A former NFU Scotland vice-president has expressed concerns that Cap reforms could create a whole raft of new slipper farmers who collect subsidies for doing absolutely nothing.
Peter Chapman, of South Redbog, Lonmay, said the area-based payment regime in the new Cap from 2015 opened up the potential for at least another 3.7million acres of land – so-called naked acres – across Scotland to qualify for aid.
But the vast majority of it is wholly unproductive and if it gets into the area system it could mean millions of pounds being diverted away from active farmers.
Scotland has sought a minimum livestock density to be applied to all naked acres as a qualifier for aid to prevent cash going to unproductive areas. But the European Commission has in the last month said that may well fall foul of World Trade Organisation rules as it would directly link subsidies with farm production and could potentially distort global trade.
Mr Chapman’s fears are backed by Brian Pack, the author of the 2010 report into what Scotland wanted out of the new Cap.
Mr Pack said that even with a low payment level of £10 an acre it could suck out more than £10million from agricultural payments and result in scores of landowners becoming a new band of slipper farmers simply for “owning the side of a mountain”.
Mr Chapman said it was crucial the argument on ensuring cash only goes to active farmers in the new Cap is won.
“Potentially there could be millions of acres which could be brought into the equation under the new system. Instead of having the few slipper farmers that we battle against at the moment we could end up with a whole new raft of them diluting payments. We would then be in a even worse situation than at present with many more folk getting money who are not producing the goods.
“Brussels is making it very difficult to put in place a stocking density. But we have to find a system which locks these people out, otherwise it could be very serious for those guys who are actually producing the goods.”
Mr Chapman said the situation was potentially very serious for those farmers whose operations were only just profitable and who relied on support payments to keep them afloat. Any reduction in aid could well result in a “disaster scenario” which had to be avoided at all costs.
The Scottish Government has maintained that Europe’s stance will mellow as time progresses and that a pragmatic solution will be struck as every EU member state is involved in the debate on defining agricultural activity, not just Scotland.
David Barnes, the government’s deputy director of agriculture and rural development, recently said the commission had started the talks on activity with a purist approach and that there remained wriggle to negotiate, albeit a variety of measures may ultimately be needed.
But Mr Chapman questioned what the government’s plan B is if its A plan for livestock stocking density fails.
He said the government was good at indicating what it wanted, but then had no other solution or answer to back it up.
Mr Chapman said it was clear there was no easy solution to the problem now being faced in defining activity.
The only good point was that it was a common problem for various member states and that there was a recognition within Europe that there is potentially a huge issue which requires a sensible resolution.
He too highlighted the need for any resolution to be watertight to avoid the scenario where loopholes are then found which allow naked acres with no agricultural activity to qualify for support.
“Allowing those 3million-plus acres to suddenly be available for payment would be an absolute disaster,” he added.
Mr Pack said Europe’s seeming opposition to livestock stocking densities was concerning, given that it had long been Scotland’s argument to use them as a qualifier for aid on naked acres and to force slipper farmers into some type of agricultural activity.
He said lobbying needed to be intensified to secure the qualifier to avoid the situation forecast by Mr Chapman. Mr Pack recognised there was a legitimate need for land in remote regions to be supported, but questioned aid going to those naked acres which do nothing for agriculture.
He added: “If there is quite a low stocking density demand it would mean they would at least have to be stocked to qualify for aid rather than just having folk sitting owning the side of a mountain, doing nothing and getting support. It would mean the landowner becoming a new slipper farmer.”