Agenda item

(1)       Mr Tom Ormesher from the NFU (SE England)  gave a presentation. The accompanying slides are contained within the electronic papers on the KCC website.

(2)       Mr Ormesher said that membership of the NFU in Kent was in the region of 1,500 out of some 46,000 in England and Wales.  It was the biggest farming organisation in the UK.   Mr Ormesher was also the NFU’s representative on the Medway Flood Action Plan Group and the Kent Water Task Group.  The scope of his presentation would encompass flooding, water quality and water resources, outlining how the NFU could help co-ordinate responses at a farmer level.

(3)       Mr Ormesher said that he had just completed an 18-month Nuffield Farming Scholarship. This had included visits to the USA where he had interviewed some 200 people including farmers, farming organisations, and financial institutions.  This experience would inform his presentation.

(4)       Mr Ormesher set the scene by saying that Kent was an extremely important area for fruit and vegetable production and farming in general.  Some 80% of apples and pears in the UK were produced in Kent together with two thirds of its berries.  Kentish fruit and vegetables production was, therefore, the single most important contributor to the regional agricultural economy.  The accompanying slide showed the highest value Grade 1 and 2 agricultural land within the South East Region, including the North Kent Coast and the most south westerly parts of the County, equating to some 15% of the national resource.  Significantly, all these areas were within the Flood Plain.

(5)       Mr Ormesher moved on to explain that farming policy would be changing over the next five to seven years.  The UK would be removing itself from the EU Common Agricultural Policy’s system of area-based support to one of “public money for public good” which was more environmentally focussed on clean air and clean water. There would be greater emphasis on whole farm plans and third-party audits and assessment. The Government would probably adopt a more arms-length approach.   This would require a local co-ordinated framework for sustainable development which achieved the right balance between sustainable business and environmental delivery. 

(6)       Mr Ormesher then quoted from the 2018 UK Committee on Climate Change’s report which stated that there needed to be a 700% increase in the volume of water for irrigation by the 2050s in order to maintain present day levels of potato production.   The accompanying slide highlighted the problem by identifying the large number of areas in England and Wales where no water was available.  This represented a great co-ordinating challenge.  At a national level, farming used 1% of the total water resource.  The irrigated area within the UK had contracted by 40% during the first decade of the 21^st century. 

(7)       Mr Ormesher then said that water quality was also a significant issue.  Progress was being made towards the goal of creating a healthy clean water environment.  The agricultural industry had played an important role by achieving a 35% reduction in nitrate fertiliser since the 1980s together with a 20% reduction in manure due to more efficient livestock production, leading to a 34% improvement in the soil-to-nitrate balance since the 1990s.  Further improvements were needed at an increased pace.   This was also true in respect of flooding.  An example of the increased danger had occurred in Spring 2018 in Buckinghamshire where a farmer had found his land completely flooded out following a short, sharp rainfall event. He had never experienced any such problem in over 40 years.

(8)       Mr Ormesher then showed a circular flow chart which demonstrated the links between the qualities needed to develop co-ordination solutions.  He stressed the key importance of engaging with farmers in a business-friendly manner in order to promote measures to mitigate flooding on or originating from their land. 

(9)       Mr Ormesher said that he had put together a comprehensive list of organisations involved in water resource management.   At the top were the regulators such as the EA and the Rural Payments Agency (RPA).   Next came outside bodies who undertook voluntary measures. These were Catchment Sensitive Farming (CSF), the Catchment Partnerships, the Rivers Trust, the Wildlife Trust, the Farming and Wildlife Advisory Group (FWAG), and the Game and Wildlife Conservation Trust (GWCT). Below them came the producer organisations which were rarely farmer-led or commercially focussed.  

(10)     Mr Ormesher said that his preferred alternative approach was based on the US Third Party Programme. This involved farmer-led commercial organisations. He had visited and studied a wine growers’ association in California and the Farm Bureau of Ventura County where the farmers paid an acreage fee to the Bureau to undertake the administrative and compliance work such as monitoring of water quality and best practice measures.  The benefit to the farmers was that they obtained this support at a far cheaper rate than if they were to undertake it independently.  

(11)     The Watershed Agricultural Council was a farmer-led executive body in New York State which had the responsibility of delivering clean water on behalf of New York City which funded this body to invest in farms through a series of whole-farm plans. This could include better cattle storage facilities or maize establishments.  It represented a farmer-friendly approach which understood the needs of the business and secured public benefit and also enabled the farmers to access commercial opportunities. 

(12)     Sustainable Sonoma was supported by the Wine Growers Association and was working towards being the first 100% sustainable County in the USA.  The resultant certification was beneficial to the individual farmers and would promote tourism in the County.  Another example of the US Third Party Programme was the Why Buy Pure Catskills programme, which was run by the Wine Growers’ Association and focussed on the marketing opportunities that sustainability provided.

(13)     Mr Ormesher summed up the US Third Party Programme’s model by saying that the farmer-led commercially minded organisations sat as an intermediary group between the Regulator and the Farmers.  The Farmers worked to the aims of the partnership organisation that they fully trusted to have their best interests at heart, whilst the Regulator also trusted its aims and standards of water sustainability and water resource benefits.  As a result, there only needed to be a minimum of direct contact between the Regulator and the Farmers. 

(14)     Mr Ormesher turned to the question of Farm Resilience.  He gave the example of a rainwater harvesting system, developed by a Third Party Programme in a small dairy farm of 180 acres. It collected 6 months of rainwater for water use during the April to October Californian dry period.  This meant that the Farm no longer needed to extract water from a stream which contained an endangered salmon population.

(15)     Another example of successful Farm Resilience was an aquifer storage and recovery system in the Netherlands, developed by a co-operative organisation. It passed processed water from sugar beet (75% water) through a serious of injection wells in a field during the autumn and winter months. The success of this operation could be seen during the drought of 2018 when the farm was able to continue extracting water whilst others were unable to do so. 

(16)     Mr Ormesher said that an excellent model for future Whole Farm Management Plans in the UK could be found in the Conservation Plan that many US farmers needed to produce. In essence, this was a portfolio of resource management on the farm which had to be provided in order to be eligible for farm loans, insurance and disaster relief.   They also provided the public with reassurance that the farm was managing its risks appropriately. 

(17)     Mr Ormesher then gave three examples of Farmer Accreditation. Farmers had worked together to achieve a higher level than they could have done on their own.  Citrus Growers in Spain had gone through a water stewardship certification process which had enabled them to gain a strong relationship with one of the greatest retailers in Germany.  Dairy Farmers in New Zealand had developed their own milk processing assurance scheme which enabled them to access the highly lucrative Chinese market which it supplied with infant milk.  The States of Jersey (Channel Islands) was a programme that required all farms to be Linking Environment and Farming (LEAF) Assured. This ensured that Jersey was able to demonstrate that its farms were amongst the most sustainable in the World.

(18)     Mr Ormesher then described a project he had been working on.  This was A Vision for the Arun Valley which had come about as a result of the Environment Agency’s decision to withdraw from Flood Risk Management in that area.  The Arun Valley was flood-prone and also had a number of statutory designations. It was a Special Protected Area which was of international importance, particularly for bird protection. A programme was being developed for all the key stakeholders to balance the needs of conservation, land management, people and property in an affordable manner.  The project had identified priorities and was now developing a delivery organisation.   This might be a community interest company or a company limited by guarantee that would provide a locally co-ordinated framework that the farmers could buy into.  He concluded his presentation by saying that the idea of a co-ordinated framework at the core of farm resilience projects was not yet widely taken up in the UK but that he believed it would be of very great importance nationally and particularly productive in the County of Kent. 

(19)      Mr Vickery-Jones said that District Councils had an obligation to build housing and were often permitting development on high quality farmland.  He asked whether this would increase the difficulty of developing agricultural water stability. Mr Ormesher replied that the First Reading of the Environment Bill had now successfully taken place.  This Bill would lead to the preparation of local bio-diversity strategies. All planning applications would need to demonstrate bio-diversity net gain.  Local Authorities would have conservation easement powers through Section 106 Agreements to secure conservation enhancement on farms.  The NPPF sought to protect best quality agricultural land, but could not do so as much as was necessary. Thought needed to be given to how this protection could be enhanced. 

(20)     The Chairman noted the point made that Kentish Grade 1 and 2 agricultural land equated to some 15% of the national resource.  He asked whether the views of the NFU and others responsible for its maintenance were fully taken on board when the Environment Agency was considering whether to develop sea defences in these areas.  Mr Ormesher replied that there was a system of cost benefit analysis which took the value of farmland into consideration.  The value attributed to farmland in these calculations was, however, lower than that for properties, which was the key factor.  He added that sea defences had on many occasions been built out of bomb damage material from WW2. This ageing infrastructure was protecting very significant assets.

(21)    Mr Bowles said that the sea wall between Faversham and Whitstable had been built following the flood event of 1953.   It had provided adequate flood defence for many years thereafter.  There had been a lot of under-erosion on the toe of that seawall as well as a great deal of sinkage with some sections being 18 inches higher than others.  Yet there were no plans to modernise it despite the need to protect Grade 1 farmland, the England to France electricity exchange line, the main London to Margate railway line and the London to Thanet road communication network.  It was not just people and houses that were at risk. The national infrastructure was at risk as well.

(22)     RESOLVED that Mr Tom Ormesher be thanked for his presentation and that its content be noted.