Promised the Earth

Environment Act

MPs had turned down a Lords amendment which would have made soil centre stage of the legislation, with its own long-term target to secure its recovery.

"Soil remains a disappointment despite the great efforts in the House of Lords, and thus soil won’t be recognised on a par with water, air and nature," the charity Soil Association said. "But the commitment to a soil health action plan is a partial success and we will be seeking to make this as robust as possible. See Soil Stewards

They promised the Earth

There was much post-Referendum talk about the opportunity to green our farming. There would be 'public money for public goods' and we thought that meant improving the earth. There would be a new ‘Environmental Land Management Scheme' (ELMS) that would replace the old EU system of paying subsidies by land area.

And we soil scientists cheered when, in 2017, Secretary of State Michael Gove pledged to do more to tackle the problem of degraded soils. In the ‘Health and Harmony’ consultation preceding the Agriculture Bill he specifically name-checked improved 'soil health' eight times as a public good which could be rewarded after Brexit. The report went out of its way to criticise the EU because it "failed to reward some public goods adequately, such as measures to improve water quality and soil health". A year later Rebecca Pow (Defra Minister) said it was too early to tell exactly what form the regulation would take, but indicated that it was “likely to set a target of reversing the declines and restoring soil health across the country by 2030”.

Many of us started talking about objectives and here is My page on soil health indicators.

Going

In July 2020, the government said rules about growing diverse crops, fallow land and hedges will be abolished in 2021. Till then farmers with 15 ha of ARABLE land had to put aside 5% for one of the following. More on EFAs – Nearly half of the farms use ‘fallow’ to qualify, perhaps because it is easy. These measures are designed improved soil health on arable land – where 2 million tonnes of our best top soil – grade 1&2 are being lost to erosion, and were part Ecological Focus which required farmers to ‘green’ a proportion of their land. The government said it was cutting this ‘red tape’ because the EU found it was having only a marginal effect.

The same EU report they quoted came to a different recommendation about its findings.

"For the next CAP reform, the Commission should develop a complete intervention logic for the EU environmental and climate-related action regarding agriculture, including specific targets and based on up-to-date scientific understanding of the phenomena concerned”

The slogan to pay 'public money for public goods', was never made clear. Then in 2020 'ELMS policy delayed due to virus', and shortly after, in August, 'it bears a passing resemblance to the old schemes'

The Environment Bill does not have a chapter on soils, the 25YEP doesn’t include satisfactory soil metrics and the Agriculture Bill doesn’t mention soils either. The Natural Capital Committee (p57-61) in its final response (Oct '20) to 25 yr Environmental Programme concluded:

“The overall assessment of the soils asset, based on the datasets available, is ‘Red’: deteriorating. There are no firm, legally binding commitments in the 25 YEP or elsewhere for the improvement of the condition and extent of soils. A starting point would be to undertake an England-wide measurement of soil carbon.”

Prof Jane Rickson from Cranfield University asks: “What soil properties should be measured and monitored? Different soils will have naturally variable levels of soil carbon, irrespective of how they are managed. An alternative approach is to ignore measurement of soil properties and reward farmers for farming in ways that typically improve soil carbon, such reduced ploughing, planting “cover crops” that hold soil together in winter, and grass buffer strips to catch soil running off fields in the rain”

(err haven’t they just got rid of that with their EFAs going?

Many soil scientists say measuring soil health difficult, although many also think with technologies like drones and AI data systems it is not beyond our wit.

Goods?

But there s a deeper divide. Is soil health a Natural Asset or Public Good? In a APPG discussion they mentioned a “GWCT Test & Trials proposal on the introduction of sustainable rotations had not been accepted as soils were regarded as a private asset by Defra.” There is a good argument that leaving the health of our soils in private hands is not a good idea , judged by the last 70 years. But in the absence of nationalising ‘our’ land , the GWCT director argued that the key was not to fund the full cost but to net out the benefits to the farmer so that the public only financed the “incentive” element.

Discussion in Defra has been how to reward. They looked at two ways. Defra plan to maintain the 'income foregone payment' model for the foreseeable future. However the fallacy of Income Foregone payments is “the calculation may reflect the difference in cost, but it completely fails to account for the income actually foregone, particularly in a difficult year. So, it provides little incentive for sort of ELMS uptake that would really make a difference.”

The Sustainable Farming Incentive – and the new ELM scheme pilot would be calculated using the existing approach. They declined to say how long it would take to move away from the 'income foregone plus costs incurred approach', describing it as a ‘hard challenge’ because it is ‘breaking into new territory’. “The reality is natural capital payments cost more – perhaps they were rejected by the Treasury who said income foregone would be cheaper and avoid the amber WTO box. Sticking with ‘income foregone’ will particularly hit those farming the uplands ".

Doubt it will be economical to plant hardwoods which would be the best option, because there will be no income from the land for at least 300 years., which cant see Rishi Sunak committing to provide 'income forgone' to farmers for that long. There are more promises due from Eustice (December) that ELM will ‘go beyond’ income foregone payments and first in line will be farmers who protect soil and water – eventually.

Dr Julia Aglionby, executive director of the Foundation for Common Land (FCL) said this is a major disappointment after endless talk of the natural capital approach where much research has been undertaken and figures are available. “Getting to a natural capital valuation is the aspiration, but this is proving very difficult to achieve for the majority of outcomes,” said Rob Cooke, director of EU Transition at Natural England.

Grants

Instead of regular subsidies, farmers will apply for grants for projects. there is a list of possible projects from stone walling to hedge planting, but no detail nor amounts for each. Grant funding will favour bigger areas - especially 'landscaping' - and those larger farmers used to filling in grant forms - a skill in itself. It also counts against those who have already made improvements, instead rewarding those who have not. The winners are sinners.

Dec '20

Ministers unveil next steps. There will be more trees, meadows and wetlands - and fewer sheep and cows. The new system, named Environmental Land Management (ELM), will pay farmers if they prevent floods, plant woods and help wildlife. Tier 1 will reward farmers for basic activities such as crop rotation, soil conservation and stopping chemicals polluting waterways. But there is no explanation of how that will be established after 4 years discussion. And it basically existing basic stewardship schemes.

While many will be cheering the environmental aspects, the difficulty is that to unlock the top-level funding for environmental projects, under tier 2 and tier 3 of the new ELM system, (Tier 1 is little different from old schemes and sensible management) farmers will need a lot of land, as projects like reforestation or the restoration of wetlands are only feasible on farms of a certain size. The system may therefore reward larger landowners at the expense of smaller farmers, who don’t own their own land and who can’t use their land for environmental purposes so easily

There is still no indication of how the monies saved by the £1.8b subsidies cuts will be spent. At best we will not know till after trials with 5000 farmers starting late 2021.

There is talk that this will give chance to newcomers – those with the money and skills will be in short supply as we have run down our Agricultural Colleges – latest to go being Cumbria. Instead there will be lots of high profile projects, with less than transparent funding, possibly with financial institutions buying up tracts of land for a song, funded by government as desperate people have to leave. As Johnson said in the Commons last week “What we are going to do is use the new freedoms we have after leaving the common agricultural policy to support farmers to beautify the landscape”.

Therein is their plan: to create pictures for those in the City to have as screensavers, while