renewablejohn
Member
- Location
- lancs
Part of the rules changed was the "Shelter" belt originally agreed is now supposed to be a woodland. The clue was in the name an area of trees to provide shelter for livestock not a dense woodland with canopy.
Natural England knows best?
- Thread starter ajcc
- Start date
- Location
- Devon
It could be quite simple.
This is my idea in response to the 'soil carbon is a highly flawed climate policy' thread;
"Having thought about this a little more, I think the answer to the OP is yes.
BUT......
it may be the best system possible as indirectly it may be a good measure of the outcomes everyone wants.
I would suggest that pretty much every scheme and grant gets ditched, including ELMS and each farm is appointed its own carbon auditor [for free]. They would measure your carbon usage and advise but everyone would be free to do what they want.
Everyone would be paid a subsidy per unit of produce based on the amount of carbon used per unit. If your carbon use was above the global average you get nothing.
If you are carbon 'positive', you get the maximum subsidy per unit plus a tradeable certificate of the quantity of carbon sequestered with a gradated scale in between.
Everybody and the environment would win. We would lead the world by innovating the best systems rather just fiddling with adjustments to claim payments under ELMS.
Technically, we would be paid for carbon saved, measured by production rather than subsidising production so would avoid trading issues.
And probably most important of all, for once we wouldn't be simply exporting our pollution."
The farmer knows the land they are managing best and should be the one making the critical decisions. If you set a premium for produce that is produced at with minimum carbon use or better and we will innovate and find our best ways to do it.
All schemes up to now have been 'back to front'.
Soil carbon is a highly flawed climate policy ?
I actually said that I had not improved my soils even though I had been trying. Have you seen the satellite photos of the UK in winter with brown plumes of soil entering the sea from all the river estuaries? Have you heard the various reports stating how many more harvests we have left in our...
thefarmingforum.co.uk
- Location
- Glen Clova, Angus, DD8 4RD
To be a success ELMS needs to have the flexibility to accommodate bespoke agreements for each farm. In my opinion NE are not fit to operate this but then neither are the RPA.It could be quite simple.
This is my idea in response to the 'soil carbon is a highly flawed climate policy' thread;
"Having thought about this a little more, I think the answer to the OP is yes.
BUT......
it may be the best system possible as indirectly it may be a good measure of the outcomes everyone wants.
I would suggest that pretty much every scheme and grant gets ditched, including ELMS and each farm is appointed its own carbon auditor [for free]. They would measure your carbon usage and advise but everyone would be free to do what they want.
Everyone would be paid a subsidy per unit of produce based on the amount of carbon used per unit. If your carbon use was above the global average you get nothing.
If you are carbon 'positive', you get the maximum subsidy per unit plus a tradeable certificate of the quantity of carbon sequestered with a gradated scale in between.
Everybody and the environment would win. We would lead the world by innovating the best systems rather just fiddling with adjustments to claim payments under ELMS.
Technically, we would be paid for carbon saved, measured by production rather than subsidising production so would avoid trading issues.
And probably most important of all, for once we wouldn't be simply exporting our pollution."
The farmer knows the land they are managing best and should be the one making the critical decisions. If you set a premium for produce that is produced at with minimum carbon use or better and we will innovate and find our best ways to do it.
All schemes up to now have been 'back to front'.
Soil carbon is a highly flawed climate policy ?
I actually said that I had not improved my soils even though I had been trying. Have you seen the satellite photos of the UK in winter with brown plumes of soil entering the sea from all the river estuaries? Have you heard the various reports stating how many more harvests we have left in our...
Both have clearly demonstrated a fundamentally regulatory mindset: "we have clear rules and you must comply". They have exhibited no understanding or empathy towards individuals, scant understanding of the structural diversity of British farming or its practical needs and zero sense of proportionality in enforcing rules. They are, sadly, both virtually bankrupt of farmer trust.
We need DEFRA to understand the scale of the problem and to start again from scratch to create a sense of partnership between us and them in delivering good ecologically sympathetic land management within a working farmed landscape.
I'm not going to hold my breath on that one....
- Location
- Glen Clova, Angus, DD8 4RD
I've just seen this in another thread thanks to @Steevo
Red Tractor seem convinced that plans are afoot to create a formal new definition of "non- natural highly diverse grassland". Is this likely to be another attempt to create a flora classification that they can then designate under legal protection and regulate how we use it?
Why is this not being openly discussed? If this sort of thing really is going on behind closed doors then how do they expect us to trust them?
Red Tractor seem convinced that plans are afoot to create a formal new definition of "non- natural highly diverse grassland". Is this likely to be another attempt to create a flora classification that they can then designate under legal protection and regulate how we use it?
Why is this not being openly discussed? If this sort of thing really is going on behind closed doors then how do they expect us to trust them?
Last edited:
- Location
- Lincolnshire
"competent authority".
Nearly
Member
- Location
- North of York
reseed everything!
- Location
- Montgomeryshire
.....and not with one of those fashionable herbal leys.
Four new appointments to the Natural England board
Defra Ministers have appointed four new non-executive members to the board of Natural England.
12 months ago.....
- Location
- Lincolnshire
Four new appointments to the Natural England board
Defra Ministers have appointed four new non-executive members to the board of Natural England.www.gov.uk
12 months ago.....
Banker with links to water co.
BBC media type.
Banker with rspb links.
Internal DEFRA lackey.
Great.
Far from over yet.....what would that have bought ? Ten additional nurses for a year?
Natural England knows best!
Natural England knows best!
tullah
Member
- Location
- Linconshire
Why dont the Nfu write the contracts then N.E. can take it or leave it. Farmers have always had contracts imposed on them, never the other way round. Time for a change.
Berluddy hellfire!
I am unsure if the amount of public money that has been spent pursuing this case, is either obscene or ridiculous? Possibly both.
Take that as a cost/ha and ask an MP to question the valididty of the whole prosecution by NE, or as mentioned earlier, the Public Accounts Committee.
Last edited:
- Location
- mid devon somewhere
Someone defintley needs to be held accountable for this massive misuse of government money, maybe speak with your local MP?
Whenever I see any of these types of charges it always amazes me at the penny pinching ways of the "professionals" as if £138,238.50 isn't enough they they then add on £327.30 for travel etc.
It always boils my pee when an architect charges £5 per drawing in addition to their fees or £.40 per mile to come out and actually look at the job. I refuse to employ any of these types.
It always boils my pee when an architect charges £5 per drawing in addition to their fees or £.40 per mile to come out and actually look at the job. I refuse to employ any of these types.
- Location
- Devon
Isn't it rather reminiscent of the Post Office scandal.........
When you have "a non-departmental public body it has its own independent powers and statutory duties; exercising advisory and regulatory responsibilities at arm’s length from Ministers." with no accountability and no form of appeal or ombudsman.
If you think ELMS is going to be worth the trouble, you are a very optimistic person.
When you have "a non-departmental public body it has its own independent powers and statutory duties; exercising advisory and regulatory responsibilities at arm’s length from Ministers." with no accountability and no form of appeal or ombudsman.
If you think ELMS is going to be worth the trouble, you are a very optimistic person.
renewablejohn
Member
- Location
- lancs
The NFU and CLA need to be all over this even if your not a member of either organisation, this bullying by Natural England and other quango's like the Fprestry Commission has got to stop. It affects all farmers and growers who sign up to these schemes in good faith that the contract they sign is legally binding like any other commercial contract unaware that at a whim the contract can be amended with no legal come back in the quango's favour. A simple statement from the NFU and CLA stating that ELMS will be boycotted until such clauses are removed would soon sort it. This is an absolute scandel which a litigant in person should not have to fight alone.
- Location
- Glen Clova, Angus, DD8 4RD
The asymmetric nature of these agreements and its corrosive impact on trust between farmers and the scheme organising bodies has been made to the EFRA Select Committee.
- Location
- Lincolnshire
It's bullying. Simple as that. Good on the op for sticking to their guns. I'd not have the ballbag to. But I'd put in £100 or so if it would help.
Nearly
Member
- Location
- North of York
Many would.
My concern, is that so many Farmers are not, and will not, be aware of the terms of the Agreements that can backfire on them so badly.
It is my being here on TFF that has opened my eyes to the behaviour of such bodies... As @renewablejohn correctly says our representative bodies should be all over these agreements, and the NFU contract teams should be red flagging them.