The Land Use Framework consultation government is launching is necessary and important. We urgently need to make strategic national decisions about what should go where: to restore ecosystems, stop urban flooding and better plan development.
Comments
Log in with your Bluesky account to leave a comment
It isn't going to be touched on in the consultation but we wouldn't need as much farmland if food production systems were less wasteful and supermarkets didn't make farmers grow food before deciding they've got enough and not paying for it
Isn't designating some land for farming and some food nature a fundamental problem? Biodiversity will continue to plummet if farming practice does not change to make space for nature.
Of course, a big question is whether the framework will lead to real change at a time when budgets are being slashed even further, and regulators reduced to a shell of their former selves. We're seeing something close to the administrative collapse of rural policy and environmental protection.
My fear is it will lack the imagination to think big on rewilding - it will zone a few areas for nature or food or walking but outside of these it will be seen as encouraging development… with no corresponding effort on diets/consumption and an ever-growing population and shifting climate.
So the danger is that the government introduces a good policy framework - as this seems to be - but, because of Reeves's renewed war on regulation and regulators, has no capacity to implement it. Even more duties are loaded onto overstretched agencies, pushing them to the brink.
The good news is that the excellent @ffc-commission.bsky.social is involved. But with DEFRA’s seeming indifference to ELMS, implementation may stagnate in the future.
The current government in a nutshell, plenty of good ideas to begin to tackle some longstanding structural challenges all being undermined at launch due to timidity in the face of treasury groupthink
The regulators have now all been told by Reeves to "drive growth": a preposterous aim for bodies meant to protect us from the deleterious impacts of economic activity. How is this compatible with a framework which will say "in some places we should leave nature alone?"
This government are hogtying the independent processes that were set up to offer checks and balances to protect the public. At some point surely the Labour politicians with consciences are going to stand up and say there isn’t a mandate for this kind of behaviour?
It is possible, that - if designed well - the recent nature working paper proposals could actually fund the regulators and allow them to create lots of nature, using the land use framework to put it in the right places! Playing devil's advocate and perhaps glass half full!
I see an opportunity here to improve environmental circumstances - even if it's just one relatively small thing - which without the existence of the framework would be much harder to accomplish.
After 14+ years of shitwater, I'd take even a negotiated scrap thrown our way.
At the same time this is all for markets/business audience so she doesn't have to raise more taxes or cut more spending in a few months. It's all words at moment.
Do we have to consider what the real intent is? From the incompatible noises already being made, the framework looks like it is set up to fail from an environmental protection perspective - fundamentally, there is a monumental oxymoron.
(*"mental" appearing 3 times in last bit not deliberate.)
The door has been opened ever so slightly. It would be regretted if some of us didn't walk through to engage in what is going on inside, right? Even if it's merely to spot those with contradictory motives already in attendance?
It's almost the wonderful natural scent of a supreme opportunity. Maybe that these things take time to come to fruition from initial consultation stage is in the favour of organised, structured moves to enact some of what the UK so desperately needs?
Comments
https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/ace/standard/976/cpsprodpb/97e0/live/e9c33280-df56-11ef-bd1b-d536627785f2.jpg.webp
After 14+ years of shitwater, I'd take even a negotiated scrap thrown our way.
But it could be more.
(*"mental" appearing 3 times in last bit not deliberate.)
- Hopeless, naive optimism at your service.