An ambitious plan to restore England's nature in the coming decades has been undermined after the government inserted a clause allowing it to terminate contracts with just one year's notice, conservationists say.
The aim of the project was to fund the restoration of landscape dimensions across thousands of hectares, whether on large estates or in farms and nature reserves. The idea was to create vast reserves for rare species to thrive—projects that would continue to be promoted as a decades-long commitment to securing habitat for wildlife.
Conservationists have warned that these changes, as well as underfunding, will lead to low take-up and fewer protected areas for nature. They say it is not practical to allow contracts to be canceled after a year as this would leave landowners with farmed land they could no longer farm and with too little time to convert it again.
Landscape restoration is the most ambitious part of the Environmental Land Management Programs (ELMS) introduced by the previous Conservative government to replace EU agricultural subsidies.
The programs were originally intended to be split into three areas, with landscape restoration receiving a third of the £2.4 billion a year funding pot. But this week Environment Secretary Emma Reynolds announced that just £500 million would be allocated to the projects over 20 years.
Jake Fiennes is conservation director at the Holkham estate, one of the government's first landscape restoration pilot projects in 2022. He has created more than 2,000 hectares (4,940 acres) of wildlife-rich habitat along the north Norfolk coast, including restoring wetlands that have already attracted thriving birdlife such as the return of rare spoonbills.
Fiennes said: “£500m over 20 years is nonsense. It should be a third of that [farming] Budget – we could have worked with that. If you're the person on the street, £500 million sounds like the most enormous amount of money. But when you consider the environment and food budget is £2.4 billion a year, that's a fifth of that over 20 years. A tiny fraction of that for the most ambitious nature projects.”
Spread across the landscape restoration programs it will only be a few million pounds a year. But what is being asked of landowners is incredibly expensive and ambitious, says Fiennes.
“Some of the pilots are asking for so much more than that because they understand the value of land. And if you subject it to permanent land use change, you permanently lose its value. Then you implement your plan, like converting a river and completely redesigning a landscape. That costs money,” he added.
The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) has claimed the funding gap could be made up through private investment. However, farmers say this is unlikely as the schemes remain vulnerable to being withdrawn with just a year's notice.
National Farmers' Union president Tom Bradshaw said: “Defra's plans for landscape restoration projects under [environmental improvement plan] The aim is to combine state resources with private investments. However, experience shows that attracting private investment is challenging, raising concerns about how farmers can confidently involve their companies in projects.”
Toby Perkins, chairman of the environmental audit committee, said: “Do the government's commitments match its ambitions? The £500 million for landscape restoration is urgently needed, but at £25 million a year I am very skeptical that it provides anything close to adequate funding.”
The government's environmental improvement plan announced this week has watered down overall ambitions for nature on farmland.
after newsletter advertising
Alice Groom, head of sustainable land policy at the RSPB, said: “In just two years we have gone from requiring 65-80% of farmers to manage 10% of their land for nature, to a new target of just 41% of farmers farming just 7%. This is a huge step backwards.”
“The science is clear: habitat on farms must be of high quality, have the right mix and be in the right locations to support thriving wildlife populations. The government is simply wrong when it proposes to force 41% of farms to farm 7% of the land in almost any condition.” [sustainable farming incentive (SFI)] option will be enough. It won't. And there is a risk of further decline.
“The declining numbers of species like corn buntings and turtledoves tell us that pollinators, beneficial insects, soils and climate-resilient landscapes are under stress.”
Farmers and other landowners who signed up to the program found that their contracts allowed the government to terminate them for convenience – through no fault of their own – with as little as 12 months’ notice.
Fiennes said he would not yet join the new programs and hoped to renegotiate with the government.
He added: “Some legal advice says not to sign because the government can end the program in 12 months. If you've made a potentially irreversible land use change, you're safe. Pension funds, banks – if they know there's a government commitment for a certain period of time, they'll top it up, but at the moment it can be repealed in a year.”
There have been difficulties and delays in environmentally friendly agriculture programs. Under the Labor government, funding was cut by £100 million and the SFI was abruptly frozen, locking out farmers. Ministers say they plan to reopen the SFI in the new year.
A Defra spokesman said: “The £500 million for landscape restoration projects is a deposit that will go a long way towards protecting and restoring nature across England.”