<back to previous>
REVIEW OF AGRI-ENVIRONMENT SCHEME PAYMENT
RATES: MEETING WITH STAKEHOLDERS HELD ON 23 JUNE 2005
AT THE RURAL CENTRE, INGLISTON
NOTE OF MAIN POINTS
Present:
Andrew Moxey, SEERAD-
ASD
(Chair) Brian Kaye
SOPA
John Henderson, SEERAD-Agriculture Staff Jonathan Hall,
SRPBA
Valerie Blackie, SEERAD-CAPM Douglas Bell,
SAC
Ingrid Clayden, SEERAD-
FBRD
(Item 4) Alison Mcknight,
FWAG
Roger Burton,
SNH Norman
Leask,
SCF
Scott Walker,
NFUS
Patrick Krause,
SCF
Mandy Glover,
RSPB
Lisa Schneidau, LINK
Carey Coombs, Soil Association Andy Robertson,
NFUS
(Item 4)
Ann Cowan , SEERAD-
FBRD
Welcome, apologies etc
1. Apologies were received from John Hood and Derek
Cowie, plus some folk caught in
RHS
traffic and therefore running late.
2. Andrew explained that he would be chairing the
meeting for the first 3 agenda items as Ingrid had to
accompany the Minister to a briefing event at the Royal
Highland Show. Following welcomes, it was explained that
the main purpose of today's meeting was to discuss the
calculations of the agri-environment scheme payment rates
for the following options, or at least as many as could be
covered in the time available.
(1) Management of Hedgerows,
(2) Stock Removal,
(3) Unharvested Crops,
(4) Extensive Arable Cropping,
(5)
OAS
improved grassland (conversion and maintenance),
(6) Retention of cattle on small units,
(7) Conservation Headlands.
3. It was explained that nothing could be agreed without
further reflection and that the purpose of the meeting was
to foster an exchange of information. The Group was
reminded that we were working within the constraints of the
agri-environment scheme EC regulations in that management
payments could only be based on income foregone, additional
costs and an optional incentive element of up to 20%. It
was also noted that there is an immediate, short-term issue
in getting new rates agreed for the remainder of the
current
SRDP and
a longer-term issue of rates and structures under the next
SRDP.
Whilst points relating to the latter should be noted, the
emphasis had to be on the former.
4. Andrew also explained that the people issues would be
discussed later once Ingrid was able to join the meeting.
Andy Robertson
NFUS
would also attend for item 4 only.
Agreement of previous minutes
5. The minutes of the previous meeting were agreed.
Run through of rates
6. The
NFU and
SRPBA
stressed that whilst they were happy to join in any
discussions on the rates, they would not agree to anything
until the people issues had been resolved since they
regarded these as fundamental. It was agreed to note these
concerns, which would be returned to under Agenda item 4
anyway.
7. There was some discussion on the use of the
SAC handbook as a basis for all the calculations. It
was pointed out by
SAC that
these rates are used for illustrative purposes only; they
are not based on historic data but best judgement and are
variable from year to year.
8. It was agreed that despite these reservations, the
figures provide a good initial basis for calculations. In
particular, they were relatively transparent and
comprehensive, widely accepted as a standard reference and,
crucially, has been the basis of previous submissions to
the European Commission. On this basis, they should remain
our starting point, with any deviations from them being
fully justified.
9. The stock disposal payment rate was then discussed.
The SEERAD calculation of £10.92 had been run past a few
farmers who currently partake in this option, all had said
that the rate was still too low, and therefore was not
meeting its objective. With the previously proposed drop in
the rate (£5.77), Shetland stood to lose about £0.5m from
its economy; this was of great concern, particularly for
the common grazing participants. Hill farming requires more
extensive labour use despite herd numbers coming down. More
shepherding is required and this does not appear to have
been taken into account in the SEERAD calculations. It was
agreed that alternative figures offered by
NFUS,
FWAG
and
SNH would be
looked at again; firstly without adding an incentive and
then if it was needed with an incentive.
Action SEERAD
10. The management of hedgerows payment rate was then
discussed, there had been an error in the original
calculation when converting from a per linear to per
hectarage but it was still felt that the revised rate of
£0.34 per metre was too low.
FWAG
had looked at the actual costs of maintaining a hedge by
phoning 5 or 6 contractors all over Scotland. They had
asked for a quote over x metres of gapping, hand weeding
and trimming every three years. They had not added in a
figure to account for the loss of grazing.
SAC
mentioned that if a hedge was only to be trimmed every
three years then clearing up costs would also need to be
included in calculations. There was some discussion of the
differences between new and old hedges, with an analogy
drawn with green and brownfield sites. John Henderson asked
if
FWAG,
SRPBA
and
SAC could
provide figures on actual costs, and he would look again at
the SEERAD figures
. Action FWAG, SPRBA and SAC
11. The OAS improved grassland (conversion and
maintenance) options were then discussed. It was
acknowledged that the organic sector felt very out of
things as we moved towards Land Management Contracts. There
were 3 prescriptions within the current Menu Scheme that
organic farmers were excluded from. This needs to be
addressed when developing the Tier 2 and 3 measures
further, and should be noted that Ingrid now chaired both
groups. There is so much data to look at and some
derogation factors have to be considered. Some further
reflection on the SEERAD calculations was required.
Action Soil Association
12. There was then a brief discussion on extensive
cropping. This revealed a general consensus that, whereas
the SEERAD calculations assumed de-intensification of an
existing arable enterprise, much of the (target) land was
actually in grassland and therefore incurred additional
ploughing costs. Ways of confirming this were requested. It
was acknowledged that there was a difference in costs and a
divide between uptake of this option between the East and
West of Scotland. It is not an option undertaken by a
typical arable farmer but more likely to be those who use
the crop for fodder. It was felt that contractor costs
should be used rather than on-farm labour costs. There
should also be an allowance for work such as removing
stones and boulders. SEERAD agreed to have another look at
this calculation,
FWAG
offered to confirm previous cover types if possible.
Action SEERAD and FWAG
13. Due to lack of time it was felt that the rest of the
discussion on the rates should be postponed until the next
meeting. People were thanked for their constructive
contributions which had helped to progress thinking on some
general points of principle and a few specific rates.
General points included the calculation of averages
(simple, weighted means), the application of incentives (to
cover difficult to quantify elements and as an actual
additional incentive element) and the choice of labour
costs.
Ingrid Clayden and Andy Robertson joined the
meeting.
People issues
14. Ingrid thanked Andrew for chairing the earlier
session. She explained that SEERAD lawyers were still
looking at the previous suggestion raised by the
NFUS and
SRPBA
that amended rates should not apply to existing scheme
participants.
15. It was accepted that where there is a double funding
issue then it must be addressed. There are, however, groups
of existing scheme participants for whom it appears there
is no double funding. Therefore, the question is how to
tackle double funding in a way that will not disadvantage
those who are not double funded. This would mean in some
way ring-fencing the payments of those who are not double
funded for the duration of their current agreement. This in
turn would imply running with more than one rate for each
measure for a time and SEERAD would need to confirm whether
this was possible.
16.
SCF
felt that Shetland would prefer adjustment of the Single
Farm Payment rather than agri-environment rates. In terms
of the legal mechanism for dealing with double funding,
SEERAD has the authority to adjust agri-environment rates
during the life of an agreement and had therefore invoked
this authority to tackle double funding when implementing
the
SFP. Defra had opted
for a different approach and would be offering scheme
participants the option of adjustment to the
SFP or their
agri-environment payments. If it was nevertheless possible
to adjust the
SFP, then work on
unpicking successful challenges would need to begin almost
immediately and a case-by-case approach would have very
significant resource implications.
SNH helpfully
explained their approach, but raised longer-term issues of
changes that would take place eventually when existing
contracts end and/or
SFP rates alter.
17. It was agreed that where there is clearly no double
funding, participants should not be disadvantaged or
penalised. Work on identifying these participants and
evaluating the options for dealing with their circumstances
would run alongside ongoing work on revised rates.
Action SEERAD.
18.
NFUS
were thanked for providing the venue and all were thanked
for their contributions.
Confirmation of future meetings
29 June am 10:00am - 1:00pm (Pentland House)
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)
FBRD
June 2005
Back to top