June 2022 SFI standards and payment rates

[delilah]

Half a dozen farmers could have achieved the above in an afternoon.

Go on then.

 

[steveR]

It doesn't matter what @Janet Hughes Defra says on these forums.. we all know that when you ask these questions to the RPA they interpret these policy documents and the default answer is always " no we wont fund that"

Which is my big fear. Unless it is in Black and White, and in the Agreement, signing up is not really an option...

 

[steveR]

What could possibly go wrong....

At least, if they change the rules mid stream, you can drop out. But when the Inspector call's......?

 

[farmerm]

Think I have found another error, the payment rates

and the omission to index link them.....

 

[Jackov Altraids]

The area highlighted in Red, appears to be the Get out of Jail card for DEFRA, as it stands, and could allow a double payment from the SFI and Private funding on a given block of land.

However, and for me it is a massive HOWEVER, how on earth can an SFI applicant be sure that his planned cropping or management technique will meet the standard required and the rules met, in the event of an Inspection???

I have immense respect for Janet H and believe her informed statements that are made here are in good faith, but I am also well aware that rules can and will change. As with CS, any agreement that is open to interpretation by and Inspector or one of the quangos*, is one cannot be trusted.







*I think back to my very first CS in 2000 where it specifically stated that land that was reverted to low input grassland, could be put back as arable on completion of the Agreement. Now hear from @ajcc how the rules changed and mess that a farmer can find himself in with a hostile Inspector from NE.

I understand why Defra might need a clause allowing them to make changes at any time but it would only be fair, reasonable and in-line with usual legislation to give the agreement holder the option to leave the agreement without penalty having been paid pro rata, to the point of the rule change.

Will they?
I cannot thing of any reason why they should not.

 

[ajd132]

Am I correct in thinking you can't claim SFI if you've sold your carbon credits?

Is that right?

No, completely wrong. Janet has said on here many times selling carbon is not affected whatsoever by SFI

 

[Grass And Grain]

No, completely wrong. Janet has said on here many times selling carbon is not affected whatsoever by SFI

The guidance/rules published last week clearly said you couldn't have double funding (if already getting paid for something from a carbon scheme, such as overwinter cover). But the written guidance was apparently incorrect, they shouldn't have published it, we told Janet what it said, she read it, then got her team to correct it.

Hence all the confusion in the TFF chat rooms.

So you CAN have double funding if it's from a private scheme, but CANNOT have double funding if the funding is from certain DEFRA funded CS scheme options such as AB15 which they consider to be already funding overwinter cover.

Edit. Which makes me wonder how many times you can sell the same thing to different customers under slightly different guises. You sell the carbon credits to Agreena, then get paid by DEFRA for having overwinter covers, then maybe you go to EasyJet and sell them some green-washing (as long as it's not carbon credits).

 

[ajd132]

The guidance/rules published last week clearly said you couldn't have double funding (if already getting paid for something from a carbon scheme, such as overwinter cover). But the written guidance was apparently incorrect, they shouldn't have published it, we told Janet what it said, she read it, then got her team to correct it.

Hence all the confusion in the TFF chat rooms.

So you CAN have double funding if it's from a private scheme, but CANNOT have double funding if the funding is from certain DEFRA funded CS scheme options such as AB15 which they consider to be already funding overwinter cover.

Yes, this is how I’ve always understood it.
The last thing we want is government getting involved with/stealing out carbon.

the good thing about carbon markets developing is that there is now values being established, we can protect ourselves with this if people like the processors start demanding carbon as part of a contract and will want it for free.
We can just come back at them and say what the market value is, take it or leave it.

 

[Grass And Grain]

Yes, this is how I’ve always understood it.
The last thing we want is government getting involved with/stealing out carbon.

the good thing about carbon markets developing is that there is now values being established, we can protect ourselves with this if people like the processors start demanding carbon as part of a contract and will want it for free.
We can just come back at them and say what the market value is, take it or leave it.

Easier for grain producers who don't sell to a single dedicated customer. Might be those who supply to a single customer who get leant on to give the carbon as condition of the contract.

As you say, if it has a market value, will be more difficult for processors to try and steal it.

 

[ajd132]

Easier for grain producers who don't sell to a single dedicated customer. Might be those who supply to a single customer who get leant on to give the carbon as condition of the contract.

As you say, if it has a market value, will be more difficult for processors to try and steal it.

And we all know how good processors are at stealing our extra value, with our own union complicit in the theft.

 

[steveR]

The guidance/rules published last week clearly said you couldn't have double funding (if already getting paid for something from a carbon scheme, such as overwinter cover). But the written guidance was apparently incorrect, they shouldn't have published it, we told Janet what it said, she read it, then got her team to correct it.

Hence all the confusion in the TFF chat rooms.

So you CAN have double funding if it's from a private scheme, but CANNOT have double funding if the funding is from certain DEFRA funded CS scheme options such as AB15 which they consider to be already funding overwinter cover.

Edit. Which makes me wonder how many times you can sell the same thing to different customers under slightly different guises. You sell the carbon credits to Agreena, then get paid by DEFRA for having overwinter covers, then maybe you go to EasyJet and sell them some green-washing (as long as it's not carbon credits).

I disagree with this viewpoint TBH still, Steve. The wording is so vague, that it is impossible to actually tell what is and isn't allowed! Now maybe this is good....maybe not! Why even give examples that are clearly not agronomic in any way, shape or form?? I do recall JH statingn that they wanted SFI to be flexible, so maybe this is an example?

I have repeated, ad nauseam, that the section below does not give me any confidence to enter successfully into SFI with land already in a privately funded scheme. However, if I am wrong, I will be the first to cheer, and then go cash the cheque....!

'Private sector schemes​

In 2022, you can enter the same area of land into an SFI standards agreement and a private sector scheme arrangement, such as carbon trading or payments for natural flood management.

The approach to private sector schemes will be reviewed by Defra annually.'

 

[Grass And Grain]

I disagree with this viewpoint TBH still, Steve. The wording is so vague, that it is impossible to actually tell what is and isn't allowed! Now maybe this is good....maybe not! Why even give examples that are clearly not agronomic in any way, shape or form?? I do recall JH statingn that they wanted SFI to be flexible, so maybe this is an example?

I have repeated, ad nauseam, that the section below does not give me any confidence to enter successfully into SFI with land already in a privately funded scheme. However, if I am wrong, I will be the first to cheer, and then go cash the cheque....!

'Private sector schemes​

In 2022, you can enter the same area of land into an SFI standards agreement and a private sector scheme arrangement, such as carbon trading or payments for natural flood management.

The approach to private sector schemes will be reviewed by Defra annually.'

Think you're right How can anyone commit to 3 years of SFI when you read the text you've highlighted in bold?

I haven't read the text after the revision. I'll take a look.

 

[Jackov Altraids]

One of the fundamental problems with SFI [there are many] is that it concerns working with nature which may or may not co-operate.

Payments should be for following rules OR

payments should be for results

Either would be fine, both is stupid.

I should be not be penalised for failing due to following the rules.

 

[Walton2]

I am so pleased that all this is a result of co-design and after prolonged consultation. Lessons were learned from previous schemes.

Those two sentences will be used to justify this shambles for years to come.The waste of resources involved in all this is truly disgraceful.