Welcome to this group for all farmers and anyone with an interest in farming. Read our blog to see how we're working with farmers and to find out where you can meet us at events.


Find out more about how we're working with farmers and others to provide space for farmland nature in the landscape. Join in the discussion on farming issues and share tips for wildlife-friendly farming.
  • The truth about wildlife

    Did anyone else see ‘The truth about wildlife’ on BBC2 last night? It is on BBC iplayer for the rest of this week. Chris Packham was talking about the loss of wildlife on farmland, and spoke to a wide range of interest groups and farmers. Some would call this farmer bashing, but his call was clearly for the importance of paying farmers to protect wildlife. This is the tough dilemma that RSPB has faced on this issue to date. Raising awareness of declines in farmland birds and other wildlife is vital if we are to secure the funding needed to put this right, but all too often this is seen as putting the blame on the farmer’s door. I would welcome the views of anyone who saw the programme about how this came across.

  • The CAP proposals are out – but what do they mean?


    Last week (12 October), the European Commission’s proposals for CAP reform were finally released. Although long awaited, these proposals are really just the beginning of a long process of negotiation between all 27 EU Member States and the European Parliament. The end result will be a new CAP that will have a profound effect on farmers and the environment from 2014-2020 and beyond.

    The RSPB has been deeply disappointed by the reform proposals, but they can still change and it vital that we all do what we can to ensure that the outcome is a policy that genuinely delivers for farmers, consumers and wildlife.  You can help by contacting your local MP and MEP to ask what they’re doing to ensure wildlife and environmentally-friendly farming gets a fair deal from the CAP.  Read on for more detail...

    So what is being proposed?

    The 2-Pillar CAP that we’re now all familiar with (with Pillar 1 providing direct payments and Pillar 2 funding Rural Development and agri-environment schemes) will remain but with some significant changes.

    Pillar 1

    Instead of the Single Payment Scheme, (also known as the Single Farm Payment), Pillar 1 could feature up to six different payment schemes:

    1. The ‘basic payment scheme’ (which effectively replaces the SPS);
    2. A ‘greening payment’ for farmers observing a set of agricultural practices designed to be beneficial for the climate and environment;
    3. A ‘young farmer’ scheme;
    4. A ‘small farmer’ scheme;
    5. A coupled support scheme and;
    6. A payment for farmers in areas under natural constraint.

    If these schemes are agreed in the forthcoming debate, each Member State will have to offer the first 4 schemes and can choose whether to offer the last 2.  The Basic Payment would account for the majority of Pillar 1 funding .

    Every farmer who entered the Basic Payment Scheme would also be required to enter the ‘Greening scheme’. This scheme would account for 30% of each Member State’s Pillar 1 budget and to get the payment, farmers and land managers would be required to:

    • Protect permanent pasture on their farms where applicable;
    • Assign 7% of their arable land as an Ecological Focus Area (details still to be determined).
    • For farms with more than 3 ha of arable, grow at least 3 different crops each year.

    The young farmer scheme would provide ‘start-up’ support (for a maximum of 5 years) for new entrants to farming who are less than 40 years old.

    The small farmer payment would replace all other payments for those entering the scheme. Recipients would receive a small payment (somewhere between the equivalent of €500-1000) and unlike farmers in all the other schemes would not have to respect cross compliance or the measures set out in the greening payment.

    Coupled support would provide payments linked to production in areas where specific types of farming or sectors are facing difficulties and are important for economic, social or environmental reasons. The payment would not seek to increase production in such areas, rather to maintain it at current levels.

    The payment for areas under natural constraint is effectively providing ‘Less Favoured Area’ support under Pillar 1 in addition to support already provided (and which will continue to be provided) under Pillar 2.

    Pillar 2

    Pillar 2 has not been so dramatically transformed. Member States will still have to develop Rural Development Programmes (at national or regional levels), they will still have to offer agri-environment schemes as part of these RDPs and ‘ring-fence’ 25% of Pillar 2 funding for environmental measures.

    However, these Rural Development Programmes will be expected to deliver a much broader range of objectives than currently, grouped under 6 priorities:

    1. Fostering knowledge transfer in agriculture and forestry;
    2. Enhancing competitiveness of all types of agriculture and enhancing farm viability;
    3. Promoting food chain organisation and risk management in agriculture;
    4. Preserving and enhancing ecosystems dependent on agriculture and forestry;
    5. Promoting resource efficiency and the transition to a low carbon economy in the agriculture, food and forestry sectors;
    6. Realising the jobs potential and development of rural areas.

     So is all this good or bad?

    In a nutshell, the RSPB has been deeply disappointed by the reform proposals. We have long called for reform that links the public money that funds the CAP with clear ‘public goods’ – things like wildlife, healthy soils and clean water which the market doesn’t properly reward. This would mean CAP money going to those farmers and land managers who are protecting and improving the environment alongside food production.

    Not enough money for environmentally friendly farming

    It is positive that the reform proposals require 25% of Pillar 2 money to be used for targeted environmental measures (like England’s Environmental Stewardship schemes for example). However, the CAP budget for 2014-2020 will be less than the current budget in real terms so this will mean smaller pot of money for Pillar 2 across Europe. This won’t be enough to meet the scale of environmental need or the level demand from farmers who want to join.

    Another highly worrying proposal is also on the table – some Member States may be allowed to transfer up to 5% of their Pillar 2 budget into Pillar 1, further reducing the money available for farmers who wish to enter agri-environment schemes.

    Positively, the proposals do provide the ability for Member States to shift (or modulate) up to 10% of Pillar 1 funds into Pillar 2 and this should be welcomed.  Although the subject of modulation is often contentious, it must be remembered that without modulation in the UK, we would not have been able to offer the kind of open-to-all agri-environment schemes we have.

    No support for High Nature Value farming systems

    Despite concerted effort from the RSPB and its BirdLife partners across Europe, the proposals still fail to provide targeted support for HNV systems. These systems, which are generally very extensively managed (and include some of the crofting systems in Scotland and upland farming systems across the UK), deliver outstanding environmental benefits, are socially extremely important and yet currently receive little to no financial support from the CAP.

    Potentially damaging ‘simplification’

    In a bid to make the CAP simpler and more socially acceptable, the proposals contain some very strange measures indeed. The small farmer scheme is a particularly worrying example as it would provide a payment to small farms with no strings attached and no clear policy objective in mind. The RSPB strongly believes that all farms, large and small, have a shared responsibility towards the environment and there should be no means for farms to effectively opt out.

    Another proposal is to target Pillar 1 payments to ‘active’ farmers only. In a bizarre twist, this could actually result in genuine farmers being exclude from CAP direct payments because they have diversified so successfully they make too much of their income from non-farming activities! This proposal could also potentially catch very extensive farming systems which receive very low (but vitally important) CAP payments and where the farmer may have to work another job to make ends meet.

    New ‘greening measures’

    The new greening measures have caught many of the CAP headlines in recent months. The RSPB hopes that the proposed measures can be designed in such a way that they deliver real and meaningful environmental benefits on the ground, including helping to protect the natural resources needed for long term food production.

    In particular, we are extremely hopeful that the proposed Ecological Focus Area requirement will include the right kinds of land management types and features (such as hedges, buffers and margins, areas out of production, ponds and very extensively managed farmland) and will reward farmers who have retained such features, as well as providing an incentive for more farmers to re-inject these features back into the landscape. The EFA requirement is not the same as the old set-aside scheme, which simply aimed to reduce food surpluses by demanding up to 10% of productive farmland be taken out of production. These new requirements could, if designed well, bring both biodiversity and agronomic benefit. However, as for many of the new CAP proposals, the devil will be in the detail.

    So what happens next?

    Now the reform proposals are out, the complex process of ‘co-decision’ starts. Co-decision is new to agricultural policy. In the past the European Commission proposed the policy and the Member States decided the outcome. Now the Commission proposes but the Member States have to share power with the European Parliament.

    The proposals for reform will change during this process and it vital that we all do what we can to ensure that the outcome is a policy that genuinely delivers for environmentally friendly farming. This means ensuring that enough money is available for well-designed agri-environment schemes, that all farmers and land managers do their bit for positive land management and those farming systems which deliver the most for the environment but often get the least from CAP are properly recognised and rewarded.

    You can help by contacting your local MP and MEP to ask what they’re doing to ensure wildlife and environmentally-friendly farming gets a fair deal from the CAP.

    You can find out who your local MP and MEPs are here:

  • A voice for nature friendly farmers?


    Recently I was fortunate enough to meet with Liberal Democrat MEP Andrew Duff and his team along with my colleagues to discuss the future of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) and the current reform proposals and the need for a fairer CAP for wildlife, farmers and the EU tax payer.

    We had a wide ranging discussion including the current situation in Cyprus regarding the continued, illegal and unnecessary slaughter of migrant bird species. Andrew was deeply concerned over the current situation and clearly wanted to do more and will be in further discussions with RSPB’s Birdlife partner; Birdlife Cyprus.

    Andrew was also concerned over how CAP money was and could be spent but importantly we discussed how this money can be spent in good value for money agri-environment options and schemes ensuring the correct land management options at the right scale are selected as we have done at Hope Farm and a growing minority of farmers are doing so here and here and as one farmer Janet Herbert I work with stated; "I consider wildlife to be part of my farm business, and I try to cater for its needs just as I would a crop of wheat. Taxpayers are making a considerable contribution to my income, and I like to think they're getting value for money”

    I’m hopeful that Andrew Duff will be a voice in Europe for nature friendly farmers everywhere, they and the wildlife need him and others.