- Location
- S.E
What could possibly go wrong....
June 2022 SFI standards and payment rates
- Thread starter delilah
- Start date
- Location
- Moreton-in-Marsh, Glos
@Janet Hughes Defra, did you hear Julia on BBC Farming Today this morning?
Available on BBC Sounds https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m0015vk8
Take a listen from 7.00 minutes in.
I have to say that Mr Eustice hasn't a clue what Gross Margin Accounts are or what is included in them. Certainly not BPS payments.
His view is that the drop in BPS we get is made up from increased sales prices. The two are entirely different entities
As Julia says, his figures are out of date and completely ignores the hyper inflation we are suffering in both Variable and Fixed costs (of which Mr Eustice clearly doesn't know the difference!).
On top of which he starts his solution with the words "If they engage", when in many cases to most it is incomprehensible, let alone possible, because it is already in CS. providing vitally needed income.
He is a direct quote from Julia:
"The reality is very different from what George Eustice is saying."
God help us farmers, together with you and your Civil Servant colleagues @Janet Hughes Defra , when we all have to suffer such incompetence at the helm!
Last edited:
- Location
- Portsmouth
Could not agree more.
Regardless of what I think of SFI etc it refreshing to see someone able to admit to a mistake and hold up their hands and apologize!
@Janet Hughes Defra can you see if you can get the adhb to take a few lessons from yourself
- Location
- Yorks
Quite.
"Oops, we made an error, we'll fix it, sorry for any confusion". Great, job done, move on. We'll done Janet.
AHDB? Dig a hole, then keep digging.
Sadly this can just as easily be looked at another way:
Millions of pounds of public money spent over the last two years on countless tests and trials and pilots involving hundreds of farms, 200 civil servants beavering away at collating results, coming up with standards, presumably carrying out hour after hour of proof reading, 'what if' scenarios etc, to make sure that when it sees the light of day it is spot on.
Nope. Basic, embarrassing, errors. If that is the case before it even gets going, what the hell will it be like once it is live ?
Anyone who thinks they can sign up to any of this without fear of punitive action somewhere down the line because 'we made a mistake' is a few sandwiches short of a picnic.
Grass and Grain... AHDB have too much to lose to lose face.. Janet just had covid and is a senior civil servant who accepted the " team" got it wrong... AHDB would do well to read these threads whilst they outsource funded advice to my accountants for example to give me advice about how to run a farm business by 2028!! AHDB can ♧ off and i am about to give my accountants a big f off too for sub contracting to AHDB and using my commercial knowledge to visit my farm for a half day transition knowledge delivery... disgusting waste of tax payers money...
Error or reassessment? “this is step too far, need to tone it back a notch or two or the peasants may reject en mass.”
Nothing personal @Janet Hughes Defra but it’s a dogs breakfast complicated muddle and not fit for any meaningful purpose.
Nothing personal @Janet Hughes Defra but it’s a dogs breakfast complicated muddle and not fit for any meaningful purpose.
- Location
- Yorks
I don't disagree. It was an important document, and it was completely wrong. It shouldn't have been. Still, it was corrected with accompanying apology.
Think there is another mistake somewhere in the SFI blurb. Did it say 350% instead of 33. Can't remember, but somewhere something was presumably wrong.
I still agree SFI is a dog's dinner, overly complex, etc.
iirc, Janet said if I have AB15 stewardship, but then rotate that AB15 option, I can then rotate my SFI onto that parcel. But now I'm not sure how or where to put the "addition of OM to all land in the SFI agreement over the 3 year period", because my land in the SFI is going to rotate, even though the total area of my SFI would remain the same for each year.
...and I am a bit annoyed DEFRA clearly said we wouldn't be disadvantaged in ELMS if we did a CS agreement. And now I can't get SFI on the AB15 land, because DEFRA say they won't pay twice for the same thing (winter cover), but my AB15 doesn't have a requirement for OM soil lab tests or a soil management plan, and the AB15 payment was supposedly calculated on income forgone.
My income forgone has now gone up, because you won't let me claim SFI on that land parcel. And when I rotate my SFI around, presumably I'm going to have to OM lab test all the land parcels, even though my SFI will only be for a proportion of the land parcels.
And don't get me started on the grassland standards. I might be wrong, but if someone's grassland is all SSSI, then they can't plough it up to establish legume and herb rich awards, so does that mean they can't get the Intermediate Level payment? We've some grassland designated as, oh I can't remember, coastal and river basin water meadows or something like that, we aren't allowed to reseed them, so looks like Intermediate Level SFI is out. Maybe I'm wrong, not sure yet. And if can't get Intermediate, won't be able to get Higher level payment.
Bring back ELS.
Mixedupfarmer
Member
- Location
- Norfolk
Think I have found another error, the payment rates
- Location
- Portsmouth
I agree, embarrassing error. But at least there is an acknowledgement and apology.
I'm not saying that is enough to make me lose all sense and sign up but it's better than some political style waffle and non apology.
More than many "professionals" these days can manage.
4course
Member
- Location
- north yorks
Almost 24 hours have passed since I posted (53) asking if there is any farmer out there who can see anything positive in this scheme and as yet no one has responded , think that says it all
I will give you a positive: The average life expectancy of SFI standards thus far is 3 months, hence we can expect further reform in the near future. They will get there.
4course
Member
- Location
- north yorks
dont see that as a positive but it does beg the question where are they(whoever the are) trying to get to.----
We know that one. They are trying to get to a set of SFI standards that meet the objectives of ELMS. (Janet has agreed that the below covers it).
Objectives of ELMS
1. Increased productivity.
2. 70% participation.
3. Clear objectives.
4. Quantifiable results.
5. Reward of existing good practice.
6. Avoidance of prescriptive measures.
7. Low expenditure on administration.
8. Buy-in from stakeholders (as represented on the ELMS Engagement Group).
9. Sufficiently different from BPS (for political reasons).
10. Jobs/ critical mass/ skills in the countryside.
Half a dozen farmers could have achieved the above in an afternoon.
Wonderfully put Delilah. Which begs the honest question, of where are DEFRA failing at present? My take:
1, 2 and 3 look very shakey already.
4 is going to be questionable...
Of the rest, only 9 has any real chance of being a "success" in my view.
Maybe they will get there.....in time?
Last edited:
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.
Last edited:
- Location
- East yorks
The issue is signing up, I know very well I cannot meet their 70% cover with no till and cover crops so I could sign up and play stupid on the inspection but I know it’s not possible.
Goweresque
Member
- Location
- North Wilts
Of course its a dogs breakfast. They are trying to micro manage the farming actions of every single farm in the country, to a single standard. How does one think thats going to go in a country that has climates that vary from areas that hardly ever get a frost to ones that get heavy snow every winter? And rainfall that varies from 500mm to over 2000mm? And soil types that vary from field to field let alone individual farms or regions? And areas that get floods and those that never do? And thats just the natural variation, before one brings in the human element, with every single farm having slightly different farming practices and processes, and different equipment and labour.
We used to think that the BPS rule book was bad enough, and created anomalies that the writers hadn't thought of, just wait til the SFI rules get published in detail, you'll find that a large proportion of farms (maybe even over half) will find their way of doing things (for highly practical climate/business reasons) have not been considered and the whole thing would be unworkable for them.