Written evidence submitted by the Guildford Business Forum Rural Group and Guildford Borough Council’s Climate Change and Innovation Boards (ELM0011)

 

by the Council’s Rural Economy Officer

 

Introduction

 

The Guildford Business Forum Rural Group oversees delivery of Guildford Borough Council’s Rural Economic Strategy 2017-2022. This covers the River Wey catchment through Guildford’s partnership with the neighbouring Boroughs of Waverley and Woking – see www.guildford.gov.uk/ruraleconomy

 

Issues highlighted in the Strategy – especially the importance to the rural economy of full fibre broadband – led to the production of “Making Guildford Smarter” – the 2019/20 edition of what is intended be a regularly-updated Innovation Strategy – see www.guildford.gov.uk/innovationstrategy

 

Both Strategies have helped to inform this submission.

 

Executive Summary

 

1.              The Government’s timeframe for the national pilot, full roll-out of ELMS and phasing out of direct payments by 2027 is considered to be feasible as any longer would be impractical and unhelpful.

 

2.              We support the principle of public money for public goods. As the figures for Sustainable Farming Incentive will be released later this year it is too early to tell if this will be a viable support measure for farmers before the full roll-out of ELMS. Therefore, we welcome further support such as the Farming Investment Fund during transition to ELMS, especially where environmental sustainability can be achieved through agricultural innovation. Regenerative agriculture may offer twin benefits that mitigate the effects of the pandemic on the overall health and wellbeing of populations around the world. Not only does regenerative agriculture help biodiversity, flood management and the development of good soil health but could, through employment and skills subsidies, also benefit human mental health.

 

3.              We recognise that the Government has made huge efforts to engage with land managers and other stakeholders on the design of ELMS through pilot schemes across the UK and will continue to do so. We recommend scaling up the work of economic groups with local knowledge and expertise like ours – Guildford Business Forum Rural Group’s membership is helpful in bringing around one table many different rural economic interests with a common goal to deliver and facilitate the public goods that are the ELM scheme’s goal. Because the scheme is iterative in its development the next few years can enable building on the engagement and piloting achieved so far, with groups like ours helpful at the local level.

 

4.              We feel that business ‘choice’ is limited because farmers will have to engage with ELMS if they want additional income. As indicated in our previous answer (3) it is the quality of the relationship with farmers and land managers through engagement and pilot schemes that will determine the effectiveness of achieving policy goals. Farmers must be supported to understand the full range of public goods delivery options available to them through investment in high quality agronomic research and the provision of independent expert agronomic advice. Farm diversification and biodiversity are complementary objectives and, by including organisations like Guildford Environmental Forum, Surrey Hills Enterprises and Surrey Wildlife Trust in our Rural Group membership alongside farmers and producers, we can stimulate dialogue and improved understanding. The Covid-19 pandemic has shown how local farm shop ‘click and collect’ innovation can provide mutual benefits for producer and consumer alike, with potential to create new markets that strengthen local communities, especially now that more people work from home. The market for locally produced sustainable agriculture products must be protected by ensuring the same high standards are required of our overseas trading partners as are incentivised at home. Access to procurement markets such as schools, armed forces and hospitals based on sustainable farming and ELM outcomes will also help here.

 

The periods of lockdown in 2020 also served to highlight the effect and impact of human activity on the natural environment, with everyday sounds of road traffic and air and rail transport dramatically reduced, together with their emissions. People took exercise in local parks and countryside, discovering aspects of nature that they had previously taken for granted or had never been aware of. We therefore welcome the broadcast media’s progress in educating, entertaining and informing audiences about our rural economy.

 

 

5.              Continuing engagement with farmers and land managers will help the Government ensure that ELM agreements achieve their intended environmental outcomes and we welcome DEFRA’s commitment to reducing bureaucratic burdens and regulation. In the same way that the Rural Group exercises oversight in the delivery of the Rural Economic Strategy, or elected Councillors oversee implementation of Guildford Borough Council’s Innovation Strategy there is scope to devolve scrutiny in the achievement of ELMS environmental outcomes. Guildford Business Forum Rural Group’s grasp of local rural economic issues is based on its representative membership model and offers a good way to formalise and optimise delivery of value for money. That said, we are keen to see Ministers and the Office for Environmental Protection limiting the over-use of toxic agri-chemicals and especially neonicotinoid pesticides to protect our ecosystems. In the same way that the EU applied its precautionary principle in 2018 to “give precedence to the protection of public health, safety and the environment over economic interest” we hope that yardstick will be applied now that the UK has left the EU. Further, it is essential that the ELM programme provides a clear, quantified and ambitious set of climate environmental and biodiversity outcomes to act as a framework against which to plan a business and to measure success. The nature and level of ambition in the framework must be reflective of our international biodiversity commitments and 2018 25-year environment plan.

 

 

6. We acknowledge that DEFRA is trying to learn from the successes and failures of previous schemes paying for environmental outcomes e.g. by seeking advice from everyone willing to participate. We believe that there are important lessons to learn from other business sectors and/or Departments of Government. By applying lateral thinking to national agricultural and environmental policy formulation it should be possible to develop similar approaches to those adopted by innovators and experimenters in completely different industries or fields of scientific research. In its dramatic disruption of national economies around the world the coronavirus pandemic has actually created a laboratory environment in which to experiment with new strategic approaches. The ability of some business sectors not only to survive in 2020 but to thrive through the periods of national lockdown and tiered social restrictions is proof that opportunities are there to be found – farm business diversifications in the past have also shown what is possible.

 

Detailed Responses:

  

  1. Is the Government’s timeframe for the national pilot, full roll-out of ELM and phasing out direct payments by 2027 feasible?

1.1 The Government’s timeframe for the national pilot, full roll-out of ELMS and phasing out of direct payments by 2027 is considered to be feasible as any longer would be impractical and unhelpful.

 

  1. Will the Sustainable Farming Incentive be a viable support measure for farmers before the full roll-out of ELM? Is further support required during the transition period?  

 

2.1 As the figures for Sustainable Farming Incentive will be released later this year it is too early to tell if this will be a viable support measure for farmers before the full roll-out of ELMS. Therefore, we welcome further support during the transition period to ELMS, as indicated in the recently published DEFRA document sent to all farmers.

 

2.2 We welcome the provision of grants to help farmers and growers invest in technology and equipment that improves environmental sustainability and reduces carbon emissions, including agricultural innovation that puts farm businesses at the forefront of future research and development.

 

2.3 Regenerative agriculture may offer existing smaller farm businesses and new entrants to farming a manageable opportunity to re-shape communities through a blend of conservation and rehabilitation. Not only does this help development of habitats and good soil health but will also bring benefits to human mental health. The pandemic has had a devastating impact on the overall health and wellbeing of populations around the world. Local allotments and community therapy gardens in Guildford, together with nearby social enterprises like the Old Moat Garden Centre at Epsom, show how the natural environment accelerates and restores personal wellbeing. Initiatives such as forest schools and forest bathing have also shown their value – a good indication that farms and other environmental settings could play a role in post-pandemic healing, providing children and young people with immersive experiences or providing skills development and employment opportunities for vulnerable adults or those in recovery.

 

  1. How effectively has Defra engaged with land managers and other stakeholders on the design of ELM, including on the transitional arrangements?  

 

3.1 We recognise that the Government has made huge efforts to engage with land managers and other stakeholders on the design of ELM (e.g. through pilot schemes) and will continue to do so. Because the ELMS scheme is iterative in its development the next few years will be vital in building on the engagement and piloting so far.

 

3.2 Surrey’s poor soils limit agricultural diversity but the DEFRA pilot schemes in SE England involving the South Downs National Park Authority (SDNPA), RSPB and Kent Wildlife Trust align well with the objectives of local representative bodies including the Surrey Hills AONB and Surrey Wildlife Trust. Through Guildford Borough Council we are working with neighbouring councils and the SDNPA on the ‘Linking Landscapes’ project that connects with the Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area.

 

3.3 We agree that land management plans will need to balance the complexity of natural capital mapping, land management activity and public good delivery with simplicity in terms of content and format. The Guildford Business Forum Rural Group’s membership is helpful in bringing around one table the different rural economic interests with a common interest in delivering and facilitating the public goods that are the ELM scheme’s goal. We recommend replicating and/or scaling up such local economy groupings.

 

  1. How can ELM be made an attractive business choice for farmers and land managers while effectively delivering its policy goals?  

 

4.1 We feel that business ‘choice’ is limited because farmers will have to engage with ELMS if they want additional income. As indicated in our previous answer (3) it is the quality of the relationship with farmers and land managers through engagement and pilot schemes that will determine the effectiveness of achieving policy goals. The test and trial process must recognise there is no one size fits all for farms and allow farmers the information they need to evaluate the full range of public goods services that may be suitable for their land and their business including, for example: natural flood management, integrated pest management, agroforestry and afforestation. Key to underpinning the success of this investment in leading edge agronomic research facilities into more sustainable future farming methods and provision of ongoing, high quality, tailored, independent agronomic advice to farmers.

 

4.2 Surrey businesses and consumers are very protective of the County’s unique landscape, with the phrase ‘environmental land management’ being seen as an opportunity to support local food and drink producers (including a thriving viticulture sector that promotes regional tourism) while also enhancing our downland, heathland and woodland landscapes to protect biodiversity and encouraging and improving public amenity. It is vital that an effective local and regional ELM implementation network is established to ensure that landscape level habitat management, catchment management and conservation objectives are met.

 

4.3 Farm diversification and biodiversity are complementary objectives, so the inclusion of organisations like Guildford Environmental Forum, Surrey Hills Enterprises and Surrey Wildlife Trust in our Rural Group membership alongside farmers and producers stimulates dialogue and understanding.

 

4.4 Climate change and the associated impact on global food security and food security and standards is another vital driver of local public opinion and consumption. Quality is not always affordable, even in parts of Surrey where poverty and affluence are sometimes surprisingly close together. ELM will only succeed if presented to farmers and land managers within a coherent and supportive context of international trade arrangements which ensure that similar standards of environmental protection and welfare are required in the food we import. Access to procurement markets such as schools, armed forces and hospitals based on sustainable farming and ELM outcomes is in our opinion another way that wider policy objectives can support successful uptake of ELM approaches. The Covid-19 pandemic has shown how local farm shop ‘click and collect’ innovation can provide mutual benefits for producer and consumer alike, with potential to create new markets that strengthen local communities, especially now that more people work from home as ‘digital commuters’.

 

4.5 In a previous submission to this Committee we referred to the importance of broadcast media – especially programmes such as the BBC’s ‘Countryfile’ – in raising public awareness of countryside issues.

As Sir David Attenborough and Greta Thunberg have done for global climate change, we welcome the broadcast media’s progress in educating, entertaining and informing audiences about the different aspects of our rural economy – if children and young people have a better understanding of what is involved in the ‘farm to fork’ process the more likely they are to be inspired by farming as an important and potentially rewarding career choice.

 

 

  1. How can the Government ensure that ELM agreements achieve their intended environmental outcomes, reduce bureaucratic burdens on farmers and deliver value for money?   

 

5.1 Continuing engagement with farmers and land managers will help the Government ensure that ELM agreements achieve their intended environmental outcomes and we welcome DEFRA’s commitment to reducing bureaucratic burdens and regulation. Farmers and land managers must be provided with a clear set of ELM desired biodiversity outcomes against which delivery of public goods can be quantified which provide a strategic framework against which they can plan the transition of their business over time. Outcomes must be ambitious and future-proofed against changes in government over time.

 

5.2 Currently our engagement with DEFRA takes place on two levels. The first is direct – through professional channels linking the Department with famers, landowners and producers. The second is through the local Councils and the members of the Guildford Business Forum Rural Group, with this submission drawing on both to an extent. In the same way that the Rural Group exercises oversight in the delivery of the Rural Economic Strategy, or elected Councillors oversee implementation of the Council’s Innovation Strategy, we believe that there is scope to devolve scrutiny in the achievement of ELMS environmental outcomes. We believe that our Rural Group membership model is dynamic and exemplary in its grasp of local rural economic issues and thus well-equipped to optimise the delivery of value for money.

 

5.3 ELM is a once in a generation opportunity to redesign the way we grow food such that our landscape and our wildlife is protected and regenerates. We have suffered a catastrophic loss of habitat and in abundance and diversity of our wildlife in the last 50 years, largely as a result of farming policy encouraging intensification and ignoring environmental outcomes. This must now be reversed. A key part of this is the responsible and sparing use of toxic chemicals in agriculture and development of methods that support long term soil health and productivity. The Farming Minister’s emergency authorisation for the use of neonicotinoid pesticides by farmers is a major concern. In the same way that the EU applied its precautionary principle in 2018 to “give precedence to the protection of public health, safety and the environment over economic interest” we call on Ministers and the Office for Environmental Protection to ensure that emergency authorisations do not become the thin end of a post-Brexit policy wedge that results in lower environmental standards and, ultimately, lasting harm to food chains and both terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems.

 

  1. What lessons should be learned from the successes and failures of previous schemes paying for environmental outcomes?

 

6.1 We acknowledge that DEFRA is trying to learn from the successes and failures of previous schemes paying for environmental outcomes e.g. by seeking advice from everyone willing to participate.

 

6.2 As any entrepreneur will know, success is usually built on failures. Taken further, it is necessary to fail – so long as the ingredients of failure have been fully understood and are avoided forever thereafter.

 

6.3 There will be important lessons that can be learned from other business sectors and/or Departments of Government. In its dramatic disruption of national economies around the world the coronavirus pandemic has, in effect, created a laboratory environment in which to experiment with new strategic approaches. The ability of some business sectors not only to survive but to thrive through the periods of national lockdown and tiered social restrictions is proof that opportunities can be found – farm business diversifications in the past have shown what is possible. Now, with greenhouse gas emissions much reduced as a result of home working and reduced travel we can see that by applying lateral thinking to national agriculture and environment policy formulation there could be enticing rewards for farmers, producers and the communities they serve through developing similar approaches to those adopted by innovators and experimenters in completely different industries.