Nature-Friendly Farming: Mid-strategy review

Nature-Friendly Farming Esmée Fairbairn Foundation Mid-strategy review

Kath Daly and Mike King, Resources for Change December 2023

Nature-Friendly Farming Review 2

Contents Executive summary

3 5. Key insights and recommendations 1. Introduction 6 5.1 Summary of key insights 2. Methodology 7 5.2 Recommendations 3. Key findings 8 Appendices 3.1 Policy, law and politics 9 Appendix 1: 3.2 Environment and society 14 Organisations interviewed 3.3 Funding and finance 17 Appendix 2: Interview questions 3.4 Farmers and the Nature-Friendly 22 Farming movement 4. Esmée’s support

Home

37 40 42 42 42

This report has been produced by Resources for Change and funded by Esmée Fairbairn Foundation.

We would like to thank all those who were interviewed or participated in the validation workshop for their time and insights. We would also like to acknowledge our appreciation for the help and support from the Esmée team.

27

4.1 Overview of funding and support

27

4.2 Stakeholder feedback on working with Esmée

30

4.3 Stakeholder views on how Esmée can add value

35

Executive Summary

37

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

1. Introduction

2. Methodology

3. Key findings

4. Esmée’s support

5. Key findings and recommendations

Appendices

Nature-Friendly Farming Review 3

Executive Summary In June 2023, Esmée Fairbairn Foundation (‘Esmée’ or ‘the Foundation’) commissioned Resources for Change to carry out a short review to inform its work on Nature-Friendly Farming. The review was completed in September 2023.

The review was framed by six research questions.

The Foundation published its Strategic Plan in 2020.

The purpose of this commission was to look at how Esmée was working in the Nature-Friendly Farming space, what had changed in the context since the publication of the Strategic Plan, and progress so far.

3. The blockers for progress: what

The review was very timely as there had been considerable turbulence in the external context for Nature-Friendly Farming over the period since 2020, with global events such as the Ukraine war, rising inflation and a cost-of-living crisis, and protracted development of post-Brexit policy and agri-environment schemes.

1. The context for our goal: in what ways it is better or worse?

2. The need for our support: what’s changed in the funding situation? are insurmountable?

4. The opportunities for progress: what are the levers for change?

5. What difference our work and funding have made so far, and where is it struggling?

The review was primarily undertaken through a series of structured conversations including a scoping discussion with the Esmée team, a series of semi-structured interviews with team members, organisations supported by Esmée and stakeholders, and a validation workshop where findings were shared. This deliberative process was underpinned by an analysis of grant information and further desk research to ensure the review findings were set within the current political and economic context.

6. What feedback is there on the way Esmée has been working in this space?

In the review, we explore how Esmée’s NatureFriendly Farming work had responded to a changing and uncertain backdrop and we talked to key stakeholders about the opportunities for Esmée to add value in this area going forward.

Home

Executive Summary

1. Introduction

2. Methodology

3. Key findings

4. Esmée’s support

5. Key findings and recommendations

Appendices

Nature-Friendly Farming Review 4

Executive Summary

Key findings

Movement building, policy development and peer-to-peer initiatives are key areas of impact

The context for nature-friendly farming has changed significantly The past three years since Esmée’s strategy was launched have seen significant shifts in the political, economic, social and environmental landscape.

On the plus side, the need for a more resilient food and farming system is more widely accepted as a result of global events. There are some interesting policy and legislative developments around food and farming, particularly emanating from the devolved nations of the UK, and there is growing momentum around, and recognition of, the need for nature recovery at scale.

However, many stakeholders were pessimistic about the future, pointing to weakened UK political ambition in this area, particularly in England and Northern Ireland. There was growing disquiet about the new agricultural support schemes which were seen as poorly funded, and although many accepted that there would be a role for private finance, there was considerable scepticism and uncertainty about how this was being developed.

Stakeholders emphasised the financial pressures that many farmers were currently experiencing, with business models that no longer worked, rising costs and falling incomes, set against a bewildering array of possibilities and few trusted pathways.

Home

Executive Summary

1. Introduction

Esmée is rated highly, relationships are characterised by trust and mutual respect Esmée was rated highly by the organisations they support and other stakeholders.

Supported organisations described Esmée as ethical, and valued their insight and the challenge they are willing to provide. Esmée’s support – and in particular core funding, is exceptionally well received. Business support and consultancy support were also experienced positively.

Esmée’s approach to convening, networking and movement building was largely welcomed with many looking for more of this. Some felt that support was reduced too quickly, sometimes just as an organisation or project was starting to have a real impact. Several organisations felt there could be greater clarity around how the various parts of Esmée’s work and strategy fitted together, and that it was not entirely clear how the impact goals interrelated. Several stakeholders were disappointed that Esmée seemed to be moving away from work on food systems and systems thinking.

2. Methodology

3. Key findings

4. Esmée’s support

Esmée’s support was seen by stakeholders as having been critical to the development of the Nature-Friendly Farming sector as a whole and that of many of the organisations within it.

Esmée’s support to various organisations engaged in advocacy around agricultural policy and legislation was considered to have contributed to several notable successes.

Financing the transition to Nature-Friendly Farming, and working with supply chains and retailers were seen as two areas where support from Esmée was not yet producing the hoped-for results, particularly from the perspective of translating into financial support for farmers on the ground. Most of Esmée’s work on green finance, whilst potentially benefiting Nature-Friendly Farming has been focused on other funding streams for example ‘Space for Nature’ – this work does have the potential to also benefit the farming sector as long as the relevant learning is shared.

Funding has been provided to several organisations supporting the development of a stronger farmer voice and the development of Nature-Friendly Farming business models. This was seen as a highly successful area of Esmée’s activity, and one to grow for the future.

5. Key findings and recommendations

Appendices

Nature-Friendly Farming Review 5

Executive Summary

Recommendations Based on the review findings we have made a series of recommendations around three broad areas where we feel Esmée could potentially add more value going forward through utilising the tools at their disposal. In addition to grants, these tools include social investment, convening, insights, and commissioning research and evidence.

The three broad areas we would recommend focusing on are: 1. Leveraging evidence, insights and the power to convene 2. Continuing to build support for farmer-led, peer-to-peer initiatives 3. Unlocking finance for the transition to Nature-Friendly Farming Taken together, we believe that increased support around these three broad areas will help build the capacity, confidence, resources and trusted pathways that farmers need if they are to make a successful transition to Nature-Friendly Farming and contribute to the long-term outcomes within Esmée’s strategy.

This does also depend, crucially upon an appropriate policy, legislative and regulatory framework.

Home

Executive Summary

1. Introduction

3

1

2

Continue to build support for farmer-led, peer-to-peer initiatives

Unlock finance for the transition to NatureFriendly Farming

Esmée is held in high regard within the sector, resulting in significant ‘power to convene’.

We recommend that Esmée looks carefully at how best to leverage this influential position and Esmée’s extensive network to strengthen dialogue both within and beyond the Nature-Friendly Farming sector.

We recommend that the Foundation continues to build its support for farmer-led initiatives to test and develop pathways to Nature-Friendly Farming. This potentially includes looking at opportunities to do more around peer-to-peer learning, case studies and farm visits, farmer-led landscape recovery focused on practical pathways and how to blend finances in a place, and skills training and advisory services.

Getting the financial models right is key, and we recommend a greater focus on unlocking finance to support the transition and make it financially sustainable over the long term. In addition to supporting ongoing advocacy work around agricultural support, we recommend an increased focus on how green finance models can most effectively be used within the farming context, on supporting the development of aggregated models as a channel for delivering and selling ecosystem services and convening supply chain dialogues to explore potential intervention points.

Leverage evidence, insights and the power to convene

We also recommend an increased focus on sharing the insights and evidence arising from supported projects and work.

Finally, we would encourage Esmée to look at how it can work more with other funders (particularly Trusts and Foundations) to encourage and persuade them to do more in relation to NatureFriendly Farming.

2. Methodology

3. Key findings

We also recommend a focus on peer-to-peer initiatives which provide support for farmers’ mental health and well-being.

This has a value in itself but is also crucial to creating the conditions – and headspace – for positive change in farming systems.

4. Esmée’s support

5. Key findings and recommendations

Appendices

Nature-Friendly Farming Review 6

1. Introduction Context and purpose of research Esmée Fairbairn Foundation launched its current strategy in October 2020, setting out impact goals and priorities for the subsequent five years. The Foundation identified Sustainable and Ethical Food as one of these impact goals, with a focus on advancing this goal through a focus on Nature-Friendly Farming and the pursuit of the long-term outcomes.

In 2023, the Foundation commissioned a mid-strategy review of the Nature-Friendly Farming work, to consider how the context for this impact goal had changed over the period since the strategy was developed and to review progress to date, and how Esmée was working in this area.

Resources for Change were commissioned in June 2023 to undertake the review. This report is the public-facing output from that review.

Esmée's long-term outcomes

Farmland wildlife and biodiversity are restored.

The status of other species on farms is better understood and recovery is underway.

Home

Executive Summary

Soil health is restored, soil contains more carbon and chemical usage has been reduced.

More people have access to and buy locally produced food.

Working with nature on farms makes good business sense and is widely demonstrated and accepted.

1. Introduction

The review was structured around the following six research questions as set out in the brief:

2. Methodology

1. The context for Nature-Friendly Farming: in what ways it is better or worse?

2. The need for Esmée’s support: what’s changed in the funding situation?

Working with nature on farms makes good business sense and is widely demonstrated and accepted.

3. Key findings

4. Esmée’s support

3. The opportunities for progress: what are the levers for change?

4. The blockers for progress – what are insurmountable?

5. What difference Esmée’s work, and funding have made so far, and where is it struggling?

6. What feedback is there on the way Esmée has been working in this space?

5. Key findings and recommendations

Appendices

Nature-Friendly Farming Review 7

2. Methodology Methodology A mixed methods approach was adopted, the key components of which were as follows:

C. Semi-structured interviews – this was the element where most time and effort were spent. This involved:

A. Scoping workshop with key Esmée personnel who have a role in the Nature-Friendly Farming work.

The purpose of this was to develop a deeper understanding of what the team were hoping to achieve through the review process.

• 5 members of the Esmée team

B. Desk review of a series of documents that either provided contextual background information or funding reports from projects.1

• 14 Nature-Friendly Farming supported organisations2 • 10 wider stakeholders D. Validation workshop (involving a mix of Esmée staff and supported organisations) providing an opportunity to help shape the analysis and conclusions.

E. Production of the report.

Approach and terminology This report provides an overview based largely on the views of the people interviewed, supported by an analysis of the information provided and desk research.

It is largely a qualitative rather than quantitative assessment of context and progress.

Several stakeholders had strong views on the language and approach – whether an advocate of ‘Nature-Friendly Farming’, ‘regenerative agriculture’, ‘agroecology’, ‘farming in harmony with nature’, or ‘organic farming.’

During the interviews, we worked with and were led by whichever approach and terminology the interviewee used.

However, throughout this report, the term ‘Nature-Friendly Farming’ (NFF) has been used as a broad umbrella term to include the wide range of approaches listed above.

‘Esmée’ and ‘the Foundation’ have been used interchangeably as shorthand for ‘Esmée Fairbairn Foundation. ‘Supported organisations’ refers to organisations supported by Esmée through grant or social investment funding.

1 This review of context was completed in August 2023, most of the material in this report cuts off at that point.

A list of organisations interviewed can be found in Appendix 1 and the interview questions in Appendix 2 of this report.

Home

Executive Summary

1. Introduction

2. Methodology

3. Key findings

2 Note: more than one person was interviewed from some organisations.

4. Esmée’s support

5. Key findings and recommendations

Appendices

Nature-Friendly Farming Review 8

3. Key Findings Under each theme, we consider:

This section summarises key findings under the following themes:

3.1 Policy, law and politics 3.2 Environment and society 3.3 Funding and finance 3.4 Farmers and Nature-Friendly Movement

CONTEXT

BLOCKERS

The past three years (2020 to 2023) since Esmée’s strategy was initially developed have seen significant shifts in the political, economic, social and environmental landscape. The report draws on desk research and discussions with stakeholders to summarise changes for better and for worse in the external context for Nature-Friendly Farming in relation to each of the four themes.

We asked stakeholders for their views on the obstacles to the widespread adoption of Nature-Friendly Farming, and set out the main points raised as they relate to each of the four themes.

For each area, we share a onepage summary before exploring the issues in more detail.

Home

Executive Summary

1. Introduction

2. Methodology

3. Key findings

DRIVERS We asked stakeholders for their views on the obstacles to the widespread adoption of Nature-Friendly Farming, and set out the main points raised as they relate to each of the four themes.

4. Esmée’s support

IMPACT OF ESMÉE’S SUPPORT Stakeholders were asked about the difference that Esmée’s support had made to their work (where applicable) and the NatureFriendly Farming sector more widely. Esmée provided data on grants and social investment awards, broken down by outcome type and progress, together with copies of recent high-level learning reviews across the whole of their work. The report gives examples of impact drawn from analysis of the stakeholder feedback and data provided by Esmée.

5. Key findings and recommendations

Appendices

Nature-Friendly Farming Review 9

3.1 Policy, law and politics Summary CONTEXT – WHAT HAS CHANGED? Esmée’s strategy was developed at a time of considerable optimism amongst the Nature-Friendly Farming movement, with the UK Government setting out bold ambitions for postBrexit agricultural reforms, based on the principle of ‘Public Money for Public Goods’.

Three years on, many interviewees felt that post-Brexit agricultural policy responses were not living up to the promising early rhetoric.

Agriculture is a devolved matter in the UK, and post-Brexit agricultural legislation and policy are developing separately in each of the devolved nations. We heard many common themes and frustrations across all four nations.

BLOCKERS • Political turbulence and lack of political leadership • Protracted development of post-Brexit agricultural schemes • ‘Weaponisation’ of issues such as the Ukraine war • Siloed policymaking • Lack of effective regulation

DRIVERS

IMPACT OF ESMÉE’S SUPPORT Esmée has played a crucial role in supporting various organisations engaged in advocacy around agricultural policy and legislation, contributing to some notable successes.

• Removal of the Basic Payment Scheme • Emerging legislation and policy

Home

Executive Summary

1. Introduction

2. Methodology

3. Key findings

4. Esmée’s support

5. Key findings and recommendations

Appendices

Nature-Friendly Farming Review 10

3.1 Policy, law and politics CONTEXT – WHAT HAS CHANGED? This section sets out the main changes in policy, legislative and political context for Nature-Friendly Farming since Esmée’s strategy was developed in 2020.

Pre-Brexit, farmers in the UK received around £3.5 billion in public money annually, over 80% of this in the form of area-based payments.

Post-Brexit, the UK Government committed to developing an agricultural policy based on the principle of ‘Public Money for Public Goods’ and an ending of direct payments. The Health and Harmony (2018)3 consultation paper had recently set out bold ambitions for agricultural reform.

The devolved administrations had responded by running their own consultations, each with different visions and approaches: • Brexit and Our Land (Wales) • Stability and Simplicity (Scotland) • Future Agriculture Policy Framework (Northern Ireland)

Home

Executive Summary

1. Introduction

ENGLAND The Agriculture Act 2020 provides the basis for future rural policy and Defra is rolling out Environmental Land Management schemes to pay for environmental and climate goods. There has been a focus on co-design which has included multiple tests, trials, and pilot schemes. This forms part of a phased transition to the new support schemes and removal of area-based payments over the period 2021 to 2028. The policy is focused on agri-environmental measures to help meet Net Zero and 25-year Environment Plan targets.

Currently, around 34% of agricultural land is in Countryside and/or Environmental Stewardship, and Defra aims to increase this figure to 70% by 2028.4 In addition, Catchment Sensitive Farming has been expanded to cover the whole country, and farm regulation is being reformed with the aim of dovetailing effective regulation with incentives and payments. The government’s 2022 National Food Strategy committed to publishing a framework for land use in 2023, but at the time of writing this had not yet been implemented.5 2. Methodology

3. Key findings

4. Esmée’s support

WALES The Agriculture (Wales) Act received Royal Assent on 17 August 2023 and introduced a new framework for agricultural support based on the proposed Sustainable Farming Scheme (‘SFS’) to be introduced through a transitionary period (2025 to 2029) to reward farmers for predominantly environmental actions, alongside sustainable food production.6 The outline SFS was published in July 2022 and responses to the consultation and co-design findings were published in July 2023.7

3 Defra (2018) Health and

The Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015 established a duty on public bodies to consider the impact of current policy on future generations, and work towards seven well-being goals, including cultural and health goals.

The influence of this can be seen in the Agriculture Act 2023, which includes a focus on the cultural and social well-being of rural communities as well as the environmental and food production aspects 5. Key findings and recommendations

Harmony: The Future for Food, Farming and the Environment in a Green Brexit

4D efra (updated June 2023)

Policy paper: ELM update

5H ouse of Lords Library

(2023) Making the most out of England’s land: Land Use in England Committee report

6W elsh Government (2022)

Agriculture Bill Explanatory Memorandum

7W elsh Government (2023)

Sustainable Farming Scheme Outline Proposals: co-design response

Appendices

Nature-Friendly Farming Review 11

3.1 Policy, law and politics

SCOTLAND The Agriculture and Rural Communities (Scotland) Bill was introduced in September 2023, and Proposals were set out in a Consultation paper (August 2022)8 providing a route map, showing the changes that recipients of current farm payments will be expected to make from 2025, along with key dates and information on support available. The Scottish Government’s stated ambition is to ‘become a global leader in sustainable and regenerative agriculture.’9

Alongside the Agricultural Bill, work is also underway to develop a new Biodiversity Strategy, Land Reform Bill, and Natural Environment Bill, and to develop Scotland’s fourth Land Use Strategy, creating the potential for policy join-up across these areas.

The Good Food Nation (Scotland) Act 2022 places duties upon the Scottish Government and relevant authorities to create Good Food Nation Plans, creating the potential to use these to drive nature and climate-friendly practices and sustainable food procurement.10

A new agricultural support regime will be in place from 2025, focusing on delivering high-quality food production, climate mitigation and adaptation, and nature restoration. Changes in agricultural support are set out within the wider context of a land management plan.

NORTHERN IRELAND To date, Northern Ireland is the only part of the UK that has not committed to developing its own legislation on agriculture. Northern Ireland has continued with area-based subsidies and has only committed to incremental changes to the existing Basic Payments Scheme.

The Northern Ireland Department for Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs states on its website: ‘Our primary objective is to ensure that the status quo for agricultural support in Northern Ireland can be maintained until such time as local Ministers are in place to take decisions on future agricultural policy.’

The Climate Change Act (Northern Ireland) 2022 includes a provision to fund a just agricultural transition.

Home

Executive Summary

1. Introduction

2. Methodology

3. Key findings

4. Esmée’s support

5. Key findings and recommendations

8 Scottish Government

(2022) Proposals for a new Agriculture Bill: consultation (online)

9S cottish Government

(2023) Agricultural Reform Route Map (online)

10 S cottish Government

(2023) Good Food Nation Policy (online)

11 N orthern Ireland

DAERA (2023) Brexit future agricultural policy and Agricultural Bill Q&A (online) [Accessed 25th August 2023]

Appendices

Nature-Friendly Farming Review 12

3.1 Policy, law and politics

BLOCKERS

DRIVERS

Political turbulence, uncertainty and lack of consistent government support risk undermining progress.

The forthcoming General Election adds to uncertainty, and risks creating a further hiatus whilst a new administration takes stock.

Lack of political leadership to varying degrees across the four nations.

Watering down of political ambition around agriculture and the environment was seen by many as a blocker to progress.

‘The government are rowing back with no clear vision.... there has been a palpable slowdown’

Post-Brexit agricultural support schemes – insufficient funding, uncertainty, overly complex design and slow pace of development and implementation of the schemes were widely seen as critical blocks to progress, albeit many stakeholders were supportive of the broad direction of travel.

‘We have the rhetoric right but need a reality check in terms of the effort that is required to shift farming – we need to throw money and ambition at this.’

Each of the countries is at a different stage of agricultural transition but none have the new schemes fully in place.

This was seen to be undermining confidence and impacting farm businesses on the ground.

‘Weaponisation’ of issues such as the Ukraine war and food security was a recurring theme. There was concern that these issues were being manipulated to justify a weakening of environmental regulation, back-tracking on environmental commitments and a push for more intensive production.

Siloed policymaking, was raised as a blocker, notably in England where there is no coherent join-up between food and farming policies, and no Land Use Framework to help balance the different demands for land.

Lack of effective regulation was considered by many to be a blocker, with effective regulation seen as critical to levelling the playing field and setting a fair baseline for all farm businesses.

Removal of the Basic Payment Scheme was seen as a key driver for change, forcing farmers to re-evaluate their business models.

The new agricultural support schemes were seen as an important potential driver for progress, but the schemes were currently perceived as falling short in practice:

‘ELMS is great in principle but poor in practice.’

(England) ‘The architecture is there, but it needs government departments to work together to maximise opportunities.’ (Wales)

‘Defra’s intention of openpolicy making is laudable but ultimately it is taking way too long.’

Home

Executive Summary

1. Introduction

2. Methodology

3. Key findings

4. Esmée’s support

5. Key findings and recommendations

Appendices

Nature-Friendly Farming Review 13

3.1 Policy, law and politics IMPACT OF ESMÉE’S SUPPORT The Foundation has provided significant support to a number of organisations over recent years who have had an impact influencing the direction of travel in terms of policy, legislation, and agricultural support schemes.

The Green Alliance, for example, felt that the support received was key to their role in helping to ensure that the Environment Act was as ambitious and as robust as possible.

In Northern Ireland, ongoing instability in government has made progress difficult. However, Northern Ireland Environment Link has continued to work to influence policy development.

Nourish Scotland has had some significant policy successes including supporting the passage of the Good Food Nation Bill and securing recognition of agroecology in the Scottish Climate Change Act.

Home

Executive Summary

The increase in both the number and impact of organisations capable of playing this influencing role is notable, and Esmée’s support has been instrumental here. These organisations are making good progress towards several of Esmée’s long-term outcomes including establishing the business case for and benefits of Nature-Friendly Farming.

There are many challenges for those seeking to influence policy and legislation and inevitably not all the supported work has the desired impact.

The Sustainable Soils Alliance and its partners who were influential in persuading Defra to commit to publishing a Soil Health Action Plan due early 2023 were significantly disappointed when this was shelved. The government failed to give soil health the prominence it needs in the Environmental Improvement Plan, watering down the original aim of managing all soils sustainably by 2030, the current target now being just 60% of soils.

1. Introduction

2. Methodology

3. Key findings

Others who have been working closely to influence government on the finegrain of policy have more recently decided it is time to review their approach, for example: After much positive and impactful work around influencing policy and legislation, Wildlife and Countryside Link were now looking at moving back onto a campaign footing, having concluded that being ‘down in the weeds’ of granular co-design of Environmental Land Management Schemes was no longer the best use of their time and effort.

The Eating Better Alliance are shifting their focus from advocacy on the National Food Strategy – where there has been a lack of traction with the government – to public sector procurement and regulation and reporting in supply chains.

All of this speaks to the challenges of influencing policy in politically turbulent times and the importance of keeping tactics under review.

4. Esmée’s support

5. Key findings and recommendations

Appendices

Nature-Friendly Farming Review 14

3.2 Environment and Society Summary CONTEXT – WHAT HAS CHANGED? Esmée’s strategy was developed against the backdrop of the COVID-19 pandemic. Lockdown brought a surge of interest in nature and the countryside.

Over the first three years of the strategy, a cost-of-living crisis has taken hold in the UK along with much of the world, with food and energy prices rising sharply. This has led to growing calls for food justice.

Despite many positive developments in nature conservation, nature and the environment have continued to decline in the UK and extreme weather events have gathered pace and intensity, affecting farm businesses.

There is evidence of growing public awareness and expectations around nature and climate and the value of nature.

BLOCKERS • Cost-of-living crisis • Growing divide between farmers and NGOS (Wales)

DRIVERS • Farmers' experience of environmental deterioration on their land • Underlying public interest in nature

Home

Executive Summary

1. Introduction

2. Methodology

3. Key findings

4. Esmée’s support

IMPACT OF ESMÉE’S SUPPORT The desired long-term outcomes of the Nature-Friendly Farming work within Esmée’s strategy are mostly social and/or environmental.

Consequently, most of the work supported aims to contribute to one or both of these areas.

Aggregated measures of environmental and social impact were not however readily available as part of this review, so overall environmental and social impact is hard to assess.

5. Key findings and recommendations

Appendices

Nature-Friendly Farming Review 15

3.2 Environment and Society CONTEXT – WHAT HAS CHANGED? Esmée’s strategy was developed against the backdrop of a surge of interest in nature and access to the countryside at the time of the COVID-19 pandemic and lockdowns.

With over a million more people using foodbanks in 2023 compared to 202012 , the rise in food insecurity and food price inflation over the past few years has contributed to a growing call for food justice, for example, amongst NGOs, to ensure that good and healthy food is accessible to all and not just the wealthier minority.

At the same time, the State of Nature 2023 report14 indicates that despite many positive developments such as the growing focus on ecosystem restoration, and a sense of renewed ambition within the Nature Conservation sector, nonetheless, long-term environmental declines have continued in the UK, and extreme weather events have become ever more frequent. The impacts of environmental and climate breakdown – including the decline of beneficial insects, soils and water resources, continue to become ever more visible at the level of farming businesses.

The People’s Plan for Nature13 has shown that despite the national and global issues we have faced over recent years – including the cost-of-living crisis, a global pandemic, and war in Ukraine, – public expectations and concerns around nature and climate have remained high. There also seems to be a growing awareness of the value of nature and how it provides life support for people and the planet.

Home

Executive Summary

1. Introduction

BLOCKERS The cost-of-living crisis and inflationary pressures were cited by many as significant blocks to progress.

‘Consumers say they want Nature-Friendly Farming but the cost of living has dampened demand.’

The relationship between the farming sector and environmental NGOs was described by some as not straightforward and sometimes a barrier to progress:

‘In Wales, there is a growing divide between farmers and the environmental NGOs ... with nature seen as a stick to beat farmers with, raising questions of who decides about nature. There is not enough listening and relationship-building.’

2. Methodology

3. Key findings

4. Esmée’s support

5. Key findings and recommendations

12 Trussell Trust: Latest food

bank statistics by region

13 People’s Plan for Nature 14 State of Nature Report 2023

Appendices

Nature-Friendly Farming Review 16

3.2 Environment and Society IMPACT OF ESMÉE’S SUPPORT

DRIVERS Environmental and climate change: Farmers seeing the impacts of environmental decline and climate change with their own eyes is seen as a key driver for change.

Public interest in the environment: there is evidence of strong underlying interest in and support for nature, climate, and good quality food. However, this driver is felt to be currently weakened by many factors including the cost-of-living crisis.

Public awareness – environment and health narrative: Increasing public awareness and demand for NatureFriendly Farming produce were seen as potentially critical drivers in the long-term.

‘It is not government policy that will ultimately drive change – consumption patterns, driven by consumer attitudes, are also changing without the impetus of government intervention.’

Most of the Foundation’s long-term outcome goals15 for Nature-Friendly Farming are environmental and/or social, and supported organisations are expected to contribute to one or more of these long-term goals.

However, as with many funders, it is challenging for Esmée to obtain feedback on long-term outcomes which are generally achieved well after the period of funding, and so, no aggregated environmental and social impact data was available for this review.

Nature-Friendly Farming: Esmée's longterm outcome goals • The benefits, including health benefits, of sustainable farming are widely recognised.

• Farmland wildlife and biodiversity is restored.

• The status of other species on farms is better understood and recovery is underway.

• Soil health is restored, soils contain more carbon and chemical usage has been reduced.

• Working with nature on farms makes good business sense and is widely demonstrated and accepted.

• More people have access to and buy locally-produced food.

15 For the purposes of this

See an overview of Esmée’s funding and support.

report, we have considered long-term outcomes to be equivalent to impacts

Home

Executive Summary

1. Introduction

2. Methodology

3. Key findings

4. Esmée’s support

5. Key findings and recommendations

Appendices

Nature-Friendly Farming Review 17

3.3 Funding and finance CONTEXT – WHAT HAS CHANGED? Sources of funding to support the transition to Nature-Friendly Farming include government funding via agricultural support; green finance from private investors and corporations; grant-making trusts and foundations; and markets and supply chains.

BLOCKERS

Developments and trends since Esmée developed the Strategic Plan in 2020: • Government Funding: The funding required to meet UK environmental commitments has risen from £2.9bn in 2019 to £4.5bn in 2023 but government funding is not keeping pace16.

• Absence of established nature finance models • High food price inflation • Dysfunctional markets • Lack of support with transition costs • High input costs and uncertainty around agricultural support

• Green Finance: is a rapidly developing area, with some promising approaches emerging but much more work is needed if it is to become established as a trusted source of finance.

DRIVERS

• High inflation affecting the cost of agricultural inputs and food prices has had a significant impact on farming businesses.

• Emerging nature markets • High input costs

16 Rayment (2023) An assessment of the financial resources

IMPACT OF ESMÉE’S SUPPORT Government funding – Supported organisations have had some impact on policy and legislation, but the outcome of agri-environment schemes remains uncertain.

Supply chains and retailers – Esmée has supported a number of organisations working on alternative routes to market and community-based initiatives, with some success.

Green finance – most of Esmée’s work on green finance, whilst potentially benefiting Nature-Friendly Farming has been from other funding streams, for example, in relation their ‘Space for Nature’ work.

needed for environmental land management in the UK

Home

Executive Summary

1. Introduction

2. Methodology

3. Key findings

4. Esmée’s support

5. Key findings and recommendations

Appendices

Nature-Friendly Farming Review 18

3.3 Funding and finance CONTEXT – WHAT HAS CHANGED? This section sets out the main changes in the funding and finance context for Nature-Friendly Farming since Esmée’s strategy was developed in 2020.

Rising inflation and financial uncertainty The past three years have seen the highest UK inflation for decades, impacting both consumer food prices and agricultural inputs.

Farmers have faced soaring costs and high levels of uncertainty around future support. Many have, at times, struggled to know which way to turn. Some have been drawn towards more environmentally sustainable farming systems by rising costs of inputs and the growing environmental and climate crises, but need support with the costs of transition. Many others have responded to uncertainty and financial pressures by selling up, intensifying or looking towards retirement.

Home

Executive Summary

Increasing cost of UK environmental commitments

Increasing focus on Green Finance

A recent study16 commissioned by the Wildlife Trusts, the RSPB and the National Trust highlighted the need for a minimum of £4.4bn per annum investment in agri-environment schemes across the UK over the next decade simply to meet existing environmental commitments including net zero and habitat restoration.

This is 25% more than current agrienvironment funding levels.

Private finance and investment in the natural environment are being strongly promoted by the UK Government, for example, through its Green Finance Strategy (2023)18 which sets out the aspiration that ‘the global transition to a net zero, resilient and nature-positive economy will see trillions of pounds reallocated and invested in new projects, products and services.’

There is evidence of demand significantly outstripping available funding for Landscape Recovery (ELMS) in England. These are intended to be 20+ year schemes with a strong emphasis on private finance and investment, aiming to ‘scale up private investment in nature recovery and sustainable farming in line with the ambitions set out in the Nature Market’s framework (March 2023)’.17 The first round of Landscape Recovery was significantly over-subscribed and the same is expected of the second round. There are questions about the level of public funding for Landscape Recovery in the longer term and whether it will be adequate for the scale of need and demand.

The UK government aims to ‘scale up the flow of private finance to nature so that farm businesses and the growing pipeline of nature projects have access to the investment they need to grasp the opportunities of the transition to a nature-positive economy’18. The 16 Rayment (2023) An 18 HM Government government has set itself the goal to assessment of the (2023) Mobilising Green grow annual private investment flows financial resources Investment – 2023 to nature to at least £500 million every needed for Green Finance Strategy environmental land year by 2027 in England, rising to more management in the UK 19 Green Finance than £1 billion by 2030. ‘The development Institute (2023) Investment Readiness of high-integrity nature markets is a key 17 HM Government Toolkit [accessed (2023) Nature markets: part of our strategy to enable firms to 24/8/23] A framework for scaling mobilise this investment.’18 up private investment in

1. Introduction

2. Methodology

3. Key findings

The government has made some (limited) funding available to explore and test private finance models through the Natural Environment Investment Readiness Fund (NEIRF) – a competitive grant fund aiming to drive private investment in nature and initiatives to tackle climate change. The second round scheme provided up to £100k in total for projects focused on generating revenue from ecosystem services. The scheme recently opened for a third round.

Whilst the funding for NEIRF was relatively modest, it did generate a wider range of ideas and models for mobilising investment into the natural environment, captured in the Green Finance Institute’s Investment Readiness Toolkit.19

nature recovery and sustainable farming

4. Esmée’s support

5. Key findings and recommendations

Appendices

Nature-Friendly Farming Review 19

3.3 Funding and finance

BLOCKERS Green finance emerged as both an obstacle and a potential catalyst for mainstreaming Nature-Friendly Farming. A recurring concern was the absence of clearly defined, established models and agreed standards and metrics. This lack of clarity was considered to be a significant hurdle for landowners, farmers and investors, undermining their ability to make well-informed decisions and leading to confusion and inaction. Challenges accessing reliable advice and the risk of backlash in the event of scheme failure or ‘greenwashing’ accusations were cited as further complicating factors.

There were concerns about unrealistic expectations within the environmental sector around what private finance can deliver – for example, aspirations within the sector around Biodiversity Net Gain were thought to far outstrip the funding that will actually be available.

There is a lot of work needed to bring green finance forward as a reliable option for farmers and investors, and there is a need to ensure that farmers and communities have a seat at the table in the development of this work.

Several of those we spoke to in Scotland and Wales voiced concerns about the risks – for example, around corporate investment in large areas of tree planting and what some have described as 21st-century land clearance.

UK food price inflation reached a record high of 19.2% in March 202320, compared to 1.3% in March 2020. The cost-of-living crisis is widely considered to have further dampened consumer demand for Nature-Friendly Farming produce.

Dysfunctional markets and hidden environmental costs of food: Increasing input costs should theoretically favour the affordability of sustainably produced food, yet, people continue to pay a premium, in part due to the hidden costs of cheap food and the distorted pricing system.

‘Consumers say they want Nature-Friendly Farming but the cost of living has dampened demand.’

Cost-of-living is not the only barrier – it is not easy for customers to locate produce ‘on the supermarket shelves’.

There is some interest in the development of assurance and labelling schemes. However, there are many barriers to this – for example, the added cost of certification and uncertainty about the effectiveness in driving demand.

Costs of Transition to NatureFriendly Farming: Conventional farmers have typically invested heavily in equipment and farm infrastructure and are caught on a treadmill of ‘sunk costs’ in the current farming system.

Switching to new approaches has a financial cost which has to be financed in some way. Innovation takes time to be adopted. Building up good soils and weaning off chemical-based farming is not a quick process and there is not enough financial support for farmers whilst they make this transition.

20 Office for National Statistics

– Cost of living insights: Food

Home

Executive Summary

1. Introduction

2. Methodology

3. Key findings

4. Esmée’s support

5. Key findings and recommendations

Appendices

Nature-Friendly Farming Review 20

3.3 Funding and inance

DRIVERS Emerging Nature and Natural Capital markets: Farmers may decide that income from private investors is less risky than solely focusing on volatile global markets and declining government funding.

Emerging nature and natural capital markets were seen as potential drivers for change. With growing interest in ESG (Environmental, Social and Governance), corporate investment in natural capital was seen as a significant and rapidly growing opportunity.

The report identifies a number of enablers to investment including:

A recent report commissioned by Defra and produced by the Green Finance Institute, ‘Financing a farming transition’21 found that ‘the finance and agrifood sectors stand ready to invest in and support the farming transition’ in several ways, including banks considering discounted loans, the retail sector exploring premium payments through certification and other incentives, and financial investors exploring investment in ecosystem services.

The government has acknowledged that to translate innovation into well-functioning markets ‘participants are looking for trusted standards and robust governance arrangements’ and it is welcome news that work is underway by the British Standards Institution on how to accelerate standards adoption in the UK.

Home

Executive Summary

1. improving environmental data access via a common platform 2. clear vision from the government for simple priority outcomes 3. clarity and guidance on the operation of high integrity environmental markets 4. support for aggregated models such as farmer clusters.

1. Introduction

High input costs: High input costs have functioned both as a driver and blocker to progress, depending on how individual farmers have responded.

For some, the response to rising input costs along with other factors factors has been to turn towards lower input farming systems.

‘The costs of conventional farming no longer make sense.’

‘It is not out of a desire to change the world, it’s out of a desire to reduce your overheads and improve your productivity.’

‘Farmers are price-takers so it is hard for them to plan things that might cost more in the short-term without knowing what the return will be.’

Supply chains and industry Many current supported organisations flagged work on supply chains as a key potential driver, and an area where Esmée involvement is currently fairly limited.

However, whilst a shift to lower input farming makes financial sense as a long-term strategy, we heard that many farmers were deterred by perceived uncertainty about the viability and returns from NatureFriendly Farming.

21 Green Finance Institute (2023)

Financing a farming transition (online) [accessed 24/8/2023]

2. Methodology

3. Key findings

4. Esmée’s support

5. Key findings and recommendations

Appendices

Nature-Friendly Farming Review 21

3.3 Funding and finance IMPACT OF ESMÉE’S SUPPORT Government/public funding (including agricultural support schemes)

The market – consumers/ supply chains/local food systems

Supported organisations have had some impact on policy and legislation, but the outcome of agri-environment schemes remains uncertain, and development is progressing at a different pace in each of the four countries.

Esmée has funded relatively little in the way of engagement with major retailers or the ongoing debate around the role of assurance and certification schemes.

One exception to this is the funding to the Sustainable Food Trust for the development of the Global Farm Metric, a common framework for measuring and reporting on on-farm sustainability, which, if successful, could have an impact at many levels. There are others in the sector who are focused on major retailers and supply chains, for example, the Forum for the Future (see their recent report, Growing our Future) who may be useful to link up with in the future.

Green finance (private finance and investment in nature and natural capital markets) Relatively little of Esmée’s NatureFriendly Farming funding has been focused on green finance and how nature and natural capital markets can work for farming. However, other areas of Esmée’s work such as ‘Space for Nature’ are prioritising green finance, so it will be important to ensure the learning is taken on board and transferable insofar as it applies to farming systems.

Home

Executive Summary

Community Supported Agriculture Network UK, Real Farming Trust, Organic Research Centre who are doing a wide range of interesting and important work.

Esmée's social investment has also played an important role in supporting mission-driven growers and farmers directly, for example, through the Real Farming Trust's LEAP programme.

Esmée’s support for work on supply chains to date has largely focused instead on short supply chains and alternative routes to market, often supporting those who work directly with the producers or at the community level, for example,

1. Introduction

2. Methodology

3. Key findings

4. Esmée’s support

5. Key findings and recommendations

Appendices

Nature-Friendly Farming Review 22

3.4 Farmers and the NatureFriendly Farming movement Summary CONTEXT – WHAT HAS CHANGED? Growing interest in Nature-Friendly Farming

BLOCKERS

Increase in farmer clusters and peer-to-peer initiatives

• Impact of uncertainty on decision-making

Increase in financial and environmental uncertainty

• ‘Tribal thinking’ • Lack of knowledge and skills • Terminology

DRIVERS • Peer-to-peer support • Relationship with the land • Trusted farm business advice • Growing Nature-Friendly Farming leadership Home

Executive Summary

1. Introduction

2. Methodology

3. Key findings

4. Esmée’s support

IMPACT OF ESMÉE’S SUPPORT A stronger voice for farmers and peer-to-peer learning: significant funding has been provided to organisations supporting the development of a stronger farmer voice and development of Nature-Friendly Farming business models. This was seen as highly successful.

Esmée’s support is seen as critical to the development of the Nature-Friendly Farming sector and many of the organisations within it.

Skills and training for NatureFriendly Farming: a growing area of focus, welcomed by stakeholders.

5. Key findings and recommendations

Appendices

Nature-Friendly Farming Review 23

3.4 Farmers and the Nature-Friendly Farming movement CONTEXT – WHAT HAS CHANGED? Interest in Nature-Friendly Farming has grown strongly over recent years, as demonstrated for example by the growth of events such as Groundswell Festival which has gone from 700 to 6500 participants over seven years.

Interest in Nature-Friendly Farming has broadened to become more mainstream, for example, we understand that a National Farmers Union (NFU) webinar on regenagriculture was one of the most popular topics ever covered.

The number of farmer-led collaborative initiatives such as farmer clusters has continued to grow, many supported through the Countryside Stewardship Facilitation Fund and other sources of funding such as the Farming in Protected Landscapes programme and Landscape Recovery. The first farmer clusters were established with the support of the Game and Wildlife Conservation Trust (GWCT) and Natural England back

in 2014 and since then the number of clusters has grown to over 120 in England, Scotland, and Wales.22 Such collaborative approaches are believed by many interviewees to be key to driving farmer engagement, support, and learning, and enabling the delivery of environmental benefits at scale.

Such approaches also have a potential role in farmer well-being and mental health.

Financial and environmental uncertainty has increased markedly for farmers over recent years, with the combination of short-term economic pressures, increasing frequency of extreme weather events and high levels of financial uncertainty making long-term farm business planning extremely challenging.

Looking ahead to the growing potential for green finance, models such as farmer clusters are increasingly seen as having a key role to play in the creation of aggregated models which help make catchment or landscape scale delivery accessible to potential buyers and private investors.

This is expected to be an area of increased focus over coming months and years including through initiatives such as Landscape Recovery.

22 www.farmerclusters.com

Home

Executive Summary

1. Introduction

2. Methodology

3. Key findings

4. Esmée’s support

5. Key findings and recommendations

Appendices

Nature-Friendly Farming Review 24

3.4 Farmers and the Nature-Friendly Farming movement

BLOCKERS Responding to uncertainty: Several interviewees expressed a note of alarm about the future of farming and there is evidence that many farmers have responded to the uncertainty of high costs, falling incomes, market volatility and climate concerns by intensifying rather than shifting to more sustainable methods. In a UK government survey earlier this year, 28% of farmers reported that they were increasing productivity or envisaged needing to do so in the next three to five years24 and 16% were planning to leave farming in the near future through retirement or for other reasons, up from 10% in the previous six months. 71% were not confident that changes to schemes and regulations would lead to a successful future for farming.

Home

Executive Summary

‘Tribal’ thinking: In uncertain times, people are more likely than ever to stick with what they know and to be influenced by those around them and in their existing networks. Polarised and ‘tribal’ thinking was seen as a significant barrier to change. If farmers feel that going over to Nature-Friendly Farming means they are ‘a traitor to their tribe’ or ‘not a real farmer’ then this serves as a powerful cultural barrier to change.

Generational issues were also mentioned as a factor, with a tendency for older generations to be stalling and younger farmers often but not always more open to new approaches. There are certainly exceptions to this however.

Knowledge, skills and confidence for transition: Most sources of available advice and training, including agricultural colleges, agronomists and farm advisors, remain rooted in ‘conventional ‘ agricultural methods.

Lack of skills, confidence and trusted sources of information on NatureFriendly Farming were consistently raised as barriers.

1. Introduction

2. Methodology

3. Key findings

Time for transition: A change of farming systems takes time to be fully adopted and become financially viable, and there is a need for support for farmers who are in this process of transition to Nature-Friendly Farming.

‘‘I worry that the term ‘NatureFriendly Farming’ gives farmers an opt-out – implying nature in the margins rather than wholesale change.’

Terminology: Many raised the point that terminology and definitions in this area can be a barrier in themselves, noting that the term ‘Nature-Friendly’ was not universally supported.

For example: • Some were specifically focused on agroecology because of its underlying principles rather than regenerative agriculture which they felt did not encompass social justice or risked being co-opted for greenwashing purposes.

• Some preferred to talk about regenerative agriculture as they felt it was a concept that mainstream farmers could better relate to.

• Others advocated the use of the term ‘farming in harmony with nature’.

4. Esmée’s support

5. Key findings and recommendations

24 Defra (2023) Farmer Opinion

Tracker for England: April 2023 [Accessed 24th August 2023]

Appendices

Nature-Friendly Farming Review 25

3.4 Farmers and the Nature-Friendly Farming movement

DRIVERS Peer-to-peer support and farmer-led learning were seen as key drivers for learning, knowledge exchange and driving change. Having real-life case studies that people can visit, and opportunities to learn from each other’s successes – and failures – is seen as critical.

‘The only way to bring real change is farmer-to-farmer.’

‘Always it is about looking at what other farmers are doing because they’re the best teachers.’

Home

Executive Summary

Relationship with the land Some talked of a sense of responsibility and finding joy again in their relationship with the land as a key driver, whilst others saw the primary driver as economic.

Leadership and movement building Within the Nature-Friendly Farming sector, many organisations provide leadership, networking and movement building. This was felt to be a positive driver for change despite some risk of duplication and conflicting opinions.

Independent and trusted farming and farm business advice is seen as crucial to support the transition to Nature-Friendly Farming.

1. Introduction

2. Methodology

3. Key findings

4. Esmée’s support

5. Key findings and recommendations

Appendices

Nature-Friendly Farming Review 26

3.4 Farmers and the Nature-Friendly Farming movement IMPACT OF ESMÉE’S SUPPORT Farmer voice and farmer-led initiatives Significant support and funding have been provided to a range of organisations working directly with farmers to support the development of a stronger farmer voice, farmer-led initiatives, and testing and promotion of viable business models with Nature-Friendly Farming at their heart. This was seen by stakeholders as highly successful, for example in providing an alternative voice to the NFU – something that environmental NGOs are not best placed to do. In the longer run, the emergence of the Nature Friendly Farming Network amongst other organisations has the potential to reshape relations with the environmental NGO sector, and in the interest of mainstreaming Nature-Friendly Farming, this seems a positive step.

Home

Executive Summary

Movement building Many stressed how critical Esmée’s support had been to the development of this sector as a whole and to that of many of the organisations within it.

‘Esmée has provided the backbone of support for us all to be able to drive forward .... we wouldn’t be able to operate the way we do without Esmée.’

‘The movement has grown considerably and Esmée played an important part in that.’

There is now a wide array of organisations in this space – some tiny, often with a disproportionate impact on the shoulders of passionate, highly committed individuals, with attendant risks; others larger and longerestablished.

1. Introduction

2. Methodology

3. Key findings

As the movement grows there are many examples of positive collaboration and coalition building, for example, the Consensus on Food Farming and Nature which was initially developed by a group of farmers and environmental organisations following the 2023 Oxford Farming Conference.

At the same time, there are a few signs of tension and duplication between organisations within the sector. There are also calls for the Foundation to ‘use its voice more’ and use its insight and overview more to steer a path. For example, one grantee commented:

Independent farm business advice and Nature-Friendly Farming skills Support for the development and provision of independent farm business advice and skills to support the transition to Nature-Friendly Farming is an emerging area of focus for Esmée and one welcomed by several of those we spoke to.

‘Esmée have a strong voice based on practice – they should use it more, but do not turn into a think tank – use it to help to bring other voices into the conversation.’

4. Esmée’s support

5. Key findings and recommendations

Appendices

Nature-Friendly Farming Review 27

4. Esmée support 4.1 Overview of funding and support All funding towards Nature-Friendly Farming

£16.7m

Nature-Friendly Farming is a primary focus

Other funding where Nature-Friendly Farming is a secondary benefit Space for nature

£5.4m

Freshwater

£1.8m

Fishing in tandem with nature

£193k

Peat

£150k

Home

Executive Summary

1. Introduction

2. Methodology

This section shares an overview of how much Esmée funding is currently focused on NatureFriendly Farming, through Esmée's specific work as well as their wider environment funding.

It also breaks down the funding across the long-term outcomes in Esmée's strategy.

All the data presented refers to active funding as at May 2023.

3. Key findings

4. Esmée’s support

5. Key findings and recommendations

Appendices

Nature-Friendly Farming Review 28

4. Esmée support

Nature-Friendly Farming Funding26 by outcome Biodiversity Soil health Building evidence

Esmée's long-term outcomes for NatureFriendly Farming

£180k

Access to food: More people have access to and buy locally-produced food.

£365k

Advocacy: The benefits, including health benefits, of sustainable farming are widely recognised.

£500k

Business case

Business case: Working with nature on farms makes good business sense and is widely demonstrated and accepted.

£1.31m £1.18m

Advocacy

£3.6m

Access to food

Building evidence: The status of other species on farms is better understood and recovery is underway.

£4.0m £250k

All outcomes Additional outcomes

£5.7m

Biodiversity: Farmland wildlife and biodiversity is restored.

£260k Grants

Home

Executive Summary

1. Introduction

Soil health: Soil health is restored, soils contain more carbon and chemical usage has been reduced.

2. Methodology

3. Key findings

Social investments

4. Esmée’s support

26 Active funding as at May 2023

5. Key findings and recommendations

Appendices

Nature-Friendly Farming Review 29

4. Esmée support

All funding26 for Our Natural World

Fishing in tandem with nature £3.6m

Freshwater £6.3m Peat £6.6m

£63.6m Total funding towards Our Natural World

Space for nature £24.8m

Nature-friendly farming £16.9m 26 Active funding as at May 2023 27 Some of Esmée’s funding supports

Esmée’s other strategic aims27 £790k Home

Executive Summary

1. Introduction

2. Methodology

3. Key findings

Previous environment strategy £4.5m 4. Esmée’s support

5. Key findings and recommendations

work across more than one of Esmée’s strategic aims. This data reflects funding where the work is a closer fit to Esmée’s other strategic aims, but also contributes towards Our Natural World.

Appendices

Nature-Friendly Farming Review 30

4.2 Stakeholder feedback on working with Esmée Supported organisations were asked to provide feedback on their experience of working with the Foundation.

Summary Stakeholder feedback on working with Esmée Feedback from supported organisations was overwhelmingly positive, relationships with Esmée being highly valued and characterised by trust, support, dialogue, and mutual respect. They spoke highly of Esmée’s ethical approach, expressing appreciation for their insights and constructive challenge.

Esmée was rated highly for the support provided to organisations, particularly provision of core funding and also business and consultancy support.

The approach to convening, networking and movement building was largely welcomed, and many felt that Esmée could make more use of their overview and evidence base to help the sector progress.

Home

Executive Summary

1. Introduction

2. Methodology

3. Key findings

Some felt that Esmée had ended their support prematurely just as the impact of

the funded work was building.

Greater clarity regarding how the various parts of Esmée’s work and strategy fit together and how the impact goals interrelate would be welcomed.

Some were disappointed at what they understood to be a move away from food systems and systems thinking.

4. Esmée’s support

5. Key findings and recommendations

Appendices

Nature-Friendly Farming Review 31

4.2 Stakeholder feedback on working with Esmée

Relationship with supported organisations Supported organisations provided feedback on their relationships with the Foundation, which were overwhelmingly positive, key themes being trust, dialogue, support, insight and ethics.

SUPPORT

TRUST

‘just a brilliant supporter in every way’

‘very good at giving us room to deliver in a flexible way’

‘with Esmée funding we walk tall’

‘not too directive’

‘once up and running they stepped back a bit which was a shame’

‘liberating‘ ‘funding core costs shows a belief in the organisation’

‘gave us the space to breathe, sit down and think’

DIALOGUE

INSIGHT

‘conversational relationship is key’

‘genuine interest and understanding’

‘…asking ‘what would it take?’’

‘such a thought leader’

Executive Summary

1. Introduction

2. Methodology

3. Key findings

‘seen as the best and most progressive funder in this space’ ‘utterly brilliant that they are tough on requiring commitment to EDI (equality, diversity, and inclusion), it will without a doubt bring about change’

‘ability to ask important questions that others might not have thought of is highly valuable’

‘constructive and valuable feedback’

Home

ETHICAL

4. Esmée’s support

5. Key findings and recommendations

Appendices

Nature-Friendly Farming Review 32

4.2 Stakeholder feedback on working with Esmée Organisational and project support

Administration and management of grants

A need for greater clarity regarding how the various parts of Esmée’s strategy interrelate:

‘I like the cross-cutting goals, but the [application] form requires you to tick one box so how does it work in practice?’

‘I find the different strands quite confusing’.

‘How the various parts of Esmée’s work fit together is not always clear’.

Mixed views on Esmée’s approach to reporting:

‘Lots of paperwork but it’s a fair relationship’ ‘Fantastically light touch reporting’ ‘The questions are difficult – I don’t feel we do it justice, we would like more open questions.’

‘It’s refreshing to give a progress update that was about telling them how it’s going, not about filling in a spreadsheet.’

Esmée’s support – and particularly the ongoing core funding – were exceptionally well received and relationships with individual organisations appeared to be characterised by trust, dialogue, and mutual respect.

‘The Foundation’s passion, expertise, and ability to ask important questions that others might not have thought of, are highly valuable’.

Some specifically mentioned consultancy support and help with business planning as positive experiences. Only two mentioned social investing, one of those saying they were aware of it but were not in a situation to pay back a loan themselves.

‘The funding of core costs is critical to the development of the movement. We can get project funding but if we don’t have the right infrastructure/management team, more projects put the organisation at risk.’

The only negative comments on this theme were that the funding had stopped, or communication reduced once the organisation was starting to have a real impact.

‘They helped us get to adolescence, but core funding is now stopping just when we were beginning to have a real impact – is that the right approach?’

‘Once the project was up and running, they stepped back a bit which was a shame.’

Home

Executive Summary

1. Introduction

2. Methodology

3. Key findings

4. Esmée’s support

5. Key findings and recommendations

Appendices

Nature-Friendly Farming Review 33

4.2 Stakeholder feedback on working with Esmée Sector support and movement building

‘Unblocking those big barriers – finding the relevant ‘brick in the Jenga tower’ – that’s the role that Esmée plays so well.’

There was largely positive feedback for Esmée’s efforts around convening, networking and movement building in this space:

‘Esmée have played a good role as a convenor – they have good pulling power. ‘ ‘Esmée have linked organisations effectively – helping to overcome some of the spikiness between organisations. There is more work to be done on helping these collaborations become super effective.’

‘Esmée seem to always see the bigger picture – sharing this has real value.’

Home

Executive Summary

Systems approach

Some were encouraging Esmée to help ensure better alignment within the sector and avoid duplication:

‘(Esmée) can see the whole landscape, there is a gap here, who would be best to fill it?’

Others had concerns about pressure to collaborate:

‘I’m not sure about the movement-building stuff – collaboration comes best when it is organic.

Perhaps we need training in collaboration/ partnership/ movement-building rather than be forced to do it.’

1. Introduction

2. Methodology

3. Key findings

Several stakeholders expressed concern about what they perceived as a retreat from work on food systems. Our understanding from the team is that Esmée used to work more in the food systems space, including more public and consumerfacing work, but that there is now an intentional shift to direct focus more ‘behind the farm gate’ around farm practice and nature-friendly farming skills/knowledge gaps. Stakeholder comments included:

‘Esmée were one of the few funders able/willing to consider the systems approach and applied this successfully in the food space, but not I’m not sure the same is being adopted in the farming space.’

4. Esmée’s support

One stakeholder commented on the need for Esmée to do more on food security to raise awareness of the facts around food security and avoid simplistic, politicised and counterproductive reactions in light of geopolitical events such as the Ukraine war.

‘Esmée could do more in the food security space – this is probably going to become a big issue that could undermine a lot of previous work.’

‘We are concerned if Esmée continues to move out of the food system space – they were the only people who were interested in the whole food system and supporting lobbying on food policy’ (Scotland).

5. Key findings and recommendations

Appendices

Nature-Friendly Farming Review 34

4.2 Stakeholder feedback on working with Esmée Evidence and overview

Evidence was a common theme in the interviews with staff, and that was reinforced by some of the interviews who spoke about ‘what works’, knowledge transfer etc.

‘Essentially we are about building the evidence.’

Many stakeholders commented on Esmée's unique position and the broad overview and strong evidence base that they hold. There was a feeling that more use could be made of this to support progress in the sector, whether directly through reports or conferences, or indirectly via third parties.

‘I think our job is to make sure that the right voices and the right opinions and the right evidence are fed into that debate.’

Home

Executive Summary

1. Introduction

2. Methodology

3. Key findings

4. Esmée’s support

5. Key findings and recommendations

Appendices

Nature-Friendly Farming Review 35

4.3 Stakeholder views on how Esmée could add in value in the future Stakeholders provided a lot of rich feedback and ideas on how Esmée could add further value to support the mainstreaming of NatureFriendly Farming in the future.

Power to convene The Foundation is highly respected and has considerable power to convene. There was strong support for making more use of this to strengthen dialogue both within and beyond the Nature-Friendly Farming sector. Key points included: • Convene regular meetings of the CEOs of key organisations to identify areas of forward alignment and focus within the sector and to provide Esmée with advice.

• Keep a sharp focus on relationships with those seen as ‘vested interests.’ Analyse the scope for movement from passive opposition or neutrality to support. Use the ‘spectrum of allies’ model to analyse and devise a strategy for who to target for maximum impact.

• Consider co-design of funding streams.

• Whenever possible, convene outdoors, to help engage with ‘hearts as well as minds.’

• Provide resources to enable collaboration, but also recognise that collaboration and partnership working is not always the answer and shouldn’t be forced.

Peer-to-peer and farmer-led approaches There was strong encouragement for more support for farmer clusters, peer-to-peer support and farmer-led models of learning and knowledge exchange. Such approaches are seen as having multiple benefits including environmental, financial, and social/health and wellbeing benefits for the farmers themselves. Key-points included: • Don’t underestimate the impact of empowering farmers and creating the space and opportunity for them to think beyond the farm gate.

• Consider thematic rather than geographic farmer clusters – fostering networks in the sector across different regions.

• Consider paying some farmers to develop and support others.

• Fund affiliations to research institutes; and universities.

• Recognise that it is not Esmée’s role to come up with the solutions but to increase the capacity and support to others to work this out.

Home

Executive Summary

1. Introduction

2. Methodology

3. Key findings

4. Esmée’s support

5. Key findings and recommendations

Appendices

Nature-Friendly Farming Review 36

4.3 Stakeholder views on how Esmée could add in value in the future

Green finance

Focus more on food and farming systems, and supply chains

Some stakeholders would encourage Esmée to provide more support to explore ways of preparing the sector for private nature markets.

Key points included: • Consider conducting or commissioning an independent review on the limits and appropriate use of private-sector finance in relation to farming.

• Consider scenario planning around risks of nature and natural capital markets failing.

Collaborate and involve other funders Esmée is one of very few Trusts and Foundations providing funding in this space and there was encouragement to use their networks to involve other funders in Nature-Friendly Farming.

Key points included: • Create a Nature-Friendly Farming Funders Forum • Persuade other funders, for example some of the bigger climate funders, into this space.

• Explore creation of a ‘Funder Commitment’ (similar to the Funder Commitment on Climate Change’).

Home

Executive Summary

1. Introduction

Several stakeholders were keen to see the Foundation take more of a systems approach to bringing about change, looking again at the interface between food and farming systems and bringing more focus to work on supply chains and industry collaboration to develop and scale up good practices.

• Explore the idea of partnering with major supermarkets on agricultural transition projects, and research and training programmes e.g. Tesco’s ‘Future Farming Programme.’28 • Consider carrying out a meta-analysis of the outcomes/conclusions from recent public dialogues around food strategy, land use and the People’s Plan for Nature.

Focus more on research, evidence and communication to remove blocks to progress Several stakeholders were keen to encourage the Foundation to play more of role in supporting research and evidence-related work, and communication of key findings. Key points included: • Support research into critical issues such as the livestock industry.

• Support work to package and communicate the significant body of evidence that now exists around Nature-Friendly Farming systems and business models, for example using it to create case studies, farm visits, resources, and reports accessible to farmers.

2. Methodology

3. Key findings

4. Esmée’s support

28 Note: It was interesting to hear the difference

in perspective between different organisations in terms of whether there is or isn’t science-backed evidence for scalability, and financial sustainability of Nature-Friendly Farming systems. The case may be clear to those within the Nature-Friendly Farming sector, but less so to those outside it, some of whom expressed a positive openness to working in partnership to potentially exploring this question further, and industry collaborations.

5. Key findings and recommendations

Appendices

Nature-Friendly Farming Review 37

5. Key insights and recommendations 5.1 Summary of key insights CONTEXT Esmée’s Strategic Plan maps out a clear direction for Nature-Friendly Farming, which we have characterised as ‘mainstreaming Nature-Friendly Farming’. The progress of this strategy is playing out against a backdrop of significant change and uncertainty in the UK farming sector and the policy landscape.

DRIVING AND RESTRAINING FORCES In this section, we provide a summary of the various forces driving change or restraining progress in mainstreaming Nature-Friendly farming, based on stakeholder feedback. To give some indication of the perceived significance of each factor, we analysed and displayed the frequency of mentions of the various factors.

Key driving forces highlighted were the policy environment, and particularly turning policy into practice together with peer-topeer support and knowledge exchange. There is a link between these two factors, as one provides the means to deliver the other. Peer-to-

Home

Executive Summary

1. Introduction

2. Methodology

3. Key findings

4. Esmée’s support

peer, on-farm learning was seen by many as the best way to start to address many of the issues identified.

Other key driving forces identified included nature markets and public awareness and support.

Amongst the wide range of key restraining forces identified, cost-ofliving crisis and lack of political leadership stood out, followed closely by lack of funding through agri-environment schemes, regulatory inertia, and impact of food security issues.

5. Key findings and recommendations

Appendices

Nature-Friendly Farming Review 38

5.1 Summary of key insights

DRIVING FORCES

STRATEGIC GOAL

Pushing you towards your goal

8

1

Number of response from the interviews

RESTRAINING FORCES Pulling you away from your goal

1

8 – Cost of living crisis

Public awareness and support

Lack of market demand for NFF products

High input costs driving change

Impact of food security issues

Peer-to-peer support and knowledge exchange

Farming culture and identity

Emerging leadership in the sector Policy environment ‘we have the architecture’

Mainstreaming Nature-Friendly Farming

Dilemmas and differences in the sector Lack of political vision and leadership Regulatory inertia and lack of enforcement

Government funding – potentially

New agricultural support insufficient

Nature Markets – selling environmental services

Nature Markets lack of metrics Economic risk and uncertainty for farmers

Growing recognition of the need for resilience

Home

Executive Summary

1. Introduction

2. Methodology

3. Key findings

4. Esmée’s support

5. Key findings and recommendations

Appendices

Nature-Friendly Farming Review 39

5.1 Summary of key insights

IMPACT OF ESMÉE’S SUPPORT

Financing the transition

It is important to note that Esmee’s support includes not only grants but also a range of other tools including social investing, Funding Plus, convening and commissioning. In practice, social investing has had ony limited use in this area of work to date.

Influencing policy and legislation Esmée has provided particularly critical support to organisations that have had a significant impact on influencing policy and legislation. This is one of the key driving forces for mainstreaming Nature-Friendly Farming.

Esmée’s role in unlocking financial support for the transition to NatureFriendly Farming seems to be a more mixed picture, with relatively limited work with supply chains and major retailers for example. Much of Esmée’s impact on finances and funding comes from advocacy and influencing work in relation to policy and legislation.

Leadership and movement building It seems clear that Esmée’s support has been critical to the development of the Nature-Friendly Farming sector as a whole and many of the organisations within it. At the level of individual organisation, the importance of Esmée’s support for core funding has been mentioned time and again. Esmee’s support has also made a difference at a ‘movement’ level by funding the infrastructure organisations that are helping build it. In essence, we think Esmée is playing a big part and an important role in establishing the foundations for the development of Nature-Friendly Farming in the UK.

Home

Executive Summary

1. Introduction

2. Methodology

In addition, there has been investment in a range of projects working on the development of green finance models and pathways. Much of this has been funded from other areas of the Foundation’s work for example within the Space for Nature priority, and so are focused more widely on the potential for Green Finance to benefit nature recovery across the range of land uses not only farmland. It will be important to ensure the learning and insights from this work are considered within a farming context.

Public awareness and support Peer-to-peer support Esmée’s support also appears to have had an impact in the area of development of a stronger voice for farmers and peer-to-peer learning, seen by many stakeholders as a highly successful area of Esmée’s work and also considered a key area to focus on to bring about further progress.

3. Key findings

4. Esmée’s support

Much of Esmée’s work/support around Nature-Friendly Farming has in recent years been directed towards influencing decision-makers and the farming community more than the wider public.

Public awareness and support is identified as a key factor by stakeholders, and is clearly an important driver for change, however, as a relatively small funder Esmée do need to prioritise and target their efforts.

5. Key findings and recommendations

Appendices

Nature-Friendly Farming Review 40

5.2 Recommendations Based on the review findings we have made a series of recommendations around three broad areas where we feel Esmée could potentially add even more value going forward through utilising the tools at their disposal including grants, social investment, convening, insights and commissioning research and evidence.

Taken together, we believe that increased support around these three broad areas will help build the capacity, confidence, resources and trusted pathways that farmers need if they are to make a successful transition to Nature-Friendly Farming, and deliver the long-term outcomes within Esmée’s strategy.

The three broad areas we would recommend focussing on are:

This does also depend, crucially, upon an appropriate policy, legislative and regulatory framework.

1. Leveraging evidence, insights and the power to convene 2. Continuing to build support for farmer-led, peer-to-peer initiatives 3. Unlocking finance for the transition to Nature-Friendly Farming

RECOMMENDATION

1

LEVERAGE EVIDENCE, INSIGHTS AND THE POWER TO CONVENE Esmée is held in high regard within the sector, resulting in significant ‘power to convene’.

We recommend that Esmée looks carefully at how best to leverage this influential position and its extensive network to: • Strengthen dialogue, build strategic collaboration, and identify tactics to tackle blocks to progress across the sector.

• Expand dialogue and progress beyond the Nature-Friendly Farming sector for example to industry and retail sectors, and the wider NFU membership.

• Actively seek to persuade other funders, for example in the climate change arena, to provide more support for this area of work.

In doing this, it is important to bear in mind that the Foundation’s emphasis should be on enhancing the capacity of the sector to address issues, rather than rather than for Esmée to tackle them directly, heeding the words of one stakeholder that ‘‘We are building a movement, Esmée provides the fuel."

Additionally, we recommend developing a theory of change setting out Esmée’s role in advancing nature-friendly farming. This will establish a clearer line of sight between funding/support decisions and strategic impact goals.

Consideration should be given to co-production with key stakeholders.

• Share the overview, insights, and evidence from work the Foundation has supported, including work on public engagement and support.

Home

Executive Summary

1. Introduction

2. Methodology

3. Key findings

4. Esmée’s support

5. Key findings and recommendations

Appendices

Nature-Friendly Farming Review 41

5.2 Recommendations

RECOMMENDATION

2

RECOMMENDATION

CONTINUE TO BUILD SUPPORT FOR FARMERLED, PEER-TO-PEER INITIATIVES

We recommend that the Foundation ramps up its support for farmer-led initiatives to test and develop pathways to Nature-Friendly Farming, for example looking at opportunities to do more around:

3

UNLOCK FINANCE FOR THE TRANSITION TO NATURE-FRIENDLY FARMING

There is growing recognition of the value of farmer-led peer-to-peer initiatives such as farmer clusters for delivering multiple benefits including sharing of skills • Peer-to-peer learning, case studies and knowledge, collaborative action at and farm visits. landscape scale, aggregation of nature • Farmer-led landscape recovery benefits to facilitate green investment, focused on practical pathways and and also social and wellbeing benefits for how to blend finances in a place. the farmers.

• Skills training and advisory services This is an area of significant potential rooted in on-farm experience. and opportunity to make an impact in

Getting the financial models right is key, and we recommend a greater focus on unlocking finance to support the transition and make it financially sustainable over the long term. In addition to supporting ongoing advocacy work around agricultural support, we recommend an increased focus on:

progressing Nature-Friendly Farming.

• Development and support for Whilst there are some existing sources farmers’ mental health and wellbeing of funding, including Countryside to help create ‘a space to think’ –this Stewardship Facilitation Fund and is of importance in its own right but Landscape Recovery, there is still a also helps to create the conditions – considerable untapped potential and and headspace – for positive change unmet demand for support, for example, to happen, for example, in farming to date demand has significantly systems. outstripped resources available for Landscape Recovery.

• Exploring where and how green finance models can be applied for the greatest effect to support farm businesses and farmed landscapes.

Home

Executive Summary

1. Introduction

2. Methodology

3. Key findings

• Improving market and supply chain functioning including local food systems and short supply chains, urban links to farming, and working with mainstream retailers (and those working with them).

• Convening a supply chain dialogue to explore potential intervention points.

• Persuading other Trusts and Foundations that this is a priority area for achieving climate and nature goals.

• Expansion of aggregated models, enabling farmers to work together to achieve economies of scale to open up options for delivering and selling ecosystem services.

4. Esmée’s support

5. Key findings and recommendations

Appendices

Appendices APPENDIX 1: ORGANISATIONS INTERVIEWED

Nature-Friendly Farming Review 42

APPENDIX 2: INTERVIEW QUESTIONS ESMÉE FAIRBAIRN FOUNDATION (STAFF) Introduction

7. What do you see as the major barriers to mainstreaming Nature-Friendly Farming?

Do you anticipate these barriers becoming weaker or stronger in the next 2 to 3 years?

A farmer/ farm cluster

Nourish Scotland

CHEM Trust

Pasture Fed Livestock Association

1. Tell me about your role in relation to the development of the Nature-Friendly Farming strategy.

Pestcide Action

The journey so far

8. How might these barriers best be lowered or overcome?

2. Has your concept of ‘what good looks like’ changed at all in relation to this work, if so, how?

9. Where do you see the greatest potential for accelerating progress?

CLA Community Supported Agriculture Network Defra Environment Bank Food Ethics Council Food, Farming and Countryside Commission

Organic Research Centre Royal Society of Wildlife Trusts Sustainable Food Trust The Real Farming Trust The Soil Association

Green Alliance

The Sustainable Soil Alliance CIC

Nature Friendly Farming Network

4. What has been your greatest source of frustration or surprise so far?

Tesco

Food Sense Wales Network Sustain

3. What are you most encouraged by so far?

Changing context 5. What do you see as the primary drivers for mainstreaming Nature-Friendly Farming? Do you see these getting weaker or stronger in the next 2 to 3 years?

Wildlife and Countryside Link

6. How might these opportunities be optimised?

NFU

Home

Executive Summary

1. Introduction

2. Methodology

3. Key findings

4. Esmée’s support

The role of Esmée Fairbairn Foundation 10. How well do you believe your current activity and commitments align with ‘how you work best’ as an organisation?

What opportunities do you see for collaboration with other funders?

11. Where do you feel the organisation can most add value going forward?

And finally 12. What questions have I not asked that I should have asked? What else would it be useful for me to know as part of this review?

5. Key findings and recommendations

Appendices

Nature-Friendly Farming Review 43

Appendices

GRANTEES AND STAKEHOLDERS Your organisation

8. Where do you see the greatest potential for accelerating progress?

1. Tell me a bit about your organisation’s role in Nature-Friendly Farming (NFF) The role of Esmée Fairbairn 2. Has this changed in the last few years? Foundation (EF) If so, why has this happened?

3. Do you see your organisation’s role changing in the next 2 to 3 years in relation to NFF? Changing context 4. What do you see as the primary drivers for mainstreaming NFF? Do you see these getting weaker or stronger in the next 2 to 3 years?

5. How might these opportunities be optimised?

6. What do you see as the major barriers to mainstreaming NFF? Do you anticipate these becoming weaker or stronger in the next 2 to 3 years?

7. How might these barriers best be lowered or overcome?

Home

Executive Summary

9. Esmée Fairbairn Foundation has for some years been providing funding and other forms of support (social investment, commissioning work, connecting organisations) in relation to Nature Friendly Farming.

In your opinion what sort of impact has this had?

10. Where do you feel the organisation (EF) can most add value going forward?

11. If you are a recipient of funding or other forms of support from EF for NFF, what difference has it made to your work and impact?

And finally 12. What questions have I not asked that I should have asked? What else would it be useful for me to know for this review?

1. Introduction

2. Methodology

3. Key findings

4. Esmée’s support

5. Key findings and recommendations

Appendices

Nature-Friendly Farming Review 44

Authors: Kath Daly and Mike King, Resources for Change

Esmée Fairbairn Foundation

Resources for Change Ltd

IMAGE CREDITS

210 Pentonville Rd London N1 9JY

Directors: D Jones, M King, N Smith, S Sullivan

Front cover: Esmée visit to Papley Grove Farm

020 7812 3700 info@Esméefairbairn.org.uk @EsmeeFairbairn www.esmeefairbairn.org.uk Registered charity 200051

Page 6: © Ecological Land Cooperative

VAT number: 996 4504 72.

Company Number 7310220

Page 9: Esmée visit to Papley Grove Farm

Registered Address: Cwrt Isaf Farmhouse, Llangattock, Crickhowell, Powys NP8 1PH

Page 11: Esmée visit to OrganicLea Page 14: Sustainable Food Trust, Fir Farm walk © Chloe Edwards Page 15: © The Allotment Market Stalls Page 17: Esmée visit to OrganicLea Page 22: NFFN farmers Claire, Sam and James sharing hedge-laying skills to boost biodiversity through hedgerow management © Nature Friendly Farming Network Page 23: © Pasture Fed Livestock Association Page 33: Esmée visit to OrganicLea Page 36: Esmée visit to OrganicLea

Design: Steers McGillan Eves Home

Executive Summary

1. Introduction

2. Methodology

3. Key findings

4. Esmée’s support

5. Key findings and recommendations

Appendices