£233 Million Gone in Six Hours: Farming Deserves Better
On 22 September, the second application window for the Sustainable Farming Incentive 2026 opened with a budget of £233 million. Less than six hours later, the entire budget had been allocated and the window was closed.
The speed at which the funding was exhausted undoubtedly demonstrates the demand for SFI. More importantly, however, it exposes a funding system that is simply not providing farming businesses with the certainty they need.
Farmers are continually encouraged to plan for the long term, invest in environmental improvements and adapt their businesses to a changing agricultural policy. Yet the financial support intended to help deliver those objectives was distributed through what became, in practice, a fastest-finger-first exercise.
That is not a credible basis for long-term agricultural or environmental policy.
Farming cannot be planned six hours at a time
Agricultural businesses do not operate within six-hour windows.
Decisions concerning cropping, livestock, land management, machinery, buildings and environmental delivery must often be made months or years in advance. They require careful financial planning and, in many cases, significant investment.
Many farmers will have spent considerable time reviewing the SFI26 actions, assessing their land and preparing applications. Others may have been unable to access the system immediately or may have needed assistance before submitting.
Those businesses have now missed out, not necessarily because their proposed environmental work lacked merit, but because they were unable to complete an application before the available money disappeared.
A scheme intended to support thoughtful land management should not be reduced to a race against the clock.
The responsibility for this lies with Defra, not with the farmers who attempted to access the scheme. Demand should have been anticipated and the application process designed to allocate funding fairly and strategically.
Instead, farming businesses were once again left to deal with uncertainty created by an unreliable system.
Government support remains important—but it is not business security
It would be wrong to suggest that farmers should simply learn to operate without agricultural support.
Successive governments have deliberately moved agricultural funding away from direct payments and towards the delivery of environmental benefits. Farmers have been expected to restructure their businesses and land management accordingly.
SFI and other environmental schemes can provide a valuable income stream. They can help fund worthwhile improvements to soil, water, habitats and the wider countryside. But yesterday’s events demonstrate the danger of allowing an agricultural business to become too reliant upon funding that can change, close or become inaccessible with very little notice.
A government scheme is not the same as a secure commercial income stream.
It is therefore becoming increasingly important for farmers and landowners to understand the underlying strength of their businesses without assuming that the next funding opportunity will be available when it is needed.
Looking beyond the next funding window
For some businesses, improving resilience may involve examining whether land and buildings are being used to their full potential.
There may be opportunities to generate income from underused agricultural buildings, alternative occupations, commercial storage, tourism, renewable energy, biodiversity projects or other forms of diversification. In appropriate circumstances, agricultural or permitted development rights may also offer opportunities.
For others, the priority may be reviewing tenancy or occupation arrangements, assessing business costs, considering the structure of existing enterprises or identifying assets that are not producing an adequate return.
Not every farm needs a major diversification project. In many cases, several smaller changes can improve financial resilience while allowing the core agricultural business to remain the principal focus.
The appropriate approach will depend upon the holding, its location, its buildings, the skills and interests of those involved and the level of investment available. What matters is that decisions are based upon the long-term needs of the individual business—not hurriedly constructed around the opening and closing of the latest government scheme.
Greater control over the future
Public funding will continue to have a role in British agriculture, and farmers should not be criticised for making sensible use of schemes intended to support them.
However, yesterday’s SFI26 scramble should prompt a wider conversation about how rural businesses protect themselves from an increasingly unpredictable policy environment.
Where possible, the objective must be to create stronger businesses with a range of dependable income streams and greater control over their own financial future.
Farmers deserve an agricultural funding system that is accessible, properly planned and capable of supporting long-term decision-making. A £233 million application window that opened and closed within six hours falls considerably short of that standard.
At Salter & McKenna, we work with farmers and rural landowners across East Anglia to review property assets, explore development and diversification opportunities and consider the longer-term resilience of rural businesses.
If recent events have prompted you to reconsider the future of your holding or the opportunities available from your land and buildings, please contact us for an initial discussion.