After signaling a review, the government has cast doubt on a substantial revamp of farm subsidies that reward English landowners for environmental work.
Environmental groups and some farmers are concerned that the government may tone down environmental land management schemes (ELMS), while the NFU urged a postponement.
ELMS is meant to replace the European Union’s unified agricultural policy (CAP).
A representative for the government said that it was “rapidly examining” its preparations.
ELMS was the most significant change to England’s farm policy in forty years, implemented after Brexit to replace CAP payments.
These handouts had an annual value of approximately £3.5 billion, and the majority of payments were based on the amount of land each farmer held, leading to complaints that the payments favored the wealthy.
Several landowners and farmers who were scheduled to meet with the Department of Environment, Food, and Rural Affairs to discuss the new ELMS subsidy framework had their meetings canceled.
Hilary McGrady, the director-general of the National Trust, issued an unusually forthright statement in response to the review’s news.
She stated that the government appeared to be moving in the opposite direction rather than intensifying efforts to protect the environment.
Martin Lines, a farmer from Cambridgeshire and the head of the Nature-Friendly Farming Network, an organization that promotes sustainable agriculture, stated that any delay to the ELMS program would deny farmers vital assistance to adapt to a changing environment.
“If the government is delaying ELMS, it is not fulfilling its leadership responsibilities to maintain momentum and build resilience,” he said.
Three payment systems comprise ELMS: the sustainable agricultural incentive, local nature recovery, and landscape recovery.
Under the concept, farmers might receive subsidies for a variety of environmental projects, including improving water and soil quality, providing wildlife habitats, and rewilding entire regions.
Those with smaller farms, however, were concerned that the new eco-friendly approach would not provide them with enough benefits to remain in business.
Minette Batters, president of the NFU, stated that her organization desired a delay in the implementation of the plans.
“We requested a delay not because we wanted to maintain the status quo, but because we believed the SFI need more specificity and profitability,” she explained.
We have always advocated for a more effective approach that benefits both food production and the environment.
Additionally, she advocated that the larger-scale rewilding projects should be funded using private rather than public monies.
“There are billions and billions of pounds in green money seeking investment opportunities in wild environments. We need to ensure that the private sector operates efficiently “She stated,
According to an analysis published earlier this year by the think tank Green Alliance, delaying ELMS by two years would slash agricultural emission reductions by half by 2035.
The news of the review prompted environmental groups to issue warnings.
Craig Bennett, chief executive officer of The Wildlife Trusts, remarked as follows: “If we back to an agricultural system in which people receive government funds based on the amount of land they own, one of the few potential advantages of Brexit would be lost. It will be unreasonable and untenable.”
Richard Benwell, chief executive officer of Wildlife and Countryside Link, a consortium of rural conservation groups, stated, “Farmers should be rewarded more and well for aggressive action to ensure environmental recovery, in addition to delivering nutritious food.”
He stated that any proposal that farmers be compensated based on the quantity of land they owned was unacceptable “It would be a waste of years of effort and a missed opportunity to develop a vibrant agriculture sector that coexists with nature. Area-based payments are wasteful and unfair “.
A spokesman for Defra stated that environmental land management remained vital, but that the department was reevaluating its objectives “given the demands on farmers and the government’s goals to increase food security and economic growth.”
She added, “In light of the current global economic situation, we are aware that the cost of inputs has increased, which may make it more difficult for farmers to both improve the natural environment and support food production, so we will continue to work with the sector to ensure that the outcomes desired by the British people are achieved.”
In the United Kingdom, agricultural policy is devolved, and each nation implements its support programs.
