The balance between food production and environmental schemes continues to be a major discussion, particularly as just over half of farms in England reduced cropping for harvest 2025 to take part in such schemes.

Insights from the recently released AHDB Spring 2025 Planting and Variety Survey sheds light on how these incentives are shaping farmer decisions and land use.

See also: How to avoid weed burdens after land comes out of SFI

According to the survey, just over half (56.1%) of English farmers reduced their cropped arable area to take part in agri-environment schemes for harvest 2025.

Across the whole of the UK this figure dropped to 42.3%.

The data suggests that while reductions in cropped area are widespread, most are modest in scale.

Of those who reduced cropped area:

• 53% did so by less than 10%
• Only 3% removed all cropped land from production.

Most farmers use agri-environment schemes to target less productive or marginal land for environmental conversion, helping to balance the dual goals of sustainability and farm profitability.

Notably, while 84% of participating English farmers cited the Sustainable Farming Incentive (SFI) as their reason for reducing cropped area, 16% were influenced by other schemes, such as private nature markets and Countryside Stewardship.

Regional variation

The extent of this uptake varies significantly across regions, with particularly high uptake of agri-environmental scheme in the East.

Regions with traditionally intensive arable farming were found to be most likely to shift their land-use practice.

AHDB trainee analyst George Craddock notes that the South East and east of England show high scheme participation.

He suggests this was likely aided by larger farm size, strong advisory networks and greater on-farm labour capacity, averaging 3.6 and 3.3 workers per farm, respectively.

“This additional workforce may give time-pressed farmers more opportunity to engage with the time-intensive requirements of agri-environment schemes,” George says.

A key concern noted by the AHDB is ensuring government incentives do not encourage farmers to withdraw productive land from use.

“Payment structures should be balanced to make it financially viable to retire less productive areas, while preserving the most productive land for continued production,” explains George.

Looking ahead

Private agri-environmental schemes are expanding and may offer flexible or competitive alternatives, especially amid the adjustments and uncertainty surrounding the future of SFI.

Going forward, the relationship between public and private environmental schemes continue to be key.

“Ideally, they should work together to deliver meaningful benefits without compromising food production.

“As both systems develop, farmer preferences and participation rates will be central to how agricultural land use evolves,” concludes George.