If you were asked to identify the most hotly contested element of the recent CAP deal, many of you would point to modulation (or ‘inter-pillar transfers’, as modulation is now officially known).
In the run up to Christmas, all eyes (and plenty of commentary) were on the four UK governments, and how much funding each was going to transfer from Pillar I direct payments into Rural Development.
The RSPB made a strong case for maximum transfers and we did this alongside our supporters, including many wildlife-friendly farmers who are committed to using CAP funds in a smarter way. Agri-environment schemes, which are funded from Rural Development coffers, are one of the few ways public money can be used to support farmers to make space for nature on their farms, as well as building more resilient and diversified farm businesses. But due to an extremely disappointing EU Budget deal (agreed well in advance of the CAP deal itself), Rural Development funding was hit hard and the only way to mitigate this would be to transfer funds from Pillar I.
In December, after intense debate and even more intense lobbying, each of the four UK countries announced their transfer decisions:
But what do these decisions actually mean? Well, clearly, the higher the percentage, the more money will be distributed to farmers via Rural Development, including agri-environment schemes, than via Pillar I direct payments. And as the recent State of Nature report tells us, we definitely need to be doing much more to address ongoing biodiversity declines across the wider countryside.
This made the Welsh Government’s decision one to celebrate from the rooftops, and the English and Scottish decisions ones that just didnt goe far enough. And in Northern Ireland? Outrage, plain and simple. As the CAP cupboard is bare, the NI Executive must look elsewhere to find the funds to protect the environment and recover threatened wildlife.
But as important as these funding decisions are, there are others that need to be taken before we can really know what the impact will be on wildlife and wildlife friendly farmers.
The first is what proportion of each country’s Rural Development budget to spend on agri-environment schemes and we will continue to work hard to get as much allocated as possible. In England and Scotland, these decisions have already been announced (or at least very strongly indicated) and they reveal some striking contrasts – in England, 87% of the Rural Development budget will go to agri-environment and woodland schemes, in Scotland it’s just 46%.
The next stage, and one that is also being discussed right now, is what to prioritise in agri-environment schemes. The RSPB has 20 years of experience of developing, using and advising farmers about these schemes and we know what makes them work. It’s vitally important that they are used to support the delivery of things that have few other ways of being delivered. Biodiversity, farmland wildlife to you and me, is the classic example. We also need to ensure that sufficient resources are given to advisory services so farmers can continue to benefit from expert, face to face advice and get the very best from their schemes.
It’s a worrying time for many farmers – there is still great uncertainty about how the CAP will operate across the UK, including who will be able to enter an agri-environment scheme. But in order to protect the future of these schemes, we need more of the farming community to stand up and make the case for them. Peter Kendall, soon to be ex-head of the NFU in England, recently claimed agri-environment schemes were bribes to farmers which make them permanently dependant on public hand outs. This couldn’t be further from the truth, as many wildlife friendly farmers will testify. But we need more of you to make this case - to your fellow farmers, to your union reps and to the public. Wildlife, and a more resilient, sustainable future for farming, depends on it.