22 September 2026 will live long in the memories of many within the farming community and the consultants and agents who attempted to get their clients into the Sustainable Farming Incentive (SFI) 2026 with the scheme door closing within a matter of hours, leaving many locked outside. This should have been predicted since the transition away from the Basic Payment Scheme has fundamentally changed the purpose and importance of England’s environmental land management schemes. What were once viewed by many farm businesses as a useful supplement to core agricultural support are now becoming the principal source of public funding available. Yet the architecture of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) Farming and Countryside Programme has not been redesigned to reflect that reality.

How the end of the Basic Payment Scheme changed farm support

This matters because the Basic Payment Scheme provided a broadly accessible and predictable foundation beneath farm finances. Environmental agreements could sit on top of that foundation, rewarding particular actions and outcomes. As direct payments disappear, farmers are increasingly expected to replace that lost income through the Sustainable Farming Incentive, Countryside Stewardship, capital grants and other fragmented programmes.

Why first-come, first-served funding fails farmers and the environment

The inevitable result is a scramble to secure a place in whichever scheme opens next. For many applicants, participation is about protecting the financial resilience of the business. When demand exceeds the available budget, first-come, first-served allocation rewards the speedy, applicant and those with access to professional support rather than those who can demonstrate sound farming principles and strong environmental delivery. It also encourages rushed decisions and leaves unsuccessful businesses facing sudden gaps in income.

Environmental schemes need stability, not stop-start funding windows

This is not an argument against paying for environmental outcomes. Farmers and land managers are central to improving soil, water, biodiversity and climate resilience. But environmental delivery cannot succeed if the businesses responsible for it are destabilised by an unpredictable competition for short-term funding. A policy intended to support long-term outcomes cannot be built around stop-start windows and a race through an online application process.

What a complete overhaul of the DEFRA Farming and Countryside Programme should look like

DEFRA therefore needs to undertake a complete overhaul of its Farming and Countryside Programme. The starting point should be a multi-year budget, published in advance, with clear priorities and indicative application windows. Farmers need sufficient certainty to plan rotations, investment, tenancies and environmental management. Government, in turn, needs a reliable picture of demand before committing funds.

How should SFI funding be allocated when demand exceeds budget?

Applications should be accepted during fixed windows rather than allocated according to submission time. Where a programme is oversubscribed, funding should be distributed against transparent priorities. These should recognise active farming, meaningful environmental delivery, agreements approaching expiry and fair access for new entrants.

A whole-farm plan: a better model for farm support in England

However, reform must go further than improving access to SFI. The present division of support into separate pots for environmental actions, capital investment, productivity, resilience and innovation encourages farmers to chase whichever fund is temporarily available. It also prevents DEFRA from considering what an individual farm needs as a whole.

A better model would invite each farm business to prepare a whole-farm plan. Within a defined maximum financial allocation, that plan could combine environmental management, capital improvements, business resilience and innovation. Funding decisions could then reflect both public value and the practical circumstances of the holding, rather than forcing applicants through several disconnected competitions with their own individual funding pots. Success should be judged based on durable environmental outcomes and underpinning the viability of farm businesses, not by how quickly an application was submitted or how expertly it was written.  Inevitably, this will demand more hands-on processing from real people with strong knowledge of farming and countryside management and a move away from a computer says no approach which would also be no bad thing.

This blog was written by George Dunn, Chief Executive, Tenant Farmers Association. It is based on a piece, written for The East Anglian Daily Times, published online and in paper on 31 October 2026.

Associated Reading:

TFA Blog #379 – SFI26: DEFRA Releases the Figures Behind Window 2

TFA Blog #376 – TFA Calls for Urgent SFI27 Clarity as SFI26 Window 2 Budget Exhausted in Hours

TFA Blog #368, Tenant Farmers Must be Central to New Government’s Rural Agenda.

TFA Media Release MR26/04, TFA Grateful to DEFRA Secretary of State for Listening to SFI Concerns.

Further Resources from the TFA:

TFA members can get expert one-to-one advice and guidance, by calling TFA head office on 0118 930 6130.

• Find out about TFA membership benefits and rewards
• Browse our Blog archive for the latest news, including farming policy updates
• Explore upcoming TFA events, including webinars, shows and regional meetings

Media Enquiries

For press and media enquiries about any of these stories, please contact Julia Meadows, TFA Communications and Events Coordinator by calling TFA head office on 0118 930 6130 or 07887 777157.