The government recently consulted on England’s Land Use Framework (LUF). This is a major milestone after it was initially promised by the government in 2022.
Done right, the LUF could safeguard profitable agriculture on productive land and drive investment into activities on less productive land that reduce flooding, mitigate climate change and improve water quality. Nature restoration would help to rejuvenate rural areas, giving more people much needed access to nature and doubling the number of jobs on the land.
But getting there requires more than what’s been presented in the consultation so far. Crucially, the consultation lacks indication of how the LUF will link to policies capable of driving the land use change it sets out. The LUF is just that – a framework – and it must be joined up to policies that drive the outcomes it is striving for.
Done right, the LUF could support the economy in a variety of ways; we discuss four below.
1. An evidence-based framework will raise investor confidence in nature restoration
It’s positive the consultation has set out the change needed to hit climate and habitat creation targets, but this should extend to water quality and the target to end nature’s decline by 2030 too. To have the most impact, it needs to guide how the limited pot of the Environmental Land Management (ELM) funding is spent, the biggest lever England has to make the plans a reality.
Right now, ELM funding isn’t reaching areas with most potential to improve nature and climate outcomes, where the lowest trade-offs with food production will be. Much of the post-Brexit agri-environment spending has gone to arable areas, where payments for activities that don’t produce food are – at times – displacing profitable food production. One example is the generous funding for herbal leys on arable land (temporary grasslands introduced into the rotation for at least two years) which have displaced traditional break crops like beans.
To protect rural livelihoods and communities, much more money must reach areas where businesses struggle to make a profit from food production alone, such as the uplands and moorlands. Farmers should have more opportunity to expand the environmental part of their businesses, which could create jobs, and potentially boost tourism revenue in national parks (though this needs full quantification).
As we’ve demonstrated before, environmental outcomes could eventually be privately funded. Setting out a clear plan for land use is a good step towards addressing some of the policy uncertainty hampering private investment, but targeted government policy is needed beyond the scope of the LUF to unblock routes to investment.
There are various levers the LUF could pull to change where the ELM budget is invested. First, is the split of funding across the various ELM schemes. So far, the Sustainable Farming Incentive (SFI) has received the lion’s share of new agri-environment spending, which has mostly gone to arable areas: productive land with more profitable farm businesses. Proportionately more of the available budget should go to the Higher Tier and Landscape Recovery schemes which are better suited to types of land management possible in areas like National Parks.
Entry criteria is needed for these schemes that reflects LUF priorities. The Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra), which administers the schemes, should use the LUF to be more upfront about the outcomes it wants, to help guide farmers and land managers in shaping applications. This would also show private investors where to invest, by indicating which land use changes are a priority, and give confidence they will remain so for many decades.
Finally, there should be more restrictions on where ELM actions apply. For example, it doesn’t make sense to support activities like growing winter bird on lowland peat. Drained peatland is a major source of greenhouse gas emissions.
2. High value production like horticulture should expand
It’s a mistake that the consultation doesn’t consider changes to land use between agricultural sectors. In particular, horticulture is one of the most efficient and high value sectors in UK agriculture, generating £3 billion a year (a tenth of the value of UK agriculture) from less than one per cent of the country’s farmland. Yet the consultation does not explore the possibility of switching more land to domestic horticulture. The potential market and income is huge as we import 84 per cent of our fruit and half of our vegetables.
The LUF should identify where horticulture could be expanded, especially outside peatlands. With the right incentives and planning, we estimate growing more fruit and vegetables could add an £2.3 billion to the UK economy and create 23,520 new rural jobs.
3. Subsidies for bioenergy crops should end
The expansion of bioenergy crops set out in the LUF consultation does not make sense for the public purse or the climate. Already one per cent of the UK’s farmland grows bioenergy crops which are used for fuel. Bioenergy crops are likely to increase emissions, because they compete with food production and so displace it to areas of previously intact habitats abroad. The emissions that arise from clearing this land for agriculture are so great that it would have been better to stick with diesel.
It is disappointing that the LUF consultation does not grapple with the trade-offs bioenergy crops create. The consultation reiterates the expansion of bioenergy crops to an estimated five per cent of farmland first set out under the strategy to move away from fossil fuels. Our previous analysis shows there are better routes to net zero. Furthermore, this is a loss making activity that requires government subsidy. Given the pressure on land, it would be better to prioritise land for activities that generate economic value, and cut – rather than create – costs paid by the public.
4. Doing things right will cut the cost of living
We’re all paying for the poor land management of the past. Our calculations show flood risk, poor water quality and climate change impacts on the food system added at least £233 to the average household’s bills this year. This means the costs of environmental degradation are being passed onto the public, whilst food, water and insurance companies continue to make profits.
An effective Land Use Framework could change this. It could get the best value out of taxpayer spend by cutting subsidies for unhelpful activities like bioenergy crops, whilst driving more investment to support farmers to restore the environment, and growing genuinely profitable activities like horticulture.
We believe these priorities should be at the heart of the government’s forthcoming decisions about land use, as a foundation for a greener, fairer, more prosperous English countryside.
Discover more from Inside track
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
