So how will the LUF make this siloing a thing of the past?
Split into three main sections, the LUF sets out a vision for land use in England up to 2050, the principles that will inform land use decision making - at individual, local, regional and national scales - and the actions that will be taken to make multifunctional land use the norm.
What’s good about it?
There’s lots to welcome!
Defra’s vision statements contain much to please a nature-friendly farmer, and those who want our land to deliver all society needs, and well:
“By 2050, agricultural land will be managed to prioritise sustainable food production and environmental benefits…Agricultural land use reflects a continuum of approaches balancing food production and other outcomes according to the relative strengths of the land… Farmland will be more resilient to the impacts of climate change through sustainable management and multifunctional land use approaches such as integrating trees for flood and drought resilience.”
Positive principles: Multifunctionality is top of the principle list, quite rightly too. After that ‘Right use, Right place’, which recognises that different parcels of land are better at certain things than others - trees are great in many places but planting on deep peat is bad news for the carbon stored there. Similarly permanent pasture is permanent because that land is not well suited for arable cultivation. Further principles are ‘future-ready decisions’ and ‘adaptive by design’ i.e. long-term planning and delivery but with the flexibility to respond to new evidence or challenges.
As set out in the consultation, the LUF will not impose land use decisions. Rather it will inform them, through better data availability, including updated land classifications and a new national soil map, and a more joined up planning system which integrates the many plans, policies and strategies that shape land use, such as Local Nature Recovery Strategies, and land management tools, particularly ELM schemes but also private sector schemes.
A commitment to better spatial targeting of ELM: Land management schemes remain one of the most important policy tools to reward and incentivise positive land management and when designed well can deliver fantastic results - from improving a farm’s natural assets and reducing its dependence on expensive inputs to complex habitat and species recovery. Good targeting, as part of good scheme design, is essential for this. As is funding of course, and the LUF makes positive commitments to ELM funding, new sources of private funding for farming and integrating the two. It also announced a new fund - a Farmer Collaboration Fund, launching later this year, with up to £30m funding over 3 years to facilitate group farmer activity, including on land use change.
At the farm business level, this should mean that it will become much easier for farmers to determine what their land is best placed to produce and what makes most sense financially and ecologically.
What’s less good?
When we were consulted on the LUF last year, we highlighted a significant issue: 80% of land was deemed out of scope, despite the clear evidence that systemic changes are required over all agricultural land to equip the sector with the resilience it needs and the ability to produce food and other goods and services long term. This has been partially addressed through changes to language, such as “The vast majority of farmland will need to be managed differently to adapt to climate change, increase its long-term capacity for food production, and reduce its environmental and climate impact.”
The LUF could be stronger on the importance of avoiding offshoring our environmental footprint overseas - it makes reference to this but with little detail and the parallel drive from Government for growth, including food export markets, creates real risks and tensions here.
Much of the farming detail has been passed to the Farming Roadmap to set out - expected later this year. While a huge amount of farmer input has taken place, this still leaves a lot for the Roadmap to carry - and onus on organisations like NFFN to ensure it drives the positive change needed.
The newly announced Farming and Food Partnership Board, established following the Batters review into farm profitability and launched around the same time as the LUF, reflects a membership that is disappointingly ‘business as unusual’. As yet it does not include progressive farming voices which will be essential to shape the LUF, and Farming Roadmap’s implementation.
What next?
Lots… The LUF is a framework document, setting direction rather than delivering things immediately. So the proof will be in the implementation pudding and to mix metaphors, this pudding will be a marathon, not a sprint. Early signs are positive: a new LUF unit will be established in Government to oversee its implementation across all parts of government, and forge the improved links and guidance for implementation at different scales, particularly locally and regionally where most decisions on agricultural land use are taken.
A huge number of largely very sensible commitments have been made, including making key data sources more easily available, developing new guidance e.g. for local authorities and internal drainage boards, and continuing work to develop a series of sector growth plans, starting initially with horticulture (and we definitely do need to grow and eat more of our fruit and veg) and moving later to poultry (whether we really need more indoor-reared chicken is much less certain…).
There is plenty to do - including defining what ‘maintain levels of domestic food production’ actually means in practice (value, tonnage, consumable calories…?) but after a long development phase, it feels like commitment to delivery is high. As the LUF was first mooted by a Conservative Government, and enjoys broadly good cross-party support, the signs are positive that this commitment will remain, whatever the colour of the next Westminster Government.
Longer-term impact
To end this long piece on the [even longer, I promise] LUF, I want to include a series of interlinked changes that the LUF could now feasibly drive, and which feels even more prescient given the conflict in the Middle East and its impacts on energy prices.
Imagine a future where every farm has a mandatory nutrient management plan and nutrient balance sheet, ensuring that soil only receives the nutrients it needs, reducing overapplication and delivering financial and environmental benefits. Also imagine investment in new tech and infrastructure to make efficient transport of manure and slurries much easier (through drying and pelletisation of for example). By making animal manures more tradable, and improving understanding (and data transparency) of soil nutrient needs at farm level, we could achieve: reduced dependence on fossil-fuel derived fertilisers, significantly reduce the risk of water quality problems linked to nutrient application and drive much better integration between arable and livestock systems. Sounds good right?
NFFN will continue to engage, and support its members to act, so everything that flows from the LUF drives the transition to nature-friendly farming at scale.
