New information about local nature recovery and landscape recovery

redsloe · Jan 16, 2022

This thread is/should be about Landscape Recovery.
It won't affect 99.9% of farmers. That's my major issue. 30% of the budget on a handful of undeserving "farmers". My opinion, no offence intended.
Meanwhile the vast majority of farmland have another 30% to play with via the SFI. I think we can expect payment rates to increase as BPS demands shrink or it will undoubtedly fail to interest anybody.
I still haven't a clue as to what we are expected to do under the Local Landscape Recovery for the remaining 30%. I assume it will be similar to current Stewardship? Can anyone enlighten me?

GeorgeK · Jan 16, 2022

J 1177 said:
The point that seems to be missed by defra is that we comply with bps because its a decent lump of money that contribites to our business. If that financial incentive is gone as it seems to be with the two thirds that are actually avalible to farmers they are not going to bother. Defra seems to think farmers do it for sh1!s and giggles.

This is a very good point.

@Janet Hughes Defra without BPS how will you ensure minimum environmental standards (cross compliance) are upheld for all those who don't sign up to the new schemes e.g hedge/water course buffers?

Seems a major issue to me and it's hard to see how it can practically be enforced. Will there be new legislation and will non compliances go through the courts?

Hindsight · Jan 16, 2022

redsloe said:
This thread is/should be about Landscape Recovery.
It won't affect 99.9% of farmers. That's my major issue. 30% of the budget on a handful of undeserving "farmers". My opinion, no offence intended.
Meanwhile the vast majority of farmland have another 30% to play with via the SFI. I think we can expect payment rates to increase as BPS demands shrink or it will undoubtedly fail to interest anybody.
I still haven't a clue as to what we are expected to do under the Local Landscape Recovery for the remaining 30%. I assume it will be similar to current Stewardship? Can anyone enlighten me?

I think in loose terms:
SFI - is equivalent to 'Broad and Shallow Entry Level Stewardship'
LNR - is mid tier type stewardship
Landscape recovery - Higher Level Stewardship and the 1990s version of Countryside Stewardship.

Then various Capital Grants under the Farm Prosperity Fund.

Grass And Grain · Jan 16, 2022

tepapa said:
Can I ask where you think the public good is for adding OM, reducing N usage and spring cropping? I can see benefits to the farmer but what are the public benefiting from?

I don't necessarily think there is a fantastic public good, but I suppose DEFRA think reduced N applications, potentially cleaner rivers, hitting the country's carbon reduction commitments.

Producing food the market wants might be a better public good, and that's not necessarily from spring cropping with limited markets for those crops.

redsloe said:
This thread is/should be about Landscape Recovery.
It won't affect 99.9% of farmers. That's my major issue. 30% of the budget on a handful of undeserving "farmers". My opinion, no offence intended.
Meanwhile the vast majority of farmland have another 30% to play with via the SFI. I think we can expect payment rates to increase as BPS demands shrink or it will undoubtedly fail to interest anybody.
I still haven't a clue as to what we are expected to do under the Local Landscape Recovery for the remaining 30%. I assume it will be similar to current Stewardship? Can anyone enlighten me?

Sorry, we/I have drifted off topic.

I agree, 30 of the budget on landscape recovery is a big hit for the average farmer. And if SFI is anything to go by, I wouldn't be at all surprised if the LR payments hardly pay for the cost of doing the options.

I'm guessing the same as you, that LNR will be not dissimilar to mid/higher level stewardship, but BPS payment removed from the land (compared to how it is now).

@delilah the counter thought to no payment for cropping land, but rather getting payments weighted towards grassland is that the grassland exists and is unlikely to change much in total area. Likewise arable area maybe not likely to change much in total land area.

So, if there's a payment for say low input grassland, or species rich leys; then why not something simar for arable options? I haven't read your document yet, I'll take a look later.

Only thing I think, is that coming out and saying "no options or payments for arable cropping land" might not be seen as very credible, and just for your own agenda (I presume you're not an arable producer!!).

Does you submission suggest any payments for intensive pig, poultry etc that don't farm any land? A good question is why only payments on land area? The poultry guys could reduce stocking rates, or the pig men straw bed vs slats. Welfare related public . Maybe this should go in the SFI thread.

Grass And Grain · Jan 16, 2022

GeorgeK said:
This is a very good point.

@Janet Hughes Defra without BPS how will you ensure minimum environmental standards (cross compliance) are upheld for all those who don't sign up to the new schemes e.g hedge/water course buffers?

Seems a major issue to me and it's hard to see how it can practically be enforced. Will there be new legislation and will non compliances go through the courts?

Yes.
If we don't sign up to ELMS, so we're not bound by cross compliance, then that could be seen as a public bad. ELMS scheme failure.

delilah · Jan 16, 2022

Grass And Grain said:
Only thing I think, is that coming out and saying "no options or payments for arable cropping land" might not be seen as very credible, and just for your own agenda (I presume you're not an arable producer!!).

Mainly arable here. No agenda, beyond trying to make ELMS work for farmers and the environment.

Henarar · Jan 16, 2022

J 1177 said:
The sec of state has said before farmers can diversify to subsidise their business, well Mr Eustace im not diversifying so the masses can have cheap food off my back.

This
someone said that anyone that hadn't diversified has had it but what's the point of diversifying to prop up a business that does nothing but provide cheap food for folk that couldn't give a dam about you ?
just as well put the whole lot as far in to these schemes as you can and get as much money as you can and produce next door to nothing and concentrate on the diversification or just get a job or if you have enough land just live off what you get paid with your feet up

Henarar · Jan 16, 2022

Grass And Grain said:
Yes.
If we don't sign up to ELMS, so we're not bound by cross compliance, then that could be seen as a public bad. ELMS scheme failure.

this is what will happen if ELMs is not simplified and the payments are not upped, much of the land now in BPS will not go in to ELMs and will be sold or let to bigger players who will not bother with ELMs just farm it for all its worth. this whole thing is going to be an environmental own goal if DEFRA don't pull their finger out

Humble Village Farmer · Jan 16, 2022

Henarar said:
this is what will happen if ELMs is not simplified and the payments are not upped, much of the land now in BPS will not go in to ELMs and will be sold or let to bigger players who will not bother with ELMs just farm it for all its worth. this whole thing is going to be an environmental own goal if DEFRA don't pull their finger out

Not if all the stories about big business buying land to rewild are realised.

holwellcourtfarm · Jan 16, 2022

redsloe said:
This thread is/should be about Landscape Recovery.
It won't affect 99.9% of farmers. That's my major issue. 30% of the budget on a handful of undeserving "farmers". My opinion, no offence intended.
Meanwhile the vast majority of farmland have another 30% to play with via the SFI. I think we can expect payment rates to increase as BPS demands shrink or it will undoubtedly fail to interest anybody.
I still haven't a clue as to what we are expected to do under the Local Landscape Recovery for the remaining 30%. I assume it will be similar to current Stewardship? Can anyone enlighten me?

Local NATURE recovery will be targeted based on "Local nature recovery plans".

These haven't been written yet. They are supposed to be being written locally, possibly overseen by local councils or (in their areas) by national park authorities but with wide local input.

How we are supposed to business plan for the LNR element of ELMS in the meantime I have no idea.....

Two Tone · Jan 16, 2022

delilah said:
No area payment other than on PP , yep have always said that. Water margins, hedgerows, absolutely. But the actual cropped area, no.

delilah said:
Short answer: There's not enough money in the pot. By the time we have allocated enough to PP, and to all the other elements of ELMS besides area payments, it will all be gone.
Longer answer, a few reasons attached.

That is an incredibly selfish and biased view on your behalf and does you little credit!

We all know that ELMs is an Environmental scheme as that is the 1st word of it. Yes PP is important and needs preserving. However, you cannot increase the SOM of it, whereas massive improvements can be made to arable land that has become depleted in SOM, which contain Carbon. Any Soil scientist will tell you this and show massive amounts of evidence of it
As what we need to do is to sequester Carbon from the atmosphere, surely any Environmental scheme must encourage and support this on arable fields, but at the same time not encourage the removal of PP, which would cause a depletion of SOM and therefore Carbon storage.
Therefore both PP and Arable need ELMs support to encourage the correct Environmental benefits of them each.

One fairly unique feature of farmers is that we are in competition with each other, but are also very good at helping each other.
Stop being so bloody selfish, for your own benefit!
Don’t waste your time replying that you are also an arable farmer either.

Humble Village Farmer · Jan 16, 2022

Vader said:
@Janet Hughes Defra
Quite an important question...
Still waiting on an answer.

Please don't tell me your science based scheme advising experts did not think about how some options may negatively impact neighbouring farm's...?

The downstream landowner must accept water from uphill.

holwellcourtfarm · Jan 16, 2022

Humble Village Farmer said:
The downstream landowner must accept water from uphill.

But can legally defend themselves from "extraordinary flood" flows.

There is case law on this.

tepapa · Jan 16, 2022

Grass And Grain said:
Does you submission suggest any payments for intensive pig, poultry etc that don't farm any land? A good question is why only payments on land area? The poultry guys could reduce stocking rates, or the pig men straw bed vs slats. Welfare related public . Maybe this should go in the SFI thread.

This is a valid point. People say that subsidy is providing cheap food yet pigs and poultry aren't directly subbed, although some would argue maybe through feed price of cereals.

In reality it's livestock farmers subsidising beef and lamb but again it's subsidising land owners not farmers or food production.

Grass And Grain · Jan 16, 2022

holwellcourtfarm said:
Local NATURE recovery will be targeted based on "Local nature recovery plans".

These haven't been written yet. They are supposed to be being written locally, possibly overseen by local councils or (in their areas) by national park authorities but with wide local input.

How we are supposed to business plan for the LNR element of ELMS in the meantime I have no idea.....

Ahh, another postcode lottery.

delilah said:
Mainly arable here. No agenda, beyond trying to make ELMS work for farmers and the environment.

Sorry, I jumped to a conclusion.

P.S. I'm behind anyone who gets off their backside and makes submissions and tries to manipulate the direction of travel. Doesn't matter if I agree with the submissions or not, fact is A it's opinion and B someone has done something about their opinion.

Goweresque · Jan 16, 2022

Grass And Grain said:
And if SFI is anything to go by, I wouldn't be at all surprised if the LR payments hardly pay for the cost of doing the options.

No, LR projects will be awarded by a bidding process, rather than a set of payments everyone can access. A limited number of successful projects agreed every year. So given there is £800m in LR budget (or will be once BPS fades away) each successful LR project will be very lucrative. We're talking many millions, probably tens of millions over a 10 year period. It will cover not just payments for doing things to the land (or not doing in re-wilding projects) but also staffing costs to run these projects, capital payments for new infrastructure (paths, bridges, staff accommodation, offices etc etc). Its basically a massive bung to the nature charities as far as I can see, plus maybe a few large landowners who decide to re-wild their land.

delilah · Jan 16, 2022

Grass And Grain said:
Doesn't matter if I agree with the submissions or not, fact is A it's opinion and B someone has done something about their opinion.

Quite. I said what I believe the SFI should look like before Defra even came up with the name SFI, and put my reasons forward.
I am sure it would be more helpful for Defra if Jerry Dammers and others stopped ranting and instead put forward their proposals.

Humble Village Farmer · Jan 16, 2022

Grass And Grain said:
It is unworkable to be able to guarantee you can comply with the agreement. Autumn 2019 was proof, autumn 2020 nearly as bad

You're obviously doing lots of work on trying to steer the direction of ELMS. That's great, and I really commend you for that effort.

No payment on actual cropped area....

Why shouldn't someone get paid on cropped area if they are providing a public good such as for example adding OM to that cropped area, or reduced N applications, or shifting to spring cropping?

It's unworkable only if you have bare ground at that stage. Easier to comply with a greened up stubble or catch crop prior to DD.

Your last para; I think all those are being incentivised under sfi

britishblue · Jan 16, 2022

Monty Don saying in the Sunday Times today that rewilding is for the large wealthy landowners with other forms of income and no good for the average farmer! Will hopefully see more of this common sense in the media!

holwellcourtfarm · Jan 16, 2022

britishblue said:
Monty Don saying in the Sunday Times today that rewilding is for the large wealthy landowners with other forms of income and no good for the average farmer! Will hopefully see more of this common sense in the media!

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