Cross-compliance breaches hit cattle farmers hardest

20 March 2012 | By Louise Hartley

CATTLE farmers were the biggest culprits for cross-compliance breaches last year, which cost the industry as a whole more than £2m in single payment reduction.

Latest figures from the Rural Payments Agency reveal a total of 2,046 breaches across all sectors but cattle and sheep farmers came out on top for failure to keep accurate records.

The main failing was by cattle farmers not reporting the deaths or movements of their animals.

The total number of failures was a slight increase on 2010. However, there was a drop in repeated breaches and intentional non-compliance plus fewer breaches of animal welfare rules and regulations on agricultural nitrate pollution risk.

RPA operations director Paul Cadwell said: “We urge farmers to take a look at the list of common errors to ensure they avoid making the same mistakes.

Mr. Cadwel also encouraged farmers to read the ‘Guide to Cross Compliance in England 2010’ booklet and make sure they are aware of any changes that could effect their farms.

The increasing trend of recording cattle movements electronically may make it easier for some, but harder for those who are not as ‘internet savvy’.

Defra’s new Farming Advice Service (FAS) offers guidance for farmers needing help on subjects including cross compliance. Visit the Defra website or call 0845 345 1302.

Readers' comments (5)

David Hosford | 20 March 2012 6:36 pm
We are increasingly being ruled by illeducated bureaucrats. The financial penalties dished out to farmers for honest mistakes in cross compliance. is a scandal. I wonder what penalties in the way of wage deductions are dished out for honest errors made by the ruling bureaucrats.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 20 March 2012 7:06 pm
Totally agree with david.
I was penallised for non compliance by some one who had bought my ESA subsidized land. So I have pulled out of single farm payments.... what you don't get payed, they can't take... (they charged for nearly tears of payments, which nearly broke the bank... and then treated me on the phone like an "offender"...
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 20 March 2012 7:18 pm
recording movements electronically via CTS dosent save any time at all as the receipt you can print out & refer to in your movement book doesnt suffice for a cross compiance inspection, you still have to hand write in dob breed sex dam et despite the fact that because the beast has been on your holding you can drag that info off the CTS site at any time 24/7 quicker than you can probably find it in a poxy movement book - red tape - I no longer bother to claim any SFP
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Brian Heslop | 21 March 2012 1:04 pm
If you've stopped taking the payments, bear in mind "Article 4 of the European Convention on Human Rights" (unpaid forced labour). I was exluded from SFP by the crap implementation by SEERAD. Seemed to get SEERAD in quite a state when it was quoted in replies to requests for work from them.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
MICK MOOR | 23 March 2012 11:09 am
Hew who sups with the devil should have a very long spoon.
Well done those who no longer take SFP!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment