Experts have raised concerns that the UK government’s proposed Land Use Framework could undermine agricultural resilience and jeopardise food security.
Labour's reforms, aimed at balancing food production, nature recovery and climate goals, may also lead to the significant loss of agricultural land.
This is according to a response from University of Exeter researchers, who emphasise the need for a careful balancing act from the government.
They caution that an overly national approach could result in regional disparities and injustices, making it difficult for certain areas to adequately address the consequences of land-use changes.
“We are concerned that an overly national focus may lead to regional disparities and injustices in terms of how the benefits and disadvantages of land-use change play out,” the response reads.
One of the key issues identified by experts is the lack of detailed analysis on the potential impact of the proposed changes on food production.
The evidence provided by the government does not fully substantiate claims that a reduced area of land can continue to provide the same—or even more—food than the current agricultural land base.
Moreover, the potential effects of climate change and extreme weather conditions on future food security and resilience have not been adequately considered.
To address these concerns, the response suggests that the government should provide a more granular, sub-national breakdown of the expected land-use changes, enabling disparities to be identified and discussed at a regional level.
Additionally, experts recommend that the government consider safeguarding a proportion of high-quality agricultural land at the regional level to mitigate the potential negative impacts of the proposed reforms.
The response also highlights the concerns of farmers, who may view the proposed changes as a sacrifice of agricultural land.
This could undermine support for the reforms at a time when farmers feel undervalued and threatened by other recent legal and policy changes.
The government’s intention to incorporate ‘co-creation’ and ‘co-design’ as core principles may, according to experts, be perceived as a superficial exercise rather than a genuine effort to engage farmers in meaningful decision-making.
“Farmers will interpret the changes as the sacrifice of agricultural land, which is unlikely to encourage their support,” the response concludes.
“The changes should provide a framework for genuine decision-making and change across all land-use types and foster an open, co-created discussion of how the desired outcomes should be achieved.”
