Written evidence submitted by The Farmer Network (LUN0076)

SUBMISSION FROM THE FARMER NETWORK LTD

26th June 2026

About the Farmer Network

The Farmer Network is a not for profit organisation that supports farmers in Cumbria, the Yorkshire Dales and Northumberland.  We have over 1500 members and activities include group fuel buying to help farmers reduce costs, organising training courses and workshops, farm business support programmes and information about grants and schemes.   Our aim is to support farmers “Whatever the Challenge, Whatever the Opportunity”.  More information about the Farmer Network is available on our website at www.thefarmernetwork.co.uk.

How effectively do current policies balance competing demands in the uplands, including food production, nature recovery, climate mitigation, water management, and public access, and where do the key tensions remain?

We feel that current policies do not balance the competing demands in the uplands and it is a “contested” landscape.

• Key Tension 1: Farmers need the income from environmental schemes so are “persuaded” to enter agreements which require cuts to sheep numbers, despite the contention that there may not be enough sheep to run a viable business nor indeed maintain the hefting system on common land.

• Key Tension 2: Very many farmers contest the suggested stocking densities in the uplands and, despite many attempts to reason with Natural England, they feel they are not being listened to, nor their opinions respected.

• Key Tension 3: Too often the environmental outcomes being sought by Natural England and conservation organisations are at odds with farmers own ideas and in some cases individual knowledge and experience of the land, the terrain and its existing nature value.

• Key Tension 4: Climate change mitigation – another contested space. Some farmers feel they are being made to “take one for Net Zero”.  A classic example is Zero Carbon Cumbria’s stated action plan to re-purpose 4,500 acres of farmland in each of 13 consecutive years into tree-planting and Peat restoration particularly in the uplands. Farmers feel that their lives and businesses are not being factored into such tunnel-visioned policy requests.

• Key Tension 5: Co-design of environmental schemes is never really co-design. It is conservation organisations offering farmers payments to help the organisations achieve their environmental goals and outputs. Too often the farmers’ farming goals are not considered, valued, understood nor appreciated.

• Key Tension 6: No acknowledgement from government that there has been a lack of due-diligence in the introduction of environmental and other rural land-use schemes. There is a lack of information and research into the impact of environmental schemes on food production and the UK sheep stratification system.  There has also been unintended impacts on nature such as increased bracken cover, and increased tick and deer populations.  The increased threat of wildfire is one impact of reduced livestock grazing but there is also the impact on the local rural economy and community of lower sheep numbers.

What has been the impact of agricultural policy changes (including the transition away from direct payments) on upland farming businesses, and the impact of these changes on farming profitability?

• The phase out of the Basic Payment Scheme has had a fundamental impact on upland farms.  The Basic Payment Scheme historically accounted for over 90% of farm business income for upland livestock farms.  In many cases, these farms were already in environmental schemes and were already diversified particularly into tourism. 

• The ability for farms already in environmental schemes (such as Higher-Level Stewardship) to enter the ELMS schemes has so far been restricted and many are in rollover agreements until 2028.  There has been an increase in HLS payments, but this still does not bring some of the options up to the levels in Higher Tier Stewardship or the Sustainable Farming Incentive. 

• The Basic Payment Scheme provided a floor in farm incomes and a reliable source of cashflow over the Winter months.  Over recent years, farm profitability in the uplands has been bolstered by relatively high prices for beef and lamb which has helped offset the loss of BPS; however, profits are being eroded by high rising costs for fuel, fertiliser and feed and market prices are volatile.  Environmental payments can also create a floor in farm income but complying with the agreement may involve either reduced production or increased costs.

• Upland farmers comment that they are penalised for having been early adopters of environmental schemes and are now trapped in historic Higher Level Stewardship agreements with great uncertainty about what happens when these end in 2028.

• The roll out of the new ELMs schemes has been delayed and with frequent revisions to scheme options.  The sudden closure of the Sustainable Farming Incentive on 11th March 2025 and the closure of the Stewardship capital grant scheme after just a month of opening in August 2025 has eroded confidence in both farmers and their advisers in the potential for farmers to access environmental payments.  This has impacted on the ability of upland farmers to plan for the future.  Creating a 5 or 10 year business plan for an upland farm including income from environmental schemes is impossible.

To what extent do the current Environmental Land Management (ELM) schemes and other support like the Farming in Protected Landscapes (FiPL) schemes support financially and environmentally sustainable land management in the uplands?

• The Farming in Protected Landscapes programme is a largely capital grant scheme designed to help farmers and land managers in protected areas during the agricultural transition.  It can help fund changes to infrastructure and the cost of equipment involved in changing land management practices, such as helping with rotational grazing systems and no fence collars for cattle.  It can also support farm diversification enterprises and adding value to produce.  It is a valuable support in Protected Landscapes but is not designed to be an annual management payment that might support upland farm incomes.

• The development of the Environmental Land Management schemes have been problematic particularly in the uplands where many farmers have been in environmental schemes since the 1990s.  The Sustainable Farming Incentive for 2026 has been revised to increase the payments for moorland options which is welcome but the Species Rich Grassland endorsed option has been removed from SFI.  Higher Tier is still by invitation only and is targeted on the land of highest nature value leaving many farmers requiring an SFI agreement along with a Higher Tier agreement on some land – this contrasts with previous schemes which would have covered the whole farm area and makes navigating schemes more complex for the farmer. 

• Many farmers in areas such as the Lake District and Yorkshire Dales National Parks are in historic Higher Level Stewardship schemes with agreements now extended until 2028.  They feel trapped in HLS which for some options has lower payments than Higher Tier and SFI particularly on land in Upland Entry Level Stewardship.  Currently the greatest issue facing the uplands and environmental schemes is the inability for common land to enter into either Higher Tier or the Sustainable Farming Incentive because of difficulties with processing these agreements.

How do legal protections for uplands areas (including designation as a National Park or Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty / Protected Landscape, and designations such as Site of Special Scientific Interest, or Special Area of Conservation) impact decision-making, land management, and outcomes?

• Designation as a National Park or National Landscape has a range of impacts on farm businesses – both positive and negative.  Planning regulations are more restrictive in Protected Areas and may increase the costs of building work – for example the need to use traditional materials for restoring agricultural buildings – and may also mean restrict farm diversification opportunities and expansions to farm infrastructure. 

• Critically, the restrictions on planning permission for new housing creates a shortage of affordable accommodation for farm workers and family exacerbated by demand for tourism accommodation. 
• Having land designated as a Site of Special Scientific Interest will restrict what the farmer is able to do with this land and may require infrastructure such as fencing to protect it from livestock.
• On the positive side, National Parks and National Landscapes have additional funding through the Farming in Protected Landscapes Programme and are likely to also have more resources to help farmers apply for schemes and attract other sources of funding.

What improvements are needed in land use data, mapping, and modelling to support effective decision-making in the uplands? What training or other skill development options are needed to support this?

• There is a need for better data on the economic, social and environmental condition of upland areas.  The Farm Business Survey gathers costings data for Less Favoured Area livestock farms and this is published at a national scale for England.  It is difficult to get this information at more local scale, for example in relation to a National Park or National Landscape.  Many upland farmers criticise the lack of regular monitoring of Sites of Special Scientific interest particularly where these are in environmental schemes requiring stock reductions.  SSSIs may be determined as not being in favourable condition, but this information may be many years old with Natural England lacking resources for regular monitoring and assessing the impact of changing stock levels. 
• Collecting data on the social impact of upland farming is difficult but farmers talk about the reducing numbers of farm businesses, shortage of labour and the difficulties of living and working in communities with high numbers of second homes or holiday cottages.
• Better and more targeted on farm data gathering is required. One size fits all modelling does not work.
• Farmers know the land they farm and within the farming family there may be many years of experience about how the land has been farmed and how this has affected the farmed environment.  They feel this knowledge is not valued and they are not consulted about the design of environmental schemes.
• Conservation professionals often lack understanding of farm business profitability and practical livestock management.  They may design an environmental scheme that might involve extensive capital works such as fencing which the farm business cannot afford to cashflow or suggest options such as wood pasture on areas close to the farm buildings which may be critical during lambing. 
• Many farmers would benefit from greater knowledge and skills development of environmental land management but environmental schemes can be seen as a threat rather than a complimentary land use within the farm.
• Finding the sweet spot requires negotiation and decision-making based on trust and mutual understanding. The right co-design and partnership working is not happening in very many cases.

How might land use and business changes in the uplands impact rural communities?

• Private and institutional estates are taking land back in hand from tenants to pursue green funding and this is already having a profound effect across the northern counties: -
• Land and community clearances through de-stocking, farm break-ups or repurposing farmhouses to tourist accommodation, Air B&B’s or sold for second homes.
• Community breakdown
• Enhanced rural deprivation and poverty – trees and rewilding schemes bring no financial benefit to local communities.
• Reduced public access to land
• Increases in community health issues particularly health and wellbeing with a rising number of mental health issues in the farming community and well documented high levels of suicide.

How can government policy ensure that rural communities in upland areas benefit from changes?

• It is not complicated. True understanding of the value and benefit that farming brings in the uplands to UK food production, nature, community and the circular rural economy, will ensure that adequate funding and other resources are offered into rural areas. In that respect the key themes in the recently announced Roadmap are correct, but they will fail if farmers cannot make a farming profit, and are hamstrung by under-funded environmental payments, or those payments are percolated away from farmers and their businesses.
• Increased and properly targeted funding will be essential to future success.
• Build confidence through offering more than warm words towards food security.
• Early interventions are needed now – Too much talking not enough action.

June 2026