A report by IEEP UK and Aether
Intensive farming on large fields with no biodiversity.
The Sustainable Nitrogen Alliance commissioned IEEP UK and Aether to analyse the ability of existing policies to reach national statutory targets and international commitments, and to suggest solutions to enable the Government to achieve such targets with a focus on those most effective at reducing nitrogen losses for the greatest value for money.
Progress to targets
Set within the context of public health, soil and water quality management, climate commitments and nature recovery, the report investigates and evaluates the statutory, regulatory and active policy frameworks across the UK in relation to measures in place to achieve both the statutory targets within each country and also the GBF Target 7. Targets are assigned a RAG (red, amber, green) status based on progress of the government in meeting. Beyond assessing progress to targets, this exercise demonstrated the fragmented nature of legislation relating to nitrogen.
Policy gaps
Analysis of policies identified gaps, such as permitting of cattle, and flows with no legislation, such as the forecasted ammonia pollution from hydrogen-powered shipping or shortfalls in bio-geographically targeted regulation.
Solutions and scenarios
Finally, policies are assigned a RAG status on a number of variables constituting impact and feasibility. These include the potential scale of impact, the uncertainty around that impact, the cost and timescale of implementation, and potential trade-offs or synergies across different forms of nitrogen loss. The RAG rating has not been used as a way to rank the measures, but rather as a way to flag the strengths, weaknesses or wider considerations within an individual measure, and to some extent between measures, in an accessible way.
Then, two scenarios were presented which represent two optional pathways to nitrogen reductions. The first was calculated by putting weighting behind cost, timescale and impact, but disregarding synergies and trade-offs across nitrogen losses. This scenario could be characterised as a more siloed and sectoral approach with actions that may have more trade-offs and fewer cross cutting benefits and synergies with related agendas.
The second scenario prioritised impact while considering synergies and trade-offs across nitrogen losses. It assembles a set of measures that would offer benefits both in terms of nitrogen reductions and wider environmental objectives such as lower GHG emissions, biodiversity enhancement, greater agricultural efficiency etc., which have co-benefits between different departments and sectors. This scenario would place an emphasis on both reducing losses of nitrogen and requiring greater reductions in the input of nitrogen through the system through better nitrogen use efficiency and shifting demand away from nitrogen intensive commodities.
Finally, recommendations are made to encourage the government to go beyond incremental improvements which are unlikely to be enough to fully address the nitrogen problem. The report concludes that the right combination of measures is needed to achieve the appropriate balance between different approaches, but it will need to be more than incremental changes. Specific measures need to be carefully considered to avoid pollutant swapping and, when sector or flow specific measures are put in place, to avoid negative impacts on other sectors or flows.
Low input pasture has much higher rates of biodiversity than sprayed fields.
Comments