This presentation considers the changing policy environment for public funding of agri-environment, the shift from entitlements to action-based funding and 'public good' outcomes, using a 'Test and Trials' case study.

1. Complications around the ‘Public
money for public goods’ mantra
Wednesday 20th September CCRI 35th Anniversary Celebration

2. 2018: A new dawn …
▪ Shift in payments from ‘entitlement’ (Basic Payment Scheme) to ‘action’ (ELMS)
▪ Widening what was referred to as a Pubic Good within Agri-Environment Schemes
▪ Has been mainly a biodiversity focus with secondary objectives like water quality
▪ Now includes soil management, climate mitigation alongside landscape, access etc.
▪ Initially the focus on retaining/maintaining as strong as creating and restoring
▪ Offer of blended finance between public and private finance
▪ Building on the experience with utility companies, esp. water
Where are the challenges?

3. Summary of the Challenges
▪ BPS was 75-80% of total payment under CAP, reductions were phased over 7 years

4. Calculating the impact of phasing out of BPS
Year
Payment
Band
2018-
2020
2021 2022 2023 2024 Est. for
2025
Est. for
2026
Est. for
2027
Est. for
2028
<=£30,000 0% 5% 20% 35% 50% 60% 75% 85% 100%
£30,000 to
£50,000
0% 10% 25% 40% 55% 65% 75% 85% 100%
£50,000 to
£150,000
0% 20% 35% 50% 65% 75% 85% 90% 100%
>£150,000 0% 25% 40% 55% 70% 80% 85% 90% 100%
(2020-24 Defra figures, 2025-28 estimated)

5. Summary of the Challenges
▪ BPS was 75-80% of total payment under CAP, reductions were phased over 7 years
▪ £99M a year into Devon, by end of 2027 this equals £884M in SW (GSW & NICRE 2020)
▪ ShiftingAES from 20% to 100% in 7 years was always going to be a challenge
▪ Securing a ‘just transition’ in a diverse land management sector
▪ Details on incorporating private finance has not progressed in last 5 years
▪ Most are risk-free 1:1 relationships
CCRI work has focused on 3 areas where the focus on PG has caused complications

6. Public goods are often shared within landscapes
▪ Increasing the breadth of public goods creates a challenge
▪ Payment rates for recreating habitats are higher due to costs involved.
▪ But what happens when that 10 year agreement ends?
▪ 1/3 of arable reversion agreements not renewed: ‘renting’ of environmental outcomes
▪ Let’s hear from a farmer who has well established floodplain meadow habitats

7. Farmer case studies on floodplain meadow habitats

8. Public goods are often shared within landscapes
▪ Increasing the breadth of public goods creates a challenge
▪ Payment rates for recreating habitats are higher due to costs involved.
▪ But what happens when that 10 year agreement ends?
▪ 1/3 of arable reversion agreements not renewed: ‘renting’ of environmental outcomes
▪ Let’s hear from a farmer who has well established floodplain meadow habitats
▪ Society needs as many farmers as possible to reach this point – and stay there
▪ A blend of biodiversity, carbon storage, landscape, culture and access

9. Public goods are often shared across landscapes
▪ Move to longer term agreements at larger scale (Landscape Recovery)
▪ Results in multiple interests in both land ownership and Public goods

10. DefraTest &Trial

11. Public goods are often shared across landscapes
▪ Move to longer term agreements at larger scale (Landscape Recovery)
▪ Results in multiple interests in both land ownership and Public goods
▪ Clarity important e.g. ConservationCovenants, along with tax and M&E issues
▪ Aligning operational time frames between different partners
▪ Three key areas: management; finance and governance
▪ Central to all of this isTrust, an agreed vision and engaging openly at the outset
▪ Bespoke agreements, desire to be ambitious, will take time and risks remain.

12. Public goods can bring society & nature together
▪ Greater understanding among land managers on their impact on PG
▪ Impacts of extreme weather and visible changes in biodiversity
▪ ELMS brings climate change, biodiversity, H&W issues under one umbrella
▪ But sometimes this interaction may have a negative impact on one of them

13. Public perceptions & willingness to engage
Upland riparian landscape ‘before’ and ‘after’ images (Source: LUC)

14. Public goods can bring society & nature together
▪ Greater understanding among land managers on their impact on PG
▪ Impacts of extreme weather and visible changes in biodiversity
▪ ELMS brings climate change, biodiversity, H&W issues under one umbrella
▪ But sometimes they have a negative impact on each other
▪ Room for public engagement (citizen science), a range of knowledges
▪ Focus on dialogue and collaboration
▪ Convincing the treasury this is good value for money

15. ‘Public money for public goods’
More difficult to deliver than it is too say … but it is
achievable (by working together of course!)
Next steps
- payments and funding mechanisms
- how these ‘coalitions’ function
Thank you for listening
cshort@glos.ac.uk