Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New resources
Latest activity
Trending Threads
Resources
Latest reviews
Search resources
FarmTV
Farm Compare
Search
Tokens/Searches
Calendar
Upcoming Events
Members
Registered members
Current visitors
New Resources
New posts
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More options
Contact us
Close Menu
Forums
Farm Business
Agricultural Matters
SFI Pilot questions / thoughts
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Cowski" data-source="post: 7676698" data-attributes="member: 1448"><p>DEFRA want to spend this money, it’s been ring-fenced within this government. If it’s not spent (low uptake) treasury will potentially reduce the budget saying UK farmers haven’t taken funding offered. </p><p></p><p>The step change is from a subsidised industry to an industry providing an environmental service. Government have to show that this payment for environmental services is not propping up ag production as this jeopardises international trade deals. Therefore it’s catch 22. I’m struggling in my head to see how this plays out and unfortunately don’t know enough about international trade law to have a valid view point. There is an awful lot on George Eustice’s shoulders at the moment and he’s not being politically clever enough at the moment within cabinet to get the best deal for UK ag I’m afraid.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Cowski, post: 7676698, member: 1448"] DEFRA want to spend this money, it’s been ring-fenced within this government. If it’s not spent (low uptake) treasury will potentially reduce the budget saying UK farmers haven’t taken funding offered. The step change is from a subsidised industry to an industry providing an environmental service. Government have to show that this payment for environmental services is not propping up ag production as this jeopardises international trade deals. Therefore it’s catch 22. I’m struggling in my head to see how this plays out and unfortunately don’t know enough about international trade law to have a valid view point. There is an awful lot on George Eustice’s shoulders at the moment and he’s not being politically clever enough at the moment within cabinet to get the best deal for UK ag I’m afraid. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Farm Business
Agricultural Matters
SFI Pilot questions / thoughts
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top