What This Scheme Is Not
Seven things the Ure Dales scheme is sometimes mistaken for — and why it isn't each of them.
Every scheme of this kind collects misconceptions. Some are planted by critics; some grow from honest confusion; some persist because the scheme itself has not yet said clearly what it is and is not.
This document says, directly, what this scheme is not. It is written to be quoted, challenged, and — where anyone spots a claim that needs sharpening — improved.
Rewilding typically means removing or reducing human intervention and allowing ecological processes to take their own course. It has its place. It is not this scheme.
The Ure Dales Landscape Recovery scheme is designed around working farms continuing to work. Livestock, hay meadows, shepherding, stone walls, farmhouses, and the everyday practice of farming families are central to the scheme’s design — not obstacles to it. The “recovery” in Landscape Recovery refers to the recovery of connected ecological health across 18 holdings, alongside continuing farming livelihoods.
Where restoration work changes land use on a holding — peatland restoration, woodland regeneration, species-rich grassland re-establishment — it does so by agreement with the landowner, through a site-specific delivery plan, and in ways that respect the holding’s continuing working use.
What it is: a scheme for farmed landscapes to become ecologically healthier while remaining farmed.
The Consortium of 18 landowners plus YWT governs the scheme by consent, not by majority rule, and not by YWT fiat. Even under Option 1 (YWT Charity-Led), the SLE is bound to consult and to take decisions with the Consortium’s consent. Options 2, 3 and 4 structurally distribute governance further.
Landowners retain:
- Full ownership of their holdings (scheme membership does not alter title or possession)
- The right to refuse scheme activities on their holding
- The right to attach conditions to their consent
- The right to exit the scheme without penalty after Year 3
- The right to sell the holding at any time (with scheme membership transferring to the new owner only if the new owner wishes)
The SLE holds the DEFRA contract; it does not hold the land.
What it is: a scheme in which landowners govern the scheme jointly with YWT. YWT is a convening partner, not a controlling one.
The scheme is funded by DEFRA Landscape Recovery — a mainstream government agri-environment funding stream. It is complemented by premium market revenue (via the trustmark), shared-services cost savings, and blended private finance.
This is real money, on real contracts, paid for measurable delivery. The scheme’s financial model has been built by consultants experienced in blended finance for land regeneration — not by charitable subsidy alone.
YWT’s involvement is as a convening and contract-holding partner. YWT is not a donor, and the scheme is not a grant from YWT to the landowners. Landowners receive payment from the SLE for delivered restoration and for stewardship.
Under Models C (recommended) and B, surplus distribution is specifically designed as return on contribution — not charity.
What it is: a working financial scheme, whose charitable partner is there to convene and to hold the contract — not to subsidise.
The Ure Dales scheme sits within DEFRA’s Environmental Land Management (ELM) framework — specifically under the Landscape Recovery tier of ELM. It does not replace:
- The Sustainable Farming Incentive (SFI) — holdings in the Ure Dales scheme can continue to draw on SFI for actions not covered by the scheme’s delivery plan, where those actions are compatible.
- Countryside Stewardship — existing Countryside Stewardship agreements can, in most cases, run to their term alongside Landscape Recovery participation.
- Other grants and funding streams — RDPE legacy funding, private environmental markets, woodland grants, and private philanthropy remain accessible.
The scheme is a complement to, not a replacement for, the rest of a holding’s environmental and productive life.
Advisors note: the interaction between Landscape Recovery and other ELM schemes, and with existing Countryside Stewardship agreements, should be checked for each holding individually. Phil can connect you to DEFRA for current guidance.
What it is: one funding and governance layer among several that a holding may draw on — the most ambitious, the longest-horizon, and the most deeply collaborative.
A 20-year scheme is not lightly entered. The timescale is not arbitrary: it is the minimum scale at which the kinds of ecological recovery the scheme aims for — peatland hydrology, soil structure, woodland establishment, river morphology — can be reasonably expected.
Shorter schemes produce shorter results. The Ure Dales scheme has chosen the time horizon its ambition requires.
This means, honestly, that the commitment carries weight. The scheme acknowledges this through:
- Tiered entry (Bronze, Silver, Gold) — no requirement to commit beyond what feels right
- Exit provisions from Year 3 onwards without penalty
- A Year 5 first review and a Year 10–12 mid-term renegotiation window
- Wind-down protections if the scheme itself cannot continue
But the headline remains: this is a 20-year scheme. A decision to join is a decision that carries forward.
What it is: a long-term scheme, designed at the timescale ecological recovery requires, with protections and exits built in because we know 20 years is a real commitment.
It is possible to:
- Leave the scheme after Year 3 without penalty
- Sell the holding at any time (scheme membership transfers only with the new owner’s agreement)
- Adjust the scheme itself at Year 5 first review
- Renegotiate scheme-wide terms at the Year 10–12 mid-term review
- Wind the scheme down if it cannot continue — with delivered restoration remaining with each holding, and tier status earned remaining with the landowner
Exits are designed, named, and not shameful. Leaving the scheme is treated as a legitimate choice, not a failure.
What is harder to reverse is some of the physical restoration itself — peatland that has been rewetted, woodland that has been planted. These are assets, not liabilities; they belong to the holding after exit. But they cannot always be un-done, and the decision to undertake them should be taken with that in mind.
What it is: a reversible commitment that produces some partially-irreversible benefits. The scheme is built to be left; the restoration, once delivered, tends to stay.
The scheme has real risks: DEFRA policy change, individual landowner exits, audit fragility, trustmark market fragility, reputational risk, climate-amplified stress, financial stress in sector shocks. These are set out in the Risk Register.
Saying that the scheme is not something is not the same as saying it is what we hope it is. Every scheme that promises anything can fail in specific ways. Ours can too.
The scheme’s honest claim is not “this cannot fail”. It is: “we have thought about how this might fail, and we have built protections for each of you that hold even if it does.”
If you spot a misconception not on this list
This document grows. Tell Phil which misconception is missing, and it will be addressed here — or, if the misconception is correct (i.e., the scheme really is doing the thing some have feared), that correction will be made to the scheme itself.
The scheme depends on the 18 landowners. Misconceptions that cost us a yes or a clear no are costs to everyone.