Friday 3 January 2014

Environment & Rural Growth

The farming industry in general has welcomed DEFRA secretary, Owen Paterson’s decision to reduce the proposed 15% shift in payments from direct payments to farmers to the environment and rural growth. It had seemed the government was committed to the 15% shift in their consultation document on CAP reform published earlier in the autumn, but they have listened to what the respondents to this document have said which is gratifying.

As a consequence Paterson has announced that instead of transferring 15% of payments away from direct support they will now only transfer 12%. Many farmers had been hoping the shift would have been even less than this but even so this move has been generally welcomed by many.

Mr Paterson said, “England’s £15 billion Common Agricultural Policy must deliver real benefits to farming, rural businesses, the countryside and the taxpayer. Today’s decision will see £3.5 billion invested in the environment and rural development schemes over the next seven years. This is a significant change in the way we allocate CAP money and even with a smaller overall CAP budget, the Government will be spending a bigger share of the budget on the environment than before.”

In response to this announcement the Country Land and Business Association president Henry Robinson said: “We are pleased that DEFRA secretary Owen Paterson has listened to the industry and moved 12% from Pillar 1 to Pillar 2 rather than choosing the maximum figure allowable of 15 percent. He has struck a reasonable balance between supporting the environment and rural development and ensuring that farmers in England get a fair deal.”

These sentiments were also echoed by NFU deputy president Meurig Raymond who said: “I am delighted Mr Paterson has decided to keep the rate of modulation below the maximum for the four years until it is reviewed.”

I suspect many farmers will still question why as much as 12% of “their” payments are to be siphoned away from money that in their minds is rightly theirs but I think if such payments are to continue to receive any degree of public support they need to be seen to be delivering wider public benefit than simply income support for farmers. So, it appears this is probably a compromise which will not keep everyone happy but at least it shows the government are willing to listen to reasoned argument when it is presented to them.

However, the next big challenge will be for the policy makers to ensure the schemes which will be formulated to deliver the £3.5billion are put in place as soon as possible. The rules will also need to be simple because if my experience of the roll out of similar schemes is anything to go by, there is likely to be a significant pregnant pause before any of this money hits the ground which in my view has been one of the biggest weaknesses of rural development programmes in the past.


James Stephen MRICS FAAV
Partner
Rural Practice Chartered Surveyor, Wells

T: 01749 683381
E: james.stephen@carterjonas.co.uk

No comments: