Rural Development Programme for Scotland Response of RSPB Scotland to the Scottish Executive Consultation

Transcription

1 Rural Development Programme for Scotland Response of RSPB Scotland to the Scottish Executive Consultation General points The SRDP consultation contains no information on the anticipated level of funding. However, an independent report commissioned by RSPB Scotland 1, finds that, if annual expenditure is maintained at current level, there will be no financial headroom in the early years of the new programme. Additional headroom for innovation could be created by reducing annual expenditure, on LFASS specifically, or by increasing the budget (either through increasing the rate of national modulation or increasing the level of domestic funding). Without some movement it is unlikely that meaningful Tier 3 options can be delivered 2. Movement to create additional funding for LMCs must be achieved by one of these means. The extremely limited budget, for the early years of the SRDP, means that ensuring the best possible use of the public funding that finances the programme, is paramount. Some agri-environment measures, developed through the Rural Stewardship Scheme and its predecessor schemes, have delivered real conservation benefit, and must be retained, refined and funded as part of LMC Tier 3. The SRDP is a key vehicle for delivering on the government s international commitment to halt the decline of biodiversity loss by 2010; to meet Water Framework Directive objectives; and to meet targets agreed under the Kyoto protocol on climate change. Measures that contribute to these objectives must be prioritised. Delivery of the SRDP will be a key function of the Scottish Executive, and as such must comply with the Nature Conservation (Scotland) Act 2004 and further the conservation of biodiversity. 1&2 An Economic Review of the RDPS Consultation : Pareto Consulting May

2 Measures within the SRDP should be prioritised according to a public goods test. Measures designed to deliver public goods, including biodiversity, must be prioritised over those which have public goods delivery as a secondary consideration to the benefits to individual businesses and sectors. Many of the proposed LMC measures for investment in holdings should be removed on the basis of failing such a public goods test. The SRDP must not be used to fund the replanting/restructuring of commercial plantation forestry that does not produce enhanced public benefits. The priority for LMC Tier 2 and 3 measures for woodland planting, replanting/restructuring and management must be for the provision of public benefits, in particular biodiversity. The funding of Natura 2000 must be coherently covered by a combination of EAFRD and SF funding, and the demarcation of funding must be made clear and explicit in the SRDP. The SRDP must put into practice the Executive s commitments to sustainable development as outlined in the Sustainable Development Strategy. A sustainability test should lie behind each measure. It must be remembered that the LMC model consists of three tiers. Tier 1, the Single Farm Payment, is an economic payment that dwarfs the sums available in the higher two tiers. These higher tiers must redress the balance within LMCs by focusing on environmental and social payments. It is disappointing that the conditions attached to Tier 1, in the form of Good Agricultural and Environmental Condition (GAEC), have not been viewed as an integral part of LMC development. A review of GAEC, and how it fits within the three tier LMC model, must be undertaken. The SRDP should ensure that a co-ordinated approach to the crucial issue of cattle retention in parts of Scotland is achieved. The proposals to freeze LFASS payments on an historic basis are an unacceptable retrograde step environmentally. The interim scheme payments must reflect current stocking practices, and a full review of LFASS must be carried out to reassess its purpose, scope, targeting and outcomes, ensuring public benefits are delivered through this source of public funding. 2

3 The importance of planned outcomes from LMCs must be recognised. Investment in planning for all tiers of LMCs is essential if the best value for public funding is to be achieved. Regional priorities must be built into the LMC delivery mechanism, but not at the expense of national priorities. There must be further definition and clarification of the High Nature Value concept in relation to farming, crofting and forestry in Scotland. 3

4 RSPB Scotland 1. The RSPB in Scotland has over 74,500 members and employs over 170 staff to promote the conservation of biodiversity, especially birds. We have practical experience of managing land for conservation, farming, forestry and other enterprises. We undertake biological and economic research to underpin our policy analysis and advocacy. We also have experience of environmental education and training for all ages. The RSPB is the BirdLife International partner in Scotland. 2. RSPB Scotland manages over 62,500 hectares of land, owning over 47,000 ha and leasing over a further 6,500 ha. We also operate over 8,000 ha through management agreements with local farmers/crofters and graziers. Our landholding interests cover the wide range of habitats and geographic areas within Scotland. We own and manage about 9,000 hectares of woodland across the UK, over 60% of which is in Scotland. Our woodland estate is UK Woodland Assurance Standard (UKWAS) certified. 3. RSPB Scotland welcomes the opportunity to respond to this consultation. Consultation Questions 1. Do you agree with the historic payments system proposed for LFAs? 4. No. RSPB Scotland absolutely opposes the historic payments system proposed. The proposals contained in this consultation represent a significant retrograde step for the environment, especially through the removal of existing requirements to keep specified proportions of cattle in return for higher payments. The Environmental Report that accompanies the SRDP consultation states that, under the SEERAD proposals, the incentive for retaining cattle in these areas will therefore disappear, and the environmental benefits will be lost and environmental impacts on moorland habitats and their associated species may result. 5. The budget that is likely to be assigned to LFASS will be the major component of the SRDP, and it is essential that this is utilised to best possible effect, given the likelihood of very limited budgets for the SRDP as a whole. RSPB Scotland believes that the historic basis proposed for LFASS would be an unjustifiable use of public money delivered though Axis 2 of the RDR. The Community Strategic Guidelines for Rural Development state that the resources devoted to Axis 2 should contribute to three EU-level priority areas: biodiversity and the preservation and development of high nature value farming and forestry systems and traditional agricultural landscapes; water; and climate change. The proposals as they stand would not be consistent with this guidance. 6. A full review of LFASS in Scotland is likely to be required by the European Commission as part of a Europe-wide review before RSPB Scotland welcomes the 4

5 fact that there will be an opportunity to properly re-examine the purpose, scope and nature of LFA support in Scotland in the near future. It is hoped that this will result in a system of support that targets the areas and recipients in greatest need of this support, recognising the public benefits that can be provided by it. 7. RSPB Scotland is disappointed that the Scottish Executive did not take the opportunity to review the existing LFASS for the introduction of the new SRDP in Nonetheless, we recognise that an interim scheme is proposed for simplicity until the upcoming major review takes place. If not, what alternative would you suggest? 8. Ideally, a full review of LFASS would be carried out, which would re-assess its purpose, distribution, scope and outcomes. It is recognised that this may not be administratively feasible at present, and that the review and redesignation required by the European Commission will provide the opportunity for a fundamental reform of LFASS in Scotland. 9. RSPB Scotland s preferred option for an interim scheme would be to transfer a proportion of the LFASS budget (for example, 20 million per annum, the sum previously allocated to environmental top-ups) to be delivered through agrienvironment options in Land Management Contracts. This sum would be ring-fenced, and only accessible by LFA farmers and crofters. The success of this would depend on enough appropriate agri-environment options being contained within Land Management Contracts, to ensure that the purpose of retaining extensive cattle and mixed systems within High Nature Value farming and crofting systems could be achieved. RSPB Scotland would be happy to contribute to the development work required for refining LMCs so they fit this purpose, whilst recognising that the basic structure of LMCs will be in place, and this is not therefore an administratively complex or costly option. 10. However, recognising that a simpler option may be the only one to attract widespread support, and that administrative simplicity is a high priority for the Scottish Executive, the following measures are proposed for the interim period These go some way to allowing a reflection of current stocking within the historic payments system proposed, but are an attempt to identify an acceptable compromise for the interim scheme, rather than our preferred approach. 11. In order to continue to receive the higher payment associated with keeping 50% or more cattle in the livestock mix, the farmer or crofter must: a) Be subject to an investigation if the proportion of cattle in their livestock mix decreases by 15%. If the decrease is not justifiable, the higher payment would be removed, leaving only the base LFA payment. 5

6 AND b) Retain a mixed livestock or cattle only system, and carry out one of the following three activities: manage a minimum area of grass for hay grow a minimum area of fodder crop maintain a minimum percentage of grassland in permanent pasture 12. In order to retain the higher payment rate associated with keeping at least 10% cattle in his livestock mix, the farmer or crofter would need only to ensure maintenance of a mixed livestock or cattle only system. 2.Do you agree with the suggested approach for ensuring that payments are only made in respect of land that is being actively farmed? 13. Having stated our opposition to the historic payments system proposed, should such a system be introduced for the base LFASS payments (excluding environmental top-ups, which should be dealt with in the manner outlined in paragraphs above), RSPB Scotland supports a mechanism that ensures that payments are only made to land that is being actively farmed. Indeed, we could not support the alternative, that the baseline for LFASS payments would constitute nothing more than the requirement to maintain the land in Good Agricultural and Environmental Condition (GAEC) and respect cross-compliance. 14. The underpinning environmental baseline for LFASS payment must continue to be Good Farming Practice (GFP), rather than GAEC, which would represent a lowering of the existing baseline. RSPB Scotland also proposes that the maintenance of active farming should be determined through a system that ensures a farmer or crofter is subject to an investigation, and potential loss of LFASS payment, if his livestock numbers decrease by 15%. 3.Do you agree with the proposals to give greater weight to very fragile areas and to increase the minimum payment? 15. Not entirely. RSPB Scotland agrees that the existing LFASS should be re-targeted towards areas of High Nature Value farming and crofting, which would almost certainly result in greater weight being given to very fragile areas, and also to fragile areas. This should be done in a strategic way and be evidence-based, however, and not reflect a minor tweak to the existing system. However, RSPB Scotland would prefer that the proposals to give greater weight to very fragile areas were carried out than that there was no redistribution at all during the interim scheme period. There is no indication in the consultation document, however, of the proposed extent of the redistribution. RSPB Scotland would support appropriate shifts to give these areas greater weight, and would be happy to comment further on specific proposals for such shifts. 6

7 4. Do you agree with the national objectives identified in Annex C? 16. Yes. RSPB Scotland generally agrees that the national objectives identified in Annex C are the right ones for Scotland, and welcomes the Natural Resources objectives, in particular, as correctly identifying the important issues. On the issue of presentation, we propose that cross-referencing of objectives would be useful. For example, the delivery for biodiversity objectives will also contribute towards other objectives outlined in Annex C, and this should be noted. We have the following specific comments on the objectives listed in Annex C: 17. Natural Resources a) Under biodiversity, we welcome the inclusion of the delivery objective to support, promote and develop high nature value farming, crofting and forestry. This will go some way to addressing the commitment by European Environment ministers in the Kiev resolution on biodiversity, to ensure by 2006, the identification, using agreed common criteria, of all high nature value areas in agricultural ecosystems in the pan-european region will be complete. By 2008, a substantial proportion of these areas will be under biodiversity-sensitive management by using appropriate mechanisms such as rural development instruments, agrienvironmental programmes and organic agriculture, to inter alia support their economic and ecological viability. We are concerned, however, that the definition of high nature value (HNV) in this context is ill understood and loosely defined. The European Environment Agency (2004) states that high nature value farmland can be defined as farmland with a high proportion of semi-natural vegetation; farmland dominated by low intensity agriculture or a mosaic of semi-natural and cultivated land and small-scale features; or farmland supporting rare species or a high proportion of European or world population. The Scottish Executive must commit to further analysis to clarify what HNV farming, crofting and forestry means in the Scottish context. The SRDP definition of HNV forestry systems must be used to define eligibility and target Forest Environment Payments for clear biodiversity priorities. The current proposals in this consultation and the Scottish Forestry Grants Scheme review 3 do not do this. The HNV forestry definition must include features and areas of significance for biodiversity, and the forest systems and operations that are used to protect and enhance these features and areas. This includes non-woodland as well as woodland species and habitats. We propose that HNV forestry systems should be defined as: 3 7

8 those which support priority species & habitats: EC Habitats Directive Annex 1 species and habitats, UK Biodiversity Plan priority species & habitats, Scottish Biodiversity List; those within designated areas covered by Natura 2000 Payments: Special Areas for Conservation, Special Protection Areas; those within other designated areas: Ramsar Sites, National Nature Reserves, Sites of Special Scientific Interest; all ancient woodland on the inventory of ancient woodland, and other known sites which meet the same criteria, including ancient semi-natural woodland, other semi-natural woodland, plantations on ancient woodland sites, seminatural features in plantations on ancient woodland sites. b) The outcome protecting communities from flooding and climate change is a narrow description, since the beneficiaries of climate change action will not just be communities, but all of society, and indeed the benefits could extend beyond Scotland. We suggest that the outcome is described as the people of Scotland protected from the impacts of flooding and other environmental consequences of climate change. c) We support the delivery mechanisms under Climate Change but caution that not all woodland creation and management is necessarily beneficial in reducing carbon. Further, we urge that the principles of multibenefit sustainable forestry are maintained so that woodland planting and management aimed primarily at carbon sequestration is designed to ensure clear biodiversity benefits too. d) In principle we support the delivery mechanism under the section on water quality, but believe that emphasis should be placed on contributing to the achievement of wider Water Framework Directive (WFD) objectives, and not be limited to diffuse pollution alone. WFD requires the achievement of good ecological status, which also includes biological and hydro-morphological parameters. Measures supporting the achievement of WFD objectives should aim to deliver wider, multiple benefits. A priority objective under the WFD should be restoration and creation of wetlands which can deliver multiple objectives. These options are fully explored in an EU Guidance Document on wetlands and WFD Business Development a) RSPB Scotland has some concerns about the delivery of the objective of encouraging and retaining new entrants to land based businesses, although the intentions on this objective are unclear. The ability of the land based sector to support new entrants should be considered closely in relation to any measures to encourage them

9 b) The proposal for development and increased use of renewable energy as a means of supporting sustainable agriculture and forestry is acceptable as an objective provided the delivery ensures that there is also a biodiversity objective, and that real carbon savings are made. c) Forestry related biomass planting and management, including short-rotation coppice and short-rotation forestry, must meet the UK Forestry Standard. Such forestry should be encouraged to meet the UK Woodland Assurance Standard (UKWAS), which permits Forest Stewardship Council chain of custody of produce. 5. Do you agree with the proposed integration of schemes into LMCs? 19. Not entirely. In principle, RSPB Scotland supports the proposed integration of existing schemes into LMCs. LMCs are intended as a delivery vehicle for a range of measures, in order to allow a simplified channel of funding to the land manager. If the integration of the various existing schemes into LMCs achieves this purpose, then it should be supported. It is recognised, however, that integrating these existing schemes could potentially result in the dilution of schemes baseline environmental standards (for example, the reduced scope of the UK Forestry Standard by the incorporation of the Scottish Forestry Grants Scheme into LMCs) or jeopardise existing levels of funding, unless this was ring-fenced. Ring-fencing, in turn, largely defeats the object of integrating schemes in the first place, and may result in integration in nothing other than name. Until such time as the delivery mechanisms associated with LMCs (including Rural Development Frameworks and other plans, Regional Guidance Statements, Regional Project Assessment Committees, and relevant advisory components) are fully developed and established, therefore, RSPB Scotland has some serious concerns about the full integration of schemes within LMCs. Specifically, there are concerns about the following: Scottish Forestry Grants Scheme (SFGS) 20. RSPB Scotland is concerned that the integration of forestry into LMCs will result in a reduction in the environmental standards of woodland planting and management funded. There needs to be consistency of environmental standards and targeting across all Tier 2 and 3 woodland creation, improvement and management grants. This requires an integrated approach to the design and operation of woodland elements of Land Management Contracts, both by SEERAD and by FCS. This must mean that the UK Forestry Standard, and targeted work for priority species and habitats is fully, and evenly applied across LMCs. 21. The EC Rural Development Regulation requires the sustainable use of forestry land under Article 36b, in accordance with the Ministerial Conference for Protection of Forests in Europe (MCPFE) agreements (see RDR para 32, p4), which includes the Helsinki Principles of sustainable forest management. The UK 9

10 implemented the 1993 MCPFE Helsinki Principles via the 1998/2004 UK Forestry Standard. 22. In the existing Scottish Forestry Grants Scheme, including Farmland Premium, woodland creation and management was funded upon a woodland definition of >0.25 hectare and 13metres wide (and in the previous Woodland Grant Scheme and Farm Woodland Premium Scheme). Such grant aided work and felling permissions was required by the Forestry Commission to meet the UK Forestry Standard. 23. The LMC proposals removes the UK Forestry Standard from all woodland creation, both from >0.25 to <1 hectare under Tier 2, (Woodland creation Small scale woodland creation <1 hectare ), and Tier 3 woodland creation >1 hectare. The UK Forestry Standard is also not required for management or restocking under Tier RSPB Scotland believes that the UK Forestry Standard must be applied to all Tier 2 & 3 funded woodland planting, restocking and management by all grants administered by Forestry Commission Scotland, and by all of the SEERAD family. This will allow the SRDP to comply with the RDR. This includes: Tier 2 Measures: Investment in Holdings Access for sustainable forest management Woodland creation Small scale woodland creation <1 hectare Tier 3 Measures: Maintaining Landscape Character Tree protection & management in a designed landscapes, Screening farm & forestry structures ; Management of Woodland & Scrub Management of ancient wood pasture, Forest Environment Payments #, Woodland improvement #, Woodland restructuring #; Woodland Creation Woodland creation >1 hectare. # the only Tier 2 & 3 measures currently proposed to require UK Forestry Standard compliance (see SFGS consultation). 25. This is an undesirable reduction in the environmental regulation of woodland planting and management. It could result in the creation of woodland of low intrinsic biodiversity value, or poorly located planting on non-woodland habitats of high biodiversity value, neither of which meet Scotland s biodiversity or sustainable forest management commitments: in the Scottish Biodiversity Strategy & its Scottish List of priority habitats and species; for UK Biodiversity Action Plan priority habitats including upland heathland, blanket and raised bogs - and species; 10

11 in respect to the EU Gothenburg 2010 biodiversity target (an RDR objective); for EU priority species and habitats under the EU Birds and Habitats Directives; & sustainable forestry commitments under the Ministerial Conference for Protection of Forests in Europe (an RDR objective). Such woodland planting and management would also contradict SEERAD and Forestry Commission Scotland s duty to further biodiversity under the Nature Conservation (Scotland) Act Afforestation of non-agricultural land could be detrimental to biodiversity, for example high quality moorland planted using the SRDP Tier 2 woodland creation measure (<1 hectare). Apart from direct loss and damage of priority habitat, the resultant woodland could be of low biodiversity value due to its small size, isolation and inappropriate tree species. Under current proposals, the UK Forestry Standard s environmental checks and balances on the location, design and specification of woodland planting would not be applied to such situations, and all other Tier 2 measures (as well as excluded from some Tier 3 measures identified above). 27. For afforestation of non-agricultural land, the landowner may not be in receipt of Single Farm Payment under Tier 1, so Good Agricultural and Environmental Condition would not apply and neither would the UK Forestry Standard. The Tier 2 Woodland Creation measure is for providing benefits for habitats and species. 28. The current SFGS includes eligibility and targeting criteria for priority biodiversity such as UKBAP non-woodland and woodland priority habitats and species criteria in Stewardship Grant S4 and is targeting FCS Guidance Note 30 and environmental good practice contained in the existing SFGS Specifications (these give operational guidance on how to implement the UK Forestry Standard). The RSPB believes such eligibility criteria and good practice requirements must remain, and be included across all Tier 2 and Tier 3 woodland planting, restocking and management. 29. The priority for LMC Tier 2 and 3 measures for woodland planting, restocking and management must be for the provision of public benefits, in particular biodiversity. This includes the targeted management of existing native woods and plantation forestry to produce genuine high quality biodiversity, by delivering the Scottish, UK, EU and International commitments for woodland priority species and habitats, and those nonwoodland priority species and habitats targets impacted by forestry. 30. This includes improving the biodiversity condition of Scotland s native woods to meet UK Biodiversity Action Plan targets and designated site condition - restoring important open ground habitats, such as blanket bog, that is currently non-native plantation forestry or neighbouring designated non-woodland sites aversely impacted by it. The SRDP must support restructuring of key existing forestry plantations for 11

12 priority species, such as capercaillie and black grouse. There must support the restoration of ancient woodland sites currently planted with non-native forestry plantations. 31. There is no mention of, nor action to implement, the Scottish Executive s commitment at the 2002 World Summit on Sustainable Development, to increase the area of Scotland s woodland that is certified under the UK Woodland Assurance Standard (UKWAS). The SRDP must support action towards increased UKWAS uptake the Forest Plan Woodland Improvement Grant (in the proposed revised SFGS) is helpful, but doesn t mention UKWAS. Ecological survey and management planning towards UKWAS needs to be available in Tier 2 and 3 woodland management. Natural Care Scheme 32. RSPB Scotland supports the integration of Natural Care into the LMC scheme, provided that delivery of favourable condition of features of designated sites is not compromised. We strongly recommend that the availability of existing Natural Care measures (including those under development) remain consistent with the Executive's Financial Guidelines for supporting the management of SSSIs and Natura 2000 sites, or if resources permit wider application, that nationally and internationally designated sites are still clearly prioritised for these measures which have been developed primarily for application to particular sites. This should include Tier 3 moorland measures developed for Moorland Management Schemes previously administered under Natural Care. 33. The Executive has adopted a target of ensuring that 80% of designated features on nationally important wildlife sites should be in favourable condition by 2008 (and we understand is likely to adopt a further target of 95% of features in favourable condition by 2010). Therefore, it is essential that flexibility is retained in the early phase of integration into LMCs, so that that SNH can continue to fulfil its statutory obligations and maintain progress towards targets. 34. It is likely that mechanisms other than those covered by existing and planned Natural Care schemes will be needed in order for the nature conservation target relating to SSSI features to be met. Therefore, in order for delivery of favourable condition for features not to be compromised as a result of merging schemes, we recommend that adequate resources within SRDP be allocated to LMC measures currently or proposed to be delivered through Natural Care, and that a sufficiently high priority in any ranking system be assigned to land supporting SSSI features. 35. We note that SNH s Natural Care Strategy is intended to bring SSSI features into secure management a definition which excludes land managed by environmental NGOs. Since one of the objectives of SRDP/LMCs is to deliver favourable condition of 12

13 SSSI features, environmental NGOs should be eligible for appropriate LMC payments for land which they manage and which supports SSSI features. Scottish Rural Partnership Fund 36. Schemes integrated within LMCs should have as their common theme a close link to land management activities. As such, it is unclear why or how the Scottish Rural Partnership Fund, with its wider range of beneficiaries, and wider remit than land management, could be integrated into LMCs. 6. Are the proposed lists of Tier 2 and Tier 3 measures in Annexes D and E suitable for the delivery of LMC objectives on: i)economic issues ii) social issues iii)environmental issues? 37. No. The lists in Annexes D and E contain some measures that would not contribute to, and in some cases would compromise, LMC objectives. It is essential that such measures, which would not constitute an acceptable use of public funding, are not offered as part of the SRDP. 38. The guiding principles outlined in paragraph 19 of the consultation document must be used to select measures for SRDP support, and it is hard to see how some of those listed in Annexes D and E could meet these principles. RSPB Scotland welcomes the emphasis on the principle of sustainability, which must be applied to all SRDP measures. 39. A further guiding principle should be applied when selecting measures for SRDP inclusion- a test of whether the primary benefit achieved from the measure is a public one, as opposed to a benefit directly to the individual business, to a business sector, or to any other private interest. The latter measures should not be included within the SRDP. Whilst not an exhaustive list, examples of these from Annex E are insurance provision for natural disasters ; modernisation through IT ; water and waste treatment provision ; quality assurance membership ; investment to aid restructuring ; provision of IT ; provision and upgrading of infrastructure ; and, calibration and testing of spreaders. Many of these would also fail to meet some of the guiding principles in paragraph 19. For example, quality assurance membership could not be said to constitute funding to deliver an outcome that would not happen otherwise. 40. The degree of public benefit achieved should be a key principle in prioritising SRDP measures. Measures that achieve multiple objectives, and therefore deliver large amounts of public benefit, should be prioritised. For example, the creation and management of wetlands contributes to objectives for flood management, diffuse pollution, climate change and biodiversity. 41. The refinement of the long lists of measures contained within Annexes D and E is difficult from a national perspective. With the exception of investment in holdings, there 13

14 are very few measures that could not be envisaged as a priority in particular local circumstances. The prioritisation of measures for inclusion in the SRDP therefore depends on the development of appropriate regional mechanisms for delivery. Furthermore, in some cases the level of detail contained within the consultation document makes it difficult to assess their merit for inclusion within the SRDP. We welcome the fact that more detailed discussion of these measures is occurring through SEERAD technical working groups. That said, further specific comments on proposed measures are included in the tables attached at Annexes 1 and 2 to this response. 42. In addition to the comments on specific measures contained within Annexes 1 and 2, RSPB Scotland would like to highlight some essential inclusions within LMCs, without explicit reference to the detail of prescriptions or their place within the LMC tier structure. These are: Inclusion of existing Rural Stewardship Scheme (RSS) measures that benefit corncrake and corn bunting, with improvements as discussed within technical working groups. Inclusion of a suite of measures that benefit black grouse, including the transfer of measures from the existing RSS and SFGS, in an integrated and targeted way. The transfer of other RSS measures, with refinements as discussed in technical working groups, that have demonstrated biodiversity benefits, including those with benefits for breeding waders on farmland. Introduction of integrated set of measures designed to address the issue of cattle retention, especially targeted to where cattle systems deliver biodiversity and social benefits. Measures should not be restricted to native and traditional breeds, as the conservation outcomes are not specific to these. The transfer and incorporation of existing Natural Care and SFGS measures that benefit biodiversity, with the provisos outlined in paragraphs above. A set of measures designed to address water quality and diffuse pollution, and climate change objectives. An integrated set of moorland measures, with associated plan. 7. Is there an appropriate balance between the proposed economic, social and environmental measures for LMCs? 43. No. RSPB Scotland believes the proposals for inclusion, particularly of economic measures within LMCs, does not take account of the three-tier structure of LMCs, and strives for an artificial balance between social, environmental and economic 14

15 measures in the higher two tiers. Tier 1 of LMCs comprises the Single Farm Payment, which nationally dwarfs the sums invested in Tiers 2 and 3 by a ratio of around 3:1. This should be viewed as the economic element of LMCs, and its disproportionate size within the three-tier model recognised. The balance within Tiers 2 and 3 of LMCs should be redressed towards environmental and social measures, especially in a context of limited LMC budgets. 44. It is recognised that the SRDP must allocate a minimum overall spend to Axes 1 and 3 measures, but in the case of economic measures, this can be achieved by the inclusion of existing schemes, such as ABDS and FBDS, and the inclusion of only those economic measures that also demonstrate environmental or social benefits (for example, support for local food initiatives). A test of public benefit achieved, as outlined above, should be applied to all measures to assess their merit for inclusion. Those measures whose benefit is primarily identified as public would pass, whereas measures whose primary benefit is to an individual business or business sector would fail. 45. The roles of payment rates, Regional Guidance Statements, planning, advice, and the operation of project assessment are all crucial to achieving appropriate balance in LMCs from a menu and range of individual measures. The detail of these should be developed with this in mind. 8.Do the proposed measures encourage an integrated approach compatible with sustainable development? 46. RSPB Scotland argues that the principle of sustainable development does not rest with the proposed measures themselves. In themselves, neither do the measures go any way towards encouraging an integrated approach. Some measures in the proposals may be harmful to one aspect of sustainable development whilst encouraging another, unless proper locational and other targeting is inherent. For example, measures aimed at biomass such as woodland creation can be harmful to biodiversity unless these are targeted at supporting environmentally sustainable crop design and management and are located in areas where they avoid environmental harm. Mechanisms to encourage such an integrated approach should be built into the LMC model, to ensure delivery through LMCs contributes to sustainable development. 47. Whole Farm Planning, as advocated in paragraph 50 below, would allow the successful integration of measures at farm level. Without such a system of planning, and accompanying advice, there is no overarching mechanism to ensure sustainable development is an objective at the level of the holding. RSPB Scotland is particularly concerned that the proposals do not contain plans for Tier 2 of LMCs. There is no mechanism at all to guide the selection of Tier 2 measures in the existing LMC Menu Scheme, therefore no guarantee that the overall scheme will not be skewed in terms of measures, and thus hinder sustainable development. This lack of planning should not 15

16 continue into Tier 2 of LMCs from 2007 onwards, or the Executive s aims contained within the Sustainable Development Strategy will not be achieved. 48. Collaborative LMC applications, at a landscape or catchment scale, also have the potential to ensure sustainable development is taken into account at this wider scale. Testing for the sustainability of collaborative applications should be a criterion for their prioritisation within LMCs, as should be the case for individual applications. RSPB Scotland supports the encouragement of applications at the landscape scale. This is especially significant in the context of Water Framework Directive objectives, which require catchment-scale working and an integrated approach to land management. 9. Should there be a mechanism for ensuring that land managers adopt a spread of measures from Tier 2? 49. Yes. Tier 2 should deliver planned outcomes as part of overall LMC delivery. The operation of the existing Land Management Contract Menu Scheme has been carried out without the need for any form of planning. RSPB Scotland considers that this is very unlikely to deliver the best value for the public money that finances it, and may result in land management options being carried out in sub-optimal areas, delivering limited or no environmental benefit. It is also hard to see how basic monitoring of the public benefits delivered through such a scheme can be carried out, without even a basic audit of features and their condition. 50. RSPB Scotland supports the development of a Whole Farm Planning 5 approach to LMCs, which would ensure the effective integration of all three tiers, and the optimum blend of measures selected to maximise the individual farm, croft or other land unit s potential. However, we recognise that the development of such an approach is a longer term aim, and are happy to be involved in the development process. 51. In the interim, RSPB Scotland proposes that the continuation of Tier 2 of LMCs must be based on, at the very least, a farm map, and accompanying targeting notes, indicating where LMC options would be carried out, carried out by an adviser. This should be submitted as a condition of Tier 2 application. An example, drawn up by FWAG and SAC, is attached at Annex 3. Although not our preferred option relative to a Whole Farm Planning approach, this would at least have the advantage of allowing an assessment of delivery through Tier 2, and the basis for monitoring Tier 2 measures on the ground. It is estimated that this type of plan would require one day s input from an adviser, therefore costing from 350. The financing of this advisory input should be through SRDP funds, but should not compromise the existing Tier 2 holding allocation. 5 We refer to a system of Whole Farm Planning for ease of reference, but this should extend to all the land use units covered by LMCs, and should not be restricted to farms and crofts. 16

17 10. Do you agree with the list of capital items as proposed in Annex G? 52. Not entirely. We have some concerns about the standards for deadwood management, and the deer fencing items, and are concerned at the omission of a capital grant item for forest removal for priority habitat restoration. Our concerns are outlined in the table attached below. The calculation of a national set of standard rates of payment is also an area of some concern. The costs of labour, materials and plant will vary significantly across the country, and an averaged set of payment rates would not adequately reflect this. It also appears inconsistent with the principle of regional flexibility. However, if standard rates are to be calculated, this should be done in conjunction with relevant experts, and take account of the variations that exist subnationally. Capital Item 9 Deadwood management Concerns This needs to be done in accordance with the UK Forestry Standard and Forestry Commission deadwood guidance to ensure the creation of high biodiversity quality deadwood management, not very low biodiversity value log piles. 15 Deer Fence 16 and 19 Deer Fence marked to reduce bird collision orange barrier netting. For all deer fence items (15-20, and 22), there are concerns about the presumption for the retention and erection of deer fencing, rather than appropriate deer management with risk reduction of bird strike by priority species such as capercaillie and black grouse - through fence removal, realignment, and as a last resort marking. Risk assessment and fence marking must be in accordance with Forestry Commission Scotland Guidance Note 11 Deer & Fencing. 17 and 20 Deer Fence marked to reduce bird collision wooden droppers. 18 Deer Fence marked to reduce bird collision chestnut palling. Missing Capital Item Forest removal for priority habitat restoration Purpose & operation To restore priority open ground habitats, such as active raised and blanket bogs, that are currently covered with plantation forestry. Criteria for prioritising open-ground sites & habitats for restoration need to be developed and should include: a. Listed as a UK Biodiversity Action Plan priority open-ground 17

18 habitat with restoration targets; b. Direct benefit to Scottish Biodiversity List species and habitats, UK BAP priority species, or be a key UK Biodiversity Action Plan (UK BAP) or Priority/Annex 1 habitats under the EU Habitats Directive; c. Will enhance the biological condition of designated sites, and adjacent areas 6 SSSI, NNR, SAC, SPA, Ramsar; d. Restoration potential presence of key remnant features, and technical ability to improve condition; e. Scale of restoration must be adequate and produce viable habitat linkages to existing areas/networks of target habitats 11. Should the LEADER mechanism be used to deliver across all the Axes? 53. Yes. The LEADER approach is equally applicable for delivering across the other three Axes, and, ideally, it could usefully contribute to environmental and land management objectives. We have some concerns, however, about the ability of existing Local Actions Groups to fully address Axis 2 issues, and deliver for them. Should the LEADER approach become more widely integrated across all three Axes, there is a training and awareness-raising issue to be addressed, particularly in relation to environmental objectives. RSPB Scotland would be happy to assist in such training and awareness raising, as and when the need arises. 12.How can LMCs and LEADER be administered to deliver mutually supportive approaches to rural development? 54. There must be co-ordination between LEADER Local Action Groups and the regional advisory groups that set and review LMC priorities. In this way, the most suitable delivery mechanism (or a combination of the two) can be identified, on the basis of the outcomes that are sought. 13.Do you agree with the proposed Rural Development Framework approach? 55. Yes, in part. RSPB Scotland favours an approach characterised by Whole Farm Planning, forming the basis for all three tiers of LMCs, with increasingly specialised and detailed elements, or modules, reflecting increasingly complex or targeted land management options. This approach must extend beyond farms and crofts, however, as LMCs will be available to a range of land managers, who have not previously been able to access such funding, planning and advice, so perhaps Land Management Planning is a more accurate descriptor. As a stage towards development of this approach, we support the Rural Development Framework approach outlined, and urge that it be developed with these other types of land management in mind. 6 This includes for woodland & non-woodland designated sites, species & habitats; such as improving botanical SACs & SSSIs that are surrounded by forestry, e.g. by pulling back forest edges to expand species rich grassland. 18

19 56. RSPB Scotland believes the Rural Development Framework approach should be extended to Tier 2, and not restricted solely to Tier 3 of LMCs. The absence of a proposal for Tier 2 plans in this consultation is an unfortunate omission. It is not clear why Land Management Planning, should have been re-branded in the consultation as the Rural Development Framework approach, and RSPB Scotland believes the new terminology is unnecessarily confusing. 14. Do you think that the proposed RPAC approach would be an effective means of delivering regional and local priorities while meeting national objectives? 57. No. In principle, RSPB Scotland favours an approach that allows the identification and setting of local and regional priorities, and the subsequent assessment of LMC applications against these priorities. However, we have serious concerns that the development of RPACs has not been sufficiently thought out at this stage, and progressing with an assessment process based on them would not be appropriate. 58. RSPB Scotland would prefer to see a model of Regional Advisory Committees, where regional and local stakeholders would be involved in setting priorities, advising SEERAD, and monitoring regional LMC activity. This would overcome the issues of practicality and local capacity for involvement in RPACs, which could be excessively onerous in terms of input, and overly bureaucratic. LMC applications should not be assessed by committee, but rather by SEERAD, as the accountable body responsible for disbursing public money. As a public body, SEERAD would not only be accountable, but also would have to regard the biodiversity duty contained within the Nature Conservation Scotland Act 2004, in its activities, which would not apply to project assessment committees. 59. RSPB Scotland supports a ranking system for LMC applications that gives appropriate weight to regional/local as well as national priorities, but is transparent and objective, with a points system, not dissimilar to the existing RSS. 60. RSPB Scotland is concerned that regional forestry and woodland strategies, and regionalisation of the RSDP through RPACs could ignore, or insufficiently implement national biodiversity priorities. 61. We have concerns about how the Regional Forestry Forums and their strategies going to fit into/connect with the SRDP RPACs and the revised Scottish Forestry Grants Scheme (SFGS). It is unclear how Forestry Commission Scotland s Regional Advisory Committee is going to operate with the RPAC steering groups. Forestry Commission RACs have a legal duty for quality control of forestry grant schemes (including regional targeted parts of SFGS). 15.Would RPACs be an appropriate approach for applications under all of the Axes? 19

20 62. RSPB Scotland does not wish to comment on this, as we do not support the RPAC model proposed. 16.Which interests do you think should be represented on the RPACs? 63. RSPB Scotland does not support the idea of RPACs. However, Regional Advisory Committees, along the lines suggested in paragraph 58 above, should be established. These should not duplicate existing structures. There should be coordination between these and regional fora for other land and water use issues, including River Basin Management Planning (RBMP)Area Advisory Groups and Regional Forestry Forums. Regional Advisory Committees should be based on an inclusive approach, that ensures all relevant interests are represented, identified at regional level. 17.Do you agree with the proposed system of guidance on regional and local priorities to enable greater targeting in the SRDP? 64. Yes. RSPB Scotland supports the proposed system, as the inclusion of regional and local priorities will allow scarce SRDP funds to be targeted more effectively. The system must be underpinned, however, by national priorities for species, habitats and sites. Regional and local priorities, which are not also national priorities, must be weighted lower than the national ones. For example, we envisage a system that, for species, identifies top national priorities set by the UKBAP and the Scottish biodiversity list 7, (the final version of SNH species framework is also likely to identify these top Scottish priorities), followed by regionally or locally important species identified in the regional guidance. 65. The construction and ongoing review of regional guidance statements should be carried out in consultation with regional and local experts. RSPB Scotland considers the engagement of all relevant expert knowledge in this process to be more important than the detail of the areas that guidance will cover. It would, however, be advantageous to create statements for areas that have some existing relevance to land managers, and respect administrative boundaries. 66. RSPB Scotland has long argued for regional and local flexibility in agrienvironment prescriptions (for example in cutting dates), to reflect the different conditions found across the country. It is hoped that the regional and local priority setting process will also allow this 18a) Do you agree with the range of topics that the guidance will cover? 67. It is unclear what range of topics is being proposed. The guidance should cover the entire range of topics for which funding will be available through Land Management Contracts. 7 From section 2 of the Nature Conservation (Scotland) Act