The Scottish Government

« Previous | Contents | Next »

Listen

4 CROSS-COMPLIANCE

4.1 The EC has proposed changes aimed at simplifying cross-compliance and these include the withdrawal of some elements of Statutory Management Requirements ( SMRs) that are not considered relevant to farming activities, including components relating to the 'Conservation of Birds' and 'Conservation of Natural Habitats and Wild Fauna and Flora' Directives (components of SMRs 1 and 5). While these will still be mandatory requirements under domestic legislation there will no longer be a link with cross-compliance. Changes are also being made to the SMRs on requirements for animal identification and traceability; this includes deleting SMR 7 and introducing a new SMR 8.

4.2 In addition, changes are proposed to Good Agricultural and Environmental Condition ( GAEC) which are aimed at retaining environmental benefits from set-aside and addressing water management issues. A new GAEC standard aims to extend the 'minimum level of maintenance' by including landscape features and field margins which can contribute to environmental benefits. Two water related issues will also be introduced into GAEC 'Protection and management of water' and 'Protect water against pollution and run-off, and manage the use of water' These will be addressed through two new GAEC standards 'The establishment of buffer strips along water courses' and 'Respect of authorisation procedures for using water for irrigation'.

4.3 Respondents were asked "What are your views on the proposal changes to cross-compliance requirements? How should this be implemented in Scotland?" and 37 responses contained answers to this question.

4.4 Eleven respondents specifically welcomed the move towards simplification in cross-compliance measures with a similar number also welcoming the proposed changes and additional measures.

Need to reduce complexity

4.5 One farming stakeholder disagreed with altering GAEC as they felt this "reduces the potential of agriculture to produce" and added their concerns that additional legal requirements would add costs when the sector is already experiencing financial difficulties. This stakeholder felt the additional GAEC requirements would actually increase the complexity of cross-compliance when proposals are aimed at simplification. A stakeholder from the supply chain/ livestock group also felt that the extension of cross-compliance would bring an added burden to those who are excluded from SFPs; they wanted any changes to ensure reduced complexity which they felt places a disproportionate burden on small farmers.

Economic burden

4.6 Three responses from the farming sector along with one from a local authority welcomed the attempt to simplify cross-compliance but also voiced concerns over the economic burden which they felt would be placed on land managers. Ensuring that the cost of delivery is commensurate with potential benefits was the message from three of the farming stakeholders; one pointed out that land managers should not be expected to increase their activities under GAEC with no reward.

Rules and penalties

4.7 A farming stakeholder cautioned against the use of rules that impose reductions or exclusions from payments and pointed out that in some cases there may be reasons why cross-compliance has not been met. One other farming stakeholder and an agribusiness respondent felt any penalties for breaches of cross-compliance should be proportionate to the breach. As Rural Development Contracts are increasingly available to land managers who may not be subject to cross-compliance requirements, an environment stakeholder felt it would make more sense for all recipients of SRDP funds to be subject to cross-compliance for all of the land under their management. An individual commented that rules should be implemented rigorously while an environment organisation stressed there should be no weakening of current cross-compliance conditions; rather these should be strengthened.

Review needed

4.8 Stakeholders, mainly from the environment group, wanted to see a review of various aspects of cross-compliance:

• to assess the effectiveness of SMRs;
• a review of farmers' understanding of cross-compliance;
• a review of the cost of compliance on different farm types;
• a review of the general public's awareness of the issues and benefits surrounding cross-compliance;
• a review of cross-compliance in Scotland to see how well it is contributing to the reduction of deterioration of the farmed environment, especially funded land;
• the need for assessment to measure the impact of the new standards.

Concern over changes to SMRs

4.9 There was concern from two of the environment stakeholders over removing some of the birds and habitats directive from SMRs 1 and 5 which they felt could have a negative effect on conservation and lead to confusion in that land managers could be prosecuted for killing some birds but not for destroying their eggs. These two stakeholders wanted the Articles retained as part of cross-compliance; one added that land managers should have to comply with any legislation effecting environment and wildlife in their areas even if this is not directly related to farming.

4.10 Two other environmental stakeholders felt removing these Articles would have a minimal impact as they do not refer to practices likely to be carried out by land managers, but one of these also wanted to see Article 5 (c) retained as they also saw the need to retain penalties for egg theft as well as for killing birds of prey. They also wanted to see Article 15, which concerns the prohibition of certain methods of killing or taking wild species, to be retained.

4.11 The proposals for animal traceability and identification were identified as a possible cause for concern by one local authority who commented that electronic tagging is expensive and unreliable. One supply chain/ livestock organisation voiced concern over animal welfare issues.

Other amendments to SMRs

4.12 A farming stakeholder identified the need for more substance and included other elements of Statutory Management Requirements where they felt there should be changes:

• SMR10 should be deleted as this stakeholder felt there is no evidence of abuse of restricted substances and that domestic sanctions are sufficient;
• SMR11 needs to be narrowed to remove 'food withdrawal' and 'recalled from the market' as these rarely apply to farmers;
• SMR13, 14 and 15 should be deleted as it is often difficult to prove any omission on the part of farmers and these, in any case, have little relevance after any outbreak.

Environmental benefits

4.13 Maintaining the environmental benefits from set-aside formed the focus of responses from seven respondents. Three environment stakeholders and a special interest organisation, while welcoming the additional GAEC standards, felt that the proposals are not enough to mitigate set-aside loss. They wanted to see some set-aside replaced by a requirement to manage a small percentage of agricultural land for environmental purposes and felt that the Scottish Government should be pro-active in introducing this. There was one comment, from an environment stakeholder, that monitoring and enforcement of GAEC is poor and should be improved; this could include training and guidance both for inspectors and for land managers. This respondent wanted to see land managers being required to restore land where they had caused lasting environmental damage.

4.14 One environment stakeholder commented that some of the landscape features proposed already figure in GAEC in Scotland and could "go some way to replacing the value of set-aside as a habitat and source of food for farmland birds".

4.15 A stakeholder from the wider interest group, while welcoming the proposed simplification and targeted procedures, which they hoped would enable competitive advantage, commented on the need for proposals to enable the production of quality food in tandem with maintaining environmental benefits.

Changes to GAEC

4.16 An environment stakeholder, while welcoming the measures on field and water margins, felt that more detail would be needed in order to assess the impact of these measures. Another, who also welcomed the measures, wanted to ensure public access to riverbanks restricted by fencing but acknowledged that this might cause difficulties for livestock farmers. Two special interest organisations commented on the need to allow for responsible access to land and water, perhaps as a cross-compliance requirement.

4.17 The possibility of including the establishment of buffer strips under Land Manager Options ( LMO) was raised by one individual while another agreed the need to strengthen the minimum level of maintenance in order to combat the encroachment of weeds.

4.18 An environment stakeholder welcomed the standard on using water for irrigation but highlighted the need to consider how to frame management requirements and also how to monitor this standard.

Other amendments to GAEC

4.19 One environment stakeholder wanted to see the Environmental Impact Assessment ( EIA) agriculture requirements included. This respondent also wanted GAEC protection for SSSIs and also for GAEC to include some requirements of the Water Framework Directive ( WFD); one other environment stakeholder wanted to see cross-compliance incorporate actions for river basin plans; this should also be joined up with the WFD. This respondent commented "In rivers, diffuse agricultural pollution is now the single most important pollution pressure" and felt that it would be easier for administrative purposes, as well as for land managers, if GAEC requirements were the same as those contained in the Diffuse Pollution General Binding Rules. One other environment stakeholder saw buffer strips as potentially contributing to a strategy to implement nitrate directives while another wanted to see measures developed to improve soil protection.

4.20 Ensuring that all Member States include measures to protect ancient woodland/ forest, wood pasture, veteran and ancient trees and traditional orchards was important to one environment organisation who also felt that the requirement on 'avoiding the encroachment of unwanted vegetation on agricultural land' is restrictive and should be removed.

4.21 Four organisations from the special interest sub-group saw the need to include the protection of historic and archaeological landscape features under GAEC. One felt this could be done by revising GAEC 17 as, they felt, a higher level of protection is needed.

« Previous | Contents | Next »