New information about local nature recovery and landscape recovery

egbert said:

it's not a quango, end of.

And the direction of travel has got Goldsmiths et al all over it.

Dear Janet might agree with it, or she not....she is tasked with doing a job.
whether or not the job is doable? As they say.... 'now you're asking the right questions'

Click to expand...

If it is not a quango involved perhaps you can explain who are Defra's delivery partners as Janet calls them?


[IMG alt="Janet Hughes Defra"]https://d1hu4133i4rt3z.cloudfront.net/avatars/m/153/153068.jpg?1616752150[/IMG]

Janet Hughes Defra​

Member​

✓

• Friday at 5:41 PM
• Add bookmark
• #252

BrianV said:
Janet just so we are all aware & very clear who to blame if or when this all goes wrong is it yourself & Defra or your political leaders who are responsible for designing these schemes with as far as I can make out at least 250 different simplified options available?

Click to expand...

As I was just saying to @delilah we are trying to strike a balance between providing enough options so that there's something for everyone, and keeping schemes as straightforward as possible.

In terms of accountability: Ministers are accountable for setting policy and making decisions, and are ultimately accountable to Parliament for their decisions; I'm the programme director and in that role I'm accountable, along with my colleagues in Defra and our delivery partners, for execution of the government's policy which in this case means delivering the reforms on time, to budget and with the desired outcomes.

Goweresque said:

There's really no point critiquing post #492, that was Civil Service speak for 'This is what we're doing, like it or lump it'.

We all know that absent higher output prices there isn't much UK farming can do to increase profitability. The idea that 'higher productivity' would increase profitability runs contrary to the evidence 100 years of productivity gains in the industry. We are far more productive than we have ever been, and consequently far more reliant on subsidy to make a profit than we have ever been. We are constrained on all sides by regulations that do not apply to our competitors overseas and the idea that we could all make a good living selling our products direct could only have been invented by someone with zero knowledge of economics whatsoever.

No, post #492 tells us all we need to know about Defra's attitude to farming, and what ELMS is designed to do. There's no point debating with them any further.

Click to expand...

Why are those two related? When the SPS came in (was it 2002?), farming and subsidies were decoupled, so farmers could develop viable businesses and still get the subsidy. So someone with zero knowledge of economics as you phrase it, would carry on losing money on their farming operation because free money was coming in every December.

There's no requirement under the BPS to produce or grow anything, although there's alot of rules or cross compliance. Ironically most of the rules are easier to stick to if you actually stop farming the land.

Subsidies always distort markets. Just look at this thread, farming has become uneconomic and no-one has realised up till now. We've been lucky to have what we've had when we've had it.

N.Yorks. said:

1. 70% winter green cover. - so what do you do at the moment, spring cropping? If you drill a winter crop it's job sorted. They don't want bare ground through winter, and neither should you 'cos it doesn't help with soil structure and you'll probably wash topsoil down slopes and maybe off the field.

Click to expand...

50% of arable land is in mid-tier stewardship. AB15, AB1, AB9, AB11.

Janet has said (although no fine detail yet) that we can't be paid twice for something. She gave the example of existing stewardship scheme option for winter cover crop (SW6???), and as that was already been paid for, it couldn't be used for calculating SFI Intermediate level winter multi-species green cover.

So if the rules work in a similar way for my situation, I might not be able to use the land in my stewardship scheme in the green cover calculation (as I'm already being paid for it having a green cover over winter). I could use my AB11 land, as that option doesn't have to be in place over winter, but it still leaves me short to get to my 70% requirement.

So if the above are the rules, then I can't access even the Introductory level of SFI soils standard.

If I can't access the introductory level, then I can't go on to access either intermediate or higher levels, so I'm left high and dry.

Am I correct or not? Not certain, depends what the fine detail of the rules is. Maybe Janet can give a definitive answer. It's looking like I might not be able to access SFI soils standards at all. Depends how DEFRA interpret the paid twice rule, and if they consider my stewardship options to be already getting paid for green cover (or not).

A few months ago when DEFRA/Janet we're on TFF asking for comments about the proposed SFI, I made the point that the way SFI works could create a situation where someone absolutely couldn't fulfill one of the standards in the lower tiers, and so would be "blocked" from accessing higher tiers. I might be a victim of this, as DEFRA didn't redesign SFI to prevent this from happening. I suggested it was designed more like the old ELS, where farmer could choose options to get to a points target.

I hope this scenario isn't one which DEFRA consider to be being paid twice for the same thing, but at the moment it could be that I can't access any level of SFI arable soils - even if I wanted to.

Devil in the detail of the small print. It might be fine for me to access the introductory level.

Intermediate level is a different ballgame, with the cost associated of establishing cover crops.

Then if farmer decides intermediate level isn't financially rewarding enough, then they can't access the higher level even if they want to. Even if they fancied min-till or DD. To be fair, DD probably goes hand in hand with overwinter cover crops, but worth it for a measly few £££ per ha? If you're doing DD anyway and cover crops, then it's free cash, so why not fill your boots. Are those payment rates sufficient to help persuade anyone to adopt cover crops and DD - I expect my not, unless you were going to do it anyway.

All just my own thoughts. Appreciate someone might have a different opinion.

N.Yorks. said:

1. I've got to do the soil sampling and analysis. - you will only have to do each field every 5 years, if you sample for nutrients (as you should) adding an extra OM% to the lab analysis is only something like an extra £20 per sample.
2. Soil assessment and magement plan. - you'll do all the hard work in the first year pulling the thing together then all you've got to do is review it annually, so probably not going to be difficult.
3. 70% winter green cover. - so what do you do at the moment, spring cropping? If you drill a winter crop it's job sorted. They don't want bare ground through winter, and neither should you 'cos it doesn't help with soil structure and you'll probably wash topsoil down slopes and maybe off the field.
4. Each year add OM to 33% of land by FYM, chopped straw or cover crop (or grass ley??). - easy done surely one way or another, and the benefit from having OM returned to the soil is massive. Forget soil carbon, that'sbollocks but there are direct benefits to you through better productivity if you don't already do this.
5. (Intermediate level) 20% of land with a green multi-species winter cover on it. - yes I agree with you, this is more challenging. Could be a combination of leaving weeds to come up and/or spinning on something else that you can spray off in the spring with the weeds. Or being really imaginative have a companion crop maybe - what the combination could be I'm not sure, will have to think.

Click to expand...

To be fair you're right with points 1 to 4. Reasonably feasible to do. Suppose OM addition is the one to think about and make sure you can do.

@Janet Hughes Defra Boris is toast, if a new PM removes some or all of the present policy makers at DEFRA is there a possibility that all this could be redesigned if the new regime decide to show an interest in food production or is it too far down the line?

egbert said:

it's not a quango, end of.

And the direction of travel has got Goldsmiths et al all over it.

Dear Janet might agree with it, or she not....she is tasked with doing a job.
whether or not the job is doable? As they say.... 'now you're asking the right questions'

Click to expand...

Pretty much what I understood when I tried to get "Environmentalists" paid by Charities and Trusts to help fight HS2 on environmental grounds - the destruction of SSSI habitats and ancient woodland.

None of them were interested. The words mean nothing.

Later I got Freedom of Information reports and emails from various government departments including the Environment Agency. The EA were telling the DTI how to pay lip service to their rules with minimum effort - "Environment" is just a word, a title applied to a job paid for by HMG.

That's why I call all this out as complete and utter BS. It's not about the "Environment" - it's purely about a Minister and the Civil Service dumping on the general public using our tax money.

The same with the Charities and Trusts. Ultimately they all get paid by HMG. So they were NEVER going to fight HS2, they have the job title and an income from HMG. That's why you should take anything HMG or the Civil Service says with a massive pinch of salt - it's being done because they say so, not because it is the correct thing to do. All the excuses being thrown by HMG at Agriculture are not necessarily true, they are just excuses by a bunch of people who don't care and will face no repercussions regardless of what happens. They have destroyed many other industries, lives, families and even nation states before you or me - they get paid to do it regardless of what happens to anyone else.

So all of this is just a job. If their boss says jump, they jump.

Forget the department titles or any other of the words.

Ok, so, why is this...

Intermediate soils standard arable SFI, you get an extra £18/ha over and above introductory level. To get that you've to put 20% in multi species overwinter cover crops.

You get payment on the full area, so that's (per 100 hectares) £1,800 of cash to establish 20ha, or £90/ha.

Compare that to mid/higher tier stewardship SW6 overwinter cover crop. Payment rate for that is £124/ha.

£90 for SFI vs £124 for C Stewardship for doing pretty much exactly the same thing.

There's a slight difference I suppose, because for intermediate level, the 20% of OM addition from cover crops means there is only a further 13.3% to make up from other OM additions (whereas with introductory level you need to add 33.3% from FYM, straw chopping etc.).

Humble Village Farmer said:

Why are those two related?

Click to expand...

Because farmers produce internationally traded largely fungible commodities, and our customers are not millions of Mrs Miggins doing their weekly shops, its a handful of multinational businesses (retailers and processors) who control the entire food processing and retailing system in the UK (and most of the Western world). So when we invent a new way of growing 2 grains where 1 grew before, the benefits of this productivity increase do not accrue to the farmer, they accrue to a combination of the processors/retailers and consumers. All productivity increases do is drive down ex-farm prices (sometimes in actual terms, always in real terms) over time. The only market power farmers have is when demand exceeds supply. If supply exceeds demand then the processors/retailers drive the market price to the floor. So extra productivity = extra supply on the market = lower prices = lower profitability.

Do a thought experiment - if agricultural productivity dropped 20% on a global basis for some reason (lets say a massive volcanic eruption drops global temperatures overnight by several degrees) do you think farm profitability would go up or down?

Goweresque said:

Because farmers produce internationally traded largely fungible commodities, and our customers are not millions of Mrs Miggins doing their weekly shops, its a handful of multinational businesses (retailers and processors) who control the entire food processing and retailing system in the UK (and most of the Western world). So when we invent a new way of growing 2 grains where 1 grew before, the benefits of this productivity increase do not accrue to the farmer, they accrue to a combination of the processors/retailers and consumers. All productivity increases do is drive down ex-farm prices (sometimes in actual terms, always in real terms) over time. The only market power farmers have is when demand exceeds supply. If supply exceeds demand then the processors/retailers drive the market price to the floor. So extra productivity = extra supply on the market = lower prices = lower profitability.

Do a thought experiment - if agricultural productivity dropped 20% on a global basis for some reason (lets say a massive volcanic eruption drops global temperatures overnight by several degrees) do you think farm profitability would go up or down?

Click to expand...

Elasticity of supply and demand. Oligopolies and there influence in a Perfect market. First year economics for Agriculture Degree. Takes me back.

Grass And Grain said:

As well as hassle of filing out claim form and record keeping...

1. I've got to do the soil sampling and analysis.
2. Soil assessment and magement plan.
3. 70% winter green cover.
4. Each year add OM to 33% of land by FYM, chopped straw or cover crop (or grass ley??).
5. (Intermediate level) 20% of land with a green multi-species winter cover on it.

Introductory level £8.90 per acre.
Intermediate level £16.16 per acre.

Looks to me like DEFRA want some GHG mitigation for peanuts.

I can't establish 20% multi species green cover on 20 % of land for £7.26/acre (overall). Seed, drilling, destruction, inflexibility, forced spring cropping. So now I guess that will also exclude ability to enter the higher level.

Goodness only knows how much cover crop seed will be if there's a big uptake of the intermediate level. Budget on it doubling in price (if you can get hold of it).

I think payment levels need to be X 3 of what the current offer is. I was expecting to join SFI arable soils, but it's just not looking like worth the hassle. Intermediate is certainly out of the question.

Will have to put up a glamping pod like everyone else, and flood the market.

Seems to me DEFRA have got their pricing offer miles wrong.

Sorry Janet, but I'm afraid it isn't going to be worth the bother. I desperately want it to be, because I can't afford to lose the income from reducing BPS. But I just can't get it to add up to be worthwhile.

Click to expand...

British farmers were weaned on to environmental payments by ELS. A simple scheme which gave a little bit of financial incentive to 'leave a bit for nature'.

For arable farmers, the sums are pretty simple. You can just make guesstimates on yields etc and compare to values offered by a scheme.

It is much more difficult for livestock farmers.
What I believe has happened is that the environmental schemes have been successful and reduced productivity. While schemes haven't ever kept up with inflation, they have also been reduced to reflect less income foregone as productivity continues to drop.
All these livestock farmers will now be looking at land with overgrown hedges and in good need of improvement. We are all beginning to realise just what being in these schemes has cost in earning potential.
The current finances on offer make Defra's offers by far the worst option. I expect vast swathes of permanent pasture to undergo major improvements in the coming years or disappear under hardcore.

Hindsight said:

Elasticity of supply and demand. Oligopolies and there influence in a Perfect market. First year economics for Agriculture Degree. Takes me back.

Click to expand...

Just A Level Economics for me, circa 1989

holwellcourtfarm said:

Here in Eastern England there are some very big farming operations who are either contract farming or renting huge areas from multiple landlords. They may well be farming enough land to enter LR but they won't have the tenure to do so. It'll be their landlords who enter it and just remove the areas affected from the farming contract. Those landlords probably would cooperate to create a viable scheme as their land use ethos is different.

Click to expand...

There is quite a few examples of ‘cluster’ groups popping up. We are working on one in our area. Lots of farmers/land owners involved. Quite a few big contract farmers all bringing 5/6 land owners on board.
The attitudes and comments towards all these kinds of arrangements/any kind of scale/refusal to work with neighbours on this thread is quite sad really. Doesn’t need to be like that.

ajd132 said:

There is quite a few examples of ‘cluster’ groups popping up. We are working on one in our area. Lots of farmers/land owners involved. Quite a few big contract farmers all bringing 5/6 land owners on board.
The attitudes and comments towards all these kinds of arrangements/any kind of scale/refusal to work with neighbours on this thread is quite sad really. Doesn’t need to be like that.

Click to expand...

How do you get lots of farmers , many of whom will be older ones if they’ve let you contractor farm their land, to agree on anything other than short term stuff . I will be 60 soon and don’t want to commit to 3 yr agreements on anything , let alone longer term stuff .

Jackov Altraids said:

British farmers were weaned on to environmental payments by ELS. A simple scheme which gave a little bit of financial incentive to 'leave a bit for nature'.

For arable farmers, the sums are pretty simple. You can just make guesstimates on yields etc and compare to values offered by a scheme.

It is much more difficult for livestock farmers.
What I believe has happened is that the environmental schemes have been successful and reduced productivity. While schemes haven't ever kept up with inflation, they have also been reduced to reflect less income foregone as productivity continues to drop.
All these livestock farmers will now be looking at land with overgrown hedges and in good need of improvement. We are all beginning to realise just what being in these schemes has cost in earning potential.
The current finances on offer make Defra's offers by far the worst option. I expect vast swathes of permanent pasture to undergo major improvements in the coming years or disappear under hardcore.

Click to expand...

Happening here, right now.

Rejig the business and see where we are in 3 years time is my plan... More renewables will figure for some too.

silverfox said:

How do you get lots of farmers , many of whom will be older ones if they’ve let you contractor farm their land, to agree on anything other than short term stuff . I will be 60 soon and don’t want to commit to 3 yr agreements on anything , let alone longer term stuff .

Click to expand...

There’s a group called the wensum catchment who have done it. There is quite a few groups I know of starting to get together now. Some with some massive areas. Usually involves a river valley from what I can gather

silverfox said:

How do you get lots of farmers , many of whom will be older ones if they’ve let you contractor farm their land, to agree on anything other than short term stuff . I will be 60 soon and don’t want to commit to 3 yr agreements on anything , let alone longer term stuff .

Click to expand...

ajd132 said:

There’s a group called the wensum catchment who have done it. There is quite a few groups I know of starting to get together now. Some with some massive areas. Usually involves a river valley from what I can gather

Click to expand...

There is a group coming together in north lincs with lincs wildlife trust as facilitator.

ajd132 said:

There is quite a few examples of ‘cluster’ groups popping up. We are working on one in our area. Lots of farmers/land owners involved. Quite a few big contract farmers all bringing 5/6 land owners on board.
The attitudes and comments towards all these kinds of arrangements/any kind of scale/refusal to work with neighbours on this thread is quite sad really. Doesn’t need to be like that.

Click to expand...

There's a big difference between 5 or 6 farm owners (who don't need to be all direct neighbours) having the same contractor, and being able to pull out of that arrangement any time they choose, and signing a legal document tying yourself to 5 or 6 direct neighbours (and making your own financial future dependent on them doing what they are supposed to) for 20+ years.

egbert said:

it's not a quango, end of.

And the direction of travel has got Goldsmiths et al all over it.

Dear Janet might agree with it, or she not....she is tasked with doing a job.
whether or not the job is doable? As they say.... 'now you're asking the right questions'

Click to expand...

Maybe we should be made aware of just who Defra's delivery partners are, perhaps it would be worth you asking Janet just so we know who is pulling who's strings?

Goweresque said:

There's a big difference between 5 or 6 farm owners (who don't need to be all direct neighbours) having the same contractor, and being able to pull out of that arrangement any time they choose, and signing a legal document tying yourself to 5 or 6 direct neighbours (and making your own financial future dependent on them doing what they are supposed to) for 20+ years.

Click to expand...

Well that’s what some groups are doing.

Grass And Grain said:

Ok, so, why is this...

Intermediate soils standard arable SFI, you get an extra £18/ha over and above introductory level. To get that you've to put 20% in multi species overwinter cover crops.

You get payment on the full area, so that's (per 100 hectares) £1,800 of cash to establish 20ha, or £90/ha.

Compare that to mid/higher tier stewardship SW6 overwinter cover crop. Payment rate for that is £124/ha.

£90 for SFI vs £124 for C Stewardship for doing pretty much exactly the same thing.

There's a slight difference I suppose, because for intermediate level, the 20% of OM addition from cover crops means there is only a further 13.3% to make up from other OM additions (whereas with introductory level you need to add 33.3% from FYM, straw chopping etc.).

Click to expand...

Good point. Wouldn't it have been simpler to do it on points like the old ELS system?