Thirty-First Report - Environmental Land Management Scheme

Select Committee

Public Accounts Committee HC 639 9 January 2022

Report Status Government responded

Conclusions & Recommendations 31 items (13 recs)

Source View on Parliament website

Government Response (AI assessment · 31 of 31 classified)

Accepted 9

Not Addressed 15

Rejected 1

Government response

Treasury minutes: Government response to the Committee of Public Accounts on the Thirty First report from Session 2021-22 · published 1 Mar 2022

Read the government response ↗ Response on the tracker

Recommendations & Conclusions

15 results

3 Recommendation Not Addressed

We are not convinced that the Department sufficiently understands how its environmental and productivity ambitions...

Recommendation

We are not convinced that the Department sufficiently understands how its environmental and productivity ambitions will impact the food and farming sector over the next decade. Farmers will be required to free up land currently used for food production to … Read more

Government Response Summary

The government's response discusses a general PAC conclusion about civil service skills shortages, which does not address the specific recommendation about farming programmes' impact on food production and prices.

HM Treasury

4 Recommendation Not Addressed

Despite committing to delaying the early stages of SFI if either the Department or farmers...

Recommendation

Despite committing to delaying the early stages of SFI if either the Department or farmers were not ready, the Department has not specified what would trigger such a delay. Opinion within the farming sector is divided over whether the Department’s … Read more Despite committing to delaying the early stages of SFI if either the Department or farmers were not ready, the Department has not specified what would trigger such a delay. Opinion within the farming sector is divided over whether the Department’s timetable is realistic or whether delaying the start of roll-out of the programme from 2022 is desirable. Some believe a delay is necessary to ensure that the scheme delivers for farmers and the environment and that farmers have the time they need to plan their businesses. The Tenant Farmers Association reminded us that farming requires long-term business planning, with crop rotations and breeding programmes put together over many years. But others highlight that progress to date has already been too slow, and that the right time to delay was 12 months ago. The Department acknowledges that there are delivery risks in the early stages and that it has yet to develop detailed delivery plans beyond March 2022. The Department has committed to making the first payments by Christmas 2022, and to not implementing any system changes that may put this timetable at risk. It asserts that, while there are risks to the delivery timetable that it needs to manage, it is on track and there is currently no need to delay. It told us it carries out reviews to identify any ‘red flags’ that may indicate the need for a delay due to the Department not being in a position to deliver the system, or farmers not being ready, but has not specified what these red flags are or the circumstances that would lead to a delay. Announcing a delay at short notice could be very damaging to farmers’ confidence in the scheme. Recommendation: In line with its Treasury Minute response, the Department should write to us by the end of February 2022 to confirm how it is assuring its own and farmers’ readiness at each stage of the Programme, and specify what would trigger a delay and when, allowing sufficient lead time to allow farmers to plan for a delayed launch. In Show less

Government Response Summary

The government's response discusses a general PAC conclusion about tracking benefits and costs, which does not address the specific recommendation about farmer readiness and delay triggers.

HM Treasury

5 Recommendation Not Addressed

The Department has not yet done enough to gain farmers’ trust in its ability to...

Recommendation

The Department has not yet done enough to gain farmers’ trust in its ability to successfully deliver the programme. Farmers’ confidence in the Department was severely damaged by a poor history of delivery under previous agricultural subsidy schemes, and the … Read more The Department has not yet done enough to gain farmers’ trust in its ability to successfully deliver the programme. Farmers’ confidence in the Department was severely damaged by a poor history of delivery under previous agricultural subsidy schemes, and the situation has not been helped by the very slow release of information relating to the new schemes: In December 2021, since our evidence session, the Department has published further information on how the Sustainable Farming Incentive will work in 2022, including payment rates for the first phase. However, farmers still lack detailed information on what Defra has planned for 2023 and 2024. The Department’s last-minute approach to providing information to farmers severely undermines their ability to plan for the long term to make sure their businesses are sustainable. Arrangements for the upcoming pilot were originally planned to be released a month and a half ahead of inviting expressions of interest, but were released with just two weeks’ notice. We are particularly concerned that the lack of information on what would be available to encourage young farmers into the industry means that young farmers will be less able to enter the industry. The Department admits its confidence in the scheme looks like blind optimism without the details of what it has planned, and has committed to providing, in Spring 2022, this detail for the Scheme’s roll-out in 2023 and 2024. In October 2020, the Department reported that only 30% of farmers had all or most of the information they needed to inform business planning and, although this figure had improved to 40% by April 2021, it is still alarmingly low. A separate survey carried out by the RPA from January to March 2021 found that only 4% of respondents were ‘very prepared’ for upcoming changes in farming and 37% ‘not at all prepared’. Worryingly, 41% of respondents to that survey said they did not know what SFI was. The Department released additional information in June 2021 whi Show less

Government Response Summary

The government's response did not address the committee's conclusion regarding the Department's failure to gain farmers' trust due to slow information release, instead responding to an unrelated point about efficiency drives.

HM Treasury

6 Recommendation Not Addressed

The Department is not doing enough to support farmers through the transition to the new...

Recommendation

The Department is not doing enough to support farmers through the transition to the new schemes and alleviate any anxiety its plans are causing. The removal of direct payments would have reduced the average net profit of farms in England … Read more

Government Response Summary

The government's response did not address the recommendation to identify further support for farmers during the transition or support for their well-being, instead responding to an unrelated point about departmental capacity during emergencies.

HM Treasury

1 Conclusion Not Addressed

On the basis of a report by the Comptroller and Auditor General, we took evidence...

Conclusion

On the basis of a report by the Comptroller and Auditor General, we took evidence from the Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs (the Department) and the Rural Payments Agency.2 We also took evidence from the National Farmers’ Union, … Read more

Government Response Summary

The government's response did not address the committee's introductory statement about evidence collection, instead responding to an unrelated point about efficiency and cost shunting.

HM Treasury

8 Conclusion Not Addressed

The ELM scheme consists of three components: • The Sustainable Farming Incentive (SFI), which will...

Conclusion

The ELM scheme consists of three components: • The Sustainable Farming Incentive (SFI), which will pay farmers for actions to manage their land in an environmentally sustainable way; 2 C&AG’s Report, The Environmental Land Management scheme, Session 2021–22, HC 664, … Read more

Government Response Summary

The government response describes the Future Farming and Countryside Programme and the ELM scheme's components and timeline, but it does not address the committee's observation.

HM Treasury

14 Conclusion Not Addressed

The Department is developing the ELM scheme through a system of ‘co-design’, which they have...

Conclusion

The Department is developing the ELM scheme through a system of ‘co-design’, which they have now started to refer to as “co-creation”. This is working collaboratively with farmers and others to obtain continuous feedback and input as they iterate the … Read more The Department is developing the ELM scheme through a system of ‘co-design’, which they have now started to refer to as “co-creation”. This is working collaboratively with farmers and others to obtain continuous feedback and input as they iterate the design of the programme.34 Both the National Farmers’ Union and the Tenant Farmers Association told us that they felt very engaged in the process, but both also raised concerns about the effectiveness of the Department’s approach. The National Farmers’ Union highlighted the importance of ensuring that farmers’ first engagement with the scheme in 2022 is a positive one, to keep them engaged into the future. It told us that it did not feel that there was a co-ordinated approach to the scheme’s development and that co-design process was creating “a little bit of chaos”, explaining that “everyone is chipping in, and nobody really knows exactly where scheme design is getting to”.35 It described Defra’s approach to co- design as “scatter-gun” and asserted that co-design cannot replace consultation, and that the Department’s plans were lacking in detail, particularly around the later components of the scheme, Local Nature Recovery and Landscape Recovery.36 The Tenant Farmers Association felt that it was inputting heavily into the design but, as it was not seeing specific details from the Department, it could not support its members in understanding what is planned. It also told us that, due to the focus on the co-design strategy, the Department was mistaking activity for progress in the scheme design.37 In addition to engaging with farming organisations on co-designing the scheme, the Department told us that it was 30 Q 12; Committee of Public Accounts, Progress on the Common Agricultural Policy Delivery Programme, Fortieth Report of Session 2016–17, HC 766,10 February 2017 31 Committee of Public Accounts, The Common Agricultural Policy Delivery Programme, Twenty-sixth Report of Session 2015–16, HC 643, 2 March 2016 32 Committ Show less

Government Response Summary

The government commits to writing to the Committee by February 28, 2022, to explain how ELM plans are developed in partnership and the approach to operational readiness, responding to a separate recommendation (not provided in the input for this ID), not the committee's conclusion #14 about co-design effectiveness.

HM Treasury

17 Conclusion Not Addressed

As part of the new scheme, direct payments to farmers will reduce by 55% by...

Conclusion

As part of the new scheme, direct payments to farmers will reduce by 55% by 2024– 25 before being phased out completely. The NAO found that the Department expects the reduction in direct payments and introduction of its replacement arrangements … Read more

Government Response Summary

The government response addresses PAC recommendation #3 (not provided in the input for this ID) regarding forecasts for land use, payments, and food production, not the committee's conclusion #17 about the impact of direct payment reductions on farmer profits.

HM Treasury

18 Conclusion Not Addressed

We asked the Department what farmers were feeling about the new scheme and the reduction...

Conclusion

We asked the Department what farmers were feeling about the new scheme and the reduction in direct payments. The Department recognised that while some saw the scheme as a “welcome opportunity to embrace a new future”, some feel very threatened … Read more

Government Response Summary

The government response addresses PAC recommendation #6 (not provided in the input for this ID) about identifying further support for farmers' well-being and business challenges during the transition, not the committee's conclusion #18 regarding farmer anxiety and the distinction between scheme availability and sufficient business support.

HM Treasury

24 Conclusion Not Addressed

Although the Department has set out its high-level vision for ELM through six ‘outcomes’ set...

Conclusion

Although the Department has set out its high-level vision for ELM through six ‘outcomes’ set out in the 25-Year Environment Plan, it has not yet defined the specific objectives that it will be using to measure ELM’s success against this … Read more

Government Response Summary

The government response addresses PAC recommendation #2 (not provided in the input for this ID) regarding developing and publishing clear metrics for ELM, not the committee's conclusion #24 regarding the lack of defined specific objectives for measuring ELM's success.

HM Treasury

25 Conclusion Not Addressed

The NAO recommended that the Department should urgently agree a clear, realistic and logical set...

Conclusion

The NAO recommended that the Department should urgently agree a clear, realistic and logical set of strategic objectives for ELM. We asked when we could expect these to be in place. The Department also acknowledged the importance of setting these … Read more

Government Response Summary

The government's response reiterates its commitment to developing clear metrics and reporting annually on the delivery of targets within the Environmental Improvement Plan, but this does not specifically address the committee's conclusion regarding the urgent agreement of long-term strategic objectives for ELM.

HM Treasury

26 Conclusion Not Addressed

We told the Department that we were concerned about the lack of baseline data, and...

Conclusion

We told the Department that we were concerned about the lack of baseline data, and asked what data it will use to measure environmental improvements.70 In its written evidence, the Green Alliance emphasised the importance of being able to measure … Read more We told the Department that we were concerned about the lack of baseline data, and asked what data it will use to measure environmental improvements.70 In its written evidence, the Green Alliance emphasised the importance of being able to measure outcomes in order to demonstrate value for money. It recommended that the Department should “develop standardised approaches for measuring outcomes and progress towards achieving overall objectives, and make sure they are adequately monitored to prevent potential environmental damage due to mistakes in execution.”71 We observed that in previous schemes payments were based on field sizes, which are easily measured, whereas in the new system it was difficult to tell what is going to be measured and what baseline it will be measured from, without accurate baseline data. The Department asserted that it had a very good understanding of the baseline data with respect to land. It explained that, for the soil standard, the first component of the scheme to be rolled out as part of SFI22, payments will be per hectare of land on which specified actions are carried out. The Department told us that this was because it believes it already had a detailed 67 C&AG’s report para 1.17 – 1.18 68 Q 3 69 Qq 43–44 70 Q 76 71 EMS0003 – Environmental Land Management Scheme, Green Alliance, 22 October 2021 20 Environmental Land Management Scheme understanding of the activity necessary to deliver the environmental benefits intended, and therefore a baseline was not necessary to assess whether a required outcome has been achieved. It explained that later scheme components, such as peatland restoration, will benefit from a more detailed assessment of the current condition of the land in order to measure progress and the impact of the scheme. The Department told us that it had a good understanding of the environmental quality of different areas of land, and that it planned to use this to identify actions that can be taken on specific farms through the L Show less

Government Response Summary

The government response addresses PAC recommendation #2 (not provided in the input for this ID) about developing and publishing clear metrics for ELM, not the committee's conclusion #26 regarding concerns about the lack of baseline data for measuring environmental improvements.

HM Treasury

27 Conclusion Not Addressed

ELM and other agricultural policies are expected to contribute to government’s environmental objectives, such as...

Conclusion

ELM and other agricultural policies are expected to contribute to government’s environmental objectives, such as species abundance and the 25-Year Environment Plan. However, the RSPB highlighted that there is no overarching vision for agriculture in England or for how ELM … Read more

Government Response Summary

The government response addresses PAC recommendation #2 (not provided in the input for this ID) about developing and publishing clear metrics for ELM, not the committee's conclusion #27 regarding the lack of an overarching vision for agriculture and ELM's contribution to wider environmental objectives.

HM Treasury

30 Conclusion Not Addressed

The Department told us that it did not think that ELM’s focus on environmental management...

Conclusion

The Department told us that it did not think that ELM’s focus on environmental management would result in the UK importing more food. It explained that the scheme was also designed to boost productivity so that, despite taking land out … Read more

Government Response Summary

The government response addresses PAC recommendation #3 (not provided in the input for this ID) about explaining farming program impacts on food production and productivity, not the committee's conclusion #30 regarding ELM's potential impact on UK food imports.

HM Treasury

31 Conclusion Not Addressed

The Tenant Farmers Association told us that the introduction of the new scheme was a...

Conclusion

The Tenant Farmers Association told us that the introduction of the new scheme was a major concern for its members, and that it would be important that the scheme contained options to meet the specific needs of both tenant farmers … Read more

Government Response Summary

The government response addresses PAC recommendation #7 (not provided in the input for this ID) about ELM complexity and feedback from the SFI pilot, not the committee's conclusion #31 regarding the specific needs and concerns of tenant and small farms.

HM Treasury