How upland farmers are pooling resources to plug funding gap

How it works in practice

Joining Peakland Environmental Farmers is initially free, but in time there will be a joining fee to cover the running costs.

By pooling resources, individual farmers will be able to participate in the trade in natural capital, without the associated risks of going it alone in what is a fledgling market.

Any trading in natural capital will be overseen by the Game and Wildlife Conservation Trust’s Natural Capital Advisory service, and whatever revenue is obtained will be directed towards those farmers taking specific actions.

However, an equalisation metric will ensure that all co-op members will derive some benefit.

Case study: James Howard, Lane Farm, Holme, West Yorkshire

Farming at high altitude, but also close to the urban fringe, James Howard is fully aware of the need for environmental delivery.

James Howard © Tim Scrivener

His mix of owned and tenanted land runs to about 1,200ha and is predominantly used for grazing native-breed sheep and Aberdeen Angus cattle, but large swathes are also entered into a Higher Level Stewardship (HLS) scheme.

The emphasis here is on moorland restoration and revegetation of peatlands, though parts of his in-bye land are also managed to encourage breeding ground for waders, such as lapwing, oyster catchers and especially curlew.

“Our HLS agreement, which runs out in 2024, is very important to the financial viability of our farm, though I also have a natural interest in conservation, which I am keen to pass on to my children,” says Mr Howard.

But the steady removal of the Basic Payment Scheme is a big concern, and he is eager to find other ways to fund his environmental work, which is one reason he has signed up to the Peakland Environmental Farmers (PEF) group.

“If we’re to continue delivering environmental gains, we will have to be supported for it,” he says.

“We need to collaborate with policymakers. Farmers know best what works on their individual farms, so should be directly involved in designing the schemes.”

Working together through the new group may also help meet the costs of delivering on the new environmental standards.

“We need investment and we can share equipment,” says Mr Howard. “But more than that we should share knowledge, particularly about what works best for the environment.”

And then there is the opportunity to trade in natural capital.

“This is not a big one for me, as I find it hard to see how we can really trade carbon offsets while farming this area, though I can see opportunities for biodiversity net gain,” he says.

He does, however, see opportunities for PEF to access funds from the emerging Environmental Land Management scheme, which should, in time, benefit all members of the new group.

EFG – where is it now?

The Environmental Farmers Group covering the River Avon catchment in Hampshire is coming towards the end of its first year as an entity, having drawn membership from seven established farmer clusters.

The group’s aims are to deliver cleaner water, increase biodiversity (especially bird species), and achieve net-zero carbon by 2040 – with a view to trading any gains in all three for the benefit of members.

Since Farmers Weekly first visited the Environmental Farmers Group (EFG) last April, numbers have continued to grow, from about 82 “expressions of interest” covering 40,000ha to 130 expressions of interest covering 60,000ha.

Of these, 80 farmers are now fully signed up – paying the £1.25/ha joining fee – with some 38,000ha covered by the scheme.

“This is pretty much where we hoped to be,” says EFG chairman Rob Shepherd.

Rob Shepherd © MAG/Philip Clarke

“The farmed environment has continued to improve, with further gains in target species such as lapwing and turtle doves, and we have also made good progress with trading.”

Mr Shepherd says there are an estimated £15m worth of natural capital trades in the pipeline, and the first full trade – worth £1m to the group – has been completed with a water company.

It was always recognised that trading carbon credits was going to be a challenge, as even though there are two approved carbon codes – one for woodland and one for peatland in England – measuring carbon sequestration has yet to be standardised.

Biodiversity net gain is easier to quantify, especially since the development of Natural England’s Biodiversity Metric 3.1.

Mr Shepherd says the EFG is making good headway with the local authorities in Hampshire and Wiltshire, which recognise what the EFG can deliver in terms of measurable biodiversity net gain – something that is now a legal requirement for certain infrastructure projects.

But the real progress has been in delivering phosphate and nitrate reductions for the water catchment, which is where most deals are being progressed.

“In practice this is for things like planting reed beds and farming arable land in a regenerative way,” says Mr Shepherd.

“Even though it takes a long time for the benefits to show in the river water itself, we know that changing farming practices will deliver and this is what our customers are paying for.

“It is set up so that the individual farmer taking the action gets the lion’s share, but our equalisation model ensures that everyone in the group gets something.

“So we’re very pleased with the progress so far, but recognise we have to keep moving the monetisation forward, in parallel with the environmental delivery, if we are to keep our farmer members on side.”