Thanks to Wednesday's parliamentary debate on farmland birds, we now have a few more clues about how the Government will be rolling our the new Common Agriculture Policy package in England.
Sir John Randall, former government Whip, MP for Uxbridge and South Ruislip, champion for marine conservation and birder called the debate and eloquently put a spotlight on the challenges facing famland wildlife. Parliamentary protocol obliges a response from the Minister and on this occasion the honour fell to George Eustace MP.
As with the perversity of the CAP itself, there is a danger that people become inured to news of the calamatous declines in farmland birds (species such corn bunting - down 88% over the past 40 years, turtle dove - down 93% , lapwing - down 45%, starling - down 88% and grey partridge - down 91%) so it was great that Sir John used his political voice for nature and encouraged others to do the same.
Starling murmuration by Andrew Mason (rspb-images.com)
As ever, the transcript of the debate was posted online by Hansard and you can read it here.
The headlines from the Minister's response included...
...the Government still intends to review the position (over transfer of funds from Pillar 1 to 2) in 2016, with a view to moving to a full 15% modulation
...the new environmental land management scheme will be more targeted and focused that Environmental Stewardship
...the new ‘mid-tier’ will “... identify areas of particular priorities for given objectives and incentivise the right options; we call that the directed option choice”.
...“Biodiversity is among the things that I want to promote as we design NELMS. I want to make sure we have those directed options, so that there must be certain options, from a particular list, that will prioritise the recovery of farmland birds".
...“the directed option choice will enable us to encourage farmers to maximise the environmental outcomes on their land, in response to the agreed environmental priorities in their area, rather than simply seeking the lowest-cost or most convenient options.”
...“we shall adopt a landscape-scale approach to establishing NELMS. I hope that that will result in some critical mass and wildlife corridors, and a concentrated improvement in habitats to sustain the recovery of certain bird species.”
...“we shall prioritise biodiversity as we design the new environmental land management scheme.”
This is promising and reflects much of what we want from new scheme. But the hard truth remains that less of the farmed area of England will be covered by future schemes. Widespread but declining species such as skylark (down 64%) may need a different approach. Wouldn't it be great if all farmers were obliged to provide habitat for these species (such as skylark patches) as a condition of their Single Farm Payment?
I am delighted that Sir John called the debate and we look forward to welcoming the Minister to Hope Farm to share our experience (on recovering species such as skylark) so that the new CAP works hard to recover farmland birds.
What else should the Minister have said?
It would be great to hear your views.
Talking to a friend who does a lot of farm visits down here in the south west I was very shocked by his comments on ever-growing intensification - hedges and trees going, permanent pasture ploughed to arable.
Put alongside Peter Kendall's parting shots which effectively promote intensification wherever and whenever technology and opportunity allow, and trumpeting NFU's success in putting (attractive but spurious) food security back on the political agenda there seems little option now but to take on an approach to farming - and the countryside which will in the end be disastrous not just for birds but for farmers and sustainable food production, too.
As far as the Minister is concerned, it is time for payment by results: we need to stop, right now, schemes where the agricultural lobby waters down conditions so that farmers get the money but the environmental gains aren't realised. Lets have some good old Tory market forces here - as you say, less area will be covered by higher payments - why can't there be competition for that money based on output, what the schemes really do for birds and nature ? Surely no good free marketer could object to that ? And wouldn't it be fantastic if the marvellous, committed farmers, usually doing as much for love and personal commitment as for agri-environment payments, were rewarded by us, the tax payer, for delivering what so many of us supporting RSPB want - a countryside rich in birds ?