Recommendation 14

The Department is developing the ELM scheme through a system of ‘co-design’, which they have now started to refer to as “co-creation”. This is working collaboratively with farmers and others to obtain continuous feedback and input as they iterate the design of the programme.34 Both the National Farmers’ Union and the Tenant Farmers Association told us that they felt very engaged in the process, but both also raised concerns about the effectiveness of the Department’s approach. The National Farmers’ Union highlighted the importance of ensuring that farmers’ first engagement with the scheme in 2022 is a positive one, to keep them engaged into the future. It told us that it did not feel that there was a co-ordinated approach to the scheme’s development and that co-design process was creating “a little bit of chaos”, explaining that “everyone is chipping in, and nobody really knows exactly where scheme design is getting to”.35 It described Defra’s approach to co- design as “scatter-gun” and asserted that co-design cannot replace consultation, and that the Department’s plans were lacking in detail, particularly around the later components of the scheme, Local Nature Recovery and Landscape Recovery.36 The Tenant Farmers Association felt that it was inputting heavily into the design but, as it was not seeing specific details from the Department, it could not support its members in understanding what is planned. It also told us that, due to the focus on the co-design strategy, the Department was mistaking activity for progress in the scheme design.37 In addition to engaging with farming organisations on co-designing the scheme, the Department told us that it was 30 Q 12; Committee of Public Accounts, Progress on the Common Agricultural Policy Delivery Programme, Fortieth Report of Session 2016–17, HC 766,10 February 2017 31 Committee of Public Accounts, The Common Agricultural Policy Delivery Programme, Twenty-sixth Report of Session 2015–16, HC 643, 2 March 2016 32 Committ