SFI Pilot Agreement contract.

Would any sensible landowner sign this contract?


  • Total voters
    65

holwellcourtfarm

Member
Livestock Farmer
It is a pilot scheme. Same as using a prototype machine, it might not work as it should.

In TFFs q & a sessions defra promised to work with farmers to make it work without ridiculous penalties.

You don't believe them?

(Looking forward to Janet's reply!)
Based on past performance, no.

"Judge me by my actions, not my words".

On that basis, imho, this clause is so wide- ranging and unchallengeable that it fails the test.
 

devonbeef

Member
Livestock Farmer
Location
Devon UK
Understood. Completely.

I expect that's the same as 95% of the other signatories.

Imho it's a huge risk though.

I can understand the need for flexibility in managing the pilots to be able to test out changes. If it was genuinely done in a spirit of "co- design" though I'd argue they didn't need such a biased clause.

My main worry is that they'll retain that clause when the scheme rolls out.
The rest of agreement is immaterial as long as that clause exists, they can say what they like.Just look how ex National trust farmers have been treated!
 

Wombat

Member
BASIS
Location
East yorks
I signed up. Plus didn’t read all the T’s and C’s verbatim… all I needed to see was where it said that there would be no enforcement in the pilot as it’s a learning exercise. If everyone ignores it it WILL just go away and then we really will have nothing; we need a seat at the table if we expect to be heard and since practically I’m already doing everything I’m signed up for on sfi…why wouldn’t I? As a farmer I’m a businessman; my costs are going up so I need my income to go up to just stand still; it may not be a massive amount of cash to some but 5 figure amounts can’t be sniffed at in this household
I don’t have a problem that some sign up The thing for me is my experience of trying to get them to deliver BPS has been pretty traumatic through no fault of my own. I have had to change cash flows and plans to take into account it might turn up in June or May or April and has done therefore I am not sure I can deal with the stress of one sided agreements when for me they have failed on the easy one. As has been said we are doing 99% of the stuff on the sfi lists but the ditch management messes us up as I have to keep them clean to retain any productivity and yields, plus they are through ditches so I am duty bound to keep them open for others. Therefore it limits me to basic ones which just aren’t worth the hassle based on past experiences.
 

alomy75

Member
I don’t have a problem that some sign up The thing for me is my experience of trying to get them to deliver BPS has been pretty traumatic through no fault of my own. I have had to change cash flows and plans to take into account it might turn up in June or May or April and has done therefore I am not sure I can deal with the stress of one sided agreements when for me they have failed on the easy one. As has been said we are doing 99% of the stuff on the sfi lists but the ditch management messes us up as I have to keep them clean to retain any productivity and yields, plus they are through ditches so I am duty bound to keep them open for others. Therefore it limits me to basic ones which just aren’t worth the hassle based on past experiences.
Oh yes; had all sorts of fun and games with bps in the early years. But, it got sorted eventually. With this new scheme though; if it’s a blatant non-compliance and there’s all sorts of wording around not penalising for non-compliance and rather re-educating…if you get pulled up on it; explain what you just have that it’s an environmental flood prevention requirement and see what they say. Even if they dock you a percentage (which we are led to believe they won’t) you’ll still be better off than not being in it. Having said that if your problem ditches form a big part of the agreement maybe another option might be more suitable. I’m just doing the soils one; no baling, no ploughing, over winter cover. Doing all that anyway. Just got to do the paperwork side soil management plans etc) which already exists from ELS so will be updated accordingly
 
@Janet Hughes Defra
Why should we believe that the goalposts will not be changed similar to how the already 10% per 6 months graduated reductions in the rate of FIT which many folk had factored in to projects were when planning permission, grid connections and significant amounts of infrastructure had already been installed and paid for when it (FIT) was effectively withdrawn making completing projects non-viable in a matter of a very few weeks by government representative Amber Rudd after attending the COP 21 Paris Climate Change Agreement in 2014/15 ?
 
Last edited:

Wombat

Member
BASIS
Location
East yorks
Oh yes; had all sorts of fun and games with bps in the early years. But, it got sorted eventually. With this new scheme though; if it’s a blatant non-compliance and there’s all sorts of wording around not penalising for non-compliance and rather re-educating…if you get pulled up on it; explain what you just have that it’s an environmental flood prevention requirement and see what they say. Even if they dock you a percentage (which we are led to believe they won’t) you’ll still be better off than not being in it. Having said that if your problem ditches form a big part of the agreement maybe another option might be more suitable. I’m just doing the soils one; no baling, no ploughing, over winter cover. Doing all that anyway. Just got to do the paperwork side soil management plans etc) which already exists from ELS so will be updated accordingly
Last year was the first year bps got sorted here so my expectations are pretty low to be honest. I want to go to the advanced but the ditch stuff is mandatory for that.
 

farmerm

Member
Location
Shropshire
Sorry but Nothing visual to read of any substance. But regardless why do they think they have to meddle with agriculture. Just phase out payments and leave us to get on . The fittest will survive the hobbiest will play at it without interference
Except government will always interfere with agriculture, with or without providing support. Its very naïve to think Government should not have the right or a responsibility to "meddle with agriculture" Given how many farmers are entirely reliant on BPS to survive, the survival of the fittest approach is asking for a bloodbath!
 

holwellcourtfarm

Member
Livestock Farmer
Last year was the first year bps got sorted here so my expectations are pretty low to be honest. I want to go to the advanced but the ditch stuff is mandatory for that.
Have you seen the Beaver consultation thread?

Current proposals would mean beavers spreading widely and any attempt to control them or interfere with their habitat would require a licence from NE.

Do you have trees near your ditches?
 

Henarar

Member
Livestock Farmer
Location
Somerset
To be fair, a similar clause has been in all of the pillar 2 agreements for many years. If you took part in ELS, HLS, CS, Small Productivity Grants Scheme, Hedgerow and Boundary grant scheme or various others it was one of the conditions you accepted.

It's simply not acceptable imho and, given the imbalance of power in the situation, smacks of bullying.

In the current political climate it leaves me unable to accept any such scheme.

Trust is essential in all this and seems to be missing.
Maybe ELS and so on did have that clause but don't you think that with SFI it is much more important to know where we stand ?
The other schemes were only an ad on to BPS
 

Goffer

Member
Mixed Farmer
Location
Yorkshire
Except government will always interfere with agriculture, with or without providing support. Its very naïve to think Government should not have the right or a responsibility to "meddle with agriculture" Given how many farmers are entirely reliant on BPS to survive, the survival of the fittest approach is asking for a bloodbath!
Heck if a bloodbath is what it needs to wake this industry up then so be it. Far too much deadwood wanting an easy life and they are probably mortgage and rent free too.50% of what we farm we don't get sub and never have , landlord swallows it up and we still pay 3 figures rent and make money but we are spread thin on the ground .cereal Land rarely gets more than 2 passes stubble to crop . Current staffing is one man per 400 acres, we have spuds , beet , v peas and some stock .we just manage and are adaptive to the weather . Biggest problem with alot is they've gone for easy farming reliant on sub money .
 

delilah

Member
Heck if a bloodbath is what it needs to wake this industry up then so be it. Far too much deadwood wanting an easy life and they are probably mortgage and rent free too.50% of what we farm we don't get sub and never have , landlord swallows it up and we still pay 3 figures rent and make money but we are spread thin on the ground .cereal Land rarely gets more than 2 passes stubble to crop . Current staffing is one man per 400 acres, we have spuds , beet , v peas and some stock .we just manage and are adaptive to the weather . Biggest problem with alot is they've gone for easy farming reliant on sub money .

Not going to argue with any of that, but will just add that the sums are different for LFA ground. If we wish to see it continue to be farmed, and kept in 'good heart' both agriculturally and aesthetically, then public money is needed.
Which is just a long winded way of repeating my point from day 1 of ELMS; all area payments should go to PP.
 

Goffer

Member
Mixed Farmer
Location
Yorkshire
Not going to argue with any of that, but will just add that the sums are different for LFA ground. If we wish to see it continue to be farmed, and kept in 'good heart' both agriculturally and aesthetically, then public money is needed.
Which is just a long winded way of repeating my point from day 1 of ELMS; all area payments should go to PP.
Is it that lfa landlords are unrealistic about what it can achieve or that it can't be achieved even to pay the man doing the work ?
 

delilah

Member
Is it that lfa landlords are unrealistic about what it can achieve or that it can't be achieved even to pay the man doing the work ?

There's no money in the job, owner occupied or tenanted. Sheep and beef, your only options. Which just happen to be the two things achieving most of the 'public good' delivered by UK ag.
 

Goffer

Member
Mixed Farmer
Location
Yorkshire
Well then I'd agree but many a tale of big sub cheques been banked into non farm accounts . Maybe should be paid on justification on need I.e yearly visit, profitability , what you did too enhance your environment and what people you employed. Sub cheques just go in many pockets on properly managed farms .
 

steveR

Member
Mixed Farmer
Well then I'd agree but many a tale of big sub cheques been banked into non farm accounts . Maybe should be paid on justification on need I.e yearly visit, profitability , what you did too enhance your environment and what people you employed. Sub cheques just go in many pockets on properly managed farms .
And your definition of one of these is....?

I think that this is what ELMS is supposed to be addressing...
 

SFI - What % were you taking out of production?

  • 0 %

    Votes: 81 42.2%
  • Up to 25%

    Votes: 68 35.4%
  • 25-50%

    Votes: 30 15.6%
  • 50-75%

    Votes: 3 1.6%
  • 75-100%

    Votes: 3 1.6%
  • 100% I’ve had enough of farming!

    Votes: 7 3.6%

Red Tractor drops launch of green farming scheme amid anger from farmers

  • 1,294
  • 1
As reported in Independent


quote: “Red Tractor has confirmed it is dropping plans to launch its green farming assurance standard in April“

read the TFF thread here: https://thefarmingforum.co.uk/index.php?threads/gfc-was-to-go-ahead-now-not-going-ahead.405234/
Top