Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-25wd4 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-28T19:29:06.464Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Impacts of greening measures and flat rate regional payments of the Common Agricultural Policy on Scottish beef and sheep farms

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 January 2015

B. VOSOUGH AHMADI ,
S. SHRESTHA ,
S.G. THOMSON ,
A.P. BARNES  and
A.W. STOTT
B. VOSOUGH AHMADI*
Affiliation:
Land Economy, Environment and Society Group, SRUC, Edinburgh EH9 3JG, UK
S. SHRESTHA
Affiliation:
Land Economy, Environment and Society Group, SRUC, Edinburgh EH9 3JG, UK
S.G. THOMSON
Affiliation:
Land Economy, Environment and Society Group, SRUC, Edinburgh EH9 3JG, UK
A.P. BARNES
Affiliation:
Land Economy, Environment and Society Group, SRUC, Edinburgh EH9 3JG, UK
A.W. STOTT
Affiliation:
Future Farming Systems Research Group, SRUC, Edinburgh EH9 3JG, UK
*
*To whom all correspondence should be addressed. Email: bouda.v.ahmadi@sruc.ac.uk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

The latest Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) reforms could bring substantial changes to Scottish farming communities. Two major components of this reform package, an introduction of environmental measures into the Pillar 1 payments and a move away from historical farm payments towards regionalized area payments, would have a significant effect on altering existing support structures for Scottish farmers, as it would for similar farm types elsewhere in Europe where historic payments are used. An optimizing farm-level model was developed to explore how Scottish beef and sheep farms might be affected by the greening and flat rate payments under the current CAP reforms. Nine different types of beef and sheep farms were identified and detailed biophysical and financial farm-level data for these farm types were used to parameterize the model. Results showed that the greening measures of the CAP did not have much impact on net margins of most of the beef and sheep farm businesses, except for ‘Beef Finisher’ farm types where the net margins decreased by 3%. However, all farm types were better off adopting the greening measures than not qualifying for the greening payments through non-compliance with the measures. The move to regionalized farm payments increased the negative financial impact of greening on most of the farms but it was still substantially lower than the financial sacrifice of not adopting greening measures. Results of maximizing farm net margin, under a hypothetical assumption of excluding farm payments, showed that in most of the mixed (sheep and cattle) and beef suckler cattle farms the optimum stock numbers predicted by the model were lower than actual figures on farm. When the regionalized support payments were allocated to each farm, the proportion of the mixed farms that would increase their stock numbers increased whereas this proportion decreased for beef suckler farms and no impact was predicted in sheep farms. Also under the regionalized support payments, improvements in profitability were found in mixed farms and sheep farms. Some of the specialized beef suckler farms also returned a profit when CAP support was added.

Type
Modelling Animal Systems Research Papers
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 153 , Issue 4 , May 2015 , pp. 676 - 688
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2015 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Ahmad, Z. (1997). Modelling the impact of agricultural policy at the farm level in Punjab, Pakistan. PhD Thesis, University of Nottingham, UK.Google Scholar
Alderman, G. & Cottril, B. R. (1993). Energy and Protein Requirements of Ruminants. An Advisory Manual Prepared by the AFRC Technical Committee on Responses to Nutrients. Wallingford, UK: CAB International.Google Scholar
Allen, B. & Hart, K. (2013). Meeting the EU's environmental challenges through the CAP – how do the reforms measure up? Aspects of Applied Biology 118, 9–22.Google Scholar
Armstrong, H. M., Gordon, I. J., Grant, S. A., Hutchings, N. J., Milne, J. A. & Sibbald, A. R. (1997). A model of the grazing of hill vegetation by sheep in the UK. I. The prediction of vegetation biomass. Journal of Applied Ecology 34, 166–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bartolini, F., Bazzani, G. M., Gallerani, V., Raggi, M. & Viaggi, D. (2007). The impact of water and agriculture policy scenarios on irrigated farming systems in Italy: an analysis based on farm level multi-attribute linear programming models. Agricultural Systems 93, 90–114.Google Scholar
Breen, J. P., Hennessy, T. C. & Thorne, F. S. (2005). The effect of decoupling on the decision to produce: an Irish case study. Food Policy 30, 129–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buchan, K., Matthews, K., Miller, D. & Towers, W. (2010). Modelling Scenarios for CAP Pillar 1 Area Payments using Macaulay Land Capability for Agriculture (and Less Favoured Area Designations). Final Report, 15 October 2010. Aberdeen, UK: The Macaulay Land Use Research Institute. Available online from: http://www.macaulay.ac.uk/LADSS/cap_flattening.html (accessed September 2014).Google Scholar
Donaldson, A. B., Flichman, G. & Webster, J. P. G. (1995). Integrating agronomic and economic models for policy analysis at the farm level: the impact of CAP reform in two European regions. Agricultural Systems 48, 163–178.Google Scholar
Eckersten, H., Blombäck, K., Kätterer, T. & Nyman, P. (2001). Modelling C, N, water and heat dynamics in winter wheat under climate change in southern Sweden. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 86, 221–235.Google Scholar
Eckersten, H., Jansson, P. -E. & Johnsson, H. (1998). SOILN Model, Version 9.2, User's Manual. Division of Hydrotechnics, Communication 98:6. Uppsala, Sweden: Swedish Agricultural University.Google Scholar
ERSA (2013). Economic Report on Scottish Agriculture 2013. Edinburgh, UK: Scottish Government. Available online from: http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2013/06/5219/0 (accessed September 2014).Google Scholar
EU Commission (2011). Legal Proposals for the CAP after 2013. Brussels: European Commission. Available online from: http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/cap-post-2013/legal-proposals/index_en.htm (accessed September 2014).Google Scholar
European Parliament and Council of the European Union (2013). Regulation (EU) No 1307/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 establishing rules for direct payments to farmers under support schemes within the framework of the common agricultural policy and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 637/2008 and Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009. Official Journal of the European Union L347, 608–670.Google Scholar
Gohin, A. (2006). Assessing CAP reform: sensitivity of modelling decoupled policies. Journal of Agricultural Economics 57, 415–440.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gorton, M., Douarin, E., Davidova, S. & Latruffe, L. (2008). Attitudes to agricultural policy and farming futures in the context of the 2003 CAP reform: a comparison of farmers in selected established and new Member States. Journal of Rural Studies 24, 322–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hart, K. & Menadue, H. (2013). Equivalence Mechanisms used for Complying with Greening Requirements under the New Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). A Report to the European Environmental Bureau (EEB). London: Institute for European Environmental Policy.Google Scholar
Hennessy, T., Shrestha, S., Shalloo, L. & Wallace, M. (2009). The inefficiencies of regionalised milk quota trade. Journal of Agricultural Economics 60, 334–347.Google Scholar
Jansson, P. -E. & Karlberg, L. (2004). Coupled Heat and Mass Transfer Model for Soil Plant–Atmosphere Systems. Stockholm, Sweden: Royal Institute of Technology, Dept of Civil and Environmental Engineering.Google Scholar
Mathews, A. (2012). Greening the CAP: the way forward. In 126th EAAE Seminar. New Challenges for EU Agricultural Sector and Rural Areas: Which Role for Public Policy? Capri, Italy, June 27–29, 2012. The Haguem, The Netherlands: European Association of Agricultural Economists. Available online from: http://purl.umn.edu/135483 (accessed September 2014).Google Scholar
Matthews, K. B., Buchan, K., Miller, D. G. & Towers, W. (2013). Reforming the CAP – with area-based payments, who wins and who loses? Land Use Policy 31, 209–222.Google Scholar
NFU Scotland (2014). Parliamentary Update Issue 5 – NFU Scotland. Ingliston, UK: NFU Scotland. Available online from: http://www.nfus.org.uk/members-area/parliamentary-activities (accessed September 2014).Google Scholar
Quality Meat Scotland (2012). Cattle and Sheep Enterprise Profitability in Scotland. Ingliston, UK: Quality Meat Scotland.Google Scholar
Ramsden, S. J., Wilson, P. & Gibbons, J. (2000). Adapting to agenda 2000 on combinable crop farms. Farm Management 10, 606–618.Google Scholar
Renwick, A., Jansson, T., Thomson, S., Revoredo-Giha, C., Barnes, A. & Schwarz, G. (2011). The economic impact of allowing partial decoupling under the 2003 Common Agricultural Policy reforms. In Disaggregated Impacts of CAP Reforms: Proceedings of an OECD Workshop (Eds Moreddu, C.), pp. 35–52. Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment (RACCE) (2014). Scrutiny of the Scottish Government's Implementation of CAP and SRDP 2014–20. Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee. Edinburgh, UK: The Scottish Parliament. RACCE/S4/14/5/1. Available online from: http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/S4_RuralAffairsClimateChangeandEnvironmentCommittee/Meeting%20Papers/Meeting_Papers_2014_02_26.pdf (accessed September 2014).Google Scholar
SAC (2012). The Farm Management Handbook 2012/13. Edinburgh, UK: SAC Consulting.Google Scholar
Shalloo, L., Dillon, P., Rath, M. & Wallace, M. (2004). The Luxembourg Common Agricultural Policy reform agreement: Irish dairy farmers development options. Journal of Farm Management 12, 91–104.Google Scholar
Shrestha, S., Hennessy, T. & Hynes, S. (2007). The effect of decoupling on farming in Ireland: a regional analysis. Irish Journal of Agricultural and Food Research 46, 1–13.Google Scholar
Shrestha, S. K. (2004). Adaptation strategies for dairy farms in central and north-west England under climate change. PhD Thesis, University of Nottingham, UK.Google Scholar
Stott, A. W., Vosough Ahmadi, B., Dwyer, C. M., Kupiec, B., Morgan-Davies, C., Milne, C. E., Ringrose, S., Goddard, P., Phillips, K. & Waterhouse, A. (2012). Interactions between profit and welfare on extensive sheep farms. Animal Welfare 21 (Supp 1), 57–64.Google Scholar
Stott, A. W., Vosough Ahmadi, B., Milne, C. E., Morgan-Davies, C., Dwyer, C. M., Kupiec-Tehan, B., Ringrose, S., Phillips, K. & Waterhouse, A. (2010). Predicted effects of CAP reform on management of Great Britain's extensive sheep farms. In Proceedings of the 84th Annual Conference of the Agricultural Economics Society, March 29th–31st, 2010, Edinburgh, UK. Edinburgh, UK: AES. Available online from: http://purl.umn.edu/91826 (accessed September 2014).Google Scholar
Thomson, S., Holland, J., Waterhouse, A. & Morgan-Davis, C. (2011). Response from the Hills: Business as Usual or a Turning Point? Edinburgh, UK: Rural Policy Centre, SRUC.Google Scholar
Vosough Ahmadi, B., Dwyer, C. M., Erhard, H. W., Morgan-Davies, C., Waterhouse, A., Milne, C. E., Kupiec-Tehan, B., Ringrose, S., Goddard, P., Phillips, K. & Stott, A. W. (2010). Impacts of labour on interactions between economics and animal welfare in extensive sheep farms. In Proceedings of the 84th Annual Conference of the Agricultural Economics Society, March 29th–31st, 2010, Edinburgh, UK. Edinburgh, UK: AES. Available online from: http://purl.umn.edu/91803 (accessed September 2014).Google Scholar
Westhoek, H., van Zeijts, H., Witmer, M., van den Berg, M., Overmars, K., van der Esch, S. & van der Bilt, W. (2012). Greening the CAP. An Analysis of the Effects of the European Commission's Proposals for the Common Agricultural Policy 2014–2020. PBL Note: PBL publication number 500136007. The Hague, The Netherlands: PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency.Google Scholar