Underfunded UK biodiversity scheme suffers further cut

The recent revelation of a £358 million underspend in the UK's agricultural budget over the last three years has sent shockwaves through the farming community. This figure, published in the Farming and Countryside Programme’s report, highlights a significant gap between the funds allocated and what has actually been spent, sparking strong criticism from farmers and agricultural leaders alike. NFU President Tom Bradshaw described the underspend as "unacceptable," particularly in light of the mounting challenges farmers face during the transition to more sustainable practices under new agricultural policies.  

The underspend, which includes £130 million in the 2023-24 fiscal year alone, comes at a time when farmers have been grappling with reductions in the Basic Payment Scheme (BPS). The new Environmental Land Management (ELM) schemes, intended to replace BPS, have suffered delays, leaving a funding vacuum that has significantly impacted many farmers' income. According to Bradshaw, this funding shortfall has only deepened the uncertainty farmers have faced in recent years, exacerbating financial pressures caused by inflation and extreme weather conditions.  

This issue has been brewing for some time. In 2021-22, the agriculture budget was underspent by £125 million, followed by another £103 million in 2022-23. Despite the large sums allocated to support farmers through the agricultural transition, much of the funding remained unused. The NFU has been vocal about these issues for years, warning that BPS reductions would cripple farmers unless new support systems were in place beforehand. Yet, despite these warnings, the underspend persists, and confidence within the sector has plunged to new lows. A recent NFU survey showed that confidence among farmers is at its lowest level since 2010, with the majority citing the phasing out of BPS, rising input prices, and heavy-handed government regulation as their top concerns. 

One of the most troubling aspects of the underspend is that it isn’t a result of surplus or unnecessary funding. According to Bradshaw, the investment is urgently needed to help farmers transition to more environmentally friendly practices, boost food security, and build resilience against the impacts of climate change. In fact, many of the new ELM schemes remain incomplete, leaving farmers without the financial support required to adopt these sustainable practices. The money saved from BPS cuts has essentially been left sitting unused, gathering dust rather than helping farmers navigate these uncertain times. 

The NFU has urged the government to carry this unspent funding forward into future budgets, ensuring that it can finally be put to its intended use. This would not only help farmers remain financially viable but also contribute to the government's broader goals of boosting food production and achieving net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2040. The NFU’s modeling work has already shown that upland farmers, in particular, have been hit hardest by the funding gap, losing 37% of their support payments under the 2023 scheme options. These reductions threaten the livelihoods of farmers operating in some of the UK’s most challenging agricultural environments. 

In response to the underspend, the government has pledged to restore confidence in the farming sector by optimizing ELM schemes, ensuring that all types of farms, including small, upland, and tenanted farms, can benefit from the funding available. There is also a push for a new veterinary agreement with the European Union to reduce red tape and support British food exports. Additionally, the government aims to protect farmers from being undercut by low-welfare, low-standard imports through trade deals, while using its purchasing power to promote British produce. 

Despite these promises, there are still unanswered questions about how the government will address the underspend and support farmers in the long term. The NFU is calling for a clear commitment to roll over unspent agricultural funds into future years, ensuring that they are used to build resilience, promote sustainability, and meet environmental targets. Without this clarity, the future of the UK’s farming sector remains uncertain, and the country’s ambitious climate goals could be at risk. 

As the agriculture industry faces mounting pressures—from volatile weather to regulatory changes—the need for a robust, well-funded support system has never been greater. The £358 million underspend represents not just a missed opportunity but a real threat to the future of UK farming. If these funds are not reinvested, the long-term consequences could be severe, impacting everything from food security to climate resilience and rural economic growth. Farmers, environmentalists, and political leaders alike agree: this issue cannot be ignored if the UK is to build a sustainable, secure agricultural future.