Memorandum submitted by the Royal Society
for the Protection of Birds
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1. The RSPB seeks a reduction in diffuse
nitrate pollution from agriculture because of the long-term impact
that this nutrient poses to natural and semi-natural habitats,
and the birds and other wildlife that depend on them.
2. The RSPB recommends that Defra applies
the Action Programme to the whole of England in order to: realise
administrative, communication and equity benefits; simplify integration
with other diffuse pollution measures and objectives; and comply
with other Directives.
3. The RSPB opposes the proposed blanket
requirement for cover crops to be sown on land which would otherwise
be left with stubbles over winter. This proposal will cause a
loss of seed resources for seed eating farmland birds which depend
upon uncropped stubbles left over winter. Instead we propose a
risk based approach whereby the requirement for cover crops applies
only to bare soils or to maize stubbles (a crop with high erosion
risk).
INTRODUCTION
4. The Royal Society for the Protection
of Birds (RSPB) has practical experience of nitrate fertiliser
and organic manure use on our landholdings (c 137,000 ha). A recent
RSPB report identified that increased levels of nutrients, including
nitrates, are adversely affecting natural and semi-natural habitats
in the UK, reducing the diversity of plants and invertebrates
in our countryside.[1]
It further highlighted the impact of eutrophication on habitats
and reserves such as the RSPB's Loch of Strathbeg and Ouse Washes,
and also found that "strong causal links exist, in a number
of cases, between nutrient pollution and knock-on effects on the
food chain of wildlife, including birds". Declines in the
populations of species such as the corncrake, cirl bunting and
bittern, are all, in part, due to nutrient use from agriculture.
5. Nitrate levels caused by diffuse pollution
are increasing the cost of treating water and making some sources
of drinking water unusable. Water companies will, in the period
2005-10, spend over £300 million (£288 million capital
expenditure, £6 million per annum operating expenditure)
to reduce diffuse nitrate pollution.[2]
Nitrate removal plants as well as being costly to build and maintain
are also energy intensive and will add to the water industry's
growing carbon footprint.
IMPLEMENTATION OF
THE NITRATES
DIRECTIVE
6. To date incomplete implementation of
the Nitrates Directive in the UK has created conflict with the
European Commission and put the UK's Rural Development Programmes
at risk. Given this, the scale of the pollution problem for wildlife
and the water industry and the forthcoming demands of the Water
Framework Directive (WFD), we would argue that the UK administrations
should take decisive action and move towards full implementation
of the Directive.
APPLYING THE
ACTION PROGRAMME
TO THE
WHOLE OF
ENGLAND
7. The RSPB recommends that Defra applies
the Nitrate Vulnerable Zone (NVZ) Action Programme to the whole
of England because it will provide the following benefits.
It will:
| (i) | Provide significant benefits through ease of administration and enforcement for the Environment Agency.
|
| (ii) | Benefit the farming industry by creating a level playing field for all farmers.
|
| (iii) | Avoid any detrimental impact on land prices for farmers within NVZs.
|
| (iv) | Communicate to all farmers and landowners that nitrate pollution is a serious problem and avoid the potential for some to think that as they are not in an NVZ their practices are definitely non-polluting.
|
| (v) | Create an incentive for all farmers in England to produce a full nutrient management plan and thereby reduce nutrient surpluses, reduce pollution risk and make efficiencies on their farm.
|
| (vi) | Not prove overly burdensome to many of the farmers who fall outside the proposed 70% area designation as many of these farmers engage in practices which do not have a large impact on water quality.
|
| (vii) | Be possible to facilitate better regulation to the farming industry by combining the NVZ Action Programme with General Binding Rules in England. This will create a baseline regulatory package for the protection of waters against pollution from agriculture covering 100% of England. General Binding Rules (under WFD legislation) could be targeted to control diffuse phosphorus, Faecal Indicator Organisms and other pollutants.
|
| (viii) | Support compliance with other related Directives and ensure early action is taken to achieve water quality objectives. For example:
|
(a) Water Framework Directive: Interim European
guidance suggests bodies that fail to meet Good Ecological Status
under the WFD due to enrichment should be considered eutrophic
and this, in turn should trigger NVZ designation where agricultural
nitrate is the driver. Therefore, an Action Programme applied
to the whole of England would help the UK comply with the WFD.
(b) New Groundwater Directive: It sets a 50mg/l
threshold value for all groundwater bodies, irrespective of their
designation as NVZ.
(c) OSPAR: Applying the NVZ Action Programme
to the whole of England would take the UK one step closer to fulfilling
its OSPAR commitments to achieve a 50% target for reducing nutrient
input into waters that are likely to be polluted.
COVER CROPS
8. The proposed requirement for cover crops in the NVZ
Action Programme will cause a loss of seed resources for seed
eating farmland birds which depend upon uncropped stubbles left
over winter. This would threaten Defra's ability to meet its target
to reverse the decline in farmland birds, which contributes to
its new Natural Resources PSA target. The proposal is also in
direct conflict with many Biodiversity Action Plan targets for
farmland wildlife which rely on winter stubble fields. The proposed
requirement would have a negligible effect on nitrate leaching,
and would come into conflict with the agri-environment measures
which incentivise stubble retention for its environmental benefits.
PROPOSED CHANGE
TO THE
WORDING OF
THE ACTION
PROGRAMME PROPOSAL
9. We propose the following alternative wording for the
Action Programme:
— Cover crops or natural regeneration on stubble
(not maize stubble) must be retained over winter unless:
— winter crops are sown, and
— the previous crop will be harvested after 1 September.
— Sow a cover crop before 15 September on land
where soil would normally be left bare (ie with no stubble).
— Cover crops must then not be destroyed until
after 31 December.
RATIONALE FOR
OPPOSING THE
PROPOSED REQUIREMENT
10. Defra's own supporting documentation to the Nitrates
Directive consultation indicates that set-aside land leaches less
nitrate than land sown with cover crops and land sown with a winter
cereal crop, in that order.[3]
Over-winter stubble was not included in this study but as there
is no practical difference between set-aside and over-winter stubble
during the post-harvest period and autumn, the conclusion must
follow that stubbles represent a lower nitrogen leaching risk
than cover crops.
11. Over-wintered stubbles are an important seed resource
for many farmland birds, particularly seed-eating passerines,
such as the skylark, corn bunting and grey partridge. Recent loss
of set-aside is predicted to have a significant impact on seed
eating birds, which has been the subject of recent Ministerial
statements, and the Secretary of State has charged Sir Don Curry
with overseeing the environmental outcomes. Legislating against
over-winter stubble will exacerbate the problems faced by farmland
birds and expose Defra to accusations of poor environmental leadership.
12. The nitrogen leaching impact of the current small
area of over-winter stubbles is minute in comparison to the impact
from nitrate leaching from land sown with winter crops.
13. Defra proposes that the Action Programme requires
farmers to calculate "N max" of crops and carry out
full nitrogen management planning. This should result in minimal
surplus nitrogen remaining in the soil following harvest and therefore
over winter stubbles will leach much less nitrogen than is currently
the case post harvest. Defra's consultation did not consider this.
14. The proposal would conflict with climate change objectives
because it would result in additional greenhouse gas emissions
and soil carbon mineralization from the cultivation of stubbles
and cover crop sowing.
15. Over-winter stubble is incentivised within a number
of options in Defra's Environmental Stewardship scheme. Loss of
these important options would result in loss of important habitat
but also require the renegotiation of a substantial number of
agreements.
16. Due to the natural regeneration and rough surface
of over-winter stubbles they can, in the majority of cases, have
a positive impact on reducing other forms of diffuse pollution,
such as erosion and run-off.
ANAEROBIC DIGESTION
17. The RSPB believes that Defra should incentivise this
emerging form of green energy within the dual contexts of the
need to reduce nutrient surpluses and to develop green energy
technology. Anaerobic digestion can help to process some of the
current organic nutrient surpluses seen and convert them into
useful energy and nutrient resources. To do this there must be
an incentive to utilise mixed waste streams as feedstocks. In
order to maximize environmental benefits, anaerobic digestion
should be promoted where best practices demonstrate multiple environmental
benefits and no environmental damage.
January 2008
1
Force-Feeding the Countryside: the impacts of nutrients on birds
and other biodiversity, MacDonald MA, Densham JM, Davis R and
Armstrong-Brown S, 2006, RSPB. Back
2
Ofwat final price determinations from AMP4-November 2004. Back
3
Diffuse nitrate pollution from agriculture-strategies for reducing
nitrate leaching. ADAS report to Defra-supporting paper D3. Figure
3.12. Page 17. Back
| 
