Blog

3rd March 2021

The Government have published their analysis of the consultation they carried out on ELMS. Read Jill Butler and Caroline’s response to what the Government appear to have understood from the consultation so far…

The Review is a compilation of responses to the consultation but it’s not clear how the government will let the responses influence the next stages.

ATF is pleased to see recognition of the points we made in the following principle conclusions:

• would like to see more detail about how Environmental Land Management would work in practice.
• a clear need for advice, particularly during the pre-application and application process, and for the more complex agreements. Impartial and expert advisers with local knowledge were also suggested.
• the widespread recognition that the scheme needs testing and piloting.

We’re very pleased to see this quote from ATF’s submission in the final report:

‘A lesson learnt from previous schemes is that landowners must have access to a network of community-based, trusted expert co-ordinators whose role it is to coach, inspire, enthuse, educate, hand-hold, form-fill and connect-up farmers through the transition process. However, there must be experts across many specialist fields, including tree ecology and the biodiversity and other public goods provided by wood pasture and parkland and other priority habitats or historic landscapes.’

Environment or conservation organisation

This recognition of expert input is great, but if the experts also need the tools (i.e funding streams) to persuade land-managers to do the right thing, then it won’t happen. We would want to see funding to protect existing habitat, especially ancient and other veteran trees, wood pasture and parkland and to create new wood pasture and parkland.

Some of the more detailed points that ATF made have wider support and recognition in the full document:

• Many submissions emphasise the importance of trees outside woodland and would like to see this reflected in ELM with greater flexibility of approach across all land types (including urban and peri-urban) and more ‘cross functional land management’.
• It is acknowledged that advice will be required, especially at the start of the ELM scheme, and that advisers will need to be experts (potentially requiring training) so that they have knowledge of both how to achieve environmental outcomes and also of the ELM scheme mechanics.
• There is considerable support, particularly amongst environment, wildlife and conservation organisations, for supporting the creation of woodland by natural regeneration within ELM. Also for rewilding.
• Concern was expressed that the term ‘afforestation’ may allow for monoculture plantations which do not provide high value environments for wildlife. Instead, they suggest that land must be allowed to regenerate naturally and that large-scale afforestation should be encouraged more in areas of low agricultural value to preserve productive arable land.

The following areas are disappointing:

No specific mention in this analysis of recognising or protecting existing trees in ELMS.

The NFU want to keep separate budgets for forestry and agriculture; ATF wants to see more holistic and integrated land management specifically directed at the climate and biodiversity crises.

There is still an overwhelming focus on tree or woodland planting, or new planting of trees outside woods.

share this post:

Posted by: Ancient Tree Forum The Ancient Tree Forum seeks to secure the long term future of ancient and veteran trees through advocacy of the importance of their protection, encouraging research, promoting best conservation practice and increasing people's enjoyment of old trees.

4 Comments | Leave a Comment