Editor’s view: Learnings from nutrient neutrality debacle
© Tim Scrivener Frontrunners to be the next NFU president will have had their notepads out this week to analyse what is shaping up to be a contender for the most effective bit of lobbying of the year – from their opposite numbers at the Home Builders Federation.
Champagne corks will be popping at its headquarters on London’s trendy South Bank after the federation persuaded the government to water down its nutrient neutrality legislation, unleashing stalled building projects and saving its members money.
See also: Editor’s view: Volatility will breed a new type of farmer
About the author
Until this week, many developers had been stuck in limbo after Natural England placed a ban on housebuilding in areas where water quality is poor until they could show their projects were not going to cause a net increase in phosphate or nitrate pollution.
Unfortunately, the scheme to allow them the most straightforward route out of this – being able to purchase credits that deliver a corresponding reduction in pollution elsewhere in the catchment – was still in development (currently in trials in the Tees catchment area).
Somehow the lobbyists managed to persuade the government the only answer was to scrap the whole scheme, rather than hurry up its development.
Government support for these and other future sources of funding – such as for biodiversity net gain – is built on foundations of blancmange.
Ministers, including Defra secretary Therese Coffey, have been anxious to stress that pollution will not get worse as a result, but you and I as taxpayers will pick up the bill instead. What a comforting thought!
Why does this saga matter to farmers? Well, in the broadest sense it further clouds the future for all environmental payments.
Yes, the government has pledged to expand the Nutrient Mitigation Scheme, which should still deliver payments for the development of phosphate- and nitrate-reducing habitats such as wetlands and woodlands for those who take them up.
But it also now appears that government support for these and other future sources of funding – such as for biodiversity net gain – is built on foundations of blancmange.
Can we really trust that these schemes, which some landowners will be hoping to rely on after the Basic Payment Scheme is fully phased out, will actually happen?
What about carbon offsetting – is that trustworthy either?
A separate report in The Guardian earlier this month said scientific evidence shows many offsets bought by speculators have no environmental worth and have become stranded assets.
Perhaps it is heading for its own reckoning.
Here’s a crumb of consolation: This week’s developments move the government further away from the “polluter pays” principle.
This is a boost for our sector as it cements the idea that raising environmental standards in the countryside will continue to come from the carrot of payments for positive actions rather than levying additional costs on those who pollute – including farmers.
If housebuilders get a free pass then so should food producers.
Indeed, the package of announcements alongside this U-turn pledged a further £166m of grants for investment in slurry storage – although this will be a part-payment that will have to be accompanied by farmer money for those needing to upgrade.
The whole thing remains a mess. Data to identify the sources of these pollutants – which are undoubtedly bad – is still woefully inadequate in determining whether their origin is sewage, agriculture or something else.
Progress at improving water quality is much slower than the public demands and, with an election approaching, expect more twists and turns.
A penny for the thoughts of Natural England head Tony Juniper, who has over the past 12 months given vociferous backing to this scrapped scheme.
He has committed to staying in post, but must surely be wondering where the next attack on his credibility will come from.