Memorandum submitted by Mr Philip Dunne
MP
I submit to the Select Committee's enquiry my
concerns about the proposed amendments that the Government is
considering introducing shortly to regulations governing Nitrate
Vulnerable Zones (NVZ). Those amendments could cause significant
harm to this country's agricultural economy, particularly in certain
sectors that are least well equipped to cope with the increased
regulatory burden proposed by the Department for Environment,
Food and Rural Affairs. I write as a Member of Parliament representing
the rural constituency of Ludlow, where agriculture remains a
significant contributor to the local economy, as well as a partner
in a farming business, as declared in the Register of Members'
Interests.
The Government's proposals for those sectors
affected are potentially extremely significant, particularly for
the long-suffering dairy sector. However, the proposals have much
wider ramifications for farming practice and enterprise viability
across much of the livestock and arable sectors in England. Indeed,
the Minister for the Environment has indicated in a parliamentary
answer that, if the 70%. NVZ proposal is implemented, approximately
139,500 farmers will be affected and, if the Action Programme
covers the whole of England, approximately 195,500 farmers will
be affected, as could each of the 272 Members of Parliament with
a farm in their constituency.
OBJECTIVES
Before commenting on the proposal in detail,
I should like to dwell for a moment on the objectives and evolution
of Nitrate Vulnerable Zones. According to Defra, nitrogen discharge
from agriculture accounts for 60% of diffuse nitrate pollution
of the aquatic environment. In layman's terms, nitrogen pollution
leaching into the watercourses stimulates algae growth, which
damages water quality, in respect of both human activity—from
the quality of drinking water to swimming in the sea—and
biodiversity within our rivers and oceans. I accept that nitrogen
can contribute to water pollution, but we have to ask ourselves
whether draconian, new and costly regulations are the right answer
to a problem that seems already on the way to being solved without
them.
How did we get to where we are today? The current
proposals for extending and revising NVZs do not result from any
new European Union Directive; rather, they stem from Defra's need
to abide by commitments originally entered into under the 1991
Nitrates Directive, which was agreed as part of the EU Environment
Council in June 1991 and adopted in December that year.
It is clear that the original intent was to
maintain regulation at the bare minimum. The 1991 Directive required
member states to designate areas as NVZs where nitrate levels
in water were at risk of exceeding 50 mg per litre and where the
water was or might become eutrophic, namely water that is rich
in dissolved nutrients, photosynthetically productive and often
low in oxygen during warm weather. Member states could implement
an Action Programme either for an entire territory or within discrete
NVZs.
The Conservative Environment Minister at the
time accepted that the aim of the 1991 directive was to improve
water quality by reducing nitrate pollution from agricultural
practice. He thought that the zone could cover up to two million
hectares, but crucially said that the precise area would be based
on necessary monitoring and other studies by the Government and
the then National Rivers Authority. Any additional measures were
envisaged to take into account their cost and effectiveness. Those
two critical tests of cost and effectiveness should be the guiding
principles applied by the Government today in responding to the
consultation and bringing forward their final proposals.
It took until 1996 before the initial 66 NVZs
were designated, covering a mere 600,000 hectares—just 8%
of England—and focusing on protecting drinking water sources.
In 2000, the European Court of Justice found that the UK had failed
to protect surface and ground waters and was relying only on protecting
drinking water. So Defra consulted in 2002 on two options for
full implementation in England and received some 13,000 responses.
The Government on that occasion wisely decided to take the least
regulatory approach to comply with the Court and, in October 2002,
designated 55% of England as an NVZ, including the original 8%.
Much of that territory was in the West Midlands.
Those designations must be reviewed every four
years, unless the Action Programme applies to the whole country.
Having completed their four-yearly review, the Government concluded
that there had been some increase in nitrate pollution in certain
areas of England and that the current Action Programme had not
had a significant impact on nitrate pollution. Those findings
have not been universally acknowledged.
In August 2007, the Government published a further
consultation paper inviting comments by 13 December, so that they
could be in a position to respond shortly, with the stated intention
of laying a statutory instrument before the House to come into
force from 6 April 2008. In the Westminster Hall debate I secured
in January, the Minister confirmed he is not fixed on that timetable.
IMPLICATIONS OF
PROPOSALS
So what is proposed and what are the implications
for English farmers and the environment? The measures currently
proposed fall under seven main headings: controlling where, when
and how much nitrogen is applied, how manure is stored, requiring
cover crops in place of bare stubble and requiring detailed records
of manure storage and nitrogen applications to be retained for
five years. I describe those measures briefly below.
1. Extent
Defra proposes to control where nitrogen is
applied by increasing the designation of either a further 15%
of farmland to take the NVZs up to 70% of England's farmland or
incorporating the whole of England in an Action Programme, as
Ireland did in 2003, joining Austria, Denmark, Finland, Germany,
Luxembourg and the Netherlands.
Interested observers, such as the National Farmers'
Union, do not feel that such a major increase in designation is
justified. The NFU claims to have provided evidence repeatedly
to Defra over the past two years analysing Environment Agency
data that has shown nitrate levels reducing in many rivers, such
as in the River Trent. But we do not have to take the NFU's word
for it, since Defra itself admits in its NVZ consultation that:
"Analysis of surface water concentrations
for the years 1999 to 2004 shows that 77% of sites had a declining
trend".
Defra may consider an analysis over only five
years too short to be reliable, but why does it refuse to recognise
the validity of the Environment Agency's calculations of nitrate
levels in several rivers, which show that they have been declining
steadily for 15 years since 1990? In addition to the River Trent,
other rivers have had a 10% to 20% decline in nitrates, including
the River Nene at Peterborough, the River Thames at Goring Weir
and the River Aire at Sneath, where Environment Agency monitoring
of nitrate as nitrogen is used.
As recently as 17 December 2007, in answer to
a parliamentary question the Minister said:
"My Department worked closely with the Environment
Agency during the recent review of Nitrate Vulnerable Zones in
England. The EA regularly monitors nitrate concentrations in waters
and this monitoring data played a fundamental role in informing
the recent review."—[Official Report, 17 December
2007; Vol 469, c 1010W.]
This evidence should be used to allow a more
refined designation, so that areas that have improved to an acceptable
level can be de-designated. According to the refined method used
to define NVZ designations in 2007, some 6% of England within
the existing NVZ should qualify for de-designation. Areas that
qualify should at the very least not be required to implement
the new, more stringent Action Programme. That would save farmers
a significant and wholly unnecessary capital investment.
A 100% designation would also exacerbate existing
boundary anomalies on the edge of NVZs—for example, along
the Welsh border, where NVZs are proposed to increase to only
3% of Welsh farmland, and in Scotland, where it is planned to
increase them to only 14%. This raises the perplexing prospect,
if the logic behind designation is based on scientific evidence,
that part of a river, such as the River Teme which flows through
my constituency but whose source is in Wales, could be subject
to an NVZ in England but not in Wales.
Similarly, my own farm is divided by a watershed.
If the 70% designation applies, land from which water flows west
into the River Lugg would be subject to the regulations, but land
where water flows east into the River Teme will not. That seems
peculiar, and it will impact on how we conduct our farm and business.
If Ministers are considering expanding zones,
they should also, under administrative law, consider the possibility
of reducing a zone if the objective evidence supports such a reduction.
The increased costs on those within the zone,
place these farmers at a considerable competitive disadvantage
compared with those engaged in similar enterprises in neighbouring
areas outside the zone.
2. Timing of dispersal
The proposal's second impact concerns when nitrogen
applications can take place. Defra plans to ban spreading slurry
and poultry manure for up to five months during autumn and winter.
It will extend the current ban of two to three months, which applies
only to that 10 to 20% of NVZ land with sandy and shallow soil,
to a ban for all land within the NVZ of between three and five
months, depending on average rainfall, soil type and whether the
slurry is being applied to arable or grassland. That is likely
to have the perverse effect, even according to Defra's own figures,
of increasing the ammonia emissions from manure spreading by up
to 9%. Ammonia is a potent pollutant that other EU directives
are targeted to reduce. It is a further irony of the proposal
that, according to the NFU, the environmental damage caused by
the extra emissions will cost up to £300 million.
The proposal will encourage farmers to empty
their slurry stores on the first fine day after the winter spreading
bans end, almost certainly in unison. That has been the experience
in other countries with similar regulations, such as the Netherlands,
where regulations apply to pig and dairy cattle slurry. Instead
of spreading slurry little and often when soil and weather conditions
align to make it suitable, farmers throughout the area will all
rush to empty their stores at the same time, increasing the environmental
risks of smell in dry weather and leachate in wet.
3. Method of dispersal
Thirdly, the proposals on how manure should
be spread amount to a ban on high-trajectory, high-pressure slurry
spreaders. That would slow down the process, increase the cost
and require additional investment in further machinery.
4. Rate of nitrogen
Fourthly, the proposals prescribe limits on
how much nitrogen can be applied to each type of crop, which will
effectively limit the potential yield from any specific crop.
Over the years, plant breeders have developed higher-yielding
varieties of all types of crops. The measure flies in the face
of the attempt to encourage a competitive, dynamic agricultural
sector.
Farmers can work within a farm-wide limit, so
they should be free to apply fertiliser within that limit as they
see fit to maximise crop potential. Defra recently conceded that
it is willing to seek a grass-land derogation from the general
whole-farm limit of 170 kg of nitrogen per hectare. The derogation
is essential, and Ministers should seek a grass-land derogation
of 250 kg per hectare, as is granted to other member states.
5. Storage
The proposal's fifth and single biggest impact
for farmers in affected sectors relates to the control of how
slurry is stored. Defra proposes a minimum of six months' storage
for poultry and pig manure and five months for cattle slurry within
two years of the regulations' coming into force. That would impose
a massive cost increase on hard-pressed dairy, pig and poultry
farmers, many of whom would need to more than double their storage
capacity, at a time when two dairy farmers a week have been leaving
the industry due to the inability to make a living, poultry farmers
have faced two avian flu scares in successive years and sharply
volatile prices and livestock farmers, especially pig and poultry
farmers, face a near-doubling of feed costs following last year's
grain price rises.
The capital cost of constructing suitable storage
pits is estimated to be between £240 million and £400
million. Defra's estimate seems completely out of touch with the
reality of farming in Britain today. Defra assumes that farmers
will have no difficulty in borrowing the capital cost and repaying
it over 25 years, but banks—particularly in their current
nervous and fragile state—might take a more jaundiced view
about lending money to finance a sunk capital spend with no prospect
of any return on investment. According to Promar International
for Dairy UK, the capital cost for the average dairy farm will
be £55,000. For the average pig farm, it will be £30,000,
according to the British Pig Executive. For tenant farmers, such
a commitment is likely to be particularly hard to fund. In an
economic environment where dairy and pig farming has recently
become a marginal activity for many, a bank prepared to lend might
not take a 25-year view on repayment. Ten years seems more realistic,
which would double Defra's estimate of the annual cost of investment.
The difficulty of funding such investment has
been exacerbated by the Government's decision to abolish Agricultural
Buildings Allowance. The Government should consider reinstating
this relief to help farmers recoup the costs of that investment.
There are other costs in addition to the capital
costs—for instance, the additional running costs of the
proposed storage arrangements will lead to extra costs when dispersing
slurry. Given the shorter time frame proposed for dispersal and
the reduced volumes that can be spread at the same time, it will
take longer, so there will probably be greater transport costs.
I believe that those factors were not properly taken into account
in Defra's calculations.
6. Cover crops
Sixthly, the most significant aspect on farms
other than dairy farms is the proposal to plant cover crops on
ground harvested before 1 September that would normally be left
as bare stubble over the winter. Defra argues that a cover crop
would reduce nitrate leaching; it might do so, but I suspect only
by a tiny amount. It is not clear on what scientific basis this
argument was made.
This proposal bears all the hallmarks of Whitehall
gold-plating—piggy-backing on an EU directive, so that Defra
can blame someone else for the idea. There is no requirement for
such a measure in the Nitrates Directive and reveals a lack of
understanding of practical farming and horticultural practice.
Indeed a number of conservation schemes pay
premiums to allow over-winter stubble, to protect farm birds.
It seems that one arm of Government is working against the same
arm.
A requirement to plant a cover crop and then
to plough it in before sowing a spring-planted crop would lead
to additional costs in mechanical operations and labour, and it
could increase soil damage through the possible use of additional
herbicides and the additional spring work necessary to establish
seed beds. However, it would also be a direct encouragement to
farmers to manage the land in such a way as to avoid the regulations—for
instance, by harvesting after 1 September or by doing more autumn-sown
planting which might adversely affect the optimum rotation for
the farm.
The loss of over-wintering stubble would lead
to a significant loss of habitat for farmland birds, just as set-aside
is coming to an end. The environmental damage from such a proposal,
which conflicts with other of Defra's own objectives, would far
outweigh the tiny reduction in nitrate. This proposal should be
dropped.
7. Record keeping
Finally, the imposition of a new record-keeping
regime provides a further major set of proposals for farmers to
contend with. It takes red tape to new dimensions with records
required to be kept in excruciating detail to comply with the
provisions set out in the statutory instrument.
Such records include not just what manure is
stored, but what is spread and where. They must all be kept for
five years. Maps hatched in specified colours must be prepared
and risk assessments undertaken, including a physical inspection,
which must be recorded before spreading takes place in accordance
with the map. Calculations for storage must be made in accordance
with the schedule, which sets out how much manure each size, type
and age of animal or bird excretes. That is taking micro-management
to a ludicrous level. Farmers, particularly livestock farmers,
have a better understanding of how their animals behave, including
how they defecate, than bureaucrats in Whitehall.
Failure to comply is an offence, with penalties
of up to two years in prison. Farmers should be trusted with a
system of spot checking to ensure compliance, not compelled to
spend endless spare time—time that they do not have—tied
up in keeping essentially pointless records. This regime should
be reconsidered.
FOOD SECURITY
AND IMPORTS
Another consequence of the proposal is the impact
on the production of home-grown milling wheat of bread-making
quality. I have some personal knowledge, having grown milling
in preference to feed varieties of wheat on my farm for 20 years.
UK flour millers require wheat with bread-making characteristics,
which include a high level of good quality protein. The varieties
of milling wheat presently available mean that, to achieve the
required protein level, more than a third of UK crops will need
more than 280 kg per hectare of nitrogen and 25% will require
more than 300 kg per hectare.
Milling wheat achieves a premium price for farmers,
which can be achieved only if it meets the millers' high standards.
Last year, wheat was grown on some 1.826 million hectares in the
United Kingdom, of which approximately 35% had bread-making potential.
Those farmers whose soils or land quality require higher than
the proposed maximum 260 kg per hectare of nitrogen inputs to
achieve those standards will be encouraged to grow more feed wheat
varieties, thus lowering their returns and reducing the supply
of home-grown quality wheat for the mills. That will increase
our imports of such wheat from France, Germany, Canada and other
countries.
British farmers have supplied an increasing
proportion of domestic demand, which was estimated by the milling
industry at 85% last year, with imports declining over the years
from 70% to 15%. Has the environmental impact assessment considered
the cost of increased food miles and associated carbon footprint
increase that will result from reversing that trend, possibly
to the point where the majority of the flour needed to make bread
or cakes to feed the British public must be imported?
There is already significant evidence of reducing
nitrate fertiliser use on cereal crops, by 25% over the past 10
years, while yields have continued to grow. Specialist farmers
who produce bread-making wheat are skilled in applying nitrogen
to maximise uptake by the plant, while minimising losses and wastage
through run-off. That requires a flexible approach by individual
farmers, applying manure and chemical fertilisers when it is right
for the crop and in weather conditions suitable to maximise take-up
and minimise leachate, not when they are told to do so by Whitehall.
NEED AND
GOLD PLATING
Are more stringent requirements really necessary?
I am not a scientist, but that decision should be based on scientific
evidence rather than on bureaucratic convenience. Nitrogen fertiliser
use has declined by 40% in less than 20 years and by 25% in the
past 10 years. That has come about for several reasons, including
a decline in the numbers of livestock after the animal health
diseases of recent years, which means that less manure is generated.
Furthermore, crop efficiency in absorbing nitrogen has risen substantially,
so less nitrate is being leached through the soil. Nitrate trends
are static or falling for 77% of river monitoring sites, and for
25% of groundwater. Defra's plans seem based partly on meeting
the aims of other directives or other Government objectives.
The Government have pledged to avoid all gold-plating
of EU legislation, but their implementation and enforcement of
these proposals fly in the face of that pledge. These measures
are very costly, but not very effective. Defra itself has calculated
a reduction in nitrates of only 1% by extending the closed period,
which is responsible for the main cost of increased storage. These
measures might not be regarded as cost-effective if they were
introduced under the Water Framework Directive and could be disproportionate,
but mysteriously, those tests do not apply under the Nitrates
Directive.
GRANT AID
There should be grant aid to help farmers implement
the more stringent proposals, particularly for storage. When the
initial NVZ scheme was introduced in 1996, the then Government
recognised the significant cost to farmers of meeting the manure
handling and storage requirements under the Action Programme.
They therefore established the Farm Waste Grant Scheme, which
the current Government expanded, in 2002, when they substantially
increased the designated area and then extended, in 2003, for
a further two years. The scheme ended on 31 March 2006. Defra
should reinstate that or equivalent schemes to provide relief
to farmers in England, since their neighbours in Wales and Scotland
are being offered grants of between 40 and 60% of the capital
cost of providing the storage facilities.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Finally, I have some specific suggestions about
what is needed to make the regulations workable. First, no more
land should be designated as an NVZ than is justified by scientific
monitoring—less than 70%.
Secondly, in areas where designation is questioned,
there should be no additional storage requirement, plus the retention
of existing closed periods and ideally other aspects too, while
Defra undertakes more intensive monitoring.
Thirdly, capital grants comparable to the 40
to 60% grants available in Wales and Scotland should be introduced
to assist with increased storage requirements, as well as tax
deductible depreciation charges, following the loss of the Agricultural
Buildings Allowance.
Fourthly, a longer period, such as four rather
than two years, should be introduced, to allow the implementation
of storage requirements, given the time needed to secure planning
permissions, arrange funding and build. Ministers are keen to
encourage anaerobic digestion facilities on farms, which will
take even longer to plan and install than conventional storage,
and they should be covered by these measures.
Fifthly, Ministers should press to secure a
whole farm manure loading grassland derogation of 230 kg per hectare.
Sixthly, rather than imposing a blanket obligation
from Whitehall, slurry volume storage requirements should be arranged
locally to match more closely the conditions on the farm, including
soil type, rainfall and land use. The six-month storage requirement
for pig and poultry should be reduced to five months, because
there seems no justification for additional storage; it is a buffer
zone put in place by bureaucrats.
Finally, the record-keeping system should be
simplified to allow a spot-check monitoring system, rather than
the very prescriptive system proposed.
February 2008
| 
