We need to deliver more for the environment. Producing food is not enough,” believes Jonnie Hall as he unveiled the Union’s post-Brexit farm support plan. The ten-part roadshow, fronted by the director of policy along with vice-president Martin Kennedy, stated there would be less direct area support and more cash for benefitting the environment, along with innovating and productivity measures. However, Martin Kennedy was keen to point out that there would be a significant stability payment to maintain after Brexit. He also stressed that there would be a national reserve for new entrants and developing farming.
The meeting ran through three scenarios of arable, lowland mixed livestock and a hill livestock farm, showing how payments would change over their five year transition (table 1). The Union’s proposal sees the different farms’ “stability payment” fall, while their “innovation and productivity” payments will rise over the transition. Payments would be calculated based on the amount of land farmers were actively farming.
To be eligible land has to be cropped or stocked at 0.8 livestock units per hectare, or above. Those below this stocking rate would scale back their hectares and only be paid on a proportion of their land. The livestock units would be fixed at a three-year rolling average.
The estimated values from the Union for the stability payment would be £140/ha, falling to £100/ha over the five-year transition. There would also be a payment equivalent to £30/ha for environmental measures. The final portion of the support package would be an innovation and productivity scheme, which would equate to £30/ha, rising to £70/ha over the five-year transition. The environmental, innovation and productivity measures would be drawn down through different non-competitive measures.
“First and foremost, we have an idea and we are going out to members to get backing on it. The reaction from members has been good so far. Everyone is buying into the fact it is action based, not area based. This is a big shift for Scottish agriculture to move away from inertia into active farming. We are looking for recognition from other bodies in the country. This will make the best of a limited budget and safeguard rural economic activity,” Martin Kennedy said.
Scheme proposals
Suggested environmental measures:
Carbon management.Farmland biodiversity.Bee pollinator crops.Conservation grazing.Water quality.Rotational grazing.Capital investment in items like bio-beds and bio-filters.Environmental monitoring.Designated sites.The suggested productivity and innovation measures included:
Farm business plans.Benchmarking.Labour and skill development.Capital investment.Health planning.Farm data recording. Productive soil management.Income diversification. Financial support for domestically produced farm inputs (like straw) in the form of soft loans.Brexit timeline
23 June 2016: EU referendum votes for Brexit. 29 March 2018: Article 50 triggered.March 2019: Period of transition.NFUS proposal at a glance
Focuses payments on active farmers.Allows new entrants and growing businesses to access support.Drawing down the environmental, innovation and productivity parts of support will involve farmers choosing from a range of options. This will cause concern that the scheme options may not suit the business.The proposals may appear too coupled to production, which is against World Trade Organisation rules. The NFUS’s plans may also cause concern among other UK farmers who feel it is too coupled and distorts trade.Farms which do not have enough livestock units to trigger all areas could be broken up. The access to payments could then be traded.Scheme proposals may not be environmentally focused enough for vote-seeking politicians.The scheme looks to maintain significant payments to farms, which may be beyond what the public purse is willing to give.
We need to deliver more for the environment. Producing food is not enough,” believes Jonnie Hall as he unveiled the Union’s post-Brexit farm support plan. The ten-part roadshow, fronted by the director of policy along with vice-president Martin Kennedy, stated there would be less direct area support and more cash for benefitting the environment, along with innovating and productivity measures. However, Martin Kennedy was keen to point out that there would be a significant stability payment to maintain after Brexit. He also stressed that there would be a national reserve for new entrants and developing farming.
The meeting ran through three scenarios of arable, lowland mixed livestock and a hill livestock farm, showing how payments would change over their five year transition (table 1). The Union’s proposal sees the different farms’ “stability payment” fall, while their “innovation and productivity” payments will rise over the transition. Payments would be calculated based on the amount of land farmers were actively farming.
To be eligible land has to be cropped or stocked at 0.8 livestock units per hectare, or above. Those below this stocking rate would scale back their hectares and only be paid on a proportion of their land. The livestock units would be fixed at a three-year rolling average.
The estimated values from the Union for the stability payment would be £140/ha, falling to £100/ha over the five-year transition. There would also be a payment equivalent to £30/ha for environmental measures. The final portion of the support package would be an innovation and productivity scheme, which would equate to £30/ha, rising to £70/ha over the five-year transition. The environmental, innovation and productivity measures would be drawn down through different non-competitive measures.
“First and foremost, we have an idea and we are going out to members to get backing on it. The reaction from members has been good so far. Everyone is buying into the fact it is action based, not area based. This is a big shift for Scottish agriculture to move away from inertia into active farming. We are looking for recognition from other bodies in the country. This will make the best of a limited budget and safeguard rural economic activity,” Martin Kennedy said.
Scheme proposals
Suggested environmental measures:
Carbon management.Farmland biodiversity.Bee pollinator crops.Conservation grazing.Water quality.Rotational grazing.Capital investment in items like bio-beds and bio-filters.Environmental monitoring.Designated sites.The suggested productivity and innovation measures included:
Farm business plans.Benchmarking.Labour and skill development.Capital investment.Health planning.Farm data recording. Productive soil management.Income diversification. Financial support for domestically produced farm inputs (like straw) in the form of soft loans.Brexit timeline
23 June 2016: EU referendum votes for Brexit. 29 March 2018: Article 50 triggered.March 2019: Period of transition.NFUS proposal at a glance
Focuses payments on active farmers.Allows new entrants and growing businesses to access support.Drawing down the environmental, innovation and productivity parts of support will involve farmers choosing from a range of options. This will cause concern that the scheme options may not suit the business.The proposals may appear too coupled to production, which is against World Trade Organisation rules. The NFUS’s plans may also cause concern among other UK farmers who feel it is too coupled and distorts trade.Farms which do not have enough livestock units to trigger all areas could be broken up. The access to payments could then be traded.Scheme proposals may not be environmentally focused enough for vote-seeking politicians.The scheme looks to maintain significant payments to farms, which may be beyond what the public purse is willing to give. 
This is a subscriber-only article
SHARING OPTIONS: