SFI Pilot questions / thoughts

[T Hectares]

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

This is definitely an issue that put me off, we have some well established AB8 that is full of wildlife, the thought of removing all these areas to focus on the arable and soil standards seems wrong and detrimental to all the habitat we have created here through AB1,8 & 9

 

[steveR]

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

I will see if she took on board my thoughts and advice at Groundswell...

 

[steveR]

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.

It does, and it did... For me at least.

However, my CSS expires this September and I could move to SFI to have a play, but too much hassle for not enough reward.

 

[ajd132]

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.

Sfi paying for interventions, if those interventions mean you can produce more carbon certificates to sell then it should be allowed.

 

[Courier]

This is definitely an issue that put me off, we have some well established AB8 that is full of wildlife, the thought of removing all these areas to focus on the arable and soil standards seems wrong and detrimental to all the habitat we have created here through AB1,8 & 9

And there is your problem - you are thinking about this in a logical, reasonable and practical manner.

 

[oil barron]

Sfi paying for interventions, if those interventions mean you can produce more carbon certificates to sell then it should be allowed.

The various other threads give the impression you can sell carbon credits if you have some spare in your normal course of business. That is not how carbon offsets work. You have to be doing the project over and above your normal course of business and specifically to get the offsets. So if the government is paying you to manage land in a certain way, you couldn’t say that you are doing it specifically to get the offsets.

 

[ajd132]

The various other threads give the impression you can sell carbon credits if you have some spare in your normal course of business. That is not how carbon offsets work. You have to be doing the project over and above your normal course of business and specifically to get the offsets. So if the government is paying you to manage land in a certain way, you couldn’t say that you are doing it specifically to get the offsets.

This is not the case though, you can sell your sequestration.

 

[oil barron]

This is not the case though, you can sell your sequestration.

Yes, if it is additional over a baseline.
If you read ISO14064-2 a large part of it is quantifying the baseline and then assessing the impact of the “Project” above that baseline. If the government is paying you to do a certain thing then that becomes the baseline. Any credit offsets for sale would have to be as a result of practices above that baseline.

 

[Badshot]

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

The only stacking , is buffers on arable land/soil area.
Any specific actions within the soil/land standards have to occupy their own area.
That was a clearly answered question on today's webinar.

I got several questions answered which I was impressed with.

 

[Clive]

This is not the case though, you can sell your sequestration.

Janet Hughes confirmed this in my question to her at Groundswell

 

[oil barron]

Janet Hughes confirmed this in my question to her at Groundswell

I don’t think the government would have an issue with it, but I don’t think you could truthfully meet the needs of additionality for your offsets. Unless you are doing something more than what is prescribed by the government program.

 

[steveR]

This is definitely an issue that put me off, we have some well established AB8 that is full of wildlife, the thought of removing all these areas to focus on the arable and soil standards seems wrong and detrimental to all the habitat we have created here through AB1,8 & 9

Sounds par for the course. No joined up thinking.

Last round of CSS 10 years ago slashed funding for certain option no longer deemed sexy enough, so I had 15ha of mega low input grassland from an earlier arable reversion drop off the new scheme. Bonkers, as we were hitting several target list species on the land, including Curlew, Brown Hare, Barn Owl. At the time, I was asked would I leave the grassland, but I simply could not afford to. Plough was in the day after the scheme ended.

Lucky escape in hindsight really though, as it might then have fallen into EIA territory and protected habitat or something!

 

[E_B]

I plan on putting our away farm into the pilot scheme, although it's not without its difficulties. I don't have access to my notes so far but the arable soils advanced standard should be easily achievable, the land advanced standard achievable with about 11% of the farm coming out of production.

The hedgerow entry level standard is much more realistic/attractive than the higher paying levels, and watercourses is a big question mark because a 10m margin around 30% of all watercourses is a big ask for the renumeration offered. In addition to 6m around another 20%. And the entry level payment for watercourses is hardly worth the bother of altering permanent tramlines, etc.

Anticipating an income of 2/3rds BPS, obviously minus the lost margin on approx 11% of land + establishment costs.

Probably just about worth doing on away land with plenty of road miles. More attractive to one man bands who can cut production a bit, spread some work and don't want to/can't farm more intensively.

I will credit them for making changes to the arable soils standard recently to make it much less revolting.

 

[Clive]

I don’t think the government would have an issue with it, but I don’t think you could truthfully meet the needs of additionality for your offsets. Unless you are doing something more than what is prescribed by the government program.

I asked a quite specific and detailed question at groundswell which she had been given in advance of the session we were in giving change to make sure her answer was minister approved etc - she made it clear that government did not wish to get in the way of evolving commercial markets that maybe one day could replace the public money

 

[oil barron]

I asked a quite specific and detailed question at groundswell which she had been given in advance of the session we were in giving change to make sure her answer was minister approved etc - she made it clear that government did not wish to get in the way of evolving commercial markets that maybe one day could replace the public money

Yes, and I don’t think she told you any lies. The government will not get in the way of you selling carbon credits. The tricky part is when you have to complete the offset paperwork though and declare that you are implementing additional practices. How can you certify to that if you already have a contract in place with the government to do said practices.

If what you are doing to get the offset credits has nothing to do with the practices required by the government scheme then I don’t see any issue

 

[AT Aloss]

I asked the helpline: "what is a hedge?"

Under BPS it was a hedgerow or a row of trees. But SFI guidance indicates that a tree isn't a hedge; but, a hedge must have an average of 1 hedgerow tree every 400 metres, or you must plant more. I suggested that planting/tagging more trees may potentially reduce the qualifying meterage of hedgerow & a shelter belt of trees in a hedgerow, (where the lengths of hedge are often spaced - 6 metres hedge - tree - 6 metres hedge - tree, etc etc), may not even qualify on the basis that the run of hedgerow is less than over 20 metres long.

It took 10 days for the helpline to return my call saying I needed to refer to the online guidance for the hedgerow standard, which was the reason for my call in the first instance:

• a boundary line of shrubs (a woody plant where the distance between the ground and the base of the leafy layer is less than 2m)
• over 20 metres long, and less than 5 metres wide between major stems at the base
• composed of at least 80% native shrubs

Perhaps I'm over-thinking it & I should literally just add up all my hedgerows + trees?

But the earlier point @Clive & @delilah made about the helpline being more useless than the guidance is true.

 

[Clive]

I asked the helpline: "what is a hedge?"

Under BPS it was a hedgerow or a row of trees. But SFI guidance indicates that a tree isn't a hedge; but, a hedge must have an average of 1 hedgerow tree every 400 metres, or you must plant more. I suggested that planting/tagging more trees may potentially reduce the qualifying meterage of hedgerow & a shelter belt of trees in a hedgerow, (where the lengths of hedge are often spaced - 6 metres hedge - tree - 6 metres hedge - tree, etc etc), may not even qualify on the basis that the run of hedgerow is less than over 20 metres long.

It took 10 days for the helpline to return my call saying I needed to refer to the online guidance for the hedgerow standard, which was the reason for my call in the first instance:

• a boundary line of shrubs (a woody plant where the distance between the ground and the base of the leafy layer is less than 2m)
• over 20 metres long, and less than 5 metres wide between major stems at the base
• composed of at least 80% native shrubs

Perhaps I'm over-thinking it & I should literally just add up all my hedgerows + trees?

But the earlier point @Clive & @delilah made about the helpline being more useless than the guidance is true.

i think hedgerow lengths are already defined in your online portal ?

 

[Clive]

I plan on putting our away farm into the pilot scheme, although it's not without its difficulties. I don't have access to my notes so far but the arable soils advanced standard should be easily achievable, the land advanced standard achievable with about 11% of the farm coming out of production.

The hedgerow entry level standard is much more realistic/attractive than the higher paying levels, and watercourses is a big question mark because a 10m margin around 30% of all watercourses is a big ask for the renumeration offered. In addition to 6m around another 20%. And the entry level payment for watercourses is hardly worth the bother of altering permanent tramlines, etc.

Anticipating an income of 2/3rds BPS, obviously minus the lost margin on approx 11% of land + establishment costs.

Probably just about worth doing on away land with plenty of road miles. More attractive to one man bands who can cut production a bit, spread some work and don't want to/can't farm more intensively.

I will credit them for making changes to the arable soils standard recently to make it much less revolting.

similar to my thoughts right now - income forgone on uncropped % is higher than the payments on arable soils / advanced land standard though so probably not worth doing ....... shame

I cant see uptake being great unless they fix that


hedgerows are the only one that really we can do without it costing us and that on a farm already a long way down the sustainable road with most of the advanced stuff covered, they are asking for too much to come out of production, I'm good with that as long as my lost income is compensated and current rates are miles off that as far as I can tell


Not many farms are in a position to voluntary cut their gross output right now

 

[AT Aloss]

i think hedgerow lengths are already defined in your online portal ?

That's my point, they are but they aren't. For example: a nice rectangular field with an almost completely continuous run of hedge, interspersed with hedgerow trees & unqualifying hedgerow trees

This manifests itself as 8 hedges mapped, with 2 unqualifying lengths (less than 20 metres). If hedgerow trees don't qualify as hedges (because the base of the leafy layer is more than 2 metres) then some lengths of hedgerow are too short to qualify. Is it a case of sending in an RLE1 claiming it is a continuous length of hedge including hedgerow trees? The helpline wasn't able to give me any guidance on this.

 

[Tubbylew]

That's my point, they are but they aren't. For example: a nice rectangular field with an almost completely continuous run of hedge, interspersed with hedgerow trees & unqualifying hedgerow trees

This manifests itself as 8 hedges mapped, with 2 unqualifying lengths (less than 20 metres). If hedgerow trees don't qualify as hedges (because the base of the leafy layer is more than 2 metres) then some lengths of hedgerow are too short to qualify. Is it a case of sending in an RLE1 claiming it is a continuous length of hedge including hedgerow trees? The helpline wasn't able to give me any guidance on this.

Strewth, you can trust government to make life far more complicated than it needs to be.