New information about local nature recovery and landscape recovery

BrianV · Jan 28, 2022

devonbeef said:
we are told a few pages back we will get paid for taking part in schemes, because it will be providing public good. Since the end of the second world war, farmers have done the greatest public good ,provided cheep food for the masses.That seems to have been forgotten

We now have a vision of public good that's being seen through the eyes of short sighted Eco nuts who live in a make believe world where if they say it's "green" it must be right.
Bit like our energy supply where the wind & sun is all we need because they seem to believe the sun shines every day & the wind blows every night, what could be simpler or possibly go wrong!

BrianV · Jan 28, 2022

DrWazzock said:
Precisely.
The existing system, (BPS and CS) isn’t even fully bedded in and and working yet, but they see fit to move on to a new system. Why? The present system provides every mechanism needed to achieve either direct area based support or payment for environmental work. All they needs to be done is to turn the dials up or down a bit. But leave the mechanisms as they are?
So what will LR and LNR bring to the party? LNR is just CS with a different name. The only thing I can see that is really new is LR. This will rely on multi land holder cooperation and agreements for which there is absolutely no mechanism in place and which will struggle to work at all when it gets to stage where legally binding contracts have to drawn up. It will be a mess and a minefield. I don’t think it’s been thought through.
We never learn. Wholesale change is extremely inefficient and expensive. Sweat the system that’s already in place. Get a return from those assets. Continues to smooth them out. But don’t bring in more change if you can possibly avoid it.

But isn't this exactly what our stupid politicians do, they finally get to power & decide everything that has gone before must be wrong so they waste vast amounts of public money "making their mark" for history, that is until the next lot get in & repeat the same mistakes all over again!
They now call it "world beating" as if anyone believes it!

Hindsight · Jan 28, 2022

DrWazzock said:
Precisely.
The existing system, (BPS and CS) isn’t even fully bedded in and and working yet, but they see fit to move on to a new system. Why? The present system provides every mechanism needed to achieve either direct area based support or payment for environmental work. All they needs to be done is to turn the dials up or down a bit. But leave the mechanisms as they are?
So what will LR and LNR bring to the party? LNR is just CS with a different name. The only thing I can see that is really new is LR. This will rely on multi land holder cooperation and agreements for which there is absolutely no mechanism in place and which will struggle to work at all when it gets to stage where legally binding contracts have to drawn up. It will be a mess and a minefield. I don’t think it’s been thought through.
We never learn. Wholesale change is extremely inefficient and expensive. Sweat the system that’s already in place. Get a return from those assets. Continues to smooth them out. But don’t bring in more change if you can possibly avoid it.

Here is an example of how LR might work. An estate involving the tenants.

Countryside Stewardship Archives - Strutt & Parker - Rural Hub

rural.struttandparker.com

willy · Jan 28, 2022

Defra maybe should call it the 'Disclosure Act'

DrWazzock · Jan 28, 2022

Hindsight said:
Here is an example of how LR might work. An estate involving the tenants.

Countryside Stewardship Archives - Strutt & Parker - Rural Hub

rural.struttandparker.com

Aye. Taxpayers help toffs carry on living in the “manor” to which they have become accustomed., when farming got a bit too much like hard work.
I’ll bet it’s a Klondike for the consultants agents and solicitors as well, not to mention the employees of DEFEA, RPA and NE.
And what’s to show for if? More birds that chitter in the bushes. More views that look like the front cover of a Thomas Hardy novel.
And the economic output, contribution to food security and net benefit to public finances of sweet FA.
Madness in the view. But I’ll agree to disagree and move on.

topground · Jan 28, 2022

willy said:
Defra maybe should call it the 'Disclosure Act'

Or perhaps the Lowland clearances?

tepapa · Jan 28, 2022

What an interesting thread. At the beginning everyone is polite and curious what the new scheme will involve but now they've realised what's being asked, the hoops the jump through, the potential money available and devaluation of the land, and it's an all out no, not interested, start again.

Dave645 · Jan 28, 2022

Janet Hughes Defra said:
This is the sort of thing the Nature Recovery scheme is intended to help with - locally targeted actions, and support for local collaboration so that people in an area can work together (as many already do) to create joined up habitats and water management

Which has a draw back, unless I group up with other farmers in my area I don’t get into the scheme, even if I did get into the scheme, how will it work if my farm with an area of land in a rich wildlife already, I can be in it but what if the money from your scheme goes to those around me but not me?
Or I get more money than the other farmers in the group, or the money in the group is not evenly spread where one gets more money than others from the group, who gets to pick out what options are done on what land in the group, what if my land is important to the group but I only have a small amount of land to put into the new scheme?

the big draw back of your scheme is the fact that getting any group of farmers to agree when money is involved is very difficult the nature of the scheme means that an even distribution of money for items will be difficult a farmer may own a field next to mine but have no interest in it joining the scheme.
or the rest of his farm is 2 miles away, or like mine it’s in 3 blocks some 3 miles from the rest.
While I can understand you don’t want a large number of projects because of how complex projects maybe, actually your making projects more complex by making them bigger your making the application side harder then making implementation harder and making keeping all members of the group happy harder because I can say now if one member seems to be benefiting more from the scheme then that’s not going to lead to plain sailing.

I also don’t like the planning stage where you do all the work planning your application but don’t know if it will be exempted or not. So after all that effort to make a group of farmers happy and balancing the money out and work, it gets rejected.

like I said the old ELS system mapped farms as we had to put down what we had, that is then used to do the basics scheme money level, not to many strings attached, then the data is used to design schemes that farmers can sign up for individually, with auto in.
With 60% of the farming budget to spend on them and if you offer farmers options so they can have a small say in the options takien on their land and the areas they want to include you would get a far bigger uptake, I hate to say it but while my dad has done a lot of environmental stuff over the years he is very disillusioned by your schemes, from what he has seen so far.
The fact they have to be managed in big areas and include applications that may not be excepted, puts us off even applying.

I think the ELS mapping and a few RSPB members could have targeted local rich areas with projects and helped link them up into bigger projects, with them drawing up pre approved project areas so any land in those project areas appears in the farmers online mapping and it shows options to them for entering that land into the project, simple no groups no arguing no complex plans by these groups, to draw up to only get refused.
No management payments well not to farmers only the ones drawing up local area project zones.
Once the zones have been outlined then you can target what you want if wildlife corridors is the goal then they are drawn in and areas at either side are included in targeted land management options, so the zone created by the corridor also encourages management changes to the land in less permanent ways in field options where you can afford to bump up payments more than the basics scheme.
The corridor may only be 10 metres wide and the land zone around, may be up to a half a mile wide on both sides.
But another smaller buffer zone only 100 meters wide around the corridor, may also be used.

In my opinion if you get plans drawn up, the plans you will get interest. If a farmer that has land in the plan area is not interested then thats their choice, but that doesn’t block the plan and over time the farmer may change their mind. Or you find farmers near that area who are interested and the plan is adjusted. And ELS farm mapping keeps the system updated.
The ELS mapping system could also be used by farmers to highlight land they are willing to put into environmental schemes and at what level, so permanent changes, more temporary changes, in field options etc etc.
This then helps the designers weave in land where they know farms have interest in participating in schemes.
This makes planning far easier.

J 1177 · Jan 28, 2022

tepapa said:
What an interesting thread. At the beginning everyone is polite and curious what the new scheme will involve but now they've realised what's being asked, the hoops the jump through, the potential money available and devaluation of the land, and it's an all out no, not interested, start again.

Iv yet to meet any farmer from umpteen difrent setups that thinks its going to be anything but an unmitigated disaster.

tepapa · Jan 28, 2022

J 1177 said:
Iv yet to meet any farmer from umpteen difrent setups that thinks its going to be anything but an unmitigated disaster.

An I'd agree with them.

Huno · Jan 28, 2022

Dave645 said:
Which has a draw back, unless I group up with other farmers in my area I don’t get into the scheme, even if I did get into the scheme, how will it work if my farm with an area of land in a rich wildlife already, I can be in it but what if the money from your scheme goes to those around me but not me?
Or I get more money than the other farmers in the group, or the money in the group is not evenly spread where one gets more money than others from the group, who gets to pick out what options are done on what land in the group, what if my land is important to the group but I only have a small amount of land to put into the new scheme?

the big draw back of your scheme is the fact that getting any group of farmers to agree when money is involved is very difficult the nature of the scheme means that an even distribution of money for items will be difficult a farmer may own a field next to mine but have no interest in it joining the scheme.
or the rest of his farm is 2 miles away, or like mine it’s in 3 blocks some 3 miles from the rest.
While I can understand you don’t want a large number of projects because of how complex projects maybe, actually your making projects more complex by making them bigger your making the application side harder then making implementation harder and making keeping all members of the group happy harder because I can say now if one member seems to be benefiting more from the scheme then that’s not going to lead to plain sailing.

I also don’t like the planning stage where you do all the work planning your application but don’t know if it will be exempted or not. So after all that effort to make a group of farmers happy and balancing the money out and work, it gets rejected.

like I said the old ELS system mapped farms as we had to put down what we had, that is then used to do the basics scheme money level, not to many strings attached, then the data is used to design schemes that farmers can sign up for individually, with auto in.
With 60% of the farming budget to spend on them and if you offer farmers options so they can have a small say in the options takien on their land and the areas they want to include you would get a far bigger uptake, I hate to say it but while my dad has done a lot of environmental stuff over the years he is very disillusioned by your schemes, from what he has seen so far.
The fact they have to be managed in big areas and include applications that may not be excepted, puts us off even applying.

I think the ELS mapping and a few RSPB members could have targeted local rich areas with projects and helped link them up into bigger projects, with them drawing up pre approved project areas so any land in those project areas appears in the farmers online mapping and it shows options to them for entering that land into the project, simple no groups no arguing no complex plans by these groups, to draw up to only get refused.
No management payments well not to farmers only the ones drawing up local area project zones.
Once the zones have been outlined then you can target what you want if wildlife corridors is the goal then they are drawn in and areas at either side are included in targeted land management options, so the zone created by the corridor also encourages management changes to the land in less permanent ways in field options where you can afford to bump up payments more than the basics scheme.
The corridor may only be 10 metres wide and the land zone around, may be up to a half a mile wide on both sides.
But another smaller buffer zone only 100 meters wide around the corridor, may also be used.

In my opinion if you get plans drawn up, the plans you will get interest. If a farmer that has land in the plan area is not interested then thats their choice, but that doesn’t block the plan and over time the farmer may change their mind. Or you find farmers near that area who are interested and the plan is adjusted. And ELS farm mapping keeps the system updated.
The ELS mapping system could also be used by farmers to highlight land they are willing to put into environmental schemes and at what level, so permanent changes, more temporary changes, in field options etc etc.
This then helps the designers weave in land where they know farms have interest in participating in schemes.
This makes planning far easier.

DEFRA are testing your recommendations as we speak with the option of choosing LNR options all the way down to the square metre if that is what you choose online on the interactive map.. Dont dispair just yet we just have to be patient sadly.. i lack patience too!!

andybk · Jan 28, 2022

gone up the hill said:
You say in your above post " Experts" @Janet Hughes Defra Who are these so called Experts???

People with degrees and no practical experience except from a book or lecturer , civil service love a degree whether you can do the job or not ,

PostHarvest · Jan 28, 2022

I have spent quite a portion of my working life trying to help farmers in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Republics move away from state controlled agriculture where every activity was directed by government offices according to the calendar without considering the local climate. What an unmitigated disaster that was. I never dreamed that our own government would be so short sighted and frankly stupid to go down the same path. Another policy that the Soviets demonstrated not to work is that when you make regulations too onerous, they just get ignored.

Why should I house my livestock from October to April, just because that might be appropriate in the North West? The small DEFRA payment is not going to cover the extra cost of housing for 4 months longer than I need to.

Vader · Jan 28, 2022

holwellcourtfarm said:
And nobody has surveyed the land here for biodiversity in the last 30 years to my knowledge so our biodiversity could be anywhere on the scale. I accept that all such reports are based on estimates extrapolated from limited datasets but it does seem a weakness. Surely each farm should be assessed where is at now before changing too much?

They survey rspb land.
As we know, all land rspb has taken over has less wildlife than other land.
So surveys show poor wildlife as those areas surveyed are in poor state .

andybk · Jan 28, 2022

Vader said:
They survey rspb land.
As we know, all land rspb has taken over has less wildlife than other land.
So surveys show poor wildlife as those areas surveyed are in poor state .

Like the somerset levels , dont drain for the waders etc , then it floods and kills almost everything else , the bits that have now been dredged are coming back to life,
Rspb are like the badger nutters , single issue politics is no good for any nature recovery

Vader · Jan 28, 2022

andybk said:
Like the somerset levels , dont drain for the waders etc , then it floods and kills almost everything else , the bits that have now been dredged are coming back to life Rspb are like the badger nutters , single issue politics is no good for any nature

Problem is Janet is taking their 'expert' advice...

Still Farming · Jan 28, 2022

Looks like debate next week in Parliament?

Huno · Jan 28, 2022

Still Farming said:
View attachment 1013039Looks like debate next week in Parliament?

I think we have already had this debate on this thread!! If the Treasury " loans" 1 billion per annum until 2024 then they can pay us all to start ELMS now if we wish to( voluntary) and provide real feedback to their unbudgeted ideas and it fills the " hole" for BPS loss of 50% in the interim whilst we all try to avoid going bust and most importantly our businesses can adjust... fat chance of any common sense there and the whole rural industry will suffer as a result... sorry for being so pragmatic folks but the solution is that simple...

Huno · Jan 28, 2022

2 billion to trial the schemes that they havent created yet starting on 8th April 2023??

steveR · Jan 28, 2022

devonbeef said:
we are told a few pages back we will get paid for taking part in schemes, because it will be providing public good. Since the end of the second world war, farmers have done the greatest public good ,provided cheep food for the masses.That seems to have been forgotten

Strictly speaking, we Farmers have been providing foodstuffs, at or below the cost of production to provide the retailers and food processors with "cheap" products. This was made possible by support payments.

In effect, the subsidies were really for the benefit of the Supermarkets profit margins...

New information about local nature recovery and landscape recovery

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

0 %

Up to 25%

25-50%

50-75%

75-100%

100% I’ve had enough of farming!

Share this page