So why discuss this topic in the context of the BD Land Trust? At the Land Trust we seek to support healthy, preferably biodynamic farming that benefits nature and the community. This session allowed us to further explore what constitutes a public good or service and share these insights with Defra at a critical time when they are refining funding priorities within the Environmental Land Management Schemes (ELMs). This unique opportunity not only enhances knowledge-building but also strengthens advocacy efforts.
Panel Members:
Amber Lawes-Johnson [key presenter]
Christine Meadows
John Powell
Keziah Suskin
Hannah Thoroughgood
Our Development and Communications Officer and PhD Researcher at the Royal Veterinary College, Amber Lawes-Johnson presented her research focusing on the governments “public money for public goods” approach in the Environmental Land Management Schemes (ELMS) for England’s beef and sheep systems. The session explored findings from Amber’s research, including how taxpayers money can be better allocated to support a public goods transition beyond the farmgate and joining up other critical parts of the food system.
“So, what is a public good?”
It’s a simple question, yet it often leaves people hesitating. After a long pause, the first guesses usually emerge—clean air, clean water—before uncertainty creeps in. Are these truly public goods, or are they private goods? In a world increasingly shaped by privatisation and financialisation, it’s no surprise that defining public goods feels like a challenge.
Rather than starting with textbook definitions, our panel discussion flipped the question to ask: What is of public value in today’s beef and sheep farming systems? As the conversation unfolded, it became clear that in agricultural landscapes, public goods are often framed as ecosystem services. Many in the room agreed that, when managed well—through practices like holistic planned grazing—cattle and sheep can enhance biodiversity, improve soil health, and even sequester carbon. But this discussion pushed beyond the conventional lens of ecosystem services to also consider how public goods include the social and cultural dimensions of farming. What if the knowledge, traditions, and relationships embedded in extensive, pasture-based livestock systems are just as crucial as the ecological benefits they provide?
The debate revealed that defining public goods in farming isn’t just an academic exercise—it’s a question that shapes policy, livelihoods, and the future of food production. Perhaps in rethinking public goods, we can also redefine what we truly value in our landscapes and communities, and re-build connection.
A snapshot of some of the panellists and audiences’ perceptions of public goods from beef and sheep systems include:
“Public money should pay for abundance… in nature, in environmental farming systems, in food resilience and nutrient quality”.
“Protecting genetic diversity is in itself a public good. There is no mechanism at all supporting this in government. In many cases native breeds provide a creative sense of community [across our farmed landscapes]. They add to the landscape, the joy of being alive and seeing something with big horns”.
“Practically, public money should support high welfare farming, investing in mobile dipping troughs so animals can be outside all winter instead of in concrete barns, ruminants don’t need to be fed on arable crops grown on short-rooted wheat crops with no soil life in them. Ruminants don’t need to be fed this. Ruminants add biodiversity and soil health, the Sustainable Farming Incentive needs to look at the whole picture. As an organic farmer, I am paid a third of what a non-organic farmer gets paid for my herbal ley farming practices [which provide higher environmental and health benefits].”
Perceptions of public goods and the values related to beef and sheep systems is vast, we explored how taxpayers money could be better allocated to accelerate the transition, and provide more ambitious outcomes across the sectors.
The Audience and Panellists Ask:
- Cutting Bureaucratic Barriers
Farmers are drowning in paperwork. The transition from old schemes (like Higher Level Stewardship) to new ones (such as higher-tier Sustainable Farming Incentive) needs to be seamless, with fewer bureaucratic hurdles and more financial recognition for longstanding land management practices. The conversation also highlighted gaps in ELMS, particularly in accommodating moorland systems, common grazing, and upland sheep farming. Accessibility matters—policy must be inclusive, ensuring support reaches all farmers, including those facing barriers like neurodiversity, dyslexia and lack of internet connection. - Systemic Change in the Food System
The food system requires more than marginal policy adjustments—it demands a fundamental transformation. Instead of prioritising cheap food production, we need a model that upholds high-welfare standards through robust legislation, ensures that trade policies protect British farmers and does not undermine them financially, and holds supermarkets accountable by enforcing fair contracts that pay farmers the true cost of food production. Crucially, sustaining local low-throughput abattoirs must be recognised as essential infrastructure, as they shorten supply chains, enhance animal welfare, and provide farmers with better financial returns for their produce. Without these structural changes, farmers will continue to bear the burden of an unsustainable system. - Public Goods is a Social Transition
Public goods is not just about ecosystems—this transition is about people, communities, and knowledge exchange. The transition must reflect this by fostering peer-to-peer learning, farmer-led research, and collaborative innovation. Advisory services such as Farming In Protected Landscapes (FIPL), and grants for on-farm education initiatives must have additional funding from the Department for Environment and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) and be central to policy design. - The Risks of Financialising Nature
A final, cautionary note was raised—can we really trust private markets to deliver public goods? Many in the discussion expressed scepticism, arguing that nature is too complex to be carved into financial products. If public funding retreats in favour of market mechanisms such as Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG) we risk losing essential support for improving landscapes supported through the current Environmental Land Management Schemes (ELMS).
We are grateful to the ORFC for providing this valuable and important space for this debate. We thank the audience for their participation and thought-provoking questions. We have received positive feedback from this session, with people asking for the conversation to be continued next year. Please comment on the blog post, tag us on Instagram and email us with your comments.
What would you like to hear more of next year? What other conferences should we be applying too?
With gratitude to our supporters.
Author: Amber Lawes-Johnson
Published by