Environmental Schemes & Rewilding: Can Farming and Nature Both Thrive?

Farming and protecting the natural environment are often presented as competing priorities. Yet healthy soils, functioning ecosystems, clean water and thriving wildlife can all contribute to the long-term sustainability of agricultural businesses.

Whether you're considering Countryside Stewardship, restoring hedgerows, introducing wildlife habitats or investigating rewilding, understanding the financial and practical implications is essential.

One of the biggest mistakes landowners can make is entering an environmental agreement because the payments appear attractive without fully understanding the management requirements, restrictions and long-term consequences.

The important question: Can farmers increase biodiversity, protect their land and generate additional income without sacrificing the future of food production?

Five things every farmer should consider

- Environmental schemes and payments: Investigate which stewardship and environmental funding programmes are available in your country. Check eligibility, payment conditions, agreement lengths and management obligations before committing agricultural land.

- Farming alongside wildlife: Consider how hedgerows, field margins, wildflower habitats, ponds and woodland can support biodiversity while allowing productive farming to continue.

- Rewilding and habitat restoration: Assess whether restoring natural processes is appropriate for your land. Rewilding may involve changes to grazing, vegetation management or water movement, but it doesn't automatically mean abandoning all agricultural activity.

- Protecting productive farmland: Identify which parts of your holding offer the greatest agricultural value and which might be more suitable for environmental improvement. Avoid making irreversible changes without understanding their consequences.

- Financial planning and long-term management: Calculate establishment expenses, maintenance costs, lost agricultural income and potential environmental payments. Consider what happens when an agreement expires or government policy changes.

Countryside Stewardship: Is the payment worth the commitment?

Environmental schemes can provide farmers with additional income for managing land in ways that deliver environmental benefits.

Activities may include restoring habitats, improving water quality, protecting soil, managing grassland or creating wildlife corridors.

However, the advertised payment rate doesn't necessarily represent additional profit.

Imagine receiving an annual payment to manage part of your land for environmental purposes.

That land previously generated income from grazing or crop production. You may now face establishment costs, additional maintenance and restrictions on certain agricultural activities.

Would the environmental payment cover those costs and compensate for the agricultural income you've given up?

Farmers should compare the financial return from the proposed agreement with the realistic alternatives before committing.

It's also important to check whether proposed activities are compatible with existing environmental agreements.

Rewilding: Opportunity or unnecessary loss of agricultural land?

Rewilding has become an increasingly prominent subject in discussions about Britain's countryside.

Supporters argue that restoring natural processes can improve biodiversity, support healthier ecosystems and potentially create new income opportunities.

Some farmers, however, are concerned about the potential loss of productive agricultural land, changes to traditional farming practices and uncertainty surrounding long-term financial returns.

Both perspectives raise important questions.

A productive arable field may have very different restoration potential from degraded wetland, marginal pasture or land that repeatedly suffers from flooding.

Equally, allowing land to regenerate naturally doesn't guarantee that every environmental objective will be achieved.

Successful restoration requires suitable objectives, appropriate management, monitoring and an understanding of existing habitats.

Rewilding should therefore be assessed according to the characteristics of the land rather than treated as a universal solution.

Farming with wildlife: Small changes can make a difference

Environmental improvement doesn't always require removing entire fields from agricultural production.

Maintaining hedgerows, creating suitable field margins, protecting watercourses and managing existing habitats can all contribute to wildlife conservation.

For livestock farmers, appropriately positioned trees and hedgerows may also provide shelter and shade.

Arable farmers may find opportunities to improve field boundaries or manage consistently unproductive corners for environmental benefits.

However, not every proposed intervention is suitable everywhere. For example, planting trees on existing species-rich grassland could damage an already valuable habitat.

The most effective approach begins by understanding what's already present and identifying opportunities for genuine improvement.

The financial question: What happens when the agreement ends?

Imagine converting 20 acres of agricultural land into a wildlife restoration project supported by an environmental agreement.

For several years, the payments contribute towards your business income.

However, the agreement eventually expires, payment rates change or the scheme closes to new applications.

Would your project remain financially sustainable?

Before making substantial changes, farmers should consider the likely costs of ongoing management, future income uncertainty, tax implications and any continuing legal or environmental obligations.

A project that depends entirely on temporary financial support may expose the business to additional risk.

Independent advice from an appropriately qualified land agent, accountant or environmental adviser can help farmers evaluate the available options.

The bigger discussion: Who should pay farmers to protect the countryside?

Farmers manage a substantial proportion of Britain's rural landscape.

Their decisions influence food production, biodiversity, soil condition, water quality and the appearance of the countryside.

Environmental improvements can benefit society more widely, but the practical work and financial responsibility often fall on individual land managers.

This raises an important question.

If society wants farmers to provide additional environmental benefits, should farmers receive reliable long-term financial rewards for delivering them?

Or should environmental management increasingly become part of normal agricultural business practices without depending on government funding?

There's also the question of fairness.

Large estates may have greater access to professional advisers and the capital required to establish substantial environmental projects.

Smaller farms and new entrants may find the administrative requirements and initial expenditure more challenging.

Environmental policies should recognise the different circumstances of the businesses expected to deliver them.

Up for a discussion:

1. Have you entered an environmental stewardship agreement, and did the financial benefits justify the management requirements?
2. Do you believe productive agricultural land should ever