Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New resources
Latest activity
Trending Threads
Resources
Latest reviews
Search resources
FarmTV
Farm Compare
Search
Tokens/Searches
Calendar
Upcoming Events
Members
Registered members
Current visitors
New Resources
New posts
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More options
Contact us
Close Menu
Forums
Farm Business
Agricultural Matters
ELMS plans unveiled.
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Feldspar" data-source="post: 6788802" data-attributes="member: 386"><p>Yes, and yes again. I think this is the key thing I'm coming to terms with. Reading the new ELM documents has only confirmed my view on this. There is some mention of them adjusting payment rates to get the right uptake, and I think they will need to go a fair way above income foregone levels to get the 80,000 agreements they want (CS is at 20,000 IIRC). Looking at the documents I am not persuaded yet that it's going to be much simpler than the CS schemes that many have rejected. "We are also exploring whether establishing compliance with relevant regulatory requirements should be an entry requirement for tier 1." is something that worries me too. At the moment it's assumed you meet cross-compliance rules; you don't have to establish / prove you are meeting them. They are also talking of ratcheting up base regulation which used to be paid for, and also pushing further towards a polluter pays principle. This means we head towards a time when cover crops are a rule that must be followed to avoid soil run-off / pollution and buffer strips are mandatory to avoid pesticide pollution. This may be the right thing to do, but there's no doubt it's all heading towards a much lower income for the farmer.</p><p></p><p>Overall pot will stay the same, but split between more people (definition of 'land manager' will bring more people in) and a lot going for woodland planting projects (which were funding before). For those not wishing to tie up their land with a covenant placed over it for the next generation, those big headline per hectare figures are going to be irrelevant.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Feldspar, post: 6788802, member: 386"] Yes, and yes again. I think this is the key thing I'm coming to terms with. Reading the new ELM documents has only confirmed my view on this. There is some mention of them adjusting payment rates to get the right uptake, and I think they will need to go a fair way above income foregone levels to get the 80,000 agreements they want (CS is at 20,000 IIRC). Looking at the documents I am not persuaded yet that it's going to be much simpler than the CS schemes that many have rejected. "We are also exploring whether establishing compliance with relevant regulatory requirements should be an entry requirement for tier 1." is something that worries me too. At the moment it's assumed you meet cross-compliance rules; you don't have to establish / prove you are meeting them. They are also talking of ratcheting up base regulation which used to be paid for, and also pushing further towards a polluter pays principle. This means we head towards a time when cover crops are a rule that must be followed to avoid soil run-off / pollution and buffer strips are mandatory to avoid pesticide pollution. This may be the right thing to do, but there's no doubt it's all heading towards a much lower income for the farmer. Overall pot will stay the same, but split between more people (definition of 'land manager' will bring more people in) and a lot going for woodland planting projects (which were funding before). For those not wishing to tie up their land with a covenant placed over it for the next generation, those big headline per hectare figures are going to be irrelevant. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Farm Business
Agricultural Matters
ELMS plans unveiled.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top