Government Urged to Back Basic Income for Farmers

Image Credit: Waitrose

A wave of unease is sweeping through England’s farming community as the government freezes a key environmental subsidy scheme—just as many land managers were gearing up to make vital changes to restore biodiversity and curb agricultural emissions.

Environment Secretary Steve Reed has put the Sustainable Farming Incentive (SFI)—a flagship program designed to reward farmers for integrating nature into their land management practices—on pause pending a comprehensive review slated for June’s spending summit. But it's not just a temporary delay that has alarm bells ringing. Reed is reportedly considering excluding wealthier, higher-earning farmers from accessing future rounds of the scheme altogether.

The SFI, introduced post-Brexit to replace the EU’s Common Agricultural Policy, was intended to redefine agricultural support, shifting from simply rewarding land ownership to incentivizing the protection of public goods—healthy soil, clean air, biodiversity, and carbon reduction. But now, both the program's scope and budget are under scrutiny.

This policy pivot has created uncertainty across a sector grappling with climate volatility, rising operational costs, and shifting regulatory sands. Suppose prosperous farms are cut off from participation. In that case, the government risks undermining its environmental ambitions—especially given that 70% of England’s landscape is agricultural land. Without financial backing, efforts to rewild sections of farmland, restore wetlands, plant native hedgerows, or establish wildflower corridors may stall.

For farmers like Amelia Greenway, aged 24, the policy shift is more than a political maneuver—it’s a gut punch. Greenway manages 365 hectares (900 acres) of mixed grazing pasture for native pigs and cattle on the Killerton Estate, a National Trust property in Devon. She had been applying for £94,000 in SFI payments when the government pulled the plug, leaving her plans and budget in limbo.

Similarly, Anthony Curwen, 63, who oversees 1,012 hectares (2,500 acres) of arable farmland at Quex Park in Kent, had just completed his SFI application when the scheme was frozen. With fields producing wheat, oilseed rape, oats, beans, maize, and potatoes, Curwen had hoped to weave environmental stewardship into the farm's day-to-day operations. Like many others, he’s facing a silent inbox and no guidance on what comes next.

For many in the agricultural world, this latest development feels like a betrayal of climate promises and practical cooperation. The government's signal that high-earning farms may be barred from accessing restoration funding—based not on land use but profit margins—introduces a troubling precedent. Are we prioritizing equity or quietly downsizing our climate ambitions?

Nature restoration is not a luxury—it’s a necessity. These are not vanity projects, from carbon sequestration in hedgerows to flood mitigation through pond systems. They’re climate infrastructure. They also require sustained, strategic investment, not abrupt freezes and exclusionary reform.