New limits to SFI.

Clive · Mar 25, 2024

so to clarify no changes to existing agreements

confirmed

Loading…

x.com

However I would say these new limits are very badly thought out, uptake will have been massively changed by exceptional weather and low prices that are (hopefully) not the normal. The early applicants will be those most keen to take land out of production due to poor quality land etc. the more productive land where SFI looks less attractive will not want big % out of production

it shouldn't be about limiting each farm, it should be about limiting overall areas pushing the environmental burden onto less- soil and keeping food production on the best land. I think @Defra Farming had this more right than they realised but have overreacted to data from applications so far

Clive · Mar 26, 2024

DrWazzock said:
Why didn’t they just leave BPS alone running in parallel with perfectly sensible stewardship? Said this from the start.

because BPS was utterly imoral frankly and indefensible - no way politically that it could continue

Farma Parma · Mar 26, 2024

topground said:
Did they actually listen to food producers who took part in the pilot. In my experience they didn’t listen to those of us on the hedgerow pilot.
Anyone else care to comment on their experience as a pilot participant?

In our pilot connecting a buffer strip say too carryon into a neighbours land was an extra payment option, it never got implemented tho.

Jackov Altraids · Mar 26, 2024

neilo said:
On the other hand, 1% of farmers (landowners) have decided to take the p*ss, so they are cracking down on it.
I don’t see a problem with a 25% cap tbh.

There should always have been a cap.
They have just rewarded the pisstakers by not applying this to to all applicants.
See clives joy a few posts ago.

They want small areas in environmental options. They have to offer large payments to make that worth while.
If it's worthwhile on a small area, why would anyone not do it over as large an area as possible.
This is very basic stuff.

Zippy768 · Mar 26, 2024

Clive said:
because BPS was utterly imoral frankly and indefensible - no way politically that it could continue

And this method isn't? Nothing defensible about how this has panned out.

Same scheme, yet farmers with pre 25th March apps will have v different agreements to those post 25th.

You often talk about how foreign imports have a competitive advantage over our own. Now they have outdone themselves and caused inequality within our own domestic industry.

We aren’t just talking about a few wild flower margins, but a 3 year business direction and crop rotations - inputs, machinery and in some cases even staffing policies will have changed.

Although Janet confirms this change doesnt affect current agreements, one has v little faith that the following 2 years will not be.
We signed up not knowing if or when options could be added; when newer options would be available; or even how we will declare/confirm year end aims.
Now with this U-turn, it's hard to believe they will allow these ">25%" agreements to continue as the farmer was planning

Zippy768 · Mar 26, 2024

Jackov Altraids said:
There should always have been a cap.
They have just rewarded the pisstakers by not applying this to to all applicants.
See clives joy a few posts ago.

They want small areas in environmental options. They have to offer large payments to make that worth while.
If it's worthwhile on a small area, why would anyone not do it over as large an area as possible.
This is very basic stuff.

Alot of times in this thread, farmers with larger agreements have been referred to as "pisstakers".
Why?
These agreements were done under the guidelines set out. Applications were made, reviewed by defra, and offered and accepted.
No "pisstaking" just following options and guidelines that were offered by defra.

Jackov Altraids · Mar 26, 2024

Zippy768 said:
Alot of times in this thread, farmers with larger agreements have been referred to as "pisstakers".
Why?
These agreements were done under the guidelines set out. Applications were made, reviewed by defra, and offered and accepted.
No "pisstaking" just following options and guidelines that were offered by defra.

Indeed.
I think you will see that in my post, I indicated that those who have agreements over the now imposed limits, acted entirely logically and predictably.
It is Defra that inferred they are 'pisstakers'.

Furthermore, I fear the 'pisstakers' may yet befall to the limits;

"For that reason, we’re putting an area limit on 6 of the 9 actions. The reason for limiting these 6 is that these actions were designed to be carried out on parts of the farm and smaller areas within land parcels. They are less effective if they are carried out on larger areas or whole parcels and the impact on food production is greater. "

The whole ethos of SFI was/ is to simply demonstrate a reasonable attempt to meet "aims".
Come 'visit' time, will the inspectors see vast tranches of an option and query whether it is inkeeping with the stated aim of the option?. . . . . . . .

aangus · Mar 26, 2024

topground said:
Did they actually listen to food producers who took part in the pilot. In my experience they didn’t listen to those of us on the hedgerow pilot.
Anyone else care to comment on their experience as a pilot participant?

I remember asking Janet if it was better for me financially to sell all of my livestock and to grow food for the birds and bees and guess what, she said yes.

Flatland guy · Mar 26, 2024

aangus said:
I remember asking Janet if it was better for me financially to sell all of my livestock and to grow food for the birds and bees and guess what, she said yes.

Is this a wholesale change of attitude from all of UK Government towards environment?? Looking forward to some action on rivers now because only 25% of rivers etc matter now

And all be sorted just in time for electioneering for general election!!

Case290 · Mar 26, 2024

Not sure how they can just make such a big change at the such short notice. I was hoping to put the lot into those options next yr
very disappointed and as Clive thought a massive over reaction.
Yes so a large or small farm 25% is a different area .. how can anyone say anymore than 25% won’t make any environmental difference. They’re different size parcels / areas… Just more madness.

Hindsight · Mar 26, 2024

Jackov Altraids said:
Indeed.
I think you will see that in my post, I indicated that those who have agreements over the now imposed limits, acted entirely logically and predictably.
It is Defra that inferred they are 'pisstakers'.

Furthermore, I fear the 'pisstakers' may yet befall to the limits;

"For that reason, we’re putting an area limit on 6 of the 9 actions. The reason for limiting these 6 is that these actions were designed to be carried out on parts of the farm and smaller areas within land parcels. They are less effective if they are carried out on larger areas or whole parcels and the impact on food production is greater. "

The whole ethos of SFI was/ is to simply demonstrate a reasonable attempt to meet "aims".
Come 'visit' time, will the inspectors see vast tranches of an option and query whether it is inkeeping with the stated aim of the option?. . . . . . . .

Indeed JA. If Defra intended for these 6 options to be smaller part land parcels it should have said so in the Guidelines. Not just assumed applicants would take that route. Or intervened in the application submission process. At an early stage in the 'Ask Janet' thread I asked her for sight of the RPA Inspectorate inspection procedure and guidelines. I cannot recall the exact reply now but it was along the lines of 'later and do not worry about that'. Well Mr Mark Spencer has I suggest clearly laid out Defra's intentions for the SFI scheme it is incumbent on him as Minister in charge to lay out clear inspection guidelines or publicly to state that whatever interpretation of the guidelines his Inspectorate find will be accepted for the 3 years of the scheme.

delilah · Mar 26, 2024

Huno said:
But they didnt did they mate???

I love the way your posts only appear once they have been vetted

. Just how long have you been on the naughty step for ? Must be a round black thing with a hole in the middle.

delilah · Mar 26, 2024

Hindsight said:
Well Mr Mark Spencer has I suggest clearly laid out Defra's intentions for the SFI scheme it is incumbent on him as Minister in charge to lay out clear inspection guidelines or publicly to state that whatever interpretation of the guidelines his Inspectorate find will be accepted for the 3 years of the scheme.

Knowing that he will soon be out of a job, I suspect MS is now in demob-happy mode. An opportunity for farmers to get some good stuff pushed through.

onthehoof · Mar 26, 2024

Green oak said:
I feel really bad now for putting the whole farm in.

So what are you going to do in 3 years when you have to plough up 75%

gloria1 · Mar 26, 2024

Just cancelled some machinery changes based on future SFI cash flow which I simply do not trust will deliver the cashflow previously calculated.What a waste of time paying all those consultants and webinars to advise us, then after taking their advice,change the rules.Can Defra be trusted,will Janet Hughes resign after her " light touch new relationship" mantra.You design a complicated mess,its not attracting farmers,you increase the rates,then cut 75% off options, ridiculous management.

DrWazzock · Mar 26, 2024

Clive said:
because BPS was utterly imoral frankly and indefensible - no way politically that it could continue

It wasn’t perfect but the beauty of it was you spend it how you saw fit. New shed roof, tractor diff repair etc etc without needing every minute detail of expenditure signed off and inspected by DEFRA. Now we are forced to spend it in whatever civil servants see fit and look where that has got is now in farming, and previously the NHS, nationalised industries etc.
BPS might have been immoral but like it or loathe it did underpin food production and kept the wheels turning and alongside CS provided the right balance of production and environmental mix as well as a farmer welfare payment. What was so wrong with that?

DrWazzock · Mar 26, 2024

How is it moral that somebody nets say £500 per hectare for bird/rat seed?
All I’ve heard from the public about the schemes is deep anger when they are struggling to make ends meet. The government is slowly waking up to that.

DrWazzock · Mar 26, 2024

This agricultural policy (if you can call it a policy) was instigated by a small but noisy faction within the Conservative Party : the Goldsmith brothers, Carrie Johnson, Old man Johnson etc. It’s extremist and it’s wrong. Plain and simple. Reinstate BPS and continue CS. Would work just fine. But no they had to fudge the whole system over.

onesiedale · Mar 26, 2024

ploughman1963 said:
If 1% triggered this change of heart, that 1% of applicants must have represented a fair old hectarage??

it was probably the 1% that lobbied hard for the scheme to be designed like this originally. They have got their contracts sorted now, they have got their way.

to everyone else.

Yale · Mar 26, 2024

So, interestingly no one has asked what the next ‘emergency’ change to policy will be?

After the behaviour of DEFRA will most farmers be of ‘heightened awareness’ of how set policies can be thrown out of the window. Farmers past this point in time will become different animals to deal with regarding government schemes. It will force a mindset of flip flopping into any new options reducing the time scale for DEFRA to react.

They really have shot themselves in the foot!

New limits to SFI.

Staff Member

Staff 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