Biodiversity Offsetting: Planning Appeal agrees housing on Essex flower meadows will create “environmental gain.”.

Posted on June 1, 2014 by Miles King

Tomorrow sees an event to bring together organisations and individuals who are very worried and angry about Biodiversity Offsetting.

The Forum on Natural Commons event “Nature is not for sale” is taking place tomorrow evening in Regents Park, London. This is directly opposite the venue for a big conference on biodiversity offsetting called “To No Net Loss of Biodiversity and Beyond” which I found amusing, because to my mind what lies beyond No Net Loss is…well, Net Loss. I guess they were thinking about Net Gain. I really a half glass empty sort of person.

I’m not going to either of the events, though I would certainly liked to have gone to both. Work intervenes though.

 

Hannah Mowat at FERN  is helping organise the Natural Commons event and she is also working on getting the press interested. She pointed me towards a very recent case involving Biodiversity Offsetting which I found particularly worrying and I thought I should share it with my readers.

I know the lovely village of Thaxted in Essex from my childhood. It’s famous for its church with a spectacular spire which looks like a space rocket (I was a child of the space age) and lovely half timbered buildings. Not surprisingly housing developers want to build lots of new homes around it.

Thaxted_church,_Essex_-_geograph.org.uk_-_126278

One such developer successfully gained planning permission for a development on a greenfield site off Wedow Road in 2012. an ecological survey concluded that this was a mosaic of unimproved grassland, scrub and woodland, but the permission was granted. If the link doesn’t work, go via the Uttlesford Council website here  and open the document called “appellant ecological appraisal.”

As a condition on this development, slow-worms were translocated onto the adjacent pasture, which was noted as being particularly rich in wildlife;  a planning condition stated that this field be protected as a slow-worm refuge until 2017 and that some scrub management be carried out to maintain open areas for the lizards. Some plants were also translocated onto the adjacent field as well as the slow-worms. As there were 77 pyramidal and 102 bee orchids on the adjacent field, it was decided not to bother to translocate the single bee orchid found on the development site.

In March 2013, the developer then applied for permission to build another 47 homes on the field where the slow-worms had been translocated to, which had been already identified as being rich in wildlife. This also despite the fact they had already signed up to keeping it for the slow-worms until 2017. Another ecological survey confirmed that the field was unimproved neutral/calcareous grassland supporting a range of wildflowers, including several species of orchid, common knapweed, agrimony and field scabious.

 

Because it had not been managed for quite a while, it was about 2/3 grassland and 1/3 mixed scrub, with large ant-hills. The consultants adjudged it to be MG1e, which sounds sensible to me, based on the description. The developers proposed applying biodiversity offsetting to the application and promised to provide “no net loss” or even “net gain” or biodiversity enhancement, as they styled it, as a result of the development.They indicated that their proposals would lead to a gain of 2.9 conservation credits above the value they had assessed the site as having (20 credits.) In the world of biodiversity offsetting that is a 10% net gain. The Environment Bank, owned by Natural England deputy Chair David Hill, provided the technical advice on offsetting to the developers; Essex was one of the locations where the Defra Offsetting Pilot was running.

The applicant’s consultants assessed the site against Essex Wildlife Trust’s Local Wildlife Sites selection criteria and decided that it didn’t qualify for LWS status. Essex Wildlife Trust had not designated it as a Local Wildlife Site at that time. It does not appear that Essex Wildlife Trust objected to the application at the time. Natural England certainly didn’t – they sent one of their standard letters.

Nevertheless, the Council rejected the planning application, partly on the grounds that the site was unimproved grassland, partly because the applicant was going to trash the mitigation site for the previous development; and partly because the council felt that because this was important habitat it shouldn’t be subject to offsetting.

This is what they said:

The proposed development would result in the loss of unimproved grassland/lowland meadows. Although the grassland matched would fall under the MG1 type grassland, this is a MG1 species-rich sub community which is transitional to MG5, i.e. this site could be reverted to MG5 with the correct management and therefore the development proposed would result in the loss of high quality grassland.

The proposed development would result in the loss of the mitigation site and measures approved under condition 15 of planning permission reference UTT/1562/11/OP. The mitigation approved under condition 15 requires the management of this site for a minimum of 5 years until 2017 however the loss of this mitigation has not been adequately addressed by the applicants in the submitted documents for this proposal.

The applicants have proposed biodiversity offsetting as part of the proposed development. The Council’s retained Ecologists have raised concerns regarding biodiversity offsetting in their letters dated 6 June 2013 and 24 July 2013 and have questioned whether this approach is appropriate for this site. In addition, the biodiversity offsetting calculations have been queried as the distinctiveness of the unimproved grassland is considered to be high and not medium which was used for the calculations.

The applicant appealed. They got a legal opinion which challenged the council’s ecologist, picking holes in their argument, pointing out inconsistencies. They picked up on the knotty question of the MG1 vs MG5. MG1, regardless how close to MG5 it might be (and this one was fairly close by the looks of it) is not a priority habitat in our dotty conservation world. Never mind that it is stuffed full of bee and pyramidal orchids, never mind that it has lovelies like common knapweed, field scabious and agrimony. never mind about all the ant-hills. It hasn’t been managed for long enough for false oat grass to replace crested dog’-tail as the main grass in the community, so it falls out of protection and into the abyss. How mad is that? It only takes a couple of years management to get it back into MG5. In any case – it’s obviously important wildlife habitat, everyone agrees it’s unimproved neutral grassland. But that is where the lawyers can have a field day. As the lawyer says “There is no means to compel such management” so the fact that this habitat could easily become one that is give some sort of protection holds no weight. The lawyer looks at the Essex Wildlife Trust Local Wildlife Site selection criteria – again there is no mention of MG1.

Finally the lawyer makes reference to Biodiversity Offsetting and when it should and should not be used. He talks about the mitigation hierarchy and the need to avoid damage first, but then suggests that this only applies to sites with statutory protection eg European Sites and SSSIs, not Local Wildlife Sites. I think is a bit of a stab in the dark to be honest because it doesn’t take into account the replaceability issue. Old grasslands such as this one at Thaxted are not replaceable and this is part of the Biodiversity Offsetting test, where if irreplaceable habitats are to be destroyed, they by definition cannot be offset.

At the planning Appeal Essex Wildlife Trust informed the Inspector that they believed the field was sufficiently important to be designated as a Local Wildlife Site and they were in the process of doing this. However the Inspector last week gave his decision and has allowed the appeal. So this little Essex field, full of wildlife, will be lost to development.

The Inspector concluded that the Council has messed up by failing to provide a sufficiently large 5 year housing supply (that is had identified land which could be developed) and this triggered a clause in the NPPF which means that land outside the current development boundary ie greenfield sites, can be given planning permission, when it would not otherwise have done (I think  – this is a bit outside my comfort zone).

From our perspective the more ominous conclusion the inspector came to was this: as the planning obligation requiring management of the site ends in 2017, there is no future for the wildlife on the site. The new “offset” site will be larger and management will be guaranteed for 25 years. On this basis he accepted that the “potential grassland” on the offsetting site will have a higher value than the existing appeal site; and this will therefore deliver environmental gain.

This is truly an Alice in Wonderland world where existing high nature value areas are deemed of lower value in the planning system than non-existent potential wildlife areas, because the management needed to maintain or restore the wildlife value of the existing one is deemed impossible to achieve, while the management/funding associated with creating the future wildlife area is assured.

I think this sets a very worrying precedent and is exactly the sort of consequence of adopting a biodiversity offsetting approach.

 

photo by Robert Edwards [CC-BY-SA-2.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0)%5D, via Wikimedia Commons

Posted in biodiversity offsetting, housing, meadows, Uncategorized | Tagged , , | 24 Comments

Paterson promises the world to Levels Farmers – they want the Sun too.

Posted on May 31, 2014 by Miles King

Owen Paterson, the Scarlet Pimpernel of the Cabinet, has been missing for months. Where has he been? Not in the limelight. But he popped up yesterday in the West Country to promise the world to the Farmers of the Somerset Levels.

Perhaps he was sent down ‘ere so as to avoid losing the Tories too many votes in the Newark by-election. Still, he must have been to Newark, as all Tory MPs must go at least three times and Cabinet Ministers 5 times!

I can see OPatz being put into his Pimpernel disguise by his Defra team, before heading into Newark in the middle of the night. Once. But five times must be pure humiliation.

One third of voters who bothered to turn out in The South West voted UKIP. Could well known euro sceptic and climate change denier Paterson be thinking about jumping ship to the Kippers to join the likes of Roger Helmer? Helmer, UKIP candidate in Newark, would ban teaching about climate change in schools.

Paterson met farmers and the Environment Agency yesterday after farmers complained the dredging of the Somerset rivers wasn’t happening fast enough for their liking. Quoted in Farmers Weekly, he said:

“The Environment Agency assure me that they are on target, but I’m meeting them, along with councils and the internal drainage board, to make sure we are on track,” and ” It’s not for me to micro-manage, but I’m very keen to see real partnership working between the EA and the internal drainage board. It’s incredibly important that local landowners have the power to do their own work to keep rivers clear.”

Paterson went on to explain that farmers could apply for grants of up to £35000 to drain their own land – they don’t even need to get three quotes, just do the work and make a claim.

I find this utterly extraordinary in these days when the Rural Payments Agency will fine a farmer if they have claimed single payment on an area of inelegible land as small as 10m by 10m (for which the payment is £2.30 a year), that a farmer can claim up to £35000 of tax payers money, for work done entirely for their own benefit, which could well cause significant environmental damage, which I have explored previously here, here and here. What sort of monitoring will be done, who will check to see whether the work was actually carried out, to what sort of standard – Much of the Somerset Levels is Site of Special Scientific Interest and European Site – who will be checking to see whether national or internanationally important wildlife has been affected. What about the incredibe archaeological heritage of the Levels? Who is going to be keeping an eye on this? And how will we know the money wasn’t just trousered?

And then there”s the Country Landowners Association. They complained to Paterson that the EA were being far too slow, having only dreged 10% of the 8km of river earmarked for dredging. That might have had something to do with the weather which has hardly been ideal for dredging, or the worst flooding in centuries that we have recently experienced.

Then we’re back to the same old story. CLA director John Mortimer let the cat out of the bag. “There must be 100km of river channels that need dredging. The EA must accept responsibility for the situation we’re in.”

“We need to undo 40 years of neglect and then put in place a system where landowners have a way of funding and actively maintaining the river channels. If the government wants responsibility to be transferred, they need to give us a clean system and let us get on with it – you can’t transfer a system that is still fundamentally corrupted after years of neglect.”

So there we have it, although I think some of us suspected this all along. The CLA (and no doubt the NFU) and I expect their friends in the Tory and UKIP parties, will be calling for state-funding for annual dredging of a 100km of river channels in the Levels. They expect us, the taxpayers, to pay for a very expensive, highly environmentally damaging land management exercise, purely for their own private benefit ie to marginally increase the production of their land.

The cost? £1 million per mile. £5M this year. If 100km of river channels were dredged, that would be £60 million. A year, in perpetuity. That’s a lot of nurses, a lot of teachers, a lot of fire fighters. That’s twice the annual budget of Natural England.

And that figure doesn’t include the cost, the real cost, to the environment. The tangible cost of lost carbon, reduced water quality, increased downstream flood risk. The intangible cost of lost wildlife, lost archaeology, and loss of the wild feel of parts of the Levels because they have not been managed for industrial farming for the last 30 years (and the farmers were paid very handsomely to not farm intensively, through the ESA).

Not only that, but presumably the public purse will be expected to pay for the removal and treatment of the initial 5 million tonnes of silt removed from these rivers, then the subsequent silt that is put in the non-tidal rivers of the Levels by upstream industrial farming.

 

Posted in CLA, farming, flooding, NFU, Owen Paterson, Somerset Levels | Tagged , , , | 15 Comments

NFU Deputy President, representing 50k wealthy farmers on £2Bn/yr welfare benefits, attacks green NGOs as single issue pressure groups

Posted on May 29, 2014 by Miles King

Today’s offering from Farmers Weekly reports Deputy President Minette Batters argue that boosting food production is the key to a thriving rural economy. Same old NFU there.

But with 2.1 billion overweight or obese in the world, and the UK 3rd the most overweight country in Europe, should we really be boosting food production? What about all the other vital goods the land provides, clean water, carbon storage, flood alleviation, joy, inspiration and peace? Do they not count?

It also reports her comments on “single issue pressure groups”. Farmers Weekly did not mention the other claim made at the same event, that a badger had been vaccinated against bovine TB 22 times.

Batters didn’t dismiss the claim but rather, remarked: ” it must have had a real taste for peanuts”.

I expect even the Farmers Weekly  realised it was nonsense that a badger would have been vaccinated that many times. Badger vaccinators are trained and mark each animal they vaccinate every year. As a badger only lives 4 years on average it would 0nly have been vaccinated a maximum of 4 times in its lifetime. The vaccination leaves no mark, so how would anyone have seen the evidence of 22 vaccinations?

If environmental and animal welfare groups are single issue pressure groups, what does that make the NFU? They only speak for a fraction of their own 50,000 members, who in themselves only make up a third of the farmers of England. They don’t really represent anyone apart from a small clique of wealthy landowners milking society for £3bn of handouts every year.

Ms Batters has clearly taken on the “bash the green lobby” role from former President Peter Kendall. It doesn’t look like she’s up to his standard of polemic yet, but I have high hopes for her.

 

————————————————————————————————-

The government must pay greater attention to boosting food production, as it is the linchpin of a thriving rural sector, according to NFU deputy president Minette Batters.

Speaking at the Devon County Show last week, Ms Batters said that successive governments had paid lip service to farmers, but had failed to fulfil their promises. “Food production is not a priority for this government – the language has changed since Margaret Beckett, but the actions haven’t.”

Prioritising food production would affect every part of the rural economy, as politicians would have to tackle TB, support land-based education, reduce red tape, and curb the power of single-issue pressure groups, said Ms Batters. “Eradicating TB is part of food production – we have a strategy in place, and if we don’t do it now, it will never happen.”

The rise in influence of non-governmental organisations, which politicians mistakenly called “society”, posed a considerable threat to food production, she added. “These are not ‘society’ – they are pressure groups, some of which don’t want to see farming at all.”

Ms Batters was also very worried about retailers’ failure to wholly back British produce, just one year on from the Horsegate scandal. “We need to look after our own supply chains – and, personally, I would like to know what happened to those prosecutions,” she said.

Mirroring farmers’ concerns about depressed beef prices, MP Neil Parish said he had already contacted the Groceries Adjudicator. “It looks like there’s a monopoly of ownership by Irish beef companies and I’ve asked the adjudicator to look into that.”

Posted in agriculture, badgers, NFU | Tagged , , | 7 Comments

Dog Wars IV: The NFU piles in

Posted on May 28, 2014 by Miles King

IMG_0123

 

As a non-subscribing reader of the Farmers Weekly website, I only have ten free articles per month, but as we are near the end of May, I decided to splash out today and read this article, which I reproduce in its entirety for you.

The NFU has warned dog owners and walkers to take care around livestock over the bank holiday weekend.

The union made the warning after a number of recent fatalities and injuries involving walkers being trampled by cows.

It also highlighted statistics showing 200 dog attacks on livestock last year and urged owners to keep their animals under close control.

The NFU has also issued a number of dos and don’ts for walkers as part of its public-facing, Love Your Countryside campaign.

Do

  • Stop, look and listen when entering a field and as you walk through be particularly aware of cows with calves, bulls, and rams.
  • Take the best route – keep to paths where possible but give livestock plenty of space. Try to avoid getting between cows and their calves.
  • Be prepared for cattle to react to your presence, especially if you have a dog with you.
  • Move quickly, quietly and calmly, and if possible walk around the herd.
  • Keep your dog close and under effective control on a short lead around cows and sheep.

Don’t

  • Don’t hang on to your dog. If you are threatened by cattle – let it go as to allow the dog to run to safety.
  • Don’t put yourself at risk. Find another way round the cattle and rejoin the footpath as soon as possible.
  • Don’t panic or run. Most cattle will stop before they reach you. If they follow, just walk on quietly.

 

NFU livestock board chairman Charles Sercombe issued a statement to the general public which urged them to be more aware of their surroundings in rural areas. “This is a working environment so please be sympathetic especially to those animals rearing their young and give them space,” Mr Sercombe said.

“Remember that our animals are our livelihood and we can’t risk having them distressed, hurt or killed by dogs with irresponsible owners. So, back British farming by following the simple dos and don’ts.”
Charles Sercombe, NFU livestock board chairman

“When walking with dogs in fields with livestock, the advice is to keep your dog close and under effective control on a lead and not to hang on to your dog if you feel threatened – let it go as the animals will chase the dog, allowing you to stay out of harm’s way. Dogs usually run faster than livestock and this allows the dog to get to safety.

“Remember that our animals are our livelihood and we can’t risk having them distressed, hurt or killed by dogs with irresponsible owners. So, back British farming by following the simple dos and don’ts,” he added.

The warning also focused on the threat posed to cattle from neospora – a virulent parasite found in dogs’ faeces that can cause cattle to abort or give birth to calves infected for life.

Neospora can also infect sheep causing them to abort too. So the most responsible thing for dog walkers to do is to pick it up in the countryside, bag it and bin it.

Mr Sercombe said: “This is a real issue, especially for those farms which attract dozens of walkers on a daily basis walking their dogs and who don’t clean up after them. Dogs are a primary host for the parasite and while cattle infection can circulate within a herd via vertical transmission, naïve cattle [cows which have not been exposed to infection in the past] grazing on pastures contaminated by infected dog faeces can become susceptible. Just one incident of a cow eating some of the parasite eggs can have a huge impact on a whole herd.”

Actually I needn’t have bothered as I could have found the NFU press release on its own website. Here it is.

The NFU is reminding dog owners and walkers to be vigilant and responsible when out in the countryside this bank holiday weekend.

The call comes in the wake of several fatalities involving walkers being trampled by cows, while incidents of sheep worrying are on the rise with the NFU Mutual reporting more than 200 separate cases last year; an increase of six per cent on the previous year.

The NFU is setting out simple do’s and don’ts for members of the public as part of its successful Love your Countryside campaign, with advice and guidance on how to keep people and livestock safe.

NFU livestock board chairman Charles Sercombe said it was important that dogs were kept under control.

“Spring is a lovely time to go walking with your dog in the countryside, but it is also a time to be aware of your surroundings,” said Mr Sercombe. “This is a working environment so please be sympathetic especially to those animals rearing their young and give them space.

“When walking with dogs in fields with livestock, the advice is to keep your dog close and under effective control on a lead and not to hang onto your dog if you feel threatened – let it go as the animals will chase the dog, allowing you to stay out of harm’s way. Dogs usually run faster than livestock and this allows the dog to get to safety.

Charles Sercombe, NFU livestock board_198_275

“Remember that our animals are our livelihood and we can’t risk having them distressed, hurt or killed by dogs with irresponsible owners. So, back British farming by following a few simple do’s and don’ts. ”

Another growing problem facing farmers across the country is Neospora – a virulent parasite found in dogs’ faeces and, if they foul grazing land and pregnant cattle ingest the parasite, it will cause them to abort or give birth to calves infected for life. Neospora can also infect sheep causing them to abort too. So the most responsible thing for dog walkers to do is to pick it up in the countryside, bag it and bin it.

Mr Sercombe said: “This is a real issue, especially for those farms which attract dozens of walkers on a daily basis walking their dogs and who don’t clean up after them. Dogs are a primary host for the parasite and while cattle infection can circulate within a herd via vertical transmission, naïve cattle grazing on pastures contaminated by infected dog faeces can become susceptible. Just one incident of a cow eating some of the parasite eggs can have a huge impact on a whole herd.

“This is about better information for the public – dog owners must be made aware of the problems that occur. Those using agricultural land to exercise their dogs should do so responsibly and clean up after their animals to avoid the spread of this disease in livestock.”

I’m not suggesting Farmers Weekly always publishes the NFU press releases verbatim without any critical journalist assessment of them, of course not. But the article does bear a striking resemblance to the PR. Except for one thing: the NFU is calling for dog owners to clean up after their animals to avoid spreading this nasty disease.

Amazingly, Farmers Weekly did not include this Big Ask. Why not? Could it be that the dog-walking lobby is already launching its counter-attack? Are they demanding their rights to leave dog poop all over the country? Will the NFU be taken to the European Court of Human Rights? Is there a correlation between people who don’t pick up their dog poo and UKIP voters?

Posted in dog poo, dogs | Tagged , , , | 4 Comments

Common Good, Food and the Environment: by Miles King

Posted on May 27, 2014 by Miles King

This is my companion piece to Ruth’s piece “Living Wages and Good Food.”

ruthdaviswriting's avatarNature and the common good

Food and the Environment

A guest post from environmental campaigner and writer Miles King, who blogs on nature here.

We all need to eat and most of us want to see at least some of our food produced in Britain, if it can be. Who knows, with climate change already with us, English banana crops might not be so ridiculous an idea in 50 years.

Self sufficiency is not a realistic prospect and it should not even be considered as an appealing principle to aspire to – what is the point of Britain producing sugar beet with a higher carbon and environmental footprint than the cane sugar we import from countries who benefit from its trade?Especially when that Beet has a special subsidy and tariff system to protect its producers from competition.

Currently food production in Britain is subsidised through the Common Agricultural Policy to the tune of around £200…

View original post 2,022 more words

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Guest Blog by Ruth Davis: A Common Good Manifesto 1) Living Wages and Good Food

Posted on May 27, 2014 by Miles King

Today I am delighted to have a guest blog from my old friend Ruth Davis. We used to work at Plantlife together. Ruth is Political Director at Greenpeace though these are her own views.

Ruth is starting an open debate about the politics of the environment and the idea of a Common Good Manifesto. You can find out more about her project on her website here.

This is her piece  and Ruth has posted my piece on here Blog, which you can find here.

Living wages and good food.

Organise ‘good food contracts’ that provide a fair price for locally produced food, inexchange for farmers committing to look after our countryside, wildlife, water supplies and soils.

The details of such contracts would be locally specific, for example they might recognise farmers’ efforts to contribute to sustainable catchment management plans. Those signing up to them would commit (amongst other things) to paying a living wage to farm employees.
Although large-scale agri-business can be a hugely profitable enterprise for the few, many smaller farmers struggle to secure a ‘living price’ for their produce in the teeth of the buying power of super-markets, extended supply chains that cream off value, and the availability of cheaper imported alternatives.

This in turn means that small farmers often struggle with debt; and that their children and employees are priced out of the housing market by commuters, holiday makers or investors. Suicide rates amongst small farmers remain alarmingly high, whilst the pressure for land to be abandoned, or to become aggregated in the hands of agricultural corporations is intense.

Yet most of us understand that food and its production have a value way beyond their price in the market place. This is in fact recognised implicitly through payments made under the Common Agricultural Policy; but these payments have come to be seen as ‘hand-outs from Brussels’, rather than part of a contract with farmers to secure our common good. This perception is made worse when multi-national businesses and very wealthy land-owners receive large payments, without any recognition that such subsidies incur obligations to the country as a whole – and when despite the CAP, small farmers seeking to farm sustainably cannot stay afloat.

Such problems are compounded by the failure to connect living wage campaigns in our cities with the concept of a ‘living price’ for locally produced food and living wages for agricultural labourers. Why should not Government departments, companies and institutions that are willing to pay a living wage to their employees (for example) not also consider how the contracts they have with food suppliers impact on living wages in rural communities, and on the health of our countryside?

Good food partnerships would provide one means to address these problems, by building much stronger links between local food suppliers and buyers. In essence, buyers would purchase preferentially from local suppliers, paying a fair price in doing so, whilst suppliers would pay a living wage to their employees and ensure that their farming practice helped (for example) to reduce flood risk, improve water quality, restore and protect nature, and encourage access for local people.

Such contracts could be initiated through a variety of routes, for example by hospitals and local health professionals, schools and local authorities joining forces to share procurement practices across a local area, and challenging retailers to sign similar contracts; or through groups of retailers forming co-operative ventures with local farmers. Conservation groups could and should seek to partner with groups of farmers with land close to adjacent to nature reserves, perhaps considering how they might use their own CAP payments to support the establishment of such projects and to market them to big buyers such as supermarkets or local businesses.

Whilst the essence of good food partnerships would be local, and not necessarily state driven, central Government could play a catalytic and supportive role by providing incentives to the formation of good food partnerships in a number of ways. Firstly, they could stretch the limits of existing CAP payment rules, to ensure that where-ever possible additional support is directed to those entering into such arrangements. They could also continue to press for this to central to future CAP reform. Secondly, they could consider allowing farmers who are part of food partnerships a greater flexibility in implementing existing regulations, where any risk is reduced by (for example) by adopting low input/impact practices across the farm, or entering into specific conservation-orientated arrangements with water companies, conservations groups or other relevant partners.

Central government could also play a role in exploring how existing, vertically aligned funding streams (CAP, flood defence, conservation payments, health, education) could be more effectively and comprehensively devolved downwards to respond to local needs.

Posted in agriculture, environmental policy, farming | Tagged , , , | 4 Comments

The New Rise of the Populist Right and Far Right in Europe.

Posted on May 26, 2014 by Miles King

The Euro Elections have finally happened and we know the news – UKIP has won in the UK.

UKIP is part of the rightist grouping in the European Parliament called Europe of Freedom and Democracy (EFD) group. Of course, as we know, UKIP MEPs don’t bother to do the work that MEPs are supposed to be doing at the European Parliament, and mostly just check in to get their salaries and expenses.

EFD mostly comprises UKIP and the Italian Northern League plus some others such as the Danish People’s Party and the Finns Party. All of these groups fall into the camp of Populist Right Wing Parties, though some of their policies stray into the territory of the Far Right, and obviously the distinction between them is fairly woolly. The Northern League has a particularly odd set of policies and positions, and is more of a coalition itself, though it does not include far-rightist Alessandro Mussolini, the Fascist Dictator’s grand-daughter, who is an MEP for Berlusconi’s Forza Italia.

I had seen suggestions in the media last night, of a dramatic turn to the far right during these elections. I vainly tried to track down the detail on UK news sites – the BBC website was useless, the Guardian and Telegraph better but not much detail.

Ironically, in the end I found the best place with all the information – where? The EU website.

Here are the results for the far-right and populist right parties: percentages in brackets are their share of the vote.

  • Austria – far right Freedom Party – 4 MEPs ( 19.5%). Too far to the right even to join the EFD (so far).
  • Belgium – far-right Vlamms Belang – 1 MEP; also to the right of the EFD.
  • Bulgaria – difficult to say but the two coalition groups who won 3 MEPs between them don’t appear to be far-right, and Attaka, who appear to be neofascists, did very badly.
  • Croatia – none.
  • Cyprus – none.
  • Czech Republic – Libertarian Eurosceptic party Svobodni get 1 MEP. They are not part of the EFD.
  • Denmark – Danish People’s party (right or far-right wing populists) win the election with 27% of the vote. Their 4 MEPs will sit with UKIP in the EFD.
  • Estonia – none.
  • Finland – The Finns Party win 13% of the vote and 2 MEPs. Another nationalist right-wing populist party, though with some leftist policies including support for the welfare state. They are part of the EFD.
  • France – the National Front win the election with 25% of the vote and 24 MEPs. These are too far to the right to be part of the EFD and promote anti-semitic views.
  • Germany – one MEP for the neo-nazi NPD with 1% of the vote. They are not part of the EFD.
  • Greece – Neo-fascists Golden Dawn win 9% of the vote and 3 MEPs. They are to the right of the EFD.
  • Hungary – Neo-fascists Jobbik win 15% of the vote and 3 MEPs. they are further to the right than the EFD.
  • Ireland – none
  • Italy – the Northern League win 5 MEPs with 6% of the vote. The NL are the second largest member of the EFD, after UKIP.  It’s difficult to pin down the political position of the NL – they are a diverse mix but certainly some ethnic stances place them on the right, perhaps far right.
  • Latvia – none
  • Lithuania  – Right wing populist party Order and Justice (TT) win 14% of the vote and 2 MEPs who are part of the EFD.
  • Luxembourg – none
  • Malta – none
  • Netherlands – The Far-right Peoples Party win 4 MEPs with 13% of the vote. They are further to the right than the EFD and are not part of it. The also far-right SGP are part of EFD and one 1 MEP.
  • Poland – the KNP a libertarian right party, won 4 MEPs with 7% of the vote. They are not part of the EFD.
  • Romania – none
  • Slovakia – none
  • Slovenia – none
  • Spain – none that I could see
  • Sweden – far-right populists Swedish Democrat party won 10% of the vote and 2 MEPs. They are not part of the EFD group.
  • UK – UKIP win the election with 27% of the vote and get 24 MEPs.

The upshot of all this is that the EFD grouping is likely to have 38 MEPs and the other far-right groups will have 47 MEPs altogether. Out of 751 MEPs this doesn’t sound like many does it? Actually it’s over 11%.

How worried should we be?

Here in the UK the overtly racist BNP have lost all their MEPs, which must be very good news. But then BNP voters will have shifted to UKIP, seeing a greater chance of their views being adopted by politicians, and acted upon. UKIP will only disrupt the European Parliament.  But indirectly they will drag the Tories to the right. Labour will also see themselves losing the blue collar “Left Behind” vote to UKIP and they may also move to the right.

For the environment and climate change in particular, it is bad news. UKIP are avowedly climate change deniers and take a libertarian anti-environmental stance, when it comes to the use of regulation and taxation to protect the environment. Their success will only strengthen the resolve of climate sceptics in the Tory Party to push further ahead unravelling climate change policies. We could see a proposal to revoke the Climate Act in the next Tory Manifesto. The Tories will certainly want to block any pro-environmental legislation coming from the EU now, partly to show voters who might desert them for UKIP in the general election, how seriously they take the UKIP threat.

Further afield in Europe, this could be the beginning of the end for the EU as it has come to be. In the short term, the European Commission and the Council of Ministers will continue to be the two main places of power within the EU, with the Parliament still coming a distant third. To what extent the anti-European right can organise itself into a force to dismantle the EU from the inside, remains to be seen. UKIP may have more success persuading enough of the electorate within the UK to leave the EU, to make it happen. And that rather depends on what happens at the next big political event, the Scottish Referendum on the 18th September – less than 4 months away. If Scotland votes yes to leave the UK, that earthquake will make yesterday’s events seem paltry by comparison.

UPDATE:

Here is some biographical detail for some of the characters the far-right have in the European Parliament now. Plus a 92 year old Greek war hero (who is a Syriza MEP).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Posted in the far right, UKIP, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , | 11 Comments

Following on from my last blog talking about how effective the NFU is at lobbying to protect the private interests of a few wealthy farmers, this classic insight appeared this morning in the Western Morning News.

New Deputy President of the NFU, beef farmer Minette Batters, launched a farcical attack on “Green Groups” claiming “they don’t want farming to continue”. Perhaps she has been reading Feral.

Even more absurdly she said “Politicians have mistaken the Green NGOs for society. They are not, we are society.”

Let’s just take a look at that claim. The National Trust membership is over 4 million. RSPB over a million. Wildlife Trusts together are 800,000. Woodland Trust has over 300,000 members.Even accounting for multiple memberships, it was recently estimated there were 4.5 million supporters of “green groups” in the UK.

The NFU has 55000 members: agriculture students get free membership.

Yet the NFU still wield ultimate influence over land-use policy in this country. They wilfully ignore, are contemptuous of the views of 4.5 million members of the public, taxpayers paying for farm subsidies.

Who speaks for society Ms Batters?

You speak for a tiny minority, a vested interest focussed solely on maintaining your huge welfare benefits – £3 billion a year paid for by taxpayers rich and poor; and exactly what do we get in return for our money?

 

Politicians have mistaken the green NGOs [non-governmental organisations] for ‘society’. They are not society – we are society.
Read more at http://www.westernmorningnews.co.uk/NFU-deputy-president-warns-green-pressure-groups/story-21134519-detail/story.html#Iz3MhXAt8XZroVDD.99
Politicians have mistaken the green NGOs [non-governmental organisations] for ‘society’. They are not society – we are society.
Read more at http://www.westernmorningnews.co.uk/NFU-deputy-president-warns-green-pressure-groups/story-21134519-detail/story.html#Iz3MhXAt8XZroVDD.99
Politicians have mistaken the green NGOs [non-governmental organisations] for ‘society’. They are not society – we are society.
Read more at http://www.westernmorningnews.co.uk/NFU-deputy-president-warns-green-pressure-groups/story-21134519-detail/story.html#Iz3MhXAt8XZroVDD.99
Politicians have mistaken the green NGOs [non-governmental organisations] for ‘society’. They are not society – we are society.
Read more at http://www.westernmorningnews.co.uk/NFU-deputy-president-warns-green-pressure-groups/story-21134519-detail/story.html#Iz3MhXAt8XZroVDD.99

 

Thanks to Gordon McGlone for bringing this to my attention

Posted on May 24, 2014 by Miles King | 6 Comments

The EU: environmental good or ill?

Posted on May 24, 2014 by Miles King

The next political tremor tomorrow when the Euro elections results are announced, no doubt will be reported by Nick Robinson on the BBC as a Magnititude 10 super quake. Has Farage got hold of polaroids of Nick as a student getting up to something dodgy? Robinson seems under some sort of geas such that he can only talk about Farage and UKIP.

Anyway, it got me thinking – from an environmental perspective, should the UK stay in the EU or not?

The EU has given us the Birds Directive (which led to the Wildlife and Countryside Act), the EIA Directive, which forced environmental considerations to be taken into account in the planning system, the SEA Directive which extended them to strategic policies, the Habitats Directive gave us SACs and strict protection for bats and newts.

Thanks to the Birds and Habitats Directives we have the Natura 2000 network of sites with SPAs covering 2.75Mha and SACs covering 8M ha (of which 2.9Mha are terrestrial). There is a very large overlap between the two. The EC (as of 2011) gives a figure of 1.77Mha of terrestrial European Sites – that’s quite a big discrepancy!

Anyway European Sites have relatively strong protection and this is applied to most (not all) of the best wildlife sites in the UK. There is a Marine Framework Directive as well – has this done anything? I don’t know.

The Nitrates Directive has sought to reduce the impact of Nitrogen on human health and the environment and the Water Framework Directive has sought to improve the quality of rivers and lakes. Latest in this line is the Invasive Species Directive which is just being finished off in Brussels.

I would suggest that had these EU Directives not been in place, the measures they required the UK to take would not have happened. Indeed the UK has been one of the biggest foot draggers when it comes to implementation. It took us 16 years to implement the EIA directive for agriculture and even then it was done so badly the mechanism collapsed 5 years later, to be replaced with a pathetically weak approach. THe UK continues to face legal challenges to its implementation of the Birds Directive and Habitats Directive, 20 and 30 years after they were created. So much for gold-plating.

On the other hand the EU has given us the Common Agricultural Policy and the Common Fisheries Policy. Now of course the UK Government was subsidising farmers to increase productivity at the expense of the environment for long before we entered the Common Market. Most would agree though that that destruction increased substantially after we joined it in 1973. The Common Fisheries Policy has perhaps been an even bigger environmental disaster than the CAP, albeit mostly an invisible one, until now when we realise that subsidised industrial fishing has led to most of the fish disappearing. And we mustn’t forget the grand European Plans such as the Trans European Networks of motorways (and on the mainland high speed trains) and the EBRD funding environmentally disastrous mega engineering projects in and beyond Europe.

Overall then the EU has driven stronger protection for a small number of high quality sites covering between 5 and 10% of the UK land surface. But it has funded wholesale environmental damage on the 75% of the UK that is agricultural land; and even greater destruction in our seas.

Would the protection of wildlife have been as strong without the EU? Sites of Special Scientific Interest had been around since 1949, though they only received any significant protection in 1985. The main cause of loss of SSSIs was agriculture – in the 1970s and 1980s – funded by the CAP. And this equally applied to sites supporting important archaeology, history and community value.

Would the environmental damage wrought by the CAP and CFP been equivalent if the funding had come from HM Treasury? That seems less likely to me. UK Government funds were provided to farmers through the 1947 Agriculture Act, funds to intensify production.  This was the prize given to Farmers in return for their heroic efforts to increase domestic food production during the Second World War. Much damage was wrought in the 1950s and 60s with domestic funding. But would this level of subsidy have been maintained for as long as it has been?

Once in the EU, UK farmers benefited greatly from the French farmers strangle-hold over CAP policy, ensuring that generous subsidies were paid to the huge population of French farmers  – subsidies that quickly led to overproduction and the surreal world of milk lakes and butter mountains.  Some argue that the CAP was created as a way for the Germans to pay war reparations to the French by the back door. Whatever, this stranglehold continued, continues to this day. I suspect that if Agriculture had been under domestic control the generous subsidies of the 50s and 60s would have evaporated during the economic recessions of the 70s 80s 90s etc.

Enough of such speculation. Where do we go from here? That rather depends on what happens tomorrow – not just in the UK but elsewhere in Europe. The European public may have decided to call time on the great European Experiment, by voting in a rag tag of nationalist/neofascist/anti-european leftist parties hell bent on dismantling the EU from the inside.

Mind you they will have a major job on their hands, fighting the very well-entrenched Eurocrats in the Commission on the one hand, The Council of Ministers (many of whom will still be from the mainstream pro-Europe camp) and the massively powerful Euro-lobby of vested interests, whose sole aim is to ensure the flow of public funds to private interests continues – such as our own NFU.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Posted in agriculture, bureaucracy, Common Agricultural Policy, corporate lobbying, European environment policy, Habitats Directive, NFU, SSSis, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , | 5 Comments

UKIPs policy for farm subsidies: strip away all environmental protections and public goods.

Posted on May 17, 2014 by Miles King

As we approach the dreaded Euro Elections on Thursday, I have been keeping (or should that be kipping) an eye on some of the claims made by UKIP on matters environmental.

Last week they claimed that every household in the UK would be £400 a year better off if we left the EU, on account of us not having to support the Common Agricultural Policy. I was dubious about this figure and asked (via Twitter – see my timeline for the questions) various UKippers where it came from. After a couple of days the response came back (the tweet has now been deleted – I wonder why?). They had seen an article in the Telegraph from 2009  and a piece  from that well known objective and agriculturally expert organisation the Institute for Economic Affairs, the cheerleaders for corporate excess, better known for as the astroturf outfit for the Tobacco Industry.  In their paper they claim that the EU pay 17% more for their food than the rest of the world.

Now it could be argued that the Tories also get most of their policy ideas from Think Tanks such as Policy Exchange and the IEA, and the fact that a UKIP policy person was reading the  Telegraph (albeit from 5 years ago) rather than the Mail should be seen as a good thing. I expect they have been sent on a re-education course.

Today I stumbled across the UKIP Agriculture policy. Yes UKIP have another policy!

I was so excited I am repeating it in its entirety. Here’s the first bit

 

UKIP ag support

 

Wow, that was pretty amazing wasn’t it. Clearly this level of detail needs careful analysis. I’m not really up to such a complex job (especially on a saturday afternoon) but I will give a try.

Land must be farmed to ELS standard (but grassland farms don’t have to). What is ELS standard for arable farms? ELS is based on choosing from a menu of options, which build points until you get enough points to qualify. There is no ELS standard. This means nothing. Unless of course the UKIP ELS standard is something else entirely.

And what constitutes a grassland farm? I think we should be told. That’s the trouble with subsidies – they create a whole complicated rule set which generates its own bureaucracy….

So – every farmer gets £80 an acre, regardless of what they are doing, up to a cap of £120,000 a year. And that decreases for upland farms on pro-rata basis. I don’t think they have realised that they have to say what the pro-rata would be : 75%, 50%, 10%?

There will be no modulation, so no farm payments will be recirculated back into environmental schemes.

There will be no cross compliance – so no controls on stocking numbers, no controls on soil protection, no controls on when and where fertiliser or pesticides are applied, no controls on destroying landscape features or habitats or species.

There will be no set-aside – err that has gone anyway.

This is beginning to sound like the Bruces sketch “rule 6: there is no …… rule 6″

There will be no EFA payments. I guess that means no greening.

UKIP will re-introduce coupled payments called headage payments – that is they will provide a subsidy (of unknown value) per head of animals, which inevitably leads to an increase in the number of sheep on the hills and the overgrazing and all that entails (including downstream flooding). I guess George Monbiot must have said something to upset them – though I can’t imagine what.

Now this is my favourite policy:

Applicants must be risk-takers.

what does this mean? Will every applicant for UKIP farm support be required to do a parachute jump annually? Will they have to go on an assault course, or just show risky behaviour. I would like to see more detail on this test, it sounds fantastic. Especially for those aging upland hill farmers – ” I’m sorry sir, you can’t have your headage payment for those extra sheep until you’ve eaten this 2 week old pork pie.”

The final bits have been thought through very carefully – no farm subsidies for urban parks (hmm) golf courses (very sensible but how many UKIP supporters might that upset?) and this dastardly renewable energy stuff is going to have an exclusion zone around it, whether the land is farmable or not. That’ll show those greeny commy er farmers.

But wait, there’s more.. it’s UKIP bonfire of the Regulations – this one is going to be really radical.

UKIP agric deregulation

UKIP will get rid of EIDs for sheep (I think most people think they are a waste of time) and bring back the good old pesticides from the good old days. All of them?

Fallen Stock can be buried on the farm again (seems reasonable) and white asbestos is now safe according to UKIP. Well they must be the experts I guess.

We obviously don’t need Nitrate Vulnerable Zones, as the whole issue of nitrates in drinking water causing cancer is obviously some sort of EU commy plot – right?

And why should we worry about ammonia emanating from intensive livestock units – it’s a fertiliser after all. Who would complain about getting free fertiliser, even if it does whiff enough to make your eyes water. 24/7.

Actually these are a very hotch potch set of regulations being abandoned. Why stop there? Why not allow farm buildings (including houses for farm workers) to be built without planning permission. Why not pay farmers to produce more food – a top up on your farm payment if you exceed the national average for tonnes of wheat per hectare.

What about GMOs – arent they going to be allowed to be grown. Come on UKIP – it’s hardly radical.

Back to UKIP’s claim that leaving the EU will save every household £400 a year. This is based the cost of tariffs that the EU place on food being imported from outside the EU which push the price of food up relatively to world food prices, not the cost of the CAP. In 2011 (latest figures) EU food prices were only 2% above world prices – not the 17% claimed by the IEA. UK households spent on average £57 a week on food and non alcoholic drinks (2012 figures) that totals £2964 a year per household. A 17% increase would equate to £504, but a 2% increase is only £59 a year.

The CAP costs the UK about £3bn a year. Will UKIP’s home grown agricultural subsidies be at a lower cost? Possibly in cash terms (though until we know what the pro rata decrease is for uplands we can’t tell). But even though the current CAP is incredibly deeply flawed, doing away with any form of payment for public goods, whether through cross compliance, greening or agri-environment schemes, would have a cost to society, in terms of environmental damage.

I don’t think UKIP are at all bothered about the environment though. Look at their climate change spokesman.

 

Posted in agriculture, Common Agricultural Policy, deregulation, ecosystem services, farming, UKIP | Tagged , , , | 5 Comments