Nature-based solutions in England’s new Environmental Improvement Plan

England’s revised Environmental Improvement Plan 2025 makes a clearer case for nature recovery as something that underpins, rather than competes with, economic security, climate resilience, public health and food production. But the plan still leaves open a central question: will the scale, pace and cross-government backing be strong enough to reverse ecological decline in time? December 17, 2025

England’s revised Environmental Improvement Plan 2025 (EIP) makes a clearer case that working with nature is essential to climate resilience, cleaner water, healthier places and long-term prosperity, rather than a niche concern. It is an improvement on its predecessor in structure and accountability, with clearer commitments, actions and named responsibilities. But the plan still leaves open a central question: will the scale, pace and cross-government backing be strong enough to reverse ecological decline in time?

Key takeaways from England’s revised Environmental Improvement Plan

• Clearer architecture and stronger accountability, with more transparency on who is responsible for delivery and how progress will be tracked.
• Useful policy levers on peat, trees, water, chemicals (including PFAS) and intensive livestock regulation, but ambition and resourcing still look uneven.
• Whole-of-government intent is stated, but the plan will only succeed if political signals and delivery incentives across government consistently reinforce the outcomes it depends on.

A clearer plan in a country still losing nature

England’s Environmental Improvement Plan 2025, published this month, is candid about the challenge: nature has been declining for decades, and the pressures driving that decline remain intense. In that context, it matters that the revised plan frames nature recovery as something that underpins, rather than competes with, economic security, climate resilience, public health and food production.

This is also a better structured plan than before. It seeks to address earlier weaknesses by aiming for clearer prioritisation, stronger accountability for delivery, and a more coherent monitoring approach. That shift from aspiration to delivery mechanics is welcome, because the next decade is defined less by the absence of goals and more by whether we meet them.

Test 1: are actions clear, attributable and tied to ecological outcomes?

A constructive change in the new EIP is its internal architecture. It sets out goals, commitments and actions, and assigns responsibilities across government bodies, with senior responsible owners and statutory annual progress reporting.

That is a meaningful upgrade. But clarity of lists is not yet the same as clarity of impact. The next step, and the one that will matter most for wildlife, is whether delivery focuses first on the actions that generate the largest and fastest gains in habitat quality and connectivity, and whether progress reporting makes the contribution of each major policy lever transparent.

The plan is more attributable than before, and it still needs to become more clearly weighted on outcomes.

Test 2: does the scale match the science on land, in catchments and in communities?

The EIP contains several policy directions that align well with the evidence base for high-integrity nature-based solutions: protect and restore carbon-rich habitats, improve ecological condition, reduce pollution pressures, and support place-based delivery through catchments and landscapes.

A few examples show both promise and pressure.

Peatlands

The plan commits to restoring approx. 280,000 hectares of peatland by 2050, with actions including £85 million public investment by 2030, and it links peatland restoration to emissions and biodiversity benefits. This is directionally strong, but peatland restoration depends on sustained delivery capacity, enforcement against damaging practices, and long-term management beyond short funding cycles.

Trees, woods and forests

The plan reiterates support for tree planting and woodland policy, including establishing 3 new national forests. These commitments matter most if they prioritise ecological integrity, the right trees in the right places, and long-term maintenance.

Flood and hazard resilience through nature

The EIP includes a significant natural flood management commitment including £10.5 billion to be invested in flood defences including nature-based solutions such as wetland and woodland restoration. This is a helpful signal, recognising nature’s role in risk reduction. Results will depend on catchment-led design, integration with soil and river restoration, and realistic incentives for land managers.

Water quality and catchments

The plan expects major investment and delivery in water, including restoration-related outcomes. This could be transformative if it shifts effort upstream into catchment restoration rather than relying mainly on end-of-pipe fixes. It will require strong regulation, transparency and safeguards so ecological benefits are real and durable.

Chemicals and pollution, including PFAS

The inclusion of a PFAS (known as ‘forever chemicals’) action plan is a notable addition given rising concern about persistence and exposure. The test will be whether the plan translates into measurable reductions, clear timelines, and stronger controls where needed.

Food, farming and intensive livestock

The plan signals proposals on extending environmental permitting for dairy and intensive beef. This could be important for tackling localised pollution pressures, but it will only deliver if the policy design is robust, enforcement is credible, and it is aligned with farm support and advisory capacity.

The plan also includes a measurable habitat milestone: an interim target to create or restore 250,000 hectares of wildlife-rich habitat outside of protected areas by 2030. This area-based target must be coupled to habitat quality, connectivity and long-term management, not just hectares counted.

Test 3: is the revised EIP truly cross-government, and is the political signal consistent?

The EIP links nature to growth, resilience and health, and it sets out cross-government governance arrangements for implementation and reporting. The Plan states:

“The EIP is a statutory plan that applies across government, with shared responsibility for delivery.”

This matters because nature recovery cannot be delivered by Defra alone. It depends on planning, infrastructure, treasury choices, water regulation, trade and procurement, and local government capacity.

The cross-government language must also be matched by cross-government leadership. Political signalling from the centre shapes confidence in delivery. If messaging frames environmental regulation mainly as a brake rather than a tool for outcomes, it risks weakening the long-term commitment that farmers, investors, agencies and communities need to plan and invest.

If the plan is to succeed, the political signal should be steady. Outcomes first, and regulation designed to support those outcomes effectively and fairly.

People and place – access, health and fairness

One of the stronger parts of the EIP is the way it treats access to nature as a public good with measurable commitments. The plan includes an ambition that everyone should have access to green or blue space within a 15-minute walk of home, alongside measures such as river access initiatives and work on green infrastructure.

It also aims to build the evidence base on nature and health, including continued evaluation of Green Social Prescribing and steps to improve how wellbeing outcomes are used in decision-making.

These are not side issues. They are part of what makes nature-based solutions socially durable. When people feel the benefits in everyday life, public support for long-term restoration is more likely to strengthen.

The bottom line

The new Environmental Improvement Plan is an improvement in clarity, accountability and intent. It more clearly recognises that healthy soils, rivers, wetlands, woodlands and coastlines underpin resilience, health and prosperity.

But it is not yet enough on its own. The decisive question is whether delivery will be prioritised, properly resourced, and linked to robust ecological outcomes, and whether government as a whole will align behind it with consistent political backing. England does not need another plan that reads well. It needs delivery at scale and pace, on farms, through catchments, across towns and cities, and in places where nature is already closest to a tipping point.

“England’s new Environmental Improvement Plan is a step forward in clarity and intent. It recognises that healthy soils, rivers, wetlands and woodlands are part of the infrastructure that supports resilience, health and prosperity. The science is equally clear, however, that success depends on delivery that is prioritised, properly funded, and guided by ecological integrity and fairness. The opportunity now is to translate commitments into measurable gains for wildlife and for communities, year by year and place by place.”

Prof Nathalie Seddon, Director of the NbSI and Agile Initiative

NbSI will continue to share evidence, support high-integrity practice, and work with partners to help ensure nature-based solutions deliver for climate, biodiversity and wellbeing together.