Memorandum submitted by the National Farmers'
Union (NFU)
INTRODUCTION
1. The NFU welcomes the opportunity to submit
evidence to the Committee's inquiry into the implementation of
Water Framework Directive (WFD). The livelihoods of many of the
NFU's 55,000 members who are professional farmers and growers
could be seriously compromised by the Directive's implications
if the costs for agriculture included in the Government's 2001
consultation prove to be reliable (£600-2,900 million). It
is therefore a matter of major importance for them.
2. In principle the Directive's objective
of delivering good status in the EU's waters is laudable, and
the process it provides is rational, but complex and highly technical.
It includes the achievement of "good ecological status"
for the many types of surface water ecosystems, the identification
of the `gap' between current conditions and good ecological status,
the identification of pressures holding down water quality and
the establishment of programmes of measures necessary to achieve
the objectives. This is a challenging undertaking, even in a country
with well-developed systems of water management and inventories
of impacts.
3. The Directive's aims are therefore extremely
ambitious, as is recognized to some extent in the timescale laid
down for initial achievement of the objectives by 2015, with scope
for further extensions.
4. The NFU has no difficulty in identifying
with the broad aim of restoring all the UK's waters to good quality,
something not seen for centuries. While the NFU does have very
serious concerns about the potential impacts of the Directive
on the industry—which are outlined in this evidence—we
wish to make it clear to all concerned that we endorse the broad
aims of protection and enhancement of the water environment. However,
we doubt whether it is realistic to expect such ambitious targets
to be wholly achieved to the timetable set out in the Directive
(ie by 2015). Our concern is that enthusiasm for the worthiness
of the objectives has weighed more heavily than the more tedious
technical and practical issues implicit in achieving the objectives,
and that some of the issues involved are unfortunately rather
intractable. In the agricultural sector some impacts on water
quality are linked inextricably with the nature of farming practices,
and there are no end-of-pipe solutions to these perceived problems.
5. There is therefore a fundamental question
to be addressed about whether the Directive is to be implemented
on the basis of accepting the world the way it is, and allowing
existing industries and activities to continue, while requiring
them to adopt good or best practice. Alternatively, the Directive
could be implemented in a way that does not accept existing circumstances
and requires fundamental change to some aspects of the way social
and economic activity is undertaken to deliver environmental benefits.
The NFU believes the former should be the case, but is concerned
that requirements may be set with insufficient care, attention
and understanding and therefore may bring about the latter. We
cite evidence supporting this concern below.
6. We are also concerned about the practical
operation of the Directive. As mentioned above, this is a complex
technical exercise which relies on a new approach and several
crucial definitions which have to be made for the first time.
While the UK may already have in place many of the administrative
mechanisms and much of the legal framework necessary for implementation,
the definition of WFD objectives is a fundamental and far-reaching
exercise. Not only will it prove a difficult exercise to deliver
a workable system at the first attempt, but also it will be especially
demanding to ensure that the outcome is balanced, equitable and
cost-effective.
7. We are concerned that the key aspects
of the Directive are currently being "interpreted" by
the European Commission in consultation with national administrations
and statutory agencies but with only limited involvement from
stakeholders such as ourselves. We see this as inappropriate in
view of the consequences of such decisions (eg the definition
of good ecological status for various aquatic ecosystems) which
may produce significant cost burdens on the Government, regulators
and the land management community: the rationale for broad accountability
during this process is clear.
SPECIFIC ISSUES
Costs
8. The potential costs of the directive
for agriculture are so overwhelming for the industry that we must
deal with these first.
9. It is of course impossible to make a
clear statement about costs that will be imposed at this stage
before any precise objectives have been defined or set. However,
the Government's Regulatory Impact Assessment (RIA) made a number
of broad assumptions which yielded an indicative range of costs
for agriculture of between £600 million and £2,900 million
in terms of net present value as at 1999. These costs are based
almost wholly on nutrients arising from agriculture, and ignore
any costs arising from controls in respect of other substances
(such as silt or pesticides). The possible imposition of such
costs on the industry could have far-reaching consequences (we
would remind the Committee that total income from farming in 2001
was £1,710 million in 2001—DEFRA data).
10. With the increased likelihood of ever-reducing
tariff barriers over the period of implementation of the Directive,
there is a real risk that if the actual costs turn out to even
approach those projected, UK agriculture will become unable to
compete with third country imports of food.
11. Should agriculture face new costs of
this magnitude significant and rapid structural change is likely
to result with farm reaching and unpredictable changes for land
management and environmental protection. Furthermore, there is
a danger that policy induced changes of this sort may not be well
co-ordinated with changes induced by CAP policies, resulting in
farmers finding themselves subjected to counter-currents in terms
of policy signals. A considerable onus would then fall on the
Government to reconcile the policies it would be implementing.
Some thought has already been devoted to such issues, with the
Environment Agency and English Nature having jointly commissioned
consultants to examine problems of this sort. One of the outputs
of this research has been English Nature's Research Report No.
462, which outlines a possible agri-environment scheme to assist
in delivering the likely requirements of the Directive while at
the same time assisting farmers in meeting the costs. Without
wishing to comment on the detail of the proposal, this is a constructive
approach and it would be helpful if the Government were to endorse
the principle of it.
12. However, the Government's statements
so far have provided no reassurance to the industry as to the
costs which may be imposed. Indeed, the industry seems to be left
to draw the conclusion that the Government view is that any objectives
set must be achieved and that the costs, while they should be
minimised, are a secondary consideration.
13. Whilst agriculture is not alone in facing
costs under the WFD, it is in a particularly disadvantageous position.
Firstly, the costs it faces are large relative to the net returns
earned by the sector—much greater relatively than for industry
generally. Secondly, it has very little capability to pass on
costs in the market in which it operates. In that respect it contrasts
both with some other sectors of industry but particularly with
the water industry where Parliament has prescribed specific measures
to enable the costs of environmental measures to be recovered
from consumers. It may be that agriculture will need comparable
arrangements to permit the recovery of costs from the ultimate
consumer if farm businesses are to remain viable, if not through
the food chain then through the taxpayer as a proxy for the consumer.
14. The aim of the WFD is to prevent deterioration
in the quality of water bodies, and to achieve "good quality
status" in all such bodies by 2015. In principle we support
this aim. However as we understand it, "good quality status"
may be defined as the highest quality which can be achieved consistent
with the existence of some human activities. The NFU has serious
concerns about the practicality of pursuing such a universal objective,
quite apart from the cost-effectiveness of aspiring to such an
ambitious undertaking. While in some areas it may be reasonable
to aim for this target, depending on the parameters set, in most
catchments more practical targets should be sought that achieve
environmental protection and improvement appropriate to the socio-economic
context of Europe not the re-establishment of a pristine pre-industrial
environment.
Impact of date of implementation on costs
15. The regulatory impact assessment specifically
examined the effect of a delay in implementation on costs. It
found that:
"A scenario which looks at delayed implementation
(2025 rather than 2010) shows that costs fall substantially from
today's perspective."
The Government stated in its 2001 consultation
that there are no plans to phase in the Directive's requirements
earlier than required by the Directive. While we welcome this,
we are uncertain whether the Government intends to utilize the
full scope allowed by the Directive. We would draw to the Committee's
attention that there is scope within the Directive to extend the
timescale for the achievement of objectives. This may present
an opportunity for ameliorating the more severe impacts of the
Directive, especially in particularly sensitive catchments or
river basins.
Costs and benefits of the Directive
16. The overall conclusions of the RIA include
the following:
"The balance of costs and benefits that
have been estimated suggest that the costs of the Directive may
outweigh the benefits. However, benefits are substantial and it
can be expected that a large proportion of the benefits may be
secured through locally effective and targeted implementation
of the Directive and through the appropriate use of derogations
where costs outweigh benefits."
In short, the study found that a substantial
proportion of benefits can be delivered for modest cost, but that
some of the benefits were likely to be disproportionately expensive
to achieve. We would welcome clarification of policy in relation
to the latter situation, and confirmation of the Government's
willingness to make use of the derogations available to avoid
disproportionate impacts.
Transparency of WFD Definitions
17. The NFU has sought to engage in the
European Commission's effort on interpreting WFD requirements
via its membership of COPA (the body representing European Farming
Organisations) and have been nominated by COPA to sit on one of
the numerous expert groups assisting the European Commission draw
up non-statutory guidance on the Directive for member states.
We have already noted our general concern about the transparency
of the Commission's work on this aspect of the Directive, and
would comment that we know of very few agricultural stakeholders
that are engaged in this process. We are also concerned that the
product of these discussions has received too little open discussion
in the UK, or with partner organisations.
18. Evidence for our unease with the transparency
of current processes may be evidenced by recent discussion that
we understand have taken place within the Commission's Reference
Conditions Working Group. This group is intended to assist the
Commission (and hence member states) in defining what may be regarded
as high, good and moderate ecological status levels. A paper setting
out draft proposals for high and good status was recently considered
by the Working Group (attached at Appendix 1). Though we accept
that these were provisional proposals intended to stimulate discussion
within the Reference Conditions Working Group we believe they
set impractical goals. To take as an example a single parameter,
nitrate, the document proposes that for good ecological status
nitrate levels should not exceed natural background levels by
more than three times. Such an approach raises several issues:
— Firstly, the definition itself requires
another new parameter to be established, namely natural background
levels. The establishment of what is natural and what is not in
a small island inhabited by nearly 60 million people raises substantial
issues.
— Secondly, the approach of using a
multiple of another figure arising in different circumstances
raises a fundamental problem in the case of nutrients. In natural
environments, nutrient availability and use is often in balance,
imbalances are low. By contrast in domesticated environments,
with growth boosted by providing nutrients to the requirements
of the plant/crop/animal, nutrient fluxes can be considerably
higher, even with good agricultural practice applied. The difference
in nutrients availability between a situation where growth is
limited by nutrients, and one where it is not is likely to be
large, at least in relative terms.
19. Our concerns about the effects of such
an approach in practical terms are confirmed by expert advice.
A short note from Professor Keith Goulding of the Rothamsted Research
Station BBSRC commenting on the likely impact of the proposed
definition of Good Ecological Status is attached. He concludes
by saying that, on the basis of what was proposed,
"I doubt that agriculture can meet the challenge
of the WFD without severe cuts in N (nitrogen fertilizer) use
and thus profitability."
As the Committee is aware, currently agriculture
has little profitability remaining and severe cuts are unlikely
to be sustainable.
20. We have made our concerns about the
draft proposal clear to both DEFRA and to the UK/Scottish Environmental
Protection Agency representative on the Reference Condition Working
Group and asked that our concerns and Professor Goulding's comments
be brought to the group's attention. We also have a meeting scheduled
to take up these concerns with DEFRA in early October.
Wetlands
21. One of the options whereby farmers may
be able to help deliver improved water quality, alleviate flooding
downstream and enhance biodiversity is to create new wetlands
or enhance the management of existing areas. However, such wetlands,
although deliberately created to `treat' water, may themselves
become subject to environmental designations or trigger subsequent
restrictions on farming activities (the recent introduction of
the Environmental Impact Assessment regulations covering the conversion
of semi-natural habitats or uncultivated areas is a case in point).
If this were to be the situation, it would be a powerful disincentive
for farmers to create wetlands or similar features. Clearly such
a message is likely to limit voluntary participation, and disincentives
of this nature need to be removed.
CONCLUSIONS
22. This legislation has the potential to
impose very significant new costs on farming that would be unsustainable
for most farmers in the areas affected if they are as indicated
in the consultation (£175/ha). It is therefore a matter of
the greatest importance for agriculture to ensure that the Government
argues for the UK's obligations under the Directive to be achieved
by pragmatic improvements along the lines of good agricultural
practice, incentive schemes, technology transfer and advice and
guidance, if necessary supported by regulation. It is vital that
the WFD objectives acknowledge not only the environmental benefit
of achieving good status but that this status also acknowledges
the socio-economic context in which it is being sought. Especially
at this time the Government must avoid inflicting further economic
damage and social costs on agriculture and the wider countryside.
In particular, the competitive basis for competition with third
country imports must be preserved.
23. The Government has stated that effective
implementation of the Directive is to be achieved in the most
cost-effective manner possible without, as a rule, going beyond
the Directive's requirements, unless it is justified against any
costs or benefits that arise (2001 consultation on the Directive).
While these sentiments are welcome, they do not address the issue
of measures which are not cost effective, or whether derogations
will be invoked in these circumstances in relation to measures
which would otherwise be required under the Directive.
24. The principle underlying the approach
to the status quo needs to be defined. Do we accept the nature
of existing land use and business activity, and seek to achieve
good/best practice, or is the agenda one of sweeping away perceived
obstacles? We are unclear as to the approach being adopted. We
have been unable to establish the Government's thinking or approach.
25. We consider that there are insufficient
checks and balances on the implementation process, and that key
decisions which could cost UK agriculture very large amounts may
be buried in the administrative apparatus. We are extremely concerned
about the implications for UK farmers of the outputs from a complex
and potentially unmanageable process over which we appear to have
little opportunity to influence, or to be heard.
NFU
1 October 2002
Annex 1
DRAFT DEFINITIONS
OF HIGH
ECOLOGICAL STATUS
AND GOOD
ECOLOGICAL STATUS
FROM THE
EUROPEAN WFD REFCOND WORKING
GROUP
| High ecological status
| Good ecological status
|
| General statement | High status or reference conditions is a state in the present or in the past corresponding to low pressure without major industrialisation, urbanisation and intensification of agriculture.
| Good status is a state corresponding to pressures which still allow all relevant sustainable use of waters and consistent with best management practices (and best available technique).
|
| Diffuse source pollution |
|
| Land-use intensification: Agriculture, forestry
| Impacts compatible with pressures pre-dating any recent land-use intensification (short version).
Pre-intensive agriculture. Intensification pressures should be identified as significant step changes in land management resulting in ecological perturbation within the recent history of the water body—no longer than 150-200yrs (long version).
The share of anthropogenic land use in the catchment (agriculture, settlements, afforestation) must be small and show only local effects.
| Best management practice (and best available technique).
Not exceeding maximum permissible load for ecological effects in downstream lakes (phosporus) and coastal or transitional waters (nitrogen).
Not exceeding natural background losses of nitrogen and phosphorus more than three times using Euroharp guidlines (OSPAR 2000) for calculations.
Alternative: not exceeding losses equivalent with high status more than two times.
|
| Acidification | Pre-industrial. Impacts compatible with pressures pre-dating any recent intensification in airborne inputs.
| Not exceeding critical load for sulphur and nitrogen (UBA 1996).
|
| Other airborne pollutants | Pre-industrial. Impacts compatible with pressures pre-dating any recent intensification in airborne inputs.
| Not exceeding critical load (under development for metals and for POP).
|
| Point source pollution | |
|
| Specific synthetic pollutants | Concentrations close to zero or at least below the limits of detection of the most advanced analytical techniques in general use.
| Compliance with Ecological Quality Standards (EQS).
|
| Spec. non-synthetic pollutants | Natural background level/load.
| Best available technique.
Not exceeding maximum permissible load for ecological effects in downstream lakes and coastal or transitional waters [need for co-ordination with WG 2.4 (Coast)]
|
| Other effluents and discharges | No local discharges—no local effects.
| Best available technique.
Not exceeding maximum permissible load for ecological effects in downstream lakes and coastal or transitional waters [need for co-ordination with WG 2.4 (Coast)]
|
| Morphological alterations |
|
| River morphology | Lacking any artificial instream and bank structures that disrupt natural hydromorphological processes, and/or unaffected by any structures outside the site; bed and banks composed of natural materials.
Planform and river profiles unmodified by human activities.
Lateral connectivity and freedom of lateral movement.
Lacking any structural modifications that hinder the flow of water between the channel and the floodplain, or prevent the migration of the river channel across the floodplain.
Lacking any instream structural modifications (weirs or dams) that affect the natural movement of sediment, bed-load, water and biota (except for natural waterfalls).
No change in physico-chemical reference conditions due to morpological alterations.
Using UK River Habitat Survey (or similar national systems), allowing Habitat Modification Scores up to two.
| Impacts compatible with past modifications to which the biological, chemical and hydromorphological systems have been able to adapt and recover a level of diversity and function similar to comparable unmodified systems.
Sediment and bed-load transport possible in high flows.
Only minor construction measures with local effects.
Working fish passage through weirs and dams.
Using UK River Habitat Survey (or similar national systems), allowing Habitat Modification Scores up to?
|
| Lake morphology | No structural modifications that hinder fluctuations of the water surface.
No upstream or downstream structural modifications (weirs or dams) that affect the natural movement of sediment, bed-load, water and biota (except for natural waterfalls).
No change in physico-chemical reference conditions due to morpological alterations.
Minimum allowable Habitat Modification Scores—develop system for Lakes.
| Impacts compatible with past modifications to which the biological, chemical and hydromorphological systems have been able to adapt and recover a level of diversity and function similar to comparable unmodified systems.
Only minor construction measures with local effects.
Minimum allowable Habitat Modification Scores—develop system for Lakes.
|
| Water abstraction | |
|
| River water abstraction | Abstracting up to 10% of mean daily flow (5% at low flow). No alteration of sediment and bed-load transport. No change in physico-chemical reference conditions.
| Flow abstraction and regime guaranteed by instream or any ecological flow method.
Sediment and bed-load transport possible in high flows.
|
| Lake water abstraction | Lake level changes.
| Lake level changes. |
| Flow regulation | |
|
| River flow regulation | Lacking any instream structural modifications (weirs or dams) that affect the natural movement of sediment, bed-load, water and biota (except for natural waterfalls).
Less than 10% changes in the natural flow regime (5% at low flow) but there may be minor reductions in the flow levels.
| Less than XX% changes in the natural flow regime and slight reductions in the flow levels.
|
| Riparian zone vegetation |
| |
| Having adjacent natural vegetation appropriate to the type and geographical location of the river.
| Adjacent natural vegetation present in more than XX% of the stretch
|
| Biological impact | |
|
| Introductions of alien species | No significant impairment of the indigenous biota by introduction of fish, crustacea, mussels or any other kind of plants and animals.
No significant impairment by invasive plant or animal species.
| Established species are not causing further ecological displacement of the native flora and fauna (can be regarded as naturalised). (introduced species remaining after 100 years = naturalised?)
|
| Fisheries and aquaculture | Fishing operations should allow for the maintenance of the structure, productivity, function and diversity of the ecosystem (including habitat and associated dependent and ecologically related species) on which the fishery depends.
No or only minimal stocking of fish.
No fish farming.
| Fishery must be conducted in a manner that does not lead to over-fishing or depletion of the exploited populations and, for those populations that are depleted, the fishery must be conducted in a manner that leads to their recovery.
No significant impairment of the indigenous biota by fish farming.
|
| Biomanipulation | No biomanipulation.
| ? |
Annex 2
Comments on the Water Framework Directive: Good Ecological
Status (GES)
Good Ecological Status (GES) is defined as "Not exceeding
natural background losses1 of nitrogen and phosphorus more than
three times using Euroharp guidelines . . ." The footnote,
superscript 1, describes natural background losses of N and P
as those ". . . that would occur from unpaved areas if they
were unaffected by human activities (except anthropogenic atmospheric
deposition) and if they were in the state of natural pristine
land . . ."
There is no pristine land unaffected by human activities
in the UK, nor has there been for hundreds of years. I cannot,
therefore, see how one could obtain an estimate of the natural
background losses or of the situation "pre-intensive agriculture".
The nearest one could get is the measured loss from extensive,
unfertilised grassland of about 10 kg N ha-1 yr-1 (Ref 1). This
would embrace the idea of a low level of agricultural land use.
If the baseline is taken as losses from semi-natural land, these
are only 1-2 kg N ha-1 yr-1 at most; many "clean" semi-natural
sites leach no N, although this may be because there is no recharge
of aquifers under woodland and forestry in some drier parts of
the UK. Hydrology needs to be considered alongside the chemistry
and biology of diffuse pollution.
Under the WFD, this natural pristine land is, however, permitted
to be affected by anthropogenic atmospheric deposition. Much research,
including my own, has shown this can have a major impact on nitrate
leaching (Refs 2-3). N deposition to UK forests can increase leaching
losses to 10 kg N ha-1 yr-1; across Europe heavily polluted sites
are leaching up to 45 kg N ha-1 yr-1. All these forests receive
N at well above the Critical Load, of course, which may make them
unacceptable as natural background sites. But I do not understand
the logic of the REFCOND table of accepting anthropogenic deposition
impacts on natural background losses of N and P when GES sites
must not exceed the Critical Load for N and S.
Atmospheric deposition is not the only non-fertiliser source
of leached N. Research has clearly shown that an appreciation
of the value of manures, and their effective use by farmers, can
greatly reduce nitrate leaching (Ref 5). Also, the ploughing out
of grassland in organic and other mixed farming systems leads
to large flushes of nitrate leaching. Current economic constraints
on the dairy sector are resulting in the ploughing out of large
areas of short—and long-term leys, which will have a serious
impact on water quality for many years. Policy makers must take
note that fertilisers are not the only source of diffuse pollution.
Taking 10 kg N ha-1 yr-1 as the natural background does not
give cause for optimism regarding achieving GES. Leaching losses
from UK arable land vary greatly with the weather from almost
zero to perhaps 100 kg N ha-1 yr-1, but the average is about 40
kg N ha-1 yr-1; losses from intensive grassland are larger and
more variable (Refs 1 and 5).
Integrated farming can reduce losses (Ref 4). The LIFE system
at Long Ashton Research Station, near Bristol, lost only one-fifth
as much nitrate as conventionally farmed land, but at the Royal
Agricultural College near Cirencester both systems lost about
50 kg N ha-1 yr-1.
Organic farming does not appear to help (Ref 4). We measured
losses from the Duchy Home Farm at Tetbury at 50 kg N ha-1 yr-1
compared with 60 kg N ha-1 yr-1 from conventional land. An ADAS/Elm
Farm review of comparable conventional and organic farming systems
gave losses from both at about 50 kg N ha-1 yr-1.
My conclusion is that average amounts of nitrate leached
from UK farmland are much more than three times the most optimistic
(ie largest) natural background (Ref 1). Hitting the economic
optimum for cereal crops can reduce the average loss, but this
will help only if averages are used in the tests of compliance.
The current tests for the EU Limit of 50 mg l-1 are not based
on averages. Also some arable crops such as potatoes still leach
large amounts of nitrate at the economic optimum. I doubt that
agriculture can meet the challenge of the WFD without severe cuts
in N use and thus profitability.
REFERENCES
1. GOULDING, K.W.T. (2000) Nitrate leaching from arable
and horticultural land. Soil Use and Management 16, 145-151.
2. GOULDING, K.W.T., BAILEY, N.J. & BRADBURY, N.J.
(1998) Model study of the fate of nitrogen deposition on arable
land. Soil Use and Management, 14, 70-77.
3. GOULDING, K.W.T., BAILEY, N.J., BRADBURY, N.J., HARGREAVES,
P., HOWE, M.T., MURPHY, D.V., POULTON, P.R. & WILLISON, T.W.
(1998) Nitrogen deposition and its contribution to nitrogen cycling
and associated soil processes. New Phytologist, 139, 49-58.
4. GOULDING, K.W.T., JORDAN, V., LEAKE, A., WARMAN, K.,
DONAGHY, D., REYNOLDS, F., STOCKDALE, E., CREW, A., WEBSTER, C.P.,
CONWAY, J. & JARVIS, S.C. (1999) Interactions between agricultural
emissions to the environment: the value of system studies in minimizing
all emissions. In Agriculture and the Environment. Challenges
and Conflicts for the New Millennium, Proceedings of an International
Conference, 14-16 April 1999, University of Warwick, (eds S.T.D.
Turner & D. Alford). ADAS Wolverhampton, pp 55-63.
5. JARVIS, S.C. (2000) Progress in studies of nitrate
leaching from grassland soils. Soil Use and Management 16, 152-156.
|
