ELMS

‘All options’ on table to support farmers under new Defra team

Former non-executive Defra director Ben Goldsmith tweeted last night (September 22) that the Government was considering introducing a land-based £80-per acre payment, a figure which has since been described to FG as ‘plausible’ by other insiders – though not confirmed.

Mr Goldsmith, who has been to see Defra Secretary Ranil Jayawardena and other officials, said the new top team at the department was also looking at the possibility of de-linking Basic Payment Scheme (BPS) payments for everyone.

“This would give all farmers a lump of cash now to do what they want with, and would also break the link between land area and rural payments, so the Basic Payment system would effectively be dead and gone,” he said.

“That is one of the things Ranil Jayawardena is considering and I think that is probably the most likely outcome and the Environmental Land Management (ELM) transition continues.

“I think there will be some short-term package to help farmers through this inflationary hump, meanwhile the transition goes on.”

Tenant Farmers Association chief executive George Dunn said consideration was ‘certainly’ being given to what to do in terms of progress with the Agricultural Transition Plan.

“The new ministerial team at Defra is looking at all options,” he told FG.

“The line we have been taking is that it just needs to ensure it cracks on with a practical, comprehensive and rewarding ELM programme, which deals with the issues we have raised around the tenanted sector to deal with public goods.”

Sustainable Farming Incentive

According to Mr Goldsmith, the Sustainable Farming Incentive – one of three components of ELM – is likely to be difficult to remove, because it is designed to build resilience into the farming sector by reducing the use of inputs.

“There is a recognition on the part of Ranil Jayawardena and others that reliance on imported fertilisers is a problem,” he said.

“The inflationary pressure and the fact that farmers have so quickly found themselves in difficulty in respect of those costs has spooked Government.”

Christopher Price, chief executive of the Rare Breeds Survival Trust, described the rumours about moving towards an area-based payment as a ‘deeply retrograde step’.

Mark Spencer

But new Farming Minister Mark Spencer is believed to be keen on the idea.

“We must hope this is no more than rumours,” said Mr Price.

“Given the state of the economy and the environment, these sort of area payments, unlinked to any tangible outcomes, make no sense.

“They simply mimic the Common Agricultural Policy at its worst. What we need, and desperately, are targeted payments made in return for delivering the sort of management on which farming, the environment and the climate depend.”

Defra

A Defra spokesperson said: “Farmers are brilliant at producing high quality food for consumption at home and for export and now we need them to go further, as productivity gains have been flat for many years.

“To boost the rural economy, food production and our food security, we will continue to support farmers and land managers by reviewing farm regulation, boosting investment and innovation in the sector.

“This autumn we will set out our plans for working with industry to maximise the long-term productivity, resilience, competitiveness, and environmental stewardship of the British countryside.”

Under Review

The government is to scrap the “Brexit bonus” which would have paid farmers and landowners to enhance nature, in what wildlife groups are calling an “all-out attack” on the environment, the Observer can reveal.

Instead, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) sources disclosed, they are considering paying landowners a yearly set sum for each acre of land they own, which would be similar to the much-maligned EU basic payments scheme of the common agricultural policy.

The Environment Land Management Scheme (Elms), devised by the former environment secretary Michael Gove, was constructed to encourage farmers to create space for rare species including wading birds and dormice, as well as absorbing carbon to help England reach its net zero target. Pilot schemes have created rare habitats and brought back species including nightingales, beavers and white stork.

Now, landowners and land managers who have been part of Elms have told the Observer that meetings with the government about their land have been removed from the diary as the scheme goes on pause.

Ben Goldsmith: next PM must back plan for farm subsidies to protect nature

Defra sources confirmed that Elms measures are under review and area-based payment is on the table.

Daniel Zeichner, the Labour MP for Cambridge and shadow farming minister, said this was a “complete betrayal of something that they said would be one of the key benefits of Brexit”. Many farmers had changed how they use their land because of the forthcoming Elms requirements.

He added: “Any reversal of the scheme would be highly disruptive to the sector; we agreed with the broad direction of it, although we did think the government was moving too quickly.

“This is a complete step back from their promises, and to tear it up without any consultation would be nothing short of mindless vandalism.”

The prominent Conservative Ben Goldsmith, a former Defra board member, said he was disgusted by the plans. He commented: “There are rumours that the government is considering resuscitating an old subsidy scheme in which landowners across the country will be paid per acre of land that they own, no matter how well they care for it. In 2022 – surely not.

“A system governed by the principle of public money (only) for public environmental good is a much better idea than unconditional subsidies for landowners. Let’s hope the government sticks to the course.”

Delay environmental land management scheme

Wildlife groups are set to revolt over the move. Craig Bennett, chief executive of the Wildlife Trusts, which has 860,000 members, said: “They have no democratic mandate to do this, it was in the election manifesto. What you’ve seen in the space of the last week is Liz Truss’s government basically trashing all the environmental commitments that were in the 2019 manifesto.

“If now, this government is going back to area-based payments, then it will have dumped the one silver lining around Brexit that perhaps might have been good for the environment. It seems there is an all-out attack on the environment under Liz Truss’s government.”

Shaun Spiers, executive director of Green Alliance, said: “I cannot believe a government committed to ‘the most ambitious environmental programme of any country on Earth’ would do anything as reckless with taxpayers’ money. It would make the budget look like a model of caution and prudence.”

Isabella Tree, who runs the Knepp Estate in Sussex, was supposed to operate one of the government’s flagship landscape recovery schemes. Her area is pioneering nature-friendly farming and is a recipient of nature recovery funding, and she is the author of perhaps the world’s best-known rewilding manual, Wilding.

She said: “Elms has been four years of deep thinking about the future, millions of hours spent by thousands of people from all sectors, about how we can reform land management so we don’t destroy the systems we depend on, so we have an agronomy, a land base and natural resources that will sustain us for generations to come.

“For once there was long-term vision from government. And to think that all of that effort and all that time and dedication and deep understanding is just being tossed aside beggars belief..”

The National Farmers’ Union has been pushing back against plans to pay farmers for nature schemes rather than food production.

Minette Batters, the NFU president, welcomed the departure from Elms. “My absolute priority is ensuring that farmers can continue to produce the nation’s food – so I do support maintaining direct payments in order to build a scheme that really will deliver for food production and the environment,” she said.

A Defra spokesperson did not deny the change was to take place, and said:

“To boost the rural economy, food production and our food security, we will continue to support farmers and land managers by reviewing farm regulation, boosting investment and innovation in the sector.”

Government review of ELMS farming subsidies stokes anger

By Claire Marshall & Malcolm Prior BBC Rural Affairs Team

The new subsidy scheme was said to be the biggest shake-up in farm policy in England in 40 years. A major overhaul of farm subsidies that rewards landowners in England for their environmental work is in doubt after the government signalled a review.

Environmental groups and some farmers worry the government could water down the overhaul, known as environmental land management schemes (ELMS), but the NFU farm union had requested a delay. ELMS is designed to replace the EU's common agricultural policy (CAP). A government spokesperson confirmed it was "rapidly reviewing" its plans.

ELMS was the biggest shake-up of farm policy in England for 40 years, introduced after Brexit to replace the EU's CAP payouts.

Those grants were worth about £3.5bn annually and the majority were paid based on how much land each individual farmer owned, leading to criticisms that the payments benefited the wealthiest.

The new ELMS subsidy framework was cast into doubt after a number of landowners and farmers had meetings about the scheme with the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs cancelled. News of the review prompted an unusually outspoken statement from the director-general of the National Trust, Hilary McGrady.

"Rather than ramp up action to support our environment, this government appears however to be heading in the opposite direction," she said.

Cambridgeshire farmer Martin Lines, who is chairman of the Nature Friendly Farming Network, which promotes sustainable farming, said that any delay to the ELMS scheme would deny farmers crucial support to adapt to a changing climate.

"If the government is stalling ELMS, it is failing any duty of leadership in maintaining momentum and building resilience," he said.

ELMS is made up of three payment schemes - the sustainable farming incentive, local nature recovery and landscape recovery.

Under the system, farmers could be paid subsidies based on a range of environmental work, from improving water and soil health and creating wildlife habitats to rewilding whole landscapes.

But those with smaller farms had voiced concerns that the new nature-friendly system would not offer them enough to stay in business.

NFU president Minette Batters said her organisation had wanted a delay to the schemes' introduction.

"We called for a delay not because we wanted to hang on to the status quo but because we believe that the SFI needed to have more detail and it needs to be profitable," she said. "We have always been calling for a better policy, one that does deliver for food production and for the environment." More in right hand column.

A report earlier this year by think tank the Green Alliance estimated that delaying ELMS by two years would reduce the savings in agricultural emissions delivered by 2035 by half.

News of the review triggered warnings from environmental groups.

Craig Bennett, chief executive of The Wildlife Trusts, said "If we revert to an agricultural system where people get given taxpayers' money on the basis of how much land they own then one of the few potential benefits of Brexit will have been squandered. It will be unfair and unsustainable."

Richard Benwell, chief executive of Wildlife and Countryside Link, a coalition of rural conservation charities, said: "Farmers should be paid more and paid well for ambitious action to deliver environmental recovery, alongside producing healthy food."

He said any suggestion farmers be paid based on the amount of land they owned "would squander years of work and waste the opportunity to create a thriving agriculture sector that works in harmony with nature. Area-based payments are inefficient and inequitable".

A Defra spokeswoman said that, while environmental land management remained important, the department was reviewing its plans "given the pressures on farmers, and the government's aims of boosting food security and economic growth".

She added: "In the light of the current global economic situation, we know that the cost of inputs has gone up, which might make it more difficult for farmers to both improve the natural environment and underpin food production, so we will continue our engagement with the sector to make sure the outcomes that the British people want to see are delivered."

Agricultural policy in the UK is a devolved responsibility and each nation is implementing its own subsidy schemes.

Defra UK @DefraGovUKReplying to@RSPBEngland

Our farmers produce high-quality food. We’re supporting them by reviewing regulations and boosting investment. We’ll set out plans to grow productivity and resilience soon… …and keep helping them protect and enhance our natural environment.

Joe's comments.

2) ELM isn’t a ‘farm subsidy’ - it represents payments for environmental works undertaken on a largely cost neutral basis. It’s intended to return little profit largely following the ‘income forgone’ model of current agri-environment schemes. ‘Subsidies’ are over.

3) ELM isn’t intended just to be paid to farmers: anyone with a block of land could apply. That’s one of the reasons environmental NGOs may be so upset at the rumours: under current plans, they’re in line for a new income stream from ex-CAP funds solely paid to farmers.

5) CAP wasn’t paid to farmers based on ‘how much land they owned’. It was paid to the person farming the land, often (35%) a tenant. Defra’s own figures show that tenants are most reliant on CAP payments & will in general be most harmed by their removal.

6) The ‘CAP = a gravytrain for rich landowners’ line was promulgated by Brexity types to turn the public against CAP as part of the Brexit culture war. ELM will comparatively benefit larger landowners more than CAP, with smaller tenants most disadvantaged under the new scheme.

 7) As an aside, the basic assumption of Defra - that rents & other costs would fall with the loss of CAP funding as landlords & others ‘shared the pain’ with tenants - has proven to be false. Ag inflation is running at 30% & rents are largely increasing.

8) We’re already seeing some large landowners clearing farming tenants from the land to make space for larger environmental projects under ELM. This will lead to a more consolidated, smaller industry consisting of fewer small family farms. Is this what the public wants?

9) Anyone who claims that ELM heralds a golden age of environmental recovery fails to accept the basic truth: whatever the pros/cons of the scheme, it’s pitifully underfunded. Therefore farmers won’t engage with it, because farms are businesses, not charities.

10) CAP ‘subsidies’ = >60% of income for the average English farm. That is soon to disappear. ELM will not replace it. How will many farms stay solvent with costs skyrocketing & cheaper, low quality food flooding in as part of government’s race-to-the-bottom trade policy?

11) As long as we ignore the inconvenient detail & wider policy requirements of a genuine sustainable food & environment policy, we’re just allowing those in power to pull the wool over our eyes to their own ends & take us all for fools.

12) …and my meetings haven’t been cancelled, so perhaps nothing’s happening at all.

Farming Today 26 09 22 Defra & ELMS

Sir Dieter Helm

Trouble is if they think money should go for food production, they are not arguing for CAP 1 (money/acre) but really arguing for paying for producing going even further back than CAP to the sorts of subsidies which produced the butter mountains and wine lakes. Sure they produced a lot of food but not in a very efficient way. None of these address other important land use issues, benefits to economy and those that boost sustainable growth - water, health etc.

Interviewer: Precursor to cutting the budget? Johnson promised to maintain£3B, but this government hasn’t.

DH:  V.v important consideration..if cut money for land owning, nobody notices, but if cut ‘public goods’ the public notices and rightly so. Farmers should be cautous about going into reverse but instead should concentrate on doing a much better job of ELMS.

Whatever arguments about Brexit, one of the greatest prizes was getting out of Common Agric & Fishing Policies. It is hard to do it worse and left farmers in bad position, productivity on the floor and natural environment not on good shape. Here is huge opportunity, leave subsidies the same - so farmers get same amount but direct that money to deliver what public wants. So to waste this opportunity would to throw up one of gems of Brexit itself.

Defra Statement

Claims we intend to go back on our commitment to the environment are simply not right.  Our growth plan will support farmers to strengthen UK food security and maximise long-term productivity. Food production and the environment go hand in hand and these measures will worl alongside ELMS. We will set out our plans in Autumn.

Audio link