Philip Jones, Alison Strange, Simon Mortimer, Julian Park, Geoff Griffiths & Steven Warnock
Article 15 of the Rural Development Regulation (RDR) requires
that support payments available in the Less Favoured Areas (LFAs) be
differentiated according to environmental and socio-economic criteria,
i.e:
- distinguish areas according to the degree of agricultural disadvantage and/or environmental value; and
- result in clearly defined boundaries between classified areas that are distinct from each other in meaningful ways
- In 2001,the Hill Farm Allowance Scheme (HFAS) became the primary means of delivering support to producers in LFAs. The HFAS delivers payments on an area basis, with rates varied according to class of land within the LFA (DA, SDA, Moorland and common land). The Scheme offers a range of top up payments where certain additional environmental criteria are met
- Although the HFAS is an improvement on the system that went before, it is accepted that it does not fully achieve the objectives of the RDR. The main problem is that the land designations that exist within the LFA are not based on factors that are clear determinants of either natural agricultural disadvantage or ecological variation. The LFA boundary, which was determined in 1975, is purported to distinguish areas where land is infertile, leading to less than average economic performance with an agriculturally dependent, dwindling population. In fact, the boundary was carried over virtually unchanged from earlier UK designations based on altitude and prevailing farm system
- While it is accepted that the resulting classification (together with the addition of DA areas in the 1980s) captures areas that are disadvantaged in comparison to lowland agriculture, it is not a transparent system, and neither does it form a basis for distinguishing level of disadvantage or ecological variation between areas within the LFA boundary. For this reason the RDR requirements listed above cannot be met. What is required is a classification based on the physical characteristics of upland land, rather than on variables that are themselves determined by level of disadvantage and which are subject to intervention by human agency.
OBJECTIVES
- The research makes use of GIS techniques, together with a range of the most up-to-date national data-sets to create a state-of-the-art land classification. The land classification has been derived using a classification framework recently developed at The University of Reading as part of the 3-year Living Landscape Project
- A modified version of the methodology used in the Living Landscapes Project provides a mappable series of landscape types at a scale appropriate to administration of the Hill Farm Allowance Scheme. The validity of the landscape types identified using the landscape character framework methodology was tested in order to ensure that they reflect real differences in ecological value.
APPROACH
Selection of case study regions
Three case study areas were selected within the LFAs in England on the basis that the areas are representative of major landscape types and because comprehensive data sources exist for them. These case study areas were in Dartmoor (Devon), the Peak District (Derbyshire) and the northern Pennines (County Durham).
Refine landscape typeology
The landscape classification methodology used in the Living Landscapes Project was refined by the removal of cultural variables and the insertion of climatic variables. The LFA land in the case study areas was then classified into landscape types.
Validate maps of landscape type for case study areas
The validity of the landscape types was tested in order to ensure that they reflect real differences in the harshness of farming conditions. Farmers in each case study area were asked to validate the division of their holding into different landscape types.
Derive a set of disadvantage scores for the landscape types
A disadvantage score was built up for each land class by aggregating individual disadvantage scores for each of the component variables that contribute to the classification. These variable scores were generated by a ranking procedure involving the project team and validated by panel of external experts. The aggregate scores were generated after weighting each variable in terms of its relative contribution to level of disadvantage.
Validate disadvantage scores for case study areas
The validity of the disadvantage scores was tested in order to ensure that they reflect real differences in the harshness of farming conditions. Farmers in each case study area were asked to assess the relative harshness of farming conditions for a range of parcels withing their holding. These scores were compared with estimates of disadvantage for each parcel calculated using a 50m resolution GIS spatial model.
Prototype structure for area payments
An illustrative system of area payments was devised and overlaid upon the disadvantage ratings of the landscape types. This was done for the purpose of commenting on the likely re-distribution effects should the new classification be adopted as the basis for the HFAS.
Evaluate the impact on farm businesses
Spreadsheet modeling of representative upland
farms was employed to explore the financial implications of the new
classification, with particular reference to redistribution effects.
Sponsor
