Courier
Member
- Location
- M62 - M1 - M18 triangle
Why should we believe anyone ?
@Janet Hughes Defra Will you please share with us what you are considering or planning RT will be involved with in any aspect of DEFRA policy delivery?There's no plan for RT to be involved in environmental land management schemes. What we are looking at is whether there's a place for 'earned recognition' - ie if you're in a scheme with environmental aspects eg organic, LEAF, how can we recognise that in our schemes? That would be entirely optional for people, if they wanted to use their accreditation in schemes in that way.
I am meeting Jim Moseley, yes - I meet people from all around the sector as part of my job. Part of the reason I share who I'm meeting and where I'm going each week (I'm @janethughes on twitter -https://twitter.com/JanetHughes - you'll see that I share an update each week about what I'm up to and try to answer all the questions I'm asked there) is that I get very useful feedback from others about who I'm seeing and where I'm going, which helps me make sure I get a balanced range of views.
It would seem to most of us farmers that the over riding problem with what is being proposed is it appears Defra wish to micro manage every single thing about the scheme, this surely is a recipe for disaster before it's even got off the ground.I do, yes, and we plan to extend SFI to include those farms before 2024.
I think many are coming to the conclusion that the current scheme on offer will add little to the average farm business. Too restrictive, little financial incentive, another layer of farm admin to add to the compliance burden. I may take my chances in the marketplace.
Agree 100%, and I have suggested this to DEFRA.from my experience so far the "income forgone" calculations are just to far out for uptake to be significant, I can make some of it work for us but nothing like as much as I should be able to
BUT I also appreciate there is a limit to budget
Only solution I can see is to drop the other "landscape recovery" parts of ELMs that will only really benefit the massive and already wealthy landowners / national Trust / church etc and allocate the saving to make the SFI income forgone calculations more realistic
In fact I feel there is a certain inevitability to the above !
Yes - as I said, there isn't any plan for RT to be involved in policy delivery that I'm aware of@Janet Hughes Defra Will you please share with us what you are considering or planning RT will be involved with in any aspect of DEFRA policy delivery?
At present RT is supported by the supermarket cartel because it provides them with part of their due diligence defence to proceedings under the Food Safety Act 1990 at the expense of the primary producer. It is also being used by the British Retail Consortium as a tool to manipulate the market in beef and lamb. Whole life assurance is being pushed by the cartel to achieve vertical integration of the supply chain in beef and lamb which is their preferred business model. The cartel does not like competing in the market in an open and transparent manner and as such RT is progressively anticompetitive.
it would be a disaster of titanic proportions !
I agree, we don't want to micro-manage, and we're re-designing the way we manage controls and assurance in schemes on this basis - we've already made some changes within CS and will carry those forward into SFI. We are setting up the scheme to be constructive and supportive for the vast majority of people who we know are overwhelmingly doing their best in good faith.It would seem to most of us farmers that the over riding problem with what is being proposed is it appears Defra wish to micro manage every single thing about the scheme, this surely is a recipe for disaster before it's even got off the ground.
There has to be a certain amount of trust forthcoming from Defra's side that farmers will do their very best to accommodate Defra's ambition but too much talk of inspections, checks & outcomes will surely result in many farmers thinking it's far more trouble than it's worth!
For example uk-wales-59158098
Good to hear, however, I am one of those who will be "holding back" for a year or two, until I see exactly what is on offer @Janet Hughes DefraI agree, we don't want to micro-manage, and we're re-designing the way we manage controls and assurance in schemes on this basis - we've already made some changes within CS and will carry those forward into SFI. We are setting up the scheme to be constructive and supportive for the vast majority of people who we know are overwhelmingly doing their best in good faith.
However, I do recognise it will take some time for us to demonstrate that we've actually made this shift and for you to see the evidence of it yourself. Fair enough for you to reserve judgement until we've done that.
Landscape Recovery is in the Environment Act and the 25 year Environment Plan so very unlikely to be downgraded.from my experience so far the "income forgone" calculations are just to far out for uptake to be significant, I can make some of it work for us but nothing like as much as I should be able to
BUT I also appreciate there is a limit to budget
Only solution I can see is to drop the other "landscape recovery" parts of ELMs that will only really benefit the massive and already wealthy landowners / national Trust / church etc and allocate the saving to make the SFI income forgone calculations more realistic
In fact I feel there is a certain inevitability to the above !
Landscape Recovery is in the Environment Act and the 25 year Environment Plan so very unlikely to be downgraded.
So either a bigger budget has to be found, or SFI expectations seriously reduced, as I cannot see the payment rates, even with a bit of tweaking upwards being attractive enough for many.Landscape Recovery is in the Environment Act and the 25 year Environment Plan so very unlikely to be downgraded.
At a time when many countries in the world are facing devastating famines & the world we are told is warming up making famines ever more likely it would seem to me extremely callous & you could say almost criminal for the UK government to be actively trying to reduce our UK farms output!The biggest issue I have with entering any scheme is that if they are successful in taking productive land out of food production the uk will need to be a net importer of the grains that we have been net exporters for the last 20 years
this will give the uk higher exfarm prices and higher income from production compared To any schemes
my land lords will look for higher rents based on the higher income from crops
Good to hear, however, I am one of those who will be "holding back" for a year or two, until I see exactly what is on offer @Janet Hughes DefraI agree, we don't want to micro-manage, and we're re-designing the way we manage controls and assurance in schemes on this basis - we've already made some changes within CS and will carry those forward into SFI. We are setting up the scheme to be constructive and supportive for the vast majority of people who we know are overwhelmingly doing their best in good faith.
However, I do recognise it will take some time for us to demonstrate that we've actually made this shift and for you to see the evidence of it yourself. Fair enough for you to reserve judgement until we've done that.
Fully agree.At a time when many countries in the world are facing devastating famines & the world we are told is warming up making famines ever more likely it would seem to me extremely callous & you could say almost criminal for the UK government to be actively trying to reduce our UK farms output!
Tell me where is the food aid for these impoverished countries supposed to come from or are we expecting ever more people of these countries to start turning up on our shores?
Proper index linked payments in an era of inflation pushing 5-6% at present, will need factoring in too if DEFRA want us in 3-5 year agreements..