One of the themes of the Oxford Farming Conference was 'more for less' (an interesting phrase which can mean an awful lot of things) or 'sustainable intensification' (an ill-defined but useful starting point).
The Secretary of State, Caroline Spelman, has been talking up the fact that HLS funding is increasing by 80% over the next few years, at this time of tight money, and that ELS funding is remaining the same. We welcome both of these things - they are crucial for the future recovery of farmland bird species. They also represent a vote of confidence in our farmers. Many farmers at Oxford thanked RSPB staff for the role we played, and the NFU and CLA did not, in arguing for the safe-guarding and expansion of these funds.
The RSPB also welcomes the fact that ELS is being reviewed. This scheme, which is basically the source of our great success at Hope Farm - where farmland birds have increased dramatically over the last decade in utter contrast to the surrounding countryside - could provide more for the same amount of money with just a little tweaking. Defra is looking at what tweaks are possible. This is very important - if done well then the recovery of farmland birds is almost guaranteed.
Let's hope that Defra do this well. Actually, we won't leave it to hope, we'll be pointing out what needs to be done.
It's just occurred to me - I heard rather little of the Campaign for the Farmed Environment at Oxford.
A love of the natural world demonstrates that a person is a cultured inhabitant of planet Earth.
Well everything should be as efficient as possible but obviously it is not,it should be as a matter of personal pride and my guess is that if everyone paid by results or efficiency and/or more self employed or own there own small businesses it would go a long way to make things more efficient,just look at the cost to companies of tea breaks,smoking breaks sickness????days off,the list is endless.
Think it impossible to get more from less.
Think it admirable that RSPB has helped to get higher environment payments for farmers but hope all the population realise that all field margins,skylark patches,beetle banks and other things mean productive land taken out of production with the consequence of less food produced and hence slightly higher food prices,we cannot have it both ways whatever the experts would have us believe.personally it is a price I am prepared to pay for more birds around but do not think 95% of population will be if they realise what is happening.
Wildlife people in general live in a little bubble thinking everyone thinks like them but from talking to people where I do 10 hours a week part time work to put it bluntly they do not give a jot about wildlife and in fact suspect there are more shooters even than bird lovers.
Sooty - but the question is 'why isn't everything as efficient as it should be?'.
Jockeyshield - land agents - some are good, many are not. And those that are good are often good at the economics rather than the ecology.
redkite - fair points. But since HLS might have disappeared completely the 80% is worth trumpetting! It is, I think (and without checking) 80% increase over 2010 figures over the period of the Comprehensive Spending review (next 4 years). And yes, some of that increase was expected anyway (but was never certain), and yes again, some of that is needed to replace Countryside Stewardship and ESA agreements that are coming to an end. But it is still very good news - and a reason for farmers to thank the RSPB since the NFU and CLA did little to achieve this.
Always think phrase more for less is just about the most ridiculous thing ever someone thought of because if everything is efficient it is an impossability and if everything not efficient in the first place then why not because it definitely should have been.Just one of these smart a**e answers that supposedly clever people come up with.
Having worked on these schemes I feel one of the major problems lies with the fact land agents have captured the majority of the market. The problem there is that they do not have the experience to see a potential and only come in for the money. Other examples include the finance going direct to the owner of the land not to the tenant farmer. This is especial true in the uplands where Red Grouse take priority and not other species. Examples have including destroying Black Grouse, Curlew, Lapwing, Skylark and Twite habitat to increase Red Grouse. Both the Old DEFRA and Natural England staff do not seem to know how to stop this from happening.
That all sounds fairly positive Mark, as you say, I think it is very important that the RSPB has a strong input into the review of the ELS. Nevertheless I am always a little wary when politicians quote percentages as they rarely if ever say what the percentage IS OF, that is is, it an 80% increase over last year's budget or something different. So without defining what the base is, percentages quoted in isolation are rather meaningless. (Like sale price reductions really). Also I understand that some part of that increase, how much I don't know, is actually to bring remaining Environmental Stewardship schemes into HLS which is what was happening anyway. Nevertheless one must not grouse too much let's hope for positive results for the environment and wildlife from the OFC.
redkite