Defra now looking at capping SFI

[Vader]

it's called a "contract" and it can not be changed

load of hot air being talked about stuff that simply won't (in fact can't legally) happen

Dont be sure...
I had a enviro agreement in the past with a set payment date that i signed upto.
(thats a contract...?)
worked that into my cash flow.
they decided to change the payment date I said they can not as its in the agreement.
They still did. screwed me up cash flow wise.
As we know you need deep pockets to fight them.

 

[Banana Bar]

The govt should follow the French , only working farmers get sub not landlords

That will screw every CFA.

 

[4course]

Im more surprised/ concerned at their stupidity in that it has taken defra and their bosses as long to realise what was likely to happen with whole productive fields/areas being put into what in reality should be strips ,field corners, sides and poor areas

 

[Tubbylew]

I seem to remember people saying
“Mark Spencer’s a good bloke…farmer’s son, he’ll be a good minister!”

They're all the same when they get a ministerial salary and pension. Strokers the lot of them.

 

[Nearly]

If there's a scheme there's a schemer.

 

[onthehoof]

A few threads running on this, can they be merged @Chris F @Clive

 

[4course]

it's called a "contract" and it can not be changed

load of hot air being talked about stuff that simply won't (in fact can't legally) happen

reckon if you havnt already submitted an agreement proposal and or got it signed and sealed if you are considering taking whole fields or larger areas out of ag production and into some bird seed butterfly mix you burn the midnight oil tonight and get it done . cos it could be that the rules will change fairly quickly

 

[yellow belly]

That will screw every CFA.

Not many farmers do all the work on their farm
most employ people to do the work

many use contractors for some or all the work

although one farmer a few decades ago
defined a farmer as someone who could
plough a field
lamb a sheep
milk a cow

a cropper just ploughed and drilled

 

[Goweresque]

one comment in answer to a question at one meeting

talk about forum 'pant wetting'

Its indicative of the direction of travel. The minister could have said 'We've very happy that so many farmers want to avail themselves of our wonderful environmental scheme, its a massive part of the UK's Net Zero commitments', or some boilerplate politician-speak guff like that. Instead he specifically brings up food production as being necessary, and suggests a course of action that could be taken if 'farmers take the p*ss' [I paraphrase] and stop producing enough food. Its an entirely different attitude to everything that has preceded all this since it was decided BPS would go.

 

[Jackov Altraids]

think Labour will have far more pressing / urgent issues than agriculture to sort out

and they really won't want to risk UK farmers "going french" on them or increasing food prices !

6.4 When we may change your Agreement​

(a) We will not usually seek to vary your Agreement during the Agreement Period (in a way not referred to elsewhere in these Terms and Conditions).

(b) However, it is possible we may offer you an Agreement upgrade during the Agreement Period. For example, this may be the case if we make changes to these Terms and Conditions or the Standards.

(c) If we offer you an Agreement upgrade under condition 6.4(b), we will notify you in writing setting out the details. It will be possible for you either to accept the Agreement upgrade or continue with your existing Agreement.

(d) There may also be exceptional circumstances (not referred to elsewhere in these Terms and Conditions) where we have to vary your Agreement during the Agreement Period. We will only do this due to exceptional circumstances

9.4 Variation of payment rates​

(a) As stated in the Scheme Information we do not expect to vary the Grant during the Agreement Period.

(b) However, we reserve the right, under exceptional circumstances not referred to elsewhere in these Terms and Conditions, to vary the Grant during the Agreement Period, in accordance with condition 6.4.





And then there is the manner in which they choose to do their infamous 'visits' and interpret whether they think you made a 'reasonable' effort to achieve the 'aims'.

 

[Nearly]

 

[L P]

No, no, no we don't want GFC, no, no, no don't cap SFI!! about time the lot was scrapped, all the schemes, rt etc, release the hold of the dictatorship pinning us down.

 

[Hindsight]

Im more surprised/ concerned at their stupidity in that it has taken defra and their bosses as long to realise what was likely to happen with whole productive fields/areas being put into what in reality should be strips ,field corners, sides and poor areas

Below is a link to the AHDB report from 2021 using Harper Adams Uni to model scenarios. The upshot of the report was SFI was forecast to reduce farm incomes. And thus the negative farmer attitude until the 2023 version released and the wheezes became apparent. If you read the report as I did in 2021 the assumption was individual farms would adopt small areas of individual SFI options not put half the farm into NUM3 or AHL2 or double stack AHL2 and AHL1.

Hey ho.

https://ahdb.org.uk/assessing-the-impact-of-the-sustainable-farming-incentive-on-farm-businesses

 

[Northern territory]

Its indicative of the direction of travel. The minister could have said 'We've very happy that so many farmers want to avail themselves of our wonderful environmental scheme, its a massive part of the UK's Net Zero commitments', or some boilerplate politician-speak guff like that. Instead he specifically brings up food production as being necessary, and suggests a course of action that could be taken if 'farmers take the p*ss' [I paraphrase] and stop producing enough food. Its an entirely different attitude to everything that has preceded all this since it was decided BPS would go.

Can’t believe there are so many naive people that can’t see this for what it is. Pretty obvious in my mind if certain crop areas shrink dramatically there will be some screaming from processors, supermarkets etc. maybe it does us all a favour if production does drop but they will want to add some caveats to make sure it doesn’t go too far.

 

[Kiwi Pete]

I think it more to do with the potential public outcry of being paid to not produce food. Shame it's not worth growing at the current prices. What are we Wheat £167/t???

Possibly, but that's been the case for decades?

Could be a prior "warning" that it isn't just going to be a bottomless pit of dough to keep everybody in business.

Could also be "just a headline"..?

Could be taken as a clue not to test the depth of the new puddle with both feet, now I see a lot of people jumping into SFI which is neither here nor there; what happens to a small business or hobby farm that signs up, buys all this fancy seed that does slightly worse than their grass or crops, and then finds the SFI has very little money to pay out?

Either way a great mechanism to destroy and enough plausibility to make it look like greed did the damage, it's a good play

 

[serf]

) There may also be exceptional circumstances (not referred to elsewhere in these Terms and Conditions) where we have to vary your Agreement during the Agreement Period. We will only do this due to exceptional circumstances

9.4 Variation of payment rates​

(a) As stated in the Scheme Information we do not expect to vary the Grant during the Agreement Period.

(b) However, we reserve the right, under exceptional circumstances not referred to elsewhere in these Terms and Conditions, to vary the Grant during the Agreement Period, in accordance with condition 6.4.

So in a word , not worth the paper it's not written on ....

 

[Right-arm fast]

So are the landlords that have kicked out their tenants to put the whole farm to trees etc not taking the mickey?

I'm not sure how wise it is to plant up the farm with trees, i suppose it depends to a degree on the type of farm. I certainly wouldn't do it.
Terrible for the tenants who farmed it and had to leave.

 

[Goweresque]

6.4 When we may change your Agreement​

(a) We will not usually seek to vary your Agreement during the Agreement Period (in a way not referred to elsewhere in these Terms and Conditions).

(b) However, it is possible we may offer you an Agreement upgrade during the Agreement Period. For example, this may be the case if we make changes to these Terms and Conditions or the Standards.

(c) If we offer you an Agreement upgrade under condition 6.4(b), we will notify you in writing setting out the details. It will be possible for you either to accept the Agreement upgrade or continue with your existing Agreement.

(d) There may also be exceptional circumstances (not referred to elsewhere in these Terms and Conditions) where we have to vary your Agreement during the Agreement Period. We will only do this due to exceptional circumstances

9.4 Variation of payment rates​

(a) As stated in the Scheme Information we do not expect to vary the Grant during the Agreement Period.

(b) However, we reserve the right, under exceptional circumstances not referred to elsewhere in these Terms and Conditions, to vary the Grant during the Agreement Period, in accordance with condition 6.4.





And then there is the manner in which they choose to do their infamous 'visits' and interpret whether they think you made a 'reasonable' effort to achieve the 'aims'.

Well there you have it, in black and white. They can vary the payment rates in 'Exceptional circumstances not referred to elsewhere in this agreement'. So in effect they get decide when this clause can be used (because by definition such circumstance have not been defined by the agreement), and the only way you'd be able to counter a unilateral reduction in payment rates would be to go to court to argue that their interpretation of 'exceptional circumstances not defined by the agreement' is wrong. The best you could get would be to withdraw from the agreement one suspects.

 

[Jackov Altraids]

Below is a link to the AHDB report from 2021 using Harper Adams Uni to model scenarios. The upshot of the report was SFI was forecast to reduce farm incomes. And thus the negative farmer attitude until the 2023 version released and the wheezes became apparent. If you read the report as I did in 2021 the assumption was individual farms would adopt small areas of individual SFI options not put half the farm into NUM3 or AHL2 or double stack AHL2 and AHL1.

Hey ho.

https://ahdb.org.uk/assessing-the-impact-of-the-sustainable-farming-incentive-on-farm-businesses

Rather a stupid assumption, was it not?

An SFI option will either offer a potential financial benefit or it will not.
If you decide it will, why would you limit the area you claim?

 

[spin cycle]

Its indicative of the direction of travel. The minister could have said 'We've very happy that so many farmers want to avail themselves of our wonderful environmental scheme, its a massive part of the UK's Net Zero commitments', or some boilerplate politician-speak guff like that. Instead he specifically brings up food production as being necessary, and suggests a course of action that could be taken if 'farmers take the p*ss' [I paraphrase] and stop producing enough food. Its an entirely different attitude to everything that has preceded all this since it was decided BPS would go.

well what should he have said?

1/ if sfi is over subscribed we'll have to cap it

or

2/ we arn't the least bit concerned that sfi might be over sub subscribed


he's damned whichever he says



the reality is if the schemes are over subscribed modulating the rate is the answer.....it can the operate as a 'market' against food production and find a 'level'