Natural England knows best?

[Ffermer Bach]

ajcc is not the only one. I am fighting a similar battle with the Forestry Commission in respect of cannot see the wood for the trees. Another quango who are both judge and jury. Never mind heard on the radio farmers can get 10k per ha for planting woodland and singing to the tune of the Forestry Commission.

I think these government bodies end up like the Post Office and the way they treated the sub post masters.

 

[Jackov Altraids]

I think these government bodies end up like the Post Office and the way they treated the sub post masters.

I think the principle of ELMS is excellent, it's execution is terrible.
I think Carbon offsetting is morally bankrupt but is being well organised.

The factor of whether to deal with a private enterprise or a government body is pushing me in a direction I would rather not go.

 

[holwellcourtfarm]

I think the principle of ELMS is excellent, it's execution is terrible.
I think Carbon offsetting is morally bankrupt but is being well organised.

The factor of whether to deal with a private enterprise or a government body is pushing me in a direction I would rather not go.

I've just agreed to a Teams meeting with DEFRA staff next week to discuss "blended finance" and ELMS.

How they can try to allow privvate finance of things like carbon offsetting (for climate targets), biodiversity offsetting (for developers) and nutrient offsetting (for developers and others) to support ELMS actions and work alongisde the public money rather than being antagonistic or, just as bad, mutually exclusive.

I suspect that by 2030 the total private money coming into land management for things like those above will dwarf the £3Bn public funding pot.

 

[renewablejohn]

I think these government bodies end up like the Post Office and the way they treated the sub post masters.

This is the most recent instalment. Its actually in the agreement that the power companies can cut down any trees which interfer with the power line and the polytunnels were already there before any agreement was signed. A hedgerow planted to protect the polytunnels with the aid of a highlight pen becomes a 12 mtr wide strip taking in a third of the 40 mtr tunnels. All very ironic when it was the Forestry Commission who imported Ash dieback into the country in the first place.
I really need to start doing guided tours to Defra to show them what an actual tree looks like. They may then be able to provide seminars to the Forestry Commission on how to spot a tree.

 

[steveR]

I've just agreed to a Teams meeting with DEFRA staff next week to discuss "blended finance" and ELMS.

How they can try to allow privvate finance of things like carbon offsetting (for climate targets), biodiversity offsetting (for developers) and nutrient offsetting (for developers and others) to support ELMS actions and work alongisde the public money rather than being antagonistic or, just as bad, mutually exclusive.

I suspect that by 2030 the total private money coming into land management for things like those above will dwarf the £3Bn public funding pot.

Well JH has already stated here, that as it stands, private funding of "stewardship" and ELMS can co-exist on the same land area, as long as ELMS is not double funding the same work, or outcome.

The question that I have not asked, is who will tell the RPA what other funding is being got, for a given area of land?

What i am looking at is Water Co grant funding for say, Bumblebird mix. To me the ability to claim for planting an overwintered cover crop under ELMS, and then claim for a Bumblebird crop, has a lot going for it. Chuck in some of the above stuff you refer to, then we could be talking serious money!

 

[Jackov Altraids]

I've just agreed to a Teams meeting with DEFRA staff next week to discuss "blended finance" and ELMS.

How they can try to allow privvate finance of things like carbon offsetting (for climate targets), biodiversity offsetting (for developers) and nutrient offsetting (for developers and others) to support ELMS actions and work alongisde the public money rather than being antagonistic or, just as bad, mutually exclusive.

I suspect that by 2030 the total private money coming into land management for things like those above will dwarf the £3Bn public funding pot.

I'm really not sure what to think of that.

The difference between public/ private as I see it, is that the private companies have fully understood and met their remit.
I think Defra need to read what the aims for ELMS were, as their current schemes will not meet them.

 

[holwellcourtfarm]

Well JH has already stated here, that as it stands, private funding of "stewardship" and ELMS can co-exist on the same land area, as long as ELMS is not double funding the same work, or outcome.

The question that I have not asked, is who will tell the RPA what other funding is being got, for a given area of land?

What i am looking at is Water Co grant funding for say, Bumblebird mix. To me the ability to claim for planting an overwintered cover crop under ELMS, and then claim for a Bumblebird crop, has a lot going for it. Chuck in some of the above stuff you refer to, then we could be talking serious money!

Thanks.

I can't see why they shouldn't pay for the same action myself so long as the action is being done. Both funders may be gaining different benefits from the same action. I think that the rules as described so far risk putting many farmers off.

Your water company scheme example is a good one. Say you agree to plant diverse cover crops. DEFRA may be asking you to do it to improve soil health and ecological diversity. The water company are asking you to do it to mop up free nutrients and reduce soil runoff risk. It's a single action delivering different benefits to different bodies which they are both willing to fund.

As an example, I've seen suggestions that once biodiversity net gain offsets get going properly then they could be worth several times the current land value in some cases. If a developer can't deliver biodiversity net gain on site and can't build without it then £40k/acre for someone to turn arable land or plain ryegrass pasture into a diverse herbal Silvio pasture system for the next 75 years could be good value to both parties. If by carefully choosing the exact nature of the new land use that also ticks SFI, LNR or LR boxes then why shouldn't you be able to claim both? Otherwise why bother looking at the DEFRA scheme benefits it could deliver and, certainly, why bother telling the RPA about the change?

 

[steveR]

Thanks.

I can't see why they shouldn't pay for the same action myself so long as the action is being done. Both funders may be gaining different benefits from the same action. I think that the rules as described so far risk putting many farmers off.

As an example, I've seen suggestions that once biodiversity net gain offsets get going properly then they could be worth several times the current land value in some cases. If a developer can't deliver biodiversity net gain on site and can't build without it then £40k/acre for someone to turn arable land or plain ryegrass pasture into a diverse herbal Silvio pasture system for the next 75 years could be good value to both parties. If by carefully choosing the exact nature of the new land use that also ticks SFI, LNR or LR boxes then why shouldn't you be able to claim both? Otherwise why bother looking at the DEFRA scheme benefits it could deliver and, certainly, why bother telling the RPA about the change?

As far as I am concerned, whether I grow bumblebird, a herbal ley or a crop of wheat, it is all a crop. I have long had that viewpoint and definitely annoyed one or two with this view...

Your water company scheme example is a good one. Say you agree to plant diverse cover crops. DEFRA may be asking you to do it to improve soil health and ecological diversity. The water company are asking you to do it to mop up free nutrients and reduce soil runoff risk. It's a single action delivering different benefits to different bodies which they are both willing to fund.

This will be the only area of ELMS that I will take up, if allowed!

 

[Muddyroads]

Thanks.

I can't see why they shouldn't pay for the same action myself so long as the action is being done. Both funders may be gaining different benefits from the same action. I think that the rules as described so far risk putting many farmers off.

Your water company scheme example is a good one. Say you agree to plant diverse cover crops. DEFRA may be asking you to do it to improve soil health and ecological diversity. The water company are asking you to do it to mop up free nutrients and reduce soil runoff risk. It's a single action delivering different benefits to different bodies which they are both willing to fund.

As an example, I've seen suggestions that once biodiversity net gain offsets get going properly then they could be worth several times the current land value in some cases. If a developer can't deliver biodiversity net gain on site and can't build without it then £40k/acre for someone to turn arable land or plain ryegrass pasture into a diverse herbal Silvio pasture system for the next 75 years could be good value to both parties. If by carefully choosing the exact nature of the new land use that also ticks SFI, LNR or LR boxes then why shouldn't you be able to claim both? Otherwise why bother looking at the DEFRA scheme benefits it could deliver and, certainly, why bother telling the RPA about the change?

If I read your last paragraph correctly it will spell the end of FBT tenanted farms in this country. Is that what we or the country really want to see?

 

[teslacoils]

If I read your last paragraph correctly it will spell the end of FBT tenanted farms in this country. Is that what we or the country really want to see?

Replacing an economically less productive use of a resource with a more rewarding one is apparently progress.

 

[Muddyroads]

Replacing an economically less productive use of a resource with a more rewarding one is apparently progress.

Strange how food isn’t considered to be for public good.

 

[teslacoils]

Strange how food isn’t considered to be for public good.

Tbh I'd turn here into a nudist camp if it payed better.....

.....but given the current "where's my mid tier money" situation, I'm afraid any scheme by any government agency is right bottom of the list, irrespective of the cash offered. They just have no trust left in the bank.

 

[holwellcourtfarm]

If I read your last paragraph correctly it will spell the end of FBT tenanted farms in this country. Is that what we or the country really want to see?

When it comes to land tenure I don't think the government HAS a plan at present?

Replacing an economically less productive use of a resource with a more rewarding one is apparently progress.

It might grow GDP very slightly which seems all our leaders really want these days, judging by their actions rather than their words.....

In reality, if many offer offsets then their market value will decline sharply.

At the moment the whole notion of biodiversity offsets is theoretical. It IS written into the Environment Act passed last year but, so far, all of the engagement has been ecology academics (who may see research opportunities in it), land agents (who undoubtedly see big fees in arranging it), developers (who just want to know what it'll cost to get on with developing a usual) and DEFRA.

My comments in brackets are my generalised observations from what I've seen and heard so far.

 

[holwellcourtfarm]

Tbh I'd turn here into a nudist camp if it payed better.....

.....but given the current "where's my mid tier money" situation, I'm afraid any scheme by any government agency is right bottom of the list, irrespective of the cash offered. They just have no trust left in the bank.

And I think most of them still haven't realised just what a massive issue that is now.

Under the old BPS "guaranteed money for nothing" system we all went along with it (being devil's advocate in that characterisation). Under the new "you only get your money if you do exactly what we want" scheme it risks crashing the whole exercise.

 

[Muddyroads]

When it comes to land tenure I don't think the government HAS a plan at present?

It might grow GDP very slightly which seems all our leaders really want these days, judging by their actions rather than their words.....

I’ve never understood how something like this which would simply turn money over can contribute to GDP. The one thing that will not be created is any kind of product, so how can it add to GDP?

 

[Flat 10]

I’ve never understood how something like this which would simply turn money over can contribute to GDP. The one thing that will not be created is any kind of product, so how can it add to GDP?

It’s all smoke and mirrors. Our whole economy is as we actually make f all tangible.

 

[Wombat]

And I think most of them still haven't realised just what a massive issue that is now.

Under the old BPS "guaranteed money for nothing" system we all went along with it (being devil's advocate in that characterisation). Under the new "you only get your money if you do exactly what we want" scheme it risks crashing the whole exercise.

That’s the problem there is a dealing with Defra/rpa hassle factor, at the moment the sfi payments being so crap don’t exceed that for me. Therefore they can shove it all up their arse

 

[Steevo]

And I think most of them still haven't realised just what a massive issue that is now.

Under the old BPS "guaranteed money for nothing" system we all went along with it (being devil's advocate in that characterisation). Under the new "you only get your money if you do exactly what we want" scheme it risks crashing the whole exercise.

Not to mention under the new scheme you will have paid out quite a lot of money already.

Oh, and if you get an inspection from the EA and they find a breach currently they can pass to RPA who may fine you 2% or 5% or such of BPS. The same may also apply to ELMS…..

Big risks.

 

[teslacoils]

The more I look at the letter offering me the opportunity to roll my mid tier over, the more I think I'll just put it in the bin.

I very much liked the idea that, post brexit, and after bps, that we would be free from the government yoke, but it's pretty obvious that the civil service is still run on the "Yes, Minister" system of THERE SHALL BE NO REDUCTION. Next thing the DEFRA will be self financing like the HSE and we will have to pay for the pleasure of them coming and fining us.

 

[holwellcourtfarm]

I’ve never understood how something like this which would simply turn money over can contribute to GDP. The one thing that will not be created is any kind of product, so how can it add to GDP?

Any time money changes hands it is counted under GDP (if the government knows about it).