In the UK's June spending review, nature conservation appears to have received positive news, with the government setting an ambition to allocate up to £2 billion per year by 2028–29 for the Environmental Land Management (ELM) scheme in England. This scheme aims to pay farmers to restore hedgerows, soils, and wetlands, rewilding landscapes to absorb carbon, support pollinators, maintain clean water quality, and help rural businesses remain viable in the face of climate change. If fully delivered, the post-Brexit model of public funding for shared ecological benefits could become one of the most generous in the world.
However, a closer look at the details reveals significant complexities. The review actually cuts the day-to-day budget of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra). Defra faces staff reductions and shrinking data resources, yet is expected to sign and monitor thousands of new ELM agreements. Without verification that skylarks are increasing in fields or streams are clearer due to reduced fertiliser use, large sums of money risk being delayed or misdirected.
Scale is another major challenge. An independent analysis in 2024 estimated that the UK needs around £6 billion annually to enable agriculture to meet the habitat restoration and net-zero commitments in the Environment Act. Even the promised £2 billion would cover only about half of the evidence-based need. Moreover, the "up to" £400 million earmarked for trees and peatland is not new money, and payment schedules remain unclear.
While the review allocates £4.2 billion for flood and coastal defence, it does not specify how much will support nature-based measures such as floodplain restoration, saltmarsh creation, or riparian woodland. Although the Environment Agency is consulting on financing models, Treasury documents make no mention of funding sources.
By contrast, around £30 billion has been earmarked for nuclear fission, fusion research, and carbon capture centres—projects that rely heavily on carbon-intensive materials with no direct ecological benefit. Yet thriving, resilient soils, wetlands, and woodlands nourish food systems, protect water sources, store vast amounts of carbon, and deliver benefits that deepen over time and are far more cost-effective. Nature-based solutions can also revitalise local economies: the Office for National Statistics estimates that replacing the benefits provided by the UK's forests, rivers, and soils would cost around £1.8 trillion—an indication only of their deeper, incalculable value. Yet the review offers no plan to protect these life-support systems, nor does it incorporate their decline into assessment rulebooks or stress tests.
Equity and public health are also at stake. Growing evidence shows that access to nature reduces risks of heart disease and anxiety and supports children's cognitive development—benefits that are priceless. Yet trees and parks are scarcest in the post-industrial towns that ministers want to "level up," and the review is silent on biodiversity net gain and the National Nature Wealth Fund.
However, the spending review contains elements that could shift the balance. The Chancellor has committed £39 billion for social and affordable housing over the next decade. If every development delivers at least 10% net biodiversity gain, incorporates climate-smart design, and involves local communities, the UK could pioneer the world's first large-scale, nature-friendly, net-zero housing programme. Otherwise, "levelling up" risks repeating past mistakes: concreting over green spaces today only to spend money regenerating them tomorrow.
The government's Planning and Infrastructure Bill is now before Parliament. Economists and ecologists warn that it would allow developers to "pay to destroy" irreplaceable habitats, replacing on-site protection with taxation.
At the next UN climate summit, COP30, in Brazil in November 2025, the UK will need to demonstrate that domestic spending aligns with its international rhetoric. More than 150 UK researchers have written to the Prime Minister urging that nature be placed at the heart of the UK's position at COP30.
While the spending review moves agricultural policy in the right direction and sets a new benchmark for nature-friendly farming, Defra's funding squeeze, recycled tree and peat budgets, and tech-led habitat growth models leave nature far behind hardware infrastructure in the UK's growth model. Yet opportunities remain: ensuring Defra's delivery capacity, publishing tree and peat fund timelines, reserving part of the flood budget for community-led nature-based solutions, and embedding biodiversity net gain rules in housing and planning reform could still convert these commitments into projects that enrich everyday life and make wise use of public money.
