Memorandum submitted by the Tenant Farmers
Association
INTRODUCTION
The Tenant Farmers Association (TFA) welcomes
the opportunity of providing written evidence to Environment,
Food and Rural Affairs Committee as part of its Inquiry into the
Implementation of the Nitrates Directive in England. The submission
follows the questions set out in the Committee's Press Notice
of 18 December 2007 where the TFA believes it is able to assist
the Committee.
Has Defra's implementation of the 1991 Directive
been adequate?
By and large and until recently, the TFA believes
that the approach of Defra (and of the Ministry of Agriculture
Fisheries and Food before it) has balanced practicability with
risk. It is widely held that the Directive is flawed in a number
of ways. This includes its reference to the 50 milligrams per
litre limit of nitrate concentration in water and its broad application
of policy tools which pay little attention to what is happening
at a local level. In view of those concerns, the TFA believes
that the policy of the UK government has been to implement the
Directive in accordance with sound science and local conditions.
However, the TFA is now concerned that Defra's
approach has moved to one of almost slavish adherence to the Directive's
requirements in a "driving test" mentality. The TFA
believes that Defra should be taking a lead on seeking changes
to the Nitrates Directive and its Action Programme to bring it
better in line with sound science.
How have levels of nitrate pollution changed since
the Directive came into effect?
Even in Defra's own consultation document on
the issue there is acceptance that there have been localised reductions
in nitrate concentrations in recent years. The TFA believes that
there are other data sources which show that there has been a
more substantial improvement in nitrate concentrations over a
wider number of catchments than has been suggested. Data from
the National Farmers' Union, for example, has not been taken seriously
by the Government. The TFA would argue that where there are improvements
in nitrate concentrations and overall downward trends then land
previously designated in NVZ's displaying those characteristics
must be de-designated and until they are de-designated that must
not see an increase in the regulatory burden through the ratcheting
up of the action programme measures.
Defra says that the area designated as NVZs needs
to increase from 55% to 70% of England: is it right?
As noted above, the TFA believes that there
are catchments which should be de-designated and that therefore
the true figure lies between 55% and 70% of the country.
Should the proposed NVZ Action Programme apply
throughout the whole of England?
No, the Action Programme measures should only
be applied where they are needed.
TFA VIEWS ON
THE WHOLE
FARM LIMIT
FOR LIVESTOCK
MANURES
The TFA believes it is a must that we gain a
derogation from the 170kg per hectare limit and that work on this
must start right away.
TFA VIEWS ON
CLOSED PERIODS
Whilst the TFA recognises the benefit of closed
periods for organic manures, it is important to ensure that in
setting the closed periods we are informed and guided by science
and that there is flexibility to TFA that the science would not
support the need for closed periods beyond the end of December
and therefore, for all soils, the closed periods should come to
an end on the 31 December.
At the other end of the closed period it is
also important to build in flexibility as relatively warm, dry
autumns (such as experienced in 2007) would provide the right
circumstances to allow spreading of organic manures without the
risk of leaching which we wish to avoid. In this respect we would
want to see built into the programme a facility whereby individual
farmers, based on sound professional advice, could spread manures
in the early part of the closed period when conditions permit.
This would then match the provisions for inorganic fertilisers
where application can be made within the closed period where there
is written advice from a FACTS qualified adviser.
TFA VIEWS ON
MANURE STORAGE
This is by far the biggest concern for the TFA.
This is for a number of reasons.
Firstly, the TFA believes that the capacity
requirements proposed (22 weeks for cattle and 26 weeks for pigs
and poultry) are too high. The TFA believes that Defra should
review the closed periods in the manner suggested above and then
come forward with a reduced aspiration as to the amount of storage
required by individual farmers.
Secondly, the TFA is concerned that the calculations
for storage requirements are to be carried out on a standard basis.
The TFA believes that there should be flexibility for individuals
to derogate from the standard factors where they have taken professional
advice about their own circumstances and where they are applying
nutrient management techniques which reduce the amount of available
slurry that requires storage. The TFA is concerned that in using
standard factors, individuals will be required to erect storage
capacity which they will never use.
Thirdly, the TFA is greatly concerned about
the cost implications for producers. The TFA estimates that, on
average, dairy farmers in particular will have to spend around
£50,000 per farm in erecting new slurry stores. This is a
significant capital outlay which cannot, in our view, be justified
in terms of the profitability of the industry.
Whilst on tenanted holdings, where those holdings
are let under the 1986 Agricultural Holdings Act, it will be the
landlords responsibility to install fixed equipment necessary
to meet statutory standards, we are greatly concerned that landlords
will not have the financial capacity to cope with the degree of
investment necessary. This is particularly the case for County
Council Smallholding Authorities who may have upwards of 50 tenants
each all requiring new storage capacity. The potential expenditure
involved could cause local authorities to reconsider whether they
can reasonably continue with their county farms estates and cause
them to consider an accelerated programme of disposal. This would
have a damaging impact upon farm structures and the farming ladder
and undermine the government's other key objectives about encouraging
new entrants into agriculture.
In view of this, it is non-negotiable from the
TFA's perspective that the government must introduce a grant scheme
to help fund the erection of new slurry storage capacity and we
see no reason why this should be less than the 60% being offered
elsewhere.
Fourthly, the TFA is concerned about the planning
regulations which will have to be adhered to in erecting new slurry
storage capacity. Local planning authorities in livestock areas
of the country could be inundated with applications for consent
to erect new slurry stores. The TFA believes that it would be
important to strengthen the guidance given to local authorities
about the handling of these cases to ensure that they can be expedited
and not cause problems for applications for other types of development
in rural areas.
Fifthly, the Association is greatly concerned
about whether there would be sufficient capacity in the construction
industry to build slurry stores. We are aware that the expertise
for this type of work is in the hands of a very few people and
we would be greatly concerned about others coming into the market
place without adequate expertise who may not do as good a job
as would be required for this type of work.
As a result, the TFA would argue that, together
with the review of capacity requirements, the period over which
this particular aspect of the Action Programme should be implemented
should be increased to five years but with grant aid.
TFA VIEWS ON
RECORD KEEPING
REQUIREMENTS
The membership of the TFA is characterised by
many small, family farms where access to labour is severely restricted.
The TFA is greatly concerned about the capacity on farms to deal
with the amount of bureaucracy that will be involved in recording
all that is required under the new regulations. There needs to
be a package of tailored advice, information and support to the
tenanted sector in particular which will enable those within it
to understand and comply with the record keeping requirements.
The TFA would also ask in terms of the enforcement of the regulations
that the Environment Agency should take a light touch approach
particularly in the early years as farmers get used to the increased
requirements.
TFA VIEWS ON
COVER CROPS
The TFA recognises that cover crops can play
an important role in reducing nitrate leaching from agricultural
land but its blanket application would have major negative affects
not least for vegetable and root growers. It would also compete
with other aspects of government policy not least the encouragement
of over-wintered stubbles under ELS. However, in recognition of
the benefits that cover crops can have, the TFA would propose
that it should be included as an option within ELS and in order
to incentivise its uptake in key areas of concern it should be
given a high points rating. The TFA would not support any move
to implement a cover crop requirement as a blanket policy.
TFA VIEWS ON
ANAEROBIC DIGESTION
The TFA sees limited scope for anaerobic digestion
systems to assist with compliance on nitrates issues at the farm
level. It is also a relatively expensive technology and therefore
we do not feel able to support significant government investment
in this area. The Association would caution the Government against
making headline-grabbing announcements about investment in anaerobic
digestion systems when its benefits are marginal and, on cost-effectiveness,
could not be supported.
January 2008
| 
