In a recent conversation an adviser has told that he has experienced recent RPA ELS inspections getting a bit tougher on one of his farms.I have always worked on the basis that you should aim for a 10% overall buffer on your points in case you get measurements slightly wrong with one of the options. However, in this instance it was not acceptable for a slight shortfall of points on one option being made up by more being done in other options. In other words, even thought the agreement holder was exceeding the required points threshold as he had underestimated on one of the component options of the agreement they may be a penalty. Should advice therefore be to have a slight buffer for each option in ELS, rather than doing a bit more overall?Has anyone else experienced this or is it (hopefully) an isolated case? I could see this approach both making ELS not as attractive and also making people not as prepared to do a large number of different options.
Hi Gallinago
The current ELS handbook states:
5.2.1 Points claimed cannot be found or management requirements are not being followed
Where an inspection reveals that:
the points value for that option and location will be deducted from your total points.
This shortfall can be offset against any surplus points from other additional options on land receiving the same area payment (ie £30/ha or £8/ha). But if you do not have surplus option points and this reduction reduces your ELS total points below your target points, your annual payment for that year will be reduced and penalties applied on a sliding scale...
As I understand it, the current rules therefore support your original belief that a buffer of 10% overrall covers you for slight shortfall in any of the options.
Official answer from NE recieved:
The situation is that a change to the penalties for ELS was proposed, but following further consultation a decision has been made that this particular change will not be implemented.
As such the advice given by Richard on the ‘Farmwildlife’ forum, quoting the current ELS handbook, is correct. When the 3rd edition handbooks are released early next year they will contain the same information.
Thanks for the clarification and reporting that the common sense approach has prevailed. It appears that the incident I was told about was an isolated case with perhaps an over enthusiatic inspector.
G