If set-aside is to be replaced the industry should lead the way, says the CLA

The CLA, supported by other land industry stakeholders, is developing an alternative approach to that of legislation to manage and recreate the environmental benefits said to come from former set-aside areas.

It is developing an alternative to that of legislation to manage and recreate the environmental benefits said to come from former set-aside areas.

CLA Deputy President William Worsley said: "Many farmers already manage parts of their farm specifically for the environment often with better outcomes than that seen from set-aside. The industry is keen to recognise and build on these achievements whilst ensuring the demands for food security are met. If there is to be a replacement for set-aside, it should be through an industry-led voluntary approach, not through an extension of cross compliance.

"The use of cross compliance to compensate for the loss of set-aside is misconceived. For one, the health check was based on the presumption farmers must operate in a market - hence decoupling. If English farmers are required to keep an area of land out of production, while their European neighbours do not, they will be disadvantaged in the global market place.

"If the government wants more management it should pay for it under Pillar 2 as an environmental payment."

The CLA’s Deputy President went on to say that there is evidence that building on stewardship would provide greater benefits for wildlife and watercourses.

"The cross compliance proposal ignores the extent of environmental goods being delivered through stewardship," he said.

"Requiring farmers to provide yet more environmental goods through cross compliance will discourage them from participating in stewardship which would result in reduced environmental benefit.

"An industry-led approach to re-creating the environmental benefits associated with former set-aside areas is more likely to achieve the environmental benefits than a legislative approach."