ELMs Updates And BNG Meeting Report
Last Thursday, we gathered in the Broad Oak pub for our second meeting of the Winter to discuss the latest updates to Agri-environment schemes and share tips on how to best navigate the continually changing landscape of ELMs. Fellow CLM colleague Neve, then gave an intriguing and comprehensive overview of Biodiversity Net Gain, the different ways farmers can engage with the scheme and the current unknowns to watch out for.
Kirstie kicked off the discussion with a quick update of the latest changes including the removal of the need to complete an expression of Interest to enter SFI, reductions to BPS now capped at £7,200, delays in the roll out of Higher tier to be rolled out in summer 2025 and the temporary closure of the majority of Capital grants. The discussion then turned to the floor, where a number of members currently in the old higher level Stewardship (HLS) or Countryside Stewardship Higher Tier (CSHT) schemes, discussed what options they had going forward. Those with expiring HLS agreements have a number of options at their disposal which were discussed by the group:
Option 1- The RPA have agreed to offer 1 or 2-year extensions to farmers with Higher Level Stewardship agreements. Accepting an extension would allow you to wait to see how the roll out of the new CS HT scheme in summer 2025 plays out before deciding what schemes you may wish to enter.
Option 2- Extending your HLS means you will not benefit from new payment rates that may have increased under other schemes since your original agreement was offered. In this case people may find it more beneficial to exit their HLS scheme and enter into an Sustainable Farming Incentive Agreement.
Option 3- You could also choose to combine a new SFI agreement with an existing agreement as long as the options are compatible with existing ones in your HLS. This has the potential to become very confusing.
Option 4- Natural England have just announced the new CS higher tier scheme and have stated that they will start working with farmers from January 2025 to create applications that will go live in the summer of 2025. They have said they will prioritise working with farmers with expiring Agri-environment schemes in 2025. If you are approached to be an early adopter of the new scheme, you may wish to take part in developing that new agreement.
Those with expiring CSHT agreements have a number of options at their disposal which were discussed by the group:
Option 1- The RPA have agreed to offer mirror agreements of 5 or 10 years in length to farmers with expiring CSHT agreements. Accepting an extension would allow you to wait to see how the roll out of the new CS HT scheme in summer 2025 plays out before deciding what schemes you may wish to enter.
Option 2- Extending your CSHT may lock you into an agreement and a style of land management you no longer want to follow. In that case leaving this scheme, to enter into a more flexible SFI may be worth the gap in funding while the new agreement comes into place. The new SFI scheme has a number of endorsed options set to come out in Summer 2025, that will bridge the gap between SFI and higher tier.
Option 3- Waiting to see how it plays out does not mean you couldn’t stack an SFI agreement on top of an existing CSHT agreement, as long as the options you choose are compatible with your existing scheme.
Option 4- Natural England have just announced the new CS Higher Tier scheme and have stated that they will start working with farmers from January 2025 to create applications that will go live in the summer of 2025. They have said they will prioritise working with farmers with expiring Agri-environment schemes in 2025. If you are approached to be an early adopter of the new scheme, you may wish to take part in developing that new agreement.
For those with Expiring mid-tier agreements, you will be able to enter schemes from the day after your old scheme expires. Unfortunately this does mean there will be a gap in funding until the new agreement is accepted.
Aside from the decision of when and which schemes to enter a number of options were raised that group members have entered into and so far found beneficial. These Include:
Supplemental actions specifically SPM2/3 (Native breeds at risk) which members have been applying to their Romney flock.
Arable options such as Companion cropping (CIPM3), No use of Insecticide (CIPM4)
Limited area actions such as Flower rich grass margins (CIPM2) and Grassy field corners or blocks (CAHL3) which can only cover 25% of total agricultural area of your farm
Managing Low input grassland (CLIG3) can become very lucrative when stacking supplemental actions of haymaking(GRH7/8) and cattle grazing (GRH11)
To browse the full range of SFI options please click here. Despite the difficulties in transitioning into ELMS and delays in roll out, there was a mutual positivity in the options themselves once in an SFI agreement and the discussion revealed some interesting opportunities for people to think about applying to their farms.
Following this discussion, we the heard from Neve, who gave a brilliant overview of Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG). Her talk covered:
Avenues to BNG (third party providers, self-funded, bespoke habitat creation)
Steps to selling Units (baseline surveys, constraints checks, potential habitat model so on and so forth…)
What’s the Market Like? (Slow start with demand set to rise)
The current Unknowns (Timescale and tax uncertainty)
Small sites requirement (for farms looking to undertake development works, such as building new sheds, they may need to comply with the small sites BNG regulations)
One of the main concerns raised by the group was whether the appetite for BNG was really there, especially considering the potential for developers to offset onsite and the fact that a number of councils were buying land to attempt to carry out most BNG offsetting in house. It is clear that these are all factors to considered in deciding whether to undertake BNG and that an understanding of your local context and appetite for development will influence the success of your habitat bank. Another concern raised was the fear around unit sales having to provide for the maintenance and monitoring of that habitat for 30 years. In response to this, Neve alluded to a number of payment models that allow the money from a sale to be drip fed to the land manager, so that it is distributed responsibly across the 30-year period. The final main takeaway to come out of our BNG Q and A was the reality that group members themselves maybe subject to BNG requirements at some point if they wish to carry out any development on their farm such as a new barn. It was assured that in most cases, this kind of development would fall into the small sites category and be relatively easy to offset without the arduous process of liaising with an offsite habitat bank.