DEFRA consultation on Local Nature Recovery plans

[Mixedupfarmer]

I liked this comment mind...


"Encouragingly, most of the Breckland group members said that this mapping tool was useful for them, and they were more likely to engage with coordinated landscape-scale conservation as a result of this test and trial. However, maps alone are only part of the solution.

For many of them, the crucial detail is the payment rates they will get for delivering options in schemes like this.

On some farms, if those payments aren't competitive, the conservation work is unlikely to go ahead. This would prevent our blueprint from turning into a reality. "

I would hazard that the above should read All Farms and Most of them?


I guess the Million Pound question, is who has pushed for the Higher Tier elements of ELMS, and why?

Rspb, wetland, National and other trusts, massive estates, as they would do much of it anyway but will now get £££££££ from the higher tiers of ELMS

 

[steveR]

Rspb, wetland, National and other trusts, massive estates, as they would do much of it anyway but will now get £££££££ from the higher tiers of ELMS

I agree,these bodies are the driver for the top two tiers of ELMS, more is the pity. Excellent lobbyists with full time officers looking for money. Personally, I think it stinks....

 

[Mixedupfarmer]

I agree,these bodies are the driver for the top two tiers of ELMS, more is the pity. Excellent lobbyists with full time officers looking for money. Personally, I think it stinks....

Plenty of members as well who also happen to be voters, many who have moved into the countryside in recent years diluting the farming vote in rural areas

 

[steveR]

Plenty of members as well who also happen to be voters, many who have moved into the countryside in recent years diluting the farming vote in rural areas

Where is the natural home for farming votes now?? Serious question!

Long been known that historically Farmers tend to do better under a Labour Govt, but maybe not under a very leftwing Govt as Corbyn had pushed... and was rightly rejected.

 

[holwellcourtfarm]

The charm offensive for LNR. I cannot see anything in there that couldn't be achieved via appropriate options in the SFI. Scrap the LNR. It's bureaucracy gone mad.

https://defrafarming.blog.gov.uk/2021/10/22/bigger-better-more-joined-up-conservation-on-farms/

I liked this comment mind...


"Encouragingly, most of the Breckland group members said that this mapping tool was useful for them, and they were more likely to engage with coordinated landscape-scale conservation as a result of this test and trial. However, maps alone are only part of the solution.

For many of them, the crucial detail is the payment rates they will get for delivering options in schemes like this.

On some farms, if those payments aren't competitive, the conservation work is unlikely to go ahead. This would prevent our blueprint from turning into a reality. "

I would hazard that the above should read All Farms and Most of them?


I guess the Million Pound question, is who has pushed for the Higher Tier elements of ELMS, and why?

I picked up on that paragraph too. The wording of it can be read negatively; that some farmers world refuse to do these things unless well paid for doing it.

I would push back against any scientist saying that with "So would YOU continue to spend as much time and effort investigating these issues if YOU were not being paid to do so? "

Farms are, after all, businesses.

 

[steveR]

In the absence of any response from DEFRA to my offer to help with co-design, I have submitted a comment as below to this; https://defrafarming.blog.gov.uk/2021/10/22/bigger-better-more-joined-up-conservation-on-farms/

Will they allow this to go up I wonder??




I am heartened that the work carried out recognised the need for Farmers and Landowners to work individually, as well as some of the benefits from a wider scale approach.

However, the points made regarding findings are probably the most pertinent of all in the whole report.

As a farmer who has been engaged since the mid 90s in "stewardship" and conservation schemes, as well as numerous non- funded areas to encourage certain species I am keen to encourage and see on my farm, I feel sure that adequate funding on an individual far basis through the SFI ,with good well thought Options, can achieve much that is required without the LNR soaking up so much Capital.

I cannot emphasise enough the importance of good funding for SFI. With the loss of the SFP, my ability to self fund conservation areas of land on my farm will cease.

Additionally, the widespread concern for many Farmers of the distinct likelihood of land being forced out of future agricultural production because of land in CS, SFI options or LNR Schemes, being sucked into EIA Regulations, is not to be dismissed. If DEFRA wants LNR land to be effectively removed from future production, then the funding must fully reflect that.

Finally, the administration, for what are often "one man businesses", of these schemes becomes ever more difficult and with an individual trying to marry together SFI and LNR on the Holding, I would suggest verging on the impossible.... Unless the schemes require the use of Agents, something to be discouraged and according to Janet Hughes not wanted.

The idea of having different fields or areas of the farm in very different schemes, with differing requirements on management, cropping and timescales beggars belief.

On my own property, I have already ploughed out long term CS margins with huge regret, but for the future "safety" of my farm, I have no option... I regret that at present, SFI and LNR's have little appeal whatsoever.

 

[BrianV]

I had an email from Defra last week, bollocking me for emailing the members of the Elms Engagement Group. Anyone concerned about the current allocation of ELMS money across its three strands, should make their views clear to the members of the EEG - contact details attached.
If you don't get an email bollocking you, then you aren't trying hard enough.

This whole ELMS fiasco is in serious danger of becoming a monstrous complicated cock up that will cause depression, misery & endless paperwork & e-mails for years to come, far from simplifying the existing system it will turn out to be a worthless complicated disaster

 

[DrWazzock]

After my experience in 2016 trying to sort out an underpayment of my very simple BPS I will never enter any contractual arrangement with DEFRA, the RPA or NE ever again. They eventually paid up after I’d spent maybe 200 hours trying to sort it out. But to this day I have never had a report or satisfactory explanation for the deduction in the first place. It followed a visit by one of their inspectors who told me there were no problems as he got into his car. The £5k deduction was applied to the following payment.
So for me it beggars belief that an organisation that couldn’t manage the simplest of schemes now thinks it can manage for example a three tier SFI across multiple options.
It will collapse in on itself by the end of the first year and the poor bar stewards who are sucked in will be left permanently on hold on a “help” line. I predict that with almost 100% certainty.

 

[delilah]

Will probably get another bollocking from Defra, but am sending a link to this thread to the members of the Elms Engagement Group. There are enough farming representatives on there to make a difference.

 

[steveR]

After my experience in 2016 trying to sort out an underpayment of my very simple BPS I will never enter any contractual arrangement with DEFRA, the RPA or NE ever again. They eventually paid up after I’d spent maybe 200 hours trying to sort it out. But to this day I have never had a report or satisfactory explanation for the deduction in the first place. It followed a visit by one of their inspectors who told me there were no problems as he got into his car. The £5k deduction was applied to the following payment.
So for me it beggars belief that an organisation that couldn’t manage the simplest of schemes now thinks it can manage for example a three tier SFI across multiple options.
It will collapse in on itself by the end of the first year and the poor bar stewards who are sucked in will be left permanently on hold on a “help” line. I predict that with almost 100% certainty.

I feel your pain... maybe the same Inspector, who I found out through a contact, had "form". I believe he was moved elsewhere...

I too was told no problems by the Inspector at the end of his first day. Apparently, I also had a full debrief on his completion of the inspection, which was news to me, as I wasn't even on the farm at the time, as he came back to complete the inspection 2-3 days later. An £8K penalty hurt... a lot, and no evidence or records were made or kept by the Inspector or RPA.

It will take a lot, and I mean a LOT of money to make me trust them again, and unless there are proper rules and checks in place for SFI, which I do not see happening, even lots of wonga will not do it. :-(

 

[steveR]

Will probably get another bollocking from Defra, but am sending a link to this thread to the members of the Elms Engagement Group. There are enough farming representatives on there to make a difference.

Good man, thank you.

 

[steveR]

I had an email from Defra last week, bollocking me for emailing the members of the Elms Engagement Group. Anyone concerned about the current allocation of ELMS money across its three strands, should make their views clear to the members of the EEG - contact details attached.
If you don't get an email bollocking you, then you aren't trying hard enough.

Just looking back through this thread (nowt on telly...) and giving some more thought to the matter of representation.

From a reading of the constituent Members of the EEG, there is no one on that body that represents me...

I am no longer a member of the NFU, and I far from certain if I was in agreement with their official viewpoint on ELMS et al, if they have one! I have been impressed with Claire Robinson when I have met and seen her in action in the past, but what does she say....

LEAF was a group I had a lot of time for in the past, but know nothing of them now.

The TFF spin off grassroots group is sadly, not there, but should be, even if I had an issue or 2 with them.. At least I can speak with or lobby them.

So how else would I ask for my views to be represented other than a Deliah type mailshot, and hope some members are receptive? The EEG has little or no real working farming representation other than the Sheep lad.

Something of a farcial situation, when Farmers are essential for this whole new scenario to succeed.

 

[delilah]

Just looking back through this thread (nowt on telly...) and giving some more thought to the matter of representation.

From a reading of the constituent Members of the EEG, there is no one on that body that represents me...

I am no longer a member of the NFU, and I far from certain if I was in agreement with their official viewpoint on ELMS et al, if they have one! I have been impressed with Claire Robinson when I have met and seen her in action in the past, but what does she say....

LEAF was a group I had a lot of time for in the past, but know nothing of them now.

The TFF spin off grassroots group is sadly, not there, but should be, even if I had an issue or 2 with them.. At least I can speak with or lobby them.

So how else would I ask for my views to be represented other than a Deliah type mailshot, and hope some members are receptive? The EEG has little or no real working farming representation other than the Sheep lad.

Something of a farcial situation, when Farmers are essential for this whole new scenario to succeed.

All of which is true. I can only find two positives in where we are at, but they are important positives.

Firstly, Defra have started this whole ELMS process with a fairly long lead period. There's plenty of time yet for the end result to be far better than current proposals.

Secondly, whatever it does end up looking like, no-one will be able to say they didn't have the opportunity to input. This will be the most democratic process that agricultural policy has ever seen, thanks to the raft of modern communication means such as email and internet. Back in the day, campaigning meant banging letters out on a typewriter, photocopying them, hand writing envelopes and buying stamps. Been there got the t-shirt. Having your say is easier than it has ever been.
-

 

[Kevtherev]

Don’t get me wrong. I’m all for nature but I’d rather make my own decisions as to far it extends on our plot.
Downstream of us, in the forestry commission plantation they seem to be on with some kind of “nature recovery” programme. They are deliberately felling trees into the watercourses to create some kind of winter flooding mess. A bigger mess than it is already. The problem I see is that once other trees are water logged for protracted periods they die or blow down easily as their roots won’t hold in the sand. It can’t make it easy for the logging contractors either. I’m really quite concerned that commercial viability is being entirely sacrificed on the alter of this new kind of eco fascism. It worries me that farmers could well be next and I would have thought that the NFU and CLA really ought to be drawing a line in the sand whereby any infringement of commercial agriculture by any kind of compulsion to turn private land over to natural recovery will absolutely not be acceptable or tolerated.
Is anybody else concerned about this or will we wake up to fund that compulsory natural recovery programmes on private land is a fait accomplis.

Edited to add that the consultation process was handled by the District Council Planning Department. The consortium behind the application was the government funded Chalk Streams project quango, Natural England and a few others who I can't remember.
As our drainage moves through the downstream area affected, we were consulted but there is a considerable fall from our boundary across the project area so by the time it starts backing up on our boundary here it will be well over chest height in the local town beyond the project area and in the homes of the few residents who live in the project area. My approach would to be to keep the watercourses reasonably clear to keep the water moving which has worked well for years. Their approach seems to be to hold it back, which is all very well until the holding capacity is full, at which point the water cannot be shifted at a reasonable speed as the watercourses have been deliberately obstructed and silted up and the land has no sponge effect as its permanently saturated. The project seems designed to create some sort of wetland in the woods, but its been pretty wet in there for years. It's also designed to slow the flow of water down into the town. Well it might do temporarily but I have my doubts once its saturated and the commercial damage to the timber enterprise must be very considerable.
"Interesting" times.

The university graduates at the EA are mad on this ‘slowing the flow’

 

[holwellcourtfarm]

The university graduates at the EA are mad on this ‘slowing the flow’

It has huge potential. In my experience it has been seized by the conservation staff as a backdoor way to further their aims using the flood risk budget though.

It was just starting when I left. We (flood risk frontline staff) cautioned that they need to be much more cautious where it was applied, to avoid increasing risk to rural properties. We also raised the issue of who was responsible for maintenance or for the repercussions if it made flooding worse for a property but they weren't listening.

Like many things in life, it's as much about HOW you do it as WHETHER you do it.

The evidence is only now starting to come together on these issues and some clear cautions are emerging.

One we raised early on is critical; A key mechanism driving local flood risk can be the flood peaks of 2 or more channels arriving together at the confluence. This can massively increase the overall flood peak downstream. NFM has the potential to change the timing of sub catchments to disrupt this if done well.

If done badly it can actually create this problem where it didn't exist before.

 

[Henarar]

Just looking back through this thread (nowt on telly...) and giving some more thought to the matter of representation.

From a reading of the constituent Members of the EEG, there is no one on that body that represents me...

I am no longer a member of the NFU, and I far from certain if I was in agreement with their official viewpoint on ELMS et al, if they have one! I have been impressed with Claire Robinson when I have met and seen her in action in the past, but what does she say....

LEAF was a group I had a lot of time for in the past, but know nothing of them now.

The TFF spin off grassroots group is sadly, not there, but should be, even if I had an issue or 2 with them.. At least I can speak with or lobby them.

So how else would I ask for my views to be represented other than a Deliah type mailshot, and hope some members are receptive? The EEG has little or no real working farming representation other than the Sheep lad.

Something of a farcial situation, when Farmers are essential for this whole new scenario to succeed.

An issue or two ? an issue or two ? good god man whatever can that be, from the thread the other day everything seemed A1 and now you talk of issues, next you will be saying there are sinks as well

 

[Henarar]

It has huge potential. In my experience it has been seized by the conservation staff as a backdoor way to further their aims using the flood risk budget though.

It was just starting when I left. We (flood risk frontline staff) cautioned that they need to be much more cautious where it was applied, to avoid increasing risk to rural properties. We also raised the issue of who was responsible for maintenance or for the repercussions if it made flooding worse for a property but they weren't listening.

Like many things in life, it's as much about HOW you do it as WHETHER you do it.

The evidence is only now starting to come together on these issues and some clear cautions are emerging.

One we raised early on is critical; A key mechanism driving local flood risk can be the flood peaks of 2 or more channels arriving together at the confluence. This can massively increase the overall flood peak downstream. NFM had the potential to change the timing of sub catchments to disrupt this if done well. If done badly it can actually create this problem where it didn't exist before.

Had a plain to do some leaky dams here till I thought about it a bit more and told them I didn't think it would work so wouldn't be going ahead with it.

 

[steveR]

Had a plain to do some leaky dams here till I thought about it a bit more and told them I didn't think it would work so wouldn't be going ahead with it.

Out of interest, what was their response to your decision?

 

[Henarar]

Out of interest, what was their response to your decision?

It wasn't the EA, It was to do with the hills to levels scheme following the big floods down there a few years ago, they seemed disappointed but I think they got where I was coming from, from previous experience of unintentional leaky dams they either just don't do anything or fill up with twigs and silt and make the water carve out a different way or across the field.

 

[steveR]

It wasn't the EA, It was to do with the hills to levels scheme following the big floods down there a few years ago, they seemed disappointed but I think they got where I was coming from, from previous experience of unintentional leaky dams they either just don't do anything or fill up with twigs and silt and make the water carve out a different way or across the field.

That is the problem with water, it really, really, wants to go downhill.... There is usually a good reason why men with pick and shovels, dug ditches or cuts where they are located.