NBA rejects Pack plans for support top-up fund as 'too complicated'

BRIAN Pack, who is sifting through the 100 or so responses to his inquiry into the future of farm support in Scotland, will see a rejection of his proposal for a top-up fund for special projects, when he opens up the letter from the National Beef Association.

The NBA does not believe the surrender of up to 50 per cent of the existing total subsidy into a central fund to which bids can be made will benefit the beef sector.

It would rather see additional support income being channelled into Scotland's Disadvantaged Areas to maintain suckled calf numbers. And to this end, the NBA would use money from a top-sliced cash pool assembled through Article 68, which allows member states a degree of leeway in support payments.

The top-up fund proposed by Pack is dismissed as "an endeavour that could prove too ambitious, and too complicated, for Scottish agriculture to make, as well as being a move likely to provoke longstanding inter-sectoral antagonism that would be best avoided".

Although the NBA does not see any other option than going to an area-based system for support payments, it rejects the Pack suggestion that payments should be based on the Macaulay Land Classification. This, it claims, would not offer enough cover for livestock farmers in poorer parts of the country.

However, the NBA does give total support for the concept that subsidies should go only to those in active production and not to those whose only qualification is ownership of land.

This productivity clause was, according to the NBA, "the most important principle for the distribution of common agricultural policy funds", with as large a proportion of the payments as possible going to businesses actively engaged in working the land and managing animals. This would be far more beneficial to Scottish agriculture than filtering off much-needed funds to "passive landowners, pay project managers, or other administrators".

Beefing up this view, the NBA wants to define an active farmer qualifying for SFP receipt as "all persons either owning animals, or being responsible for their wellbeing" with the level of payment being proportionate to hours committed to active management.

To this end, it agrees there should be a minimum stocking level before subsidies are paid. But, at the other end of the scale, the NBA does not support the view of a maximum stocking density. This is because it believes livestock farmers appreciate being able to adopt flexible management systems that can easily adjust to shifts in the management climate.