Green schemes can boost farm resilience – but risks still remain

Agri-environment schemes help farm businesses withstand environmental and economic pressures – but concerns remain over complexity, risk and financial return.

More than 60 studies across the dairy, pork, beef and cereals sectors were analysed by researchers from Harper Adams University and the Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board.

They found 75 different schemes available to UK farmers – 40 publicly funded and 35 private or market-based – but concluded that many are poorly understood or come with hidden trade-offs.

Public schemes, such as Countryside Stewardship and the Sustainable Farming Incentive (SFI), are broadly accessible and align with government goals on biodiversity, soil health, and water quality.

But short-term contracts, political instability and shifting rules often make it difficult for farmers to plan or invest with confidence. In the case of the SFI, farmers have also been hit by the sudden withdrawal of the scheme to new applicants.

Political change

“These schemes are generally easy to access, but many are short-term and subject to political change,” says AHDB head of economic analysis Sarah Baker. “This makes it hard to plan long-term investments in your farm or the environment.”

Meanwhile, private schemes – such as those offering carbon credits or biodiversity net gain (BNG) – are gaining traction. These often provide higher returns but bring legal complexity and longer commitment periods.

Several schemes require “additionality” – meaning farmers who have already made environmental improvements may be ineligible for payments. There are also concerns over the exclusion of tenant farmers.

The review also highlighted concerns about credibility and verification. In some private schemes, environmental claims are hard to quantify or monitor, raising reputational risks for both landowners and supply chain partners.

Farm strategy

Despite the challenges, AHDB concludes that schemes are no longer a side option – they are becoming a “core part” of farm strategy.
Well-structured schemes can help farms lower input use, diversify income, and boost long-term resilience.

That said, the review calls for better support tools and clearer guidance. It also urges policymakers to improve scheme stability, reduce administrative burdens, and provide long-term funding clarity to give farmers the confidence to commit.

With new carbon markets emerging and wider uptake of Environmental Land Management schemes (ELMs), the role of agri-environment schemes is likely to expand further.

But for that to succeed, the review suggests farmers need more than promises—they need practical, reliable, and fair options that support both the land and the livelihoods that depend on it.