DEFRA SFI Question time with Janet Hughes - 11th August, submit your questions please

[Clive]

DEFRA has once more invited the members of TFF to put their questions regarding the ELMS scheme forward and take them to an exclusive interview withJanet Hughes, who is the Programme Director for the Future Farming and Countryside Programme (FFCP).

The Q&A will take place on the 11th August and will be filmed and posted here ASAP after that

Covid restrictions still mean travel to London is unadvisedly so the interview will be carried out online, recorded and released on here first

Just as we did last time we will pick the bests / most popular questions our members post and ask as many as we can in the time available. Please post what you would like me to ask and we will select a cross-section and put them forward


I think its great to see senior DEFRA staff so keen to engage directly with farmers as this so let's get some good question suggestions, please .................


With much more detail of SFI now announced and pilot applications underway this Q&A is your chance to ask those leasing this change your questions and discuss all that is good or bad about the scheme


So .......... add your you questions to this thread please ! - I will ask as many as I can

 

[jonnieboy]

Can we have a set of rules from government that we can actually work with ?
It seems SFI wants to encourage soil health with cover crops and organic manures and direct drilling. But we are told today EA are not wanting organic manures spread before sowing autumn crops.
Why does buffering a watercourse pay so little ? It must be a simple win ticking lots of boxes. Price it at a reasonable return for the farmer.

 

[Jackov Altraids]

Can you clearly state at the beginning of any agreements that any land in that agreement will not have its use restricted in any way once the term of the agreement has passed.
And if not, why not.

 

[Walton2]

The original thread had a total of 279 posts. Some, in fact very few, had questions.They we’re apparently going to see if resources were available to answer those questions!
I suspect they have the resources.
They don’t seem to want to answer them.
40 minutes was the time devoted to the Q and A session on the day!
I believe that is a fair representation of the respect we are being afforded .

 

[Goweresque]

What happened to 'Payment by results'?

Plus what @Jackov Altraids said, can Defra give a categorical assurance that EIA legislation will not apply to land entered into ELMS et al? It seems that NE are attempting to use the EIA system to prevent land entered into long term environmental schemes from ever returning to its previous use, what do Defra have to say on this matter?

 

[Frank-the-Wool]

Where we have been in schemes for many years and have SSSI's and other designations what level of payments can we expect.
We don't tick any boxes for making changes as we have already done them!!

We have been maintaining these sites and storing carbon in them for years as well as managing water levels to prevent flooding and for wildlife.
Many different species of wildlife due to management of land and therefore public good.
High levels of public access through permitted paths etc.

All we need to know is at what level the payments will be to continue to maintain these important sites? Not too difficult to get an answer surely?

 

[Mixedupfarmer]

Water buffers should be set at a payment rate where every farmer wants them, e.g £1000/ha, big win for the environment, and high uptake. At present values, take up will be minimal, especially in areas of potentially higher risk for pollution such as the fens where higher value crops are grown, and higher payment rates will be needed.

 

[Grass And Grain]

Having to adhere to everything in a level (introductory, intermediate, advanced), sometimes makes it difficult to meet the requirements of a lower level in order to potentially access the next level. It blocks the progression to the next level.

For example, in the Arable Land Standard, rotational ditch management is a requirement of the intermediate level.

Some low lying farms have extensive ditch systems, and are obliged to keep them clear of obstruction for the free-flow of neighbouring farmers' water. Rotational ditch management may be impossible to adhere to.

A different farm may not have any ditches on their property at all.

If a farmer is blocked from progressing to the next level, there is no point in that farmer trying to do ANY of the prescriptions in tne higher level. This could prevent those further useful environmental practices being undertaken.

Instead of having levels, would it be more flexible to give each prescription a financial remuneration figure, let the farmer choose the prescriptions, and then add up the total to calculate the remuneration?

Prescriptions which 'block' progression to the next level are a problem.

 

[Jo28]

Having to adhere to everything in a level (introductory, intermediate, advanced), sometimes makes it difficult to meet the requirements of a lower level in order to potentially access the next level. It blocks the progression to the next level.

For example, in the Arable Land Standard, rotational ditch management is a requirement of the intermediate level.

Some low lying farms have extensive ditch systems, and are obliged to keep them clear of obstruction for the free-flow of neighbouring farmers' water. Rotational ditch management may be impossible to adhere to.

A different farm may not have any ditches on their property at all.

If a farmer is blocked from progressing to the next level, there is no point in that farmer trying to do ANY of the prescriptions in tne higher level. This could prevent those further useful environmental practices being undertaken.

Instead of having levels, would it be more flexible to give each prescription a financial remuneration figure, let the farmer choose the prescriptions, and then add up the total to calculate the remuneration?

Prescriptions which 'block' progression to the next level are a problem.

That is spot on! we have over 11km of ditches and they need cleaning out every year. A set of standards where you pick what you want to do would increase uptake, although unless payment rates change significantly many will not bother as from what i read they are a joke and not even worth contemplating. Lets be honest 90% of the money will be taken by groups like Natural England.

 

[delilah]

Lets be honest 90% of the money will be taken by groups like Natural England.

As the below shows, only 33% is ring fenced for the SFI. The way the SFI is currently structured a fair chunk of that 33% will go to large landholding bodies, national charities etc. Admin - which will be horrendous under current SFI options - probably got to come out of the pot.
So, yes, your 10% to farmers wont be far off the mark.

https://ahdb.org.uk/trade-and-polic...12a&esid=e3c73d5c-86f3-eb11-94ef-0022481a8118

A key point to be aware of is that Defra has a fixed pot of £2.4 billion per year that will be used for the new schemes in England, until the end of this parliament. Most of this money will go towards environmental schemes, where they expect to split investment evenly between SFI, LNR and LR. This means that on an individual basis, only a third of the budget is ring-fenced for farmers.

 

[Clive]

Can i ask questions are kept as concise and to to the point as possible please ?

time is limited so i don’t want you waste it reading out long rambling diatribe

thanks

 

[Clive]

also keep to QUESTIONS please

this is a question time NOT complaint or tell them what they should be doing time ………. that opportunity will come at a later date when DEFRA run a live “ask me anything” session on TFF (September 11th i think”

 

[Goweresque]

How does the prescriptive list of 'Levels' and rules as to what each one requires fit in with the assurances given that people will be rewarded for what they are already doing of an environmental nature? For example if you have already removed areas from production voluntarily and have them as cover areas, the only way you could get any money under ELMS would be to rip them up, crop them and then put them back into an ELMS scheme. How is this paying people for what they already do?

 

[Grass And Grain]

Can i ask questions are kept as concise and to to the point as possible please ?

time is limited so i don’t want you waste it reading out long rambling diatribe

thanks

Revised question...

An action within a level can 'block' a farmer from applying for not only that level, but also the further level. E.g. ditch management in the Intermediate level Arable Soils Standard, might be impossible for a farmer to adhere to.

Would more desires of the SFI be met if farmers could elect to undertake individual actions (rather than grouped into progressive levels).

 

[delilah]

this is a question time NOT complaint or tell them what they should be doing time ………. that opportunity will come at a later date

tbf the SFI would be making more sense if they had asked 'what they should be doing' a long, long time before they decided on 'question time'.
(which is in no way a criticism of your organizing these events, any opportunity to engage is welcome).

 

[Clive]

tbf the SFI would be making more sense if they had asked 'what they should be doing' a long, long time before they decided on 'question time'.
(which is in no way a criticism of your organizing these events, any opportunity to engage is welcome).

they have been using co-design get and trials …………. But I agree they seem to have a lot wrong right now, I can’t a,e it stack up vs income forgone do I will certainly be asking about that

 

[Clive]

A new feature of the upgrade that is good for a thread like this

You will see there is now a box to the right hand side of each reply to this thread - this will allow you to upvote or downvote the questions which will help[ us select the most popular

 

[Grass And Grain]

Some actions are economically easier achieved for larger farms.

For example...

1. 'Use efficient precision application equipment for fertilisers and organic manures'.

Or...

2. A Soil Management Plan, which will require a similar amount of work to prepare for a 1000ha farm vs. a 100ha farm, will give a much lower remuneratation to the 100ha farmer.

How can DEFRA make sure access to the higher levels of the SFI will be economically feasible for smaller farms?

 

[matthew]

The old scheme payments were not index linked, thus after 10 years the annual payment remained the same, but substantially devalued by input increases and Inflation.
Will the new scheme(s) be pegged at the rate of their first year?

 

[delilah]

There is no rush, and this thing needs getting right. Why don't you scrap the pilots, go back to the drawing board, and come back with some new proposals by the end of the year ?