The Scottish Government

Listen

CAP REFORM: LAND MANAGEMENT CONTRACTS MENU SCHEME
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS FROM THE CONSULTATION PROCESS

This document is also available in pdf format (116k)

Introduction

1. The Scottish Executive issued a consultation paper ' Land Management Contracts Menu Scheme' on 4 August 2004, to seek stakeholder views on the proposed Menu Scheme as a first step in the development and implementation of Land Management Contracts as envisaged in A Partnership for a Better Scotland. The consultation period closed on 3 September; paragraphs 6 - 16 of this paper provide a summary of the responses.

2. The consultation process was assisted by the close involvement of an LMC Stakeholder Working Group drawn from a wide range of organisations that included the Scottish Rural Property and Business Association (SRPBA), Council of Scottish Local Authorities (CoSLA), Scottish Crofting Foundation (SCF), Highlands and Islands Enterprise (HIE), National Sheep Association (NSA), Scottish Association of Meat Wholesalers (SAMW), National Farmers Union Scotland (NFUS), Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH), Environment LINK, Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA), the Scottish Organic Producers Association (SOPA) and officials from the Scottish Executive.

3. The work of the LMC Stakeholder Group continues and there will be further opportunity to input views during the LMC development phase and over the next 12-18 months. Many useful suggestions were made, some of which helped shape part of the amendment to the Scottish Rural Development Plan for the Menu Scheme from 2005, which has now been submitted to the European Commission for approval.

Response to the consultation paper

4. A total of 73 responses were received. These have been broadly categorised by stakeholder interest group. The number of responses in each category is shown in the table below. A list of organisations that responded can be found at Annex A. ¹

5. The consultation questions were as follows:

• Is the range of proposed measures about right?

• Should producers have a free hand in choosing from the menu, or should there be a mechanism for ensuring that producers adopt a spread of measures?

• What is the best way of implementing a hectarage limit at farm level?

• Should the Scheme be introduced in 2005 or delayed until 2006?

• How should the further integration work be taken forward?

Question 1 - Is the range of proposed measures about right?

6. This question generated many detailed responses. Some organisations felt that the balance was about right but would need to be kept under review. Others felt disappointed that the range was too limited and that measures in the long list had been excluded. Many helpful suggestions were made, although not all of them can be taken forward for the Menu Scheme in 2005. Comments included:

• better balance should be offered for agri-environmental measures to meet the needs of the uplands as well as the lowlands

• payment rates are too low and will do little to inspire changes in working practices

• too focused on agri-environment, need for more social and economic measures

• present range perpetuates historical production incentives

• range does not address pollution on farms or soil protection

• the scheme must be accessible to all including common grazings and stock clubs

• gates rather than stiles should be considered to benefit people of all abilities

• should be measures to encourage maintenance of archaeological sites, vernacular buildings, dykes and other landscape features

• measures to encourage organic agriculture should be included

• animal welfare should be more fully incorporated

• food access, quality and safety measures should be included to help achieve Scottish Dietary Targets

• consider introduction of measures to support various types of group activity

Question 2 - Should producers have a free hand in choosing from the menu, or should there be a mechanism for ensuring that producers adopt a spread of measures?

7. There were 34 (64%) responses in favour of allowing producers to have a free hand in choosing from the menu and a number commented that flexibility was important because not all measures are relevant to all farmers. Others felt that a broad uptake would be encouraged by attractive payment rates. However, of the 34 advocating a free hand, 8 wanted to have the Land Management Plan (LMP) measure to be made compulsory. The arguments in support of producers having a free hand in their choice of measures included:

• rules must be extremely flexible to allow farmers to tailor environmental improvements to their business depending on the type of production he or she is involved in

• a free hand creates more flexibility for different businesses, otherwise, measures inappropriate to certain areas, types and sizes of farms are included to maximise subsidy

• an approach other than a free hand adds complexity and tends to be restrictive for small producers

8. The overall number of those wishing to see a mechanism for ensuring the adoption of a spread of measures amounted to 19 (36%). Within this figure, there were 8 who wanted the LMP measure to be made compulsory. Some felt that guidance should be available to farmers on what measures would be appropriate for them to undertake. In all, almost a third of respondents to question 2 were in favour of making the LMP compulsory, although this view was also expressed more widely by other respondents in other parts of the consultation. Arguments in favour of requiring LMPs included:

• identification of measures appropriate to each farm unit both for the benefit of the farm and for the delivery of public benefits

• useful to create a baseline audit on individual farms

• help target areas of the farm where most benefit is to be achieved

• essential for every farm to identify and prioritise features

Question 3 - What is the best way of implementing a hectarage limit at farm level?

9. The majority of respondents agreed that a hectarage limit tapering down as the number of hectares increase was the way forward. Some qualified this view by saying that small farms should not be disadvantaged. A small number opposed this view arguing that there should not be any discrimination against larger sized businesses. Others suggested that a clear distinction should be made between LFA and non-LFA land.

10. There were some suggestions to manage the budget by applying hectarage limits to individual measures with payment rates tapering down. Others felt that budgets could be managed on an area basis or by farm type. Some of the other ideas included:

• maximum hectarage threshold rather than tapering payments;

• allocation of a separate budget to each individual measure;

• limit per business equivalent to the amount modulated from that business;

• a mechanism based on using number of employees and contracted labour.

11. Some budget management suggestions related to specific measures. Suggestions included: payments allocated to planning measures should not exceed 20% of the total; payment for improving access should be in addition to the hectarage ceiling; the funding to support producer groups should be in addition to the overall limit as the amount is not being paid to the individual farmer.

Question 4 - Should the Scheme be introduced in 2005 or delayed until 2006?

12. Of those who expressed a view, 75% (41) were in favour of introducing the scheme in 2005. Some took the view that with the introduction of the Single Farm Payment (SFP) from 2005, Scotland should engage as quickly as possible with the new culture introduced by CAP Reform. Others felt that it was right to introduce the Menu Scheme from 2005 as part of the ongoing development to full implementation of the three tier scheme from 2007. Early introduction would allow for valuable lessons to be learned to help fine tune the scheme for the future. Some support for 2005 was conditional on further refinements and development of measures involving stakeholders.

13. Of the views expressed against early introduction, 25% (14) thought it better to delay until 2006 or later. Misgivings were expressed about the short timescale for preparation of appropriate measures. With the introduction of the SFP from 2005, it was felt that the Menu Scheme could contribute to excessive change for the industry in a short period of time.

Question 5 - How should the further integration of work should be taken forward?

14. The Scottish Executive proposals were generally welcomed on how the next phase of work should be taken forward along with the long term objective of bringing all farm support schemes within the LMC framework.

15. There was a common thread running through some of the suggestions which included:

• reviewing all existing schemes to identify overlaps and then integrate with LMCs;

• development of a regional approach to take account of local priorities;

• the need to continue to work with stakeholders as well as widening stakeholder involvement;

• ensuring robust monitoring and evaluation of LMCs takes place;

• ensuring the system of support is transparent about the public benefits provided.

16. Other comments included:

• the importance of explaining the new system to farmers possibly by SEERAD or local champions undertaking information roadshows

• making LMPs compulsory and publicly available

• ensuring administration and rules are kept simple

• having separate bodies responsible for administering various components of one contract

ANNEX A: List of responding organisations by category

Footnotes

1 Copies of the individual responses are available in the Scottish Executive library. Only those organisations that indicated their responses were not confidential have been made publicly available. All responses received have been included in this summary.