United Kingdom
• General country description
• A. First pillar: implementation of CAP reforms (2003)
• B. Second pillar: implementation of RDP measures during 2007-2013
• C. Vision for the CAP beyond 2013: a short overview of the debate (at Member State level) on future CAP reform
• D. Literature, sources, references
• The comparative analysis provides a compact overview of CAP implementation across all 27 Member States and their visions of the future of the CAP
General country discription
United Kingdom |
Comparison with EU-25 |
Population, 2005 (*1,000,000): 60.0 |
13.1% of population in EU-25 |
Population density, 2003 (inh./km2): 244 |
118 in EU-25 |
GDP/capita, 2005 (PPS): 27,100 |
116% of GDP/capita in EU-25 |
Share agriculture in total employment, 2002 (%): 3 |
5% in EU-25 |
Share Utilized Agricultural Area in total land area, 2003 (%): 70 |
46% in EU-25 in 1998 |
Average farm size, 2005 (ha): 81 |
19 in EU-15 |
Number of farms, 2005 (*1000): 183.2 |
2.8% of farms in EU-25 |
Source: own calculations based on Eurostat
Distribution of farming types, 2005 (% of total)
Source: own calculations based on Eurostat
EU funding for the Single Payment Scheme (SPS)
and the second pillar, 2007-2013
* Funding according to CAP budget including Bulgaria and Romania
Sources: Agra Europe (2007); CEU (2006); EC (2007a)
A. First pillar: implementation CAP reform (2003)
A.1 Single Payment Scheme
Model
- England: SPS dynamic hybrid moving to flat rate payment (EC, 2007b)
- Scotland & Wales: SPS historical (EC, 2007b)
- Northern Ireland: SPS static hybrid (EC, 2007b)
Coupling measures
Complete decoupling. Article 69 application in Scotland (10% of the ceiling for the bovine sector), dairy premium in 2005.
Reasons for selection
- no reallocation of historical distribution of payments in order to prevent income effects (Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland);
- justification of farm payments on the long term (England).
Additional refinement of the system in England to prevent animal husbandry farmers to leave their farms in the upper regions (land abandonment) and to restart in lower regions.
A.2 EU budget for Single Payment Scheme (SPS) per year (National ceiling) 2005-2013
Source: 2005: EC (2006); 2006-2013: CEU (2006) and Agra Europe (2007)
Share of the farms that receive SPS of the total number of farms (% of total)
No information.
Tradability of SPS
Single payments are tradable within member state and within region.
A.3 Cross-compliance: Good Agricultural and Environmental Conditions (GAEC)
Source: IEEP, 2005
Soil erosion is an issue within a small part of the Netherlands, but conservation of soil organic matter is a more important issue.
Selected standards of the GAEC (England)
Issue |
Standards |
Summary of farmers’ obligations |
Soil erosion |
Minimum soil cover |
General requirements, post harvest management of land after combinable crops. |
soil organic matter |
Arable stubble management |
restrictions on burning |
Soil structure |
Machinery use |
Rules of use of machinery on water logged soil |
protection of permanent pastures |
|
|
minimum level of maintenance |
Retention of landscape features |
special attention for stonewalls, hedgerows, ancient trees; monuments, public rights of way, |
|
Avoiding the encroachment of unwanted vegetation on agricultural land |
Control of weeds |
Selected standards of the GAEC (Northern Ireland)
Issue |
Standards |
Summary of farmers' obligations |
Soil erosion |
|
Soil management rules to minimize erosion |
minimum level of maintenance |
|
Obligations to avoid under- and overgrazing, protection of habitats, archeological sites and permanent pasture |
Selected standards of the GAEC (Scotland)
Issue |
Standards |
Summary of farmers' obligations |
Soil erosion |
Minimum soil cover |
Post harvest management of land, In areas prone to erosion /capping the farmer must take steps to reduce the risk of soil loss; the farmer must maintain functional field drainage systems and follow the latest edition of the Muirburn Code (conc. burning of vegetation) |
soil organic matter |
standards for crop rotation where applicable |
the farmer should: • use suitable break crops in an arable rotation; or • optimise the use of organic materials by basing rates of application on soil and crop needs |
|
arable stubble management |
incorporate livestock manures within two weeks after spreading on stubbles |
|
EXTRA: measure soil organic matter en pH |
Do not carry out any cultivations if water is standing on the surface or the soil is saturated |
Soil structure |
|
No cultivation on saturated soils |
minimum level of maintenance |
protection of permanent pastures |
Any proposal to plough up pasture of high environmental or archaeological value, for example species-rich grassland, machair habitats, pastoral woodland and heather moorland will require the consent of the relevant authority |
|
retention of landscape features |
Do not damage, destroy or remove any historic, non-productive landscape features or field boundaries |
|
avoiding the encroachment of unwanted vegetation on agricultural land |
Avoid encroachment of unwanted species |
Selected standards of the GAEC (Wales)
Issue |
Standards |
Summary of farmers' obligations |
Soil erosion |
|
Avoid soil run off, bank erosion, heavy trampling. Apply soil management checklist. |
soil organic matter |
standards for crop rotation where applicable |
Apply required crop rotations |
|
arable stubble management |
No burning allowed |
Soil structure |
|
Avoid soil compaction |
protection of permanent pastures |
Farmers need to ask permission to convert pp |
|
minimum level of maintenance |
retention of landscape features |
Special attention for stonewalls, hedgerows, ancient trees; |
|
avoiding the encroachment of unwanted vegetation on agricultural land |
monitoring the land for infestation of invasive species |
Reason for selection of cross compliance standards
- GAECs are according to current national practices (Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland, England);
- Additional agro-environmental measures (e.g. alongside of rivers and hedges, 2 m of land can not be used for agricultural production) England.
A.4 Further reform of market regulations
Fruit and vegetables
Decision made in Agricultural Council meeting in June 2007. Complete decoupling of processing of fruit and vegetables within 4 years for tomatoes and within 5 years for permanent crops (e.g. citrus). Role of producer organisation strengthened, especially in crisis prevention and -management.
Wine
Complete decoupling and transition period as short as possible.
Decoupling of other products, like tobacco, hop etc.
Ambition is complete decoupling and transition period as short as possible.
Simplification into one market regulation
Yes concerning one market regulation, but doubts about one administration unit or committee.
B. Second pillar: implementation of RDP measures 2007-2013
B.1 Programme level and approval
There is a national strategy and there are four regional strategies. There are four RDPs, for England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales. Adjustments for all RDPs had to be made according to the European Council’s decision on voluntary modulation. The UK and Portugal are the only two countries that can use the instrument of voluntary modulation. The Rural Development Committee (consisting of representatives of the 27 Member States) has approved the RDP for England on 20 December 2007, for Northern Ireland on 25 July 2007, for Scotland on 24 January 2008 and for Wales on 24 February 2008.
B.2 Distribution of public budget over the axes (%)1)
|
axis 1: competitiveness |
axis 2: environment and land management |
axis 3: rural economy |
Axis 4: Leader |
England |
9 |
81 |
6 |
4 |
Northern Ireland |
11 |
69 |
0 |
31 |
Scotland |
14 |
69 |
12 |
5 |
Wales |
12 |
73 |
10 |
5 |
1) Figures excluding Technical Assistance
Source: Own calculations based on DEFRA (2007); Department of Agriculture and Rural Development of Northern Ireland (2007); Scottish Executive (2007); Welsh Assembly Government (2008)
B.3 Integration of Leader in axes 1, 2 and 3
In England Leader will be delivered through Regional Development Agencies (working with other stakeholders) and funding will be split between axis 1 (0.3%) and Axis 3 (4.7%).* In Northern Ireland, Axis 3 will be delivered through the Leader approach. In Scotland and Wales, Leader also contributes to Axis 3.
B.4 Local Action Groups (LAGs)
In the previous programming period (2000-2006) there were 57 LAGs in the UK.
B.5 RDP budget 2007-2013 (million euros)
|
Total public budget (*) |
% co-financing EAFRD 1) |
EAFRD budget |
Contribution private sector |
Total costs |
National top-ups |
England |
5187.1 |
62 |
3217.5 (1092.9 excl. vol. mod.) |
727.6 |
5914.8 |
349.6 |
Northern Ireland |
322.9 |
53 |
170.8 |
87.3 |
410.2 |
85.6 |
Scotland |
2133.3 |
28 |
676.3 (359.3 excl. vol. mod.) |
697.2 |
3075.6 |
0.5 |
Wales |
991.5 |
38 |
376.7 (286.6 excl. vol. mod.) |
354.6 |
1346.1 |
129.3 |
United Kingdom |
8634.8 |
|
1909.6 |
1866.7 |
10746.7 |
565.0 |
1) % of co-financing may vary per axis
Source: DEFRA (2007); Department of Agriculture and Rural Development of Northern Ireland (2007); Scottish Executive (2007) and; Welsh Assembly Government (2008)
B.6 Less Favoured Areas
Less Favoured Areas (LFA) (mostly uplands) cover a significant part of the agricultural land of the UK. In England the total LFA area is 2.21 million ha (17% of UAA), in Northern Ireland 720,000 ha (70% of UAA), in Scotland 5.23 million ha (85% of UAA) and in Wales 1.3 million ha (80% of UAA) (DEFRA, 2006). In 2005 8,424,000 ha was designed as LFA in the whole UK (45% of UAA) (CEU, 2005).
B.7 Drivers of RDP strategy
Fit within national policy. In the RDPs some rationales are given for the choices made in the RDPs.1 In England there is evidence that rural areas are performing well and development is best addressed through non-RDP funding sources. However, the natural environment needs urgent action if declines of habitats and biodiversity, cultural and historic and landscape character are to be halted and reversed (and key EU and UK targets met) – the RDP funds are the main source of resources to address this issue. The UK allocation of EU RDP funds is disproportionally low and total resources including compulsory modulation at current rates are inadequate to meet these environmental needs. So the UK is applying voluntary national modulation (in England at 12% in 2007 rising to a maximum of 14% in 2009). *
* Information provided by Rosie Simpson, Natural England
** Information provided by Frits Thissen, Agricultural Attaché, Netherlands Embassy, London
C. Vision on the CAP beyond 2013*
C.1 Stages in the development of the CAP debate
Is there a debate about the role of the CAP beyond 2013?
Yes, there is an intensive debate, especially in England and Wales, among government, farmers organizations, land owners organizations, environmental agencies and NGOs.
C.2 Key issues in the debate**
Components and role of the CAP
- Towards a sustainable agricultural production without reliance on subsidy or protection. Elimination of price support, export refunds, and other production and consumption subsidies. This means that EU agriculture is treated no differently from other sectors of the economy;
- A clear framework, set at EU level, to define the goals of EU agricultural policy, focusing in particular on maintaining the environment and promoting sustainable rural development particularly in the more environmentally sensitive regions of the EU;
- Capping of single farm payments of large farms is unfair and could cause large holdings to split up in order to avoid aid caps (Agra Europe, 2008);
- A central role for rural development measures, including those targeted on protection and enhancement of the rural environment;
- Changes should not come as an overnight upheaval, but have to be gradually achieved and carefully managed in order to give clear signals and time to farmers to adjust their businesses. This point is also emphasized by the Welsh 2020 group (2007).
Organization of the CAP (first and second pillar)
- Increase the role of second pillar and reduce of first pillar;
- Need to find mechanisms to support farming systems that deliver High Nature Values in a post-decoupled era;
- More room for manoeuvre for individual Member States in determining their agri-enviromental priorities;
- No prescriptions for fixed percentages of Pillar 2 funding to be spent on different types of measures;
- The 2020group (2007) advocates the encouragement of broader rural development by committing more financial resources to axes 3 and 4.
Financing of the CAP
- Reduction of the CAP budget;
- Need to reduce Pillar 1 funding and expand Pillar 2 funding particularly to meet the needs of the natural environment (e.g. agri-environment schemes);
- Use of much higher rates of compulsory modulation;
- Retention of continued flexibility to enable member states to apply voluntary national modulation to supplement their RDP allocations where increased resources are needed to meet identified needs (e.g. for the environment).
* Information provided by Frits Thissen, LNV-VB London and Rosie Simpson, Natural England.
**
Based on HM Treasury and Defra, 2005 and House of Lords, 2008.
D. Literature, sources, references
- 2020 Group (2007), Sustainable Farming and Environment: Action Towards 2020, s.l.
- Agra Europe (2007), "Threat of SFP cuts rises as NMS accede", Agra Europe Weekly, January 12
- Agra Europe (2008), "Council split over modulation, aid capping", Agra Europe Weekly, January 25
- Council of the European Union (CEU) (2005), Proposal for a Council Regulation on support for rural development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) – redefinition of intermediate less-favoured areas, Brussels, Working Party on Agricultural Structures and Rural Development, working document (7971/05), 15 April
- Council of the European Union (CEU) (2006), Council Regulation 1782/2003 (consolidated version - August 5, 2006), Annex VIII and VIIIa, Brussels
- Department of Agriculture and Rural Development of Northern Ireland (2007), Northern Ireland Rural Development Programme 2007-2013, version 24 July 2007
- Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) (2007), Rural Development Programme for England 2007-2013, version 17 December 2007
- European Commission (EC) (2006), 35th Financial Report on the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund, Guarantee section, 2005 Financial Year, SEC(2006)1152
- European Commission (EC) (2007a), EU support for rural development 2007-2013; Pre-allocated funding under Heading 2 "Natural Resources" of the Financial Framework, Brussels: European Commission
- European Commission (EC) (2007b), Overview of the implementation of direct payments under the CAP in Member States Version February 2007, EC, DG for Agriculture and Rural Development
- HM Treasury and Defra (2005), A vision for the Common Agricultural Policy, London
- House of Lords (2008), The Future of the Common Agricultural Policy, London, European Union Committee; 7th report of session 2007-08, HL Paper 54-1
- IEEP (2005), The development and implementation of cross compliance in the EU15: an analysis. Report for the RSPB, Institute for European Environmental Policy
- Scottish Executive (2007), Scotland Rural Development Programma 2007-2013, version 20 July 2007
- Welsh Assembly Government (2008), Rural Development Plan for Wales 2007-2013, version February 2008
- Information from Frits Thissen, former Dutch Agricultural Attaché in London and Rosie Simpson, Natural England, member EEAC WG Agriculture
