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

Earl of Leicester Excerpts

Tuesday 6th January 2026 Grand Committee

[The Earl of Leicester (Con)]

My Lords, I thank noble Lords on the committee for agreeing to undertake this inquiry into nitrogen. Although it was my suggestion, I can take no credit for it; that must go to two scientists who worked with me on the charity SongBird Survival’s scientific sub-committee. Incidentally, I came off its board last year. After one of our meetings, as an afterthought I asked the scientists present whether they might have any suggestions for the committee’s next inquiry. Paul Dolman, professor of conservation ecology at UEA, and Dr Alex Lees of Manchester Metropolitan University exclaimed, almost in unison, “Nitrogen pollution—it’s the big elephant in the room that no one is talking about”.

This is echoed by the opening remarks of the Sustainable Nitrogen Alliance’s briefing: that nitrogen pollution is one of the most urgent but overlooked environmental challenges. A year and a half ago, it too gave an illuminating briefing that our chair and I attended. It is important to note the word “sustainable” in the title of the Sustainable Nitrogen Alliance.

While my initial suggestion for the name of this inquiry was “nitrogen pollution”, it is encouraging that throughout the year-long evidence-gathering process and inquiry, it gradually became clear that we should retitle the inquiry as “Nitrogen: Time to Reduce, Recycle, Reuse”, because it is such an important resource for us humans and our planet. It is essential for life and food production, but mismanagement makes it a major pollutant. I also add my thanks to our committee staff. They are absolute stars, going above and beyond, and continually produce excellent research papers for us.

The subject of nitrogen is so huge that, as a farmer, I shall try to limit my contribution to that subject alone—indeed, to arable farming. By some happy happenstance, I am sitting next to my noble friend Lord Ashcombe, who tells me he is going to talk about slurry, so I shall talk about arable. I shall leave other colleagues to speak more knowledgeably on the many other aspects of nitrogen. Here I should declare my interests as laid out in the register as a large-scale mixed farmer in North Norfolk, albeit following the principles of regenerative agriculture, which aim to regenerate and nurture our greatest asset—our soil.

As our debate in Grand Committee unfolds, it will reveal that farming is one of the greatest culprits with regard to nitrogen pollution. Some £420 million of fertiliser is wasted annually, as our chair said, through inefficient farming practices. The inefficient and unsustainable use of artificial nitrogen, and indeed farmyard manure, leads to large reactive nitrogen losses to the atmosphere and to terrestrial and aquatic systems. Undoubtedly, excess nitrogen use has a deleterious effect on biodiversity. It is this point that the two scientist friends I mentioned at the beginning of my speech were making. The area of nitrogen-sensitive habitats in the UK with exceedance of nutrient nitrogen-critical loads was 57.6% in 2017 and is probably more now. That represents just over 42,000 square kilometres. The area of acid-sensitive habitats of soil and forest ecosystems in the UK that exceed acidity-critical loads was 38.8% or 27,250 square kilometres.

There is a way that farming can also be a provider of one of the solutions. I am afraid that organic farming, although it clearly could be a solution to nitrogen pollution if overwhelmingly adopted, would lead to mass starvation throughout the world. Currently, only 2% of land in the UK is farmed organically.

Although I say I am a farmer, my degree was in history of art. So while I understand my businesses, I do not necessarily comprehend the detail and spend a lot of time asking silly questions of my team—and they are often the best questions. In 2019 I set our farm management team a challenge to see whether they could farm without agricultural chemicals and artificial nitrogen by 2030. It was an 11-year target. There was a sharp intake of breath but they accepted the challenge. Two years later, the broad acres manager came to me to say that he had stopped using insecticides —indeed, we have barely used them since 2021 except on some seed dressings—but he also told me that if we were to stop using nitrogen, our yields would plummet.

To illustrate this, from time to time this team experiments with applying varying degrees of nitrogen to the same crop in the same field. We have had a number of groups from the World Wildlife Fund, Nestlé and Marks & Spencer visit our fields. Some individuals express a preference for organic farming. When we show them our cereal trial plots, that usually convinces them that organic farming is not going to feed the world. The crop with no nitrogen at all looks markedly sparse when compared with those with 60%, 80% or 100% of the recommended fertiliser application. Financially we would not survive—although, granted, we have not built up experience in organic farming.

The farm manager says that he is now using his grey matter much more as he figures out how to make regen farming work, learning from mistakes, having an independent agronomist who is not attached to an ag-chem firm—who of course may want to sell you a little more product—and, when he sees insects in a crop, not immediately reaching for the spray can. He recognises that predator insects such as ladybirds, lacewings, parasitic wasps and hoverflies that attack swarms of aphids do the work for free.

Similarly, our potato enterprise manager took my aspiration to heart and reduced the recommended nitrogen application by 10%. The crop still looked well, and the yield was as expected. He did the same thing the following year, with similar results. In the third year—this is important because it demonstrates how improved technology also plays a part—we bought new precision potato planters that place the nitrogen fertiliser next to the seed. This yielded a further saving of 22% in the amount of nitrogen applied. Over three years he had achieved a compound cost saving of 37%, which goes straight to the bottom line, with no discernible diminution of yield. Importantly for this debate, he had also achieved a saving for the environment, with reduced run-off of unused nitrogen into watercourses or the atmosphere.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Earl of Leicester (Con)]

My Lords, I mentioned varying the 60% or 80% rate of nitrogen application but, sadly, it is not as easy as that. No simple rule of thumb can be followed by all farmers since geography, soil type and climatic conditions such as lack of rainfall, excess rainfall, rain at the wrong time, lack of sun and heat, and the timing of nitrogen application all play their part to vary yield. This is where the guesswork comes in.

If we could predict the weather months out, huge amounts of nitrogen could be saved. Generally, in drier conditions a farmer would, could or should apply 70% of what might be recommended, whereas nitrogen use efficiency or NUE—here I glance nervously at my friend, the professor and noble Lord, Lord Krebs, who took issue with this term, despite it being commonly used by farmers and agronomists—is poor in wet weather. At best, a farmer applying less nitrogen in optimum conditions might achieve NUE of 80% to 90% on potatoes, with the rest of the nitrogen, up to 20%, either lost to the atmosphere or leached to rivers. Some would hopefully be retained in the soil. This progressive approach requires thought, but it comes with more risk.

Many farmers are putting too much nitrogen on their crop and therefore are achieving only 50% to 60% NUE, with 50% of the nitrogen being lost. It is here that the Government could gain some big wins on nitrogen usage reduction by ensuring well-tailored training for farmers and perhaps a few pertinent questions addressed to ag-chem companies and their agronomists—here I glance nervously at my noble friend Lord Fuller—to demonstrate that less can mean more.

To carry on what the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, mentioned, 80% of our potato crops follow cover or catch crops which, as he explained, convert nitrogen from the atmosphere into the soil. This too has therefore significantly reduced the amount of artificial nitrogen needed. The noble Viscount also mentioned wide rotations and not having a monoculture of wheat year after year. Of course, a wide six-course rotation makes a huge difference.

I take issue with the noble Viscount saying that these innovations first came in the Netherlands. If I can be a little immodest, my four-greats grandfather, Coke of Norfolk, along with Turnip Townshend, were very much involved in the agricultural revolution in Britain. The agrarian revolution of course facilitated the Industrial Revolution, which also happened first in Britain. Although the Dutch are jolly good at what they do, I take issue with the noble Viscount; maybe I will raise it with him afterwards and we can discuss where the agricultural revolution started.

Anyway, many agricultural research institutes, such as the John Innes Centre in my part of the world, Rothamsted Research and indeed UEA, have departments monitoring these reductions in nitrogen use without a deleterious effect to crop yields. The Government need to help to promulgate these well-researched messages from such august institutions across to the farming industry. Many progressive farmers are already taking advantage of financial savings achieved by reduced inputs and are proud of their resultant improved environmental credentials. Farm shows such as Groundswell, a regenerative farming conference started by the Cherry family in Hertfordshire, are championing these rediscovered wisdoms and, encouragingly, grow in size each year at the expense of more conventional shows.

While there are undoubtedly rogue farmers who need enforcement action taken against them, the vast majority are hard-working, honest people, many of them, in current economic and legislative conditions, grinding out a living. In my experience in life it is the carrot, not the stick, that works more effectively in a democracy such as ours, so I ask the Minister to advocate that training be prioritised rather than enforcement.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, I sincerely thank the noble Baroness, Lady Sheehan, and the committee for forcing to the forefront an issue on which it has long been evident that action is urgently needed in the UK and around the world. I join the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, in saying that we have had a comprehensive introduction to a comprehensive report. But because I am a Green, I am going to go further and get into some broader systematic and international issues before coming back to some of the key points, which have already been raised but need to be stressed.

I thank the Sustainable Nitrogen Alliance for its excellent briefing on this issue, which starts by describing the nitrogen paradox: something so essential to life and food production is also a major pollutant. It is a threat to the life and well-being of humans in the UK, as the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, just set out, and to the health and well-being of the ecosystems on which we are all ultimately dependent. Nitrogen makes a perfect case study for the current broken state of our food system—indeed, our current broken economic system. It shows the disastrous outcome of producing more, selling more and consequently dumping more into the environment.

Noble Lords may be aware of the brilliant little video “The Story of Stuff”. You could make a similar, if perhaps for some tastes a little too excrement-filled, video about nitrogen. It goes right through to the adverts that noble Lords in the Committee have almost certainly seen today, plugging ultra-processed food-like substances sold wrapped in plastic and shouting in large letters “high protein” as though they were health foods. This is despite the fact that protein consumption in the UK is around 1.5 times our dietary needs, with the resultant nitrogen-rich waste flowing into the sewage system, into wastewater treatment plants and, all too often, directly into our rivers and seas. We know that these products and advertisements for them are damaging our public environmental health, yet away they blaze. As comprehensive and informed as the committee’s report is, that may be stretching beyond the direct topic of today, although it is essential to it.

I will go back to what noble Lords might call “the other end”, and something that has already been raised several times: the Haber-Bosch process. The so-called miracle that enabled the “green revolution”—I am putting that in scare quotes as it used vast quantities of fossil fuels to produce nitrogen fertiliser that would further heat the planet, destroy soil ecosystems and enable the development of industrial food systems disastrous for human health—was anything but green.

With the greatest respect, I have to respond directly to the contribution of the noble Earl, Lord Leicester. He said—of course, he is right—that, if you put the same crop in the same field in the same farming system and you put more or less nitrogen on it, you get differences in yield. Of course you do, because that is the primitive system of outdated 20th-century science behind our current arable farming systems. The noble Earl also spoke about crop rotations but we need far broader rotations. We are going to need many different crops in the climate change world that we are in now.

We need agro-ecological systems that work with nature instead of trying to turn it into a factory. I point the Committee to a single book that sets this direction of travel out very clearly: Miraculous Abundance, whose subtitle is One Quarter Acre, Two French Farmers, and Enough Food to Feed the World. It uses the fact that plants have evolved on land over some 500 million years to get their nitrogen and other essential nutrients by working co-operatively with fungi and bacteria in immensely complex systems. What we have done is throw nitrogen and other chemicals on those soils and destroyed those systems—then we have nutrient-deficient plants.

[The Earl of Leicester (Con)]

I just make the point that the whole point of regenerative agriculture is to regenerate those mycorrhizal fungi and the soil. If the noble Baroness is saying that we cannot and should not use artificial nitrogen—I am advocating for using less of it—half the world will starve.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

There is a whole other debate there, but I go back to an Italian proverb from the 1930s: “Artificial fertiliser is good for the father and bad for the son”. I entirely agree with the noble Earl that we have to restore those systems, but they cannot work with the application of artificial nitrogen.

I shall now agree with the noble Earl to balance things out. He spoke about nitrogen as the elephant in the room. I agree with that, although I would use a different metaphor: the idea of a nitrogen bomb. We have to fit within the world’s planetary limits. We need to be fixing only 62 million tonnes of nitrogen on land a year; here, I am of course talking on a global scale. That is the process by which atmospheric nitrogen is converted into nitrogen as compounds by either microbes or human industrial processes. We cannot do more than 62 million tonnes but we are currently fixing at least 300 million tonnes—five times as much as the world can bear.

This is where I come to a question for the Minister; indeed, let me make a constructive suggestion. The International Nitrogen Management System project was set up by the UN to do, in essence, what the IPPC did for carbon emissions: set global targets. It set out targets in the Colombo Declaration, which the UK has not signed. We are operating in a global environment in which we are seeing massive cuts in international aid and development support. One area in which the UK could show real leadership and support is acting on a diplomatic scale, with very modest spending, to encourage that international effort. I know and understand that the committee was focused on the UK, but it is important to look at this on a global scale.

I draw noble Lords’ attention to that awful single graphic of planetary boundaries from the Stockholm Resilience Centre. Seven of the nine boundaries it has identified have been exceeded. Biogeochemical flows are where the dark orange for danger extends, with the “N” as far beyond the safe operating space as the other screaming graphical element, “Novel entities”, for which, again, the so-called green revolution bears significant blame.

I have said slightly more than I intended; I have focused on the big picture. I shall finish by focusing on some of the specifics in this report. I hope that we will hear some good news from the Minister. We have already heard from other noble Lords that we expect from the Minister today a cross-government, holistic nitrogen strategy across sectors; that is obviously needed. I note the fact that Scotland is using the national nitrogen balance sheet approach, which seems to be working. Surely that would add value for England. Can the Minister update the Committee on what assessment the Government have made of the Scottish approach? Do they intend to pilot or adopt a similar framework in England? What timetable is there for considering that?

We have heard clearly—credit where it is due—that the Government plan to include nutrient circularity in their circular economy strategy, although I note that that is apparently turning into a circular economy growth plan. I refer back to where I started: we are creating a problem whereby growing the whole system is only going to grow the problem. None the less, I should like to hear from the Minister today, whether it is called a growth plan or a strategy, whether the Government plan to apply the waste hierarchy to this work so that reduction is given overwhelming priority in what is happening with nitrogen in this system.

Also, do the Government plan to apply the strongest possible controls to prevent so-called pollution swapping, thereby ensuring that solutions applied to one sector of the economy do not drive environmental harm in another? There is a particular concern here around energy recovery from manure incineration, which means burning a useful nutrient and rich resource for energy recovery and means that those nutrients are not then going into agriculture or nature; you are generating air pollution, carbon dioxide emissions and a phosphorous-rich ash that needs another outlet.

Noble Lords may think that I have been controversial up to now, but I am going back to controversy because I return to that issue of growth. We are soon going to hear some more about slurry and the issues of intensive animal agriculture. We are in the nation of England, where the number of large, intensive livestock mega farms is continuing to grow despite the unsustainable pollution impacts of those units. I note that the Environmental Audit Committee has said that there should be a presumption against expansion, at least in polluted catchments.

This inquiry supports the Corry and Cunliffe reviews’ recommendations for gap analysis of the existing regulations on agricultural water pollution and for the current rules for other intensive livestock farms to be extended to intensive beef and dairy units. That is a step but, ultimately, I put it to the Minister that we must acknowledge that the factory farming of animals is a nitrogen problem, a huge pollution problem, an antimicrobial resistance problem and, of course, a huge animal welfare problem—although I acknowledge that the Government put out before Christmas some good animal welfare provisions, which were somewhat buried in the Christmas rush; I look forward to seeing them be put into force at speed.

I have probably spoken for long enough but I want to add one final point; it picks up points made powerfully by the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, about the human health impacts of all this. As others have already said, this issue causes 30,000 deaths a year in the UK. Those people are someone’s grandmother or child. We have long known about the impacts on asthma of nitrogen dioxide pollution, in particular PM2.5; we are also increasingly coming to understand just how important this is in terms of cardiovascular, respiratory and even musculoskeletal diseases. All of the evidence regarding the human health impacts is there—and is growing fast. We are taking steps, particularly in reducing the burning of fossil fuels. We are going to see a reduction in the sources of other forms of this pollution, which will only mean that the issues we are addressing here around agricultural emissions are going to rise up the agenda and rise in terms of their percentage impact on human health.