David Barker

FARMING in 2012 is likely to be dominated by discussions on the future direction of the EU Common Agricultural Policy (CAP).

To send a link to this page to a friend, simply enter their email address below.

The message will include the name and email address you gave us when you signed up.

Email address

  Send link

To send a link to this page to a friend, you must be logged in.

Many in the farming industry will have seen the scenario before: the MacSharry reforms were the first to acknowledge the environment as part of farm policy; Fischler followed and was an excellent EU Agricultural Commissioner from 1995 to 2004; Agenda 2000 established Pillar 2 of the CAP which enhanced rural development and the environment and latterly came cross-compliance which regulated farm measures. The one certain thing is that the final outcome will be considerably different from the initial proposals. However, farmers need to remember the history because each reform builds upon what was done before. The key question is how will this affect East Anglian farmers?

Pressure exists for lower payments because of an enlarged EU of 27 countries who are trying to spread out the payments more evenly. There are certain parts of EC Commissioner Dacian Ciolos’, proposals that should be removed in discussions.

The reality is that the UK and Germany are the largest contributors to the CAP and they will resist proposals such as the Capping of Payments to farms which would be a nightmare to police and we are all aware that the rules are enforced far more stringently in some countries than others. The old adage that the UK obeys the rules, the French bend them and the Italians ignore them, remains. I am reminded of a conversation I had with a farm advisor who, on holiday in France a few years back, observed that very little land was in set-aside. His wife, who spoke excellent French, inquired of a local farmer why there did not seem be any set-aside land in the locality. “The local mayor does not agree with it,” came the reply.

We also have to remember that Commissioner Ciolos has great sympathy for the small farmers of Southern Europe. He is a socialist who believes in total regulation which will be difficult to achieve at a time when member states are all trying to reduce red tape.

The proposal to ensure that farmers’ Single Farm Payment should only go to “active farmers” will be a legal nightmare which will only line the pockets of lawyers and land agents and is likely to be dropped.

There is no doubt the cross-compliance rules will remain since they are there to ensure that a strong environmental focus is engrained in the support system.

It is the element of greening the support system that, in my view, will be the most contentious aspect of the discussions. The proposals have three main areas: a compulsory 30% of each national envelope devoted to Green Measures; crop diversification; and Ecological Focus Areas to cover 7% of farmland.

I do not have a problem with the compulsory 30%, although the NFU and others will argue for a lower amount in order to favour production. Crop diversification means a farm has to grow three different crops with a maximum of 70% and a minimum of 5% of the three crops involved. The majority of farmers will not be affected by this but the proposal will cause serious problems for those growing two crops particularly small farms where they may only grow a single crop in a season. I can understand the proposal to increase bio-diversity but it is a sledge-hammer to crack a nut and will cause financial problems in many cases.

The Ecological Focus Area is again where the devil really will be in the detail but however much the EU wish to provide more wildlife habitats on farms, the approach must be realistic and have a vision that Ciolos lacks. The proposals demand that a farm retains an “ecological focus” on at least 7% of its farmland, although organic farms will be excluded. This area also excludes permanent grass which is crazy because on many farms grassland grazed or cut late in the season for hay, provides a fantastic wildlife resource.

The proposal would allow hedges and grass margins to be included but the problem would be when filling in the Single Farm application. Every field would have to be separated with the cropped area in one parcel and the field boundary in another. At a time when our Government is trying to reduce red tape, the form filling would be dramatically increased.

I believe that some kind of ecological focus is likely to be introduced and farmers with a firm environmental understanding need to shape the outcome. In my view the total farm area should be included and not just the cropped area. This would reward the farmers who have resisted removing woodland, wildlife areas and traditional meadows. In reality 7% of a total farm area is therefore easier to achieve; however, it is not necessarily the percentage of land that is important but the quality of habitat that brings the bio-diversity with it. A lower percentage of high quality area is much better than 7% of farmland with no positive management.

All the proposals ignore the highly successful Environmental Stewardship Schemes which around 70% of the region’s farmers now embrace. These schemes to a large extent have stabilised wildlife populations, at least on the farms that have signed up; farms not in stewardship that have ignored the Campaign for the Farmed Environment are the reason why pressure is being placed on the industry to become “greener”.

The president of the NFU has said there is no bio-diversity crisis in the countryside but he has to accept that the general public demand a greater environmental element to the payments made to the industry.Some parts of our countryside lack bio-diversity and the public wish to see their taxes deliver more than food production.

In my view all farmers should achieve the standard of the Entry Level Stewardship Scheme in order to obtain the Single Farm Payment. The vast majority of farmers are there already and the scheme has helped deliver wildlife benefits in a rational and sensible way. This basic level of environmental protection could deliver what the EU demands in a more sensible and less bureaucratic way.

However, the real environmental gains can be achieved by the Higher Level Stewardship Scheme (HLS) which we, as a farm business, entered in 2006. Since that time the scheme has helped deliver a remarkable increase in farmland bird numbers which are now at a level not seen on the farm since the 1970s. In addition, Natural England’s support of capital works has enabled us to plant new hedges and maintain existing ones as well as restore ponds which have proved of particular benefit to the great crested newt population. The HLS has taken some of the least profitable land out of production but the average yields over the farm have increased, making it a more efficient and wildlife friendly operation. There is Grey Partridge and Barn Owls nesting on the farm again as a result of providing rough grassland. My son Patrick has been able to monitor farmland bird populations and 2011 has given some remarkable statistics. Records on the Westhorpe farm show 999 birds have been ringed, in the main using mist nets, 656 new adults and 317 birds ringed at an earlier date added to this 26 chicks prior to fledging. Yellowhammers have shown a dramatic increase due to the measures applied under HLS; a remarkable 199 birds have been monitored and these are only part of the overall population.

At the top of the food chain we have ringed chicks of Buzzards (2) Kestrel (4) Tawny and Barn Owls (2 each) showing there is the food web to support these top predators. Ringing shows it is the seed eating birds that are the main beneficiary of the scheme: including Linnet (44), Goldfinch (53), Chaffinch (69), Dunnock (46), Reed Bunting (5), Bullfinch (8) and Tree Sparrow (2).

Last year 21 different species of butterfly were observed on the farm on a single day. The key to this is the type of farming operation, integrating with the environment, which in the wider context is what the policy makers need to consider.

Some farmers have used the proposals to green the CAP as a reason not to enter or renew their Entry Level Stewardship Scheme. I feel strongly that this is misguided and DEFRA Minister Jim Paice has given an assurance that, should greening of the CAP impact on their business, they will be able to opt out in the future without penalty.

Farmers have to accept that the CAP in future will have a stronger green element. Many will welcome this because they remain the true custodians of the countryside and have always embraced wildlife as part of their business.