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

Lord Ashcombe Excerpts

Tuesday 6th January 2026 Grand Committee

[Lord Ashcombe (Con)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to serve as a member of the Environment and Climate Change Committee and to speak in this debate. I place on record my thanks to the excellent staff who supported us throughout the nitrogen inquiry.

Nitrogen pollution is a vast subject and it is impossible to cover it fully in the time available. I will focus briefly on the agricultural sector and the regulatory framework surrounding nitrogen pollution. There are four major sources of reactive nitrogen released into the air, land or water. Agriculture is the dominant contributor to three of these: ammonia and nitrous oxides to the air and nitrates to water. Agriculture accounts for around 70% or more of these emissions. The fourth source is nitrogen oxides, regularly referred to as NOx, arising mainly from road transport and industrial processes.

We are considering the damage and potential damage to the ecosystems and biodiversity. Agricultural nitrogen pollution arises largely from animal husbandry, particularly manure and slurry, and separately from the application of artificial fertilisers. To feed the growing population in the United Kingdom and globally, soils require nutrients. Fertilisers, natural or artificial, can enhance plant growth, providing food for both livestock and people.

The difficulty lies in managing the waste products—manure and slurry—and fertiliser applications in ways that reduce run-off and emissions. In England, most manure is produced in the west, while nutrient demand is greatest in the east, where arable crops dominate. In theory, manure can be transported across the country, but in practice the cost and energy required to process and move it are prohibitive, particularly for smaller farms. Farmers must be able to make a living within the system, and this creates a difficult dilemma.

There are national and international targets for reducing excess reactive nitrogen. As the report states:

“The UK aims to halve nutrient pollution from all sources by 2030, as part of the … Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework”.


However, the Office for Environmental Protection’s 2025 assessment shows that, aside from NOx emissions, which have fallen by 73% and are on track, all other forms of nitrogen pollution are only partially on track or largely off track of the targets. There is clearly much to do.

The inquiry heard encouraging evidence from, among others, my noble friend Lord Fuller, who will speak later today, that fertiliser application rates are slowly but consistently falling. Soil-testing is becoming more widespread, enabling nutrients to be applied more precisely, technology is helping farmers target fertiliser more accurately and expert advice is becoming more available and, I believe, accepted by farmers. My noble friend Lord Leicester is a demonstration of such. These measures reduce run-off and lower costs, benefiting both the environment and farm businesses.

Livestock farming presents a greater challenge: the quantities involved are significant and the reductions in emissions since 1990 have been modest at best, yet the urgency is clear. Some members of the committee visited the Netherlands, where we saw an example of the damaging effects of nitrogen pollution, including harm to oak trees in the De Hoge Veluwe National Park. I believe that such impacts are not yet seen in the UK, but we should do everything possible to prevent similar outcomes. That situation would have to be deemed a catastrophic failure should it occur here.

The Dutch achieved a reduction of around 60% in ammonia emissions between 1990 and 2017, largely through covering slurry stores and requiring slurry to be injected into the soil rather than spread on the surface. Even so, they are now seeking further measures to reduce nitrogen pollution. They are struggling to find the next effective measure to reduce emissions by another significant amount. There appears to be no easy solution—and they are trying.

The inquiry also highlighted the weakness in governance. Responsibility for nitrogen pollution is spread across numerous government departments and agencies, resulting in what witnesses described as a “piecemeal and fragmented” policy landscape. As acknowledged by the Minister for Food Security and Rural Affairs, there is a real challenge in how departments and agencies work together. Unsurprisingly, therefore, compliance with existing regulations is inconsistent and enforcement often inadequate.

The report identifies three priorities for government action. The first is simplifying the regulatory system and strengthening enforcement. Although this has been accepted, I remain, I am afraid, sceptical about whether the Environment Agency has the capacity and the resources to deliver the necessary improvements.

Secondly, the report calls for a circular approach to nitrogen management. The Government have merely noted this recommendation, yet this approach lies at the heart of the report and its title, “Reduce, Recycle, Reuse”. The experience of the Netherlands shows the consequences of failing to act decisively and early enough; I urge the Minister to give this recommendation further consideration.

Thirdly, the report recommends a more strategic approach to nitrogen pollution. Although the Government have partially agreed to this, they have rejected the use of a nitrogen balance sheet to quantify nitrogen flows and their economic and environmental impacts. Scotland’s experience demonstrates that a tool can clarify the scale of the problem and help prioritise action. I seldom agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, but in this case I do—and strongly.

From an agricultural perspective, the report also recommends reducing nitrogen inputs, maximising efficiency through best practice and prioritising low-hanging fruit measures, such as covering slurry stores and adopting low-emission spreading techniques. The Government have only partially agreed to these recommendations. In my view, that is totally insufficient. Clear targets and realistic timelines are needed. I therefore ask the Minister to comment further on this lack of commitment.

Finally, the difficult position of the farming community is well understood. Farmers are increasingly aware of the impact on their industry, their ecosystems and their biodiversity, yet margins are tight and returns are low. It is unclear how they are expected to navigate an increasingly complex regulatory environment while funding the significant investment that would be required. Meaningful progress will, I fear, require sustained and practical government participation and support.