Memorandum submitted by the Environment
Agency
1. Q: Has Defra's implementation of the 1991
Directive been adequate?
A Reasoned Opinion is currently outstanding
against the UK government for failure to adequately implement
the Nitrates Directive.
The current NVZ rules (The Action Programme),
have not been revised since they were drawn up by the Ministry
of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in 1998. The initial NVZ designations
(8% of England) were made by the Department for the Environment
in 1996 when only certain deep groundwaters used for potable abstraction
were protected. The designations were extended by Defra in 2002,
after a ruling by the European Court of Justice in 1999, to 55%
of England and 3% of Wales.
The Environment Agency believes that the protection
of the water environment, including drinking water, through the
full implementation of the Nitrates Directive will help with the
sustainable management of our water resources. It is the only
piece of existing legislation that seeks to control diffuse water
pollution by nitrates from agriculture.
2. Q: How have levels of nitrate pollution
changed since the Directive came into effect? How effective has
the current Action Programme been in reducing nitrate pollution?
Overall the evidence is that nitrate pollution
has not changed significantly since the Directive came into force.
Indeed in some areas, particularly in the south and east of England,
nitrate levels in groundwater have increased and are still rising.
From our General Quality Assessment monitoring information we
know that around 17% of our 7,300 river monitoring points exceed
the 50mg/l drinking water value at least once during the winter
months linking the nitrate concentrations recorded to run-off
from agricultural land. We believe that the current Action Programme
has been ineffective in reducing nitrate pollution.
3. Q: Defra says that the area designated
as Nitrate Vulnerable Zones needs to increase from 55% to 70%
of England: is it right?
The increase in land area designated is based
upon strict criteria set out within the Nitrates Directive and
the revised designation methodology. These criteria are linked
to concentrations of nitrate in water exceeding, (or likely to
exceed) the 50mg/l drinking water value or undesirable disturbance
in the ecology of the receiving waters, including downstream marine
waters. The additional NVZ designations, amounting to 15% of England,
meet these criteria.
4. Q: Whether the proposed Nitrates Action
Programme measures should apply throughout the whole of England,
rather than only on land designated as Nitrate Vulnerable Zones
The Environment Agency supports the targeted
approach to designation as determined by our environmental monitoring
information and scientific analysis, which takes a modern approach
to regulation, targeting action and regulation where it is most
needed. Applying the Action Programme throughout England would
place an excessive and unnecessary financial burden on farmers
in "low nitrate" areas. There will however be a need
to control nitrate pollution outside designated NVZs in some areas
in order to meet the objectives of the overarching Water Framework
Directive. At present it is only the Code of Good Agricultural
Practice that fulfils this role. The Environment Agency is working
to identify the need for and scale of any wider measures to meet
this gap between the two Directives.
5. Q: What should be the timetable for introducing
any changes in the way the Nitrates Directive is implemented?
The Environment Agency wants to see the Nitrates
Directive implemented in a much more strategic way in order to
protect environmental and drinking water quality in the long term.
This could be done by simplifying the Action Programme rules to
make compliance easier to achieve and to assess. We want the Nitrates
Directive to be a major plank in nutrient management on farms
within the context of the Water Framework Directive.
In terms of transitional arrangements for increased
slurry storage the Environment Agency would be content for farmers
to have a maximum of a two year period to upgrade their storage
facilities.
6. Q: What are the costs and benefits of Defra's
individual key proposals for the revised Action Programme: Should
any of these be abandoned or modified?
The Environment Agency believes that the revised
Action Programme should be made as simple as possible to ensure
farmers can understand exactly what is expected of them and for
the Agency to assess compliance effectively.
6.1 Whole farm manure nitrogen loading limit
Currently, we believe there is no justification
for a derogation from the Whole Farm Limit (170kg/N/ha/yr) for
livestock manure. We also believe that the current Action Programme
is not compliant with the objectives of the Directive, and therefore
a derogation cannot be granted at this time. Farmers need to understand
that any derogation will be temporary and is only likely to be
in place until the next review of the Action Programme. It will
generate more paperwork for them as they are likely to have to
apply for a derogation on a farm by farm basis, and possibly each
year until the derogation ceases. The Environment Agency, if it
administers the derogation, will not be able to grant a blanket
exemption.
6.2 Closed period (organic manures, manufactured
nitrogen fertilisers)
We believe that the proposals for closed periods
are overly complicated for both the farmer and the regulator and
we have urged to Defra to simplify them. We would particularly
like to see the rainfall element removed as it will be an administrative
burden for little or no environmental benefit. It may also target
our enforcement effort towards low-risk farms.
We would like to see a single closed period
during which applications within the period should be managed
on the basis of written and recorded advice by a FACTS qualified
person (Fertiliser Advisers Certification Scheme).
Closed periods for organic manures also affect
water companies and others needing to manage slurries and sludges
from their businesses that can be used for agricultural benefit.
Rules for manufactured fertiliser remain the
same. However, rivers draining arable land tend to be high in
nitrate. We therefore believe that Defra should review and consider
extending the closed season for manufactured fertilizers to reduce
leaching to surface waters.
6.3 Manure storage
We would like Defra to build in more flexibility
to the storage requirements through use of manure management plans.
We see no justification for different requirements for pig slurry
and poultry manure and other slurries.
We would like a single, consistent time period
for manure storage, with the potential to apply to grassland,
(with written and recorded FACTS advice) as a way of minimising
the need to build more storage, yet still retaining adequate environmental
protection. This should then be included in the standard procedure
for calculating storage volume.
6.4 Crop nitrogen requirement limit
We are concerned that using NMax may lead to
over application of nitrogen. Defra needs to provide greater clarity
on the difference between NMax and the nitrogen requirement of
the crop. Defra does not mention other reference sources that
can be used to identify crop requirement such as agronomists,
other crop recommendation systems or its own Codes of Good Agricultural
Practice.
6.5 Spreading locations
Defra's consultation did not mention the need
for a standard colour-coded farm map incorporating a risk assessment
to identify where not to apply nitrogen.
Defra must ensure that the Regulations and guidance
state that the field limit excludes areas where organic manure
must not be spread, eg within 10 metres of a watercourse.
6.6 Spreading techniques
Clear guidance and definitions are required
for undefined terms such as "high trajectory" and "high
pressure". It would be clearer to say, for example, no rain
guns, no splash plates greater than "x" degrees or that
the pressure must be less than "y".
6.7 Record keeping
All farmers in NVZs must keep adequate records,
it is an offence not to do so. Inadequate or no records are the
main reasons for non-compliance with the current Action Programme.
Accurate and timely record keeping is the main plank of compliance
assessment and its importance cannot be stressed too heavily.
Good record keeping is also an essential part of running an efficient
business and can only be in the interests of the farmer.
6.8 Cover crops
A number of scientific studies show that cover
crops are effective at taking up nitrate that would otherwise
be lost to the environment. We support their inclusion in the
Action Programme, especially given the lack of any other methods
of controlling nitrate coming from arable farms. However we would
like to see some flexibility in how the farmer maintains green
cover when the main crop has been harvested.
7. Q: What advice and support farmers will
need from Defra to implement a revised Action Programme?
Financial support
Although there are potentially significant increased
costs in installing manure storage, particularly for livestock
farmers, Defra is not currently proposing any grant aid for farmers.
Some farmers may also need to invest in new spreading equipment.
Defra does not explain why the government has
already decided not to make any grants available to support additional
capital expenditure. The lack of financial support could have
a significant impact on the viability of small businesses, especially
in the dairy sector. Provision of financial assistance, at an
appropriate level, to offset capital costs would be the single
biggest thing that would help farmers comply with the revised
measures.
We are pleased, however, that the management
of nutrients and anaerobic digestion are areas that are eligible
for financial support under Axis 1 of the Rural Development Programme
for England.
Guidance
Defra must produce clear, simple and concise
guidance to enable farmers to comply with the revised Action Programme
measures. Where possible it should carry worked examples, including
standard calculations, for farmers to follow. It is essential
that Defra revises the current "blue book" guidance
documents. Although this response relates to England we urge Defra
to engage with the Welsh Assembly Government in translating this
guidance into Welsh.
It might also be useful if Defra were to fund
an independent organisation, such as ADAS, an independent provider
of environmental consultancy, rural development services and policy
advice, to assist farmers in interpreting and implementing the
revised rules.
8. Q: How can Defra encourage greater adoption
of anaerobic digestion as a way of managing manure?
We see this as a question for Defra. Defra may,
for example, choose to provide financial assistance for the installation
of these plants. It may also wish to encourage partnerships with
Water and Sewerage undertakers to build collective plants, thus
reducing the problems for both farmers and Water companies needing
to dispose of slurries and sludge.
While within the strict context of the Nitrates
Directive and the Action Programme rules anaerobic digestors will
not directly benefit farmers we support the uptake of anaerobic
digestion and the wider environmental benefits it can bring. Although
storage requirements will be the same and the nitrogen content
will stay the same, the nitrogen in the digestate is in a form
that is immediately available to plants. Hence there is likely
to be less leakage to the environment provided the application
to the crop is carried out properly.
At present there are very few anaerobic digestors
in England. The Environment Agency would support any initiative
that encouraged greater use of anaerobic digestors on farm for
wider environmental benefits. AD captures 85% of methane from
stored slurry that would otherwise be lost to atmosphere as a
green-house gas. AD also saves on fossil fuel by converting gas
to energy and the process will utilise food wastes that might
otherwise be spread to land or go to land fill.
Financial support for the set up and capital
costs of the plants, and the infrastructure needed for the national
grid to take power from small suppliers could amount to a large
financial commitment.
9. Q: How the proposed new Nitrates Action
Programme is affecting those with existing Entry Level Stewardship
agreements in existing Nitrate Vulnerable Zones
We believe that Defra will require farmers within
an existing NVZ, who hold a provisional Environmental Stewardship
(ES) agreement, to conform to the requirements of the revised
Nitrates Action Programme immediately. The revised Action Programme
will apply to all farmers in NVZs, including those with a confirmed
ES agreement, from the effective date of the new Regulations.
The EA will need to examine these arrangements for any implications
on its compliance and enforcement activities.
January 2008
| 
