The key findings were:

• The T&Ts have generated a range of templates and methods to inform the structure and format of Land Management Plans (LMP). These range from structured questionnaire-style plans and written reports, to scorecards and digital platforms. All these templates include as a minimum an environmental baseline and a potential public goods delivery assessment.
• T&T state that there is role for advice throughout all components of ELM. However, the amount and type of advice required will vary between individual farmers, sectors, and geographies.
• Defra has received further evidence demonstrating that farmers feel there is value in their involvement in discussions and decisions on Spatial Prioritisation. There is an emerging consensus that the priority setting should be done through a combination of ‘top-down’ and ‘bottom-up’ approaches. Defra are exploring 6 different models and approaches to governance to determine how this could work in the future scheme.
• On collaboration for delivering environmental outcomes the consensus remains that most land manager groups will require some form of facilitation, regardless of size, sector, and focus. However, recent findings show that many farmers favour a ‘bottom-up’ approach in which they maintain a sense of ownership over group work, with facilitators playing a supporting role only.
• On the payments theme T&Ts suggest that the income forgone plus costs (IF+C) approach does not provide a strong enough incentive for farmers to join a scheme.
• There is clear interest from the private sector in blending finance to pay for environmental outcomes under landscape recovery agreements. However, one trial working with a water company has identified that conflicting regulatory requirements and baselines are a barrier to blending finance.