Oral evidence: Air quality, HC 479Wednesday 20 January 2016
Oral evidence, 20 January 2016.
Witnesses
Andrew Bauer, Deputy Director of Policy, National Farmers’ Union Scotland, and Dr Diane Mitchell, Chief Environment Adviser, National Farmers’ Union, gave evidence.
Chair
Thank you very much for coming. We are now going to talk about agriculture, emissions and what have you. Diane, would you like to introduce yourself, please, and then Andrew? We will keep on straight away. Thank you for coming to give us evidence.
Dr Mitchell
I am Diane Mitchell. I am the Chief Environment Adviser at the National Farmers’ Union.
Andrew Bauer
I am Andrew Bauer, the Deputy Director of Policy with the National Farmers’ Union of Scotland.
Chair
I have a nice simple question for you to start with. What are the trends in emissions of key local air pollutants from the agricultural sector? Who wants to start off with that one?
Dr Mitchell
I will kick off. From an England perspective, or certainly UK‑wide perspective initially, certainly the trends are going in the right direction. One of the key emissions that would be of interest to the Committee is ammonia, and ammonia emissions have fallen by approximately 23% since 1980. I am guessing that one of the other emissions that you might be interested in is particulates, because ammonia reacts in air with other compounds and other emissions to form particulates. My understanding is that, in terms of agriculture’s contribution to those, there is a general declining trend in finer particulates from agriculture.
Chair
With tractors, for instance, some of the modern ones have AdBlue in the systems. Have you any idea of what percentage of tractors, through the industry, are meeting those targets? How many old tractors are out there? Do you have any idea at all?
Dr Mitchell
I do not. I can try to find out for you. It is certainly something that we can follow up on, but I do not have any information on that to hand.
Chair
The rest of the industry is looking at that. Can I also bring you in, Andrew? What about minimal cultivations? Is the industry looking at some of those processes, especially on carbon and others?
Andrew Bauer
It has certainly been an area in the cropping parts of the country, which Scotland has proportionately less of. There has been uptake of that. It brings some challenges, but I think it is seen in most cases as not being done for air quality reasons or greenhouse gas emissions reasons. It is a management tool and a way to reduce pest and disease pressure, but it has certainly become more commonplace.
Chair
As far as ammonium nitrate is concerned, being applied to land, there would be an argument for more injection into the land, rather than any wastage. Not only does it have potential to allow the nitrogen to go up into the atmosphere, it is also less effective as far as growing the crop is concerned. What work is the industry doing on that?
Dr Mitchell
In terms of work that the industry is doing, the NFU is part of an initiative called Tried & Tested. It is an industry‑led initiative that was set up in 2009. It was formed to help provide the right tools and information to farmers to help make improvements in nutrient‑management planning, mature‑management planning and to provide advice on feeds as well.
Chair
I am talking particularly about artificial nitrogen, ammonium nitrate. It is very expensive and it seems a nonsense that that goes up into the atmosphere. I suspect that, by the very price of the fertiliser, less is wasted, but are we being proactive enough on the thought of injecting it into the ground wherever possible, rather than actually spreading it on the land and waiting for it to be washed in?
Dr Mitchell
The industry is certainly promoting good practice and best practice. We do that through the nutrient‑management initiative, Tried & Tested. I do know that the industry more generally is doing a lot on helping provide the right advice to farmers to help make improvements in resource efficiency or nutrient‑management planning. I know that there is a lot of investment that has gone into providing advisers, whether feed nutritionists or agronomists, with some really good information, not just about production, but also about production efficiencies, resource efficiency and nutrient‑management planning. It is an area of work that we are actively promoting.
Chair
Before I bring in Andrew, I always think it is good with farmers to encourage them in the pocket. One way of encouraging farmers to get the best equipment to inject their fertiliser is that that fertiliser is going to go a lot further and perhaps they can use less of it. Is there a drive for that within the industry, because I think it would be very sensible?
Andrew Bauer
I can speak about Scotland here. The main drivers have been the price of fertiliser but, in recent years, the work that the industry has done with the Scottish Environment Protection Agency to meet the Water Framework Directive has driven; that has probably been the biggest regulatory driver and that has certainly encouraged farmers to take far greater consideration of what is going on in their fields and make the investments that you are describing there.
Angela Smith
I think the work that is ongoing helping to encourage best practice is very interesting. There is a lot of investment in there, but do you think that there is more that Defra could do to support this work, by way of directing European Union funding, agri‑environment schemes or just more generally? Does Defra do enough?
Dr Mitchell
There is certainly some work that could be done on promoting research and development and innovation. That is really important. Defra has a role there and also in helping to facilitate information exchange. Once we have the research there, we also need farmers to be able to access the research. We need farmers to be able to use the results of research. Just on that research element, it is really important that we get farmers involved in that discussion, so farmers are helping initiate ideas to continue research and development. The important aspect of that is that, actually, perhaps some of the solutions that we are looking for might not actually come from Defra or a piece of regulation. They might come from the farmers themselves, so they need to be involved in that.
Angela Smith
My point is whether Defra does enough to support farmers, the NFU and the scientists in doing all of this work, the innovation, the development and this spread of best practice. That was more my point.
Dr Mitchell
I think that there is always more that can be done. Certainly, we would like farmers to get more involved in helping to drive research, and Defra has a role there. European Innovation Partnerships is an EU initiative that is very keen to involve farmers in setting that agenda on research. We would like Defra to follow that lead. Of course, Defra has some broader responsibilities in relation to providing the right tools for farmers, and information and advice, whether that is through agri‑environment, through grant funding or through initiatives that they support, like catchment‑sensitive farming.
Ms Ritchie
How far do Government policies for agriculture take into account their air quality impacts on human health and the environment? In that respect, is enough research being done into the health impacts that air pollution may have on farmers’ health?
Chair
Has anything been done?
Andrew Bauer
I am certainly not aware of research into air quality impacts on farmers’ health. We have seen some tragic incidents in Northern Ireland, where there have been fatalities. They have been in very specific circumstances. Out in the fields, I am not aware of anything. I am aware that there has been work on monitoring greenhouse gas emissions, which has used really quite cutting‑edge technology to measure emission from crops and from livestock. There is the potential there, I suppose, to measure the impact on farmers, but I am not aware of anything having been done.
Dr Mitchell
What was your first question about?
Ms Ritchie
How far do Government policies for agriculture take into account their air quality impacts on human health and the environment?
Dr Mitchell
There is an extensive set of regulations and policies that take account of air quality impacts in relation to ammonia. For example, we have international agreements like the Gothenburg Protocol, which has just recently been renegotiated and sets new targets. At an EU level, we have the National Emissions Ceiling Directive, which is currently in place, which sets ceilings or targets for ammonia, but that is also being renegotiated at the moment. We have the Industrial Emissions Directive, which affects pig and poultry producers. A key driver for that has been the reduction in ammonia emissions. There is quite an intensive set of regulatory drivers, and of course there are also the Habitats Directive and habitats regulations that will protect sensitive habitats. I know that there is also some national legislation that protects sensitive habitats, like SSSIs, which are not part of the European framework. There are broader policies as well that help farmers make improvements in resource efficiency. We have just talked a little bit about those; there are agri‑environment schemes and also grant funds that help farmers to make improvements in their resource efficiency. There is also catchment sensitive farming, providing advice to farmers in particular catchment areas.
Chair
Do any of these sorts of policies actually take into account air quality? We have nitrogen‑free zones and poultry units with nitrates that have to be dealt with, but do we have any policies in place that deal with emissions of gas and its effect on farmers? I am not sure we do.
Andrew Bauer
At the farm level, the obvious one is the Industrial Emissions Directive and then the Pollution Prevention and Control regulations. From my perspective, the others are there and having an impact, but it is less obvious to the farmer. The PPC regulations are the ones that are felt. For the others, where we are seeing changes again they are being driven by things like the Water Framework Directive or the Nitrates Directive, and the multiple benefits they are giving.
David Simpson
If, as Margaret touched on, more research was needed in relation to the impact of these things, who should pay for it? Should it be Government or agriculture? Second to that, from the National Farmers’ Union point of view, are farmers fully aware of the impact of this? Smaller farmers will just jump on a tractor, sow the fertiliser and do what they have to do, but do they really grasp the impact of the difficulties and the whole issue around the legislation?
Andrew Bauer
On the point about research, a lot of that research is being delivered via levy boards and the farmers are making a contribution there. If that research is going to be to the benefit of farming, then there is probably a strong case for farming at least contributing to that research. If this is something that is purely being driven by a regulatory requirement and farmers are not going to see some value from it, then we would be looking to Government in saying, “This is for the greater good. This is not delivering for farming,” so the Government needs to step in there. Are farmers aware? I think they are aware of their obligations to wider society. They are aware of odour issues. They are aware of water quality issues. They are probably less aware of the less obvious emissions to air, but through the climate change agenda and the Water Framework Directive agenda, that awareness is rising rapidly. It is certainly noticeable.
Chair
Even when it comes to things like spraying crops—and I speak now as a farmer—we certainly did not take enough protection historically. I think farmers are getting better, but they probably need to be made aware of the effects that some of the chemicals they are using could have on their health. Do you think we are doing enough about that?
Andrew Bauer
It has not been the issue north of the border that it has been south. For ourselves, the Water Framework Directive is driving action on pesticides as much as it is on nutrients. The European Commission has identified Scotland as an example of best practice. We are proud of the work that farmers in Scotland have done, which includes cropping and moving further away from watercourses with the sprays that they are using.
Chair
What about in England, Wales and Northern Ireland?
Dr Mitchell
There is an increasing awareness amongst farmers about their environmental responsibilities. One of the points that I would make is that we probably have not been very good at joining up some of our messages to farmers. We tend to focus on particular issues. For example, it may be nitrates, and we talk a lot to farmers about nitrates and what they should do to help make improvements there, then we might talk about greenhouse gases and then we might talk about ammonia. What we perhaps should be talking about is some of the common messages that are underlying some of these emissions. A lot of the activities that we are asking farmers to undertake are similar or common across addressing a number of these emissions, certainly in greenhouse gas emissions, water quality and ammonia.
Angela Smith
Sprayers now have to be qualified, I believe. It is now a legal requirement that sprayers are qualified to do the job that they do, so does the qualification to engage in spraying activities include environmental awareness as part of it?
Andrew Bauer
It does, yes. It does for the actual person. That is a requirement. The last remaining grandfather rights were phased out at the end of November last year. For the actual people themselves and the equipment, we are going through a phased introduction of mandatory testing and that will take a number of years to come in. Every single person who is now doing spraying will be tested on their awareness and that will include awareness of impacts on the environment.
Angela Smith
Thank you. The EU proposes ammonia reduction targets of 21% by 2030, which the NFU thinks are at the limits of technical feasibility. Can I ask what evidence you based this conclusion on?
Dr Mitchell
The proposal from the European Commission is a reduction by 21% of ammonia by 2030. That proposal was set out by the Commission in its Clean Air Package in 2013, so our analysis is based on the information that was provided by the Commission and the Commission’s consultants, at that time, and its impact assessment. They ran a number of scenarios and one of them was on technical feasibility. One of our real concerns, when those proposals were published, was about whether the Commission, the Commission consultants and the impact assessment had taken account of whether growth had been factored into their calculations. We have an underlying concern about whether industry growth has been accounted for in those calculations that were presented.
Angela Smith
Does the NFU have a factor in mind that it deems to be more acceptable or more realistic? The EU’s target is 21%, but what is the NFU’s target?
Dr Mitchell
Without undertaking the same level of analysis, which the Commission’s consultants undertook, and I understand that it involved very technically detailed and complex modelling, we do not actually have a figure ourselves that we have promoted. What we have said is that work needs to be done to look at what is technically feasible, achievable and affordable to the industry, in that time to 2030.
Angela Smith
Have you looked at the successful approaches adopted in the Netherlands and Denmark on this aspect of what we are talking about?
Dr Mitchell
Yes, and I am familiar with some of the requirements that are made on Danish and Dutch farmers. I was in the Netherlands at the end of November. I went on a two‑day study tour, which was organised by the European Commission. That was very interesting. What I found interesting about that was that I know that the Netherlands has taken quite a strict approach and it has had quite strict legislation, requiring farmers to make reductions in ammonia. What I found interesting about that visit was that it appears that the Dutch are now changing the approach that they take. Yes, the legislation may still be there, but, as I understood from the two‑day tour, they are taking greater account of the potential for economic development. I took it that perhaps they had gone a little too far in the past and been a little bit too strict, but they do recognise that economic development has to take place, so they are re‑looking at the approach that they take, so that they are protecting the environment, but also allowing farms and other industry sectors to grow.
Andrew Bauer
Certainly, from a Scottish perspective, what has earned us plaudits from the European Commission is the results and the way that the results are being delivered. From a Water Framework Directive, the results are being delivered by working with the farmers, giving the farmers time to change and giving them the advice that they need in order to change, not taking a very hard line, with a very hard date, by which time they must be completely compliant. I have never heard anyone describe the environment directive and the EU as a soft touch, so for them to say that that has worked in Scotland speaks volumes.
Angela Smith
On that point, and this is my final question, Chair, what do you think are the barriers to greater use by farmers of measures to reduce ammonia emissions? If I may frame it this way, you just mentioned lack of awareness, but there also may be financial and technological barriers.
Andrew Bauer
There are financial and technical barriers, not least given the current state of agriculture in many sectors. There is also a market driver here, in what the general public wants agriculture to look like. Does it want agriculture to happen in big sheds with abatement technology or does it want agriculture to happen out in a field? There is a real decision and a real debate that has to happen there with society, saying whether we are driving for efficiency, for animal welfare, provenance or quality. What is it that we are looking for? The market is sending messages at the moment and farmers are responding to them. They are responding to them in the context of very strained finances and a lack of time. Certainly, in Scotland, we are down to 2.2 full‑time equivalents per farm. That is not a business that has a lot of time to reflect on its impacts on air quality. If we want the advice to stick, we need to go over and above, as we have done in Scotland, to present it to the farmer in a way that is going to be able to digest and act on.
Chair
Further to the points I made earlier, one way of appealing to farmers is, if their nitrogen is going up into the atmosphere, it is not growing their crops, so it is costing them money. If their manures and slurries are being washed into the river or going into the water supply, then they are not actually growing their crops. It is how we work together to improve what is going up into the atmosphere and into the water, by actually appealing to the farmers to be able to manage that better. I know it is not always simple; the weather sometimes turns wrong and it rains a lot when you put fertiliser on, but I think there is scope. At the moment, it is almost seen as a stick to beat the farmers with. In some ways, it does not need to be. Are you doing enough to change these attitudes?
Andrew Bauer
On that point about win‑wins, there is an excellent knowledge transfer programme in Scotland, funded by the Scottish Government and run by the Scottish Agricultural College, called Farming for a Better Climate. They have focus farms and they have lots of events on farms. One of the things that was very interesting out of that was that the win‑win message does not always penetrate to the extent that you would expect, for those time‑pressured, financially‑pressured reasons I described earlier on. You can tell someone that this is going to save them money and they may still persist. Where they saw greater potential was in this message about stewardship and handing it on to the next generation on the farm. That is maybe where we have struggled with air quality, because the impacts are diffuse and they are long range. It is slightly more complicated than saying, “This is going to save you money. Therefore, you should do it.”
Dr Monaghan
I would like to turn to greenhouse gas emissions, if I can. I have a question for Diane. Diane, is it time for the UK Government to set a clear policy direction for reducing greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture?
Dr Mitchell
In England, there is already a commitment set in the Low Carbon Transition Plan from 2009. There is a target in there to make reductions to 3 megatonnes of carbon equivalents for the third carbon budget, which is 2018‑22. In terms of what the industry is doing, as a result of that target being set, the industry developed its Greenhouse Gas Action Plan, which is a commitment by a number of agricultural industry partners, including the NFU, setting out how the industry plans to make its contribution to that reduction. It has a detailed plan for how it plans to do that. The industry is committed to that commitment. There are a number of other things that the industry is doing. Just at the end of last year, the NFU, alongside a number of other organisations like AHDB, launched its Dairy Roadmap, setting out some of the good practices that the dairy sector is doing, including what it was doing on nutrient‑management planning, but also carbon reduction. There are lots of things that the industry is doing to help fulfil that commitment. [Interruption.]
Chair
I think the division bell has gone. Unless Paul is really committed, I do not think we will ask you back. We will ask for written evidence on the rest of question 14 and on 15 regarding methane gas, because that is another interesting one. New Zealand has done quite a lot of work on types of diets for cattle and sheep to see if they can reduce the amount of methane gas. The quicker an animal finishes, the less methane gas it gives off. Those are interesting things. I am not entirely sure I am interested in whether they should eat less meat, but that is me. I must declare an interest as a farmer. Seriously, if you can, get those to us. I do not know, Paul, if you want to add anything last, then we must go and vote.
Dr Monaghan
I am happy to have evidence in a written format, but can we just follow up that first question with a supplementary to Diane, which is for her to perhaps come forward with suggestions as to what the UK Government can do to more effectively support the NFU, in terms of taking forward the plan that you have highlighted there just now?
Chair
The best thing you can do with that is supply it to us in writing, because otherwise we will be missing our vote and we may not be popular for doing so. I appreciate your evidence. I am sorry that we had to rush you a bit at the end, but if you could give us those written answers to Paul’s question, that last one, and to the methane gas one, we would be most obliged. Thank you very much for coming this afternoon and giving evidence. Again, we had better go and vote. Thank you very much. Oral evidence: Air quality, HC 479 2