9 WHAT KIND OF A RURAL POLICY
DO WE WANT?
116. Agriculture is not the whole of the rural economy.
The CAP is founded on a misapprehension that it is. In this final
part of our report, we present our conclusions on the policy direction
we would wish to see the Government follow. We identify below
(paragraph 122) the key issues the Government would have to address
in pursuing what we have called a 'Rural Policy for the EU'. Such
a policy would need to be guided by common objectives, such as
maintenance and enhancement of the environment, and the development
of rural economies, but would have to incorporate a high degree
of regional differentiation in order to meet the diverse requirements
of the different parts of the EU.
117. The Centre for Rural Economy (CRE) told us that
"there will remain a need for a common European policy but
this should essentially be centred on three objectives: avoiding
unfair competition between Member States; managing a common framework
for agri-environmental support; and managing a common framework
for support for rural development".[190]
Professor Sir John Marsh pointed out that the Vision document
"rightly stresses that agriculture is already a relatively
small part of the UK's rural economy", and that "Governments
may properly wish to reward farmers in relation to their contribution
to the supply of public goods. Provided this is done in a manner
that has minimal consequences for the level of production, it
is not unequal treatment nor market distortion. Instead it pays
for the total value of the farm's activity to the economy."[191]
The CRE also argued that:
there has been an over-emphasis on the role of
agriculture in rural development which the CAP has perpetuated,
with damaging consequences in terms of the over-intensification
of agriculture (and resultant damage to the rural environment),
economic over-dependence of rural areas on agriculture and ill-adapted
rural economies.[192]
Professor Ken Thomson suggested this "bias"
was perpetuated the UK Government's publication of a "Vision
of a reformed 'Common Agricultural Policy' rather than a substitute
'Common Rural Policy' or a 'Common Environmental Policy'".[193]
The CRE's own vision, through a 15 to 20 year transition period,
would "result in the replacement of Pillar 1, whose primary
objective of boosting farming production and productivity is now
defunct, with Pillar 2 which aims to encourage the conditions
for the balanced territorial development of rural areas".[194]
118. The Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE)
wished to see:
a new system for funding land management which
rewards farmers positively for the management of features and
husbandry which yield public benefits. Individual elements in
the landscape, such as ancient trees, archaeological remains,
wetlands, field boundaries, traditional buildings and remnant
farming systems which are inefficient in producing crops or livestock,
but very efficient in producing wildlife or landscape character,
should attract positive payment which covers more than the cost
of management. This will acknowledge and pay for the benefit derived
for society, while allowing farmers to secure some return from
selling the fruits of farming in an open market.[195]
This seemed to chime with a recent speech from the
Secretary of State, in which he indicated his vision of the sort
of agricultural policy he wanted, stressing in particular the
environmental angle:
we must think how our farming subsidies can deliver
the maximum level of environmental public goods. We are starting
a shift within the Common Agricultural Policy from paying farmers
for producing food to paying farmers to look after the land and
deliver environmental public goods. As CAP reform progresses,
we will need to be increasingly clear about understanding what
environmental goods we want to subsidise and how we can use the
CAP to enable farmers to become net environmental investors.[196]
119. The Land Use Policy Group (LUPG), whose membership
is drawn from the UK's statutory nature conservation, countryside
and environment agencies, had also called for a similar development.[197]
In its own "vision for sustainable rural land management",
the LUPG called for the CAP to be replaced by a new "European
Common Rural Policy" which:
- helps achieve regional, national
and EU environmental objectives
- reflects EU policy on sustainable environmental,
social and economic development
- avoids the export of environmental problems to
areas outside the EU
- incorporates a large element of subsidiarity
to support national, cultural and economic diversity, but with
a common framework for implementation, monitoring and auditing
- integrates individual measures into appropriate
'packages' for different areas, to ensure added value
- complements the Structural Fund support which
is available to rural areas with specific needs and problems
- adopts a participatory approach to the development,
design and implementation of rural development programmes in Member
States, emphasising local engagement
- is adequately resourced to ensure effective delivery.[198]
Our conclusions
120. We note a distinctive shift in definitions
of Defra policy regarding the CAP. Defra must now confirm that
HM Treasury is in tune with this, as there is no guarantee that
securing environmental goods and services is going to be less
expensive than the old Pillar 1 dominated CAP.
121. The Government must also take a lead by deciding
what a policy for a rural Europe should be, taking account of
all relevant factors. These could include environmental and biodiversity
protection and enhancement, promotion of employment and economic
development, support for biocrops, and compensation for less favoured
areas. In order to be politically sustainable, financial support
mechanisms within a 'Rural Policy for the EU' would need to support
wider public benefits. Otherwise the costs of such a policy would
be unlikely to be justifiable to the majority of people in this
country and the EU who live and work in urban or semi-urban areas.
122. Some of the key issues the UK Government
must address in devising and pursuing such a rural policy for
the EU should include:
- the prioritisation of objectives
(for example, between environmental and rural development considerations)
- the degree of subsidiarity
embodied in the new policy
- the relative advantages and disadvantages
of financing such a policy—at least to some extent (i.e.
co-financing)—at the Member State level
- how much of the current expenditure on the
CAP would be required to fulfil the policy objectives chosen
- how best to manage the transition from the
current CAP to this new 'Rural Policy for the EU'
- the extent to which this new rural policy
can contribute to the mitigation of, and adaptation to, climate
change.
123. In putting forward our recommendations for
a 'Rural Policy for the EU', we acknowledge the serious and inherent
difficulties in making a clear move away from the entrenched position
of the existing CAP. This is made particularly difficult by the
inertia of the EU policy process and the close connection of the
CAP with the overall budget of the EU, which Member States will
be reviewing again in 2008/09. However, the prize of CAP reform
is worth the Government devoting all its persuasive power and
negotiating effort to push for such a move.
124. There is a widespread acceptance in the EU,
including in some quarters that have traditionally supported the
old style CAP, that the status quo is not a sustainable option.
There is also an increasing acknowledgement among farmers and
politicians in the EU that further agricultural reform is an inevitable
consequence of increasing budgetary pressure and the liberalisation
of agricultural markets.
125. There is a historic opportunity for the Government
to persuade other Member States and the EU institutions of the
positive case for fundamental reform in the coming years. This
may require the UK to decide if CAP reform is a prize worth having,
even if the price that has to be paid is an erosion of the British
rebate.
190 Ev 159 Back
191
Ev 152, 151 Back
192
Ev 158 Back
193
Ev 169 [footnote] Back
194
Ev 158 Back
195
Ev 27 Back
196
David Miliband's speech at the at the Conference to celebrate
the 80th anniversary of the founding of the Campaign for Protection
of Rural England, "A Land Fit for the Future", London,
9 March 2007 Back
197
Membership of the Land Use Policy Group includes representatives
of Natural England, the Environment Agency, the Joint Nature Conservation
Committee, the Countryside Council for Wales and Scottish Natural
Heritage. Back
198
Land Use Policy Group, Vision for Sustainable Land Management,
June 2006, www.lupg.org.uk/vision Back
|
