TFF's ELMS Questions time ?

Hindsight

Member
Location
Lincolnshire
In his 2018 OFC speech, the then Secretary of State for Defra Michael Gove, was the first MP to talk about the removal of BPS, to be replaced with “Public Money for Public Goods”, which is in effect what ELMS will be, also in effect replacing Countryside Stewardship.

With regard CS, he said this:
“On Countryside Stewardship, I want schemes simplified to the extent that any farmer - any farmer - can complete an application in a working day. Starting at the computer after breakfast the whole process has to be able to be finished by six o’clock when it will be time for a well-deserved pint.”

He also said this:
”And the Countryside Stewardship schemes we have run have been dizzyingly complex to apply for – I have made my views on this clear.”

My question is this:
Will the then Under Secretary of State, the now Secretary of State, George Eustice also ensure that the new ELMS does not end up so complicated, with far too many options, which would prevent “ any farmer - any farmer - completing an application in a working day. Starting at the computer after breakfast the whole process has to be able to be finished by six o’clock when it will be time for a well-deserved pint.”?

My take. No he can't. Why do I say that.

Because the objective with ELMS, as I see it, is to have various end results specific to landscape, farm, location, which is why in all the documents published I have seen there is always reference to an adviser assisting the 'farmer' with the application.

The Mid Tier Stewardship we have available today is the 'free for all' application procedure that you refer to. ELMS from what we have seen is split into three tiers. Tier 1 which looks to mirror ELS may well fall into your farmer filled scenario. But Tier 2 and 3 look to me to be more prescriptive and agreed with NE before submission.

But of course the real answer is - I do not know.

Best wishes.

Apologies I forgot this thread is not meant for debate but for posting questions to Defra. Sorry.
 

Grass And Grain

Member
Mixed Farmer
Location
Yorks
Will we be able to adjust the areas in rotational options each year to fit field sizes?

E.g. 30 acres one year, 38 the next year, etc.

It is awkward if the area of rotational options has to be the same area every year of the agreement.
 

Grass And Grain

Member
Mixed Farmer
Location
Yorks
Can we have some rotational options that work for us farmers on heavy land that we sow in autumn, keep for 1 year, then return the field to cropping the following autumn? E.g. a single year legume fallow.

Rotational options that we need to retain until springtime make crop establishment difficult with heavy land.
 

farenheit

Member
Location
Midlands
Will we be able to adjust the areas in rotational options each year to fit field sizes?

E.g. 30 acres one year, 38 the next year, etc.

It is awkward if the area of rotational options has to be the same area every year of the agreement.
I guess the answer to this - and this is my understanding - that you can over apply for and under claim for these options. So apply for 38 acres and in years 1 and 2 if you only plant 30 you just claim for 30.

Is that right?
 

Hampton

Member
BASIS
Location
Shropshire
@Clive
Been thinking about this, and this is the question I’d like you to ask.
You currently have 22 Elms pilot projects around the country controlled by many different stakeholders, many with differing modus operandi. how are you going to bring all this information together into a workable and successful scheme (within the time constraints) that will benefit the Farmers as well as the environment and not become a fudge of conflicting ideas?
 

holwellcourtfarm

Member
Livestock Farmer
I have just completed and submitted a respinse to their online consultation here: https://consult.defra.gov.uk/elm/elmpolicyconsultation/consultation/intro/

I included the comment that, despite it not being environment related, I would suggest that some of the support funding should be used to make fully funded (ie free) on-farm H&S training available in England & Wales to try to reduce the unacceptable death and injury toll in agriculture.
 

delilah

Member
Has Covid19 changed any of your questions?

No.
And if it has, you were probably asking the wrong questions in the first place. :).
edit just to try and explain hat I mean by that: post corona there will be plenty of people saying we need to improve food security, quite right too, but if anyone was seeing elms as a way of being paid to get out of producing food then they shouldn't be. The greatest 'public good' is a reduction on co2 emissions, achieved by producing as much food as close to the consumer as possible.
 
Last edited:

andybk

Member
Livestock Farmer
Location
Mendips Somerset
In the west, we have a plethora of “natural capital” how can you ensure that under Elms, this actually has monetary value? At the moment it feels like areas with no natural capital and massive fields are using stewardship schemes to make their areas look more like ours and are eligible for payment to get the same environmental results we already have.
agreed and are more likely to get ploughed out when the grant ends ,
 

milkloss

Member
Livestock Farmer
Location
East Sussex
Might stir things up a bit: if land that has already had enviro payments on it is now protected under statute why should they continue to pay? Surely the money could now be pushed towards the land that wasn't lucky enough have the red line drawn round it before.
 

steveR

Member
Mixed Farmer
In his 2018 OFC speech, the then Secretary of State for Defra Michael Gove, was the first MP to talk about the removal of BPS, to be replaced with “Public Money for Public Goods”, which is in effect what ELMS will be, also in effect replacing Countryside Stewardship.

With regard CS, he said this:
“On Countryside Stewardship, I want schemes simplified to the extent that any farmer - any farmer - can complete an application in a working day. Starting at the computer after breakfast the whole process has to be able to be finished by six o’clock when it will be time for a well-deserved pint.”

He also said this:
”And the Countryside Stewardship schemes we have run have been dizzyingly complex to apply for – I have made my views on this clear.”

My question is this:
Will the then Under Secretary of State, the now Secretary of State, George Eustice also ensure that the new ELMS does not end up so complicated, with far too many options, which would prevent “ any farmer - any farmer - completing an application in a working day. Starting at the computer after breakfast the whole process has to be able to be finished by six o’clock when it will be time for a well-deserved pint.”?

My question directly relates to that above, by the illustrious member from the Cotswolds, and is an addendum in some ways.

Following on from the most recent meeting of EFRA when you gave evidence to the Committee, can you confirm that the intention of ELMS is such that for the majority of applicants, use of an Adviser will be neither a requirement or indeed, a necessity in any form, for a Tier 1 application? By "Adviser", I mean both NE(or similar Govt agency) or an independent Agent to assist with form filling.
 
Last edited:

holwellcourtfarm

Member
Livestock Farmer
Might stir things up a bit: if land that has already had enviro payments on it is now protected under statute why should they continue to pay? Surely the money could now be pushed towards the land that wasn't lucky enough have the red line drawn round it before.
Surely if it looks even remotely like people will be locked into any environmental improvements and the payment withdrawn then all environment schemes will become as popular as the plague.....
 

holwellcourtfarm

Member
Livestock Farmer
My question directly relates to that above by the illustrious member from the Cotswolds and is an addendum in some ways.

Following on from the most recent meeting of EFRA when you gave evidence to the Committee, can you confirm that the intention of ELMS is such that for the majority of applicants, use of an Adviser will be neither a requirement or indeed, a necessity in any form, for a Tier 1 application? By "Adviser", I mean both NE(or similar Govt agency) or an independent Agent to assist with form filling.
Agreed.

A huge issue with the revised CS scheme was the utterly excessive rules around scheme design and evidence required which simply meant a significant proportion of the money on offer was siphoned off into the "Advisory" industry.
 

holwellcourtfarm

Member
Livestock Farmer
It has been quoted endlessly that a large proportion of farms are loss-making if BPS is taken away. BPS (& its predecessors) has always been money "over and above" costs. The declared idea behind the new environment schemes is "payment for income foregone" unless I've missed something. To me this means agriculture will lose income support. The new scheme money will simply cover the cost of the environmental outcomes with no "profit" element. Is this still the case and, if so, how will agriculture remain viable? Also why is it acceptable that a contractor you engage to create a scheme is allowed to profit from the work they do but the applicant is not?
 

Steevo

Member
Location
Gloucestershire
It has been quoted endlessly that a large proportion of farms are loss-making if BPS is taken away. BPS (& its predecessors) has always been money "over and above" costs. The declared idea behind the new environment schemes is "payment for income foregone" unless I've missed something. To me this means agriculture will lose income support. The new scheme money will simply cover the cost of the environmental outcomes with no "profit" element. Is this still the case and, if so, how will agriculture remain viable? Also why is it acceptable that a contractor you engage to create a scheme is allowed to profit from the work they do but the applicant is not?

or agent/advisor!! That's the big £/hr.
 

Steevo

Member
Location
Gloucestershire
It has been quoted endlessly that a large proportion of farms are loss-making if BPS is taken away. BPS (& its predecessors) has always been money "over and above" costs. The declared idea behind the new environment schemes is "payment for income foregone" unless I've missed something. To me this means agriculture will lose income support. The new scheme money will simply cover the cost of the environmental outcomes with no "profit" element. Is this still the case and, if so, how will agriculture remain viable? Also why is it acceptable that a contractor you engage to create a scheme is allowed to profit from the work they do but the applicant is not?

One would think that farmers will have their hands full trying to salvage some form of viable business/income stream and thus with no profit element associated, this ELMS "charity work" will be even less popular than existing schemes. i.e. if you pulled BPS now, how many would be able to justify spending their time on CS?
 
Unless the government extends environment controls on UK farmers to imports then ELMS will just be managing the decline of UK rural jobs whilst importers will profiteer - for example importing millions of tonnes of Oilseed Rape from Ukraine grown using neonictinoids and GM Soya.

When is HMG policy going to stop punishing UK businesses, workers & tax payers in favour of importers ?
 
One would think that farmers will have their hands full trying to salvage some form of viable business/income stream and thus with no profit element associated, this ELMS "charity work" will be even less popular than existing schemes. i.e. if you pulled BPS now, how many would be able to justify spending their time on CS?


I don't know how many people are like me .. I don't want to "Work" as an environmentalist. If I did I would have joined the EA.
 

SFI - What % were you taking out of production?

  • 0 %

    Votes: 79 42.0%
  • Up to 25%

    Votes: 66 35.1%
  • 25-50%

    Votes: 30 16.0%
  • 50-75%

    Votes: 3 1.6%
  • 75-100%

    Votes: 3 1.6%
  • 100% I’ve had enough of farming!

    Votes: 7 3.7%

Red Tractor drops launch of green farming scheme amid anger from farmers

  • 1,290
  • 1
As reported in Independent


quote: “Red Tractor has confirmed it is dropping plans to launch its green farming assurance standard in April“

read the TFF thread here: https://thefarmingforum.co.uk/index.php?threads/gfc-was-to-go-ahead-now-not-going-ahead.405234/
Top