SFI Pilot payments

ben__adamss

Member
BASE UK Member
Hi Janet we still have not seen anyway that the smaller livestock farmers can effectively participate in ELMS schemes to offset the SFP they will be losing, these smaller farmers have very limited scope to make up the drastic financial shortfall & they often work alone & in isolated places.
We hear a great deal of the depression & sometimes suicide suffered by farmers especially isolated farmers & I fear you by not producing an acreage safety net could be personally taking on the responsibility for many farmers lives, this is not something I would wish on my greatest enemy & I think you need to express with your masters the implications & responsibility of what you & they are taking on!
Understand the sentiment but ELMS is not going to offset the loss of BPS, it was never intended too
 

farmerm

Member
Location
Shropshire
Hi Janet we still have not seen anyway that the smaller livestock farmers can effectively participate in ELMS schemes to offset the SFP they will be losing, these smaller farmers have very limited scope to make up the drastic financial shortfall & they often work alone & in isolated places.
We hear a great deal of the depression & sometimes suicide suffered by farmers especially isolated farmers & I fear you by not producing an acreage safety net could be personally taking on the responsibility for many farmers lives, this is not something I would wish on my greatest enemy & I think you need to express with your masters the implications & responsibility of what you & they are taking on!
ELS was never intended to offset SFP losses.... when will the penny start to drop?? :banghead: For those, ie at least half of UK farm businesses that are reliant on SFP to make any profit, transition to none supported farming is going to be brutal. :(
 

Ceri

Member
ELS was never intended to offset SFP losses.... when will the penny start to drop?? :banghead: For those, ie at least half of UK farm businesses that are reliant on SFP to make any profit, transition to none supported farming is going to be brutal. :(
What........? But George Eustice in the last week when replying to Ed daveys concerns raised in PMs questions about whether elms is sustainable in the current climate insisted the same amount of cash will be available to farmers........???

What's going on..............!!!????
 

BrianV

Member
Livestock Farmer
ELS was never intended to offset SFP losses.... when will the penny start to drop?? :banghead: For those, ie at least half of UK farm businesses that are reliant on SFP to make any profit, transition to none supported farming is going to be brutal. :(
That's fine if we weren't competing with the EU, Scotland, Ireland & Wales who are for now retaining their SFP, we can only compete on fair terms!!
 

ben__adamss

Member
BASE UK Member
ELS was never intended to offset SFP losses.... when will the penny start to drop?? :banghead: For those, ie at least half of UK farm businesses that are reliant on SFP to make any profit, transition to none supported farming is going to be brutal. :(
Think its been what, 6 years now since we knew we were losing BPS?
 

farmerm

Member
Location
Shropshire
Think its been what, 6 years now since we knew we were losing BPS?

Plenty I know believed and am am sure some still believe "sure we sill still get the government money, just under a different name..."


1653557397123.png



For others like me its like being on the Titanic... you can see the iceberg but redesigning the rudder to give £130/ha worth of directional change is, :unsure: well lets just use the word challenging...
 
The sort that shows you are listening would be good (y) .
I can absolutely assure you that we are definitely listening. (That doesn't mean we can agree with or act on absolutely everything everyone says though, so we're not going to satisfy everyone all of the time unfortunately, much as we might like to.)

On showing we're listening - here is an example from today: There were some comments on here and through our pilot about the fairness and balance of our contracts within our schemes.

We've published the terms and conditions for SFI today (along with the optional 'how to' technical guides). The terms and conditions include some significant changes based on feedback. For example it no longer has a clause in which Defra can change the rules or requirements, following feedback on here and in the pilot - we can now, for anyone coming into SFI, only make changes with the farmer's consent or in a genuinely exceptional situation (which is specifically defined, so that it's not in any doubt): https://www.gov.uk/government/publi...-incentive-full-guidance#terms-and-conditions

It's just one example, I realise, and I'm not saying that responds to all the feedback and input we've ever had - I just thought I'd share it as it came out today as an example of how we are listening to and acting on feedback and co-design.

We've also done quite a few things in the design of SFI in response to co-design and feedback, including:
* making the standards more flexible
* making the application process much quicker and more straightforward
* making it possible for tenants to have SFI agreements even if they are on 1-year rolling contracts
* taking a much fairer, more proportionate approach to controls (eg we won't withhold payments just on suspicion of a breach, as we did in the past in other schemes)

We have set up practitioner groups to co-design the next sets of standards for SFI and options for LNR, along with the learning from the piloting, tests and trials you and others are doing, so we can make sure they work for farmers.

We're currently testing a number of things through the pilot that are directly informing design of the scheme, including how different standards work including how they work together, how we manage visits and controls, how we manage flexibility (allowing people to change their agreements each year), and how we can best offer useful advice and guidance.

I'm not claiming we have this all perfect, and there is always plenty of room for improvement - I'm all ears as to any feedback and improvements you'd all like to see in how we engage and what we're doing. But we are absolutely committed to listening, working together and making sure what we're doing will work for farmers, and I think we can clearly show that we are doing that, albeit not perfectly and not in a way that pleases everyone all of the time.
 

Wombat

Member
Mixed Farmer
Location
East yorks
I can absolutely assure you that we are definitely listening. (That doesn't mean we can agree with or act on absolutely everything everyone says though, so we're not going to satisfy everyone all of the time unfortunately, much as we might like to.)

On showing we're listening - here is an example from today: There were some comments on here and through our pilot about the fairness and balance of our contracts within our schemes.

We've published the terms and conditions for SFI today (along with the optional 'how to' technical guides). The terms and conditions include some significant changes based on feedback. For example it no longer has a clause in which Defra can change the rules or requirements, following feedback on here and in the pilot - we can now, for anyone coming into SFI, only make changes with the farmer's consent or in a genuinely exceptional situation (which is specifically defined, so that it's not in any doubt): https://www.gov.uk/government/publi...-incentive-full-guidance#terms-and-conditions

It's just one example, I realise, and I'm not saying that responds to all the feedback and input we've ever had - I just thought I'd share it as it came out today as an example of how we are listening to and acting on feedback and co-design.

We've also done quite a few things in the design of SFI in response to co-design and feedback, including:
* making the standards more flexible
* making the application process much quicker and more straightforward
* making it possible for tenants to have SFI agreements even if they are on 1-year rolling contracts
* taking a much fairer, more proportionate approach to controls (eg we won't withhold payments just on suspicion of a breach, as we did in the past in other schemes)

We have set up practitioner groups to co-design the next sets of standards for SFI and options for LNR, along with the learning from the piloting, tests and trials you and others are doing, so we can make sure they work for farmers.

We're currently testing a number of things through the pilot that are directly informing design of the scheme, including how different standards work including how they work together, how we manage visits and controls, how we manage flexibility (allowing people to change their agreements each year), and how we can best offer useful advice and guidance.

I'm not claiming we have this all perfect, and there is always plenty of room for improvement - I'm all ears as to any feedback and improvements you'd all like to see in how we engage and what we're doing. But we are absolutely committed to listening, working together and making sure what we're doing will work for farmers, and I think we can clearly show that we are doing that, albeit not perfectly and not in a way that pleases everyone all of the time.
Have we got to the bottom of the what is green cover yet?

as someone who direct drills I have zero chance of having 70% crop cover by the 1st of dec if it has to be green. Will have 70% cover with residue and crop though
 

Dave645

Member
Arable Farmer
Location
N Lincs
That's fine if we weren't competing with the EU, Scotland, Ireland & Wales who are for now retaining their SFP, we can only compete on fair terms!!
It’s going to be a car crash, it’s just happening in slow motion.
Most farmers assumed when we were told the pot of money was going to be the same, they assumed that farmers would be getting it, a good 66% is going to be for very limited schemes with long term or near permanent changes to our landscape and, non farming bodies have skill fully been lining up for the money.
it’s stupidity and very short sighted, but it’s politically very good, right until the point the farming industry goes under.
Then they will need 3 times the money to try to revive the farming industry, which will play nicely with big business as they take up the job, of the tens of thousands of small family farms. That have gone bust.

diversify is what they say you should do. . .
it’s like asking a brick layer to do brick laying for below a living wage, but take a part time job to subsidise it.
Or pack up farming and get another job, never mind producing food for people to eat, let them eat grass and trees and wetlands.
 

delilah

Member
I can absolutely assure you that we are definitely listening. (That doesn't mean we can agree with or act on absolutely everything everyone says though, so we're not going to satisfy everyone all of the time unfortunately, much as we might like to.)

On showing we're listening - here is an example from today: There were some comments on here and through our pilot about the fairness and balance of our contracts within our schemes.

We've published the terms and conditions for SFI today (along with the optional 'how to' technical guides). The terms and conditions include some significant changes based on feedback. For example it no longer has a clause in which Defra can change the rules or requirements, following feedback on here and in the pilot - we can now, for anyone coming into SFI, only make changes with the farmer's consent or in a genuinely exceptional situation (which is specifically defined, so that it's not in any doubt): https://www.gov.uk/government/publi...-incentive-full-guidance#terms-and-conditions

It's just one example, I realise, and I'm not saying that responds to all the feedback and input we've ever had - I just thought I'd share it as it came out today as an example of how we are listening to and acting on feedback and co-design.

We've also done quite a few things in the design of SFI in response to co-design and feedback, including:
* making the standards more flexible
* making the application process much quicker and more straightforward
* making it possible for tenants to have SFI agreements even if they are on 1-year rolling contracts
* taking a much fairer, more proportionate approach to controls (eg we won't withhold payments just on suspicion of a breach, as we did in the past in other schemes)

We have set up practitioner groups to co-design the next sets of standards for SFI and options for LNR, along with the learning from the piloting, tests and trials you and others are doing, so we can make sure they work for farmers.

We're currently testing a number of things through the pilot that are directly informing design of the scheme, including how different standards work including how they work together, how we manage visits and controls, how we manage flexibility (allowing people to change their agreements each year), and how we can best offer useful advice and guidance.

I'm not claiming we have this all perfect, and there is always plenty of room for improvement - I'm all ears as to any feedback and improvements you'd all like to see in how we engage and what we're doing. But we are absolutely committed to listening, working together and making sure what we're doing will work for farmers, and I think we can clearly show that we are doing that, albeit not perfectly and not in a way that pleases everyone all of the time.

You need to show us an SFI standard that the sub-200 acre one-person-band will fall over themselves to apply for. Until then, it's just words.
 

Jackov Altraids

Member
Livestock Farmer
Location
Devon
Understand the sentiment but ELMS is not going to offset the loss of BPS, it was never intended too

100%

But we were always going to have a transition period.

The BPS is disappearing but nobody has any idea what is going to happen in the next few years so how can anyone plan? We need to start making changes and decisions now.

Defra may 'only' be months behind schedule but it is forcing decisions to be made which completely ignores ELMS because there is insufficient detail and because what we have seen isn't worth considering.

The point being, like @farmerm says, there are a huge number of farmers that need to replace the BPS with something. Many thought that SFI/ ELMS would be the main source of alternative income but it simply isn't.

But even now, George Useless says it is.
 
Last edited:

Ceri

Member
I'm not to worried about elms etc it's very obvious the government will do a uturn and scrap or delay it in a few months time. The sh*t is about to hit the fan come the autumn with the cost of living, people think the screws turning on them now well I can tell you we haven't seen nothing yet (farming included) .....!! And here the government want to now pay us to take land out of production at a time when we're going to need it most. Food self sufficiency is dropping and is going to drop like a stone if elms was to carry on.....

George eustice's actions in my mind is bordering on criminal. The bank of England has warned of soaring food costs this winter and here we have elms to tackle it.......... Its absolutely irresponsible and this country will wake up to it, it will have no choice. Mark my words.
Sorry @Janet Hughes Defra nothing personal Ive always thought your intentions are honourable but things are about to change.
I also hope George will be held accountable with all the money he wasted on elms when the uturn comes...

Said it before everythings changed now elms is dead in the water.
 

bobk

Member
Location
stafford
I'm not to worried about elms etc it's very obvious the government will do a uturn and scrap or delay it in a few months time. The sh*t is about to hit the fan come the autumn with the cost of living, people think the screws turning on them now well I can tell you we haven't seen nothing yet (farming included) .....!! And here the government want to now pay us to take land out of production at a time when we're going to need it most. Food self sufficiency is dropping and is going to drop like a stone if elms was to carry on.....

George eustice's actions in my mind is bordering on criminal. The bank of England has warned of soaring food costs this winter and here we have elms to tackle it.......... Its absolutely irresponsible and this country will wake up to it, it will have no choice. Mark my words.
Sorry @Janet Hughes Defra nothing personal Ive always thought your intentions are honourable but things are about to change.
I also hope George will be held accountable with all the money he wasted on elms when the uturn comes...

Said it before everythings changed now elms is dead in the water.
Not a u turn , a rethink
 

Tubbylew

Member
Location
Herefordshire
I'm not to worried about elms etc it's very obvious the government will do a uturn and scrap or delay it in a few months time. The sh*t is about to hit the fan come the autumn with the cost of living, people think the screws turning on them now well I can tell you we haven't seen nothing yet (farming included) .....!! And here the government want to now pay us to take land out of production at a time when we're going to need it most. Food self sufficiency is dropping and is going to drop like a stone if elms was to carry on.....

George eustice's actions in my mind is bordering on criminal. The bank of England has warned of soaring food costs this winter and here we have elms to tackle it.......... Its absolutely irresponsible and this country will wake up to it, it will have no choice. Mark my words.
Sorry @Janet Hughes Defra nothing personal Ive always thought your intentions are honourable but things are about to change.
I also hope George will be held accountable with all the money he wasted on elms when the uturn comes...

Said it before everythings changed now elms is dead in the water.
I think your overestimating the competance of the goverment to carry the u turn out.
 

Tubbylew

Member
Location
Herefordshire
They'll have no other choice. Its not like we're trying to sell cars, holidays, phones etc etc. Humans must eat.
How long have we been telling them this? They won't take the food system in this country seriously until the likes of the goldsmiths etc. have had their day in the limelight. I'd like to think there are sensible politicians somewhere in government, but I don't know where they're hiding. Policy takes years to alter direction. Just look at the cost of living crisis, poor government decisions over many years have led us to the point where we have very little gas storage, it's only now with the threat of bozza being sacked off, that they think it might be inconvenient for millions of folk to freeze or starve. Farming will be no different, folk will famish before goverment wakes up.
 

Jackov Altraids

Member
Livestock Farmer
Location
Devon


"reducing input costs and helping farmers to reduce waste through animal and plant pests, diseases, and poor welfare. "

Would someone please tell me what that means?

I'm guessing it just refers to the annual vet visit and plan which is going to be so instrumental in being profitable.

I have done it for years. I think it is a good thing but the financial benefit is negligible.
 

Make Tax Digital Software Poll

  • Quickbooks

    Votes: 33 16.6%
  • Sage

    Votes: 20 10.1%
  • Xero

    Votes: 92 46.2%
  • Other

    Votes: 54 27.1%

Man fined £300 for bonfire-related waste offences

  • 185
  • 0
Written by William Kellett from Agriland

court-640x360.jpg
A man has pleaded guilty at Newtownards Magistrates’ Court to waste offences relating to a bonfire next to the electrical sub-station on the Circular Road in Newtownards, Co. Down.

Gareth Gill (51) of Abbot’s Walk, Newtownards pleaded guilty to two charges under the Waste and Contaminated Land (Northern Ireland) Order 1997, for which he was fined £150 each and ordered to pay a £15 offender’s levy

On June 25, 2018, PSNI officers went to Gill’s yard, where they found a large amount of waste consisting of scrap wood, pallets, carpet and underlay.

Discussion with Northern Ireland Environment Agency (NIEA) officers confirmed the site...
Top