Land use

Approximately 70% of land across England and Wales is used to produce food, fibre and energy, playing a vital role in maintaining the nation’s food security.

But farmland is under ever-increasing pressure from a rapidly growing list of demands.

Housing developments, infrastructure projects, carbon benchmarking, and renewable energy schemes are just some of the issues creating large-scale changes to our agricultural landscape.

While many farmers are working to keep pace with the rapidly expanding list of land use requirements, they are being compelled to engage with the SFI by the rapid phase out of BPS, increased input costs and stagnant commodity prices, regardless of the wider impacts to their farming business.

Many farmers find themselves isolated in tackling the range of demands being placed on them without sufficient reward or recognition, such as carbon audits and environmentally focused practices, while also attempting to maintain financially viable and resilient businesses that produce environmentally friendly, sustainable food, fibre and energy.

Sustainable Farming Incentive

The NFU has been at the forefront of design and testing during the development of ELMs (Environmental Land Management schemes).

But while basic payments have been reduced, SFI has been limited in its ability to support farm business productivity alongside environmental benefit.

A fundamental ambition of the NFU is that government policies relating to land use are designed to be not only the right tools for the job, but also to empower effective decision making, with activities that also support food, fibre and energy production, and are delivered in a timely manner both practically and financially at the farm gate.

It is key that throughout the design process for future funding schemes the overriding ambitions of government include the identification and promotion of key opportunities to support sustainable British food production.

However, current policies focus predominantly on environmental benefit. The NFU would like to see a step change in delivering public goods through a wider-reaching ambition that fundamentally supports food production alongside, and in coordination with, environmental protection.

When considering the wider landscape which farming businesses are operating in, it is key to ensure that support schemes are equipped with effective advice to promote agronomic best practice alongside the continued production of sustainable food, fibre and energy.

Additionally, the unintended consequences to the agronomic functioning of land should also be considered as part of the development and refinement of SFI options.

Check out the latest guidance from our experts.

Government policy and water

In 2024, England’s wheat harvest suffered at the hands of the continued wet weather throughout the growing season.

With large areas of winter sown crops lost to waterlogged soils, and the resulting inaccessibility of the remaining crop, the sector saw significant reductions in both productive area and yield, including a two million tonne reduction in wheat, a 33% reduction in oilseed rape and a 26% reduction in winter barley.

With experts, including UK Research and Innovation, predicting that extreme weather events will become increasingly common in the future, with more flooding events followed by extended periods of drought, it is vital that action is taken to safeguard the nation’s food security, environment and people’s livelihoods.

While the impact of extreme weather creates significant shorter-term problems, the slow progression of the changes to water quality regulations poses an equal challenge to the sustainability of agricultural businesses.

Taking a blanket approach based on the precautionary principle to nutrient applications, through potential changes to farmyard manure, biosolids and other nutrient applications, could be significantly detrimental to on farm productivity.

The government must review the ‘farming-by-date’ approach implemented by statutory guidance on nutrient applications to optimise the application of nutrients by focusing on a risk-based approach.

Sustainable protein ambition

As a key part of the arable rotation, the challenges facing OSR (oilseed rape) as a reliable break option have been felt across the cereals and oilseeds sector – as well as the supply chain and environment – through the negative impact on beneficial insects and pollinators.

Pulse crops such as peas, beans and lupins are already produced in England and Wales, but this area is significantly less than what could be reasonably achieved.

AHDB Farmbench data has demonstrated that even the middle performing OSR crop outperformed the highest averaging spring beans in terms of net margin (2017-21). By bridging the risk of reduced income created by replacing other traditional crops, a sustainable protein scheme would support growers in establishing beneficial crops as part of their rotation.

The result would support producers to promote reductions of pest burden for OSR crops, while also expanding available options for the cultural control for weed and disease management in cereal crops.

This can be achieved through:

• Government funding to increase the production of homegrown protein, de-risking its use within the agricultural rotation.
• The breeding of more reliable leguminous protein crop varieties to support their delivery as potential break crops.
• Industry and government support for the development and establishment of a sustainable protein action plan focusing on supporting farm productivity, business resilience and overall sustainability and input optimisation.

Fairness in the supply chain

Consistently over many years, NFU members have said there is a lack of transparency and fairness within the supply chain, with growers bearing most of the risk despite receiving the smallest proportion of value.

And while the government has described ‘food security as national security’, a sentiment the NFU wholeheartedly supports, the cereals and oilseeds supply chain consistently undervalues UK standards and favours cheaper imports wherever available.

There are a number of key changes that need to be delivered to redress the balance and provide confidence to farmers and growers.

Supply chain fairness review

British farmers and growers take pride in producing climate-friendly, sustainable food. But they typically carry most of the risk, due to the structure of the supply chain and the long-term investments made, with little certainty and transparency in return.

Growers are increasingly vulnerable to economic pressures, extreme weather events and unfair trading practices.

The government is conducting supply chain fairness reviews for each sector, and the majority have already been completed. It is now critical that Defra conducts reviews in all remaining sectors, including combinable crops.

The Agriculture Act 2020 includes provision for the Secretary of State to promote fair contractual dealing by business purchasers of agricultural products, which would include merchants purchasing grain from growers.

Such intervention could create greater transparency and certainty over the contract terms that growers are agreeing to when they enter a contract to sell their grain.

Strengthening transparency and rebalancing power will improve grower confidence, allowing them to make informed business decisions which will, in turn, drive long-term investment and innovation into the industry.

A supply chain fairness review conducted by Defra would set the framework for how merchants and others within the supply chain would be legally required to operate.

Inaction will simply prolong the status quo and risk impacting domestic production and food security in the long term.

Improvements to the grain contract

Trade between merchants and growers is based almost solely on the AIC No.1 Contract.

However, merchants also use their own individual farm purchase terms to override certain clauses within this contract and impose additional requirements on growers. This creates an incredibly complex contractual landscape which is very difficult for growers to navigate without legal representation.

Merchants’ terms can also often be written in a format not typical of a supply contract and one which makes it hard to understand what is a requirement, what is advice, and what the costs of doing business really are.

A fairer supply chain would ensure contract terms are clear, consistent, and transparent.

A Defra supply chain review needs to draw out the issues farmers and growers are facing with their contracts.

There are many which the review needs to address, but common concerns raised by NFU members include:

• The contract does not detail the definition of certain terms which leaves it open to interpretation, so growers do not feel confident that they are being treated fairly when resolving a contract default.
• The market currently operates in a way which sometimes offers an increase in contract price when a merchant is unable to collect grain in the agreed movement period. But there are no agreed protocols as to how this takes place.
• There are a number of clauses within the AIC No.1 Contract which are geared towards the buyer. A good example is the list of events included within the force majeure clause, which are all most likely to be experienced by the buyer and do not include weather events, such as flooding and waterlogged fields, which growers increasingly have to deal with and which are completely out of their control.

Digital passport

A key challenge in delivering greater fairness and transparency for farmers and growers is the lack of data, or lengthy delays in sharing payment and quality results from their individual deliveries.

Merchant terms can vary considerably on what data they are obliged to provide to growers, and how quickly, and often leaves them with little or no information to alert them to issues with their grains.

As well as creating a climate of distrust, it also means growers have no ability to address genuine issues with subsequent loads of grain, thereby exacerbating the issue.

The NFU has been, and remains, part of the leadership group tasked by the AHDB Cereals & Oilseeds Sector Council to create a single industry-wide digital passport system to replicate the current paper system.

A single industry-wide digital passport is the preferred option, rather than merchants bringing out multiple different systems which they own and control. It would also deliver immediate data feedback directly to the grower rather than via a third party – a key ask of the NFU to deliver greater transparency within the supply chain.

Ultimately, investment now should deliver savings in the future through the centralisation of passport data.

The NFU has also secured key improvements to previous proposals, including:

• the development of a system which functions without the requirement for phone signal at the point of loading;
• agreement that the design and build phase of the project must be grant-funded rather than paid for by the AHDB levy; and
• the offer of a helpdesk for growers who do not have the capability to use a digital passport currently.

While a digital passport would deliver greater transparency on payment and quality data, there is a risk that merchants and end users could seek to build in other data requirements from their suppliers, without properly recognising the value of the data they are requesting.

It is critical, therefore, that if there is a request for additional data to be included, it should go through the relevant processes and these should be as rigorous as existing protocols.

Read more about the digital passport.

Plant health

PPPs (plant protection products) are an essential, yet often misunderstood, part of current farming practice and crop production.

Growers recognise their use may involve risks and proactively take steps to ensure they are applied carefully and appropriately.

Access to plant protection products

Having left the EU, the GB pesticides regulation, which governs access to and availability of these PPPs, needs to be fit for purpose – protecting the environment and the public, while effectively supporting productive and competitive agriculture and horticulture.

A new holistic approach to regulation with clear, credible and consistent science-based risk assessments, maintaining or improving current measures, is essential.

This policy and regulatory approach needs to ensure availability of necessary crop protection tools and promote innovation in crop protection technology, to make available safer, more effective and lower risk crop protection tools and techniques.

In doing so, industry and government should be able to maintain and enhance UK food and plant security and improve competitiveness in the UK.

National Action Plan long overdue

Growers are also facing a new situation where the cost of a standalone GB regulatory process could prevent companies from bringing in new PPPs, or from renewing authorisations for existing products, because it is not commercially viable to do so given the size of the market.

Add to this the impact of challenges around the longer-term future of parallel trade and access to imported treated seed, and the concern is that GB growers could find themselves in the disadvantageous situation where availability of crop protection tools is decreasing and the cost of those still available is increasing.

This is further exacerbated by the planned introduction of a CBAM (Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism) which will drive up the price of fertilisers.

Fertilisers are one of the primary costs of production for UK farmers and growers. The impact on domestic production costs will, in turn, undermine the competitiveness of domestic agricultural production, both in domestic and international markets, against agricultural imports from countries where production uses fertiliser inputs which are not subject to a carbon pricing regime.

To fully realise the opportunities of improved GB regulation, the experts and regulatory specialists across government departments, agencies and executive non-departmental public bodies, such as the HSE, who have been following the EU approach for 20 years, need a clear mandate for change: to adopt a more effective pesticides regulation tailored to GB’s needs, and shift from hazard-based to risk-based approaches.

All of this should be delivered under a new National Action Plan for the Sustainable Use of Pesticides, which is long overdue.

Action needed

Measures which need to be addressed, include:

• Clear legislation and a simple authorisation and renewal process. A risk-based approach with faster and more pragmatic decision-making than the EU, underpinned with service level agreements.
• Working with other global authorities to enable use of each other’s regulatory assessments.
• Simplification of the MAPP (Ministerially Approved Pesticide Product) numbering system to avoid legally compliant products being disposed of unnecessarily.
• Delivery of a long-term solution for parallel imports and treated seeds.
• Securing earned recognition between farm assurance schemes and Official Control Regulations.
• Widening the scope of EAMUs (extensions of authorisation for minor use) to better reflect the combinable crops sector and the PPP needs for broadacre crops.
• Proper consideration of impact assessments and the effectiveness of the regulatory system, taking account of socio-economic benefits and proportionality in the decision-making approach.
• An adaptable regulation, open to new technology, supported by government-funded research, to plug gaps in crop protection and to improve IPM (integrated pest management).

Research and development

The need for greater investment in research and innovation alongside technological adaptation and standardisation is key to ensuring that farmers across England and Wales have the tools to meet the challenges they face.

These include the loss of critical crop protection products, ergot prevalence, disruption in fertiliser availability, sharply rising inflation and the impact of global conflicts on trade.

Issues including pest and disease resistance, yield plateaus and tolerance to extreme weather conditions present challenges for the future.

While solutions are forthcoming, it will be vital for the government to work with the wider agricultural sector and researchers to ensure that regulatory tools and wider policy keep pace with the development and deployment of new technologies and methodologies.

Expanding the toolbox

The lack of varietal options for the bread-making wheat market and challenges such as the plateauing of productive yields, pest and disease resistance and the reduced availability of plant protection products, all highlight the challenges facing the sector.

While the delivery of new varieties and exploration of genetic potential is underway, the pace of these new opportunities is limited, which presents significant challenges in the face of a rapidly changing climate.

A mechanism also needs to be developed to make evidence available and accessible to a wide range of practitioners, including agronomists and advisers as well as farmers.

To help address these challenges, government and industry can enable and support:

• The rapid development of the tools to combat ergot prevalence both in field and during processing, to minimise risk, control spread and reduce costs of retrospective cleaning.
• The fast-tracked deployment of critical legislation, including the Precision Breeding Bill, to support industry in meeting the challenges of the future, by optimising resource usage and yield efficiency through greater genetic potential.
• A review into the available traits such as disease resistance, tolerance to adverse growing conditions and yield capacity, utilising this information to accelerate the development of new varieties.

Seed and cover crops

Through the uptake of SFI and the establishment of large areas of cover crop, challenges around the quality of seed have been highlighted by growers.

Key aspects such as seed quality, purity, germination and point of origin have not previously been addressed as part of the scheme rollout.

In addition to the development of seed certification, the industry is seeking the delivery of best practice guidance and advice around the use of cover crops and optimal nutrition, plant protection products and most favourable timings to receive the greatest value from these crops, both environmentally and economically.

To achieve this, it is vital for:

• Defra to develop and refine the certification standards for non-food producing seed such as flowering cover crop mixes, setting a standard for sale.
• Industry and research bodies, supported by government, to deliver guidance covering best practice advice, and guidance for agronomic optimisation of cover crops to maximise value for public money.

Alternative crops

In addition to improving the use of cover crops, the use of novel crops such as hemp and flax offer significant opportunities to the industry by extending the cropping rotation, improving soil health and offering alternative income streams.

The development and enhancement of these opportunities will be pivotal to supporting growers in continuing to produce sustainable food, fibre and energy for a rapidly increasing population.

It is vital that new opportunities are accessible within the market while also looking to improve support for their uptake.

A key example is hemp. Despite boasting a range of agronomic benefits, its use as a break crop in the UK remains limited.

Positive changes to the licence terms which allow hemp to be grown in a greater number of locations, licences to be granted in advance of the sowing date and an extension of licences from three to six years all help the crop fit within rotations.

Further changes to the THC content of crops would give growers access to enhanced varieties which are currently available in Europe.

To support the adoption of these vital crops, government can:

• Review policy support for buyers and deploy greater flexibility in contract and permission terms including extensions, allowing farmers to make business planning easier when utilising these alternative crops.
• Support the use of appropriate agronomic management activities such as plant material testing for controlled crops including hemp to stimulate greater learning and knowledge exchange around their production.
• Directly fund and promote innovation across the wider industries, focusing on the use of homegrown fibres to stimulate demand for flax and hemp fibres, supporting net zero ambitions and delivering public benefit.