SFI Pilot questions / thoughts

[topground]

With all grass grazed, fodder bought in, fields over seeded with rye grass and clover every five years in rotation after cattle over wintered. Never cut or topped I have no clear idea where I stick the pin in the grassland options and I have no intention of changing my system for the level of reward on offer.

 

[gone up the hill]

Clive look at the payment rates of this scheme in real terms v running a profitable business with this example:

You contract farm other peoples land, say the costs of for you for doing all the field operations etc for one of these farms is £40k, your charges are £60k which cover all your costs + leaves a profit margin....

Would YOU Clive do this contract farms work which costs you 40k but only charge them 20k for all the work???.... No of course you would not!!

But Defra are expecting/ wanting farmers to sign upto a scheme which for a 200 acre farm will cost 20k in the first year to join but at best will only bring income from the scheme of 6/7k ( and likely to be much lower in real terms )

Perhaps now you will see why the new elms scheme and in particular its payment rates/ red tape costs mean the scheme as it stands is totally unworkable for tens of thousands of family/small farms across the UK who are the backbone of the industry!

 

[EddieB]

The killer is not being able to use land already in another scheme. You have 0.4 ha of a field in mid tier and it disqualifies all of that field from the pilot SFI. It seems to make the pilot pretty much unviable for anyone in CSS.

 

[oil barron]

Someone put a link on here not long ago where defra have now said you can take SFI money and be in a carbon ponzi scheme.

that goes against carbon offset integrity principle 4 as it leads to double accounting. Ie an offset is only real if you specifically create the offset to sell. You can’t sell it if the government is already paying you to do it, as they will already be claiming the carbon account on their books.

 

[Bill the Bass]

That would be very intrusive if they need to see how you are/arent involved in a private scheme.

Seems to me defra don’t know if they want a sh!t or a hair cut. Janet Hughes, the programme director of defras future farming and countryside programme clearly and publically said at the cereals event last month that ‘our schemes should welcome in and not force out private sector investment in carbon trading’.

I wouldn’t trust any of them.

 

[ajd132]

That would be very intrusive if they need to see how you are/arent involved in a private scheme.

I

View attachment 976317
that goes against carbon offset integrity principle 4 as it leads to double accounting. Ie an offset is only real if you specifically create the offset to sell. You can’t sell it if the government is already paying you to do it, as they will already be claiming the carbon account on their books.

Sfi doesn’t pay for carbon so doesn’t matter

 

[delilah]

that goes against carbon offset integrity principle 4 as it leads to double accounting. Ie an offset is only real if you specifically create the offset to sell. You can’t sell it if the government is already paying you to do it, as they will already be claiming the carbon account on their books.

I suspect they - defra, carbon traders - will get round that by saying that ELMS isn't paying you to store carbon.
( As an aside, it's enlightening to google 'carbon ponzi scheme' and read about what has gone on around the World. Someone should open a book on which tff'er ends up in court first).
edit: as above .

 

[Badshot]

i can’t decide if % of features in say arable standard can also be included for example water course standard or are they additional % ? if not a decent scheme that covers 3 or 4 standards at advanced level could take half our area out of production / thats too much

also not sure they are even close to income forgone ? - if not uptake is going to be VERY minimal

i hope they can get this right as the principle is good

I had the same questions, I think I found the answer which said hedgerow and water buffers can be put in alongside each other, not occupying the same ground.

 

[Sid]

Payment rates are so low that the scheme is not worth bothering with and every farmer should refuse to join in the trials untill they bring in sensible payment rates!

BPS is around £90 acre so if they want farmers to cut/ lower production on their land then payment rates need to be double the current BPS rate to cover both income forgone and the massive red tape burden of the new scheme.

I read the other week that for the average 200 acre family farm it will cost £6/7000 in agents fees for the first year to join the scheme as the rules stand, so you spend 7k in agents fees, lose of income v production is another £10,000 for the 200 acre farm so factor in both these and the farmers management time of say another 3k it will cost the 200 acre farm 20k to be in the scheme, what will they get in payments? 5/7k at best.... total non starter for all but the big farms..

NFU estimate that at least 25/30% of farmers will be forced out of the industry when elms comes in and they think that is acceptable so thus are backing the new elms scheme.... you could not make it up if you tried!

According to many post by Clive with his various meetings with Defra on "our" behalf he has stated that they are engaging with the likes of TFF rather than the membership organisations such as NFU , CLA, TFA etc.

Therefore what is said in this forum is being listened to and reflected in SFI and policy.

On your point on the SFI trials, in test and trials I would have to put money into it at every level, the rates were not high enough.
With the pilots rates have been adjusted, they are still not, on grassland, enough to be anything like a reward for the work undertaken or benefits delivered.

I will repeat myself and I feel its extremely important, index linked payment should be in place, which I have raised with Janet Hughes.
We are seeing it in CSS agreements where payments are out stripped by the cost of materials.

 

[T Hectares]

I had a look at it when the SFI pilot was announced and thought there were too many unknowns in the standards, for example many of the soil standards talk of improving or increasing with zero explanation of how they will be quantified or what will be acceptable, I thought at the max level it didn’t look so bad but definitely more cost to comply than CS

My mid tier is due to finish at the end of the year so I am re applying with a beefed up extra options kind of application, will then sit back and watch for 5 years, hopefully by then things will be clearer, can always leave the new CS scheme early with no penalty if needs be, let someone else have the hassle of interpreting the new scheme !!

 

[Clive]

Ditch management in some of the standards. Think it's in the intermediate level for arable land, therefore can't move to higher level unless you agree to intermediate level.

Sime farms might not have any ditches, so don't have to do anything to get the cash.

Thise with ditches need to manage them as per the prescription. These ditches may take neighbours water, and so farmer is obliged to keep them clean. This might prevent farmer claimingboth intermediate and higher level.

I think the whole thing (SFI) is a dogs dinner. Overly complex and payment rates too low.

Best thing would be for no one to do the pilot. Then RPA may realise they're aaking for too much and paying too little.

Doesn't seem to do much more than cover cost of adhering to the standards.

i will only adopt standards that cover income forgone - if it doesn’t stack up financially that will be the pilot feedback they get

 

[Clive]

Clive look at the payment rates of this scheme in real terms v running a profitable business with this example:

You contract farm other peoples land, say the costs of for you for doing all the field operations etc for one of these farms is £40k, your charges are £60k which cover all your costs + leaves a profit margin....

Would YOU Clive do this contract farms work which costs you 40k but only charge them 20k for all the work???.... No of course you would not!!

But Defra are expecting/ wanting farmers to sign upto a scheme which for a 200 acre farm will cost 20k in the first year to join but at best will only bring income from the scheme of 6/7k ( and likely to be much lower in real terms )

Perhaps now you will see why the new elms scheme and in particular its payment rates/ red tape costs mean the scheme as it stands is totally unworkable for tens of thousands of family/small farms across the UK who are the backbone of the industry!

its not that bad from our calculations so far - some standards do cover income forgone but some really do not

in think the have advanced soil and arable very wrong

 

[Grass And Grain]

Think I might concentrate my efforts on the off-farm things.

Edit. I will struggle to agree to do rotational ditch management. That leaves me on the introductory tier . Some ditches need de-silting annually, unless they want the silt to go downstream into the rivers, and I'm obliged to keep water flowing for my neighbours.

Instead of having to do everything in a tier, before being allowed to move to next tier, would it be better to allocate each prescription some £££, choose the ones you want, add them all up = more flexible, and doesn't penalise someone too heavily for having a tricky feature on their farm.

ELS was easier to work into farming system.

 

[Courier]

Think I might concentrate my efforts on the off-farm things.

Putting an equivalent amount of effort into an unrelated project could well pay better and have a much greater potential than being a hoop-jumper....

 

[Badshot]

There is no stacking of payment.
Meaning you can't put two things on the same ground.
So if you have buffers, you can't plant nectar mixes on it to meet the arable land standards.

Farming well will beat this scheme hands down financially.

 

[Grass And Grain]

Putting an equivalent amount of effort into an unrelated project could well pay better and have a much greater potential than being a hoop-jumper....

There is no stacking of payment.
Meaning you can't put two things on the same ground.
So if you have buffers, you can't plant nectar mixes on it to meet the arable land standards.

Farming well will beat this scheme hands down financially.

Agree with these comments.

Farm without one hand tied behind your back.

Do some other off-farm things with time saved messing about with SFI management plans.

 

[Clive]

There is no stacking of payment.
Meaning you can't put two things on the same ground.
So if you have buffers, you can't plant nectar mixes on it to meet the arable land standards.

Farming well will beat this scheme hands down financially.

this is the biggest issue imo that is going to make it financially unattractive plus the best place for some of the arable and soil options are the same places as the watercourse options

i “think” some standards do allow some stacking though but helpline can’t confirm

 

[Clive]

TFF Q&A with Janet Hughes on 11th august ……… i can see its going to be a busy one

will start a thread next week for specific questions

 

[oil barron]

I

Sfi doesn’t pay for carbon so doesn’t matter

Doesn’t matter. You are managing the land that way at the request of the government and being paid for it. Additionality is key to true offsets. You have to be doing something new for the carbon offset project and be doing it specifically to get the offset.

 

[steveR]

It's all a complete dogs breakfast. The fact that some of the options changed beyond recognition within a few weeks, shows just how unsure Defra are as to what they want and how to achieve it.

Anyway, one specific issue: On the grassland options it wants you to increase species diversity. Over a 10 year agreement, doable, but over a 2 (?) year pilot what will you achieve ? Unsure on how the short term pilots can assist in testing long term objectives.

Have to be a new ley, or new species stitched in, a la herbal leys.