5. AIR

Editor: Will Melling Writers: Bence Borbely, Trevor Chow, Tom Nott, Yang Zuo

5.1 Overview

Air quality is a public good of crucial importance to human health169. However, its provision in the ELMS has been barely mentioned by government publications so far (see DEFRA’s paper170). Detailed analysis of recommendations for reducing greenhouse gas emissions and achieving net-zero by 2050 can be seen in the 'Greenhouse Gas' section of the paper. Ammonia from farms is a major contributor to air pollution, and air pollution affects people’s health and wellbeing. Ammonia is a by-product of pigs, poultry, cattle, and livestock, with ammonia emissions produced by farm manures, slurry, and other wastes171 . It is therefore important that animal waste is properly managed under the ELMS. This should be part of the Tier 1 payment for pastoral farms. Grants might also be provided for conversions to less-polluting farming methods, such as covering slurry pits to limit ammonia emissions, and measures to reduce the risk of spillages172. As detailed in the ‘Soil quality’ section of this paper, there should be a long-term shift to pricing ecosystem services, and more broadly natural capital, by 2030. Part of this could reward farmers for the improvements to air quality that woodland, and activities such as afforestation and agroforestry, provide.

5.2 Paying to pollute

The new ELMS should apply a ‘Pay to Pollute’ principle to certain agricultural inputs. Making polluters pay and focusing subsidies on the public rather than private goods, would greatly improve economic efficiency and transform the agricultural landscape. Applying a ‘Pay to Pollute’ policy to agricultural inputs would be the most effective method of providing soil, water and air quality, and other positive environmental outcomes like reduced carbon emissions.

An efficient economy is one that internalises all the costs and benefits of economic activities into prices and decision-making. In an efficient economy pollution is charged: it is inefficient not to charge for pollution, resulting in a lower level of economic prosperity173. In many other

169 CA Pope III, 'Epidemiological basis for particulate air pollution health standards' (2000) (32(1) Aerosol Science & Technology <https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/027868200303885> accessed 4 January 2021 170 DEFRA, 'Environmental Land Management Policy discussion document' (DEFRA, 1 February, 2020) <https://consult.defra.gov.uk/elm/elmpolicyconsultation/supporting_documents/ELM%20Policy%20Discussion %20Document%20230620.pdf> accessed 4th January 2021 171 Dieter Helm, Green and Prosperous Land: A Blueprint for Rescuing the British Countryside (Harper Collins 2019) pp179 172 Dieter Helm, Green and Prosperous Land: A Blueprint for Rescuing the British Countryside (Harper Collins 2019) pp179 173 Dieter Helm, Green and Prosperous Land: A Blueprint for Rescuing the British Countryside (Harper Collins 2019) pp10

Editor: Will Melling Writers: Bence Borbely, Trevor Chow, Tom Nott, Yang Zuo

industries, damage is already subject to regulatory restraints and pollution taxes174. Very little of intensive chemical farming is actually economic in its current form- reliant on subsidies, tariffs, and the avoidance of paying for the pollution it causes175. The externalities of fuel, fertiliser, antibiotics and pesticides in terms of pollution and environmental impact have been outlined in various other sections of this paper (see the ‘Soil quality, ‘Water quality’, and ‘Air quality’ sections). Meanwhile, the 2011 ‘The Natural Choice’ paper176 establishes that citizens have the right to clean air, water, and the enjoyment of the countryside, broadly conceived as ‘public goods’ which the ELMS should provide. Products that farmers are currently using are therefore creating large economic damage, not internalised, and reflected in their costs but externalised in their impacts and the costs of repairing the environmental damage. The most efficient way to reduce this damage and is therefore to charge the producers of the pollution. This makes economic sense; common carbon price and pricing of emissions has been shown to correct otherwise distorted prices and lead to best climate outcomes177. In the case of agriculture, if farmers paid for the pollution they caused, they would use chemicals in smaller quantities and target them more accurately178 . This would be more effective than other proposals. The Soil Association propose a Nitrogen Budget, similar to that already being trialled in Scotland179 . This would provide certainty about the quantity of artificial nitrogen usage, it would remain capped at a fixed level with firms that use it likely given permits. However, this likely be difficult to implement and less effective in actually reducing use of artificial nitrogen than using the market through the ‘Pay-to-Pollute’ principle. It would make more sense for the environmental costs of nitrogen fertilisers to be internalised in the market and reflect their externalities, or environmental damage. This would then provide a strong economic incentive for farmers to reduce their use of artificial nitrogen. A pragmatic approach would start with cases where polluters can be identified, and where the impacts are expected to be considerable180. Here the aim is not to provide government revenue, a good environmental charge is one that abolishes itself, but to use market incentives to provide the best possible positive environmental outcomes. The ‘Pay-to-Pollute’ principle should cover carbon, fertilisers, pesticides, herbicides, and antibiotics. A carbon

174 Dieter Helm, 'British Agricultural Policy after BREXIT, Natural Capital Network – Paper 5' (2016) pp13 <http://www.dieterhelm.co.uk/natural-capital/ environment/agricultural-policy-after-brexit/> accessed 4 January 2021 175 Dieter Helm, Green and Prosperous Land: A Blueprint for Rescuing the British Countryside (Harper Collins 2019) pp85 176 HM Government, 'The Natural Choice: securing the value of nature' (HM Government, June 2011) <https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/228842/8082 .pdf> accessed 4 January 2021 177 Dieter Helm, Green and Prosperous Land: A Blueprint for Rescuing the British Countryside (Harper Collins 2019) pp230 178 Dieter Helm, Green and Prosperous Land: A Blueprint for Rescuing the British Countryside (Harper Collins 2019) pp65 179 The Soil Association, 'The future of British farming outside the EU' (The Soil Association, 20 March 2017) <https://www.soilassociation.org/media/10560/soil-association-report.pdf> accessed 4th January 2021 180 Dieter Helm, Green and Prosperous Land: A Blueprint for Rescuing the British Countryside (Harper Collins 2019) pp200