Natural England knows best?

holwellcourtfarm

Member
Livestock Farmer
I wonder how the trials are going, had an interesting chat with a customer a while back, and he had heard from a guy from the rpa that uptake was very low indeed,
I suspect the SFI pilot has seen VERY low uptake. Barring entry for anyone already in an environmental scheme was a mistake imho. They'd have been better allowing folk to terminate their current scheme with no loss on either side instead.

A shame as we really need a diverse range of proper working farmers to be central to developing these schemes if they are to deliver for all concerned.
 

Ffermer Bach

Member
Livestock Farmer
Collectively, defra and it’s various bodies are not intelligent enough to have an ‘agenda’. They are literally making this (elms etc) up as they go.

I suspect many designing elm don’t know what anEIA is.
Organisations may not have an overt stated agenda, however they will all have a organisational cultural script, that the organisation is following (out of awareness)
 

Tubbylew

Member
Location
Herefordshire
I suspect the SFI pilot has seen VERY low uptake. Barring entry for anyone already in an environmental scheme was a mistake imho. They'd have been better allowing folk to terminate their current scheme with no loss on either side instead.

A shame as we really need a diverse range of proper working farmers to be central to developing these schemes if they are to deliver for all concerned.
I believe he said that payment rates were so crap that the duchy wouldn't engage with it, mind it's all a bit second hand, so better not quote me....
 

steveR

Member
Mixed Farmer
I wonder how the trials are going, had an interesting chat with a customer a while back, and he had heard from a guy from the rpa that uptake was very low indeed,

Too much vagueness and not enough recompense for the buggeration factor, I suspect.

And of course, banning those with existing agreements, from joining the Pilots... a shot in the foot I reckon!
 

Ribble

Member
One of many things yet to be decided. The aim appears to be for ELMS agreements of significant length, a) to allow time for the "public goods" to be realised and b) to prevent chopping and changing. That will not fit with short term land tenure unless the system allows the landlord to be the claimant and the tenancy to be subject to compliance with the management actions necessary to comply with ELMs delivery (maybe at a much reduced rent in recognition).

It's all very uncertain just yet hence the trials and pilot schemes.

It could work very well. It could also become a slow motion car crash.

What I'm thinking is, if the subsidy can't be easily captured by rent through an FBT like BPS can, that possibly incentivises the landlord to be nominally actively farming, using grazing licence agreements that require compliance. That could possibly result in large areas unavailable on anything but a restricive and precarious grazing licence.
 

ajcc

Member
Livestock Farmer
Assumedly those with existing agreements are the more environmentally inclined if you exclude those they will find it problematic to get the dyed in wool agriculturalists interested ....which will leave them with???
So they’ll move goalposts to give a more enviro. bias and the likes of NT and RSPB and county wildlife holdings will skew any pilot to prove a particular agenda.
Call me cynical?
 

holwellcourtfarm

Member
Livestock Farmer
Assumedly those with existing agreements are the more environmentally inclined if you exclude those they will find it problematic to get the dyed in wool agriculturalists interested ....which will leave them with???
So they’ll move goalposts to give a more enviro. bias and the likes of NT and RSPB and county wildlife holdings will skew any pilot to prove a particular agenda.
Call me cynical?
Actually we've always tried to be environmentally friendly and, as a result, put 5% of the farm down to a bird seed mix entirely at our cost. We just couldn't make ELS add up and didn't fit the HLS criteria. CS was out due to the abusive, one-sided, T's & C's.
 

holwellcourtfarm

Member
Livestock Farmer
What I'm thinking is, if the subsidy can't be easily captured by rent through an FBT like BPS can, that possibly incentivises the landlord to be nominally actively farming, using grazing licence agreements that require compliance. That could possibly result in large areas unavailable on anything but a restricive and precarious grazing licence.
Government policy is awash with unintended consequences.......
 

Jackov Altraids

Member
Livestock Farmer
Location
Devon
Organisations may not have an overt stated agenda, however they will all have a organisational cultural script, that the organisation is following (out of awareness)


The chairman of Natural England obviously has an agenda;


Likewise, those that appointed him in the clear knowledge of what his agenda is.

What this thread has made very clear is that none of us should sign any agreement that has terms and conditions that are so unfair and open to mis-use with no right of appeal.
I wait in vain for the NFU to tell the authorities that such T & C's are unacceptable and that they will advise all members to NOT enter any agreement until they are.
 

steveR

Member
Mixed Farmer
I wait in vain for the NFU to tell the authorities that such T & C's are unacceptable and that they will advise all members to NOT enter any agreement until they are.

I will be having a chat on this matter in a few weeks time....

As I have suggested before here, it might be worth getting the Contract checking service from the NFU or CLA to consider the T&C in an agreement.

It is tempting to apply for an Agreement, then chuck it back :cool:
 

holwellcourtfarm

Member
Livestock Farmer
OOI, what element of the Capital Grants scheme caused you to decline their offer?
The unreasonably specific requirements for some items.
The unrealistic prices in the scheme (especially for the NH3 monitor).
The reserved right for them to change the rules at will.
The requirement to keep records and share them with ANY English authority, whether involved in agriculture or not. I find this insulting and concerning.
The tight timescale for completion (later extend due to supplier issues).
Plus a few others.

I decided that I'd be better off just buying the kit that really suited me anyway and foregoing their contribution.
 

holwellcourtfarm

Member
Livestock Farmer
The unreasonably specific requirements for some items.
The unrealistic prices in the scheme (especially for the NH3 monitor).
The reserved right for them to change the rules at will.
The requirement to keep records and share them with ANY English authority, whether involved in agriculture or not. I find this insulting and concerning.
The tight timescale for completion (later extend due to supplier issues).
Plus a few others.

I decided that I'd be better off just buying the kit that really suited me anyway and foregoing their contribution.
We were caught in the 1980's when they halved the support rate for beans half way through the growing season. We were also hit by their misinterpretation of the rules on taking the forage off land in set-aside, taking 5 years to recover the 40% of subs they wrongly withheld that year.

Once (twice in this case) bitten, twice shy!
 

steveR

Member
Mixed Farmer
The unreasonably specific requirements for some items.
The unrealistic prices in the scheme (especially for the NH3 monitor).
The reserved right for them to change the rules at will.
The requirement to keep records and share them with ANY English authority, whether involved in agriculture or not. I find this insulting and concerning.
The tight timescale for completion (later extend due to supplier issues).
Plus a few others.

I decided that I'd be better off just buying the kit that really suited me anyway and foregoing their contribution.

Missed this one.... :-(
 

holwellcourtfarm

Member
Livestock Farmer
You may interpret this differently but I took the least favourable one to be on the safe side given DEFRA's history

IMG_1466.jpg
 

Highland Mule

Member
Livestock Farmer
You may interpret this differently but I took the least favourable one to be on the safe side given DEFRA's history

View attachment 958645

“Required in connection with the agreement”. I don’t see that your example of the library would stand up to legal challenge. Sure the wording is a bit loose, but I think you’re a bit daft if that’s the main reason to refuse.
 

SFI - What % were you taking out of production?

  • 0 %

    Votes: 77 43.5%
  • Up to 25%

    Votes: 62 35.0%
  • 25-50%

    Votes: 28 15.8%
  • 50-75%

    Votes: 3 1.7%
  • 75-100%

    Votes: 3 1.7%
  • 100% I’ve had enough of farming!

    Votes: 4 2.3%

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

  • 1,285
  • 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