ADMINISTRATION costs swallowed up 28pc of the total funding of existing agri-environment schemes, Neil Clarke of Defra told a meeting organised by the North Yorkshire Farming and Wildlife Advisory Group.

Under the proposed schemes, however, administration char-ges would not be allowed to exceed 5-8pc of funding.

Mr Clarke said funding for the proposed Entry Level scheme would be £75m a year, compared with less than £1m when Countryside Stewardship was introduced, but the new scheme is expected to involve 50-75pc of all farmers in the first few years, compared with the 25,000 in the current schemes, which began some 12 years ago.

Four pilot schemes will be launched this year - with the upland pilot based around Barnard Castle - and the scheme will be extended nationally in 2005.

The entry level scheme will be non-competitive and will emphase maintaining and protecting existing features. A simple application, with a map of environmental features, will be required.

Applications will be measured on a points system, with each point worth £1/ha, and an anticipated payment of £30 a hectare. Bonuses may be paid for specific topics, such as bird habitats, and for joint applications such as flood prevention measures.

The Higher Tier scheme will be competitive and is expected to take over from Countryside Stewardship and Environmentally Sensitive Area schemes from 2005. It will include regional flexibility.

Existing CSS and ESA agreement holders will be encouraged to join both the ELS and Higher Tier schemes.

The length of agreements is uncertain, but there have been calls for five years, and 20 years for larger projects.

About 60 farmers and advisers attended the meeting at The Angel Inn, Topcliffe.

James Ede, regional policy adviser for the NFU, said good conservation could only come from profitable farms - future payments must be sensible.

Speaking on the mid-term CAP review proposals, he stressed that details could still be altered. Agreement could be in June, with effect from January 1, 2004.

The proposals included a single annual payment for farming the land, rather than one based on production, calculated on an average of payments received for 2000-01-02. Special circumstances could be taken into account, probably including the impact of foot-and-mouth.

Payments would be linked to the business, not the land, and would belong to the tenant rather than the landlord. They could be traded but, if leased out, must be with eligible land.