Grouse moors aren't a great deal to do with farmers though Talk1n, farmers are more likely to be tenants of the major landowners that own the moors. I was a tenant of such an estate myself until two years ago and I never met the owner of the land. He lived in London and certainly didn't farm. I'm sure that some grouse moor activity is non beneficial but it isn't related to the suggestion upthread that sheep farming is a major contributor to these floods. Which is what I was responding to.
CAP reform in 2014 made it more difficult for large estates to take advantage of the payments system here, 'In order to ensure payments target active farmers, sporting estates whose principal activities are not agricultural will be added to the list of business types to be excluded from future Direct Payments. Regulations already stipulate that airports, railway services, waterworks, real estate services, permanent sport and recreational grounds are to be excluded from Direct Payments unless they are able to demonstrate that they are a genuine farming business.'
otto I've read that article a few times and it contains more than a few misinterpretations of eligible land and the payments made to farmers. To be eligible for the SFP land must be of 3 hectares or more and actively farmed. The amount of trees on land has no bearing on eligibility aside from the assumption that a forest is not a farm and therefore wouldn't be claimed on as such.
Most of the articles I have read on this subject are disingenuous when it comes to supposed 'land clearing grants' in that there is never a specific reference to a particular payment that requires land clearance. Only that farmers claim subsidies alongside the fact that some farmers clear trees. This is frequently interpreted as 'farmers are paid to clear trees' when the fact is that farmers are paid subsidies whether they choose to clear trees or not. I cannot find, certainly in Scotland, any set of funds reserved for incentivising vegetation clearance.
This paragraph of the article Just as the tree-planting grants have stopped, the land-clearing grants have risen. In his speech to the Oxford Farming Conference, made during the height of the floods, the environment secretary Owen Paterson boasted that hill farmers "on the least productive land" will now receive "the same direct payment rate on their upland farmland as their lowland counterparts". In other words, even in places where farming makes no sense because the land is so poor, farmers will now be paid more to keep animals there. But to receive this money, they must first remove the trees and scrub that absorb the water falling on the hills. is particularly misleading. It refers to the area of CAP reform that changed direct payments from 'historical activity based' to 'area based' as explained here, Basic Payments in Scotland will be paid on an area basis and, to reflect the variation in land across Scotland, will be based on traditional land quality.There will be three Payment Regions which will determine the final area rates of the Basic Payment.• Payment Region 1 (around 1.8m hectares) This will include parcels of better quality agricultural land that have been typically used for arable cropping, temporary grass and permanent grass. Rough grazing will not be included in Payment Region 1.• Payment Region 2 (around 1m hectares) This will include parcels of better quality rough grazing which have been designated as Less Favoured Areas (LFA) grazing categories B, C, D and non-LFA.• Payment Region 3 (around 2m hectares) This will include parcels of the poorest quality rough grazing which have been designated as LFA grazing category A. In recognition of the di?erence in land quality, the budget will be distributed between these Payment Regions to achieve a balance in 2019 that reflects the variation in the productive capacity of the land.
We're talking about farms that have existed for hundreds of years, not vast expanses of untouched moorland that will need to be cleared before farming can commence. Again there is no qualifying criteria that deals with tree clearance, only productivity level. Although tree volume and placement can influence the level of productivity on land, it is one of many factors. As an example, a tree may restrict tractor access and be removed. Obviously not ideal but hardly classes as 'removing all vegetation'.