- Location
- Devon
It is clear from the many discussions on TFF, that there is concern that the one-sided relationship we have with our ruling department means we our powerless and open to abuse.
Payments under CAP were made unless we failed to meet basic legal requirements whereas there is a subtle but significant change to be paid for specific actions in future schemes. This means making capital investments/ spending upfront and incurring loss of productivity before payment. This means we have to trust we will be correctly rewarded.
I have 3 proposals that I think will cement that trust.
1) All agreements should clearly state one of the 3 options;
i. This agreement will not hold the landowner to any requirements beyond the stated period of the agreement.
ii. This agreement may hold the landowner to some requirements beyond the stated period of the agreement.
or iii. This agreement will commit the landowner to some requirements beyond the stated period of the agreement.
2) I understand why it may be necessary to be able to change the T & C's at anytime, so if that situation remains, they should add;
If any changes are made to this agreement at any time that decrease or delay payment, or give added or extra requirements, the agreement holder has the right to cancel the agreement without penalty and be paid pro-rata, up until the date of cancellation.
3) There must be a means of independent arbitration in the case of any major dispute and the results available to the public.
This would make it clear if the main issue were farmers chancing their luck, failures at the department or systematic errors with the schemes. It would then be possible to have a clear and open discussion about addressing any significant problems.
I would appreciate any thoughts on my musings.
Payments under CAP were made unless we failed to meet basic legal requirements whereas there is a subtle but significant change to be paid for specific actions in future schemes. This means making capital investments/ spending upfront and incurring loss of productivity before payment. This means we have to trust we will be correctly rewarded.
I have 3 proposals that I think will cement that trust.
1) All agreements should clearly state one of the 3 options;
i. This agreement will not hold the landowner to any requirements beyond the stated period of the agreement.
ii. This agreement may hold the landowner to some requirements beyond the stated period of the agreement.
or iii. This agreement will commit the landowner to some requirements beyond the stated period of the agreement.
2) I understand why it may be necessary to be able to change the T & C's at anytime, so if that situation remains, they should add;
If any changes are made to this agreement at any time that decrease or delay payment, or give added or extra requirements, the agreement holder has the right to cancel the agreement without penalty and be paid pro-rata, up until the date of cancellation.
3) There must be a means of independent arbitration in the case of any major dispute and the results available to the public.
This would make it clear if the main issue were farmers chancing their luck, failures at the department or systematic errors with the schemes. It would then be possible to have a clear and open discussion about addressing any significant problems.
I would appreciate any thoughts on my musings.
Last edited: