- Location
- Essex
I agree with your post but it implies that rotational or temporary grass leys are inferior; when it could be argued that worked into an arable rotation, they benefits could be as great or greater.
TFF's ELMS Questions time ? Number 2
- Thread starter Clive
- Start date
- Location
- Derbyshire
Absolutely. But, somehow ELMS has got to meet targets with 6 measurable outcomes - and quickly.
What could be simpler than paying out on PP area? At the same time as benefitting a huge number of farmers and land area in one swoop. It is unambiguous and uses minimal resources and clipboards to achieve the targets.
If you want to design a system that involves rotations, DD' ing, cover crops, headland measurements, in field trees, hedgerows and bird counts then great I'm all for it but somehow I fear it would raise more questions than answers.
Set the PP as a simple entry level open to all farmers then let the other schemes fall into place behind.
- Location
- Glen Clova, Angus, DD8 4RD
Plus it may help counter the calls to replace pp with forest if it is individually recognised for the multiple benefits it delivers.
- Location
- Essex
- Location
- Essex
Why not pp and rotational? Shouldn't be too difficult to administrate.
- Location
- Essex
Will there be payments for agroforestry?
midlandslad
Member
- Location
- Midlands
Whilst the idea of paying for outcomes would be the best, I cannot see how this would work with such a large number of schemes.
Considering it has taken the RPA over 10 years to finally get right (in most circumstances) a relatively straightforward area based system, imagine what a mess it could turn into if they overcomplicate it.
- Location
- Glen Clova, Angus, DD8 4RD
The RPA is sadly not fit for purpose. We need a replacement that has a majority of decision making staff with agricultural and environmental experience and working within terms of engagement that trust them to use approved levels of discretion. The aim should be to achieve the target outcomes not to regulate the operation of inflexible rules.
We must move away from a culture of "the computer says no" to one of "ok. Explain to me which ELM objective that helps achieve and we can agree something".
The best example is the appalling way the RLR mapping updates have been handled. OK, they were required by EU law. Why didn't they contact the applicant when they found anomalies and discuss what they'd found with an open mind? If the applicant was trying to pull a fast one then penalise them. Otherwise either it was a genuine mistake by the applicant (who would agree on the spot to put it right) or it was a mistake by the RPA who could close the issue down there and then. Instead it caused huge stress and even large payment delays for the applicant and a massive workload increase for the RPA in reversing incorrect changes they'd made.
It's not the easiest to administer and hard to measure as worm counts, bird counts, organic matters etc vary from one day to the next regardless of what you're doing on the ground. This was a cornerstone of the original project, hence my questioning why it has been quietly dropped from the promises made.
- Location
- Essex
If you have a look at this document, it promises most of what you are suggesting. It's 66 pages long and I'm only half way through but I can't help feeling optimistic about the future of agricultural policy.
Breakthru
Member
- Location
- Scottish Borders
Another red tape beanfeast. The Regulators need to come under the same strictures as their clients. Subsidy cuts should be matched by cuts to the various budgets of RPA RT AHDB. They all need to be more efficient and give better value for money. First thing they need to do is get Microsoft, Google etc to write the software. The present corrupt suppliers are worse than useless across the board and you will hear that from within the civil service, just not from the top where the largesse is received.
we are looking at the possibility of recording each question from the members asking ? with me just as chair / introducing etc
15 mins on zoom is all that would be required?
who would be up for asking their question directly ? (if this is possible)
15 mins on zoom is all that would be required?
who would be up for asking their question directly ? (if this is possible)
- Location
- North Wales
Will the scheme be made flexible with an easy mechanism to allow for changes in planned options or circumstances?
For example. Planned hedge work in yr 4 of a scheme but because of wet winter/late harvest/poor cash flow/illness etc the farmer is unable to undertake the option on time. Can the option be delayed for a year or shortened until better timing or even just cancelled, with no monetary support obviously, but also without penalty as there a some factors outside a farmers control.
For example. Planned hedge work in yr 4 of a scheme but because of wet winter/late harvest/poor cash flow/illness etc the farmer is unable to undertake the option on time. Can the option be delayed for a year or shortened until better timing or even just cancelled, with no monetary support obviously, but also without penalty as there a some factors outside a farmers control.
- Location
- Essex
Another question. Assuming public access is a public good. Is there any proposal for support/ compensation for provision and maintenance of public footpaths?
- Location
- Sutton Coldfield
Also, if you allow extra public access, will there be a way to ensure that a permanent right of way is not created?
- Location
- Glen Clova, Angus, DD8 4RD
No problem, happy to do as asked.
- Location
- Glen Clova, Angus, DD8 4RD
Ultimately most farmers want to see a national project to fairly review all public rights of way on farmland but that won't be in ELM. It's madness these days for footpaths to pass right through working farmyards etc.