Set aside programmes: Using U.S. experience to evaluate U.K. proposals

The lengthy U.S. experience with cropland diversion is helpful in evaluating U.K. set aside proposals. Acreage reduction for supply control in the U.S. has never reached its promised potential. Now, a new programme is using set aside for erosion control. Despite 50 years of practice, the past and current U.S. cropland diversions suffer serious problems. Three major U.K. set aside proposals have surfaced, two aimed at supply control and one at the provision of conservation and environmental services from farmland. Each has strengths and disadvantages, but none suffer all of the problems of American programmes, at least in their proposed forms. Too much can easily be expected of set aside which in barest form is just a land use constraint. Its best role may be as an interim supply adjustment mechanism with price restraint, which also provides compensation to disadvan- taged farmers but, most importantly, secures non-market conservation and environmental services.