Janet Hughes DEFRA Missing in action?

[Janet Hughes Defra]

@Janet Hughes Defra
Thanks for the offer, I will consider the implications including the probability of my business being crawled over having incurring the wrath of RPA as a consequence of being perceived as a trouble maker.
Am I correct in assuming the SFI pilot contract is a standard document issued to all of the 938 farmers that have applied?
If that is the case I am not clear why you require my details to answer the simple question about the inequality of the parties to the contract in contract resolution.
If there is a different contract on offer to any of the other 937 why is that and what are the more favourable options please?

Yes, the same contract is on offer to all participants in the pilot.

The reason I was asking for your details is because I was offering to follow up your specific contact with RPA as you said you'd not had a reply, but of course also absolutely fine if you'd rather not do that.

We certainly don't see people who ask questions as trouble-makers - people asking questions is the way we get to understand what's working and what's not working, so hearing those questions is absolutely essential for us in getting our schemes right and making them work for farmers. I do appreciate that you might not believe we are doing this until you see it - in which case fair enough, let's talk again in another few months!

On your specific question about the balance of the contract, we don't think it's imbalanced and didn't intend it to be but I've seen your feedback on that, we're also looking at feedback from others, and we're going to feed all of that into the way we design the contracts for SFI when we roll it out beyond the pilot next year (and for future years in the pilot).

I hope that helps!

 

[topground]

Yes, the same contract is on offer to all participants in the pilot.

The reason I was asking for your details is because I was offering to follow up your specific contact with RPA as you said you'd not had a reply, but of course also absolutely fine if you'd rather not do that.

We certainly don't see people who ask questions as trouble-makers - people asking questions is the way we get to understand what's working and what's not working, so hearing those questions is absolutely essential for us in getting our schemes right and making them work for farmers. I do appreciate that you might not believe we are doing this until you see it - in which case fair enough, let's talk again in another few months!

On your specific question about the balance of the contract, we don't think it's imbalanced and didn't intend it to be but I've seen your feedback on that, we're also looking at feedback from others, and we're going to feed all of that into the way we design the contracts for SFI when we roll it out beyond the pilot next year (and for future years in the pilot).

I hope that helps!

@Janet Hughes Defra
For the last time; Where is the equality in dispute resolution between the two parties to the contract?
If I disagree with the views of one of your inspectors who has the final say?
Is there any mechanism for arbitration and who bears the cost?

Awaiting with interest the figures showing how many of the remaining 937 have decided not to touch the SFI pilot even with a very long pole.

As with much of what the civil service does the process is more important than the product. This should perhaps be the subject of a separate thread.
What is the product in the case of SFI ?
How will the success of the scheme be measured?
What is the public good that is being delivered and how will that be quantified?
As I read the scheme from the perspective of an all grass livestock farm there there are many random standards but for what purpose?
What are the outcomes from maintaining average sward height?
As I read it these standards, irrespective of what the rewards for adhering to them are appear to be the product of academia. There is nothing that I have seen that sets out that if we as farmers adhere to x standard then Y will be a measurable outcome.
If there is a measurable outcome then it matters not how the farmer achieves it provided it can be delivered and measured.

If the outcomes were clear and measurable then I as a livestock farmer could be confident when an inspector arrives that we are both measuring the same things to the same standard.
In conclusion @Janet Hughes Defra What is the product of SFI? What are the measurable outcomes?

 

[delilah]

Well that really hasn't been very clearly communicated to be honest.

Policy on the hoof.

 

[steveR]

@Janet Hughes Defra
For the last time; Where is the equality in dispute resolution between the two parties to the contract?
If I disagree with the views of one of your inspectors who has the final say?
Is there any mechanism for arbitration and who bears the cost?

Awaiting with interest the figures showing how many of the remaining 937 have decided not to touch the SFI pilot even with a very long pole.

This does need sorting, I agree.

I suspect a lot of farmers will not even have thought about the points you raise. BUT, all it will have taken is one bad Inspector in the past, to have queered the pitch for DEFRA/NE/RPA et al into teh future for anyone whho was on the receiving end of a ropey inspection. There needs to be a real awareness in DEFRA, and the willingness to address these issues. I believe that the awareness is there.... but will it be sorted???

 

[renewablejohn]

@Janet Hughes Defra
For the last time; Where is the equality in dispute resolution between the two parties to the contract?
If I disagree with the views of one of your inspectors who has the final say?
Is there any mechanism for arbitration and who bears the cost?

Awaiting with interest the figures showing how many of the remaining 937 have decided not to touch the SFI pilot even with a very long pole.

As with much of what the civil service does the process is more important than the product. This should perhaps be the subject of a separate thread.
What is the product in the case of SFI ?
How will the success of the scheme be measured?
What is the public good that is being delivered and how will that be quantified?
As I read the scheme from the perspective of an all grass livestock farm there there are many random standards but for what purpose?
What are the outcomes from maintaining average sward height?
As I read it these standards, irrespective of what the rewards for adhering to them are appear to be the product of academia. There is nothing that I have seen that sets out that if we as farmers adhere to x standard then Y will be a measurable outcome.
If there is a measurable outcome then it matters not how the farmer achieves it provided it can be delivered and measured.

If the outcomes were clear and measurable then I as a livestock farmer could be confident when an inspector arrives that we are both measuring the same things to the same standard.
In conclusion @Janet Hughes Defra What is the product of SFI? What are the measurable outcomes?

There is no equality. Just received this from the Forestry Commission. Bearing in mind its now 16 years into a 15 year scheme fully inspected before payments made at year 5 and year 10. Obviously will appeal but cannot see the point as the primary scheme was shelter belts mainly comprised hazel and ash to coppice for wood fuel production. Guess what the Ash is all dead due to Ash die back due to importation of diseased saplings by the Forestry Commission and lack of inspection by Defra. Now I have to pay the consequences for their gross stupidity.
Very expensive scrap being galvanised chicken layer boxes with plastc automatic egg collection trays.

 

[Cowabunga]

Farmers should resist any temptation they have to enter into any official Government or Government agency scheme. They will be hamstrung with regulations and rules and may find massive penalties applied through no fault of their own or for the slightest of deviation from rigid rules and plans.

 

[renewablejohn]

Farmers should resist any temptation they have to enter into any official Government or Government agency scheme. They will be hamstrung with regulations and rules and may find massive penalties applied through no fault of their own or for the slightest of deviation from rigid rules and plans.

Quite right there. Part of my woodland scheme involved planting a new hedgerow alongside the existing stone wall to protect my polytunnels from the occasional North wind. They have now highlighted the hedgerow with a broad highlight pen and now accuse me of building polytunnels within the area of the highlight pen. Total nonsense but they have the legal might to enforce it.

 

[Y Fan Wen]

Farmers should resist any temptation they have to enter into any official Government or Government agency scheme. They will be hamstrung with regulations and rules and may find massive penalties applied through no fault of their own or for the slightest of deviation from rigid rules and plans.

My father was an enthusiastic tree planter and we looked into various planting grant offers from the 60s to the end of the century. In the end we only went in for one offered by the SNP for fencing oak woodlands as all the others we decided we could do a better job doing it how we wanted.
Unfortunately, I and the little one now have to eliminate all the larches we planted in that time period.
Dropped 2 substantial ones yesterday and the ring count was about 50.

 

[steveR]

There is no equality. Just received this from the Forestry Commission. Bearing in mind its now 16 years into a 15 year scheme fully inspected before payments made at year 5 and year 10. Obviously will appeal but cannot see the point as the primary scheme was shelter belts mainly comprised hazel and ash to coppice for wood fuel production. Guess what the Ash is all dead due to Ash die back due to importation of diseased saplings by the Forestry Commission and lack of inspection by Defra. Now I have to pay the consequences for their gross stupidity.
Very expensive scrap being galvanised chicken layer boxes with plastc automatic egg collection trays.

FC, both Judge and Jury ,AND Appeals Body....

 

[Janet Hughes Defra]

@Janet Hughes Defra
For the last time; Where is the equality in dispute resolution between the two parties to the contract?
If I disagree with the views of one of your inspectors who has the final say?
Is there any mechanism for arbitration and who bears the cost?

Awaiting with interest the figures showing how many of the remaining 937 have decided not to touch the SFI pilot even with a very long pole.

As with much of what the civil service does the process is more important than the product. This should perhaps be the subject of a separate thread.
What is the product in the case of SFI ?
How will the success of the scheme be measured?
What is the public good that is being delivered and how will that be quantified?
As I read the scheme from the perspective of an all grass livestock farm there there are many random standards but for what purpose?
What are the outcomes from maintaining average sward height?
As I read it these standards, irrespective of what the rewards for adhering to them are appear to be the product of academia. There is nothing that I have seen that sets out that if we as farmers adhere to x standard then Y will be a measurable outcome.
If there is a measurable outcome then it matters not how the farmer achieves it provided it can be delivered and measured.

If the outcomes were clear and measurable then I as a livestock farmer could be confident when an inspector arrives that we are both measuring the same things to the same standard.
In conclusion @Janet Hughes Defra What is the product of SFI? What are the measurable outcomes?

On inspections and disagreements, we are aiming to make the scheme less risky and punitive by having a much fairer and proportionate regime - however I do realise that the proof of this pudding will be in the eating, and that we can do a better job of that in our terms and conditions, which we're reviewing in the light of all the feedback we've had.

When we publish more info about the early rollout of the scheme later this month, we'll also say what we're expecting to achieve through it. In summary, the purpose of SFI is to invest in environment, climate and animal health and welfare outcomes alongside food production. There are 6 environmental outcomes, which we've published in the agricultural transition plan https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/agricultural-transition-plan-2021-to-2024 - they cover clean air, clean water, biodiversity, carbon, access and heritage, and reduction in and protection from environmental hazards eg floods. We also aim to achieve improvements in animal health and welfare, and farm productivity. We will have a monitoring and evaluation programme in place to assess progress against these outcomes over time, and we'll publish the results of this work each year.

On the standards, we've been reviewing them based on the feedback we've already had in the pilot, and will publish updated versions of the soils standards at the end of this month - these will be the versions we use for early rollout of the scheme next year. I hope you will see that we've made them more outcome-focused, less complicated and less prescriptive in response to the feedback we've had. One of the things we've been looking at is how to make it really clear what's expected, exactly as you say.

 

[Clive]

On inspections and disagreements, we are aiming to make the scheme less risky and punitive by having a much fairer and proportionate regime - however I do realise that the proof of this pudding will be in the eating, and that we can do a better job of that in our terms and conditions, which we're reviewing in the light of all the feedback we've had.

When we publish more info about the early rollout of the scheme later this month, we'll also say what we're expecting to achieve through it. In summary, the purpose of SFI is to invest in environment, climate and animal health and welfare outcomes alongside food production. There are 6 environmental outcomes, which we've published in the agricultural transition plan https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/agricultural-transition-plan-2021-to-2024 - they cover clean air, clean water, biodiversity, carbon, access and heritage, and reduction in and protection from environmental hazards eg floods. We also aim to achieve improvements in animal health and welfare, and farm productivity. We will have a monitoring and evaluation programme in place to assess progress against these outcomes over time, and we'll publish the results of this work each year.

On the standards, we've been reviewing them based on the feedback we've already had in the pilot, and will publish updated versions of the soils standards at the end of this month - these will be the versions we use for early rollout of the scheme next year. I hope you will see that we've made them more outcome-focused, less complicated and less prescriptive in response to the feedback we've had. One of the things we've been looking at is how to make it really clear what's expected, exactly as you say.

if i can offer one piece of advice ……. please keep existing commercial assurance companies well away from SFI

These companies are utterly hated by REAL farmers, they operate as a mafia style protection racket, self serving and have achieved nothing in 20 yesrs other than to add cost / inconvenience to uk produce making it uncompetitive vs imports , They are dishonest about what their schemes actually assure, the schemes are completely flawed for many reasons i would be happy to discuss at length with you anytime

i know they have ambition to be involved in “policing”. SFI ……… if that happens im selling my farm frankly !

 

[Courier]

Also don’t forget….. “ Lessons have been learned”

In these …. “challenging times”

 

[holwellcourtfarm]

On inspections and disagreements, we are aiming to make the scheme less risky and punitive by having a much fairer and proportionate regime - however I do realise that the proof of this pudding will be in the eating, and that we can do a better job of that in our terms and conditions, which we're reviewing in the light of all the feedback we've had.

When we publish more info about the early rollout of the scheme later this month, we'll also say what we're expecting to achieve through it. In summary, the purpose of SFI is to invest in environment, climate and animal health and welfare outcomes alongside food production. There are 6 environmental outcomes, which we've published in the agricultural transition plan https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/agricultural-transition-plan-2021-to-2024 - they cover clean air, clean water, biodiversity, carbon, access and heritage, and reduction in and protection from environmental hazards eg floods. We also aim to achieve improvements in animal health and welfare, and farm productivity. We will have a monitoring and evaluation programme in place to assess progress against these outcomes over time, and we'll publish the results of this work each year.

On the standards, we've been reviewing them based on the feedback we've already had in the pilot, and will publish updated versions of the soils standards at the end of this month - these will be the versions we use for early rollout of the scheme next year. I hope you will see that we've made them more outcome-focused, less complicated and less prescriptive in response to the feedback we've had. One of the things we've been looking at is how to make it really clear what's expected, exactly as you say.

Janet

Thank you for continuing to engage in the face of exasperation from us that may feel like open hostility.

I that the PAC inquiry also highlighted the absence on clear outcome measures for SFI so it's not just us thinking that.

We are (or certainly should be) aware of the "6 public goods" behind the schemes but the standards as drawn up for the SFI pilot utterly lack any linkage to how each element is elected to deliver one or more of the public goods. I think @topground is accurate in his (or her) explanation that this is crucial for applicants to understand why they are elected to follow each element of a standard. Without it the scheme is just a case of "trust us, we know what we are doing" and past performance from all of the DEFRA family renders that an oxymoron.

 

[holwellcourtfarm]

if i can offer one piece of advice ……. please keep existing commercial assurance companies well away from SFI

These companies are utterly hated by REAL farmers, they operate as a mafia style protection racket, self serving and have achieved nothing in 20 yesrs other than to add cost / inconvenience to uk produce making it uncompetitive vs imports , They are dishonest about what their schemes actually assure, the schemes are completely flawed for many reasons i would be happy to discuss at length with you anytime

i know they have ambition to be involved in “policing”. SFI ……… if that happens im selling my farm frankly !

If RT play any part in SRI, LNR or LR them I'm not going anywhere near it.

 

[Clive]

If RT play any part in SRI, LNR or LR them I'm not going anywhere near it.

it would be a disaster of titanic proportions !

i would honestly rather sell my farm than be forced to be more involved with those self serving idiots


i saw on Twitter that @Janet Hughes Defra was meeting “dim” Jim Moseley this week …….

 

[renewablejohn]

Does fairer and proportionate include the 16500 farmers excluded at a stroke of a pen because their eligible land area is less than 5ha. You do realise we are still part of the environment.

 

[Janet Hughes Defra]

Janet

Thank you for continuing to engage in the face of exasperation from us that may feel like open hostility.

I that the PAC inquiry also highlighted the absence on clear outcome measures for SFI so it's not just us thinking that.

We are (or certainly should be) aware of the "6 public goods" behind the schemes but the standards as drawn up for the SFI pilot utterly lack any linkage to how each element is elected to deliver one or more of the public goods. I think @topground is accurate in his (or her) explanation that this is crucial for applicants to understand why they are elected to follow each element of a standard. Without it the scheme is just a case of "trust us, we know what we are doing" and past performance from all of the DEFRA family renders that an oxymoron.

It doesn't feel like hostility, I think it's completely reasonable and understandable for you all to have questions and concerns and am happy to hear them and help where I can.

Yes, I agree we need to say more about the link between the overall outcomes and the standards in SFI and see why that's important - we're working on that, and I hope you'll see later in the month (when we publish more info about SFI early rollout next year) that we've made some further progress on this for the standards we're introducing next year, and overall - I'll be v interested to hear what you think when we publish that stuff, and keen to know what more you think is needed on this front

 

[Janet Hughes Defra]

it would be a disaster of titanic proportions !

i would honestly rather sell my farm than be forced to be more involved with those self serving idiots


i saw on Twitter that @Janet Hughes Defra was meeting “dim” Jim Moseley this week …….

There's no plan for RT to be involved in environmental land management schemes. What we are looking at is whether there's a place for 'earned recognition' - ie if you're in a scheme with environmental aspects eg organic, LEAF, how can we recognise that in our schemes? That would be entirely optional for people, if they wanted to use their accreditation in schemes in that way.

I am meeting Jim Moseley, yes - I meet people from all around the sector as part of my job. Part of the reason I share who I'm meeting and where I'm going each week (I'm @janethughes on twitter -https://twitter.com/JanetHughes - you'll see that I share an update each week about what I'm up to and try to answer all the questions I'm asked there) is that I get very useful feedback from others about who I'm seeing and where I'm going, which helps me make sure I get a balanced range of views.

 

[Janet Hughes Defra]

Does fairer and proportionate include the 16500 farmers excluded at a stroke of a pen because their eligible land area is less than 5ha. You do realise we are still part of the environment.

I do, yes, and we plan to extend SFI to include those farms before 2024.

 

[Clive]

There's no plan for RT to be involved in environmental land management schemes. What we are looking at is whether there's a place for 'earned recognition' - ie if you're in a scheme with environmental aspects eg organic, LEAF, how can we recognise that in our schemes? That would be entirely optional for people, if they wanted to use their accreditation in schemes in that way.

I am meeting Jim Moseley, yes - I meet people from all around the sector as part of my job. Part of the reason I share who I'm meeting and where I'm going each week (I'm @janethughes on twitter -https://twitter.com/JanetHughes - you'll see that I share an update each week about what I'm up to and try to answer all the questions I'm asked there) is that I get very useful feedback from others about who I'm seeing and where I'm going, which helps me make sure I get a balanced range of views.

schemes like LEAF do offer a level of environmental credibility I agree and have a track record of achieving promised premiums for farmers vs just adding cost

Red Tractor however is nothing more than a leach on the side of UK agriculture, its extremely unpopular and offers nothing above and beyond UK legislation and standards

The way opinion is building against this commercial scheme it won't exist soon anyway, no harm meeting as many people as possible but felt maybe you may not have been aware of the levels of bad feeling that exist towards this scheme, Partner with them and you will kill any chance of SFI success overnight IMO