New information about local nature recovery and landscape recovery

[Vader]

Janet gone a bit quiet.
Wonder if she was at Boris party...

 

[Two Tone]

No, I was correct to start with its far better on my grassland than yours

Ah, I see.
…………..You must have slightly less pesky-ish fussy-ish horsey women down your way than I do!

 

[Vader]

So what irresponsible actions have the NT, RSPB and river trusts done if the land in their ownership requires £millions for it to 'recover'?

@Janet Hughes Defra
Could you answer this please?
If these bodies are some of the experts you listen to, then their land should be perfect. They are also already funded nicely by the public.
Why do they need Bps cash pot money ?
Surely they will be paid twice for doing what they doing then..?

 

[Jackov Altraids]

@Janet Hughes Defra
Could you answer this please?
If these bodies are some of the experts you listen to, then their land should be perfect. They are also already funded nicely by the public.
Why do they need Bps cash pot money ?
Surely they will be paid twice for doing what they doing then..?

Absolutely.

For many businesses and organisations, the environment/ landscape is not their primary concern.
The organisations that seem to be lining up to claim the main portion of all this money are the ones whose primary responsibility was to do these things already.
That does not add anything. It is not public money for public good.

 

[delilah]

Hopefully make this fat and lazy industry more efficient, too many hangers on not adding value. Farmer led research towards towards techniques which don’t require spending loads of the money on inputs. A focus on profit and not yield.

Help me out then. Clearly doing it all wrong. Post #760. Here to learn .

 

[ajcc]

@Janet Hughes Defra
Could you answer this please?
If these bodies are some of the experts you listen to, then their land should be perfect. They are also already funded nicely by the public.
Why do they need Bps cash pot money ?
Surely they will be paid twice for doing what they doing then..?

Twice? This farmer pays them rent so that is treble funding the same ground.

 

[Humble Village Farmer]

Absolutely.

For many businesses and organisations, the environment/ landscape is not their primary concern.
The organisations that seem to be lining up to claim the main portion of all this money are the ones whose primary responsibility was to do these things already.
That does not add anything. It is not public money for public good

The farmer's role is to manage his land to the best advantage so he can make a living/ profit. We have to stay within the law, so as nasty poisonous chemicals are rightly banned, said farmer stops using them, like the rules about fertiliser and muck have tightened up.

So it's not unreasonable to pay farmers to go further and create habitat, reduce damage and carry on farming in a not so profitable way, when they don't have to. I would say the public are supportive of that view.

 

[egbert]

I'm sorry to hear you've had such a frustrating, bureaucratic and confusing experience of our schemes. This is exactly the sort of complexity and confusion we're aiming to design out, and we're working hard with farmers and other experts to make the schemes more accessible, fair and straightforward to work with. We've already made some improvements to Countryside Stewardship and we'll build on that in our new schemes based on extensive work with farmers to find out what works and what doesn't.

But I can completely see why you would be skeptical of that given your experiences to date. If you could bear it I would love to get you involved in testing our new schemes to help make them as straightforward as possible (but again I understand if you'd rather not - that's fair enough).

We don't plan for ELM to be administered by national parks. They are running a different scheme, Farming In Protected Landscapes, which is managing a much smaller allocation of funds over the next 3 years to invest in environment, climate, access and heritage in protected landscapes.

Just reading about post glover report review of national parks, and it says there's a consultation right now, including on proposals for parks to design and deliver new agri-environment schemes.

I'm hearing the Park here are already reckoning they're gong to be heavily involved running schemes.

Obviously there must be some confusion.

 

[Jackov Altraids]

The farmer's role is to manage his land to the best advantage so he can make a living/ profit. We have to stay within the law, so as nasty poisonous chemicals are rightly banned, said farmer stops using them, like the rules about fertiliser and muck have tightened up.

So it's not unreasonable to pay farmers to go further and create habitat, reduce damage and carry on farming in a not so profitable way, when they don't have to. I would say the public are supportive of that view.

I would go as far to say that the public would probably agree with incentivising any landowner to be more considerate to the surrounding landscape.

But it is rather perverse to blow a large proportion of your budget on those whose business is specifically to do this already?

 

[Dave645]

@Janet Hughes Defra
Could you answer this please?
If these bodies are some of the experts you listen to, then their land should be perfect. They are also already funded nicely by the public.
Why do they need Bps cash pot money ?
Surely they will be paid twice for doing what they doing then..?

Not just double, triple, don’t forget we will get paid to do things they also want, if the current entry levels are to be judged, so even that money is for them in a roundabout way.
its in the title, the money is not for farmers it’s for the environment. . .

 

[Mixedupfarmer]

@Janet Hughes Defra
Could you answer this please?
If these bodies are some of the experts you listen to, then their land should be perfect. They are also already funded nicely by the public.
Why do they need Bps cash pot money ?
Surely they will be paid twice for doing what they doing then..?

So they can buy more land?

 

[redsloe]

Janet gone a bit quiet.
Wonder if she was at Boris party...

She's rescribling the whole lot!

 

[Humble Village Farmer]

I would go as far to say that the public would probably agree with incentivising any landowner to be more considerate to the surrounding landscape.

But it is rather perverse to blow a large proportion of your budget on those whose business is specifically to do this already?

Like paying farmers to farm?

 

[Jackov Altraids]

Like paying farmers to farm?

If a nation wants food security, it needs to at least protect farmers from the vagaries of global markets.
If a nation wants sustainable food, then it has to be paid for.

The SFI should achieve both. It currently does neither.

The National Trust;
"In 1895, our founders, Octavia Hill, Robert Hunter and Hardwicke Rawnsley pledged to preserve our historical and natural places. Their aim was not only to save important sites, but to open them up for everyone to enjoy.

From this trio of environmental pioneers, the National Trust was created – and their original values are still at the heart of everything we do 125 years later."

So have they preserved natural places for 125 years or does it require 'recovery'?

 

[BrianV]

Janet gone a bit quiet.
Wonder if she was at Boris party...

Think you might find Janet & her pals are busy redesigning future schemes on the instructions of panicking ministers, not that they would let on they will call it fine tuning!

 

[roscoe erf]

Errr, Don’t wetlands create methane? They call it marsh gas round here.

yes but that's ok because it didn't come out of a cows arse

 

[Henarar]

Like paying farmers to farm?

Those subsidies went years ago

 

[Humble Village Farmer]

Those subsidies went years ago

Yes they did but farmers are still subsidising production when they don't have to.

 

[Henarar]

Yes they did but farmers are still subsidising production when they don't have to.

are there conditions as to how they spend the money ?

 

[Humble Village Farmer]

If a nation wants food security, it needs to at least protect farmers from the vagaries of global markets.
If a nation wants sustainable food, then it has to be paid for.

The SFI should achieve both. It currently does neither.

The National Trust;
"In 1895, our founders, Octavia Hill, Robert Hunter and Hardwicke Rawnsley pledged to preserve our historical and natural places. Their aim was not only to save important sites, but to open them up for everyone to enjoy.

From this trio of environmental pioneers, the National Trust was created – and their original values are still at the heart of everything we do 125 years later."

So have they preserved natural places for 125 years or does it require 'recovery'?

This isn't about food security though. It's about helping farmers reduce environmental impact.

Food security is a completely different issue.