Farmers are being asked to join in the campaign for the farmed environment. "Over the next three years, farmers must double the area of key in-field options under entry-level stewardship (an extra 40,000ha), retain the area of uncropped land (179,000ha) and increase the area of voluntarily managed land by 30,000ha."

The poll on FWi suggests that farmers are not up for this, being split essentially 50/50 on the subject. Therefore they will do nothing and in 3 years time be faced with compulsion to do something.

What farming in Britain needs to get it's head round is that more food has to be produced in an environmentally sustainable fashion. This is not simply we will produce more food like we did in the good old days. Farming has to get away from the idea that science will come up with an answer. That was achieved in the 1970's. There is no investment in research now, to bring new science into agriculture. There is no silver bullet. Just more people making more demands on the land.

To fail on this campaign would be very bad for farming, very bad indeed.

 I note in reading the article on FWi that not all areas are being targeted in the initial round of this campaign, why not?

 Quote: 'Some 22 counties are being targeted - mainly in East Anglia, the south-east and southern England. But all English farmers are being urged to play their part because if the campaign fails, all farmers will suffer the consequences of extra regulation.' source fwi

Well as I'm not in any schemes and take no subsidies, all I can say is keep it all well away from me.  If they want me to sign up they can pay me: at a rate I set.

 

townie:

they can pay me: at a rate I set.

as Oscar Wilde said : "they know the price of everything and the value of nothing"

Enjoy this clip, it is from Sweden. They are trying to understand why things that government wants is not done by the people because it ain't fun. So they tried making it fun http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cbEKAwCoCKw

 

Enjoyed the clip.  Sweden is a country on a different planet.  If we tried it here the bin would be full in an hour or two but nobody would empty it.  It would stay full until the following morning, except that during the night the local youths would have pulled it apart to steal the electronics and scattered the litter to the four winds!

see the world is treating you right today. Try the jacobus analysis on these other two clips

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2lXh2n0aPyw&feature=player_embedded http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zSiHjMU-MUo

I guess the bottle bank will hold to your analysis, but what about the stairs?

The clips are great fun, thanks

The point for me is not that I am devastating my land into a barren waste and eliminating all wildlife.  Quite the opposite, in fact; there is a countable increase in birdlife (I have figures) since we started farming the place, extended and renewed much hedging and as our grazing is largely only managed by what grazes it the diversity of plants is increasing.  However, I know that the details of how and when we do what we do would not fit closely to the regulated formulae and that the paperwork we keep, while it works very well for our needs and for the basic requirements (movements, etc.) is not what the rules require of those who receive money.  I see no reason to fit these rules.  Further I see no reason why I should take valuable time away to justify myself to some bureaucrat.  As this place had never been in any schemes prior to our ownership and our choice of stock is largely marginalised by the agricultural establishment we prefer to stay out side the system as far as possible.  I am quite clear that to be brought within the system we would face a load of grief to little benefit to our pockets and none to the local environment.

Having said all that, I respect the achievements of the many farmers who have been working within the schemes, often in spite rather than because of the bureaucracy.

Hear, Hear, Townie.

What I don't understand is that we have had set aside for years and the powers that be say that song birds etc have declined. So why would the reintroduction of set aside improve matters? We have the ELS that is supposed to have delivered great benefits - now they say we must go "over and above" this. Yes, I can see the arable folks don't what the alternative (although I suspect Mr Benn and his party will not be around to deliver the compulsory measures), but why does the whole thing have to be so b***** patronising. It will generate an army of barely farming-literate bureaucrats with clip boards. Half the time they don't agree with themselves. I received some literature re catchment area farming that told me not to clear out my ditches and then went on a day course on which the same organisation told me I should clear out my ditches. Personally, I agreed with the latter - ditches are there to drain - our ancestors knew a thing or two and we ignore their local knowledge at our peril.

Like Townie, I like to encourage our wildlife . I rarely use herbicides - preferring to top weeds or dig them out by hand. We don't overstock. I am happy to learn at all times but I don't want to be preached to by some politician (however "nice" he might be as a person). If the politicians were as good at government as most farmers are at farming and respecting the environment, this country would not be in its current mess. With biological systems you can't set "targets" and expect the desired results. You certainly can't punish people who are trying hard if those targets aren't met. I would like to see the aims of the campaign succeed but the PR is - to my mind - dreadfully dictatorial and very off putting. Perhaps they should aim it a bit higher than the thick 5 year old level.

Sorry, - rant over - bureaucrats can seriously damage your health!

Seems to me like yet more useless red tape and bull. The object of commercial agriculture ought to be to produce safe and wholesome food at a price which the consumer can afford leaving the grower a fair profit for his work.

 Whislt we are being blackmailed into taking productive arable land and creating habitats for weeds and wildlife out of it, the children of the Third World are dying of hunger. To restrict food output in favour of wildlife and weeds is an outragous and obscene action while hunger stalks the world.

The thought of kiddies dying of hunger whilst the wildlife of Britain is stealing their food is simply disgusting and whoever dreamt up this idiotic idea ought to hang his head in shame.

Dick

I don't blame the NFU etc for trying to come up with an alternative, but I fear it has DEFRA-speak stamped all over it - well it has to, for Mr Benn to have agreed to it.

So, in three years there must be an extra 40,000ha under ELS, 179,000ha must be retained as uncropped land and voluntarily managed land must be increased by 30,000ha. Now - what precisely is that lot going to do? Can we please have some proper scientific evidence that these measures are going to achieve their goals? By how much must farmland bird populations increase and farm wildlife enhanced? 2%? 5% 10%? No objectives are set so there are no guarantees that even if the land targets are achieved, the Government will be satisfied with the results. You can tick as many boxes as you like but if you are not permitted to control badgers, raptors and other predators, then your ground nesting birds are frankly no better off.

The trouble is that farmers are supposed to be all things to all people, but can satisfy nobody. We are supposed to be super-efficient producers in a competitive "global market", making sure, of course, that it is all produced to the highest standards with "rigorous biosecurity" and adheres to 3 volumes of cross compliance rules, regulations and red tape. We are also supposed to protect and enhance the wildlife and environment, whilst allowing every Tom Dick and Harry to tramp where they will. We are at the mercy of several single issue pressure groups who somehow succeed in obtaining more of the Government's favour than we do. Sometimes we are praised for the good work we do - and then we are told, as in this campaign, that failure means we will be hit with yet more onerous regulation and penalties. Seemingly this is only for English farmers. I live within 5 miles of the Welsh border - are we English such sinners compared with our Welsh colleagues? (Polite answers on a postcard, please!)

The daft thing is that I am actually very interested in the environment - I even looked up the ELS documentation to see if there was any mileage in the scheme. There appears to be ONE HUNDRED AND FOUR PAGES of it!! Needless to say I haven't got very far.

Sorry, boys, you can't "encourage" and "inspire" when there is a big stick behind your back. People can be coherced into ticking boxes but half of them will not have their hearts in it.

the aged clun:

it has DEFRA-speak stamped all over it

Quite agree, but it's not just DEFRA -speak, it's New Labour-speak isn't it?  Their whole tenure of office has been characterised by controlling what people do and how they do it not whether it produces the desired outcome. 

As far as I can see these targets do not stand much chance of 'success'.  I looked at ELS when it started and concluded that although we would have to do very little to comply, the extra burden of regulation and inspection and the increased possibility of falling foul of some part of it, was just not worth the payment received.  We are a small farm (35 acres) and very much a part time activity.  I know a lot of others in a similar position and not one of them is in ELS.  From my point of view there will not be an increase in take-up of this scheme, especially if the rules are extended, unless there is a substantial increase in the payment rate - and I mean double or treble, not just a minor increase.

An interesting debate and I would make the following points:

Many farmers might not have to do too much to play their part but it will help enormously if they record what they are doing already and contribute to the targets.

The range of options available means that farmers small/large, east/west based, pure arable/mixed, heavy/light soils will all be able to play their part somehow without comprimising their farming to any great degree.

Those that do nothing should not moan when 6% set aside comes rumbling towards them when the rest of Europe has it at 0%. They should also not moan when the RSPB and Natural England say to DEFRA we told you so/this lot are not to be trusted and so on. This will damage farming's credibility if we cock it up.

I wish it every success - looks like a lot of hard work has gone into it.

I can see that the whole business is irritating (particularly if you are wildlife friendly already) - but I think we need to be pragmatic as an industry. We are where we are and we just have to get on with it. 

We can shout all we like, but the government was never going to back down on this issue. It wanted something done and the 'voluntary' approach has got to be better than the compulsoty one?

Isabel Davies:

I can see that the whole business is irritating (particularly if you are wildlife friendly already)

Exactly - the assumption seems to be that if you're not in a scheme you're beyond the pale which is very often far from being the case.  There is no proper scientific foundation for assuming that increased set-aside will increase bird numbers so it's hardly surprising that the eco-warriors don't want bird numbers to be the measure of success.

Isabel Davies:

We can shout all we like, but the government was never going to back down on this issue. It wanted something done and the 'voluntary' approach has got to be better than the compulsoty one?

"Always keep tight hold of Nurse for fear of meeting something worse". Unfortunately, in this instance "Nursey" has a damn great stick behind her back to keep her little charges in order. Seriously, can anyone put their hands on their hearts and say that this is what "partnerships" are made of? (You remember - the partnership the Government wanted with the industry?) Would anyone want to be in a marriage like that?

Can someone say what is happening in other EU countries now set aside has been set at 0%. Have they been similarly threatened? If not, why are we on the receiving end of sanctions?

No - I fully appreciate that when Government stamps its little feet we must all jump, and doubtless most of us will cross "t"s and dot "i"s in a (probably futile) attempt to stave off even more onerous impositions. My irritation is that we are not trusted, we are assumed to be miscreants rather than responsible land managers. Such obvious mistrust (as is evidenced by the ultimate sanctions) does not encourage people to embrace the desired message and philosophy - quite the opposite, it puts people' backs up. The Government has caused the industry to jump through hoops and you get the feeling that if it decides it is not satisfied with the result, it will simply use the industry initiative to blame the industy itself for the failure. Some of the ideas that the NFU etc have put forward are quite good, such as tailoring of schemes to suit individual farms, but why can we not discuss these things as equals? Serfs "get on with it" - the labour of the farmers of England deserves more respect from a Government that wants its policies carried out

Ever since becoming "UK aware" I have always said my country was following in your footsteps, about 10 years or so behind.  I think as farmers we are a little mystified when we are told to do things that will cut production on one hand, and then on the other read and hear so much about how our world cannot feed itself.  There are alot of very well meaning folks on both sides of the big water that really don't get it.  If you believe the hype about climate change and how the global population is approaching critical mass, the last thing farming needs to be told is to let productive land go back to nature.  But, as Isabel says, to paraphrase her(or put it into my words) "it is what it is".  Until voters in the UK or the USA actually cannot walk into a Tesco or Wal Mart and see unbelievable quantities and varieties of foods at prices reasonable enough so almost everyone can eat well, they will believe somehow that farmers have it wrong, and they have it right, and you can have your cake and eat it too. This world has some tough choices to make, most folks don't want to think about that, but you can't have 6+billion people on this rock, and still have a completely pristine environment with lots of wildlife habitat, and all those people fed...it just is not possible.

kansasfarmer:

still have a completely pristine environment with lots of wildlife habitat, and all those people fed...it just is not possible.

 C'mon Kansas, you're a sensible man.  Quite a small acreage of organic BBC/Guardian sponsored marijuana and they'll think it's possible...

If you have a compulsory plan and it fails there are organisations that can be blamed. Defra, its quangos, and RSPB have been very clever in suckering the NFU to lead on the present voluntary gambit because, among other things, they know that setaside did not produce the results they claimed it would, and the blame for this failure has never been laid fairly and squarely at their doors in a substantive manner. They've got away with it and they will not have any liability when the voluntary scheme fails.

Every now and again I see something that makes me realise how deep and significant are the forces forming, backing and supporting a particular viewpoint. I was brought to realise just how powerful the forces are that are trying to shape the British countryside when I saw on TV, Johnathon Dimbleby interviewing a representative of the RSPB, a Cambridge Professor and a representative of the agricultural industry the other day. 

Dimbleby was an impartial chairman and the RSPB man and the Professor clearly demonstrated their vast knowledge of the subject matter, as did the agricultural rep. What was lacking from the RSPB and the Professor however, was any evidence whatsoever, that they had a grasp of the impact or practicality of their proposals on those people who were going to have to implement them and then live with the consequences.

It struck me yet again that democracy has to find some way of ensuring that their theories are not put into practice until the theorists themselves have had to implement and live within the constraints of those theories. Mao tze tung and Pot Pol recognized the problem and tried to resolve the matter by forcing academics to work as peasants or be killed. This was a bit much and put back their respective countries by some years however, a way must be found to stop the implementation of programmes developed by 'experts' before there has been a most thorough testing under field conditions.

 

Peter Wells:

Dimbleby was an impartial chairman

"Jonathan Dimbleby is one of Britain’s best known broadcasters.  Jonathan was President of the Campaign to Protect Rural England from 1992 to 1997 when he was appointed an honorary Vice President. He is a past President of RSPB and the Soil Association. He is also President of Voluntary Service Overseas." Least we forget also, he is a farmer in organic methods, and don't forget his Hereford beast in a ravine.

Hmmmmmmm Peter, Peter. Unbiased, eh????????

I would be interested to know more about this programme. I can't locate it via our old mate google. As usual I ask myself, have I asked the correct question. So can you help say where it is located?

I have a suspicion that you are criticizing the work of Professor Sutherland. I am guessing here I know. If you are, all I can say is steady as you go. Though the team are having to learn much about agriculture, do not under estimate their intellectual ability. They are also working with farmers and agronomists in their research. Just because your world view is different it don't make them wrong.

I believe that if farmers were to throw a bit more intellect at problems then agriculture in Britain would move to a better place. To often the intellect, is used in farming, to deflect from reality. For example in the science of bird numbers farmers will say cats and magpies do the damage. Why don't they prove it with peer reviewed research. Spend some money and come out with the facts to support the argument. Because at present their is increasing science to support the paradigm of conflicts in our use of environmental resources. These resources belong to all, not simply a private individual over a brief life. Private ownership of air, soil, water is thought by some to be the case, it just is not so.

Farming is for us, all. For when this generation of bed blockers shuffles off, fresh eyes will come along. Just as, a few years ago did Sir Humprey Davy, Coke, Young and Jethro Tull.

Can I clarify? Are people saying that they would have preferred the NFU/CLA to dig their heels in to the extent that we got a compulsory scheme?

I may have missed something here but I would like the Government/NFU (or anyone else, for that matter) to clarify WHY the rest of the EU has 0% set aside and that is OK for their wildlife but we have to have something different. The Government is happy to inflict regulation from the EU upon us but isn't happy to give us the advantage when the EU lets up a bit. What has happened to the level playing field? So some explanation would be nice as to why we deserve more onerous conditions - something we can exercise our "intellect on".

Secondly, if Mr Benn is so worried about the effects of abolishing set aside he might have assisted his cause if he worked with the industry first on the problem - rather than giving us his solution and then causing the farming organisations to run around like startled ferrets. As has been said, it is probably a cynical political ploy to offload any failure onto the industry.

Personally I would like the NFU/CLA to point out a little psychology to Mr Benn and his acolytes and that is that if you want independent, hardworking people to take on board your philosophies, or put even more effort into what they are doing, then you persuade and educate with respect and understanding - NOT threats and punishment. The countryside may be "for all" but at the end of the day its the poor blighters out there from dawn to dusk who are doing the graft - not the politicians in offices!

Isabel,

Where I come from on this is: Farmers who farm for crops in this country ain't too good at voluntary schemes, nor are livestock farmers for that matter.

I did much work on the VI. Consequently I was the enemy then - stopping them producing.

I have been lucky to travel to see how other nations cope with agricultural husbandry and looked hard at the Ontario Environmental farm plan, as an example. While the farmers in Ontario do not like the challenge of environmental awareness. They do realize that they are going to have to do something about it. They recognize that there are significant problems associated with modern husbandry and environmental damage. Our farmers fail to get it. They think, they feed the world off 20million hectares, they don't, they can't.

Anything that conflicts with the farmer world view as a production manager in agi-business is wrong, according to farmers ( the posters on FWi demonstrate this regularly). Farmers need to embrace management of resources, not simply glare their lights on production. Production is only one part of the management of activity. There is also in farming managing risk, weather, soil, water, biodiversity, people, staff, spouse, government, finaces, tax, property, access, machines and legislation. This is the same as any other business activity in Britain, whether it is a football club or a retail shop for shoes, they all have these problems to manage.

The farmers will do nothing on this scheme, and wonder why they have compulsion thrust on them. Their default position is a Conservative government will be in power in 3 years time and it will go away. It will not. The next government will not be letting up on environmental management on farms. What ever colour that government is.

motley:

There is also in farming managing risk, weather, soil, water, biodiversity, people, staff, spouse, government, finaces, tax, property, access, machines and legislation. This is the same as any other business activity in Britain, whether it is a football club or a retail shop for shoes, they all have these problems to manage.

I agree with you entirely on this one, Motley as someone who has both another (non-farming) business to run and who is involved in the finances of a local community group. It is a pity that the Government is so poor at managing people (and finances, and security etc etc.) Whatever we do (in all businesses), we do with one hand tied behaind our backs or the threat of the "big stick". No wonder people are too disheartened to bother.

motley:

Farmers need to embrace management of resources, not simply glare their lights on production. Production is only one part of the management of activity. There is also in farming managing risk, weather, soil, water, biodiversity, people, staff, spouse, government, finances, tax, property, access, machines and legislation. This is the same as any other business activity in Britain, whether it is a football club or a retail shop for shoes,

Motley, I doubt any thinking member of the agricultural community would take you to task over the above paragraph. What has however, singularly failed to be addressed by what you probably call 'the thinking classes', is the imbalance of power between those who produce and those who demand.

It is somewhat disingenuous to list all those aspects of business activity needing to be addressed, when the money generated within the supply chain is allocated in such a way as to limit the ability of the producer to do much more than focus his resources on production. I have many 'proper' farmers amongst my friends, and they are all busy with the issues of production for far more hours each week than are occupied by those who 'think' about farming and then appear on TV to demonstrate that their grasp of the problems is greater than that of the farmer. God knows it should be! They 'think' for forty hours a week whilst the average farmer is grafting for 80.

Incidentally, whilst on the subject of 'problems,' whilst a student at Kansas City University, I coined the phrase, "there are no such things as problems, there are only opportunities." (at least I think I coined it, as I had not heard it prior to my putting the phrase in a thesis.) I have since however, regretted saying it, as I now realise that most of the world's 'problems' are created first in the minds of 'thinkers' as a prelude to their coming up with answers. What a fantastic idea! They get paid for creating, researching and quantifying a 'problem', and then get paid again for positing solutions.

Of course, situations occur such as volcanic eruptions that create genuine problems for people but I think most situations defined as problems by experts are simply devices to allow them to demonstrate how they, and they alone, have an answer.

The experts of the RSPC and RSPB are no different. It is they that define a problem and set its scope, it is they who include in that scope the role of other parties, and it is they, and their political benfactors, who then draft rules which are intended to circumscribe the actions of farmers.

Before putting more burdens on the farmer, let them first of all ensure that the money generated by the supply chain is more equitably shared between those who produce and those who demand.

The image of farmers you so often appear to portray is that of a backward looking, poorly educated, fearful of change and lacking in imagination group of old fogies. My view of them is that of innovative, hard working, ready to face a challenge, holistically minded stewards of the land. What they need however, is to be rewarded fairly for their part in the surpluses generated within the supply chain. Too much is going to the Retailer, Processor, Government, Bureaucracy, Quangoes, Land owners (in the case of the Scottish Highlands)  and all the hundreds of other groups whose income is ultimately derived from the activities of the farmer.

I have just realised that I am beginning to sound like Engels in one of his pamphlets dealing with the cotton spinners of Lancashire. No good came from him and the same is probably true of me. Oh dear.