The UK has a rare chance to show that inclusive prosperity, affordable homes, public health and ecological integrity can advance together. Realising that promise will depend on converting headline pledges into well-funded, nature-positive projects on the ground.
Until that happens, support for the living systems underpinning the economy is likely to remain below the level that science and economics indicate is essential for durable growth, resilience and levelling-up.
Professor Nathalie Seddon, Smith School of Enterprise and Environment
The headline uplift for Environmental Land Management (ELM) to £2 billion a year by 2028-29 is welcome. If delivered, it would be one of the largest annual public investments in nature-friendly farming anywhere in the world and could begin to close England’s financing gap for biodiversity, soil and water targets.
But context matters, and yesterday’s Spending Review comes against a challenging backdrop for nature.
A larger ELM inside a smaller Defra
While ELM grows on paper, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) takes one of the steepest real-terms reductions of any domestic department, exceeded only by the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office.
Administering and evaluating a much larger programme of higher-tier ELM agreements, plus new peatland and woodland schemes, will require scientific and delivery capacity that the settlement may not cover. Without adequate staff and monitoring budgets the promised funding risks leakage, delay or poor targeting.
Agri-environment numbers: progress, but still below scale of need
The Review earmarks £5.9 billion for agri-environment measures over the three financial years 2026-27 to 2028-29, of which £2 billion a year is for ELM and up to £400 million for additional nature schemes. That looks large, yet the figure is spread over three years; confined to England; and broadly equivalent to the annual UK-wide requirement identified by the ‘Scale of Need’ analysis produced by environmental NGOs.
In short, today’s package is significant but still only half the total that independent evidence suggests is needed each year across the UK to align farming with statutory nature and climate goals.
Trees, peat and the risk of business as usual
The Spending Review confirms £816 million for woodlands and repeats the ‘up to £400 million for trees and peatlands’ announced in the 2024 Autumn Statement. The woodland allocation could be transformative, provided it supports improved management of existing forests and natural regeneration as well as new planting.
An evidence-led approach—overseen by Defra, not driven solely by Forestry Commission planting targets—will be critical to avoid carbon, biodiversity and community trade-offs. The £400 million appears to be previously announced money rather than a fresh injection; clarity on how and when it will be deployed remains outstanding.
Flood defences and the missing natural-flood-management commitment
Investment in low-carbon technology is essential, yet the balance of spending underscores a persistent UK policy bias: technology spending still dwarfs investment in natural infrastructure—soils, wetlands, native woodlands—that underwrite food security, flood protection and carbon storage.
Without parallel investment in living systems, the full social return on technology spend will not be realised.
Professor Nathalie Seddon, Smith School of Enterprise and Environment
Flood and coastal resilience receives £4.2 billion over three years, but the Review is silent on what share will go to natural flood-management measures such as wetland restoration and riparian woodlands. The Environment Agency is currently consulting on a more generous funding model that could mainstream these solutions; the Treasury document could have endorsed that direction but did not.
Departmental winners and losers: technology first, ecosystems later
By contrast with Defra, the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (DESNZ) is a clear winner, receiving one of the largest uplifts.
Billions are committed to nuclear fission, fusion research, and carbon-capture projects. Investment in low-carbon technology is essential, yet the balance of spending underscores a persistent UK policy bias: technology spending still dwarfs investment in natural infrastructure—soils, wetlands, native woodlands—that underwrite food security, flood protection and carbon storage.
Without parallel investment in living systems, the full social return on technology spend will not be realised.
Housing: a world-first chance for nature-positive development
The Chancellor’s £39 billion, decade-long commitment to social and affordable housing offers a real chance for the UK to lead on nature-positive, net-zero neighbourhoods. Realising that promise is likely to depend on familiar elements: applying Biodiversity Net Gain so new developments enhance local habitats; drawing on bio-inspired, climate-sensitive design—green roofs, shade-giving street trees, permeable surfaces—that lowers heat and flood risk; and involving communities early so green space, health and housing advance together.
Because the Spending Review is silent on Biodiversity Net Gain, it leaves open whether these principles will shape delivery. Clarifying them now would allow ministers to arrive at COP 30 with a credible template for large-scale, nature-positive development.
What is missing?
Three omissions stand out:
- Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG) – The flagship mechanism for levering private finance into nature-positive development is absent from the Spending Review narrative and tables.
- National Nature Wealth Fund – The government resists calls to create a blended-finance vehicle that could aggregate public and private capital for large-scale restoration.
- Nature-related risk integration – There is no mention of updating the Green Book or Bank of England stress tests to reflect nature-related financial risk, even though the ONS now values the UK’s natural-capital asset base at about £1.8 trillion.
These gaps risk leaving growth and resilience gains on the table at a time when the UK can ill afford to miss them.
Professor Nathalie Seddon. Credit: Aline Soterroni
A step in the right direction for nature or ongoing underestimation of it’s value?
Yesterday’s Spending Review moves agri-environment support in the right direction and, on paper, sets a new high-water mark for public funding of nature-friendly farming. Yet Defra’s overall squeeze, the recycling rather than expansion of tree and peat budgets, and the continued predominance of technology lines over ecosystem investment signal that the UK still underestimates nature’s role in economic renewal.
To meet statutory targets, strengthen rural economies and protect communities from climate risk, the government will need to: 1) guarantee delivery capacity inside Defra and its agencies; 2) publish a transparent timetable for the £400 million tree and peat allocation; 3) confirm that a meaningful share of the £4.2 billion flood budget will support community led nature-based solutions; and 4) revisit BNG, nature-risk stress testing and the case for a National Nature Wealth Fund.
With COP 30 approaching and an ambitious social-housing programme just announced, the UK has a rare chance to show that inclusive prosperity, affordable homes, public health and ecological integrity can advance together. Realising that promise will depend on converting headline pledges into well-funded, nature-positive projects on the ground.
Until that happens, support for the living systems underpinning the economy is likely to remain below the level that science and economics indicate is essential for durable growth, resilience and levelling-up.
“The University of Oxford is a collegiate research university in Oxford, England. There is evidence of teaching as early as 1096, making it the oldest university in the English-speaking world and the world’s second-oldest university in continuous operation.”
Please visit the firm link to site
