Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New resources
Latest activity
Trending Threads
Resources
Latest reviews
Search resources
FarmTV
Farm Compare
Search
Tokens/Searches
Calendar
Upcoming Events
Members
Registered members
Current visitors
New Resources
New posts
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More options
Contact us
Close Menu
Forums
Farm Business
Agricultural Matters
New SFI Capital grants on used machinery etc
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Jackov Altraids" data-source="post: 7721286" data-attributes="member: 3566"><p>Ok, here's my answer;</p><p></p><p>Defra have a choice. They have a simple scheme that doesn't try to be perfect but any money 'wasted' is much less than the cost of running a more complicated scheme and you have a much higher proportion of uptake.</p><p></p><p>or;</p><p></p><p>You have a very complicated scheme with precise aims and achievements.</p><p></p><p>The current proposals fall squarely between the 2. A complicated scheme that doesn't even know what it is trying to achieve therefore has confused aims.</p><p></p><p>If the scheme had precise aims, all the money being thrown at 'advice' should actually be for any land owner/manager to make a proposal of how they will meet those aims and how/ what funding that it requires. Those millions being spent on advisors is a complete waste of time unless you can formulate a plan together. If you are going to take the time and expense of formulating a plan, why the hell shouldn't it be bespoke?</p><p></p><p>Edited to add;</p><p></p><p>Your bespoke plan could include buying a second hand plough, cutting your own fencing stakes or anything that led to the desired outcome of reducing carbon footprint, increasing sustainability or improving the environment. </p><p> Bespoke plans should be able to combine all 3.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Jackov Altraids, post: 7721286, member: 3566"] Ok, here's my answer; Defra have a choice. They have a simple scheme that doesn't try to be perfect but any money 'wasted' is much less than the cost of running a more complicated scheme and you have a much higher proportion of uptake. or; You have a very complicated scheme with precise aims and achievements. The current proposals fall squarely between the 2. A complicated scheme that doesn't even know what it is trying to achieve therefore has confused aims. If the scheme had precise aims, all the money being thrown at 'advice' should actually be for any land owner/manager to make a proposal of how they will meet those aims and how/ what funding that it requires. Those millions being spent on advisors is a complete waste of time unless you can formulate a plan together. If you are going to take the time and expense of formulating a plan, why the hell shouldn't it be bespoke? Edited to add; Your bespoke plan could include buying a second hand plough, cutting your own fencing stakes or anything that led to the desired outcome of reducing carbon footprint, increasing sustainability or improving the environment. Bespoke plans should be able to combine all 3. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Farm Business
Agricultural Matters
New SFI Capital grants on used machinery etc
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top