Opinion: Water companies can fund positive farm-level action
Chris Bennett © Johnny Houston I remember sitting around the table with our environmental farm adviser when it was announced that the SFI 22 agreements were to be closed early and all agreements ceased.
He was shocked because it was the first example of the government walking away from existing agreements where there were signed contracts with years still remaining.
I remember thinking it wasn’t a big deal, they said they’d pay us compensation and we’d be able to apply for the next scheme.
See also: Opinion – it’s the farmer who carries all the risks of regen
Looking back, he was right to be shocked as it marked the beginning of a sharp decline in trust between farmers and government.
It was a sign of things to come and, since then, confidence in the government to make suitable schemes available to help the environment and to provide vital funding to farmers has reached rock bottom.
The “public money” part of “public money for public goods” no longer appears to be forthcoming, so it is more important than ever to try to access private money for these environmental goods.
It looked like biodiversity net gain and carbon credits had potential, but the slow development of these markets and the unknowns around their future have kept them off the table for the vast majority.
About the author
We are beginning to see premiums available within grain contracts for regenerative practices that deliver environmental benefits.
It is a good example of how private money could replace some environmental schemes, however the relatively small incentives are currently unlikely to make a significant difference to the bottom line. Â
When it comes to water quality, it is a public good, but it also has a significant beneficiary – the water companies.
They provide a great example of businesses that stand to benefit from an environmental good but also have the means to fund actions at a farm level.
They spend millions on cleaning water downstream but they’re increasingly aware that a relatively small amount of funding provided to farmers can prevent the problems at source.
What is a small amount of money to them can make a significant difference to a farmer.
We were able to take advantage of Anglian Water’s Farm Innovation Grant.
It funds innovative projects benefiting water quality challenges within priority catchments.
Within these bounds, any project is considered and it has been used in the past to fund machinery that the government’s Farming Equipment Technology Fund was too prescriptive to allow.
We were able to get funding to use Hutchinson’s Terramapping to carry out detailed soil sampling over half of the farm to allow variable rate fertiliser and drilling based on the maps created.
It was beneficial to us, as we could use our inputs more effectively and can grow more even crops capable of capturing a larger proportion of the applied nutrient, but it was also beneficial to Anglian Water, as the water leaving our land was cleaner as nutrient uptake was more effective.
It is a great example of how we can begin to replace some of the income that we may miss out on through lack of environmental schemes.
I would strongly recommend engaging with your catchment advisers and water companies if you haven’t already.
You will find that they share our recognition for the value of environmental farming, even when those in charge of the country no longer do.Â