I was on the phone to a certain veteran nature campaigner a few months before the election. We were talking about being nervous around the lack of public commitment from Labour to protect nature, however he wasn’t too worried. “Blair’s government was the same - didn’t say much during the run-up to the election, then when they got into power, they sat down and listened to us”. I ended the conversation with hope, and held onto that hope as Labour won.
At the beginning Labour seemed to fulfill that promise, bringing eNGOs into Downing Street and listening. However, Labour didn’t seem to hear what they were saying, and the excitement of a new government, a new way, a new dedication to restoring nature has all turned to ashes.
Recanting commitments seemed to start fairly quickly and the promising new subsidy system for nature friendly farming fell into chaos. ELMS (Environmental Land Management Scheme) was a visionary piece of work, but one that is doomed to failure without the backing and staunch support of the government. It was designed so that those best placed to make changes for nature across a lot of UK land (farmers), can be compensated fairly to do so.
One of the tiers of ELMS, and the most accessible, the Sustainable Farming Incentive (SFI), was closed back in March, leaving people that have been diligently working to increase biodiversity on their land high and dry. With many multi-year agreements coming to an end this month, and no prospect of being able to apply again until at least April, many now feel that they have no option except to destroy habitat on their land to try and squeeze out every drop of profit.
The government expects those earning a pittance and barely scraping a profit to take a hit to their own pockets while they dither around, working out what it is exactly they’re doing with ELMS. Any confidence in this pioneering system has been totally undermined. Long-term solutions to the biodiversity crises require long years of rebuilding soils, planting and tending hedges, growing trees, augmenting wildflower meadows year-by-year, protecting streams and rivers with buffer strips - all of which require a strong faith that the money is there to support that.
Besides this, the climate crisis is causing many farmers anxiety about the future and our food security. Farming in sustainable, eco-friendly ways (such as agroforestry and agriwilding) is proven to be more resilient and improve yields alongside mitigating the climate and biodiversity crisis. The delay and prevarication is putting us all at risk.
This is on top of the weakening of crucial environmental legislation, put in place to ensure that in our race for ‘progress’ (read as unlimited consumption), we do not destroy what little remains of our precious wildlife and habitats. The Planning and Infrastructure Bill will gut BNG (Biodiversity Net Gain), which we will look at shortly, and this is followed hot on the heels by a Nuclear Regulatory review issued in November, calling for weakening of Habitat Regulations. This will enable projects to pay a ‘fixed fee’ to destroy habitats - which can merely be factored in to development costs. A motion was tabled at the beginning of December to push back against the most damaging recommendations, but it remains to be seen what will happen.
It is one devastation after another, and the Planning and Infrastructure Bill has had conservationists, nature-lovers and rewilders tearing their hair out in despair. Even the Office for Environmental Protection has warned the government that this will weaken nature protection.
BNG was introduced in the Environment Act 2021 as a way to force developers to not only consider, but also improve biodiversity on their sites. Or if that is not possible, to put money into increasing biodiversity elsewhere. While this idea is by no means perfect, and very problematic in some ways - monetising nature and buying into the idea that we can ‘offset’ damage - with the systems we live in, and with the development happening anyway, finding ways to pull money into nature projects is no bad thing. In an imperfect world, imperfect answers are sometimes all we have.
The market in BNG credits has been slow, but steadily growing. It has been an increasingly likely source of income for different rewilding and nature restoration projects of all sizes, income that is unlikely to come from elsewhere (particularly in light of the failure of ELMS). It has already had a knock from a government consultation in May about the future of BNG. What it needs now to realise its potential is solid support from the Government, to prove its credentials as a reliable investment for the future. What we’ve got is the rug pulled out from underneath us.
So far, the BNG system has struggled with projects claiming they are exempt. In a report earlier this year, it stated that 75% of projects were self-electing as ‘exempt’ from BNG, however that figure had improved with better tools and guidance, and recommended that the exemptions be tightened. Instead, the Planning and Infrastructure Bill is creating more exemptions, with 75% of projects now permanently exempted from BNG. So not only is that 75% of sites not having to consider or uplift biodiversity on their site, that’s 75% of sites not paying into the burgeoning market that many individuals and organisations were counting on to bring nature restoration projects to life.
Richard Benwell, CEO of Wildlife and Countryside Link, said:
“Exempting small sites from BNG would pull the thread that unravels the entire system. With the vast majority of applications removed, the market simply couldn’t function – leaving nature, land managers and rural economies high and dry. At a time when private finance for nature is finally beginning to flow, this proposal would strand investment and stall recovery. Instead of weakening the rules, ministers should strengthen them, close loopholes and back a world-leading market that delivers for people and wildlife.”
The Wildlife Trusts are currently fighting this, by calling for a pause to section 3 of the bill, the section that will weaken our protections. You can support them in their campaign by sending a postcard to your MP here.
What that means for Protect Earth is that projects that the team have been working away diligently on for months and even years may now not happen, and many other similar projects will fail or fall down before they start. What could have been a good income stream, paying for labour, fencing, tree guards, saplings, wardens, seed mix and all the other things that require money in the bank will now dry up.
Protect Earth is looking for alternatives to fill the gap, which is no easy task. We have set up sponsorships for all sorts of rewilding work on our various projects, putting money directly where it needs to go - into restoring nature and the awe-inspiring, wondrous life that surrounds us, building riches of biodiversity and bioabundance. You can sponsor one square meter of ancient woodland restoration here, and in the new year will have wetland restoration and wildflower meadows to offer. Without people like you, we couldn’t keep going, and clearly we cannot rely on the government to be a steady handy on the tiller with this crucial work.
To help the wider sector, please do write constantly to your MP, your local councillors, to anyone and everyone, and let them know what you treasure.