|
Back to Menu Macaulay Land Classification Dumfries and Galloway Standard Jan 2009 A man arrived, announced, into my yard towards the end of 2008 an uttered those terrible words that strike fear into most of us that are involved in the farming industry. “Hello I’m from the Scottish Government Rural Payments Inspection Directorate. I’m here to do an on farm inspection”. My initial panic, however, was soon to ebb away when I realised that he was here to check the areas of specific fields on my farm against the map that is used to fill in my single application form that I submit in the Spring each year. This type of inspection, I decided, would not require the rounding up of highlan’ coos and reading tags inside hairy lugs in close proximity to pointy horns. So that was a relief. Checking maps is not something that greatly concerns me. The government’s obsession with maps and the accuracy of the areas declared on them is now reaching new heights. This is hardly surprising considering that most forms of financial support offered to farmers nowadays are based on the area of land that they farm. Government is also paying more than a little attention to the type of land that is present on holdings, as well as the amount. In 2005 they commissioned the Macaulay Institute to look into the possibility of using the information that they have in their database to redefine the Less Favoured Areas (LFA) in Scotland. Payments to farmers in these areas amount to £61 million pounds annually. The Macaulay Institute, it just so happens, had mapped most of the significant areas of Scotland in considerable detail, in the late 1980s. They recorded the properties of the land and its capability for agriculture. Factors such as climate, stoniness, depth of soil, slope and wetness were all carefully assessed and recorded. This information was then superimposed onto a map. The land was rated from class1 through to class7 with class1 being the very best arable land and class7 being mountain and moorland. They found that when the present LFA boundary was laid over the top of the Macaulay map of Land Capability for Agriculture that almost all of the land classed as 4, 5, 6 and 7(the poorer soils) lay within the LFA boundary. They also discovered, not unsurprisingly, that almost all of the Class 1 and 2 land lies outside the LFA boundary. It’s in the areas of class 3 land (quite productive land) where the wheels come off the idea of using these maps for redefining the Less Favoured Areas. Without going into too much detail half of the Class 3 land lies inside the LFA boundary and half of it is left on the wrong side of the tracks, so to speak. In order to put this into perspective its worth mentioning that the class 3 land inside the LFA amounts to quarter of a million hectares. Not an insignificant amount. So what initially seemed like a simple solution to redefining the LFA has only made more problems for those who have to decide such things. If the Macaulay Land Capability for Agriculture data is to be used on this occasion to re-set the boundary of the LFAs in Scotland it might not be so easy. I would imagine that farmers who are currently not receiving the benefits of being included in the LFA and who have a farm that is predominately class 3 will be aggrieved if they are not brought into the scheme. While, on the other hand, if the class 3 land that is currently included in the scheme is consequently excluded by using the Macaulay data, then, those farmers might not be best pleased either. Richard Lochhead has not much time left to make a decision on the LFAs but if the Macaulay Land Capability for Agriculture data is to be used on this occasion to re-set the LFA boundary. Then, I fear that the option of reducing the qualifying area might prove too tempting for a government that has bridges to build with the public. Particularly the one over the Forth! |