Out-of-date subsidies that have paid farmers for simply owning land are due to be replaced by a system that rewards them for growing food in a way that is good for nature, rather than harming it. This ambition is vital to save degraded soils and declining pollinators, clean up rivers full of agricultural pollution, allow restored natural habitats to store carbon – and to save farming in the future.

But now the long-promised Environmental Land Management Schemes appear threatened by political expediency as politicians seek the farming vote – and farmers, more vulnerable than ever due to increased costs and other risks, seek reassurance.

Intentions to move toward a more nature-friendly farming model have been thoroughly watered down

A farming blog published by DEFRA earlier this week spoke of “allocating the budget flexibly to respond to demand” instead of to environmental need – sending a clear message that intentions to move toward a more nature-friendly farming model have been thoroughly watered down.

Today’s environmental crises threaten our future ability to produce food. Developing a regenerative approach to farming is fundamental for reversing devastating declines in wildlife, tackling runaway climate change, and providing good food for people to eat.

The National Food Strategy supported the environmental land management schemes, recommending “that roughly a third of the ELMs budget – £500–£700 million per year – should go on paying farmers to manage the land in ways that actively sequester carbon and restore nature” when it was published last year.

The Wildlife Trusts want to see this honoured in the UK Government’s response – in order to meet our net-zero target and to reach the government's own commitment to protect 30% of land for nature by 2030. It is crucial they support farmers to make this transition for all our futures, rather than playing politics to gain votes.