The Relationship between SFI and CSS ?

ajcc

Member
Livestock Farmer
CSS easy to get into....not so easy to get out!
10 years since my agreement finished and all payments ceased and they “Natural England” still think they can control my farmland.
Why anyone would choose to drink from the same tainted cup with these people is folly indeed. Steer well clear of drinking with the devil.imo.
Grow food, feed people is what farmings about.
 

Badshot

Member
Location
Kent
CSS easy to get into....not so easy to get out!
10 years since my agreement finished and all payments ceased and they “Natural England” still think they can control my farmland.
Why anyone would choose to drink from the same tainted cup with these people is folly indeed. Steer well clear of drinking with the devil.imo.
Grow food, feed people is what farmings about.
This is scary.
 

Two Tone

Member
Mixed Farmer
What seems absolutely ridiculous to me is that if you are already in CSS, you cannot be part of the ELMS pilot (on the same land).
On top of which, those already in CSS, will probably have taken maximum advantage of it and have very little, if any extra capacity to do additional Environmental advantages.

Yes, I can understand the double funding issue, but it is far more likely that those of us that are already in CSS, are those who are more likely to want to take advantage of ELMS, once that CSS has ended. And are the ones that would want to make it work.

So why prohibit the very people that already have experience of a system that is an Environmental scheme?
And could probably provide far more insight as to what is good and what is bad about ELMS?

Of course this would require some additional recompense for the work involved by the farmer in comparing both. But bearing in mind the derisory sums paid for the ELMS pilots so far, I can’t see this is going to cost the ELMS pilot scheme a lot in comparison to the valuable information that could be learned for Defra (which took over running Natural England a few years ago).
 

Clive

Staff Member
Arable Farmer
Location
Lichfield
It is , to be replaced by a pile of poop , we shouldn't need to be subbed to make a living

SFI is not a BPS replacement - its never been claimed to be, I've said for a few years anyone thinking that would be VERY disappointed

SFI is a payment for doing stuff unlike BPS which is a payment for being a rich landowner dude !


SFI was always going too be significantly less
 
Last edited:

Two Tone

Member
Mixed Farmer
SFI is not a BPS replacement - its never been claimed to be, I've Sid for a few years anyone thinging that would be VERY disapointed

SFI is a payment for doing stuff unlike BPS which is a payment for being a rich landowner dude !


SFI was always going too be significantly less
To a point, yes.
We are lead to believe that the total amount spent on BPS and CSS is ‘ring-fenced’ to be redistributed in a different way.
SFI is only a third of ELMS. If you could take advantage of all three parts of ELMs, it may be possible to end up with a similar annual amount. But at the moment, the hectarage limits on LNR/LR are far too restrictive for most of us to be able to be a part of.

As it stands at the moment, there is an awful lot wrong with ELMs. However, thanks to your wonderful invention @Clive , TFF has enabled @Janet Hughes Defra to explain the situation, answer our question and see our concerns, which hopefully will end up with a workable, viable scheme. I commend you both for this.

As with CSS, there are many ELM’s options which complicate and put off far too many of us.
The only way I can see this working is for DEFRA to come up with a spreadsheet type system that identifies exactly what options are available for each individual business and suggests which ones are best to take maximum advantage of.

Otherwise IMO it will all fail, much of that ‘ring-fenced’ money will be unused and reabsorbed into the Treasury.
Which will be not good for us and especially not good for the Government or the public.

The primary reasoning behind ELMs are the Governments goals to do with the Environment, CO2 and Climate Change.
Unless DEFRA can come up with a workable system that farmers (not landowners, as it is the farmers that can do most and are the only ones that can put the scheme ideas into practice) can use, the system will fail and DEFRA/Government will have lost a golden opportunity to achieve its aims.
 
Last edited:

delilah

Member
As it stands at the moment, there is an awful lot wrong with ELMs. However, thanks to your wonderful invention @Clive , TFF has enabled @Janet Hughes Defra to explain the situation, answer our question and see our concerns, which hopefully will end up with a workable, viable scheme. I commend you both for this.

:ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO:

OK, I will bite.
Why is ELMS the mess that it is ?
ELMS is the mess that it is, because Defra had it put into their heads that there are 'good' ways of farming, and there are 'bad' ways of farming.
They never should have swallowed this, but they did, and I guess fair play to those who sold them the story. They thus attempted to design ELMS - specifically the SFI standards - such that it would encourage the 'good' ways, and discourage the 'bad' ways.
Any farmer who has expressed the view - in private conversations with Defra, in talks they have given, on farm walks, whatever - that there are 'good' ways and 'bad' ways is directly responsible - yes, directly responsible - for where we are at.
Slowly, belatedly, but just in time, @Janet Hughes Defra and her team are coming to understand that there are not, in fact, 'good' ways and 'bad' ways, but rather there are different ways. Thus they are redesigning ELMS. We should never have had to go through the tortuous process that has been ELMS to date, but no matter, the long lead time is saving the day. They will get there.
 

Wombat

Member
BASIS
Location
East yorks
To a point, yes.
We are lead to believe that the total amount spent on BPS and CSS is ‘ring-fenced’ to be redistributed in a different way.
SFI is only a third of ELMS. If you could take advantage of all three parts of ELMs, it may be possible to end up with a similar annual amount. But at the moment, the hectarage limits on LNR/LR are far too restrictive for most of us to be able to be a part of.

As it stands at the moment, there is an awful lot wrong with ELMs. However, thanks to your wonderful invention @Clive , TFF has enabled @Janet Hughes Defra to explain the situation, answer our question and see our concerns, which hopefully will end up with a workable, viable scheme. I commend you both for this.

As with CSS, there are many ELM’s options which complicate and put off far too many of us.
The only way I can see this working is for DEFRA to come up with a spreadsheet type system that identifies exactly what options are available for each individual business and suggests which ones are best to take maximum advantage of.

Otherwise IMO it will all fail, much of that ‘ring-fenced’ money will be unused and reabsorbed into the Treasury.
Which will be not good for us and especially not good for the Government or the public.

The primary reasoning behind ELMs are the Governments goals to do with the Environment, CO2 and Climate Change.
Unless DEFRA can come up with a workable system that farmers (not landowners, as it is the farmers that can do most and are the only ones that can put the scheme ideas into practice) can use, the system will fail and DEFRA/Government will have lost a golden opportunity to achieve its aims.
The other issue is rates for size, if we take just the rates published today we are in for an 80% cut from bps. Therefore for our small acreage the amount involved means I won’t even bother. Selling my corn for a bit more and keeping a few more cows will make more money than applying and dealing with Defra and the rpa (speaking as someone who only got their bps for the first time ever on the 1st dec 2021 for reasons no one can explain) just isn’t worth the hassle for a couple of £k
 

bobk

Member
Location
stafford
SFI is not a BPS replacement - its never been claimed to be, I've Sid for a few years anyone thinging that would be VERY disapointed

SFI is a payment for doing stuff unlike BPS which is a payment for being a rich landowner dude !


SFI was always going too be significantly less
You'll find out how popular these projects are soon enough , don't kmow anyone remotely interested , ,
The schemes are too compliacted and too fiddly with little or no reward
We're losing 000's of acres to development every year , this is going to show up in food production quite soon .
 

Clive

Staff Member
Arable Farmer
Location
Lichfield
You'll find out how popular these projects are soon enough , don't kmow anyone remotely interested , ,
The schemes are too compliacted and too fiddly with little or no reward
We're losing 000's of acres to development every year , this is going to show up in food production quite soon .

I don’t think they are supposed to be popularity contests ?


if people don’t do them who cares ? certainly not the tax payer

if food production pays better in the future then great, we don’t need subs at all
 

Clive

Staff Member
Arable Farmer
Location
Lichfield
:ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO:

OK, I will bite.
Why is ELMS the mess that it is ?
ELMS is the mess that it is, because Defra had it put into their heads that there are 'good' ways of farming, and there are 'bad' ways of farming.
They never should have swallowed this, but they did, and I guess fair play to those who sold them the story. They thus attempted to design ELMS - specifically the SFI standards - such that it would encourage the 'good' ways, and discourage the 'bad' ways.
Any farmer who has expressed the view - in private conversations with Defra, in talks they have given, on farm walks, whatever - that there are 'good' ways and 'bad' ways is directly responsible - yes, directly responsible - for where we are at.
Slowly, belatedly, but just in time, @Janet Hughes Defra and her team are coming to understand that there are not, in fact, 'good' ways and 'bad' ways, but rather there are different ways. Thus they are redesigning ELMS. We should never have had to go through the tortuous process that has been ELMS to date, but no matter, the long lead time is saving the day. They will get there.


without doubt there are good and bad ways of farming - i think all farmers can agree on that (usa feedlot vs pasture, free range vs intensive indoor, mixed vs arable, regen vs tillage, organic vs conventional etc etc .....)

the only conjecture is which is good and which is bad. !
 
Last edited:

Bill the Bass

Member
Livestock Farmer
Location
Cumbria
CS is viewed by Defra as the/ a pathway to ELM so there should be a plan and you shouldn’t be disadvantaged by entering it. However if you plan on a significant capital works programme you need to think hard because there is no plan to update CS capital payment rates despite them being 10 years old.

i have a 2021 mid tier and I am planing to go into SFI 2022, I figure it’s not my job to worry about how compatible the new schemes are, so I will put in what suits me and they can work out what is compatible and come back to me with an offer that won’t ‘disadvantage’ me.
 

Two Tone

Member
Mixed Farmer
:ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO:

OK, I will bite.
Why is ELMS the mess that it is ?
ELMS is the mess that it is, because Defra had it put into their heads that there are 'good' ways of farming, and there are 'bad' ways of farming.
They never should have swallowed this, but they did, and I guess fair play to those who sold them the story. They thus attempted to design ELMS - specifically the SFI standards - such that it would encourage the 'good' ways, and discourage the 'bad' ways.
Any farmer who has expressed the view - in private conversations with Defra, in talks they have given, on farm walks, whatever - that there are 'good' ways and 'bad' ways is directly responsible - yes, directly responsible - for where we are at.
Slowly, belatedly, but just in time, @Janet Hughes Defra and her team are coming to understand that there are not, in fact, 'good' ways and 'bad' ways, but rather there are different ways. Thus they are redesigning ELMS. We should never have had to go through the tortuous process that has been ELMS to date, but no matter, the long lead time is saving the day. They will get there.
Ha ha, no need to bite!
What is there or who is it you want to bite?

We have all seen various TFF members pose questions and scenarios to @Janet Hughes Defra that she/they hadn’t thought about and she will look into “and needs work on”.
To me, that is encouraging and shows at least a willingness and an attempt to try to get it right.

I wonder how much it is going to cost Defra to set up and administer it all. Where does that money come from to do so? Does it come out of that ring-fenced budget?

I have a feeling that food price inflation will overtake the situation and that for many, farm produce incomes might increase beyond the point at which many can be bothered, let alone be worried enough to want to take part.
Taking land that photosynthesises, therefore sequesters CO2 and produces food out of production to photosynthesises, but not produce food seems, for so called Nature recovery, seems to me to be absolutely nuts!
Then to expect food consumers to suffer food inflation AND have to pay taxes to take even more land out of food production, pushing up food prices even more is utterly nonsensical!

Where would that leave the Governments Climate change plans? If it does leave them in a buggar’s muddle, well maybe they had their chance and fluffed it!

However, apart from the food inflationary aspect of it all, at least they appear to be trying.
Or at least the public are being fooled into thinking they are trying.
 
Last edited:

Goweresque

Member
Location
North Wilts
10 years since my agreement finished and all payments ceased and they “Natural England” still think they can control my farmland.

The reality is they can and will, because they have the laws to back them up. If a landowner allows his land to get into a state that means it fall under the laws on natural habitats (or could be considered by people such as NE to fall under such laws) then they will attempt to enforce those laws. It matters not whether you've taken the Queen's Shilling in the form of environmental payments, or you just shut the gate one day and didn't come back for 30 years, if you allow your land to become a 'natural environment' instead of a farmed one, then its status changes and what you are allowed to do with it changes. For example if you left a field to do nothing for 30 years and it became to be covered in saplings more than 3 inches in diameter at breast height then it would have become legally woodland and any attempt to rip out all the scrub and plant wheat would attract the full force of the law. No money would have been received, just the passage of time and nature would mean nature of the land had changed. Being paid to do exactly the same thing does not alter the final outcome either.

Anyone signing these agreements needs to be very clear as to the potential outcomes at the end that are not mentioned in the agreement.
 

delilah

Member
without doubt there are good and bad ways of farming - i think all farmers can agree on that (usa feedlot vs pasture, free range vs intensive indoor, mixed vs arable, regen vs tillage, organic vs conventional etc etc .....)

the only conjecture is which is good and which is bad. !

Nope. Not at a policy level anyway.

For sure, farmers can discuss/ argue among themselves about whether they think that their system is 'good' or 'bad'. You wont find me having those discussions. Having direct experience of farming at both ends of the (supposed) eco-spectrum, combined with an understanding of the real environmental issues along all links of the food chain, I am adamant in my belief that there is no such thing as 'good' or 'bad' systems. But if farmers want to willy wave, crack on.

However, that's irrelevant to ELMS. ELMS is about Govt policy, not individual farmers views, and at a policy level there should be absolutely no attempt to distinguish between 'good' and 'bad'. Witness the pickle that trying to do so has got Defra into.
 

SFI - What % were you taking out of production?

  • 0 %

    Votes: 77 43.0%
  • Up to 25%

    Votes: 62 34.6%
  • 25-50%

    Votes: 30 16.8%
  • 50-75%

    Votes: 3 1.7%
  • 75-100%

    Votes: 3 1.7%
  • 100% I’ve had enough of farming!

    Votes: 4 2.2%

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

  • 1,286
  • 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