Public Accounts Committee enquiry into ELMS

[Ffermer Bach]

I think something will kick off in the Ukraine, this will affect world food supply (loss of exports of wheat from Russia and Ukraine) and will make any schemes like ELMS which try to reduce productivity pretty irrelevant. It is always the case that governments "fight the last war", France building a Maginot line (which Hitler went round), or spending billions building a high speed rail line, just as broadband is allowing people to work from home!

 

[Janet Hughes Defra]

bump
@Janet Hughes Defra

A flat rate of £148/yr, plus £6.45/Ha.
is identical to
£6.45/Ha.
That is to say, £148 is such a tiny sum of money it isn't worth Defra administering it or a farmer claiming it. What will £148 buy me ? A tyre for the van ? Half a dozen energy buckets ? A pot to p!ss in ?

So, no, it's not remotely the same as a higher rate for the first xHa.
No matter, I think we both see where I am coming form, so I will plough on (don't think it's banned yet ).


I have dug out a fair few Govt papers pertinent to ELMS. I consider this one to be the most important of the lot.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/666713/structure-june-eng-lessfavouredareas-13dec17.xls#:~:text=Less%20Favoured%20Areas%20(LFA)%20were,Disadvantaged%20Areas'%20(SDA).


I really, really hope that your team are familiar with the contents, and are constantly referencing it as they carry out their desk top studies into different ideas for ELMS.

We have to keep those farms farming. If we don't, then ELMS fails. We need to go further than that. We need to see the number of farming businesses increase. If we do that, then ELMS is a success. Critical mass.
https://thefarmingforum.co.uk/index.php?threads/critical-mass.358840/


The crux of it is this:
- You need to develop standards that pay a high enough rate in order for those farms to survive.
- If you pay that rate on every Ha, you exceed your budget.
- There is only one way to square that circle; a higher rate on the first xHa.
Yes ?

Thanks for sharing the papers, I'll take a look. I do understand the point about less favoured areas and that schemes need to make financial and business sense for farms. That is why we're working with farmers to design and test the new schemes. We're not just doing desk top studies, we're working with approx 4,000 farmers to design the new schemes by testing them on the ground through tests and trials, the SFI pilot, user research, co-design workshops and ongoing engagement.

I don't agree that the only way to solve a problem is a fixed rate for the first x ha, no. However as I've said previously, we'll keep payment policy and rates under review as we go.

 

[Cheesehead]

Thanks for sharing the papers, I'll take a look. I do understand the point about less favoured areas and that schemes need to make financial and business sense for farms. That is why we're working with farmers to design and test the new schemes. We're not just doing desk top studies, we're working with approx 4,000 farmers to design the new schemes by testing them on the ground through tests and trials, the SFI pilot, user research, co-design workshops and ongoing engagement.

I don't agree that the only way to solve a problem is a fixed rate for the first x ha, no. However as I've said previously, we'll keep payment policy and rates under review as we go.

Out of just pure nosiness do you know how many of the 4000 are active farmers as opposed to land owners as there are multiple close by who refer to themselves as farmers as they have a few acres but other than grow a cloud of thistles and hogweed don't actually do anything with the land generally living off other work, spouse, public sector pension or divorce settlement but don't actually raise any stock, grow crops or even keep a couple of ponies?

 

[topground]

Thanks for sharing the papers, I'll take a look. I do understand the point about less favoured areas and that schemes need to make financial and business sense for farms. That is why we're working with farmers to design and test the new schemes. We're not just doing desk top studies, we're working with approx 4,000 farmers to design the new schemes by testing them on the ground through tests and trials, the SFI pilot, user research, co-design workshops and ongoing engagement.

I don't agree that the only way to solve a problem is a fixed rate for the first x ha, no. However as I've said previously, we'll keep payment policy and rates under review as we go.

4000 farmers working with DEFRA. Any of those 4000 reading this thread care to comment on their experience or start their own thread?
Having watched a couple of the Defra farming propaganda videos they come across following a script that avoids any mention of the economic impact of applying SFI.
Destruction of Economic Farming and Rural Activity comes to mind.

 

[Ffermer Bach]

Out of just pure nosiness do you know how many of the 4000 are active farmers as opposed to land owners as there are multiple close by who refer to themselves as farmers as they have a few acres but other than grow a cloud of thistles and hogweed don't actually do anything with the land generally living off other work, spouse, public sector pension or divorce settlement but don't actually raise any stock, grow crops or even keep a couple of ponies?

I recall from college, 180 standard working days a year equalled a full time job (from John Nix), so I guess only those with 180 days work a year?

 

[Huno]

I recall from college, 180 standard working days a year equalled a full time job (from John Nix), so I guess only those with 180 days work a year?

Dont trust John Nix. . Anderson's own John Nix and have just reduced crap CS options ( on commission) as they are Gov.Uk agents like Ricardo's at Shoreham.. they are tweed wearing land agents not land managers ...

 

[Huno]

Dont trust John Nix. . Anderson's own John Nix and have just reduced crap CS options ( on commission) as they are Gov.Uk agents like Ricardo's at Shoreham.. they are tweed wearing land agents not land managers ...

John Nix is always out of date... just look at their fert prices.. sorry cords not tweed...

 

[wanton dwarf]

I think something will kick off in the Ukraine, this will affect world food supply (loss of exports of wheat from Russia and Ukraine) and will make any schemes like ELMS which try to reduce productivity pretty irrelevant. It is always the case that governments "fight the last war", France building a Maginot line (which Hitler went round), or spending billions building a high speed rail line, just as broadband is allowing people to work from home!

I think you are correct. Something is going to happen in Ukraine.

But that doesn't excuse DEFRA, EA, Natural England etc from persecuting English Farmers at the behest of £Millionaires in Westminster & Charities.

We MIGHT breath a sigh of relief in the short term. But I do think we ALL need to start thinking of our own survival and mitigation from these policies - none of the Civil Service are there to serve the Public.

 

[Ffermer Bach]

I think you are correct. Something is going to happen in Ukraine.

But that doesn't excuse DEFRA, EA, Natural England etc from persecuting English Farmers at the behest of £Millionaires in Westminster & Charities.

We MIGHT breath a sigh of relief in the short term. But I do think we ALL need to start thinking of our own survival and mitigation from these policies - none of the Civil Service are there to serve the Public.

I think they are there to serve the Civil Service!

 

[Jackov Altraids]

I think they are there to serve the Civil Service!

"

"

 

[onesiedale]

We're not just doing desk top studies, we're working with approx 4,000 farmers to design the new schemes by testing them on the ground through tests and trials, the SFI pilot, user research, co-design workshops and ongoing engagement.

@Janet Hughes Defra
This all sounds extremely scientific and complicated. Really, it's not rocket science. All we have to do is give more credit to our soils and wildlife.
It's disappointing that you dismiss so readily the suggestion made by @delilah about paying a set rate for the 1st x Ha. This is surely a simple mechanism to distribute funds fairly to the smaller more vulnerable farming businesses, the ones that in general can contribute the greatest amount to any rural ecosystems AND economy.

Why is this logical mechanism being ignored in favour of the huge schemes that will require oversized management structures and therefore a greater risk of failure?

As farmers and managers of ecosystems, we all know that the more diverse a system is then the more resilient it is. This applies to rural businesses and people as well as the landscape and wildlife.

 

[WOODCHIP]

I think you are correct. Something is going to happen in Ukraine.

But that doesn't excuse DEFRA, EA, Natural England etc from persecuting English Farmers at the behest of £Millionaires in Westminster & Charities.

We MIGHT breath a sigh of relief in the short term. But I do think we ALL need to start thinking of our own survival and mitigation from these policies - none of the Civil Service are there to serve the Public.

I agree Wharton dwarf we need to start thinking about ourselves Defra will only give you a enough just to tempt you on desperation to hang on to what you have. We s boycott them. I’ve decided to go alone and sell my remaining cows and convert the rest of my buildings to units/storage etc , as I have already done others in last 10 years and it pays better than any pathetic scheme Defra are offering without the hassle of paper work and inspections.

 

[Fiacre]

I think you are correct. Something is going to happen in Ukraine.

It already has.

Putin’s actions has sent the cost of energy rocketing, creating uncertainty and exposing divisions in the West and damaging the world‘s economy; whilst at the same time increasing Russia’s income from its gas exports.

Without even the first shot being fired he has increased his power base at home and made the West look divided and weak. Not for nothing do Russians make some of the best chess players.

 

[delilah]

Thanks for sharing the papers, I'll take a look

Thank you. Although titled 'Less Favoured Areas' it is about so much more than that. I haven't seen another Govt publication that so succinctly highlights the makeup of farming in England. They are the businesses for which ELMS needs to be attractive.

I don't agree that the only way to solve a problem is a fixed rate for the first x ha, no.

Apologies, I don't understand that statement. All SFI options on the table at present offer a fixed rate per Ha. I take it you mean 'a higher rate for the first x Ha ' .



I'm not suggesting it is the only way to solve a problem, but in the absence of any other suggestions from Defra I don't see how you are going to address the below. Are there elements to ELMS as it stands that I have missed, that address this issue ?

The crux of it is this:
- You need to develop standards that pay a high enough rate in order for those farms to survive.
- If you pay that rate on every Ha, you exceed your budget.
- There is only one way to square that circle; a higher rate on the first xHa.
Yes ?

 

[Ffermer Bach]

@Janet Hughes Defra
This all sounds extremely scientific and complicated. Really, it's not rocket science. All we have to do is give more credit to our soils and wildlife.
It's disappointing that you dismiss so readily the suggestion made by @delilah about paying a set rate for the 1st x Ha. This is surely a simple mechanism to distribute funds fairly to the smaller more vulnerable farming businesses, the ones that in general can contribute the greatest amount to any rural ecosystems AND economy.

Why is this logical mechanism being ignored in favour of the huge schemes that will require oversized management structures and therefore a greater risk of failure?

As farmers and managers of ecosystems, we all know that the more diverse a system is then the more resilient it is. This applies to rural businesses and people as well as the landscape and wildlife.

my cousin used to be a visiting officer for the DSS (visit claimants at home to make sure they were not cheating the system) and I remember him telling me in Australia there were only 4 or 5 benefits that could be claimed, rather than the myriad of different schemes we had here, which made it far simpler and cheaper to administer. That is also the argument towards the flat rate tax system, rather than the way our tax system morphed into a complex

 

[wanton dwarf]

It already has.

Putin’s actions has sent the cost of energy rocketing, creating uncertainty and exposing divisions in the West and damaging the world‘s economy; whilst at the same time increasing Russia’s income from its gas exports.

Without even the first shot being fired he has increased his power base at home and made the West look divided and weak. Not for nothing do Russians make some of the best chess players.

Nothing wrong with increased Russian Gas prices.

The rest of the world has a problem of their own creation, imagine if Russia had a crysis in their machinery such they cannot supply gas at all - France has about 20% of it's Nuclear Reactors down currently due to manufacturing faults.

Putin has won this one before it even starts and the cause is mainly Germany & UK.

 

[Huno]

Government promises profitable farming post-Brexit

Farmers concerned by Michael Gove’s recent environmental overtures welcome Defra vow

www.theguardian.com

 

[Spencer]

Government promises profitable farming post-Brexit

Farmers concerned by Michael Gove’s recent environmental overtures welcome Defra vow

www.theguardian.com

That’s 3 years old

 

[delilah]

Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown MP, who Chaired this PAC enquiry into ELMS, would appear to have been sufficiently agitated to call for a debate in Parliament next Tuesday.

https://whatson.parliament.uk/event/cal37419

 

[Huno]

That’s 3 years old

My point exactly Spencer...