House of Commons

Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee

The Outcome of the Farming Regulation Task Force

Written Evidence

Only those submissions written specifically for the Committee and accepted by the Committee as evidence for the inquiry The Outcome of the Farming Regulation Task Force are included.

1

2

List of written evidence

1 Rural Economy and Land Use (Relu) Programme, Newcastle University 2 Friends of the Lake District 3 Food Standards Agency 4 The Open Spaces Society 5 Julie Brandram Jones, Herefordshire 6 The Andersons Centre 7 Town and Country Planning Association 8 The Grasslands Trust 9 Country Land and Business Association 10 Country Land and Business Association supplementary 11 RSPB 12 Food Ethics Council 13 Environment Agency 14 Dairy UK 15 RSPCA 16 Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE) 17 British Veterinary Association 18 Tenant Farmers Association 19 The Red Tractor Scheme, Assured Food Standards 20 The Red Tractor Scheme, Assured Food Standards supplementary 21 Defra 22 National Farmers’ Union (NFU) 23 Unite the Union 24 Linking Environment and Farming (LEAF)

Written evidence submitted by the Rural Economy and Land Use Programme (Relu), Newcastle

University (RTF 01)

1. This paper focuses on the first two questions posed by the Committee. The Annexes set out

specific regulatory issues identified by Relu projects, and list relevant Relu publications. Should Defra change its culture of regulation? Redefining the overall relationship between the state and land managers 2. The Farming Regulation Task Force has comprehensively reviewed one critical element in the

relationship between the state and farmers. Evidence from the Relu programme supports the call for ‘an entirely new approach to and culture of regulation’. It shows that regulation is necessary, but that other mechanisms, and new ways of working, are also important.

3. Relu experience also suggests an even more fundamental redefinition of the relationship

between the state and land managers in general. This could be achieved through a written ‘Charter for Integrated Natural Resource Management’, which would:

• Establish a new set of aspirations for, and expectations of, the public sector, private sector

land managers, and civil society, in relation to our natural environment.

• Set out how a combination of mechanisms, including the market, voluntary agreements, standards, incentives and state regulation, will be used to help land managers deliver the wider expectations of society for land management.

• Encourage and enable groups of land managers to take collaborative action, in the context of

the wider landscape, to deliver public policy outcomes for the natural environment.

• Promote the ‘ecosystem services approach’ as an integrated framework for land and water management, aiming to optimise the delivery of multiple ecosystem services from any one location, rather than simply promoting specific services to the exclusion of others.

Revisiting the regulation culture 4. Relu projects have reviewed many policy mechanisms and offered suggestions to improve them,

taking account of diverse experience in the UK and abroad. Particularly valuable insights have been provided into the use of voluntary agri-environment schemes. These could play a much stronger role in the future mix of policy mechanisms, as an alternative to regulation.

5. For example, one model would see communities of farmers being rewarded for delivering

specified environmental outcomes at a parish, landscape or catchment scale. The farmers would agree, publish and implement coordinated plans to deliver as wide a range of ecosystem services

as possible from their farms. Once the schemes had been approved, the farmers would monitor and report annually on their performance in providing these services.

6. This approach would deliver localised land management for public objectives, tapping into

Government aspirations to encourage more people to take control over what happens locally. Regulators would make savings by dealing with groups of farmers, rather than, as now, with every single farmer separately. Local transparency about the actions being taken, and external auditing, by the regulators, would guarantee implementation. Experience from the UK, and elsewhere, suggests that new models of this sort could, in time, be very effective.

7. Areas where agri-environment schemes could be strengthened include encouraging carbon

storage, promoting ‘biocontrol’ of pests, and supporting fencing to prevent livestock fouling watercourses. Doing so could reduce the need for regulation to prevent loss of soil carbon, reduce the use of pesticides, and control the spreading of livestock waste, respectively.

Developing a new approach to inspection 8. The Task Force calls for a risk-based approach to regulation, to help ensure that action is taken

only when and where it is likely to be most effective. This is not easy. It requires: reliable information on the risks, and on the social and economic context in which they arise; a shared understanding of risk, between regulators, land managers, and others; and decision-support tools to help practitioners decide where best to apply their efforts to tackle risks.

9. One Relu project has developed a tool to help farmers and regulators manage risks to water

quality and public health from pathogens in livestock waste. It integrates data on pathogen loads, farm topography, farm infrastructure, and obstacles limiting the farmer’s ability to manage risk. Other projects have created tools which bring together diverse data sets in geographical information systems (e.g. to manage wild deer, or tick-borne diseases). Tools of this sort could be invaluable to regulators in managing a wide range of risks.

Embracing tools to influence farmer behaviour 10. Regulators need to understand farmers better. Relu projects show that land management

decisions are influenced by a mix of economic, social and environmental factors. While most farmers primarily want a satisfactory income, lesser objectives include maximising free time, minimising risk, managing only a simple range of enterprises, and, for some, providing good habitats for game.

11. Relu projects show that greater dialogue between regulators and land managers about the

design and delivery of agri-environment schemes at a local scale would be beneficial. In particular, the effectiveness of the schemes in securing environmental outcomes will be greatly improved by encouraging collaborative, coordinated action between farmers at a landscape (to benefit farmland birds); or catchment scale (to protect water quality).

12. Relu projects also show that farmers need to understand fully why they are being asked to adopt

certain land management actions and how best to carry these out (e.g. the techniques needed to establish a flower-rich field margin differ from those used to establish a cereal crop). Providing formal training, as an integral part of agri-environment schemes, targeted on novel or technically-difficult options, could greatly improve their overall environmental effectiveness.

How could this cultural shift be implemented, particularly through partnership? 13. A strengthened partnership between Government and industry will require effective mutual

engagement and sharing of information. Relu projects have developed a range of approaches and tools to help regulators and land managers work together. Critical requirements include:

• Engaging relevant people from the outset, when challenges are first being aired, not after

research, analysis and action plans have already been finalised. • Building trust, particularly over contentious issues, by using independent skilled mediators,

who have no vested interest in regulation, or land management, to lead engagement. • Respecting and pooling different types of knowledge – whether ‘local’, ‘professional’, or

‘scientific’ – to help everyone involved to understand a problem and decide how to tackle it. • Finding simple ways to share information and monitor progress. For example, the

‘Ecosystem Health Report Card’ presents complex data on water quality in a way which enables meaningful discussion with land managers about causes, impacts and actions.

• Using targeted surveys to raise awareness of problems, gather local data to inform and tailor

standardised models to the local situation, and create local support for action. • Taking advantage of systems for managing geographical information, to: create spatial

models, simulations and scenarios; integrate data sets; and enable informed discussion. 14. Significant cultural shifts will be needed if these requirements are to become part of day-to-day

working. Relu projects have shown how to develop collaborative management particularly for water catchments. Partnerships will be critical here, given the many interests involved in managing water. The Government should draw on the experience of Relu projects in taking action to secure the demanding objectives set by the Water Framework Directive.

Annex A: Regulatory issues identified by Relu projects A1. This Annex summarises findings relevant to many different forms of regulation from a dozen

diverse Relu projects. Further details can be obtained from the relevant Policy and Practice Note (PPN) mentioned in each case. These are also listed in Annex B.

The role of regulation in developing biological alternatives to pesticides (PPN 1) A2. This project developed principles for regulating ‘biopesticides’ and made suggestions to

improve existing arrangements. Biopesticides are pest control products which contain biological control agents (e.g. microbes, pheromones, or plant extracts). They are regulated under the ‘Biopesticides Scheme’ run by the Health and Safety Executive.

A3. The researchers highlighted several key elements for inclusion in the Scheme:

• Appointing a ‘Champion’ to help firms through the approval process. • Providing specific guidance to applicants (via free pre-submission meetings). • Providing accessible information on the regulatory process via the HSE website. • Reducing the costs of evaluations for these products.

Warm water fish production as a diversification strategy for arable farmers (PPN 2) A4. This project explored the technical and marketing considerations surrounding the

development of small-scale, warm-water production systems for growing the tropical fish Tilapia, as a diversification strategy for UK livestock and arable farmers. Importantly, these would be self-contained land-based systems, not involving rivers or marine waters.

A5. The project found that existing regulatory frameworks, focused on freshwater fisheries, were

inappropriate. It recommended that agricultural and fisheries policies should be integrated to encourage land-based aquaculture. Also, no single agency was responsible for providing comprehensive, validated and joined-up information on land-based fish production, which tended to discourage new entrants. The project recommended that there should be better and more joined-up provision of information, with a single agency taking the lead.

Eating biodiversity (PPN 3) A6. This project investigated the links between quality food production and biodiversity

protection by asking the question: can farmers who use and maintain biodiverse, natural grasslands by grazing animals on them, translate that into extra profits from their products? The project recommended that more coherent and dynamic ‘product/place/process’ local food-labelling schemes should be stimulated in the UK, similar to those in France and Italy.

Overcoming market and technical obstacles to alternative pest management (PPN 10) A7. This project examined how barriers to the adoption of alternatives to pesticides could be

removed. Overuse of pesticides leads to pesticide resistance, and affects biodiversity and water

quality. EU legislation aims to reduce the use of pesticides and to withdraw many pesticides from the market. Alternative forms of ‘biocontrol’ (providing habitats for beneficial predators on crop pests, and/or using biopesticides) could help to reduce the use of valuable pesticides, so prolonging their useful lives, and also limiting environmental harm.

A8. The project found that only nine out of 17 different biocontrol options were adopted on more

than 50% of the farms it surveyed in 2007. It suggested that uptake should be improved by promoting biocontrol as an explicit objective in agri-environment schemes. Encouraging farmers to adopt strategies for integrated pest management could be a practical and effective way to bring about reductions in pesticide use while also safeguarding farm productivity.

Comparative merits of consuming vegetables produced locally and overseas (PPN 11) A9. This project reviewed the methods used to establish the ‘carbon footprint’ of food products

produced at home and abroad. It showed that at least 16 different methods of life-cycle analysis have been developed since 2007, and that there is no international agreement on which is best. The project suggested that regulators need to think very carefully about the wider implications of carbon-labelling before requiring labels to be applied to food. In particular, without careful and rounded assessment, such labels could have serious, and often unfair, implications for developing countries which export food crops.

Sustainable uplands: reshaping land use policy for our hills (PPN 14) A10. This project considered how future policies for the uplands should be developed, taking

account of the full range of ecosystem services which they can provide (e.g. livestock, game, water-gathering, carbon storage, habitats for wildlife and landscapes for recreation). The study found that farm support within the designated ‘Less Favoured Areas’ focuses more on compensation for physical disadvantage, than on rewarding the provision of public goods, and that the rewards offered for the provision of different ecosystem services vary widely.

A11. The project also found that protective designations, such as Sites of Special Scientific Interest

and Special Areas for Conservation, tend to focus on one ecosystem service at a time. The project recommended a more holistic and integrated approach to future regulation in designated areas, and the provision of incentives. Future policy frameworks should recognise and support the provision of the full range of ecosystem services.

Policy-making for animal and plant disease: a changing landscape? (PPN 16) A12. This project examined strategies for managing diseases which threaten food security, the

sustainability of the farm sectors which they affect, and food consumers. The project challenged the historical separation of animal and plant diseases in public policy, arguing that co-ordinated policy-making, and a redistribution of resources to reflect disease risk, is hindered by the separation of departments and officials. It concluded that those managing animal and plant disease risks have much to learn from each other. The fundamental public

good arguments for controlling all types of plant and animal diseases should be reconsidered, and changes to the governance of disease made accordingly.

Bovine tuberculosis: a problem for farmers, conservationists and policymakers (PPN 19) A13. This project took a broad view of the controversy surrounding bovine TB. It highlighted the

need to learn lessons from scientific research, to improve communication with all interests, to develop flexible policies and to tackle the issues surrounding costs and ‘who pays’. The project noted that there is no simple solution to the problem; any approach is likely to be controversial. It suggested that the role of cattle-to-cattle transmission and the persistence of bovine TB in herds, has been underplayed in recent years, and that regulatory measures, such as movement controls, could play an important part in tackling the disease.

The changing role of local government in managing water resources (PPN 20) A14. This review of several Relu projects highlighted the very wide distribution of statutory

responsibilities for water and land use across Government Departments and agencies. If local authorities are to play a stronger role in managing water resources, including taking a leading role in managing local flood risk, administrative structures, boundaries, relationships and experience that have evolved over many years may need to change. There will, in particular, need to be much more joined-up working with the Environment Agency and other key partners, such as Internal Drainage Boards and water companies.

Angling in the rural environment (PPN 21) A15. This project explored trends in the development of angling on rivers and still waters, and their

implications. It found that there are risks to freshwater catchments from stocking practices in still waters, and that sensitive still waters may also be damaged by stocking with non-native species. There is evidence of a lack of due regard for regulation on the movement of fish, leading to risks from disease and colonisation by non-native species. Loss of stocked fish during flood events may also be a bigger problem than has been realised.

A16. The project highlighted the need for anglers and fishery owners to receive better information

and training on the impacts of non-native species, the dangers of disease being spread, and the biosecurity measures that businesses and individuals should take.

Memory and prediction in tree disease control (PPN 25) A17. This project investigated how current responses to epidemics of tree disease could be

informed by experience of past epidemics. It found that the cardinal lesson to be drawn from past outbreaks is that it is far better to prevent the entry of a disease into the UK than to attempt to contain it once it is established. Regulation has an important role to play here.

A18. The project suggested that public awareness of tree disease threats needs to be raised, to

encourage a greater sense of personal responsibility for prevention and to elicit more support

for regulatory measures, and for contributing to their costs. Conflicts between the advocates of further liberalisation within the Single Market and those seeking further restrictions on trade, in the interests of biosecurity, also need to be resolved.

Farm diversification into energy production by anaerobic digestion (PPN 26) A19. This project investigated the potential for the development of anaerobic digestion on farms,

and the implications for rural development and the environment. These plants treat farm and/or food waste. They produce methane, which is used to generate heat and/or power, and a solid digestate, which can be used as a fertiliser and soil conditioner.

A20. The project found that some aspects of regulation in this area are still unclear (e.g. over

planning matters, the use of the digestate, and taxation). It suggested that the Government could usefully provide local authorities with better guidance and information to inform planning decisions; and design systems and procedures to promote anaerobic digestion at a farm scale (integrating the technology into the larger framework of waste management, and promoting it with the Environment Agency and local waste disposal authorities).

Annex B: Information on the Rural Economy and Land Use Programme B1. The Rural Economy and Land Use Research Programme (Relu) comprises 74 projects,

involving 500 researchers, from over 40 disciplines. It is supported by UK Research Councils (Economic and Social, Biotechnology and Biological Sciences, and Natural Environment), Defra and the Scottish Government, and has a budget of £25 million over the period 2004-11.

B2. Relu projects differ from many others because they: involve multiple disciplines, often drawing

on expertise from several academic institutions; provide integrated social, economic and environmental perspectives on current issues; and obtain inputs from people and communities affected by the issues they are studying. Relu research is firmly located in the real world, where experts disagree, difficult decisions have to be made between competing priorities, people need practical solutions, and issues can be a source of political controversy.

B3. Relu scientists challenge and learn from the assumptions and perspectives of different

disciplines and institutions. They ‘cover all the angles’, not just adopting one narrow perspective in framing the issues. Their integrated approach to research helps to create rounded solutions. The projects involve people and communities with a direct stake in the issues. This helps the research to focus on questions which matter in the real world, and to provide practical solutions which can readily be adapted to local conditions

B4. Most Relu projects have been completed and their findings are now being published in the

scientific literature. To give policy-makers and regulators ready access to those research findings which have significant implications for public policy, Relu itself has so far published:

• 29 concise ‘Policy and Practice Notes’, which summarise for individual projects the findings of most relevance to policy development and delivery. This series includes three Notes specifically targeted on local authorities (PPN 20, 24 and 29).

• 13 ‘Briefing Papers’ which provide in-depth treatment of specific issues: these include the

implementation of the Water Framework Directive (BP11), the reform of the Common Agricultural Policy (BP12), and the proposed Natural Environment White Paper (BP13).

• Two ‘Consultants’ reports’ which provide comprehensive overviews of Relu research in

relation to land-use policy for the UK and for Scotland respectively. B5. These publications, primarily aimed at the policy community within the Government, public

bodies, local authorities and civil society organisations, bring together the latest evidence from Relu projects. This response draws on the publications below (see www.relu.ac.uk/news/), and on contributions from specific Relu projects (see www.relu.ac.uk/research/).

Briefing papers (available from www.relu.ac.uk/news/briefings.htm):

1 Setting the research agenda 2 Rural economy and land use futures 3 The unfolding research agenda 4 The UK rural economy and land use debates 5 Power and responsibility - Who decides? You decide! 6 Common knowledge? An exploration of knowledge transfer 7 What is Relu? 8 Land to mouth: exploring the links between sustainable land use and the food we eat 9 Landmarks for policy 10 Telling stories: Accounting for knowledge exchange 11 Water Framework: Implementing the Water Framework Directive 12 Informing the reform and implementation of the Common Agricultural Policy 13 Shaping the Nature of England: policy pointers from the Relu programme

Policy and Practice Notes (available from www.relu.ac.uk/news/policyandpracticenotes.htm):

1 The role of regulation in developing biological alternatives to pesticides 2 Warm water fish production as a diversification strategy for arable farmers 3 Eating biodiversity: an investigation of the links between quality food production and

biodiversity protection 4 Safe recycling of livestock manures 5 Stakeholder participation in the management and communication of food chain risks 6 Implications of a nutrition driven food policy for the countryside 7 Catchment management for the protection of water resources: The ecosystem health report

card 8 Regional rural land use: a time for fresh thinking 9 Assessing the social, environmental and economic impacts of increasing rural land use

under energy crops

10 Overcoming market and technical obstacles to alternative pest management in arable systems

11 Comparative merits of consuming vegetables produced locally and overseas: Fair and evidence-based carbon labelling

12 Social and environmental inequalities in rural areas 13 The sustainability of hill farming 14 Sustainable uplands: reshaping land use policy for our hills 15 Integrated management of floodplains 16 Policy-making for animal and plant disease: a changing landscape? 17 Sustainable uplands: learning to manage future change 18 Collaborative frameworks in land management: a case study on integrated deer management 19 Bovine tuberculosis: a problem for farmers, conservationists and policymakers 20 The changing role of local government in managing water resources 21 Angling in the rural environment 22 Models, decision-making and flood risk: doing simulation modelling differently 23 Is wildlife conservation compatible with arable farming? Evaluating the options for

sustainable agriculture 24 The Big Society: helping communities take action 25 Memory and Prediction in tree disease control 26 Farm diversification into energy production by anaerobic digestion 27 Protecting countryside users against zoonotic disease by influencing their behaviour 28 Modelling the impacts of the European Water Framework Directive: implementing the

ecosystem services approach 29 The role of local government in managing disease risks in rural areas

Consultants’ Reports (available from www.relu.ac.uk/news/ConsultantsReports.htm):

1 Woods, A. (2009). Securing integrated land management for the UK. 2 Swales, V. (2009). The lie of the land: Future challenges for rural land use policy in Scotland.

7 June 2011

Written evidence submitted by Friends of the Lake District (RTF 02) 1. Friends of the Lake District (FLD) is the only organisation dedicated to enhancing the landscape of Cumbria and the Lake District. We are a campaigning, membership and landowning organisation and seek to influence land use policy, and demonstrate good practice on our own land (3 woodlands, a common, common rights, and 2 areas of farm land). We actively manage our land, we are not a passive landowner. 2. FLD as a landowner support many of the recommendations to reduce the regulatory burdens on farmers and landowners. However, we have concerns about recommendations relating to Town and Village Greens (TVGs) and the Planning system: Town and Village Greens 3. FLD have had a long standing interest in TVG over the last 75 years and have been responsible for the registration of some TVGs. They are a unique feature of the Cumbrian landscape - Cumbria has the highest number of TVGs of any English county. TVGs are an essential part of the ‘green infrastructure’ (GI) and deliver the following benefits of GI to the whole of Society - creating a setting for economic growth/regen - skills and training - job creation & social enterprise - community cohesion - community safety - sport - physical health - flood management - mental health and wellbeing - access to natural greenspace - land and property value uplift - climate change mitigation - air and water quality - natural tourism - biodiversity in situ - environmental connectivity - culture - quality of place 4. It is important to recognise that TVG registration merely records its status, following 20 years use by local people who have established rights to use the land. 20 years is a significant time and requires onerous proof (s15 Commons Act 2006). Registration cannot therefore be done on a whim. 5. 4.34 and 4.35 : These recommendations and the apparent lack of evidence upon which they are based cause concern as follows :-

The Task Force, as reiterated in the letter to ministers attached to the report, only looked at regulations unique to food and farming. Town and village greens are not unique to food and farming as we have shown above, and so should not have been included. As their inclusion was not made explicit during the consultation period, there was no overt opportunity to submit comments on TVGs or for the panel to receive a balance of evidence.

• TVGs are established for the enjoyment of sports and pastimes, and whilst some greens

have grazing rights, they are the minority. As such, the use of a TVG as intended will

have no impact on the day to day business of farmers and food producers. It is therefore totally inappropriate to refer to them in the business and management section of the report.

• The TVG recommendations appear to be based on a lack of evidence. The 2009 Countryside and Community Research Institute report into TVG applications and the motivations behind them found no compelling evidence that vexacious applications and those seeking to prevent planning applications were in a majority, quite the opposite.

• We regularly receive calls from community organisations keen to register land as TVG on the basis of 20 years of use. Cases motivated in response to a threat of development are the minority and we are not aware of any vivacious claims within Cumbria.

• The registration criteria and application process (section 15 Commons Act 2006) are robust. The reference to rebalancing the process is based on a lack of evidence and is unnecessary. The Open Spaces Society proposed amendments to Defra as to how the registration process could be amended to speed it up and make it more efficient. These amendments involve no new legislation, just changes to guidance and the introduction of good practice and would resolve the perceived problems.

• 4.34 : suggests reasonable costs are to be met by both parties. This is the current situation with applicants and objectors meeting their own costs.

Planning 6. 4.15 - 4.16 : Through the permitted development rights for agricultural operations (1995 GPDO) farmers already benefit from a significantly larger degree of freedom than other business owners. Whilst recognising the significant contribution farmers make to both the rural economy and the landscape, modern farm buildings must be sited and designed to support local landscape character. It is worth noting the recent Government reiteration of the value of the natural environment in the Natural Environment White Paper. 7. The Report overemphasises negative experiences of the prior notification procedure. In practice, the notification procedure places little financial burden upon farmers. It allows for informal dialogue with local planning authorities, which often results in better sited and designed buildings whilst still satisfying functional requirements. It also allows for public comment – an important factor given the Government emphasis on Localism. 8. The prior notification procedure should therefore be retained for agricultural buildings under 465m2 on an agricultural unit of 5Ha, and as a minimum in areas subject to Article 1 (5) of the GPDO. 9. 4.17 - buildings between 465 and 1500 m2 should continue to be subject to full planning permission and as a minimum, this should continue to apply in areas subject to Article 1 (5) of the GPDO. 10. 4.21 : Polytunnels can result in a significant landscape impact, particularly in sensitive areas. We recommend that permitted development rights are only conferred for structures up to a defined size, as opposed to all, as the recommendation implies. As a minimum, this

should apply in areas subject to Article 1 (5) of the GPDO. Prior notification should be required for structures below the defined size threshold, and full planning permission required for structures above it. 11. Other ‘horticultural support structures’, (4.23) should have a similar regulatory framework to that recommended in regard to polytunnels above. 9 June 2011

Written evidence submitted by the Food Standards Agency (FSA) (RTF 03)

1. The FSA was established in April 2000 as a non-Ministerial UK Government Department, operating at arms’ length from Ministers, headed by a Chair and Board, who are appointed to act in the public interest. The FSA is responsible for assessing and managing risk in relation to food and communicating advice to the public. It is guided by a set of core principles: putting the consumer first; openness and independence; science and evidence-based; enforcing food law fairly.

2. For devolved matters, such as food and feed, the Task Force looked at legislation and regulatory processes as they pertain in England. The Task Force makes 18 recommendations for which the FSA has responsibility. All of these have implications for food safety or hygiene and will require careful consideration taking into account available evidence to ensure that consumer interests are not compromised. The FSA’s Board will be discussing the recommendations, including taking a UK wide view, on 12 July 2011 at its open meeting. Until then, FSA is unable to indicate its views on the recommendations beyond providing some background comments.

3. The key recommendations for FSA are on Transmissible Spongiform Encephalopathy (TSE) controls (10.051, 10.06, 10.07), earned recognition, particularly in relation to meat hygiene, (10.19, 10.20, 10.22, 10.29, 10.30, 10.39) and dairy hygiene (10.24 and 10.25). There are also recommendations about reducing paperwork (2.43), private water supplies (6.47), a number of relatively minor, but specific recommendations relating to meat hygiene (10.19, 10.20, 10.22, 10.29, 10.30) and a recommendation about imported high risk products of non-animal origin (10.45).

4. We have provided some background information about earned recognition, both because of its importance and because there are aspects that the committee might wish to be aware of when considering the Task Force report.

Earned Recognition - general

5. FSA’s emerging Compliance and Enforcement Strategy will deliver an improved effective, risk-based and proportionate regulatory regime with a clear role for earned recognition. EU Regulation 882/2004 provides that official controls should take into account the results of checks carried out by food and feed business operators, where they are designed to meet requirements of food law. For example, the use of information from and membership of food and feed third party assurance schemes can better inform risk assessment of those businesses. This approach will, where permitted by legislation, allow greater targeting of Official Controls to facilitate the direction of regulator resource to higher risk and non-compliant premises.

6. FSA’s plan for regulation in the dairy sector demonstrates this approach already. A high proportion of dairy farms are members of Assured Dairy Farms

1 References to Task Force recommendations

(ADF) where accredited certification bodies conduct regular annual assessments. Assessments include regulatory requirements for hygiene and can therefore duplicate official controls delivered by the regulator. Information from the scheme has been used to identify those businesses which are compliant and a lower frequency of official control inspections is adopted. Other dairy businesses, such as those producing raw and unpasteurised milk are subject to current ongoing regulator controls, to ensure that consumers are not put at greater risk.

7. The data-sharing principles and risk management underpinning this approach means that real-time information is shared between the regulator and third party schemes, providing for ‘reactive’ official controls where necessary. This openness and transparency has been essential to success of this approach and provides a framework for development into other sectors.

Earned Recognition – Official Meat Hygiene Controls

8. FSA is exploring, in liaison with industry representative bodies, whether the principles of earned recognition, including recognition of accredited third-party schemes, can be applied more fully to official controls in the meat industry. The key principles behind earned recognition and the notion of “consistently competent” and “legally compliant” premises already form part of the official audit process for approved meat plants. Audit frequency for each plant is determined by a risk assessment which, amongst other things, takes into account the compliance record. In the short to medium term, there are constraints on changes to official inspection activities because the requirements for inspection controls are prescribed in some detail in EU law (Regulation 854/2004).

9. With regard to the proposed use of accredited private sector parties to deliver official controls in “consistently competent” plants, there are a number of legal limitations to this at present. These would impact on both the efficiency and cost effectiveness of official controls and on the likely commercial interest in this work from private sector suppliers. For example, EU law provides that enforcement actions cannot be delegated, meaning that official controls in each plant would have to be carried out by both public and private sector suppliers. Also, charges for official controls cannot exceed the cost of the controls carried out and this would impact on the commercial viability of this work for private sector parties. More importantly, however, it is widely accepted that the current suite of official meat controls required under EU legislation is neither risk-based nor proportionate. FSA is actively involved with the European Commission and other Member States in reviewing the current system of meat controls, with a view to developing new controls for the future that will be more risk based and proportionate. Current indications from this work are that the Commission is prepared to consider changes to the nature of official meat controls and who might carry them out. It may therefore be possible to take fuller account of earned recognition in a future system of controls once it is clear what controls will be required.

9 June 2011

 

Written evidence submitted by the Open Spaces Society (RTF 04)

1. The Open Spaces Society (formally the Commons, Open Spaces and Footpaths

Preservation Society) was founded in 1865 and is Britain's oldest national conservation body. It campaigns to protect common land, village greens, open spaces and public paths, and people's right to enjoy them.

Town and village greens 2. We are dismayed that the task force has made recommendations in chapter 4

(business and management) about the process for registering town and village greens even though the letter to ministers, attached to the report, states that the task force has only looked at regulations that are unique to food and farming. Town and village greens are not unique to food and farming.

3. The process for registering land as greens, laid down in section 15 of the

Commons Act 2006, applies to all landowners and types of land and we believe the process should not have been considered by the task force. The criteria and application process are robust. The reference to rebalancing the process to ensure that reasonable costs are met by both parties is unnecessary as applicants and objectors already meet their own costs.

4. The society was not consulted and it appears the conclusions have been

reached without considering research that has been carried out for the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) on this subject, in particular in 2009 by the Countryside and Community Research Institute.(1)

5. There is no evidence to suggest that there is a proliferation of inappropriate village green designations or that, as a general rule, such designations are ‘being sought deliberately to thwart planning applications’.

6. The registration of land as a town or village green is merely to record its status,

following 20 years use by local people who have established rights to use the land. Therefore applicants for greens are acting in the public interest.

7. We have made a submission to Defra of amendments to the registration

process to speed it up and make it more efficient. These do not involve new legislation, merely amendments to guidance and introduction of good practice.

8. We carried out a survey of the society’s members in 2010 and produced A

framework for green space to assist Defra and the Department for Communities and Local Government in developing their proposed green space designation for land important to local communities. We have argued

that this designation should be in addition to the process for registering land as town and village greens and should not replace it.

Public rights of way 9. The task force’s concerns about historic rights of way can be met if

government implements the recommendations of the report of the national stakeholder group, Stepping forward.(2) The stakeholder group produced an agreed package of measure to improve the process for recording historic rights of way. The group was determined that these measures must be implemented as a package, and that government must not pick and choose from them. The task force has picked out only certain elements from the package, which is unacceptable.

10. In particular, we are concerned that the task force is recommending

implementation of the cut-of date of 2026 for claims of historic routes in isolation from the rest of the stakeholder group’s recommendations. It is essential that the whole package is Implemented. It includes important safeguards for the public interest.

11. Applicants for the addition of paths to the definitive map are merely seeking to

record rights which already exist. It is therefore unreasonable to expect them to have to pay to do this, since they are doing it for the public’s benefit.

12. We note that the task force dislikes the fact that any diversion order for a

public path can be challenged—but this is as it should be and we would strongly oppose any change to this process. Public paths are for everyone, their surface is owned by the local authority on behalf of the public, and therefore any member of the public who is entitled to use the route has an interest in it and should be able to oppose change.

13. We are also concerned at the recommendation regarding temporary

diversions, to be approved by the local access forum. Local access fora do not concern themselves with individual cases, and they should not be expected to do so. They consist of representatives of a range of interests in public access and are not constituted to take decisions of this kind.

Notes

1. Study of determined town and village green applications by the Countryside and Community Research Institute, University of Gloucester, October 2009.

2. Stepping Forward was a report (published in March 2010) of

representatives of the key national interests in public rights of way. The group was established to advise Natural England which then

submitted the report to government, on improvements to the law and procedures concerning historic public rights of way which are not yet recorded on the official map of public paths.

9 June 2011

      

Written evidence submitted by Julie Brandram Jones, Herefordshire (RTF 05)

1. I would be most grateful if you would consider my comments in relation to The Report of the Independent Farming Regulation Task Force.

2. I am fully in support of cutting back on red tape and unnecessary regulation affecting

farmers and small businesses. However I strongly protest at the suggestion in your report that “Polytunnels and other horticultural support structures should be added to the General Permitted Development Order”.

3. I live in a village that has been decimated by the local fruit farmer and his polytunnel

developments. The community is, almost without exception, against the development and the affect that it is having on our quality of life amongst many other things. It is a most unnatural farming practice and, if anything, needs much stronger regulation than there is at present. I am not against polytunnels but I do think that there is a place for everything and a higher power needs to keep control of these ugly and obtrusive structures in our beautiful landscapes and amongst people’s homes.

4. I am happy to provide further information and would also be prepared to talk at your

enquiry about the experience of living first hand with polytunnels on the doorstep. 9 June 2011

Written evidence submitted by the Andersons Centre (RTF 06)

1. IS IT DESIRABLE FOR DEFRA TO CHANGE ITS CULTURE OF REGULATION IN THE MANNER

SUGGESTED BY THE REPORT?

1.1. We would agree wholeheartedly with the Farming Regulation Task Force’s overall

conclusion that the culture of regulation surrounding food and farming should change. A

more efficient regulatory system with fewer inspections, more trust, and greater industry

participation would reduce cost both for government and the industry, and reduce the

frustration felt by many food and farming businesses.

1.2. Industry needs to remember that the ‘Macdonald Review’ is not (and could not)

recommend a wholesale reduction in regulation. This would be unrealistic given much

regulation derives from the EU and also the fact that regulation has usually been

implemented for a good reason. The report is more about how the regulatory regime is

administered. Therefore, expectations need to be managed within the industry so that there

are not unrealistic expectations of what the review can achieve, which in turn could lead to

disillusionment. It seems unlikely that there will be substantially less regulation, rather that it

will be managed better.

2. HOW COULD THIS CULTURAL SHIFT BE IMPLEMENTED (FOCUSSING ON STRENGTHENED

PARTNERSHIP WITH THE FARMING AND FOOD PROCESSING INDUSTRIES AND PROACTIVE

ENGAGEMENT WITH EU INSTITUTIONS)?

2.1. As this question implicitly suggests, recommending a ‘cultural shift’ is easy, making it

happen is harder. It should be recognised that there is a large degree of scepticism within the

faming industry as to whether anything will actually change as a result of this report. Past

initiatives are perceived to have done little or nothing to halt the growing tide of ‘red-tape’.

2.2. The impetus for change from the report needs to quickly demonstrate recognisable

improvements, otherwise natural inertia is likely to see the drive for change dissipate, as in

the past. If it can be seen that there is a cultural shift happening then this will help generate

its own momentum for additional effects.

2.3. The cultural change required from the regulatory bodies (‘government’ as perceived by

farmers) will be significant. There is a view within the farming sector that the current

mechanistic ‘tick box’ approach is partly a result of regulatory bodies creating roles for

themselves. This is probably a little unfair, but may contain a grain of truth.

2.4. Of perhaps greater importance is the ‘risk adverse’ nature of government when it

comes to regulation. If there is a ‘blame culture’ then for individuals and organisations it is

an insurance if something goes wrong to be able to say ‘we inspected, we followed due

process, this is not a failure of regulation, this is not our fault …’. Whether government in its

widest sense will be able to ‘let go’ and learn to trust people is a big issue.

2.5. A more flexible, efficient regulatory environment is likely to require a greater degree of

judgement to be exercised by inspectors. Not only will the organisational environment need

to be conducive to independent actions, the quality of the personnel must be high enough for

the right decisions to be made. With the reorganisation of many government bodies in the

wake of austerity measures it is vital that good people with the right experience are retained.

2.6. It should be recognised that the farming industry has a large part to play as well. The

phrased ‘earned recognition’ encapsulates this nicely. Regulators will only trust the sector if

it is proved that such trust is justified.

2.7. The guidance literature produced is obviously designed to help the industry comply

with regulations. However, it is often unnecessarily long and complex (NVZs being a prime

example). It is often more of a hindrance than a help. The report rightly recognises this as a

problem, and this is an area where there could be ‘quick wins’ through better guidance. In

many cases it would be more effective (and cheaper) to have concise written information

sent to farmers, but backed up by a helpline staffed by knowledgeable experts. The latter

could cover the detail or unusual situations simplifying the guidance for the majority.

2.8. Unfortunately, it has to be recognised that the farming industry has not always helped

itself in this regard. Some issues that we see as potential problems include;

2.8.1. The widespread view that any regulation is an imposition, and is there to be

circumvented if possible. Thus there is a failure to recognise that some of it is

useful, necessary and not going to disappear. Link with this is a perhaps a

perception that farming is a uniquely highly-regulated sector, when, in fact,

regulation is simply a feature of modern business life in all sectors.

2.8.2. Linked to the above, a view that ‘we’ve always done things this way and there’s

never been a problem’. This can be a failure to recognise that the world has

moved on, or just luck that a risky practice has not, up to that point, actually

resulted in any problems.

2.8.3. There is an issue that farming is a hugely diverse sector. It includes both highly

professional businesses, but also a large number of what might be termed

‘backwoodsmen’. The large number of businesses that struggle with the issue of

regulation results from the slow pace of structural change in the farming sector

compared to other industries. This in turn is the result of support policies, land

ownership and capital appreciation issues, and the resilience of many farming

families in the face of low returns. This means that although industry

representative bodies may sign up for responsibility sharing, it is not always easy

to get the whole sector to ‘buy-in’. An example of this may the Campaign for the

Farmed Environment. It perhaps needs to be recognised that there is a limit to

what can be achieved through voluntary initiatives – the farming industry needs

to be realistic in what it promises.

2.8.4. Leading on from the previous point, there will always be an element in any

population that will refuse to comply with rules. This is likely to be same in

farming as anywhere else. There will always be cases of rules being breached but

this should not lead to the conclusion that the industry as a whole ‘cannot be

trusted’. As the report acknowledges, a targeted inspection and enforcement

regime will still be needed to deal with the ‘bad apples’. The concept of earned

recognition must be on a business-by-business basis.

2.8.5. The above may paint an overly negative image of the agricultural sector. It

should be remembered that farmers are often running businesses single-handed,

working long hours leaving little time for ‘office work’. Often, returns are low

meaning that the expense of ‘outsourcing’ some of the regulatory compliance

work is not an option. Although, this is not an excuse for breaching rules, this

context aught to be considered when setting up the regulatory regime as

recognised in the report.

2.9. The EU is a source of a majority of the regulation faced by the farming and food

sectors. We are not involved closely enough to be able to comment of Defra’s level of

influence on EU policy, or whether the UK ‘punches its weight’ in terms of amending

legislation to make it more practical and less onerous for the industry.

3. HOW A SYSTEM OF EARNED RECOGNITION WOULD WORK IN PRACTICE?

3.1. The principles outlined in Chapter 3 of the report seem a sensible starting point for

developing the concept of ‘earned recognition’. Using participation in Assurance Schemes,

plus the factors detailed in paragraph 3.23 of the report it would seem to be fairly easily to

build up a picture of the ‘professionalism’ of the business.

3.2. To an extent this concept has already been tried with Whole Farm Approach (WFA).

This has, up until now, failed to gather much traction in the industry. This may partly be

because farmers were not convinced that using it would actually reduce their chances of

inspection – possibly due to the multiplicity of inspection agencies. Therefore the workings

of the system of ‘earned recognition’ may have to be much more transparent. A campaign

to highlight the benefits may also be required.

3.3. Perhaps not surprisingly, we would consider that the use of third-party advice adds

considerably to the likelihood of compliance and should be a factor added to the list in

paragraph 3.23.

3.4. The report mentions that ‘training and continuing professional development’ could be

one of the indicators under an ‘earned recognition’ system. There is no consolidated CPD

system for farmers at present. An industry led, voluntary system, could provide a ‘short-cut’

in terms of demonstrating professionalism, and also have significant other benefits in areas

such as improving competitiveness and environmental management.

8 June 2011

Written evidence submitted by the Town and Country Planning Association (RTF 07)

1.0 About the TCPA 1.1 The Town and Country Planning Association (TCPA) is an independent charity

working to improve town and country planning. Its cross-sectoral membership includes organisations and individuals drawn from practitioners in local government, private practice, housebuilders, academia, third sector organisations and special interest groups. It puts social justice and the environment at the heart of policy debate and champions fresh perspectives on major issues of planning policy, housing, regeneration, the environment and climate change. Our objectives are to: • Secure a decent, well designed home for everyone, in a human-scale

environment combining the best features of town and country • Empower people and communities to influence decisions that affect them • Improve the planning system in accordance with the principles of sustainable

development 2.0 Summary of TCPA evidence 2.1 This submission from the Town and Country Planning Association seeks to

address strategic issues in the Farming Regulation Task Force’s report in relation to spatial planning for the countryside. The TCPA has no direct knowledge or expertise in the farming sector, however through the work of the Rural Coalitioni, the TCPA has engaged and collaborated with other organisations such as the National Farming Union and CPRE, in helping to align agendas. The TCPA’s comments, in particular focusing on the conclusions and recommendations under Chapter 4: Business and Management, should be seen in the wider context of our role as a national organisation championing sustainable urban and rural development through the planning system.

2.2 The TCPA welcomes the general conclusions and recommendations in the

Report on Planning; in particular that planning regulations must allow farms to adapt, innovate, and change while maintaining environmental outcomes. The TCPA believes that the farming community should have a greater role in the planning system, not just in the planning application and development management process, but in forward planning to help shape the future sustainable development of communities and environments within the wider spatial context of the countryside. This includes not only the vital function of food production but also a wide range of other critical eco-services such as water supply, drainage and flood control, recyclable energy, carbon sinks, and the conservation of landscape and wildlife.

2.3 The TCPA draws to the Committee’s attention to two reports which the Report

does not reference, but set an important context within which to consider sustainable rural development:

• Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution’s 23rd Report on Environmental Planning (2002) which called for the use of land for agriculture, forestry and countryside recreation should be issues covered in all spatial planning in future, including within the spatial strategies. It also called for tougher regulation for controlling agricultural land uses as part of effective management of environmental impacts.

• The Rural Coalition’s The Rural Challenge: Achieving Sustainable Rural Communities in the 21st Century (2010) which recommended to Government the need to seize the potential presented by the shift to a low-carbon economy to build a thriving new rural economy around local food, sustainable energy, and information technology.

2.4 Specifically on Localism (paragraphs 4.06 – 4.09): The TCPA supports the

Report’s conclusions and recommendation that the farming community should take a more proactive participatory role in neighbourhood planning. Through an amendment by the Government to Schedule 9 of the Localism Bill on the 10th May businesses are now able to participate and lead on neighbourhood planning, though the situation would be different in most rural areas with established parish councils. The TCPA believes that all sections of the rural community should collaborate effectively and fairly to express a shared local vision of needs and aspirations for that community.

2.5 On the National Planning Policy Framework (paragraphs 4.10 to 4.12): The

TCPA agrees with the Report’s call for a strong and effective national framework underpinning decisions made at the local level but also at the strategic cross-boundary scales. In responding to the initial call by the DCLG on informing the development of the NPPF, the TCPA called for the NPPF to be: • Sustainable Development led: It should focus on setting out a holistic vision

of national outcomes and priorities. • Policy and implementation fit: It should provide the planning policy

framework necessary to deliver other Government policy and sectoral priorities in relation to spatial planning and for the use and development of land.

• Focused on spatial implementation: There is a vital need for Government to consider the development of a national Spatial Development Framework for England, to complement the NPPF, and encourage a more balanced spatial pattern of regional development, especially given the current hiatus in an effective working strategic tier of decision-making.

• Retaining key planning principles, objectives, and tests: Many of the existing planning principles provide valuable advice in delivering sustainable outcomes consistently across England. These should be sustained if, for example, key national priorities on delivering a low carbon economy, vibrant town centres, and housing delivery are to remain credible and effective.

2.6 Since the publication of the Task Force’s report, an Advisory Draft NPPF has been published on the 20th May by a practitioners’ group set up to directly advice Greg Clark, the Decentralisation Minister. It can be accessed by going to www.nppfpractitionersadvisorygroup.org/. The TCPA recommends that the Committee examines the implications of streamlining national planning policy and guidance for the farming sector and community as set out in the Advisory Group’s draft NPPF and makes appropriate recommendations to Government to help the development of the draft NPPF expected in July.

3.0 TCPA References Green, R., and Holliday, J., Country Planning. A time for action, 1991, TCPA 9 June 2011 i The Rural Challenge: Achieving Sustainable Rural Communities in the 21st Century was the combined product of the Rural Coalition chaired by Lord Taylor, with members including: Action with Communities in Rural England [ACRE]; Campaign to Protect Rural England [CPRE ]; Country Land and Business Association [CLA]; The Local Government Group [LG Group]; Royal Town Planning Institute [RTPI]; Town and Country Planning Association [TCPA], National Farmers Union [NFU].

      

Written evidence submitted by The Grasslands Trust (RTF 08)

1. The Grasslands Trust1 welcomes the Environment Food and Rural Affairs Committee’s inquiry into the Farming Regulation Task Force’s Report “Striking a Balance”. We support reducing the bureaucratic burden for farmers, but only where that does not reduce regulatory environmental protection.

2. The Grasslands Trust is a UK-based charity, working to ensure the future of grasslands that are important and valuable for wildlife, heritage and communities. Our work focuses on protecting the UK’s most valuable grasslands, restoring those that have been degraded, and creating new grasslands for wildlife and communities. Grasslands rich in wildlife provide a wide range of ecosystem services2, compared with agricultural grasslands, where food production is the sole purpose.

3. Past policies affecting grasslands have focussed mainly on food production, to the detriment of the wide range of other public goods that grasslands provide. Consequently, of five million hectares3 of grassland in England (over 50% of the total Utilisable Agricultural Area), only an estimated 100,000 hectares4 (2%) have escaped agricultural intensification, while another 1.45 million hectares5 (30%) have been modified by agriculture but still retain limited wildlife and heritage value. The remainder is intensively managed productive grassland, devoid of wildlife and heritage value.

4. Agriculture created and maintained most of England’s valuable grasslands: these grasslands rely on sympathetic agricultural management for their future. Intensification and abandonment threaten the future of these grasslands. Education, incentives and regulation are needed, to help landowners recognise the value of these grasslands, support the costs of sympathetic management, and ensure that they are protected from the market failures that value agricultural production above the wide range of other values they embody, including ecosystem services. EIA (Agriculture) Regulations

                                                            1 Registered Charity no. 1097893. 2 The National Ecosystem Assessment. The True Value of Nature. 2010. http://uknea.unep-wcmc.org/Resources/tabid/82/Default.aspx 3 June Agricultural Census 2010. http://www.defra.gov.uk/statistics/files/defra-stats-foodfarm-landuselivestock-june-statsrelease-uk-110525.pdf 4 Natural England (2008). State of the Natural Environment. http://www.naturalengland.org.uk/publications/sone/sone2008.aspx 5 Countryside Survey 2007. http://www.countrysidesurvey.org.uk/sites/default/files/pdfs/reports2007/england2007/CS-England-Results2007-Chapter04.pdf 

      

5. The Grasslands Trust submitted written and oral evidence to the Taskforce on Farming Regulation, that evidence focussing on the weaknesses in the Environmental Impact Assessment (Agriculture) Regulations6 that is supposed to protect “semi-natural” grasslands from “intensive agriculture”, derived from the EU’s EIA Directive from 1985. The Report (sections 6.92 and 6.93) suggested that there had been “an element of gold plating” when the Regulations were prepared, because the threshold of 2ha was “significantly lower than other member states.”

6. The authors did not recognise the different context in England, compared with other member states. According to research carried out last year 7, other member states still have between 20% and 30% of their agricultural land supporting grasslands rich in wildlife and heritage: England has 2%. Moreover, the size of surviving grassland fragments in England is very small – especially outside areas protected as Sites of Special Scientific Interest. Finally, most other member states’ grasslands are less vulnerable to intensification because of their agricultural systems, topography, soils or climate: they are more vulnerable to abandonment. We do however recognise that the Report did not recommend increasing the current 2ha threshold. Grasslands Inventory

7. Information on the location and status of valuable grasslands is still inadequate, and this is one of the biggest factors contributing to the continuing loss of valuable grasslands to intensification, because some landowners are unwittingly destroying valuable grasslands. We therefore strongly welcome the Report’s proposal “to establish a better way to identify these valuable sites…”. Natural England’s current grassland inventory has been recently updated, but is still not fit for purpose. A concerted effort is needed to identify and characterise all surviving valuable grasslands, and those grasslands that can be restored for their wildlife and heritage value.

8. The EIA (Agriculture) Regulations also form part of Cross Compliance, as GAEC 5. No farmer has had their Single Payment reduced for failure to comply with this GAEC. Yet we regularly receive information about cases where valuable grasslands are lost to intensification. This is a strong argument for better enforcement. If RPA inspectors already knew where the valuable grasslands occurred on each holding, it would be enable easy compliance checking by reference to the inventory. Landowners would also not need to check with Natural England whether they have a “semi-natural area” or not; and entering them into Agri-Environment Schemes, would automatically achieve “earned recognition”, a key principle being promoted in the report.

                                                            6 http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2006/2522/contents/made 7 http://www.grasslands-trust.org/uploads/page/doc/European%20grasslands%20report%20phase%201%20final%281%29.pdf 

      

                                                           

9. We do not support the concept that compliance with GAEC 5 or the EIA

(agriculture) Regulations can be achieved through the Red Tractor accreditation system. This is a non-statutory system, and Red Tractor Inspectors are likely to be even less aware of the relevance of the Regulations than RPA inspectors, unless they receive adequate training.

10. Section 7.65 recognises the nonsense of the current CAP Permanent Pasture rules8. These rules were introduced to prevent large-scale conversion of pasture to arable land. In England, there are 3.66 Million hectares9 of “permanent pasture”, but most of this is intensive agricultural grassland. In England “permanent pasture” can be annually re-seeded.

11. We strongly support the Report’s recommendation in the report that “Defra investigate whether there is a better method of assessing whether high quality grassland is being eroded.” A comprehensive grassland inventory is a prerequisite for assessing trends.

12. As part of the current CAP reform process, we and the European Forum on Nature Conservation and Pastoralism have also proposed that a Permanent Pasture Premium10 should be available, as one of the “Greening Pillar 1” options. This premium would be paid to all those eligible for Single Payment, and in return for the payment conditions would include: no re-seeding or overseeding; no cultivation and restrictions on total fertiliser application. This could be a useful incentive to farmers managing valuable grasslands sympathetically, rather than intensifying or abandoning them.

10 June 2011

 8 EC Regulation 796/2004 ‘Permanent pasture’: shall mean land used to grow grasses or other herbaceous forage naturally (self-seeded) or through cultivation (sown) and that has not been included in the crop rotation of the holding for five years or longer. 9 Data provided by RPA to The Grasslands Trust February 2011. 10 http://www.efncp.org/download/EFNCP-permanent-pasture-proposal.pdf 

Written evidence submitted by the Country Land and Business Association (CLA) (RTF 09)

Introduction

1. The Country Land and Business Association (CLA) represents 35,000 members in England and Wales. All of its members are affected, either directly or indirectly, by regulation in their business activities. The CLA gave both written and oral evidence to the Task Force during the drafting of its report.

General views

2. The CLA has already stated publicly that we are ready to work with Government to reduce excessive regulation while maintaining high farming and environmental standards. We believe that the Task Force report’s recommendations, if implemented, will go a long way in reducing the burden on regulation on farmers and land managers. We also fully recognise the need for a culture change in DEFRA that will embrace the principles of ‘small Government’ and less state interference.

The need for a Culture Change

3. One of the key principles set out in the Task Force report is that of Government and industry working together, and thus effecting a culture change within DEFRA. The CLA has always advocated a closer relationship between Government and rural trade associations and we believe that it is incumbent upon trade associations to rise to the challenge set by the report.

4. However, it is important to stress that this has to be a two way process and it is

essential that DEFRA become more transparent. We fully support the comments made in the report that DEFRA officials have little hands-on experience of the farming sector and the rural economy. We have experienced the tendency of DEFRA to put in place regulatory frameworks that bear little resemblance to the actual need for regulation and the practicalities involved.

5. We believe that without such a culture change, the report will be a wasted

opportunity. If this was to happen it would exacerbate the increasing frustration of the farming community, at a time when there appears to be the political will to instigate change.

Implementing a cultural shift

6. We fully endorse the report’s desire to put in place a partnership between DEFRA and the industry. However, for any partnership to work it has to be genuine and honest, not merely geared to a set of particular interests of any one partner. Trade associations can play a vital role in ensuring that this dynamic is effective and so bring about culture change. But importantly, DEFRA has to want to change and we remain concerned that, despite the report’s laudable recommendations, it is possible that opposition could arise that would make culture change far more challenging.

7. The CLA fully accepts the principle of outcomes over process. To this end, the CLA has been directly involved in a number of voluntary initiatives, such as the Greenhouse Gas Action Plan. But in order for these to be effective such approaches require government legitimacy and the willingness of DEFRA to engage fully.

8. One of the strongest criticisms has been the gold-plating of EU legislation, with

the blame being placed at the feet of EU institutions. However, this suggests a misunderstanding of the policy process in the EU. Many pieces of EU law are minimum requirements, requesting the Member State to enforce implementing regulations. It is up to the Member State to determine how much, or how little, to transpose. What has happened with DEFRA and its agencies is a policy of over-compliance when it is often the case this was never originally intended.

9. It remains vital for DEFRA officials to understand how Brussels works. The Task

Force suggests this and we note the report’s recommendation that trade associations engage with the EU institutions. The CLA already does through our membership of the European Landowners Association (ELO). We believe that it is vital for there to be a clear and unambiguous relationship between DEFRA and trade associations on EU issues where information can be shared and resources utilised.

‘Earned Recognition’ in practice

10. The risk based approach is essential in assessing the need for and the level of regulation. As the report states, this is the underlying basis of the principle of ‘earned recognition’. As importantly, there are a number of subsidiary elements, such as risk assessment and voluntary approaches.

11. There has to be an understanding that if farmers are rewarded with ‘earned

recognition’ the level of state regulation has to be proportionately reduced. With the widespread adoption and use of farm assurance, there is now a significant

body of evidence to illustrate the level of compliance. We support the view of the report that those in farm assurance schemes, who already have to comply with a set of minimum standards as part of their assurance contract, should be considered as low risk and therefore, the level and number of inspections should be reduced.

12. A key to effective implementation is rightly identified by the report as the sharing

of information. It also recommends the use and development of the Farming Theme on Business Link. We accept the premise of this approach.

13. However, two issues arise. Firstly, farmers have not had sufficient confidence in

the Business Link service and this perception needs to change. Secondly, the recommendation presupposes an online model and, indeed, throughout the report, there is strong encouragement for farmers and Government to conduct business online. Recognising the vital contribution that broadband can make to a business, the CLA has always been supportive of efforts to digitalise the rural economy.

14. Nevertheless, it is still the case that some 20 percent of farmers are still not served

by effective broadband. We believe it makes sense to ensure that all those who operate in the rural economy have broadband connectivity in order to meet the ‘digital by default’ benchmark and not be required to use third parties, the result of which would be to drive up cost. We suggest that DEFRA use part of the £20m Community Broadband Fund to incentivise the take up of alternative broadband technologies, such as satellite, so that the Universal Service Commitment can be realised.

Concluding remarks

15. The Task Force’s report provides both DEFRA and the industry a very real opportunity to significantly reduce the regulatory burden placed on farmers and landowners. Taking and exploiting that opportunity however, will require a more open and transparent approach from Government in full partnership with trade associations. The CLA is ready to play its part and ensure that the vision enunciated in the report are realised.

June 2011

Supplementary written evidence submitted by the Country Land and Business Association (CLA) (RTF 09A)

PROGRESS AGAINST THE CFE TARGETS Since the introduction of the CFE, the Evidence and Monitoring group has worked closely with Defra to identify and develop a range of surveying methods to best evaluate progress against the Campaign’s targets, as detailed in the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). This section of the report highlights progress against the Campaign’s targets and the issues around the monitoring and reporting of these targets (Table 1). Following this, each sub-section looks at each target separately, to provide an overview of progress and any issues with monitoring or recording. Table 1 Progress against Campaign targets as detailed in the MOU. Target Source Baseline

(ha) 2012 target (ha)

Interim target (ha)

Latest figure (ha)

To help achieve Natural England’s target of 70% of farmland within an agri-environment agreement by March 2011

Natural England 67 per cent

70 percent

67.59 percent

67.59 percent (July 2011)

To double the current uptake of key target options in ELS

Natural England 39 671 80 000 72 833 50 473 (July 2011)

To double the uptake of ‘more of the same’ options in HLS

Natural England

8400 16 800 20 297 (July 2011)

To double the uptake of ELS options EE9 and EE10 (6m buffer strips next to watercourses)

Natural England 4880 9760 8240 (by July 2011)

2805 (July 2011)

To retain and increase the area of uncropped land from the 1 January 2008 baseline by 20 000ha

Annual Defra June Agricultural Census

159 000 179 000 179 000 (by June 2010)

152 000 (June 2010)

To increase the area of land managed voluntarily by 30 000ha above current levels

Defra ongoing monitoring survey and field verification visits

158 709 ha

188 709 ha

171 000 (by February 2011)

188 805ha (February 2011) This figure is under review by the Evidence and Monitoring Group

To promote participation in the Campaign by those farmers outside agri-environment agreements

Defra ongoing monitoring survey

157 355ha

60% 40 per cent by June 2011

17 per cent of survey respondents joined ELS because of the Campaign

To seek to improve the environmental management of at least one third of the uncropped land

Defra ongoing monitoring survey

53 000 ha

59 600 ha

56 000 ha This target is under review by the Evidence and Monitoring Group

To encourage farmers and land managers to take up voluntary measures which have the greatest environmental value

Local Liaison Groups and ETIP targeting information

3.1 Participation in AES The CFE has a target to help achieve Natural England’s target of 70 percent of utilisable agricultural area within an agri-environment agreement by March 2011. This figure fluctuates on a monthly basis due to agreements expiring and delays in renewals; as of 1 July 2011 this figure is 67.59 per cent. The ongoing monitoring survey results (February 2011) show that 61 percent of respondents were in ELS and 61 per cent of this subset stated that they joined (17 percent) or renewed (44 percent) their agreement in direction response to the Campaign. 3.2 Key target option uptake in ELS Whilst considering the importance of retaining the baseline of key target option s in ELS, the CFE is now 63 percent of way to achieving the 80 000 hectare final target, and 27 percent above the baseline of 39 671 hectares. Advice to farmers has encouraged a more balanced uptake of options and has encouraged them to get one third of their agreement points from key target options. However, there are a proportion of farmers who have renewed during the lifetime of the Campaign and now would like the opportunity to improve the quality of their agreements by amending them to including a greater area of key target options.

Uptake across the key target counties for key target option uptake is varied and monthly analysis of the data provided by Natural England has revealed some key findings. Of particular note is the area of land under key target options which has been greatly impacted by the loss of EG5 (brassica fodder crops followed by over-wintered stubbles and a large area option). The option contributed 7001 ha to the baseline in July 2009 and has slipped to 2943ha in July 2011. The issue is that farmers can replace their EG5 points (90 points/ha) with a smaller area of other key target options at a ratio of 4.44 ha EG5/1 ha key target options. This option was particular popular in Yorkshire, Hampshire and Wiltshire where smaller areas of land appear to have been put into key target options. More specifically, this has greatly impacted uptake of key target options in North Yorkshire, where there has been a significant drop in physical area from 640 ha to 194 ha by 1 July 2011. The uptake of wild bird mixes has increased from 5,081ha in July 2009 to 6,721ha July 2011 which is a 30 percent increase in option area on farm. For pollen and nectar mixes the area under these options has also increased from 2,178ha in July 2009 to 2,974ha July 2011, which equates to a 37 percent increase by area on farm. The more complex key target in-field options of Unfertilised cereal headlands within arable fields (EF9), GWCT un-harvested cereal headlands (EF10) and Uncropped, cultivated margins (EF11) continue to drop below the 2009 baseline. Analysis of option uptake across the key target counties also shows the effect of the CFE where there is a concentration of resources in predominantly arable counties, where the CFE is most relevant, including local coordination and funded communications activities. For example in East Anglia where the CFE has a strong focus, over 65 percent of agreements contain key target options. 3.3 Option uptake in HLS The CFE has a target to double HLS ‘more of the same’ option uptake from the July 2009 base line of 8400ha by June 2012. As of 1 July 2011 the uptake of these options in HLS has increased by 142 percent. This figure is unlikely to significantly increase since Natural England will be making less use of these options under their advice activities. 3.4 Uptake of ELS buffers The target for the CFE is to increase the uptake of 6 metre buffer strips next to water courses (EE9 and EE10) to 8240ha by June 2011. The uptake as of June 2011 is 2805 ha, which is a 34 percent increase toward the target. The CFE and other advice streams are advising farmers and the advisory community that these new buffer strip options are available and are asking farmers to ensure they choose the right option code. Advice packages are also promoting these options as part of balanced ELS agreements. Based on anecdotal evidence it appears that farmers are choosing the wrong option code when renewing their agreement. This miscoding of 6m buffer strips against watercourses has been discussed by the Evidence and Monitoring Group in detail. Natural England have let a contract to assess the quality of ELS options and as part of that will seek to ground truth whether the wrong code has been used and to advise if there is an under-recording issue. Uncropped land

The latest figure for the area of uncropped land will be available on the 11 August 2011. The Defra February ongoing monitoring survey provides an initial indication that this figure has fallen to 130, 374ha, which is 27, 000ha below the final target. The target to retain and increase the area of uncropped land is proving to be a challenge. This data is inherently variable, reflecting weather and cropping decisions as influenced by markets. 3.5 Voluntary management The Defra February ongoing monitoring survey (2011) has collected data on unpaid environmental management reported as - ‘within the Campaign and fully meeting essential management requirements’ and ‘outside the Campaign and fully meeting or closely resembling essential management requirements’. This data is not directly comparable to the 2010 or baseline survey due to changes made to the wording of the ongoing monitoring survey sent out to 5500 farmers annually in February.

When the Evidence and Monitoring Group worked with Defra to produce the 2010 survey, the wording was amended from the baseline survey to take account of the newly produced voluntary measures guide, particularly focusing on management being undertaken as part of the CFE. In doing so, this inadvertently failed to capture the ongoing voluntary environmental management being undertaken by farmers and land managers outside of the CFE and hence forming the baseline. The Evidence and Monitoring Group sought to rectify this issue in the 2011 postal survey and the results were available in May 2011. The revised survey format in 2011 has helped farmers’ record voluntary environmental management on farm, but the perverse effect of this development of the survey is that it has introduced a degree of incomparability between survey years and the baseline. To address the issue of incomparability a sub-group of the Evidence and Monitoring Group was set up in March 2011 to explore ways of improving the robustness of the evidence base, particularly on what is being delivered by the more common voluntary measures that account for a significant proportion of management that counts towards the CFE. This group proposed that the FERA field verification work is scaled up and discussions around the appropriate method are still ongoing within the Evidence and Monitoring Group. Adjusting the baseline for voluntary measures is also being examined as a remit of this sub-group to try and overcome the issue of non-comparability. The proposals from the sub-group will initially be discussed by the full Evidence and Monitoring Group before being considered by the Steering Group. The FERA field verification work in 2010 and 2011 has evaluated the accuracy of returns to the survey on a sample of farms where land within the Campaign has been declared. The proportion of features that were correctly reported as meeting the essential management requirements (red box) was 46 percent in 2010 and 45 percent in 2011, though on an area basis this was only 34 percent in 2011. This year the existing FERA telephone survey has been strengthened to see if the management that is declared outside of the CFE is in fact compliant with essential management requirements of the voluntary measures. Whilst the FERA field verification survey examines in detail land declared within the Campaign, significantly more voluntarily managed land is declared as being ‘outside’ the CFE. Anecdotally, industry partners and Local Campaign Coordinators (LCCs) have heard from farmers who are

concerned about declaring their management as part of the CFE for fear of non-compliance with the essential requirements of the voluntary measures. Often these farmers were concerned that penalties may be attached for not fulfilling essential requirements, despite the CFE making efforts to reassure them that this is not the case. FERA telephone surveys to farmers declaring management outside of the CFE has indicated that a significant proportion of this land may be red box-compliant, but on-site evaluations are required. Opportunities to adjust management to increase environmental delivery by achieving red box compliance for land both within and outside the Campaign are central to the CFE’s communication strategy for the next quarter. 3.6 Remaining targets To promote participation in the Campaign by those farmers outside agri-environment agreements The results of the February 2010 survey suggested that around 23 percent of farmers who are not in an agri-environment scheme have already taken some form of action under the Campaign. To seek to improve the environmental management of at least one third of the uncropped land It has been discussed by the sub-group of the Evidence and Monitoring Group that the total area of voluntary management that fully or closely meets the essential requirements of uncropped voluntary measures (C1, C2, C3, C5, C6, C8, C9, C10, C12 and C13) provides improved environmental management over uncropped land. This proposal will be signed off by the full Evidence and Monitoring Group by the end of July 2011. To encourage farmers and land managers to take up voluntary measures which have the greatest environmental value. Greatest environmental value is best achieved locally by following identified local priorities. LLGs have set their advice and delivery priorities using local ETIP and priority targeting. 3.7 Changing attitudes and behaviour The Defra ongoing monitoring survey (February 2011) had a 67 percent return rate which is a good response to an official survey. It found that 90 per cent of holdings had an understanding of the CFE. When asked whether they agreed or disagreed with the aims and approach of the Campaign, only 2 percent of respondents disagreed with the aims and 4 per cent with the approaches, which is consistent with the 2010 survey. Of the respondents in ELS, 61 per cent reported they had either joined (17 percent) or renewed (44 percent) in response to the Campaign. In summary, there have been significant improvements in attitudes to and knowledge about the CFE, compared with 2010. However, 79 percent of a sub-sample of 794 farmers said they will not take action to support the CFE. Almost half of these farmers claim this is because they are already doing enough for the environment. A recent report (May 2010) researching the impact of ETIP advice reveals variations in Campaign awareness and impact according to farm characteristics. It shows there are significant interactions between the awareness of the CFE and farm type; with cereal farms and mixed farms more likely than expected to state that they were aware of the Campaign, which is to be expected as the CFE is focused on encouraging the greatest engagement with arable farmers. There was a tendency for

cereal farms to be more likely than other farm types to state that the Campaign had influenced their choice of ELS options. There were also significant interactions between the awareness of the CFE and farm size; with farms of less than 100 hectares being more likely than expected to state that they were aware of the initiative. There were further interactions between farm size and the influence of the Campaign; with farms over 250 hectares more likely to state that they were influenced in their uptake of ELS options. FERA’s interim report (June 2011) of the field work to verify the ongoing monitoring survey results of 2011 reinforces that support for the CFE remains high. Several of the farmers visited as part of the field work expressed concerns that a small number of farmers were contributing to voluntary measures, whilst the majority were contributing nothing. Overall, there has been an increased awareness of the aims and requirements of the Campaign over the past year. However, confusion remains amongst some about the interaction with Environmental Stewardship (ES), with a small number of those interviewed considering that participation in ES constitutes sufficient contribution to the CFE and a wider view that the Campaign should be targeted at those farmers not in an agri-environment scheme (AES).

30 August 2011

Written evidence submitted by the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB)

(RTF 10)

The RSPB is Europe’s largest wildlife charity with over one million members. We manage

one of the largest conservation estates in the UK, covering c.143, 217 hectares. Sixty of our

reserves are farmed, covering more than 20,000 hectares, with around 170 tenant farmers,

and 200 employees.

1. Summary - Better regulation, not deregulation

1.1 The RSPB supports the principle of identifying opportunities for more efficient

regulation. However, we strongly contend that regulatory approaches have a proven track

record of securing and improving environmental quality.

1.2 Regulation is an essential tool for safeguarding the environment, the interests of taxpayers

and the future health of the economy. The Government has a duty to play a central and

overarching role in enforcing standards and in ensuring the UK meets its wider legal

obligations.

1.3 We note the Task Force’s stated aspiration to maintain environmental standards.

However, we believe that some recommendations lack a sound evidence base and, if

implemented, could threaten the natural environment.

1.4. As a founding member of the Aldersgate group1, the RSPB supports an agenda of better

regulation. A well-functioning economy and society depends upon a regulatory environment

that is proportional, accountable, consistent, transparent, targeted, efficient and effective.

1.5 As a land owner and farmer2, the RSPB understands the frustration felt by farmers faced

with unnecessary bureaucracy. However, this review must not be appropriated as a cover for

deregulation, which could threaten the natural environment. We are mindful of the wider

1 http://www.aldersgategroup.org.uk/home 2 The RSPB owns a 180-ha commercial arable farm and around 25,000 livestock graze our land annually.

deregulatory context and the fact that all environmental legislation is currently under review

in the Cabinet Office’s ‘Red Tape Challenge’.

2. Is it desirable for Defra to change its culture of regulation in the manner suggested?

The RSPB believes a number of the proposed changes could lead to undesirable outcomes.

2.1 Regulation as a last resort

2.11 The Task Force recommends that, both domestically and within the EU, Defra’s position

should be based on non-regulatory solutions.

2.12 The RSPB agrees that regulation is only one mechanism for ensuring environmental

protection. Engaging positively with farmers through incentives and experienced advisors is

central to effecting change. We have played a full part in the industry’s voluntary approaches,

including the Campaign for the Farmed Environment and the Voluntary Initiative. However,

our experience strongly suggests a regulatory fallback is needed.

2.13 The report does not provide any evidence that voluntary initiatives can be an effective

replacement for regulation within the UK or across Member States3. Nor does it address the

fact that a number of voluntary approaches have failed to meet their targets. 4

2.2 ‘Gold plating’5

2.21 The Task Force endorses a principle of ‘copying out’ EU legislation. However, the

Aldersgate group has challenged the perception that regulation places a disproportionate

burden on industry. On the contrary, there is good evidence that well-designed 3 A number of reviews have concluded voluntary programmes are often ineffective in yielding environmental improvements, eg Darnall, N, and Sides, S (2008). “Assessing the Performance of Voluntary Environmental Programs: Does Certification Matter?” The Policy Studies Journal 36 (1): 95–117 and Koehler, D (2008) The effectiveness of Voluntary Environmental Programs – A policy at a crossroads? The Policy Studies Journal 35 (4):689-22. 4 For example, a voluntary approach aimed at moving to 90% of soil improvers and growing media being peat free by 2010 failed to meet its target. 5 Note, the Davidson Review (‘Implementation of EC legislation’, Final Report 2006) found no compelling evidence that the UK is systematically over-implementing EU directives and made the point that it can sometimes be beneficial for the UK economy to set or maintain regulatory standards that exceed EU requirements.

environmental regulation is good for business in the longer term, delivering competitive

advantage, reducing costs and protecting valuable resources6.

2.22 A current example where ‘copying out’ is likely to have a detrimental impact is the UK’s

implementation of the Sustainable Use Directive. Both the industry and environmental

interests have called upon the Government to go beyond the letter of the Directive because

failing to do so could lead to a reduction in current standards and could result in increased

pesticide pollution entering the environment.

2.3 Evidence base

2.31 We believe the Task Force should clearly demonstrate the evidence base for their

recommendations. However, in some cases, no evidence is provided to demonstrate that a

proposal would not lead to negative environmental impacts. For example, despite

highlighting that agriculture is responsible for 88% of UK ammonia emissions, the report

recommends removing farming altogether from IPPC7 controls, without providing

supporting evidence (6.75).

2.32 In light of this proposed weakening of pollution regulations, it is pertinent that the

recent European Nitrogen Assessment concluded air pollution is a ‘major threat to human

health and ecosystems in Europe’ and highlighted the poor record of the agricultural industry

in controlling pollution relative to other sectors.

2.4 Cost to society

2.41 The Task Force state their recommendations will offer big savings to business, but does

not consider costs to Society or non-farming business8.

6 The Aldersgate Group. Green foundations (2009). The path to a vibrant economy, competitive advantage and sustainable prosperity. 7 Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control Regulations. It also recommends that IPPC should not be extended to cattle(6.75) despite cattle producing the majority of ammonia emissions (Defra, 2010) 8 For example, nitrogen pollution - much of it emanating from agriculture - now costs the EU up to £280 billion a year, while water companies in England spent £92 million removing pesticides from their water supplies between 2005-2009

2.42 Appropriate regulation will often be the simplest and most cost-effective solution for

correcting market failures and allowing business the certainty to invest, thus driving growth

of a greener economy. Failure to properly implement regulation could lead to greater costs

being incurred in the long run, not least if the UK does not meet its wider legal obligations.

2.5 Outcomes v process

2.51 The Task Force calls for a focus on outcomes, rather than on unnecessary process. We

agree that inspections should not be a tick-box exercise. However, there is still a place for

process compliance.

2.6 The End-User

2.61 The report proposes a regulatory culture which seems to place the interests of industry

ahead of other key stakeholders (2.12)9. For example, a confidential industry-only route of

communicating sensitive information about pesticides is recommended (9.41). Such

confidential and privileged access could undermine transparency and accountability – a

central principle of better regulation.

3. How would a system of ‘earned recognition’ work in practice?

3.1 We strongly oppose the suggestion that private sector schemes could replace inspections

by Government regulators (2.21). Assurance schemes may have vested commercial interests

and will rarely have expertise across all the areas inspected by statutory bodies10. This could

lead to reduced emphasis on environmental requirements which are more difficult to

inspect11 or have less commercial relevance.

9 For example, the report recommends that the UK negotiating position in the EU should be owned between Government and the industry, and that Defra should take the industry on lobbying visits to Europe (2.51) 10 For example, cross-compliance SMRs comprise articles from 18 EU directives and regulations encompassing environmental protection, animal identification and registration, plant, animal and public health, and animal welfare 11 Birdlife International. Through the green smokescreen: How is CAP cross-compliance delivering for biodiversity?

3.2 A 2010 review of the contribution of UK farm assurance schemes towards desirable

environmental policy outcomes concluded: ‘…the proportion of content that sets out to

seriously tackle environmental issues is very limited in all but a few schemes’ and ‘It is

clear…that the mainstream schemes do not reflect the broad range of environmental care

activities required by policy and it is debatable whether or not they are delivering on the

expectations of consumers regarding environmental care.’12

3.3 The Task Force states that ‘The regulator should not need to see the details of an individual

assurance scheme audits’ (3.20). However, if information on breaches of compliance cannot

be shared with the regulator, this severely limits the usefulness of assurance scheme audits in

the risk assessment process.

June 2011

12Lewis et al (2010) The contribution of UK farm assurance schemes towards desirable environmental policy outcomes. International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability 8(4) 237-249 

Written evidence submitted by the Food Ethics Council (RTF 11)

1. The Food Ethics Council (FEC) is a charity that provides independent advice on the ethics of food and farming. Our aim is to create a food system that is fair and healthy for people and the environment.

2. Much of our recent work has focused on the need, and the business mandate, for

government leadership in addressing the challenges of environmental sustainability and social justice that face the food sector today. One of the main conclusions of our Food and Fairness Inquiry – undertaken by a committee whose members included representatives of the Food and Drink Federation, the National Farmers’ Union and the British Retail Consortium – was that government has a stronger mandate to intervene than is generally reflected in policy. Our work with WWF-UK on sustainable livestock has established that government has a mandate from business to play an active role in helping to negotiate the environmental, social, economic and animal welfare issues relating to diet, including meat consumption. And our current ‘Beyond Business As Usual’ project explores the growing demands from the private sector for government to show leadership in tackling structural issues such as financial instability and environmental limits to growth – issues that businesses recognise they cannot address on their own.

3. This work provides the context for our response to the report of the Farming Regulation

Task Force. It is important to acknowledge at the outset that government leadership is not, of course, the same thing as regulation – so there is not necessarily any contradiction in recognising the need for government leadership and proposing a minimalist approach to regulation. This means that assessing the shift in culture recommended by the Task Force is essentially a matter of ensuring that the appropriate balance is struck between the avoidance of unnecessary regulation on the one hand, and the need for government leadership – including regulation where that is the most appropriate means of achieving the necessary outcomes – on the other.

4. At its most general level, this requires that the call for minimal regulation does not,

explicitly or implicitly, undermine the case of strong government leadership. It is worth noting here that the FEC’s findings about the mandate for government leadership were confirmed in one of the last reports published by the government’s sustainability advisory body, the Sustainable Development Commission (SDC), before its dissolution earlier this year. The SDC’s report Making Sustainable Lives Easier reflected the views of a range of stakeholders, including business representatives. The report identified a number of challenges for government, including:

The lack of definition, clear direction of travel or ‘vision’ for sustainable lives is a challenge. Business participants in particular talked of the need to have a clear steer from government, to help them feel more confident in moving further and faster...As one business participant put it: ‘There is a crying lack of strategic vision of where we want to get to’.

5. So, at the general level of the need for government leadership, we fully endorse the Task

Force’s view that ‘Government’s role should be to set the strategic overview...’.1 However, we take issue with the second part of this quote – ‘...but then minimise its involvement’ – which, we believe, fails to reflect the various ways in which government can, and must, show leadership, even in a culture of minimal regulation.

6. Turning from the general issue of leadership to the more specific question of regulation,

we are concerned that the Task Force’s emphasis on minimal regulation – on regulation as a last resort – risks underplaying the essential role of regulation in addressing the problems facing farming and food businesses. For example, the Task Force expresses its agreement with the Aldersgate Group’s view that ‘high-quality regulation can help stimulate growth as well as achieving desired outcomes’.2 However, the Green Foundations report also warned that

In the drive to reduce regulatory burdens, there is a risk that the better regulation agenda loses sight of how to most effectively deliver the outcomes it is designed to achieve...Increasingly, businesses which take a long-term view of value are demanding more regulation, so that they can address emerging challenges and provide a competitive edge without being undercut in the short-term.

7. This warning resonates strongly with the conclusions reached by our Food and Fairness

Inquiry, where the demand for government leadership included the fact that ‘responsible business leaders are increasingly calling for more effective regulation in order to secure a “more level playing field” – to prevent less scrupulous businesses from under-cutting their more progressive counterparts’.3

8. One particularly troubling ‘test case’ for the approach advocated by the Task Force is the

area of health and safety in the agricultural sector. The Curry report, 10 years ago, highlighted this particular aspect of UK farming. The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) itself cites the following political considerations as having determined its agriculture strategy:

• ‘The need from more efficient, more effective regulation and (ideally) less of it;

• A “lighter touch”, fewer burdens on business and less red tape’4

1 Striking a balance, page 4; the Task Force’s covering letter to James Paice. 2 Green Foundations. The path to a vibrant economy, competitive advantage and sustainable prosperity. Aldersgate Group. 2009; cited in paragraph 1.17 of Striking a balance. The Aldersgate Group is ‘a high level coalition of progressive businesses, environmental groups and individuals who believe that high environmental standards will be a major part of future economic growth and international competitiveness’. 3 Food Justice: the report of the Food and Fairness Inquiry, Food Ethics Council, 2010. 4 About health and safety in agriculture, http://www.hse.gov.uk/agriculture/hsagriculture.htm; downloaded 1 June 2011.

9. In other words, government’s approach to promoting health and safety in agriculture is already characterised by the principles of minimal regulation that are advocated by Striking a balance. The number of Improvement Notices issued in agriculture has declined in the last five years. Yet, as the Task Force recognises, agriculture is now the single most dangerous industry in Britain – the fatality rate is almost ten times the all-industry rate - and has failed to improve its death and injury rate for over 20 years. The National Farmers’ Union (NFU) held a summit a few months ago to launch their campaign to reduce fatalities, emphasising that prosecutions send out a message far beyond the fields immediately affected. With the abolition of the Agricultural Wages Board, gone will be the incentive – agreed by the NFU and the farmerworkers’ union, UNITE – to develop health and safety skills. The fact that the Task Force’s response to these statistics and developments is to urge farmers to improve their performance, rather than propose any change in the approach of the HSE suggests that, on this issue at least, it has failed to strike the appropriate balance between voluntary action by business and government intervention.

10. In conclusion, the Food Ethics Council recognises the wealth and breadth of experience

and expertise embodied in the Task Force membership. We nevertheless believe that in its tone and content, the Task Force’s report fails to attach due weight to the government’s responsibility for providing leadership in addressing the environmental and social challenges that face the food sector (and society more widely), or to appreciate the business mandate for government leadership on these issues; and that it underplays the importance of regulation as one facet of government leadership.

10 June 2011

Written evidence submitted by the Environment Agency (RTF 12) EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Environment Agency welcomes the opportunity to make a submission to the Committee’s inquiry on the report of the independent Farming Regulation Task Force. We welcome the Task Force report to Government as a positive step towards improving regulation of the food and farming sector while maintaining standards of environmental protection. The Environment Agency will work with Defra and other Government departments on the implementation of the recommendations. We will work with Defra in developing its initial response in the Autumn and its subsequent final response. We will provide evidence where we believe recommendations may need to be challenged, for example around cost or feasibility of implementation. 1.0 INTRODUCTION The Environment Agency is the leading public body for protecting and improving the environment in England and Wales. Along with other duties, we have specific responsibilities for a range of regulatory regimes impacting on farm businesses in England and Wales. We recognise the Task Force report applies only to England. 2.0 THE ROLE OF FARMING IN DELIVERING ENVIRONMENTAL OUTCOMES In 2010, 27% of rivers were at good or better ecological status as identified in assessments undertaken as part of the Water Framework Directive (WFD). Impacts from farming were identified as the reason for 18% of water bodies failing WFD biological elements, 88% of which are thought to be due to diffuse pollution. The food and farming sector is vital to the environment, the economy and to society. We believe that it is important that farm businesses are allowed to thrive, and that they are given proper incentives to operate in a way that encourages innovation, maximises efficiency and supports food security, while protecting essential soil and water resources for the future, and contributing to reductions in greenhouse gas emissions and resilience to climate change. We believe effective regulation, both in design and implementation, has a role to play in achieving these goals. As part of effective regulation, we support the view that farmers should take greater responsibility and that, by working together, regulators and the agriculture industry can develop the best solutions, whether these are regulatory or other mechanisms. 3.0 RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE TASK FORCE 3.1 General views

The principles of responsibility, trust and partnership set out in the Task Force report accord with our own aims for better regulation of businesses. Increasing responsibility within the sector and improving the way we work in partnership with the industry should mean we achieve the best outcomes in the most equitable and efficient way. 3.2 Desirability of culture change

The Environment Agency agrees with the need for ongoing culture change. We have made considerable progress in improving how we regulate and the Report recognises this, citing numerous examples. However, we also recognise that there is still potential for further improvement.

We agree with the Task Force that there is scope to address problems in a more joined up way, so that issues such as nitrate pollution from farming are not treated in isolation but instead considered at a catchment level in combination with other sources. 3.3 Implementation of culture change We believe the recommended change in culture will support our two developing approaches for agriculture:

• Improved focus at catchment level including gathering better evidence and engaging partners (farmers, intermediaries and others) to develop the best solutions.

• A sector-focused approach. We aim to promote a package of measures to facilitate improved environmental performance by farmers. These measures will combine regulatory, voluntary and other measures - whether industry, Defra-partner or Environment Agency led.

In addition, we believe that there needs to be improvement as follows:

• More effective liaison Partnerships need to operate at the appropriate level (e.g. national or catchment), they

must be fit for purpose, active interactions with clear terms of reference. We need to learn and build on previous success. Effective partnerships improve not only the way the Environment Agency works but also how, for example, trade associations serve their membership on environmental and regulatory matters. The Environment Agency’s intensive pig and poultry industry liaison group is a good example. It provides a forum valued by the industry, Government and the Environment Agency for joint delivery of advice/guidance and activity at a national level for intensive pig and poultry farms regulated under Environment Permitting Regulations.

• Clearer communications

We believe that a shared understanding of why particular environmental issues are important is needed between ourselves (and other regulators) and farmers. This includes a shared recognition of the improvements that must be made. This should be

founded on compelling evidence and be communicated in such a way that all those involved in farming (e.g. supply chain industries, trade associations, training organisations) promote common messages to farmers so that necessary improvements are achieved and the need to make new regulations is minimised.

• Improved data and information sharing We welcome the recommendations to promote data sharing within the Defra family and also with farmers. To build responsibility and trust we (regulators and industry) must be better at sharing information. The principle of Earned Recognition cited in the report requires this foundation.

3.4 Putting ‘earned recognition’ into practice

We support the principle of Earned Recognition and look forward to working with Defra and the farmers to develop this concept. Building on our current risk based approach, we would expect Earned Recognition to improve how we target our compliance assessment activities to deliver the best outcomes for the environment while reducing burden on farmers.

We believe that some of the following issues will need to be worked through to maximise the benefit of Earned Recognition approaches:

• Ensuring that standards in appropriate assurance schemes compare well with regulatory requirements;

• Allowing flexibility to account for geographical variation in environmental pressures and impacts;

• Improved data sharing, access and management so that compliance inspection effort can be better targeted.

10 June 2011

Written evidence submitted by Dairy UK (RTF 13) Introductory Comments 1. Effective regulation is central to the well being of the dairy industry. Commercially, the well being

of the industry rests on consumer confidence in the safety and wholesomeness of dairy products and the efficacy of its animal welfare practices. Politically, the benefit the industry obtains from a variety of public support mechanisms rests on confidence amongst the electorate that the sector is fulfilling its wider obligations to society.

2. With the enormous number and variety of businesses involved in the dairy industry supply chain,

both at farm and processing level, it is important that effective regulatory mechanisms are in place to safeguard against the potential risks to the integrity of the industry. Given the considerable technological complexities involved in dairy farming, and the range of biological threats to the health of dairy cows, the number of issues that require regulatory attention is not likely to reduce.

3. The issue therefore is creating effective regulatory regimes that address the risks to the industry. The disposition of the current regulatory culture tends towards cumbersome, bureaucratic, inflexible and costly procedures that are not appropriate to the business challenges of the future.

4. The vast majority of dairy farmers are justifiably proud of their professionalism in running their farms. They find it particularly irritating when they get caught up in an indiscriminate enforcement regime which does not focus on the very small minority that represents the real risk to the industry’s well being.

5. Dairy UK therefore broadly welcomes the recommendations of the Independent Farming

Regulation Task Force that future regulation must:

a. Engage the industry in the development of regulatory systems b. Involve non-regulatory solutions to enable industry to take responsibility c. Focus on outcomes instead of process d. Involve enforcement through risk based inspection regimes involving an element of

earned recognition

6. The penalties regime also needs to be adapted to this new approach to ensure that all parties can be confident that the industry is a reliable delivery partner.

7. The report by the Task Force also includes a number of specific recommendations on existing regulatory regimes which are of particular importance to dairy farmers. These include the recommendations on livestock movements, the treatment of milk from animals with TB, and most importantly, on the implementation of the Nitrate Vulnerable Zone Action Plan. Timely action on these recommendations would be strongly welcomed by the industry.

EFRA Questions

• Whether it is desirable for Defra to change its culture of regulation in the manner suggested

by the report,

We support the recommendation that Defra should seek to change its culture of regulation. As indicated by the report, historically Defra’s approach has tended to be process orientated and enforced through a system of uniform regular inspections. This has resulted in inefficient use of limited resources, excessive administrative burdens on farming and food businesses and sub-optimal implementation. In future Defra should aim for more outcome based regulation supplemented by a more flexible risk-based inspection regime. • How this cultural shift could be implemented, particularly focussing on strengthened

partnership with the farming and food processing industries and more proactive engagement with EU institutions;

A cultural shift would be achieved by a much closer working relationship with the sectors being subject to regulation. This requires continuous engagement with stakeholders to maximise the familiarity by Defra officials with the operational practices of the food and farming sectors. This would be enhanced by reduced staff rotation within Defra and perhaps strengthening the branches within Defra tasked with sponsoring individual sectors. Defra staff would also benefit from out-placement with enterprises in the sectors for which they are responsible. However, closer working relationships between industry and business should also be based on a common goal of achieving effective regulation, as opposed to just minimal regulation. This requires a clear mutual understanding by business and Defra of the risks that need to be addressed by regulation and the dangers of not addressing them. • How a system of ‘earned recognition’ for regulation and inspection recommended by the Task

Force would work in practice. The dairy industry is able to provide a practical working example of earned recognition. The dairy sector has negotiated a system of earned recognition with the Food Standards Agency on the operation of dairy farm inspections by its Animal Health Dairy Hygiene inspectorate. Previously the AHDH inspected all dairy farms on an annual basis in order to implement the UK’s obligations under the EU’s Dairy Hygiene Regulation. The focus of this inspection is food safety. The dairy industry operates its own system of on-farm inspection through its assurance scheme, now called Red Tractor Assurance Dairy Scheme. Inspections under this scheme take place every 18 months and cover food safety, as well as a broader spectrum of issues, such animal welfare and environmental issues. Under the arrangements for earned recognition which are due to come into force from 1st July the frequency of AHDH inspections will be reduced for farms which are members of the industry scheme to a frequency of 10 years. The risk assessment undertaken by AHDH in determining which

farms to inspect will also be supplemented by milk quality data for individual farms provided by milk purchasers. 13 June 2011

1 

 

Written evidence submitted by the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (RSPCA) (RTF 14)

A: Summary

1) In principle, the RSPCA supports a review of farming and food regulation to identify potential improvements in delivery of intended impact, but change must not be made for change’s sake. It should not be assumed that apparently ‘onerous’ implementation/enforcement processes are inherently unnecessary

2) The RSPCA believes that some farm animal-related recommendations merit further consideration but thorough analysis of the evidence, costs, benefits and risks to all stakeholders is essential before decisions about change can be made with confidence

3) Government must retain an overarching direct role in, and responsibility for ensuring effective implementation and enforcement of regulations to ensure they achieve their intended impact. Stronger partnerships and some degree of shared responsibility may be positive but must not undermine or replace Government’s societal-given role in this area.

B: General points

The RSPCA’s comments are restricted to animal welfare-related areas.

1) In principle, the RSPCA supports a review of farming and food-related regulation under a ‘better regulation’ agenda. However, desire for change must not jeopardise effectiveness of regulation in achieving its aims. Whilst regulations should not be unnecessarily onerous, compulsory regulation that is strictly and effectively implemented and enforced generally provides the cornerstone of protection of animal welfare.

2) Some regulations described as ‘burdensome’ are fully justified and should continue to be implemented and enforced as now. Strict regulations which provide points of difference with others can and do enable UK industry to differentiate/promote itself in a global market, so can bring benefits rather than ‘burdens’.

3) Certain Task Force recommendations on farm animals merit further consideration (see Section C). However, caution is required to ensure the impact of regulation is not diluted for the sake of making life easier for some. Short term gain could result in long term pain e.g. relaxation of measures aimed at reducing risk of serious livestock diseases might lead to severe consequences for industry and wider society.

2 

 

4) Focus on outcomes in various areas is a useful approach. However, outcomes should be used to underpin and help inform judgements on – rather than replace - enforcement of ‘input’ standards/processes. Reliance on outcomes alone can be deceptive and result in a false sense of security.

5) All recommendations must be based on sound evidence. Even widely voiced views and perspectives do not necessarily have a factual basis. The report fails to provide factual evidence to support the need for, and/or to address the risks that might be associated with some of the changes proposed. Amendments to current implementation/enforcement processes must be based on robust information about benefits and risk mitigation.

6) In the livestock sector, market forces and private sector initiatives play an increasing role in setting and auditing standards of welfare. This can be mutually beneficial (producers, consumers and animals) and commercially sustainable. However, the nature and direction of these influences is uncertain, and must not replace the pivotal role and responsibility held by Government to ensure appropriate ‘minimum standards’ are applied and upheld.

7) A risk-based approach to enforcement (e.g. via ‘earned recognition’) could be beneficial where logistics and resources limit auditing ‘coverage’. However, it is essential that criteria used to make judgements about risk and to categorise issues and individuals (e.g. livestock farms), are appropriate and that information on which those judgements are based is objective and robust. Information from private sector bodies (e.g. farm assurance schemes, veterinary practices) can contribute but only with appropriate safeguards that ensure objectivity and reliability and only if used in conjunction with Governmentally-sourced objective data. Government must continue to undertake some level of completely random auditing - past compliance may not predict future behaviour.

8) Strengthening partnerships between Government and relevant sectors could result in improved communication, understanding and a feeling of collective responsibility. The report mentions ‘Government – industry’ partnerships but fails to suggest involvement of other relevant stakeholders (e.g. animal welfare scientists). A ‘partnership’ approach must not lessen Government’s overarching and central responsibility to ensure proper enforcement of standards.

9) The Task Force states that Government ‘must trust industry’. Evidence from Animal Health visits indicates little change in overall levels of non-compliance with animal welfare legislation on farms and at markets, with some serious failures continuing to be evident despite the growth in farm assurance1. Whilst this could illustrate the need

3 

 

for a change of approach to improve compliance, it also highlights the importance of strengthening Animal Health’s work rather than reducing inspections.

C: Response to specific recommendations (not covered above)

1) Changing the way we work:

i) ‘Explore and embrace tools to influence farmer behaviour’ is a progressive, positive recommendation that could benefit all stakeholders, though such new approaches should facilitate proper implementation of legislation rather than replace mandatory regulation.

ii) ‘Engaging in the EU’ – allocating sufficient resource to enable Defra to engage effectively with the EU is important though the proposed enhancement of industry’s influence on EU legislation (‘place the end-user…at the centre of EU policy-making’) must not over-shadow other equally valid interests (e.g. general societal view; animals)

2) Business and Management: ‘the need for productive sustainable farming’ – this is a valid overarching aim, but the view expressed that there is also a need for ‘sustainable intensification of farming’ is not supported by any evidence of either need or desirability

3) Farmed Animals: several recommendations - including those on animal identification, approved isolation facilities, ensuring consistent enforcement, encouraging livestock producers to take responsibility for improving training and understanding on biosecurity and movement controls, and consolidation of livestock recording arrangements and fitness to travel guidance - merit further investigation but evidence must be provided of the need, risks and advisability of each, and that effective auditing/enforcement will occur. Reliance on ‘self-declaration’ is high risk. Other recommendations require explanation/evidence of their exact nature and benefits e.g. use of carbon dioxide in poultry slaughter before 2013.

D: References

1 The Welfare State: Five years measuring animal welfare in the UK 2005 – 2009. RSPCA June 2010

June 2011

Written evidence submitted by Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE) (RTF 15) Introduction

1. CPRE believes it is important to review regulations regularly to ensure that they are operating effectively and are not having unintended consequences. It is also important that the Government maintains a regulatory regime that prevents a return to the circumstances that required the introduction of the regulation in the first place.

2. In general, while recognising that not all regulation is perfect, we have been supportive of regulatory approaches where these help to drive improved levels of environmental protection. CPRE was particularly concerned that the Farming Regulation Task Force’s recommendations should not undermine the effectiveness of the environmental regulations that protect landscape and historic environment features, wildlife habitats, and the quality of our soil and water resources. We were pleased that the Task Force honoured its commitment to avoid this outcome.

3. Broadly CPRE raised three key areas of regulation in our response to the Task Force, the environment, planning, and local food and these are addressed in the following submission. We have not yet had an opportunity to meet the Task Force to discuss its recommendations and this submission is made without prejudice to any future discussions between CPRE and the Task Force.

Executive summary

4. We do not believe that, given its wide remit, Defra has a stronger culture of regulation than that of other Government Departments. We have questioned the commonly held assumptions that, compared with other businesses, farmers and landowners suffer disproportionately from regulations, and that the UK applies regulations more strictly than other EU member states. This is particularly relevant given the extent of publicly funded payments, including the Single Payment and agri-environment scheme payments that farmers and land-owners receive.

5. A common criticism of the implementation of environmental regulations in the UK is that they are ‘gold plated’. Consideration is needed, in this context, of whether minimal or light touch approaches to regulation do enough to prevent the minority flouting environmental protection requirements when the majority strive to comply. It has to be questioned whether self-regulation is a viable alternative where there is a vested interest in avoiding regulations that reduce profits. Voluntary approaches have not been always been successful. For example, the Voluntary Initiative on Pesticides was rightly criticised when high levels of a banned insecticide (isoproturon) were detected in waterways across England.

6. In terms of inspections, we are supportive of moves to reduce duplication of reporting requirements. A single, but thorough and wide-ranging, inspection could cover many different aspects of regulatory compliance, thus avoiding unnecessary

1

overlap. The competence, knowledge and thoroughness of inspectors will be crucial to the quality of an inspection. This will become even more important if single inspections for multiple purposes are introduced. The introduction of ‘earned recognition’ could provide motivation to implement actions to meet regulatory requirements more swiftly. In terms of timing and forewarning of inspections, ‘earned recognition’ requires some element of random inspections, conducted at short notice to be retained to ensure ongoing compliance, particularly by those who may be tempted to flout regulations.

7. Before being implemented more widely CPRE believes that the regulatory changes recommended by the Task Force should be ‘environment proofed’ and piloted in small areas.

Environment

8. CPRE believes there should not be any weakening of cross compliance. In fact there is a good case for expanding cross compliance measures to ensure better provision of public goods from public payments. We also supported a regulatory approach to retaining the environmental benefits of set-aside, as opposed to the voluntary approach that is currently being tried in the form of the Campaign for the Farmed Environment (CFE). At the moment, the evidence suggests that farmers need to do much more to embrace the CFE. We feel strongly that its success or otherwise will provide a strong test case that Government must use in deciding whether to pursue voluntary approaches in the future.

9. CPRE believes that the Hedgerows Regulations (1997) are a proven important way of protecting valuable hedgerows. We are very pleased that the Task Force made no recommendations to weaken or remove the Hedgerow Regulations. In fact, we believe there is scope for these to be improved. We carried out a survey last year of 133 English local authorities to find out how they were implementing the Hedgerows Regulations and how they could be improved. Our research followed a similar survey in 1998. Our survey illustrates that the Hedgerows Regulations are doing a good job protecting many countryside hedgerows but that they could be strengthened. It is evident from the considerable regional variation in the level of hedgerow protection that centrally determined criteria for importance are not the ideal way to ensure that locally valuable hedgerows are conserved. Indeed, 32% of local authorities in England felt that the addition of a local landscape criterion would mean more hedgerows of importance in the local landscape could be protected. Such a change would be in line with the Government’s growing emphasis on localism. Many local authorities (42%) believe that the Regulations could be improved by simplifying the importance criteria for a hedgerow. This would make them more effective in protecting local landscapes and local distinctiveness, as well as safeguarding their historical, archaeological and ecological importance.

10. While we accept that the Soil Protection Review (SPR) (which forms part of the cross compliance requirements for receiving the Single Payment) could be made more

2

effective, any changes need to be implemented with the aim of protecting soils from becoming further degraded. Some in the farming industry have expressed the view that the SPR is unnecessary as farmers’ greatest resource is their soil and they would therefore not wish to damage it. The evidence shows, however, that 2.2 million tonnes of topsoil is eroded annually in the UK and over 17% of arable land shows signs of erosion (Environment Agency 2004). It is important that a long term view and the wider public interest are taken into account when making decisions on regulatory changes that affect soil. The Natural Environment White Paper stated that soil damage costs the economy at least £150-£250 million per year. The Government wants all of England’s soils to be managed sustainably and degradation threats tackled successfully by 2030.

Planning

11. We did not believe the planning system should fall within the remit of the Task Force’s review, particularly as the Government has proposed to reform the planning system radically and has brought forward proposals to do so. CPRE was disappointed that some of those who responded to the Task Force used the review as an opportunity to criticise the planning system by claiming that it is overly complex and that it hinders development. Given a decision was made to consider planning issues our submission identified some aspects of agricultural development that may require new regulatory or legislative approaches to address environmental sustainability concerns. The planning system needs to be able to function properly when it comes to deciding on applications for large scale agricultural developments. In this respect we were interested that the Task Force’s report provided a paragraph on ‘Sustainable Intensification’ that it believed should be inserted into the forthcoming National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). In CPRE’s view there needs to be a proper debate on the definition of ‘Sustainable Intensification’ as currently its meaning and consequences for farming and the countryside are unclear. Such a debate would inform whether and how the NPPF should address agricultural development.

12. We believe that the scale of some agricultural developments, such as the extensive development of polytunnels, large bioenergy proposals and the recent applications to build large scale, intensive indoor livestock units, require an examination of whether the planning system is currently adequately equipped to address some of the wider environmental issues associated with these sorts of developments. In this context, we were pleased that the Task Force supported the case for extending and formalising planning controls over some types of agricultural development. However, the Task Force recommendation that polytunnels should be brought into the planning system through the prior notification procedure regardless of scale, but that seasonal worker dwellings should be allowed as permitted development up to 465m2 appears to be confused. We firmly believe that both need to be brought fully into the planning system to avoid the current confusion over planning consent. We do not agree with the recommendation that local authorities should only be restricted to commenting on design issues, and requirements for the

3

removal of obsolete polytunnels and agricultural plastic in winter.

Local food

13. In our submission to the Task Force CPRE highlighted the need to consider the disproportionate impact on local food businesses of some regulations which are often created with much larger businesses in mind. We are supportive of reducing the regulatory burden and costs on local food producers using thresholds, providing this does not complicate administrative requirements, reduce effectiveness or have implications for food safety. CPRE has also been critical of over-regulation in relation to food quality. For example, we expressed concern over a Food Standards Agency proposal in 2004 that would have banned grazing by sheep of traditional orchards for a period of four months due to concerns over microbial pathogens contaminating apple juice.

14. The application of a range of regulations to the operations of small to medium size primary food producers and processors may be placing a disproportionate cost on their businesses, and threatening the viability of some. These regulations may either directly, or indirectly through time and expense, hinder them from entering the market place and expanding, as well as putting them at a competitive disadvantage with larger enterprises. While there are some derogations for certain types of producers, understanding and interpreting how these work can be difficult for such businesses. The restriction on the ability of these businesses to prosper and grow has a concomitant effect on employment levels and the output of local economies, particularly in rural areas.

15. In our 2006 report The Real Choice we stated that ‘regulation can cause disproportionate harm to small businesses’, and quoted evidence from the Small Business Research Trust that small businesses spend an average of twenty eight hours a month filling in forms, making the regulatory cost five times more than for large firms. We went on to recommend that greater use should be made of derogations from European regulations. In particular, we highlighted the escalating costs of the meat hygiene inspection regime and that related costs should remain affordable for artisan food businesses.

16. A number of examples have also emerged from our collaboration in the Making Local Food Work programme. These include burdensome labelling requirements which impose excessive costs on small and home producers, inconsistent application and interpretation of rules and regulations within and across different agencies at local/regional level and perverse effects of regulations.

17. We recommended to the Task Force that the Government should properly and fully take into account the needs and concerns of Small and Medium Sized Enterprises (SMEs) involved in the production of food when regulations are drafted and consulted on which might apply to them. This could be achieved in part by ensuring that such businesses are adequately represented on the advisory bodies and panels responsible for formulating regulation at the national level and that their interests are

4

5

represented at United Kingdom and European level discussions.

18. We also recommended that the effectiveness of consultation processes should be reviewed and if necessary that the Government should consider establishing new consultative processes which require direct engagement with SMEs from the food and farming industry. It will be important that any derogations for SMEs continue to take environmental sustainability considerations into account. The creation of loopholes that could be exploited by larger enterprises also need to be avoided. For example, large businesses splitting their enterprises into smaller operating units to avoid regulatory requirements, which could risk undermining the effectiveness of any regulation.

June 2011

Written evidence submitted by the British Veterinary Association (BVA) (RTF 16)

1. The BVA is the national representative body for the veterinary profession in the United Kingdom and has over 12,000 members. Its primary aim is to protect and promote the interests of the veterinary profession in this country, and it therefore takes a keen interest in all issues affecting the veterinary profession, be they animal health, animal welfare, public health, regulatory issues or employment concerns.

2. We welcome the opportunity to provide comment on the report of the Farming Regulation Task Force to the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee. In November 2010 we were contacted by the Task Force with a number of questions regarding Farming Regulation. Our initial response to these questions is attached at Annex A for information.

3. In our initial response, we stressed the importance of regulation, and whilst recognising that the Task Force was seeking to identify areas where the regulatory burden could be reduced, we noted that in many cases the burden of regulation was outweighed by its benefits, particularly in the case of disease control. As such, we believe that any move to de-regulate should be given careful consideration.

4. Given the above, we do not think that Defra, its agencies and delivery partners should 'establish an entirely new approach to and culture of regulation,' as suggested in the Report, and we are concerned that some of the recommendations move too far in this direction, without full consideration of the consequences.

5. For example, in Chapter 8, the Task Force recommends removing the 6-day standstill on farm-to-farm movement. The 6 day standstill is a preventative measure aimed at limiting silent spread of the highly infectious Foot-and-Mouth Disease. Silent spread occurred in 2001 and was a major factor in the widespread nature of this massive epidemic. We believe that removing the 6 day standstill will increase the risk of a disease outbreak, and that on balance, the cost of responding to an outbreak or an increasing number of outbreaks would be more than the cost to the industry of maintaining the standstill. Furthermore, if as is suggested in the Report, there were one holding (under a single County Parish Holding (CPH)) which had a radius of ten miles, in the event of an outbreak of notifiable disease, under EU rules this would entail a surveillance zone of 2,124km2 compared with the current 314km2. This would greatly increase the surveillance work necessary to prove freedom.

6. Similarly whilst we note that the Report recommends that isolation should be used as an exceptional option for breeding or show animals, we believe that the use of isolation facilities must be accompanied by rigid disease prevention measures to maintain good bio-security. As such, meaningful isolation facilities will need to conform to a very high standard and are unlikely to be consistently maintained on the average livestock farm.

7. Again, in Chapter 10, we believe that allowing pasteurised milk from TB-reactor cows to enter the food chain could put animal health and consumer safety at risk, and goes against the principle of

only allowing products from healthy animals to enter the food chain. In addition, TB reactors should be removed from a herd as quickly as possible, and to harvest potentially infected milk for human consumption would almost certainly lead to delays in the removal of reactors from the herd. In any case, European Union legislation prohibits this.

8. Despite these concerns we do see merit in a number of the recommendations made by the Task Force. We believe that truly unnecessary burdens should be removed and compliance with regulation should be made easier. We agree that the Government should work with and trust the farming industry and that this should lead to increasing industry responsibility. We also believe that the Government should draw on their experiences of a risk-based approach to regulation and use this to further develop and refine their policies.

9. In principle, we are supportive of the recommendation to implement a system of 'earned recognition'. The Report highlights the role of voluntary third party assurance schemes in demonstrating compliance and good practice as a means to earning recognition; it is essential that the rules of assurance schemes for livestock are effective in addressing animal health and welfare and food safety issues on-farm and that audit of assurance schemes is robust. We support the implementation of 'earned recognition' in the abattoir sector and the work being done by the Food Standards Agency (FSA) to bring about the necessary changes to EU legislation to enable this.

10. Finally, we agree with the Task Force that early engagement with Europe is essential, but we believe that this already takes place, perhaps to a greater extent than the Report would seem to suggest. As noted above, we recognise the difficulties faced by the UK and the constraints within which it has to operate when seeking to change the European legislative framework.

11. We would be very happy to provide the Committee with further information or clarification, as required.

13 June 2011 ANNEX A

BVA Consultation Response to the questions posed by the Farming Regulation Task Force

1. The BVA is the national representative body for the veterinary profession in the United Kingdom and has over 12,000 members. Its primary aim is to protect and promote the interests of the veterinary profession in this country, and it therefore takes a keen interest in all issues affecting the veterinary profession, be they animal health, animal welfare, public health, regulatory issues or employment concerns.

2. BVA welcomes the opportunity to comment on regulation affecting farm and food

processing business. We have considered the questions posed by the Task Force and would like to highlight the following points:

• The importance of regulation

3. Whilst we appreciate that the Task Force is seeking to identify areas where the regulatory burden on farmers, growers and processors can be reduced, we do feel that it is important to stress that this burden is often outweighed by the benefits that regulation provides. For example, animal movement rules and medicine record keeping requirements ensure traceability and prevent drug residues from entering the food chain, and we certainly would not support the dilution of any of these requirements. Care must be taken to ensure that any reduction in regulation does not negatively impact upon animal welfare, hygiene or effective disease control.

4. We do however feel that compliance with regulation should be made easier, and indeed many of the points raised by our members related to excessive paperwork and having to complete very similar forms relating to the same event/occurrence (e.g. BS7 and BS26 forms for cow abortion could be merged into one as any cow aborting has to go into isolation). In some instances, for example regarding ID and movement rules, compliance could be achieved via a central database and electronic reporting. A central and consistent format of recording would facilitate data access and analysis. Use should be made of existing sources of information, such as the Poultry Register, which provides information on poultry premises throughout the UK, to prevent local animal health offices requesting the same information directly from farmers.

5. We also believe that there should be better communication between regulators and those responsible for enforcement of regulation and between enforcement bodies. Shared IT systems might help in achieving this objective.

6. In terms of the interaction between the veterinary profession and the public sector, we believe that vets working on behalf of Animal Health/Defra/Trading Standards would benefit from a clearer idea of the structure and hierarchy which defines their contract including guidance on the scope, expectations and the limitations of veterinary involvement. This would put vets in a stronger position to define their role to clients.

• Duplication of inspections

7. We are aware of instances where there is some duplication of inspections. One instance of this which was raised in discussions with our Production Animal Subgroup was TB testing, when there is often a trading standards officer present while an Official Veterinarian (OV) is carrying out the testing and also recording tags. Whilst we understand that this has been put in place to reduce the burden on the farmer and capitalise on the fact that the animals are already being handled, perhaps for example,

this could be taken further with the trading standards officer only looking at tags on animals not tested by the OV.

8. In addition, we feel that in some circumstances having too many inspections can miss the mark and fail to deal with an issue on farm. An example that was reported to us was of a farm which received two inspections from a farm assurance scheme and trading standards following concerns that were raised by a vet about the welfare of the animals on the farm. As a consequence of the inspections the farmer was told that his milk would not be accepted and that he should repair the milking parlour, but nothing was done to address the actual welfare of the animals. More co-ordination might go some way to preventing this.

9. We can see a potential advantage to taking more account of farm assurance schemes as indicators of legislative compliance and in principle we support this. We also support greater veterinary involvement in setting and audit of scheme rules and conditions. However, whilst we believe that our members would be happy to engage in further reporting/recording work, policing powers should not progress to vets, and neither should the vets be responsible for imposing sanctions. There are also questions of client confidentiality for the private sector vet and independence and impartiality of any inspectorate which would need to be dealt with.

• Risk Assessments

10. We believe that the question here should be 'Are Government Departments too risk averse in formulating regulation'? We understand that some regulation is perceived by the industry as being too risk averse, for example movement controls. What we believe is lacking here is risk communication and it is this that we believe needs to be improved by regulators. Risk communication must include an explanation of the likelihood and impact of any risk to those being regulated.

9 November 2010

Written evidence submitted by the Tenant Farmers Association (TFA) (RTF 17)

1. Introduction 1.1 The Tenant Farmers Association (TFA) welcomes the opportunity of

providing evidence to the Select Committee as part of its Inquiry into the Report of the Independent Farming Regulation Taskforce.

1.2 The TFA is impressed with both the breadth and detail of the Taskforce

Report. The Taskforce has been able to pull together a broad range of issues in considerable detail and the TFA believes that the Taskforce should be congratulated for the quality of its work. In this written evidence we seek to indentify some of the major themes within the Report as well as identifying some specific areas which the TFA believes are important.

2. Holding the Government to Account 2.1 In the TFA’s immediate response to the publication of the Taskforce Report in

May, we highlighted the importance of ensuring that the Government is held to account on its implementation of the many, often detailed, recommendations the Taskforce has provided. We therefore welcome the Inquiry of the Select Committee as part of the process for holding the Government to account. We note that the Government has announced the establishment of a Strategic Regulatory Scrutiny Panel which Defra has said will assist it in challenging and advising the Department on the way it thinks about regulations. The TFA believes that an important part of the role of this new panel should be to hold the Government to account on implementing the recommendations contained in the Taskforce Report.

2.2 However, apart from the announcement of the creation of the panel, no

information has been received concerning its constitution or make-up. It will be important to ensure that it has adequate representation from the industry.

3. Redefining the Regulatory Culture 3.1 The TFA supports the overarching conclusion of the Taskforce that

Government policy should be more concerned with outcomes as opposed to process. In the TFA’s experience of dealing with Government over a range of issues it is apparent that outcomes can often become lost in developing the processes and procedures required for scheme implementation, monitoring and auditing. It is interesting that in publishing the Natural Environment White Paper the Government has identified the need to become more focused on outcomes in policy development and yet it continues to be difficult to see a clear path which will take us from the current suite of agri-environment schemes, which are driven very much about process, to a new policy platform

1

more concerned with outcomes. This is a major challenge for Government across the piece and particularly for Defra. Success in this arena will be measured by the extent to which the Government is willing to take measured risks whilst working in partnership with those within the industry who will be delivering desired outcomes.

4. From Bureaucracy to Responsibility and Partnership 4.1 The TFA agrees that there is a need for the development of better partnership

working with the industry. However, the TFA is concerned to ensure that this means partnerships at grass roots levels and not just with industry stakeholder organisations. Whether they have been farming their land for decades and centuries or for only a short period of time, farmers are experts on the land that they manage and it is extremely disappointing that for the most part the State appears to significantly undervalue this expertise. Conversations with farmers have become too unidirectional causing farmers to feel disenfranchised and disengaged with policy development or the pursuit of desired outcomes.

4.2 We can begin the process of creating a true partnership culture by changing

the manner of farm inspections so that they become more of a dialogue between the farmer and regulator than they have been in the past. The TFA believes that regulators have much to learn from individual farmers and their knowledge of their land which should be fed back into the policy making process. Inspectors should be given discretion to deal with arising issues in a site-specific way rather than having to apply rules on a blanket basis with no regard for specific factors which may not fit with the standard profile envisaged when the regulatory process were being established.

4.3 Through the inspection process the State should be able to articulate what it

believes to be the desired outcomes so that there can a genuine discussion about how those outcomes can be achieved on a site by site or area by area basis.

5. Improving Inspections 5.1 There can be no argument against the premise that inspections must take place

according to agreed and established risk criteria. The development of those criteria will need careful thought but at very least the development of the concept of “earned recognition” should provide a substantial basis upon which to provide Government with information to ensure that its risk profile is properly informed. There is a myriad of inspection procedures to which farmers are subjected and reducing these in an objective and intelligent way must be a key priority. Indeed this type of approach has been discussed for many years prior to its formal expression in the taskforce report.

2

5.2 Proportionality is also a key concern. Whilst the TFA has no time for

individuals who deliberately and consistently flout the law, the system of checking and inspection must take account of the fact that farmers, along with individuals from every other walk of life, will make mistakes and those mistakes do not make them criminals. With farming becoming an increasingly isolationist profession, it is not surprising that from time to time mistakes are made in the implementation of a wide and growing bank of rules and regulations. TFA members who find themselves inadvertently in breach of regulations regularly bemoan the fact that Government Departments and Agencies can make mistakes without apparent sanction whereas they are heavily penalised for what they see as minor infringements.

6. Reducing and Reforming Paperwork 6.1 The simplification and streamlining of all processes involved in participation

in schemes or compliance with regulation must be a key goal. It is also important for the Government to issue clear guidance which it agrees to stand by should there be a dispute. A growing problem across the whole of Government is the increased tendency of officials to shy away from giving advice or providing it only on the basis that it has no legal standing. The TFA believes that officials, once properly informed, should be at liberty to provide advice, information and support to those individuals doing their best to meet scheme rules or regulations and that all advice provided is recorded and held for future reference. No-one should be penalised for following advice provided by a Government official which later turns out to be inaccurate due to some new interpretation of the law. It is particularly important that the Government put procedures in place to ensure that information provided to individuals on an oral basis is properly recorded and archived.

7. Engagement with the European Union 7.1 The TFA is concerned that the UK Governments attitude to Europe can and is

causing detriment to UK national interests and in particular those of our farming industry. The perceived “anti-CAP” agenda of the UK Government is a case in point. The Government needs to work hard to ensure that it can develop positive working relationships in Europe.

7.2 The implementation of the 1991 Nitrates Directive is a good lesson for us all. Lack of positive engagement with our European counterparts leading up to the 1991 directive meant that we have been landed with a Directive which is inflexible, difficult to implement and very process driven. It is however to the credit of Defra and its officials that in recent times it has worked hard with the European Commission to find as flexible a regime as possible for the implementation of the Directive in England. However, it leaves us wondering that if a similar amount of effort was put in before 1991 we may have had a

3

better outcome overall. Early engagement, discussion and objective dialogue with Europe on all levels is essential.

8. Strengthening the agricultural expertise of Government 8.1 Apart from those individuals who are required to go onto farms for inspection

purposes, there is very little positive relationship between farmers and regulators. The TFA would venture to suggest that with the exception of some individual examples of good practice the general affinity with the farming community amongst public servants is quite low.

8.2 There would be merit in considering how staff within Government

Departments and agencies could be encouraged to learn and understand more about the farming industry. It might be appropriate to require individuals in regulatory and advisory capacities to have a performance target to meet as part of their continuing professional development in this area. Senior policy makers and regulators should find the time to engage more directly with the farming community through formal links, secondments and taster days.

9. The Common Agricultural Policy, Single Payment Scheme and Cross-

Compliance 9.1 The TFA wholeheartedly endorses the sentiment expressed by the Taskforce

Report about ensuring that policy choices can indeed be implemented. It is with regret that the TFA remembers the discussions which took place between 2003 and 2004 concerning the implementation of the Single Payment Scheme when Defra Ministers opted to implement the Scheme in England on the most complicated basis in the face of its senior and most experienced officials within the Rural Payments Agency (RPA) expressing concern about the “disaster” that would follow. It gives the TFA no joy to have seen the fulfilment of that predication over recent years.

9.2 In this respect we welcome the recommendation of the Taskforce that the

Single Payment Scheme should be targeted at those who are actively managing land. The TFA would extend this to include agri-environment schemes. However, we do disagree with the Taskforce that to achieve this Single Payment Scheme entitlements should be abolished. The TFA believes that entitlements remain an important element of ensuring that the benefit of the CAP support remains with active farmers and tenant farmers in particular. The removal of entitlements would cause a major redistribution of value between tenants and landlords which we would want to avoid.

9.3 Instead, the TFA advocates a self-assessed set of criteria to ensure that schemes

under both Pillar One and Pillar Two are only accessible by active farmers. The criteria are as follows.

4

1. That the applicant is in occupation of agricultural land either as an

owner/occupier or as a tenant. 2. That the applicant is taking the entrepreneurial risk for the management

of the holding and is not taking a fixed charge expressed either in rent or fees.

3. That the applicant is in day to day management control either through directly farming the holding or in directing others to farm the holding according to a farm plan.

9.4 As noted above, these criteria should apply to schemes both under Pillar One

and Pillar Two and should be self-assessed to the extent that individuals do not need to supply qualifying information at the time of application but should be aware that they are at risk of inspection on this aspect of their application and will therefore need to provide evidence at that point.

9.5 We also do not believe that there is any need to reconfigure arrangements

which are currently in place. Any new criteria would simply apply from a date forward.

9.6 The TFA would also support the increase in the minimum area for eligibility

to participate in the Single Payment Scheme to 5 hectares. Although this appears to be a relatively minor issue, the manner in which SPS has been implemented in England did bring with it an extra 40,000 applicants in comparison with the previous IACS system and many of these applicants were very small scale so called “pony paddock” claimants. This is an administrative burden which the RPA could do well without. In terms of the 2012 Single Payment Scheme, we are encouraged by the RPA’s wish to express their payment targets in terms of those it sees as full time farms but the TFA would welcome moves to remove this burden completely.

10. Tenancy-Specific Recommendations 10.1 There are two specific recommendations made by the Taskforce Report

relating to agricultural tenancy issues. The first is to look at a change in the Agricultural Holdings Act 1986 to allow parties to an agricultural tenancy to contract-out of the dispute resolution procedures of the Act in order to appoint an independent expert to determine the rent review when there is disagreement between the parties. The TFA supports this recommendation completely. With rent review arbitrations costing tens of thousands of pounds in comparison to the difference in rents which is often a fraction of those costs, new ways need to be found for resolving disputes in a more cost effective way.

10.2 The Taskforce also recommends that the Tenancy Reform Industry Group

examines the Landlord and Tenant Agricultural Holdings, England and Wales,

5

6

Agriculture (Maintenance, Repair and Insurance of Fixed Equipment) Regulations 1973 as amended to update them to the modern context. Again, the TFA agrees that it is necessary to review these regulations. However, we do not believe that it is necessary to change the balance of responsibility and liability between landlords and tenants articulated within these Regulations but to update them with regard to costs and missing elements.

10.3 At the same time, the TFA would ask Defra to implement the changes already

agreed by the Tenancy Reform Industry Group to the Agriculture (Calculation of Value for Compensation) Regulations 1978 as amended.

11. Conclusion 11.1 The Taskforce has done an immensely good job in the face of some scepticism

about whether it would truly deal with the extent of the regulatory burden without undermining the industry’s high environmental and animal welfare record. The TFA believes that the report answers its critics in a thorough and ambitious way. However, the report must not be allowed to remain on a Whitehall shelf gathering dust along with other worthy reports of the past without being implemented.

14 June 2011

Page 1 of 3

Written evidence submitted by Red Tractor Assurance Scheme (RTF 18)

The Red Tractor scheme is far and away the biggest farm assurance scheme operating in the UK and probably the most comprehensive in the World. It is an industry self-regulatory initiative to ensure high standards of production and has operated since the mid-1990s. In that time it has developed a proven track record and is used by all major UK retailers, many branded manufacturers and increasingly food service operators. The consumer logo was introduced in 2000 and now appears on more than £10 billion worth of product every year. The scheme can be used by regulatory bodies to inform the prioritisation of inspections and we have more than 4 year’s practical experience of working with regulators to this end.

The following is background to the scheme and how arrangements can operate. 1. Why the scheme? Schemes were developed during the 1990s driven by two events. First the

introduction of the ‘Due Diligence’ defence in the Food Safety Act 1990 and second as a response to the well-publicised food contamination problems, BSE, salmonella in poultry etc. Retailers and other trade buyers need to know about the standards of their suppliers; a single national scheme avoids multiple inspections by different trade customers.

2. Arrangements: The scheme establishes standards of good agricultural practice. Farms are

inspected against them and where appropriate given a certificate of conformity. Certification is a prerequisite in the specifications of most trade buyers.

3. Scope: The standards have comprehensive coverage of food safety and for livestock, animal health

and welfare. They also include elements of environmental protection. Standards incorporate the relevant legislation and additional requirements reflect industry good practice and market expectations. There is significant overlap between the scheme and regulatory inspections.

4. Our standards manual is a succinct compendium of the legal and market requirements written in

more farmer friendly-language than the primary regulations. Appendices to the standards provide a wealth of supporting information and advice.

5. Inspection: We inspect farms on a 12 or 18 month cycle and there may be additional spot checks.

(This is significantly more often than regulatory inspections.) Inspections are done by independent Certification Bodies (CBs) who use our standards according to prescribed procedures. Farmers pay a modest annual charge for the service.

6. Rigour: We have elected to follow the disciplines of the international standard EN45011 which

demands competence, impartiality and consistency. CBs working in the scheme must demonstrate that they meet these criteria through accreditation by UKAS.

7. Every standard is checked at every inspection and farms must comply with all standards. Any

problems must be put right within a specified time period and in serious cases the certificate will be suspended pending rectification. Loss of certificate is a significant sanction that limits the farm’s options to market its products.

8. Governance: The Red Tractor scheme is managed by Assured Food Standards, a company limited

by guarantee set up by the UK supply chain. The company is jointly owned by the UK farm unions together with retailer and food processor trade associations. It operates on a not-for-profit basis.

9. The company is managed independently of any particular food chain interest. There is an

independent Chairman and a managing board that includes the broad cross-section of stakeholder interests together with strong independent directors nominated by relevant groups (consumer, veterinarian, regulatory, etc.).

10. Technical working groups for every commodity sector manage the standards and keep them under

review. These include some of the best experts from the UK supply chain supported by academia. Changes to standards are subject to broad consultation; all standards are transparent and posted in full on the website.

11. Benchmark: In December 2010 the EU Commission1 published best practice guidelines for the

operation of food certification schemes. The Red Tractor scheme complies with all 37 criteria. 12. Penetration: The scheme is well established and well used by trade buyers so farmer participation

is high. About 80% of UK farm production comes from farms in our scheme (this varies +/-15% by commodity sector). There are more than 60,000 farm enterprises within the network of Red Tractor schemes.

13. Effectiveness: A study by Warwick University for Defra2 used routine inspections by Animal

Health to benchmark levels of regulatory compliance on farms in the Red Tractor and other UK schemes. It found that compliance was significantly higher on certified farms compared to farms outside of a scheme. The report concluded that the certification status of farms could be taken into account in the risk model used to prioritise regulatory inspections.

14. Consumer logo: This was introduced in 2000. In addition to providing a label to differentiate

‘assured’ foods and for consumer communication the logo is also a vital tool to ensure the integrity of the system. A licensing system for the logo gives us access to factories to check traceability and integrity through the chain.

15. The logo links together industry self-regulation along the supply chain. It can only be used if the

product has come through an intact chain of certified suppliers e.g. animal feed, farms, livestock transport, slaughter, processing and packing. This chain relies on schemes owned by the Red Tractor and some by other UK trade bodies.

OFFICIAL CONTROLS 16. Assurance schemes cannot substitute for official controls. However it is reasonable that official

control bodies should target their inspections according to ‘risk’, and that participation in a robust independent certification scheme with relevant standards should denote lower risk. This principle

1 Commission Communication — EU best practice guidelines for voluntary certification schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs OJ C 341, 16.12.2010 2 AW0510: Study to assess whether membership of a Farm Assurance Scheme affects compliance with animal welfare legislation and code Dr. Amy Kilbride, University of Warwick

is accepted in the EU Official Feed and Food Control Regulations3. The Red Tractor scheme is keen to explore this option to avoid what many assured producers see as unnecessary and burdensome duplication of inspections.

17. Some arrangements are already in place with the Red Tractor scheme and working well:

- With the Food Standards Agency (FSA) and Trading Standards Departments in relation to General Food Hygiene Regulations (EC 852/2004). This has operated effectively since December 2006 providing a substantial benefit for tens of thousands of assured farms. A press release4 by FSA estimated the benefit to industry at £571k per annum and £2 million pa savings for the public purse.

- With FSA in relation to the same regulation on dairy farms. These were not included in the 2006 arrangements but assured status will be taken into account from 2011.

- With the Environment Agency and Environmental Permitting Regulations. This has worked very successfully since April 2010 and its scope will be extended during 2011.

- With Defra and Animal Health – following the review mentioned in footnote 2 above, work is in hand to put ‘earned recognition’ into effect during 2012.

18. Management of the arrangements: The Red Tractor scheme has comprehensive databases of its

members. These are updated as inspection reports come in and are available online (with controlled access) to the industry who use them extensively to check the assured status of farms. These data can easily be made available to official control bodies for the same purpose. The system with FSA/Trading Standards mentioned above has now operated successfully for well over 4 years.

19. Opportunities: despite some examples of good progress there is still unnecessary duplication. For

example despite the arrangements mentioned above, Trading Standards officers are also charged with inspecting livestock farms with respect to Feed Hygiene Regulations, but the risk prioritisation model is completely different to that used for Food Hygiene. And although there is token reference to private certification it is weighted in such a way that scheme membership will not affect the frequency of inspection. In short, at present different inspection prioritisation models are used even by the same official inspection body; the ideal would be one common model joined up across all government departments.

20. In Summary: The Red Tractor scheme has a proven track record within the industry and during

the last 4 or 5 years this has extended to co-operative arrangements with regulators. There are many other examples where better co-operation and integration could bring substantial mutual benefit to producers and the public purse with no loss of rigour in the application of the regulations and public protection. The Red Tractor scheme is keen to work with Official Control bodies to develop these opportunities.

June 2011

3 EC 882/2004 4 http://www.food.gov.uk/news/pressreleases/2007/jun/farminginspect  

Supplementary written evidence submitted by Red Tractor Assurance Scheme (RTF 18A)

Costs of farm assurance We were asked to provide a note on participation costs.

1. Whilst we own the scheme, we do not provide certification direct to the farmer and we do not set the participation fees. For more than a decade ago we have allowed several certification companies to provide assurance services to farmers. This has had two effects. First competition has ensured keen pricing; and secondly every certification body can provide a range of inspections, perhaps for different Red Tractor commodity sectors or to include additional scheme such as LEAF, tailored to the businesses needs in a single integrated farm visit. There is no ‘standard fee’ and the costs of integrated inspections should include a significant discount, typically 30%, compared to the sum of the CB’s normal charge for individual elements.

2. Having regard for these qualifications, typical annual producer costs per commodity sector are

indicated in the Table. These are inclusive of inspection charges and should be the total annual cost of participation. In several commodity sectors charges are banded according to the size of the holding.

Approx. annual cost Crops

1-80 ha £150 81-200 £180

200-300 £225 >300 £270

Beef/Lamb Flat rate c. £130

Pigs Flat rate c. £185

Dairy (Fees are negotiated and paid

by the milk purchaser rather than paid direct from the farmer. )

Chickens Flat rate c. £290

Fresh Produce Banded £200 to £450

3. We might assume that the farm assurance inspection is analogous to a vehicle MOT which costs a

private citizen £54 per annum. In comparison, a fee of around £150-£200 for a (small) farm business does not appear disproportionate. Assurance schemes for producers are now being used

by retailers and other major buyers in many other parts of Northern Europe and participation fees are generally significantly higher than we have in the more highly developed schemes in the UK.

4. Assurance premium: in answer to one question from the Committee we responded that there was

no market premium for assured products. As a generality this was correct. But there are some production sectors where assured stock will sell for a price premium. The English beef and lamb levy board (EBLEX) has published regular market reports showing a premium for assured stock e.g. http://www.eblex.org.uk/documents/content/markets/m_fa_summary2010webdoc.pdf which shows a price premium for cattle of up to £68 per head (and see the EBLEX leaflet attached – Please note this is not printed).

5. There seems to be a misconception amongst some farmers that ‘earned recognition’ will force

them to join schemes against their will. This is not the case, but where producers are already in the schemes and subject to regular inspections, duplication can be avoided. Farms not in schemes will continue to be dealt with by the normal arrangements. Ultimately it’s for the farmer to weigh up the costs and benefits of joining an assurance scheme. ‘Earned recognition’ on its own might not be enough to justify the cost but it might be a factor that tips the balance.

6. Incentives: The question of incentives was mentioned in other evidence. We would note that from time to time incentives have been available under certain EU initiatives to encourage producers to join farm assurance schemes by covering the costs of some or all of the participation fees. These have usually been targeted at producers in less favoured areas. We believe that this is still the case in at least one devolved region of the UK.

July 2011

Written evidence submitted by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) (RTF 19)

• The independent Farming Regulation Task Force published its report on better regulation

in farming and food on 17th May 2011. • In line with Coalition’s programme for government, the Government established the Task

Force to consider how to reduce the administrative and regulatory burden on farmers and food processors whilst maintaining environmental, health and welfare standards. Over a three month period, the Task Force gathered evidence from industry on the most burdensome regulatory processes. The Task Force made more than 200 recommendations to both Government and industry.

• The Minister of State for Agriculture and Food has warmly welcomed the report. At the launch of the Task Force report, he announced acceptance of a number of recommendations in full or in principle, covering areas such as the Nitrates Regulations and livestock movements which will be implemented straight away.

• The Government is currently reviewing the rest of the recommendations made in the Task Force report and will publish an interim response to the report in the early autumn, followed by a final response in the New Year.

Introduction 1. This Memorandum sets out Defra’s response to the issues identified by the Committee for

its inquiry into the outcome of the Farming Regulation Task Force, which was published on 17th May 2011.

2. The Farming Regulation Task Force’s remit only applied to England and, with the

exception of recommendations related to EU legislation, has not made recommendations applying to the whole of the UK.

3. The Government is considering the recommendations made in the report, including the

issues raised in the Committee’s Call for Evidence. Officials are currently working on how the principle of earned recognition and the culture change recommendations included within the report can be taken forward. As we look at ways to implement these ideas, we will be working within the context of the Task Force’s original principles: reducing the burdens on industry whilst maintaining high standards.

4. This memorandum focuses on: why the Task Force was originally commissioned; the

process of appointing members; recommendations which the Government is minded to accept; recommendations where implementation is already underway; and the timing of further implementation of the report.

Why and how the Farming Regulation Task Force was created 5. The Government announced the creation of the Farming Regulation Task Force on 9th

June 2010. Richard Macdonald was appointed as Chairman of the Task Force, and eight further independent members were appointed in July 2010. These members were selected on the basis of their individual knowledge and expertise and were not representing any particular sector or industry. The eight independent members had great breadth of experience, covering the farming, retail, food processing and environment sectors.

6. The Task Force was commissioned to undertake an independent review of all regulations applying to the farming and food processing industries. The review was carried out from the perspective of industry, considering not only regulations that businesses found burdensome, but also their implementation. The Task Force’s terms of reference stated that the Task Force should also advise how best to achieve a risk-based system for future regulation, whilst maintaining high environmental, welfare, health and safety standards.

7. As part of the review process, the Task Force undertook a three-month consultation,

gathering evidence from industry, wider stakeholders and individuals, including a number of workshops and other events. Outside of their six priority areas (meat hygiene inspections, dairy hygiene inspections, livestock movements, EU Fruit and Vegetables regime, Single Payment Scheme and cross compliance and Nitrate Vulnerable Zones) the Task Force only considered regulations that were raised by consultees.

The launch of the Task Force report 8. The Task Force report contains over 200 recommendations, directed at both Government

and industry. Its recommendations fall into three categories, which focus on: • culture change and the Government’s approach to regulation; • particular regulatory frameworks and structures (such as inspections); and • specific regulations (such as Nitrates Regulations).

9. The report was launched to the press and stakeholders on 17th May. Richard Macdonald

presented the recommendations, and the Minister of State for Agriculture and Food gave an initial verbal response.

The Government’s initial response 10. On receiving the report from Richard Macdonald, the Minister of State for Agriculture

and Food warmly welcomed the report’s challenges and its strong fit with the Defra and wider Government agendas including growth, better regulation and the green economy. He expressed his intention to take a bold approach to implementing the recommendations.

11. The Minister highlighted strategic principles in the report that he wanted to see applied,

including: • A stronger partnership between Government and industry, built on trust and

responsibility; • The need for a new approach to regulation, requiring culture change by regulators and

industry; • Moving away from regulations that are focused on process, allowing farmers to

achieve outcomes without unnecessary administrative burdens; • Ensuring that regulation is proportionate and is not automatically used as a first

resort; and • Streamlining inspections, including by exploring ways of further developing ‘earned

recognition’, including a consultation on animal welfare inspections. 12. The Minister also announced a number of recommendations for early action, that he

intended to implement straight away, including: • Reducing the paperwork resulting from the Nitrates Directive (see paragraph 6.16 of

the Task Force report) and improving record-keeping on farms in Nitrate Vulnerable Zones (paragraph 6.22). This could include exempting organic farmers from record-keeping requirements (paragraph 6.23);

• Ending the paper reporting of cattle movements and reducing the paper reporting requirement for pigs (paragraph 8.14);

• Seeking to simplify the livestock movements regime, by continuing to press the European Commission on sheep Electronic Identification data-reading tolerances and transitional arrangements for the ‘historic’ flock (paragraph 8.21).

13. The Ministers also announced initiatives that respond to the recommendations made by

the Task Force: • Defra and its agencies have been tasked with creating a plan by the end of this year,

detailing how they will reduce the paperwork affecting farmers; and • Defra will establish a Strategic Regulatory Scrutiny Panel, which will advise and

challenge Defra and its network of delivery bodies and play a key role in monitoring the implementation of the Task Force report. This panel, along with a number of other changes published in Defra’s Regulatory Reform Brief, will encourage better regulation within Defra.

14. The Minister also said that he is considering the full range of recommendations made in

the Task Force report, with a view to implementation. As an example, he outlined the further work that was already underway to analyse the benefits of implementing other recommendations on simplifying the livestock movements regime, including: • Changing aspects of the six-day standstill arrangements (paragraph 8.17); • Rationalising the allocation of holding identifiers and the regulation of movement

reporting between these holdings (paragraphs 8.15-18)

• Moving away from paper-based movement reporting for sheep, through the introduction of an industry-owned database (paragraph 8.14); and

• Abolishing the Cattle Tracing System links and Sole Occupancy Agreements (paragraph 8.15).

Timing 15. The Government will make an initial public response to the report in the form of a

Parliamentary statement in the autumn, followed by an updated final response in the New Year.

16 June 2011

Written evidence submitted by the National Farmers’ Union (RTF 20)

1. The NFU believe the detailed report is testament to Defra Minister Jim Paice’s determination to

tackle the regulatory burden farm businesses have to cope with. All areas of farming can benefit from the recommendations contained within the report but the implementation of the recommendations is now key and we strongly encourage Ministers to be bold on this front.

2. Whilst some of the recommendations may be optimistic and risk raising expectations, especially

in the European context, we need to see some action and change delivered as a result of this review. Too many previous better regulation reviews and initiatives in recent years have failed to deliver any meaningful benefits for those on the ground. This report is an important first step to achieving change but the next stage is to free farmers from the red tape that impacts on their competitiveness.

3. In reading through the report there are many recommendations we can agree with. While we

need to make sure there are no unintended consequences or processes put in place from the recommendations put forward we can initially broadly agree with the following proposals:

4. We can largely agree with the principles at the beginning of the report which look at ‘new ways of

working’. We would like to see a culture within Defra that understands and works with farm businesses to develop practical solutions with regulation as a last resort. Recommendations put forward include: 4.1 Once a problem has been identified the starting point should be non-regulatory solutions 4.2 Government to engage with industry during the pre-consultation phase of developing

legislation and should invite industry to draft jointly owned guidance in a new partnership 4.3 For Government to invite a working group of industry representatives (both trade

associations and farmers) to sense-check draft proposals and ‘instructions to departmental lawyers’ before they are turned into legal text

4.4 The introduction of maximum response times and fixed decision points. Examples of this include recommendations for the RPA to introduce fixed-date responses throughout the appeals process. These proposals will help to provide an element of certainty for farmers

4.5 Single access points to information and single contact points 4.6 UK’s engagement in the EU to be greater, earlier and in partnership with the industry

5. The adoption of a system of earned recognition to inform and target inspections and that serves

as an incentive for good practice. However there is a lot of emphasis placed on assurance schemes and it is important that assurance schemes are not cast in the role of the ‘regulator’.

6. The principles put forward to improve inspection and help Government end what it calls ‘the

culture of tick box regulation”. The following principles have been put forward by the Task Force: 6.1 There should be as few inspections as are necessary to meet obligations and maintain

standards

6.2 Inspections must be risk based and targeted 6.3 Regulators must make full use of all evidence available to them to implement earned

recognition 6.4 Inspections should, where possible, fit the business calendar 6.5 Where possible checks should be made on a sample basis 6.6 Regulators must share information as far as possible, to improve prioritisation, reduce

frequency of visits and improve co-ordination

7. The recommendations on planning are welcomed especially in the poultry, horticulture and livestock /dairy sectors where new builds will be necessary to meet environmental requirements. These recommendations include proposed wording to include in the forthcoming National Planning Policy and specific recommendations for changes to the current regulations on permitted development and the prior notification procedure to allow farm businesses to develop and increase productivity. The recommendation that the General Permitted Development Order is amended to create a category that would include Polytunnels reflects our policy on this issue and would benefit growers.

8. The recommendations to tackle the weight and speed restrictions for trailers. These

recommendations urge the Department for Transport to amend the 1986 regulations to enable the maximum speed limit for tractors to be aligned with the rest of the EU at 40 km/h; and for the maximum weights of trailers and combinations to increase from 18.29 tonnes and 24.39 tonnes to 21 tonnes and 31 tonnes respectively.

9. The recommendations on the Nitrates Directive especially for the review of the Directive to

significantly reduce paperwork, including the need for detailed plans and maps, and the complex calculations required of farmers in relation to manure and slurry. We also welcome the longer term aim for the European Commission to look again at the provision of the Nitrates Directive. Ministers will have to be prepared to be very tough and persistent in this area to deal with the regulatory mindset in parts of the European Commission.

10. We are pleased to see that the areas highlighted in our submission on IPPC have been picked up.

This includes the recommendation that the EA should establish a mediation scheme to address persistent or vexatious complaints regarding odour, noise and other nuisance issues.

11. We can also agree with the recommendation that waste regulations should be as light touch as

possible, to grow trust with the industry. The recommendation for the EA to reclassify fly-tipped material on farms as household waste, so that farmers can dispose of it at council waste sites at no cost has been a long standing NFU better regulation priority.

12. On Single Payment and Cross compliance we like the recommendations that every effort should

be taken to avoid ‘re-mapping’ and the reliance on a single map base for both SPS and agri-environment schemes.

13. The NFU welcome the general principle of earned recognition and for Government and industry working together to generate greater opportunities for trust and adoption of private sector arrangements in risk assessments, in the livestock sector.

14. The NFU can also welcome the recommendation for enforcement to be consistent, and for there

to be clearly defined and communicated flexibility in the enforcement of cattle tag rules. The cattle identification rules have caused a lot of disproportionate fines and there is a wide variety of interpretation. We therefore endorse the proposal that if an animal which has left a holding and has lost one tag but can still be readily identified, this not trigger rejection or further enforcement action, provided that the animal can be clearly identified throughout the remainder of its journey and the incident is not evidence of a wider failure on the part of the keeper.

15. The recommendations made on fallen stock. Here the task force recommend the continued

development and adoption of methods of containing stock prior to disposal and bio-reduction; and a separate recommendation to continue to seek a derogation for burial of small farm animals.

16. We can also agree with the recommendations on the approvals process for pesticides, including

the specific proposals on SOLAs for re-registration to be allowed in groups, incurring a single fee, saving the HDC and HGCA money.

17. We strongly endorse the recommendations calling for an end to dual licensing for industrial

hemp and the recommendation that the Home Office immediately establish the THC content below which cannabis sativa varieties can be considered to be safe and where its cultivation cannot be considered as intended for drugs use.

18. The recommendation on meat hygiene controls that consistently competent FBOs should be able

to use accredited private sector bodies to provide meat inspection services is in line with the policy we have been pushing throughout the FSA consultation on full cost recovery.

19. Clearly with so many wide ranging recommendations there will be some that will raise concern

and further proposals we can’t agree with.

20. From the outset the report challenges the industry to engage with Government and the European Commission early in the regulatory process and involves itself in the regulatory framework. These recommendations include:

20.1 Trade associations to develop voluntary initiatives to address agreed problems and meet

desired outcomes, and facilitate take-up by their members. Trade associations should also strengthen their ‘marketing’ of successful voluntary initiatives, including to policy-makers in the European Commission and European Parliament. While this is useful vindication for past and present NFU policy it may represent a considerable challenge in terms of capacity and resource for the NFU and industry

20.2 The report calls for industry to engage with Government on Impact Assessments; to develop a system of earned recognition, drive, own and fund training and continuous professional development for farmers, farm advisers and inspectors; and to agree with the regulator what constitutes bad behaviour and how it should be addressed. These clearly all have implications for the NFU but requires Government and the Commission to recognise our expertise and involve us early in the process

20.3 Where a regulatory route has been agreed to address a problem, the Task Force recommends that the framework should be designed by Government and industry in partnership to the greatest extent possible. This may possibly include co-designing regulation which may be difficult to sell to farmers

21. Further recommendations that we are cautious about include:

21.1 In making recommendations on who should be able to claim the SPS the Task Force call

for Government to press for the abolition of entitlements 21.2 The report also recommends that there should be a single payment made to the appropriate

commoners association for them to distribute appropriately on the basis of those who are actively farming the common. It may be practically difficult for the commons association to get an agreement amongst the commoners as to who is an active grazier and how the SPS monies are to be distributed to these graziers. It may also increase the burden on farmers who hold rights over more than one common – as they will be dealing with claims made by multiple commons associations as well as their own claim.

21.3 The Task Force recommend development of rapid and accurate provision of information on animal movements by adopting electronic reporting for all species. This will have a mixed reaction within the industry based on the fact that IT take up (access, availability, competence) is relatively low within the livestock sector. Further to this are the limitations in the technology to provide 100% accuracy.

22. The report also specifically recommends the immediate adoption of a single database, commercially and privately operated, to record sheep movements to ultimately replace and make redundant the Animal Movement Licensing System. This recommendation is contentious and what remains unanswered is who pays for the database and what are the implications on farmers without IT and the necessary IT skills.

23. The report also makes recommendations for regulators to have a greater range of penalties at

their disposal and for civil sanctions to be used as a good way of applying proportionate penalties. While we have agreed in principle with the use of civil sanctions, we stated in our submission that we believe there needs to be a period of evaluation and review on how they are being used in practice and what impact they are having on agricultural businesses, before other regulators gain access to them.

24. The Task Force have clearly undertaken a lot of detailed work since they were established last

year through consultations, workshops and engagement with industry. It is now crucial that these proposals are taken up, not only in Defra, but across Government to reflect the diversity of business interest, and most challenging of all in Europe too. Defra also need to champion

farming concerns, as it does environment, across Government. We need to see other Government departments (for example DCLG on planning, Department for Transport on weight / speed restrictions) respond to the proposals put forward.

25. We now urge Defra to produce a transparent implementation timescale for the report

recommendations and to put in place an oversight panel to challenge and stimulate implementation right across Government departments. This is important to maintain the momentum and enthusiasm that currently exists on better regulation and regulatory reform. We strongly believe that this panel must contain industry stakeholders to ensure that the recommendations deliver real change and help the industry produce more and impact less. June 2011

Written evidence submitted by Unite the Union (RTF 21)

The Killing Fields Unite is Britain’s largest trade union, with just under 1.5 million members. Unite members work in most industrial sectors including the most dangerous, such as agriculture and construction. Our members also work in public services including the health sector, local government and the civil service, print, graphical and media, finance, IT and communications, the community and not for profit sector, docks, rail, ferries and waterways, passenger transport and road transport, energy and utilities, forestry, horticulture, food and drink manufacturing and distribution and supermarkets. One very important ‘test case’ for the approach advocated by the Task Force is the area of health and safety in the agricultural sector. The fatality rate is almost ten times the all-industry rate – and twice the next most dangerous industry – construction. Both were on a par 10 years ago, but the construction industry has made it a priority with excellent results. The agriculture sector has failed to improve its death and injury rate for over 20 years. Between 40-50 people are killed each year. The last fall in fatalities in farming was about 20 years ago – following the introduction of the Tractor Cab (Amendment) Regulations 1990. The point is obvious – regulations can work to the benefit of all. Ten years ago, the Curry Report into sustainability highlighted this particular aspect of UK farming – as part of the sustainable agenda. Yet the number of Improvement Notices issued in agriculture has declined in the last 5 years. The National Farmers’ Union held a Summit a few months ago to launch their campaign to reduce fatalities - emphasising that prosecutions send a message out far beyond the fields immediately affected. The abolition of the Agricultural Wages Board will remove the incentive – agreed by NFU and Unite’s Rural & Agricultural Workers - to adopt and develop health and safety skills. Unite’s Rural & Agricultural Workers sector has gone along with many non-regulatory initiatives in order to fight on as many fronts as possible. For example, we promote the ‘Make the Promise’ Campaign, and we helped develop vocational qualifications in health and safety in order to develop on site health and safety skills. We have long campaigned for Roving Safety Reps to be recognised, as our workforce is isolated and does not enjoy the benefits of organisations such as safety committees. Without union organisation, we are dependent on HSE inspection and regulation, yet inspections are likely to decrease with cuts to the HSE. The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) cites the following considerations to determine its agriculture strategy:

• ‘The need from more efficient, more effective regulation and (ideally) less of it;

• A “lighter touch”, fewer burdens on business and less red tape’1

The government’s approach to promoting health and safety in agriculture is already characterised by the principles of minimal regulation that are advocated by Striking a balance. The Task Force’s response to these statistics is to urge farmers to improve their performance, rather than propose any change in the approach the HSE suggests. On this issue, it has failed to strike the appropriate balance between voluntary action by business and government intervention. June 2011

1 About health and safety in agriculture, http://www.hse.gov.uk/agriculture/hsagriculture.htm; downloaded 1 June 2011.

Written evidence submitted by LEAF—Linking Environment and Farming (RTF 22)

Follow up questions to the oral evidence session on Wednesday 22 June 2011

1. Cost of inspection and data transfer 2. The cost of entry to the LEAF Marque certification scheme is between £180 to £500.00

dependant on the certification body and other factors such as joint inspections and complexity of the farm business (LEAF do not cap the fee. As an example one certification body quotes £277.00 with various discounts for payment types and then a discount of £67.00 if they are having a joint inspection.) The quality of the inspection is determined by the cost, for LEAF to cap the cost of inspection and certification would have an impact on quality and ultimately credibility of the scheme.

3. We estimate that the cost involved in the transfer of data to the Environment Agency or other body associated with LEAF Marque will be approximately:

setup cost of £5000.00

an annual maintenance cost of £500.00 per year.

4. LEAF would also like to clarify details of the evidence about the inspection process of the LEAF Marque standard, which is run to the same requirements as the Assured Food Standard.

5. The LEAF Marque standard builds on AFS to deliver additional environmental criteria. It operates on the same process of AFS with the standard updated every two years, specific requirements and criteria are written within the standard to demonstrate the practices and procedures carried out by the farmers and growers. The standards are based on sound science.

6. Specifically: 6.1. Food carrying the LEAF Marque logo shows that it has been grown by farmers who are

committed to looking after the countryside and the environment across the whole farm. LEAF Marque is an assurance scheme based on LEAF farming principles. It is based on the principles of Integrated Farm Management and a Technical Advisory Committee meets at least 4 times a year to develop and approve the standard. This group is made up of farmers and growers; environmental organisations, including RSPB and WWF; Certification Bodies; Retailers and government representation including DEFRA, the Environment Agency and Natural England.

6.2. LEAF Marque is independently inspected and certified by third party certification bodies to EN45011. Farms certified as LEAF Marque can use the LEAF Marque logo on all the produce they sell, direct to the consumer or to retail outlets. A unique tracking mark can be used on produce, which identifies the farm that the produce comes from.

6.3. All farms that are LEAF Marque certified are certified to Red Tractor standards on all enterprises on the farm, LEAF Marque is a whole farm standard. Both schemes are accredited by the United Kingdom Accreditation Service (UKAS) which is the sole national accreditation body recognised by government to assess, against internationally agreed standards, organisations that provide certification, testing, inspection and calibration services.

7. LEAF looks to continually improve its standards and is strengthening the credibility of the

standard setting and inspection process by meeting the ISEAL (International Social and Environmental Accreditation and Labelling (ISEAL) Alliance) codes of practice for standard setting and impacts. The ISEAL Alliance is the global association for social and environmental standards. This will further demonstrate the robustness of the standard and demonstrate how farmers are improving their environmental criteria, in particular to biodiversity, soil, water and air quality.

8. LEAF is not complacent with the inspection process and will always try to improve the inspection process to ensure its members are practicing Integrated Farming and following the standards. We make use of other activities and management tools that ensure full involvement in the philosophy of the farming system. This includes meetings on LEAF Demonstration Farms and research sites, the use of the LEAF Audit and actively encouraging farmers and growers to communicate to consumers and stakeholders through visits, notice boards, talks and other methods.

9. LEAF welcomes the opportunity for earned recognition for assurance schemes, the principles of

which are already being practiced and the inspection certification process is well established. 10. LEAF also believes that there are other tools and data submission opportunities that will help

assess risk and priorities’ of statutory inspections. LEAF has the following tools that require farmers to self assess risk.

10.1. LEAF Audit – this is an environmental management tool, consisting of 370 statements with

guidance and links to relevant documents and websites. It is updated on an annual basis to ensure its relevance. Farmers can develop a detailed action plan that defines what, when and who will carry out the improvement, it also allows farmers to bench mark their business against other users. Tried and tested over 18 years, the LEAF Audit is available as part of LEAF membership which starts at £60.00 for growers up to 121 hectares. LEAF collects the data and analyses it on an annual basis and LEAF can automatically transfer who has completed the audit to the relevant authority.

10.2. Green Box – this is an environmental monitoring tool that helps farmers identify what needs to be monitored, how to monitor and a method and place of data collection. The Green Box covers biodiversity, soil, air and water and gives guidance on how to improve the specific species or environmental area that the farms are monitoring. This work is also being developed to encourage farmers to work with local community groups to build up better evidence of their environmental performance.

10.3. Other data collection – LEAF has and will continue to develop tools to help farmers measure

their environmental impact and help them to farm in a more sustainable way. We have, in development, a water management tool and are looking to develop tools to measure and index sustainable farming.

10.4. Open Farm Sunday, Speak Out and visits – farm visits by customers and consumers are one

way of assuring the consumer about how their food is produced, encourage a letter exchange of information and also to demonstrate to regulatory bodies that the farm is open and honest about its practices. So farms that participate in visits from Open Farm Sunday to hosting

school visits offer we believe another level of risk measurement. . LEAF also has a network of LEAF Demonstration Farms: LEAF farmers host visits for a wide range of groups – from farmers to politicians, teachers to WI groups, so they can see how IFM can produce affordable food in harmony with the environment. More information can be found here; http://www.leafuk.org/leaf/consumers/visitafarm/LEAFdemonstrationfarms.eb

11. In conclusion the practicality of making earned recognition work is straight forward: we would

agree with our members on the data transfer and then inform the relevant bodies, through a data feed, who has completed the LEAF audit or who is LEAF Marque certified.

12. We have already completed a trial with the EA and are meeting to agree next steps. August 2011