|
Back to Menu Less Favoured Area Support Scheme Galloway News Farming Supplement Nov 2008 The combination of three teenage children and dark winter evenings means it’s almost impossible for me to gain control of the “doofor” that works the telly. There is only so much Homer Simpson that a man can stand so this has forced me to be exiled into the kitchen where I surf the net while cuddling up to the Rayburn. Now, I’m sure that there must be more interesting things to look at on the net but, just recently, I found myself reading the official report on the debate in the Scottish Parliament on hill farming and the Less Favoured Area Support Scheme (LFASS). Gripping stuff. Every word that gets uttered plus any interruptions are carefully recorded in the transcript. Some of it is priceless. For instance, Jim Hume (South of Scotland) was recorded as saying, during the debate - “I will host the rural abattoirs event tonight, at which I hope to see all the members who are here. After all, it is a cutting-edge subject”. “Oh Dear” was the comment recorded by the other members at his unintentional joke. Even Homer would have been proud of that one. If that was a lighter moment the rest of the debate was a much more serious affair. The reason for the debate and the consultation, that has been launched, is because the European Commission (EC) has been charged with the responsibility to undertake a review of the LFA schemes in Europe. They are to focus on the "intermediate" LFAs, namely areas with natural handicaps, such as poor soil type or degree of slope, other than mountain areas. Their intention is to ensure that aid is targeted within the designated areas to areas characterised by a prevalence of extensive farming activity that effectively suffers from natural handicaps and where consequently there is significant risk of land abandonment. The LFASS scheme in Scotland, at present, does not fit this EC model, hence the debate and the consultation. The need to address this issue was also picked up in the report – The Future of the Hills and Islands of Scotland by the Royal Society of Edinburgh (RSE). Their report highlights that the LFASS is not at present well-directed towards fully compensating for degrees of disadvantage. It goes on to recommend that changes should be made to the scheme that will deliver public benefit in the form of environmental and climate change measures rather than solely agricultural production. The RSE leans towards adopting one of the options that is offered in an EC discussion paper on the future of the LFASS. This option would have LFASS money focused on High Nature Value farming where the land meets certain bio-physical criteria and is being farmed in a sustainable way. On the face of it what is proposed by the European Commissioners and subsequently backed up by the RSE report is worthy of consideration. As long as the bulk of support continues to be directed towards where most agricultural activity is taking place rather than to where it is needed the modern day clearances that are happening, on our watch, will continue. The fellows of the Royal Society of Edinburgh can see the problem. The European Commission can see the problem. I’m not convinced, after reading the transcript from the Scottish Parliament debate, that some of the MSPs in Edinburgh can see the problem. For some the thrust of their debate was to have the LFASS money paid out earlier, this year, to alleviate the financial pressure on farmers. While being a sure vote-catcher this proposal was, in effect, an irritating distraction that diverted Parliament’s attention away from focusing on the real issues. This debate, consultation and review of the LFASS has to be welcomed by rural Scotland. It will offer an opportunity for our farming leaders to shift some much needed support to those farmers in Scotland who still want to farm extensively, sustainably and for the public benefit. Who would argue with that? |