What should the replacement for SFI look like?

[neilo]

100 hectare Beef Suckler and Sheep Farm farm has a principal farmer (£25k), second principal farmer (wife £20k). Employs two full time staff (£40k). £90k annually. Makes sense!!!

How would this not lead to employee creation aangus? Would the employees be restricted from other work through the HMRC to ensure this was a real full time employment and not 'ghost' employment. It’s a non runner aangus.

Alternatively, I’ll move to a 50ac sheep farm, continue to employ my wife, and draw £45k, plus whatever the ‘farm’ clears. We wouldn’t need outside employment.

Where do I sign up?

 

[fudge]

Alternatively, I’ll move to a 50ac sheep farm, continue to employ my wife, and draw £45k, plus whatever the ‘farm’ clears. We wouldn’t need outside employment.

Where do I sign up?

Aye up don’t sign without a triple lock.

 

[Hindsight]

Alternatively, I’ll move to a 50ac sheep farm, continue to employ my wife, and draw £45k, plus whatever the ‘farm’ clears. We wouldn’t need outside employment.

Where do I sign up?

Ironically I started my post to aangus with a 40 hectare sheep farm! But then decided you livestock chaps would take the mickey out a flat land wheat and spud man so changed mythical livestock farm to 100 hectare beef and sheep. As I say. My view is all these employment type payments oft qouted are non runners and rely entirely on the rose tinted belief of the farmers who live that way of life and give no consideration for the schemers that would appear if such a scheme came into practice. Hey ho.

 

[willyorkshire]

I have not got any livestock. Personally I would not keep livestock just to chase a subsidy. From the outside livestock farming needs stability more than arable farming therefore it seems reasonable to concentrate support there. A large proportion of arable produce goes into livestock feed so such a system would support my activities as well. One of the current aims of policy is to export livestock and its attendant emissions to other countries. This is a real threat to everyone in uk agriculture, it’s also a threat to the global environment as the absolute damage of uk consumption could be greater than sensible utilisation of UK resources.

Agree. Been through the livestock bit, albeit in pigs n poultry.

 

[neilo]

Ironically I started my post to aangus with a 40 hectare sheep farm! But then decided you livestock chaps would take the mickey out a flat land wheat and spud man so changed mythical livestock farm to 100 hectare beef and sheep. As I say. My view is all these employment type payments oft qouted are non runners and rely entirely on the rose tinted belief of the farmers who live that way of life and give no consideration for the schemers that would appear if such a scheme came into practice. Hey ho.

Me? A schemer?

Better to put my wife on benefits instead? Cost to the taxpayer would be similar I suspect.

 

[Two Tone]

it’s not easy and that why it hasn’t been done yet i’m sure despite desire to do

I had to phone RPA the other day re a CS query and mentioned that the reason for my call was a clash between two CS agreements we have and a subsequent SFI agreement we have since started.
The RPA computer was supposed to have picked this up and prevented an SFI option, but failed to do so.

I mentioned that all this would be so much easier if they could combine all of each holding’s CS and SFI agreements into one.
The guy I was peaking to, called Reese, was in absolute agreement and said that was what they were working towards, but that there were lots of problems and obstacles to get over, namely the different agreement lengths, before this can be achieved.

Doesn’t this not prove yet further that there was no need to start an entirely new extra system called SFI, when CS could so easily have been expanded to cover it?

What a screw up!

 

[aangus]

Ironically I started my post to aangus with a 40 hectare sheep farm! But then decided you livestock chaps would take the mickey out a flat land wheat and spud man so changed mythical livestock farm to 100 hectare beef and sheep. As I say. My view is all these employment type payments oft qouted are non runners and rely entirely on the rose tinted belief of the farmers who live that way of life and give no consideration for the schemers that would appear if such a scheme came into practice. Hey ho.

I suppose every sub scheme will be open to abuse. Thinking back didn't Man utd own milk quota once over,

 

[Hindsight]

I suppose every sub scheme will be open to abuse. Thinking back didn't Man utd own milk quota once over,

Hi yes, I recall that being spoke of - whether an urban myth I do not know! I do know though of two property based businesses that invested in SPS entitlements bought on the open market, specializing in high value entitlements, after they came into force in 2004 onwards and for a few years rented 'naked acres' to activate them.

 

[Hesstondriver]

if the standard £70 / acre for active farmers isn't desired , and food production is at the forefront then then any subsidy should be production linked

either area or tonnage or headage payments

 

[aangus]

Hi yes, I recall that being spoke of - whether an urban myth I do not know! I do know though of two property based businesses that invested in SPS entitlements bought on the open market, specializing in high value entitlements, after they came into force in 2004 onwards and for a few years rented 'naked acres' to activate them.

Thats what I mean most schemes will be open to abuse.

 

[Hindsight]

if the standard £70 / acre for active farmers isn't desired , and food production is at the forefront then then any subsidy should be production linked

either area or tonnage or headage payments

Just check but may well breach WTO treaty arrangements for direct production support.

 

[andybk]

It should look pretty much like it does - i think they got it more right than even they may realise from an arable point of view

however it needs to be consistent, yesterdays announcement was a massive hit to the farmer confidence they had just started to gain

As an arable farmer of course you do , look at it from a P/P grassland farmer point of view and you would have a very different opinion , Much of the good in the countryside we created yet were an afterthought regard SFI/DEFRA and even the carbon credits companies blank us , The whole fiasco smacks of degree holding land agents feathering their own nests

 

[aangus]

As an arable farmer of course you do , look at it from a P/P grassland farmer point of view and you would have a very different opinion , Much of the good in the countryside we created yet were an afterthought regard SFI/DEFRA and even the carbon credits companies blank us , The whole fiasco smacks of degree holding land agents feathering their own nests

Look at the shambles defra have created, and we the farmer trying to understand what they have imploded on us, and then to turn round and change the rules, what a feck up

 

[gone up the hill]

Look at the shambles defra have created, and we the farmer trying to understand what they have imploded on us, and then to turn round and change the rules, what a feck up

SFI is a complicated complete and utter mess and not fit for purpose for anyone except a few large scale arable farmers.

Needs to be scrapped which is what now is very likely to happen!

 

[andybk]

SFI is a complicated complete and utter mess and not fit for purpose for anyone except a few large scale arable farmers.

Needs to be scrapped which is what now is very likely to happen!

to be fair there are pages and pages of good advice back when janet interacted on here , they were only interested so they could say it was co design (co blame) very few of the good ideas (@delilah put forward) were taken on board because it didnt fit the narrative of those feathering their own nests ,

 

[Hesstondriver]

Just check but may well breach WTO treaty arrangements for direct production support.

Scotland already pays a £100 subsidy for sucker calves (£150 if you live on an island )

 

[spin cycle]

problem.....sfi is fecked up and they should scrap it and go back to bps/stewardship....but they can't because to do so admits to the whole 'cock up'.. so they've no choice but to carry on doing the 'wrong thing for the wrong reason'

 

[gone up the hill]

to be fair there are pages and pages of good advice back when janet interacted on here , they were only interested so they could say it was co design (co blame) very few of the good ideas (@delilah put forward) were taken on board because it didnt fit the narrative of those feathering their own nests ,

Yes i agree but the problem is that the more they kept meddling/ changing the rules/ adding new options to SFI the more complicated it is becoming!

And they are talking about putting all CS agreements into SFI and you can see what a mess that will end up before they even start doing it !

 

[farmerm]

CS has worked well and is understood by farmers.

All of ELMS was only a way of getting more farmers to be involved in environmental schemes. but in reality was a way of distributing the old BPS money.
Having an SFI scheme for 3 years was never logical for the environment as a minimum of 5 years such as CS needed to be in place and rates paid for these schemes need to be maintained at levels which encourage farmers to join them.
Capital payments should continue and be linked to CS type schemes to encourage fencing, hedges, maintenance of water courses etc.

Farmers should make their own decisions on what is best for their business and payments only made to the farmer/land manager who commits to the environmental schemes for long periods but also has to actively produce an agricultural output.

That would upset the likes as the RSPB who have no wish to actively produce...

 

[farmerm]

Gave up lambing sheep about 25 years ago before they completely sent me mad.

wise man!