SFI Pilot payments

[steveR]

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.

110%

 

[topground]

https://defrafarming.blog.gov.uk/20...is-shaping-the-sustainable-farming-incentive/

https://defrafarming.blog.gov.uk/20...-the-sustainable-farming-incentive-standards/

I have replied to the blog highlighting the flaws in the scheme but I doubt it will pass moderation because the authors of this type of propaganda don’t want to hear that their scheme is not fit for purpose.

 

[steveR]

I have replied to the blog highlighting the flaws in the scheme but I doubt it will pass moderation because the authors of this type of propaganda don’t want to hear that their scheme is not fit for purpose.

I have always found that any comments that are less than supportive, are not left up on the various Blogs and certainly no feedback from DEFRA, to more formal responses.

 

[Ceri]

GOING TO BE BRITIANS MOST WANTED MAN WHEN FOOD QUADRUPES IN PRICE.

 

[Janet Hughes Defra]

"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.

That's referring to the grants and other potential payments to improve animal health and welfare (and the annual visit, as you say, but the idea is that the visit helps point you towards other funding that's available, as well as being useful in itself)

 

[gone up the hill]

That's referring to the grants and other potential payments to improve animal health and welfare (and the annual visit, as you say, but the idea is that the visit helps point you towards other funding that's available, as well as being useful in itself)

Janet if farms are not making a profit they will not be able to invest in things like Crushes etc even with grant money!

And for most farms there is only so much you can do to improve welfare etc, after that you are just doing things for the sake of the grant money so thus the grant money is just wasted!

Also the capital payments for Mid tier etc are now so low compare to the price of inputs like stakes/ concrete etc many farmers are starting to do the sums and are coming to the conclusion that the capital works are unaffordable with current payment rates.

And that is before you take away 2 billion in direct payments to farmers via the BPS.

And the SFI proposed payments of say £8.91 acre for low input grassland are an insult and no one is going to bother with it and as for the other two tiers of payments very few if any small/ medium farms will qualify/ be able to claim for.

In summary what is being proposed is a complete mess/ totally unworkable and needs to be scrapped and the current payment of BPS needs to carry on with maybe a few tweaks!

 

[BrianV]

GOING TO BE BRITIANS MOST WANTED MAN WHEN FOOD QUADRUPES IN PRICE.


View attachment 1038737

More like the least wanted man come the next election!!!

 

[Vader]

No. I applied but never heard anything back.

I did a phone interview on it over a year ago, so it may have been noted that I wasn’t very supportive of some of RPW’s dafter ideas.

Probably it.
Want farmer feed back, but only from ones who agree with them !

 

[Vader]

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

Yeah and i am still looking for a way to turn my outcrop 2.5t/acre land into 4ton land.
I want to help feed the world. BPS meant poor land could still grow food.

 

[Vader]

They'll have no other choice. Its not like we're trying to sell cars, holidays, phones etc etc. Humans must eat.

But the public have no idea about elms.
Ukraine war is perfect for princess nut nuts.
She can carry on with her crazy agenda, meanwhile just blame sny problems on putin.

 

[bobk]

The message will sink in when take up negliable

 

[Goffer]

Janet if farms are not making a profit they will not be able to invest in things like Crushes etc even with grant money!

And for most farms there is only so much you can do to improve welfare etc, after that you are just doing things for the sake of the grant money so thus the grant money is just wasted!

Also the capital payments for Mid tier etc are now so low compare to the price of inputs like stakes/ concrete etc many farmers are starting to do the sums and are coming to the conclusion that the capital works are unaffordable with current payment rates.

And that is before you take away 2 billion in direct payments to farmers via the BPS.

And the SFI proposed payments of say £8.91 acre for low input grassland are an insult and no one is going to bother with it and as for the other two tiers of payments very few if any small/ medium farms will qualify/ be able to claim for.

In summary what is being proposed is a complete mess/ totally unworkable and needs to be scrapped and the current payment of BPS needs to carry on with maybe a few tweaks!

Totally agree, currently farm 240ha various landlords . C
Good grade 1,2 &3 land all suited to a crop we grow . 35 sucklers , 400 sheep folded every winter , in a group with growing potatoes. We currently grow 0.5% of the farm in wild bird mixes etc for no financial reward apart from sfp but this hardly covers rent , we just believe it gives something back and gets many comments how nice a splash of colour comes in mid - late summer .. absolutely nothing in sfi at these currently levels would make us entertain it and upset a current balanced outfit . There's got to be a higher level of income for the risk and interference in the current rotation.

 

[Jackov Altraids]

That's referring to the grants and other potential payments to improve animal health and welfare (and the annual visit, as you say, but the idea is that the visit helps point you towards other funding that's available, as well as being useful in itself)

It's somewhat insulting the way that insinuates that this isn't something farmers already do. . . . . .

Seems like a means to support all the agri-supply industries [yet again].

There seems to be an ever growing business to supply farmers with things to benefit animals and/ or the environment when the evidence of those benefits are spurious, at best.

 

[Dave645]

Yeah and i am still looking for a way to turn my outcrop 2.5t/acre land into 4ton land.
I want to help feed the world. BPS meant poor land could still grow food.

lol, they don't need food only trees, wetlands and cover crops.
the old BPS scheme did more good with cross compliance items than any of the new stuff, as unless growing crops becomes totally unprofitable, we will grow crops and dump all gov money and pull out of all current agreements and oversite.
for most farmers the petty rules and punitive policing has, made most farmers risk averse of any scheme with borderline returns. why take on mountains of extra rules and paper work for almost inconsequential returns, ( most items cost nearly as much to implement as they pay.)

I will keep an eye out for updates, but I still say giving farmers the equivariant to bps money on the first 60-100ha of their farm would have been a sounder platform with cross compliance type rules governing the land getting the payment. it would have delivered the base level schemes required results, and resulted in a near 100% uptake.

 

[Ceri]

lol, they don't need food only trees, wetlands and cover crops.
the old BPS scheme did more good with cross compliance items than any of the new stuff, as unless growing crops becomes totally unprofitable, we will grow crops and dump all gov money and pull out of all current agreements and oversite.
for most farmers the petty rules and punitive policing has, made most farmers risk averse of any scheme with borderline returns. why take on mountains of extra rules and paper work for almost inconsequential returns, ( most items cost nearly as much to implement as they pay.)

I will keep an eye out for updates, but I still say giving farmers the equivariant to bps money on the first 60-100ha of their farm would have been a sounder platform with cross compliance type rules governing the land getting the payment. it would have delivered the base level schemes required results, and resulted in a near 100% uptake.

Well said.

 

[steveR]

The message will sink in when take up negliable

 

[Ceri]

@Janet Hughes Defra your a very approachable person so I'm really interested as to your opinion towards elms.....? I don't care how government spin it up, the reality of the new schemes is taking land out of production.

1) Do you think this is the correct direction we should be taking farming policy in the current situation in the uk & around the world....?
2) Do you have any regrets that absolutely zero emphasis was put on securing food production...?
3) If elms went ahead in its current form where is the food that's would be lost as a result going to come from....?
4) Is defra happy & comfortable with the fact that food self sufficiency will plummet with elms in its current form..?

And please don't say we're investing in farm productivity as a cattle weigh crush, eid tag reader & min till drill etc is not going to suddenly turn us into profit we never knew exsisted. Plus most folks have got all that now....

Genuinely interested to hear your views.

 

[Janet Hughes Defra]

@Janet Hughes Defra your a very approachable person so I'm really interested as to your opinion towards elms.....? I don't care how government spin it up, the reality of the new schemes is taking land out of production.

1) Do you think this is the correct direction we should be taking farming policy in the current situation in the uk & around the world....?
2) Do you have any regrets that absolutely zero emphasis was put on securing food production...?
3) If elms went ahead in its current form where is the food that's would be lost as a result going to come from....?
4) Is defra happy & comfortable with the fact that food self sufficiency will plummet with elms in its current form..?

And please don't say we're investing in farm productivity as a cattle weigh crush, eid tag reader & min till drill etc is not going to suddenly turn us into profit we never knew exsisted. Plus most folks have got all that now....

Genuinely interested to hear your views.

We're not asking you to choose between food production (or a profitable business) and the environment; we're saying that these 2 things need to go hand in hand as they already do on many farms. The new schemes are about overwhelmingly about paying farmers for the environmental goods they produce for the public alongside food, not choosing one or the other.

For some farms that will be about adopting or continuing more sustainable approaches to farming, eg by taking care of soil health, using integrated pest management, managing nutrients in a more sustainable way (if you're already doing these things, which many are, you can get paid for it to recognise the value of those practices to the natural environment). We'll pay for those things through SFI so you can generate an additional income alongside your income from food production whilst doing actions that should, over the long term, also help your farm remain resilient, profitable and productive.

For others, it will be about for example, adding winter bird food into your rotation, protecting watercourses or sparing less productive areas that are less profitable / hard to farm / have any number of other problems. Many farmers already do these sorts of actions through Countryside Stewardship. That will be open for applications this year and next, and then its successor scheme Local Nature Recovery will take its place from 2025 onwards. That scheme will be open to individual farmers, as CS is now.

You will be able to do whatever combination of things works for your farm business, alongside food production. We're making the schemes flexible, fair (no more unfair inspections and penalties) and accessible (no more huge amounts of paperwork or bureaucracy; rules that allow tenant farmers to participate and flex their agreements over time). We will flex the budget to respond to farmer demand, so that if more of you want to go into SFI we'll fund that, if more want to do CS and then LNR we'll fund that instead.

So to answer your questions:
1, It's not my role to set or comment on the overall direction (though I'm happy to explain it) - that's the role of elected government, I'm here to advise them and implement their policies and I'm not allowed to get into political debate. If the question is can it work / is it workable, then yes I think it can work and that's what I and my team are working (with many farmers) to make happen.
2, It's not the case that zero emphasis has been put on securing food production - many of the actions we are paying for support both food production and the environment, and as is the case for many farms already it is possible and desirable for food production and environmental production to go hand in hand. There are also other measures being put in place to help support food production including work on supply chain fairness, making regulations around use of slurry and manures more workable for farmers, running an industry fertiliser working group that is advising and supporting policy development on fertilisers specifically, and bringing forward this year's BPS payments in line with our new approach to making payments more frequently (SFI payments will be quarterly), recognising that's better for farmer cashflow
3, and 4, no we don't expect food self sufficiency to decrease as a result of ELMs - any land taken out of production is likely to be less productive (as many farms do now, in CS), otherwise farmers would be unlikely to decide to do it (and this is all about farmers deciding what to do on your land). We are also, as you say, supporting productivity improvements on the remaining land through support for productivity grants, innovation research and development, learning and skills and free business planning advice for farmers. You might not find those attractive yourself, but we do generally get a lot of interest in these schemes, and we're trying to provide a range of options to suit all farmers, knowing how diverse the sector is.

I hope that's helpful,

Janet

 

[spin cycle]

.

In summary what is being proposed is a complete mess/ totally unworkable and needs to be scrapped and the current payment of BPS needs to carry on with maybe a few tweaks!

by far the most sensible option for both environment and food security...cut bps to 75% and redirect 25% into ELS type options that everyone can bid for......suspect it's far to simple

good to have @Janet Hughes Defra back though

 

[Ceri]

We're not asking you to choose between food production (or a profitable business) and the environment; we're saying that these 2 things need to go hand in hand as they already do on many farms. The new schemes are about overwhelmingly about paying farmers for the environmental goods they produce for the public alongside food, not choosing one or the other.

For some farms that will be about adopting or continuing more sustainable approaches to farming, eg by taking care of soil health, using integrated pest management, managing nutrients in a more sustainable way (if you're already doing these things, which many are, you can get paid for it to recognise the value of those practices to the natural environment). We'll pay for those things through SFI so you can generate an additional income alongside your income from food production whilst doing actions that should, over the long term, also help your farm remain resilient, profitable and productive.

For others, it will be about for example, adding winter bird food into your rotation, protecting watercourses or sparing less productive areas that are less profitable / hard to farm / have any number of other problems. Many farmers already do these sorts of actions through Countryside Stewardship. That will be open for applications this year and next, and then its successor scheme Local Nature Recovery will take its place from 2025 onwards. That scheme will be open to individual farmers, as CS is now.

You will be able to do whatever combination of things works for your farm business, alongside food production. We're making the schemes flexible, fair (no more unfair inspections and penalties) and accessible (no more huge amounts of paperwork or bureaucracy; rules that allow tenant farmers to participate and flex their agreements over time). We will flex the budget to respond to farmer demand, so that if more of you want to go into SFI we'll fund that, if more want to do CS and then LNR we'll fund that instead.

So to answer your questions:
1, It's not my role to set or comment on the overall direction (though I'm happy to explain it) - that's the role of elected government, I'm here to advise them and implement their policies and I'm not allowed to get into political debate. If the question is can it work / is it workable, then yes I think it can work and that's what I and my team are working (with many farmers) to make happen.
2, It's not the case that zero emphasis has been put on securing food production - many of the actions we are paying for support both food production and the environment, and as is the case for many farms already it is possible and desirable for food production and environmental production to go hand in hand. There are also other measures being put in place to help support food production including work on supply chain fairness, making regulations around use of slurry and manures more workable for farmers, running an industry fertiliser working group that is advising and supporting policy development on fertilisers specifically, and bringing forward this year's BPS payments in line with our new approach to making payments more frequently (SFI payments will be quarterly), recognising that's better for farmer cashflow
3, and 4, no we don't expect food self sufficiency to decrease as a result of ELMs - any land taken out of production is likely to be less productive (as many farms do now, in CS), otherwise farmers would be unlikely to decide to do it (and this is all about farmers deciding what to do on your land). We are also, as you say, supporting productivity improvements on the remaining land through support for productivity grants, innovation research and development, learning and skills and free business planning advice for farmers. You might not find those attractive yourself, but we do generally get a lot of interest in these schemes, and we're trying to provide a range of options to suit all farmers, knowing how diverse the sector is.

I hope that's helpful,

Janet

I'm afraid we're going to have to agree to disagree and let the proof be in the pudding.
My priorities going forward are to Batton down the hatches and stay afloat until a uturn, because as things stand if things stay as they are with regards to elms we're going to go down the pan along with alot of others and the goverment can go scratching round the world trying to fill the void left by us guys to make up the short fall of beef etc etc.