New information about local nature recovery and landscape recovery

[Hindsight]

Talk is now that the fuel price cap will have to be adjusted up again in October to north of £3k. So from about £1200 now its going to about £1900 in April and could hit £3200 just as winter kicks in. Thats over £60/week.

Ukraine crisis: Warning UK energy bills could top £3,000 a year

The conflict in Ukraine could push the energy price cap to £3,238 a year from October, a report warns.

www.bbc.co.uk

197
Thats nearly tripling inside 6 months. If that happens there's going to be a lot of cold (or worse) pensioners at those prices, and a LOT of angry voters. I predict fracking will be given the green light by the end of the year and that big oil field in the North Sea that the eco-nutters put the mockers on will be back on, and any other domestic sources of energy (fossil fuel or otherwise) will all be told to maximise production. That coal mine in Cumbria better get its application resubmitted, it'll get rubber stamped in a day.

1973 OPEC price shock led to 10 years double digit inflation.

 

[The Seeker]

I can see a turn on the green policy , it’s a good thing to do when the opportunity is available but it seems like we need to focus on energy and food, in 10 years we can look again at extensive greening

 

[holwellcourtfarm]

Talk is now that the fuel price cap will have to be adjusted up again in October to north of £3k. So from about £1200 now its going to about £1900 in April and could hit £3200 just as winter kicks in. Thats over £60/week.

Ukraine crisis: Warning UK energy bills could top £3,000 a year

The conflict in Ukraine could push the energy price cap to £3,238 a year from October, a report warns.

www.bbc.co.uk

Thats nearly tripling inside 6 months. If that happens there's going to be a lot of cold (or worse) pensioners at those prices, and a LOT of angry voters. I predict fracking will be given the green light by the end of the year and that big oil field in the North Sea that the eco-nutters put the mockers on will be back on, and any other domestic sources of energy (fossil fuel or otherwise) will all be told to maximise production. That coal mine in Cumbria better get its application resubmitted, it'll get rubber stamped in a day.

I can see a turn on the green policy , it’s a good thing to do when the opportunity is available but it seems like we need to focus on energy and food, in 10 years we can look again at extensive greening

Better get ready for the weather of the last week to become the normal then.....

 

[holwellcourtfarm]

Even Princess Anne agrees :

 

[Jackov Altraids]

Yes, but for the period following referendum when it became possible for government to adopt own ag policy, the message has been that the subsidy was capitalised into rental and reward for land ownershus. Thus without the sub rent’s would adjust and land values reduce and reward for ownership reduce. The. Impression from any government politician civil servant being farming would continue as that was profitable. Could it be they made a judgemental error?

It wasn't an error.
It was bullsh!t and they knew it was bullsh!t.

All the statistics show that BPS was a considerable part of many farms incomes and underwrote the success of the rest.
George Useless blithely spouted that it would all work out as he is an idiot.

BPS was a reward for land ownership and I'll not be sad to see it go.
But we all know that the removal of BPS is much more complicated than that.

It is even more complicated when they will be using the same money to reduce/ stop production. With BPS there was a need for a landowner to pretend it was being actively farmed. It could be argued that it subsidised rents. ELMS won't.

I still wouldn't have a problem with ELMS if it was likely to achieve anything. It won't.

I would be surprised if in a decade, Britain is as sustainable and environmentally well endowed as it is today, let alone better.

 

[wanton dwarf]

I would be surprised if in a decade, Britain is as sustainable and environmentally well endowed as it is today, let alone better.

I expect the whole "Carbon Trading" and "Environmental" systems to be played and scammed over and over and over again.

Especially the systems controlled by any London based "Exchange".

I also suspect many of those involved in creating these policies know exactly how it will be played - that includes creating policy to dumb down UK farming whilst at the same time promoting imports.

 

[The Seeker]

Better get ready for the weather of the last week to become the normal then.....

If you think afew hedges and lower n rates is what is causing the storms then I’m not sure how to argue with u

 

[holwellcourtfarm]

If you think afew hedges and lower n rates is what is causing the storms then I’m not sure how to argue with u

Did I say that?

The need for society to address climate emissions is now. It's doubtful that we can avoid 2°C average global sea level temperature rise as it is but if we wait another 10 years to start significantly cutting fossil fuel use them we are more likely to end up at 3°C+

The implications of that aren't nice.

 

[yellow belly]

Did I say that?

The need for society to address climate emissions is now. It's doubtful that we can avoid 2°C average global sea level temperature rise as it is but if we wait another 10 years to start significantly cutting fossil fuel use them we are more likely to end up at 3°C+

The implications of that aren't nice.

Russian China and India will not do enough to reduce their emission to avoid 2 degrees

 

[Bokey]

Did I say that?

The need for society to address climate emissions is now. It's doubtful that we can avoid 2°C average global sea level temperature rise as it is but if we wait another 10 years to start significantly cutting fossil fuel use them we are more likely to end up at 3°C+

The implications of that aren't nice.

If we keep following this mantra it won't matter anyway we'll be owned by China Russia and India

 

[Hindsight]

Russian China and India will not do enough to reduce their emission to avoid 2 degrees

They will do feck all.

 

[BrianV]

Even Princess Anne agrees :

View attachment 1019072

Thank goodness, that is one truly sensible woman, maybe she & Batters could exchange places for a while!

 

[steveR]

Thank goodness, that is one truly sensible woman, maybe she & Batters could exchange places for a while!

Always had more time for her than her Brothers... well 2 of them!

 

[Goweresque]

With BPS there was a need for a landowner to pretend it was being actively farmed. It could be argued that it subsidised rents. ELMS won't.

Of course it will subsidise rents. Its a subsidy available to those who farm land. Ergo a significant proportion of the benefit that arises to the active farmer will be demanded by the landowner in the initial rental negotiations. Landowners will look at the potential for ELMS to add to the earning capacity of their land, and set their rent demands accordingly. Why would they do otherwise?

 

[Jackov Altraids]

Of course it will subsidise rents. Its a subsidy available to those who farm land. Ergo a significant proportion of the benefit that arises to the active farmer will be demanded by the landowner in the initial rental negotiations. Landowners will look at the potential for ELMS to add to the earning capacity of their land, and set their rent demands accordingly. Why would they do otherwise?

Could you please explain how you think that will work in practice.

The options for SFI don't seem very compatible for rented land and the amounts to be claimed are barely worth the hassle let alone worth splitting.

The landscape recovery options are about permanent land use change so will not be farmed.

The Local Nature Recovery options will initially cover the following themes:

• managing feeding, shelter and breeding areas for wildlife on arable farms
• managing, restoring and creating grassland habitats such as species-rich grassland on farms and in the wider countryside
• managing, restoring and creating wetland habitats such as ponds, lakes, reedbeds and fens
• managing, restoring and creating lowland heathland
• managing, restoring and creating coastal habitats such as sand dunes, salt marsh and shingle
• managing and restoring areas of upland and lowland peat and moorland on farms and in the wider countryside
• targeted measures to support the recovery and reintroduction of particular wildlife species, such as creating and managing nesting and feeding habitat, and to tackle non-native invasive species
• managing and creating trees and woodlands, including agroforestry, traditional orchards and tree planting on areas of farms – noting that the England Woodland Creation Offer will be the main scheme for woodland creation until 2025
• nature-based solutions for water – such as creating and managing in-field vegetation, buffer strips and swales to reduce and filter runoff and contribute to natural flood management
• restoring rivers, flood plains, streams and riparian habitats

I'm not sure if any of that will mean someone will offer me money to graze......

 

[ajcc]

Of course it will subsidise rents. Its a subsidy available to those who farm land. Ergo a significant proportion of the benefit that arises to the active farmer will be demanded by the landowner in the initial rental negotiations. Landowners will look at the potential for ELMS to add to the earning capacity of their land, and set their rent demands accordingly. Why would they do otherwise?

But ELMs is set to drastically reduce the earning capacity of farmed land rented or owned.. Set to make agriculture uneconomic. Set to denude England of family farms with all the associated socio economic impact to rural communities.

 

[Goweresque]

Could you please explain how you think that will work in practice.

The options for SFI don't seem very compatible for rented land and the amounts to be claimed are barely worth the hassle let alone worth splitting.

The landscape recovery options are about permanent land use change so will not be farmed.

The Local Nature Recovery options will initially cover the following themes:

• managing feeding, shelter and breeding areas for wildlife on arable farms
• managing, restoring and creating grassland habitats such as species-rich grassland on farms and in the wider countryside
• managing, restoring and creating wetland habitats such as ponds, lakes, reedbeds and fens
• managing, restoring and creating lowland heathland
• managing, restoring and creating coastal habitats such as sand dunes, salt marsh and shingle
• managing and restoring areas of upland and lowland peat and moorland on farms and in the wider countryside
• targeted measures to support the recovery and reintroduction of particular wildlife species, such as creating and managing nesting and feeding habitat, and to tackle non-native invasive species
• managing and creating trees and woodlands, including agroforestry, traditional orchards and tree planting on areas of farms – noting that the England Woodland Creation Offer will be the main scheme for woodland creation until 2025
• nature-based solutions for water – such as creating and managing in-field vegetation, buffer strips and swales to reduce and filter runoff and contribute to natural flood management
• restoring rivers, flood plains, streams and riparian habitats

I'm not sure if any of that will mean someone will offer me money to graze......

It all depends on the amount of money being offered of course. But the principle remains - money offered to 'people who actively farm land' will inevitably find its way (in part at least) to 'people who own land'. So far SFI only covers one standard there are more to come. The payments for LNR and what is required to get them are not known. But when they are you can bet your bottom dollar that landlords (or their agents) will be combing through it to see what are the simplest and most lucrative elements, then incorporating at least 50% of that value into the rent they demand. After all they could contract farm it themselves and collect all the ELMS money, so why would they rent it out and let the tenant get it all?

ELMS is no different in principle to any farm subsidy. It will affect rents, all subsidies do. The degree to which it does will be determined by how much 'profit' there is in it. If ELMS category X gets you Y in payment but costs 80% of Y in setup and admin costs then a) that won't affect rents much, and b) neither will owner occupiers take it up. On the other hand if ELMS consisted of the @delilah idea of a fat payment for PP, what do you think the effect would be on rents of PP?

 

[delilah]

On the other hand if ELMS consisted of the @delilah idea of a fat payment for PP, what do you think the effect would be on rents of PP?

I've not suggested a 'fat' payment for PP; £220/Ha is to all intents and purposes where we are now at. The transformative impact of what I have suggested is to remove the area payment and any associated conditions from cropped land, thus freeing folks up to focus on farming this land in whatever way they feel most appropriate. Pay folks to restore hedgerows to a healthy, bio-diverse rich condition, pay them attractive rates to protect watercourses, but don't meddle in cropping decisions. And before anyone once again says just leave the BPS in place on everything, it won't happen, because for political reasons ELMS has to be seen as a departure from where we are now.

 

[delilah]

Even Princess Anne agrees :

View attachment 1019072

and she was doing so well until she got to the final two paras

 

[Jackov Altraids]

It all depends on the amount of money being offered of course. But the principle remains - money offered to 'people who actively farm land' will inevitably find its way (in part at least) to 'people who own land'. So far SFI only covers one standard there are more to come. The payments for LNR and what is required to get them are not known. But when they are you can bet your bottom dollar that landlords (or their agents) will be combing through it to see what are the simplest and most lucrative elements, then incorporating at least 50% of that value into the rent they demand. After all they could contract farm it themselves and collect all the ELMS money, so why would they rent it out and let the tenant get it all?

ELMS is no different in principle to any farm subsidy. It will affect rents, all subsidies do. The degree to which it does will be determined by how much 'profit' there is in it. If ELMS category X gets you Y in payment but costs 80% of Y in setup and admin costs then a) that won't affect rents much, and b) neither will owner occupiers take it up. On the other hand if ELMS consisted of the @delilah idea of a fat payment for PP, what do you think the effect would be on rents of PP?

If there was an area payment on pp, I would expect a market rate would set the price of rent. PP needs to be grazed but has to be a margin for tenant but owner will run own stock if not enough rent.
LNR is the only option for letting/ renting grass and no details are available but you can be pretty sure that the requirements and records will be much more onerous than simply abiding by GAEC. This will complicate the whole area of who claims and who takes responsibilities.
Add in the the problem of differing timescales for rental and scheme agreements, it could be a minefield that people don't want to play in.
It could certainly put a premium on land to let which is free of controls.

But all this could be irrelevant as I see the value of land to farm far outstripping payments offered for environmental schemes.