30 years of environmental stewardship wasted

[Dave645]

what a childish attitude lol.

Has anyone never heard of 'amenity value'

who actually are the clowns

I used to work on a large estate ,the owner ( a shrewd businessman self made multimillionaire ) had a big part of it in stewardship , i bet he wont ' rip up any of the good work he's done fencing ,culm measures areas for snipe miles of fencing and hawthorn hedges replanted to replace gaps etc

Yes shrewd, he got lots of grant money over and above BPS to put hedges etc in I do very much doubt he will take them out as that’s illegal, what he may do is farm the land in a diffrent way if he needs the cash to live but from what your saying he doesn’t, so your compairing him to the majority was pointless, the majority need to make a living and the majority are losing 50% or more of that living, so things can go 2 ways maximise their living from increasing productivity or diversify into another job.
If your a farmer option one is the most likely, as subsidising the farm with a second job is not good practice, it takes time away from managing the farm, and why should we subsidise food when we have a lot of time and money invested, my farm has 300 years of time invested in it, and it can make a profit, but also the weather can flip a profit to a lose very easily, with it being arable, even with BPS.
And then we have the markets which seem to make stuff up as they go on, where farm gate produce prices have no bearing on production costs and deliver an actual profit, that and we invest a year in front of returns, so if the market shifts unfavourably we can be left high and dry.
selling forward is also a double edged sword that can cut both ways, and penalties for over selling your crops can be very high. I will add contracts where the farmer won and sold the crop well, seem to fall foul of deductions where the market find fault with the crop and cut the money being paid so a contract that’s £20 above the spot market and the farmer can often find the buyers use every trick in the book to make that crop as close to spot as they think they can get away with. . .
BPS allowed some of the pressure of the open market to be reduced, so also encouraged investment in the environment to be left standing even with out direct payments for them, I have areas of ground in place since we were in ELS but we haven’t been in any other scheme, BPS allowed that as even though we were not getting environmental money from a follow up scheme, the BPS was giving us the flexibility to retain non productive areas of the farm, established under ELS, when BPS goes so does that flexibility, so like most of farmers the 75% that are under 100ha ish that will lose 50% plus of the income they were living on, they have to make hard choices, and the environment doesn’t win when it comes to putting food on the table and making a living.

if DEFRA don’t find a way to support small farms under the 100ha size or the first 100ha of every farm then hard choices will have to be made and the envioroment will not be the top priority.
Supporting upto the first 100ha of every farm in the uk with the equivalent to BPS for environmental options we agree to do for that money will safeguard what exists and likely increase it by a wide margin.
Even on big farms as they will put the first 100ha best suited to the scheme, In the scheme, and so retain the large part of any environmental items they have on their farms, all for the 30% of the full budget the first level the new schemes was said to have.
DEFRA planed to do a blanket first level scheme open to every ha of ground in the uk, but if they instead target the first 100ha plus depending on budget allowances of every farm in the uk the scheme money can be the equivalent to BPS we get now it just caps out at the level that 100ha pays.

this puts a big safe guard on the environmental options in place, and allows for there expansion, on the first 100ha of every farm, and still leaves DEFRA with 70% of the budget to play with.

 

[Bury the Trash]

 

[Jackov Altraids]

If we are boring, whinging and wrong, what do you think would be right?

 

[Ceri]

Actually 31 years since we entered 12% of our farm into the original Countrywide Stewardship scheme. That 12% remains out of production today but now in Mid Tier. It’s seen various name changes of the scheme over the years such as ELS, HLS, ESS, CS - I’ve lost count to be honest but it matters not. The point is that land hasn’t been used commercially for 31 years.

In 2023 when our current scheme ends it’s going to be ripped up and we will crop every square inch of it. The new ELMS scheme is just astonishingly poor and DEFRA must think we’re all stupid if they think it’ll be adopted on mass. Our only option is to farm everything and farm it hard to push output in the hope it’ll go towards the loss of BPS.

The new ELMS schemes have been designed to end farming in this country. Our government is actively shutting us down through the removal of income that subsidised food production. They know it’ll hurt 80% of farms and their plan is to import food. The pandemic has taught them nothing.

It’s a sad state of affairs when 31 years of environmental good is ended due to poor government thinking.

You need to tag Janet Hughes in this lad if u havn't already......?

 

[Fubar]

Never claimed for any environmental schemes but I am very proud of what we did off our own backs, and of the big increases in wildlife as a result.

Same here. We've grassed down buffer strips along water courses, left corners uncropped etc but we never claimed any payments because we didn't want go be tied down with all the bureaucracy (can't drive on it,can't trim hedges etc)

 

[Bury the Trash]

If we are boring, whinging and wrong, what do you think would be right?

I don't know but i have a gut feeling that none of this diatribe is.
It wouldn't have helped that chap i mentioned above either , as he stood on the Quay penniless and not knowing where he would sleep or eat.
Yet now he makes a really good mentor .

 

[Janet Hughes Defra]

Isn't the problem in that England is pretty much alone in Europe & devolved governments in cutting what farmers are in effect receiving but they are still supposed to compete agri wise with these & the rest of the world in a highly competitive market.
Defra having already started cutting SFP payments yet have still not finalised what schemes there will be & even less information as to what the eventual payments for these parts of schemes will be, this is a farcical way for any English farmer to try & plan a farming business for the future.
Can we at the very least have a cast iron assurance of a date when schemes & payments will be confirmed & set in stone so English farmers can plan for the future!

All the money coming out of SFP is going back into the sector through schemes we've announced / launched this year, including existing schemes (where we're seeing significant increases in take-up), productivity grants through the farming investment fund (where we saw much higher take-up than expected), free business planning advice through the resilience fund, and later this year SFI early rollout, building on the pilot we launched last year.

However I do take your point that you need information in order to plan - we're working hard to provide that information as far as head as we can, and will be providing much more over the course of this year (I also recognise that is not a specific date, and that you need dates - we are working on that too).

 

[Raider112]

All the money coming out of SFP is going back into the sector through schemes we've announced / launched this year, including existing schemes (where we're seeing significant increases in take-up), productivity grants through the farming investment fund (where we saw much higher take-up than expected), free business planning advice through the resilience fund, and later this year SFI early rollout, building on the pilot we launched last year.

However I do take your point that you need information in order to plan - we're working hard to provide that information as far as head as we can, and will be providing much more over the course of this year (I also recognise that is not a specific date, and that you need dates - we are working on that too).

This is very different to the SFP though, for a small farmer claiming say £10,000 that money can be used to buy much needed machinery, pay off debts, any number of things. Forgive me if I've got it wrong as I haven't looked too closely but I get the impression that claiming money in future will involve spending money on things to claim it back?
If he is going from spending that 10,000 as he wishes or needs, to spending say £5,000 or more on something he doesn't need in order to claim £10,000 then all he is doing is spending on something of no benefit just to claim a few grand when he could keep the land in production.
We are talking farmers here, farming is what we do.
I've said for years that large organisations who don't need it get far too big a share of the pot, looks like you are about to give them even more.

 

[Janet Hughes Defra]

This is very different to the SFP though, for a small farmer claiming say £10,000 that money can be used to buy much needed machinery, pay off debts, any number of things. Forgive me if I've got it wrong as I haven't looked too closely but I get the impression that claiming money in future will involve spending money on things to claim it back?
If he is going from spending that 10,000 as he wishes or needs, to spending say £5,000 or more on something he doesn't need in order to claim £10,000 then all he is doing is spending on something of no benefit just to claim a few grand when he could keep the land in production.
We are talking farmers here, farming is what we do.
I've said for years that large organisations who don't need it get far too big a share of the pot, looks like you are about to give them even more.

I completely agree and accept that farming is what you do. We're designing the new schemes to work and make business sense for you alongside food production, so that you can get paid to produce environmental, climate and animal health and welfare goods alongside food or other ag produce.

You're right it's not the same - payments in future will be either for investment in kit and tech, or doing actions that benefit environment, climate or animal health and welfare, alongside food production. That is the overall intention of the agricultural transition - moving away from direct subsidy payments and instead investing environment, climate and animal health and welfare outcomes alongside food production.

However a lot of the things we will pay for will also be potentially beneficial for your business, depending on which things you choose to get paid for which you'll be able to do in a way that makes sense for you and your business. For example: kit that makes your farm more efficient (so saving you money) can also reduce your emissions; actions we'll pay for through the sustainable farming incentive that increase the health of your soil or involve smarter use of pesticides and fertilisers can both reduce your costs / improve farm productivity and have environment and climate benefits; improving animal health and welfare is a public good in itself but can also improve farm productivity eg through reduced waste.

 

[Gadget]

Same here. We've grassed down buffer strips along water courses, left corners uncropped etc but we never claimed any payments because we didn't want go be tied down with all the bureaucracy (can't drive on it,can't trim hedges etc)

This is what we did

 

[BrianV]

I completely agree and accept that farming is what you do. We're designing the new schemes to work and make business sense for you alongside food production, so that you can get paid to produce environmental, climate and animal health and welfare goods alongside food or other ag produce.

You're right it's not the same - payments in future will be either for investment in kit and tech, or doing actions that benefit environment, climate or animal health and welfare, alongside food production. That is the overall intention of the agricultural transition - moving away from direct subsidy payments and instead investing environment, climate and animal health and welfare outcomes alongside food production.

However a lot of the things we will pay for will also be potentially beneficial for your business, depending on which things you choose to get paid for which you'll be able to do in a way that makes sense for you and your business. For example: kit that makes your farm more efficient (so saving you money) can also reduce your emissions; actions we'll pay for through the sustainable farming incentive that increase the health of your soil or involve smarter use of pesticides and fertilisers can both reduce your costs / improve farm productivity and have environment and climate benefits; improving animal health and welfare is a public good in itself but can also improve farm productivity eg through reduced waste.

I think you are being seriously misled & misleading in believing that new kit will in the vast majority of cases make a farm more efficient thus improving profitability in fact more often than not the very opposite is the truth as new kit often involves additional borrowing at a time when interest rates are climbing, I fail to see how any of these schemes do anything at all for food production again the very opposite is the truth.
All that is happening is that English farmers are being deliberately made less competitive in food production & it is English taxpayers that will in time suffer the consequences!

 

[Bury the Trash]

I think you are being seriously misled & misleading in believing that new kit will in the vast majority of cases make a farm more efficient thus improving profitability in fact more often than not the very opposite is the truth as new kit often involves additional borrowing at a time when interest rates are climbing, I fail to see how any of these schemes do anything at all for food production again the very opposite is the truth.
All that is happening is that English farmers are being deliberately made less competitive in food production & it is English taxpayers that will in time suffer the consequences!

You have different view point than them , a different way of thinking.
but surely some things shrewdly bought on them schemes will bring money returns ?
and for balance i'll put this to them.
"well How bout if those grants covered some solar panel or wind turbine capital costs for farmers ?" now that really would be useful for everyone .

 

[Beefsmith]

I completely agree and accept that farming is what you do. We're designing the new schemes to work and make business sense for you alongside food production, so that you can get paid to produce environmental, climate and animal health and welfare goods alongside food or other ag produce.

You're right it's not the same - payments in future will be either for investment in kit and tech, or doing actions that benefit environment, climate or animal health and welfare, alongside food production. That is the overall intention of the agricultural transition - moving away from direct subsidy payments and instead investing environment, climate and animal health and welfare outcomes alongside food production.

However a lot of the things we will pay for will also be potentially beneficial for your business, depending on which things you choose to get paid for which you'll be able to do in a way that makes sense for you and your business. For example: kit that makes your farm more efficient (so saving you money) can also reduce your emissions; actions we'll pay for through the sustainable farming incentive that increase the health of your soil or involve smarter use of pesticides and fertilisers can both reduce your costs / improve farm productivity and have environment and climate benefits; improving animal health and welfare is a public good in itself but can also improve farm productivity eg through reduced waste.

@Janet Hughes Defra Janet, unless I can get a base rate of £80/ac BEFORE any ELMS scheme options then it does not work financially.

Hopefully you are aware that the current BPS system sits underneath the CS scheme providing a base payment.

If the updates you mention coming into ELMS do not include this base payment then my whole scheme will be cropped when my CS ends because I am not going to carry an environmental scheme on behalf of the government.

If they want me in a scheme where I am taking ‘my’ land out of production so they can meet their green targets, then they have got to pay so it earns money.

The sad thing though is that we are a very tiny island on the planet. What we do for the environment is irrelevant if the likes of USA, China, Russia, Australia etc are not doing it.

 

[willyorkshire]

Janet, unless I can get a base rate of £80/ac BEFORE any ELMS scheme options then it does not work financially.

Hopefully you are aware that under the current BPS system it sits underneath the CS scheme providing a base payment.

If the updates you mention coming into ELMS do not include this base payment then my whole scheme will be cropped when my CS ends because I am not going to carry an environmental scheme on behalf of the government.

If they want me in a scheme where I am taking ‘my’ land out of production so they can meet their green targets, then they have got to pay so it earns money.

The sad thing though is that we are a very tiny island on the planet. What we do for the environment is irrelevant if the likes of USA, China, Russia, Australia etc are not doing it.

Pleased more people see it this way. I'm in SFI pilot. Showing willing. But the goalposts moved massively from the initial draft. On my farm I can only do the soils part, unless I take very productive land out of production, which I won't do to make a loss. In first draft min or no till had good earning potential for all area where used, but now it's pegged back to 20% so in round figures I can recoup only 25% BPS.
Incidentally, I didn't enter strip till to 'earn' payments but to cut costs, which it certainly is doing. Esp with fuel at 74ppl.
At the moment, my best option is to farm it all, including the voluntary bits I've done for wildlife etc. I find this most disappointing.

 

[Mixedupfarmer]

This is exactly how I see it.

 

[Raider112]

I completely agree and accept that farming is what you do. We're designing the new schemes to work and make business sense for you alongside food production, so that you can get paid to produce environmental, climate and animal health and welfare goods alongside food or other ag produce.

You're right it's not the same - payments in future will be either for investment in kit and tech, or doing actions that benefit environment, climate or animal health and welfare, alongside food production. That is the overall intention of the agricultural transition - moving away from direct subsidy payments and instead investing environment, climate and animal health and welfare outcomes alongside food production.

However a lot of the things we will pay for will also be potentially beneficial for your business, depending on which things you choose to get paid for which you'll be able to do in a way that makes sense for you and your business. For example: kit that makes your farm more efficient (so saving you money) can also reduce your emissions; actions we'll pay for through the sustainable farming incentive that increase the health of your soil or involve smarter use of pesticides and fertilisers can both reduce your costs / improve farm productivity and have environment and climate benefits; improving animal health and welfare is a public good in itself but can also improve farm productivity eg through reduced waste.

Thanks for the reply, I can see where you are aiming but I'm not sure it will be as popular as you hope.
No offence but the final paragraph looks a little bit like teaching your Granny to suck eggs. I know it wasn't meant that way.

 

[tepapa]

@Janet Hughes Defra Janet, unless I can get a base rate of £80/ac BEFORE any ELMS scheme options then it does not work financially.

Hopefully you are aware that the current BPS system sits underneath the CS scheme providing a base payment.

If the updates you mention coming into ELMS do not include this base payment then my whole scheme will be cropped when my CS ends because I am not going to carry an environmental scheme on behalf of the government.

If they want me in a scheme where I am taking ‘my’ land out of production so they can meet their green targets, then they have got to pay so it earns money.

The sad thing though is that we are a very tiny island on the planet. What we do for the environment is irrelevant if the likes of USA, China, Russia, Australia etc are not doing it.

But for the environmental options DEFRA are only paying on their perceived interpretation of income forgone, so you may as well farm it hedge to hedge for the same potential return, rather than be tied to their scheme with the risk that comes with it of not getting paid or an inspector pulling you up on their interpretation of the rules.

 

[Beefsmith]

But for the environmental options DEFRA are only paying on their perceived interpretation of income forgone, so you may as well farm it hedge to hedge for the same potential return, rather than be tied to their scheme with the risk that comes with it of not getting paid or an inspector pulling you up on their interpretation of the rules.

Precisely. Defra forget that income forgone is the crop gross margin + £80/ac subsidy. We’ve all had subsidy for over 30 years so they need to factor that in, which presently they are not.

The subsidy they installed was to control food prices. In 2022 when the world is recovering from a global pandemic, high inflation and record energy prices they are now going to push up food prices by removing the subsidy currently controlling them. If they think importing will avoid this then their in for a shock because prices are rocketing worldwide. If they upset general public with higher food prices then they’ll really have a very big problem on their hands!

Their shortsightedness is frightening because higher food prices from around the world imported into this country using higher transport costs! Fuel is rocketing so the boats, planes and trains are costing more to get the imported food into us.

 

[Ffermer Bach]

How are NE going to argue the case? If an agronomist has turned up, looked at what is there and listed it in a written EIA, it's a done deal.

Like I said, as an agronomist, I would only be prepared to put pen to paper if I walked the land in question and knew how the farmer had been managing it. If he has been spraying, fertilising and mowing the land etc, it won't have any rare or interesting species so it will be no obstacle. Why these restrictions on permeant pasture exist is to stop people going out and ploughing land that should be protected and which historically wasn't brought into true cultivation because it was impractical to do so.

SSSI regulations are another kettle of fish and they are much more set in stone. The problem with these agencies is that if you become a person of interest they will stick to you like the proverbial to a blanket and hound everything you do.

A while back everyone was getting really concerned because the ministry had stated anything that was in grass for 5 years would be termed 'permeant pasture' and loads of people spoke to me with the concern that they had to plough all and sundry to avoid this label. The ministry did not invent these rules to oblige farmers to plough everything up. In reality the real permeant pasture regulations were designed to stop people ploughing up habitat that hadn't been 'farmed properly' for decades.

I had heard a comment, on an arable farm that had herbal leys as part of the rotation, and a question was asked why do you plough them up at 4 years, won't they last longer? The answer was, I don't want NE to classify the land as permanent pasture (as I want to keep farming it).

 

[BenAdamsAgri]

I had heard a comment, on an arable farm that had herbal leys as part of the rotation, and a question was asked why do you plough them up at 4 years, won't they last longer? The answer was, I don't want NE to classify the land as permanent pasture (as I want to keep farming it).

Can you not just list it as fallow in your bps forms in year 5