Farmers in England are expressing concern over the government’s recent decision to freeze funding for sustainable farming, which has left them uncertain about their ability to restore nature and reduce their carbon footprint. The freeze affects the Sustainable Farming Incentive (SFI), a scheme designed to pay farmers for environmental efforts such as planting trees, creating wildlife corridors, and reducing carbon emissions. The environment secretary, Steve Reed, has announced that the scheme will be paused and reassessed before the upcoming spending review in June. This includes potential changes to the budget and scope of the program, as well as discussions about excluding farmers who earn substantial profits from agriculture.
The SFI was part of a broader move away from the EU’s Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), which provided payments based on land ownership. The new scheme aimed to shift the focus towards rewarding farmers for public goods such as nature conservation, soil health, and biodiversity. Since a large portion of England’s land is farmed, it is critical that farmers have the support to integrate nature-friendly practices into their operations. This includes measures like planting wildflowers, digging ponds, and creating hedgerows.
One farmer, Amelia Greenway, who operates on 365 hectares of the National Trust’s Killerton Estate in Devon, was in the process of applying for £94,000 in SFI payments before the freeze. Greenway, who farms organically and practices conservation grazing with rare breeds, had planned to expand her sustainable practices by growing her own pig feed and planting wildflowers to support pollinators. Without the funding, she is unable to afford the necessary seeds for these initiatives. Greenway explained that the extensive paperwork required for the application had already delayed her plans, and now she feels that the time spent on it has been wasted. While she remains committed to sustainable practices, she fears that the freeze in funding will hinder the progress of other farmers who might have considered adopting nature-friendly farming practices.
Anthony Curwen, the country estate manager at Quex Park in Kent, expressed similar frustration. Curwen had already implemented many sustainable practices, such as planting cover crops and reducing pesticide use, and was hoping to receive financial support for these efforts. However, the suspension of the SFI has left him uncertain about the future. He has seen positive changes on the farm, such as an increase in insect and bird populations, including the return of turtle doves and yellowhammers. Curwen believes that the government’s plan to means-test the SFI could discourage large-scale farmers from pursuing nature-friendly practices, instead pushing them to intensify food production using more pesticides, which could harm biodiversity.
The decision to freeze the funding has raised concerns that it could reverse the progress made in regenerative farming and conservation. Curwen, who was initially skeptical about regenerative farming but has since become an advocate, feels that the government is mishandling the situation. He is worried that without adequate support, farmers may abandon sustainability efforts and revert to more conventional, intensive farming practices.
Both Greenway and Curwen agree that rebuilding trust with farmers will be crucial if the government wants to meet its biodiversity and carbon targets. Without clear and reliable financial incentives, many farmers may become disillusioned with the government’s environmental ambitions. The uncertainty surrounding the future of the SFI could undermine the progress made in nature restoration and carbon reduction, leaving both farmers and the environment in a precarious position.
