Careful where you cap the subsidy MrGove

[curlietailz]

lots of talk on here about capping subsidy at 10k, 15k etc etc.
think of this......
Large farms currently get large subsidy.
If a cap was imposed in the 10k, 15k bracket..... Those large farms wouldn't claim it because it would be too much bother .
They would say "feck off" and IMHO..... Drill wall to wall wheat...... Not bothering with all the fantastic environmental stuff that almost all farms do at the minute.......such as wildlife margins, growing 3 crops or over wintered enhanced stubbles, or lapwing gaps , or any of the other "stuff" that's environmentally friendly.
So large farms provide the most benefit to the environment ( because they have a large acreage)...... Take away the subsidy by capping it at too low a level and the land not actually producing a crop to sell is wasted....
Just a thought !

 

[bovine]

Or they put the environmental things into legislation so everyone HAS to do them or gets fined? Support (to a capped level) available to help with that?

If a significant number of larger farmers did as you say, they'd change the rules and get you in a different way.

 

[Brisel]

Expect the forthcoming "public goods" environmental payments to be dependent on cross compliance. Gove has always hinted that the 3 crop rule was going to be scrapped. It was never really meant for us, just the 000s of ha of monoculture wheat or maize in Eastern Europe.

 

[curlietailz]

I think my point was..... If the cap is too low many many large farmers won't sign up and accept it and just do mono culture

 

[Henarar]

well they can go without then

perhaps they should carry on with the BPS much as it is and cap it at 10k [you would only have to cross comply on the area you claimed on ]
then they could have the environmental schemes separate and a different cap for them
make the big boys do the environmental work if they want the money after all they have the area to do it on, as you said above

 

[Brisel]

Or they put the environmental things into legislation so everyone HAS to do them or gets fined? Support (to a capped level) available to help with that?

If a significant number of larger farmers did as you say, they'd change the rules and get you in a different way.

IMHO the environmental payments would be big enough that most would comply with everything else to get them. That's the risk Gove or his successors will take. I see no desire from any quarter to cap environmental payments - that just defeats the object of them. He mentioned that joint environmental schemes like the farm clusters would be supported.

 

[curlietailz]

I believe I heard Mr Gove say that environment payment could result in unlimited income .... Although I may have dreamed that !

I also believe that large farmers will embrace the environmental stuff. But the subsidy has to be proportional
X

 

[Feldspar]

IMHO the environmental payments would be big enough that most would comply with everything else to get them. That's the risk Gove or his successors will take. I see no desire from any quarter to cap environmental payments - that just defeats the object of them. He mentioned that joint environmental schemes like the farm clusters would be supported.

That was my reading. Direct payments will be capped in the short term, but I hope there won't be a similar cap on environmental payments. Bigger farms will provide more public goods and so should be paid accordingly.

 

[Brisel]

I'll add a small note of caution - my Higher Tier CS will cost more than it makes, thanks to lots of fiddly Scheduled Monuments & SSSIs and the concentration of overheads on a smaller cropped area

 

[Feldspar]

I'll add a small note of caution - my Higher Tier CS will cost more than it makes, thanks to lots of fiddly Scheduled Monuments & SSSIs and the concentration of overheads on a smaller cropped area

That's why I am not 100% happy with Gove's suggestions. It depends a lot on how the public goods are valued, and whether the payment for them is based upon income foregone. If it is based upon income foregone, and if farming goes through a relatively (even more!) unprofitable time, then those payments may not be large at all, and may for some farmers be less than the hassle associated with creating the public goods. Overall I foresee a pretty big reduction in the payments net of costs to the farmer.

 

[Paul E]

Yes, but if the cap is at 100 or 500 acres, there will be a lot of businesses "split" to become more, smaller ones to claim more BPS. (Or whatever it's going to be called)

 

[Feldspar]

Yes, but if the cap is at 100 or 500 acres, there will be a lot of businesses "split" to become more, smaller ones to claim more BPS. (Or whatever it's going to be called)

Bet they'll have a backward looking cut-off date to stop that sort of tactic. What I'm curious about is the instance where a business wants to split for legitimate reasons, such as land being passed children who want to farm in their own right.

 

[Still Farming]

Their'll never please everyone.

 

[yellow belly]

After 2024 there will be no payment other than environmentle linked payments is how I read it

 

[Brisel]

2024 is a red herring. There's a general election due in 2022 so I see little value in vague ideas beyond that though a change of faces won't see reforms happen instantly.

 

[Henarar]

2024 is a red herring. There's a general election due in 2022 so I see little value in vague ideas beyond that though a change of faces won't see reforms happen instantly.

Plenty of time for lots of largely pointless threads on TFF before then

We all know that a very large number of farmers are basically forked if subs go, many more including to a large degree us if trade goes against the UK farmer and most won't be looking very good if both happen
and anyone saying much different just as well go for a sh!t under hedge

 

[Brisel]

Too many unknowns. All I know is that there will be less subs and they will be in different forms.

 

[yellow belly]

2024 is a red herring. There's a general election due in 2022 so I see little value in vague ideas beyond that though a change of faces won't see reforms happen instantly.

as is usual in a general election there will be a promise to keep the system going for a couple of years it take more than 2 years to change the direction that defra is going took them 5 years to get sps and bps on track

 

[Brisel]

as is usual in a general election there will be a promise to keep the system going for a couple of years it take more than 2 years to change the direction that defra is going took them 5 years to get sps and bps on track

That is true, and typical when you look back in time

 

[Ffermer Bach]

I am just going to lay a short hedge, and fence it. I will get about £1000 for that. If I were to tell my colleagues at work, that I will get that money, to improve my field, paid for from their taxes, I think they would be dumbfounded! I dare say, people could take the view, that I own a property that could be beyond their dreams, why should I be paid to improve it!