The Commission see the control and verification requirements in the European Regulations as being quite reasonable. This is about ensuring tax payers’ money has been spent as intended. The Government designs the Countryside Stewardship scheme. As part of the scheme design process the Government have to demonstrate to the Commission how they can control and verify all elements of that scheme.
Of course there are different ways of meeting the control and verification requirements. For example, on farm record keeping requirements could be replaced by more farm inspections. This is would not be welcomed by NFU.
In the Commission’s eyes the English Countryside Stewardship scheme has a number of options that are difficult to verify. These are options linked with stocking requirements or low input options: How can you prove you met the stocking requirements in, say, July? The Commission’s view was to retain these options the additional record keeping requirements in Countryside Stewardship were needed. The alternative would be not to include those options in Countryside Stewardship.
We asked the Commission whether the Government’s proposals for control and verification of Countryside Stewardship, including the record keeping, had been excessive. The response was that given the options included, the scheme would not have been allowed with less record keeping.
In comparison to other countries our agri-environment scheme is more complicated. That is because Countryside Stewardship caters for the wide range of habitats, that exist across England, and environmental gains. Other countries have simpler more targeted schemes which are targeted at one or two habitats.
The NFU will continue to work with Defra to find ways to simplify record keeping requirements and improve Countryside Stewardship.