Impact of government policies on biodiversity and the countryside

Approximate read time: 35 minutes

The House of Lords is scheduled to debate the following motion on 13 November 2025:

Lord Grayling (Conservative) to move that this House takes note of the impact of the government’s policies on biodiversity and the countryside.

1.  Importance of biodiversity and scale of biodiversity loss

The government has recognised the importance of biodiversity in environmental, economic and cultural terms. In a biodiversity strategy published jointly with the devolved governments in February 2025, it said:

Biodiversity is key to all the processes that support life on Earth. We rely on it for our essential needs, like food, shelter, energy and medicine, as well as for the ecosystem services it provides, such as climate regulation, flood management, water purification, disease and pest control, and pollination. Additionally, more than half of the world’s gross domestic product (GDP) (equivalent to estimates of between $44–58tn) is highly or moderately dependent on nature.

Biodiversity also holds deep cultural significance. It not only provides a sense of place but also offers endless opportunities for recreation and inspiration amid our diverse landscapes. It plays a pivotal role in fostering spiritual and religious connections, shaping our identity and influencing how we perceive the world and one another.^[1]

The government said that “globally, nature and the contributions it makes to humanity are under severe threat and biodiversity is declining faster than at any time in human history”.^[2] It said that the extent and condition of ecosystems in the UK “remain affected by environmental pressures, including climate change and pollution”. The government cited the ‘State of nature’ report on the UK’s biodiversity, published in 2023 by a partnership of environmental organisations, academic institutions and government agencies. This report found that the UK had “experienced a significant loss of biodiversity” over at least the previous 50 years and that the UK was “one of the most nature-depleted countries on Earth”.^[3]

The ‘State of nature’ report found:

• The abundance of 682 terrestrial and freshwater species has on average fallen by 32% across England since 1970. Within this general trend, 316 species have declined in abundance (46%) and 161 species have increased (24%).
• The English distributions of 4,815 invertebrate species on average decreased by 18% since 1970. Stronger declines were seen in some insect groups which provide key ecosystem functions such as pollination (average 22% decrease species’ distributions) and pest control (40% decrease). Whereas insect groups providing freshwater nutrient cycling initially declined before recovering to above the 1970 value (average 50% increase).
• Since 1970, the distributions of 64% of flowering plant species and 68% of bryophytes (mosses and liverworts) have decreased across England, compared to increases of 18% and 22% of flowering plant and bryophyte species respectively. In contrast, many lichen species have shown a strong recovery since 1980, with 63% of species’ distributions increasing, compared to 31% declining.
• Of 8,840 species in England that have been assessed using International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) regional red list criteria, 13% have been classified as threatened with extinction.^[4]

The Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC), which advises the UK government and devolved administrations on nature conservation, also publishes figures assessing biodiversity trends in the UK. Its 2024 biodiversity indicators looked at 46 individual measures making up 29 indicators.^[5]  The JNCC found that:^[6]

• 40% of measures were improving in the long term (that is, over at least 10 years or since the earliest date for which data is available), and 25% of measures were improving in the short term (over the previous five years)
• 7% of measures showed little or no overall change in the long term, and 31% showed little or no overall change in the short term
• 36% of measures showed a deterioration in the long term and 22% showed a deterioration in the short term

2.  Biodiversity targets

2.1 Environment Act 2021

The Environment Act 2021 required the government to set legally binding environmental targets including at least one biodiversity target and a species abundance target.^[7] The Conservative government consequently set the following targets in January 2023:^[8]

Biodiversity on land

• to halt the decline in species abundance by 2030
• to ensure that species abundance in 2042 is greater than in 2022, and at least 10% greater than 2030
• improve the ‘Red list index for England’ for species extinction risk by 2042 compared to 2022 levels^[9]
• to restore or create in excess of 500,000 hectares of a range of wildlife-rich habitat outside protected sites by 2042, compared to 2022 levels

Biodiversity in the sea

• 70% of the designated features in the marine protected areas network to be in favourable condition by 2042, with the remainder in recovering condition

Woodland cover

• increase total tree and woodland cover to 16.5% of land area by 2050 (from 14.5% at the time the target was set)

At the same time, the Conservative government also set environmental targets relating to water quality and availability, air quality, and resource efficiency and waste reduction.^[10]

The Environment Act 2021 also requires the government to publish an environmental improvement plan every five years.^[11] ‘A green future: Our 25-year plan to improve the environment’, published by the Conservative government in 2018, was to be treated as the first environment improvement plan.

The Conservative government then published its ‘Environmental improvement plan 2023’ (EIP23) in January 2023. This described “halt[ing] the decline in our biodiversity so we can achieve thriving plants and wildlife” as its “apex goal”.^[12] The plan set out interim targets to support progress towards the statutory biodiversity targets under the Environment Act 2021:^[13]

Biodiversity on land

• to restore or create 140,000 hectares of a range of wildlife-rich habitats outside protected sites by 31 January 2028, compared to 2022 levels
• all sites of special scientific interest (SSSIs) will have an up-to-date condition assessment by 31 January 2028
• 50% of SSSIs to have actions on track to achieve favourable condition by 31 January 2028

Biodiversity in the sea

• 48% of designated features in marine protected areas to be in favourable condition, with the remainder in recovering condition, by 31 January 2028

Woodland cover

• increase tree canopy and woodland cover by 0.26% of land area (equivalent to 34,000 hectares) by 31 January 2028

On taking office in July 2024, the Labour government commissioned a rapid review of the EIP23.^[14] Steve Reed, then secretary of state for environment, food and rural affairs, said in January 2025 that the review had concluded, and that the results of the rapid review would inform a revised EIP to be introduced before the end of 2025.^[15] Among other things, he said the revised plan would “clarify Environment Act target delivery plans and update their corresponding interim targets to cover the five-year period from completion of the review, in line with statutory requirements” and clarify the roles of government departments and bodies, environmental non-governmental organisations, businesses, farmers, landowners and managers, local government and the public in delivering the plan. In October 2025, the government stated that it intended to publish the revised plan “in due course”.^[16]

Although the government has indicated it may update the interim targets, it has stated that it is committed to the existing statutory targets. It said in October 2025 that it remains “committed to improving biodiversity by delivering on our four legally binding targets for species abundance, species extinction and habitat creation and restoration”.^[17] The government said these targets were “driving significant action for nature recovery”, alongside the other statutory targets set under the Environment Act 2021. It also said in June 2025 that it did not intend to introduce new legally binding targets on biodiversity in addition to those the Conservative government had already introduced.^[18]

The most recent annual progress report on EIP23, published in July 2025 and covering the period from April 2024 to March 2025, examined progress against the statutory targets and the current interim targets.^[19] For most of the targets, it was not yet possible to state whether progress was on track, as work was still ongoing to develop metrics and/or to gather the necessary data to assess progress once a baseline had been established. The available data showed that:

• For the interim targets on SSSIs, performance on up-to-date condition assessments was behind planned projections to meet the 2028 target. As of the end of January 2025, 28% of features have up-to-date condition assessment, with recent data from the end of March showing that over 31% of sites have assessments up to date. Performance to date has been on track to achieve the target for 50% of SSSIs to have actions on track to achieve favourable condition by 31 January 2028. At the end of January 2025, around 20% of features have actions on track, with the most recent data at just over 23% at the end of March 2025.
• For the woodland cover targets, overall provisional data showed signs of progress towards the target, but further acceleration in woodland establishment and tree planting will be necessary if the interim target is to be met.

2.2 Global biodiversity framework

In December 2022, parties to the UN Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), including the UK, agreed a new global biodiversity framework (GBF).^[20] The GBF set four goals for 2050, focused on protecting and investing in nature in a sustainable and equitable way. It also contained 23 “urgent” global targets to be achieved by 2030, including restoring 30% of degraded ecosystems; conserving 30% of land, waters and sea (often referred to as 30by30); and minimising the impacts of climate change on biodiversity and building resilience. This framework is not legally binding.

In February 2025, the government published a national biodiversity strategy and action plan for 2030, setting out how the UK would implement the GBF.^[21] This was a joint publication with the devolved governments, as environmental policy is a devolved function (subject to a small number of reserved areas), so each part of the UK has its own policies on implementing the GBF.^[22] For England, the strategy emphasised the legally binding commitments under the Environment Act 2021 and said the forthcoming revised EIP would “integrate and clarify key existing policies”.

The government said in October 2025 it would publish a 30by30 action plan in due course, setting out “concrete and targeted action” it would take to make progress on 30by30 on land in England.^[23] This followed the publication of the policy paper ‘30by30 on land in England: Confirmed criteria and next steps’ in October 2024, setting out the government’s vision for 30by30. It said:

Achieving this target will require a collaborative approach, and all sectors have a role to play. Progress towards this international commitment will be supported by current and future work across government, including the commitment for nine new national river walks and three new national forests, and delivery of our statutory targets under the Environment Act 2021. 30by30 should bring this work together and encourage further action to ensure that more nature recovery actions have a lasting legacy. This will be supported by work to review the environmental improvement plan and make sure it is fit for purpose to deliver our ambitious targets for nature, including 30by30.^[24]

The paper said that areas contributing to 30by30 would include land within and beyond protected areas, which would form the core of the nature recovery network.^[25] Protected areas include sites of special scientific interest, national nature reserves, Ramsar sites (wetlands designated under the Ramsar Convention), special areas of conservation, special protection areas, national landscapes, national parks, and the Broads. The government said new contributions towards 30by30 would be made on a voluntary basis, so encouraging and supporting buy-in from landowners and land-managers would be “crucial” to achieving this target. It intended to do this by integrating and streamlining 30by30 into existing mechanisms, such as biodiversity net gain (see section 3.2) and environmental land management (ELM) schemes (see section 3.4).

Between October 2024 and April 2025, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) ran two phases of 30by30 pilots with a small number of partners to inform the ongoing development of 30by30 guidance and assessment and reporting processes.^[26]

3.  Government policies

When setting out what actions it is taking to improve biodiversity, the government has referred to policies such as the local nature recovery strategies, environmental land management schemes, biodiversity net gain and the nature restoration fund.^[27] These policies are covered below. A more detailed breakdown of actions taken between April 2024 and March 2025 towards the EIP ‘apex goal’ of thriving plants and wildlife is set out on pages 8 to 10 of the ‘Environmental improvement plan annual progress report: April 2024 to March 2025’.

3.1 Biodiversity net gain

The Environment Act 2021 included provisions for biodiversity gain to be a condition of planning permission in England.^[28] The legislation mandates a net gain in biodiversity through the planning system, requiring a 10% increase in biodiversity after development compared to the level of biodiversity prior to the development taking place, as measured by a metric set out by Defra.^[29]

The process works as follows:^[30]

• On the development site, patches of differing vegetation types, such as woodland, are mapped. Data on their size, ecology and location are used to derive ‘biodiversity units’. This involves the use of metrics set out in legislation and supplied in spreadsheets.
• A biodiversity gain plan must be submitted showing how at least a 10% gain in units will be delivered over a 30-year period.
• This gain is achieved by enhancing or creating the same types of habitats that will be lost. This can be on the development site, on a separate registered biodiversity net gain site, or the purchase of statutory credits as a last resort.

Biodiversity net gain became mandatory for most major developments in February 2024 and for minor developments (small sites) in April 2024.^[31] Some sites are exempt, for example householder development and developments granted permission through specific powers.^[32] The government intends to apply biodiversity net gain to nationally significant infrastructure projects from May 2026.^[33]

The government ran a consultation on this between May and July 2025. It sought views on a proposed model text for a core biodiversity gain statement that could be applied to each nationally significant infrastructure project sector or whether a bespoke approach should apply to some types of project.^[34]

At the same time, the government ran a separate consultation on improving the implementation of biodiversity net gain for minor, medium and brownfield developments.^[35] The government said that early information suggested biodiversity net gain implementation had been “broadly successful for larger developments, with a greater number of developers seeking ecological advice earlier in the process and designing their site layouts to avoid impact to biodiversity and seek to deliver more habitat onsite”.^[36] It also said that an off-site market was “rapidly developing with over 2,500 hectares of habitat created or enhanced currently listed on the national register, and many more sites preparing for registration”. However, the government also said there was emerging evidence that some smaller developments and specific types of development were “finding the operation of BNG [biodiversity net gain] not as effective as it could be”. The consultation included options around extending exemptions, simplifying the small sites metric and increasing the ease of access to the off-site market.^[37]

The Office for Environmental Protection (OEP), a public body that aims to protect and improve the environment by holding the government and other public bodies to account, has expressed concerns about some of the proposals outlined in this consultation. It said the proposal to exempt minor development would “significantly narrow the scope of the biodiversity net gain and is likely to lead to habitat loss across small-site developments”.^[38] It was also concerned such an exemption could adversely affect the nascent biodiversity unit market. The OEP also said the consultation “does not present detailed evidence about the challenges that the proposals are intended to address” or “any assessment of the anticipated impact of the proposed reforms”.

The government has not yet published the outcome of either of the two consultations.

Concerns have also been raised about how biodiversity net gain will work alongside measures in the Planning and Infrastructure Bill to establish environmental delivery plans and a nature restoration levy (see section 3.2). The Conservatives have argued that publication of the bill has “chilled” the market for the provision of biodiversity net gain sites by proposing that developers will be required to pay the nature restoration levy rather than undertake their own mitigation activities.^[39] However, the government has said that biodiversity net gain and the nature restoration fund are intended to be complementary policies that will run concurrently and “in a joined-up manner”.^[40]

3.2 Nature restoration fund and environmental development plans

Through the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, introduced in March 2025, the government plans to set up a ‘Nature restoration fund’ aimed at “creating the opportunity for housing and infrastructure to do more for environmental recovery”.^[41] The bill is intended to implement Labour’s manifesto commitments to reform the planning system, accelerate infrastructure delivery and enable the construction of 1.5mn homes in England.^[42] It proposes a new system through which developers could discharge their environmental responsibilities, but critics have argued the proposals would reduce environmental protections.

At present, developers must make an assessment of the environmental impact of the development as part of the planning process. This includes the impact on protected species and habitats. Key aspects include:

• an environmental impact assessment to evaluate the potential environmental effects of the proposed development before a planning decision is made
• a habitats regulation assessment (HRA) if a development is likely to have a significant effect on designated sites in England that are important for protecting certain species and habitats^[43]
• agreement on measures to improve biodiversity by 10%, through biodiversity net gain requirements

Under a group of laws known collectively as the habitats regulations, addressing the impact of development is based on the mitigation hierarchy. This prioritises the avoidance of damage to biodiversity on site, then measures to minimise damage, then other measures to mitigate damage, and finally offsite compensation for any damage.^[44] Under the HRA regime, planning consent can be granted only once it is agreed either that there is no damage to the site, or that the following conditions have been met: there are no alternative solutions, there is overriding public interest, and compensating measures have been agreed.^[45]

The government argues the current system delivers poor outcomes for both housebuilding and nature, for example due to:^[46]

• lack of strategic coordination, as project-by-project assessment and mitigation fail to tackle wider environmental issues such as nutrient neutrality
• developers having to provide localised and expensive mitigation to maintain existing levels, without delivering improvements for nature
• delays in development while mitigations are found, or cancellations if none can be agreed

In a working paper in December 2024, the government proposed a new system it said would deliver a “win-win” for development and nature, as funding from development would deliver environmental improvements on a larger scale.^[47] To achieve this, it proposed:^[48]

• changing the current system of multiple project-specific assessments in an area to a single strategic assessment and delivery plan for that area
• making the state rather than the developer responsible for planning and implementing strategic actions for nature protection and recovery
• requiring developers to pay the state to deal with environmental impacts

To this end, part 3 of the Planning and Infrastructure Bill would establish the concept of an ‘Environmental delivery plan’ (EDP). This is a package of conservation measures set out by Natural England to address one or more environmental impacts of development.^[49] An EDP could be used to address one concern, such as conservation of a specific species, across various areas. It could also be used in respect of only one large project. The EDP would have to identify and set out information on the environmental features that were likely to be negatively affected, the relevant environmental impact of development, and the conservation measures to be put in place that would address negative impacts and contribute to an overall improvement in the environmental feature.^[50]

For all the issues covered in the EDP, the developer would be able to pay a ‘Nature restoration levy’. They would then no longer need to undertake any assessments or actions themselves on any of the issues covered by the EDP. The nature restoration levy is the fee developers would pay to Natural England to discharge their duties with respect to matters covered by an EDP. The government has said these fees would be collected into a nature restoration fund. The fund could then be used to fund farmers, habitat banks and environmental groups to deliver conservation measures.^[51] The government says that EDPs will support its target to halt the decline in species abundance by 2030.^[52]

Following publication of the bill and its passage through the House of Commons, some environmental organisations and politicians argued measures in the bill would be detrimental to the natural environment.^[53] This included the OEP, which concluded that, as drafted, the bill’s provisions were a “regression”, as they would “have the effect of reducing the level of environmental protection provided for by existing environmental law”.^[54] In April 2025, a group of 32 environmental organisations wrote an open letter to the government asking it to introduce amendments at committee stage to strengthen protections for nature.^[55] It said the overall improvement test was “weak” because it required measures included in environmental delivery plans only to be “likely” to deliver benefits.

The government maintained that the bill was a “win-win for the economy and nature”.^[56] However, the government tried to address concerns about the nature recovery measures in part 3 of the bill by introducing amendments at committee stage in the House of Lords, including:

• specifying that using measures to improve nature offsite rather than onsite could only be taken if Natural England judged they would be more effective than onsite measures
• requiring EDPs to specify the order in which measures would be taken
• requiring EDPs to have backup measures
• requiring EDPs to state how Natural England thinks the measures would pass the ‘overall improvement test’
• requiring Natural England to have regard to scientific evidence when drawing up EDPs
• strengthening the overall improvement test
• requiring Natural England to provide more detail in its reports and to consult on changes
• allowing the secretary of state to take action when an EDP is judged to have failed

The OEP said that “even after the material amendments the government proposes, the bill would, in some respects, lower environmental protection on the face of the law.”^[57]  However, it also thought that “in the round, the additional safeguards proposed today make government’s intended “win-win” for nature and the economy a more likely prospect”. It suggested the way any new measures were implemented in practice would be key and said it would “continue to watch closely and scrutinise how this significant change in environmental law is implemented”.

A coalition of 90 nature organisations has continued to argue against measures in the bill. Wildlife and Countryside Link published a report in October 2025 which said there was “no scientific evidence that the proposed ‘nature restoration levy’ will work for most wildlife”.^[58] It argued that:

Applying the new system to protected species without rigorous evidence and effective field trials would pose serious risks for wildlife.

[…] For some environmental issues (such as water pollution and water availability) there is good science and evidence that strategic action at a broader scale can be an effective way to protect nature. However, at present, there is no evidence that the bill’s approach will work for any protected species, particularly those that are less mobile or reliant on very specific sites or habitats.

At the bill’s House of Lords report stage on 29 October 2025, the House voted to limit the application of EDPs so they could be used only where the negative effect likely to be caused by a development affected nutrient neutrality, water quality, water resource or air quality.^[59] The amendment (amendment 130) was moved by Baroness Willis of Summertown (Crossbench). She argued this would limit the use of EDPs to “issues where approaches at a strategic landscape scale will be effective”.^[60] She identified these four issues as the “main causes” of “blockages to developers”, rather than, for instance, the protection of bat habitats.^[61]

The Conservatives supported this amendment. Lord Roborough, shadow minister for environment, food and rural affairs, said part 3 of the bill was “a retrograde step in nature protection” because it “undermines the existing mitigation hierarchy”.^[62] He also asserted it “attacks the rural economy” by, among other things, failing to state explicitly that the private sector should be engaged in the delivery of conservation measures, “as well as undermining nascent biodiversity net gain markets”. He argued Baroness Willis’s amendment would ensure that “nature and species would not be put at risk”, that “the private sector would be the natural counterparty to achieve these aims”, and that Natural England could focus on addressing nutrient neutrality, identified by housebuilders as “the key challenge from environmental considerations in planning”.^[63]

The government did not support the amendment. Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, parliamentary under secretary of state at the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, argued that limiting the application of EDPs to only certain environmental impacts “would be to close off the potential that EDPs offer to deliver more than the current system and help support the recovery of protected sites and species”.^[64] She argued that rather than being limited to a short list of issues, EDPs should be able to be brought forward wherever science supported the case for doing so and wherever the evidence would allow the secretary of state to approve the EDP in line with the overall improvement test.

The House of Commons will consider whether to agree to the amendments made in the House of Lords after it completes its third reading in the Lords on 10 November 2025.

3.3 Local nature recovery strategies

The Environment Act 2021 requires local authorities in England to publish local nature recovery strategies (LNRSs).^[65] Each strategy must include a statement of biodiversity priorities for the strategy area and a local habitat map (or maps) that covers the strategy area.^[66] When the act was passed, the Conservative government said this would “put spatial planning for nature on a statutory footing, and will support local action by consistently mapping important existing habitats and opportunities to create or restore habitat”.^[67] The government said although such plans existed in some areas of England, they were often produced by a variety of bodies working at different spatial scales. It intended LNRSs would “support the delivery of a nature recovery network by acting as a key tool to help local partners better direct investment and action that improves, creates and conserves wildlife-rich habitat”.

In March 2023, the then government formally set out the process by which LNRSs would be drawn up in statutory guidance.^[68] By June 2023, it had appointed 48 responsible authorities to lead on preparing LNRS; together these 48 authorities cover the whole of England.^[69] The then government said that LNRSs should be in place across the whole of England by March 2025.

However, only two LNRS were approved and published by this date.^[70] By May 2025, four had been published, 11 were preparing for publication, seven were at the consultation stage, seven were preparing for consultation, and the other 19 were still at an earlier stage of preparation. Seven LNRSs are not expected to be published until 2026.

The OEP published a review of LNRSs and their role in contributing to nature recovery in June 2025.^[71] The OEP found that LNRSs formed “a crucial part of the picture in helping government strike the balance between its growth ambitions and its environmental commitments”, including targets under the Environment Act 2021 and the EIP23.^[72] However, the OEP said LRNSs needed “to be developed and delivered at pace if they are to substantially contribute to the government’s targets and goals”. The OEP believed the delay in their publication would particularly affect the government’s ability to meet its 2030 target for decline in species abundance.

In response, the government said preparing LRNSs was a “new and challenging” responsibility for local authorities, requiring them to develop new expertise and to prioritise so they could ensure nature recovery effort could be focused where it would have most benefit.^[73] The government said Defra ministers had written to all LNRS responsible authorities to reiterate the important role that LNRSs are expected to play and highlight the need for the remaining LNRSs to be completed and published as soon as possible. During summer 2025 officials also held meetings with authorities for which publication during 2025 would be challenging. These meetings explored the reasons why these authorities were progressing more slowly and considered how work might be accelerated to enable funding to support LNRS delivery to be allocated confidently. The government also noted that five more LRNSs had been published since the OEP released its report.

3.4 Environmental land management schemes

The environmental land management (ELM) scheme was introduced by the Conservative government as the main new vehicle for providing financial support to farmers in England following the UK’s withdrawal from the EU common agricultural policy (CAP).^[74] CAP basic payments stopped in 2024 and were replaced by transitionary delinked payments, which are due to end in 2027.^[75] As part of the transition plan, the government said that ELM-related schemes would be piloted between 2021 and 2024 and fully available from 2024 onwards.^[76] The CAP system paid farmers based on how much land they farmed, whereas the idea behind the ELM scheme is to pay farmers for public goods such as environmental improvements.

There are three main elements within the scheme:^[77]

• Sustainable farming incentive (SFI): Payments to farmers to adopt and maintain sustainable farming practices that can protect and enhance the natural environment alongside food production, and also support farm productivity (including by improving animal health and welfare, optimising the use of inputs and making better use of natural resources).
• Countryside stewardship (CS): Payments for more targeted actions relating to specific locations, features and habitats, with an extra incentive through CS Plus for land managers to join up across local areas.
• Landscape recovery: Payments for bespoke, longer-term, larger scale projects to enhance the natural environment.

The SFI was designed as a universal scheme, available to all farmers and those responsible for managing land.^[78] The CS and landscape recovery components were designed to include competitive elements, with higher-scoring applications more likely to receive funding.^[79]

The Labour government committed to retaining the ELM scheme as the key form of support to farmers and other landowners.^[80] In the budget statement in October 2024, the government committed £5bn to the farming budget over two years, including £1.8bn for the ELM scheme in 2025/26.^[81]

In March 2025, the government announced it had stopped accepting new SFI applications because the fund’s maximum limit had been reached.^[82] The government attributed the success of the SFI scheme, which has over 37,000 multi-year live agreements, to its £5bn investment. Although new applications were closed, the government confirmed that existing agreements would continue and eligible pending applications would be processed.

At the time of this announcement, the government also said it planned to reform the SFI by addressing issues such as its ‘first come, first served’ design which had meant there had been “no fair allocation of resources”.^[83] The government said the revised scheme would focus on budgetary controls and more equitable distribution, especially for less productive land.^[84] The government said details of the revised scheme and the date it would open for applications would be published following the spending review and after consultations with farmers in summer 2025.

Farming groups were critical of the government’s handling of the closure of the scheme to new applications.^[85] The National Farmers’ Union and the Nature Friendly Farming Network suggested it left farmers feeling that they would no longer be rewarded for environmental work, including in some cases work they had already begun.^[86]

The SFI is currently still closed to new applications.^[87] As of November 2025, the government said Defra was working closely with farmers and industry stakeholders to design an SFI offer that would “better target the SFI in an orderly way towards our priorities for food, farming and nature”.^[88] The government said further details about the next iteration of the scheme would be available in due course.

Applications for the CS higher tier opened in September 2025 for eligible farmers, foresters and landowners who have been invited to apply.^[89] The government said in October 2025 that it was aware of concerns raised by farmers whose current mid-tier CS agreements are due to finish at the end of 2025.^[90] The government said it was considering how it could support continued delivery of environmental outcomes through ELM schemes.

The landscape recovery scheme is currently closed to applications.^[91] The government said in June 2025 that landscape recovery projects that were awarded funding in rounds one and two are continuing, and projects in the first round are moving into the delivery phase.^[92]

The government stated in September 2025 that all three schemes would continue and that it would “evolve and improve them in an orderly way to make them work for farmers and nature”.^[93]

---

Photo by Karen Lauster on Unsplash