The UK’s new Labour-led government has pledged to tackle the country’s long-standing housing crisis head-on, with a bold promise to deliver 1.5 million new homes in the next five years. This plan comes in response to the mounting pressures of soaring demand, limited housing supply, and ever-increasing prices that have left many struggling to find affordable homes. The government contends that simply redeveloping brownfield sites—unused or underused land from former developments—won’t be enough to meet this urgent need. It is also proposing, therefore, relaxing the rules governing England’s cherished Green Belt, a protected ring of countryside that encircles major urban centers, to allow for more construction. Though the policy is contentious, I argue here that it opens the door to an exciting opportunity: reshaping the Green Belt in a way that not only responds to the housing shortage but also addresses broader environmental goals and serves a wider public interest.
Building on the Green Belt is a highly emotive and politically charged issue. The previous Conservative-led government, in its election manifesto, made a “cast-iron commitment to protect the Green Belt”, a stance that resonated strongly in its rural heartlands as well as beyond its traditional voter base. A recent survey found that 60% of people in England support maintaining the Green Belt in its current form, even if it hinders efforts to address housing shortages (Ipsos, 2023). As noted by Bishop et al. (2020), England’s “Green Belt is one of the few planning measures that has entered the public consciousness … [having] universal, widespread appeal and an almost sacred status”.
Nevertheless, the Green Belt’s revered status is increasingly being questioned, not just by housing developers and the new Government, but also by some planners and environmentalists who argue that the public’s attachment to the Green Belt brand often lacks a deep awareness of its actual purpose and condition. Certainly, large areas of the Green Belt do not match the idealized vision of accessible bucolic countryside, rich in wildlife. Indeed, the new administration’s proposal involves focusing new development on lower-quality areas of the Green Belt, which it refers to as the Grey Belt.
Over one million people currently live in England’s Green Belt, and an additional 20 million live within 1 km of its boundaries (LandTech, 2023). Mainstreaming natural capital and ecosystem services into Green Belt policy—enhancing biodiversity, landscape beauty, recreational access, and climate resilience—could benefit not only the urban populations living on the Green Belt’s doorstep but also those residing within it, potentially softening resistance to new developments. Perhaps the Green Belt could then also contribute to other biodiversity and environmental targets, including the UK’s commitment to protect 30% of its land for nature by 2030 under the Global Biodiversity Framework agreed at the 2022 UN Biodiversity Summit.
Note that Green Belt policy in the UK’s other nations—Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland—is devolved to their respective assemblies/parliaments, not the UK government, and therefore will not be discussed in this context.
Background to Green Belt policy
England’s Green Belt policy has long highlighted tensions between urban and rural interests (Bishop et al., 2020). As early as 1580, Queen Elizabeth I issued a proclamation banning the construction of new houses and tenements within three miles of London’s city gates. The desire to maintain a cordon sanitaire around England’s cities gained traction in the 18th century, spurred on by the ideals of the English Romantic movement. The countryside became romanticized as a peaceful, healthy haven that needed protection from the pollution, disease, and moral decay of the city.
In the latter half of the 19th century, concerns about urban deprivation again spurred interest in creating a form of Green Belt around England’s cities. This time, however, it was driven by social reformers such as the formidable Victorian campaigner, Octavia Hill, who first coined the term Green Belt in 1875. Foreshadowing the biophilia movement, Hill firmly believed in the “life-enhancing virtues” of open spaces. However, her vision for the Green Belt was rooted in providing urban populations—especially the poor—with access to nature, rather than responding to fears of the encroaching city.
The Green Belt concept gained further momentum in the early 20th century, encouraged by the rise of the Garden City movement. By the 1930s, legislation was introduced to formalize these ideas, which Octavia Hill would have been delighted with given the focus on increasing access to the countryside for city dwellers. Local authorities were even empowered to purchase land for this purpose, taking advantage of the relatively low land prices existing in the inter-war years.
Throughout the latter half of the 20th century, England’s designated Green Belt grew significantly to the current extent of 16,384 km2—about 13% of the nation’s total land area. However, the fundamental purpose of the Green Belt began to shift over this period. Originally conceived as a space for urban populations to enjoy, it increasingly became a zone focused on limiting urban expansion, mostly to the benefit of its wealthier rural inhabitants, echoing the rationale for the original cordon sanitaire. While some areas of scenic, nature-rich landscapes were included in the expanding Green Belt, their beauty or ecological value were never the criteria for their inclusion or continued protection (Natural England, 2010).
According to England’s current National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), Green Belt is intended to serve the following five primary purposes:
- To check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas.
- To prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another.
- To assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment.
- To preserve the setting and special character of historic towns.
- To assist in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land.
Notably, these objectives omit any direct emphasis on enhancing biodiversity or increasing recreational access. While the NPPF encourages local authorities to “plan positively” in these areas, they remain secondary considerations, with far less weight in planning decisions—likely by design (Kirby & Scott, 2023).
Brownfield land and compact city living
Green Belt policy has been undeniably effective in curbing urban sprawl and encouraging the redevelopment of neglected brownfield sites (Natural England, 2010; Bishop et al., 2020). Over the past two decades, the case for recycling brownfield sites has grown, particularly from a sustainability standpoint. Advocates argue that well-planned, compact urban areas, which make the most of brownfield land, benefit from economies of scale and have a far smaller environmental footprint than lower-density developments with similar population sizes (Owen, 2011; Glaeser, 2012).
While the environmental case for reusing brownfield sites—and promoting compact city living more generally—is increasingly recognized (except at sites where open mosaic habitats with exceptional wildlife value have been established, e.g., Canvey Wick Site of Special Scientific Interest in London), the UK Government contends that relying solely on these sites will not solve the housing crisis. A recent analysis of local authority Brownfield Registers in England supports this view. Even if every available brownfield site were fully developed, the total capacity would provide only 1.4 million new homes (Lichfields, 2022). This is less than a third of the 4.5 million homes needed over the next 15 years. Moreover, brownfield land is not evenly distributed across the country and often does not align with the current demand for housing.
Therefore, even with significant government support, the redevelopment of brownfield sites alone is insufficient to tackle England’s housing shortfall. This reality is what drives the government’s willingness to reconsider the long-standing protection of the Green Belt. To ease public concerns, the Government plans to focus development in “poor-quality and unattractive areas” within the Green Belt, which it refers to as the Grey Belt—though a clear definition of this term is still pending. While previously developed land within the Green Belt is likely to qualify as Grey Belt, these sites alone will not meet the Government’s housing targets (Knight Frank, 2024). Consequently, the Government may very well need to revisit and expand its criteria.
Whatever the definition of the Grey Belt component, the shift in policy should present an opportunity for a comprehensive reassessment of the Green Belt’s purpose. By adopting a natural capital approach to land-use planning, this rethink should be more in line with Octavia Hill’s original vision of open spaces for public good, rather than the more restrictive, defensive approach of the cordon sanitaire.
Current state of the Green Belt
The public’s deep affection for the Green Belt, and the idyllic rural vision it evokes, is largely built on myth and misunderstanding. Many people feel reassured by its superficial greenery—mostly inaccessible farmland—but fail to notice what’s missing, the landscape complexity and biodiversity that once defined rural England. This reflects a classic case of shifting baseline syndrome or environmental generational amnesia, where people become accustomed to the current, degraded state of nature without realizing what has been lost.
England is recognized as one of the most nature-depleted countries in the world, and intensive farming practices are the major culprit (State of Nature Partnership, 2023). These practices have led to the destruction of ancient woodlands, wildflower meadows, hedgerows, wetlands, and heathlands, while the widespread use of agrochemicals has further damaged ecosystems by reducing pollinator populations, degrading water quality, and disrupting food chains.
While the proportion of the Green Belt used for agriculture is similar to that across England—65% and 63% respectively (Gov.UK, 2022)—the Green Belt is probably more ecologically impoverished than the area outside per unit area. Compared to England as a whole, the Green Belt has only a marginally lower land coverage of habitat that could be described as relatively biodiverse—forest, open land, and water—18.9% as opposed to 20.1% (UK Gov, 2022). However, a greater proportion of the Green Belt—72% compared to 65%—is classified as Best and Most Versatile (BMV) agricultural land (Grades 1-3) (calculated by the author using Gov.UK open-source spatial data). Grade 1-3 land is often associated with more intensive farming and, consequently, lower biodiversity (Reddy & Behrendt, 2020). Furthermore, the Green Belt is underrepresented in government agri-environment schemes that pay farmers to adopt environmentally friendly practices, with only 28% of Green Belt farmland participating compared to 42% nationwide (CPRE, 2022).
When it comes to public access, only 3.5% of the Green Belt is designated as Open Access land, where there is a Right to Roam, compared to 8% across England (Natural England, 2007; Shrubsole, 2019), although the Green Belt does have a higher density of Public Rights of Way and National Cycle Network routes (Natural England, 2010). Additionally, just 9% of the Green Belt is designated as an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, which signifies areas of national scenic importance afforded statutory protection, compared to 16% for England as a whole.
While some parts of the Green Belt are undoubtedly attractive and are well used by the public, the overall picture then is one of relatively ordinary countryside, dominated by intensively managed and ecologically impoverished farmland. This has led to a general reluctance to frame the Green Belt as an essential part of the green infrastructure network or to promote its potential for wider environmental benefits (Kirby & Scott, 2023). As Shrubsole (2019) humorously notes, the phrase “let’s go for a trip to the Green Belt” isn’t one you hear often in everyday conversation.
Repurposing the Green Belt
While government and local planning policies often express lofty ambitions for Green Belt multifunctionality, meaningful improvements in environmental quality and public access remain difficult to detect (Kirby & Scott, 2023). To win public support for further development on Green Belt land, the Government must concurrently implement much stronger policies that give greater emphasis to nature and landscape multifunctionality over the remaining areas. This article now turns to potential mechanisms for achieving these goals.
Regional planning
The previous Conservative-led administration scrapped regional strategic planning in favour of localism, an approach that emphasizes individual property rights and market freedoms over centralized control. One consequence of this shift was the loss of momentum towards a coordinated, regional strategy that could have better supported Green Belt multifunctionality and strengthened its connection to the wider green infrastructure network (Kirby & Scott, 2023). With a new administration in place that has a more interventionist agenda, there is an opportunity to resume planning for the complexities of the Green Belt in a more sophisticated and strategic way, taking account of the climate and biodiversity emergencies, while balancing with the need for housing and food production.
Valuable lessons can be drawn from the new generation of Green Belt policies emerging in some other countries, where strategic planning more effectively integrates urban areas with their rural surroundings (see examples below) (Bishop et al., 2020; Kirby & Scott, 2023). These examples show how better landscape-scale coordination of resources and priorities leads to more efficient land use and a stronger focus on environmental goals.
In England, regional planning for the Green Belt should be part of a broader, comprehensive land-use framework. Both the previous and current governments have indicated their commitment to developing a Land-use Framework for England, and now is the time to follow through on that promise (Shrubsole, 2024).
Betterment levies
If a return to more proactive regional spatial planning is to significantly boost ecosystem services beyond what the current system provides, it must include robust planning controls, legal instruments, and the ability for local authorities to acquire land. However, purchasing land for new green infrastructure can be prohibitively expensive in today’s economic climate. One potential solution is to tax the small number of landowners who profit significantly—sometimes by a hundredfold or more—from the increased value of their agricultural land when local authorities grant planning permission for new housing. This tax is known as a betterment levy (TCPA, 2015; Cheshire & Buyuklieva, 2019; Bishop et al., 2020).
Alternatively, local councils could be given the authority to compulsorily purchase land suitable for housing at its agricultural use value and develop it themselves. Either of these approaches would provide local authorities with additional financial resources for green infrastructure and affordable housing.
Betterment levies are already in place in several countries, including Germany and the Netherlands, and this concept has historical precedent in England; the early New Towns were financially viable because they acquired land at agricultural prices.
According to Shrubsole (2019), some London boroughs and other councils already own sizable tracts of Green Belt land, particularly in the form of county farms. Instead of selling these off, he suggests that many could be repurposed to create new woodlands and parklands, enhancing nature and public access. Note the UK is one of the least wooded countries in Europe (Forest Research, 2018).
Agri-environment payments
As mentioned, a disproportionately low number of farms within the Green Belt participate in schemes that encourage environmentally friendly farming. The introduction of England’s new Environmental Land Management (ELM) farm subsidy scheme provides an opportunity to address this imbalance, bringing nature closer to where much of the population lives (CPRE, 2022; Environment Analyst, 2024).
ELM also aims to improve public access to the countryside by offering payments to landowners who agree to five-year permissive access agreements. These agreements should also be more focused within the Green Belt, especially to address gaps in the current Public Right of Way and cycle networks. Enhancing the Green Belt’s environment and accessibility could yield broader sustainability benefits, reducing vehicle journeys to National Parks and other rural honey pots, which are often plagued by traffic congestion.
To ensure lasting public access, ELM should also explore options for longer-term or permanent public access agreements with landowners. This would provide more certainty for the public, minimize tensions between landowners and local communities caused when access rights are removed, and prevent wasted investment in associated infrastructure (Wildlife & Countryside Link, 2024). Shrubsole (2024) suggests an even more ambitious approach, favouring a right to responsible access law for the English countryside, similar to Scotland’s right to roam, with sensible exemptions for private gardens, croplands, and sensitive nature reserves.
Many agri-environment schemes have struggled to deliver meaningful biodiversity outcomes. Some of England’s agricultural subsidy payments might therefore be better used by the Government acquiring land, contributing to the creation of what Shrubsole (2024) calls a new Public Nature Estate focused on habitat restoration and carbon sequestration. While the idea of the state purchasing land would seem an anathema to the previous administration, which attempted to sell off National Nature Reserves and the public forest estate, many free-market democracies hold significantly larger proportions of public land than the UK. Alternatively, local communities could be empowered to acquire marginal farmland through strengthened community ownership laws, again aligning more closely with Scottish legislation.
I cannot ignore an inconvenient truth with some of these proposals, which is that restoring natural habitats and implementing more agri-environment schemes in the Green Belt, and elsewhere, has the potential to come at the expense of food production and security. While I can’t fully resolve this issue here, two key considerations stand out. First, sustainable agricultural systems rely on the ecosystem services provided by nature, such as pollination, pest control, soil health, nutrient cycling, and water regulation. Second, environmental improvements in the Green Belt should focus on lower-grade agricultural lands, as well as areas near biodiversity hotspots like river corridors. About 18% of the Green Belt is classified as poor or very poor agricultural land (Grades 4 and 5; calculated by the author using open-source spatial data), where farming is mostly unviable without government subsidies. According to the National Food Strategy, England’s least productive land, covering 22.5% of the country, contributes just 3% of the nation’s calories (Dimbleby, 2021).
By introducing an additional tier to the ELM scheme, some farmers could be paid to cease farming these areas altogether and instead manage the land for habitat restoration, nature-based recreation, and climate resilience, all without significantly impacting food supply (Shrubsole, 2024). Any small shortfall in production could potentially be offset by reinvigorated efforts to reduce food waste, tackle obesity, and encourage shifts toward plant-based diets. While Heap (2024) comments in this regard that “recommending behavioural change and achieving it are worlds apart,” meat consumption in the UK has fallen by 17% between 2008-9 and 2018-19.
Biodiversity Net Gain and Local Nature Recovery Strategies
England recently introduced the world’s first legally mandated scheme requiring most new developments to result in a 10% increase in the quality of natural habitat compared to pre-development levels—this is known as the Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG) duty. BNG has the potential to play a significant role in restoring nature within the Green Belt. Since many new developments take place in urban areas where space is limited, achieving BNG on-site will be very challenging. As a result, many developers will have no choice but to purchase credits for offsite biodiversity improvements in the nearby countryside, opening opportunities for landowners on the fringes of towns and cities to participate in the growing BNG market.
Additionally, there is also now a legal requirement for authorities across England to create spatial strategies for nature and environmental enhancement, known as Local Nature Recovery Strategies (LNRS). These strategies could help integrate the Green Belt into wider efforts for environmental improvement. When Green Belt land is included within an LNRS area, responsible authorities are already required to actively prioritize it for nature recovery and improved public access (Defra, 2023).
BNG and LNRS initiatives should also be aligned with ELM schemes where practical rather than implemented through separate policy silos (Kirby & Scott, 2023).
Weaknesses in policy wording
As discussed, weak secondary policies that merely encourage local authorities to seek improvements in landscape multifunctionality are unlikely to drive meaningful change. For real progress to happen, new approaches must be reinforced with much stronger policy language and supported by comprehensive supplementary planning guidance (Kirby & Scott, 2023).
International experience
While Green Belts originated in England, their benefits have largely been limited to curbing urban sprawl. However, in some other countries, a new generation of Green Belt policies have evolved, mainstreaming biodiversity to deliver a range of environmental and social benefits. In Canada, for example, Green Belts are a well-established policy tool. Ottawa’s National Capital Commission (2024) proudly claims that its Green Belt, spanning 204 km², is the largest publicly owned Green Belt in the world. This area is well used and cherished by the public and plays a vital role in the metropolitan landscape, providing significant expanses of accessible, biodiverse forest and wetland.
While Canada has the advantage of abundant space, successful Green Belts are also found in small densely populated countries. The Netherlands’ Green Heart, conceived in the 1950s, is now also considered essential to the well-being of residents in the nearby Randstad megalopolis, which includes Amsterdam, Rotterdam, The Hague, and Utrecht (Bishop et al., 2020). Covering 1,600 km², this area combines farmland with substantial publicly owned forests and wetlands, providing both wildlife habitats and nature-based recreation, as well as preventing urban sprawl.
Conclusions
England’s Green Belts have been successful in inhibiting urban sprawl and diverting development pressure to brownfield sites. The Green Belt is also one of the rare planning tools that has gained widespread public recognition, enjoying broad appeal and almost revered status. However, the seductiveness of the Green Belt brand often comes without a deeper awareness of its purpose and importance. In truth, the Green Belt does not match the public’s idealized view of picturesque, wildlife-rich countryside that is easily accessible.
If the government continues with its policy to loosen planning restrictions and increase housebuilding within the Green Belt, this should be accompanied by a clear strategy to repurpose it. The goal should be to deliver significantly enhanced environmental and social benefits for neighbouring urban centres, which should also make new developments more palatable for existing Green Belt residents. In response to this, I conclude here with a four-point manifesto aimed at enhancing the multifunctionality of the Green Belt:
- Regional Planning. There is an urgent need and current opportunity to adopt more strategic, integrated approaches to Green Belt planning, addressing climate and biodiversity concerns while meeting housing and agricultural needs.
- Betterment tax. Gaining planning permission for housing dramatically raises the value of agricultural land, benefiting a small number of landowners. There is a strong argument for taxing these windfall profits. Alternatively, local councils could be given the authority to compulsorily purchase land at its agricultural use value and develop it themselves. The revenue generated from these measures could be used to fund more affordable housing and improve green infrastructure provision.
- Habitat Restoration. The new ELM scheme provides a key opportunity to correct the imbalance in agri-environment schemes between Green Belt areas and the rest of England, bringing nature closer to where much of the population lives, as well as bolstering the resilience of neighbouring towns and cities to climate change. ELM could perhaps also be extended to provide the opportunity for landowners to cease production altogether on lower-quality agricultural lands (Grades 4 and 5), managing them instead for habitat restoration and carbon sequestration.
- Public Access. ELM should focus on enhancing public access within the Green Belt, filling in gaps in the existing Public Right of Way and cycle networks. A more ambitious approach would be to introduce a national right to responsible access law, similar to Scotland’s, allowing people to enjoy the countryside responsibly while safeguarding sensitive areas.
These approaches offer a potential pathway to ensure that if development in the Green Belt is inevitable, it also contributes to a greener, more accessible, and biodiverse future for all.
Lincoln Garland
Bath
Acknowledgements
The views in this article are entirely my own. I am grateful for reviews of earlier drafts by Professor Peter Bishop (University College London), Gary Grant (The Green Infrastructure Consultancy), and Dr Mike Wells (Biodiversity by Design).
References
Amati, M. & Taylor, L. (2010). From Green Belts to Green Infrastructure. Planning Practice and Research, 25, 143–155.
Bishop, P., Perez, A.M., Roggema, R. & Williams, L. (2020). Repurposing the Green Belt in the 21st Century. University College London, London.
Cheshire, P. & Buyuklieva, B. (2020). Homes on the Right Tracks: Greening the Green Belt to Solve the Housing Crisis. Centre for Cities, London.
CPRE (2022). The Countryside Next Door: Why we need to Invest in Greener, Healthier Green Belts. CPRE, London.
Defra (2023). Local Nature Recovery Strategy Statutory Guidance: What a Local Nature Recovery Strategy should Contain. Defra, London.
Dimbleby, H. (2021). National Food Strategy Independent Review: The Plan. Dandy Booksellers, London.
Environment Analyst (2024). Investment in Green Belt needed to Level-up Nature Access. Retrieved from: https://environment-analyst.com/uk/108101/30m-need-investment-to-level-up-nature-access
Forest Research (2018). 2018 – Forest cover: international comparisons. Retrieved from: https://www.forestresearch.gov.uk/tools-and-resources/statistics/forestry-statistics/forestry-statistics-2018/international-forestry-3/forest-cover-international-comparisons/
Glaeser, E. (2012). Triumph of the City: How Urban Spaces make us Human. Pan Books, London.
Gov.UK (2022). Land Use Statistics: England 2022 – Live Tables. Retrieved from: Land use in England, 2022 – GOV.UK (www.gov.uk)
Han, A.T. & Go, M.H. (2019). Explaining the National Variation of Land Use: A Cross-National analysis of Greenbelt Policy in Five Countries. Land Use Policy, 81, 644-656.
Heap (2024). Land Smart: How to Give People and Nature the Space to Thrive. Atlantic Books, London.
Ipsos (2023). Six in Ten People in England would keep the Green Belt as it is. Retrieved from: https://www.ipsos.com/en-uk/
Kirby, M.G. & Scott, A.J. (2023). Multifunctional Green Belts: A planning policy assessment of Green Belts wider functions in England. Land Use Policy, 132 (2023) 106799.
Knight Frank (2024). How can Britain’s green belt boost housing numbers? Retrieved from: How can Britain’s green belt boost housing numbers?
LandTech (2023). Building on the Green Belt Data – How could this Impact Housing? Retrieved from: https://land.tech/blog/building-on-the-green-belt-data-how-could-this-impacthousing#:~:text=In%20addition%20to%20this%2C%20over,total%20population%20of%20Great%20Britain.
Lichfields (2022). Banking on Brownfield: Can Previously-developed Land Supply Enough Homes where they are Needed? Nathaniel Lichfield & Partners.
National Capital Commission (2024). Greenbelt: The National Capital Greenbelt is the most Ecologically Diverse Area in Eastern Ontario. Retrieved from: https://ncc-ccn.gc.ca/places/greenbelt
Natural England (2007). Natural England Open Access Annual Monitoring Report 2007. Natural England, Peterborough.
Natural England (2010). Green Belts: A Greener Future. Natural England, Peterborough.
Owen, D. (2011). Green Metropolis: Why Living Smaller, Living Closer, and Driving Less are the Keys to Sustainability. Riverhead, New York.
Reddy, L.L. & Behrendt, K. (2020). Scoping Report – Sustainability of Best and Most Versatile (BMV) Agricultural Land (Wales). ADAS, Cardiff.
State of Nature Partnership (2023). State of Nature. Retrieved from: https://stateofnature.org.uk/
Shrubsole, G. (2019). A Wildly Different Vision: Greening the Green Belt. Medium. Retrieved from: A wildly different vision: greening the Green Belt | by Friends of the Earth Innovation team | Medium
Shrubsole, G. (2024). The Lie of the Land: Who Really Cares for the Countryside. Harper Collins, London.
Stewart, C. et al. (2021). Trends in UK meat consumption: analysis of data from years 1–11 (2008–09 to 2018–19) of the National Diet and Nutrition Survey rolling programme. The Lancet Planetary Health, 5, e699 – e708.
TCPA (2015). New Towns and Garden Cities – Lessons for Tomorrow. TCPA, London.
Wildlife & Countryside Link (2024). Public Access Options in ELM. Wildlife & Countryside Link, London.
About the Writer:
Lincoln Garland
Lincoln is Associate Director at Biodiversity by Design, an environmental consultancy in the UK. Lincoln has been working as an ecologist and eco-urbanist in consultancy, academia and for wildlife NGOs for more than 25 years. He has a particular interest in developing sustainable ecologically informed landscape-scale approaches to development and land management, with a particular emphasis on the urban realm and ecotourism. Contact Lincoln by email: [email protected]
This is an excellent summary of Green Belt history and the issues swirling around the latest initiatives to reform the rules.