- Location
- Essex
You hear people say similar kinds of things about the NFU, which arguably has the loudest voice of all.With the greatest of respect to those involved, I do get a little worried when members of organisations such a NFFN and BASE have influence over the likes of Janet Hughes and her colleagues.
Whilst I might support many of the principals behind those organisations, there is a danger that their influence might be seen in a similar way to organisations such as the RSPB to it.
The vast majority of us will have principals which we each follow. But we are all farmers and ELMs and SFI affects all farmers, not just those belonging to specialist sections of it. Especially those that support a type of farming that is seen by some as revolutionary, rather than the norm.
We know that Andersons, a well respected Farm Management Company was asked by Defra for help in setting ELMs principals and it became very obvious that they got it wrong and consequently their reputation suffered.
Some view it that Andersons muscled in on Defra to become their advisors on the subject.
I’d hate to see a similar fete happen to what will be viewed as a specialist membership club within general farmers.
Or that the principals of such organisations over-influence the final outcome of where ELMs and SFI end up!
To my mind, it is imperative that the views of all farmers are taken into consideration, not just a few specialists with what might appear to be clever sound-bite, attractive-to-the-public, named Farming groups.
Ultimately it's the taxpayer's money, so politicians are going to want to do what the voters want. There are probably more people in favour of rewilding, for example than all the farmers and landowners in the country.
I doubt one of them is concerned about getting enough to eat.