Farmers should be aware of losing control of their land use options amid conflicting demands for natural capital, public goods and food production.
This is according to the Central Association of Agricultural Valuers (CAAV), which says farmers are facing a generation's change in the space of just one decade.
These include the removal of support payments combining with Brexit, the drive to net zero and changing political and public demands.
Those pressures drive new competition for rural land use, the CAAV says, with potential for massive change and more varied enterprises to meet all these needs.
But the industry group explains that it is vital for farmers to assess the options to retain control rather than being locked into long-term plans.
Speaking at the Oxford Farming Conference on Wednesday, Jeremy Moody, secretary of the CAAV, said two-thirds of the retargeted Basic Payment money in England will go to changing habitats.
Meanwhile, in Scotland, he noted that the government there is aiming to increase forestry, restore peatland and reduce farm emissions by 31% by 2032.
“Such policies might help or hinder farmers but the real decisions over land use are theirs to take," Mr Moody explained.
"This decade offers the transition period in which to manage this major change.”
According to CAAV, there are five general routes for farming to develop: Commodity production by good farmers focusing on efficiencies; higher investment, higher return farming of vegetables, fruit and livestock under cover; controlling value with specialism, branding, adding value, etc; combining agriculture with environmental outputs; focusing land use mainly on the environment, from ‘re-wilding’ to forestry and solar, with little or no agricultural production.
It says farmers should be aware of the obligations and restrictions of some environmental land use agreements, as they could tie them into restrictive management for 30 years or more.
In some cases – like solar leases – that might be attractive, but agreements based on outcomes rather than actions would be even more limiting.
Mr Moody said: “If you’re paid to provide services that’s one thing, but once the buyer takes control of the carbon, biodiversity or other outcomes you may have lost control of the farm, with restrictions and penalties to protect what the buyer has bought."
He added: “Carbon is also a paradox: It is very important to the farm but has a trivial market value.
“Selling carbon credits looks to handicap farmers who will be expected to reduce their own carbon footprint; it is counter-productive as the farmer will then have to find that carbon reduction again.”
Farmers are also unlikely to be wooed by forestry, according to the CAAV, given the permanent land use change and loss of options it involves.
But new markets for biodiversity net gain and nutrient neutrality could be potential options in future.
“However, biodiversity net gain agreements are set at over 30 years, and nutrient neutrality could take even longer," Mr Moody said.
Given rapidly advancing scientific knowledge and technology, as well as evolving natural capital markets, the agricultural world could be a very different place in 30 years, he warned.
