Sustainable farming incentive - handbook for 2023 has been published

[Janet Hughes Defra]

Afternoon all,

Today we've published a handbook containing all the detailed information about the sustainable farming incentive offer for this year.

The handbook is here:
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/sfi-handbook-for-the-sfi-2023-offer

An overview blogpost is here: https://defrafarming.blog.gov.uk/2023/06/21/sfi-more-ways-to-enhance-your-income-productivity-and-the-environment/

The handbook sets out all the detailed actions, rules and requirements of the scheme, in a single handbook that you can download and print (because this is what many of you have asked us to do, rather than spreading the information across multiple pages on GOV.UK).

We have made some changes to the scheme in response to feedback from you and other farmers and through our pilot and early rollout of the scheme. In particular, we have made a much broader range of options available, made the scheme more flexible so you can pick the individual actions you want to do rather than having to do them in set combinations or percentages of land entered into the scheme.

Finally, I know I have not been present on the forum in the consistent, ongoing way many of you would like. I understand why that has been frustrating and annoying, and I am really sorry about that. I have found that am just not able to personally engage on every thread on an ongoing basis, I'm afraid. However I do really want to find a way of addressing your questions and hearing your feedback all the time, not just when we publish new information, so I am working with @Clive to put in place a better, ongoing, sustainable way of managing this so that you can ask questions of me and my team and give us feedback when they arise. We will let you know where we get to with that as soon as possible.

For this particular thread, I am planning to be online at least daily, for the next week, to answer your questions about the information we've published today. I have posted this as a question with voting, and if you could upvote questions that you particularly want me to address it would be helpful if you could vote for them so that I can prioritise my time and attention, and I will then do my best to work through as many of them as I possibly can. I hope this is helpful and look forward to your questions.

If you have questions about your specific farm situation, the best thing to do is contact the RPA contact centre and they will be able to point you in the right direction.

Thank you.

 

[delilah]

but minus BPS so it really isn't the same is it??

£2.4Bn is £2.4Bn. What name they attach to it really doesn't matter.

 

[ski]

@Janet Hughes Defra and to all. My farm has been organic since 97, it is all improved grassland only 50 - 70m above sea level, could be ploughed and some has been but has been dairy until early 2000's after which it has been sucklers. As far as I can tell I could plough out the whole lot and then enter it in a matrix of IGL2/SAM3/IPM2/AHL1-3 with some additional management plan and monitoring from SAM1/HRW1-3/IPM2/NUM1. Is that correct? Thanks.

 

[Janet Hughes Defra]

I understand the principle of farmers in SFI having flexibility to decide how best to achieve the action’s aims.

However in the case of SAM1 (Soil Organic Testing) we will need more guidance on what is considered a ‘small’ parcel.

It is inevitable that the RPA will issue guidance on this for their inspectors in the future.

Once the precedent has been set that the RPA consider a certain area (like 5ha for example) to be the limit of a ‘small’ parcel, then it will become black and white.

You’ll have thousands of farmers (who out of fear of falling foul of this subjective rule) do not test soils on parcels and thousands more who end up being financially penalised for testing too ‘big’ a parcel.

We’re trying to avoid prescriptive and arbitrary rules like this and instead have a reasonable and pragmatic approach; I understand the concern, but we are not having penalties in SFI and we have introduced a more flexible and pragmatic approach so you get the chance to adjust course if needed. I do realise this is a significant change and a big claim to make, and that it will take time for this to be seen and believed, but we think it is crucially important to do this if we want to change the way things work for you for the better.

 

[soapsud]

but minus BPS so it really isn't the same is it??

Help me with a term definition. What does Assess mean?

 

[Janet Hughes Defra]

So 70% participation is 'an objective' but not a 'main objective'.

The commitment to address the fact that 50% of the BPS goes to 10% of farmers. Is that an 'objective' or a 'main objective' ?

I was trying to say that it is one of a number of measures of success - uptake alone doesn’t represent success if we don’t also see the outcomes we are here to deliver for farming, food and environment.

On the distribution of BPS - that was one of the arguments for the reforms, and the new schemes are intended to help address that as well, yes.

 

[Ceri]

I’m just absolutely astonished that defra are pressing ahead with this in the current climate. The fallout from covid & the war in Ukraine leading to hyper inflation, Interest rates rising, super volatile markets etc etc……. Never was there a time more crucial that bps was needed at full rate until things settle down but instead they’re ploughing ahead with this nightmare scheme that no one can really get there heads round…… When this all goes belly up I really do hope people like @Janet Hughes Defra are held accountable for the millions of pounds wasted producing a scheme that no one takes up.
Tough times ahead with a lot of damage to the ag sector, supply chains & the environment to come which could and should have been completely avoidable.
This Tory government…………………Words just fail me.

@Janet Hughes Defra up to 30 likes now. Is the penny ever going to drop with you about how farmers are feeling at the moment….?

 

[Janet Hughes Defra]

If we start an agreement in say Oct 2023, but then add in a new option/standard in Oct 2024, when does the 3 year agreement end? Oct 2026 or Oct 2027?

Currently if you did this your agreement would still end in Oct 26, but we are looking at whether it would be better to allow the overall agreement to roll forward, so you can add new / longer options on a rolling basis and / or enable you to extend your existing options so that they are all timed to end at the same time. What do you think? What would you prefer to happen?

 

[Sid]

I was trying to say that it is one of a number of measures of success - uptake alone doesn’t represent success if we don’t also see the outcomes we are here to deliver for farming, food and environment.

On the distribution of BPS - that was one of the arguments for the reforms, and the new schemes are intended to help address that as well, yes.

ELS was one of the most simplistic scheme, that had a huge take up.

For any scheme to work it the hassle factor has to be outweighed by the return.

That's why BPS had such a high claim percentage and why SFI was lacking in take up.

The tax payers wants to see bang for their bucks
The farmers wants to see bucks for their bangs.

It's @ janet Hughes defra jobs to manage both expectations!

 

[Huno]

Currently if you did this your agreement would still end in Oct 26,

I was up at 4am this morning worrying about how i am going to pay my rent.. how to deal with my rent review arbitration as i dont have the income to pay it anymore and how i was planning to deal with a shifty carbon credit company who suckered me in as i need the cashflow... time for a coffee Morning Janet.. keep up the good work[/QUOTE]

 

[Janet Hughes Defra]

Regarding SAM3 establish and maintain herbal leys, are there any stocking limitations/minimum winter cover requirements? And what species of herbs are acceptable and in what proportion of the ley must they be?

There rules are set out in the handbook - those are the only mandatory rules for this action (starting on p. 27 https://assets.publishing.service.g...file/1164378/SFI23_handbook_V1.0.pdf#page27); beyond that it’s up to you as long as you do things that can reasonably be expected to meet the aim of the action.

Is there a definition of exeptional circumstances somewhere? Seems a little open ended, although somewhat improved.

Yes there are examples given in the ts and cs, eg if there is a change in the law.

Regarding the hedgerow standards:-

HRW1
Who can complete the assesment? I.e. does it have to be a suitably qualified person? And why is the payment so low? I assess hedges professionaly in a roundabout way, to conduct a survey of 100 meters of hedge and to return to the office to write a report would take about half a day. Or is there a tickbox template somewhere?

No it doesn’t have to be a qualified person, you are asked to do an assessment to understand the condition of the hedgerow so you can effectively plan their management, it’s up to you how you do that.

HRW2
I understand that capital grants are available to help with the work, but why is fg2 absent? The hedges invariably need protection from livestock after the prescribed actions have been carried out.

In SFI you have access to the mid tier capital grants offer, which includes fencing items.

Are any of the payment rates going to be linked to the CPI?

No we don’t plan to index link them, but we will keep them regularly updated - it’s a balance between keeping them up to date without creating / replicating market volatility and uncertainty, given that we know that a lot of farmers use the certainty of scheme payments to offset volatility in other areas of their business.

 

[Huno]

Hi. @Janet Hughes Defra could you please tell me how much it costs per Ha each year before a farmer even gets out of bed and decides how to manage their land? We call it fixed overheads and they are very very difficult to reduce. I will happily give you the answer. Your SFI just seems to focus on the variable costs bit which is at or below income foregone... Please tell us you understand this?

 

[Stw88]

Fair enough, and perhaps I was unfair to you.
To be honest I’ve said it enough on these threads , a small upland farm like ours is I feel being kicked into touch in favour of larger lowland units , I have and maintain said the powers that be want to de stock the hills
Meeting Jannet even at this late stage in proceedings at least gives me the chance to show what we do and explain why I think it needs to change

Is £151/ha for low input not enough for you? Looks a good option for most hill farms to me. Add in some mixed grazing or better still native breed grazing plus maintenance of traditional buildings and a few other bits and pieces and its surprising how It adds up with nothing really having to change. Havnt had time to add everything up yet but if rates for moorland are increased and im aloud native payment on a fair chunk of land we will probably end up better off than before. Have already started knocking sheep numbers back but keeping lambs through to fat rather than giving away stores in the glut. Just need to buy a huge topper to tidy the place up.

 

[soapsud]

ELS was one of the most simplistic scheme, that had a huge take up.

For any scheme to work it the hassle factor has to be outweighed by the return.

That's why BPS had such a high claim percentage and why SFI was lacking in take up.

The tax payers wants to see bang for their bucks
The farmers wants to see bucks for their bangs.

It's @ janet Hughes defra jobs to manage both expectations!

Whilst that's basically true, Janet actually said that the success of her schemes will be on outcomes of those who participate not just the % of participants. I won't be signing up for any SFI contracts because I've read the small print.

For instance:

We’re trying to avoid prescriptive and arbitrary rules like this and instead have a reasonable and pragmatic approach;

Janet's team want to measure increases in water, air and soil improvements through prescriptively dictating what each farm in each area of the country with it's own weather, soils, etc. can apply for, invest in and then retrospectively seek recompense whilst availing itself to being assessed (inspected). My patchwork of spread out 153 acres over three counties makes this impossibly complex and I wont be jumping through these technocratic hoops.

 

[Hindsight]

I pushed the virtue of a "personal" adviser to Janet personally back in 2021 Groundswell, and in particular, I praised the ability to access my private company Stewardship adviser on a one to one basis anytime, albeit in a far simpler program.

In my first Arable Pilot Scheme and subsequent CS scheme, I had an individual adviser with whom I could fine tune an agreement and was able to come on farm and discuss my ideas, and was willing and able to go through the application. It was a Partnership in many ways.

Your idea Ian, is one that has huge merit.

The Bell report under the Thatcher government which ultiately led to the privatisatin of ADAS which was your and Holwell Court advisory service with officers intended on farm advice to in future be a private arrangement between f

There rules are set out in the handbook - those are the only mandatory rules for this action (starting on p. 27 https://assets.publishing.service.g...file/1164378/SFI23_handbook_V1.0.pdf#page27); beyond that it’s up to you as long as you do things that can reasonably be expected to meet the aim of the action.

Yes there are examples given in the ts and cs, eg if there is a change in the law.

No it doesn’t have to be a qualified person, you are asked to do an assessment to understand the condition of the hedgerow so you can effectively plan their management, it’s up to you how you do that.

In SFI you have access to the mid tier capital grants offer, which includes fencing items.

No we don’t plan to index link them, but we will keep them regularly updated - it’s a balance between keeping them up to date without creating / replicating market volatility and uncertainty, given that we know that a lot of farmers use the certainty of scheme payments to offset volatility in other areas of their business.

Janet, you say it is upto us. And I understand where you are coming from and I think I appreciate the political direction to get away from the prescriptive rules based system under EU CAP that led to fines. But you cannot not let us know what the RPA inspectorate guidelines are when it comes to visits/inspections call then what you will. Your new system is leading to such subjectivity.

 

[Janet Hughes Defra]

@Janet Hughes Defra thank you for spending your precious evenings engaging with us here, it is appreciated even if it doesn't always read that way.

I completely retired from farming in April so this observation is more for the benefit of others really but here goes:

I can see that you've worked hard to address the concerns we have all raised and to introduce the flexibility necessary for the scheme to be applicable to as many farmers as possible; thank you to all your team for that. It does now mean though that the whole SFI has become very complex to navigate, as evidenced by the length of your latest handbook.

I have personally navigated the English farm subsidy scheme in its many forms since around 1985 and acted as agent for 2 other farm business on a voluntary basis along the way. Each iteration has become more complex to keep up with.

The Rock review highlighted the huge burden the whole farm regulatory system, including the subsidy system, places on what are mostly small businesses who lack dedicated management support.

You stated early on that the intention was for applications for SFI not to need paid professional advice yet I can see many farms will now need exactly that to optimise their engagement. This was always likely to be an unintended consequence of adding flexibility.

Is it now time to seriously consider my suggestion of adopting dedicated named individual officers within DEFRA, each partnered to a small number of farming businesses, who can act as advisers in regard to the process and help to overcome any bureaucratic hurdles the farm may encounter?

These officers would need a wide remit but could prove revolutionary in increasing uptake and overcoming the perceived conflict between farmers and DEFRA.

thanks - we know how important local, trusted advisers are, and we think it’s really important to make sure everyone can access the advice and support they need, but we don’t think they necessarily need to work for Defra organisations - it depends what they’re advising on. We’ve expanded catchment sensitive farming advice to cover the whole country, given it is generally seen positively, and we’re looking to focus our resources on the things where we in Defra can add most value.

Beyond that we are paying for local advisers through the facilitation fund, and will be making that offer more broad and flexible this year and next year. That allows people in each area to choose their own local independent adviser, which we see working well already in some areas of the country.

 

[theboytheboy]

Possibly the understatement of the decade there Janet.

I retired this year but last count of the errors the RPA unilaterally introduced to our RLR maps, mostly due to incompetent use of remote sensing data. It ALWAYS required significant amounts of my time (as a one man-band farmer) to correct. The insistence of submitting RLE1s which were then glacial in their processing was a big contributor.

The RPA are fundamentally unfit for purpose I'm afraid.

I've suggested before that this process is easily fixed for many of us with the use screen sharing and video calls.

Rpa mapping worker and farmer looking at parcels and correcting errors as they go (or making a note of errors/ammendments and correcting them after)

Probably do a compete software upgrade that won't work properly instead though........

Land registry could also take this approach.

 

[Janet Hughes Defra]

Good luck talking directly... it is a waste of oxygen.. believe me

Sorry you felt that way, I enjoyed our conversation and learned a lot from it

 

[theboytheboy]

Couldn't agree more - they have obviously put a price on creating grassland as a public good, but absolutely no incentive to take better care of existing, well established leys.

Same with all the woodland creation going on but very little to incentivise managing and maintaining existing woodland

 

[Janet Hughes Defra]

@Janet Hughes Defra and to all. My farm has been organic since 97, it is all improved grassland only 50 - 70m above sea level, could be ploughed and some has been but has been dairy until early 2000's after which it has been sucklers. As far as I can tell I could plough out the whole lot and then enter it in a matrix of IGL2/SAM3/IPM2/AHL1-3 with some additional management plan and monitoring from SAM1/HRW1-3/IPM2/NUM1. Is that correct? Thanks.

you can do whichever combination of options you want to do, there aren’t min or max areas, within the rules of the scheme and obviously within whatever regulatory / legal rules apply to the land in question

 

[Ceri]

Out of interest Janet what’s going to happen when in 18 months/2 years time when uptake to elms is still poor…?