Supplementary written submission from
the Commission for Rural Communities
The CRC has now had the chance to review your
questions and the following is our best response.
CAP regime should be better targeted towards
upland farmers because of the critical importance of the public
goods that they supply to the rest of the nation.
As shown in our report, the economic viability
of upland farmers is not sustainable (and is even difficult with
diversification). The benefits enjoyed by the nation from the
efforts of upland farmers can only be continued if they are properly
rewarded for the environmental, social and cultural benefits which
they supply. In lowland areas, where there is a viable economic
market, such benefits may well be supplied through better targeted
regulation—but this is not an option for upland farms. Therefore,
while controversial we advocate that CAP funding should be "moved
up the hill".
The IEEP report (below) shows how other countries
pay higher rates per ha than we do—especially Austria, Belgium
and Malta.
The IEEP report on the different ways in which
LFA payments are calculated in different member states is from
the LFA evaluation IEEP carried out in 2005-06. There is a chapter
on payments which can be found at: http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/eval/reports/lfa/index_en.htm
Assuming we continue for the foreseeable future
with a CAP with 2 Pillars: there will need to be a more equitable
formula for distributing the income support payment through Pillar
1 (ie payment based predominantly on land area is inequitable
as areas of greatest natural constraints are dominated by smaller,
often family-run farms); and Pillar 2 measures must be delivered
through an integrated strategic framework with rural communities
truly empowered to prioritise and innovate as a consequence of
reduced regulation and red tape currently associated with the
RDPE. Incentives should target areas of greatest potential for
a range of public benefits, recognising that biodiversity goals
cannot be achieved without viable communities.
There are top slicing opportunities within Article
38, which other countries have also adopted—however we did
not look at this in any detail.
Communication of any change to CAP funding remains
a critical issue—being able to have material and support
which is easily accessible (ie not a pure IT/Broadband solution)
and speaks the right language with credibility is crucial to take
up and effective targeting. Use of networks, advice and access
centre should be carefully considered.
On your specific LFA questions we have no more
to say—I am afraid we have not looked at the biophysical
LFA indicators and their effect on categorisation nor whether
LFA payments encourage or discourage innovation.
In terms of research outcomes and good practice
availability—there are three main issues:
1. Current research—Dr Burgess mentioned
the research of Nottingham University and carbon capacity. This
was one of many Universities who have received research grants
to consider carbon implications—and from different Government
Departments. As we say in our report we would strongly support
a much more co-ordinated approach to this investment in research
(not just in carbon, but in other key issues), across government
departments—so that DECC, Natural England and Defra could
target limited resources much more effectively.
2. We also state that there is a need to
combine the academic and expert knowledge with local wisdom and
knowledge—this can be done effectively at the local level
and we draw attention to some of these good examples within our
report—but it takes time and effort (and investment!)
3. Upland farming techniques, research and
development have not had the same level of attention or investment
as other farming—we would welcome the idea of a college
or university (preferably in an upland area) being supported (maybe
by some private /land owner investment) to establish an "uplands
chair" so establishing a figure head for the revitalisation
and recognition of the importance of upland farming. We also envisage
that this could encourage more young people into upland farming
as a valued profession/specialism and so help to overcome some
of the thorny issues of succession.
I am also afraid that I have been unable to
track down the report on housing within National Parks—so
I am unable to send you a copy.
November 2010
| 
