How the Ure Dales Scheme Compares
Honest trade-offs against the main alternatives a landowner might reasonably consider.
This briefing does not try to persuade you that the Ure Dales scheme is the best option for your holding. Different holdings need different arrangements. The scheme is the right answer for some of the 18 landowners and not for others — and that is a design assumption, not a failure.
What this briefing does is set out, as honestly as we can, what the trade-offs are between the Ure Dales scheme and the main alternatives a landowner might reasonably consider instead.
The alternatives considered
- Sustainable Farming Incentive () — ’s entry-level scheme
- Countryside Stewardship (Mid-Tier or Higher-Tier) — DEFRA’s mid-ambition ELM scheme
- Another — for holdings that could plausibly fit elsewhere (e.g. Cairngorms Connect, Upper Wye, other regional projects)
- Staying as you are — no scheme participation
- Selling the holding — partial or full
A note on income: Carbon credits (via the or ) and, in some catchments, credits, are not alternatives to LRS — they are potential income streams that can stack with it. Whether these stack with LRS payments for Ure Dales participants is being confirmed with DEFRA. The Points to Consider section sets out what is confirmed, what is provisional, and what is blocked.
Private environmental markets — voluntary carbon credits and, in some catchments, nutrient neutrality credits — can be accessed alongside LRS participation in most cases. Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG) is different: DEFRA’s December 2024 guidance means land enrolled in the Landscape Recovery Scheme cannot also generate BNG units for sale. For land with high BNG potential, this is a material factor in deciding whether to enter the scheme. See the Points to Consider section for detail.
1. SFI — Sustainable Farming Incentive
What it is: annual or short-term agreement with DEFRA for specific land management actions, selected from a menu.
Trade-offs vs. Ure Dales LR:
| Dimension | SFI | Ure Dales LR |
|---|---|---|
| Commitment depth | Low (annual or 3-year) | Very high (20-year) |
| Payment scale | Moderate, per-action | Higher, aggregated across multiple funding streams |
| Administrative burden (per holding) | Medium | Low (shared services offset) |
| Ecological ambition | Action-by-action | Whole-holding, whole-landscape |
| Governance | Individual holding + DEFRA | Consortium-governed |
| Market access (premium) | None specific | Trustmark-backed |
| Exit ease | Annual — very easy | From Year 3 onwards, without penalty |
| Compatibility with Ure Dales LR | High (SFI actions outside the LR delivery plan generally remain available) | n/a |
When SFI is the right choice:
- Lower commitment tolerance
- Preference for flexibility over scale
- Existing productive system that needs modest additional income rather than transformation
- Advisor or succession uncertainty that makes 20 years feel unwise
When Ure Dales LR may be the better choice:
- Willingness to commit to a 20-year horizon
- Interest in the trustmark, premium market access, or shared services
- Holding suits the catchment-scale restoration the scheme targets
- Comfort with consortium governance
Note: most holdings participate in SFI and something more ambitious alongside it. These are not mutually exclusive.
2. Countryside Stewardship (Higher Tier)
What it is: 10-year (or 5-year) agreement with DEFRA for more ambitious land management, including capital works.
Trade-offs:
| Dimension | Higher Tier CS | Ure Dales LR |
|---|---|---|
| Commitment depth | High (5–10 years) | Very high (20 years) |
| Payment scale | Substantial, including capital grants | Higher, with broader revenue streams |
| Governance | Individual landholding + DEFRA | Consortium-governed |
| Shared services | None | Yes |
| Multi-holding coordination | None | Central to scheme design |
| Trustmark | None | Yes |
| Exit | On breach; no clean exit | From Year 3 onwards, without penalty |
| Compatibility | Not simultaneous on same parcels; early CS exit into LRS is permitted without penalty | n/a |
When Higher Tier CS is the right choice:
- 5–10 year commitment is the right scale for your holding
- You are not particularly seeking multi-holding collaboration
- You want individual-holding agri-environment ambition without consortium governance
When Ure Dales LR may be better:
- You see value in landscape-scale restoration (not just holding-scale)
- You want the trustmark and market access benefits
- The 20-year horizon suits your succession position
Note: holdings currently in Countryside Stewardship Higher Tier can exit their CS agreement early, without penalty, to enter LRS. CS and LRS cannot run simultaneously on the same land parcels — the non-duplication rules prohibit the same land management activity being funded twice. The early exit route is a specific provision that DEFRA has made to allow landowners to transition from CS into LRS without financial penalty.
3. Another Landscape Recovery scheme
DEFRA’s LR programme supports multiple schemes across England. Comparable 20-year schemes your holding might plausibly fit include: Cairngorms Connect (Scotland, different regulatory regime), Upper Wye, and several regional/catchment-scale LR schemes at various stages of development.
Trade-offs:
- Ecological fit — each LR scheme targets different ecological objectives. The Ure Dales scheme focuses on peatland, upland hay meadow, woodland regeneration, and river restoration. Some other schemes target floodplain reconnection, woodland creation, or species-specific recovery.
- Geographic fit — LR schemes are place-based. Your holding’s fit is the first question.
- Governance design — the Ure Dales scheme is distinctive in its integrated trustmark, its explicit surplus distribution governance, and its 4 Returns framing. Other schemes have different emphases.
- Partner organisations — different schemes have different lead partners. The Ure Dales scheme is led by YWT; others by The Rivers Trust, the RSPB, National Parks authorities, or landowner-led consortia.
If you are considering another LR scheme: we actively encourage you to compare. The Consortium would rather you join a scheme that fits your holding than sign up to ours out of geographic convenience. If another LR scheme is a better fit, we will help you approach them.
4. Staying as you are
Not participating in any scheme — continuing as you currently farm the holding — is a legitimate choice. For some holdings and some farming businesses, it is the right choice.
Trade-offs:
- Income: declining as legacy BPS-type payments conclude and as agricultural market pressures continue. Public support for farming in upland areas has been re-structured around ELM; staying outside ELM means forgoing those payments.
- Freedom: full autonomy over land use decisions.
- Risk: entirely held at holding level — no shared-scheme buffer.
- Market access: standard channels only.
- Ecological trajectory: whatever the holding’s current trajectory is continues; no scheme-supported intervention.
Staying as you are is the right answer when:
- Your existing business is viable without scheme support
- You value autonomy over scale of income
- The land’s current condition is what you want it to continue being
- A 20-year commitment of any kind does not fit your succession position
It is not a wrong answer. It is simply an answer.
5. Selling the holding
Selling — in part or in whole — is a legitimate option that the Consortium recognises openly. Some of the 18 landowners considering the scheme will also be considering sale, and this should not be hidden.
Trade-offs vs. joining the scheme:
- Financial outcome: sale typically realises capital value immediately; scheme participation produces income over time.
- Tax position: sale triggers CGT (subject to reliefs); scheme participation does not.
- Succession: sale simplifies succession; scheme participation adds a governance layer to any successor.
- Ecological outcome: depends entirely on the buyer. Some buyers (institutional, conservation-aligned) may deliver more ecological ambition than the scheme; others will deliver less.
- Relationship with the dales: sale typically ends the landowning relationship; scheme participation deepens it.
If you are seriously considering sale: please tell Phil. The Consortium may be able to help — by connecting you to a scheme-aligned buyer, by supporting a phased transition, or by helping you understand how the scheme could change your decision on timing.
A holding sold to an aligned owner remains within the scheme. A holding sold to a non-aligned owner exits the scheme; delivered restoration stays, but forward participation ends.
Summary
The Ure Dales LR scheme is a specific choice with specific trade-offs. The honest question is not “is this scheme good?” but “is this scheme the right fit for this holding, at this time, for this family?”
The alternatives are real, and several of them are reasonable first choices. The Consortium’s position is that good fit matters more than scheme enrolment. If your advisors, family conversation, and own judgement point you toward SFI, Higher Tier CS, another LR scheme, staying as you are, or selling — those are respected choices.
What the Consortium asks is that the decision be informed and considered. This briefing exists to support exactly that.
Further reading
- SFI current guidance: gov.uk/sfi
- Countryside Stewardship guidance: gov.uk/countryside-stewardship
- Other Landscape Recovery schemes: gov.uk/landscape-recovery (lists current round schemes and partners)
- DEFRA advisor helpline: via gov.uk rural payments contact
Phil can put you in touch with any of the above if useful, and can introduce you to landowners in other LR schemes if you want a direct peer conversation.