« Previous | Contents | Next »
Listen
14 SMALL SUPPORT SCHEMES
14.1 The Commission is proposing changes to some small support schemes which still receive payments related to production. These schemes in general have little relevance to Scotland although some producers do benefit from the Protein Crop Premium ( PCP) and the Energy Crop Scheme ( ECS).
14.2 There has been a rapid growth in the bio-energy market and the Commission feels that there is no longer sufficient reason for specific support for energy crops and therefore intends to abolish the ECS.
14.3 The PCP provides support to producers of protein crops that are used to feed livestock. The Commission intends to decouple the PCP from production and make an equivalent sum available to each Member State's national ceiling. Producers will receive payments through the SFP scheme.
14.4 The area of both energy and protein crops in Scotland is relatively small.
14.5 Respondents were asked "What are your views on proposals for changing a number of small support schemes, including decoupling of the protein crop scheme and abolition of the energy crop scheme?"
14.6 There were 25 replies to this question; seven respondents merely said that they agree with the proposals and two others commented that the proposals would have no real effect on crofting. A farming organisation wanted to see support continued for both schemes.
ECS
14.7 Four stakeholders and three other respondents agreed the proposals for the ECS and one farming stakeholder commented that the effect of the coupled energy crop payment was limited given the restriction of Maximum Guaranteed Area and the substantial part of payment retained by processors.
14.8 Two environment stakeholders perceived that the ECS would only be acceptable where additional public goods are provided in the same way as with conventional crops, and that support should not be directed towards increasing agricultural production.
14.9 An individual respondent commented that the future of this scheme would depend on Government policy on the future of renewable energy, or food versus fuel.
14.10 One environment stakeholder supported proposals where they promote the most sustainable use of bio-fuels, and to fund research and development to bring down costs of second generation bio-fuels. An individual thought funds should be used for research and development; especially bi-product straw.
14.11 A research/ education organisation were unconvinced of a global shift towards the use of land for energy crops at the expense of food production particularly due to the amount of energy consumed by growing them and commented:
"Scotland is rightly seeking to become a world leader in renewables but we suggest that resources might be better targeted at developing technologies to exploit our hydro, wave, tidal and wind resources."
14.12 This respondent agreed that there is a place for land-based renewables but added "to dedicate land specifically for energy crops should be handled with caution".
14.13 The need for adequate funding to support measures for bioenergy, water and climate change was stressed by an environment organisation.
PCP
14.14 A farming stakeholder said it was important incentive payments for growing protein crops were retained, adding that: "The likely increase in GM protein crops in North and South America make it important that production in Europe is at least sustained. It may be necessary to increase production levels to compensate for any loss of imports."
14.15 A research/ education organisation, while acknowledging that the impact would be limited, commented that livestock farmers (and in particular the pig industry) are suffering as a result of EC restrictions on Genetically Modified ( GM) feedstuffs.
14.16 A local authority and a farming organisation made similar comments that "further consideration should be given to retaining the Protein Crop scheme against the backdrop of massive increases in fertiliser prices".
14.17 Tracking the new system to ascertain whether there is enough protein crop supply for demand was suggested by a farming organisation.
14.18 Another local authority felt there could be an impact on feed costs for organic producers if the area of organic protein crops declines.
Other issues
14.19 Two stakeholders (one environment, one wider interest) supported decoupling for small schemes in general.
14.20 An environment stakeholder felt the changes were unlikely to have significant environmental consequences in Scotland, while another thought the EC should fund analysis of environmental impacts.
Key themes to emerge in relation to small support schemes: - Around a third of those responding gave short replies in support of the proposals. - A small number of respondents had concerns over the proposals for the PCP. |
« Previous | Contents | Next »