DEFRA consultation on Local Nature Recovery plans

holwellcourtfarm

Member
Livestock Farmer
I see that DEFRA have a consultation open on how these plans should be created and targetted.


Given that LNR will occupy a significant chunk of the agricultural support budet left after SFI and that it will be a key option for many farms to gain additional "top up" subsidy funding post BPS we all ought to be submitting our thoughts especially, in my view, regarding how existing land managers are involved in choosing what options are included for specific areas.

Over to you....
 

holwellcourtfarm

Member
Livestock Farmer
From the consultation:

Achieving collaboration
Collaboration is central to government’s vision for how Local Nature Recovery Strategies will be prepared and delivered. Whilst the responsible authority (appointed by the Secretary of State) will be accountable for preparation of Strategy, it is intended that they will work closely with and be supported by a partnership of relevant local groups. Government is keen that all groups and individuals with a role or interest in nature recovery and environmental improvement within the Strategy area are able to contribute to its preparation.
5. Which of the groups listed below do you consider essential for the preparation of a Local Nature Recovery Strategies?
• Local authority(s) other than the “responsible authority”, where the Strategy covers more than one Local Authority area
• Local authorities adjacent to the Strategy areas.
• Local Nature Partnership(s), where active and geographically aligned
• Natural England
• The Environment Agency
• The Forestry Commission
• Other public bodies e.g. Highways England
• Environmental non-governmental organisations active in the Strategy area
• National Park Authority(s), where present in the Strategy area and if not the “responsible authority”
• Area of Outstanding National Beauty organisation(s), where present in the Strategy area
• Local Records Centre(s), where separate from any of the other groups listed
• Local farming, forestry and landowning groups
• Local Enterprise Partnerships
• Utilities providers, such as water companies
• Other local business representative bodies
• Individual landowners and land managers (including farmers, both landowners and tenants)
• Individual businesses
• Members of the public
• Don’t Know
[Tick all that apply]

6. Are there any organisations not listed above whose involvement you consider essential? [Yes/No/Don’t Know] If yes, which ones and why? [Free text box]
Individual landowners and land managers will be critical to delivering nature recovery objectives and wider environmental benefits. The Government is keen for them to contribute fully in helping to determine local nature recovery priorities and identify priority areas to focus recovery efforts. As part of the Local Nature Recovery Strategy Pilots, we trialled a "convener” role to bring farmers and land managers into the preparation process. The purpose would be to support the agricultural sector engage with the Local Nature Recovery Strategy process making sure that the outputs work for them. This is important given the intended links between the Local Nature Recovery Strategies and future schemes that reward environmental land management. Feedback from the pilots was that the additional support given by "convener" role through Natural England was helpful in connecting farmers, landowners and managers.

7. Do you think that additional support should be provided to farmers, landowners and managers the land management sector to facilitate their involvement with the preparation of Local Nature Recovery Strategies? [Yes/No/Don’t Know]
 

holwellcourtfarm

Member
Livestock Farmer
For private organisations and individuals, having land they own or manage mapped as areas that could become of particular importance for biodiversity is intended to support their case for access to any additional sources of available public or private funding – such as future schemes that reward delivery of environmental benefits, or the provision of biodiversity net gain units to developers. However, if a landowner does not wish to change the way they manage their land to increase its importance for biodiversity then there would seem to be limited benefit to the Local Nature Recovery Strategy mapping it for that purpose

12. Should individual landowners or managers be able to decide that land they own or manage should not be identified by a Local Nature Recovery Strategy as an area that could become of particular importance for biodiversity? [Yes/No/Don’t Know]
 

holwellcourtfarm

Member
Livestock Farmer
16. If you believe that regulations made under clause 101 should establish a mechanism for resolving disputes in the preparation of Local Nature Recovery Strategies, which of the following bodies do you think should be able to raise a dispute (including on behalf of others)?
• Local Authorities within the Strategy area who are not the responsible authority
• Natural England
• Responsible Authorities for neighbouring Strategy areas
• Other [please specify]
• Don’t know
[Tick all that apply]

17. Which of the following do you think might be reasonable grounds for raising a dispute about the Local Nature Recovery Strategy preparation process?
• Not adequately involving relevant specific groups
• Slow/no progress
• Lack of transparency
• Legal requirements not being followed
• Other [please specify]
• Don’t Know
[Tick all that apply]

19. Do you think that Local Nature Recovery Strategies should also be “signed off” by a body other than the responsible authority before they can be published?
• No
• Yes – instead of a mechanism for resolving disputes in the preparation process
• Yes – as well as a mechanism for resolving disputes in the preparation process
• Don’t Know
[Tick one]

20. If so, which bodies should be given sign-off responsibility?
• Other Local Authorities in the Strategy area
• Natural England
• Other [please specify]
• Don’t Know
[Tick all that apply]

21. On what grounds could a body refuse to sign-off a Local Nature Recovery Strategy?
• Disagreement about overall priorities
• Disagreement about specific priorities
• Disagreement about potential measures
• Disagreement about the inclusion or exclusion of specific “areas of potential importance”
• On any reasonable grounds
• Only the “responsible authority” should be required to sign-off the Strategy
• Other [please specify]
• Don’t know
[Tick all that apply]
 

delilah

Member
12. Should individual landowners or managers be able to decide that land they own or manage should not be identified by a Local Nature Recovery Strategy as an area that could become of particular importance for biodiversity? [Yes/No/Don’t Know]

LNR wont see the light of day. For lots of reasons, among them the fact that the NFU will make sure that the answer to this question is 'Yes'. Without farmers it's dead in the water. It will be scrapped, and the objectives subsumed into the SFI such that individual farmers can determine their own destiny.
 

Mixedupfarmer

Member
Location
Norfolk
LNR wont see the light of day. For lots of reasons, among them the fact that the NFU will make sure that the answer to this question is 'Yes'. Without farmers it's dead in the water. It will be scrapped, and the objectives subsumed into the SFI such that individual farmers can determine their own destiny.
The top 2 tiers of ELMs are just for NT, RSPB, Wetland trusts and some massive estates.
 

holwellcourtfarm

Member
Livestock Farmer
LNR wont see the light of day. For lots of reasons, among them the fact that the NFU will make sure that the answer to this question is 'Yes'. Without farmers it's dead in the water. It will be scrapped, and the objectives subsumed into the SFI such that individual farmers can determine their own destiny.
I agree but do you really think that the government will accept that? I'm not so sure.....
 

delilah

Member
The top 2 tiers of ELMs are just for NT, RSPB, Wetland trusts and some massive estates.

I agree but do you really think that the government will accept that? I'm not so sure.....

Chin up chaps :) . The best way to predict the future is to design it. Or, in this case, co-design it.

UK ag holds all the cards here; ownership of the land, the optimum environmental use of that land in grazing livestock, the trump card of putting food on folks tables.

If UK ag allows ELMS to be anything other than a scheme that works in farmers favour, then it wont be the fault of Government, the quangos, or the landed gentry, but farmings fault for wasting the hand it holds.
 

Attachments

  • Appendix 2.pdf
    60.7 KB · Views: 0

steveR

Member
Mixed Farmer
LNR wont see the light of day. For lots of reasons, among them the fact that the NFU will make sure that the answer to this question is 'Yes'. Without farmers it's dead in the water. It will be scrapped, and the objectives subsumed into the SFI such that individual farmers can determine their own destiny.
My concern is that there will be an attempt to force landowners into such a scheme...

However, I will respond in the affirmative to the question. (y)

But any question that suggest involvement of NE will be responded to in the negative.
 

steveR

Member
Mixed Farmer
This consultation will be open online on Citizen Space for a period of 12 weeks, closing on Tuesday 2nd November. We are seeking views on how Government should implement Local Nature Recovery Strategies in England.

Where and what is "Citizen Space" please...?
 

delilah

Member
Where and what is "Citizen Space" please...?

Foxy......no Wolfie :ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO: .


foxy.jpg
 

holwellcourtfarm

Member
Livestock Farmer

DrWazzock

Member
Arable Farmer
Location
Lincolnshire
My concern is that there will be an attempt to force landowners into such a scheme...

However, I will respond in the affirmative to the question. (y)

But any question that suggest involvement of NE will be responded to in the negative.
Any attempt to force me into such a scheme will will be met with a rebellion or uprising. Last time they annoyed me it ended up with Brexit. So they had better be careful.😆
 

holwellcourtfarm

Member
Livestock Farmer
This whole proposal is very alarming. This will be NE running riot.
To me it reeks of the ecology community being handed a gold-plated opportunity to tell landowners what they should do with their land with minimal genuine prior engagement.

Including the NFU in the process is NOT effective landowner engagement and agreement.
 

delilah

Member
I had an email from Defra last week, bollocking me for emailing the members of the Elms Engagement Group. Anyone concerned about the current allocation of ELMS money across its three strands, should make their views clear to the members of the EEG - contact details attached.
If you don't get an email bollocking you, then you aren't trying hard enough.
 

Attachments

  • EEG Environmental land management engagement group.docx
    18.3 KB · Views: 0

DrWazzock

Member
Arable Farmer
Location
Lincolnshire
I’ve long had the feeling, since being at school really, that we aren’t trusted to look after the land and that there is a large group of “we know better” people who have built “careers” in DEFRA, NE, and various ecological bodies. Their views and opinions arise due to sitting in offices and armchairs, not getting involved in practicalities or needing to make the job pay to earn a living.
Ultimately we need food and reliance on imports is a dangerous policy especially when things get tight globally.
I also would ask these people how much wilderness we actually need? Along as we have a core reserve of habitat, and I think we do, then why do we need more? What purpose will it serve and why is it a priority in times of food supply insecurity and rising prices.
Sadly though it appears the government is now completely infiltrated with William Morris type champagne ecologists who’ve never felt the hairs on their neck stand up as 29 tonner has pulled out the yard bearing the produce of a years worth of work and worry.
As Bernard Montgomery once said we seem now to have politicians who are mostly second rate lawyers and it’s shows. It really does. So clever at arguing but absolutely useless at keeping the wheels of commerce and industry turning, with their attention constantly diverted into Ponzi schemes and tax payer funded wheezes which are slowly bankrupting the country.
This contrasts with what I see on the ground. Farmers still trying to grow crops, against all the obstacles, silly diversions and negativity thrown at them.
So I largely ignore what DEFRA and the government has to say. It’s rubbish. Keep calm and carry on. Do a tidy job, on time, simply and carefully. Stick to what we know works and we’ll be alright.
So can I engage with the consultation process? No not really. It’s completely alien to me. A completely different ball game to what drives me and motivates me. If they want to turn this place into a wilderness then they can buy it off us and do it as they like but I’ll have no part in running down 300 years of careful agricultural improvement and progress, so other than that there is absolutely nothing more I can say to them.
 

SFI - What % were you taking out of production?

  • 0 %

    Votes: 81 42.2%
  • Up to 25%

    Votes: 68 35.4%
  • 25-50%

    Votes: 30 15.6%
  • 50-75%

    Votes: 3 1.6%
  • 75-100%

    Votes: 3 1.6%
  • 100% I’ve had enough of farming!

    Votes: 7 3.6%

Red Tractor drops launch of green farming scheme amid anger from farmers

  • 1,294
  • 1
As reported in Independent


quote: “Red Tractor has confirmed it is dropping plans to launch its green farming assurance standard in April“

read the TFF thread here: https://thefarmingforum.co.uk/index.php?threads/gfc-was-to-go-ahead-now-not-going-ahead.405234/
Top