Environment scheme

Alicecow

Alicecow

Megastar
www.bbc.com

Farmers could be paid for post-Brexit 'rewilding' land changes

"Radical plans" could see large areas of land in England turned into nature reserves.
www.bbc.com www.bbc.com

Farmers and landowners in England could be paid to turn large areas of land into nature reserves, or to restore floodplains, under new government agriculture subsidies.
When the UK was part of the EU, farmers were given grants based on how much land they farmed.
Following Brexit, the government has pledged to pay based on how farmers care for the environment.
But environmental groups say the new plans lack detail and may not deliver.
In what the government describes as "radical plans", landowners and farmers will be allowed to bid for funding to turn vast areas of land - between 500 and 5,000 hectares - over to wildlife restoration, carbon sequestration, or flood prevention projects.
"What we're moving to is a more generous set of incentives for farmers doing the right thing," Environment Secretary George Eustice told the BBC.

"We can have both sustainable, profitable food production, and see a recovery for nature as well."
Agriculture is a devolved issue meaning that each UK nation has its own plans.
Improving the environment
Under the EU's Common Agricultural Policy, farmers were given taxpayers' money largely based on the amount of land they farmed: the more land they held, the more cash support they got. In 2020 about £3.5bn was handed out.
Now the government says that instead of rewarding farmers for how much land they work, it wants to encourage farmers to introduce practices that improve the environment.
Farming creates 10% of the UK's greenhouse gas emissions, and large-scale agriculture has long been accused of degrading the environment.
Applications will shortly open for the first wave of "Landscape Recovery" projects. Mr Eustice said the scheme would lead to "fundamental land use change" creating new woodlands, restoring peatlands, and other "intensive interventions".

The aim of these pilot projects is to create 10,000 hectares of restored wildlife habitat, which could help sequester carbon and restore England's rivers and streams. Mr Eustice said he hoped it would lead to more large-scale rewilding projects like the Knepp estate in West Sussex.
But Craig Bennett, chief executive of the Wildlife Trusts, said the "golden opportunity" of the agricultural transition was in danger of being "wasted" .
"While we're hearing the right noises from the government, the devil will be in the detail, and the detail is still not published nearly six years after the EU referendum," he said.
Dr Alexander Lees, from Manchester Metropolitan University, said the schemes fitted well with the challenges of reversing declines in Britain's most endangered species - those on the Red List. But the aspirations of the pilot seemed "simultaneously low and over-ambitious", he said.
"It would seem very hard to reverse biodiversity loss for the 'most threatened species' in just 10,000 hectares," he added.
"If we are serious, then we need to be racing towards the 300,000 hectare target as fast as possible."

An additional plan, called the Local Nature Recovery scheme, will pay farmers to deliver on small-scale environmental priorities, such as "creating wildlife habitat, planting trees, or restoring peat and wetland areas".
Mr Eustice said it was "about individual farms or groups making space for nature on part of their holding, perhaps creating water features on some of the less productive land, or hedgerows for breeding sites for birds."
The government says, by 2030, the policy aims to:
  • halt the decline in species
  • put up to 60% of England's agricultural soil under sustainable management
  • and by 2042, restore up to 300,000 hectares of wildlife habitat
Prof Dave Goulson, from University of Sussex, said it looked like "a step in the right direction", but more information is needed about "exactly what is funded, and how much has to be delivered to qualify for the payments".
Details of the broader Sustainable Farming Incentive (SFI), which aims to support sustainable farming practices, were revealed in December.
The Wildlife Trusts, National Trust and RSPB were highly critical of the SFI plans, saying they were "deeply concerned" that they did not go far enough.
According to the Wildlife Trusts, the SFI allows 30% of arable soils to be left bare over winter, which is damaging to soil health. The standards also do not address the damaging impact of pesticides and artificial fertilisers on soil, it said.
It also claimed that farmers would be left to measure and assess their own management plans.
Mr Eustice said judging how successful the plan is would be a "complex" thing to do in the years ahead.
He said: "We've been running agri-environment schemes in one form or another for well over 20 years, and each of those have been evaluated. It may not be perfect, but we think it's reasonably accurate. And you have to work on something."
 
I cynically wonder whether the SFI has been deliberately made ‘not worth the hassle’ so that money earmarked for environmental stuff can instead be channelled back to the likes of the hard-lobbying NT, wildlife trusts etc. It seems to me that only organisations such as these, that don’t have to actually earn money from agriculture have much to gain from such schemes; the the schemes are funded by ‘taxpayer money’, but NT etc gain kudos by ‘bringing back nature’ (by being the overbidder/ forcing tenant and family farmers out) which in turn help to swell coffers by donations/payments from the urban brigade who will think that it’s oh so wonderful what has been done to these once barren (productive) areas because that’s what they are continually told.

It will only work as long as the General Public have full stomachs.
 
They seem to have developed their own language where dereliction and destruction have become desirable goals.
Food production and the labours of generations who carved fields and farms from wilderness are of no consequence.
We might all find room for a few more trees or a pond but they are demanding completely abolition of meaningful farming.
It is quite simply madness and this is only one area of policy where lunatics have taken over.
The other glaringly obvious one being destruction of practical transport and reliable affordable power in the race for net zero.
 
The current energy crisis could be a sign of things to come. The western industrial nations became industrial because of their natural resources, in our case coal and later a bit of oil. policy changed and the power sources changed to gas, wind and other 'green' supplies. Gas being the only reliable and predictable supply. But as with any commodity it can only be sourced at world / bargain prices when you aren't reliant on it, as soon as you have to have it the vendor has you by the short and curlies.
The same could / will happen with food, if you produce 70 or 80% of what you consume and the remainder is easy to source, but as soon as you are in a position of having to source it then it becomes far more difficult.
Heating and food are similar in that modern people assume its their right to be warm and and to be fed at bargain basement prices, perhaps a wakeup call is on the horizon and choices are going to have to be made and priorities adjusted.
 
^^^ couldn't agree more.

We used to be 70 per cent self sufficient in basic foodstuffs, bananas and avocadoes excepted, but that has now dropped to just over 60 per cent.
The underlying rules of the previous SFP etc. schemes, were that the land on which cash was claimed 'had to be available' for food production.
That appears not to be the case now, with Carrie's rewilding at the top of the agenda.

We also failed to build in gas storage when given the opportunity, and closed down coal plants and some nuclear, way ahead of any viable replacements coming on stream. All the solar / wind in the country can only account for a very small amount of reliable power to the grid. Sometimes as little as 5 per cent. Imported gas coming from the EU and Russia, means we're at the end of the line. And the line is long, expensive and is already used as a political lever..
This leaves us in a very vulnerable position with power supplies too.

A very weak position for any country to manouvre itself into, imo. Let alone one sitting astride as much raw material potential as the UK.
 
Matthew said:
^^^ couldn't agree more.

We used to be 70 per cent self sufficient in basic foodstuffs, bananas and avocadoes excepted, but that has now dropped to just over 60 per cent.
The underlying rules of the previous SFP etc. schemes, were that the land on which cash was claimed 'had to be available' for food production.
That appears not to be the case now, with Carrie's rewilding at the top of the agenda.

We also failed to build in gas storage when given the opportunity, and closed down coal plants and some nuclear, way ahead of any viable replacements coming on stream. All the solar / wind in the country can only account for a very small amount of reliable power to the grid. Sometimes as little as 5 per cent. Imported gas coming from the EU and Russia, means we're at the end of the line. And the line is long, expensive and is already used as a political lever..
This leaves us in a very vulnerable position with power supplies too.

A very weak position for any country to manouvre itself into, imo. Let alone one sitting astride as much raw material potential as the UK.
Click to expand...
we have a very large capacity of storage of lpg at various sites around the country.a new one at avonmouth just been filled ,plus we have alife time contract with qatar at a fixed price for lpg ,
 
Is it a generation thing I wonder ?
Those that experienced rationing are no longer with us.
Those that have never experienced shortages, or any hardship at all are now ruling over us.
The more I scan Facebook, the more perplexed I become.
Practically rolling out the red carpet for Chris Packham's next visit to Pembs, on the local FB page. A few that have dared pointing out he's a prat, get the usual " Fecking farmers only want handouts ", " Food comes from Tesco's ", " We can get cheap food from abroad " comments.
How the hell did we get to this state, and what can we do about it ?
Edit......and is there any point trying to do anything about it ? Just grow enough for ourselves, and let everyone else eat cake trees.
 
Energy cost is why I have a log burner, so far this winter we have not had our heating on, future unreliable electricity supply (a prediction of mine) is why I have just purchased a 8.5kva generator and have a sparky lined up to put a changeover switch in. I do not like to be cold now, I’ve had my fair share of ice on the inside of the bedroom windows and don’t plan on experiencing it again.
 
itsalwaysme said:
Was talking to someone today, neighbouring farmer had always allowed a local bee keeper to site some hives, Change of ownership and new owner won't allow the hives as he's "rewilding" it all ( :unsure: wouldn't bees be helpful, do these people actually understand what they are doing :rolleyes: )
Click to expand...
That would be equally fitting in the "Things that make you go Hmmm" thread.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom