When the Language Says Partnership, But the Tone Feels Firmer

Over recent months, many farmers have been waiting for clarity: clarity on support, clarity on expectations, and clarity on the role food production will play in the future of land use. Questions around the Farm Profitability Review haven’t gone away, and eyes were on the Budget to see how agricultural policy might shift. Meanwhile, almost quietly, the Environmental Improvement Plan 2025 arrived.

It is detailed, more structured than what came before, and ambitious. It sets out ten long-term goals on restoring nature, improving water and air, reducing chemical dependency, moving towards a circular economy, increasing access to nature and strengthening resilience. And it anchors everything in statutory targets under the Environment Act.

None of this is unwelcome. Most farmers I speak to don’t dispute the scale of challenge. They want healthy soil, clean rivers, thriving wildlife and stable, resilient food systems just as much as anyone else. They see the pressures first-hand and they are doing more than anyone else at an individual level to meet these ambitions.

And the document itself reflects that same sentiment. Farmers are repeatedly recognised as essential to delivery. The plan acknowledges that 67% of England’s land is agricultural, and that nature restoration cannot be achieved without farmers at the centre of it.

After reading the report, naturally I went to review the farmingpress...The NFU welcomed this direction, while calling for parity between environmental goals and food production — not one at the expense of the other. Its response made one point that resonates widely on farms: if farmers are expected to deliver for the environment, they need equivalent clarity and support to deliver for food security too.

As any communicator will tell you, the language matters, and so does the tone that sits behind it.

The plan is very clear about many things:

• 250,000 hectares of wildlife-rich habitat outside protected sites,

• a doubling of farms providing year-round resources for wildlife,

• and revamped targets for air quality, invasive species, and SSSI condition.

  
  

It is also clear about the mechanisms that will help shape land use: Local Nature Recovery Strategies, estate management plans, mapping woodland creation, regulating pollution, and aligning planning frameworks with nature outcomes.

There’s no vagueness about the environmental intent.

What feels less defined at least for now, is how this ambition sits alongside commercial farming, long-term business planning, and domestic food production.

Food is mentioned, and its importance is acknowledged. But the picture of how food and nature will sit side by side is being deferred to future work: the Land Use Framework, the Food Strategy, the Farming Roadmap.

And this is where the tone matters.

When environmental targets are firm, specific and time-bound, but the policy detail around food production is “to follow”, it leaves a sense of imbalance.

Not because the aims are wrong, but because the outcomes farmers must manage feel less certain.

In quiet moments, many express a similar thought:

I agree with the ambition — I just don’t yet know where food production fits within it, or what it means for the future shape of my business.

It isn’t resistance. It’s hesitation born of unclear trade-offs.

The Feeling Between the Lines

Words like partnership, collaboration, and co-delivery run throughout the document. And the intention behind them seems genuine. But we all read tone not from vocabulary, but from how decisions are framed. Mandatory biodiversity net gain, legal targets, LNRS steering spatial priorities, and expectations around woodland, hedgerows and habitat management all signal a firmer direction for land.

They imply the “what” is already set and that farmers will be instrumental in the “how”.

That’s not unreasonable. Urgency is real. But it can create the subtle impression that farmers have been cast more as delivery agents than as equal designers.

If environmental recovery is going to reshape land use, farmers want to feel they are shaping that future at the same table, not informed of it once the map has been drawn.

And when uncertainty creeps into a decision that affects how land is used for decades, the natural human instinct is to pause rather than leap.

That’s the quiet tension sitting underneath an otherwise positive plan.

Commitment Must Feel Two-Way

Environmental projects take time, investment, changes to business models, and sometimes reductions in output. If the work required is tangible, the recognition needs to feel equally tangible. That means secure schemes, clarity about how environmental delivery interacts with profitability, and confidence that risks are shared rather than pushed only onto land managers.

This is why the NFU called for certainty on the Sustainable Farming Incentive and clear targets for British food production. Farmers are not asking for exemptions, just a level footing, where food and nature are treated as mutually necessary pillars rather than one being asked to bend further than the other.

Because effort without clear reward does eventually fade. Not from defiance, but because uncertainty is tiring. Environmental recovery is a long game...generational even.

A Partnership That Needs to Be Felt, Not Only Written

The EIP is more structured than previous plans. More specific. More measurable. And genuinely strengthened in many areas. From peat restoration funding to habitat targets and cross-government involvement, there is clear progress.

But tone is delicate. If the language says “with you”, the design needs to feel that way as well.

And perhaps that is the opportunity now:

• To pull farmers more visibly into the heart of decisions before strategies are finalised.

• To set food production alongside nature targets with equal clarity.

• To ensure that recognition and reward feel proportionate to the requests being made.

• To acknowledge that landscapes shaped over centuries are the result of food production and stewardship, not one or the other.

Farmers want this to succeed. They want to restore nature, build resilience, and leave land better than they found it. They simply want confidence that they can do so while maintaining viable businesses, feeding the nation, and planning for the next generation.

The plan gives a direction. The next step is making sure the tone and detail match the spirit of partnership it sets out to champion.

If that alignment is made real, not just written, this could become the decade where nature recovery and food production genuinely rise together.