Oh dear me no. The whole point of these schemes is to pay legions of clip board types. 70,000 and rising according to another thread....
ELMS “wish list”
- Thread starter Clive
- Start date
what asset ? the clue is surely in the scheme name
environmental land MANAGEMENT scheme
it should support management of land NOT ownership, Farmers are land mangers and not owners
land owners are already rich enough
removing carbon from air benefits people, if you could nvent a machine to do it you would get paid to run it ............. if farming can do the same what difference paying that and the bonus is unlike the machine you get a wonderful wide environment as well
- Location
- Mendips Somerset
Another vote for hedgerows to be included , more so than arable areas that just get ploughed out when schemes finish .
they will do as they are perennial - those managing such assets should be paid for the benefit they can create
cover and cash crops can also sequester carbon but only when managed in ways that does not release that carbon
Unless you are going to broadcast the seeds on any drilling will allow carbon to escape,small fields with hedges and margins should attract the most payments and would be an easy sell to the public
- Location
- Warwickshire
I'd like to see support for traditional mixed farms, for example not farms that have gone all arable because it's easier
Steevo
Member
- Location
- Gloucestershire
I’d like to see traditional farm buildings protected and repaired. They are great habitats for wildlife, and are part of our history. It seems sad so many are converted or demolished.
Might be worth reiterating the main plank of ELMS according to DEFRA!
The public goods ELM will pay for include:
clean and plentiful water
clean air
protection from and mitigation of environmental hazards
mitigation of and adaptation to climate change
thriving plants and wildlife
beauty, heritage and engagement
Given the market does not adequately reward the delivery of environmental public goods, ELM will be an effective way for government to intervene and utilise public funding to deliver them. ELM should sit alongside mechanisms such as regulation, as part of a wider agricultural system.
As part of this wider system, the core aim of ELM should be to deliver environmental benefits, paying farmers, foresters and other land managers for interventions and actions that improve and enhance our environment, or for maintaining current land management practices that secure environmental public goods.
The public goods ELM will pay for include:
clean and plentiful water
clean air
protection from and mitigation of environmental hazards
mitigation of and adaptation to climate change
thriving plants and wildlife
beauty, heritage and engagement
Given the market does not adequately reward the delivery of environmental public goods, ELM will be an effective way for government to intervene and utilise public funding to deliver them. ELM should sit alongside mechanisms such as regulation, as part of a wider agricultural system.
As part of this wider system, the core aim of ELM should be to deliver environmental benefits, paying farmers, foresters and other land managers for interventions and actions that improve and enhance our environment, or for maintaining current land management practices that secure environmental public goods.
- Location
- East Sussex
Having been in schemes since the 1980's, these became SSSI's due to the way we had farmed and managed the land for decades and in some cases centuries, I cannot find any boxes that ELMS will tick for us under the proposed 3 categories, although I have been assured we will come under the second tier!
We have small fields under 10 acres, mostly border dyked or with hedges, we are not allowed to use any fertilizer and only spot spray. Winter stocking density has to be reduced to almost zero. We have to maintain the dykes every few years on a rotational basis. Water levels have to be kept high in the winter for the wading birds and other creatures such as Water Voles etc.
We used to be on income foregone, but now under the present CS scheme we have been forced to take reduced income payments as well as the land value having fallen.
In reality I have my doubts ELMS will ever happen as I do not believe the country can afford it or many of the more efficient farmers will want to be involved in what will still be a bureaucratic nightmare.
The present schemes do tick most of the boxes, it is just the administration of them has become increasingly and unnecessarily complicated and payments from the RPA erratic which gives no confidence to those who have signed up.
If I was a large arable farmer with big fields and large machinery, I certainly wouldn't bother to sign up to any ELMS scheme, I would just get on with farming the land as cheaply and profitably as possible without any Nerd with a clipboard telling me what to do!
We have small fields under 10 acres, mostly border dyked or with hedges, we are not allowed to use any fertilizer and only spot spray. Winter stocking density has to be reduced to almost zero. We have to maintain the dykes every few years on a rotational basis. Water levels have to be kept high in the winter for the wading birds and other creatures such as Water Voles etc.
We used to be on income foregone, but now under the present CS scheme we have been forced to take reduced income payments as well as the land value having fallen.
In reality I have my doubts ELMS will ever happen as I do not believe the country can afford it or many of the more efficient farmers will want to be involved in what will still be a bureaucratic nightmare.
The present schemes do tick most of the boxes, it is just the administration of them has become increasingly and unnecessarily complicated and payments from the RPA erratic which gives no confidence to those who have signed up.
If I was a large arable farmer with big fields and large machinery, I certainly wouldn't bother to sign up to any ELMS scheme, I would just get on with farming the land as cheaply and profitably as possible without any Nerd with a clipboard telling me what to do!
Goweresque
Member
- Location
- North Wilts
Try doing any farming (whether of a production nature or of the environmental 'public goods' kind) without any land under your control and see how far you get............farming and land are intimately intertwined, you certainly can't do the former without the latter, though you can be a land owner without being a farmer. Every farmer needs to have some land under his control in order to be a farmer, and that means either being a landowner himself, or contracting with one via rental agreements to control some for a period of time. Imagining you can separate the two when it comes to making payments to 'farmers' is bound to result in the failure of whatever policy you are trying to implement.
I can see a large amount of money being siphoned (sorry!) for the creation of large scale flood plains and the like, ticking 3 of the main aims. Tier 2 or 3 though?
As said elsewhere, large scale extensive reversion/or continuation of low input grassland, in low lying areas near rivers and water courses. 500m+ buffers? Needing minimal inspections or checks.
I remain VERY concerned about the oft repeated mantra of "outcomes", in some of the possible schemes. Far too many variables for any farmer/land manager to feel confident of a satisfactory result for, say, an increase in certain target species.
Options will need to be clear and concise, unlike some of the abominations that are in the mid-tier!! Simple stuff like a cover crop over winter, medium term bumblebird type cropping, etc etc both meeting some of the criteria...
VERY low stocking rates might well appeal, as used to be seen with early CSS, again easily checked with CTS and pasture declarations.
As said elsewhere, large scale extensive reversion/or continuation of low input grassland, in low lying areas near rivers and water courses. 500m+ buffers? Needing minimal inspections or checks.
I remain VERY concerned about the oft repeated mantra of "outcomes", in some of the possible schemes. Far too many variables for any farmer/land manager to feel confident of a satisfactory result for, say, an increase in certain target species.
Options will need to be clear and concise, unlike some of the abominations that are in the mid-tier!! Simple stuff like a cover crop over winter, medium term bumblebird type cropping, etc etc both meeting some of the criteria...
VERY low stocking rates might well appeal, as used to be seen with early CSS, again easily checked with CTS and pasture declarations.
Last edited:
somewhere between multiple pass inversion tillage and broadcast is some practical, easily achievable and proven common sense
4course
Member
- Location
- north yorks
I cant see any benefit to enter into a scheme that will effectively reduce the profitability of the farm business at the present indicated bribe rates for an over 65yr old tenant farmer like me with followers.
Dan Powell
Member
- Location
- Shropshire
I'd like to see an agroforestry option or two. Particularly livestock shelter belts and riparian buffer strips. But I'd like the freedom to plant what I see fit and manage them how I want. If I want to put cattle in there for a day or two a year to graze the understory I should be allowed to. It will do more good than harm once trees are established.
- Location
- North Yorkshire
I would like to say energy crops but how can they differentiate between SRC willow and miscanthus which ticks lots of boxes and Maize for digesters which wrecks the soils
Proper IPM management
Oh and a fortune for Base memberships
Proper IPM management
Oh and a fortune for Base memberships
beardface
Member
- Location
- East Yorkshire
I'd like to see an end to the arbitrary permanent pasture rule. It resulted in too much pasture being ploughed out and put into temporary leys/arable rotations. In my opinion grass needs to be down for 6+ years to have any long term carbon/environmental/soil benefit. The trouble is the current rule dissuades from this.
I'd also like to see 2 year agreements with quarterly payments. With an inspection during this time. The inspector will assess say a third of your chosen options picked at random. If they look OK you get a Elm conformance sheet like red tractor. If they don't look kosher then you get a full inspection with report, and time for remedial action. If the required work hasn't been carried out in the alloted time you get fined. If you've been really naughty, i. e. clearly ignored prescriptions or not actually done things you proposed then you get shut out of the scheme for 2 years.
I'd also like to see 2 year agreements with quarterly payments. With an inspection during this time. The inspector will assess say a third of your chosen options picked at random. If they look OK you get a Elm conformance sheet like red tractor. If they don't look kosher then you get a full inspection with report, and time for remedial action. If the required work hasn't been carried out in the alloted time you get fined. If you've been really naughty, i. e. clearly ignored prescriptions or not actually done things you proposed then you get shut out of the scheme for 2 years.
ILovebaling
Member
- Location
- Co Durham
What I'd like to see is the money going to people who are actually trying to farm and contribute to the country. Not those who have retired and let the land off or who are farming 5 cows and 20 sheep on 150 acres.
What really gets me is listening to farmers telling me there is no money in the job then having brand new tractor (or 3) tedder, mower, rake and a baler for 500-1000 bales a year at most and then say they have to spend money on all that gear to get rid of the sfp to not get taxed on it. Then wonder why the public hate them.
What really gets me is listening to farmers telling me there is no money in the job then having brand new tractor (or 3) tedder, mower, rake and a baler for 500-1000 bales a year at most and then say they have to spend money on all that gear to get rid of the sfp to not get taxed on it. Then wonder why the public hate them.