I wonder how the Campaign for the Farmed Environment is going? This is the Big Society alternative to regulating farming to replace the environmental benefits of set-aside. It’s difficult to tell how it is going from the Campaign website.
Minister Jim Paice will have to decide how it is all going before Christmas in order to decide whether or not to continue to put about half a million taxpayer pounds a year into funding the campaign. You see, it is a voluntary approach for farmers but there wasn’t a whip round we taxpayers to see whether we volunteered to contribute in this way.
Defra is so keen on talking about payment by results that I assume they will be chasing the NFU and CLA for a refund if the CFE does not meet all its targets – so let’s hope that it does!
[registration_form]
We farmers contribute in two ways we do so with taxes and lots help wildlife,admittedly wish all helped wildlife but lets praise glass half full not moan glass half empty.
My gripe would be by a little browse at set up that a lot of people will be making serious money out of it in fact considerably more than farmers taking part.
There is more than hint of sarcasm in today’s piece – I suggest that sarcasm is a lower form of wit?
You rarely seek to give a view, why the take up has been, as it is. I suggest that firstly, many do not wish to enter the ELS or HLS scheme, because it is bureaucratic, complicated and inflexible. They may be short sighted, I agree. Secondly, the RPA inspectors’ attitude when they inspect; not for them any pragmatism, but measure to the last 0.25 meter or .01 of a hectare. They know who is trying to work the system and who has made an error. For example it is not always easy to ensure hedge bottom widths when machinery is wide and the hedge line crooked. We need to encourage not discourage to convince the doubting of the value of the schemes.