New information about local nature recovery and landscape recovery

[Janet Hughes Defra]

Thank you @Janet Hughes Defra that is good to hear.

On the 2nd (highlighted) paragraph, bearing in mind SFI is lumbering to a start, would you envisage DEFRA reneging on an Agreement, and changing the eligibility of a block of land in a given cropping, retrospectively?

No I wouldn't envisage us reneging on an agreement or changing eligibility in the middle of an agreement - we're updating the Terms and conditions for the scheme to make sure they're aligned to our intent to be fair and reasonable - we'll publish updated Ts and Cs before we launch the scheme and this is the sort of issue I'd expect us to need to be very clear about when we do that

 

[ajcc]

No I wouldn't envisage us reneging on an agreement or changing eligibility in the middle of an agreement - we're updating the Terms and conditions for the scheme to make sure they're aligned to our intent to be fair and reasonable - we'll publish updated Ts and Cs before we launch the scheme and this is the sort of issue I'd expect us to need to be very clear about when we do that

Better keep Natural England well clear then!!!

 

[steveR]

No I wouldn't envisage us reneging on an agreement or changing eligibility in the middle of an agreement - we're updating the Terms and conditions for the scheme to make sure they're aligned to our intent to be fair and reasonable - we'll publish updated Ts and Cs before we launch the scheme and this is the sort of issue I'd expect us to need to be very clear about when we do that

Thank you Janet... that the fine detail is not messed with by the Legal teams at DEFRA /NE/EA then.

I might even be able to do business with you....

 

[Huno]

Yes you can enter into both schemes - in the info we published in December, we said:

'Farmers will be able to enter land into SFI if that land is in a private sector scheme (such as carbon trading, payments for natural flood management, biodiversity net gain credits, or nutrient trading). They can also enter land into such schemes after they join SFI. In other words, a farmer can engage in SFI and a private scheme for the sale of environmental outcomes on the same area of land, subject to the rules and requirements of those schemes including on additionality and verification.

This position will be reviewed in 2023 and annually thereafter to account for developments in private environmental markets. We will ensure that we are not crowding out private finance and that land managers are better off where they access private markets. We also wish to avoid paying for the same actions that are already being paid for in a private scheme. At this stage we judge that risk to be very low, given the number and nature of SFI Standards we plan to launch in 2022.'

But the big factor you are missing Janet is that CS plus BPS is worth payment stacking but CS and SFI cannot be payment stacked and makes both schemes economically unviable unless commodity prices go up 50% on average.. which they wont... this is the simple error in SFI..

 

[holwellcourtfarm]

We will ensure that we are not crowding out private finance and that land managers are better off where they access private markets. We also wish to avoid paying for the same actions that are already being paid for in a private scheme.

Thank you for the clarification Janet.

Can you explain the bit in bold please? I can envisage situations where the money on offer from either source isn't attractive enough alone but would be by combining them.

 

[BrianV]

BrianV said:
Having just flown over a large part of the EU any talk of the UK needing rewilding is total bull crap, there is no where I have flown over that has as many hedges & rough ground as the UK, if there is a shortage of wild birds nesting then the so called "experts" are very much looking in the wrong direction!
We are being manipulated by idiots in positions of power that are corrupting the UK!

Yes I always think the same when you go through France, practically barren of hedges etc

--------------
Another thing I found when flying over Switzerland every other farmer was out spreading dung, our Defra & EA smart asses don't know their ass from their ears when they are making draconian rules!!!

 

[steveR]

Thank you for the clarification Janet.

Can you explain the bit in bold please? I can envisage situations where the money on offer from either source isn't attractive enough alone but would be by combining them.

Exactly. My STEPS agreements make financial sense when combined with BPS, and a little bit of sense when/if combined with SFI

 

[steveR]

Yes I always think the same when you go through France, practically barren of hedges etc

--------------
Another thing I found when flying over Switzerland every other farmer was out spreading dung, our Defra & EA smart asses don't know their ass from their ears when they are making draconian rules!!!

They seem to be doing so around here too...

 

[renewablejohn]

Better keep Natural England well clear then!!!

Include the Forestry Commission as well on that list.

 

[delilah]

On that basis there is a long list of Govt bodies and quangos who wont be eligible for ELMS, on the basis that they are already under statutory obligation - and funded by the taxpayer - to deliver public good on the land they own/manage. Yes ?

bump
@Janet Hughes Defra

 

[Janet Hughes Defra]

Thank you for the clarification Janet.

Can you explain the bit in bold please? I can envisage situations where the money on offer from either source isn't attractive enough alone but would be by combining them.

That's one of the questions we need to work through, with farmers and private sector buyers of public goods, as the markets and our new schemes develop. Our aim is for you to be able to draw income from a range of sources for the public goods you're producing alongside food. We (and private sector buyers of the goods) won't want to pay for the exact same actions or outcomes twice, but we do also recognise that sometimes you'll want / need to combine income from several sources to make something worthwhile.

If you're interested in this area I'd be keen for you to have a chat with my team working on this, we're keen to understand how farmers might see this sort of arrangement working as the private sector opportunities develop over the next few years alongside our new schemes. Let me know if that's something you'd be up for?

 

[texelburger]

Having just flown over a large part of the EU any talk of the UK needing rewilding is total bull crap, there is no where I have flown over that has as many hedges & rough ground as the UK, if there is a shortage of wild birds nesting then the so called "experts" are very much looking in the wrong direction!
We are being manipulated by idiots in positions of power that are corrupting the UK!

I have a hand drawn map of the farm,written on parchment, dated 1765 and there are far LESS woods and and hedges than there are today.Some old mature woodland,on the farm today,was arable back then.I would love to rewild back to that date,I would certainly have more arable ground.

 

[Two Tone]

That's one of the questions we need to work through, with farmers and private sector buyers of public goods, as the markets and our new schemes develop. Our aim is for you to be able to draw income from a range of sources for the public goods you're producing alongside food. We (and private sector buyers of the goods) won't want to pay for the exact same actions or outcomes twice, but we do also recognise that sometimes you'll want / need to combine income from several sources to make something worthwhile.

If you're interested in this area I'd be keen for you to have a chat with my team working on this, we're keen to understand how farmers might see this sort of arrangement working as the private sector opportunities develop over the next few years alongside our new schemes. Let me know if that's something you'd be up for?

Ooh @Janet Hughes Defra , surely that cannot be right!
If Defra want us to achieve certain standards, surely it cannot expect us to have to receive adequate income to achieve those standards from more that one source, being additional private sector buyers of the “goods”, on top of ELMs income?
If you are serious about wanting those standards to be achieved, ELMs has to “want / needs’ to pay for enough to start with!
Which when so much of the ELMs pot is devoted to LR and LNR, it won’t be able to, except for very large Land owners. Most of which are not farmers and therefore do not have the ability to do the work actually needed to achieve the results you require.

 

[Janet Hughes Defra]

HI @Janet Hughes Defra.
A friend just got married and on the wedding present list there was the option to buy a tree for the National Trust to plant.

So If NT are getting other public funding to plant woodland would this exclude them from some SFI, LNR and LR options as it would be double funding?

They'd be subject to the same rules as anyone else on double funding (which means paying for the same actions twice on the same piece of land). However this particular example sounds more like combining private funding (through sales of public goods on the private market) with public funding - we've set out our current position on this for SFI early rollout, and said that the rules on combining private and public funding will be kept under review.

 

[Janet Hughes Defra]

Ooh @Janet Hughes Defra , surely that cannot be right!
If Defra want us to achieve certain standards, surely it cannot expect us to have to receive adequate income to achieve those standards from more that one source, being additional private sector buyers of the “goods”, on top of ELMs income?
If you are serious about wanting those standards to be achieved, ELMs has to “want / needs’ to pay for enough to start with!
Which when so much of the ELMs pot is devoted to LR and LNR, it won’t be able to, except for very large Land owners. Most of which are not farmers and therefore do not have the ability to do the work actually needed to achieve the results you require.

Yes we're designing ELM schemes to pay enough for to make business sense on their own. We set out our approach to payments in this document last year: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/environmental-land-management-schemes-payment-principles

The document says:

1. 'We will set payment rates to encourage wide participation, whilst fairly and effectively paying farmers for achieving environmental and climate outcomes.
2. We want payments that, as far as possible, recognise and pay for outcomes that can be delivered through a wide range of activities.
3. We want payments which recognise the value of existing natural assets and don’t unfairly disadvantage those who are already protecting and enhancing these assets to achieve good environmental and climate outcomes.
4. We want payments that form part of a growing market for environmental outcomes, where scheme participants can earn income from public and private sector sources.'

Some farmers, alongside government schemes, will also be interested in selling public goods to other buyers such as water companies, as some already do now. Our aim is to facilitate that and 'crowd in' private finance alongside government investment. In saying that, I'm not implying that you should have to do that or that we're expecting everyone to do it, or that you'd have to do that to make it work, just acknowledging that's what some will want to do.

 

[Janet Hughes Defra]

On that basis there is a long list of Govt bodies and quangos who wont be eligible for ELMS, on the basis that they are already under statutory obligation - and funded by the taxpayer - to deliver public good on the land they own/manage. Yes ?

It's not quite that straightforward - we'll set out the rules relating to public bodies when we publish the scheme rules for each scheme

 

[Huno]

Yes we're designing ELM schemes to pay enough for to make business sense on their own. We set out our approach to payments in this document last year: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/environmental-land-management-schemes-payment-principles

The document says:

1. 'We will set payment rates to encourage wide participation, whilst fairly and effectively paying farmers for achieving environmental and climate outcomes.
2. We want payments that, as far as possible, recognise and pay for outcomes that can be delivered through a wide range of activities.
3. We want payments which recognise the value of existing natural assets and don’t unfairly disadvantage those who are already protecting and enhancing these assets to achieve good environmental and climate outcomes.
4. We want payments that form part of a growing market for environmental outcomes, where scheme participants can earn income from public and private sector sources.'

Some farmers, alongside government schemes, will also be interested in selling public goods to other buyers such as water companies, as some already do now. Our aim is to facilitate that and 'crowd in' private finance alongside government investment. In saying that, I'm not implying that you should have to do that or that we're expecting everyone to do it, or that you'd have to do that to make it work, just acknowledging that's what some will want to do.

Yes we're designing ELM schemes to pay enough for to make business sense on their own. We set out our approach to payments in this document last year: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/environmental-land-management-schemes-payment-principles

The document says:

1. 'We will set payment rates to encourage wide participation, whilst fairly and effectively paying farmers for achieving environmental and climate outcomes.
2. We want payments that, as far as possible, recognise and pay for outcomes that can be delivered through a wide range of activities.
3. We want payments which recognise the value of existing natural assets and don’t unfairly disadvantage those who are already protecting and enhancing these assets to achieve good environmental and climate outcomes.
4. We want payments that form part of a growing market for environmental outcomes, where scheme participants can earn income from public and private sector sources.'

Some farmers, alongside government schemes, will also be interested in selling public goods to other buyers such as water companies, as some already do now. Our aim is to facilitate that and 'crowd in' private finance alongside government investment. In saying that, I'm not implying that you should have to do that or that we're expecting everyone to do it, or that you'd have to do that to make it work, just acknowledging that's what some will want to do.

So we are right to protest when we either can't meet your prescriptions or won't meet your prescriptions with the lack of fluidity in your current offers.. i rest my case. The new schemes are not currently inclusive or fit for purpose as you reduce all BPS....

 

[holwellcourtfarm]

That's one of the questions we need to work through, with farmers and private sector buyers of public goods, as the markets and our new schemes develop. Our aim is for you to be able to draw income from a range of sources for the public goods you're producing alongside food. We (and private sector buyers of the goods) won't want to pay for the exact same actions or outcomes twice, but we do also recognise that sometimes you'll want / need to combine income from several sources to make something worthwhile.

If you're interested in this area I'd be keen for you to have a chat with my team working on this, we're keen to understand how farmers might see this sort of arrangement working as the private sector opportunities develop over the next few years alongside our new schemes. Let me know if that's something you'd be up for?

PM sent

 

[Huno]

PM sent

BUMP

 

[Huno]

It's not quite that straightforward - we'll set out the rules relating to public bodies when we publish the scheme rules for each scheme

It is not simple at all and you are only offering us £44 max per Ha minus costs and you are accepting some double funding for SFI22 but no other double funding within your power ...which has led to double standards already.. Tenant standards vs Landlord Standards??? You cannot defend this unless you scrap SFI22 until 24/25 when we have all business options available and you have cash to burn???