Author: David Baldock
The Government’s Land Use Framework for England is not so much of an elegant new structure as a cupboard full of data, principles, specific policy objectives and processes, an initial set of maps (with many more to come), and guidance for the planning system. It sets forth a vision of a more coherent, efficient, diverse and rewarding set of land uses. The components are not revolutionary but together represent a significant step in policy terms. Many stakeholders have welcomed it as an advance in the right direction. This will be a relief to Defra ministers, who are aiming to create more of a consensus in an often combustible arena.
Defra’s current mission to pursue a combination of environmental, food production and wider economic objectives is very much reflected in the analysis and vision. There is welcome recognition some of the challenges now increasingly apparent in England, the costs of policy drift in a changing world, such as the quarter of all properties at risk of flooding in future from river, sea or surface water under a high emissions scenario, the need for greater resilience, and the difficulties faced by tenant farms.
Squaring the various land use circles entails more efficient, better-informed use of land, more often and more explicitly for multiple purposes, achieved in more coherent spatial arrangements. Woodland and nature are to be allocated more space.
The formula for making this shift comprises a variety of mechanisms and incentives, limited recourse to regulation and modest changes to governance. This “is not a document that tells people what to do with their land” as Emma Reynolds emphasises in the foreword. Rather the proposition is that the spectrum of demands on land can be satisfied within reason with minimum use of a more directive approach – provided that the decision-making system is updated, better informed and more equipped to address cross-cutting issues. Absent from this approach is any reference to improving the enforcement of existing regulations, clearly a key issue, or the use of economic instruments such as taxes and levies. The use of incentives receives limited attention and there is no mention of payment for results schemes for example , although these might fit well with the emphasis on targeting and efficiency.
Slotted into the framework are numerous proposals for approaching contemporary issues, such as combining rural solar farms with other land uses and encouraging local authorities to establish more nature reserves in urban areas. However, perhaps the most prominent element in the implementation shopping list is the commitment to strengthen the evidence base on multiple fronts and increase investment in data gathering, modelling tools and the flow of information to decision makers. Some of the tougher trade-offs are often more implied than exposed in this framework but the value of a strong evidence base and the steps required to obtain it is a recurrent theme. This will be a continuing process, driven by a dedicated team in Defra and, wisely, there is a commitment to revise the framework itself every five years.
Environmental ambition?
The language of the Framework is strikingly unequivocal on certain topics, such as the commitment to maintain current levels of food production in future. In others it is more coy. Actors are to be guided by the somewhat anthropomorphic concept of “playing to the strengths of the land”. The significant land use implications of the necessary reductions in GHG emissions from farmland and farm animals, surely a critical issue for the coming decades, are not addressed full on. However, the need to convert land into more natural habitats, re-wetted peat and new woodland, estimated at around 6%, of the land area, is acknowledged. This figure has not been watered down despite its unpopularity in some quarters.
The stance towards some of the more pressing issues in the rural environment is variable. Nitrogen pollution, so often the Cinderella of rural environmental policy, has little visibility and the call from a Lords Committee last year to take “a crucial opportunity to effectively integrate Nitrogen management principles” into forward plans of this kind has not been taken.
In contrast, there is some discussion of the need to meet the 30X30 nature target under the Kunming-Montreal global biodiversity framework and different types of land involved. This however is work in progress and the way forward will be set out in a separate Delivery Plan.
The Framework is far from a revolution, but it does reflect greater recognition of the intensifying land use challenge and the need both to plan ahead and improve steerage of individual decisions. There is an interesting contrast with developments in Denmark where concerns about water pollution and GHG emissions from agriculture and the inadequate pace of nature restoration led to the “Green Tripartite Agreement” between the government and all the major rural stakeholders in 2024. This includes the establishment of a “Green Land Fund” and targets to convert 6% of the Danish land area to forest by 2045, alongside re-wetting of peatland amounting to 3% of the land area also and a further programme of wetland restoration. Collaborative local planning in 23 catchment areas and the use of incentives as well as taxes on GHG emissions are the primary means of delivery.
Circumstances are not the same as in the UK but a reference point to compare with England’s developing framework and assess progress will be useful. Regular reporting alongside the five-year reviews would find an interested audience – and not only within England.
Photo by Darren Richardson on Unsplash