiaries would need, in order to receive payments under the measures in axis II, to meet EU and national mandatory requirements relevant for agriculture and forestry respectively. The measures proposed under Axis 11 were;

Again the same questions were posed on the axis approach;

• Is the approach and allocation of measures to strategic axes relevant and appropriate?

• Are the proposals for redefining LFAs appropriate?

• What parameters should we consider for a future LFA Support Scheme?

• Does the proposed scope of forestry measures and the increased integration with measures to support agriculture and rural development meet the needs of Scotland's forestry sector?

By far the bulk of the comments received in this consultation exercise concerned Article 47 (LFAs). Indeed this was seen as potentially the most contentious issue of the proposed regulation. Reponses fell largely into 2 categories, National Farmers Union Scotland and others supporting more or less the status quo, and organisations such as Scottish Natural Heritage taking a more wide ranging view, welcoming measures to include environment into LFAs and suggesting ways of going further. Specific comments were also received on forestry and Natura 2000.

Sustainable Use of Agricultural Land

Most of the responses under this measure related to Article 35 (LFA). The National Farmers Union Scotland welcomed the emphasis on agricultural production, arguing the importance of the future LFA scheme in Scotland having the continuation of agricultural activity at its heart. Scottish Rural Property and Business Association took a somewhat different view to this. They believed that rather than simply helping farmers to continue farming in difficult circumstances, support would be better diverted at giving farm businesses a direct payment for managing valued habitats and landscapes. They felt that the proposed Article was too tightly defined. Scottish natural Heritage took a similar view. Although recognising the importance of LFA support in maintaining a reasonable level of income for farmers in remoter parts of Scotland, they supported the Commission's aims of reforming the provisions of LFASS. They saw a need for a progressive move from subsidy based payments to a Single Farm Payment, with the proposed handicap measures as a transitional step. The Crofters' Commission believed that redefinition of existing LFAs was a concern, but would suggest that all existing croft land would come under the new delimitation based on the physical measurements proposed in the draft regulation. Glasgow City Council wanted to see reference to sustainable watercourse management.

Both Highland Council and SNH wanted to see a more positive approach to Natura 2000 payments (Article 36) rather than a compensatory system of payments. SNH questioned whether a separate measure was really needed for Natura, but concluded there would be some advantage as it would allow budgeting for it as a priority, without diverting resources from other agri-environment schemes. SRPBA supported the measure given the deficit of resources for management agreements currently in Scotland. NFUS cautioned that with RDR funds limited, the financing of Natura 2000 sites would put enormous strain on the budget.

Advocates for Animals argued specifically under Article 37(3) that the existing requirement to go beyond good animal husbandry practice is a higher standard than the proposed new requirement, and asked that the present requirement be retained. SRPBA said that agri-environment measures provided a significant argument in favour of rural development spending, but was concerned that the resources dedicated to it were insufficient. They needed a clearer indication of resources available for all RDR measures before setting out priorities. SNH did not want agri-environmental and animal welfare payments classed together. They saw no obvious rationale for doing so, and felt they could possibly be seen as competing options in national programmes. They did however welcome the provision under Article 38 for non-productive investments.

Sustainable Use of Forestry Land

The Institute of Chartered Foresters pointed out that support for agricultural income foregone is proposed to be reduced from 20 years to 10 years which would reduce the attractiveness of first afforestation to landowners, especially farmers. Support was also being reduced in financial terms. They also said that support for forest holders in the current regulation would not be continued into the new regulation, which could have negative impacts on the forestry sector. They specifically pointed out a discrepancy under Article 43 in treatment between forestry and agriculture, as the maximum payment for the first 5 years for Natura 2000 sites on agricultural land are higher than for forestry. Some of these concerns were also expressed by SNH who pointed out that maximum payment levels were below those currently set for forestry grant schemes. NFUS also cautioned that the proposals were substantially less than currently available.

Scottish Estates Business Group welcomed the recognition of the important role played in land management by the sustainable use of forestry land and supported the continuation of current measures. They felt that forestry had an important role to play in Scotland's rural economy and saw it fitting that this sector should be more fully integrated in support measures generally. Highland Council wished to highlight sensitivities relating to the first afforestation of agricultural and non-agricultural land, but that these issues could be picked up at the implementation level. They were supportive of developing and managing the forest resource for wider rural and community benefit, and to this end would like to see support also granted to community associations. SRPBA argued that support for forestry and woodland was clearly important for the integration of rural development policy, and measures must be developed in parallel with those for agricultural land. The Council for Scottish Archaeology, while welcoming greater integration of forestry and agriculture measures, cautioned that the needs of the forest industry must be balanced with other rural development concerns, and were not convinced that a continued commitment to forestry expansion was necessarily the best use of rural development funding.

SNH were the only organisation to make specific comments in respect of Articles 44 to 46. For Article 44 they were pleased to see the measures in the new regulation. Although what constituted a "forest environment commitment" had yet to be determined, there was scope for a wide range of measures. They felt the aim of restoring the potential for production (Article 45) was at odds with the general aims of Axis 11, and thought it would be better to have a measure concerned with "restoring environmental or ecological condition." They supported the intention under Article 46(b) for making payments towards capital investments, but waned that some arrangement for targeting the money at suitable sites would be needed.

Designation of Areas

Most organisations who responded had concerns over the Commission proposals. The exceptions were Historic Scotland who thought the proposals were appropriate as it appeared that some 80% of Scotland would still be classified as LFA, and would welcome consideration of hoe LFASS funds could be used to improve the maintenance and enhancement of significant elements of the historic environment, including cultural landscapes. SNH agreed that mountain areas are a priority for an instrument of this kind and were pleased to see the Commission recognising that similar handicaps could apply to land at a lower altitude. Accepting that Article 47(2)(b) would not cover all the areas of the EU where farming is at a disadvantage because of poor conditions, they would support the provisions of Article 47(3), but questioned the need to distinguish between categories a and b. They felt it would be more satisfactory to amalgamate them.

NFUS believed that the current delimitation of the LFA in Scotland was justified by physical criteria such as altitude, slope, soil productivity and climate. However early engagement with the Commission would be vital to ensure that the detailed criteria and the way in which they are assessed are relevant to Scotland.

Other organisations expressed more concern. Royal Society for the Protection of Birds were worried that if option 3(a) were selected alone to designate Scotland's non-mountain LFA, many areas would be omitted. As with SNH they wondered whether 3(a) and 3(b) could be superimposed on each other, rather than being seen as either/or categories. South of Scotland Alliance and Scottish Borders Council shared the concern that the Commission's proposals appeared to put the emphasis on mountain areas. This would mean that only part of the Highlands and Islands might qualify for future support at the expense of farmers in the south of Scotland. They argued for a much more flexible approach. Highland Council however had its own concerns. They felt the definition under 3(a) was less specific than the current legislation. They said that LFASS must be justified and based firmly on substantive rural development rather than agricultural production criteria. Scottish Crofting Foundation and Comhairle nan Eilean Siar both argued that LFA areas should be based on objectively defined criteria relating to permanent natural handicap, and that key among those natural handicaps should be peripherality. They would also support the provision in the new regulation to allow support to be differentiated according to the severity of the natural handicap.

SEBG felt that it was vital that current LFA support continues to be directed at Scotland's areas of natural disadvantage and that Scotland's LFA budget is maintained at least at current levels. Both COSLA and Argyll and Bute Council thought that, with the redefinition of the LFA map, potentially large numbers of less competitive, medium sized and marginal farm businesses could disappear, and urged the Scottish Executive to commission urgent research in order that evidence based arguments might be brought forward at an early date.

Respect of Standards

SNH considered that environmental conditions should apply to all forestry measures, particularly to support the initial afforestation of land, and these were excluded from the arrangements in Article 48.

« Previous | Contents | Next »