<back to previous>
REVIEW OF AGRI-ENVIRONMENT SCHEME PAYMENT
RATES:
MEETING WITH STAKEHOLDERS, 21 JULY 2005 ,
PENTLAND HOUSE
NOTE OF MAIN POINTS
Present:
Andrew Moxey, SEERAD-
ASD
(Chair) Douglas Bell,
SAC
John Henderson, SEERAD-Agriculture Staff Jonathan Hall,
SRPBA
John Hood, SEERAD-
FBRD
Jenny Johnson,
SNH
Linda Rosborough, SEERAD-
CMD Claudia
Rowse,
SNH
Scott Walker,
NFUS
Norman Leask,
SCF
Alison McKnight,
FWAG
Carey Coombs, Soil Association/ LINK
Ann Cowan, SEERAD-
FBRD
Welcome, apologies etc
1. Apologies were received from Ingrid Clayden (SEERAD),
Becky Shaw (
SCF), Brian
Kaye (
SOPA)
and Lisa Schneidau (LINK).
Agreement of previous minutes
2. Comments were received from Derek Mackinnon. The
first, that under option 26, the reference was to winter
stubbles not winter scrub. The second that option 31C was
parked at £28 rather than £70.
3. The minutes were agreed subject to the above
change.
People Issues
4. It was generally accepted that there was a double
funding issue for any participant who had entered an
agri-environment schemes post 2002. Therefore anybody
entering these schemes after 2002 should get any revised
rates. However to restore the confidence of participants it
would be helpful if they could be advised of how long these
revised rates would run for (i.e. 5 years or life of
agreement etc). One group where potential double funding is
not an issue is individuals who were in an
ESA
scheme and have subsequently transferred to an
RSS in 2003 or
2004. If stock reduction was the critical component of
their
ESA and
this remains a component of their
RSS then there
is not a double funding issue. As long as these individuals
are treated as having joined the scheme prior to 2002 (i.e.
there has been a continuation/ transfer of their
agri-environment commitment) there is not a problem. It is
only if they are treated as having joined the
agri-environment scheme post 2002 that there is a
problem.
5. There was a useful discussion and clarification of
views for the pre 2002 entrants, where there are several
groups to be considered. Those who do not have
SFP, those who
successfully challenged, those who unsuccessfully
challenged and those who did not challenge. There are
several scenarios for SEERAD to consider, all of which
carry policy and/or financial risks. Can we keep existing
rates for those who have no
SFP, those who
didn't challenge and those who unsuccessfully challenged?
Can we offer those who successfully challenged a chance to
withdraw the challenge and keep the old rates? (Those who
successfully challenged and were content would get the new
rates). Also would
SFP income forgone
bring us to the same position? Norman Leask also asked that
consideration is given to Common Grazings Committees.
SEERAD agreed to consider further internally,
consult the Minister and aim to produce a paper for the
meeting on 4th August or an extra meeting the week
after.
Rates to Discuss
6. Rates parked at the previous meeting were Options 12,
15-17, 19-22A, 25-28 31B and 31C. These additional rate
calculations were discussed.
Option 8 Creation and Management of Species-Rich
Grassland
Rate of £248.00 was parked.
Option 13. Creation and Management of Wetland
Rate of £248.00 was parked.
Option 24. Management of Hedgerows
John Henderson thanked
FWAG
for the hard work put in to provide calculations for this
option. It was greatly appreciated. It was agreed that new
planting would be available as a capital payment in year 1.
Any gapping up after that would be paid as part of the
management. An average contractor cost was used as some
people utilised their own labour rather than employ
contractor's. Rate of £0.85 per metre parked.
Option 23. Management of Extended Hedge
It was agreed to use the Management of Hedgerows
approach but only using 50% of the costs as this option
only allows for 1 side of the hedge. A figure should be
added in for income forgone from the 2m strip
. New calculation would be available for next
meeting.
Options 29 & 30. Management of Scrub and Management
of Native and Semi-Natural Woodland
FWAG
had also provided figures for these options; however it was
felt that the income forgone element may be too high for
those with large areas of Rough Grazings. As most of these
options take part on existing land, it was agreed that
SEERAD would investigate whether or not IACS could tell
what land type (semi-natural, Rough Grazings etc) is
dominant.
SNH provided
some calculations (at this meeting) that they had used for
a similar option under their Natural Care Scheme.
SEERAD would also liaise with the Forestry
Commission. New calculations would be available for next
meeting.
Option 32. Management of a Site of Archaeological or
Historic Interest
Rate of £80 per 0.25 hectare or part thereof up to 1.50
hectares and £80 per ha thereafter (as per the current
rate) parked.
Options 33. 34 & 34A Conservation Management Plan
with Special Measures for Small Units, Introduction of
Cattle of Scottish Native or Traditional Breed(s) and
Retention of Cattle of Scottish Native or Traditional
Breed(s).
FWAG
and
SCF provided
calculations (at the meeting) towards these options. The
reintroduction figure was generally accepted, but there was
some discussion of the retention figure. SEERAD offered the
view that some of the detailed calculations were confusing
and that it might be simpler to use a 20% incentive figure
instead. This would double the payment and was considered
to be an improvement, although some reservations were still
expressed about it being sufficient to make a difference in
the face of other changes (i.e. decoupling).
SEERAD agreed to look at the relationship with the
Beef Calf Scheme and report back to the next
meeting.
OAS Rates
7. Andrew produced his latest calculations. He stated
that as the Commission had already approved the conversion
rates, it would make sense for the maintenance payment rate
to be the based on (and then same as) the year 5 conversion
rate. Carey was pleased to see that all the rates now
worked out comparable to those wanted by the industry.
However he pointed out that they have some concerns about
the discretionary system and that this should be reviewed
as soon as possible.
8. When revisiting the calculations Andrew had found
difficulty in progressing the Rough Grazing flat rate
beyond the current £500. By using an incentive it could
reach £600. Another option would be to use the £5 per
hectare (5th year payment rate) paid under the conversion
option, or to use progressive rates i.e. £5 per hectare for
the first 100 hectares, then downwards but SEERAD would
need to reflect on this within Commission rules. and the
knock-on budgetary effect of this (and the other rate
changes above). Andrew's methodology was agreed and
new figures would be available for meeting on 28th
July.
Remaining 400 Rates
9. It was agreed that the progress of the other
remaining rates could not be decided until a resolution of
the people issues had been found.
RSS Capital
rates would need to be discussed at a future meeting and
this would probably allow progression of similar options
under the other schemes.
SEERAD would produce a list of those rates already
parked for the meeting on the 4th August.
Confirmation of future meetings
28 July, from 10:00am - 1:00pm (Pentland House) - Andrew
Moxey to Chair
4 August, from 2:00pm - 5:00pm (Pentland House)
plus, possibly, 11 August
FBRD
22 July 2005
Back to top