SFI pilot

[Against_the_grain]

All of which is true. But it doesn't answer the question at hand: What should the SFI look like ?

A combination of the mess that is the SFI and the war in Ukraine has convinced me that BPS was actually a pretty decent system. Granted it had it flaws, but on the whole it allowed farmers to continue to produce/re-invest/manage the environment and god forbid make a living, all whilst keeping grains at or around COP.

 

[Badshot]

I think we are coming to a similar conclusion, much as I like the principles its just to complex and restrictive, and we are a example of a farm thats already doing most of whats required !!!

I feel sorry for those involved in its design who are clearly trying their best but its just doesn't work at farm level frankly


They have sadly listened to a lot of the wrong people I think


CSS seems a better option for us environmentally and SFI is very restrictive of that - probably a case of out the frying pan into the fire however

I'm also doing a large part of it, but the extra nonsense makes it hideously difficult to comply.

 

[Against_the_grain]

I think the SFI is a dead duck personally.

Currently I feel the bps system should continue as is, and the CS too.

It ticks most boxes, certainly more than SFI does.

Have a basic payment, supplemented by top ups for doing the extras. But for Christ's sake give up on the prescriptive side of SFI, simply do it as £10 an acre for DD, £10 an acre for chopping straw, £20 an acre for establishing cover over winter instead of bare ground
Etc, etc.

And make it easy to dip in and out as conditions/markets dictate. It would be difficult to police but a flexible system that would allow farmers to overwinter stubbles if the markets were not favourable, or carry out a bit of DD if conditions allowed rather than tying yourself into a system that probably isnt going to work all of the time.

 

[Clive]

I think the SFI is a dead duck personally.

Currently I feel the bps system should continue as is, and the CS too.

It ticks most boxes, certainly more than SFI does.

Have a basic payment, supplemented by top ups for doing the extras. But for Christ's sake give up on the prescriptive side of SFI, simply do it as £10 an acre for DD, £10 an acre for chopping straw, £20 an acre for establishing cover over winter instead of bare ground
Etc, etc.

Obviously the above is a very quick lunchtime idea, no reason something similar couldn't work though, and meet the ideals they wish, but have the flexibility to pick and choose exactly what we want, not have a load of extra nonsense foisted on us which needs to be done to comply with the basics.

trouble is I doubt the treasury will give a dam !

BPS is going and if SFI fails re uptake then thy just save a load of cash .......... can't say they didn't try can you !


SFI simply needed to be an extension of improved version CSS really and have payments that were viable and it would have been VERY successful for farmers and environment


the landscape / re wilding stuff needs dropping, its immoral now given recent world event and will, only pay national trust and other very wealthy landowners, that money needs to go into CSS etc making it more attractive and viable

 

[Steevo]

they need to recruit a LOT of farmers with practical experience ASAP IMO - I reckon a good group of the right people could sort it out in no time !!

Couldn't agree more. But they won't - they don't see that they need to.

Same with all government policy, they think they know the answers. Worse than that they think that the people who do know the answers (in this case farmers) don't have the faintest idea.

The problem with people in positions of power is that they fail to understand that the "small carrot and big stick" approach really doesn't work very well at all.

Capitalism is a far more effective way of stimulating supply.

 

[Steevo]

And make it easy to dip in and out as conditions/markets dictate. It would be difficult to police but a flexible system that would allow farmers to overwinter stubbles if the markets were not favourable, or carry out a bit of DD if conditions allowed rather than tying yourself into a system that probably isnt going to work all of the time.

Exactly this! Flexibility is something government departments aren't very good at......well, other than when the boot is on the other foot and they were supposed to pay you six months ago but still haven't.

 

[Clive]

this would be a very useful thread for @Janet Hughes Defra team to browse through ...................

 

[Two Tone]

I’m supposed to be going to an ELMs meeting by Andersons next week.
The trouble is that things are changing so fast that I can’t see how anything they tell us will end up as being what will actually happen.

The SFI pilot scheme seems to be an utter joke. How will they get a LOT more farmers with practical experience when paying the insulting rates they do at the moment?
It’s not as if we haven’t got rather a lot of other things on our minds at the moment.

 

[Janet Hughes Defra]

this would be a very useful thread for @Janet Hughes Defra team to browse through ...................

Yes, I'm reading it now, thanks Clive (a couple of others had tagged me in too, for which thanks also)

 

[jonnieboy]

I have just accepted our offer for the trial 6 months after the application was submitted ! good job they were not trying to process 35,000 applications or whatever BPS is.
At the time I felt we could comply with the soils intermediate although reading how they are using satellite imagery I am loosing confidence, as one of the reasons we were held up for so long was a land parcel which is split into 3 different crops and for the last however many years has always added up correctly on the BPS claim suddenly gained .4 of a hectare no explanation or apology was offered only the fact they were letting it slide this time WTF !
Having spent an hour this morning on a webinar on learning from the trial and actually seeing very little credible content I feel they have a big heap of learning to do in a very short time.
Maybe we as the instructors should be getting a bigger consultancy fee and invoicing for our time.

 

[Janet Hughes Defra]

Afternoon all, just reading through this thread to see what I and my colleagues can do about the concerns you're raising. A few things if I may in response:

1. this is a pilot and the point is to test, learn and improve - if there are things that don't work, we want to know, whether that's about the standards or the way the scheme is working, so that we can fix it which we will do as quickly and as well as possible (this is the aspect that the learning fee is there to cover, because we know that this aspect of being in a pilot takes time and effort and it's fair to recognise and pay for that; but that's not to say that we can't do that more efficiently for you, and we of course don't want to take up any more of your time or effort than is necessary or useful)

2. I am hugely grateful to those who are taking part in the pilot and helping shape the scheme so that it works for farmers - I full recognise we're not there yet and that we have a way to go on a number of fronts; we are working on all of that thanks to your efforts and feedback

3. I hope you will clearly see when we roll out the main scheme this year that we have heard and are responding to the feedback we've had already about the standards, guidance, terms and conditions and application process - we will publish some more information about all of this shortly

4. thanks for tagging me in so I can see your feedback. On the specific points around communications: I've heard similar feedback about the quantity and quality of emails from a group of farmers last week, have flagged it with my colleagues and we will get on the case and fix it asap

 

[Princess Pooper]

WTF would happen in a year like 2019 and 2020, when the Autumns were so wet that many were not able to plant there planned winter crop acreages?

or even if planted, were under water?

 

[Timbo]

trouble is I doubt the treasury will give a dam !

BPS is going and if SFI fails re uptake then thy just save a load of cash .......... can't say they didn't try can you !


SFI simply needed to be an extension of improved version CSS really and have payments that were viable and it would have been VERY successful for farmers and environment


the landscape / re wilding stuff needs dropping, its immoral now given recent world event and will, only pay national trust and other very wealthy landowners, that money needs to go into CSS etc making it more attractive and viable

SFI has been subtly engineered to not appeal and to fail if you ask me, that would have been the brief given from up-top. A teaser, but not very palatable.

 

[jonnieboy]

or even if planted, were under water?

then you would have to fill in an RLE1 as they would classify your farm as a lake

 

[Timbo]

then you would have to fill in an RLE1 as they would classify your farm as a lake

Then it would be a lake forever.....

 

[BenAdamsAgri]

We are entering into the pilot on a decent sized area and from comparisons to the CSS for the most part it pays better

What I didn't imagine is all the extra rubbish that comes along with it i.e., the land management plan, journal/dairy thing

 

[CornishTone]

They can't even get CS right, which they've been running for... how many years now?!?!?
What hope is there they can get ELMs or SFI right? Precious little I suspect.

We are currently battling with them over our CS application and it's now dawning on me that the battle is harming me more than its harming them so, I suspect it comes down to a stark choice for all of us; play their games and accept you'll probably lose more than you win, or walk away and cut your cloth accordingly. For us, it seems easier to walk away and farm as we see fit.

 

[Clive]

They can't even get CS right, which they've been running for... how many years now?!?!?
What hope is there they can get ELMs or SFI right? Precious little I suspect.

We are currently battling with them over our CS application and it's now dawning on me that the battle is harming me more than its harming them so, I suspect it comes down to a stark choice for all of us; play their games and accept you'll probably lose more than you win, or walk away and cut your cloth accordingly. For us, it seems easier to walk away and farm as we see fit.

to be fair BPS worked well in. the end re admin - we could do a claim literally in minutes and payment was prompt and problems few

 

[Wombat]

to be fair BPS worked well in. the end re admin - we could do a claim literally in minutes and payment was prompt and problems few

Seems it was just us where payment was rarely prompt

 

[AT Aloss]

When did your agreement start? Ours started on 1st November, and we received our first payment in mid February. There have been plenty of emails but nothing overwhelming and I'd rather be in the loop about what's expected. I'm no fan of ELMS, but I would say the pilot has been the best thing about it so far.

Start date: 01/11/21, first payment 18/02/22

Biggest concern so far has been with remote sensing. NDVI has a track record of being notoriously unreliable in low light conditions, not sure it stood a chance in January. We had a grass seed field, been grassed down for 3 years. It had been harvested with a stripper header, not topped or mowed & the sheep turned out on it since October. 100% cover if ever there was a definition!

The NDVI imagery returned a result of 19.8% green cover - God help us all, especially those leaving surface crop residues...

Without proper "truthing" this isn't going to work.