Daily Junction.mobi portalEnvironmentally, the UK has committed to net zero emissions by 2050 and to halt biodiversity decline by 2030. Agriculture is responsible for 10% of UK greenhouse gas emissions (mostly methane from livestock and nitrous oxide from fertilizers) and is a major driver of habitat loss and water pollution. ELMS is a key tool for meeting these targets.
Economically, the government sees ELMS as a way to reduce public spending on agriculture (by cutting the largest CAP payments to wealthy landowners) while delivering better value for money through targeted environmental outcomes. The savings are being redirected to productivity grants, innovation funding, and environmental schemes that benefit society, not just landowners.
Politically, ELMS reflects a post-Brexit vision of British agriculture as high-quality, sustainable, and environmentally responsible, rather than competing on volume and price with industrial agriculture in the EU, US, or South America. The government argues this aligns with consumer demand for local, organic, and ethical food.
However, this vision is contested. The NFU argues that food production should be the priority and that environmental goals should not come at the expense of farm viability or food security. Rural communities fear that the decline of farming will lead to depopulation, loss of rural services, and the erosion of cultural landscapes shaped by centuries of agriculture.
The UK is not alone in reforming farm subsidies, but its approach is more radical than most.
The EU is also reforming CAP to link payments to environmental outcomes, but the changes are slower and less dramatic. Direct payments continue, and farmers have more time to adapt.
New Zealand abolished farm subsidies entirely in the 1980s, forcing farmers to compete without state support. The result was a painful transition, with many farms going bankrupt, but the sector eventually became more efficient and export-focused. However, New Zealand has a much smaller population, abundant land, and a focus on pastoral farming, making it a poor comparison for the UK.
Switzerland pays farmers generous subsidies for environmental and cultural services (e.g., maintaining alpine pastures, traditional farming practices), but also protects domestic agriculture with high tariffs and import controls. The UK is doing the opposite: opening markets to imports while cutting support for domestic production.
The UK's approach is a high-risk experiment. If it works, it could demonstrate that agriculture can be profitable, sustainable, and environmentally restorative without subsidizing land ownership. If it fails, it could lead to a collapse of domestic food production, rural depopulation, and increased reliance on imports from countries with lower environmental and welfare standards.
For the transition to succeed, several things must change:
First, ELMS must be simplified and made accessible. The current system is too complex, bureaucratic, and slow. Farmers need clear guidance, fast payments, and schemes that work for working farms, not just large estates.
Second, payments must be adequate. ELMS income must be sufficient to replace lost CAP payments and cover the costs of environmental management. Otherwise, farmers will exit the industry or revert to intensive practices.
Third, tenant farmers must be protected. ELMS must be redesigned to work for tenant farmers, with shorter agreement periods, landlord incentives to support tenants, and protections against eviction for environmental land use.
Fourth, food production must be valued. The government must recognize that environmental goals and food security are not mutually exclusive. Policies should support farmers who produce food sustainably, not force them to choose between production and environmental payments.
Fifth, the transition must be slower. The pace of CAP cuts is too fast for many farmers to adapt. Extending the transition period to 2030 would give farmers more time to enroll in ELMS, adjust business models, and access support.
The UK's shift from CAP to ELMS is the most significant change to farm subsidies in 50 years. It represents a bold attempt to align agriculture with environmental goals, reduce public spending on landowners, and create a more sustainable food system. However, the transition is chaotic, underfunded, and deeply uncertain.
Direct CAP payments are being phased out by 2027, but many farmers cannot yet access replacement ELMS income. The average farm received £24,000 per year in CAP payments, and 35% of farms are experiencing net income losses during the transition. Small and tenant farmers are the hardest hit, with 42% of farms under 50 hectares reporting they may not survive.
Food production has declined 6% since 2020 as farmers reduce livestock, convert land to environmental schemes, or leave the industry. This raises serious questions about food security, rural communities, and whether the UK can achieve environmental goals without sacrificing the viability of working farms.
The success of ELMS will depend on whether the government can simplify the schemes, increase payments, support tenant farmers, and balance environmental ambition with the need for a productive, resilient agricultural sector. The world is watching this experiment. British farmers are living it.