Burden of red tape for Farmers

While British agriculture has a good future, farmers will struggle to rise to the challenge against the deluge of "red tape" from the EU and an unsympathetic Government.

Some red tape is necessary. Public and animal health are paramount, but the burden of red tape on farmers is personal, cumbersome and the consequences of error can be costly.

It is encouraging that the Coalition Government has set up a task force to review red tape faced by farmers, the results of which are expected imminently, but what are the ten most objectionable red tape requirements? There are too many to list and in cutting them down to ten I am sure to have missed some real howlers, but the following are unpopular examples.

Single Farm Payment claims

The SFP mechanism leaves a lot to be desired, with late payments and uncertainty, but the constant tweaking of the claims process leaves farmers having to re-read the voluminous handbook each year just to complete the claims forms.

Maps

The mapping of holdings is a shambles and demonstrates how government departments fail to share information.

DEFRA and Natural England use different and incompatible mapping systems, which have been beset with errors. The endless fine tuning of the Rural Land Registry maps results in only minor adjustments to field areas and numbers. Surely there should be a single mapping system, available online to farmers.

Farm Inspections

Recently I read of a farmer who was subjected to 7 different, but similar inspections within just a few months, one of which took six weeks to complete and at one stage, there were four inspectors on the farm at the same time.

While this is perhaps an extreme example, it highlights the excessive inspection regimes that plague our farmers.

Soil Protection Reviews

About 10% of farmers have been in breach of cross-compliance rules by not having their soil protection reviews ready for inspection, resulting in a 5% deduction from the SFP.

Farmers are aware of the need to look after the soil. Compiling these reviews is just a box ticking exercise.

 Waste Transfer Licences

The Agricultural Waste Regulations control the storage, movement and disposal of farm waste. While farm waste needs to be regulated, the restrictions are over burdensome.

For example, waste transfer licences are required for moving empty fertiliser bags or pesticide containers between parts of the same farm. With farms getting larger, some controls should be scrapped so farmers can legally move waste without the need for a licence.

Animal Movement Restrictions

The system for controlling the movement of livestock is complex and little understood. Farmers are required to report livestock movements between parts of the same farm and once moved, not move them again until the "standstill" period of up to 20 days has passed.

Uncertainty of the requirements can result in failure to report movements or to observe standstills, thus undermining the reason for the controls - disease prevention and control.

Electronic Identification of Sheep

EU regulation requires individual identification and recording of sheep movements meaning that sheep farmers must implement electronic identification.

Existing methods of sheep identification have been perfectly adequate to ensure traceability and to control disease, while electronic identification and individual movement recording far exceed what is needed, placing unnecessary practical and financial burdens on farmers.

Transport legislation

The regulation of agricultural vehicles has been in place since 1985 and is inappropriate for the sophisticated, high capacity machinery now used on many farms.

Many farm vehicles could be driven just as safely but significantly quicker and could be loaded more heavily than the current law allows. This leaves our farmers less competitive than in other EU countries, as well as out of pocket.

Nitrate Vulnerable Zones

The Nitrates Directive seeks to prevent nitrates getting into streams and rivers but the permitted maximum levels of nitrates set by the EU are arbitrary and costly to comply with. They ignore the fact that Britain has actually reduced nitrogen pollution in recent years and that the cost of fertiliser is so high that farmers naturally seek to reduce wastage. It would be more sensible for the use of fertiliser to depend upon soil type, weather and crop needs, rather than upon meaningless limits.

Groundwater regulations

Farmers are required to fork out around £150 per year for a permit to disperse spray tank washings, while no permit is required for use of the products themselves on crops, which is assessed in the product approval process. Surely the disposal of washings could be considered in the same process, thus avoiding the expense and hassle of a separate permit.

Practical farming is a full-time job, leaving little time for paperwork, but red tape maintains a stranglehold on the sector. If there is an inspection, someone has to hang around, ready to jump to the inspector's every need. Every now and then the inspector is left alone in the farmhouse while assistance is needed on the farm. Red tape is personal, cumbersome and costly. Let's hope that the Government's review brings some much needed sense and simplification, leaving farmers to get on with the business of farming!