Response from the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds May 2009

Defra consultation on proposed changes to standard in cross compliance good agricultural and environmental condition (GAEC) and related measures in England. Response from the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds May 2009 Summary Set-aside was introduced as a production control measure but brought significant and widespread environmental benefits. The abolition of set-aside in 2008 following the CAP Health Check occurred without an environmental impact assessment and consideration of how to retain the benefits. It is vital that a replacement measure is put in place and has the ability to deliver benefits in 2010. RSPB believes a cross compliance requirement through Option A is the only proposal that will be able to meet the selection criteria set out in the consultation to recapture the environmental benefits of set-aside, including delivering above the baseline set out for ELS, implementation in 2010 and ensuring benefits will be delivered immediately and in the longer term. A voluntary approach is inherently risky, as participation by farmers cannot be guaranteed. Previous attempts at a voluntary approach failed to generate the support from the farming industry. The UK Government successfully negotiated for an enabling provision through the Health Check of Member States to recapture the environmental benefits of set-aside as part of cross compliance. It is important that this new measure is implemented in England. This will also provide the framework for other Member States to develop their own set-aside replacement tools, which are urgently needed. It is essential that a Statutory Instrument is laid for all changes to GAEC, including the option to introduce Option A. If Option B is chosen it will be necessary to have the ability to introduce Option A as a regulatory failsafe as quickly as possible. The RSPB welcomes the proposal to introduce a new GAEC standard on buffer strips next to watercourses in order to fulfil requirements of the CAP Heath Check and to deliver WFD objectives. We believe a mandatory, targeted approach is most appropriate but this must form part of the cross compliance requirements. Compulsory buffer strips by watercourses will partially address water quality issues, and are therefore welcome, but their biodiversity benefits will be minor. Any option to replace the benefits of set-aside should ensure that a 1

range of measures are distributed across the countryside to replicate the benefits for farmland biodiversity as this cannot be addressed by buffer strips alone. RSPB does not believe the proposed consolidation of GAEC standards for soils will improve the cross compliance standards. We believe that the current proposal weakens the rules on soil management and could compromise natural resource protection objectives. The RSPB recommends maintaining the strength of the requirements and guidance within a single amalgamated GAEC standard. Introduction The RSPB is Europe s largest wildlife charity with over one million members. We manage one of the largest conservation estates in the UK, covering c.137, 000 hectares. Sixty of our reserves are farmed, covering more than 20,000 hectares, with around 170 tenant farmers, and 200 employees. We protect and enhance habitats such as lowland farmland, heather moorland, lowland heath, wet grassland, estuaries and reed beds, and our reserves help to protect 63 of the 77 most rare or threatened breeding birds in the UK. The RSPB is the UK partner of BirdLife International, which is a global Partnership of non-governmental conservation organisations. BirdLife International strives to conserve birds, habitats and global biodiversity, working with people towards sustainability in the use of natural resources. The RSPB works closely with our BirdLife partners on EU agriculture policy issues. The RSPB s vision for agriculture is for sustainable systems of farming that produce adequate supplies of safe, healthy food; protect the natural resources of soil, air and water that farming depends on; help to protect and enhance wildlife and habitats; provide jobs in rural areas and contribute to a diverse rural economy. General comments on recapturing the environmental benefits of set-aside The RSPB welcomes Defra s consultation on recapturing the environmental benefits of set-aside. Set-aside brought about widespread but incidental benefits to farmland biodiversity, particularly farmland birds through the provision of important feeding and nesting resources. Studies have shown that set aside supported higher densities of farmland birds compared to cropped land, breeding density and chick survival was significantly enhanced and overall population trends improved in response to set-aside provision. It has also been demonstrated that set aside played a potentially significant role in climate change mitigation for biodiversity by: Conserving the range and ecological variability of habitats and species; Conserving and enhancing local variation within sites and habitats; 2

Establishing ecological networks through habitat protection, restoration and creation. The RSPB was vocal in its opposition to the setting of the set aside rate to 0% in 2007 without an environmental impact assessment being completed and before the development of any measures to retain its environmental benefits. Defra s action, immediately following the 0% rate decision, to monitor the effects of set aside loss and establish a high level set aside steering group, was a positive step which has provided valuable evidence and information. In the 2007-08 cropping year, Defra s research has indicated that the amount of uncropped land in England fell by 64% 1. The greatest decline has been in rotational set-aside. A reduction of 83% between 2007-2008 was recorded. As rotational set aside provided specific and significant benefits for farmland birds the impact of set-aside loss is likely to be severe for many at risk PSA and BAP species. Losses of non rotational set aside will negatively impact the botanic quality of habitats which have been able to develop over recent years and diffuse pollution is also likely to significantly increase following the application of inputs on land brought back into production and the cultivation of more vulnerable areas. Farmers have benefited from the removal of set-aside, as a restriction on production has been lifted, but set-aside entitlements worth over 100 million under the Single Payment System have been retained. All productive land receiving SPS entitlements should generate the requirement for environmental management that would ensure the bulk of CAP subsidies (Pillar 1 payments) are paid for the delivery of public goods (biodiversity, water quality etc.) Consultation Questions 1. Do you have any further evidence (preferable quantified) on the environmental benefits of set-aside/uncropped land? There is strong evidence to show that biodiversity benefited significantly from setaside compared to intensive arable production. Four peer reviewed studies on the environmental impacts of set-aside, commissioned by the HLSAG in 2008, found setaside had: benefited farmland bird populations; benefited a range of plant and mammal species; and reduced sediment and phosphate run-off in catchments where there were significant areas of farmland at high risk of erosion 2. A literature review by IEEP demonstrated a range of other benefits for small mammals and brown hare 3. This research has shown that there were significant benefits to breeding and wintering farmland birds. Eight of the eleven declining farmland birds on the Farmland Bird Indicator benefited from the winter seed food and summer insect 1 Change in the Area and Distribution of Uncropped Land in England: February 2009 Update, Defra Agricultural Change and Environment Observatory Research Report No.13, Steve Langton 2 Final report of Sir Don Curry s High Level Group. July 2008. http://www.defra.gov.uk/farm/policy/sustain/pdf/hlsag-report080722.pdf 3 The Environmental Benefits of Set-Aside in the EU; A Summary of Evidence. IEEP report for Defra. February 2008 3

food provided by set-aside. It is lack of one or both of these resources that have driven their national population decline. In addition, set-aside often provided good nesting habitat for ground-nesting birds, notably lapwing and stone-curlew. Setaside also played an important role in linking habitats and enabling the movement of species that may be important in the context of climate change. RSPB has contributed to the range of studies that have been carried out on the environmental benefits of set-aside and uncropped land. 2. Do you think any other or additional selection criteria should be considered in selecting which option to implement? RSPB welcomes the proposed selection criteria to ensure the option chosen will deliver the requirements to recapture the benefits of set-aside. RSPB does not believe that Option B meets the proposed selection criteria. In particular: As the set-aside rate has now been set at 0% since 2007, it is important that the option selected starts delivering as soon as possible and in particular by 2010 to coincide with the high level of ELS renewals. The adoption of Option A will guarantee delivery in 2010 and allow ELS top up options to be incorporated into new agreements. There is no guarantee that management carried out under Option B can deliver in 2010. As Environmental Stewardship was developed alongside set-aside, any proposal should deliver beyond the baseline, including targets set for 2011. Monitoring of the chosen option will be important to ensure the benefits are being delivered therefore a simple and effective monitoring programme is essential and this will be achievable with the introduction of Option A. 3. Do you think other or additional criteria should be considered in measuring the success of any measures adopted? The proxy criteria identified are suitable for measuring the immediate success of a set-aside mitigation measure. Assessing the quality and spatial distribution of the uncropped land and beneficial land management will be important in assessing the environmental outcomes. The impact of the measures on biodiversity should be monitored and checked against the modelling work carried out Defra report BD1640 4, to ensure the measures are delivering as predicted. 4. Do you agree that the short term outcomes (eg area, distribution, management of uncropped land) and the longer term potential of any measure adopted should be assessed at the end of the first year of implementation? 4 Defra Research Project BD1640: Zero rate of set-aside: evaluating the potential impact on farmland birds and the implications for requirements for ELS uptake and related measures. BTO, RSPB, CSL, CEH, GWCT. May 2008. 4

RSPB agree that the outcomes should be assessed at the end of the first year of implementation, as the chosen option must start delivering as quickly as possible. It has been over 2 years since the loss of set-aside therefore we cannot afford any further delays in replacing the benefits of set-aside. For farmland birds and other arable wildlife it is known that particular management options will deliver the biodiversity benefits required, therefore the measurement of uptake should provide an indication on the likely effect on population of farmland birds. The long-term outcome should be contribution to a reversal in the farmland bird index and therefore the PSA. This monitoring and assessment should continue on an annual basis. An assessment at the end of the first year will be particularly important if Option B is chosen in order to assess voluntary uptake by farmers and that it is effective. The implementation of a regulatory failsafe should be assessed at the end of the first year and a mandatory requirement introduced if there is a failure to reach agreed targets. 5. For Option A which alternative would you prefer to see implemented, A1 or A2, and why? Alternative 1 broadly provides equivalent benefits to those provided by set-aside. Alternative 2 would deliver benefits only if delivered at a scale greater than Alternative 1 but will offer the widest range of options and allow cropping to continue if required, therefore would be our preferred alternative. Both options will require the uptake of ELS top up options to deliver similar benefits to set-aside on a smaller percentage of land. Although we support the inclusion of EM1, care must be taken to ensure that the buffers provided via this option are additional to the buffers already provided in cross compliance, or they will not deliver set aside replacement benefits. There may be a need to ensure a maximum threshold for this particular option as other options which provide in-field benefits must be taken up if set aside benefits are to be properly mitigated. We have concerns at the inclusion of EM10. This option will deliver far fewer benefits than set aside when delivered over an equivalent area, and we feel that EM9 & 11 should be the only winter stubble options included in the mitigation proposals, as they will provide greater benefits for birds. RSPB would welcome the opportunity to discuss the management requirements for the proposed options. Further comments and suggestions are provided in Annex 1. 6a. Bearing in mind the costs to farmers and environmental objectives, what percentage area do you think should be set for Option A as alternative A1; or as alternative A2? 5

Choice of <4%; 4%; 5%; 6%; >6% or other? If ELS top up options are used, both alternatives for Option A should deliver benefits on a smaller percentage of land than set-aside. The Natural England targeting report calculated the area of land required to mitigate for the loss of set-aside is a minimum of 4-5% 5. This figure is dependent on an ideal mix of options being chosen by farmers, including the uptake of ELS top up options, creating a mixture of habitats. This figure is also dependent on options being sited in appropriate locations and being distributed throughout the landscape. If this can be achieved, we would agree that a percentage of 4-5% would be acceptable for Alternative 1. Alternative 2 would need to be delivered at a higher percentage to deliver equivalent benefits to set-aside, therefore would we agree that a percentage of 5-6% would be required is this alternative is chosen. 6b. Do you agree that the Option A requirement should only apply to farms with more than 20ha of cultivated land? RSPB agrees that the minimum area of 20ha is appropriate as this is similar to the former set-aside threshold. This threshold would help maintain small areas of arable in predominately pastoral areas, as farmers would not have to introduce mitigation measures on their land. 7 Do you have suggestions for minimising any potential negative impact on ELS uptake should Option A be implemented? The claim by the farming industry that there will be a complete withdrawal from ELS if Option A is implemented is unsubstantiated. The negative feeling being generated by the farming industry on the impact of Option A calls into question the commitment of the farming industry to take protection of the environment seriously. If farmers are willing to withdraw from a scheme offering payment for environmental management, it is difficult to believe that this will be done through a voluntary initiative. In addition, anecdotal evidence from RSPB Agricultural Advisors suggests farmers are delaying renewals/entering ELS at present, due to the uncertainty regarding proposed changes to ELS from 2010 and are awaiting the decision on set-aside mitigation. In spite of this, a high percentage of renewals occurred in the ELS Pilot Areas (60-73% renewal rate). 5 Paper by Natural England outlining the approach for setting targets to deliver similar environmental benefits to those from set-aside and other uncultivated land http://www.defra.gov.uk/corporate/consult/gaec/ne-targets.pdf Quantified Targets to Determine the Success of Set-Aside Mitigation, Natural England, April 2009. 6

This uncertainty could continue with the adoption of Option B, as there is a risk of future regulation should farmers fail to engage with the Campaign for the Farmed Environment and voluntarily manage land for the environment. This is indicated as a potential risk in Table 7 of the consultation document. If Option A is chosen, the availability of advice will be crucial to ensure farmers are aware of the options available and how the ELS top up options can be incorporated into their ELS agreements and to counter the negative feeling and mis-information being generated by the farming industry. 8 What suggestions do you have for changing the existing GAEC 12 agricultural land which is not in agricultural production) as part of Option B? RSPB does not believe Option B is an appropriate mitigation measure for the loss of set-aside. However, if Option B is chosen and GAEC 12 rules are relaxed to include the non-agricultural activities listed, the land being used for these purposes should not count towards set-aside mitigation. 9 Do you have any suggestions for developing Option B so that it could deliver against the proposed success criteria (para 3.7.1)? Please give reasons. Any realistic proposal for a voluntary approach to set-aside mitigation must include: - Guarantees that the required management will be delivered and will be widespread throughout the arable countryside. - Targets for assessing the quantity, quality and spatial distribution of land being used to count towards set aside mitigation, this includes appropriate option uptake within ELS. - Commitment to deliver in 2010. - A robust regulatory failsafe that will be triggered automatically should the Campaign fail to meet agreed targets. - A budget for delivery and agreement on responsibility for funding the Campaign. 10 What would be the best form of cost-effective guidance and advice to help you understand the proposals for either Option A or B? (Examples include hard copy, electronic form, workshops, farm demonstrations, farm walks, a telephone help-line, published articles, training of advisors etc.) Advice provision will be vitally important to either Option A or B. Farm demonstrations, walks and workshops are likely to provide face to face advice which is most effective in informing farmers of the most effective management. 7

We welcome the additional advice provision that is planned by Defra and Natural England to support ELS delivery and the replacement of set-aside. This will ensure more effective delivery of ELS and be important to the implementation of Option A. Option B is reliant on a large amount of advisory input to ensure success of their Campaign. It is heavily reliant on agronomist providing advice on the management required for farmland biodiversity. This will require additional time and training. However, there is no mention in the proposal of the cost of this additional training and where the budget will come from to address this. 11 Is Option A an appropriate mechanism to act as a fallback should Option B (a voluntary approach) fail to deliver? RSPB strongly believes a regulatory fallback is essential. The threat of a pesticides tax was the main motivation for the development of the Voluntary Initiative. It is necessary that a Statutory Instrument is laid for all changes to GAEC, including the option to introduce Option A. This would ensure the option to introduce Option A is not delayed if Option B fails to deliver and a regulatory failsafe is triggered. Option A was considered the most effective option by the HLSAG and has been worked on considerably by Government, therefore this we believe is an appropriate failsafe. 12 Which option would you prefer to see implemented, Option A or B? Please state why. RSPB strongly advocates the adoption of Option A to replace the environmental benefits of set-aside. The proposal for Option B presented for consideration by the farming industry contains no guarantees of delivery and does not satisfy the selection or success criteria as set out in the consultation document. Option A would ensure a percentage of land being managed environmentally on every eligible arable farm and would mirror the uncultivated pockets of land present across the arable countryside during set-aside. It is doubtful a purely voluntary approach would be able to match this, as inevitably some farmers will not wish to participate. The importance of a mandatory approach is underlined in the context of fluctuating commodity prices. When prices are high, as in the summer of 2008, farmers are more likely to bring uncultivated areas back into production. A mandatory approach would also provide consistent support for the government s Public Service Agreement (PSA) to reverse farmland bird declines. The ability of the farming industry to lead a voluntary approach has also been severely undermined by events to date. In 2007, the RSPB helped to develop a 5- point plan with the NFU and CLA, as part of the High Level Set Aside Group (HLSAG), to encourage farmers to take positive action for farmland birds post set- 8

aside. This plan recommended a wide range of options to recapture the environmental benefits of set-aside using Environmental Stewardship and purely voluntary measures. However, at the same time the plan was being advocated, elements of the farming industry were publicly questioning the environmental benefits of set-aside and the need to mitigate its loss. A dedicated advice hotline, set up by the RSPB, received just one call. It was indicated by Sir Don Curry s HLSAG that it was unlikely that farmers could be relied upon to agree to manage a sufficient area of land on a voluntary basis to deliver an equivalent amount of environmental benefit to that which could be delivered by a cross compliance based approach. this would be particularly problematic at times of high arable crop prices, such as experienced in 2007/08, when farmers would be tempted to bring more marginal arable land into production (Appendix 4). There was a 64% decrease in the area of uncropped land available between 2007 and 2008 6. This is an indication that when crop prices are high as was the case in 2007/08, farmers will be tempted bring marginal land into production. The lack of commitment of the farming industry to ensuring the success of Option B is most evident in the proposed targets and regulatory failsafe. The suggestion is that mandatory measures through cross compliance (Option A) would be triggered if for 2 consecutive years the area of uncropped land falls below 50% of the minimum quality habitat considered necessary by NE to replace the benefits of set-aside. It is difficult to see how this would provide an incentive for farmers to carry out the action required and by the time this kicks in it will be even more difficult to replace the benefits that set-aside provided. It is therefore essential that an automatic trigger in the form of Option A is built into the proposal for Option B as failsafe mechanism. The targets set within the proposal are disappointing as they are only activity targets for the first 3 years. 2010 is proposed as a 'transition year' for organisation of the Campaign. Uptake targets alone are inadequate to measure the success of the Campaign in delivering a replacement to set aside, there should be targets linked to option uptake within ELS, the quality of voluntary management and a measure of the spatial distribution of the measures within the arable landscape. As 2010 will see the highest level of potential ELS renewals, it is critical these are targeted if they are serious about ELS contributing to replacing the benefits of set-aside. 13 Do you have any further information and/or views on the costs, benefits and risks of the proposals? Due to the delay in industry presenting the detailed proposal for Option B, it has been difficult to assess the true costs to implementing this option. The figures quoted in the Consultation Stage Impact Assessment do not consider the impact on the diversion of existing funds within ELS. In addition, there will be additional costs to 6 Change in the Area and Distribution of Uncropped Land in England: February 2009 Update, Defra Agricultural Change and Environment Observatory Research Report No.13, Steve Langton 9

the Rural Payments Agency in examining a proposed voluntary record. If Option B intends to deliver similar benefits to Option A this will require uptake of ELS options that may not be part of existing agreement. This implies that there may have to be changes to existing ELS agreements at a large additional cost that will have to be paid for from the public purse. This is unacceptable cost for a scheme that is purely voluntary. The costs of Option B are still unknown and therefore cannot be compared to Option A. The industry proposal contains no indication that industry will bear any of the costs involved in the voluntary scheme. The costs that should be considered are: Costs to farmers of carrying out the voluntary management required to meet the selection criteria Cost to farmers for the additional record keeping and reporting required to record the voluntary management in place Cost to the advisory network that are key to the industry Campaign being successful. For example it is intended that agronomists will deliver extra advice to farmers on ELS agreements/voluntary action on how to provide benefits for the three themes of the Campaign Cost for developing reporting forms that farmers can choose to record the voluntary action they may be taking Cost to the RPA for developing recording forms and monitoring/inspection of records to ensure voluntary management is happening Cost to NE for renegotiating ELS agreements. If the voluntary approach is to be successful this will require management and uptake of options that will deliver benefits previously seen under set-aside that may not be part of existing agreements The potential cost to Natural England could be higher should the voluntary approach fail to deliver and the regulatory mechanism is triggered. The introduction of Option A at a later date would require the renegotiation of ELS agreements. Table 7 indicates this could result in a cost to Natural England of 1.2 million. This is the same as the expected cost of the introduction of Option A in 2010. However, if the introduction of Option A is delayed there is likely to be a higher number of ELS agreements requiring renegotiation as a large number of ELS agreements are due for renewal in 2010. General summary on introduction of new GAEC standard on buffer strips next to watercourses The RSPB welcomes the proposal to introduce a new GAEC standard on buffer strips next to watercourses in order to fulfil requirements of the CAP Heath Check and to deliver WFD objectives. We caution Defra to make its decision based on need to address the principle driver for this proposal, i.e. to implement the objectives of the Water Framework Directive (WFD), not to simply to fulfil requirements of the CAP Health Check or to recapture the benefits of set-aside. 10

The RSPB would like to see buffer strips alongside watercourses where they will be effective in reducing run-off and diffuse pollution. A mandatory, targeted approach is most appropriate but this must form part of the cross compliance requirements. We therefore recommend that Defra introduce Option 4. The reason for this recommendation is as follows: Defra s preferred Option 3, the voluntary approach, is unlikely to ensure there is no deterioration of water quality, a stipulation of the Water Framework Directive. The seriousness of the challenge to achieve WFD targets by 2015 and the lag-times for water quality improvement means that effective measures must be adopted now by all sectors that impact on water quality. This includes the farming sector. Immediate implementation of targeted compulsory buffer strips, rather than waiting until 2012 for results of voluntary uptake, is a more appropriate response to this challenge. Defra estimates that the risk of failure to protect water quality adequately is Medium-High with a combination of Option 3 and Option B (Table 9). We believe that Defra should dismiss a combination of Option 3 and Option B on this basis because the UK cannot afford to miss WFD targets and risk infraction by the EU. The risk is Low-Medium under Option 4. Option 4 offers the same monetised benefits as Option 3 (Table B7), although in reality Option 3 benefits will be lower because it takes a voluntary approach. Table B7 of the impact assessment also indicates significantly greater non-monetised benefits from Option 4 over Option 3. Option 4 is likely to result in a higher cost to farmers and Government than Option 3. However, we dispute some of Defra s calculations and assumptions, but believe that Option 4 will provide the best value based on cost benefit analysis for the following reasons: o In order to achieve Defra s predicted maximum benefits under Option 3 it assumes that voluntary approaches will be adopted fully, by all farmers. We believe that full uptake of a voluntary approach is unlikely and unrealistic and therefore it is inappropriate to include a figure for maximum benefits. There is a greater guarantee of gaining benefits from a well-enforced compulsory approach. o Costs to farmers for Option 4 include 14.6m for targeting. We believe that Defra should foot the majority of the bill for targeting in order to achieve the best result for water quality objectives. Good and effective guidance, mapping and targeting from Government will reduce costs to both Government and farmers. Option 4 also conforms to the Polluter Pays principle rather than potentially using public funds, in the form of the ELS budget, to implement these changes. 11

Diffuse pollution from agriculture is an environmental problem that requires all landowners within a catchment to collectively address the issue and reduce their emissions to water. It only takes one polluter to cause a serious pollution incident in a catchment. In addition, voluntary mechanisms are inequitable and unfair to those who pay the cost of implementing measures or who have good management practices because those who choose not to adopt voluntary measures receive a competitive advantage. We therefore believe that a voluntary approach (Option 3) is not appropriate in this case. Option 4 offers a low risk to reduced agri-environment scheme uptake (Table 9). Option 4 may require some Entry Level Stewardship (ELS) agreements to be changed but we believe that this will result in only low cost to NE. A high percentage of ELS agreements are due to be renewed in 2010 so this option should not add a great deal of extra administration to farmers or Natural England. Furthermore, those farmers who are not due to change agreements in 2010 may be able to move options that would fall within the 6m buffer area to other areas of the farm. We believe that this is likely to cause a low loss of income to each individual farmer. The risk assessment indicates that there will also be an increased cost to NE of amending ES agreements if Option 4 has to be implemented after the failure of Option 3. The highest amount of ELS renewals will occur in 2010 and would allow a compulsory buffer option to be taken into consideration when renewing agreements. Defra have the responsibility to deliver WFD targets and should be willing to pay to adapt the existing cross-compliance inspection regime to include inspection of buffers that will be required under Option 4. Inspections will be essential to ensure compliance and correct placement of buffers, however, we believe that with well planned and implemented information on the buffers to accompany advice on targeting, the costs of inspection will be smaller than predicted. The risk assessment indicates that costs to the RPA would be substantially higher if measures had to be made compulsory at later date. 14 Do you have further information, preferably quantified, that would improve the analysis presented in the Impact Assessment associated with the buffer strip options? Under Option 3 analysis, we believe that Defra should make a realistic assessment of the uptake of measures under a voluntary approach. This is highly likely to start at a low level and only slowly increase. Summary analysis evidence of benefits from Options 3 and 4 on pages 7 and 8 of the impact assessment, respectively, shows some disparity. It is unclear why the Total Benefits are different when Average Annual Benefits are the same. The analysis seems to boost the net benefit of Option 3 over Option 4. 12