SFI failings show that more needs to be done to support farmers to transition to sustainable practices

This article original appeared on the Global Food & Environment Institute blog on 25 September 2026.

In a matter of hours, one of the most important post-Brexit agri-environment schemes (AES) for farmers was effectively shut down. Window 2 of the Sustainable Farming Incentive (SFI) 2026 opened at 10.00 am on 22 September and closed at 15:48 pm the very same day. According to Defra, the scheme closed after receiving sufficient applications to allocate the full £233 million budget.

Across LinkedIn and other farming networks, highly capable and progressive farmers have expressed frustration at a missed opportunity. Deciding whether to enter a scheme such as SFI is not straightforward. It takes time, planning, compliance work, and often significant changes to established farming practices. These are not decisions that can be made within a six-hour application window.

Those who have previously engaged with AES often benefit from strong support networks, access to expert advice, additional resources, and, crucially, the time required to understand and navigate the application process. In contrast, farmers with fewer financial resources and less spare time are often the least able to adopt new environmental practices and are therefore less likely to have successfully secured a place in this round of SFI.

Even some of those who were prepared to submit applications on the first day of the scheme were unable to do so. High demand clearly demonstrates enthusiasm for participation, but AES should not become a race to see who can click ‘submit’ first. If farmers are willing to commit to environmental actions and long-term management changes, the system should allow them to do so through a fair and accessible process.

If farmers actively seeking to enrol in the scheme could not get in, it is worth considering the position of the average farmer. Take upland livestock farmers as an example. Many would have spent Tuesday at the livestock auctions. By the time they returned home, the application window had already closed. Most were simply too busy carrying out the day-to-day work of farming to meet such a small window of opportunity.

Our own regenerative agriculture research, led by Dr Ruth Wade and Professor Pippa Chapman, has demonstrated just how challenging the transition to more sustainable farming practices can be. Over the past four years, adapting to regenerative practices under increasingly unpredictable weather conditions has tested us. In some years, the regenerative systems have generated significant financial losses compared with our conventional farming system.

Conventional farming benefits from decades of accumulated knowledge, advisory support, established best practice and intergenerational experience. Farmers can access guides, training, advice and practical examples that explain how to operate these systems efficiently and successfully. In contrast, many regenerative farming approaches still lack the same level of practical guidance and proven pathways to success.

Despite the challenges, we are already seeing positive environmental benefits from several regenerative agriculture practices. Soil structure has improved, earthworm populations have returned, and maintaining living roots in the soil for longer periods of the year is helping to reduce nutrient losses through leaching. These are encouraging signs that the systems are moving in the right direction. However, while environmental benefits may emerge relatively quickly, economic returns may take considerably longer to materialise.

This is precisely why it is so important that Defra and the Government get these schemes right. Currently, the system feels chaotic. Farmers are being asked to navigate an extraordinary range of pressures simultaneously. They face soaring energy costs, competition from lower-cost imports, volatile agricultural markets, and increasingly unpredictable weather, particularly at critical times for key farming operations. At the same time, society expects them to produce food, care for livestock and reduce the environmental impacts of farming.

Many of the practices being promoted to reduce environmental impacts requires farmers to develop new skills, adopt unfamiliar management approaches, invest in new equipment, and embrace significant levels of uncertainty and risk. In these circumstances, the easiest option is to continue farming in the same way. The harder option is to embrace fundamentally different systems that may place business profitability and household income at risk in pursuit of wider goals.

If we are serious about supporting a just transition towards more sustainable farming systems, we must recognise the realities farmers face. Environmental policy will only succeed if AES are practical, predictable, accessible and equitable. Farmers need confidence that investment in environmental improvements will be rewarded through a system that is fair to businesses of all sizes, sectors, and circumstances.

The overwhelming demand for SFI demonstrates that farmers are willing to engage. The challenge for Government is to ensure that willingness is not undermined by a process that excludes many of the very people it aims to support.