Implications for food production, land use and rural development of the European Union's Single Farm Payment: Indications from a survey of farmers' intentions in Germany, Portugal and the UK

The 2003 reform of the European Union's (EU) Common Agricultural Policy introduced a decoupled income support for farmers called the Single Farm Payment (SFP). Concerns were raised about possible future land use and production changes and their impact on rural communities. Here, such concerns are considered against the workings of the SFP in three EU Member States. Various quantitative studies that have determined the likely impact of the SFP within the EU and the study countries are reviewed. We present the results of a farm survey conducted in the study countries in which farmers' responses to a decoupling scenario similar to the SFP were sought. We found that little short-term change was proposed in the three, rather different, study countries with only 30% of the farmers stating that they would alter their mix of farm activities. Furthermore, less than 30% of all respondents in each country would idle any land under decoupling. Of those who would adopt a new activity, the most popular choices were forestry, woodland and non-food crops. (c) 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Quantifying the impact of land-use change on European farmland bird populations

The EU has adopted the European Farmland Bird Index (EFBI) as a Structural and Sustainable Development Indicator and a proxy for wider biodiversity health on farmland. Changes in the EFBI over coming years are likely to reflect how well agri-environment schemes (AES), funded under Pillar 2 (Axis 2) of the Common Agricultural Policy, have been able to offset the detrimental impacts of past agricultural changes and deliver appropriate hazard prevention or risk mitigation strategies alongside current and future agricultural change. The delivery of a stable or positive trend in the EFBI will depend on the provision of sufficient funding to appropriately designed and implemented AES. We present a trait-based framework which can be used to quantify the detrimental impact of land-use change on farmland bird populations across Europe. We use the framework to show that changes in resource availability within the cropped area of agricultural landscapes have been the key driver of current declines in farmland bird populations. We assess the relative contribution of each Member State to the level of the EFBI and explore the relationship between risk contribution and Axis 2 funding allocation. Our results suggest that agricultural changes in each Member State do not have an equal impact on the EFBI, with land-use and management change in Spain having a particularly large influence on its level, and that funding is poorly targeted with respect to biodiversity conservation needs. We also use the framework to predict the EFBI in 2020 for a number of land-use change scenarios. This approach can be used to guide both the development and implementation of targeted AES and the objective distribution of Pillar 2 funds between and within Member States. We hope that this will contribute to the cost-effective and efficient delivery of Rural Development strategy and biodiversity conservation targets.

Modelling the likely impact of healthy eating guidelines on agricultural production and land use in England and Wales

Quadratic programming techniques were applied to household food consumption data in England and Wales to estimate likely changes in diet under healthy eating guidelines, and the consequences this would have on agriculture and land use in England and Wales. The first step entailed imposing nutrient restrictions on food consumption following dietary recommendations suggested by the UK Department of Health. The resulting diet was used, in a second step as a proxy for demand in agricultural commodities, to test the impact of such a scenario on food production and land use in England and Wales and the impacts of this on agricultural landscapes. Results of the diet optimisation indicated a large drop in consumption of foods rich in saturated fats and sugar, essentially cheese and sugar-based products, along with lesser cuts of fat and meat products. Conversely, consumption of fruit and vegetables, cereals, and flour would increase to meet dietary fibre recommendations. Such a shift in demand would dramatically affect production patterns: the financial net margin of England and Wales agriculture would rise, due to increased production of high market value and high economic margin crops. Some regions would, however, be negatively affected, mostly those dependent on beef cattle and sheep production that could not benefit from an increased demand for cereals and horticultural crops. The effects of these changes would also be felt in upstream industries, such as animal feed suppliers. While arable dominated landscapes would be little affected, pastoral landscapes would suffer through loss of grazing management and, possibly, land abandonment, especially in upland areas.

Perspectives on the role of UK planning in land and property markets

There is a popular view that land use planning regulations (‘planning’) is hostile to both development and the development industry. Part of the reason for the prominence of this view is the homogenising of the notion of ‘planning’ and its reduction to development control. This paper argues that panning controls in the UK are far more sophisticated and, drawing upon empirical evidence of key property interests proposes a more complex and nuanced view of planning controls that, in large part, has the support of the developers and others.

Whose land was it anyway? The Crichel Down Rules and the sale of public land

The guiding principle of compulsory purchase of interests in land in England and Wales is that of fairness, best stated in the words of Lord Justice Scott in Horn v Sunderland Corporation when he said that the owner has “the right to be put, so far as money can do it, in the same position as if his land had not been taken from him”. In many instances, land acquired by compulsion subsequently becomes surplus to the requirements of the acquiring authority. This may be because the intended development scheme was scrapped, or substantially modified, or that after the passage of time the use of the land for which the purchase took place is no longer required. More controversially it may be that for ‘operational reasons’ the acquiring authority knowingly purchased more land than was required for the scheme. Under these circumstances, the Crichel Down Rules (‘the Rules’) require government departments and other statutory bodies to offer back to the former owners or their successors, any land previously so acquired by, or under the threat of, compulsory purchase.

The Finance Acts 1998 and 2000: can the owners of agricultural land continue to gain from their capital disposals?

This paper seeks to analyse and discuss, from the perspective of the owners of agricultural land, the main changes to the Capital Gains Tax regime introduced in the Finance Act 1998 and subsequently amended in the Finance Act 2000. The replacement of indexation with a new Taper relief is examined, along with the phasing out of Retirement relief, and the interaction of Taper relief with Rollover relief. The opportunity for tax mitigation by the owners of agricultural land is critically examined.