Stressful for so many farmers?

the operating scheme to remain compliant.

With GLAS, commonage farmers realised immediately they had a major problem on their hands.

Was it possible the Department would introduce a scheme that would expect one farmer to be responsible for his neighbours’ actions or lack thereof ?

Even after the removal of the collective agreement condition, hundreds of commonage farmers avoided entering GLAS for fear of penalties arising from its difficult and unclear terms and conditions.

Other farmers without commonage found they didn’t fit into any category that gave them access to the scheme, even though they had formerly participated in REPS or AEOS. For many, their environmental scheme payment was a very significant portion of their income — losing access to this payment was a tough financial blow.

No one anticipated the difficulty that GLAS, and particularly the Commonage Management Plans (CMPs) would pose for planners, who had to create and input plans, and for the Department staff, who had to clear them for payment.

Where a scheme requires paying for a range of professional services (veterinary reports, nutrient management plans, commonage plans, etc) the net reward for the farmer must be reflective, or the overall costs of participation may be seen as prohibitive.

Simplification of the various schemes that will form the new CAP programme has to be examined very carefully.

Farmers must be given the chance to provide input into the design of schemes to ensure they are workable at farm level and to allow for payments to be delivered on time.

Future environmental and climate change schemes will need to be straightforward and have sufficient measures to allow a wide range of farmers the scope to access the scheme and deliver relevant outputs.

The Sheep Welfare Scheme is an excellent example of how a selection of relevant measures makes it easy for farmers to apply and comply with the rules of a scheme, whilst at the same time supporting better farming practices.