HAL Id: hal-01593901
https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01593901
Submitted on 26 Sep 2017HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-entific research documents, whether they are pub-lished or not. The documents may come from teaching and research institutions in France or abroad, or from public or private research centers.
L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires publics ou privés.
Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution - NonCommercial - NoDerivatives| 4.0
Non-rotational set-aside in the UK
Jaap Post, Emmanuel Gras, Stephen Hearn, Herve Guyomard
To cite this version:
Jaap Post, Emmanuel Gras, Stephen Hearn, Herve Guyomard. Non-rotational set-aside in the UK. [Research Report] Commission des Communautés Européennes. 1995, 60 p. �hal-01593901�
LN.R.A .•
namES
[ Z
_·
1-..lM,j
·1~. I..J~'-J>.cJ
ECOi.,jüMlE RURALE BI8L1UTHEQUE INTERIM REPORT iNSTITUTNATIONAl DE lA REStation d'"onom;, '1S·CHERCHEAGRONOMIUUf
.
DOC
OCiologleRllales,
UMENTATION
66, Rue de St B .(feue
f
36042 RENNES CEDEX Tél. : 99 28 54 08. . . et09NON-ROTATIONAL SET-A5IDE IN THE UK
A study at the request of the Commission under contract no. mlh/CONTRlP293/fr1
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
December 1995
Jaap Post
Agrieultural Economies Research Institute (LEI·DLO) P.O. Box 29703 NL-2S02 LS The Hague The Netherlands Emanuel Gras Agro-Industrie & Grandes Cultures 3, Rue Casimir Perier F-7S007 Paris
France
Stephen Hearn Produce Studies West Street, Newbury, Northcrofthouse UK·Berkshire RG13 lHD United Kingdom Herve Gyomard Institut Nationale de la Recherche Agronomique 6S, Rue de Brieuc F-3S042 Rennes de Cedex France
CONTENTS
Page
1. THE BASIS OF THE CAP REFORM AND THE BRITISH DEROGATION ...••... 5
2. BASIC REGULATION OF THE CAP REFORM IN THE UK 6 2.1 Non-eligible land ...•.•...••... 6
2.2 Eligible crops ...•... 6
2.3 Minimum plot and application sizes ...•...•... 6
2.4 Base areas (production ceilings) ...••...••...••... 6
2.4.1 Regional base areas ...•.... 6
2.4.2 Maximum guaranteed area for oilseeds ...•...•... 7
2.5 Payment rates ...•... 7
2.6 The new CAP: Types of set-aside ...•...•... 7
2.6.1 Six year rotational set-aside (1994=15% - 1995=12%) 9 2.6.2 Flexible set aside 9 3. METHODOLOGY _...•...•... 10
3.1 Introduction ...•.•...•...•... 10
3.2 Methods used for calculation of production effects 10 3.2.1 General remarks ...•... 10
3.2.1.1 Which factors influence the choice of the farmer? 10 3.2.1.2 Production effects ...•... 11
3.2.1.3 Realised or estimated production effects ...•.... 12
3.2.2 Calculation of production effects 12 3.2.2.1 Production effect of set-aside of lower yielding fields (1) 12 3.2.2.2 Production effect of change of cropping plan (2) 13 3.2.2.3 Production effect of set-aside by higher yields per hectare (3) 14 3.2.3 Other remarks 14 3.3 Methodology used in the research sample 14 3.3.1 Farmstat ...•...•... 14
3.3.2 Additional Surveys ...•... 16
3.3.3 Comparisons with MAFF census data ...•...•...•... 17
4. FARM TYPE CLASSIFICATION IN EACH 5CHEME 18 5. FARMERS OPINION & COMMENT 21 5.1 Farmers choosing a Non-rotational Set-aside Scheme '. 21 5.1.1 Other Effects of Non-rotational Set-aside Schemes 23 5.2 Farmers choosing Rotational Set-aside ...•... 25
6. THE ROTATIONAL SCHEME SLiPPAGE EFFEa 27 7. THE NON-ROTATIONAL1MIXED SET-ASIDE SLiPPAGE EFFEa ...•... 32
8. COMPARISONS OF ROTATIONAL & NON-ROTATIONAL SLiPPAGE EFFEaS 36 9. SUMMARY 40 10. CONCLUSIONS ...•... 42
Annex 1: Ineligible lands: Exceptions ...•... 47
Annex 2: Sowing and maintenance of crops ...•....•... 48
1. THE BASIS OF THE CAP REFORM AND THE BRITISH DEROGATION
ln 1992, the European Council of Ministers (Ministers of Agriculture) introduced a reform for cereals, oilseeds and protein crops. The basis of this reform was:
- a decrease in European nominal priees - the introduction of compensatory payments
- the introduction of obligatory set-as ide for a variable percentage of land.
The new CAP introduced exclusively rotational set aside at a 15% rate. At the end of the first year of application, the quantity of crop land under set-aside in the U.K. was over 13%, the highest in the EC. During discussions on flexible set-aside, the British government was granted a temporary derogation for a surplus rate of just 3%, compared with 5% in other Member States. The Commission must conduct a two year statistical survey to ascertain whether or not +3% flexible set·aside allows the same production levels as rotation al set-aside. If not, the percentage requirement for flexible set-aside may be increased for 1996 onwards.
The aim of this report is to provide an objective answer to this question and to demonstrate whether or not the British derogation is justified.
The Arable Area Payments Scheme (AAPS) applied in the U.K. provides payment per hectare to producers of cereals, oilseed rape, sunflower seed, soya beans, peas for harvesting dry and field beans.
2. BASIC REGULATION OF THE CAP REFORM IN THE UK
2.1 Non-eligible land
A farmer cannot daim Arable Area Payments for land in permanent grass (ie more than five years), permanent crops, woodland or non-agricultural use on 31 December 1991 (including set-aside), even if it has since been used for arable production.
A farmer also cannot claim Arable Area Payments on land included in the forage area under the Suckler Cow Premium, Beef Special Premium or Hill Livestock Compensatory Allowance Schemes. There are, nonetheless, certain exceptions a farmer can claim Arable Area Payments (Annex 1).
2.2 Eligible crops
• Cerea/s(thereof soft and durum wheat, barley, oat, rye and maize) • Oilseeds (thereof rapeseed, sunflower seed and soya beans)
• Proteins (thereof peas and field beans for harvesting dry aswell as sweet lupins) are eligible for area payments, provided the farmer observes the rules of the scheme.
As a general rule, these crops are eligible for payment whether they are grown for grain or for fodder. However, rapeseed must be grown from seeds of named varieties. Rapeseed grown exclusively for fodder has been excluded from the scheme. Except for sunflower and maize (31 May), ail crops must be sown by 15 May 1996.
2.3 Minimum plot and application sizes
Under the general scheme, the minimum area on which a farmer can apply for Arable Area Payments is 0.3 hectares for each crop group (cereals, oilseeds and proteins).
2.4 Base areas (production ceilings) The level of payment can be influenced by:
• Regional base areas which limit the total area on which payments can be made in any region. Each regional base area is divided into two separate base areas for maize and for other eligible crops.
• The maximum guaranteed area for oilseeds (excluding Iinseed). 2.4.1 Regional base areas
• The total area on which claims are paid in any one regional base area must not exceed the average area sown with eligible crops and set-aside in 1989-91.lftotal claims exceed this level, they will be reduced proportionately.
• A separate base area exists for maize in England and Wales. It was exceeded in 1994 in England and as a consequence, the area on which payment was made in 1994 was reduced and uncompensated set-aside introduced for those claiming for maize under the main scheme in 1995.
2.4.2 Maximum guaranteed area for oilseeds
The "Blair House" agreement between the EC and the United States creates a separate base area for oilseeds (rapeseed, sunflower seed and soya beans but not Iinseed) which the EC has subsequently divided into national reference areas. Deducting the current rate of obligatory set-aside from the EC's separate base area gives the EC's maximum guaranteed area. For the UK's national reference area (385,000 ha), this gives the UK's national maximum guaranteed area of 327,250 ha with a set-aside of 15% and 338,800 ha with a set-aside of 12%.
If the EC's maximum guaranteed area is not exceeded, area payments will not be reduced in the UK even if the UK's maximum guaranteed area is exceeded.
If the EC's maximum guaranteed area is exceeded, oilseeds area payments must be reduced in those Member States who have exceeded their maximum guaranteed areas. Reductions applied to the 1994 crop would also apply.
2.5 Payment rates
Payments rates are fixed on a regional basis using historie average yields. For the purposes of Arable Area Payments, England is designated as a single region. Other regions are Scotland, Wales and Northern Jreland. In these regions we distinguish "Jess favored areas" (LFA) and "non Jess favored areas" (non LFA). Rates are calculated in ecu and converted into sterling at the green exchange rate applicable on 1 July 1995 for the marketing year1995/96.
2.6 The new CAP: Types of set-aside
Land intended for set aside must meet certain eligibility requirements. It must have been farmed by the applicant at least during the previous two years. It must have been cultivated with a view to harvest or have been in a set-aside scheme the previous year. Set-aside land cannot be used for agricultural or agricultural purposes but can be used to grow certain crops for non-food use.
Set aside requirements must be caJculated separately per region. Even if the farmer does not meet the threshold for the simplified scheme in one region, he must set land aside in that region if he is c1aiming under the main scheme.Voluntary set-aside may be situated in any region.
The farmer had to choose between two main schemes: six year rotational set-aside (15% basic set-aside requirement for maketing year1994/95 and 12% for 1995/96)or flexible set-aside (18% basic set-aside requirement for marketing year1994/95and 15% for1995/96).
• Rotational set-aside (1994=15% - 1995=12%) is land which has not been set aside under the Arable Area Payments Scheme at any point during the previous five years. The farmer can only qualify for rotational set-aside if ail the set-aside land he farms in the UK is in six year rotational set-aside.
• Flexible set-aside (1994=1B% - 1995= 15%) may be left in the same place or moved as farmer wishes. Different fields or parcels of land within fields can be treated differently. Even if the farmer rotates sorne land, he must choose the flexible option for ail his set-aside and comply with the basic 18% requirement in 1994 (15% in 1995) 1).
Rates for UK are set out below:
Ecu/tonne f/hectare
England less favored areas Non less favoredareas
Wales Scotland Northern Wales Scotland Northern
Ire land Ireland
Regional average ;dgLç[: 5.89 5.05 5.21 5.03 5.17 5.67 5.22
.
• Cereals (t/ha) . 3.08 3.14 2.84 2.92 3.14 3.45 2.92 · Oilseeds (t/ha) Area payments: • Cereals 269 231 238 230 236 259 239 54 ecu/t • Linseed 520 446 460 444 457 501 461 105 ecu/t - Proteins 389 333 344 332 341 374 345 72 ecu/t - Oilseeds 475 485 438 451 485 533 451 184 ecu/t 5et-aside: - 341 292 302 291 299 328 302..
2.6.1 Six year rotational set-aside (1994=15% - 1995=12%)
This applies only if ail the set-aside land farmed in the UK is in six year rotational set-aside. If any of the aside land is not in a six year rotation, the farmer must choose the flexible set-aside option with the highest set-set-aside requirement.
Under this option land cannot normally be set aside if it has been in set-aside under the Arable Area Payments Scheme at any point during the previous five years (ie land can go into set-aside only once every six years), even if the land was set set-aside by another farmer and whatever the set-aside option. Land in the old Five-year Set-aside Scheme or the temporary 1991/92 one year scheme during the previous five years (but not set aside under the Arable Area Payments Scheme) may be entered into this option.
If the farmer has already set aside ail his eligible land, he may then set as ide land already set aside within the last five years. He will still be considered as being on rotational set-aside and his set-aside obligation will remain at 15% in 1994 (12% in 1995).
If the farmer does not observe rotation requirements when suitable land is available, the land will not be regarded as set-aside. He will thus lose set-aside payments, related crop payments and may suffer further penalties.
2.6.2 Flexible set aside 2)
Although flexible set-aside gives the farmer complete freedom to rotate set-aside land or not, he must respect land eligibility ru les.
If the farmer chooses flexible set-aside and wishes to leave part or ail of his set-aside in the same place, he may opt for guaranteed set-aside on an area no greater than his basic (18% or 15%) set-aside obligation. This offers a guarantee of set-aside payments in return for keeping the same plots of land in set-aside for five years.
2) Changing from six year rotational set-aside to flexible set-aside and vice-versa is possible at the end of any set-aside year, unless the farmer is in guaranteed set-aside or has transferred set-aside. Land which has been set aside under any option of the Arable Area Payments Scheme in the previous five years cannot be entered into rotational set aside.
3. METHODOLOGY
3.1 Introduction
ln this chapter tow subjects will be discussed. The first part deals with the methodology which is developed to calculate slippage effects. The second part describes the data base which is used for the calculation of the slippage effects.
3.2 Methods used for calculation of production effects
The objective of this project is to calculate the difference in production effect between rotational and non-rotational set-aside. To be able to answer this question the production effect of rotational set-aside and of non-rotational set-aside will be calculated separately first.
Next a comparison will be made between the production effects of both kinds of set-aside. In this section the methods used for the calculation of the slippage effects will be described. The methods are based on the data which are available from the sample described in section 3.1.
This section begins with some general remarks concerning the choice of one of the types of set-aside, the different components of production effects and the specifie difficulty with regard to calculate the production effect of rotational set-aside (3.2.1). Next the method to calculate the production effect of non-rotational set-aside (3.2.2) and rotational set-aside (3.2.3) are described. 3.2.1 General remarks
3.2.1.1 Which factors influence the choice of the farmer?
As described in chapter 2 farmers with more than a certain acreage hectares of crops which are eligible for arable area payments have to set-aside part of the land with these crops; basically they had in 1993/94the following options:
a) rotational set-aside of 15% of the land under the Arable Area Payments 5cheme; b) non-rotational set-aside of 18% of the land under the scheme.
For 1994/95these percentages are lower respectively 12% and 15%, the difference in set-aside requirement between the two types (3%) didn't change.
Which factors does influence the farmers choice for rotational respectively non-rotational set-aside? From a theoretical point of view it may be expected that income effects will be to a large extent decisive for this choice 3). In general farmers will prefer non-rotational set-aside if they expect the negative effects on income to be smaller than in the case of rotational set-aside and vice versa. Income effects may be the result of:
a) changes in gross returnsandlor;
b) changes in production costs. ad a) Changes in gross returns
A major cause for a change in returns is the decrease in the volume of production. 50 if the production decrease of a 15% rotation al set-aside exceeds that one for an 18% non-rotational set-aside the choice will be in favour of non-rotational set-aside.
Differences in product priees can also play a role in decision making. Besides it might happen that additional returns can be obtained which are not similar for both kinds of set-aside. An
3) Other effects may play a role also. Generally speaking the farmer is maximizing an utility function wich depends on consumption and leisure. See also note 5.
r
example is the additional payments which can be obtained under certain conditions for land in non-rotational set-aside in the framework of the Countryside Access 5cheme 4). These kind of payments will also play a role in the choice between rotational and non-rotational set-aside. ad b) Changes in production costs
Aiso changes in production costs will influence the choice between the two types of set-aside. 50 it may happen that the expected decrease in production in the case of non-rotational set-aside exceeds that of rotational set-set-aside and farmers nevertheless due to a stronger decrease in costs, opt for non-rotational set-aside. This holds in particular for paid costs. However, it may also hold for unpaid costs, especially when farmers income is high 5). In this kind of situations the slippage effect will be smaller than in the situation that differences in costs doesn't play a role at ail in the choice of set-aside 6).
This study is Iimited to the calculation of the production effect. The mentioned factors under a) and b) are not an object of the project. These factors will influence the level of the production effect. Or in other words, these factors explain differences in production effect. See also chapter 5. that deals with the reasons farmers mentioned as important for their choice of the type of set-aside. Many of these reasons are directly related to the factors mentioned above.
3.2.1.2 Production effects
As said before the project is directed to the calculation of production effects. For the development of a methodology based on the data of the sam pie described in paragraph 3.1 a distinction can be made from a theoretical point of view. These three production effects have to be seen as hypothesis between three different kinds of production effects due to set-aside.
Production effect 1
A first reason that the reduction in production as a percentage in total production differs from the percentage of set-aside is that less fertile land is taken out of production. In particular for non-rotational set-aside it might be expected that this factor plays an important role as only a limited part of the eligible acreage will be subject of set-aside over the whole period of the scheme. Non-rotational set-aside will become more attractive as far as differences in fertility within a farm increase. From that point of view non-rotational set-aside will be more attractive for bigger farms than for smaller ones as far as the quality of the land of these farms is less homogenous than that of the sm aller farmers.
Production effect 2
A second reason causing a slippage effect might be a change in cropping pattern. To minimize income effects. farmers can skip as far as possible the lower yielding crops from their cropping plan. This can play a role for farmers who opt for rotational set-aside and for farmers who opt for non-rotational set-aside as weil. However. one has to take into account that there may be a
4) Of course eventually additional costs have also to be taken into account.
5) Asmentioned in note 3 farmers are maximizing an utility function. 50 if a farmer have to choose between consumption and leisure. leisure (Iess unpaid labour costs) will be probably more attractive when his/her consumption (income) is already high.
6) From that point of view monetary developments which enforce higher agricultural incomes in the UK may have. probably to a limited extent, a stimulating effect on the participation in non-rotational set-aside and a decreasing effect on the lever of slippage.
general movement to higher yielding crops. In this study only the change in cropping pattern due to the set-aside scheme is relevant.
Production effect 3
A third reason for changes in production might be that the yield per hectare is influenced by the set-aside scheme. As land have to be set-aside, more attention can be paid to the acreage under production and this stimulates the increase of yields. Besides, in the year after set-aside, yields might be higer due to an increase in fertility. This is of course only relevant for rotational set-aside. There are however also other factors influencing the yield per hectare with sometimes contrary effeets. 50 will lower output priees stimulate a decrease in inputs and this can have a negative effect on yields per hectare. Moreover, yields increase in the course of time due to a number of reasons and /astly there is a wide variation in yields from one year to another.
3.2.1.3 Realised or estimated production effects
The object of the study is to calculate as far as possible production effects on basis of the experiences with the scheme during 1994/95 and 1995/96. For rotational set-aside this can result in wrong conclusions. The duration of the scheme for this type of set-aside is, as known, six years. The production effects of rotational set-aside may be different during the course of this period. It seems reasonable that, ail other things being the same, farmers prefer to set-aside in the first years of that period the land whieh causes the smallest negative effects on production. 50, slippage effeets are generally spoken to be expected bigger in the first years of the six year period of rotational set-aside. However, only data for the first two years of rotational set-aside are available. limiting the study to these first years might cause an overestimation of the slip page effects of rotational set-aside. For that reason an estimation of the production effects for the whole period of the six year period of rotational set-aside has to be made also.
For non-rotational set-aside these 'dynamic' aspects are more limited as the parcels taken out of production are the same for the whole period of the regulation. It can be argued that the production effect will decrease in the course of time as set-aside will be better integrated in farm management. However, this kind of production consequences are probably more marginal and moreover they play also a role for rotational set-aside.
3.2.2 Calculation of production effects
ln the last paragraph a distinction has been made in three causes of slippage effects: 1. reduction of production effect by set-aside of lower yielding fields
2. reduction of production effects by skipping /ower yielding crops in the cropping plan; 3. productioneffeets by boosting yields per hectare.
The calculation of each of these production effects will be discussed in this paragraph. (The expressions for these calculations will be added in the next stage).
3.2.2.1 Production effect of set-aside of lower yielding fields (1)
For the calculation of the production effect of set-aside of lower yielding fields, two questions have to be answered:
1. whieh parcels are taken out of production?;
2. what is the production on this land compared with that on the land still in production? Both points will be discussed for non-rotational and rotational set-aside separately.
Non-rotational set-aside
For farms with non-rotational set-aside it is known from the sample whieh land is set-aside. For the land under set-aside it is also known which crops were grown in 1991/1992and 199211993
and the yields of crops in these years. A/50for the farm as a whole yields are known per crop.50 it is possible to express the yield per crop of the land now under non-rotational set-aside as a
-percentage of the yield per crop for the whole farm. The difference between 100 and the calculated percentage can be considered as slippage effect 7).
Rotational set-aside
For farms with rotational set-aside the slippage effect can be calculated just in the same way as for non-rotational set-aside. The fields set-aside are known from the sample for 1993/94, as weil as for 1994/95 and 1995/96. An identical calculation as for non-rotational set-aside can be made for each year. On basis of the results for the individual years a projection will be made for the remaining years and an average per year will be calculated.
As said before, the slippage effect of rotational set-aside will probably be overestimated, if not, the whole period of six years is covered in the calculation. When each part of the eligible area has to be set-aside during one year in these six year period, than the slippage effect will be zero. In other words, a 15% rotational set-aside will result in a 15% reduction in production as the whole period is taken into account. However, 10% of the land will be in production during the whole period of six years. It can be argued that this ten percent consists of the land with the highest yields. The yields of ail plots are known from the data of the sample in the years 1991/92 and 1992/93. On basis of these data per crop the yield per hectare, excfuding the 10% acreage with the highest yields, will be calculated 8). These calculated yields will be expressed as a percentage of the average yield per crop50 incfuding the whole area under a certain crop. The
difference between 100 and this percentage can be seen as slippage effect.
As said above, this calculation is made on basis of the assumption that the highest yielding fields will not be set-aside during the six year period of the scheme. Of course, it can be questioned if this is a right assumption. As far as it is not justified, the result will be an overestimation of the slip page effect. To get an idea about the rightness of the assumption it will be checked up to which extent fields belonging to the category with the highest yield are set-aside du ring the years in which the regulation is in force. If needed, a correction factor will be introduced.
3.2.2.2 Production effect of change of cropping plan (2)
Part of the slippage can be caused by a change in the cropping plan. In particular, if lower yielding crops are skipped from the cropping plan, the reduction in production will be smaller than the reduction in cropped area. To calculate this effect, the acreage per crop in 1994/95 is multiplied by the yield per crop in 1991/92 and next aggregated to total production. This sum will be divided by the number of hectares, 50 in that way an average yield for the cropping
pattern of 1994/95 under 1991/92 circumstances is calculated. The yield per hectare in 1991/92 minus the percentage set-aside cou Id be expected when there is no slippage. The average yield per hectare for the 1994/95 cropping pattern will be expressed as a percentage of this reduced average yield. The difference with 100 can be considered as slippage.
The year 1994/95 is chosen as this is the first year with rotational and non-rotational set·aside as weil. The year 1991/92 is chosen as it was the last year before the introduction of obligatory set-aside with more or Jess usual sowing conditions 9). It is important that the difference in time is not too big as also other factors influence the cropping pattern by changing the relative
7) This slippage effect can also be calculated on basis of estimated yields for the set-aside land. This can be done on basis of the assumption that the development of the yields for set-aside land would have been similar to that of the land under crops. In relative sense the result would have been the same (see also paragraph 3.2.2.3).
8) Asit is difficult to make this calculation, the first effort will be to base the calculation only on yields of the field with the highest yield.
9) The year1992193experienced very difficult sowing conditions and therefore crop rotation were badly confused.
"
profitability of the different crops. Nevertheless it is relevant to make similar calculations for other years, so 1995/96 under 1991/92 conditions, ete.. By this we get more insight to whieh extent slippage effects depends on the year on which the calculations are based.
3.2.2.3 Production effect of set-aside by higher yields per hectare (3)
It is argued above that the introduction of set-aside might have an increasing effect on yields per hectare. This effect will not be calculated independently for rotational and non-rotational set-aside. The two most important reasons are:
1. it is rather difficult to calculate these effects as there is a wide variety in yields from year to year due to differences in weather conditions;
2. there are other factors influencing yields just as output priees in the United Kingdom. In the last few years market priees changed due to changes in institutional priees in the framework of the CAP-reform and to monetary developments.
The objective of the study is to calculate the difference in production effect between rotational and non-rotational. It appeared to be difficult to calculate the production effect of rotation al and non-rotational set-aside separately. However, it is possible to calculate roughly the difference in production effects directly. This can be done by a comparison of the development of the yield per crop on farms with rotational set-aside on the one hand and with non-rotational set-aside on the other hand 10). If there is a reliable difference in development between the two kinds of set-aside this difference will be accounted directly as an additional difference in production effects.
3.2'.3 Other remarks
The calculations dealt with in paragraph 3.2.2 can be made on different levels, on farm level, on regional level and on the nationallevel. The procedure in this study is as follows. The general line will be that the farm level is the starting point. 50 the slippage effects are calculated on farm level. The results are presented on regional and national level. On both levels the distribution and average effects will be presented as weil. The result of the calculations of both type of effects will be presented separately and totalized. On basis of the results of the calculation of the slippage effect of the two kinds of set-aside a comparison will be made between the production effect of 15% rotational set-aside on the one hand and 18% non-rotational set-aside on the other hand. Next the effect of higher yield (par. 3.2.2.3) will be added. Ali results will be presented as weighted data. Preceding to the presentation of the slippage effects some information will be given concerning distribution of yields per crop and composition of cropping pattern.
3.3 Methodology used in the research sam pie
The project has been undertaken utilising the Produce 5tudies ·FARMSTAT' survey of approximately 2,000 arable farmers representatively distributed throughout Great Britain. In addition to the analysis of data from the Farmstat panel, two additional surveys were undertaken, the first in December 1994, and the second in September 1995.
3.3.1 Farmstat
The Farmstat panel has been in operation since 1980, and in that time has contacted arable farmers on four separate occasions each year to collect information on ail aspects of arable farm inputs and outputs.
10) ln principle this has to be done on the level of individual fields. However, changes in cropping plan make comparisons diffieult.
The Farmstat samples, for the two years of the project were: Unweighted Farmers: TOTAL Region North/Yorks/Humber East Mid/ands East Anglia South East South West N. West/Wales/W. Mids Scotland 1995 Farmers on panel: 1982 338 290 305 332 198 270 249 Year: 1994 Farmers on panel: 187611) 320 289 294 305 181 244 243
The sample was drawn from the Ministry of Agricultural Fisheries and Food annual June Census so as to ensure a fully statistically representative sam pie of British arable farming. Sampling was designed to ensure representation of larger farms, as these accounted for the majority of land use. Computing of results readjusted the over representation of large farms to ensure reporting of results in correct proportions.
The Farmstat survey was conducted in:
January (face-to-face) May (face-to-face) July (face-to-face) September (telephone)
collected information on winter sown crops, pesticide & fertiliser use; and informationonyie/ds from late harvested crops.
collected informationonspring sown crops, pesticide & fertiliser for the period JanuarytoMay.
collected informationonapplications of pesticides & fertiliser for the period MaytoJuly.
collected informationonlate applied pesticides, and early harvested crop yields.
For the purposes of this study, the January, May and September contacts formed the basis of the study, providing yield and crop information.
The Farmstat panel survey collected information for each field on each farm, and in this way provided the facility to track individual fields over a period of years. For the purpose of this study it is this facility that has provided the ability to establish the differences between farrns on each set-aside scheme, and in doing so identify the production reduction effect for each farm on each scheme.
ln total 45,000 fields are surveyed 4 times a year. At each occasion one of 300 interviewers ca lied on each panel members farm and collected information relating for the period between that visit and the previous contact. This regular contact ensured a minimum period of recall for the farmer and maximised the accuracy of the data. To aid recall, each farmer was provided with a 'field by field' diary for accu rate recording of each input on each field. This system met the farmers need to record input use under FEPA regulations. In addition it provided Farmstat with the opportunity to accurately record the set-aside scheme of the field and farm.
, 1) Sam pie shown is for those farrners contacted at cali 2, some farmers in the panel were uncontactable at that time.
16 3.3.2 Additional Surveys Unweighted Farmers: 28 16 32 36 11 10 25 December 1994 Any Non·Rotational 5cheme 158 1,349 224 227 225 227 119 161 166 Year: 255 44 23 52 65 27 23 21 5eptember 1995 Any Non-Rotational 5cheme
Farmers on the Rotational 5cheme in 1995 Unweighted Farmers: TOTAL Region North/Yorks/Humber East Midlands East Anglia South East South West N. West/Wa/es/W.Mids Scotland
Two additional surveys were undertaken to supplement the quantitative information provided on yields by Farmstat. These additional surveys were undertaken to identify the attitudes to selection of the set-aside scheme. both with farmers who chose a non-rotational scheme. and farmers who chose a rotational scheme.
The first survey was undertaken in December 1994 and surveyed 158 farmers who chose either the non-rotational (guaranteed) or the mixed (flexible) schemes. This survey was then repeated in 5eptember 1995 amongst both groups of farmers. The regional distribution of these farmers is shown below.
The key objective of this qualitative phase was to Iink rationale behind behaviour with actual behaviour determined from Farmstat. The survey sam pie of non-rotational (flexible or guaranteed) was therefore drawn from Farmstat panel members.
Ali computing, data entry and rigorous accuracy and edit checks were conducted in-house at Produce Studies.
ln addition to the survey of farmers choosing a non-rotational scheme option; a survey of rotational scheme farmers was undertaken at the request of the Commission, along side the survey of non-rotational farmers in 5eptember 1995. The regional distribution of these farmers is shown below. TOTAL Region North/Yorks/Humber East Midlands East Anglia South East South West N, West/Wales/W.Mids Scotland
80th surveys of non-rotational and rotational farmers were weighted using Farmstat MAFF derived weights to provide national estimates of qualitative opinion.
ln total there were 1,349 panel members with rotational set-as ide, 255 with non-rotational set-aside and the remainder of the panel (378 farmers) grew no set-aside in 1995.
r
3.3.3 Comparisons with MAFF census data
Comparisons with MAFF data were complicated by delays in the publishing of census statistics. The latest census information available is for June 1994, and so comparisons cou Id only be made with crop areas identified at that time.
Farmstat information produced in 1994 was estimated by establishing the cropping in each field in the previous year so that weighting could be derived from the 1993 June census. Naturally, a margin or error exists within a survey, but Farmstat provides the best available information in the UK. This is illustrated by Farmstat's estimate of 1994 crop areas when compared to actual 1994 crop areas derived from the MAFF census.
Crop: Farmstat Estimate '94 MAFF Census '9412) Farmstat as
(OOO's ha) (OOO's ha) %ofMAFF
Wheat 1846 1811 102% Spring Barley 455 479 95% Winter Barley 664 627 106% Oa15 125 109 175% Field Beans 744 149 97% Oilseed Rape 407 404 100% Sugar Beet 184 195 94% Potatoes 164 164 100% Unseed 64 5B 110%
ALL ARABLE (ROPS 4053 3996 707%
Set-aside 669 1436' (' inc/udes ail other
land, ie. woodland
etc.)
Set-aside data is not released separately by the MAFF census, making comparisons in data impossible. However, on the basis that other crop areas produce a good correlation with MAFF statistics, it is Iikely that the set-aside area is a/so a good estimate.
12) MAFF census includes ail farms with greater than 0.5ha of crops. Farmstat is designed to represent farms with greater than 10ha of crops.
4. FARM TYPE CLASSIFICATION IN EACH SCHEME
Identification of farm types choosing the non-rotational set-aside schemes requires a sizable base of farmers to provide reliable results. In 1994, just 9.2% of farmers in a set-aside scheme chose the non-rotational options. In 1995 however this increased to 14%, providing a more robust base for analysis of farm type.
ln total there were 56,630 arable farmers in Great Britain in 1994 growing more than 10 hectares of arable crops. Of these farmers 16,050 had no set-aside in 1994 (2B%); 69% had one form of set-aside or another, and a further 3% were unable to comment of their set-aside scheme. These proportions remained similar in 1995. For the purposes of this research it is assumed that farmers who were unable to state whether they had set-aside, had no set-aside.
ln 1994 non-rotational and mixed set-aside were evenly distributed throughout each region of Great Britain, only in Scotland did uptake of the mixed scheme significantly differ from the remainder of the country. In most regions the proportion of farmers choosing to enter the mixed/non-rotational scheme increased significantly in the 1995 harvest year. In most of these cases this increase in uptake of non-rotational seta-aside favoured the more flexible mixed scheme.
Regional distribution of farmers on each set-aside scheme
1995 1994
12% 15% 15% 15% 18% 18%
Rot Non Mix Rot Non Mix
TOTAL 33,940 2,468 3,072 34,420 2,020 1,730 (86%) (6%) (8%) (90%) (5%) (5%) Region North/Yorks/Humber 86% 5% 9% 91% 5% 4% East Mid/ands 90% 6% 4% 94% 4% 2% East Anglia 81% 9% 10% 89% 6% 5% South East 84% 6% 10% 89% 6% 5% South West 84% 7% 9% 89% 6% 5% N. West/Wa/es/W.Mids 88% 5% 7% 95% 2% 3% Scot/and 89% 6% 5% 86% 6% 8%
Farmers on the rotational set-aside scheme grew some 3.5 million hectares of arable crops (inclusive of set-aside) on their farms in 1994, equating to an average arable enterprise size of 102 hectares per farm. On these farms there was estimated to be 508,000 hectares of set-aside, or 14.5% 13) of the total arable enterprise size. In 1995 the average arable enterprise size of farms on the rotational scheme decreased slightly to 99ha, while some 431,000 hectares of set-as ide was ta ken out of production, equating to a drop in area of set-aside by 15% from 1994 to 1995. This decrease was less than the rate of reduction in set-aside requirement, and may have been due to an increase in the uptake of voluntary set-aside on rotational farms.
On farms in 1994 under the rnixed non-rotational scheme some 270,000 ha of arable crops were grown, of which 46,500 ha was set-aside (17.2% of arable land). Farms on the guaranteed
13) This percentage is lower than the 15% required in 1994 due to the definition of arable area, which in this case includes Sugar 8eet and Potato crops - which lie outside of the set-aside scheme.
non-rotational scheme grew 230,300 ha, of which 49,000 was under set-aside (21%). This latter high proportion of set-aside was caused by addition al voluntary and 5 year set-aside areas. 5et-aside under these schemes in 1995 grew to a total of 128,000 ha, a 34% increase on the previous year. In contrast to an average arable enterprise size of around 100 hectares for rotational set-aside farms, non-rotational farms were on average 27% larger, at 127 hectares.
Arable enterprise size, therefore, appeared to have a significant impact on the proportion of farmers uptaking the non-rotational or mixed set-aside schemes. large farmers where more inclined to uptake the scheme than small farmers 14). It is difficult to justify this rationale, other than to surmise that large farmers have potentially more marginal (either location or productivity) land, thereby justifying non-rotational set-aside. Or due to a higher overall income to the farm, a higher proportion of set-aside can be accommodated on the farm.
1994 18% 18% Non Mix 2,020 1.730 (5%) (5%) 5% 1% 6% 5% 4% 6% 6% 8% 3% 8% 9% 9%
Farm size distribution of farmers on each set-aside scheme
1995
12% 15% 15% 15%
Rot Non Mix Rot
TOTAL 33,940 2,468 3,072 34,420
(86%) (6%) (8%) (90%)
Arable enterprise size:
Upto 49.9ha 89% 8% 3% 94% 50-99.9 ha 87% 6% 7% 89% 100-149.9 ha 84% 3% 13% 90% 150-199.9 ha 81% 7% 12% 86% 200-299.9 ha 82% 5% 13% 89% 300+ ha 77% 4% 18% 82%
ln total 51% of land in non-rotational set-aside was located on farms with more than 150 hectares of arable crops (25,100 ha) and was managed by just 22% of farmers on that scheme, i1lustrating the significant large farm orientation of this set-aside option. 58% of the land area under the mixed scheme was located on farms with more than 150 ha of arable crops, and was grown by 37% of farmers on this scheme.
50il type appeared to have a limited impact on the choice of set-aside scheme. In both 1994 and 1995 lighter soils were favoured to a greater degree th an heavy soils for both non-rotational and mixed schemes. This orientation may potentially reflect the lower yielding capability of Iighter soils for the key arable crops.
Sail type distribution of farmers on each set-aside scheme
1995 1994
12% 15% 15% 15% 18% 18%
Rot Non Mix Rot Non Mix
TOTAL 33,940 2,468 3,072 34,420 2,020 1,730 (86%) (6%) (8%) (90%) (5%) (5%) Soil type: Light soifs 85% 6% 9% 86% 7% 7% Medium soifs 86% 7% 7% 91% 5% 4% Heavy soils 88% 5% 7% 93% 4% 3% Mixed soifs 80% 8% 12% 84% 8% 8%
14) Please note, that ail farmer had at least some set-aside for the purposes of this analysis. Therefore small farmers that produced less than the 80t requirement are excluded.
Distribution of set-aside schemesby proportion of land in arable crops
ln 1994 there was a indication that farms with high proportions of arable land, and by definition those that are most likely to be large farms favoured either mixed or non-rotational schemes to a higher degree than farms with mixed cropping.
Mixed cropping farms have other sources of income on the farm, such as livestock and grassland, which traditionally utilise poor land better than arable crops, thereby reducing the benefit of permanently setting aside marginal fields.
ln 1995 this orientation remained similar, although, once again farms which had less than 30%of land under arable crops bucked the trend of more specialist arable enterprises.
1995 1994
12% 15% 15% 15% 18% 18%
Rot Non Mix Rot Non Mix
TOTAL 33,940 2,468 3,072 34,420 2,020 7,730 (86%) (6%) (8%) (90%) (5%) (5%) % Arable on Farm: 27 to30 80% 75% 5% 84% 8% 8% 37 to40 87% 8% 5% 99% 7% 0% 47 to50 90% 4% 6% 95% 2% 2% 57 to60 97% 6% 3% 94% 5% 7% 67 to 70 88% 6% 6% 87% 8% 5% 77 to80 87% 6% 7% 94% 3% 3% 87 to90 80% 4% 76% 88% 6% 6% 97 to 700 85% 7% 8% 88% 6% 6%
The table below shows the yield classification groups for winter wheat and oilseed rape and the distribution of set-aside schemes within each group. In both cases there was a trend towards lower yielding farms favouring non-rotational set·aside schemes to a greater degree than higher yielding farms.
Distribution of set-aside schemes by yield grouping
1995 1994
12% 15% 15% 15% 18% 18%
Rot Non Mix Rot Non Mix
YieldofWinter Wheat:
TOTAL 27,498 1,877 2,674 28,047 7,624 7,452 (86%) (6%) (8%) (90%) (5%) (5%) VeryLow 83% 70% 7% 88% 9% 3% Low 82% 6% 72% 88% 7% 5% Medium 86% 6% 8% 93% 3% 5% High 88% 4% 8% 90% 5% 5% Very High 87% 5% 8% 97% 4% 4%
YieldofOilseed Rape:
TOTAL 70,463 667 7,364 72,322 570 882 (84%) (5%) (77%) (90%) (4%) (6%) VeryLow 76% 3% 27% 89% 4% 8% Low 80% 8% 72% 89% 5% 6% Medium 84% 7% 9% 89% 3% 8% High 89% 3% 8% 90% 5% 6% Very High 84% 6% 70% 96% 7% 4%
5. FARMERS OPINION &COMMENT
5.1 Farmers choosing a Non-rotational Set-aside Scheme
The decision making process behind choosing non-rotational set-aside was a critical component in assessing the production reduction effect from each scheme. Indeed the temptation is to assume that the farmer makes a rational decision on economic grounds alone. This assumption, would in turn suggest that non-rotational set-aside was located on the lowest yielding fields on the farm, as these presented the lowest decrease in farm income.
ln December 1994, and September 1995 Farmstat conducted surveys of attitudes towards the selection of set-aside fields. The findings are outlined below, and ciearly identify other, non-economic or partial non-economic rationale behind set-aside field selection.
ln 1994 just 3,750 farmers were estimated to have chosen to enter the non-rotational set-aside schemes, just 6.6% of the arable farming population, and 9.2% of farmers with some set-aside land. This very low uptake of the schemes in 1994 may reflect the low value placed in the scheme at that time, or indeed may reflect the lack of knowledge of these set-aside options. In 1995 however, there was a significant increase in the farmers on non-rotational set-aside schemes, estimated to be 5,540 farmers, 14% of the farmers with set-aside.
Farmers on the non-rotational or mixed set-aside schemes were asked (without prompting) what reasons they had for selection of their chosen set-aside fields. 60% and 12% of farmers (in 1994) respectively stated that the basis for their decision was due to unproductive land and 'set-aside being more economic', that is to say over two thirds of farmers cited economics as the objective behind their decision. However, farmers frequently stated non-economic or partial economic reasons as weil, ranging from simple 'convenience' to 'difficult access' and land that is 'difficult to work on' (24%,12% & 13% respectively). In 1995, farmers were once again asked to justify their decision, in this year a similar ratio of answers emerged to those recorded in 1994.
The results indicate that in the order of two thirds of farmers consider economics as the main motivation behind set-aside field selection while, significantly, a third of farmers were prepared to sacrifice profitability for the benefit of a reduction in the effort of farming. For these farmers the objective behind set-aside selection was not to minimise production loss, which in turn, could result in set-aside fields that may have otherwise yielded greater than the average for the farm. This consequently would lead to production reduction exceeding the rate of set-aside, ie. the reverse of the slippage effect.
Key reasons for selection of Non·Rotationall Mixed 5et·aside 5eptember 1995 December 1994
Unproductive land
Conveniencelsuited methods Landisdifficulttowork on Set-aside moreeconomic
Accessisdifficult Pronetoflooding Rabbit problems Used for grazing Headlands only Wildlife benefits Gives more flexibility Fields prone toweeds Used for game conservancy
52% 18% 14% 12% 10% 8% 5% 5% 4% 4% 4% 3% 2% 60% 24% 13% 12% 12% 11% 6% 2% 4% 2% 2% 3%
Prompted Benefits of Entry to Non-Rotational 5et·aside 5chemes
Some these reasons for selection of fields, may have influenced the degree of slippage recorded in later chapters of this report. For example, should a field have suffered from bad rabbit damage in the year of analysis, results would show more slippage than may have occurred had the field not suffered from rabbit damage in that year.
The December 1994 survey showed relatively little difference in the decision making between farms on the non·rotational scheme and those on the mixed scheme.
Analysis of results from the December 1994 survey proved difficult due to just 158 farmers responding to the questionnaire. In 1994/95crop year, the marked increase in the uptake of the non·rotational set·aside schemes, made regional & farm size etc.. analysis easier and more appropriate.
ln 1995 the selection of 'unproductive' land for set·aside was stated, as shown above, by 52% of farmers as a consideration in choice of field set·aside. This proportion of farmers exceeded 60% in the South East and NorthlYorksiHumber regions of G8, while was just 40% in Scotland. In contrast Scottish farmers were more inclined to select set·aside on the basis of convenience and steepness of land, rather than an assessment of production capacity. In this instance, Scottish farmers were notably different from English and Welsh farmers.
There were no significant trends in the decision behind field selection in relation to arable enterprisesize.
When farmers were prompted by the interviewer as to the possible benefits of non·rotational set·aside, improvements to the wildlife habitat and the environment (66% in '94, 59% in '95) were most widely regarded. Although three quarters of farmers cited this benefit when prompted, only around 5% mentioned these benefits when unprompted, indicating a low priority to these advantages, but never the less indicating the value to farmers of environmental benefits.
A similar proportion (63% in '94, 55% in '95) reiterated their earlier comments by stating that set·aside allowed 'concentration of production on to the most economic land' while 47% and 39% in 1994 and 1995 respectively, stated that 'concentration of production onto accessible land' was a key benefit of set·aside. Clearly, some farmers found accessibility and productivity to be mutually beneficially, confirming the broad findings of the earlier section of a two third : one third split between economics and convenience when selecting set·aside fields.
A quarter of farmers in both years considered non·rotational set·aside to provide a route to decreasing personal time on the farm, and the same proportion felt that they were able to reduce machinery costs. 18% in 1994 and 17% in 1995 of farmers considered non-rotational set-aside to provide the facility to decrease labour costs. It is important to note that these benefits were considered to be over and above those benefits provided by entry to the rotational set-aside scheme.
5eptember 1995
Improved wildlife habitats and the
environment 59%
Concentrate production onto the most
productive land 55%
Concentrate production onto the most
accessible land 39%
Decrease personal time on the farm 21 % Decreased machinery costs 21% Decreased labour costs 17%
None of these 11% December 1994 66% 63% 47% 23% 23% 18% 3%
5.1.1 Other Effects of Non-rotational Set-aside Schemes
The Commission were keen to investigate issues that were peripheral to the overall objective to the study. The supplementary surveys provided the ideal forum for this investigation. The results are outlined below.
The impact of set-aside transfer was investigated. Some 73% of farmers in 1994 (amongst those on the non-rotational schemes) considered this option would have no impact on the scale of set-aside on their farms; 5% considered the option likely to increase the area of set-aside on the farm, while just 3% felt the option would decrease the area of set-aside (18% felt they were unable to offer a considered opinion). In 1995 the potential for acquiring and transferring was considered by respondents to decrease, with just 3% of farmers on the non-rotational schemés considering a transfer option.
The degree to which set-aside would be acquired under the transfer option was 6% in 1994 amongst farmers on the guaranteed non-rotational scheme, while 4% of farmers on the flexible mixed scheme would aim to acquire set·aside. This slight difference in findings reflects the expected behaviour of guaranteed non-rotational set-aside farms, who are considered more Iikely to possess marginal land, and therefore presumably more willing to acquire extra set-aside.
The Impact of 5et·Aside Transfer
5eptember 1995
Non·Rot Mixed
December 1994
Non·Rot Mixed
Will have no impactonthe set-aside
area on the farm 83%
Likelytoincrease through acquiring
transferred set-aside 2%
Likelytodecrease by transferring it
toanother farm 1% 86% 2% 1% 73% 6% 1% 73% 4% 6% Don'tKnow 14% 12% 19% 17%
Coppicing on set-aside land was an option offered to farmers in 1994 for the first time. At this time 2% of the farmers on the non-rotational schemes had chosen to plant coppice, 87% had not. The remaining 11% of farmers were uncontactable for this survey. The number of farmers choosing to coppice increased to 4% in 1995, reflecting the interest from 8% of farmers in 1994 very Iikely to uptake coppice within the next four years.
Amongst farmers not currently growing coppice in 1994 (3,260 farmers), 20% considered it either very or fairly likely that they would plant coppice within the next 4 years. This proportion was higher (24%) amongst farmers on the mixed scheme, and lower (16%) amongst farmers on the guaranteed rotational scheme. There was a slight down turn of interest amongst non-coppice growers in 1995 than previously, when some 78% of farmers felt they were unlikely to uptake coppicing.
An important issue in assessing the impact of set-aside on UK farms, was the identification of the environmental and welfare effects of set-aside. Within the supplementary questionnaires in 1994 and 1995, farmers were asked to rate the effect of set-aside on wildlife and the farming environ ment, and to compare this rating with the degree of effort farmers should place in improving the wildlife habitat and environment on their farms. The average scores are shown at the next page:
Voluntary set-aside was an option available to farmers to set-aside a higher proportion of their land than permitted under the non-rotational schemes. In 1994 16% of farmers chose to' enter this higher rate of set-aside (585 farmers), 67% of these farmers were on the non-' rotational scheme as weil, and 33% were on the mixed scheme.
Voluntary aside was of significantly greater interest in 1995 amongst farmers on both set-aside schemes. In 199529% of non-rotational farmers would choose to take extra set-as ide, three times as many as in the previous year, a clear sign of the value placed in the scheme.
11% 2% 87% December 1994 585 (16%) December 1994 2815 (75%) 352 (9%) 1,601 (29%) 3,618 (65%) 321 (6%) September 1995
Don't Know 1 Not Answered 8%
Currently - YES 4% Currently - NO 88% Currently - YES Currently - NO Don'tknow Coppice Growing ln next4 vears ?: Very Iikely 3% 8% Fairly Iikely 8% 12% Fairly unlikely 15% 11% Very unlikely 63% 53% Don'tknow 11% 16%
Voluntaryset-asideuptake
Effects of 5et-aside on Wildlife Habitats and the Environment 5eptember 1995
Mean score· 5=greatest effort
The effort farmers should place in
improving the wildlife habitat on 3.5 their farms
The effort farmers should place in
improving the farming environment 3.8
Mean score - 5=strongest agreement
December 1994
3.5
3.8
5et-aside can be usedtoimprove wildlife habitats
Set-aside improves the farming environment
4.0
2.8
4.2
2.6
5.2 Farmers choosing Rotational Set-aside
Three questions were asked of farmers in September 1995 to establish the degree of awareness of non-rotational set-aside schemes amongst rotation al set-aside farmers. and to identify the rationale behind non selection of the non-rotational schemes.
A key factor potentially affecting the lever of uptake of non-rotational set-aside schemes was. naturally, the general awareness of the schemes on offer. While reasons for selection of rotational schemes in preference to non-rotational schemes are likely to raise the opposite response to the reasons for selection of non-rotational set-aside discussed above, it was the awareness of schemes that may have proven to be the one issue that had previously not been discussed.
When approaching farmers with this issue, 8% of farmers on the rotational scheme c1aimed to be unaware of a non-rotational or mixed scheme option. This level of unawareness is undoubtedly significant. but does not in itself account for the low uptake of non-rotational set-aside in both 1994 and 1995.
The highest level of unawareness of non-rotational schemes was in the
NorthlYorkslHumberside region of Great Britain. where 12% of farmers c1aimed not to be aware of the non-rotational schemes.
Farmers on the Rotational 5cheme who were unaware of the non-rotational scheme options TOTAL Region NorthlYorkslHumber East Midlands East Anglia South East South West N. West/WaleslW. Mids Scotland 8% 12% 8% 8% 5% 6% 9% 6%
Unprompted Benefits of Entry to the Rotational Set·aside Scheme
Proportion of farmers in non-rotational set-aside:
Reasons other than awareness where discussed with respondents to c1arify the decision ma king process. Top of the list of reasons was a preference to continue to farm rather than accept a high proportion of set-as ide. This reason may equate to a production and income motive, or indeed less pure economic considerations such as 'way of life' etc .. However, most other considerations were more readily interpreted as direetly financial.
14% 19% 25%
Pre fer tofarm 34%
Too higha rate of set-aside 22% Rotational offers cropping benefits 18%
No poor land 17%
Not considered profitable 16%
Simplers~tem 12%
Don 't be/ieve in set-aside 9%
No unaccessible land 5%
More beneficial onasmafl farm 2%
Amore flexible s~tem 1%
ln order to assess the future uptake of non-rotational set-aside a series of scenarios were examined. This investigated the reaetion of farmers to a situation were the rate of non-rotational to rotational was reduced from 3% to 2% or to 1%.
The results of these additional questions showed that 7% of farmers on the rotational scheme would opt for the non-rotational scheme jf the differential between non-rotational and rotational was 2%; while a further 11 % would take up the non-rotational scheme jf the differential was just 1%.
It is therefore Iikely that should the rate of non-rotational set-aside be dropped to just 1% differential around 4,000 to 4,500 (1,780 + 2,550) farmers would favour the non-rotational schemes. increasing uptake of non-rotational set-aside in Great Britain by c80%, to nearly 25% of farms required to set-aside land.
(1995 survey data)
Ata2% differential in rate between non and rotational set-aside At a3% differential in rate between non and rotational set-aside
Ata 1%differential in rate between non and rotational set-aside
6. THE ROTATIONAL 5CHEME 5L1PPAGE EFFECT
il
PRODUCTION EFFECI 1. Production reduction from setting aside least fertile landIt is clear from previous chapters within this report that a proportion of farmers consider other factors other than production potential when selecting fields for set-aside. Amongst these farmers, it is possible that set-aside field selection may prove to be amongst fields of higher than average yield for the farm.
51ippage effects caused by selection of the least fertile land, in theory should have little effect on land aside under the rotational scheme as far as most of the eligible land has to be set-aside in one year of the duration of the scheme. The table below illustrates the average yield for crops sown on 1994 & 1995 set-aside land in 1992 & 1993 (the selection of 1992 and 1993 minimises the impact of the introduction of set-aside itself on this analysis). The basis for this caiculation was the average yield performance of set-as ide fields in years prior to the introduction of non-rotational set-aside schemes. The yields achieved in 1992 & 1993 on fields set-aside in 1994 & 1995 were compared to the average for the farm in the same year. 5uch an analysis allows us to establish the degree to which farmers selected their least productive fields for rotational set-aside in 1995 and 1994.
Rotational set-aside fields selected in both 1995 and 1994, produced yields in 1992 and 1993 at similar" levels to the average for the farm, indicating that farmers did not choose to set-aside their least fertile land for rotational set-aside. However, for both winter wheat and winter barley, the two largest arable crops in Great Britain, the selection of set-aside fields was marginally orientated towards land of lower than average productivity. The degree to which farmers were able to continuously select their least productive fields is, of course, restricted by the 6 year rotation requirement. This will naturally result in an only limited average production reduction from set-aside field selection as the 6 year rotation comes to an end.
Production Effect 1. (Land Fertility)
ROTATIONAL Yieldson 1994set- Yieldson 1995set- Overall
5CHEME aside fields in: aside fields in: Average:
as % of farm average as % of farm average
1994 1995 1992 1993 1992 1993 Winter Wheat 100.7 97.6 99.6 100.9 99.2 100.3 Winter Barley 100.4 99.5 100.1 99.3 100.0 99.7 Spring Barley 101.8 100.0 100.4 100.6 100.9 100.5 Total Cereals 99.6 100.2 Spring OSR 98.7 97.3 99.8 100.1 98.0 99.9 WinterOSR 100.6 94.0 99.5 100.5 97.3 100.0
Greatest slippage for 1994 rotation al set-aside fields was recorded for winter wheat based on 1993 yields, where production decreased by 0.19 tonnes for each set-aside hectare that would otherwise have been sown to winter wheat in 1994.
This degree of slippage effect is c1early linked to the average yield fram the crop, as weil as the degree to which land fertility affects overall yield. Oilseed rape for example recorded relatively Iittle slip page in tonnes due to its low yielding capacity, even in a situation where set-aside fields were estimated to offer 6% lower potential than the rest of the farm.
ROTATIONAL Yields on 1994 set- Yields on 1995set- Overall
SCHEME aside fields in: aside fields in: Average:
(as tonnes per ha difference from farm average)
1994 1995
1992 1993 1992 1993
Winter Wheat +0.05 -0.19 -0.03 +0.07 -0.07 +0.05
Win ter Barley +0.03 -0.03 +0.07 -0.04 -0.00 +0.02
5pring Barley +0.09 -0.00 +0.02 +0.03 +0.05 +0.03
Total Cereals -0.04 +0.04
5pring 05R -0.04
-o.
OB -0.07 -0.00 -0.06 -0.01Winter05R +0.02 -0.7B -0.07 +0.07 -O.OS -0.00
Total Oilseed Rape -O.OS -0.00
(+)= negative slip page effect, ie. set-aside fields offered greater yield potential than fields remaining in production
Slippage effect from the selection of the least productive land for set-aside fields, offers just one potential cause of slippage. A second approach relates to the degree to which farmers deliberately ensure that their most productive land remains consistently in production, even under a 6 year rotational set-aside scheme.
ln 1994 there was a 15% rotational set-aside requirement; which after a 6 year rotation would leave 10% of land on each farm untouched by set-aside. For 1995 the set-aside rate decreased to 12%, leaving (potentially) 28% of land untouched by set-aside. Should the most fertile land consistently be retained in production the effect of set-aside land is diminished (slippage effect).
For the purposes of analysis, a study was undertaken ta determine the yield of the highest yielding field (the most Iikely to be retained in production) on the farm as a proportion of ail fields on the farm. Once again, this approach was based on yield data recorded in 1992 and 1993 (pre non-rotational set-aside), with the yield from the highest yielding field calculated against the average from the restof the farm.
Yields of the highest yielding winter wheat fields were significantly in excess of other crops, pointing to two possible reasons. Firstly, winter wheat may respond better to highly fertile land, or secondly yields of winter wheat were more variable than the other crops assessed. The highest yielding fields in both 1992 and 1993 (amongst farms who where on the rotational set-aside scheme in 1994 and 1995) were in the order of 4 - 10% higher than the average for the whole farm. This equates to an yield advantage of between .1 and .8 tonnes per hectare.
Production Effect 1. (Retaining the highest yielding fields in production)
ROTATIONAL Yields of highest Yields of highest Overaff
SCHEME yielding field in: yielding field in: Average:
as % of farm average as % offarm average
1994 1995
1992 1993 1992 1993
Win ter Wheat 111.1 170.5 170.7 110.1 110.8 110.4
Winter Barley 104.7 104.3 104.2 104.1 104.5 104.2
Spring Barley 106.6 104.9 104.9 105.1 105.8 105.0
TotalCereals 108.7 108.2
Spring OSR 107.B 705.7 702.8 706.3 103.8 104.6
Winter OSR 705.7 704.2 105.6 703.8 104.6 104.7
Total Oilseed Rape 104.4 104.7 ROTATIONAL Yields of highest Yields of highest Overaff
SCHEME yielding fields in: yielding fields in: Average: (as tonnes per ha difference from farm average)
1994
ill..2
1992 1993 1992 1993
Winter Wheat +0.82 +0.84 +0.79 +0.84 +0.83 +0.82
Win ter Barfey +0.31 +0.27 +0.28 +0.26 +0.29 +0.27
Spring Barley +0.32 +0.25 +0.26 +0.26 +0.29 +0.26
Total Cerea/s +0.63 +0.62
Spring OSR +0.05 +0.17 +0.08 +0.19 +0.11 +0.14
WinterOSR +0.15 +0.12 +0.17 +0.11 +0.14 +0.14
Total Oilseed Rape +0.13 +0.14
(+)= indicates the degree to which the highest yielding fields exceed the average yield of
thatcrop on the farm
For the 15%set-asidescheme, 10% oflandwill never be set-aside. It has been establishedthat
the highest yielding field of winterwheat, is on average 10.6% higher yielding than the rest of thewheatfields on the farm. Thisequatestoaslippage effect of:
10.8% of production x 10% ofland area = 7.2% slippage
