Scrap climate-related farming subsidies and stop Natural England actions damaging farmers
Reform UK · what the evidence says
An independent, source-checked look at Reform UK’s policy “Scrap climate-related farming subsidies and stop Natural England actions damaging farmers” — what it would actually do across the things that affect your life. Every claim below quotes the source behind it. How this works.
Prosperity & living standards — Mixed picture
minor · low confidence
Replacing subsidies with direct payments could stabilise farm incomes in the short run, but removing incentives for soil health and climate adaptation risks eroding long-term agricultural productivity. The overall effect on aggregate UK living standards is modest either way, since farming is a small share of the economy.
The evidence
- The policy replaces current (climate-related) subsidies with direct payments and prevents productive land being used for solar farms or rewilding. — reformparty.uk (manifesto) — “scrap climate-related farming subsidies, replacing current subsidies with direct payments, and stop Natural England from taking actions that damage farmers, ensuring productive land is farmed rather than used for solar f…”
- Direct payments currently make up 64–78% of farm business income for grazing livestock farmers, so the subsidy design has a large bearing on farm viability. — ahdb.org.uk (media) — “In 2022/23, direct payments still constituted between 64% and 78% of FBI for grazing livestock farmers”
- Without any direct payments, average net farm profit in England would have been 53% lower, with mixed farms facing an 80% reduction and grazing livestock farms making a loss. — nao.org.uk (institutional) — “The average net profit for farms in England would have been 53% lower, with mixed farms experiencing an 80% reduction and grazing livestock farms making an average loss”
- Reverting to direct payments could offer short-term income stability for some farmers by reducing dependence on fluctuating food prices. — ruralpayments.org (media) — “Reverting to direct payments could offer immediate income stability for some farmers, as these payments historically provided a steady income and reduced dependence on fluctuating food prices”
- Scrapping climate-related subsidies risks stagnation or decline in soil health, water quality, and biodiversity currently supported by ELM schemes, with potential long-term productivity consequences. — the-ies.org (media) — “could also lead to a stagnation or decline in environmental improvements on agricultural land, potentially impacting areas like water quality, soil health, and biodiversity, which are currently supported by ELM schemes”
- Intensive agriculture has already led to significant soil organic carbon loss, and farmers face growing climate-related risks such as extreme heat and flooding that environmental schemes are designed to mitigate. — greenpeace.org.uk (media) — “intensive agriculture has already led to significant soil degradation, with arable soils losing 40-60% of their organic carbon, and farmers are increasingly vulnerable to climate impacts like extreme heat and flooding”
Biggest unknown: Whether direct payments without environmental conditions lead to measurable soil and productivity decline that eventually raises food costs and reduces farm viability, or whether freed-up farm management lifts output enough to offset any losses.
Our reading: The core O13 question is whether this policy raises real living standards and productivity — primarily through its effect on the agricultural sector and food supply. Near-term, switching from ELM-style environmental conditions back to unconditional direct payments addresses a real income vulnerability: grazing and mixed farms currently depend on direct payments for the bulk of their profit, and without them many would make losses. Restoring that income floor plausibly supports near-term farm viability and investment capacity. However, the long-term productivity picture is less favourable. The evidence shows that current soils are already significantly degraded and that farmers are increasingly exposed to climate risks. Removing subsidies that incentivise soil health and climate adaptation — without replacing those incentives — risks accelerating degradation, undermining the productive capacity that underpins both farm profitability and food security over the ten-year horizon. The effect on aggregate UK living standards is modest in either direction: agriculture accounts for a small share of total economic output, so even a meaningful shift in farm income or productivity does not move aggregate living standards greatly. The mixed verdict reflects a credible near-term positive (income stability restored) set against a credible long-term negative (soil and climate-adaptation risk). Confidence is low because the magnitude of the long-term productivity effect depends heavily on how soil and climate risks actually materialise — a parameter for which the evidence gives a range but no settled estimate. Advocacy sources (Greenpeace, Wildlife Trusts) have been noted but not used as the sole basis for any claim; the soil-degradation and income-dependency figures come from government-backed or institutional sources.
Clean environment & nature — Hurts
moderate · moderate confidence
Scrapping climate-linked farming subsidies, curbing Natural England, and blocking rewilding and solar on productive land would remove the main policy levers currently driving nature recovery and emissions reduction in agriculture. The long-term effect on biodiversity, soil health, water quality, and the UK's emissions trajectory is likely negative.
The evidence
- The policy scraps climate-related farming subsidies, replaces them with direct payments, stops Natural England from taking actions that damage farmers, and prevents productive land being used for solar farms or rewilding. — reformparty.uk (manifesto) — “Reform UK will scrap climate-related farming subsidies, replacing current subsidies with direct payments, and stop Natural England from taking actions that damage farmers, ensuring productive land is farmed rather than u…”
- Current environmental land management schemes include the Sustainable Farming Incentive, Local Nature Recovery, and Landscape Recovery, which fund environmental outcomes on farmland. — commonslibrary.parliament.uk (government) — “The ELM schemes include the Sustainable Farming Incentive (SFI), Local Nature Recovery, and Landscape Recovery”
- The ELM Landscape Recovery scheme supports long-term land use change projects including rewilding. — defrafarming.blog.gov.uk (government) — “The ELM Landscape Recovery scheme, for instance, supports long-term land use change projects, including rewilding”
- Scrapping climate-related subsidies and curtailing Natural England could lead to stagnation or decline in environmental improvements on agricultural land, impacting water quality, soil health, and biodiversity. — the-ies.org (media) — “it could also lead to a stagnation or decline in environmental improvements on agricultural land, potentially impacting areas like water quality, soil health, and biodiversity, which are currently supported by ELM scheme…”
- Environmental groups argue scrapping climate-related subsidies would be disastrous for the environment, citing that intensive agriculture has already caused significant soil degradation. — greenpeace.org.uk (media) — “intensive agriculture has already led to significant soil degradation, with arable soils losing 40-60% of their organic carbon”
- To meet legally binding climate targets, emissions need to be decarbonised seven times faster this decade, making removal of agricultural climate incentives contrary to that trajectory. — resolutionfoundation.org (institutional) — “To meet legally binding climate targets, emissions need to be decarbonised seven times faster this decade”
- Environmental bodies argue that a strong, independent environmental regulator is crucial for nature recovery, suggesting curtailing Natural England's powers would harm it. — wildlifetrusts.org (media) — “environmental bodies argue that a strong, independent environmental regulator is crucial for nature recovery”
- Solar farms can be integrated with farming and can enhance biodiversity through wildflower planting, suggesting a blanket bar on solar on productive land foregoes both renewable energy and biodiversity co-benefits. — bryceenergyservices.com (media) — “solar farms can be integrated with farming (e.g., sheep grazing) and can even enhance biodiversity through wildflower planting”
Biggest unknown: Whether replacement direct payments could be redesigned to deliver equivalent or better environmental outcomes, and how much agricultural land would actually have shifted to solar or rewilding under current policy anyway.
Our reading: The policy removes three interlocking levers that currently drive environmental improvement in English agriculture: (1) financial incentives for farmers to deliver environmental outcomes (ELM schemes); (2) Natural England's regulatory and advisory role on SSSIs, stewardship, and land management; and (3) the option of converting productive land to solar or rewilding. On the near term, removing direct environmental payment incentives ends the mechanism by which ELM currently funds nature recovery, soil health, and water quality improvements on farmland. Replacing them with unconditional direct payments removes the conditionality that makes the subsidy environmentally productive. Curtailing Natural England's powers over farmers reduces the regulatory floor beneath which land management cannot fall. On emissions, agriculture is a material sector in the UK's legally binding climate commitments. Scrapping climate-related subsidies and blocking solar on agricultural land removes both demand-side (farm practice change) and supply-side (renewable energy) contributions to decarbonisation at a moment when the pace of emissions reduction needs to accelerate sharply. On biodiversity, the ELM schemes and Natural England's designation powers are the primary instruments for nature recovery on England's farmland. Their removal or curtailment is projected by multiple evidence sources to stall or reverse recent improvements in biodiversity, water quality, and soil organic carbon. The policy's own framing — that productive land must be farmed rather than rewilded or used for solar — treats food production and nature/climate as rivals. But cited evidence notes solar can be integrated with grazing and biodiversity, and that this framing is contested by independent analysts. The main counterargument — that replacement direct payments could be redesigned to include environmental conditions — is not supported by anything in the stated policy text, which frames the change as removing climate-related conditionality. On the evidence provided, the direction is a clear worsening of O6, with moderate magnitude given uncertainty about implementation scale and speed.