Memorandum submitted by Natural England
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The impacts of nutrient enrichment and siltation
on water and wetland habitats, in both freshwater and coastal
ecosystems, are major nature conservation problems. They also
have a wider environmental and social impact, affecting drinking
water supply, flood risk, fisheries, recreation and tourism. Recent
studies have shown that agricultural activities contribute approximately
60% of nitrogen entering rivers in England.
Natural England believes the proposed methodology
for NVZ designation and subsequent Action Programme is not suitable
for addressing nitrogen-related eutrophication in saline or fresh
waters. While there may be small nominal reductions in nitrogen
loading resulting from nitrate action programmes, the current
application of the Directive is unlikely to tackle eutrophication
risks and impacts. The 50mg/l drinking water criteria used for
designation, has no ecological relevance and the science behind
the 70% designation is imprecise. We call for a baseline layer
of regulation covering 100% England to reduce diffuse pollution
from agriculture and greater integration between the Nitrate Action
Programme and other related policies for diffuse water pollution.
Natural England is concerned about the predicted
0.2-2% increase in ammonia emissions (as a result of the extended
closed period and subsequent manure spreading in warmer months)
and the proposed use of cover crops, and seeks further discussion
with Defra on these issues.
IMPLEMENTATION OF
THE 1991 NITRATES
DIRECTIVE
1.1 The recent negotiations to secure RDPE
approval have been influenced by the European Commission (EC)
view on the adequacy of Defra's implementation of the Nitrates
Directive. In recent Q&A, Defra stated that the EC has for
some time been extremely concerned that England has not adequately
implemented the Nitrates Directive. This has adversely affected
the recent RDPE negotiations and resulted in changes to the programme
in order to secure EC agreement. Without making these changes,
including scheme requirements related to the proposed (within
the Defra consultation) revisions to the Nitrates Action Programme
to agreements in existing NVZs, Defra would not have secured approval
for the Environmental Stewardship (ES) scheme.[12]
The changes will apply to all future ES agreements under RDPE
as well as provisional ES Scheme agreements made from 1 January
2007.
EFFECTIVENESS OF
THE CURRENT
NITRATES ACTION
PROGRAMME (NAP)
2.1 Natural England believes that protecting
water resources from agricultural emissions is essential for a
sustainable environment. The impacts of nutrient enrichment and
siltation on water and wetland habitats, in both freshwater and
coastal ecosystems, are major nature conservation problems. They
also have a wider environmental and social impact, affecting drinking
water supply, flood risk, fisheries, recreation and tourism. The
consultation details recent studies which have shown that agricultural
activities contribute on average 60% of diffuse nitrate, 25% diffuse
phosphorus, up to 75% of sediment and 25-50% of bacterial pollution
entering river systems, and more than 85% of ammonia emissions.
The UK continues to have one of the highest levels of nitrate
pollution in the European Union. The cost of treating water to
meet drinking water requirements in respect of nitrates between
2005 and 2010 is estimated to be some £288 million in capital
expenditure and £6 million in operating expenditure. The
cost of environmental damage to river and wetland ecosystems and
to natural habitats is estimated to be some £716 million
to £1.3 billion per year.
2.2 The Defra consultation documents detail
the measured reduction in N pollution resulting from current action
plans. Although small reductions in loading have been reported,
Natural England believes the proposed methodology for NVZ designation
and subsequent Action Programme is not suitable for addressing
the issues of nitrogen-related eutrophication in saline or fresh
waters. We believe that the 50mg/l drinking water criteria used
for designation, has no ecological relevance. The partial RIA
makes no mention of the ability of the NAP proposals to meet the
drinking water standard, or any other standard. This results in
an Action Programme aimed at tackling nitrates, which is not based
on controlling nitrogen-related eutrophication, but merely reducing
nitrate levels towards an undefined goal.
2.3 The partial RIA predicts a 5-15% reduction
in nitrate loss from implementation of the revised NAP. Natural
England believes this will fall a long way short of addressing
nitrogen-related eutrophication in saline or fresh waters.
2.4 In considering the freshwater environment
there is evidence (James et al 2005) to suggest that the
current eutrophication management approach which relies on phosphorus
control, may not be sufficient to restore plant biodiversity in
all instances and that parallel control of nitrogen may be needed
in these cases (eg for dystrophic and perhaps other upland lakes).
Furthermore, where nitrate levels need to be reduced to control
freshwater eutrophication, concentrations would need to be reduced
to 1-2 mg/l N to limit plant growth (based on conversion from
current phosphorus threshold values using N:P ratios typically
found in aquatic algae), these are much lower levels than the
drinking water standard for nitrate-nitrogen of 11.3 mg/l (NO3N-N).
Current nitrate levels in freshwater across much of England are
largely either in excess of the drinking water standard or at
risk of exceeding it.
2.5 In considering saline waters, the partial
RIA does not detail the scale of saline waters at risk from, or
impacted by eutrophication, or the extent of N reduction required
to tackle this in England. In saline waters, it is widely acknowledged
that nitrogen is generally the limiting nutrient for primary productivity,
and as such, standards have been developed to support good ecological
status for transitional and coastal (TraC) waters under the Water
Framework Directive. Nearly 80% of English waters have N levels
in excess of the draft standards proposed, thus highlighting the
degree of N enrichment. The Environment Agency, through its review
of consents (ROC) project, has also identified a number of Special
Areas of Conservation (SACs) and Special Protection Areas (SPAs)
which are impacted by marine eutrophication. In many cases, the
relative contributions from diffuse sources of N are far higher
than the consented point-sources. The Environment Agency is developing
action plans for these impacted sites, and will be seeking a "proportionate"
reduction in N load from licensed point sources, with an expectation
that a proportionate reduction will also be required for diffuse
sources of N if desired environmental outcomes are to be met.
Natural England believes the proposed NAP will fall short of addressing
nitrogen-related eutrophication in saline waters.
2.6 There is a clear need for better integration
between the Nitrate Action Programme and the Water Protection
Zone (WPZ) policy mechanisms and wider programmes such as the
UK strategy on pesticides and the sheep dip pollution reduction
programme. Natural England feels that there is a strong justification
to develop a robust "broad and shallow" regulatory mechanism
and a more highly targeted "narrow and deep" mechanism
that can work in combination to tackle diffuse water pollution
from agriculture. Pragmatically, the NAP could be seen as the
broad and shallow mechanism for nutrients (not just nitrates),
whilst policy mechanisms such as Water Protection Zones (WPZs)
could be deployed on a catchment or sub-catchment basis to deal
with more targeted measures for all diffuse pollutants (including
nitrates) that are beyond the scope of the NAP and the Nitrates
Directive.
PROPOSED 70% NITRATE
VULNERABLE ZONES
COVERAGE
3.1 he location of the proposed NVZs covering
70% of England does not appear to offer adequate protection to
a number of SACs and SPAs (ie Natura 2000 sites), and SSSIs that
either have a known risk of, or show signs of eutrophication.
Furthermore, we consider the science and methodology behind the
proposed 70% designation to be imprecise. Comparing the current
review with the NAP review in 2002 highlights the inaccuracies
in the methodology. Defra's consultation in 2002 asked for views
on 80% or 100%, (which subsequently translated to NVZ coverage
of 55%) whereas the current review suggests 70% or 100% coverage.
Natural England believes the Action Programme should provide a
baseline layer of regulation throughout the whole of England.
ISSUES ARISING
FROM SPECIFIC
ACTION PROGRAMME
MEASURES
4.1 Closed period (organic manures)
4.1.1 We have concerns about the potential
0.2-2% increase in ammonia emissions as a result of the Action
Programme measures. Nitrogen deposition remains a significant
risk to semi-natural vegetation, including rare habitats and species
protected under national and European legislation. The increasing
significance of ammonia was highlighted in the NEGTAP report (2001),
and agricultural sources of atmospheric ammonia are becoming increasingly
important as action is taken on other pollutants such as NOx and
SO2. Recent work to underpin assessments by the Environment Agency
of impacts on Natura 2000 sites under the Habitats Directive has
confirmed the significance of ammonia for designated sites. We
consider there is now a pressing requirement for an ammonia strategy
to act in parallel with action under the Nitrates Directive to
ensure a coordinated approach to managing emissions of ammonia
from agriculture
4.2 Cover crops
4.2.1 We do not support the use of cover
crops to replace over-winter stubbles. There is no consideration
given within the partial RIA to the impact of cover crops and
the potential loss of habitat. The requirement to sow cover crops
would conflict with agri-environment options which incentivise
over-wintered stubbles. Approximately 65,000 hectares (end Dec
2007) of over-wintered stubble land is managed under the environmental
stewardship scheme. In some regions this may represent a significant
percentage of the total area of land deemed suitable for cover
crops. The Nitrates Directive does not explicitly require cover
crops to be included in the Action Programme. We will seek further
discussion with Defra on cover crops in order to prevent any loss
of this valuable habitat for farmland birds. Further information
in relation to the impacts of the widespread adoption of winter
cover crops on arable biodiversity can be found in the Appendix.
4.2.2 Taking account of land use within
NVZs, the estimated average nitrate reduction gained by using
cover crops was calculated as 4-7%, and could be as much as 12%
in arable groundwater catchments. The total estimated nitrate
reduction from the entire package of measures is estimated at
5.5-15.5%. According to the estimates, within the RIA, cover crops
represent the single measure contributing the highest average
nitrate reduction. However, as the partial RIA does not consider
biodiversity requirements such as the target for farmland birds
(under the new Natural Resources PSA), this estimate is likely
to be far higher than what is actually achievable.
4.2.3 Natural England also questions the
application and benefits of cover crops on heavier soils where
the object of autumn ploughing is to utilise winter frosts to
weather the soil, thereby using nature rather than diesel to create
the seed bed. Without the benefit of frost action, additional
cultivations, herbicides and pesticides will be needed. The partial
RIA does not consider this potential increase in the carbon footprint.
REFERENCES
James, C, Fisher, J, Russell, V, Collings, S and
Moss, B, (2005) Nitrate availability and hydrophytic species
richness in shallow lakes. Freshwater Biology, 50, 1049-1063.
January 2008
12 Further information on the changes affecting RDPE
can be found on the Defra website at:- http://www.defra.gov.uk/erdp/rdp07-13/sectf.htm#q4K Back
| 
