Identify and Work with Sellers

Key points

• The aggregation model is designed to centralise MRV (lowering costs), reducing the administrative burden on individual landowners while allowing each farmer independence to manage and maintain their individual woodland creation project.
• Grants such as England Woodland Creation Offer (EWCO) and Woodland Creation Planning Grant (WCPG) are essential to the model and underpin early-stage financial feasibility.
• The financing approach evolved over the course of the project: although the initial plan involved an SPV, the project demonstrated that EFG should instead act as the sales point for carbon credits, as the WCC already provides mechanisms for grouping smaller projects together.
• The final model separates operational delivery from commercial execution, supporting farmer buy‑in while ensuring market-facing consistency for buyers.
• Legal and tax advice from Thrings and Land Family Business confirmed that the structure avoids land transfers and removes Capital Gains Tax (CGT) and Stamp Duty Land Tax (SDLT) risks.

Background

The Environmental Farmers Group (EFG) developed and tested an Aggregated Woodland Planting Model in collaboration with Zora Ecosystems (formerly Zulu Ecosystems), supported by a one‑year grant from Round 3 of the Natural Environment Investment Readiness Fund (NEIRF). The purpose of this model was to assess whether grouping farmer‑led woodland creation projects could effectively overcome long‑standing barriers relating to scale, cost and administrative complexity.

EFG wanted to test the model within catchments where EFG’s cooperative approach was the strongest, with a dense membership base spread across a large land area. The catchments chosen were the most advanced in EFG’s model and were ready for woodland aggregation at the time.

There was a clear alignment between EFG and Zora. Prior to the NEIRF project beginning in 2024, Zora had already started woodland landscape assessments across these catchments in 2023, identifying the best opportunities for woodland creation by analysing land cover, soil types and available grants, and approached EFG given its existing cooperative model in the landscape.

Recognising that a woodland aggregation framework would require significant background research and detailed farmer engagement, the partners applied jointly for NEIRF funding to support the necessary development time. A Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) was established to outline how the organisations would work together, building on their complementary strengths. While Zora brought technical expertise, mapping tools and experience in carbon market processes, EFG contributed local relationships, farmer trust and an established mechanism for coordinating environmental delivery across multiple holdings.

EFG’s conservation planning involves identifying opportunities at individual farm level for enhanced environmental delivery and aggregating them to align with broader government targets. As Hamish Drake, Project Manager at Natural Capital Advisory (which provides the executive function for EFG) explained, the catchment‑level planning process aimed to “work out what our farmers need to deliver to try and match those targets or beat them.” These targets drew on the EIP 2023 goals for woodland and hedgerow creation (insert what they are?).

Early Engagement

Early engagement demonstrated the complexities of developing an aggregated model and the importance of personalised engagement with farmers.

Given EFG’s existing membership base in the catchments, EFG used its regular meeting rhythm to introduce the proposed NEIRF project. The woodland aggregation model was first introduced as part of a standard membership meeting, where initial feedback suggested interest but also uncertainty. Early engagement continued through follow‑up conversations, email communications and invitations for farmers to participate in one‑to‑one discussions. Although interest was evident, uptake was initially slow. This was due in part to the practical difficulty of scheduling individual meetings with busy farmers, some of whom later dropped out due to time pressures or uncertainty. Seasonal timing also played a major role, as farmers often faced peak workloads at critical decision‑making points.

Several farmers expressed concerns during these early engagements. Some felt their farms already had sufficient woodland, while others preferred to use their available environmental land for alternative habitats. Several farmers had preconceived notions about woodland creation, viewing it as potentially bureaucratic or complex.

To address these barriers, EFG and Zora placed significant emphasis on personalised engagement.

Each farmer met one‑to‑one with an EFG cluster facilitator or environmental consultant to discuss their land and ambitions. EFG ensured that farmers retained autonomy in their decisions, providing support and guidance rather than instructions. For example, EFG sometimes helped identify suitable woodland creation areas by reviewing historical hydrological maps, but the final choice always remained with farmers.

In addition, every farmer who expressed interest was offered a one‑to‑one scoping meeting with Zora Ecosystems. These meetings were essential in clarifying how the WCC operates, what commitments it requires and how long‑term obligations, such as the WCC’s 100‑year permanence requirement, might affect future ownership or land management decisions.

Following this targeted engagement process, over 21 farm businesses across southern England joined the project. These farms varied significantly in scale, from 70‑hectare family farms to 3,500‑hectare estates. Their knowledge of woodland creation and carbon markets also varied. Larger estates often had dedicated woodland managers or estate managers, while smaller farms were generally less familiar with the Woodland Carbon Code (WCC).

Farmers were also integral to the design of the projects, contributing local knowledge that improved the accuracy of mapping. For example, Drake noted that, during the mapping review, a farmer might point out that a certain area of a field was at risk of flooding that hadn’t been picked up by habitat mapping, which helped refine the suitability assessments.

Building Woodland Creation Scenarios

Once initial buy‑in was achieved, EFG and Zora worked closely with the participating farms to estimate their potential woodland creation areas. This process involved detailed mapping, modelling and one‑to‑one consultations to identify suitable planting opportunities. It also required early conversations about land tenure, future ownership and the implications of long‑term woodland management obligations. Many farmers expressed concerns about committing land to woodland for up to 100 years under the WCC, particularly where uncertainty existed around future land succession or business strategy.

A project‑level scoping report was produced for each participant, providing a clear picture of the potential risks and rewards associated with woodland carbon credits. These scoping reports included cashflow expectations, granting pathways, and project timelines. For many farmers, these financial details were particularly important in assessing viability, as woodland creation involves substantial early‑stage expenditure.

Many farmers also asked questions about commercial woodland operations, such as whether commercial felling could be incorporated into WCC projects. These decisions remained entirely under farmers’ control. As Drake noted, “NCA advises EFG members on matters relating to natural capital  and leaves independent or existing advisors to work on non-natural capital decisions for the farm business, such as timber or other developments”.

Governance and Aggregation

During the early stages of the project, EFG explored the possibility of establishing a Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV) to host the WCC Group Agreement and manage carbon revenues. However, detailed legal and tax advice from Land Family Business and Thrings Solicitors highlighted several drawbacks. An SPV would introduce a double layer of taxation, as revenues would first flow into the SPV and then out to farmers. It might also trigger CGT or SDLT liabilities and risk farmers’ eligibility for Business Property Relief. This analysis led EFG to reject the SPV model.

The legal report recommended instead adopting a single Group Agreement under the Woodland Carbon Code. This structure would streamline administration by validating multiple projects under a single framework, while ensuring that projects were linked only administratively and not through shared liability. Long‑term MRV and carbon trading responsibilities would be managed via the WCC Group Agreement and supported by EFG’s Membership Agreement.

The final model also formalised a clear separation between operational delivery and commercial execution. Independent project developers would take responsibility for project development, woodland scoping and administrative tasks, while EFG would handle market engagement and the sale of carbon credits. This dual structure enhanced farmer engagement by ensuring authenticity and local trust, while providing the consistency and professionalism required by the marketplace.

Limits to the Model

The project also revealed several limitations. Smaller farms faced proportionally higher costs for woodland development, verification and MRV, even under an aggregated model. Timing was another challenge, as many farmers missed planting windows because of delays in decision‑making or competing farm priorities. The long‑term nature of woodland carbon commitments required detailed early-stage discussions on land tenure and succession planning, and some farmers were hesitant to make commitments extending beyond their business planning horizon.

Cashflow constraints were another barrier. Woodland creation involves significant upfront expenditure on planning and establishment before grants or carbon income can be accessed. This led EFG to begin exploring investment models to help bridge early-stage funding gaps. Bureaucratic hurdles within the WCC process, combined with the lack of stacking options, added further complexity and slowed progress. Although no farmers formally dropped out of the scheme, several paused their involvement due to timing challenges and uncertainties around long‑term commitments.

Key Learnings

The NEIRF project demonstrated substantial potential for replicating the woodland aggregation model across other catchments. The cooperative structure, the ability to group multiple projects under the WCC and the support provided by grant funding all contributed to the project’s scalability. Project leaders observed that farmers were particularly interested in creating woodland on marginal or unproductive land, where the economic trade‑offs were more favourable.

However, they also identified areas for improvement. Earlier and more diverse communication with farmers would have helped to align expectations from the outset. Additional resources for farmer engagement would have helped to overcome early delays, while more detailed early-stage project scoping would have helped set clearer budgets, verification milestones and timelines.

Next Steps

Collectively, the participating farms identified just under 500 hectares of potential woodland creation, equating to an estimated 257,000 tonnes of CO₂e sequestered over 100 years.

Following the completion of the NEIRF project in June 2025, EFG plans to move forward by registering an initial 100 hectares under the Woodland Carbon Code. EFG will also finalise commercial agreement with a project developer and establish a Group Agreement to enable smaller projects to participate more easily. EFG will continue exploring investment mechanisms to address upfront cashflow challenges, ensuring that participating landowners have the financial support needed to enter and benefit from the woodland carbon market.