Does the new Environmental Improvement Plan change the game for nature recovery? – Inside track

The government’s new Environmental Improvement Plan (EIP25) has at last been published, after a fifteen month gestation. One of the first acts of Steve Reed, as the previous environment secretary, was to launch a ‘rapid review’ of the previous government’s plan. The new plan was delayed first by the spending review and then by the summer ministerial reshuffle, highlighting the vulnerability of environmental policy development to government processes.

It was a relief that the plan was published in 2025 as there was concern it may not appear until next year, which would have caused further delay in action and held up the growing pipeline of other policies expected to appear in its wake. These include significant documents such as the land use framework, the 25 year farming roadmap and the circular economy growth plan.

What’s in the plan? The EIP is a kaleidoscope of policies, commitments and actions. It is easier to navigate than the previous plan, with ministers insisting EIP25 is credible and ambitious. The publication of 13 accompanying delivery plans – called for by environmental groups and the Office for Environmental Protection (OEP) – should strengthen accountability and transparency. These sit alongside EIP25 to provide more detail on how the government intends to deliver environmental improvements in areas including water quality, habitat creation and woodland cover.

The government has said that these delivery plans will be updated as evidence and policy evolve. Divorcing them from the statutory EIP means they can be revised more frequently. The flexibility is important as the delivery plans are not the quantified pathways needed to drive environmental action with confidence that the desired outcomes will be achieved. Also, delivery plans only cover the legally binding targets in the Environment Act, so there is a potential risk that other goals in EIP25 will be vulnerable to drift or de-prioritisation.

There are good policies and promises of more  EIP25 puts forward some popular measures, such as an ‘access to nature’ green paper, which will consult on how to ensure everyone has access to nature close to home, and to strengthen the public’s access rights. But the commitment, as with many others, is shrouded by a vague timescale, in this case “during this Parliament”.

It also repeats previous commitments, for example, to legislate for a ban on the sale of peat and peat containing products, but the timescale of “when parliamentary time allows” is as evasive as that set by the previous government, which failed to deliver this important law.

Pollution rightly gets increased attention. Greater ambition on tackling particulate matter pollution is encouraging, as is a promised new plan on forever chemicals and a consultation on bringing intensive dairy and beef farms into the environmental permitting regime to reduce ammonia emissions.

Where’s the money? The previous EIP pledged £1 billion private finance for nature by 2030 but this isn’t listed in the new plan, and although it is included in a 2024 update on nature markets, there is a question as to whether the government is still committed to this figure. It has, though, promised to spend £500 million on Landscape Recovery, the component of Environmental Land Management designed to bring farmers and landowners together at a strategic scale to restore nature, improve water quality and tackle climate change. At first glance this sounds impressive, but the figure spans 20 years. It’s unclear whether there will be more funding for Landscape Recovery in this period, which is much needed.

Is the plan strong enough to reverse UK nature decline? It will take time to digest the detail, the 13 delivery plans, the new monitoring plan and theories of change.

EIP25 runs until 2030, and the timescales to meet most of its interim targets have been shunted from 2028 to 2030. This takes us right up to critical 2030 deadlines to halt the decline in species abundance (a legally binding target in the Environment Act) and to protect at least 30 per cent of our land and sea for nature by 2030 (a commitment of the Global Biodiversity Framework).

It’s no secret that the government is not on track to meet its legal environmental commitments, as repeated assessments from the OEP have shown. The watchdog has warned that the window of opportunity to redress environmental harms before damage becomes hard to reverse is closing fast.

Will EIP25 be enough to do this and put nature on the path of recovery? If everything it promises is delivered and the new policies are driven forward at pace, that will certainly help. But, as 90 per cent of its commitments fall to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and its agencies, the context in which these will be delivered matters.

Does the prime minister support it? This was the first EIP not to be fronted by a foreword from the prime minister. Rishi Sunak said EIP23 was “…a blueprint not just to halt the decline of nature in our country, but to reverse it – changing the trajectory that the country has been on ever since the industrial revolution”. Theresa May proudly launched the first EIP – the 25 year environment plan – and talked of the government’s “fierce commitment” to protect the environment. Keir Starmer provided no such words of support and instead chose to make a speech that clashed with the stakeholder launch event of EIP25. In that speech he indicated his support for the recommendations of a task force on nuclear regulation that included removing important environmental protections.

A board of officials from across the government will co-ordinate and drive forward cross departmental delivery of EIP25. It will have its work cut out to ensure that the whole of government plays a full part in ensuring positive environmental outcomes, hopefully aided by a cross government nature strategy and proper embedding of environmental principles in policy making.

Parliament must also hold ministers accountable for the plan, with the Environmental Audit Committee, with Toby Perkins as chair, likely to do most of the heavy lifting. Civil society will be engaged, via on the ground delivery partnerships and in the never ending task of pushing for greater ambition and a faster pace of action, and speaking out whenever progress slips.