Strange as it may seem to outside eyes, rough grazing the least productive per hectare of Scotland’s farmland types continues to be the key battleground of CAP reform in Scotland.
NFU Scotland president Nigel Miller has taken the fight to Brussels this week after Farm Commissioner Ciolos’s unexpected refusal to grant more options for coupling support payments to production.
The problem with rough grazing is that, due to the vast areas involved, it could very easily absorb a huge proportion of support funds without really helping active farmers.
From Brussels, Mr Miller said: “Last week’s announcement on coupling was a bombshell which meant that getting to Brussels to meet officials was a priority because time is running out for Scotland to finalise its CAP implementation plans.
“The coupling announcement left Scotland without the necessary targeting options to provide appropriate levels of support to Scottish farmers in fragile areas using the pot of funding allocated to our rough grazing region (RGR).
“These quickly arranged meetings were an opportunity to highlight the real challenge of delivering an area payment in hill land where the proposed system will create some big winners but could also devastate some flocks where grazing intensity is higher.
“We mapped out those scenarios and demonstrated that there are a range of flock densities and holding sizes that would be severely impacted by this single area payment approach.
“While we are still some way from identifying a solution to that issue, Commission officials are now far clearer on the huge problem we face in delivering support to our producers in the RGR, and why we need a more targeted approach if we are to make best use of funds.”
Meanwhile James Dick, president of the Scottish Agricultural Arbiters and Valuers Association, has warned that using the wrong classification for grazing or grassland in 2014 could cost farmers around £150 per hectare in future years.
With just over a month to go before the IACS deadline, Mr Dick claims the problem is also exacerbated by unclear guidance from Scottish Government regarding the splitting of areas that contain more than one grass classification.
“In previous years it may not have seemed necessary to accurately determine whether an area should be entered as rough-grazing (RGR) or permanent grass (PGRS) on IACS forms.
“However, from next year onwards this could mean significant differences in area payment rates.
“A farmer with 80 hectares of in-bye could stand to lose £12,000 if they classify that area as RGR as opposed to PGRS,” he said.
“For the first time in many years SGRPID has included guidance as to their definition of rough grazing within the 2014 IACS guidance literature.
“We would advise farmers and their agents to read this definition carefully.
“If their grass is ‘better’ than the SGRPID definition then it may be able to be classified as PGRS, even if it has been RGR in previous years.”
“SAAVA believe claiming that a 2014 area should be PGRS as opposed to RGR ought to be straightforward.
“Trying to make the same classification change in 2015 could be difficult, as that is when there will be money at stake.
“Likewise, there are potential future CAP issues over permanent grass and temporary grass. Getting the label wrong on 2014 IACS may lead to complications down the line when greening rules come into play.”
“SAAVA would also urgently like to see clearer guidance from SGRPID on how a single enclosure of grazing, for example a hill, which contains both permanent grass and rough grazing should be labelled.
“The current guidance as to whether each differing area must or should be a separate enclosure, or whether it is enough to do an arbitrary percentage split based on sward assessment over the whole single area, is not clear.”