Farming: 25-year Road Map
Lord Teverson Excerpts(1 week, 4 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
I assure the noble Baroness that food production and self-sufficiency will be at the heart of the road map as it is developed. We work very closely with DESNZ around where energy projects are sited. With the land use framework also being developed, there is a lot of discussion about the best use of farmland, because we do not want good agricultural land taken out of food production.
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, in order to meet the combined objectives of food security and nature recovery, we need a much more nature-friendly form of farming. However, to make that transition, it is absolutely essential that we have a much firmer policy framework that people in farming can predict. When will the sustainable farming initiative be reinstated? Beyond that, can the Minister say that there will be an end to the stop-start funding that is so difficult for farmers when it comes to their own planning?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
One of the challenges that has faced farming for many years is the lack of long-term security. The noble Lord is absolutely right to raise that. We are currently discussing the next stages of the SFI, so I do not have information about the dates at the moment. We will of course announce that when we have more information. We want to make sure that the next iteration of the SFI is fit for purpose and will deliver what we need the farming sector to deliver. On the noble Lord’s questions on nature and the environment, it is absolutely imperative that we get this right. We have to ensure that food production and support for nature and biodiversity work together, hand-in-hand, to create the long-term environment that we need for our country.
Thames Water: Bids
Lord Teverson Excerpts(1 week, 4 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
I would be more than happy to dig in the archives.
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, is it not time that Ofwat was put out of its misery?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
I shall feed that back to the commission.
Farming and Rural Communities
Lord Teverson Excerpts(1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Teverson (LD)
First, I declare my interests as chair of Cornwall and Isles of Scilly Local Nature Partnership and as a director of Wessex Investors, which is involved in the development sector. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, for this debate. I know he feels very passionately about this area.
I want first to react and respond to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans, who is a true champion of rural affairs, particularly as chair of the Rural Coalition, because the rural economy is often forgotten about. It is important. It is not just farming; it is coastal fisheries, all the SME environment and much more. There are big challenges there, as he said. We can take rural transport, which has declined hugely. It is a real challenge for young people to get to education facilities and for ordinary people to get to work. In the financial area, we have had a huge number of banks closing in urban areas within the countryside, leaving huge areas where people who want to talk to their bank manager find it almost impossible.
The noble Lord, Lord Kakkar, mentioned health. I remember when I first became a Member of this House going along to an all-party parliamentary group on health where there was one of the country’s experts on strokes. I said, “I live in rural Cornwall. What should I do about that challenge?” He answered very quickly, “You should move”. That is the dilemma of living in rural areas and the countryside today
On housing, as the noble Lord, Lord Best, pointed out, we have a serious lack of social housing. When we had the right to buy, we were promised that for every social housing unit sold there would be a replacement. That never happened, in practice. I have to say to the right reverend Prelates that in my own parish of St Ewe the church commissioners have put up for sale some land next to social housing that was built in the past by our village. The church has insisted that it goes out to the open market, despite the fact that, as a local community, we have said that we will pay the market price. It is still out there for anybody to buy on a public quoting system. If the right reverend Prelate would like to have a word with the Bishop of St Germans, I would be very grateful.
We have all these challenges in local communities: transport, housing, access to finance and even energy. The noble Lord, Lord Elliott of Ballinamallard, mentioned the issues in Northern Ireland. Of course, in rural communities we are not generally on the gas grid and have to pay much higher oil heating charges, and that is particularly the case in Northern Ireland. I have to say that a lot of those issues got considerably—and seriously—worse during the incumbency of the previous Government.
On farming, those who mentioned the SFI are absolutely right. I find it incredible that a government department somehow appears to be caught out in its budgeting on one of its major policy planks—not just on farming sustainability but on the growth of nature too. We come to a situation where, with no notice, the scheme ends, leaving many people in limbo. As far as I can see, government policy on nature restoration is also in limbo. Farms that have been on countryside schemes that are coming to an end this year—I think some 35,000 farms are coming to the end of Countryside Stewardship programmes—will have nowhere to go once those programmes are finished.
We have had some excellent specific instances from the noble Lords, Lord Bellingham and Lord Harlech. I spoke to a friend of mine who farms in north Cornwall. She made the point that she has been very enthusiastic about a holistic and sustainable approach to her dairy farming, but said, “What I can’t do now is trust that those schemes will be there for the future. Therefore, what do I do about all the work that I have done so far, while trying to keep my farm viable for the future?”
Back in the days of the European Union, the CAP was not good, but we knew pretty well for seven years that there was going to be consistent policy. We felt we were going to have that with the much better environmental land management scheme, yet now we have uncertainty ahead. Farming, including for biodiversity, is something that needs to be planned and consistent—not just over seven years but beyond that—but we have those uncertainties.
I was pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Grayling, talked about biodiversity corridors and everything that needs to be done there. One of the challenges we have now—I have mentioned this to the Minister before—is that Defra needs to move out of being in silos and be much more comprehensive. I will come to the Corry report in just a second, as it might solve that.
What concerns me is that while we have local nature recovery strategies now in England—48 separate ones that are, I hope, co-ordinated to a degree—at the moment we cannot use ELMS to tie up with them, and the planning process does not especially tie up with them. What we need is a much more holistic approach to biodiversity, to get to those wildlife corridors and everything else that we need to get somewhere towards our 30 by 30 targets. We need to make sure it is far better managed and focused than it is at the moment. Many of those schemes are good, but we need to make sure they can be effective.
The Corry report—I think it came out yesterday or the day before—is on Defra having to move forward in a number of ways. I welcome a number of areas of that report which are relevant to this debate. First, there is having one environmental organisation, out of the many in the Defra family, to lead on major planning issues, although I sometimes think that would be quite useful on smaller planning issues as well, particularly in rural communities where those developments are not so large. Another area is making environmental enforcement better and more practical; there are many other areas as well. I am not going to ask the Minister to say which of those 29 recommendations she will or will not follow, but will the Government take them seriously and start to implement them fairly quickly?
Lastly, I come on to trade, mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, and others. Trade policy is very much in focus at the moment, and I have a concern. We have seen the very bad reaction that the farming community had to the Australia and New Zealand deals under the previous Administration. I understand that the Government are focused on future economic and trade relations with the United States. I get that, but what I would really like to hear from the Minister is that, rather than the fight between the trade department and Defra that we had under the previous Administration, we have a determination that we will not import food from the United States that is substandard in comparison with our own standards.
My only other question is: when will the SFI function again and can we have confidence that it will be a continuous programme, rather than stopping and starting?
High Seas Treaty
Lord Teverson Excerpts(1 month, 4 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
Let me confirm that the Government are completely committed to ratification of the BBNJ agreement, in line with our determination to re-invigorate the UK’s wider international leadership on climate and nature. We are working on the measures needed to implement the detailed and very complex provisions of the agreement before we can formally ratify.
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, it is great news that we have the high seas treaty in what is otherwise a lawless area of our oceans. However, treaties are no good if they are not enforced, and this treaty does not say how it will be implemented. How does the United Kingdom feel that it can be enforced? Will it lead in that process internationally given its experience of the Blue Belt programme around our overseas territories?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
The BBNJ agreement establishes the mechanism to designate marine protected areas and other areas-based management tools in areas that are beyond national jurisdiction. We have commissioned research to develop a shortlist of the potential area-based management tools that we could develop to use in future proposals once the BBNJ agreement comes into force. We believe this will help to ensure that this agreement supports the achievements that are required by the Kunming-Montreal global biodiversity framework target.
Global Warming
Lord Teverson Excerpts(3 months, 3 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Teverson
That this House takes note of the challenges caused by the effects of climate change on natural ecosystems and the role of nature conservation in combating global warming.
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, it is late in the week. The reason why I wanted to hold this debate is that, as those who have been Members of the House for some time know, I have tended to specialise on climate change and energy during my career here. However, more locally in Cornwall, for the last few years I have chaired the Cornwall & Isles of Scilly Local Nature Partnership. Its aim is to tackle the crises of biodiversity and the retreat of nature regionally. For some time, I treated both those crises—they are crises—as separate issues locally and globally.
For instance, I was optimistic about biodiversity in the far south-west of the United Kingdom. I used to say about the climate crisis that, wherever carbon dioxide or greenhouse gases enter the atmosphere, they will affect us globally, wherever we are, but that we can really make a difference to biodiversity in our locality. We hope that the rest of the world gets it right, but we can get it right here as well. However, I quickly learned that, although that is just about correct in the short term, if we do not solve the climate crisis in the medium and long term, our attempts to repair our ecosystems will be equally fraught.
I make an apology in that, in asking the question, I have said something that I tell everybody else off for saying—“nature conservation”. Nature conservation was a 1970s and 1980s term. It is no good now; we need nature recovery. Conservation is not sufficient. However, the one thing that I will try to do during this debate is to be optimistic and not mention that our nature is the most depleted of any country in the world. I will not go down that route.
So we have two crises. On the climate side, we know that 2024 was the hottest year for our planet, and that all of the last 10 years have been the hottest on record. On biodiversity, the Living Planet Index has shown that, over the last 50 years, the average size of monitored wildlife populations has shrunk by three-quarters. In the UK, one in six species has been threatened by extinction, while 7% of our woodland and a quarter of our peat-lands are assessed to be in good condition—a minuscule amount. I will come back to peat-lands later and I am delighted that the noble Baroness, Lady Young, is here to talk about caring for our forests, and the Woodland Trust.
Both these crises are linked by their cause but, optimistically, they are also connected by their solution. Briefly on the causes of biodiversity loss, it is now estimated that climate change is the third most important reason for biodiversity loss but that it will, over the coming years, become one of the most important.
Those individual threats include temperature, and the fact that species cannot migrate at the same rate as the planet is warming up—at the end of the day, you cannot go further north than the North Pole, and you cannot go further south than the South Pole; flooding and more destructive storms; fires, obviously; species migration, and the fact that we do not necessarily have the right conditions for all the migration routes; seasonal dysfunction, where perhaps a species of flora that an animal or species relies on is there at different times of the season because of changes; ocean acidification, which is directly related to carbon being absorbed by the ocean, which has been hugely helpful against climate change but will eventually be very destructive to marine species; invasive species, which when they come down to being pests can also affect human health; soil destruction; and desertification, as we have seen in Africa and beyond.
So we see all sorts of examples of that, including the current wildfires in California, coral bleaching, floods in the United Kingdom and Europe and extreme weather in the Caribbean. I ask noble Lords whether they can think of a day when they have watched the news, whether on television or YouTube, and not seen some form of extreme event problem over recent months. It seems to me that every night examples of this problem are there to see on our screens. This is not just about biodiversity; it is about trying to protect our ecosystems and ecosystem services, whether it is pollination, clean water and air, water cycles, healthy soils or flood control.
I will give a bit of bad news and then I hope to come on to the good news, so that everybody can at least feel that there is some solution here. When I first got involved in biodiversity, I was looking at the so-called Aichi targets from the Convention on Biological Diversity. There were a number of them: they were set in 2011 and were supposed to be completed by 2020. Not one of those targets, all of which were on biological diversity, was actually met and we do not seem any nearer to them now. Very few of the sustainable development goals, which we perhaps know better, have been met, either globally or here in the UK. Some have, but not very many in this area.
This is a big issue globally. Back in October, there was a convention on biodiversity in Colombia, and in November, a Conference of the Parties on climate change in Baku, Azerbaijan. The first ended without any conclusions whatever because the parties could not agree on the biodiversity side, and at COP, as we know, partly because of the fossil fuel interests that were there, again, there was insufficient agreement on how to move forward. In the meantime, we face a number of tipping points that we must avoid: the disappearance of the polar ice caps, the movement of ocean circulation and the survival of the lungs of the planet—not just the Amazon but the Congo Basin rainforest.
I will mention something that really disappointed me, as a parliamentarian, during the last Government. The Treasury, while under the control of Mr Sunak, produced the fantastic Dasgupta report, which was primarily about natural capital. To me, it was equal to the Stern report on climate change from several years before. It was a beautiful report, produced by the Treasury under the previous Government, but did anything happen? Did any of us do anything about it? It lies there, unused. Both nationally and globally, we are all committed to the 30 by 30 target, aiming for 30% of the land and sea to be managed for nature by 2030, but we are nowhere it.
Let us be a little bit more upbeat and look at where we go from here. I believe that we can solve all these by solving both together. We can rebuild our ecosystems and can substitute nature for concrete when it comes to adaptation. The first of those ways, as Members in this debate will know, is nature-based solutions. For example, unstraightening rivers, healthy soils, reforestation, beavers—as we have in Cornwall now—or healthy wetlands can all really confront flooding. For biodiversity on farmland, we have ranch-style grazing, herbal leys and lots of other things that I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Curry, will put far more powerfully than me. Of course, there are no-take areas for fishery regeneration as well. I congratulate the previous Government, particularly on the marine Blue Belt initiative across the globe.
I come back again to peatland regeneration. I understand that, although we had a ban on gardening peat last year, we are still able to extract peat and use it commercially. We have regenerative agriculture and nature-friendly farming, which will look after our soils, absorb more carbon and give long-term food security. Seagrass increases biodiversity and is an effective carbon sink. I welcome the Crown Estate’s mapping exercise of our coast, including salt marshes. Native forestry can absorb carbon and increase habitats, and individual trees or clusters of trees give shelter and moderate heat for livestock. Tropically, mangroves promote carbon capture and biodiversity in tandem. Of course, we should not forget urban green areas, which can be as good for human health, both mental and physical.
In this area, I would say that we have the promise of a triple win: climate mitigation, adaptation and a rebound of biodiversity. That is my good news—but I ask the Government the following questions. The Government are great on climate change and I really respect and encourage them in their objectives, particularly in decarbonisation of the energy system. I also welcome the rapid review of the Government’s 2023 environmental improvement plan, which has been ordered by Steve Reed, the Secretary of State. But where is the real plan for 30 by 30, even here in the UK? We have only five years left for that now, and the Office for Environmental Protection warned today that the Government are
“largely off track to meet”
the majority of legally binding nature targets, and time is rapidly running out, as we have seen. How will the Government avoid silo management between DESNZ and Defra? This is a problem for all Whitehall departments and it is absolutely crucial here that the two work together. Will the Government turn first to nature-based solutions rather than concrete ones? Will they look at the Dasgupta report again? In England, how will they deliver local nature recovery strategies? Is there a real way of stopping peat extraction as soon as possible? I beg to move.
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, I thank all Members of this House—all noble Lords and the Minister—for their contributions so late in the day. Very briefly indeed, I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, for the challenge on the Government’s carbon policy. I would still say that the 2030 decarbonisation target—to make that possible, we need to be really focused—is excellent. They have a much bigger challenge on the 30 by 30. I thank in particular the noble Earl, Lord Devon, for bringing a personal and human aspect to this debate. Lastly, I really like the idea of wetland cities, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Randall. The bad news is that, if we do nothing, we will have lots of wetland cities into the future. But I am optimistic. We can get this right. We can do it, both nationally and globally, with both these crises together.
Biodiversity Net Gain
Lord Teverson Excerpts(6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, the Government inherited in their departmental diary a provisional date of November 2025 by which to include biodiversity net gain for nationally significant infrastructure projects. Will the Minister confirm that they will go ahead with that on that date? I encourage them to do so.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
I can confirm that we are planning to consult very shortly on applying biodiversity net gain to nationally significant infrastructure projects—NSIPs—without any broad exceptions.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
I am happy to go back to the department on this. We are going to open up the high-level applications next year, as I am sure the noble Lord is aware, and we are also looking at what we do with the legacy payments. I am happy to discuss this issue with him further, because we are making quite a lot of decisions on how we move forward.
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, is not the answer to the question from the noble Lord on the Conservative Benches that if we do not have biodiversity and nature recovery, we will not have an agriculture industry in 30 years’ time?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
It is really important that we get the right balance between food production and environmental considerations. It is an important thing for any Government to take forward, and we are taking it very seriously. That is partly why we are doing the land use framework—to ensure that we deliver properly on both areas.