Environment secretary Margaret Beckett has heralded an end of the "one size fits all" policy for rural England.

She claimed that the government had made significant progress on more than three-quarters of its rural white paper's policy targets,

Beckett's speech came ahead of a major report, tipped to be published later this month, by rural tsar Lord Haskins.

Under his proposals, English Nature and the Countryside Agency are set to see many of their key functions transferred into a new body, provisionally entitled the Land Management Agency.

Andrew George, rural affairs spokesman, said: "If the government does intend to implement Lord Haskins' recommendations, it must ensure the independent regulatory role of English Nature is properly protected.

"The best solution for Britain's countryside is to bring the scatter gun of Countryside Agency initiatives and funding opportunities into one pot and devolve them to the local authorities who are better placed to deliver what's really needed."

David Lidington, shadow environment secretary, told ePolitix.com: "We certainly need to cut DEFRA bureaucracy, but a Whitehall reorganisation must not be used as an opportunity to get rid of independent voices for wildlife and countryside matters."

Forum Response: English Nature

A spokeswoman for English Nature told ePolitix.com: "English Nature cannot comment on the detail of the Haskins Review at the moment as the final report has not been published. The government also has yet to make its views known on the recommendations in the report and outline how it intends to take these forward.

"However, the terms of reference for the review did not cover the full range of our functions and duties. English Nature will seek firm reassurances that our role as the only independent wildlife and biodiversity champion will not be compromised by inclusion in any new body.

"We want to remain a strong independent voice that can act as advocate for nature conservation across the full range of government policies, putting biodiversity at the heart of the agenda.

"English Nature is determined to ensure that any post-Haskins arrangements incorporate fully our wide-ranging responsibilities - from coasts to the uplands, agriculture, fishing and a sustainable environment in both urban and rural settings.

"Our work connecting people with nature also makes a real difference to their quality of life and this must be safeguarded."

Forum Response: The Woodland Trust

Hilary Allison, policy director of The Woodland Trust, told ePolitix.com: "These proposals raise more questions than they solve about the balance between national versus regional priorities, between policy and delivery and the detailed functions of such an integrated land management agency.

"We fully support the principle of integrating policy on land management more fully within Defra and feel that woodland would benefit from having a stronger policy voice within Defra to promote its public benefits,

"In terms of delivery, joining together existing agencies into one super-agency should in theory create a much more outward looking approach to managing whole landscapes and catchments rather than individual sites.

"This sort of approach is vital if we are to address the problems posed by accelerating climate change.

"However specialist knowledge of woodland, nature conservation and farming as land uses will need to be retained and the stark reality of merging agencies means that specialist interests and perspectives are often subsumed as different interests compete for profile and resources.

"More specifically, we are concerned about the role of the Forestry Commission. The Commission is not simply a body which manages the public forests in England but also the government department responsible for policy, regulation, incentives and advice for forestry.

"Will these functions be subsumed into Defra or become part of a new agency? What will be the future of the public forest estate in England if there is no dedicated agency to manage it? We are also concerned about the future of a biodiversity champion within government, if English Nature were to disappear.

"Finally, we believe that when the Haskins proposals are published they should be subject to extensive stakeholder consultation to ensure that they do not replace one set of problems with another."

Forum Response: Countryside Alliance

Countryside Alliance chief executive Simon Hart said, "Many rural people will simply not recognise the picture of progress she paints. This interim statement does not provide a credible progress report but a menu of platitudes.

"For the government to trumpet that the quality of life may still be better in the countryside than in towns is an evasion. Levels of rural policing, affordable housing, health services, transport and village amenities are all getting worse.

"Rural council tax is higher than in towns for a worse level of local services, whilst per capita central government expenditure* is significantly lower in rural areas -- and all this before the special sparsity problems of rural communities are factored in.

"The main areas where progress has been made are on environmental standards. This is encouraging but once again it looks suspiciously as if the interests of the 'users' of the countryside are being prioritised over those who have to live and work there.

"Merely achieving EU clean beach standards won't cut much ice with those who can't find an affordable home in their own locality, who can' t find or keep a job because public transport is so inadequate, or who have gone out of business because of cock-eyed red tape."

Forum Response: National Farmers Union

Barney Holbeche, spokesman for the NFU, told ePolitix.com: "In principle the NFU would welcome a more rational, integrated approach by Defra's family of agencies so that a more unified view of delivery can be taken.

"We shall however want to examine Lord Haskins' forthcoming recommendations closely and make an input to the decisions that government will then reach in drawing up what Mrs Beckett describes as a 'refreshed' rural strategy early next year.

"In particular we have reservations about the expected proposal for a division to be made between policy development and delivery, as there could be a risk of policy being made in Whitehall 'ivory towers' without real knowledge of what is happening on the ground.

"Equally agencies and local authorities doing the delivery must be adequately resourced in terms of skills, staff etc. to do the job."