logo
Cutting nature-friendly farming budget would be ‘devastating', Government warned

Cutting nature-friendly farming budget would be ‘devastating', Government warned

Independent29-05-2025

Cutting the budget for nature-friendly farming would be 'devastating' for wildlife and rural communities, the Government has been warned.
Environmentalists warned that cutting the spend on the post-Brexit farming schemes, which pay farmers and landowners to deliver public goods such as hedgerows, wildflower habitat and clean water, would 'remove all hope' of the Government meeting targets to reverse nature's declines.
And farmers, who have already been hit by changes to inheritance tax and the abrupt closure of this year's sustainable farming incentive (SFI), the biggest strand of the environmental land management scheme (Elms), said cuts would be 'disastrous'.
The warnings come in the face of reports that the Environment Department (Defra's) nature-friendly farming budget, which has replaced EU agricultural subsidies based mostly on the amount of land farmed, will be cut in the forthcoming spending review.
The Government announced a 'record' £5 billion spending over two years on sustainable farming, but the long term future of the funding looks threatened by looming departmental cuts, while there are concerns cash could be targeted at small farms or in certain areas rather than across the countryside.
Environmentalists warned that the nature-friendly farming budget was the UK's biggest spend on nature and, with 70% of land used for farming, key to meeting the Government's manifesto pledge to achieve targets to halt declines in nature by 2030.
Barnaby Coupe, senior land use policy manager at The Wildlife Trusts, says: ' Rumours of further cuts to the farming budget are deeply concerning and, if true, would cripple funding for restoring nature and remove all hope of reaching the Government's targets for wildlife recovery.'
He warned the £2.5 billion a year in the current farming budget 'already falls short' of what was needed, adding: 'Whittling this down further will see progress stall and reverse.'
'If the cuts go ahead, the Government's promise to bring back wildlife will be in tatters – and farmers will be left unsupported to adapt to extreme climate change and exposed to the whims of market forces demanding unsustainable and intensified food production.'
Richard Benwell, chief of Wildlife and Countryside Link, said: 'Cutting the nature-friendly farming budget would be devastating for nature, farmers and rural communities.'
He said that a transition to nature-friendly farming could help reverse declines in rivers, woodland, wildflowers and wildlife, at the same time as reducing air, soil and water pollution, and supporting a thriving profitable farming sector and rural communities.
'But without a decent budget to pay farmers for the environmental benefits they provide, the future of entire ecosystems will be in doubt.'
Martin Lines, chief executive of the Nature Friendly Farming Network (NFFN), said: 'These cuts would be disastrous if implemented, with the negative impact felt far beyond farming and reaching the wider public.
'Investing in nature-friendly farming helps protect communities from the devastation of flooding.
'It reduces the impact of climate change by protecting and restoring carbon-storing habitats such as peatland.
'It also supports the delivery of affordable, renewable energy.'
He said that if the Government was serious about sustainable growth and long-term food production, it needed to invest in England's landscapes, adding: 'Farmers are ready to play their part, but they are being let down by ministers turning off the funding tap.
'The simplest, most cost-effective solution to the problems we face is to invest now.
'If we fail to act, and wait until the impacts of climate change worsen, the cost will be far higher,' he warned.
National Farmers' Union president Tom Bradshaw said: 'Alongside numerous rural, environmental and nature groups, including the RSPB and National Trust, we have repeatedly called for government to honour its commitments, with budget and partnership, to protect nature and restore habitats through agriculture.
'But without funding, this will be government giving up on its own environmental targets – targets which it relied on farmers to deliver.'
He warned that farmers would be left 'prioritising economic returns and balancing tough choices between farming the land as hard as they can just to make a living and continuing to focus on environmental works they have been proud to deliver'.
And he said farms of all sizes had a key role in helping deliver for food, nature and climate.
Defra said it would not comment on speculation.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Why Lords are striking a blow for creative industries over new AI bill
Why Lords are striking a blow for creative industries over new AI bill

The Independent

time42 minutes ago

  • The Independent

Why Lords are striking a blow for creative industries over new AI bill

Strange to say but a government with a Commons majority of 156 is somehow in danger of losing one of its more important pieces of legislation. The Data (Use and Access) Bill is commonly called the 'data bill' or ' AI bill' because it is central to the regulation of the new world of artificial intelligence; indeed, it is the first act of parliament specifically designed to deal with it. After breezing its way through the Commons, it has encountered unexpectedly stiff resistance in the House of Lords. Peers have five times rejected parts of the bill, and unless the government is prepared to compromise, the AI bill will have to be abandoned. Why is the AI bill in trouble? There are a lot of complicated parliamentary shenanigans involved, but at issue is the right of artists, creatives, authors – and, indeed, journalists – to own and make a living out of their work. Elton John, Kate Bush, Damon Albarn, Dua Lipa and Paul McCartney are just a few members of a formidable coalition of interests who want to stop AI giants 'scraping' their work, undermining their livelihoods, and potentially killing the whole sector. It's the biggest change to the law in copyright and intellectual property in generations, effectively abolishing royalties, and hasn't really been subjected to the kind of national debate that it merits. The artists, writers and musicians have found a doughty defender in Beeban Kidron, a film director (Bridget Jones) who's been leading the guerrilla warfare in the upper chamber. As a lead character, she's been compelling. What do the Lords rebels want? A relatively modest amendment to the bill that would subject AI companies to copyright rules and make them declare when and what material they are using for their own commercial purposes: a duty of transparency. Thus, copyright holders are able to see when their work has been used and by whom. How determined are the rebels? Very. In the words of Baroness Kidron: 'It is not fair, not reasonable, not just, balanced or any other such word to stand in the way of the creative industries identifying those who are taking their work or their property. It is not neutral – it is aiding and abetting what we have called in the House widespread theft. We have asked privately and repeatedly on the floor of both Houses what is the government going to do to stop the work of creatives from being stolen right now? The answer is nothing.' Why won't the government give way? It has offered concessions, but ministers maintain the new law does not weaken copyright law; creatives, who have the most to lose, beg to differ. Obviously, the government is anxious not to lose a whole piece of legislation that also covers, for example: a data preservation process supporting bereaved parents; new offences for intimate image deepfake abuse; smart data schemes such as open banking; and a framework for research into online safety. AI is also an important driver of economic growth. More than that, the government has been trying to tread a middle path between the more restrictive European approach and the American policy of laissez-faire. If Britain annoys the Americans, who lead in the sector, it might spoil the trade deal and relations more widely. Can't the government just force it through? Not easily. The deadlock between the Commons and Lords is such that either the bill gets amended to the satisfaction of both sides, or it cannot go forward for final readings and ultimately royal assent. This resistance by the Lords is exceptional and called 'double insistence', arising from the fact that the bill originated in the Lords rather than the Commons. (It must have been assumed to be less controversial.) But in the end, the government could get its way by invoking the Parliament Act, which trumps anything. The new law would be delayed, but the rebels might lose their cause by refusing to compromise. What is likely to happen? A compromise – but with further Lords reform in the way, the rebel peers may feel they have nothing to lose. By delaying the bill, they would force ministers to think again and allow the campaign by Elton John and his formidable creative forces to regroup and build more momentum – the issue still lacks much salience with the public. Either way, it has been tough on the personable Peter Kyle, secretary of state for science, innovation and technology.

Met officer in VIP abuse scandal has gross misconduct charges dropped
Met officer in VIP abuse scandal has gross misconduct charges dropped

Telegraph

timean hour ago

  • Telegraph

Met officer in VIP abuse scandal has gross misconduct charges dropped

The senior police officer who led Scotland Yard's VIP child abuse inquiry has had gross misconduct charges against him dropped. Steve Rodhouse, a former assistant commissioner at the Metropolitan Police, had been due to face a disciplinary hearing over his handling of aspects of Operation Midland. He had been accused of breaching professional standards and making dishonest statements while leading the operation. Mr Rodhouse, who is currently the director general of operations at the National Crime Agency, was the only officer to face disciplinary proceedings as a result of Operation Midland, which saw several high-profile figures investigated over false allegations of child abuse. On Thursday, the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) announced that it was dropping the charges. A spokesman for the watchdog said the decision had been taken after a large volume of relevant material was unexpectedly disclosed by the Met. The decision means not a single officer has been held to account for the blunders that led to innocent people, including high-ranking military personnel and former ministers and MPs, being investigated over malicious child sex allegations. Operation Midland was launched in 2014 after fantasist Carl Beech went to police claiming he had been raped and abused by a VIP paedophile ring in the 1980s. He told police that well-known figures, including Sir Edward Heath, the former prime minister; Lord Brittan, the former Home Secretary; Lord Bramall, the former head of the Army; and Harvey Proctor, the former Tory MP, had raped and even murdered children. The Met spent 18 months investigating the claims, even raiding the homes of some of those falsely accused, before shutting it down without making a single arrest. In July 2019, Beech was jailed for 18 years after being found guilty of perverting the course of justice and fraud. Two other men, known as Witness A and Witness B, were alleged to have also come forward during Operation Midland to corroborate Beech's lies with false allegations, but they were never charged. The claims against Mr Rodhouse centred on comments he made in the media about the honesty of Witnesses A and B, and subsequent remarks he made to Sir Richard Henriques, the former High Court judge who was carrying out an independent review into the handling of Operation Midland. Following an IOPC investigation, the watchdog concluded that Mr Rodhouse had a case to answer and should attend a disciplinary hearing. But that decision has been reversed following the late disclosure of a cache of material from Scotland Yard. Harvey Proctor, who is the only living Operation Midland victim, described the decision to drop the charges as 'appalling'. An IOPC spokesman said there was no evidence within the material that there was any 'inappropriate motivation' in Mr Roadhouse's comments. The spokesman said: 'There was, however, substantial evidence to indicate the comments made to the media were the result of collaboration between senior Met officers and staff and that there had been appropriate considerations, including a desire not to discourage victims of historic sex offences coming forward.' Amanda Rowe, director of the IOPC, said: 'It is highly regrettable for all concerned that material we requested three years ago during our investigation, and we believed had not been retained due to the Met's retention policy, has only recently been discovered and disclosed. 'Police forces have a legal obligation to provide information to the IOPC when we request it. However, we acknowledge that we could have taken further steps during the investigation to seek additional assurance from the Met that relevant email material was definitely unavailable. 'We apologise to all of those affected and we are working with the force to establish exactly how and why this situation has occurred, and to reduce the risk of it happening again. 'Today's announcement does not change our finding that by failing to follow Sir Richard's recommendation in his review to investigate the witnesses, the Met's service was unacceptable and its subsequent reviews concluding no investigation was needed were flawed. 'During our investigation, we reported a potential crime to the Met, which is being actively investigated by another force.' Mr Rodhouse said the allegations made against him were 'ill-founded and incorrect'. In a statement, he added: 'I am pleased that the IOPC has finally recognised that I acted with honesty, integrity and care throughout a difficult investigation. 'I welcome the IOPC's apology, but I have yet to receive an adequate explanation as to how this debacle occurred. 'I recognise that senior police officers must be held accountable for their actions, and that public complaints must be properly considered. 'However, if police officers are to willingly take on complex and challenging investigations, they must have the confidence that any complaints made about their conduct will be competently investigated in a balanced and timely fashion. That was not the case here. 'Vital evidence was not considered despite it being readily available and repeatedly requested. 'I am grateful for all of the support that I have received, and I now look forward to resuming my career investigating and prosecuting serious criminals.'

Keir Starmer grilled by schoolchildren on Messi v Ronaldo debate
Keir Starmer grilled by schoolchildren on Messi v Ronaldo debate

The Independent

timean hour ago

  • The Independent

Keir Starmer grilled by schoolchildren on Messi v Ronaldo debate

Prime Minister Keir Starmer was grilled by schoolchildren during a visit on Thursday - with many keen to know his verdict on the Messi v Ronaldo debate. He visited a school in Essex as he declared the free school meal expansion as a 'down payment' on child poverty and was 'determined' to drive down child poverty and identify its root causes. As the Prime Minister sat with schoolchildren, one child asked him who his favourite footballer was. Mr Starmer, a keen Arsenal fan, said: 'My favourite player at the moment is Saka'. Another child asked who he thought was better: Messi or Ronaldo. After some hesitation, Mr Starmer replied: 'I'm going to go with Messi.'

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store