Environment conference presentation.pptx

Environment Conference
“What next for the Countryside Post Brexit”?
Hosted By Julie Girling,
MEP for the South West & Gibraltar
www.juliegirling.com @juliegirling #envifuture

Welcome & Introduction by
Julie Girling MEP

Julie Girling MEP
What has the EU ever done for us?
An overview of EU Environmental Legislation
and Finances

Common Agricultural Policy (CAP)
Introduced in 1962
• Strong culture of state intervention in founding member states
• 70% of total EU spending budget (now reduced to 40%)
• Subsidies led to over production
• No environmental element

CAP Reforms
• 1972 implementation of Mansholt Reform
• 1980s Dairy Quotas, budget ceilings established
• 1990s McSharry Reforms including set aside, retirement support, reduced
coupled support, increased complexity and administrative burden

21st Century Reforms
• Harmonised payments for arable crops
• Increased coupling for livestock
• 2 pillar approach
• Agri-environmental schemes now compulsory in member states
• NO budget or financial reforms

2003 Fischler Reforms
• Decoupling principle agreed
• Single payment scheme introduced (England 2003)
• Cross Compliance for food safety, environment and animal welfare introduced
Ciolos Reforms
• Move towards stronger environmental element – Greening
• Public money for public goods
• Reduced price intervention
• Active farmer principle

CAP 2017
4 Basic Regulations
• Direct Payments
• Rural Development
• CAP financing
• Single CMO/market measures
Greening
• 30% of direct payments must go to provide crop diversification, EFAs etc
• GAEC

CAP Conclusions
• Expensive – still 39% of total EU budget €59billion
• Unwieldy – one common system from the Algarve to the Arctic
• Unfair – no re-calibration of total budget
• ENVIRONMENT – not delivering maximum benefits
• Currently delivers circa €3.5billion direct from central fund to the
countryside

Where CAP Finances Go:
CAP - Spending Areas
Billions Euros – 2014 Source: EU Commission
Rural Development Fisheries Environment Direct Aid
Direct Aid:
40.58Bn
Rural Development:
11.19Bn
Fisheries:
0.76Bn
Environment:
0.27Bn

Who Pays for CAP?
CAP - Major Contributors
Billion Euros – 2014 Source: EU Commission
UK Poland Netherlands Germany France Italy
UK: 3.9Bn
Poland: 5Bn
Netherlands: 0.9Bn
Germany: 6.1Bn
France: 8.5Bn
Italy: 5.5Bn

Environmental Legislation
• 650 Legal Acts
• Administered by DEFRA
• Enforced via the European Court of Justice
• Post Brexit – the administrator becomes the ultimate enforcer
• New access to justice may be required

ECHA / EFSA
• REACH regulation
• PPP (pesticides) regulation
• Biocides regulation
• CLP regulation
Impact on water, ecosystems and non target organisms

Nature Protection / Biodiversity
• Birds Directive
• Habitats Directive
Objectives:
1. To maintain populations at favourable conservation levels
2. Contribute to biodiversity through habitat conservation
3. Protect natural species of flora and fauna

Invasive Alien Species
• Provides for cross-border action and co-operation to tackle IAS
• Early alert system
• Regulates trade practices

Water Quality
• Water Framework Directive
• Priority substances
• Nitrates Directive
• Urban Waste Water Directive
• Drinking Water Directive
• Bathing Water Directive
• Flood Directive

LIFE
The only funding instrument directed exclusively at achieving the objectives of
the environmental acquis
• Since 1992 the UK has received 6.2% of all funding - €241.5m
• UK is currently spending the largest ever conservation grant - €12m

Environmental Impacts
Environmental Impact Assessment
• Requires “assessment of the environmental effects of those public and
private projects which are likely to have significant effects on the
environment”
• Systematic collection and analysis of information
Strategic Environmental Assessment Directive
• Assessment of a wide range of public plans

Climate Change
UK negotiates with UNFCCC as part of the EU. Uks Kyoto and Paris obligations
are delivered jointly. Contribution to the Treasury from ETS is £500m pa
• EU ETS
• NU non ETS
• LULUCF
• Effort sharing

Climate Change
Climate change obligations remain. Non EU ETS increases in importance.
• Agriculture and the countryside
• Forestry
• Land use change
• Waste
• Energy efficiency – buildings, processes etc.
UK target +16% carbon savings

Air Quality
• National Emissions Ceilings Directive
• Ambient Air Quality Directive
• Medium Combustion Plants
• Large Combustion Plants
• Industrial Emissions Directive
Objectives:
• To reduce pollution including PM NOX and NH3
• To tackle eutrophication and acid deposition

Research and innovation
The UK is one of the largest recipients of research funding in the EU.
• Between 2007 – 2013 the UK received the fourth largest share of research
and innovation funding with €8.8 billion out of a total of €107 billion
• Re funding awarded on a competitive basis, the UK was the second largest
recipient after Germany, with €6.9 billion out of a total of €55.4 billion.
• At the start of 2017 UK was the top recipient of EU innovation funding

Other Issues
• Organic Farming
• Plant Health
• Seeds Regulation
• Animal Welfare
• Animal Health
• GMOs
• Availability of labour / immigration

Questions Post Brexit
• Jurisdiction for enforcement
• Budgets – with the Treasury come up with the cash?
• Replication of agencies including RPA
• International competitiveness of farming
• Government commitment to the environment
• Trans boundary nature of policy
• Unknown future trading relationships
• TFEU require full compliance ……… will this continue?
• How will we track EU legislative changes in the future?
• Disentanglement of joint international targets / conventions

Martin Lane
Director, Cotswolds AONB
The value of EU Environment Legislation in Protected
Landscapes and future Opportunities

The Value of EU Environmental
Legislation in Protected Landscapes
and future Opportunities

Protected Landscapes
• In England & Wales
• 13 National Parks, 38 AONBs, & 43 Heritage Coasts
• In the South West
• 2 National Parks, 13 AONBs, & 20 Heritage Coasts
• 25% of the country designated as AONB or National Park, a truly national set of
assets
• Our iconic high quality landscapes are home to high quality habitats and their
associated species
• Internationally recognised by IUCN, World Conservation Union

ProtectedLandscapesinEnglandandWales

Value of Protected Landscapes
• Protected Landscapes in England & Wales
• worth £20 billion to the economy
• home to 85,000 businesses
• receive 260 million visits a year, worth over £6 billion a year
• Cotswolds AONB
• £2 billion GVA of economic activity
• home to 9,500 businesses
• Economic contribution of Cotswolds AONB
• £337 million GVA of economic activity
• 9,720 jobs critically dependent upon landscape quality
• attracts 23 million day visits a year, worth £1 billion

ProtectedLandscapes,SPAsandSACsintheSouthWest

Habitats Directive
• 1992 - to maintain or restore natural habitats and wild species
• led to Special Areas of Conservation, SACs
• led to favourable condition assessments of SSSIs & NNRs
• driven improved management of SSSIs , NNRs and SACs
• In the Cotswolds
• 5 SACs, 3 NNRs and 89 SSSIs
• Ancient semi natural woodlands and flower rich grasslands are both special qualities of
the Cotswolds AONB landscape

Birds Directive
• 1979 - to maintain wild bird populations and protect vulnerable birds
• Oldest piece of EU environmental legislation
• led to Special Protection Areas, SPAs
• The associated habitats are often a special quality of the Protected Landscape
• East Devon heathland SPA, East Devon AONB and Tamar estuary SPA, Tamar Valley AONB

Water Framework Directive
• 2000 - a framework for the protection of inland rivers and lakes, estuaries, coastal
waters and groundwater
• river basin districts and river basin management plans
• reduced pollution of watercourses
• improved management of sewage entering the sea and cleaner beaches
• nitrate vulnerable zones
• catchment sensitive farming

SEA Directive & Habitats Regulations
• Strategic Environmental Assessment Directive, SEA, 2001
• Seeks to integrate environmental considerations into the preparation and adoption of
plans and programmes with a view to promoting sustainable development
• Habitat Regulations
• Requires the assessment of certain plans or projects which affect Natura 2000 sites
• Required of National Park and AONB plans – even if these are environment based
plans
• Safeguards the special qualities of Protected Landscapes

EIA Directive
• Environmental Impact Assessment Directive EIA, 1985
• seeks to ensure that a local planning authority when deciding whether to grant planning
permission for a project, which is likely to have significant effects on the environment,
does so in the full knowledge of the likely significant effects, and takes this into account in
the decision making process.
• Forestry, woodland creation, change of land use
• Increasing productivity of uncultivated land
• Water management, irrigation, land drainage, flood defence
• Safeguards the special qualities of Protected Landscapes

CAP
• Basic payment scheme
• Incorporates cross compliance
• Good Agricultural and Environmental Conditions
• Boundaries, Public Rights of Way, SSSIs, Ancient Monuments
• Statutory Management Requirements
• Habitats Directive, Birds Directive, Animal Health & Welfare
• Rural development programme
• Agri environment
• Countryside Stewardship, Environmental Stewardship
• Protected Landscapes have been a target for investment
• LEADER
• Countryside productivity
• Growth programme

AgrienvironmentinvestmentacrosstheCotswoldsAONB
Environmental Stewardship Agreements covering 70% of the AONB 2014/15, Entry Level accounted for 43% and Higher
Level Stewardship accounted for 57%. Worth £9.14 million / year

Natura 2000
• Natura 2000 sites (SACs and SPAs) aimed for
• identification and designation of sites
• improved management
• favourable condition of sites
• 2010 targets missed across the EU, led to revised targets for 2020 and additional
finances being made available
• Mainland Europe often talks of “paper parks”, a designation, but little or no
management
• Numbers of designations and land area has increased, but overall habitats and
species remain in decline

EU & Europe
• EU the institution v Europe the place
• Landscape, biodiversity, migrating species, plant pests and diseases don’t respect
administrative boundaries
• Brexit = leaving the EU, not Europe
• What was life like before the EU Directives ?
• In 1973 as the UK joined the EU it was described as the “Dirty Man of Europe”
• Only country in western Europe who had failed to control pollution from cars and power
stations, it was undermining pesticide control and ignoring bathing water standards

EU Benefits
• Have our Protected Landscapes benefitted ?
• Has the wider environment benefitted ?
• EU Legislation and Directives
• cleaned up the environment
• provided stronger protection for the environment
• raised standards
• Investment: CAP, LIFE, LEADER
• EU Directives + their enshrinement in UK law compare well with the duties on public
bodies to have regard to the purposes of National Park and AONB designation
• Section 62 of the Environment Act 1995
• Section 85 of the Countryside & Rights of Way Act 2000

Directives & Conventions
• EU Directives enshrined in our Wildlife & Countryside Act 1981, Conservation
Regulations 1994, Town & Country Planning Regulations 2011
• Brexit could lead to a great Repeal Bill
• After the UK exits the EU it remains a signatory to;
• Ramsar Convention 1971, conservation of wetlands
• Bonn Convention 1979, forerunner to Birds Directive
• Bern Convention 1982, forerunner to Habitats Directive
• European Landscape Convention 2004, (Council of Europe)

Simplify the system
• Can we simplify the system ?
• Bring strands from multiple regulations together into a single issue or topic specific
regulation
• Merge the Water Framework Directive Groundwater Directive, and Nitrates Directive into
one single regulation removing duplication without diminishing their impact

Reduce the overlap
• Can we reduce the overlaps ?
• SSSI + Ramsar site + SPA + Heritage Coast + AONB (Isles of Scilly)
• NNR + SSSI + SAC + National Park (Dartmoor)
• AONB + National Park (North Norfolk Coast & The Broads)
• Do we need two national landscape designations ?
• New approaches, Natural Capital Committee ?
• Would the general public better understand, appreciate, value and support a simpler
system ?

A local menu
• A menu for each Protected Landscape
• Management Plan, Landscape Assessment, Strategy & Guidelines
• Locally tailored, informed, owned and evidenced approach
• Local rates to reflect local costs
• Local advice and local delivery
• Outcomes based, payment by results
• A combined environmental and socio economic menu
• Agri environment + Countryside Productivity + LEADER

John Mortimer
CLA South West Director
Brexit – An Opportunity to Reshape Rural Business

BREXIT
An opportunity to
reshape rural
business
John Mortimer
CLA Director South West
17 March 2017

Government’s standard definition
▪ Areas that fall outside of settlements with more than 10,000 resident
population
▪ 10 categories on a scale between “major conurbation” and “hamlets
and isolated dwellings”
▪ Frequently aggregated to predominantly rural, urban with significant
rural and predominantly urban
▪ On the other hand – we all know it when we see it!

Rural urban classification 2011

Rural urban classification 2011by local authority

What’s the scale of rural
business?

And is it worth worrying
about?

Rural business
▪ Rural businesses are those that operate and trade in defined rural
areas - both land-based and non land based businesses
▪ 541,000 registered businesses in rural areas - 25% of all registered
businesses in England
▪ 90,000 (16%) of these are land based - on agriculture, forestry and
fishing

Gross value added
▪ England Rural GVA (2016)
– Predominantly rural: £229 billion (16%)
– Urban with significant rural: £152 billion (12%)
▪ GVA per workforce job is a measure of productivity
▪ UK productivity is currently 20% below the G7 average
▪ Rural productivity is 17% lower than urban productivity (7% ex
London)
▪ Gross value added (GVA) is a measure of the value of goods and
services produced in an area, industry or sector of an economy. In
national accounts GVA is output minus intermediate consumption.

UK agri-food sector GVA (2013)
▪ The agri-food sector contributed £103.0 billion or 7.6% to national
GVA in 2013 employing 3.8 million people of which 430,000 were in
agriculture and fishing

England tourism sector GVA (2010)
▪ The England tourism sector contributed £67.6 billion
▪ £10.7bn in predominantly rural areas
Predominantly
Urban inc
London
£50.1bn (74%)
Predominantly
Rural
£10.7bn (16%)
Significantly
Rural
£6.8bn (10%)

The characteristics of rural businesses
▪ Typically micro or small businesses
▪ 96% are family owned - 89% of agricultural businesses
▪ 60% have been in the family for over 50 years
▪ 78% unincorporated
▪ Asset rich and cash poor
▪ Low debt/equity ratios
▪ But they invest for the long term
▪ Significant contributors to the national economy
▪ But lower productivity than urban businesses
▪ Potential for growth

So, rural business really matters!

And it’s investing for the future

Investment by rural land based businesses

Regional investment 2012 – 2015

What rural land based businesses invested in

Inhibitors of growth in the rural economy
▪ Low financial returns and market failure – particularly in the core
land based activity
▪ Low recognition of the value of public goods
▪ Over regulation
▪ Restrictive and costly planning system
▪ Inadequate digital connectivity – broadband and mobile
▪ Bureaucracy associated with public funding options
▪ Labour supply and access to skills
▪ Low confidence in the taxation system
▪ Absence of long term governmental strategies for the rural economy
▪ Poor productivity

What opportunities can we take
from Brexit to make the rural
economy better?

Reinvesting the UK's EU membership fee
▪ In 2015 the UK government paid £13 billion to the EU budget
▪ EU spending on the UK was £4.5 billion
▪ So the UK’s ‘net contribution’ was estimated at about £8.5 billion
▪ Current EU spending on agriculture and rural development is £3.2 billion

Helping government to invest for growth
▪ Increasing productivity and delivering improved environmental
outcomes through a new, long term, world leading food, farming and
environment policy – which works for the UK
▪ Creating markets for public goods that reflect value and not profit
foregone
▪ Retaining markets in the EU whilst discovering new markets further
afield – on terms that strengthen our industry
▪ Removing regulation and bureaucracy that unnecessarily inhibit
growth
▪ Ensuring an adequately skilled workforce from home and abroad
▪ Connecting the rural economy to national and global markets

Shared visions and principles for a new policy
▪ Objectives set out by both CLA and Defra seem to agree on a vision of a policy that:
▪ Secures a more market oriented, productive, competitive and resilient farming and
forestry sector
▪ Recognises the value of public goods
▪ Enhances the environment
▪ Delivers food security
▪ Has a dedicated UK budget
▪ Delivers value for money

Creating markets in public goods
▪ Recognising and rewarding land managers for eco-system services
such as:
▪ Uplands management
▪ Creation and management of habitats, woodland and meadows
▪ Carbon storage
▪ Water and flood management
▪ Bio-diversity
▪ Contracts between the state and land manager based on agreed
environmental outcomes
▪ Creating new markets for private investment in natural capital
services and bio-diversity offsetting

Trade
▪ Outcome of EU trade negotiation will determine scale and nature of
required policy intervention
▪ Most outcomes will present opportunities
▪ Grow existing markets at home and abroad
▪ Bilateral trade deals to open new markets across the world
▪ Trade agreements come with compliance strings and regulatory
standards
▪ Level playing fields or consumer choices?
▪ Animal welfare – a trade advantage?
▪ Quality standards and labelling

Regulation
▪ Take immediate opportunities to remove obvious burdens
▪ Provide certainty for businesses by ensuring all laws transfer into domestic law
▪ Review and repeal to reduce regulatory burdens
▪ Remove the gold plating
▪ Develop new, world leading approaches to achieving regulatory outcomes
▪ Ensure a regulatory framework that works for and is relevant to the UK

Labour market, skills and innovation
▪ Establish appropriate sector specific schemes that ensure availability of seasonal,
permanent and skilled labour
▪ Invest in skills
▪ Invest in research and innovation – and in the adoption of the outcomes.

Conclusion
▪ The rural economy is diverse and rural businesses take many forms
and operate across many sectors
▪ Rural businesses contribute £229 billion each year to the English
economy, representing 16% of total GVA but productivity lags the
rest of the economy
▪ Rural business matters
▪ The CLA and Government recognise, and largely agree, what the
obstacles to growth in the rural economy are
▪ Brexit presents huge challenges – but also opportunities to reshape
the rural economy
▪ Our success is vital to the success of Brexit – and we need to make
sure government doesn’t forget it.

16 Belgrave Square
London SW1X 8PQ
Tel 020 7235 0511
Fax 020 7235 4696
Email mail@cla.org.uk
Website www.cla.org.uk
THANK YOU

Nick Bruce-White
RSPB South West Director
Brexit – Opportunities & Threats

BREXIT:The opportunities
& threats for nature
Nick Bruce-White
Regional Director – RSPB South West

Policy wonk
Pragmatist
Optimist
Hope
I am a farmer & conservationist
About me...

Source: University of Exeter, RSPB & PECBMS

(0.5%)
Source: Yale School of Forestry & Environmental Studies

Securing existing environmental laws

Securing the UK’s global climate leadership

Sustainable fisheries management

Sustainable farming & land use policies

First ever species-based
driver assessment
highlights agriculture and
climate change

What role can agri-env play?
E Anglia
& Oxon
0
0.5
1
1.5
2008 2011 2014
BBS
HLS
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
2008 2011 2014
BBS
HLS
West
Midlands
HLS +32%
BBS -14%
HLS +97%
BBS -27%
Farmland bird indicator response
Source: RSPB & BTO

Nick von Westenholz
NFU Director of EU Exit & International Trade

Nick von Westenholz
Director, EU Exit & International Trade

BREXIT and AGRICULTURE
POLITICS
PROCESSPOLICY

THE PROCESS
• No negotiation without notification: EU (Notification of
Withdrawal) Bill now enacted.
• Article 50 triggered by end of March 2017 – EC then adopts
negotiating “guidelines”
• Two year process – can be extended by unanimous agreement
– to negotiate “withdrawal agreement.”
• Question over agreement on “future relationship”
• Dutch elections March 2017, French elections April/May
2017, German elections Autumn 2017.
• UK Parliamentary (and EU Parl) approval required
• Great Repeal Bill & other legislation

Devolved nations
Parliament
27 EU
Member
States
Complicating factors

THE POLICY
• Leave the single market, while seeking
the greatest possible access
• Out of the Customs Union, but looking
for a customs agreement
• Britain could pay if necessary
• A final deal put to a vote of both Houses
of Parliament
• Guarantee the rights of EU nationals in
Britain, and Britons living in Europe
ASAP
• A phased process of implementation
• No deal' better than a 'bad deal'
THE PM’s PLAN

NFU’s Policy Priorities
Profitable, Competitive, Productive farm businesses:
Economic benefits:
• Contribute to UK economic growth
& jobs
• Continue to underpin the food
industry – our largest
manufacturing sector
• Support vibrant and sustainable
rural communities & non-food
sectors (e.g. tourism, renewables)
UK agriculture should be Progressive and Sustainable, both as businesses
and in delivering benefits to society at large
Societal benefits:
• Contribute to increased UK food
security, with safe, affordable
food produced to high standards
• Deliver public/environmental
goods - “You can’t go Green if
you’re in the Red…”
• Manage the c. 75% of the UK
land mass currently farmed

Focus is on the four main policy areas of:
NFU’s Policy Priorities
TRADE
LABOUR
DOMESTIC
AGRICULTURAL POLICY
REGULATION

TRADE
EU Common External Tariff rates under WTO
Not to mention non-tariff barriers – entry checks, border delays, certification,
standards, etc

TRADE
Best access to EU markets
• 72% of food exports to EU. Some sectors very dependent – e.g. 38% of
UK lamb exported into EU
• “Free and frictionless” trade: Zero tariffs and low non-tariff barriers
Develop and expand non-EU markets
• Government must ensure trade with the rest of the world is on level-
playing field – same conditions applying to imports as UK production
• Farming and food to feature from day one in trade talks, not
afterthought
• Identify and develop opportunities in existing and new markets

LABOUR
Issue for whole food chain – not just agriculture/horticulture & relates to
both seasonal and permanent workforce
Urgent concern over labour for horticulture, pigs and poultry sectors. E.g.
horticulture expected to need 95,000 seasonal workers by 2021
Government must:
• Introduce measures to ensure adequate supply of seasonal and
permanent labour in food and farming sectors
• Grant EU workers UK right of residency
• R&D and investment funding to increase competitiveness

DOMESTIC AGRICULTURAL POLICY
A package of measures to enable farm businesses to be competitive,
profitable and progressive.
Maintain current levels of financial support, delivered across three key
themes:
• Volatility: mitigation, currently through direct payment. Other mechanisms
could include insurance schemes, bonds, etc
• Environment: Broad farmed environment scheme; Additional designated
areas/high value schemes (e.g. SSSI, National Parks)
• Productivity: Aimed at competitiveness, profitability, investment (on farm;
agri-tech). Capital grants, advice, and training, knowledge exchange…
Emphasis on each will depend on impact of Brexit – positive or negative – on
UK agriculture (e.g. trade deals/labour availability/Great Repeal Bill)

REGULATION
Opportunity to devise a regulatory environment fit for purpose
Balancing act – better regulation v complicating Brexit process. Issue of
timing…
• Protects animal and
public health, and the
environment, while
supporting innovative
and productive
agriculture
• Reduces red-tape on
farmers
• Complements the
requirements of our
new trading
arrangements
• Ensures a smooth
transition at the point of
Brexit

Richard Wakeford
Visiting Professor of Land Use & Rural Development at
Birmingham City University
Brexit – How to use the opportunity to
take control of agricultural policy

+
Professor Richard Wakeford, Birmingham
City University
Richard.wakeford@ruralstrategy.co.uk
Royal Agricultural University, March 2017
What next for the
countryside
– post BREXIT?
“Taking control” of
agriculture policy

+
Richard Wakeford
The Scottish
Government

+
The optimist and BREXIT:
new freedoms and opportunities?
 Stronger trade deals
 More sensible use of public funds without Brussels overlay
 Control of national borders
 Restore Britain’s special legal system
 Deregulate EU’s “costly mass of laws”
 Improve the economy & generate new jobs
 Regenerate Britain’s fisheries
 Avoid EU healthcare harmonisation
 Reduce welfare payments to non-UK EU citizens
 Restore British customs and traditions

+
Particular agricultural drivers for change?
 Costly mass of rules currently translated into UK law (eg on Environmental Impact
Assessment, GMOs, 160 page “Higher Tier Manual” etc)
 Common Agricultural Policy payments widely discredited – especially value for money of
Basic Payment Scheme:
 Carry out agricultural activity
 Maintain land in Good Agricultural and Environmental Condition
 Statutory Management Requirements “Cross Compliance” covering:
 the environment, food safety, animal and plant health and animal welfare
 Keep comprehensive, accurate and up-to-date records
 Rural Payments Agency demands and performance

+
Latest European Commission analysis of CAP
implementation
 In CAP implementation, for most Member States the historical factor more important than
the three general CAP objectives
 Limited correlation between pillar 1 and 2 measures
 Implementation focused strongly on the general objective of locally viable food production
 No systematic synergistic use of instruments to address particular objectives
 Lack of appropriate tailoring and targeting of Pillar 1 instruments and Pillar 2 measures
 Increased administrative complexity due to changes

+
Lessons on CAP for the EU going forward
 The study
 confirms that the CAP has become more complex
 reveals that the Member States’ strategy to address the 3 CAP objectives is not
sufficiently documented
 Raises concerns about the potential impact of the CAP
 This means
 Seek simplification to limit the growing concern of increased administrative
burdens
 Exchanging good practices between countries to propomote simplification
 Looking for a more tailored approach to the Green Payment
 As we each design our own processes in England, Wales, Scotland and
Northern Ireland – and maybe regionally too – we should learn from this
Commission research

+
So - new opportunities BREXIT will bring for agriculture?
 The optimist looks forward to new freedoms to operate and trade -
at the heart of five UK Government principles
 tariff-free and frictionless cross-border trade with Europe – important
given that EU single market takes 60% of exports, but cost of trade deal
(single market, EFTA or WTO)
 a more productive workforce using latest technology and data
 farmers incentivised and rewarded for caring for the environment; twin
goals of productive farming and environmental improvement
 promotion of animal and plant health and welfare
 resilience against disease affecting farm operations; and in protcting
communities from flooding

+
New opportunities may bring new challenges too…
 And yet, the agribusiness sector faces considerable uncertainty (eg access to
labour, tariff barriers, future support payments from UK governments – given
competition from the NHS)
 Will WTO global trade rules open up our domestic markets to lower cost imports
produced with fewer environmental and societal safeguards:
 eg GMO products (concerning to some consumers)
 routine antibiotic use in imported beef
 Farm and food products from nations not willing to demonstrate action to
implement COP21 action on climate change through agricultural measures?
 And there would still be WTO* (and potentially EU) rules about government
payments to our farmers; and about whether our products can meet other
nations’ standards
 Would UK really “take back control”?
* BTAMS = Bound Total Aggregate Measure of Support

+
Will the UK be influential against unfair
rules over exports?
 “America First”
 Past challenge of exporting
Scottish seed potatoes to
China
 Tariff free exports to Europe
challenged if our government
departs much from EU rules
 Could we find ourselves
effectively committed to
working within the rules of
the next CAP reform?

+
Futures thinking?
 “America first” motivated by a desire in middle US to return to the rosy
days when smaller cities were rich in smaller businesses providing
employment
 “BREXIT” similarly harks back to the world when more of our economy
related to the Commonwealth
 50 years since the designation of the Cotswolds AONB, many people
want to believe in an unchanging protected landscape
 25+ years since Chris Patten’s comprehensive environment White Paper
launched a “national countryside initiative” offering incentive payments
to landowners and farmers to manage or recreate landscapes – beyond
Environmentally Sensitive Areas
 Looking forward is hard! Delivery takes time.

+ No development here in the AONB, thank you!

We have some
choices in shaping
tomorrow’s world

+
Factor in technological advances
 Rapid improvements in satellite technology, reducing the time needed to
provide precision land-use data to benefit farmers, foresters and
fishermen
 New technology in cultivation, with autonomous tractors reducing the
need for a rural workforce still further
 Big data; ever increasing information influencing consumers – some
FAKE
 Rural-urban divide disappears, as more work can be done remotely
 Where will the processing and retail chain go next?
 Apps to help us eat well (and source the food we really need for health)
 Apps to tailor government support more reliably to outcomes for society

+
BREXIT; an opportunity to deliver?
• “Subsidy system broken”
• “Farmers going out of business”
• “State of wildlife in steep decline
• … because of intensive agriculture”
• “Taxpayers should only pay public
subsidy to farmers in return for
things that the market won’t pay for
but which are valued and needed by
the public”
• “The current system rewards people
for the hectares they own, with very
inadequate standards for wildlife
and the environment,”

+
Opportunity: translate Basic Payments into “outcome
specific” schemes
 Green Alliance proposes a Natural Infrastructure Scheme (NIS)
 £3.1 billion spent on CAP in the UK currently encourages land managers to
maximise land available for agricultural use and props up uneconomic
farming
 Farmers and other land managers could financially benefit from
environmental improvements such as flood alleviation and habitat creation
 £2.4 billion a year spent tackling water pollution, water treatment, investing
in flood resilience and dealing with damage caused by river flooding; paying
farmers to use natural engineering and land management in the upper
reaches of a catchment can be more cost effective than paying for hard
defences, end of pipe water treatment and the effects of flooding
 ‘Payments for ecosystem services’ could become a mainstream market,
reversing declines in nature, and supporting new, environmentally beneficial
approaches to farming in the UK

Vision of the future – park or vineyard?

+
Three factors of productivity
 The OECD approach;
 Consider capital;
 Consider labour;
 Consider the land
 Capital is the concern of the Chancellor of Exchequer
 Labour is the concern of the Business Secretary
 Land is the responsibility of … DCLG, DEFRA, Transport, Culture etc
 The three 1947 Acts – a joined up approach to securing the best value from our land, and
from the people who worked it, with a view to building up the capital of our nation

+
A new 'Department for Land Use' should be created: Lord
Deben
 "no hope of sensible land use while planning is imprisoned within the Department for Communities and
Local Government, agriculture in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs,
infrastructure in the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, and long-term transport
planning in the Department for Transport” Lord Deben – in a CPRE report March 2017
 the creation of a "Department of Land Use would bring the strategic elements of all these together”;
planners should be shifted away from development management to focus on strategic land use issues
 "Planning, environment, agriculture, and infrastructure make a cohesive whole and taken together
enable us to decide what kind of country we want to leave to our grandchildren"

+
Futures thinking: functions of rural land
 Land managers provide
 Provisioning services
 Regulating services
 Cultural services
 …and who benefits from these?
 ...and if we put value on the flow of renewable benefits, we can start to calculate the full
capital value – for society and for the businesses with a right to draw on it –> NATURAL
CAPITAL
 Can Dieter Helm’s Natural Capital Committee help to bring economic rationale to disparate
services?

+
Land: a basis for provisioning services (often consumed in
urban areas)
 products obtained from ecosystems
▪ Food e.g. crops, fruit, fish
▪ Fibre and fuel e.g. timber, wool
▪ Biochemicals, natural medicines and pharmaceuticals
▪ Genetic resources: genes and genetic information used for animal/plant breeding and biotechnology
▪ Ornamental resources e.g. shells, flowers

+
Land: a basis for regulating processes (often benefiting
urban dwellers)
▪ Air-quality maintenance: ecosystems contribute chemicals to, and extract
chemicals from the atmosphere
▪ Climate regulation e.g. land cover can affect local temperature and
precipitation; globally ecosystems affect greenhouse gas sequestration and
emissions
▪ Water regulation: ecosystems affect e.g. the timing and magnitude of runoff,
flooding etc.
▪ Erosion control: vegetative cover plays an important role in soil
retention/prevention of land/asset erosion
▪ Water purification/detoxification: ecosystems can be a source of water
impurities but can also help to filter out/decompose organic waste
▪ Natural hazard protection e.g. storms, floods, landslides
▪ Bioremediation of waste i.e. removal of pollutants through storage, dilution,
transformation and burial

+ Rural growth potential in cultural services (enjoyed
by urban dwellers too)
▪ Many societies place high value on the maintenance of important landscapes or species
▪ Aesthetic values: many people find beauty in various aspects of ecosystems
▪ Recreation and ecotourism bring visitors and opportunities for business growth
▪ Rural areas are the inspiration for art, folklore, architecture etc
▪ Many religions attach spiritual and religious values to ecosystems and landscapes
▪ Social relations: ecosystems affect the types of social relations that are established e.g. fishing societies

+
The context of geography
 Global, national, regional, local … different values will be ascribed to different services
(Romania vs UK; Fenland vs Wales)
 How to engage communities at different levels (town vs country?)
 How to put values on the services delivered, other than by compensation for theoretical
production foregone?
 “strike the right balance between national frameworks for support measures whilst tailoring
them to local landscapes and catchments” Andrea Leadsom, 21st February 2017
 Neighbourhood planning – localism doesn’t extend to knowledge about the benefits
taxpayers buy from farmers and landowners!

+
Scottish farm accounts:
• Government grants and
subsidies of over £500 million
• Without them, no net income
from farming at all
• So, the support must be
justified by other services
farmers deliver
• But, even with same cash post
BREXIT, buying more specific
services creates challenges
elsewhere
• Hence the call for a long
transition period to new
payments for “ecosystems
services” beyond mere food
production

+
Land Use, Land Use Change and Forestry

+
Futures thinking: Land Use, Land Use Change and Forestry
Challenges:
• Agricultural non-CO2 emissions = 10.3%
of EU total emissions
• Potentially responsible for one third of
all EU emissions
• One half from soils (mainly nitrous
oxide); one third from animals (mainly
methane from cattle); one sixth from
manure management (nitrous oxide
and methane)
• Increased productivity since 1990s has
helped but further potential limited
• Plant more woodland; a challenge for
farmers?

+
Examples of Reduction Opportunities in the LULUCF Sector
 Increase carbon storage by using land differently or maintain
carbon storage by avoiding land degradation
 Encourage the transformation of cropland to forest
 Avoid the conversion of forest land to settlements
 Improve management practices on existing land-use types
 Reduce soil erosion to minimize losses in soil carbon storage
 Make more efficient use of Nitrogen fertiliser
 Make more efficient use of livestock feed
 Use crop residue for bio-energy
 Plant after forest disturbances to accelerate vegetation growth and
minimize soil carbon losses

+
The LULUCF challenge for the policy makers – for UK
policymakers post BREXIT!
 What instruments? Fiscal or regulatory? Measurable/enforceable? Global, EU or national
targets/instruments?
 How to identify trade-offs between foresters providing sinks and farmers creating emissions?
 How to use marginal land if agriculture better managed, and forests operate to full sink
potential
 Can a plan to deliver the committed reductions create positive opportunities for rural growth
– new forests, better managed; new investments in farming; better use of residue and food
waste?

+
… and for farmers and fishermen etc, what role for
consumers?

+ Promotions
through my
letterbox …

+
Food and health outcomes; research has already identified
costs for society
 Big data research on retail food purchases shows clear links to obesity among
the families of purchasers
 Research has informed a new approach to help fast food outlets develop a
toolkit to cut down on fat, sugar and salt
 Food price promotions and public health; research has explored the obesity
impact of “buy one, get one free” of cheap unhealthy foods; and children’s
exposure to unhealthy food advertisements
 Research has delivered evidence that poorer people are less physically active …
and that children from poorer families are nearly three times as likely to be
obese
 BUT; so much research is funded by big food and drugs businesses, making
governments reluctant to recommend healthier diets

+
The case of type 2 diabetes
 Healthier eating half the solution; less sugar, less carbohydrates
(potatoes, cereal etc), more fish, meat, dairy products?
 Are improved health outcomes relevant to food security; and to the food
chain as a whole? … and to economic progress
 Should the increasing cost of health services across Europe and globally
be a cross cutting driver of EU funded research (ie big and strategic,
rather than fragmented, compartmentalised calls?)
 Emerging new advice to type 2 diabetes sufferers:
 Cut carbohydrates; focus diet on protein rich and full fat products
 “Butter is one of the most natural fats you can buy. It is just churned cream
from a cow. Ideally, opt for grass-fed butter; it has a greater nutrient profile
and a better omega 3-6 ratio.”
 New approaches to pork production in China: shift from backyard pigs to
mass production, but fed on imported maize…

+
Bord Bia -> Origin Green Ireland
• Rich soils -> lush green grass
(300 days a year grazing)
• Carbon efficient dairy and beef
production
• Low water footprint
• 80% of agriculture = grassland

+
Tomorrow’s global food supply: producers’ challenge
today
 With business as usual, feeding a population of 9 billion might require “60% more food, 50%
more energy and 40% more water” – Uni of Minnesota (2015)
 “About 24% of all calories produced for human consumption are lost or wasted” World
Resources Institute (2013)
 “Malnutrition must be addressed by adopting a food systems approach- looking at the entire
food system from production to consumption” FAO (2016)
 How will UK Government policy, post BREXIT address global food insecurity issues – feeding
into government policies and practice?

+
Food security and forests (including biodiversity)
 “Inseparable: Forests, Wildlife and Food Security” – high level discussion at the FAO
 “It is time for a change in consciousness – it is a fact that agriculture and forestry can no
longer be treated in isolation. Linking the two is imperative for socio-economic development
in the 21st century” - Evelyn Nguleka, President of the World Farmers’ Organization
 Conclusions from World Forest Week
 develop integrated land use strategies taking into account the role of forests for water, soil, climate
and habitats
 strengthen land governance by improving tenure security and encouraging partnerships
 monitor and collect data on the effectiveness of governance mechanisms and on social, economic
and environmental values of forests

+
Food security and the impact on environment
What steps are required to ensure the land can continue supplying important goods
and services – including an increasing demand for food - in the face of a changing
climate?
 Land management to:
 lock up carbon in soil;
 manage use of water; and
 reduce risk of city flooding downstream?
 Timber production as part of an adaptation strategy to lock up carbon
 Biodiversity goals which require habitat for wildlife
 Action to cope with sea level rise on the coast; managed retreat and coastal
plains no longer available for food production
What do these goals mean for human consumption habits, food retailer marketing,
food processors and farmers? … and energy, transport etc

+
Future policy is not just post-CAP; and not just agriculture
and the environment
Other societal challenges Our relevant suggested areas of integration
Climate action:
• Environment
• Resource use
• Raw materials
• Agricultural and forestry practice (mitigation & adaptation)
• Mesoplankton
• Circular economy: reducing food, farm and forestry waste; avoiding
plastic soup in the sea
• Optimal use of land and sea: food, energy, carbon sink
Europe in the changing world
• Inclusive societies
• Food as a unifying strand between distinctive societal groups
Health
• Demographic change
• Wellbeing
• Food production, manufacturing, marketing, information
• Ecosystems services from land
• Food safety
Energy
• Secure, clean, efficient
• Food production efficiency
Secure society
• Freedom
• Security of citizens
• Resilient supply systems
• Protection of facilities
• Food security (ie growing enough)
Transport
• Green
• Integrated
• Supply chain logistics/packaging
• Air miles
• Warehouse to my house delivery
FOOD 2030 linking
most of the societal
challenges?

+
“What next for the countryside, post
BREXIT?”
 New freedoms and opportunities – after tough negotiations
 An opportunity for more societal clarity about the countryside we want, and at what
cost
 The need to see land itself as the basic factor of productivity – requiring joined up
policies at all levels (Lord ~Deben’s challenge)
 The need to optimise the ecosystems services land can deliver, sustainably (Dieter
Helm’s challenge)
 In particular, look for the role of woodland creation, especially to help achieve climate
change goals and flood management
 More rational policy measures – but transition a challenge because of potential losers
 An end to end question: can farmers influence what society eats – and thus help tackle
the current societal cost of unwise diets*? * = according to
emerging research on carbohydrate consumption

Panel Discussion
Open for Questions from the floor

Closing Comments
Julie Girling MEP

Environment conference presentation.pptx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Similar to Environment conference presentation.pptx

Similar to Environment conference presentation.pptx (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (16)

Environment conference presentation.pptx