Make a donation

Help fund our work to amplify nature-friendly farming’s benefits to farmers and policymakers across the UK

Policy & Views

Read a variety of articles, including topical blogs, comment pieces on policy developments and updates on key moments in farming.

Campaigns

Catch up with our latest campaigns and find out more about our work.

Farm Practices

Explore information on many aspects of nature-friendly farm practices.

What is the NFFN?

Discover our mission, our vision and the challenge we meet.

Meet The Team

Meet the farmers in our regional steering groups and the staff team at our core

FAQs

Got a question about nature-friendly farming? We've got it covered here

Supporters

We're proud to work with many organisations who support our mission.
Voices from the Fields

NFFN England Chair James Robinson calls for expert support to unlock ELM benefits

England
Agriculture Transition Plan
Environmental Land Management scheme
Sustainable Farming Incentive
uplands

James Robinson, chair of the NFFN England steering group, has many years of experience with agri-environment schemes. However, he emphasises the importance of more support for those who are new to nature-friendly farming, especially as the sector faces some of its biggest changes in decades.

With climate change affecting us and shifts in farm support, it is quite clear that farmers will need to change their practices to keep receiving public funds. Maintaining the status quo is no longer an option, and the future of the agriculture budget is uncertain. We must demonstrate how we are making a positive impact.

England’s Environment Land Management (ELM) schemes have attracted a lot of attention and sparked much debate. Overall, I believe we are heading in the right direction.

However, there is still a lot of work to be done on the specifics of the schemes. A look at the ones we are using here at Strickley farm gives a good idea of why this is the case.

A mish-mash of schemes

Altogether, we’re involved in almost half a dozen different schemes. The largest one is the higher-tier scheme, which covers 240 acres of our land and is currently mid-way through its term. The mid-tier scheme for 60 acres will end this year. The options within the schemes last for five and ten years.

We’re currently in SFI23 and we were previously in SFI22. However, we had to end some of the options from SFI22 as they weren’t compatible with the newer version of the scheme. Some of our options were replaced by SFI23 less than a year after we started them.

We also want to apply for SFI24 options when they become available. We have a Woodland Management Plan for our ancient oak woodland and the pond surrounded by woodland. Ludicrously, this isn’t covered by any scheme at the moment. That’s because areas of woodland larger than 3ha need to be managed by the Forestry Commission (FC) rather than Natural England. The FC options are far more tailored towards commercial timber businesses, rather than biodiversity and access management which we are aiming for. Frankly, it’s a rather farcical situation.

Clearly, what we’ve got at the moment is a massive mish-mash of different schemes, each starting at different times and offering farmers different payment rates. We’ve faced fairly lengthy periods where we should have been receiving payments but didn’t, due to compatibility issues and general delays. Sometimes options are available only in one particular scheme. Other times, overlapping options in different schemes come with different amounts of money attached and different criteria to meet.

Recent studies have shown that schemes like SFI can be financially beneficial for farms by ‘stacking’ the different options.

Delaying applications

I’m not saying this because I believe switching from the old area-based payments system to one focused on ‘public money for public goods’ is wrong. Quite the opposite - I believe it’s the right approach. Recent studies have shown that schemes like SFI can be financially beneficial for farms by ‘stacking’ the different options.

However, the system is currently far too complicated, especially for people just starting out in nature-friendly farming. My role with the NFFN, along with being active on social media, means I have made connections and know many people I can ask for advice. We’ve also been doing this for a long time: we first entered a land management scheme at Strickley in the early 1990s, receiving financial support for our hedgerows. We’re used to this approach now, and that experience means we know how to make it work for us and our land.

A lot of farmers are keeping their powder dry, postponing their applications in the hope that things will become clearer and easier over time. Unfortunately, this is reducing the amount of money flowing into farms and causing deep concern as old BPS payments disappear.

To be honest, I have no idea how anybody just starting the transition to a more nature- friendly approach is supposed to even get started. Going back to the idea of ‘stacking’; while research shows it can work, it’s incredibly confusing for newcomers. You have to wrap your head around the fact that you can receive money from different options in different schemes for the same piece of land on your farm.

Even the SFI, which is supposed to be the simplest scheme and designed to be accessible so farmers don’t need extra professional help, isn’t straightforward. A lot of farmers are keeping their powder dry, postponing their applications in the hope that things will become clearer and easier over time. Unfortunately, this is reducing the amount of money flowing into farms and causing deep concern as old BPS payments disappear. Delays also mean that crucial actions to address the decline of nature and biodiversity on farms aren’t happening as quickly as they need to be.

When it comes to the more ambitious, higher-level schemes, the situation isn’t much better. We’re still struggling to move farmers on the old HLS scheme over to new ones, let alone helping the hundreds of farmers who want to do more for nature and are demanding access to higher tier type schemes. This is a problem that particularly affects upland farms, many of which are in the most disadvantaged areas.

Farmers also need to do their part if we’re going to make this agricultural transition work. They need to focus on what’s best for their land in the longer term, rather than just choosing the options that pay the most.

Need for a streamlined, user-friendly process

If farmers are going to adopt these new schemes in the numbers needed to make a real difference, the whole process urgently needs to be streamlined, making it far more efficient and user-friendly, while also aligning with previous schemes. At the same time, we can’t afford to backtrack or start scaling back our ambitions for the future.

Farmers also need to do their part if we’re going to make this agricultural transition work. They need to focus on what’s best for their land in the longer term, rather than just choosing the options that pay the most. The entry-level options that everyone can access are important, but we need to build on those with schemes for farmers who want to do much more for nature. We need whole-farm approaches and consistent strategies at local, regional and national levels. And we need a budget that supports all of this.

We also can’t assume that the way farmers are working now is how they will always operate. I’m hopeful that once the benefits of working with nature become clear, farmers just starting out will want to speed up their changes and grow more ambitious with their environmental goals. We need a system and financial arrangements that support them at every stage of their journey.

There are huge challenges ahead, and farming and land management will play a crucial role. To ensure agri-environment schemes are up to the task, we need a lot more advice and expertise available to farmers, along with long-term commitment from those funding them.