Calendar An icon of a desk calendar. Cancel An icon of a circle with a diagonal line across. Caret An icon of a block arrow pointing to the right. Email An icon of a paper envelope. Facebook An icon of the Facebook "f" mark. Google An icon of the Google "G" mark. Linked In An icon of the Linked In "in" mark. Logout An icon representing logout. Profile An icon that resembles human head and shoulders. Telephone An icon of a traditional telephone receiver. Tick An icon of a tick mark. Is Public An icon of a human eye and eyelashes. Is Not Public An icon of a human eye and eyelashes with a diagonal line through it. Pause Icon A two-lined pause icon for stopping interactions. Quote Mark A opening quote mark. Quote Mark A closing quote mark. Arrow An icon of an arrow. Folder An icon of a paper folder. Breaking An icon of an exclamation mark on a circular background. Camera An icon of a digital camera. Caret An icon of a caret arrow. Clock An icon of a clock face. Close An icon of the an X shape. Close Icon An icon used to represent where to interact to collapse or dismiss a component Comment An icon of a speech bubble. Comments An icon of a speech bubble, denoting user comments. Comments An icon of a speech bubble, denoting user comments. Ellipsis An icon of 3 horizontal dots. Envelope An icon of a paper envelope. Facebook An icon of a facebook f logo. Camera An icon of a digital camera. Home An icon of a house. Instagram An icon of the Instagram logo. LinkedIn An icon of the LinkedIn logo. Magnifying Glass An icon of a magnifying glass. Search Icon A magnifying glass icon that is used to represent the function of searching. Menu An icon of 3 horizontal lines. Hamburger Menu Icon An icon used to represent a collapsed menu. Next An icon of an arrow pointing to the right. Notice An explanation mark centred inside a circle. Previous An icon of an arrow pointing to the left. Rating An icon of a star. Tag An icon of a tag. Twitter An icon of the Twitter logo. Video Camera An icon of a video camera shape. Speech Bubble Icon A icon displaying a speech bubble WhatsApp An icon of the WhatsApp logo. Information An icon of an information logo. Plus A mathematical 'plus' symbol. Duration An icon indicating Time. Success Tick An icon of a green tick. Success Tick Timeout An icon of a greyed out success tick. Loading Spinner An icon of a loading spinner. Facebook Messenger An icon of the facebook messenger app logo. Facebook An icon of a facebook f logo. Facebook Messenger An icon of the Twitter app logo. LinkedIn An icon of the LinkedIn logo. WhatsApp Messenger An icon of the Whatsapp messenger app logo. Email An icon of an mail envelope. Copy link A decentered black square over a white square.

Single Farm Payment faces CAP threat

Single Farm Payment faces CAP threat

PROFESSIONAL agricultural advisors are facing a major dilemma in that the next Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) is due to come into being in less than 18 months’ time and yet there is still a great deal of practical flesh to be put on to the political framework decided in June.

Speaking to members of the Scottish Agricultural Arbiters and Valuers Association (Saava) in Edinburgh this week, Jeremy Moody, said the clock was now ticking relentlessly towards the January 2015 changeover.

Despite this timeline, he advised not to be “too clever and just manage options.”

He had observed the “turbulence in England” in 2004 when they had introduced land-based payments and where some landowners had become so obsessed with the changeover they had inadvertently reduced the value of their properties.

As advisor to the Central Association of Agricultural Valuers and Arbiters (Caava), he said that some parts of the next CAP were clear.

For example, he cautioned that any changeover of running a farm in the next 12 months should bear in mind that cropping and stocking activity in the current year provided the “golden ticket” to entitlements in the next CAP.

However, he predicted that Scotland would follow England to a point where area-based entitlements would not be as valuable.

This would occur with the Scottish Government likely to open the door to new entrants on an annual basis in future, thus bringing more eligible land into the equation.

In fact one of the big imponderables at present, according to Mr Moody, is the acreage of land which will come under the new area-based payment system.

He also warned that the Single Farm Payment, which has been the core of the Direct Payment system for most of the past decade could be severely eroded under its new guise of Basic Payment in the next CAP.

It is already known that 30% of the next Basic Payment will be dependent on compulsory environmental measures, but of the remaining 70%, some 3% would go into the National Reserve to fund new entrants, 2% to top up support for young farmers, up to 8% for coupled payments plus several other slicing optional extras.

This could mean the future Basic Payment might only be around 50% of that originally expected for those outside the special categories.

On the controversial issue of linking up or coupling payments, Mr Moody warned “You have to remember that all you are doing is taking money away from someone else.

“The pot does not get bigger through using coupled payments.”

He guessed that the Scottish Government would restrict the use of coupled support to what are classified as the Less Favoured Areas of the country.

While all of that was relatively straightforward, the same could not be said of the new requirements to make the next CAP more environmentally friendly.

Definitions for compliance with the required Environmental Focus Areas were scarce and he predicted a “whole string of problems” when these definitions were clarified.

He pointed out for example there was no clarity on what was a hedge and might be eligible and what was just a clump of bushes and thus ineligible in the so called Environmental Focus Areas.

There were also problems in the European requirement for more crop diversification.

This will not affect about half of Scottish farmers who have no or negligible areas of arable crops.

But it could significantly affect approximately 7,000 farmers who were “in the target zone” of the politicians. Much would depend on the future interpretation of cropping, he said.