The Guardian view on nature-friendly farming: England’s green subsidies are working

Creating the right habitats with public money is helping to stop nature’s decline or even reverse it. That’s the good news from Natural England, which reports more butterflies, bees, bats and birds whizzing around the countryside after the promotion of nature-friendly farming schemes. The body, which advises the government on biodiversity, published research earlier this month showing that the environmental land management scheme (Elms), set up after the UK left the EU, has had beneficial effects.
Unlike the common agricultural policy, which mainly subsidises landowners on the basis of acreage farmed, Elms payments were designed to promote nature. Wildlife has been massively depleted in recent decades due to intensified agriculture and the use of chemicals. Measures that qualify for this new form of support include hedgerow and peat conservation, the creation of landscapes for skylarks and organic fruit-growing.
The research, which included arable, grassland and hill farmers, showed that moths, butterflies and bats have all grown more numerous in the places where farmers had adopted new methods. In total, 1,358 species were recorded. In lowland areas, the study pointed to the importance for butterflies of habitat diversity, with features including woodland and hedgerows.
Among birds, those that feed mostly on invertebrates had the strongest boost in numbers. Bees appeared to have benefited less – which is disappointing given their importance as pollinators. But the findings of this and the other six studies included in the review are not only a report card. They are evidence that will help scientists and officials to understand what works – and inform future policymaking.
Payments linked to the conservation of old farm buildings – which can also be important for wildlife – and geological features in landscapes were examined. So were schemes to promote access to nature for the public. Unsurprisingly, resources were found to be insufficient to enable schools to take advantage of new possibilities for nature-based learning. Farmers complained about the behaviour of some dog walkers.
By far the most challenging section of the report, politically speaking, is the one dealing with research into the trade-offs between food production and nature protection. Nine land-use scenarios were explored. The conclusion was that none could deliver “strong reductions in greenhouse gas emissions (or large increases in potential bird populations) without also seeing a large reduction in food supply”.
On the other hand, evidence shows that measures including food waste reduction and the use of arable land to grow crops for people to eat, rather than livestock, could mitigate reduced food production and help the UK to achieve its climate goals. Sooner or later, politicians are going to have to be honest with the public about changes that lie ahead, including an overall cut in dairy and meat consumption, if these crucial targets are to be met.
The environment secretary, Steve Reed, has yet to set out Labour’s plans for green farming subsidies, which currently cost £2.4bn a year. With the publication of this evidence, the case for the continuation of the existing scheme, or something close to it, has been strengthened. Brexit has been harmful in many ways. But this proof that altered financial incentives for farmers have delivered environmental benefits, in the form of bats and butterflies, is a heady gust of fresh air.