Tests and trials: the latest evidence 2021-08-04

[Defra Farming]

Defra Farming submitted a new resource:

Tests and trials: the latest evidence - We recently published the latest evidence report which pulls together our findings.

We recently published the latest evidence report which pulls together our findings from tests and trials.

The report gives an overview of everything we’ve learnt across our 78 tests and trials over the last 6 months. In this post, I’d like to share a summary.

We split the findings of the...

Read more about this resource...

 

[delilah]

I looked at the test and trials report when a link was put out to it by Defra yesterday. I could find nothing in it that related, in any way, to the SFI options that are currently under consideration by those thinking of being a pilot. It's as if it's talking about a completely different thing. Did the test and trials not relate to the SFI options ? If not, what were they testing and trialing ? Not being funny here, i'm genuinely confused. Can someone explain what I am getting wrong, ta.

 

[delilah]

https://defrafarming.blog.gov.uk/2021/08/03/tests-and-trials-the-latest-evidence/


We split the findings of the report into several themes.
For example, what farmers think about using land management plans in the new environmental land management schemes, how environmental actions and outcomes should be valued, and what they think about collaborating with other farms in their area.
Many farmers like the idea of land management plans and find them useful.

I'm guessing that some of these farmers are on here ? What are these land management plans ? Do you have to have one to take part in the SFI ? How much work are they ? In what ways did you find them useful ?

 

[orchard]

https://defrafarming.blog.gov.uk/2021/08/03/tests-and-trials-the-latest-evidence/


We split the findings of the report into several themes.
For example, what farmers think about using land management plans in the new environmental land management schemes, how environmental actions and outcomes should be valued, and what they think about collaborating with other farms in their area.
Many farmers like the idea of land management plans and find them useful.

I'm guessing that some of these farmers are on here ? What are these land management plans ? Do you have to have one to take part in the SFI ? How much work are they ? In what ways did you find them useful ?

Do you use one? As an outsider, it seems to favour those with a lot of land to cover the administration, something it purports not to favour ?

 

[Walton2]

Definitions of “most”, “many” ,and the numbers of “farmers” you have in these tests would be useful.
“Local conveners” are a new concept, and “Local Boards” are another, with increasing bureaucracy inevitable.
“Additional support” should only be necessary for ridiculously complex schemes.
Let farmers see the figures for the itemised, total costs of these schemes.
Let them see what proportion will actually go into their pockets.
They will then decide if they think that is fair.
If you make it fair…..the uptake will be a surprise to you.
I am not going to hold my breath though!!

 

[delilah]

Do you use one?

I don't know what one is. I do know that I haven't seen one mentioned when reading the SFI options.
Hence my question; what has 'test and trials' got to do with 'SFI options' ? Because I can't see any crossover.

 

[steveR]

So that we can provide good value for money whilst achieving ambitious environmental outcomes, we have 4 principles for environmental land management payments:

1. We will set payment rates to encourage wide participation, whilst fairly and effectively paying farmers for achieving environmental and climate outcomes.
2. We want payments that, as far as possible, recognise and pay for outcomes that can be delivered through a wide range of activities.
3. We want payments which recognise the value of existing natural assets and don’t unfairly disadvantage those who are already protecting and enhancing these assets to achieve good environmental and climate outcomes.
4. We want payments that form part of a growing market for environmental outcomes, where scheme participants can earn income from public and private sector sources.

These are the only matters that REALLY matter if DEFRA wants ELMS to work!! Fancy focus groups, sorry, the Environmental Land Management Engagement Group members, need to understand that despite their single issue concerns, they need to remember that the landowner needs a motivation, and in most cases, this is adequate renumeration for work.

 

[steveR]

Definitions of “most”, “many” ,and the numbers of “farmers” you have in these tests would be useful.
“Local conveners” are a new concept, and “Local Boards” are another, with increasing bureaucracy inevitable.
“Additional support” should only be necessary for ridiculously complex schemes.
Let farmers see the figures for the itemised, total costs of these schemes.
Let them see what proportion will actually go into their pockets.
They will then decide if they think that is fair.
If you make it fair…..the uptake will be a surprise to you.
I am not going to hold my breath though!!

I assume "convener" is a fancy new term for local advisor, something I do support having seen this work well in early Arable Pilot schemes 20 odd years agao and more recently, in the STEPS offering from Severn Trent( and other water boards ....??) I do agree, that does sound like a potential minefield...

Money is what will matter most. Then a simple, easy to achieve scheme on a farm by farm basis.

 

[Grass And Grain]

Please make the schemes easy to understand and easy to apply for.

We shouldn't need to use advisors.

A few pages for a scheme explanation. Not a few hundred pages.

E.g. The SFI could be so much simpler. List of individual options, farmer chooses which options, payment rate alloted to each option, multiply by number of ha.

 

[steveR]

Please make the schemes easy to understand and easy to apply for.

We shouldn't need to use advisors.

A few pages for a scheme explanation. Not a few hundred pages.

E.g. The SFI could be so much simpler. List of individual options, farmer chooses which options, payment rate alloted to each option, multiply by number of ha.

Totally agree with you.

Any schemes that requires "paid for advisors", to apply for a scheme or part of a scheme, starts to drift away from allowing smaller working farmers to apply successfully for SFI, especially if the funding is marginal. That is totally contradictory to the suggestions as I heard then, from both Janet Hughes and David Kennedy, about a user friendly style SFI....

At the risk of sounding like a scratchy old record, the Severn Trent Water STEPS is I feel, a lesson in exactly how to create and manage a series of simple to understand, good biodiversity, soil and water protection options.

SFI as others have pointed out seems to be targeted at the big land owning charities and the like, who can afford to put together big, complex schemes and then be able to afford to operate them.

 

[delilah]

The bit I don't get (ok, one of the many bits I don't get) is the way in which the SFI sits alongside the other two elements of ELMS. They seem to be targeted at big schemes covering large areas of ground, making them more relevant to the bodies who own or control 1000's of Ha. Which makes it all the more important for the SFI to be the one scheme out of the three that is tailored specifically for the smaller business.

 

[delilah]

The report gives an overview of everything we’ve learnt across our 78 tests and trials over the last 6 months. In this post, I’d like to share a summary.

These 78 tests and trials. What were they testing ? The SFI options ? How could they have been, when the options have all, to a greater or lesser extent, been rewritten in the last few months ? Confused.

 

[FARMERJERRY]

The report gives an overview of everything we’ve learnt across our 78 tests and trials over the last 6 months. In this post, I’d like to share a summary.

These 78 tests and trials. What were they testing ? The SFI options ? How could they have been, when the options have all, to a greater or lesser extent, been rewritten in the last few months ? Confused.

The SFI is a short term scheme to replace BPS money and are originally meant to be a form of stepping stone to the ELM schemes, but then all advisors started calling SFI ELM which added to the confusion.
the test and trials are looking at what ELM itself will look like, how it can be managed, payed, what farmers want and what they can do and how DEFRA can replace BPS and Stewardship schemes with payments for environmental things like public money for public goods.

 

[delilah]

The SFI is a short term scheme to replace BPS money and are originally meant to be a form of stepping stone to the ELM schemes, but then all advisors started calling SFI ELM which added to the confusion.
the test and trials are looking at what ELM itself will look like, how it can be managed, payed, what farmers want and what they can do and how DEFRA can replace BPS and Stewardship schemes with payments for environmental things like public money for public goods.

SFI is now one of the three long term schemes, alongside the Local Nature Recovery and Landscape Recovery.

 

[farmer james]

Please make the schemes easy to understand and easy to apply for.

We shouldn't need to use advisors.

A few pages for a scheme explanation. Not a few hundred pages.

E.g. The SFI could be so much simpler. List of individual options, farmer chooses which options, payment rate alloted to each option, multiply by number of ha.

You mean like ELS which achieved 70% coverage of land I believe and farmers had come to terms with, why oh why do those in charge change something that is working.
FJ

 

[steveR]

SFI is now one of the three long term schemes, alongside the Local Nature Recovery and Landscape Recovery.

That is my understanding too. SFI is effectively Tier One in the 3 tiers originally mooted by DEFRA, but now renamed with funky titles...

If that is incorrect, then maybe Janet Hughes should be asked the question as to "what is SFI" and "what is supposed to do"?

 

[delilah]

If that is incorrect, then maybe Janet Hughes should be asked the question as to "what is SFI" and "what is supposed to do"?

It is correct, but those questions still need asking.....

 

[T Hectares]

The bit I don't get (ok, one of the many bits I don't get) is the way in which the SFI sits alongside the other two elements of ELMS. They seem to be targeted at big schemes covering large areas of ground, making them more relevant to the bodies who own or control 1000's of Ha. Which makes it all the more important for the SFI to be the one scheme out of the three that is tailored specifically for the smaller business.

This is why Farmer Cluster groups will be important if you would like to access the next tiers of ELM’s
Only a handful of landowners would be able to access these funds otherwise, there are soon to be 6 clusters off the top of my head covering different areas of the AONB that I farm in

 

[delilah]

This is why Farmer Cluster groups will be important if you would like to access the next tiers of ELM’s

I think there is a need for a bit of a reality check here.
How many people are farming on their own ? Lots. How many of these folks are going to have time for the admin that will be going with the SFI - which on the current structure of the options is going to be horrendous - and on top of that have time to participate in a 'farmer cluster group' ?
Sorry, but it's all a load of bollox. All this public money is going to go on admin, with no public good whatsoever.
Do Defra intend that ELMS gets rid of small farms ? Because if they do they should spit it out and say so.

 

[steveR]

It is correct, but those questions still need asking.....

I am unsure I have the time to hear the response, much as I enjoy her presentations...