Janet Hughes DEFRA Missing in action?

ajcc

Member
Livestock Farmer
Should have just carried in with HLS.
Was up and running and problems were about ironed out.

The whole problem has come a out from them trying to make a scheme based about carbon on our soils.
Problem is enviro. lobby. CSS regarded as an add on to agriculture want to shift the balance and make agriculture the add on to “nature.”
With rewilding the utopian state.
Suddenly the Ukrainian crisis is focussing the public mind that agriculture is actually very important and hopefully the ill wind that saves our livelihoods from misconceived interference at this juncture.
 

Still Farming

Member
Mixed Farmer
Location
South Wales UK
Just watching clips of farms in Ukraine ( the bread basked of Europe ) didn’t see any bunded fuel tanks / spray set ups / didn’t see any filed margins , didn’t see much health n safety. How is anything a level playing field in any way ? Edge to edge corn , I’ve not even see. Any wildlife other than the odd crow
Odd bit of Nuclear and missile contaminates come under ad mix deductions and RT assurance will it???
 

Vader

Member
Mixed Farmer
Problem is enviro. lobby. CSS regarded as an add on to agriculture want to shift the balance and make agriculture the add on to “nature.”
With rewilding the utopian state.
Suddenly the Ukrainian crisis is focussing the public mind that agriculture is actually very important and hopefully the ill wind that saves our livelihoods from misconceived interference at this juncture.
Dont think its focusing the public minds yet.
Prices not increased much.
Local pubs beer gardens busy on sunny afternoon. Not short on cash yet.
 
So. Referring back to @Janet Hughes Defra last post which contained a few short term sticky plaster fixes... why if the strategic direction issued was to move away from area payments to quote you directly are DEFRA implementing area payments for SFI, new CS agreements and probably LR and LNR etc... my appologies Janet if i and others get agitated on these forums when delivered policy seems to be mirroring the old system but in an even more bureaucratic way... 1st Jan 2028 is the end of BPS... interim measures are far from delivering a productive, stable and profitable farming industry at present and that is whilst ignoring Ukraine for now?
Hi John, sorry for not being clearer - the difference I was drawing out is that in SFI you're being paid to take specific actions that produce environmental outcomes alongside food production. In BPS you're being paid solely for farming, based on the area farmed (what I was calling area-based payments ie they are based on area alone with very few conditions attached). That doesn't mean area is irrelevant in SFI, but it's not the sole basis of the payment.

I'm also not dismissing the ideas that have been put forward on here around payments for permanent pasture based on area covered and actions taken to look after the pasture for nature / water quality etc alongside food production. We're working on what the payments in SFI should look like on that front and will consider those suggestions as part of that. (Meanwhile the place to go for options on permanent pasture is countryside stewardship, which is open for applications now for agreements to start in Jan 2023 - we'll then provide a smooth way for people in CS to transfer into new schemes when they're ready).

I've got no problem at all with you asking questions or getting agitated - I understand that these issues are extremely important and that you are all at the absolute forefront of feeling the consequences of economic volatility on top of everything else you have to contend with. And that we are talking about your livelihoods, families and communities, not an abstract set of policy issues. I have nothing but respect for all of that, and the fact that this is your forum and I'm a guest here.

I can't think of many occasions where I've felt the engagement on here to be outside reasonable bounds of discussion and I know you all self-moderate / there are moderators in those rare cases where someone does step over the line (and am grateful for that support on the very rare occasions where it's needed). I find it very useful hearing what you have to say, am happy to help answer questions and explain things where I can and am happy to go with the flow of discussion as it comes the vast majority of the time.
 

Huno

Member
Arable Farmer
Hi John, sorry for not being clearer - the difference I was drawing out is that in SFI you're being paid to take specific actions that produce environmental outcomes alongside food production. In BPS you're being paid solely for farming, based on the area farmed (what I was calling area-based payments ie they are based on area alone with very few conditions attached). That doesn't mean area is irrelevant in SFI, but it's not the sole basis of the payment.

I'm also not dismissing the ideas that have been put forward on here around payments for permanent pasture based on area covered and actions taken to look after the pasture for nature / water quality etc alongside food production. We're working on what the payments in SFI should look like on that front and will consider those suggestions as part of that. (Meanwhile the place to go for options on permanent pasture is countryside stewardship, which is open for applications now for agreements to start in Jan 2023 - we'll then provide a smooth way for people in CS to transfer into new schemes when they're ready).

I've got no problem at all with you asking questions or getting agitated - I understand that these issues are extremely important and that you are all at the absolute forefront of feeling the consequences of economic volatility on top of everything else you have to contend with. And that we are talking about your livelihoods, families and communities, not an abstract set of policy issues. I have nothing but respect for all of that, and the fact that this is your forum and I'm a guest here.

I can't think of many occasions where I've felt the engagement on here to be outside reasonable bounds of discussion and I know you all self-moderate / there are moderators in those rare cases where someone does step over the line (and am grateful for that support on the very rare occasions where it's needed). I find it very useful hearing what you have to say, am happy to help answer questions and explain things where I can and am happy to go with the flow of discussion as it comes the vast majority of the time.
Thank you Janet and some of us find forums a good way to let of steam and vent frustrations when polite industry led meeting would disallow these views.. It seems there is some way to go before our businesses can make a plan and that is the greatest frustration at present and ignoring the current political instability... lets keep looking for the holy grail😊
 

JP1

Member
Livestock Farmer
Hi John, sorry for not being clearer - the difference I was drawing out is that in SFI you're being paid to take specific actions that produce environmental outcomes alongside food production. In BPS you're being paid solely for farming, based on the area farmed (what I was calling area-based payments ie they are based on area alone with very few conditions attached). That doesn't mean area is irrelevant in SFI, but it's not the sole basis of the payment.

I'm also not dismissing the ideas that have been put forward on here around payments for permanent pasture based on area covered and actions taken to look after the pasture for nature / water quality etc alongside food production. We're working on what the payments in SFI should look like on that front and will consider those suggestions as part of that. (Meanwhile the place to go for options on permanent pasture is countryside stewardship, which is open for applications now for agreements to start in Jan 2023 - we'll then provide a smooth way for people in CS to transfer into new schemes when they're ready).

I've got no problem at all with you asking questions or getting agitated - I understand that these issues are extremely important and that you are all at the absolute forefront of feeling the consequences of economic volatility on top of everything else you have to contend with. And that we are talking about your livelihoods, families and communities, not an abstract set of policy issues. I have nothing but respect for all of that, and the fact that this is your forum and I'm a guest here.

I can't think of many occasions where I've felt the engagement on here to be outside reasonable bounds of discussion and I know you all self-moderate / there are moderators in those rare cases where someone does step over the line (and am grateful for that support on the very rare occasions where it's needed). I find it very useful hearing what you have to say, am happy to help answer questions and explain things where I can and am happy to go with the flow of discussion as it comes the vast majority of the time.
Post of the month right there Janet
 

delilah

Member
in SFI you're being paid to take specific actions that produce environmental outcomes alongside food production.

I'm also not dismissing the ideas that have been put forward on here around payments for permanent pasture based on area covered and actions taken to look after the pasture for nature / water quality etc alongside food production.

And that is the rub.
We have consistently been told that ELMS wishes to reward existing good practice. If that is the case then there needs to be a payment on PP without 'specific actions' being required.
As it stands you are determined to force folks to take some action to justify a payment on PP. Introduce new species, that will in time die out anyway. Where is the public good in that ?
There needs to be a payment rate on PP that reflects its position at the top of the public goods list. No cutting dates, no sward height, no introduction of alien species. It is managed as it is, right now, for sound agricultural reasons. No need to meddle.
 

Vader

Member
Mixed Farmer
And that is the rub.
We have consistently been told that ELMS wishes to reward existing good practice. If that is the case then there needs to be a payment on PP without 'specific actions' being required.
As it stands you are determined to force folks to take some action to justify a payment on PP. Introduce new species, that will in time die out anyway. Where is the public good in that ?
There needs to be a payment rate on PP that reflects its position at the top of the public goods list. No cutting dates, no sward height, no introduction of alien species. It is managed as it is, right now, for sound agricultural reasons. No need to meddle.
Especially as its shown to be good at locking up carbon more than new planted forest..
 

Henarar

Member
Livestock Farmer
Location
Somerset
I've got no problem at all with you asking questions or getting agitated - I understand that these issues are extremely important and that you are all at the absolute forefront of feeling the consequences of economic volatility on top of everything else you have to contend with. And that we are talking about your livelihoods, families and communities, not an abstract set of policy issues. I have nothing but respect for all of that, and the fact that this is your forum and I'm a guest here.
Not really, you are a member just the same as anyone else (y)
 

BrianV

Member
Mixed Farmer
Location
Dartmoor
I've got no problem at all with you asking questions or getting agitated - I understand that these issues are extremely important and that you are all at the absolute forefront of feeling the consequences of economic volatility on top of everything else you have to contend with. And that we are talking about your livelihoods, families and communities, not an abstract set of policy issues. I have nothing but respect for all of that, and the fact that this is your forum and I'm a guest here.
Hi Janet I appreciate what you have said but what worries me is Defra appear to have no interest whatever in the survival of smaller livestock & hill farms where this well intentioned ELMS scheme will make very little impact in relieving the dramatic loss of income when the SFP comes to an end.
It's all very well for larger farms to sacrifice areas of land to wildlife but smaller farms cannot spare enough land to make ELMS worthwhile.
I fear you are condemning the backbone of large parts of our countryside to a very miserable future which will eventually come back to haunt you big time, surely you can convince your idiotic masters that a base safety net acreage payment is the only way to secure the viability of smaller hill & livestock farms?
Permanent pasture is all very nice but on smaller livestock farms cannot always be kept as rotation of crops is often essential.
 
Last edited:

gloria1

Member
Click to expand...
@Janet Hughes Defra
we really need to know if Defra and Natural England's comment from The Instiute for Govt, see below ,seeking to lock Elms participants into a long term ,regulated and restrictive land designation , if you have ceased being involved in the Elms scheme is current policy.Please update us as its less than a few weeks before Sfi rolls out and if participating locks me forever into a land designation,eg like SSSI, devaluing my asset then no way will anyone participate.Thank you.
 
Last edited:

gloria1

Member
@Janet Hughes Defra. The
Institute for Government publication.
From a new "Institute for Government" report - UK agriculture after Brexit:

Screenshot_20220416-081050_Adobe Acrobat.png
 

gloria1

Member
I have just read the SFI advice document ,published today,containing many many pages of advice and regulation.The soil standard advice , SOM test and herbal ley, alone will soak up a considerable amount of the grant,( At least 30% in year one on grassland I guess} and even more time trying to ensure you are compliant.As ever it is not simple,full of rules and will need costly professional help for the tests.
 

topground

Member
Livestock Farmer
Location
North Somerset.
I have just read the SFI advice document ,published today,containing many many pages of advice and regulation.The soil standard advice , SOM test and herbal ley, alone will soak up a considerable amount of the grant,( At least 30% in year one on grassland I guess} and even more time trying to ensure you are compliant.As ever it is not simple,full of rules and will need costly professional help for the tests.
It’s not designed for anyone other than the Wildlife trusts RSPB and other organisations who do not have to earn their living from the land. Even the Horizon report produced by AHDB says there is minimal profit and in some cases none at all to be had by signing up for the scheme. If it has been designed to fail then it will be party party in DEFRA HQ, Smiths Square. That is until the consequences of the predicted world food shortage hits.
Let them eat wild flowers and woodchip won’t wash with the starving masses at the doors of those responsible for mismanaging the nations food production strategy.
 

steveR

Member
Mixed Farmer
@Janet Hughes Defra. The
Institute for Government publication.
From a new "Institute for Government" report - UK agriculture after Brexit:

Screenshot_20220416-081050_Adobe Acrobat.png
This has been discussed earlier here.

My recollection, is that the IoG is not a Govt body or Quango, more a lobbying body with some serious financial funding. Which is not to say that it's views are a hugely worrying suggestion/idea.
 
Last edited:
And that is the rub.
We have consistently been told that ELMS wishes to reward existing good practice. If that is the case then there needs to be a payment on PP without 'specific actions' being required.
As it stands you are determined to force folks to take some action to justify a payment on PP. Introduce new species, that will in time die out anyway. Where is the public good in that ?
There needs to be a payment rate on PP that reflects its position at the top of the public goods list. No cutting dates, no sward height, no introduction of alien species. It is managed as it is, right now, for sound agricultural reasons. No need to meddle.


Ah, but that would make farmers doing something right and let's face it, have you ever heard a Civil Servant admit they are wrong ?

DEFRA is a joke.
 

SFI - What % were you taking out of production?

  • 0 %

    Votes: 79 42.9%
  • Up to 25%

    Votes: 63 34.2%
  • 25-50%

    Votes: 30 16.3%
  • 50-75%

    Votes: 3 1.6%
  • 75-100%

    Votes: 3 1.6%
  • 100% I’ve had enough of farming!

    Votes: 6 3.3%

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

  • 1,287
  • 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