Biodiversity Offsetting/Ecosystems Markets Task Force

Owen Paterson Excerpts

Thursday 5th September 2013 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr Owen Paterson)]

The Government are today publishing a Green Paper on biodiversity offsetting and their response to the Ecosystems Markets Task Force (EMTF) report.

Published on 5 March 2013, the EMTF report made recommendations to enhance the environment and drive growth across a range of sectors, including water, energy, knowledge services, construction and manufacturing.

The taskforce’s report highlights and builds on many important areas that we are actively pursuing, such as anaerobic digestion and innovative woodland and water management. The Government’s response explains how we intend to drive these opportunities forward and maintain pace in our work to firmly establish natural capital in our decision making. The taskforce identified biodiversity offsetting as its first area for action.

Biodiversity offsets are conservation activities that are designed to give biodiversity gain to compensate for residual losses. They are different from other types of ecological compensation as they need to show measurable outcomes that are sustained overtime. Biodiversity offsetting is already used in more than 25 countries including Australia, Germany, India and the United States.

The Government are interested in how a biodiversity offsetting scheme tailored to England can help the country meet its need for both nature and development for its long-term prosperity. The planning system should help deliver both these objectives. The best planning decisions do manage to protect and enhance biodiversity; however, the system does not always work as well as it should. Some planning decisions take too long and the outcome can be too uncertain, which can hinder development. At the same time biodiversity impacts are not always adequately taken into account, or mitigated or compensated for in ways that deliver enduring environmental benefit.

Biodiversity offsetting has the potential to help the planning system deliver more for the environment and the economy. This Green Paper:

Explains what biodiversity offsetting is;

Sets out the Government’s objectives to avoid additional costs to developers and achieve better environmental outcomes and explores how offsetting could help achieve these objectives;

Sets out the options for biodiversity offsetting and the Government’s preference to give developers the choice to use offsetting and seeks comments;

Seeks evidence to improve Government’s understanding of the costs and benefits of biodiversity offsetting compared to existing approaches;

Asks questions about how detailed design of an offsetting system should be approached.

The biodiversity offsetting consultation paper and the Government’s response to the EMTF report have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses. The consultation runs until 7 November 2013. Following the consultation, the Government will develop their detailed proposals for using biodiversity offsetting and plan to set these out by the end of 2013.

Bovine TB

Owen Paterson Excerpts

Monday 2nd September 2013 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr Owen Paterson)]

Following the National Farmers Union’s (NFU’s) statement of 27 August, I would like to confirm to the House that culling is now under way. The cull will be carried out in two areas (Somerset and Gloucestershire) over a period of six weeks. I understand the pilot cull is proceeding to plan and those involved are pleased with progress to date.

The aim of the pilot cull is to test how an industry-led badger control programme can be delivered effectively, humanely and safely. Monitoring will be carried out to test that controlled shooting meets these assumptions. The outcome of the pilot cull and an analysis of the monitoring will be published. The evidence will considered by Ministers in deciding whether or not the policy should be rolled out more widely.

The decision to pilot a badger cull is not one that has been taken lightly, but it is based on the best available scientific evidence and the experience of other countries. No country has successfully dealt with TB without tackling the disease in both wildlife and cattle. It is vital that we learn from the experience of the Republic of Ireland, the United States, Australia and New Zealand. We will be evaluating the outcome of this pilot cull carefully in deciding whether or not to roll this policy out more widely.

Culling is only one part of a broader, comprehensive TB eradication strategy for achieving TB-free status in England over the course of the next 25 years. Since July, I have been consulting all interested parties on the strategy. It sets out a full range of measures, including disease surveillance, pre and post-movement cattle testing, removal of cattle exposed to bovine tuberculosis (bTB), culling and vaccination trials. It also focuses on the development of new techniques such as badger and cattle vaccines and new diagnostic tests that could one day offer new ways of tackling the disease.

BTB is the most pressing animal health problem in the UK. The disease is getting worse and is spreading across the country. In the last 10 years, bTB has cost the taxpayer £500 million. It is estimated that this will rise to £1 billion over the next 10 years if the disease is left unchecked. This pilot cull is a necessary part of a wide range of actions that we need to take if we are to free the cattle industry from the burden of this devastating disease. We wish to see healthy cattle living alongside healthy wildlife.

Tree Health and Plant Biosecurity Taskforce

Owen Paterson Excerpts

Tuesday 16th July 2013 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr Owen Paterson)]

In my statement to the House on 20 May 2013, Official Report, column 54WS, I announced the publication of the final report of the tree health and plant biosecurity taskforce. I set out the Government’s initial response and committed to providing the House with an update before the summer recess, having discussed the taskforce’s recommendations with a range of interested parties.

Last week, I heard from over 80 stakeholders at a summit organised to discuss the taskforce’s recommendations and to report on progress since the report was published. There was universal acceptance of the need for urgent action and a range of constructive ideas about how we should take forward work to safeguard plant health using the taskforce report as a blueprint. The key messages from those discussions were:

We need strong collaboration across the UK and with the Republic of Ireland to ensure effective biosecurity;

At EU level, we need to take a tougher line, seeking protected zone status well before new pests and diseases arrive and only allowing new trades when we are sure that they do not represent an unacceptable risk;

We need to hold other member states to high standards of surveillance and enforcement to ensure that all are playing their part in keeping the EU safe from threats from other parts of the world;

All our actions need to be underpinned by a strong evidence base and effective horizon scanning.

The summit also provided an opportunity to report on action taken since May when I made a commitment to rapid progress on two of the taskforce’s key recommendations: producing a prioritised risk register and improving our preparedness and contingency planning. Stakeholders have said that this was the right place to start and that we need the risk register in place as soon as possible.

Work on the first phase of the risk register has advanced very quickly through several weeks of intensive work with stakeholders to capture the key risks to UK crops, trees, gardens and ecosystems from plant pests and diseases, and the pathways through which they are transmitted. Over the summer, work on the risk register will continue to identify threats against which new action needs to be taken. This will include where regulation needs to be tightened, where we need to fill gaps in our knowledge and where the current approaches are no longer cost effective and should be adapted in the light of new information. Over 700 pests and pathogens will be considered. The first phase of the risk register will be published for consultation in the autumn.

Work on contingency planning to ensure we are prepared to face new threats will get underway shortly, drawing on the risk register. Again, stakeholders will play an important role in helping us develop robust plans.

I will ensure that there is effective leadership for these vital activities. I am announcing today that I will shortly be launching an exercise to recruit a senior-level chief plant health officer in response to another of the taskforce’s recommendations. He or she will play a prominent and influential role in advising Ministers, industry and others about the risks posed by plant pests and diseases. They will also ensure that measures are in place to manage those risks and minimise their impact. In the event of an outbreak, the chief plant health officer will lead the operational response, providing clear leadership and accountability.

Stakeholders have told me that it is vital that the chief plant health officer has direct access to Ministers and the authority to act when necessary. I will ensure that that is the case. I have recently initiated monthly biosecurity meetings to assess the latest risks to plant health, animal health and from non-native invasive species. The chief plant health officer will report directly to Ministers and senior officials at those meetings and will be able to call on the resources needed to tackle threats.

Plant health policy is devolved, but the chief plant health officer will play a role in representing the whole of the UK in EU and international fora. I am writing to Ministers in the devolved Administrations setting out my plans and inviting them to consider how this new role might encourage closer collaboration to improve biosecurity across the UK.

The taskforce also recommended that we review the legislation and governance surrounding plant health. The first phase of work on that will begin tomorrow as we launch the next round of the red tape challenge, which will include a review of existing regulation on plant health and forestry. This will provide an opportunity for all with an interest to comment and identify gaps, overlaps and anomalies, some of which were highlighted in the taskforce’s report. This is the first step in developing a clearer and more effective regulatory landscape for plant health.

As we develop the right framework to safeguard plant health, I will continue to take action to improve our understanding and to tackle current and imminent threats:

We have recently consulted on a pest risk assessment on Cryphonectria parasitica or sweet chestnut blight, and are planning to introduce measures to ban its import from areas where the disease is present before the next planting season.

Since May we have completed this spring’s spraying programme aiming to eradicate oak processionary moth in Pangbourne, Berkshire, and are piloting new approaches to reduce its impacts in London, where tens of thousands of oaks have been treated at 200 sites;

We have recently awarded a £1.1 million research contract for a three-year study of acute oak decline which is present in the UK;

Large-scale field trials are now underway in the east of England to try to identify resistance to Chalara, dieback of ash, and potential treatments for Chalara will undergo field trials this summer;

We have secured funding from the EU Life+ programme to support the development of ObservaTree, a tree health early warning system using volunteer groups.

I will continue the dialogue with stakeholders over the coming months and provide an update on progress. I will publish a full response to the remaining taskforce recommendations later this year.

Agriculture and Fisheries Council

Owen Paterson Excerpts

Friday 12th July 2013 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr Owen Paterson)]

The next Agriculture and Fisheries Council is on Monday 15 July in Brussels. I will be representing the UK. Paul Wheelhouse MSP, Alun Davies AM and Michelle O’Neill MLA may also attend.

On fisheries business the Commission will give a presentation on the consultation on fishing opportunities for 2014. The presidency will also seek agreement to a general approach on the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF).

Agriculture business will focus on the common agricultural policy (CAP) reform package. At present there are six any other business items;

Neonicotinoids;

Labelling of meat from animals slaughtered without stunning;

Economic consequences to the Cyprus poultry sector due to the occurrence of Newcastle disease;

Food loss and waste;

Mislabelling of beef product is a presentation from the Commission;

North East Atlantic mackerel.

Oral Answers to Questions

Owen Paterson Excerpts

Thursday 4th July 2013 Commons Chamber

[The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr Owen Paterson)]

The new CAP framework through pillar two provides a good basis, with a range of tools to help us, to improve the environment and our biodiversity. Farmers and other land managers already provide a range of environmental benefits. The new arrangements will allow us to enhance the effectiveness of existing schemes and consider new approaches that contribute to our “Biodiversity 2020” quantified outcomes.

[Kerry McCarthy]

Will the Secretary of State now make good on his promise of public money for public good and ensure that the new CAP is implemented in the most effective way possible by maximising the transfer of funds from pillar one to pillar two, ensuring a central role for agri-environment schemes and implementing an ambitious approach to the greening of pillar one funding?

[Mr Paterson]

I am happy to confirm my long-standing belief that we should transfer 15% from pillar one to pillar two. Our pillar two schemes do real good for the environment and 70% of our arable land uses those schemes. We also need to develop new schemes, as 30% of the new pillar one will depend on greening. We also have a guarantee, which we drove through the negotiations, that 30% of the rural development funds will be spent on the environment.

[Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)]

The settlement for farmers across Britain is a tough one and they need to compete in a single market with all their continental competitors. Can we ensure that we implement our part of the single farm payment in this country in the most sympathetic way possible so that we can have effective and competitive food production?

[Mr Paterson]

My hon. Friend is right to raise that point. I have said on many occasions—I frequently repeated myself during the negotiations—that we must ensure that the way in which we impose CAP reform is simple and easy to understand. We will not make the mistakes of the previous Government, who caught us up in a horribly complex system that cost us €590 million in what the EU calls disallowances but in what I would call a fine.

[Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)]

May I urge the Secretary of State to be a champion of joined-up government? The G8 settlement on social impact investment was a breath of fresh air; can it link to anything in the CAP settlement, so we can get some serious social impact investment in the rural economy?

[Mr Paterson]

As I told the hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy), we intend to modulate 15% into pillar two, and there are real benefits for the rural economy, the rural environment and rural society from our rural development programme for England schemes.

[Roger Williams (Brecon and Radnorshire) (LD)]

Upland farms in the UK, particularly those in England, are good at delivering environmental objectives. What will the reformed CAP do to ensure that upland farms maintain their financial viability, so they can continue to deliver those public goods?

[Mr Paterson]

I confirm again my belief that because in parts of the UK, such as upland areas, it is tough to make a living purely from food production, there is a significant role for taxpayers’ money to be spent on environmental schemes supporting the valuable work upland farmers do to protect and improve the environment, upon which sits a tourism industry worth £33 billion.

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

The “State of Nature” report produced by 25 major UK conservation organisations found that 60% of UK species reliant on farmlands are in decline. Does the Secretary of State agree that there has been concern about a shortage of funding for high nature value farming areas? What steps will he take to support farmers so that they can continue to produce high-quality food in those areas and protect threatened species as well?

[Mr Paterson]

I think the hon. Lady knows that we get real value out of our existing higher level stewardship scheme. As I made clear in previous replies, I will endorse the transfer of money from pillar one to pillar two for environmental schemes, which will bring real benefits to our biodiversity and the species about which she is concerned.

[Nadhim Zahawi (Stratford-on-Avon) (Con)]

The financial viability of smaller farmers in Warwickshire is of concern. What reassurance can the Secretary of State give my smaller farmers that transfers from pillar one to pillar two will not cause them hardship?

[Mr Paterson]

It is simple: the funds will be spent on projects related to agriculture and the rural environment and economy, and farmers both small and large will benefit from the transfer of the funds.

[Mr William Bain (Glasgow North East) (Lab)]

5. What assessment he has made of trends in levels of food insecurity in the UK since 2010.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con)]

6. What recent progress has been made on reform of the common agricultural policy.

[The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr Owen Paterson)]

At the Agriculture and Fisheries Council on 26 June political agreement was reached on the CAP reform regulations. Overall the CAP package does not represent a significant reform, but we substantially improved the Commission’s original proposals and fended off attempts by others to introduce a number of regressive measures. By agreeing to the regulations now, we are able to provide certainty to farmers and paying agencies.

[Mr Robertson]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that answer and congratulate him on his work at the council. Will he enlighten the House on what those regressive measures were, because my farmers remain very concerned that they will be worse off as a result of some of the changes compared with their continental competitors?

[Mr Paterson]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving me the opportunity to enlighten the House. It was extraordinary that at a very late stage in negotiations the European Parliament made moves to penalise the most efficient dairy processors and reward the least efficient. There were extraordinary moves as late as last Monday night to introduce coupled payments for tobacco, pigs, poultry and cotton. I think the UK played a part, working closely with our allies, and we saw off a number of other regressive measures, such as double funding. I hope that when the detail is worked out with the representatives of the farming unions, they will see that we stood by British farming and stopped a lot of really bad things coming through this reform.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)]

Does the Secretary of State agree that the best possible reform of the CAP would be to return agricultural policy to member states? Will the issue of agriculture be on the table when the Prime Minister renegotiates our relationship with Europe?

[Mr Paterson]

The hon. Gentleman knows that I am a strong supporter of being able to make more decisions on these matters in this House. It might reassure him to know that this reform means that a lot more decisions will be made locally, so there will be, in effect, an English CAP and each of the regions, which were very keen to be able to make decisions, will have power to decide on all four regulations.

[Miss Anne McIntosh (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

The key will be how the reform is implemented in this country. Will the Secretary of State assure the House that the active farmer will remain the main beneficiary, particularly those in the uplands, tenant farmers and commoners whose animals graze on common land?

[Mr Paterson]

Emphatically, yes: I am very happy to confirm to the Chair of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee that, as we work out the detail of the implementation of the reform in England, our drive will be to ensure that the agricultural sector gains from it. As I made clear in my comments on pillar two, we want to direct this towards rural areas in a way that benefits the rural environment and rural farmers.

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

It is, of course, right that public money should be spent on public goods. At a time of severe austerity, what public good is there in spending hundreds of thousands of pounds—indeed, £1 million cheques—on large landowners who do not need the money?

[Mr Paterson]

I thank my hon. Friend for that question. The fact is that we are going from 7 billion to 9 billion people. There has been complacency in this country over recent years, because there was unlimited, safe and easily accessible food to be bought abroad. We want to make sure that we have an extremely efficient, high-tech agricultural sector producing food. I take food security extremely seriously and welcome large, efficient farmers.

[Sir Andrew Stunell (Hazel Grove) (LD)]

7. What progress his Department is making on the establishment of marine conservation zones.

--- Later in debate ---

[Hugh Bayley (York Central) (Lab)]

T1. If he will make a statement on his Departmental responsibilities.

[The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr Owen Paterson)]

The Department’s priorities are growing the rural economy, improving the environment and safeguarding animal and plant health. Today, I have published a draft strategy for achieving official bovine TB-free status in England over 25 years, and a copy has been placed in the Library. The strategy draws on international experience demonstrating the need to bear down on the disease in cattle and wildlife. It sets out our determination to work in partnership with the industry to develop and deploy new technologies, and we will also explore new options for governance, delivery and funding. Tackling the disease will require long-term solutions and national resolve. Our cattle industry and countryside deserve no less.

[Hugh Bayley]

Ash is a huge and important part of woodland scenery in Yorkshire, especially in upland areas, and ash dieback is increasing at an alarming rate, with more than 500 cases having been identified. The Secretary of State has reduced the staffing of the Forestry Commission by more than 500. How will he deal with something that could be a catastrophe for our woodlands without shifting staff and closing other parts of the Department?

[Mr Paterson]

The hon. Gentleman is right that the potential damage of Chalara to our rural environment is absolutely devastating. We will make our dispositions of the resources within the Department in the autumn, but I assure him that I have made plant health an absolute priority, right up with animal health. I have been to Australia and New Zealand to see what they are doing on biosecurity, and the plant taskforce has made some important recommendations, such as the risk register, which we are already implementing.

The answer for ash is to find a genetic strain. There is sadly no magic potion that we can spray on ash trees yet, although we are testing 14 of them, so a genetic strain is the real answer. For that reason, we have put out 250,000 young ash trees to see which ones are resistant.

[Simon Wright (Norwich South) (LD)]

T3. The average household loses £700 of food each year to waste. The Government have improved the date labelling of food, but will the Minister help even further by supporting prominent labelling advice on how food can best be stored at home to prolong its freshness?

--- Later in debate ---

[Nick de Bois (Enfield North) (Con)]

T7. I know that the Secretary of State takes a close interest in EU affairs and how they interfere with businesses in rural areas. What steps is he taking to ease that situation?

[Mr Paterson]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that question because it pertains to every business in the countryside. Through the red tape challenge, DEFRA will have reviewed all its regulations that emanate from the EU by the end of the year, and as a result there will be 12,000 fewer dairy inspections per year. Since 2011, for every £1 of compliance cost, we have removed £13.

[Mrs Mary Glindon (North Tyneside) (Lab)]

T2. News of a national pollinator strategy is welcome, but will the Minister confirm whether other relevant Departments as well as DEFRA will be involved in its development?

Bovine Tuberculosis

Owen Paterson Excerpts

Thursday 4th July 2013 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr Owen Paterson)]

Bovine tuberculosis (bTB) is the most pressing animal health problem in the United Kingdom. The crisis facing our cattle farmers, their families and their communities cannot be overstated. Bovine tuberculosis is a devastating disease which threatens our cattle industry and presents a risk to other livestock, wildlife species such as badgers, domestic pets and humans.

This was once a disease isolated to small pockets of the country. It has now spread extensively through the west of England and Wales. The number of new herd breakdowns has doubled every nine years and in the last decade we have slaughtered 305,000 cattle across Great Britain. In 2012 in England alone, over 5.5 million bTB tests were performed leading to the slaughter of 28,000 cattle with the disease costing the taxpayer nearly £100 million. In the last 10 years bTB has cost the taxpayer £500 million. It is estimated that this will rise to £1 billion over the next decade if the disease is left unchecked.

The Government are today publishing a consultation on a draft strategy for achieving official freedom from bTB in England. The strategy, which has been developed by the Animal Health and Welfare Board for England and the Bovine TB Eradication Advisory Group for England, draws upon successful approaches to eradicate bTB around the world, including Australia, New Zealand, Michigan in the Unites States of America and the Republic of Ireland. These demonstrate the importance of applying stringent cattle control measures in combination with tackling any significant reservoir of infection in wildlife, whether it is water buffalo, brush-tailed possums, white-tailed deer, or badgers. An additional factor which has contributed to their success is the fact that their programmes are either led by industry or delivered by Government and industry, with both parties contributing to the cost.

The strategy builds upon the measures applied currently including testing of cattle and other animals, additional controls in affected herds, and controls to address the reservoir of infection in badgers. The Government are proposing to work in partnership with the industry to develop risk-based packages using all available tools to protect low-risk areas of England, stop the geographical spread of bTB and bear down on the disease in endemic areas.

As well as using available tools the Government will continue to develop new ones. I have already achieved a major success in securing a concrete road map from the European Commission on the deployment of cattle vaccination. I am committed to meeting the minimum time scale but that is at least 10 years away. The Government will also continue to invest in the development of an oral badger vaccine and in new diagnostic tests for tuberculosis in cattle and badgers, which could pave the way for alternative approaches.

The final element is a consideration of options for governance, delivery and funding of the strategy. The New Zealand approach in particular, demonstrates the success of industry-led eradication strategies co-financed by industry and Government.

Tackling bTB will require long-term solutions and considerable national resolve. The strategy will deliver my ambition to reverse the rising trend in the worst affected areas of the country well before the end of this decade, achieve official freedom from bTB for parts of England on the same time scale and thereafter progressively rid the whole of England of bTB over 25 years. Our cattle industry and countryside deserve no less.

Executive Agencies

Owen Paterson Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd July 2013 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr Owen Paterson)]

The business plans for the following agencies and their key performance measures have been published today. Business plans are available online at the agencies’ websites.

Animal Health Veterinary Laboratory Agency, http://www.defra. gov.uk/ahvla/

Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science, http://cefas.defra.gov.uk/

Food and Environment Research Agency, http://fera.defra. gov.uk/

Rural Payments Agency, http://rpa.defra.gov.uk/rpa/index. nsf/home

Veterinary Medicines Directorate, http://www.vmd.defra.gov.uk/

I have placed copies of the key performance measures in the Libraries of both Houses.

National Adaptation Programme/Strategy for the Adaptation Reporting Power

Owen Paterson Excerpts

Monday 1st July 2013 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr Owen Paterson)]

I wish to inform the House that I have today laid in Parliament both a report on the “National Adaptation Programme” and the “Strategy for the Adaptation Reporting Power”.

National Adaptation Programme

Recent extreme weather in Britain, such as the flooding last year, has brought into sharp relief just how important anticipating and managing weather extremes can be. In the case of flooding, the costs of rebuilding can run in to hundreds of millions of pounds. Essential public services such as schools and hospitals can be heavily disrupted and business—particularly small businesses—can be hit severely. Extreme weather abroad also affects us at home. For example, harvest failures abroad can push up food prices here.

The Climate Change Act 2008 requires the Government to undertake a climate change risk assessment, followed by the publication of a national adaptation programme. In January 2012 the Government published the “Climate Change Risk Assessment” (CCRA). This brought together the best available evidence, using a consistent framework to identify the main risks and opportunities related to climate change. The Government’s response to the CCRA is the first National Adaptation Programme (NAP).

The report on the National Adaptation Programme I am publishing today sets out the progress we have achieved through the programme and describes what the Government consider to be the most urgent areas for action structured around seven themes: built environment, infrastructure, healthy and resilient communities, agriculture and forestry, natural environment and business. The themes address a range of different types of risk. These include: flooding, water availability, extreme weather events and heat waves.

However, the Government cannot act alone. That is why I am delighted that we have worked so closely with so many experts from outside Government—from industry, from local government and from civil society and the report describes action by the Government and these other organisations. All the actions agreed so far are listed in a section of the report called the “Register of Adaptation Actions”. These preparations, based on the best evidence and a spirit of partnership, will help avoid costs and damage and so support the growth of a stronger and more balanced economy.

The National Adaptation Programme is primarily for England but also covers reserved, excepted and non-devolved matters. The individual devolved Administrations are developing their own programmes and the Government are working with them on areas of common interest to ensure a consistent approach in the shape and focus of all the programmes.

Strategy for the Adaptation Reporting Power

The Adaptation Reporting Power was introduced under the Climate Change Act and aims to:

ensure climate change risk management is systematically undertaken by reporting authorities;

help ensure public services and infrastructure are resilient to climate change;

monitor the level of preparedness of key sectors to climate change.

Following consultation, the strategy I am publishing today sets out a voluntary approach for the second round of reporting. I will invite those organisations which took part in the first round of adaptation reporting to provide progress updates on the actions that they set out in their reports to Government. These organisations are primarily from the energy, water and transport sectors. I will also invite a small number of organisations to report for the first time on their assessment of the current and predicted risks and opportunities from climate change to their functions, as well as their proposals and policies for adapting to climate change. I am not intending to issue directions to organisations to report under the second round of the adaptation reporting power.

I am placing these documents in the Libraries of both Houses. They will also be published on: https://www.gov.uk/government/policies/adapting-to-climate-change

Agriculture and Fisheries Council

Owen Paterson Excerpts

Monday 1st July 2013 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr Owen Paterson)]

I represented the UK at the Agriculture and Fisheries Council on 24 and 25 June in Luxembourg. Richard Lochhead MSP, Alun Davies AM and Michelle O’Neill MLA also attended.

The Irish presidency’s objective for council was to obtain political agreement from member states on the four regulations that set out the rules for the common agricultural policy (CAP) over the 2014-20 financial period. An agreement was reached on a revised mandate late on Tuesday night. On the basis of that mandate, the presidency was then able to reach an outline agreement with the European Parliament on Wednesday 26 June.

The UK agreed to the mandate on the direct payments, rural development and the horizontal regulations. Overall I do not think the CAP package represents genuine reform. However, thanks to our efforts, working with other like-minded member states, it is in a much better state than the original proposals. By agreeing a deal on these regulations we have provided certainty for farmers and delivery bodies.

On the direct payments regulation, I argued strongly on the importance of flexibility for member states to deliver the Commission’s “greening” proposals, if they wish to, through national certification schemes, allowing all the regions of the UK the possibility to achieve a better balance between costs and environmental benefits than if we were to apply the measures set out in the Commission’s original proposal. On coupled support, the prospect of return to tobacco subsidies has been successfully resisted. However, it is disappointing that there is not a common set of rules for member states and there will be an opportunity to increase the use of coupled schemes. This is a backward step as EU agriculture has made good progress in phasing out subsidy linked to production. In terms of simplification there will be a mandatory active farmer test but we successfully negotiated this should only be based on assessing against a much shorter list of business types. In addition, the small farmer measure will also be voluntary though the young farmer provisions ended up as mandatory.

On rural development, the agreed regulation will enable all regions of the UK to deliver environmental benefits and rural economic growth through their rural development programmes. A solution was found which removes the threat of farmers being paid twice, once under each pillar of the CAP, for carrying out the same environmental measures. Member states will also have to spend at least 30% of their rural development budget on environmental measures. This is important to help support farmers in their crucial role in enhancing and protecting the natural environment.

On the horizontal (finance and control) regulation, there was the inclusion of some UK-inspired simplifications. This includes on areas such as audit provisions, having a longer transition period for mapping requirements under the greening measures, and a more proportionate approach on penalties. The ability to use a monthly average euro to sterling exchange rate may also help give more certainty to farmers and paying agencies who decide to use this option.



Together with Germany I abstained in the vote on the single common market organisation (single CMO). In an attempt to secure agreement with the European Parliament, changes were introduced which did not continue on the trajectory of reform. Market intervention is unnecessary, costly, and should only be used in times of genuine crisis as it has negative effects on farmers’ abilities to respond to market signals and consumer demand. While end dates have been set for production quotas for sugar beet and planting rights for vines, these have been extended beyond dates previously agreed. Nor were adequate safeguards introduced for the sugar refinery sector. This is bad for businesses and consumers, and will keep prices artificially high. In addition, I was unhappy with the move to allow the European Parliament’s involvement in decisions on reference prices and intervention prices that was part of the final agreement. I believe this does not adhere to the treaty on the functioning of the European Union principles on the balance of responsibilities between the Council and the European Parliament. It was right that the UK took a principled stand.

Throughout the negotiations, I worked closely with all of the devolved Administrations and, as a result, secured outcomes that successfully address some of their key concerns. Most importantly, I achieved a statement from the European Commission which acknowledges that all four regulations can be implemented regionally, in line with the UK’s devolution arrangements. I also obtained a smoother transition than in the Commission’s original text from historical to area-based direct payments, a switch that the devolved Administrations have yet to make. Finally, I was able to ensure that the text included a provision giving them flexibility to utilise their regional reserves to top-up payments to new entrants to farming, an issue which was particularly important to the Scottish Government.

There was one AOB point on the Council agenda from a number of member states who had been affected by flooding in central and eastern Europe. The Council noted concerns on the impact on agriculture in these countries and noted that there were a number of existing tools available that member states could draw on to provide additional support in such times of crisis.

Triennial Reviews

Owen Paterson Excerpts

Thursday 27th June 2013 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr Owen Paterson)]

Today I am publishing the report of the review of the Environment Agency (EA) and Natural England (NE), which I launched in December 2012, and the report of the review of the Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC), which commenced in March 2013.

These reviews have taken a fundamental look at how the bodies can continue to deliver the Government’s priorities for the environment with improved resilience in the face of current and future environmental and economic challenges.

I have concluded that the EA and NE should be retained as separate public bodies with separate purposes and functions, but that both bodies should continue to reform how they deliver their services to their customers and drive further efficiencies.

The bodies will be tasked with delivering the conclusions of the reviews, developing a jointly owned implementation plan in close consultation with DEFRA. DEFRA will hold to account the leadership of both bodies for the delivery of the reforms.

Working with the devolved Administrations of Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales on the review of JNCC, I have concluded that JNCC is the most appropriate organisation to deliver its functions, and should be retained as a non-departmental public body. The review has identified a number of measures to deliver a more effective and efficient service which JNCC will now implement, developing their implementation plans in close consultation with DEFRA and the devolved Adminstrations, and reporting regularly on progress.

The reports of these reviews will be published online, and copies will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.