The Scottish Government

<back to previous>

REVIEW OF AGRI-ENVIRONMENT SCHEME PAYMENT RATES: MEETING WITH STAKEHOLDERS, 29 JUNE 2005, PENTLAND HOUSE

NOTE OF MAIN POINTS

Present:

Ingrid Clayden, SEERAD- FBRD (Chair) Douglas Bell, SAC

John Henderson, SEERAD-Agriculture Staff Ruth Harland, SRPBA

Scott Walker, NFUS Daniel Gotts, SNH

Alison McKnight, FWAG Kevin Firth, SNH

Jack Fleming, LINK Norman Leask, SCF

Peter Wallace, SEERAD- ASD

1. Apologies were received from John Hood, Derek Cowie and Carey Coombs. Peter Wallace attended in place of Andrew Moxey.

Agreement of previous minutes

2. It was agreed that Paragraph 12 would be updated to reflect the different cost implications in the west and east.

3. Action point for SNH, SAC and NFUS to provide information on capital loss of sale for stock disposal was not included in the previous minutes. This Action Point will be carried forward. Action: SNH, SAC and NFUS to provide information to John Henderson

Run through of rates

4. John Henderson worked on a number of payment rates following the last meeting.

5. Unharvested Crops

The figures are based on FWAG calculations from last meeting. The calculations for East and West were then averaged. NFUS have put together a group of 5 farmers who they are consulting with on a confidential basis regarding the payment rates. They commented that unharvested crop payments should take account of the build up of weed seeds over time and the drop in pH over 5 years. It was agreed this could be part of the justification for incentive, rather than a separate element of the calculation.

6. Concerns were raised about the contractors costs used in the calculations, especially relating to Shetland. It was agreed that the higher contractor costs from the SAC handbook would be used, rather than the average costs. It was also agreed that labour rates would be increased to look at a 5 year average, by including an annual increase over 2 years to the midpoint of the agreement.

7. Extensive Cropping

It was agreed that contractor costs and labour costs would be revised as for unharvested crops.

8. Extensive Cropping (Premium)

Figures provided by FWAG were used in the calculation, however the costs of spraying were deducted. FWAG raised the issue that the costs on the west coast are slightly higher as rape or fodder crops are commonly grown in the 5th year, with added establishment costs. It was agreed that this should be considered in the payment calculations. The conservation benefits of this prescription were highlighted and it was thought the revised figures would provide more of an incentive.

9. Stock Removal

John Henderson outlined the new calculation. All sheep enterprises identified by FWAG were used in the revised calculations. The shepherding cost was also included. Further information on capital loss is required if it is to be included in the calculations, if not it could be used to justify incentive aspect of payment.

10. Concerns were raised regarding likely uptake of revised payment rates. The Chair explained that initially the group is focussing on factors to be included in the calculation and will follow up concerns regarding impact and uptake at a later stage.

Action: SEERAD to revise contractor costs and labour costs for all four prescriptions and circulate to group.

11. Management of Hedgerows

More information and evidence is required for the management of hedgerows calculations. Alison did provide a number of costs for different aspects of hedge management, however FWAG will circulate information when they have more comprehensive details. It was suggested Forestry commission may be able to help with rates for planting and gapping up. Conservation Land Management Volume 2 was also recommended as a source for hedge management costs. Action: FWAG to circulate information.

12. It was reported that gapping can be up to 40% in Lothians and 50% in Dumfries and Galloway. Previous SEERAD calculations include 25% gapping up. There was some discussion on the difference and overlap between the capital payment for hedge planting and the payment for hedge management.

Action: SEERAD to clarify scheme rules on hedge planting capital works and gapping up.

13. There is anecdotal evidence that farmers would rather establish a new hedge from scratch than re-establish an old one, but from a conservation point of view there is a preference for established hedges.

14. Organic Aid Scheme - Improved grassland rate

Discussion on this rate was postponed in the absence of an organic representative. May be useful to look at organic rates together at one meeting.

Action: Ingrid to discuss with Carey and Brian

15. Retention of Cattle on Small Units

Concern with this rate was raised previously by Beck Shaw, Crofting Foundation. The environmental benefit of retaining cattle was agreed by the group. It is especially important to retain those herds under threat. The possibility of using a similar basis for calculation as that used for the introduction of cattle was discussed. It was agreed that any increase in rate would have to be justified. Scott Walker suggested revising the labour costs to look at managerial labour rate.

Action: FWAG to circulate calculations for comparison.

16. Conservation Headlands

All group members were invited to provide information on conservation headland costs. A number of points were raised: separate harvesting is often required; difficult in areas with problem weeds and there can be different drying costs. It was agreed these headlands have a high value conservation benefit.

Action: FWAG and LINK to provide figures.

17. OTHER RATES

The group has now developed strategies for calculating rates, which can be applied to the remaining rates and hence work through them faster. The next rates the group will consider are:

i. Natural and semi natural woodland (and scrub)

ii. Water margins

iii. Wetlands

People issues

18. Ingrid is still awaiting advice from solicitors on double funding issues. The issue of scheme participants due to paid in September was raised and the possibility of paying at old rates this year and adjusting next years payment accordingly was discussed.

Action: SEERAD to follow up with solicitors.

Confirmation of future meetings

7 July, from 10:00am - 1:00pm (Pentland House)

14 July, from 10:00am - 1:00pm (Pentland House)

21 July, from 10:00am - 1:00pm (Pentland House)

28 July, from 10:00am - 1:00pm (Pentland House)

4 August, from 2:00pm - 5:00pm (Pentland House)

AOB

• SEERAD to investigate block booking for car park for these meetings.
• Norman Leask provided paper on the cost to Shetland economy

FBRD

29 June 2005