Which farming organisations do “DEFRA” liaise with?

MX7

Member
Location
cotswolds
I see Janet Hughes has being interacting with TFF which is great.
That said, I am interested to know which farming organisations DEFRA work with,to find out if the schemes DEFRA advisers come up with are actually practical, realistic, and “Financially Viable”.
As I fear some of the staff that come up with the new schemes may not have a clue about hands on farming, as they do not make their living from hands on farming.
 

delilah

Member

Attachments

  • EEG Environmental land management engagement group.docx
    18.3 KB · Views: 0

HatsOff

Member
Mixed Farmer

Our members

  • Soil Association
  • Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB)
  • Game & Wildlife Conservation Trust (GWCT)
  • Agricultural Industries Confederation (AIC)
  • Catchment Based Approach (CaBA)
  • Wildlife Trust
  • Confor
  • English Organic Forum and Organic Farmers & Growers C.I.C.
  • National Farmers Union
  • Woodland Trust (x2)
  • The Countryside Charity
  • Wildlife and Countryside Link (WCL)
  • Country Land & Business Association Limited (CLA)
  • Farming and Wildlife Advisory Group (FWAG)
  • The Central Association for Agricultural Valuers (CAAV)
  • Uplands Alliance and Foundation for Common Land
  • Landworkers' Alliance
  • Linking Environment and Farming (LEAF)
  • Tenant Farmer Association (TFA
  • The Prince's Countryside Fund
  • National Trust
  • Nature Friendly Farming Network (NFFN)
  • Institute of Chartered Foresters
  • Heritage Alliance
  • National Sheep Association (NSA)
  • Green Alliance
  • World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF)
  • Sustain

5 / 28 who would actually have to interact with the new set up. Maybe a few others via office staff.

What a joke.
 
Hello :)

We work with the ELM engagement group members as others have said. We also work closely with the farming membership organisations (NFU, TFA, CLA), and directly with farmers through our tests and trials, SFI pilot, co-design groups on specific policies and questions, and user research where we show farmers our developing services and schemes, get their feedback and then improve them.

If anyone would like to get involved, please get in touch, especially if you think we're not hearing your point of view through our existing work - we need as many critical farming eyes on what we're doing as possible.
 
Location
southwest
Big difference between "interacting with" which means hearing comments and submissions from a group, and actually allowing an outside source to influence policy.

Trouble is, policy can be influenced by public opinion, which these days, can itself be influenced by a few people with a high social media profile.
 

delilah

Member

Steevo

Member
Location
Gloucestershire
Anyone who has constructive suggestions as to what ELMS should look like

Unfortunately it looks like most people are turned off to it all based on previous experiences etc. and don't see the benefit in fixing the problems that DEFRA have created, with no guarantee that any of their input will be valued, taken on board etc. i.e. it could be a total waste of time.
 

delilah

Member
Unfortunately it looks like most people are turned off to it all based on previous experiences etc. and don't see the benefit in fixing the problems that DEFRA have created, with no guarantee that any of their input will be valued, taken on board etc. i.e. it could be a total waste of time.

If folks have got time to come on here and moan about what the SFI currently looks like, then they have got time to say what they think it should look like. For sure, it could be a total waste of time, but at least by submitting my suggestions I will know that I have at least tried.

I think we need to look for positives in where this is currently at. If the SFI looked just a little bit rubbish, then we would all probably just shrug our shoulders and try and make it work best we could when it came to it. The fact that it is so completely and utterly diabolical has got everyone engaged. I don't for a second expect it to look anything like it currently does when it comes to rollout, because enough people are sufficiently concerned to be working to alter it.
 
Hello :)

We work with the ELM engagement group members as others have said. We also work closely with the farming membership organisations (NFU, TFA, CLA), and directly with farmers through our tests and trials, SFI pilot, co-design groups on specific policies and questions, and user research where we show farmers our developing services and schemes, get their feedback and then improve them.

If anyone would like to get involved, please get in touch, especially if you think we're not hearing your point of view through our existing work - we need as many critical farming eyes on what we're doing as possible.
Thank you.

My concern is one felt by many farmers, that a fair proportion of the "stakeholders" in the engagement group and similiar bodies don't actually have any real "skin in the game", to pinch a business phrase.

Well funded organisations with salaried staff, or single issue groups pursuing an agenda will often present a more coherent argument in their interests, than a few farmers working alone.

I genuinely believe that the response you are getting here on TFF are pretty reflective of many, many farmers who have actually thought about what the coming changes in Agriculture will do to their businesses. It will take a full time member of DEFRA staff to wade through the discussion here in various threads around the forum, BUT, these discussions have helped me and I assume other, to understand what the proposals from DEFRA are and to comment and discuss the issues we can conceive from SFI. We are the ones who will have to make SFI work after all....

It is difficult, and to be honest unlikely, that TFF members could present a united voice on what we want from SFI, but if we can say what we don't want and why, surely that is a damned good start! I feel as long as you continue to join us here and monitor the ideas and thoughts being expressed in the various threads that are relevant, you will garner a damned good feel of what Farmers will want, and equally important, will accept.

Maybe I should just join the feedback groups, as was suggested at Groundswell... :)
 
If folks have got time to come on here and moan about what the SFI currently looks like, then they have got time to say what they think it should look like. For sure, it could be a total waste of time, but at least by submitting my suggestions I will know that I have at least tried.

I think we need to look for positives in where this is currently at. If the SFI looked just a little bit rubbish, then we would all probably just shrug our shoulders and try and make it work best we could when it came to it. The fact that it is so completely and utterly diabolical has got everyone engaged. I don't for a second expect it to look anything like it currently does when it comes to rollout, because enough people are sufficiently concerned to be working to alter it.
Sure hope so....

I signed up to my STEPS agreement for 5 years on the basis that by 2026, we might have an idea what's happening....

I have been an early adopter on many occasions over the years, early CS agreements, Betamax video, CP/M operating system, Palm phones etc etc, some work, some didn't! I'll let SFI work out the creases without me and sign up later.... ;)
 
Last edited:
Thank you.

My concern is one felt by many farmers, that a fair proportion of the "stakeholders" in the engagement group and similiar bodies don't actually have any real "skin in the game", to pinch a business phrase.

Well funded organisations with salaried staff, or single issue groups pursuing an agenda will often present a more coherent argument in their interests, than a few farmers working alone.

I genuinely believe that the response you are getting here on TFF are pretty reflective of many, many farmers who have actually thought about what the coming changes in Agriculture will do to their businesses. It will take a full time member of DEFRA staff to wade through the discussion here in various threads around the forum, BUT, these discussions have helped me and I assume other, to understand what the proposals from DEFRA are and to comment and discuss the issues we can conceive from SFI. We are the ones who will have to make SFI work after all....

It is difficult, and to be honest unlikely, that TFF members could present a united voice on what we want from SFI, but if we can say what we don't want and why, surely that is a damned good start! I feel as long as you continue to join us here and monitor the ideas and thoughts being expressed in the various threads that are relevant, you will garner a damned good feel of what Farmers will want, and equally important, will accept.

Maybe I should just join the feedback groups, as was suggested at Groundswell... :)
Yes, I agree, that's why I'm here - I can't be on top of every thread but I can get a sense of the discussion, and I hope that by doing regular Q&A type meetings I can help answer some questions directly as well as hearing the feedback directly. Also yes please do join the feedback groups - we are listening, eager to hear feedback and absolutely determined to make things work better for farmers through the work we're doing.
 

Vader

Member
Unfortunately it looks like most people are turned off to it all based on previous experiences etc. and don't see the benefit in fixing the problems that DEFRA have created, with no guarantee that any of their input will be valued, taken on board etc. i.e. it could be a total waste of time.
Agree.
I have won conservation awards.
Inspectors have praised my work.
But no one was interested in how I was doing what I was doing, because I had improved on the management suggested.
Experts don't like advice thats better than theirs...
 

Hampton

Member
Location
Shropshire
When ELS came out I put all our scheme together and submitted it myself.
Countryside stewardship and SFI are too complicated. I haven’t got time to do it myself and I begrudge employing someone who is less qualified than I am to fill the forms up and charge me a significant sum for the privilege.
How many working hours do you think these schemes should take? Do you think it is acceptable that we should NEED agents etc to do this for us?
 

Clive

Staff Member
Arable Farmer
Location
Lichfield
I see Janet Hughes has being interacting with TFF which is great.
That said, I am interested to know which farming organisations DEFRA work with,to find out if the schemes DEFRA advisers come up with are actually practical, realistic, and “Financially Viable”.
As I fear some of the staff that come up with the new schemes may not have a clue about hands on farming, as they do not make their living from hands on farming.

remember Janet / defra are not here to interact with “TFF” they are here to engage DIRECTLY with individual farmers (you)
 
What was good about the ELS was that it was easy to understand. You needed 30 points a hectare iirc and all the options had a point score. So you could work out what options would give you what points.

Is that so difficult to replicate? You could change the value of options to increase or decrease uptake on a yearly basis.

Can I also suggest a marriage value for options? For example wildflower strip within say 10 metres of a hedge or ditch could be worth another 10 or 20% and a bit more for both; which would help create varied joined up habitats.
 
Last edited:

Update on the Sustainable Farming Incentive pilot

  • 103
  • 0
Update on the Sustainable Farming Incentive pilot

Written by Lisa Applin

Webp.net-resizeimage-3.jpg


In July, we opened the applications window for farmers to join our Sustainable Farming Incentive pilot.

The Sustainable Farming Incentive is 1 of the 3 new environmental land management schemes. It sits alongside the future Local Nature Recovery and Landscape Recovery schemes.

Through the Sustainable Farming Incentive, farmers will be paid for environmentally sustainable actions – ones that are simple to do and do not require previous agri-environment scheme experience.

We are piloting the scheme to...
Top