New Environmental Improvement Plan Published, But Is It Enough to Deliver for Nature?

On

After a long wait, Government has finally published its new Environmental Improvement Plan (EIP25). The package is vast, comprising the statutory plan itself, 13 separate delivery plans, a monitoring report and a suite of “theories of change”. Early reactions from across the environmental sector suggest a mix of relief, concern and frustration.

There is genuine relief that the plan has arrived at all. It provides something concrete to build on, scrutinise and strengthen. There are clear signs of progress in areas such as water, air quality and chemicals pollution, and the addition of new delivery plans brings welcome structure to complex policy areas.

However, the pace and urgency required to meet the Environment Act’s 2030 targets simply isn’t there. Despite the proliferation of delivery plans, these still fall short of offering quantified, confident pathways to success. Without that clarity, it will be difficult for regulators, delivery bodies and land managers to act at the scale required to halt environmental decline.

Significantly, the plan lands at a time when clear cross-government commitment to environmental ambition is lacking. A shift in tone and leadership will be required if EIP25 is to be a true game-changer for nature recovery.

We now need delivery to be accelerated, meaningful and collaborative. CIEEM looks forward to engaging constructively, and to continuing to hold Government accountable.

No Prime Ministerial foreword

Unlike the previous EIP published in 2023, this iteration arrives without a foreword from the Prime Minister. Instead, Environment Secretary Emma Reynolds takes the lead.

The omission feels more pointed given that, at almost the exact moment the plan was released, the Prime Minister was delivering a speech attacking “fundamentally misguided environmental regulations” and citing these as a barrier to cheaper nuclear development (see our news item on the Fingleton Review). Sector voices have warned this sends a mixed message: ambitions on paper, rhetoric in practice.

Targets: revised, removed and introduced

At the heart of EIP25 is a reshaping of the targets framework intended to deliver the Environment Act’s legally binding commitments.

One target removed – SSSIs

The previous commitment for all Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs) to have an up-to-date condition assessment by January 2028 has been removed.

A government review last year admitted the target was significantly at risk due to a lack of funding and resources. The new plan pushes the ambition to 2032 and downgrades it from a target to a “commitment”.

New interim targets – farmland wildlife and invasive species

Two new interim targets have been introduced.

  • Wildlife-friendly farming: Double the number of farms providing year-round resources for wildlife by 2030, compared with 2025. The metric is based on Environmental Land Management (ELM) uptake and requires 42% of farmers to manage at least 7% of their land for wildlife. Previous analysis has suggested that 65-80% of farmers should manage 10% of land for nature.

  • Invasive non-native species (INNS): Reduce establishment rates by at least 50% by 2030 compared to 2000 levels. DEFRA estimates this will require preventing at least one new establishment per year for the next five years.

Revised targets – higher ambition, slower timelines

Many existing targets have been revised, often increasing headline ambition but lengthening deadlines.

These include:

  • Species abundance: Restore or create 140,000 ha of wildlife-rich habitat by January 2028, on the way to 250,000 ha by 2030 (previously 250,000 ha by 2030).

  • Protected sites condition: 50% of SSSIs to have actions on track for reaching favourable condition by January 2028 (deadline brought forward from 2030).

  • Tree cover: Increase canopy and woodland cover by 0.26% of land area by 2028 (revised from 0.33% by 2030).

  • Marine Protected Areas: 48% of designated features in MPAs in favourable condition, with the remainder recovering, by January 2028 (revised from at least 49% of features in favourable condition and 46% recovering by 2030).

As others have already noted, this pattern of pushing deadlines beyond 2028 risks undermining the credibility of the 2030 legal targets.

Local Wildlife Sites are also conspicuously absent from the plan.

Landscape-scale initiatives: Big Chalk and Coastal Wildbelt

The EIP references “Big Chalk” and “Coastal Wildbelt” initiatives as examples of the large-scale nature recovery partnerships that the Government intends to foster through the Protected Landscapes Partnership.

While not formal policy commitments or new designations, their inclusion indicates growing Government recognition of the need for landscape-scale delivery, something that eNGOs including CIEEM have been championing for years.

What happens next?

Government now needs to show that EIP25 can move beyond restated ambitions to real, rapid delivery. Achieving the 2030 targets remains a monumental challenge without:

  • cross-government buy-in;
  • clear resourcing;
  • local delivery capacity; and
  • sustained political leadership.

CIEEM will continue to work closely with partners to push for the ambition, clarity and investment needed to turn aspirations into action.

Nature cannot afford further delay.