Phase 2 of the Inquiry into Future Support for Agriculture in Scotland: Analysis of Consultation Responses

Listen

APPENDIX 2: NOTES FROM CONSULTATION EVENTS

PUBLIC MEETINGS - AYR - THURSDAY 28 JANUARY 2010 (CHAIR - GREGOR CALDWELL)

Long-term issues

  • This will be a very hard sell to a livestock region like Ayrshire.
  • Dairy, Beef & Sheep Farmer: Need to link to activity if you are to achieve your objective of food security. Don't make TUF proportionate to area base. I'll live without SFP if all of Europe does, I'll live with _ of the SFP if all of Europe does, but don't put Scotland at a competitive disadvantage.
  • Keep application simple. It shouldn't need consultants
  • Intensive livestock systems will suffer which will have an effect on the economy and food security. Think outside the box to solve the problem - how about putting money into the supply chain?
  • 0.12 LU/ha is too high in NW. It will have an effect on those with SSSIs
  • This will annihilate the industry in Ayrshire. TUF will just result in tiers of consultants.
  • Be like the French. Maximise the funding and then decide what to do with it later. Go for a historic re-basing.
  • Add TUF to LFASS budget in order to re-couple
  • Need sustainability of labour for the long term. Labour units would be a better way to measure activity than livestock units
  • Dumfries and Galloway will be hammered. Go for ring-fencing by region and then an area base within that.
  • Proposals will lead to money going from the active south to the less productive NW with the overall farming industry in Scotland being the loser.
  • Link support to activity

Short-term issues - GAEC/activity

  • How much would this save and would it be worth the trouble

PUBLIC MEETINGS - BENBECULA - MONDAY 15 MARCH 2010 (CHAIR - DONALD NORMAN MACDONALD)

Main points raised

Long-term issues

  • Few in Benbecula would qualify for Top-up Funds as we have extensive systems with low inputs.
  • LFA system has let us down badly in the past.
  • Will forestry receive payments under an area based payment system?
  • According to Macaulay LCA, we have poor quality land, but we do have some small pockets of good land such as the Machair. Could we get bigger TUF than say arable farmers with best land to help level the playing field?
  • Short growing season in Western Isles, cattle need fed for 5 months of the year a lot of money goes to feed the animals.
  • If people are to be penalised for lack of production there should also be a penalty for over production.
  • Should be one rate per hectare for the whole of Scotland.
  • Payments could be flat rate but scaled up or down on economies of scale.
  • Will New Entrants be included in any new scheme?
  • Should be higher payments for disadvantaged areas.
  • Pleased that moving to area based payments as this will help new entrants.
  • Moorland grazing could do a lot more in terms of grazing on moorland but at £1/ha it is not worthwhile.
  • Better land gets highest payment, poorest land gets smallest, payments in a new scheme should be somewhere in the middle to be fairer.

Short-term issues - GAEC/activity

  • Would be very difficult to police stocking levels on common grazings.

Short-term issues - Date for change to area payments

  • Should move before 2014
  • Will change happen in 2014 or is it likely to take longer.

Short-term issues - art 68

  • Like to see the Beef cows in LFA suggestion go ahead as it could encourage people to keep cattle.
  • Could be merit in higher payments for smaller producers

Final points

  • Concerned about what happens with LFASS
  • Cost of feed etc £50 to £60 per tonne higher in Western Isles than mainland.

PUBLIC MEETINGS - DUMFRIES - WEDNESDAY 27 TH JANUARY 2010 (CHAIR - SANDY FORSYTH)

Long-term issues

  • First impressions of a young farmer (small farm with intensive breeding stock). Struggling at present so an area payment would put me out of business. Even with TUF I would only get a quarter of present funding.
  • Should be ticking boxes e.g. for active farming, breeding animals, young farmers
  • Beef and sheep farmer - 20% of GDP in D&G is from milk processing and D&G has 15% of agricultural land in Scotland and 17% of SFP receipts. Therefore huge effect on D&G from proposal to shift to an area basis. Therefore must keep area funds low and maximise TUF. Happy for D&G budget to be ring fenced but area component must still be low.
  • Dairy farmer with Grade 1,2,3, 4 and 5 land - lot of land around here is grade 4 and 5 and it is used to support cattle. This land needs to be in higher payment rate otherwise D&G will be disadvantaged.
  • Must have stocking rate requirement ( BCMS)
  • Arable farmer - concerned by area payments. TUF would have to be simple. We were promised simple system with LMOs e.g. for dykes.
  • Majority of D&G is standard class LFA but proposals in Interim Report would take our money and putting to NW of Scotland.
  • Upland beef and sheep farmer - Interim Report says support should go where it is needed so why do highest rates reflect land with greatest capability. This land is capable of getting adequate return from the market.
  • Simplest way to meet proposals in Interim Report is to decrease livestock numbers.
  • Beef and sheep producer - don't see anything to increase beef and sheep numbers over next 4 - 5 years - nothing to keep abattoirs and supply chains going.
  • Do we have to move to an area-basis?
  • Convinced by your argument for formula and delivery of public goods - Convinced that industry has to deliver public goods (access, water quality) and these come from upland farms. Therefore how can you justify difference between the different rates for good and bad land - upland is crucial if we are to carry the public with us.
  • Difference in amount of funding rates across Europe (Scotland £7.4/ha, £12/ha elsewhere in Europe and £54/ha in republic of Ireland)
  • Another farmer was not persuaded by the argument of funding for public goods.
  • LFASS
  • Sheep farmer - NW Scotland has difficulties but general problem across Scotland. Langholm has dispersed two hefted flocks so not just NW Scotland.
  • Received more money since 2005 because of weak decline but still seen decline in dairy etc because of lack of income.
  • Potato land would be covered by area payments.
  • Dairy farmers need 3p/litre for reinvestment. Also needs skilled labour.
  • Hill farmer - would measures help tenant sector? England has an area-based system and entitlements do trade even at low level.
  • Scrap MLURILCA - need level playing field east and west of Scotland.
  • Would every farmer get one third TUF or is there an option for other farmers to take up unused TUF.
  • Lot of LCA grade 5 around here which would need to get a higher rate if LCA is used as the basis.

Short-term issues - GAEC/activity

  • 80% show of hands wanted payments to slipper brigade stopped.
  • Currently penalised for not having correct ear tags so inspections should also tackle inactivity.
  • Farmers grow forage for others. Concern that arable farms on east coast may switch to crops for biofuel.

Short-term issues - Date for change to area payments

  • Revisit coupled payments/re-baselining and then recalibrating every 5 years to solve problem of slipper brigade and to make sure money reflects activity (would have 5 years to increase stocking levels).
  • Beef and sheep farmer - - shouldn't move before 2014. Should stay as we are for as long as possible because of difficulty in getting agreement in Europe. But must do something for new entrants.

Short-term issues - art 68

  • Could this mean another 10 - 12% removed from funding pot?
  • Already using SFP to invest in farm businesses. Was a dairy and arable producer with 600 acres but am now just a dairy producer. Used to have just 1 FTE but now since switch to dairy have 4 FTE and 2 part time staff. Move has been good for local economy.
  • Beef producer - Interim Report stresses need for simplicity but then proposes 3 beef art 68 measures. Pay out money through SBCS. Don't pay on empty cows same for sheep.
  • Put all money on calf - so then you need a productive cow.

PUBLIC MEETINGS - HADDINGTON - TUESDAY 26 TH JANUARY 2010 (CHAIR - GEORGE BARTON)

Long-term issues

  • Should be a quick change
  • Table showing arable land classed as LCA 3.2 should also have a minimum arable requirement.
  • Any new requirements need to be simple and easy to understand and implement. SRDP is bureaucratic - must avoid this with anything from this Inquiry. Money will drain away to advisers and consultants.
  • Interim Report does not mention dairy farmers - one third of dairy farms will disappear over next 7 - 8 years under proposals in Interim Report. Asda advising producers to get out of dairy production.
  • Agree that if a minimum stocking density is introduced then there should also be a maximum stocking density. Link payments with active farmers.
  • Why use MLURILCA? Why not just base payments on LFA and non- LFA? Any land that is disadvantaged but not getting LFA would then get TUF.
  • Support TUF going to active farmers.
  • Suggest the base area payments be 10% of total funds whilst TUF should be 90%. This would enable businesses to build up their businesses to higher standards. Think the two thirds: one third split is wrong way round.
  • If stocking rate of 0.12 LU/ha is used then I wouldn't be any worse off but Scottish supply chain would be. Must have TUF and at higher level. Think dairy farmers will be better off as they will get area payments under new scheme (don't get SFP at present).
  • Devil in detail. Agree that there is some arable farming on LCA 3.2 land. Measures under TUF will need to be flexible given uncertainty in markets.
  • Need one third area base payments, one third TUF and one third for sector interests.
  • Don't agree with production arguments. Should let the market dictate production (as was seen when global shortages of cereals resulted in abolition of set-aside and increased production).

Short-term issues - GAEC/activity

  • If 10%, then inactive farmers account for about €4000 on 6000 acres. Not worth trying to remedy this. Would simply introduce more bureaucracy for little effect.
  • Would ne unintended consequences. Hill farmers with small payments over large areas might not achieve the required stocking density. Some genuine farmers would lose out.

Short-term issues - New entrants

  • Proposals for TUF would help new entrants but proposals for area payments do not.

Short-term issues - Date for change to area payments

  • Need to know what new rules Europe decides on.
  • Need to recognise differences in time it takes for sectors to respond to changing production demands. I.e. arable farmers can change scale in a single year whilst it might take a livestock producer perhaps 4 or 5 years to increase a herd.

Short-term issues - art 68

  • Support payments of £75/head for all cows (not just cows in LFA) plus proposed BVD measure
  • Arable farmers should get historic payment on new area basis. But livestock farmers around Haddington typically get £300 - £400 per hectare and most could not afford to lose 10% of their SFP. Use IACS field data sheet. Then have payment for permanent grass and an activity requirement.
  • Discussion on climate change - trees fix 3 tonnes per hectare over their lifetime. Crops fix x kg per hectare. Wouldn't take many trees to absorb GHG emissions from livestock production.

Final points

  • Need to reflect production, Area payments should come in and be as small as possible. Money should target active farming and low carbon footprint i.e. activities that contribute to Scottish economy.

PUBLIC MEETINGS - INVERNESS - TUESDAY 2ND FEBRUARY 2010 (CHAIR - DAVID HOUGHTON)

Long-term issues

  • How do you visualise LCA 3.2 class land has been continuously cropped fitting into the system? Does it have to be stocked?
  • What is definition of sustainability?
  • How much of what is proposed in Interim Report will be implemented? Isn't Brussels likely to want common schemes across Europe?
  • Seriously concerned that a payment rate of £130/ha which is attached to the land will act as a disincentive to people to rent out land. Should be a lower base payment and an activity requirement that farmer has undertaken.
  • Currently get large SFP. Under proposals in Interim Report, I would have to lay off several of my staff. Last year it cost me £60 - £70k to grow malting barley because the market does not cover costs.
  • Uniqueness of Scotland - large proportion of LFA area - therefore should be trying to bring support to these areas.
  • What about a dynamic top up? TUF to try and reverse decline in numbers of livestock.
  • TUF should be targeted at restructuring.
  • If you got TUF could you then lose it?
  • What would happen to unused funds allocated to TUF?
  • Area payments and LCA would reward production potential. Big arable farmers will do well in line with increasing demand because of need for food security. But how would area payments help address other challenges like biodiversity. Why not reward Highland farmers from TUF for managing wetlands.
  • TUF would be equivalent to 33% modulation plus further deductions for art 68 top slicing.
  • Would area-based entitlements cover new entrants and for those who try to farm naked acres?
  • Question on RPID report - would need IT resources from now until 2013.
  • Proposals might mean that land values increase and act as disincentive for people to let out land. Any tenancy coming to an end in next couple of years will probably go to short term lets not long term lets.

Trees

  • Should cover forestry plantings where these are part of a farmer's efforts to diversify ie part of normal farming operations not big forestry plantations by FC.
  • Confederation of Forestry Industries - Want to see farmers given opportunities for growing a crop for fibre (trees). Plenty of farmers could afford to give up land to deliver an alternative crop with an income stream. Farmers occupy the most land and there are opportunities for them to grow trees and make money out of it.
  • Planting of trees should be covered out of energy budget not agricultural budget
  • Biomass efficiency Woodchip costs £165. Barley burns at 85% efficiency

Short-term issues - GAEC/activity

  • Farmers would end up footing the bill for increased requirements under "activity". So many of us will decrease activity because market doesn't cover costs.
  • This proposal is about morals and ethics not about activity.
  • Have marginal farm. Agree that issue is one of principle. Many marginal units would struggle to achieve stocking density e.g. know a farm where stocking density is 0.03 LU.ha.
  • Many businesses in LFA would struggle to achieve stocking density. This might provide opportunities for consolidating units in the LFA to achieve 0.12 LU/ha.
  • Need details abt cover crops.
  • Don't support slipper brigade but need to know how much they account for and what the cost of any new measure would be.
  • Slipper brigade not being penalised as much as active farmers where penalty can be worse than crime.

Short-term issues - New entrants

  • SRDP new entrant scheme needs you to have been a farmer for no more than 2 years.
  • Whole decade of new entrants will have been excluded between 2004 and 2014.
  • Can you transfer money from slipper brigade to new entrants?
  • Need creative thinking about the £10m currently sitting in SRDP to help new entrants. Need grant so they can purchase SFP.

Short-term issues - Date for change to area payments

  • Any sudden change is fraught with difficulty. Support one off change in 2014.
  • Leaves new entrants without SFP until 2014.

Short-term issues - art 68

  • Previous experience of outcome related schemes suggests they are difficult to operate. Will people be able to move easily from art 68 to TUF when the switch to area payments happens?
  • Why discriminate against non- LFA beef cow.
  • If you have 75 cows in LFA would only be paid on 40. Will loose workers from farm and therefore will keep fewer cows.
  • Arable farmers won't want to be top sliced by 6% for article 68. Art 69 is working well so leave it as it is.
  • Once sheep have gone from hefted hills won't get them back.

PUBLIC MEETINGS - INVERURIE - MONDAY 1 ST FEBRUARY 2010 (CHAIR - JIM ARBUCKLE)

Long-term issues

  • Map of LFA v non- LFA in interim report is not correct. Many LFA-farmers in yellow area shown for NE Scotland
  • NE Scotland classed as intensive livestock farming. This means it has a higher cost basis and therefore receives higher payments. Question whether it would survive change in income brought about by proposals.
  • Disappointed by proposals for TUF. Too many hoops. Had expected simple stocking density hurdle. Won't stop livestock industry from declining.
  • No good reason presented for TUF. More bureaucracy for no advantage.
  • TUF too complicated must be simple.
  • Using stocking rate carries risk that you will encourage a low level of activity even on better quality land.
  • Evidence from measures proposed by Irish and French.
  • A stock-based TUF might work. Like to see 75% TUF: 25% area payment. If it was all area-based then would simply be paying money for having land therefore TUF must represent majority of funding. Consider grazing payment.
  • Can't produce barley for £75/tonne
  • Proposals would mean support moves away from livestock producers and away from arable producers ie from east to west.
  • How would seasonal lets be dealt with. Changes should not be a landlord's charter at expense of tenant farmers.
  • If we move from current situation where a cattle breeder producing calves gets SBCS to one where there is a single payment then would suffer big hit.
  • Winners will be the 1m hectares of land that currently doesn't receive SFP.
  • Need greater justification for a one third cut to payments for TUF. Cut everyone's payments and yet perhaps only half use it.
  • Usually producers lose money because they are Already see about disproportionate fines because of simple mistakes. All TUF would be is good for civil service.
  • Can TUF be paid in terms of labour units - similar to old schemes?

Short-term issues - GAEC/activity

  • Not everyone worries about this.
  • If money would go from inactive to active producers then should support but think there will be difficulty in defining and applying "active" criteria (tried it before).
  • Slipper farmers will try and sell entitlements on open market rather than lose them.
  • Or bring in consultants to avoid losing them
  • If you don't do something then these anomalies will continue.
  • Something abt EU milk quotas in 2003 being flawed.
  • If change in requirements would this stop land being rented out to slipper farmer.

Short-term issues - New entrants

  • Accept no way to help at present but 2014 is a long way off. Need new entrant scheme in SRDP to give these producers an income ( SRDP at present has scheme offering interest rate subsidy)

Short-term issues - Date for change to area payments

  • Just one passing comment in general support of proposal

Short-term issues - art 68

  • If all options developed then £120m would be a quarter of Scotland's SFP
  • BVD being looked at under LMOs - in this case BVD measures would be compulsory.
  • Support cow in LFA measure but no point extending SBCS as scheme doesn't deliver.
  • Industry should pick up cost for eradicating BVD.
  • How do you justify to an arable producer that some of his funds should go to a lamb producer in the NW?
  • Cow in LFA scheme should be payment on calf not cow.

Final points

  • Not happy with conclusions - like link with labour. Also need to target retention of skills under art 68 ie to allow money if new post is created eg on west coast.
  • Question whether arable farmer in Angus should be asked to support cattle schemes.
  • Money going to the west. Land on east is occupied by agricultural production. Land on west cost is occupied by grouse and odd sheep and yet interim report suggests it should receive a £15/ha area payment.

PUBLIC MEETINGS - ORKNEY - WEDNESDAY 10TH FEBRUARY 2010 (CHAIR - STEWART WOOD)

Main points raised

Long-term issues

  • Will there be a gradual shift to an area based payment system or will it be a sudden change?
  • Have you identified the winners and losers?
  • Are there any sectors which stand out as being losers, for example beef, sheep or dairy?
  • Is there scope for different payments between sectors?
  • Equal payments could spell the end of dairy in Orkney. Dairy farmers must retain eligibility for LFASS.
  • Average entitlement across Orkney is approx £200 ha, therefore Orkney stands to lose heavily if this rate reduces to £130 ha.
  • The lower land classifications should receive higher rate of payment because they have less choice of production systems.
  • We need more LFASS to compensate.
  • Could we have a hybrid system similar to RPA introduced in 2005? i.e. an element of the payment based on historical activity.
  • Does growing grass help reduce the nations carbon footprint in a similar way to growing trees?
  • Could the IACS form be used to determine activity? TGRS indicates higher level of cultivation.
  • Will minimum stocking density lead to a trade/rent of livestock units to achieve payments on naked acres?
  • Minimum stocking density won't achieve desired results, variable stocking rates would be better based on land classification. Good land should have higher stocking rates.
  • At proposed stocking of 0.12 lu/ha all Orkney farmers could reduce their stock and become 'slipper farmers.'
  • Will area payments be based on IACS declarations or entitlements held?
  • Will the payment go to the active farmer or the landlord?

Short-term issues - GAEC/activity

  • Why would imposing minimum stocking rates become so expensive to administrate when the information is contained in current returns, IACS, BCMS, etc?
  • Why does cross-checking to verify minimum stocking densities have to be done on a field by field basis?
  • Are there any statistics for how many entitlements are being claimed on naked acres?
  • Why is there a difference in minimum activity required for LFASS and SFP schemes?
  • How can applicants who claim on naked acres hope to achieve similar subsidy levels?
  • Could the money paid on naked acres be transferred into the New Entrants Scheme?

Short-term issues - New entrants

  • Could the money paid on naked acres be transferred into the New Entrants Scheme?

Short-term issues - art 68

  • Are the short term measures only applicable until 2013?
  • What are the chances of England, Wales and Northern Ireland agreeing to Scotland using the UK Budget Ceiling for Article 68 measures?
  • If we choose measures under Article 68, Cattle health schemes, would farmers who are already BVD free receive any payment?
  • Is there a crossover between the LMO animal health plan and a proposed cattle health scheme?
  • If there is a headage payment on cows, capped at 40 cows per business, will big businesses try and split up their herds into smaller ones?

Final points

  • If production is to be doubled in the next 40 years what effect will this have on the price of food?
  • Will be going through this process again in 6 years time?
  • What are the chances of the CAP budget remaining the same?
  • Do you think market prices will fall as a result of budgetary pressures within some European countries e.g. Greece? This may affect the Euro conversion rate.
  • Does Greece have the highest payment rate in Europe?!

PUBLIC MEETINGS - LERWICK - THURSDAY 11TH FEBRUARY 2010 (CHAIR - BRIAN ANDERSON)

Main points raised

Long-term issues

  • Will Shetland be better or worse off under Inquiry Proposals?
  • Will money be lost from Shetland?
  • Money will be redistributed to areas nearer the market.
  • Shetland has added costs when shipping animals to the mainland.
  • Macaulay LCA is a blunt tool and Shetland is very varied, will LCA be more detailed?
  • Big financial difference between LCA 5.1 and 5.2 in example
  • LCA dates back to 1982, technology has moved on since e.g. satellites, could we have a new system?
  • Why £130/ha for best land?
  • LFASS has not been very beneficial for Shetland
  • LFASS mapping should reflect LCA
  • Remove LFASS from LCA 3 to allow higher payments in Shetland
  • Steps between payment levels too big
  • Not taking Shetland seriously - proposed payment levels too small
  • Why can Island Status awarded to the Channel Islands not be applied to Shetland under LFASS?
  • Redistribution will favour those who are already well off.
  • Will the Inquiry look at changes to LFASS according to disadvantage?
  • LFASS maximum is too high - better land is too generously treated
  • LFASS should take account of all stock not just breeding stock
  • LFA budget is too small so readjusting it won't do much
  • More detail needed on Top-up Funds
  • Could TUF pay to maintain disease-free?
  • Shetland could produce more but no longer able to improve unimproved pasture unlike previous schemes which supported improving grassland.
  • Leaving Shetland to become a carbon store so other farmers can keep ploughing and spreading fertiliser would make farming in Shetland boring.
  • If it's not broke don't change it - Public money is to compensate for unfair market prices. The past 10yrs support has allowed farmers to budget - productive units in today's Shetland cannot compete, so farmers need some security for the future.
  • Can't run a business whilst having to compete for top-ups
  • Would regeneration be better than reseeding to avoid breaking soil?
  • No trading of entitlements in future is a good thing - does committee realise timescales for farming?

Final points

Farmers and Crofters in Shetland just trying to do a good job

PUBLIC MEETINGS - OBAN - MONDAY 15TH FEBRUARY 2010 (CHAIR - JOHN SEMPLE)

Long-term issues

  • Should be bare minimum payment for every active hectare and a large top-up fund available for active farming.
  • What about food price inflation particularly with weak pound how will Inquiry look after dairy sector? Using example in Interim Report would need about 2p per litre from Top-up Fund.
  • How do you define public goods e.g. carbon capture, biodiversity and does it include supporting other important industries e.g. the tourist industry?
  • Stocking densities should relate to Macaulay LCA
  • Take money off more productive land
  • Need clarity of LCA - What is Argyll?
  • When you take in vegetable, potato growers etc into SFP will the payments stay with the farmers or as is the case with milk be taken by the big retailers.
  • Can activity not be monitored on outcomes over say a 5 year period as with some other schemes such as ABDS.
  • Big worries about minimum stocking density - when introduced in 2000/01, 15% in fragile area and 25% in very fragile area failed to meet minimum, at that quota for hogs and heifers if they are taken out could rise to 50%.
  • 0.12 LU/ha for LCA 3.1 - 5.2 is effectively destocking - fairer system would be relative stocking densities based on land class.
  • LFA committee looking at models on LCA and stocking densities
  • Why do you want to include trees in proposal as this will be seen as an easy way of collecting money and getting rid of tenant farmers?
  • Where are going to produce food if we have to plant 15,000ha of trees every year?
  • If area base is going to pick up people who have been excluded e.g. vegetable growers, etc how are we going to support new entrants?
  • What are the average payments per hectare across the 27 Member States and the averages across the individual countries in the UK?
  • Scotland receives one of lowest averages in EU support especially in environmental terms, should we be arguing for an increase in Scotland's Rural Development funding.
  • SRDP applications are to complex. SRDP is a disaster and needs to be addressed.
  • Scotland's food and drink industry have a target to increase production from £10bn to £12bn, where is this increase going to come from?
  • If EU goes to area based scheme will CAP budget divided by the no. of ha then allocated to Member States based no. of ha they have or will it include land quality and or stocking densities? Will same formula be used to allocate funds between UK countries?
  • What justification is there for such a low stocking rate on the better quality land? This won't increase production and stocking levels.
  • 0.12 stocking density is too high.
  • If we lose any more from the current SFP levels we won't be able to farm - the proposals do not suit Argyle.
  • Can something be done for arable sector to measure activity?
  • Fixed budget of £60m for LFASS and fixed budget of £480m for SFP Richard Lochhead said earlier in year he could be flexible in how that money was spent that is what we want.
  • Is it justifiable that 85% of land is LFA or should lines be re-drawn?
  • Land abandonment is mainly by estates not active farmers, if proposals go ahead will deny young farmers opportunity to get into farming as it will not be viable.

Short-term issues - GAEC/activity

  • 0.08 LU/ha could penalise some genuine active farmers.
  • No stock should equal no payment.
  • How much money can be recovered and what could be done with it?

Short-term issues - New entrants

  • Why can we not have a 1% top slice for new entrants?

Short-term issues - art 68

  • NW Sheep Scheme - triple amount and do away with SBCS, lot of people would be better off.
  • Payment should be on the ewe as long as it's producing rather than the lamb.
  • Article 68 has caused much division amongst farmers and should not be used.

Final points

  • Should not be embarrassed to ask for what we need
  • Can legislation be changed to take money of inactive farmers e.g. naked acres and redistributed.

PUBLIC MEETINGS - PERTH - TUESDAY 16TH FEBRUARY 2010 (CHAIR - IAN MCLAREN)

Long-term issues

  • What happens if money left in the top-up fund ( TUF), will it be redistributed and is it another form of modulation?
  • Proposals seem a lot more complicated than they need to be
  • Under current system paid on ha basis, convert that to area base e.g. if you had 200ha and continue to farm 200ha and meet stocking requirements you still get paid for 200ha. A top slice could be introduced for new entrants.
  • Need more land classification and group farms tight together, would make it easier to identify areas and sectors that need support.
  • How did you decide that the TUF should be one third of SFP and what ids the justification for it?
  • Tenants will find TUF difficult to access.
  • TUF will create huge problems as a lot of people as it will not be achievable to them.
  • Simple solution would be flat rate payment per ha for arable sector however livestock sector more complicated. Anomalies in levels of payments in livestock sector would mean massive redistribution, need to marginalise that pain.
  • People should be given time to adjust
  • More detail needed on TUF, do you have concerns about it not being achievable for some people.
  • A new scheme should ensure that all entitlements stay on the farm and have no value this would help new entrants.
  • If new scheme prevents person with SFP entitlements from moving and taking entitlements with them e.g. ensuring entitlement stays with the land then a very positive step.
  • There is a place for the TUF
  • Direct support to Scottish agriculture was running at 3 times the net farm income, what are the current figures?
  • Any lessons to be learned from England?
  • Could TUF be made available to farmers who are making their farms more efficient by reducing their carbon emissions, would this be allowed under EU and WTO rules?
  • Concerned about fluctuation of area payments and TUF being one third of budget, sounds very expensive will there be a cap on administration?
  • Proposal in Interim Report is unfair e.g. take 2 similar size farms, one arable growing cereals the other mixed (cereals, livestock, potatoes) under proposal arable will be about 10% worse off while mixed will be 40% worse off. Arable will employ farmer plus casual labour at harvest and sowing time while mixed will employ about 4 men plus some casual labour. Mixed therefore does more for community and food security so not fair that they should receive the same area payment.
  • Can see difficulties in applying for TUF, will we need to employ consultants to enable us to apply for it?
  • Field vegetable sector not been supported for many years, would encourage you to ensure they are included in the new payment scheme in line with counterparts in England.
  • TUF could include simple measures for wildlife which would also help the diffuse pollution situation, measures such as grass margins, water margins, unharvested crops, etc would really help wildlife and avoid jumping through hoops to get into SRDP.
  • As a cattle & sheep producer with payments a lot higher than in the proposal, and given declining livestock numbers in Scotland, is the proposal meant to encourage us to keep less stock.
  • Concerned about attitude to arable sector in report
  • We need to look forward not backwards, policy should be about what we can do not what we done in the past
  • Historical system has enabled farmers to farm
  • Livestock sector has benefited from a reduction in numbers because market prices are keeping it profitable in areas where it is possible to be profitable, why do you want to send taxpayers money to the hills to regenerate numbers that will drive prices down?
  • If TUF is going to be put into LMO's it is virtually impossible for arable sector to recoup money from LMO's.
  • It has been acknowledged that the cereal sector suffers big swings, it has also been stated that it employs less people that is due to the fact that we have invested in machinery to be more efficient
  • TUF a waste of time.
  • Can modulation stay on the farm that generates it?
  • Rather than use LCA, why not classify by farm type e.g. Dairy, specialist Dairy, beef, sheep, arable, veg, etc, this would be seen as much fairer
  • What prevents us from brining forward the reference period to the previous 3 years on a rolling basis? This would enable intensive livestock farmers on poor ground an opportunity to protect the value of their hectare and eliminate the slipper brigade. Any changes would also be reflected and over time would see a transitional move to area based scheme.

Short-term issues - GAEC/activity

  • This is a red herring the effort needed to take action is too much.
  • Unwanted administration.
  • No support for action

Short-term issues - New entrants

  • No comments

Short-term issues - Date for change to area payments

  • MEP commented in press that current system could go on to 2020 if Member states can't agree on new policy.
  • MEP is suggesting a long lead in time, Inquiry suggesting a short sharp change, both can't be right.

Short-term issues - art 68

  • A lot of if's will we get to use National Ceiling if then not worth while has there been any meaningful discussion with the rest of he UK?

Final points

  • Credit Crunch - How may this influence policy? Current SFP is a moveable property which can be sold on open market and banks cannot get security over SFP as a means to supply credit to farmers. Are you thinking about capital value of new system so that farmers could use their SFP as security to obtain credit?

PUBLIC MEETINGS - STORNOWAY - TUESDAY 16 MARCH 2010 (CHAIR - MURDO MACLENNAN)

Long-term issues

  • Could the Top-Up Fund be used to deliver a scheme similar to that being proposed as a possible Article 68 measure for sheep in the North West e.g. £15 per lamb?
  • SFP is the bedrock of farming and crofting in the Highlands and Islands and any cuts would be disastrous especially a 1/3 cut as proposed for the Top-up Fund.
  • Concerned about the impact a stocking density of 0.12 LU/ha would have in relation to common grazings some of which extended to thousands of hectares, would they be classed as inactive because of the lack of sheep?
  • Islands are completely different to other areas of Scotland.
  • 85% of Scotland is LFA areas like the Western Isles are more severely disadvantaged than other areas. These areas clearly need more support and should receive most subsidies.
  • Serious reduction in activity over last 10 Years, a Stocking Rate of 0.12 LU/ha is too high and would just add to that demise.
  • Want to see people rewarded for active land management.
  • 0.12 LU/ha would mean 2 sheep per acre on in-bye land.
  • Sheep on moorland should be counted as more than 0.15 LU for the good that they do.
  • Common grazings can be huge areas extending over several miles and the work required to gather in sheep is enormous. Unless there is proper reward for this work the numbers will continue to fall.
  • Any forms for a new system needs to be simple.
  • Stocking rate for better quality land same as poorest quality is not fair.
  • Perception that report favours large productive farms in NE Scotland what therefore is the future for crofting in the Western Isles?
  • Is it fair to use the Macaulay LCA for an area based system?

Short-term issues - GAEC/activity

  • Slipper farmers should not be rewarded at all.

Short-term issues - New entrants

  • Disappointed that nothing can be done for New Entrants in Short term.

Final points

  • Areas most important for Biodiversity don't support 0.12 stocking levels and unless there is reward for activity there is no incentive to manage those areas. These areas require a lot of work that won't be rewarded in your proposals regardless of what LFASS will deliver.
  • The proposals are right, a TUF for animals to reward activity, far too many people getting money for nothing.
  • 85 % OF Scotland is LFA, previous reports such as the RSE and Shucksmith have highlighted that there are different levels of disadvantage. Scotland's use of the LFA mechanism is completely contrary to the spirit of mitigating disadvantage do you agree?
  • Under a new system will crofters themselves have to do the calculations on LU's and what areas to claim or will RPID do it for them?
  • How do you encourage young people to crofting post 2014? Any incentives must be realistic and achievable.

PUBLIC MEETINGS - THURSO - TUESDAY 9 TH FEBRUARY 2010 (CHAIR - JOHN HENDERSON)

Long-term issues

  • Rates from £130/ha down to £15/ha. What would be basis for these differences?
  • Why does lowest grade of land get lowest rate? This will depopulate the Highlands (and it won't put people back into the glens).
  • Will your model pay same rates to farmers classed as LCA 5 - 7 as they get at present?
  • How do you get figure of 5m hectares in new area based scheme?
  • What about LCA 1 - 7 - how would scheme be applied on holding with mixed land categories?
  • Large number of payments (in Caithness?) were large payments and yet cow numbers have decreased. Between 2002 and 2008 Caithness lost 10% of its producers (from 23,397 to 21,999).
  • Takes less money to produce stock in Aberdeen shire than in Caithness and Sutherland. Should be paying more to stimulate production here.
  • Problem with grade 5 land - sometime sit includes SSSIs because it is disadvantaged.
  • Needs impel, fair scheme.
  • Landlords might not let out land in future for seasonal lets.
  • I rent a lot of land and have entitlements but need as much money post 2013 as I get at present.
  • Stick to historic but rebase to 07, 08
  • Interim Report proposals are trade distorting because they give more money to best land.
  • OK for cereals to get area payment but can't do this for livestock producers.
  • Some people have more livestock than before e.g. suckler herds.
  • Will new entrants since 2004 get area payments?

Trees

  • Will millions of pounds go to trees?
  • If 15,000 hectares are planted with trees, this will displace deer - exacerbating existing problem in Highlands.

Short-term issues - GAEC/activity

  • Can be difficult to meet cross compliance in Caithness but easy for farmer who rents land on west coast.
  • Should increase stocking rate further.
  • Anyone can reach 0.08 LU/ha - lip service.
  • Chair - general view of audience seems to be that we are not enthused by this idea

Short-term issues - Date for change to area payments

  • The one new entrant in audience was disappointed but accepted that movement before 2014 was not sensible.

Short-term issues - art 68

  • Why have arbitrary limits (first 40 cows)? Pay half on registration and half when cow calves down. Simple system which would put animals back into the LFA.
  • SG New development programme for NW Sutherland - got half of money when animal was put to bull and half on calving.
  • Or count number of animals in LFA and divide into sum
  • Advantage in retaining your own calves as it lowers the risk of infection i.e. of bringing in disease.
  • Might need to describe them as "home-bred" to prevent buying in of heifers.
  • No shepherds to look after animals in abandoned areas.
  • Support BVD measure because eradication means that more calves would survive so farmer would get more money.
  • Why should we pay for something that some farmers have already eradicated themselves?
  • What about Johnes disease?
  • £15 a lamb - buyers will just knock £15 off price of lamb selling price.

Page updated: Wednesday, July 28, 2010