Less Favoured Area (LFA) farmers and crofters - sustainable and regenerative agricultural practices: report

2.0 Results

2.1 Sustainable and regenerative practices

Key messages

• While some sustainable and regenerative practices could deliver towards one or two of the pre-identified environmental outcomes, few practices were clearly identified which have potential to deliver to most or all outcomes.
• Practices associated with grazing management (especially with periods of no/low intensity grazing), water management, and woodland natural regeneration were highlighted for their potential to deliver multiple outcomes.

In order to identify a suitable range of practices to discuss with participants, the research team conducted a literature review and interviewed scientific specialists in the four categories of activity (i.e. peatland restoration, carbon emissions reduction, woodland regeneration, biodiversity).

Practices that might be considered ‘sustainable and regenerative’ were collated from different literature sources (Lozada & Karley, 2022; Cole et al, 2021) and from the draft ‘Code of Sustainable and Regenerative Practices’ (unpublished), which has been developed in consultation with land managers. We supplemented this list of practices following suggestions from interviewed scientists and workshop participants. Practices considered as potentially important for delivering one or more of the four environmental outcomes are shown in Table 1. A full list of these practices, categorised by the system component the practices relate to (i.e. inputs, soil, livestock, crops, other habitats, pests and diseases, other), is shown in Appendix B.

Multiple practices were considered by scientists to have the potential to deliver towards at least one of the four outcomes, with several practices considered capable of delivering towards more than one outcome: specific practices for woodland natural regeneration and for peatland preservation were considered beneficial for biodiversity. No practices were identified as delivering towards all four outcomes, with the potential exception of habitat mosaics, which one scientist suggested could be beneficial if tree planting is avoided on high carbon soils.

The relevance and efficacy of the practices depended on context (e.g. soil type, growing season length, historic land use practices). For example, farm drainage was considered appropriate for reducing nitrous oxide emissions (greenhouse gases) whereas raising the water table was considered appropriate for peatland restoration; removing livestock might be beneficial to woodland natural regeneration but could threaten other elements of biodiversity by reducing habitat availability (e.g. animal dung for invertebrates). Grazing management, including periods of low intensity grazing/grazing removal, was considered useful for maximising biodiversity (increasing taxonomic and structural diversity of vegetation), tree regeneration (creating bare ground for tree seedling establishment) and peatland restoration (adjusting the density and timing of grazing, and breed selection to minimise trampling impacts).

Table 1. Summary of land management practices with potential to deliver desired outcomes for reducing carbon emissions, peatland restoration, biodiversity improvement, and woodland regeneration on LFA land.

2.2 Motivations of LFA farmers and crofters to uptake practices.

Key messages

• Farmers and crofters who have taken up the identified practices reported their desire for transformational change in food systems and to address climate change.
• Some study participants also described recognising the economic need to adapt farming practices, shifting towards low input practices which are in keeping with sustainable and regenerative approaches.
• When farmers and crofters see the economic and environmental benefits of sustainable and regenerative agricultural practices, they are more willing to implement these practices. More opportunities to see these benefits (e.g. peer to peer learning) is needed.

2.2.1 Choices and values in self-motivated change

Participants in this research were asked about their motivations and reasons for taking up sustainable and regenerative agricultural practices. Most of those pursuing the approaches held strong environmental values, identifying the importance of improving the land and expressed their desire to contribute to addressing climate change. They also expressed the need to make food systems more sustainable, and relocalise production. In addition, they mentioned the importance of doing what they most enjoyed in life.

Out of 13 interviewees (6 female, 7 male; names are anonymised), 11 expressed their primary motivation as wanting to look after the land, to reduce degradation of and impact on the environment, with many citing the climate and biodiversity crises. They also indicated their willingness to contribute to changing the agricultural and food system from within.

“I guess it's the right thing to do because we are degrading the environment and there's no doubt about that. I think but that's the thing I think we all have to do our bit to, to help” (Isla)

“I always wanted it to manage it to try and reduce like reduce input and increase the soil life within the soil. To try and increase the biodiversity in the pasture” (Rowan)

“I'm not saying we always have, we definitely always haven't, but we try to make decisions based on, what we enjoy doing, what makes life worth living, and what we see creates or contributes to a thriving ecosystem” (Flora)

“I care about this area, like I love the land, I, you know, I love the […] nature in the area, and I like being integrated into that and I love the communities and, having crofting, having people crofting is an important part of maintaining both of those things. But for myself also, I, you know, so just on the sheep side of things like. I really I mean I really love my sheep” (Sorrel)

Many of the ‘opinion leaders’ decided to act differently from the more conventional farming and crofting system. The majority sought to enact change in the food system and in climate change adaptation. This cohort of opinion leaders showed willingness for and conscience of change. Most of them are carrying out other actions beyond only implementing agricultural practices. These other actions involved hosting open days, including primary schools’ activities, giving advice, experimenting with more crops, community events, and selling produce locally.

This suggests that regardless of the support system in place, those farmers and crofters who are already acting will continue to implement sustainable and regenerative practices. However, providing them with the right support could ensure a multiplier effect. Supporting farmers and crofters who are already creating change could drive further change by enabling these individuals to help others, for instance through peer support.

2.2.2 Economic triggers for changing practices

For two of the participants, new practices were undertaken in response to specific events, whereby they realised a need to make their farm more productive and/or sustainable. Turning to a more sustainable nature friendly farming was partly a cost reduction measure but also a desire to work with nature rather than against it.

“I still had said there is something wrong when I'm feeling like this and I do not want to be continuing on and that was a real and then it was just to sit down at the table and see, Right, how do we, the agro-environmental schemes doesn't fit what we have here because we, it's a tick box exercise a wee bit, so how do we work with NatureScot to make it success?” (Maggie)

Maggie later described her experience of the conventional farming system as a ‘hamster wheel’ which led to her burn out. It involved having to use more and more fertilisers creating increased costs and reduced profits. This situation was a trigger for change in the way the land was farmed with the main motivation to get back to how land would be farmed traditionally before heavy machinery and fertiliser. For instance, by speaking to members of nature groups and gathering advice to make sure the transition to a different system was smooth, Maggie was able to change her farming system to a more environmentally and financially sustainable model.

The low profitability of many LFA holdings may make farmers and crofters more open to taking up sustainable and regenerative practices, if appropriate supports are put in place.

2.3 Barriers to uptake of sustainable and regenerative practices

Key messages

• What represents a barrier for some could be an enabler for others.
• Influencing factors (barriers and/or enablers) included:
• security of land tenure
• challenges of implementing changes to common grazing management
• the small scale of holdings
• labour shortages
• capital investment
• market pressures
• access to appropriate advice
• remoteness; distance from processing infrastructure, markets and advice
• environmental conditions
• cultural resistance
• The design and implementation of incentive schemes
• Depopulation means loss of knowledge and more dependency on advisory services. These services can be costly, in relation to the size and finances of the holding. The specificity of needs also makes it difficult to access targeted advice.
• These factors identified as barriers or enablers are well established in the academic literature.

2.3.1 Recurring challenges

Land tenure: Tenancies were mentioned as limiting the investment tenant farmers could make:

“To plan ahead and in five years of a tenancy, you can't make big decisions, big investment. Yeah, so access to land security is a big issue” (Isla)

When farmers or crofters are in a limited duration tenancy, it is difficult to commit to longer term environmental schemes or investing in long-term land improvements. Participants suggested more flexible scheme durations or options to extend.

Common grazing: In addition to their ‘in-bye’ land, crofters may have access to common grazing. However, the social organisation in some cases was mentioned as challenging, as to reach consensus and implementing new practices and ideas was not always welcome.

Small scale : By definition most crofts are small scale; this was accepted as part of the crofting lifestyle and allowed crofters to achieve their own biodiversity goals. However, when talking about financial support, working land at a small scale was seen as a limitation because of the thresholds of acreages required, for instance to be eligible for supports for tree planting and the potential benefits as Cumulus Consultants (2024) suggested; or for return on investment of hiring an advisor to assist with grant applications. Small holdings also cannot realise economies of scale in implementing measures; taking action can be seen as more effort than it is worth.

Labour: Using machinery to reduce labour requirements for implementation of sustainable and regenerative agriculture is frequently not an option in LFA areas. Depopulation and environmental conditions can make labour access and machinery use difficult and costly.

Capital investment: was mentioned several times as one of the most important barriers to take up different or new practices. Participants mentioned the high transaction costs of participation for small scale crofters and farmers: “these schemes don't pay, they don't pay for crofters with the kind of scale that we're working on” (Robin).

Market pressures: While there’s a desire to improve farming practices to be more sustainable or regenerative, market realities often contradict these ambitions. Farmers are driven by the demand for bulk production and the need to meet market values focusing on bulk quantities rather than produce quality, which may not always align with more sustainable practices.

“the way that the market operates and the way that mindsets operate is that we’re still incredibly focused on maximizing production rather than optimising production” (Campbell)

Access to advice: Study participants reported the issue of dependency on paying administrative/advisory services which are guided by regulatory requirements and do not always respond to farmers’ and crofters’ needs. In addition to labour and market shortages, depopulation represents a loss of generational knowledge. The investment of time and money in acquiring knowledge was highlighted, as was the limited information or inadequate information and knowledge sometimes provided by advisors.

Environmental conditions: The harsh environment, remoteness, and fragmentation of fields were mentioned as features of the conditions in which farmers and crofters operate. While some participants were proud of their ability to produce under these conditions, other participants thought about these conditions as facts which should be considered, and, rather than comparing LFAs with lowlands, productivity should be thought of differently. They argued that LFAs could be productive in their own way. Furthermore, other participants argued that because of these conditions, local markets and local food production and consumption should be better supported.

Cultural capital: When looking at other potential barriers we found that cultural aspects are important. In the same way as the literature has highlighted, we found that path dependencies and lock-ins in relation to deep-rooted traditional values, about what a farmer or crofter should be, are still important barriers to change. This reinforced the remarks of participants in relation to common grazings committees and the reluctance to adopt different ideas.

“I would say a lot of the hill farms here, it's still quite conventional not because they don't care. But some of it is a sort of a generational thing, how you've been brought up, how you've done it all your life, and then that's been honed by the ways government has told you how to farm will reward you for XYZ. And a lot of these people are now, you know, near or past retirement. So they're not gonna change the farming systems now” (Isla).

2.4 Opportunities for LFAs farmers and crofters regarding sustainable and regenerative practices

Key messages

• In addition to traditional scheme-based approaches, participants identified a number of indirect supports which would facilitate uptake of sustainable and regenerative practices, such as:
• Local production systems with long livestock rotation and horticultural production.
• Directing resources into infrastructure could indirectly support the uptake, while reducing emissions at regional level.
• Supporting crofting and local food systems, as they provide mechanisms to help halt depopulation in LFA areas.
• Where social capital is present, it can address pressures related to lack of labour and access to land. Social capital creates effective networks for uptake of sustainable and regenerative agricultural practices.

2.4.1 Seeing the outcomes

Participants noted great levels of satisfaction through seeing increased wildlife and biodiversity on their fields as well as financial benefits through having fewer inputs in their system meaning lower costs.

“…you start to see the general benefits of having a more varied ecosystem and habitat because you see that the leaves drop off the trees and get absorbed into the ground and fertilize the ground and you get on the on the lee side of your shelter belt you get fast earlier growth of grass and a place where your sheep can go and lamb in the shelter and it just it just evolves I guess in your mind and on the ground” (Robin).

Farming and crofting sustainably and regeneratively needs to be experienced by farmers and crofters.

Enabling more farmers and crofters to see results e.g. through peer learning or on-farm events, can facilitate uptake and overcome barriers about diversifying farming systems. The benefits of agroforestry and silviculture have been highlighted in various reports see for example The Woodland Trust (2022) and Cumulus Consultants Ltd. (2024).

2.4.2 Relocalisation of food production

The importance of having small-scale local infrastructures in LFA areas was identified as important by many participants. Enabling access to services, such as abattoirs, could have an influence on the increased uptake of these practices and make the business more economically viable.

“We have a local abattoir which we're very lucky with, but that, you know, that is the weakest point in our system and there's, you know, already another one nearby has said they're closing which has just destroyed a bunch of local producers” (Sorrel).

Increased local infrastructure such as abattoirs will allow the community to benefit more from the crofting and farming that is undertaken in LFAs, ensuring that the locals benefit from food production either through opportunities of labour or also having access to fresh locally grown food. Although this factor is not uniquely associated with using sustainable and regenerative practices, it would lower emissions due to reduced transportation.

Participants mentioned the opportunity of LFAs and specifically crofting to influence and slow down this rural depopulation. Again, local food production was seen as a mechanism to help:

“it's providing good food for an area that you struggle quite often […] to get good quality and fresh produce. But it's also, two other things. It's providing employment so in an area where you know employment other than in the tourism industry is quite difficult to get. It's doing that. But it's also encouraging active crofting in this area. So we're kind of the opposite. A lot of farming areas are kind of over intensified. Crofting is the opposite where a lot of the time […] it's under intensified almost. It's kind of almost dying out. A lot of land is neglected a lot of land is just let, let run” (Sorrel).

2.4.3 Peer to peer learning

Some informants underlined their wider experience in crofting as providing them with agency to engage with the local community through social learning and peer-to-peer knowledge exchange, as a positive opportunity.

For instance, Graham runs courses and practices on his island based on knowledge he has gained through working on his croft. He holds open days and courses on dry stone walling which have a high turnout:

“(...) dry stone walling was a really good one to start with. Traditionally. The crofters built their own houses out of stone, […] they had their own cabbage patches, so that was a really good one to start with and a huge amount of interest. There's a really, really big amount of interest. I just thought I'll set up one course, see how it goes, and you know I was fully booked for this […]. So I did another course. And then I had enough demand, and I did the 3rd course last autumn” (Graham)

One of the main incentives to do this was to help and educate others on the island on crofting practices especially ones under regenerative farming. He believes that crofting production can be a huge asset for the islands and through encouraging more people to croft actively it will have huge benefits for the land and community.

Other areas presented strong cohesion of social networks i.e. social capital. Where social capital is present, pressures from resources such as land and labour are lessened.

Informants talked about the strong family ties and the perception and actual management of the land seen as collective. Labour and land are resources that are more available as the management is viewed as a collective approach with family members helping at various times of the year when needed. Exchange of resources establishes, where land, labour and products circulate, creating a reciprocity system. This reciprocity system is vitally important for the survival of the community and is a huge advantage to crofters with strong social and familial traditional ties to the area (social capital). “it's give and take really and we help each other and that's how we've been brought up and that's what we do. And we see it more as our like our livestock rather than, you know, like collectively as a family rather than just like mine” (Iona)

“I've got another sister who has a croft next door. And she keeps sheep for her for the wool and also for meat consumption. And I use her sheep in the summer, we have an agreement that she can use my grazing for her sheep and I get to rotate them around in a more regenerative approach and stimulate our grass growth. So I'm borrowing livestock to kind of act as a, a lawnmower and she benefits and I always get some meat at the end of the year” (Graham)

In this sense, participants highlighted the advantages of social capital for instance for sharing machinery and collective work.

The biophysical condition was highlighted as challenging but creating more resilient farming systems, although also seen as a constraint depending on the type of land. These challenging environmental conditions also sustain who wants to farm in these areas, as they can make farming highly labour intensive, with the land type preventing farmers and crofters from having certain production methods. While they may not be as productive in one sense there is an opportunity for a high amount of environmental production as LFA lands offer significant additional biodiversity value. Yet challenges with invasive species such as bracken make it difficult to sustain. The inaccessibility of some areas, and how much more expensive living on an island is (i.e. travel/transport costs for input materials and produce), were also highlighted as barriers.

2.5 Farmers’ and crofters’ current practices, overcoming barriers and embracing opportunities.

Key messages

• Participants are already implementing practices under the four categories of outcomes (carbon emissions reductions, biodiversity, woodland regeneration, peatland restoration), although peatland restoration activities were less represented.
• Disconnection between the objectives of organisations aiming to support sustainable land management creates contradictory advice given to farmers and crofters. More coordination and collaboration between these organisations might improve the uptake of sustainable and regenerative practices.
• Support for habitat connectivity and other practices with multifunctional outcomes, such as silviculture, might benefit biodiversity.
• Knowledge of managing native grass species and rotation times is improving and this has benefits for biodiversity and farm economics.

We found that farmers and crofters have developed various mechanisms to overcome barriers to changing their practices and all of those who participated in the study are implementing practices in one or more of the four groups of practices identified.

Practices under carbon emissions reduction measures such as carbon audits were carried out by participants. The most common practices under this category were soil management practices to increase soil organic matter, modify soil pH, soil fertility (e.g. using seaweed) and other practices for soil health.

For carbon emissions reduction, farmers and crofters mentioned the need for the creation of local markets to reduce food transport emissions. They did not see the point of transporting locally produced food to distant locations, e.g. for finishing livestock. Again, they mentioned the need for local infrastructure and especially abattoirs: “Why does the calculator stop at [farm] gates”

They also mentioned that the carbon calculators only accounted for inputs and outputs ignoring the habitats and vegetation types that were present and that could be of benefit for carbon sequestration.

Peatland restoration was practiced by only three study participants and two of them had project funding where actions were identified and carried out with implementation plans. Only in one instance was peatland extracted using traditional practices and was seen as restoration or conservation management, as well as combating fuel poverty especially in periods of excessive electricity and gas price increases. Informants felt that traditional peat cutting is not creating erosion or peatland destruction contrary to what happens with large-scale exploitation.

It was also mentioned that the launch of carbon credit schemes is slowing down progress since land managers with big peatland restoration projects prefer to wait for the best funding sources and deals.

Tree planting and woodland natural regeneration were also practiced by participants. They questioned the separation between nature and food production as being unnecessary and disadvantageous.

Multifunctionality was also mentioned such as the creation of woodlands to deliver biodiversity, food (silviculture) and carbon sequestration.

Participants mentioned the disconnection between organisations supporting sustainable land management as one of the main problems. Each organisation has their own objectives, and lack of collaboration and coordination between these organisations creates conflicts for farmers and crofters due to variation in their advice.

Participants also observed that the fragmentary nature of various support schemes could detract from the overall goal of addressing biodiversity loss, by focusing on small land parcels: activities to improve connectivity between forests or other habitats were viewed as important and under-supported.

Most of the participants were carrying out biodiversity enhancement practices. They were successfully experimenting with various crops and plants to create habitats which were beneficial for pollinators, birds and other animals and plants.

Rotation grazing was practiced by various participants and was seen as highly beneficial for biodiversity. The knowledge farmers and crofters have regarding native grass species was noted. Biodiversity benefits were mentioned several times but also the economic benefits.

Reducing the use of pesticides was another commonly practiced biodiversity-enhancing activity.

Some of the common strategies by participants to overcome barriers included:

• Use their own economic resources.
• Acquiring a combination of tenancies, buying entitlements to enter farming and access basic payments.
• Applying for specific grants for specific small projects.
• The use of social capital and family ties as an important resource to access labour and land.
• Ongoing knowledge acquisition.
• Connecting different types of production and selling products locally (e.g. finishing livestock, poultry and vegetables production)
• Diversification (working as consultants for regenerative practices, fencers, courses on regenerative farming at the farm/croft or in the local area), in addition to tourism.
• Accessing funding for community activities related to regenerative practices.

2.6 Support schemes for sustainable and regenerative practices in LFAs

Key messages

• Scheme flexibility in LFAs was seen as beneficial for farmers and crofters, especially when implementing sustainable and regenerative agricultural practices.
• Rewarding sustainable and regenerative agricultural practices where these have been already carried out.
• Advisor services are costly and do not always respond to farmers’ and crofters’ needs. Simplified schemes could help farmers and crofters to apply without advisory support.
• Collective applications for specific geographical areas where social capital exist could be of benefit.
• Make schemes less prescriptive, with more freedom for farmers and crofters to tailor practices appropriately to their land.
• Some of the solutions discussed were product labelling; knowledge exchange funds; more online training available to farmers and crofters; local food networks support; collective advice.
• The potential of these areas for delivering outputs beyond production might be more readily realised by refining the current definition of LFA (e.g. into subcategories).

Economic support for farmers and crofters in LFAs is vital. In varying degrees of economic support and time, all participants in this study received at some point and in some way (direct or project specific) funding from Scottish Government or other organisations (e.g. NatureScot, projects for peatland restoration, RSPB etc).

In this section we present the general comments from farmers and crofters regarding funding in general, rather than specific schemes. These findings indicate that further research is needed to investigate the design of specific schemes.

It is important to note that participation was high in the online workshops where we discussed support for sustainable and regenerative practices because attendees wanted to be heard and to have an impact on how Scottish Government will distribute the resources.

Participants emphasised that people making policy have limited understanding of complexities of LFA land and that the policies being created for LFAs do not always correspond to the reality of managing that land. Therefore, they considered that a good understanding of LFA land is needed by policy makers to make good decisions about appropriate support schemes. They claimed that policy is disconnected from LFA farming. There is a need to tailor support schemes for LFAs or smaller farms/crofts.

Several comments highlighted concerns and a lack of trust between farmers and government. This distrust is reinforced by the farm inspections, the disconnection farmers perceive from policy makers, lack of communication (e.g. penalisations for farmers when they need to be flexible in their practices); too many, and too different, interests and information between organisations and policies (which needs to be overcome to create shared goals). Trust is established successfully, on a case-by-case basis, when more agency is encouraged (e.g. crofters and farmers come up with a plan to show to government, based on their knowledge of an area).

Also, participants thought flexibility is needed especially in LFAs and when sustainable and regenerative agricultural practices are implemented. This issue has been highlighted in several other studies and there are examples of how to implement more flexibility (e.g. Netherlands). The main reasons for requesting flexibility were climate unpredictability and specific conditions that affect farming on LFA land.

Several times participants mentioned the need for rewarding work which has already been done, i.e. to reward people who are already maintaining good soil health and high biodiversity (for example) in LFA land, which was often the case amongst the participants interviewed. They highlighted the fact that the increases in biodiversity from maintaining good practices in a piece of land or habitat are less notable than when you apply practices or create a new habitat afresh. Maintaining habitat and less notable increases of biodiversity on those habitats which are already transformed needs to be recognised and supported. In a few instances, some participants actually asked if they needed to destroy what has already been done in order to start again and become eligible to access the support schemes.

The possibility of collective applications was seen as an opportunity for specific crofting areas. These findings tend to suggest that the presence of social capital could increase the probabilities of collective application success in achieving the four outcomes from sustainable and regenerative practices. However, more research is needed to understand how widely this could be applied and how the support would be structured and awarded.

The view that schemes are aften too prescriptive was expressed on numerous occasions. This is especially important for farmers and crofters who are willing to experiment and explore other ways of production that are in line with sustainable and regenerative agriculture goals. Freedom for those farmers and crofters is highly valued and, in some cases, they do not have the economic resources to do it alone. More freedom for farmers and crofters could be conferred through small flexible funding awards which allow for the work they need to carry out.

Other issues highlighted were related to “red tape”: i.e., that schemes require too much detailed information (being intrusive); the constraint of levels of computer literacy and IT skills; that schemes should be prescriptive by geographic area; also the issue that it is too expensive to pay for agents or advisors to apply for support; that the schemes are too competitive; that the agri-environment schemes are outdated (insufficient funds) due to inflation, i.e. they are not providing an incentive, as schemes do not cover costs of work that is needed; the challenge that schemes keep changing and are hard to understand; changing deadlines.

Participants regarded markets as a barrier to implementation of sustainable and regenerative agriculture. Since markets dictated the structure of how support can be handed to farmers, they saw that as a limitation. In addition, they mentioned that markets do not care about how food is produced, therefore it is very difficult to produce sustainably and regeneratively.

The last point that we would like to raise is about advisors. Participants in this research have had varying experiences regarding their contact with advisors. There was a general consensus, however, that advisors provide good advice but with certain limitations: they are not always knowledgeable about the local context, do not know how to work the system in the land manager’s favour, and that they were expensive. In some cases, the costs of advice are high and there is no certainty of getting the economic support that the advisor is helping them to apply for.

Carbon calculators needed to be carried out with an advisor and were considered not worth the time and money especially for smaller farms and crofts. In general terms, participants mentioned that simplifying schemes would allow farmers to apply for the support by themselves.

Payment reintroduction was mentioned, notably Land Management Contracts which were opened to farmers for two years (2005-2006) and transformed into Land Management Options. Farmers and crofters mentioned it as an example of the flexible support options that they could access.

Discussions about ‘payment by results’ schemes were around the difficulty for controlling external factors and the risks associated with outcome-based support if those outcomes could not be achieved or evidenced.

Solutions highlighted during this study were as follows:

• Direct support from local customers and better product labelling (e.g., crofting tartan label) to make it clear where food comes from and the values behind it.
• More courses and knowledge exchange funded – e.g. hill sheep farming course could be taught at agricultural college
• Local food networks should be supported.
• Localised policies tailored to geographic areas.
• Collective advice could be given for common land (e.g. common grazings) or other areas of collective interest, for example held at local community spaces; this could be especially beneficial in crofting communities; participants noted the cultural history of the crofting community working closely together.

2.7 Definition of sustainable and regenerative agriculture

Key messages

• Farmers and crofters could benefit from a clear definition and description of what is and what is not “regenerative agriculture” and how to “measure” regenerative agriculture. Implementing agroecology as a change in the food system, in some geographical LFAs could be of benefit.
• The terms ‘regenerative’ and ‘sustainable’ agriculture have widely varying meanings to participants.

In the Agricultural Reform Route Map (2024) regenerative agriculture is defined as “a collection of farming practices with a focus on renewing and conserving soils, landscapes and ecosystems”.

It considers any type of farming activity which generates production and improves the environment.

In a literature and practitioners review, Newton et al. (2020) found that although “regenerative agriculture” has received increasing attention across the globe there is no clear definition or common usage of the term. The ideas of “regenerative farming” are based on processes (i.e. practices) or outcomes (e.g. increased soil health). Having no clear definition of what we refer to when we talk about “regenerative agriculture” offers advantages and disadvantages. On one hand the idea is inclusive of all types of interpretation, types of actions, practices and types of farmers. It is flexible and adaptable to the heterogeneity of farming and crofting systems and regenerative practices could be implemented within any type of production methods (Rai, et al., 2025). On the other hand, this inclusivity creates ambiguity, and suggests that any approach or practice could be called “regenerative”.

We found similar results in this research. Informants presented a variety of understandings of what regenerative means to them, as Isla mentioned:

“it's really a mindset […] and for a better word, a way of life, not just picking out different practices that are convenient to you on the farm […] you actually go a step further and you start to bring back the original good condition that should have been there so you're reverting back to a better condition of the habitats to resources, going back to actually looking after natural cycles. Water cycle, carbon cycle, nitrogen cycle”.

For others the term should include the community dimension of farming:

“[It is a] reductive and very technocratic way leaving out [important] aspects [such as] how people work collaboratively in community, how agricultural practices can be socially sustainable” (Rhona)

Interviewees expressed confusion and for some of them discontent about using the term, as Iona commented:

“…to me it has a lot of different definitions […] focus on letting things go wild and that seems to be how well small areas on our island […] that's what they seem to be doing and labelling it under regeneration. […] I don't agree with that”.

Others criticised the term as lacking consistency and clarity

“well I don't think we got long enough to talk about that really. Yeah, it's a not terribly helpful term…[…]. We were organic farmers, I understand, organics’ legal definition laid down a set of standards at European level you know says what you can do and what you can't do in a very detailed way, so you know you can tell whether a farm's organic or not organic” “I think it's a wholly useless term” (Campbell).

Scholars and practitioners have used the concepts of agroecology and regenerative agriculture to some extent as similar or complementary yet, although they share some practices and objectives, they are fundamentally different. Regenerative agriculture promotes improvements within the existing agricultural model, enhancing resilience to climate change and improving soil health; agroecology in contrast proposes a change of paradigm to the entire food system and including the social and economic dimensions of food production (Lozada and Karley, 2022; Aguilar and Paulino 2025).

From the results of this study, farmers and crofters could benefit from more description or clarity about how “regenerative farming” is used or defined by Scottish Government, for example by outlining the objectives, principles and practices of regenerative agriculture (British Ecological Society, 2025).