Natural England

Background
The European Commission announced on 16 July 2007 its intention to submit a proposal to reduce the rate of set aside to 0% for the 2008 harvest year.  This announcement, timed to coincide with the July Agriculture Council, was driven by market pressures resulting from low cereal stocks after a poor 2006 harvest and a mediocre outlook for the current harvest.

Issue
Natural England’s analysis suggests that if the set aside rate was simply allowed to fall to zero, with no flanking measures, there would be major environmental impacts. The most serious of these would be:

• A decline in farmland bird numbers, such as grey partridge, skylark, linnet, yellowhammer and cirl bunting.
• A decline in rare arable plants and in freshwater and wetland plants.
• An increase in diffuse pollution to watercourses. 

The most serious of these impacts would be the reduction in farmland bird populations.  Unless mitigated, these impacts would reverse the progress made towards meeting the Public Service Agreement (PSA) target for farmland birds. 

The scale of this effect could undermine and dilute the positive impacts of Natural England’s agri-environment programmes.

Natural England’s position
Natural England’s analysis, supported by the views of a wide range of conservation bodies, is that the Government should take action to maintain the current environmental standards required of farmers in return for the Single Farm Payment.

Natural England’s advice to government is that the only effective way of maintaining current environmental standards is to introduce a new cross compliance condition under which 5% of arable land is managed for the benefit of the natural environmental.

This would offer an effective and flexible mechanism to secure the environmentally beneficial side effects of existing set aside until such time as a longer-term solution can be put in place.

Natural England would like to see the Government signal its intentions to farmers as a matter of urgency. This would provide certainty to farmers and enable them to plan future crop plantings.

Why is Natural England proposing the figure of 5%?
A rate of 5% of all arable land managed for the benefit of the natural environment, (which is less than the 8% currently set aside from production), would offset the negative environmental impact of an increase in the area of land cropped.

Under this proposal, farmers could chose a balance of activities such as wider field margins, over-wintered stubbles, planting of wild bird seed mixtures, use of permanent or rotational fallow plots and uncropped field corners to maintain existing environmental standards.

How much set aside land would return to production?
In the absence of a clear steer from the Government, it is difficult to predict the farmer response to a 0% set aside rate. Estimates range widely from around 88% to 20% of compulsory set-aside coming back into production, with this expected reaction being dependent on a number of variables, including the potential profits of cropping.

On the basis of the evidence, and assuming that agricultural commodity prices remain high, Natural England believes that there would be large scale losses of set-aside this autumn, with progressive losses over the next year. We are concerned that environmental standards will be eroded as the area cropped increases.

Is an additional cross compliance condition an appropriate response to an important environmental issue?
Set aside is a fundamental pillar of the minimum environmental standards that were set and for which farmers are paid under the Single Farm Payment. These standards are implemented through cross compliance conditions. These standards must remain to ensure that there is no weakening of environmental standards.

We believe that maintaining 5% of arable land in active environmental management can offset the environmental consequences of increasing the area of land cropped.

Furthermore, the proposed introduction of a new cross compliance standard is acknowledged as being merely a interim measure, useful only until such time as a longer-term solution can be put in place. 

Why is it important to implement a new cross compliance in time for 2008?
We do not underestimate the practical difficulties of introducing additional cross compliance conditions at short notice. However, given the major environmental threat posed by a move to a zero rate for set-aside, it is imperative that action is taken to fast track the implementation processes, so that the necessary measures can be put in place by the start of 2008. Delaying the introduction of a new cross compliance condition until after the 2008 harvest would fatally undermine its effectiveness.

Would an agri-environment solution be better?
Farmers are already being paid for maintaining environmental standards through the Single Farm Payment. Cross-compliance conditions apply to the whole country, whereas agri-environment schemes apply only to land under agreement. Tax payers would have to subsidise any expansion in agri-environment schemes such as Environmental Stewardship.