Defra published a blog on its website on Monday 26th September, in response to the “significant media attention” and comments “from environmental groups such as the RSPB, Wildlife Trusts, National Trust, Green Alliance and Wildlife and Countryside Link.”
Whilst we are pleased to see a response to the concerns raised by ourselves and other environmental groups, Defra have offered little reassurance that the changes the UK Government have announced will not seriously threaten our environmental protections. A lack of clarity about next steps for schemes to support farmers, coupled with a continued insistence on deregulation, means Defra raises more questions than it answers.
On the Environmental Land Management Scheme (ELMs):
-We welcome the recognition from Defra that a strong environment and a strong economy go hand-in-hand. We are also pleased to see them reiterate their commitment to protecting 30% of the UK’s land and ocean for nature’s recovery by 2030.
-However, many questions remain unanswered and the reassurances offered do not address the concerns that have been raised. Defra states it is not scrapping the schemes – this is a useful start. After years of work, public money, and planning, abandoning the schemes at this stage would be outrageous. Yet the blog does note that Defra will be looking at “how best to deliver the schemes to see where and how improvements can be made”.
What does this mean? Will the reach of the schemes be significantly curtailed? Will the budget set aside for delivering ELMS be protected, or will funding be reduced? Will the principles and objectives of the schemes shift, and will other payment options be introduced alongside? Will the Government introduce schemes this year to restore hedgerows and support Integrated Pest Management, as has previously been promised, helping to improve resilience to pests and disease, support productivity, and reduce pesticide use? Will the Government be rolling out Local Nature Recovery Schemes as planned to allow farmers to do more for nature, climate, and water quality? Farmers and environmental organisations alike need urgent answers to these questions.
-Defra does not specifically address the rumours that it is considering area-based payments with “all options on the table”, as reported by multiple outlets. These rumours have been deemed credible enough for former Environment Secretary Michael Gove MP, alongside other senior Tory MPs, to write a letter in The Times urging the Government not to drop or dilute ELMS. To calm these fears, the Secretary of State must come out to clarify the UK Government’s position on this as a matter of urgency.
-Defra also needs to clarify what this “rapid review” will mean for the continued rollout of ELMS, which has already begun. Some of the standards in the SFI scheme have been rolled out, and many others are being piloted or are due for introduction shortly. The first successful projects in the Landscape Recovery scheme were announced earlier this month. Any delay to the rollout of these various strands of ELMS would be an unacceptable waste of public money, impact resilience, and heap even more uncertainty onto farmers and land managers.
The review of these long-awaited schemes will only undermine farmers’ confidence – they badly need to plan ahead without the rug being pulled out from under them. The Government’s Food Security Report 2021 identified climate change and biodiversity loss as the biggest threats to UK food production. Farming in harmony with nature is not just good for wildlife, it is critical for food security. Now is not the time for more reviews, dither, and delay – now we must get on with the job and fast-track farming reforms that were promised in the manifesto this government was elected on.
-We don’t need to just protect the environment. We need to restore the environment. The UK is one of the most nature depleted countries on earth. ELMs is a key opportunity to support farmers and land managers in delivering environmental benefits that the market can’t provide. This in turn supports food production through healthy soils, plentiful pollinators and clean water. ELMs are essential to making this happen.
On wider changes to nature regulations:
-Concerns remain about proposed reform of the Habitats Regulations, an issue we highlighted at the time of the Nature Recovery Green Paper consultation. Though we welcome Defra reiterating their legally binding species abundance target and the commitments within the 25 Year Environment Plan, we believe the time taken to develop new legislation, guidance and regulations would detract from the action needed to meet these goals. Both developers and conservationists understand how the current system works – the rumoured changes would create uncertainty for all, with little benefit for nature.
The UK Government now has less than eight years to meet its legally binding target to halt the decline in the abundance of species by 2030. With wildlife still in serious decline, reaching this target will require strengthening existing rules to put nature into recovery. Will the Government look at ways to bring nature back, such as introducing a new Wildbelt designation to protect land being managed for nature’s recovery?
-Legislation announced by Liz Truss and Kwasi Kwarteng last week only heightens our concern for the future of environmental protections. The Retained EU Law (REUL) Bill gives ministers the power to repeal or revoke any EU legislation, such as the Habitats Regulations, without replacing it. The Growth Plan promises that the burden of environmental assessments for infrastructure development will be reduced, with the habitats and species regulations reformed. The ongoing political narrative suggests that the Habitats Regulations and other EU environmental legislation is at great risk – particularly as the REUL Bill requires that new legislation should not impose an additional burden on business.
-The blog is extremely ambiguous about the actual changes the UK Government would like to see to environmental regulations, like the Habitats Regulations. It talks about the intention to “remove burdensome EU requirements which create paperwork and stall development but do not necessarily protect the environment.” This is hardly a convincing defence of environmental protections and undermines the commitments to nature and wildlife given earlier in the video. The UK Government must urgently clarify what changes it is intending to make and demonstrate that these will not weaken environmental protections.
-The planning process is not just paperwork. It ensures everyone knows how the UK Government’s planning policies are to be applied and has a say in what can be built – from housing and infrastructure developers to conservation charities like The Wildlife Trusts, as well as local people who care about the future of their city, town or village. Labelling the planning system as “bureaucratic” belittles the important role it plays in ensuring liveable communities for all. We have significant concerns about the proposed investment zones that are exempt from democratic planning processes.
-The Wildlife Trusts are very worried about the Growth Plan’s statement that “the planning system will not stand in the way of investment and development”. This pledge, along with the new investment zones, risks weakening protections and putting nature and wildlife at threat. Defra’s blog does nothing to reassure us that this is not on the cards, at a time when we should be strengthening nature protections in the planning process to ensure we can tackle the nature and climate crises.
On general tone and messaging of Defra’s response:
The language in Defra’s blog is different in tone and emphasis to Defra’s own policy statements from earlier in the year. Environmental benefits now appear to be an add-on to food production and short-term financial support. The best way to increase the resilience of farming systems is to reduce dependency on inputs and instead restore natural processes. The language in the Government’s Growth Plan of “reducing the burden of environmental assessments” reveals that the true intention behind much of these interventions is not about securing nature’s recovery but deregulation at any cost. This will mean more sewage in our rivers, more wildlife at risk of extinction, and more chemicals polluting our countryside. Nature’s recovery and sustainable food production requires robust, consistent and enforceable regulations. It may be possible to improve on some existing regulations, but seeing them as a burden undermines the critical role they play.
Written by Joan Edwards
Director of Policy and Public Affairs at The Wildlife Trusts