Public Accounts Committee enquiry into ELMS

[Treg]

And my thanks go to the TFF Grassroots Mob and the estimable Mr Boden, for their efforts and submissions to the PAC.

My gut instinct, is that their work was read, absorbed, and taken on board.

The committee does seemed to have listened, will Defra listen to them ? And can they change the direction their going in?

 

[Goweresque]

I don't know the specifics of the 500 ha earmarking you mention.

ELMS is split into 3 pots of money, each with a budget of c. £800m. The Sustainable Farming Initiative is open to anyone regardless of acreage, the Local Nature Recovery tier equally so, but probably aimed more at larger farms or groups of small ones co-operating, and the Landscape Recovery tier is only open to claimants who control 500ha minimum. Defra claim the latter will be accessible by small farmers co-operating to reach that level, but we all know thats just not going to happen, and only large landowners acting as sole applicants will get their fingers in that pie. Ergo the wealthiest landowners have access to all the 3 pots of money, whereas the smallest landowners have access to 2 at best, and maybe only one.

Under BPS everyone gets the same per acre, so yes the 5000 acre farmer gets fifty times the BPS that the 100 acre one does, but under ELMS the 5000 acre farmer will get more per acre than the 100 acre one can. He will be getting disproportionately more than the smaller farmer. He might end up getting £60-70/acre across his 5k acres, the 100 acre guy might be getting £20-30. So £300k+ vs £2-3k. Mr Big has 50 times the acreage but over 100 times the £££.......

Perhaps Janet Hughes and her Defra team are staunch Christians, because as the Bible says: 'For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance: but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath' The gospel according to Matthew, chapter 13 verse 12.

 

[Humble Village Farmer]

ELMS is split into 3 pots of money, each with a budget of c. £800m. The Sustainable Farming Initiative is open to anyone regardless of acreage, the Local Nature Recovery tier equally so, but probably aimed more at larger farms or groups of small ones co-operating, and the Landscape Recovery tier is only open to claimants who control 500ha minimum. Defra claim the latter will be accessible by small farmers co-operating to reach that level, but we all know thats just not going to happen, and only large landowners acting as sole applicants will get their fingers in that pie. Ergo the wealthiest landowners have access to all the 3 pots of money, whereas the smallest landowners have access to 2 at best, and maybe only one.

Under BPS everyone gets the same per acre, so yes the 5000 acre farmer gets fifty times the BPS that the 100 acre one does, but under ELMS the 5000 acre farmer will get more per acre than the 100 acre one can. He will be getting disproportionately more than the smaller farmer. He might end up getting £60-70/acre across his 5k acres, the 100 acre guy might be getting £20-30. So £300k+ vs £2-3k. Mr Big has 50 times the acreage but over 100 times the £££.......

Perhaps Janet Hughes and her Defra team are staunch Christians, because as the Bible says: 'For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance: but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath' The gospel according to Matthew, chapter 13 verse 12.

So not specifically for big farmers then, even if your point about cooperation is correct.

 

[steveR]

The committee does seemed to have listened, will Defra listen to them ? And can they change the direction their going in?

That will depend on the political pressures that can be laid on DEFRA now, I guess.

 

[Huno]

Have just received the Public Accounts Committee report on ELMS, and associated press release. I think 'damning' pretty much covers it. It is embargoed until Sunday so will post on here then, just starting a thread now in case anyone else who has had it is less worried about such niceties and wants to put it up now.
(go on @holwellcourtfarm you know you want to ).

Lets get a Barrister to support us??

 

[Huno]

Have just received the Public Accounts Committee report on ELMS, and associated press release. I think 'damning' pretty much covers it. It is embargoed until Sunday so will post on here then, just starting a thread now in case anyone else who has had it is less worried about such niceties and wants to put it up now.
(go on @holwellcourtfarm you know you want to ).

Barrister.. no win no fee??

 

[Goweresque]

So not specifically for big farmers then, even if your point about cooperation is correct.

How is '500ha minimum application area' not aimed at large landowners?

 

[holwellcourtfarm]

So not specifically for big farmers then, even if your point about cooperation is correct.

LR is targeted at big schemes from 500 to 5000 ha. It's competetive and you must deliver landscape scale change offering multiple public goods. It will include significant funding to design and co-ordinate the scheme. It's clearly aimed at large estates or NGO's who can persuade groups of landowners to let them create a bid across their land. Schemes will run 30+ years and create permanent land use change. The recipient does not have to be a farmer.

Does that sound like it's feasible to a 200 acre farmer?

LNR will be open to smaller projects which fit with the targets set in "Local nature recovery plans" when the NGO's and QUANGOs get round to writing them. Theoretically it will be for smaller areas and easier to get into but it too is to create permanent land use change using long agreements.

Does that sound easier?

That's about all the detail we have so far unless I've missed something.

 

[Huno]

How is '500ha minimum application area' not aimed at large landowners?

Cricket?? It is not...

 

[Jackov Altraids]

And how do you think the PAC would view the payment of £3bn to the richest section of society if that were allowed to continue?

By one means or another, much of the £3billion paid to actual farmers will have subsidised the price of food to a similar value. That is what would make the PAC quite content.
Every country subsidises or promotes its produce so food prices across the world are usually artificially low.
The SFI would be a world leading success if it simply paid a premium for any produce that was produced sustainably.
Or even simpler, put a large levy on any food imports that were not.

As it currently stands, the schemes will give most of its money to the wealthiest, put the most sustainable out of business and promote imports of any persuasion.
There have been many recent environmental success stories and from my personal experience, nature is really flourishing. There is every likelihood that those successes will be reversed.

 

[Grass And Grain]

First thought - Looks to me like DEFRA are using farmers as a low cost way to deliver carbon capture and sequestration commitments.

Other analysis:-

This PAC seem to have summed up the situation of how ELMS fails. Promoting stewardship options, reducing potential food supply, importing more food, offshoring environmental issues, no logical explanation how farmers will maintain profit levels without BPS, etc. Exactly what the farmers have been saying on TFF, twitter etc. for months.

If the PAC committee can take a quick look at the job and make sensible conclusions as above, why haven't DEFRA been able to realise the same.

What planet were DEFRA on when they came up with ELMS. Designing ELMS has been the full time job for teams of people at DEFRA

As for the 500ha minimum area for landscape change measures, well...if that's things like afforestation, flood management schemes, arable reversion, etc......then why can't it be accessible to all farm sizes? And with 1/3rd of the total budget allocated to this, it's a lot of land taken out of food production, and hence MORE imports from slash amd burn created South American supply.

 

[Against_the_grain]

It looks like finally some common sense has been established. All Defra seems to be concerned about is the latest fashion of rewilding, nature recovery etc...They have completely missed the point of food production/security which actually underpins sustainable farming. If farmers are forced to become less productive then they will also be forced to be less sustainable. Imo we have been doing a bloody good job over the last century of managing to produce affordable, high quality food whilst being sustainable and all without destroying the environment (despite what the guardian says). If you want to see farming which is completely unsustainable and causing real environmental damage look to Brazil, China etc...defra need to get in the real world

 

[Farma Parma]

Have just received the Public Accounts Committee report on ELMS, and associated press release. I think 'damning' pretty much covers it. It is embargoed until Sunday so will post on here then, just starting a thread now in case anyone else who has had it is less worried about such niceties and wants to put it up now.
(go on @holwellcourtfarm you know you want to ).

That Word Docx is a staggering read, big thanks for getting that out too the right place.
we are heading for farmadeggon & the powers that be bloody well know this.

 

[Farma Parma]

These are exactly the options they want us to consider, rather than farming for very little or no return.

If you look at all the great civilisations, they all depend on a healthy agricultural sector, which we don't seem to have at the moment.

Home Sourced food isnt on no UK Gov agenda thats the trouble....

 

[Farma Parma]

How is '500ha minimum application area' not aimed at large landowners?

Yeah LARGE LAND OWNERS never gonna be Tenant Farmers involved here not even AHA surely its too long a commitment?

 

[Steevo]

Have just received the Public Accounts Committee report on ELMS, and associated press release. I think 'damning' pretty much covers it. It is embargoed until Sunday so will post on here then, just starting a thread now in case anyone else who has had it is less worried about such niceties and wants to put it up now.
(go on @holwellcourtfarm you know you want to ).

You seem very well connected!

 

[Muddyroads]

Any reason why this was embargoed until a Sunday morning? Quite a good way to reduce the amount of negative press coverage about it unless it gets widely reported tomorrow.

 

[Still Farming]

Yes, it’s England/DEFRA only.

Our lot have decided, probably wisely, to see how much flack DEFRA get, before coming up with their own, probably equally damaging, Ag bill. Due this Spring I think.

Unless talked about MP's bring actions to over power these devolved nations ???

 

[onesiedale]

You seem very well connected!

anybody who took the time to submit evidence to the Public Accounts Committee enquiry would have seen a copy of the report last week.
You don't have to be well connected, just passionate about your industry.

 

[Hindsight]

Any reason why this was embargoed until a Sunday morning? Quite a good way to reduce the amount of negative press coverage about it unless it gets widely reported tomorrow.

Looked in the Sunday Times which I thought might have run with it. Maybe Monday then.