Sustainable Farming Incentive is open for applications June 2022

topground · Jul 23, 2022

lazy farmer said:
I’ve been on a farmer zoom group involved in trying to set up sensible standards in the soil management area.

I will not be applying for the new scheme. There appears to be an obsession with the scheme not returning to the farmer any more than it will cost to met the standards

I am on a similar group dealing with hedgerows.
It is dominated by contributors who wish to see standards applied to other peoples hedges. Those who own hedges are in a minority.
The mindset appears to be to impose ever more controls as part of the standards.while not understanding that the more complicated the scheme the less the take up will be particularly as the rewards are minimal.
DEFRA need to understand that the carrot they offered through BPS and cross compliance to influence the manner in which land is managed has to be matched through SFI.
With no take up of SFI the carrot disappears. Replacing the carrot with a stick will require legislation and enforcement. Enforcement is expensive and subject to the rules of evidence and procedure unlike the RPA penalty approach where the farmer has no effective review or appeal route.
Other than not cutting if birds nests would be disturbed or grubbing out the whole hedge, I can do what I like with my hedges if I am not in a scheme which is a point the bureaucrats and those who wish to dictate what I do with my land seem to have overlooked in setting the current ‘compensation’ offer!

Vader · Jul 23, 2022

I stopped planting hedges due to the rules.
How is that good....?

ajcc · Jul 23, 2022

So who has signed up for SFI and why? Surely there must be some farmers that are happy and embracing early SFI? Why don’t we here their thoughts??

Grass And Grain · Jul 23, 2022

Janet Hughes Defra said:
Hi - I said I'd look into this specific point for you and come back to you - I've now done that and here's the answer:

* the double funding rules relating to CS options apply at all levels of SFI standards (not just the intermediate level) - so if you're being paid in CS to do actions that provide winter cover, that would count as double funding in relation to the 70% winter cover requirement in the Arable and Horticultural Soils Standard. That leaves 30% of the land entered into the standard that aren't covered by that requirement.

* At this stage we've designed SFI to make it accessible as possible to as many farmers as possible, including those in CS, without running an unacceptable risk of accidentally double funding the same actions through different schemes. We don't want anything in the double funding rules that could result in someone accidentally falling foul of the rules and us having to recover money - we've tried to completely design that out of the system. For that reason, if you have CS options on a piece of land, and those options are paying you to take actions covered by SFI or incompatible with SFI, you can't enter into SFI on that same piece of land.

* I can see your point, in principle, that we should allow you to have the CS options on that remaining 30%, so long as your 70% in SFI is additional to the are you're being paid for in CS, and it's something we're open to looking at again for future years, if we can find a way to do it that's not overly complicated. The main reason we've not allowed it at this point is that it would be very complicated to allow this sort of overlap without having quite a high risk of farmers inadvertently ending up in a double funding situation, and us then having to recover money paid out to you in good faith (because that is the sort of situation that erodes trust and confidence).

However as I say I do see your point of principle, and this is something we're open to looking at for future years if we can find a way to allow it that isn't too complicated and risky.

Worth also saying that this complexity is time-limited whilst we continue to operate existing schemes alongside the early rollout of new schemes. What we're trying to do is allow as many people as possible to have access to as wide a range of choices as possible during this transition phase.

Thanks for looking into it Janet, and for giving it some consideration.

I've clocked that you've understood what we're saying and will look to see how it can be accommodated into the SFI standards at a later juncture, understand the complexity is time limited (presumably you mean the clash with existing CS schemes creating double funding issues, whereas LNR options might be specifically tailored to work with/around SFI), and also understand SFI is being rolled out over a period of time, and it's a bit of a learning curve - with the flexibility to change and improve things as we go along.

The changes needed to facilitate what I've suggested are probably not complex to implement or difficult for farmers to understand.

All we've to do is explain farmers can enter these CS option areas into SFI, but can't use them to fulfill their 70% winter green cover requirements (Arable Soils, Introductory), or their 20% multi-species cover crop (Intermediate level), and they must fulfill these 70% or 20% requirements from other land (not in the affected CS options list).

Therefore...

Introductory. For each ha of land the farmer has above 30% in these CS options (of their total land), they computer must reduce the total amount of land allowee.to enter ijjjjjnto SFI by one ha.

Intermediate. As above. It's the same calculation, working on 30%.

Your system would need to take into account the CS options might be rotational.

It's for DEFRA to fix it ASAP. They've excluded land under these CS options, and the reason given by DEFRA was it would be double funded, and so couldn't qualify for SFI. This is quite simply incorrect. It's an error in the scheme, and this land shouldn't be excluded,

DEFRA have excluded the sector of farmers who have certain CS options from benefiting from SFI for no reason at all, other than you've presumed ALL the CS hectares in those options would be double funded, when in fact much of those hectares in the CS options will not be double funded at all.

We were implicitly told that if we entered into new CS agreements we WOULD NOT be disadvantaged when it came to ELMS. If something is considered double funded then we're not disadvantaged - no problem (I'm not entirely happy with how double funding is no determined, but let's stick with it for now, and accept the principal of not allowing double funding). However, if something clearly isn't double funded, then DEFRA owe it to those customers to not exclude those hectares of CS options from claiming SFI. There's no argument to forbidding it... in fact, quite the contrary, they were categorically told they WOULD NOT be disadvantaged - and this is exactly what is currently happening, through no fault of their own.

Sustainable Farming Incentive guidance

What farmers need to know to get paid under the Sustainable Farming Incentive (SFI) and how to apply for this funding.

www.gov.uk

^^^^ Therefore, Section 7.3 of the SFI guidance (Countryside Stewardship) is completely wrong and will need reworking. It's nonsense because the farmer can have up to 30% CS options on their land, and not be double funded.

Think there's been posts about regaining trust, and allowing what has been suggested would be a good demonstration of DEFRA doing what they said (not disadvantage CS customers).
I've
It's a rather important point of principal, and I think shouldn't be ignored. It's really quite unsatisfactory to exclude a sector of customers for no good reason, other than "it's a bit complex", because it isn't at all complex. All customers should be treated with equality.

Anyway, just my thoughts. I understand these things take some time to sort out, and can see how difficult it is to run SFI alongside existing schemes.

Steve Ridsdale

Committee Chair, British Farming Union

ajd132 · Jul 24, 2022

ajcc said:
So who has signed up for SFI and why? Surely there must be some farmers that are happy and embracing early SFI? Why don’t we here their thoughts??

I have. Some intermediate and some entry level if they are in CS.
Arable is simple enough to do, and I’m already doing it and have been for a while so may aswell take it.

ajcc · Jul 24, 2022

ajd132 said:
I have. Some intermediate and some entry level if they are in CS.
Arable is simple enough to do, and I’m already doing it and have been for a while so may aswell take it.

I had you down as a keen ploughman? I thought that SFI concept regards the plough “as the instrument of the devil?”
Do you not anticipate a major collision as an arable farmer of an environmental focused Defra dictating and controlling your cultivation techniques in the near future?

Hindsight · Jul 24, 2022

ajcc said:
I had you down as a keen ploughman? I thought that SFI concept regards the plough “as the instrument of the devil?”
Do you not anticipate a major collision as an arable farmer of an environmental focused Defra dictating and controlling your cultivation techniques in the near future?

He's just the opposite. Total direct drilling which we all watch with interest.

I am a hanger on not a farmer. Have farms I go to where intend to sign up for the basic entry level. May only be £22 hectare, but every little helps as TESCO say and already have Landlords factoring it into rent equations - as such is life. Hey ho.

ajd132 · Jul 24, 2022

ajcc said:
I had you down as a keen ploughman? I thought that SFI concept regards the plough “as the instrument of the devil?”
Do you not anticipate a major collision as an arable farmer of an environmental focused Defra dictating and controlling your cultivation techniques in the near future?

I am the worlds worst ploughman!
We moved towards no tilling a while ago, we were on the road before brexit or any of this stuff.
We still cultivate sometimes but I view it now as more like an input rather than a whole farm approach. On this farm say 90% of the time it’s not worthwhile, but the 10% lf the time it is worth doing it offers great payback.

ajd132 · Jul 24, 2022

ajcc said:
I had you down as a keen ploughman? I thought that SFI concept regards the plough “as the instrument of the devil?”
Do you not anticipate a major collision as an arable farmer of an environmental focused Defra dictating and controlling your cultivation techniques in the near future?

This was the last plough we had, it was abit of a weapon and didn’t do a great job on our clay.

ajcc · Jul 24, 2022

Hindsight said:
He's just the opposite. Total direct drilling which we all watch with interest.

I am a hanger on not a farmer. Have farms I go to where intend to sign up for the basic entry level. May only be £22 hectare, but every little helps as TESCO say and already have Landlords factoring it into rent equations - as such is life. Hey ho.

Thanks for enlightenment over @ajd132. The other folk who are looking to sign up “because every little helps” are the reason the scheme offering is so rubbish and indeed dangerous to future UK farming through inadequate scrutiny.

Huno · Jul 24, 2022

Grass And Grain said:
Thanks for looking into it Janet, and for giving it some consideration.

I've clocked that you've understood what we're saying and will look to see how it can be accommodated into the SFI standards at a later juncture, understand the complexity is time limited (presumably you mean the clash with existing CS schemes creating double funding issues, whereas LNR options might be specifically tailored to work with/around SFI), and also understand SFI is being rolled out over a period of time, and it's a bit of a learning curve - with the flexibility to change and improve things as we go along.

The changes needed to facilitate what I've suggested are probably not complex to implement or difficult for farmers to understand.

All we've to do is explain farmers can enter these CS option areas into SFI, but can't use them to fulfill their 70% winter green cover requirements (Arable Soils, Introductory), or their 20% multi-species cover crop (Intermediate level), and they must fulfill these 70% or 20% requirements from other land (not in the affected CS options list).

Therefore...

Introductory. For each ha of land the farmer has above 30% in these CS options (of their total land), they computer must reduce the total amount of land allowee.to enter ijjjjjnto SFI by one ha.

Intermediate. As above. It's the same calculation, working on 30%.

Your system would need to take into account the CS options might be rotational.

It's for DEFRA to fix it ASAP. They've excluded land under these CS options, and the reason given by DEFRA was it would be double funded, and so couldn't qualify for SFI. This is quite simply incorrect. It's an error in the scheme, and this land shouldn't be excluded,

DEFRA have excluded the sector of farmers who have certain CS options from benefiting from SFI for no reason at all, other than you've presumed ALL the CS hectares in those options would be double funded, when in fact much of those hectares in the CS options will not be double funded at all.

We were implicitly told that if we entered into new CS agreements we WOULD NOT be disadvantaged when it came to ELMS. If something is considered double funded then we're not disadvantaged - no problem (I'm not entirely happy with how double funding is no determined, but let's stick with it for now, and accept the principal of not allowing double funding). However, if something clearly isn't double funded, then DEFRA owe it to those customers to not exclude those hectares of CS options from claiming SFI. There's no argument to forbidding it... in fact, quite the contrary, they were categorically told they WOULD NOT be disadvantaged - and this is exactly what is currently happening, through no fault of their own.

Sustainable Farming Incentive guidance

What farmers need to know to get paid under the Sustainable Farming Incentive (SFI) and how to apply for this funding.

www.gov.uk

^^^^ Therefore, Section 7.3 of the SFI guidance (Countryside Stewardship) is completely wrong and will need reworking. It's nonsense because the farmer can have up to 30% CS options on their land, and not be double funded.

Think there's been posts about regaining trust, and allowing what has been suggested would be a good demonstration of DEFRA doing what they said (not disadvantage CS customers).
I've
It's a rather important point of principal, and I think shouldn't be ignored. It's really quite unsatisfactory to exclude a sector of customers for no good reason, other than "it's a bit complex", because it isn't at all complex. All customers should be treated with equality.

Anyway, just my thoughts. I understand these things take some time to sort out, and can see how difficult it is to run SFI alongside existing schemes.

Steve Ridsdale

Committee Chair, British Farming Union

So the key word their is "disadvantaged" for being in CS..
If the British Farming Union has the lobbying effect to change this.. i will happily cancel my membership of the NFU who i only use for mutual insurance discounts and become a paid up member of the BFU...

Grass And Grain · Jul 24, 2022

topground said:
I am on a similar group dealing with hedgerows.
It is dominated by contributors who wish to see standards applied to other peoples hedges. Those who own hedges are in a minority.
The mindset appears to be to impose ever more controls as part of the standards.while not understanding that the more complicated the scheme the less the take up will be particularly as the rewards are minimal.
DEFRA need to understand that the carrot they offered through BPS and cross compliance to influence the manner in which land is managed has to be matched through SFI.
With no take up of SFI the carrot disappears. Replacing the carrot with a stick will require legislation and enforcement. Enforcement is expensive and subject to the rules of evidence and procedure unlike the RPA penalty approach where the farmer has no effective review or appeal route.
Other than not cutting if birds nests would be disturbed or grubbing out the whole hedge, I can do what I like with my hedges if I am not in a scheme which is a point the bureaucrats and those who wish to dictate what I do with my land seem to have overlooked in setting the current ‘compensation’ offer!

They want 70% + of famers in SFI iirc. Seems a poor target, it should be a no-brainer with 100% uptake. The payment rates simply aren't high enough to make it worth the hassle. Larger the farm, more worthwhile. Small farms fall into the 'not worth the hassle' category. I'm certain uptake will be different with differing farm sizes.

ajcc said:
So who has signed up for SFI and why? Surely there must be some farmers that are happy and embracing early SFI? Why don’t we here their thoughts??

Not yet. It's such a small amount of money that harvest and autumn drilling seem a more important use of my time right now.

Introductory arable soils is just about worth it for me, but I'm not bothered either way.

Intermediate arable soils will cost me more than the remuneration, so it's a no go.

I've got a few ha of grassland, s it's not worth the bother of joining the grassland standards.

I've got a chunk of stewardship, which DEFRA have wrongly presumed is double funded (which it isn't), but Janet says they might look to change the rules on this. So what do I do? Do I enter some of my land into SFI now, then when/if DEFRA amend the rules so I need to have a separate 3 year agreement, and end up with different end dates? Or will they let me add in the extra ha to my existing 3 year SFI agreement.

All seems a lot of hassle for not a lot of money.

I think DEFRA are wanting a whole lot of carbon sequestration or carbon saving goodies on the cheap.

It's not a bad long term idea to use legumes, or capture late summer residual N with cover crops, or adding OM, but the payment rates and restrictions don't match the costs or inflexibility.

delilah · Jul 24, 2022

Grass And Grain said:
Larger the farm, more worthwhile.

Quite. Yet @Janet Hughes Defra repeatedly tells us that they want to see ELMS address the fact that 50% of BPS goes to 10% of farmers. Well, yes, it will address it, by increasing the disparity.

J 1177 · Jul 24, 2022

Grass And Grain said:
They want 70% + of famers in SFI iirc. Seems a poor target, it should be a no-brainer with 100% uptake. The payment rates simply aren't high enough to make it worth the hassle. Larger the farm, more worthwhile. Small farms fall into the 'not worth the hassle' category. I'm certain uptake will be different with differing farm sizes.

Not yet. It's such a small amount of money that harvest and autumn drilling seem a more important use of my time right now.

Introductory arable soils is just about worth it for me, but I'm not bothered either way.

Intermediate arable soils will cost me more than the remuneration, so it's a no go.

I've got a few ha of grassland, s it's not worth the bother of joining the grassland standards.

I've got a chunk of stewardship, which DEFRA have wrongly presumed is double funded (which it isn't), but Janet says they might look to change the rules on this. So what do I do? Do I enter some of my land into SFI now, then when/if DEFRA amend the rules so I need to have a separate 3 year agreement, and end up with different end dates? Or will they let me add in the extra ha to my existing 3 year SFI agreement.

All seems a lot of hassle for not a lot of money.

I think DEFRA are wanting a whole lot of carbon sequestration or carbon saving goodies on the cheap.

It's not a bad long term idea to use legumes, or capture late summer residual N with cover crops, or adding OM, but the payment rates and restrictions don't match the costs or inflexibility.

Its carbon sequestion on the cheap for my mind, "dangle a couple of quid infront of farmers, theyll lap it up then we can claim look at all the environmental good we (defra) are doing"
Trouble is that the ammount is so pitiful it wont be.
On another note we are surrounded by small /medium family farms and not one that i know of thinks the sfi payment rate is anything but a joke.

Humble Village Farmer · Jul 24, 2022

I'll probably carry on being as environmental as I can but I don't think I'll bother with the SFI for 2 reasons.

1. I can't be bothered to learn the rules and fill out the forms for such a small payment, and then have to keep to those rules which may harm my business or the environment.

2. If I was that desperate for the money, there's plenty of other ways to use my time more profitably off the farm which would pay better.

I did try to apply for cs the other day, before the deadline. The computer wouldn't let me apply because I didn't have the right "permissions"! Will have to leave that one for now.

ajd132 · Jul 24, 2022

Humble Village Farmer said:
I'll probably carry on being as environmental as I can but I don't think I'll bother with the SFI for 2 reasons.

1. I can't be bothered to learn the rules and fill out the forms for such a small payment, and then have to keep to those rules which may harm my business or the environment.

2. If I was that desperate for the money, there's plenty of other ways to use my time more profitably off the farm which would pay better.

I did try to apply for cs the other day, before the deadline. The computer wouldn't let me apply because I didn't have the right "permissions"! Will have to leave that one for now.

SFI would be a doddle for you signing up took me 5 minutes.
If I sign up and do something wrong and they fine me then I’m not really fussed.

Grass And Grain · Jul 24, 2022

Huno said:
So the key word their is "disadvantaged" for being in CS..
If the British Farming Union has the lobbying effect to change this.. i will happily cancel my membership of the NFU who i only use for mutual insurance discounts and become a paid up member of the BFU...

Great. £10 to join. https://www.bfu.org.uk/

I pose these questions on here as a BFU member and try to get better terms for all farmers. SFI is England only, but BFU will work for Wales, Scotland, N Ireland.

Our questioning has already got DEFRA to look to change the terrible wording on the OM aims of SFI.

I imagine DEFRA will now be under pressure to change the rules on dual funding of SFI/CS options like AB15. It quite simply isn't dual funded if the SFI prescription is met on the other 70% of land not in CS.

Have the NFU achieved any of that? No. Why haven't they challenged these things? What an earth have they been messing about at? They've got teams of paid policy advisors, and we've got farmer volunteers.

The adding OM aims wording was unbelievable. No-one could possibly sign up to it. Most of us would have failed that standard at inspection, then maybe had to pay back all the cash.

The good news is SFI/ELMS appears to be malleable, with changes made on the hoof. Poor from DEFRA to have not got things right from the start though. Farmers could have read the SFI rules and thought "I'm not joining that", then if DEFRA now amend the rules, those farmers could be lost from joining SFI. That's what I'd class as a shambles.

I'm not sure who's on Janet's team, and they've difficulty working around existing schemes, but generally I think SFI could have been much better. We're just volunteer BFU people, and we've identified two glaring mistakes/problems with SFI. SFI has been the full time occupation for DEFRA employees, so they shouldn't have got it wrong.

A group of real farmers from on here should offer to do some contract SFI consultancy.

I do like the way Janet takes things on-board and looks to amend if appropriate. That's a massive refreshing change. And really good farmers have direct methods to make suggestions.

Hindsight · Jul 24, 2022

Humble Village Farmer said:
I'll probably carry on being as environmental as I can but I don't think I'll bother with the SFI for 2 reasons.

1. I can't be bothered to learn the rules and fill out the forms for such a small payment, and then have to keep to those rules which may harm my business or the environment.

2. If I was that desperate for the money, there's plenty of other ways to use my time more profitably off the farm which would pay better.

I did try to apply for cs the other day, before the deadline. The computer wouldn't let me apply because I didn't have the right "permissions"! Will have to leave that one for now.

Crumbs folk do seem to have it in for Defra! Permissions for CS. Simple to resolve. I did one last week as am about to put together a CS application tomorrow. Just call the RPA helpline and they will activate the CS section. Though I suspect if you have the main authorized permission you can do it yourself. Hey ho.

Grass And Grain · Jul 24, 2022

Huno said:
So the key word their is "disadvantaged" for being in CS..
If the British Farming Union has the lobbying effect to change this.. i will happily cancel my membership of the NFU who i only use for mutual insurance discounts and become a paid up member of the BFU...

I'm not an NFU member, but use their insurance service. We still get the mutual discount. Happy with their insurance service.

We've a good group Sec who's always trying to get me to join, but I won't while they manage the Red Tractor situation like they do. And it's quite expensive to be a member

Huno · Jul 24, 2022

Grass And Grain said:
Great. £10 to join. https://www.bfu.org.uk/

I pose these questions on here as a BFU member and try to get better terms for all farmers. SFI is England only, but BFU will work for Wales, Scotland, N Ireland.

Our questioning has already got DEFRA to look to change the terrible wording on the OM aims of SFI.

I imagine DEFRA will now be under pressure to change the rules on dual funding of SFI/CS options like AB15. It quite simply isn't dual funded if the SFI prescription is met on the other 70% of land not in CS.

Have the NFU achieved any of that? No. Why haven't they challenged these things? What an earth have they been messing about at? They've got teams of paid policy advisors, and we've got farmer volunteers.

The adding OM aims wording was unbelievable. No-one could possibly sign up to it. Most of us would have failed that standard at inspection, then maybe had to pay back all the cash.

The good news is SFI/ELMS appears to be malleable, with changes made on the hoof. Poor from DEFRA to have not got things right from the start though. Farmers could have read the SFI rules and thought "I'm not joining that", then if DEFRA now amend the rules, those farmers could be lost from joining SFI. That's what I'd class as a shambles.

I'm not sure who's on Janet's team, and they've difficulty working around existing schemes, but generally I think SFI could have been much better. We're just volunteer BFU people, and we've identified two glaring mistakes/problems with SFI. SFI has been the full time occupation for DEFRA employees, so they shouldn't have got it wrong.

A group of real farmers from on here should offer to do some contract SFI consultancy.

I do like the way Janet takes things on-board and looks to amend if appropriate. That's a massive refreshing change. And really good farmers have direct methods to make suggestions.

Ok.. i am going to pay my tenner as it seems to be far better lobbying value than the £500 fee i pay NFU and yes we know exactly who the over paid NFU environment advisors are!!

Sustainable Farming Incentive is open for applications June 2022

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