Contact: Merrick Denton-Thompson, ext 6826

1. Summary

1.1 The following decisions are sought:

That the Cabinet approves:

(i) the response to the consultation by the Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on the future for food and farming, as set out in the attached report and its appendix; and

(ii) further examination of how the County Council might support the farming community, as set out in paragraph 11.2 of the attached report.

2. Reason

2.1 To provide a response to the Government's consultation on the future of food and farming.

3. Other Options Considered and Rejected

3.1 Not to respond.

4. Conflicts of Interest Declared by the Decision Maker or a Member or Officer consulted - Not applicable.

5. Dispensation granted by the Standards Committee - Not applicable.

6. Reason(s) for the Matter being dealt with if Urgent - Not applicable.

Approved by: ..................................... Date: ..................................

Councillor T K Thornber

Contact: Merrick Denton-Thompson, ext 6826

1. Summary

1.1 The Policy Commission on the Future of Farming and Food was appointed by the Government in August 2001 under the chairmanship of Sir Donald Curry. The Commission's report was published on 29 January 2002 and in response the Government published a consultation document in March entitled `Sustainable Food and Farming'.

1.2 The purpose of this report is to seek the Cabinet's approval to comments on the Curry Report and to the proposed response to the Government's consultation paper. Approval is also sought to further examine how the County Council might take action to support the farming community in Hampshire.

2. Introduction

2.1 In the first section this report sets out a very brief summary of the key points and recommendations made to the Government by the Policy Commission. The second section summarises the consultation published by the Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) and sets out the proposed strategic comments by the County Council on both papers. The proposed answers to specific questions posed by the consultation are set out in the attached appendix.

3. Report of the Policy Commission on the Future of Farming and Food

3.1 The Commission's remit was to advise the Government on how to create a sustainable, competitive and diverse farming and food sector which contributes to a thriving rural economy and advances environmental, economic, health and animal welfare goals. Consistency was required with the Government's aims for the reform of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), enlargement of the European Union (EU) and increased trade liberalisation.

3.2 The Commission had the following to say about the current plight of food and farming:

"It is our strong view that this industry is on a path which cannot be sustained in the long term. Taxpayers are spending £3 billion, consumers are paying more for their food, farm incomes are on the floor, the environment has been damaged, the social fabric is being put at risk, consumers are concerned about food safety and nutritional standards are poor."

3.3 In response the Commission presented a vision for the future:

"We look for a profitable and sustainable farming and food sector that can and does compete internationally, that is a good steward of the environment and provides good food and a healthy diet for people in England and around the world."

3.4 In analysing the plight of food and farming the Commission believes that the real reason for the present situation is that farming has become detached from the rest of the economy and the environment. It also points out that the trends that have led to this present crisis are inescapable. Trade liberalisation is not going to go away. Convenience looks like taking over as a key factor in buying decisions, with an emphasis on more prepared food and eating out, and where it will be harder to make provenance count.

3.5 In arriving at a wide range of recommendations, the Commission concludes that the current EU regime of price support and production subsidies should be dismantled, with public money refocused on real social and environmental public benefits.

3.6 The Commission's 100 or so recommendations run to 32 pages from a report that is 150 pages in length. Officers have extracted the key components to the recommendations, giving emphasis to matters both that concern the County Council and those where the County Council may take a future role in supporting rural areas of Hampshire. A copy of the full report from the Policy Commission has been placed in the Members' room and further copies are available upon request from the County Planning Officer.

3.7 To summarise some of the key recommendations from the report, the Policy Commission recommended:

(i) a radical and immediate reform of the CAP;

(ii) improved measures for analysing agricultural performance within the rural economy;

(iii) a new Board to oversee public research into food and farming and a new programme of demonstration farms;

(iv) establishing a Food Chain Centre to bring together people from each part of the food chain to improve efficiency and consumer value;

(v) more control for food safety to be enforced on imported food;

(vi) an integrated approach to the setting of baseline standards for a new brand and directing the Regional Development Agencies towards working with Food From Britain;

(vii) more efficient coordination of regulations affecting agriculture;

(viii) support for diversification initiatives, including non-food and energy crops - from amongst others the planning process;

(ix) encouragement of farm flood management schemes;

(x) properly rewarding the farming industry for managing the countryside, and that a new strategy is required for implementing environmental directives;

(xi) new resources for a new broad/shallow and stable agri-environment scheme, and measures to reduce environmental damage resulting from agricultural practice;

(xii) measures to reduce transport within food distribution and reduce waste from packaging;

(xiii) improved access to farms, particularly by school children; and

(xiv) measures for improving nutrition of the nation's diet.

3.8 The Commission also made recommendations urging collaboration on marketing and processing and on a voluntary code of conduct for supermarkets. It made recommendations on insurance to cover agriculturally based diseases, risk management, tax, retirement, education, business advice and labelling.

4. The Government's Response and Consultation

4.1 This autumn the Government intends to produce a Strategy for Sustainable Food and Farming in England. It is asking for comments, both on the Commission's report and on its own consultation paper, by 18 June.

4.2 The Government's stated objective is "to develop a sustainable, modern, diverse and adaptable farming industry, working in partnership with the rest of the food chain and contributing to our objectives for the environment and rural areas." Its consultation document focuses on six key areas where real change will occur:

(i) Joining up the food chain;

(ii) improving farm performance;

(iii) farming's contribution to sustainable rural communities;

(iv) protecting and enhancing the environment;

(v) improving public health; and

(vi) improving animal health.

4.3 The Government's paper takes these separately, setting out the issues, discusses the areas of concern and then poses specific questions in each section.

Farming and the Food Chain - Questions 4.7-4.10

4.4 The Government recognises the need to reconnect farming with its market, in particular to meet consumers' requirements. At the same time it recognises that the food chain is complex and involves a large number of different businesses. It proposes that farmers invest beyond the farm gate to get closer to consumers and that assurance schemes are in place to reflect customers' needs. The Government's paper balances the demand for cheaper food with the market for specialist and healthier products.

Improving the Performance of Farmers and Other Local Managers - Questions 4.17-4.25

4.5 Farmers face difficult business decisions because of market pressures and increased focus on environmental performance. Increasing competition, the need to diversify and wide disparities between best and worst performers are all major issues. At the same time there is real commitment by farmers to the industry that needs fostering. The Government accepts the need for Demonstration Farms to disseminate good practice, and supports the need for relevant, well-coordinated research.

Resource Protection - Questions 4.34-4.37

4.6 The Government accepts that farming has beneficial impacts on the landscape, and supports other industries that contribute to the rural economy, such as tourism. However, it also accepts that there is a major impact on natural resources such as water, soil and air pollution causing damage to the environment; to landscape and wildlife habitats. Climate change is not only exacerbated by agricultural practice, it will also have a direct impact on the industry. The Government also accepts that existing policy instruments fail to provide farmers with incentives to protect natural resources. At the same time the regulatory burden on farmers is likely to grow.

Reform of the Common Agricultural Policy and Targeting Subsidies to Promote Sustainability - Questions 4.42-4.45

4.7 The Government accepts the need for reform and accepts that current CAP arrangements place insufficient emphasis on delivering the environment and other outcomes people want. The consultation paper reiterates the Commission's recommendations about modulation - moving funds from direct payments for food production to the Rural Development Programme (including agri-environment schemes). However, although reform of the CAP is accepted, there is no commitment from the Government as to what areas of reform are to be supported.

England Rural Development Programme and Diversification - Questions 4.52-4.58

4.8 The England Rural Development Programme (ERDP) is the main policy instrument for encouraging environmentally sensitive farming and promoting diversification. Diversification support is only given for new schemes and is therefore restricted because of EU rules. Increase in modulation would require new Government match funding. By July reports within Government are expected on organic farming and non-food crops. The Government is also seeking ways of optimising the contribution that ERDP makes to developing sustainable rural communities.

Regulatory Framework, Including Whole Farm Plans/Audits -Questions 4.64-4.70

4.9 The Government recognises the need to manage new regulations but points out that in many instances farming has not had the regulations as consistently applied as other sectors. It accepts the need to find better ways for farmers and regulatory bodies to work together to achieve improvements on issues such as animal health and welfare, food safety, human health and safety, and nature conservation, as well as environmental regulation. The Government accepts the need for the development of Whole Farm Plans linked via information technology (IT) with publicly-held data. Such plans could streamline inspection and enforcement and simplify transactions between the farming community and the Government. However, uptake will depend on such a system offering real benefits and streamlining compliance monitoring.

Healthy Eating - Questions 4.77-4.80

4.10 Dietary factors account for around a quarter of deaths from cancer and the health of the population would be improved by the adoption of a healthy balanced diet. It is estimated that the National Health Service spends £2 billion a year treating ill health caused by poor diet. Improvements to diet and nutrition require action at all stages of the food chain, from producers to consumers. Labelling provides consumers with the link to the source of food, what it contains and how it was produced.

Animal Health and Welfare - Questions 4.87-4.90

4.11 Efficient and profitable livestock production depends on healthy animals, and public health and external businesses can be compromised by animal disease. The Government is awaiting the outcome of the Royal Society and Lessons Learnt Inquiries into foot and mouth disease before finalising its plans for improvements in sustainable livestock farming. Research should be directed to low or no drug farming systems. Animal welfare standards on an EU-wide basis should be raised, and the Government has launched a consultation exercise on changes to the present rules on animal welfare.

5. The County Council's Proposed Response

The Review of Food and Farming

5.1 A number of recent events have highlighted the serious economic, environmental and social pressures facing the countryside. Farm incomes are falling, the environment continues to be degraded and there is a breakdown in public confidence in the way the countryside is being managed. The certainty and stability created by the CAP has reformed agriculture in Britain. The farming community has risen magnificently to the post war aspirations of producing affordable food across Europe.

5.2 However, there have been repercussions from pursuing a narrow agenda by targeting food as a single product of the countryside. These include decline in environmental quality, increases in land values, loss of mixed farms, and loss of skills and employment. The security in returns from investment created by the CAP has also stimulated major mechanisation and investment into research that has led to technological advances in agriculture.

5.3 The connection between agricultural practice and environmental degradation is now clearly understood and society is coming to terms with the fact that current practice is not sustainable. The links between an accessible and attractive countryside and the economy (particularly the tourist industry) was clearly demonstrated last year by the foot and mouth disease epidemic. Furthermore, the reform of intervention into agriculture is inevitable as a result of further regulations, expansion of the EU and pressure from the World Trade Organisation.

5.4 The farming community can, and does, provide a great deal more from the countryside than safe, affordable food. With society's aspiration for the countryside changing there is an urgent need for these changes to be reflected in the current system of intervention support. Society must quantify the value it gives to the breadth of products it wants from an integrated approach to the management of the countryside. Clarity of message and supportive incentives will build on the commitment and entrepreneurism of the farming community to deliver a rich and accessible countryside.

5.5 The report by Policy Commission on the Future of Farming and Food clearly sets out the issues and makes a range of key recommendations to the Government. The Policy Commission consulted widely in reaching its conclusions and it is recommended that the County Council fully endorses the Policy Commission's findings and recommendations. The challenges facing the Government are to be satisfied that the Commission has fulfilled its obligations and that its recommendations are a valid response to the circumstances facing food and farming in the United Kingdom (UK). It is suggested that it then needs to move swiftly to put in place the resources and mechanisms required to deliver a substantial change to the circumstances facing the farming community.

5.6 Hampshire County Council supports the Government's decision to review the future of food and farming.

5.7 Hampshire County Council welcomes and supports the report and recommendation from the Policy Commission on the Future of Farming and Food.

5.8 Hampshire County Council supports the Government's intention to develop a Strategy for Sustainable Food and Farming.

6. Common Agricultural Policy

6.1 The Policy Commission urges the Government to press for substantial reform of the CAP. History has proved that reform of the CAP will at best be a slow and cumbersome process, where the outcomes can rarely be predicted. The expansion of the EU is more likely to stimulate radical reform than the dysfunctional characteristics of the CAP. Pressures for reform and the reasons for reform vary considerably across the EU. As a result, there must be serious doubt that reform will necessarily meet the specific needs of certain member states. For example, the impact that agriculture (0.9% of GDP) can have on tourism (7.7% of GDP) in the UK may not be replicated across the EU, and as a result reforms would be unlikely to be sensitive to such connections.

6.2 There is capacity for funds to shift from direct payments for food into diversification and environmental measures, but the upper limit of modulation is 20%. Currently, environmental schemes are optional and the EU needs to move quickly to ensure that environmental conditions are attached to public investment.

6.3 This could only be achieved in Europe, and as 90% of the UK's agricultural exportation is to Europe such a condition would only have a marginal impact on competitiveness.

6.4 In the first instance the Government should take up modulation to the maximum allowed of 20% under EU rules, redirecting resources to those sectors that would be immediately affected by the loss of direct payments. Redirected resources should aim to deliver society's wider aspirations for the countryside.

6.5 Reform of the CAP should:

(i) condition all direct payments to meet basic environmental standards; and

(ii) relax rules to permit member states to secure the integration of wider management objectives into the way the countryside is managed.

6.6 The EU should press the World Trade Organisation to secure compliance to basic environmental standards in the production of food worldwide.

7. Food

7.1 Whilst transport costs remain low, the extensive movement of food internally in the UK will continue, as will the importation of food from world markets. Price and convenience are powerful forces in the market place and subtleties in food characteristics, such as local provenance, are not likely to be able to compete. On the other hand, a consortium of standards that meet society's concerns, grouped under a single brand, may provide the UK farmer with more of an opportunity to regain the competitive edge. The buoyant state of the pound adds to the problems of competitiveness for the UK farmer.

7.2 Standards in traceability, animal and human welfare, environmental quality, local provenance and little or no chemical intervention could form the basis for a collective brand. The success of Farmers' Markets is a real indication of the importance that people attach to certain elements of such a collective.

7.3 The Policy Commission's advice on locality food marketing becoming mainstream in Britain is supported, as are the measures proposed to control the safety of food imported into the UK.

8. Diversification

8.1 There are limits to the extent that the farming community can diversify its income base. The Government must guard against undermining the success of the planning system which has kept the distinction between town and country. The use of redundant farm buildings should be confined either to rurally based industries or meeting local needs.

8.2 Support is needed to develop alternative, non-food crops - particularly to meet objectives such as renewable energy.

8.3 Some rurally based economic activities do not necessarily support the process of land management. For example, tourism relies heavily on the quality of the countryside but those who benefit from tourism are rarely those who manage the countryside. With the gross annual spend of £61 billion by tourism (1999 figures) the Government is urged to reinvest back into the countryside from the revenues gained from such a vibrant sector of the economy.

8.4 The Government has rightly identified the need to improve access into the countryside in support of health and life-long learning. The farming community can supply new access but there is a cost and society must pay. Without extensive grazing by the farming community, all of the land in England identified by the Government for open access would be covered with scrub and woodland - either impenetrable or exempt from the new access legislation.

8.5 The Government is anxious to secure a commitment for the implementation of Biodiversity Action Plans. Without providing a mechanism for delivering through the farming system, biodiversity objectives will remain very much a fringe activity, failing to reach the breadth of necessary targets. Equally important is the conservation of other natural resources such as soil, water and air quality.

8.6 New funds are needed to support the farming community in delivering society's aspiration for an integrated approach to the management of the countryside.

8.7 The Commission's recommendation for a broad/shallow incentive scheme, designed to reach every land holding on a per hectare basis of payment, is supported.

9. Reconnecting Communities with the Countryside

9.1 There is a need for society to set out clearly what is expected of the farming community in managing the countryside. Strategic land management plans defined by areas of specific character (such as the South Downs) but not confined to protected landscapes could provide a mechanism to encourage the integration of land management objectives. These land management plans could combine national policy with local aspiration, through Community Strategies, to inform land management decisions that are sensitive to the specific needs of the area.

9.2 These strategic plans could inform individual farm management plans. The farm plans could provide the vehicle for triggering the broad/shallow incentive payments, perhaps through a self-registration scheme, at the farmer's discretion. It would give the farmer an opportunity to reconnect with local communities, demonstrating a commitment to appropriate management. Much of the content of such plans would be determined by the individual farmer, actively encouraging innovation and entrepreneurism. These plans could also form the context for new obligations to provide Farm Waste Management Plans.

9.3 The logistical problems that have prevented such integration in the past could now be overcome by the proposed Land Management Information Systems (LaMIS) proposed by the County Council. This research and development project sets out to provide publicly held data in a format specifically designed to meet the needs of land managers. The IT-based system would empower the farming community to develop, through a software package, an integrated farm management plan which could form the basis of both payments and audits. The County Council has formed a consortium of county councils in the south-east to develop, in partnership with DEFRA, the LaMIS project.

9.4 The County Council recommends to the Government that Strategic Land Management Plans are prepared for the entire country in partnership with local authorities.

9.5 A Countryside Register should be established as a self-registering scheme, at the farming community's discretion, which would form the basis of the new incentive payments proposed by the Policy Commission.

9.6 Support is given for the development of the Land Management Information System being worked up in partnership with DEFRA.

10. Climate Change

10.1 Further research is continuing to confirm that the climate is changing. Warmer temperatures, drier summers, wet winters and an increase in storminess will have a radical effect on agriculture. Current land drainage infrastructure is designed to shed and remove water; climate change may mean a total alteration in approach, where water conservation and retention become the new imperative. The growing season is also lengthening and major impacts on agriculture appear to be inevitable. Research and knowledge sharing has to be the focus to prepare the industry to respond to changing circumstances.

11. Conclusions and Future Actions

11.1 The appendix deals with the proposed answers to specific questions set by the Government in its consultation document.

11.2 It is proposed that a report is brought back to the Cabinet in the autumn, after the Government has published its long-term Strategy for Sustainable Food and Farming. The report should draw together the corporate activities of the County Council supporting the food and farming sector, and examine what future actions might be taken in light of the new Strategy from the Government. The County Council may consider what more it could do to support the farming community by:

(i) promoting local food production and consumption, in addition to healthy eating;

(ii) supporting agricultural infrastructure;

(iii) encouraging sustainable diversification, including rural development and alternative crops;

(iv) developing Strategic Land Management Plans to secure integration of management objectives;

(v) showing good practice through Demonstration Farms;

(vi) developing a Countryside Access Strategy with advice from the Local Access Forum (as set out in item 9 on the agenda);

(vii) promoting tourism in rural areas and exploring ways to strengthen the support to land management from tourism; and

(viii) widening the understanding of rural issues through education and projects linked with urban communities.

11.3 The County Council awaits with interest the Government's proposals, as Hampshire remains largely a rural county where farming is crucial to the future economic, social and environmental welfare of its people.

7146/MDT

APPENDIX

CABINET PAPER: FOOD AND FARMING

The consultation paper from DEFRA sets out a range of specific questions. Not all the questions need to be answered and Hampshire County Council's prepared response to key questions is as follows:

Question 4.7 - A new Agricultural Development Scheme (ADS) could target cooperation among primary producers, assurance schemes, benchmarking and spread of best practice and improve marketing. Are these the right targets?

In the current market conditions it is important that any new initiative by the Government does not exacerbate problems by establishing frameworks that hint at direction when no direction is in fact being offered (as set out in the question). Access to the best available advice on customer needs, scale of markets and risk assessments should set the context for any new ADS. A proactive relationship between an informed one-stop shop administration of the ADS and the applicant should be developed, seeking at the same time to establish a simple administrative process. To avoid fragmentation of effort and dilution of scarce resources a collective approach should be encouraged. Strategic advice as to where the market is and the scale of it is required before any more resources are focussed on the ever increasing food assurance schemes - sustaining quality and complying with guarantees across too many schemes could bring the industry to its knees. In reality, customers' needs should be redefined and the scale of the market might point to a single brand that could be applied to local produce, designed to operate in a world market place.

Question 4.8 - What practical steps can the food and farming industry, working with regional partners, take to increase the levels of collaboration and cooperation?

Collaboration may be best taken across sectors and not across Regions, working collectively with large but local cooperatives. Regional administrative working needs to ensure that such structures do not add an extra burden to the farming community. Local marketing working to a single brand standard would be more attractive to consumers if it related to the place, such as `South Downs Lamb'. Attempting to create Regional identity through food branding might suit the Government but it may create false marketing thresholds.

Question 4.9 - Which aspects of the food chain should the Food Chain Centre target in order to have the most impact on increasing efficiency?

The Government needs to redefine what is perceived to be efficiency to meet today's aspiration for traceable, safe food produced in a sustainable way, operating to sound environmental practice, where animal and human welfare standards are met, where transport problems are not exacerbated and waste is minimal. Support for local agricultural infrastructure, such as abattoirs, and encouragement to local produce consumption across the retail and wholesale sectors. At the same time, increase the public's level of understanding through education.

Question 4.10 - What more should be done by business and Government to expand the range and market share of value added, niche, regional, local or specialist products?

The Government must do all that it can to ensure that the UK farmer is operating on a level playing field and ensure that where there are real differences in standards across member/worldwide states these are transparent to the consumer who is making the choice. Local distribution needs to be encouraged to meet the rise in demand to access the fresh local produce. Consumers need to be confident that what they are buying is accurately described. Simple rules guaranteeing authenticity are required and traceability is key to this. Existing rules are too onerous, requiring expensive third party accreditation.

Question 4.17 - Does the current education and training network address industry needs?

Redefining true sustainable efficiency (as commented in 4.9 above) needs to be disseminated through both CPD initiatives and primary training.

Question 4.18 - What collectively can be done to improve performance?

Sharing best practice and through peer pressure, backed up by an incentive-based strategy. Reconnecting the farming community with local communities. Encouragement for farmers to produce whole farm plans to demonstrate to a wider audience the commitment to integrating management objectives to secure a `multi-product' countryside. The Government should consider setting up a structure of strategic land management plans to disseminate to the farming community a clear statement of society's expectations and to work with local authorities to achieve such plans.

Question 4.19 - What needs to be done to secure Continual Professional Development across the food production industry?

Land-based colleges should be the conduit to disseminate a sustainable approach to land management practice. The farming community needs to be encouraged to trial new methods and adjust techniques at the same time as sharing best practice within itself. A less formal approach to demonstration farms needs to be taken, where individual farms might be used to disseminate discreet aspects of best practice to encourage a larger network of self-help.

Question 4.21 - What can farmers and others do to reduce the number of deaths and serious injuries due to accidents on farms?

Provide training in risk assessment and risk minimisation, at a time when a downturn in the economy may encourage corners to be cut.

Question 4.22 - How can demonstration farms best address the knowledge transfer needs of the farm sector?

Good practice is occurring on a massive scale but not on a whole farm basis and it is not shared or disseminated. Demonstration farms should be an integral part of a vibrant research and development strategy engaging a large number of farms across all sectors. Advocacy and demonstration of good practice could be part of the approach to diversification and funded as part of the modulation strategy.

Question 4.23 - How could non-Government stakeholders contribute to a new pilot demonstration farm scheme?

Opportunities for broadening the support for the farming sector need to be developed and non-Government stakeholders could be encouraged to participate in benchmarking and stimulating good practice.

Question 4.24 - What could be done at a regional and local level to ensure effective sharing of best practice?

In the interests of promoting E-Government, dissemination of best practice should be promoted through the Internet in a way that can form the basis from which source material can be accessed for other media types. If designed specifically such information could be presented in different ways to target different audiences.

Question 4.34 - Can a description of good farming practice be established, to enable farmers to understand and meet environmental objectives?

There is no doubt that society has failed to set out clearly its aspirations for an integrated approach to land management. This could be achieved by Government working with local authorities through the Community Planning process to inform Strategic Land Management Plans. These could set out objectives for natural resource management of soils, water and biodiversity - target setting through Biodiversity action plans. These Strategic Management Plans would also encompass the Government's plans for improving accessibility, embracing distinctiveness and conserving cultural remains, creating opportunities for life-long learning and good health. The boundaries of these Strategic Land Management Plans would be based on the Character Maps published by the Countryside Agency, but which coincide with the Natural Areas Map published by English Nature and the emerging Historic Landscapes mapping currently being undertaken by English Heritage. These discrete areas will also encompass social and economic characteristics and could address the complex problems of farming in the urban fringes. Incentive schemes can then target actual need and the farming community would be equipped to respond by self-registering integrated farm management plans.

Question 4.35 - What additional measures are needed to improve resource protection by agriculture?

In the short term the EU should set environmental standards which would form a basic condition of any public intervention support - cross compliance. In the long term the emphasis should be placed on incentives for environmental management backed up by regulation. The move towards whole farm management plans will be assisted by the Land Management Information System (LaMIS) proposed by Hampshire County Council, which would overcome the logistical problems which have prevented such an approach in the past.

The toolkit empowers the farming community to prepare its own plans, accessing data, auditing farm resources and preparing plans from an informed position.

Question 4.36 - What contribution would a new `broad and shallow' scheme play in reducing the negative environmental impacts of farming?

The first benefit is the recognition that every land holding can play an important role in reversing environmental degradation caused by current farming practice. It would move the perception that sound environmental practice is an optional extra to a position where it is both recognised and supported substantially as being fundamental to all land management activities. The `shallow' reflects a pragmatic response from the Commission to the fact that it is impossible to quantify the return from investment using traditional cost benefit analysis systems - how biodiversity, accessibility, etc can be valued in cash terms. Many of these characteristics are priceless resources for future generations and any Broad/Shallow agri-environment scheme must be adequately resourced, giving real incentives to ensure a majority take up from the beginning.

Question 4.37 - What contribution can consumers make to resource protection?

The current system of intervention support has remained distant from the consumer, and the consumer has been powerless to become involved or to offer an opinion. This fact has added to the distance that now exists between the producer and the consumer, made more distant by distribution, marketing and retail outlets in the middle. Assurance schemes that combine environmental standards with other powerful aspirations society has for farming, such as traceability, animal welfare and freshness, could be branded in a way that could compete on the world market.

Question 4.42 - What steps should be taken to ensure reform of the CAP, particularly shifting resources from pillar one to pillar two?

Modulation by member states to a maximum of 20% is allowed under the current regulations. The UK Government should modulate to the maximum, immediately targeting those who will suffer from the loss of production support for the redistributed funds for the benefit of the environment. The Treasury must recognise the need to match fund modulation as required to reverse some of the costly clear up costs caused by diffuse pollution. Here there will be a direct benefit from realignment of support.

Question 4.43 - What other mechanisms are needed to deliver land management benefits?

The integration of management objectives in the countryside will form the foundation to the tourist industry. It will form a rich, accessible countryside for health and life-long learning and its biodiversity will create endless opportunities for future generations to secure the long term interests of humanity. It will also remove the need for substantial clear up costs associated with diffuse pollution. All of this needs to be valued by the Government. Intervention should shift away from food being the single product of the countryside towards support for the farming community to deliver society's wider aspiration for the countryside. The nation needs to backfill the inevitable reduction in CAP support that will arise from EU expansion with new funds that will exceed the current investment of £3 billion.

Question 4.44 - What negative impacts could be caused by modulation and how could they be mitigated?

Fall in farm income which could be mitigated if modulated funds were redirected back into the same areas for environmental purposes. Match funding to be directed elsewhere.

Question 4.45 - Which types of measures could be funded by modulation?

Substantial new funds are required to secure integration of sound environmental practice within current farming methods to make up for years of continuous degradation. Changes in EU rules are needed to create more flexibility to meet variation in need across different member states. For example, the first priority for forestry in England should be to manage the existing resource - only £7 million is available for supporting the management of all woodland in England. It is a good thing that money raised through increase in modulation will need to be spent on environmental programmes.

Question 4.52 - What changes if any should be made to the objectives of the current agri-environment schemes?

Agri-environment schemes should be a fundamental ingredient to all farms. They should provide long term certainty and should move away from a `profits forgone' approach towards meeting actual costs. They should be paid on a whole farm plan basis.

Question 4.53 - What relationship should there be between the various schemes operated by Government?

All land management schemes should have common application, administration and monitoring processes, preferable through a `one-stop shop' approach via LaMIS. Schemes should, as far as possible, support reduction in diffuse pollution, increase biodiversity, conserve cultural remains, improve distinctiveness and landscape quality, improve access, restore and manage key landscape features, such as hedges, on farm woodland, water courses, etc.

Question 4.54 - Should the Countryside Stewardship Scheme and Environmentally Sensitive Areas Schemes be merged?

Yes, and widened to cover the countryside as a whole, creating an additional advanced layer on top of the entry layer created by the Broad and Shallow scheme proposed by the Policy Commission.

Question 4.55 - How could a new entry land scheme be implemented? Should there be regional variations and what outcomes should it seek to deliver?

Entry should be by self-registration of whole farm plans into a new Countryside Register. Entry would require compliance with standards of land management set out in Strategic Land Management Plans, which would vary according to characteristics and would automatically trigger a variable per hectare payment as an incentive. Monitored by small sample audit, with pay back where non-compliance with the advice set out in the Strategic Management Plans.

Question 4.56 - How could schemes be simplified and made more flexible? How should scarce resources be targeted?

A single `menu and points' system could be devised to integrate all current and proposed schemes. Points would be higher in areas where certain activities would have a particular impact, eg pollution control. The spending review needs to make the connection between agricultural practice and the clean up costs, and the huge revenue returns the Treasury receives from tourist spend, much of which is stimulated by the quality of the countryside. Substantial public investment is required into sustaining a multi-functional countryside.

Question 4.64 - How can the farming industry play a bigger role in influencing the development of EU environmental legislation?

Such legislation will be put in place because of unsustainable practice, and a more sensitive approach to land management would remove the need for such legislation.

Question 4.65 - Would a whole farm plan be a useful tool for land managers and regulators?

Yes, and by empowering the farming community through education and software 'toolkits' this self-help approach would make it affordable (as proposed in the LaMIS project).

Question 4.66 - What should be covered by the whole farm plan?

It will vary across the farming sectors but first the farm plan should provide the mechanism for planning food production, recording the programme of activities across the whole year. The base for the plan will be a straight audit or mapped survey which will create the framework. It should cover the whole farm area and accurately record permanent features and landscape types, including soil conditions, etc. It will identify sensitive areas and areas requiring special management. For the arable sector it should plan to reduce fertilizers and pesticides, by planning for restricted use. It should set out to retain permanent grassland through to high forest as a percentage on every farm - this will vary from one landscape character to another. For the animal sector grazing densities, drenching policies to favour invertebrates and bird life, and waste management plans all need to be incorporated. Plans to improve access or improve the visual quality of the holding, etc. This response can only outline some of the contents of whole farm plans and can only give an indication of the level of detail required.

Question 4.67 - Could a first component of a whole farm plan be developed to manage the impact of new legislation?

An IT based 'toolkit' as proposed elsewhere in the response will be a cost-effective system in the long term. The whole farm plan could be developed and rolled out gradually to be refined and extended over the years, to become more comprehensive. This way the farming community may find such a proposal more acceptable.

Question 4.68 - How could we overcome farmers' legitimate concerns about confidentiality?

A degree of public accountability will be necessary where public funds are involved. An IT based system can make it easy to keep secure confidential matters whilst making public interest data more accessible.

Question 4.69 - How should the Government cater for farmers who are not able to gain access to web based services?

Encourage shared facilities, land agent services, use of community based resources - there are already in place many such facilities for the farming community to access.

Question 4.77 - How can the supply of healthier produce and product lines be increased to drive change in consumer demand?

Education is the key to healthy eating - consumer demand for more healthier food will drive farmers and producers to diversify into this area. Food labelling should present both healthy eating messages, as well as unhealthy eating messages.

Question 4.78 - How can the food and farming industry support improvements in health?

A long term strategy to raise awareness to make the link between consumer choice and ill health.

Question 4.80 - What information does the public want in relation to production methods and country of origin?

Experience with Hampshire's Farmers Markets has shown that the public are very demanding and need to know a great deal of detail. The country of origin will simply not be enough information. For example, for the animal sector questions such as were the animals grass-fed, age of animal when slaughtered, how far did the animals travel to the abattoir, where was the meat processed and packaged, how long between slaughter and the market place? etc. Traceability and clear labelling are crucial ingredients to meeting consumer needs.

Question 4.87 - What should be contained in a comprehensive animal health strategy?

Simple guidelines to encourage best practice.

Question 4.88 - Who are the key stakeholders in livestock apart from the farmers?

The Foot and Mouth disease demonstrates the breadth of stakeholders in animal health - consumers, meat processors, distribution industries, retail outlets, the tourist industry, etc.

Question 4.89 - How should the cost of disease control be met?

Insurance would be effective but control of imports must be vigorously improved or the premiums would be excessive. As bio-security is often beyond the farmer's control there should be an element of public funding for bio-security measures.

Question 4.90 - How can farmers be persuaded to improve bio-security and standard of animal welfare?

The Head of Science and Food Standards in the County Council says that his experience has shown that assurance schemes have improved bio-security and animal welfare standards on farms, especially in the pig industry. Assurance schemes are driven by the buyers of the product and producers see a market advantage. For those not wanting to join such schemes they must accept that regulations will target enforcement towards them.