Elms, will established hedges and permanent pasture qualify?

[Greythundercloudys]

Will these be the type of thing that will be included in this scheme and woods with large old beach trees and areas of moss/bog land. Also how are arable farms going to get much unless they stop cropping poorer bits on the farms.

 

[Brisel]

That's detail we don't know yet. I'm about to be part of one of the pilot schemes so I'll report back if anything comes up.

Hedge management was more or less dropped since ELS because it was seen as being too easy despite moving from annual cutting to biennial being much better for berries and bird nesting. I didn't enter any of my hedges into my current Higher Tier CS because the benefit didn't exceed the cost & admin. I do use them for EFA though.

 

[tepapa]

It's going to be interesting how they set payment rates to cover the level of existing BPS with environmental work that is also currently costed by HLS etc.
Many environmental habitats are already in management so what new options are they likely to think up to allow for business's to claim the bps value on top of current hls etc options

 

[Hindsight]

It's going to be interesting how they set payment rates to cover the level of existing BPS with environmental work that is also currently costed by HLS etc.
Many environmental habitats are already in management so what new options are they likely to think up to allow for business's to claim the bps value on top of current hls etc options

But there won't be any BPS by then? So does that really come into it?

 

[Brisel]

It's going to be interesting how they set payment rates to cover the level of existing BPS with environmental work that is also currently costed by HLS etc.
Many environmental habitats are already in management so what new options are they likely to think up to allow for business's to claim the bps value on top of current hls etc options

Wrong thinking. They are going to put less money into agriculture. What they are prepared to support is public goods. The current “promise” of maintaining funding at current levels has flaws in it - capping and the gap between the tapering off of BPS versus the introduction of ELMS is huge. So much contradictory information out there. What if the government include the costs of administration of the schemes in the funding? If they do then we won’t see much of that cash.

 

[tepapa]

But there won't be any BPS by then? So does that really come into it?

Maybe not, but currently there are two pots. BPS and agri environment.
They're stopping/closing the BPS pot and say they are moving at least some of the money to agri environment pot.
So if farmers are going to get a share of the lost bps from agri environment pot, they'd need to turn the farm over to agri environment.

 

[tepapa]

Wrong thinking. They are going to put less money into agriculture. What they are prepared to support is public goods. The current “promise” of maintaining funding at current levels has flaws in it - capping and the gap between the tapering off of BPS versus the introduction of ELMS is huge. So much contradictory information out there. What if the government include the costs of administration of the schemes in the funding? If they do then we won’t see much of that cash.

I believe you are very possibly correct.

It's going to very interesting sat in a public meeting when some minister says we're not going to give the value of your lost BPS. We'll keep paying for the agri environment your already getting though.
Exciting times to come

 

[Wolds Beef]

@Brisel. You are obviously awear of Lincolnshire by some comments on the Forum. Farming in the Lincolnshire wolds is interesting! Scared to do anything extra environmental as I may get paid for doing it when elms is launched. Keep us informed if you are aloud to as things progress!
WB

 

[steveR]

Wrong thinking. They are going to put less money into agriculture. What they are prepared to support is public goods. The current “promise” of maintaining funding at current levels has flaws in it - capping and the gap between the tapering off of BPS versus the introduction of ELMS is huge. So much contradictory information out there. What if the government include the costs of administration of the schemes in the funding? If they do then we won’t see much of that cash.

Your last point is one that concerns me. The only way we as an industry can avoid a huge slug of the funds being lost in Admin, is if the Schemes are mega simple. It is not rocket science, as the basic templates are already out there. Look at the Severn Trent STEPS scheme for an example. Other water companies are doing similar work.

It is quite obvious that the present Govt is going to be pumping LOTS of dosh into the really high profile projects that offer "public goods" and I remain unconvinced that UK Ag plc will be seeing very much when the intent is to keep the new Tory voters onside.

 

[Brisel]

@Brisel. You are obviously awear of Lincolnshire by some comments on the Forum. Farming in the Lincolnshire wolds is interesting! Scared to do anything extra environmental as I may get paid for doing it when elms is launched. Keep us informed if you are aloud to as things progress!
WB

I used to live and work near Spalding & have a few friends up on the Wolds. I come and enjoy the roads up there a couple of times each year too! Beautiful countryside, but not what you'd describe as the world's most productive land.

If you see something that is good for your business I wouldn't wait for a politician to bung you a few coins for doing so. That was my comment to my boss & his trustees a few years ago when looking at direct drilling, so we went ahead with it, accepting that our environmental baseline might be higher in a mythical future stewardship scheme but we'd make a lot more money than that in the meantime. If that project was marginal for profit (not forgetting what taking land out of production does for concentrating your overheads on a smaller area) then perhaps consider waiting for a scheme to help fund it.

Much as I hate being dependent on the taxpayer's schilling to run a business, whilst there are additional costs imposed by the taxpayer via the medium of the government then I can live with seeking help to offset those costs.

Are you in or near the Lincs Wolds farmer cluster, run by Barney Parker?

 

[Brisel]

Your last point is one that concerns me. The only way we as an industry can avoid a huge slug of the funds being lost in Admin, is if the Schemes are mega simple. It is not rocket science, as the basic templates are already out there. Look at the Severn Trent STEPS scheme for an example. Other water companies are doing similar work.

It is quite obvious that the present Govt is going to be pumping LOTS of dosh into the really high profile projects that offer "public goods" and I remain unconvinced that UK Ag plc will be seeing very much when the intent is to keep the new Tory voters onside.

My concern is the past history of overcomplicating options due to interference from single issue pressure groups. Some of the admin nightmare came from Brussels adding in additional checks & measures coupled with shoddy IT systems unable to cope and austerity budget cuts. We all know what is good and works - why the need to evaluate everything just to satisfy economists who are protecting their jobs in their ivory towers by saying that everything is measurable? Just write the prescriptions properly so we all know what is required.

 

[GeorgeK]

Historically, those who have previously ripped out all their hedges, cut down the trees and cultivated every square inch have been rewarded by getting paid to reinstate features. Those who protected the traditional landscape are now permanently burdened with small fields, trees in the way and SSSI's.
Can't see this approach changing with the new schemes, as established trees, hedges and many other features are now protected by law so paying for them won't deliver 'value for the taxpayer'

 

[Henarar]

Will these be the type of thing that will be included in this scheme and woods with large old beach trees and areas of moss/bog land. Also how are arable farms going to get much unless they stop cropping poorer bits on the farms.

why would they pay you for hedges and the like cos you can't get rid of them anyway
I suspect it will be more attractive for an arable farmer with 200 acres in 2 fields to join than it will be for a permanent grassland farmer with 200 acres in 50 fields all with hedges round, going on what they do now

 

[milkloss]

As @GeorgeK suggests above: I doubt it. Those who have raped the ground and destroyed all the environmental features of their farm will be paid handsomely to reinstate it. Those of us that have looked after 8acre fields, woodlands and hedgerows at not unsubstantial costs over the years will get nothing.

 

[Brisel]

why would they pay you for hedges and the like cos you can't get rid of them anyway
I suspect it will be more attractive for an arable farmer with 200 acres in 2 fields to join than it will be for a permanent grassland farmer with 200 acres in 50 fields all with hedges round, going on what they do now

The 200 acres in 50 fields is already more environmentally friendly than the 2 x 100 acres. You can see why they wouldn't prioritise that. Everyone loves a repentant sinner!

 

[GeorgeK]

We had a field of historic ridge and furrow pasture that I was concerned would become a protected feature. Ploughed and leveled it with about 100 cultivator passes, lord knows how much carbon was released. Put it in AB1 nectar flowers so now it gets payments!

 

[Brisel]

We had a field of historic ridge and furrow pasture that I was concerned would become a protected feature. Ploughed and leveled it with about 100 cultivator passes, lord knows how much carbon was released. Put it in AB1 nectar flowers so now it gets payments!

FFS! How much did that cost you, what extra does it now produce beyond the CS income? Out of interest, how long ago did you do it?

I can see the reasoning - make your land environmentally "interesting" and they slap a statutory designation on it. A spectacular own goal but it has happened, hence behaviours like yours.

 

[Tubbylew]

As @GeorgeK suggests above: I doubt it. Those who have raped the ground and destroyed all the environmental features of their farm will be paid handsomely to reinstate it. Those of us that have looked after 8acre fields, woodlands and hedgerows at not unsubstantial costs over the years will get nothing.

I suspect it will be made too onerous for the likes of me and thee to bother, may be better to keep a bit more stock and farm it a little bit harder than bother with the hassle and restriction, but who knows? At the end of the day they don't know themselves, and if they did, it would be a buggers muddle, likley.

 

[GeorgeK]

How much did that cost you, what extra does it now produce beyond the CS income? Out of interest, how long ago did you do it?

Yes, a great shame. It was done 3 years ago in response to the introduction of rules protecting permanent pasture from the plough. I had to get permission but I can only see the rules tightening up further around ridge and furrow. It wasn't about money, more the principal of losing control of what I can do in my fields. Now it can be anything I choose, arable, environment schemes or back to grass depending on the situation, so long term it makes financial sense.
PS not literally 100 passes, maybe 10 to get it to a something manageable for the combine and sprayer

 

[B'o'B]

From the presentations I saw last week if the funding isn’t claimed the budget will be cut the next year, so as an industry it will be a case of use it or lose it forever.