Data collected by FWAG SW
The data contained in the following report is from 133 respondents that range from FWAG SW members to FWAG Association members and non-FWAG members. Most respondents were FWAG SW members.
Of those who had not yet applied for SFI (86%), 58% were going to apply within the next 3 months (38% within 1 month).
The average farm size was 246 ha, almost 50% of respondents owned or managed between 101 – 300 ha (medium sized farm).
Most responses were received from arable, lowland grazing livestock or mixed farms.
Total land ownership / management in this response was 30,002 ha.
Not all the data collected are represented in this report.
Questions with text as answers have been summarised into themes and therefore some of the detail of individual answers may not be represented.
Key reasons for respondents not being able to apply were:
- RPA issues (9)
- Slow response to queries from RPA (2 months) (2) We had put a query into the RPA and they emailed back after 2 months saying they would call us to discuss it. We were waiting for this call.
- Submission errors experienced on the portal (3) Glitches at RPA have caused frequent delays. Cattle supplement previously held up by IT issues with RPA . Kept getting an error on submission couldn’t work out why
- RPA didn’t send annual field use declaration for SFI23 IPM4, so couldn’t select infield options for SFI24
- Farmers were holding off applying as were wanting to consolidate agreements by terminating existing ES/CS/SFI23 agreements. (7)
- Conflict between existing agreements and additional SFI actions (3)
- Awaiting clarification/confirmation of ‘endorsed’ floodplain/species rich floodplain options. These additional actions have now been lost for another year with the reset. (1)
Effect of the SFI closure on future actions
69% of respondents stated the closure would change their farming business plan
Details of how farming business plans would change /the effect of the closure on farms include the following themes:
- Reduction in / no land put aside for biodiversity.
- ‘We will have to significantly reduce our desire to increase biodiversity on the farm as this will not pay the bills. It will be a return to forage maize, 3 cut silage and autumn sown crops. This is a great disappointment as after 20 years of environmental schemes the significant increase and diversification of birds and field mammals has been a source of pride and enjoyment on our farm.’
- Reduction in / no actions taken to improve soil health and stability
- Increase in intensification (crops and livestock) and use of inputs .
- ‘Low input cereals will suffer, as there are yield reductions, higher risks and therefore potential for low output and lack of return.’
- ‘I guess I have to push my land more and think about maize growing for bio digesting as that seems to be wanted year on year.’
- ‘…more intensity – more fertiliser, more pesticide chasing out and out yield even on higher risk – less productive parcels -moving more soil and monoculture.’
- Concerns over viability of the business
- eg ‘My husband will have to find employment elsewhere and it will put huge pressure on our farm business and family.’
- ‘It won’t change our policy but the loss of income for future environmental actions will make our business struggle financially.’
- ‘All but essential spending suspended.’
- ‘Will become a lost leader.’
- ‘Could go bankrupt.’
- Potential removal of existing biodiverse habitats (orchards) for crops that will bring income
- ‘We have a large area of traditional cider orchards which are not economic but a great wildlife resource on the farm. Without subsidy we may have to consider taking some of these out of orchards and returning to more intensive agriculture.’
Reasons for reducing actions for nature and climate in the light of SFI closure include:
- Caution relating to future government schemes, with the majority (34) stating that trust had been broken.
- Confidence in the government’s direction of travel was low, causing an inability to plan for their farm business, mainly in terms of income but also achievement of national priorities.
- Recent government decisions (tax, funding) threaten the financial viability of their businesses, causing them to intensify their food production, reducing or removing actions for nature and climate. For many of our respondents, this forced change was against their principles.
Looking forward
How could the scheme be administered to make it fairer to access for all farmers?
- Reviewing agreement rules
- Scale of outcomes and funding offered reflects both capacity to deliver ambitions at scale whilst also enabling those working at smaller scales to receive fair payment
- Basic level funding for all and competitive rounds for the rest / base-level options with top up payments
- Rules take account of regional differences
- Equity in communication and support for all farmers
- Important that the money goes to those who would be delivering the outcomes
- Capping payments
- Caps on eligible land areas. Learn from CS on limits to options such as Wild Bird Seed mixes minimum 0.4ha and 5ha maximum size.
- Limits to individual areas of actions to encourage habitat connectivity.
- Subsidising advice / advisers
- Use trusted local adviser (such as FWAG), who has the authority to inspect and sign off scheme implementation and completion. You’ll get better actions on farms.
- Rewarding farmers for basic good environmental practice
- Targeting practice / actions in specific areas
- Habitat /species targeted cluster groups promoted by LNRS
- Prioritise specific areas where a particular option has an increased additional benefit.
- Provide flexibility for those not mapped in a priority area in the LNRS, to provide a valuable stepping stone in the landscape
- Acknowledgement of regional and farm differences
- Enable whole farm business planning
- Make all options available at the same time, so that farmers can make informed, whole farm decisions about what works for their business / land.
- Transparency
- National published quarterly review of budget uptake so that the industry can monitor uptake
Suggested actions for better environmental benefits
- Payments increased incrementally for extended time commitment, for greater environmental benefit, with a conservation covenant being the pinnacle
- Good environmental practice farms need to be assured of the funding to continue at this level
- Organic or no input grassland should be the standard, not low input
- Greater attention could be paid to supporting actions within a broader farming system, rather than focusing on individual actions
- Enable farmers to stabilise finances and have the confidence to experiment with regenerative farming techniques
- Encourage more incentives to create floristically enhanced permanent grassland.
How could SFI support farming systems rather than individual actions?
- Incentivising cluster work to enable knowledge sharing and collaboration across a landscape
- Provision of training and education to support farm business planning and new skills development
- Ensure the SFI revamp is part of a wider building of links across government departments to reshape the food and farming system
- Provide whole farm incentives eg a points-based system to ensure delivery for nature and money spent / bespoke whole farm approaches and funding packages
- Ensure it enables/encourages the building of long-term systems for better nature and climate gains eg, build systems from the bottom up with resource protection (water, soil, leaching issues etc), then habitat gains.
- Provide more support for organic maintenance, post conversion
Improving the administration of the scheme
- Improve efficiency to quicken the speed of response
- Ensure automated links with protected landscape and other data on application
- Simplify the endorsement process. Also, if it were at the beginning of the application process, it could save time on an unsuccessful application
- Simplify the whole application process and associated paperwork (guidance and declarations)
- Make the process more interactive (including diary alert for submission of evidence)
- Provide better application checks to avoid misuse of the scheme
- Ensure the whole application process takes place through the one portal, avoiding the need to navigate to different websites
What would the perfect scheme look like?
- The scheme would come with accessible, local whole farm business advice and support for all
- It would enable funded facilitation of collaboration and knowledge transfer through clusters, for example
- Administration should be more efficient and consistent
- Actions should be regionally based / local actions
- To be successful in terms of food security, nature and climate, farmers require longer term stability and commitment which outlives government terms of office
- It should incentivise a minimum standard of sustainable farming practice for all farms. This would need to work alongside regulation
- Schemes should be focused on incentivising habitat creation for local key species
- It should improve financial benefits and incentives for tenants