Region

Two regions in England were selected (East Anglia and Cumbria) in which farmer groups had been established to explore cooperation for environmental benefits. Cumbria lies in the northwest of England with upland sheep and beef farming being the dominant agricultural land use.

Cumbria has two National Parks, the Yorkshire Dales and the Lake District National Park, with mountains, lakes, and rivers. Some arable cropping (barley and wheat) occurs on more fertile lower land in the valleys. Farmers own land outright next to their holding on lower land, but the higher ground is considered common usage and neighbouring farmers share grazing rights for sheep (fell rights).

In contrast, East Anglia is relatively flat, with large areas of very fertile soils and the dominant agricultural land use is for arable farming. Therefore, farm sizes are larger. Potatoes, vegetables, and different cereals are typical crops grown in this region. There is increased pressure upon water resources due to the demands from arable cropping and potential diffuse pollution.

Study focus

The innovation of farmer collaboration for environmental benefits promotes joint action across farm boundaries to address specific concerns such as flood management along a watercourse affecting farms at both the upper and lower levels of a river and increasing the overall biodiversity of an area. This is widely understood to contribute positively towards farming in a more sustainable way.

Groups were selected that had received funding under the Countryside Stewardship Facilitation Fund (CSFF). The CSFF is a policy measure that provides funding for facilitators to develop cooperation amongst a new or existing group of land managers (e.g. farmers, foresters). The group identifies and agrees together on the agri-environmental management priorities that they plan to implement across their holdings (www.gov.uk/countrysidestewardship).

The full report (in English) is here

Partner and responsible person contact

James Hutton Institute (JHI)

Christina Noble, christina.noble@hutton.ac.uk

Lessons learned

1. Regional differences existed between the 2 counties. In Cumbria, many of the farmers interviewed did not explicitly know they were part of a facilitation fund group, nor could they correctly identify the name of the group. This was in part due to the facilitator of the group, who wanted farmers to have a social meeting space and secondly discuss environmental concerns of interest to the farmers. These groups were often new and involved bringing together farmers who previously were not known to each other. In East Anglia, facilitation groups were often formed from pre-existing groups and the notion of farmer collaboration for environmental benefits is more established in this region. Therefore, the function of the group was less ‘top-down’ than in Cumbria, as farmers often knew each other and were used to expressing and sharing ideas in a group format.
2.  A key challenge to the viability of some groups is the attendance rate of many farmers. No penalties existed for farmers who didn’t attend. Some farmers had initially signed up but did not attend any meetings. The facilitator was key to the relative success of a group and essential for building and establishing momentum and encouraging collaboration within a group. Most facilitators had a farming background, and some were well-known to farmers already. Others were in a more junior role in their organisations, which also impacted the group’s success.
3. Advisory challenges in the UK relate to the fragmentation which has arisen from the commercialisation and subsequent privatisation of originally state-funded and organised agricultural advisory services since the 1980s. Farm advice is structured, organised and financed differently in the four UK countries, with little exchange and alignment between the devolved governments, agencies and non-state providers. In Cumbria and East Anglia, the main advisory actors (in this case group facilitators) were not from public sector bodies but NGOs, National Park authorities and various trusts. This situation is not surprising given the fragmentation of farm advice in the UK.