Why We Have Written Again to the Public Accounts Committee

✅ KEY TAKEAWAY: Parliament must scrutinize Defra’s nature recovery spending to guarantee public money directly supports the gamekeepers and farmers delivering measurable conservation outcomes on the ground.

Defra’s new £30 million Wildlife-Rich Habitat Fund could be good news for the uplands - if it reaches the people actually managing them.

Many Moorland Association members are already managing blanket bog, heather moorland and breeding habitat for curlew, lapwing, golden plover, merlin and black grouse. We welcome investment in nature recovery, but it must be judged by what it delivers on the ground.

That is why we have written again to the Chair of the Public Accounts Committee, following the evidence we submitted earlier this year on environmental regulation reform. We have also copied the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee because this is directly relevant to Defra’s land use, nature recovery and 30by30 policy.

Our request is straightforward: Parliament should ask where the money goes, who gets to deliver, and what results are being achieved.

We support nature recovery - but it must be judged by results

The Government’s announcement says the Wildlife-Rich Habitat Fund will help restore thousands of hectares of habitat over three years, as part of the wider drive to meet 30by30 and the legal target to restore more than 500,000 hectares of wildlife-rich habitat by 2042.

Defra also says the fund will be delivered through the existing Farming in Protected Landscapes programme infrastructure and prioritised through Protected Landscape management plans and Local Nature Recovery Strategies.

That matters to MA members because many moors sit within National Parks and National Landscapes. These are not abstract landscapes. They are working places, managed every day by farmers, land managers, gamekeepers, graziers, estate teams and local contractors.

In the uplands, nature recovery is not delivered by press releases. It depends on year-round decisions made on the ground (grazing, cutting, bracken control, grip blocking, predator management, wildfire prevention and species monitoring) all adapted to local site conditions.

Recognising gamekeepers and moorland managers

One thing is missing from Defra’s language. The announcement rightly refers to farmers, land managers, conservation organisations and local communities. But in the uplands, gamekeepers are often part of the team delivering the habitat and species outcomes government says it wants.

Their work supports breeding waders, maintains vegetation mosaics, helps reduce wildfire risk, delivers predator control and contributes to the long-term condition of moorland habitats. Gamekeepers and moorland managers should be recognised openly as delivery partners, not treated as an afterthought.

Why value for money matters

Public money should be invested in nature recovery. The issue is whether it reaches the hill, the farm, the keeper, the contractor and the work that actually changes habitat condition - or whether too much is absorbed by layers of administration, consultancy, advice, partnership structures and reporting.

That is why we have asked the Public Accounts Committee to look closely at value for money. Taxpayers should be able to see who receives the money, how much reaches work on the ground, and what has actually improved for habitats and species.

The Public Accounts Committee (PAC) is the right place to raise value for money. The Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee (EFRA) is the right committee to scrutinise Defra’s land use and nature policy.

The Environmental Audit Committee (EAC) also has an interest in whether government is meeting its environmental commitments. That is why we have written to the PAC and copied in EFRA and the EAC.

This is consistent with our wider reform work

Earlier this year, the Moorland Association submitted evidence to Parliament arguing that environmental regulation too often rewards process rather than outcomes. We said the system is too top-down, fragmented and slow to adapt, and that it can produce perverse consequences where blanket restrictions increase risks such as wildfire fuel build-up.

Our reform proposal called for a shift from a centrally controlled, permission-based model to one based on locally led delivery under national standards. We argued for measurable outcome targets, better monitoring, clearer responsibilities, earned recognition for trusted managers and properly funded participation by land managers.

The new Defra funding announcement reinforces that case. More money will not automatically produce better outcomes unless the delivery model is right.

30by30 must remain voluntary and locally led

Defra’s own 30by30 framework says contributions should be voluntary, with no obligation on landowners or land managers to participate, and that new contributions should not create new designations or management requirements. It also says 30by30 should be a collaborative, bottom-up effort led by those driving nature recovery on the ground.

That principle must be honoured.

The Moorland Association supports the ambition to improve nature. But the people managing the land must be involved in deciding what works locally. Upland habitats are complex.

Rewetting, woodland creation, cutting, grazing, burning, predator control and wildfire management all need to be considered according to local site conditions, not imposed through one-size-fits-all prescriptions.

What we have asked Parliament to examine

We have written to the Chair of the Public Accounts Committee asking for scrutiny of Defra’s nature recovery spending, including the Wildlife-Rich Habitat Fund, Species Recovery Programme, FiPL, Landscape Recovery, peatland schemes and related 30by30 delivery streams.

We have also copied the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee and the Environmental Audit Committee because these questions are directly relevant to Defra’s delivery of land use, nature recovery, 30by30 policy and wider environmental commitments.

We believe Parliament should examine:

1. whether money is reaching work on the ground;

2. whether farmers, gamekeepers and moorland managers are able to access support;

3. whether outcomes are being measured clearly;

4. whether public money is delivering additional benefits or simply rebadging existing work;

5. whether overlapping schemes are creating unnecessary complexity; and

6. whether upland nature recovery properly recognises wildfire resilience, peatland condition and breeding bird success.

Our message to members

This is not opposition to nature recovery. It is support for nature recovery that works.

MA members have a strong story to tell. Across England’s uplands, our members are already delivering for peat, water, carbon, wildfire resilience and some of the country’s most threatened ground-nesting birds. That practical knowledge must shape how public funding is spent.

We will continue to make the case that environmental policy should be judged by outcomes, not process. Public money should deliver healthier peat, thriving moorland habitats, reduced wildfire risk and better results for species such as curlew, lapwing, golden plover and black grouse.

Nature recovery will only succeed if it works with the people who manage the land every day. That is the case we are making to Parliament.