Nitrogen Reduction, Recycling and Reuse (Environment and Climate Change Committee Report)

Baroness Sheehan Excerpts

Tuesday 6th January 2026 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Baroness Sheehan]

That the Grand Committee takes note of the Report from the Environment and Climate Change Committee Nitrogen: time to reduce, recycle, reuse (2nd Report, HL Paper 161).

[Baroness Sheehan (LD)]

My Lords, it is my pleasure as chair of the Lords Environment and Climate Change Committee to open this debate on its report Nitrogen: Time to Reduce, Recycle, Reuse. I convey my thanks to our committee clerk Andrea Ninomiya, our policy analyst Lily Paulson and the operations officers Farhan Riaz and, latterly, Hanna Ghufoor. As any chair of a Select Committee will acknowledge, such reports would not be possible without the expert guidance of the clerk’s team, so thanks to them all once again.

Thanks are also due to the expert witnesses whose depth and breadth of knowledge informed this report, as well as to the six schools that took part in our youth engagement programme: Ellesmere College, Mary Immaculate High School, Shipley College, Skinners’ Academy, The Holt School and The Thomas Hardye School. We are also grateful to our specialist adviser, Professor Mark Sutton of the UK Centre for Ecology & Hydrology, for his valuable support in a complex and sometimes highly technical inquiry.

Climate change, nature loss and public health are often treated as separate challenges. The committee’s report on nitrogen shows that, in truth, they are deeply and dangerously intertwined. Our inquiry heard clear, consistent evidence that nitrogen, in its many reactive forms, pollutes our waters, fuelling dead zones that devastate aquatic life. In the air, ammonia and nitrogen oxide contribute to PM2.5 fine particulates, causing an estimated 30,000 premature deaths in the UK. It accumulates in soils and ecosystems, undermining habitats that should be the backbone of our nature recovery ambitions. Nitrous oxide is both a powerful greenhouse gas and now the leading cause of the ozone hole. These impacts are not abstract. They are underpinned by hard data, measured in lost species, polluted stretches of river, hospital admissions and lives cut short.

Unless the Government take our report as a clarion call for action, we will not meet major biodiversity targets either in the UK or globally. For example, we will not meet our commitments under the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework to halve nutrient waste, including reactive nitrogen, by 2030. This is central to achieving the goal of halting and reversing biodiversity loss by 2030 and protecting 30% of land and sea—the 30 by 30 target. UK habitat objectives for protected areas—SSSIs and special areas of conservation—cannot be met while over 57% of nitrogen-sensitive habitats receive nitrogen deposition above critical loads and most nitrogen-sensitive woodland and peat habitats remain overloaded. Some 93% of monitored English estuaries and 47% of coastal waters exceed nitrogen standards. I could go on, but I think noble Lords get the picture.

The financial cost to hard-pressed farmers is estimated to be £420 million per annum in unnecessary overuse of artificial fertilisers. Figures from WWF and the Sustainable Nitrogen Alliance also refer to broader inefficiencies across full-chain nitrogen use efficiency, NUE. That includes from fertiliser and manure inputs to food output, and I assume it would also include food waste. NUE across the full chain is estimated as being only about 11%, with 89% wasted as emissions or run-off, equivalent to a £2.3 billion annual replacement cost.

In England, the total cost of nitrogen dioxide to the NHS and social care is estimated to be £230 million by 2035. That is why our report calls for a national nitrogen strategy rooted in robust data and a clear-eyed assessment of trade-offs. We recommend a UK nitrogen balance sheet, providing for nitrogen what the carbon budget provides for greenhouse gases—a transparent, accountable framework to understand where nitrogen comes from, where it goes and what damage or benefit it brings along the way. Only with such a framework can policy be coherent rather than piecemeal. The Government’s response acknowledges the problem but shies away from that necessary step. Warm words on existing initiatives are not a substitute for a cross-government strategy with measurable objectives and timelines.

Agriculture sits at the heart of the nitrogen challenge. Farmers are essential partners in the solution but they cannot be expected to transform practices in the absence of clear standards, fair incentives and practical support. Our report identifies major shortcomings in nitrogen regulation and enforcement, defined by piecemeal rules—for example, overlapping regulations such as farming rules for water, nitrate-vulnerable zones and silage and slurry regulations.

This confusing picture is further undermined by poor enforcement by the Environment Agency, which inspects under 2% of England’s 105,000 farms yearly. For example, checks were carried out on 2,213 farms in 2020-21. Breaches were found in about 50%, but sanctions were issued in just 0.1% of cases. That is more carte blanche than enforcement, which is a shame because, as we heard, if properly enforced, the farming rules for water have the potential to be effective in improving water quality as well as air and soil quality.

A key recommendation in our report was simplification of the regulatory system and toughening of enforcement action. There are some low-hanging solutions, such as improving manure management, mandating low-emission slurry spreading and covers by 2027, and extending permitting to large cattle and dairy farms within two years. We saw examples of this on our visit to an experimental farm in the Netherlands.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Duncan of Springbank) (Con)]

Before democracy so rudely interrupted us, we were hearing from the noble Baroness, Lady Sheehan.

[Baroness Sheehan (LD)]

My Lords, I repeat that a key recommendation in our report was simplification of the regulatory system and toughening of enforcement. There are some low-hanging solutions, such as reducing inputs of nitrogen and optimising their application, improving manure management, mandating low-emission slurry spreading and slurry covers by 2027 and extending permitting to large cattle and dairy farms within two years. The Government’s response nods to these issues but opts to postpone real decisions. They prefer to wait for further pilots, reviews or consultations, rather than commit to the clear direction of travel that farmers themselves say they need. I would be interested to know why the Government are not showing greater urgency.

On water, our report highlighted that water companies alone cannot solve nutrient pollution. Upgrades to wastewater treatment are necessary but not sufficient. Upstream collaboration with land managers, catchment-based solutions and innovations in nutrient recovery must all play a part. We called for clearer expectations on integrated catchment planning and a regulatory framework that rewards pollution prevention, not merely end-of-pipe treatment. Yet the Government’s response is, again, too timid. It reiterates existing programmes but does not set out how regulations will drive the system towards joined-up catchment outcomes or how innovation in nutrient recycling will be scaled beyond a handful of projects.

Before concluding, I would like to put just two questions to the Minister. Can she confirm whether the Government will embed the holistic approach to nitrogen to which they have committed across related Defra priorities, including the farming road map, the land use framework, the food strategy, the water White Paper and the water reform Bill? Secondly, in the light of the delay to the circular economy strategy and its reframing as the circular economy growth plan, can the Minister provide assurance that nutrient circularity, including for nitrogen, will still form part of the circular economy road map for the agri-food sector?

Our report argues for aligning air quality, climate and agricultural policy so that measures reinforce, rather than undermine, one another. Moving nitrogen towards a circular economy—reduce, recycle, reuse—should be a unifying objective, but it is disappointing that the Government do not recognise that a circular economy approach to reducing nitrogen emissions is not deliverable without a national nitrogen strategy. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Sheehan (LD)]

I thank the Minister for her response, which has finished bang on the dot of 20 minutes. I take this opportunity to thank all colleagues who have participated in the debate. The contributions have been fantastic and reaffirm yet again the breadth and depth of knowledge that runs deep through Members of this House.

The time is late so I will not keep the Committee long, but I have a couple of points—I have made lots of notes, but I shall mention just a couple before we close this debate. I thank the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, for his contribution and for reminding us that there was a time when inert dinitrogen gas, N₂, was in equilibrium with bioavailable, more reactive nitrogen in the soil, so things do not have to be like this. Modern society and our burning of fossil fuels have contributed to reactive nitrogen, but the energy-intensive Haber-Bosch process has led to the mass production of cheap fertilisers that are being overused—and abused, really.

I am not going to run through everything, but I will try to pick up a couple of points made by the noble Lord, Lord Fuller. All I will say is that a 1% per annum reduction in artificial fertiliser inputs, which is the aim of the company that he represents, pales in comparison with the experience of the noble Earl, Lord Leicester, with regenerative farming. The noble Earl achieved a 20% reduction in two years, while a rate of 1% will take 20 years—I just wanted to point that out. At the same time, I congratulate the noble Earl on his fantastic work in this field. It will make a real difference to have someone of his stature and capacity leading regenerative farming. If he were to throw his weight behind this, that would be a game-changer, so I welcome his input.

I think the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, mentioned a 39% reduction in fertiliser input since 1989. Quite a lot of that came at the same time as the reduction in livestock numbers. We know that food grown to feed cattle and other livestock takes up a lot of our inputs, which may well explain the large numbers since 1989.

I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Ashcombe, who mentioned roads. We deliberately chose not to look at nitrogen emissions from roads because they have fallen quite a lot, by 70%. The committee recently did a report on the uptake of EVs—we can see in today’s media that we had a record year for electric vehicles last year—so we felt we should concentrate on agriculture and wastewater, where reductions in nitrogen emissions have been much more stubborn. I pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, for her work in making sure that we do not lose sight of indoor nitrogen pollution from cookers and domestic boilers. She will do us all a service if she stays with that issue and makes sure that we do not lose sight of it.

I will wrap up. The Minister commands respect around the House, certainly from me, so I really welcome her words. However, I received an email recently about a meeting in October of the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe. The email says that, at that meeting, the UK succeeded in having struck from the meeting record that there are any cost-effective low-hanging fruit for ammonia mitigation. That was a pity, since reaching agreement on that point was the centrepiece of the evidence that the Task Force on Reactive Nitrogen provided to the meeting. I am sure that these discussions will continue, but that fills me with trepidation. I look forward to the Minister writing to me to verify that email or otherwise. I have to say, it comes from an extremely reputable source—otherwise I would not have brought it up. I apologise to the Minister for bringing it up, but it is crucial to this debate.

Our report was undertaken in response to the widely perceived failure of successive Governments to effectively manage nitrogen pollution. I am sorry to say that the Government’s response to date and the information I have just relayed do not inspire confidence that their response matches the scale of the problem or the opportunities available. However, I look forward to further discussions. I beg to move.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I just confirm that I will look into the issue the noble Baroness raises in that email and will write to her.