SFI....FUBAR

[spin cycle]

It was pretty obvious it was heading this way from the start.

I was full of hope ....then again I'm an ejit

 

[SilliamWhale]

I was full of hope ....then again I'm an ejit

As someone else has said the best angle for farmers on this is that we are prevented from achieving our environmental aims but also cannot produce the commodities cheap enough so can the clever people in the world suggest the alternative as we are unable to do either

 

[Steevo]

As someone else has said the best angle for farmers on this is that we are prevented from achieving our environmental aims but also cannot produce the commodities cheap enough so can the clever people in the world suggest the alternative as we are unable to do either

The government hold the cards either way.

They are stopping farmers efficiently producing cheap food
They are not stopping farmers producing certain environmental goods.


It does seem rather mad when they say that these options don't work on a large scale given that:

A 1000ha farmer can put a 250ha block of 5 fields into wild bird seed mix or such(....and their neighbours could well be all doing likewise.)
Yet a 100ha farmer is limited to putting in 25ha.

So with the new rules.....scale is still a significant factor.

The 250ha block is considered "suitable" scale, yet if the 100ha farmer put all of his land into the scheme....that would be considered "too large".

 

[Aardvark139]

Personally I think the changes are reasonable and proportionate. From what has been said in the press and other channels, this would only affect a tiny proportion of the applications that have been made, so 95% plus of applicants remain unaffected. Only people trying to take the proverbial would be stopped..
It is not the job of an environmental scheme to create better commodity prices or prop up failing farm businesses. It is Government's job to make sure the correct support is in place, but income support is not "Environmental".
I spoke to our regular seed supplier who sells lots of this stuff and even they thought this had been massively overdone. They want a scheme that is stable for 10+ years so that everyone gets used to it and it works well, so some significant changes were urgently needed, it was unsustainable. This may not be the end of the changes either, but if it makes the whole thing fit for purpose I support it.

 

[Nearly]

Personally I think the changes are reasonable and proportionate. From what has been said in the press and other channels, this would only affect a tiny proportion of the applications that have been made, so 95% plus of applicants remain unaffected. Only people trying to take the proverbial would be stopped..
It is not the job of an environmental scheme to create better commodity prices or prop up failing farm businesses. It is Government's job to make sure the correct support is in place, but income support is not "Environmental".
I spoke to our regular seed supplier who sells lots of this stuff and even they thought this had been massively overdone. They want a scheme that is stable for 10+ years so that everyone gets used to it and it works well, so some significant changes were urgently needed, it was unsustainable. This may not be the end of the changes either, but if it makes the whole thing fit for purpose I support it.

They are reasonable but even the TFF peasants could see that the previous regime was open to abuse when it was announced.
If the overpaid policy makers within the behemoth that is DEFRA couldn't see that from the start then they are no better than we are and probably a whole lot less aware than they should be of the economics and motivators for modern agriculture in the UK.
They have fecked up royally on their financial responsibility as much as Liz Truss did and should probably suffer a similar fate but without the golden handjob as they leave.

 

[Huno]

Personally I think the changes are reasonable and proportionate. From what has been said in the press and other channels, this would only affect a tiny proportion of the applications that have been made, so 95% plus of applicants remain unaffected. Only people trying to take the proverbial would be stopped..
It is not the job of an environmental scheme to create better commodity prices or prop up failing farm businesses. It is Government's job to make sure the correct support is in place, but income support is not "Environmental".
I spoke to our regular seed supplier who sells lots of this stuff and even they thought this had been massively overdone. They want a scheme that is stable for 10+ years so that everyone gets used to it and it works well, so some significant changes were urgently needed, it was unsustainable. This may not be the end of the changes either, but if it makes the whole thing fit for purpose I support it.

That is a very fair statement... we all want a STABLE scheme so we can plan our business strategies.. DEFRA need to respect that every time they change their minds it has a knock on negative effect on alot more people than us mere farmers??

 

[Steevo]

Personally I think the changes are reasonable and proportionate. From what has been said in the press and other channels, this would only affect a tiny proportion of the applications that have been made, so 95% plus of applicants remain unaffected. Only people trying to take the proverbial would be stopped..
It is not the job of an environmental scheme to create better commodity prices or prop up failing farm businesses. It is Government's job to make sure the correct support is in place, but income support is not "Environmental".
I spoke to our regular seed supplier who sells lots of this stuff and even they thought this had been massively overdone. They want a scheme that is stable for 10+ years so that everyone gets used to it and it works well, so some significant changes were urgently needed, it was unsustainable. This may not be the end of the changes either, but if it makes the whole thing fit for purpose I support it.

I think their logic and explanation is very flawed:


"The aim is to ensure that we get the balance right in the percentage of a farm that we will fund to take these actions.

We’ve decided that 25% is the right level to cap these 6 actions to achieve this. Taking more land than that out of production on any given holding is unlikely to benefit the environment or food production."


So putting 26ha into wild bird seed mix on 100ha Farm A is "unlikely to benefit the environment or food production"

But on the neighbouring farm planting 249ha with wild bird seed mix just next door on 1000ha Farm B is clearly not "unlikely to benefit the environment or food production"


I had absolutely no idea that these birds found in nature were completely constrained to the land on any holding and are totally unable to travel across farm boundaries.

 

[spin cycle]

f**kin nfu have 'welcomed the announcement

that may be final straw for us

 

[Huno]

NFU and TFA losing members every time they open their lips!!

 

[Henarar]

NFU and TFA losing members every time they open their lips!!

I was thinking of paying my bill, see what turns up in the next few weeks/months.

 

[theboytheboy]

I was thinking of paying my bill, see what turns up in the next few weeks/months.

I haven't paid mine, its many months overdue, not been booted out yet

 

[DrWazzock]

I’ve always said, think of anything from the RPA as a bonus but don’t rely on it. I learned that the hard way.
Anyway there’s still plenty of options to choose from even if they have been curtailed.
The lack of support for real production concerns me but national policy is well above my pay grade so I’ll just make the best of what’s in front of me. Can’t really apply till July as I dint have the ground yet to sow anything. I wonder how many options will be left by the time I get round to it? Actually glad I’m not rushing at it as I change my mind every week. You never know, wheat might be £300 per tonne by harvest.

 

[Hindsight]

The government hold the cards either way.

They are stopping farmers efficiently producing cheap food
They are not stopping farmers producing certain environmental goods.


It does seem rather mad when they say that these options don't work on a large scale given that:

A 1000ha farmer can put a 250ha block of 5 fields into wild bird seed mix or such(....and their neighbours could well be all doing likewise.)
Yet a 100ha farmer is limited to putting in 25ha.

So with the new rules.....scale is still a significant factor.

The 250ha block is considered "suitable" scale, yet if the 100ha farmer put all of his land into the scheme....that would be considered "too large".

The 25% cap is a flawed knee jerk reaction for sure. Although what else they could do to put the genie back in the bottle I have no idea. But to follow your examples with real life examples I have submitted and accepted on behalf of businesses the following examples. A 11 hectare farm entered all 11 hectares in four adjacent land parcels into IPM2 Grass with Flowers. Now today that gentleman would be limited to 2.5 hectares and be left with 7.5 hectares. So today would not go for that option and maybe instead NUM3. On another small farm I placed the single 13 hectare arable field into AHL2 with IPM4 and IPM3. The 12 hectares of Permanent Pasture split between LIG1 and five hectares IGL2. Today that would not be possible as I placed 75% of the farm into the six proscribed options. As you observe to the 1000 hectare farm they can place 250 hectares into the six options all in adjacent fields. Whereas my example farms would have much smaller areas. Was proving a useful retirement pension for older small farmers. Anyway that is partially scuppered but NUM3 here we go next. Hey ho.

 

[Huno]

The 25% cap is a flawed knee jerk reaction for sure. Although what else they could do to put the genie back in the bottle I have no idea. But to follow your examples with real life examples I have submitted and accepted on behalf of businesses the following examples. A 11 hectare farm entered all 11 hectares in four adjacent land parcels into IPM2 Grass with Flowers. Now today that gentleman would be limited to 2.5 hectares and be left with 7.5 hectares. So today would not go for that option and maybe instead NUM3. On another small farm I placed the single 13 hectare arable field into AHL2 with IPM4 and IPM3. The 12 hectares of Permanent Pasture split between LIG1 and five hectares IGL2. Today that would not be possible as I placed 75% of the farm into the six proscribed options. As you observe to the 1000 hectare farm they can place 250 hectares into the six options all in adjacent fields. Whereas my example farms would have much smaller areas. Was proving a useful retirement pension for older small farmers. Anyway that is partially scuppered but NUM3 here we go next. Hey ho.

I seriously dont recommend NUM3 or AB15... entering year 8 of it here... Not a sensible option without BPS aswell... be warned...

 

[B'o'B]

I seriously dont recommend NUM3 or AB15... entering year 8 of it here... Not a sensible option without BPS aswell... be warned...

That could be said about a lot of other “agricultural activities” as well! Be they productive or environmental activities

 

[Two Tone]

Isn’t it absolutely typical, that as soon as the opportunity arises, one of the architects of it Mark Spenser, gets a gong?
How long before Janet gets her’s?

Will both eventually have to hand them back in exactly the same way that Paula Vennells had to do hers and for the same reasons?

 

[e3120]

Isn’t it absolutely typical, that as soon as the opportunity arises, one of the architects of it Mark Spenser, gets a gong?
How long before Janet gets her’s?

Will both eventually have to hand them back in exactly the same way that Paula Vennells had to do hers and for the same reasons?

The flaws (I'm feeling uncharacteristically generous) were established long before Spencer's tenure. Sadly, some farming groups should bear some of the culpability.

 

[topground]

DEFRA having failed the maths test forcing them to panic and put in place this 25% limit makes it even more likely that the RPA will be under pressure to find fault on farm and claw back significant sums of any SFI money paid out.
In the absence of any meaningful enforcement policy the RPA remain judge, jury and executioner in their own court.
Good luck with finding any equality in dispute resolution.when they come calling!

 

[Two Tone]

DEFRA having failed the maths test forcing them to panic and put in place this 25% limit makes it even more likely that the RPA will be under pressure to find fault on farm and claw back significant sums of any SFI money paid out.
In the absence of any meaningful enforcement policy the RPA remain judge, jury and executioner in their own court.
Good luck with finding any equality in dispute resolution.when they come calling!

No doubt helped by their Pals-in-crime, the NFU. Who are claiming it was their idea to limit SFI on these options to 25%.

How in all that is Holy, can they not see that this now restricts every one of their members in retrieving much of the depleting and lost BPS they have and continue suffer?

No Fecking Use! Indeed.

NFU claiming credit for 25% SFI cap

Received an email today from NFU welcoming SFI cap and was a result of their lobbying. Can you believe it. !!

thefarmingforum.co.uk

 

[gloria1]

IGL2 spends around 4 to 5 months growing silage,hay,haylage to feed animals for FOOD production and then around 7 to 8 months closed up for wild bird food, on 1 ha or 100ha,
So the DEFRA comments suggesting eg this option is not into food production is totally flawed and has been really mismanaged,introducing a huge dose of mistrust in agreements and Janet Hughes comments that" our inspectors will be focused on helping rather than punishing,judge us by our actions" Well Your recent actions are punishing for those over 25% and punishing for those who missed out before March 26th.
If you are a serious organisation you do not make agreements that are binding , then uprate the payment to attract more people in, then within a very few weeks cut the agreement by 75%..
Its really inept management.