Memorandum submitted by the National Farmers'
Union
INTRODUCTION
1. The National Farmers Union (NFU) welcomes
the Committee's inquiry and this opportunity to comment on these
important Defra proposals to amend the extent of Nitrate Vulnerable
Zones (NVZs) and the Action Programme applying in these zones.
The NFU represents over 50,000 professional farmers and growers
many of whom, potentially all (should Defra opt for whole territory
designation) will be affected by these proposals.
2. The NFU does not seek to avoid addressing
genuine pollution issues arising from agriculture. However, it
does seek to ensure that there is a good case for action, that
the range of interventions chosen to address the "problem"
are appropriate and wide ranging and that measures, as well as
being proportionate and practical, demonstrate good cost effectiveness.
Having considered the range of changes proposed, the environmental
benefits and dis-benefits likely to result as well as the costs
of these changes to the industry, it is our contention that Defra's
proposals are unreasonable and disproportionate.
3. The NFU has submitted a substantial response
to the recent Defra consultation on NVZs, a copy of which has
been submitted to the Committee.[1]
This evidence to the Committee is as brief as possible, and for
further information reference should be made to our response to
Defra. We would be happy to respond to any further queries the
Committee may have.
QUESTION 1. HAS
DEFRA'S
IMPLEMENTATION OF
THE 1991 DIRECTIVE
BEEN ADEQUATE?
4. In the NFU's view, Defra has designated
more land than is necessary to implement the Directive. (See Question
3).
5. We also believe that implementation of
the Action Programme has been adequate except for the failure
to apply the whole farm manure loading limit of 170kg N/ha after
the first four years of the first Action Programme.
6. From our perspective there appears a
clear tension between member states' and the Commission's evolving
interpretation as to the Nitrates Directive's requirements. This
"tension" has resulted in European Court proceedings
and referrals, the rationale for which the NFU and farmers and
growers only know in outline.
7. There are no prescribed figures in Annex
III of the Directive relating to the other shortcomings we understand
are alleged by the Commission, such as those relating to the length
of closed periods for slurry application and the amount of slurry
storage capacity. We believe that the Directive permits member
states discretion in setting the appropriate figures for these.
We are not aware of any provision of the Directive which the UK
has breached through its exercise of this discretion in the existing
Action Programme. If there is a need to make changes for legal
reasons, these reasons should be clearly and publicly explained.
8. Defra is clear that the objective of
the Directive is to achieve a declining trend in nitrate concentrations.
Since many NVZ areas already satisfy this (see Question 2 below),
little or no further action would appear to be necessary in those
areas. It would therefore seem logical to assess whether nitrate
trends are meeting the Directive's objective in deciding whether
the existing measures need to be strengthened or new measures
added (as required in Article 5 (5)). We believe this would be
better than Defra's approach of applying strengthened and additional
measures throughout the NVZs, including in catchments where the
objective is already being achieved.
9. The difficulty for Defra is that the
Commission is focused on prescribing the detail of how the measures
are implemented (eg five or six months storage) rather than achieving
the Directive's objective in the most cost effective way. This
debate has major implications for many farmers' livelihoods; hence
the NFU's lengthy response to Defra's proposals and our unease
at the way the Commission is pressing Defra to implement measures
that offer such poor cost effectiveness.
QUESTION 2. 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?
How have levels changed?
10. Environment Agency nitrate sampling
data from monitoring points on rivers across England between 1990
and 2005 show trends are downwards in many rivers, but are still
upwards in some. Defra itself accepts that 77% are static or declining
over the five years from 1999-2004, although it has apparently
not looked back further.
11. The NFU's analysis has not reviewed
nitrate levels for groundwaters as these respond more slowly and
are likely to be reflecting farming practice as implemented some
decades previously (ie before the introduction of NVZ controls).
12. For those surface water we have analysed
a significant number of important rivers with large catchments
in NVZs have downward trends of up to 20% over the 15 years. Examples
are the Rivers Trent (20% reduction), Thames (10% reduction) and
Warwickshire Avon (15%). There is a large block of downward trending
rivers whose catchments extend from Derbyshire in the north to
Surrey in the south, and from Worcestershire in the west to Cambridgeshire
in the east. Other major rivers which adjoin this block, such
as the Rivers Severn and Great Ouse, have static 15-year trends.
How effective is the current Action Programme?
13. According to ADAS's assessment for the
government, the effect of the current Action Programme has generally
been modest, reducing nitrate levels over the whole NVZ area by
2-7%.
14. The NFU does not feel able to endorse
this finding as we have not been given the opportunity to discuss
or probe the results. However, we do consider that other changes
taking place in agriculture have contributed much improvement
in nitrate levels, such as the 40% reduction in nitrogen fertiliser
use since 1987, the decline in livestock numbers over the period
which reduces quantities of manure, the introduction of new crop
varieties which use nitrogen more efficiently, and improved equipment,
skills and knowledge.
QUESTION 3. DEFRA
SAYS THAT
THE AREA
DESIGNATED AS
NITRATE VULNERABLE
ZONES NEEDS
TO INCREASE
FROM 55% TO
70% OF ENGLAND:
IS IT
RIGHT?
15. The NFU does not believe this increase
is necessary.
16. The 70% figure includes 6% of England
which, although previously designated, does not in fact meet the
designation criteria under the improved methodology used for the
current round of designations. The NFU has been very critical
of the previous (2002) designation methodology since it was based
on both poor quality and inadequate data. The Environment Agency
has admitted this data was not quality checked, and major errors
have subsequently been found, such as monitoring results for a
block of boreholes being wrongly ascribed to sites 100 km distant
from their true position. We therefore believe the 2002 designations
were unreliable, and should not be used to retain NVZ designations
where the latest method shows designation is not necessary.
17. The NFU also believes Defra goes further
than is necessary by designating the entire upstream catchments
of rivers and groundwaters even when large upstream sub-catchments
of these are below 50mg/l nitrate—sometimes well below—and
therefore do not exceed the threshold for designation. Such waters
do not raise the concentrate of nitrate, in fact they reduce it.
18. Routinely designating entire upstream
catchments was not a feature of the UK's original 1996 designation
methodology, and this feature was not questioned by the Commission,
even though it challenged other aspects of the methodology.
QUESTION 4. WHETHER
THE PROPOSED
NITRATES ACTION
PROGRAMME MEASURES
SHOULD APPLY
THROUGHOUT THE
WHOLE OF
ENGLAND, RATHER
THAN ONLY
ON LAND
DESIGNATED AS
NITRATE VULNERABLE
ZONES
19. The NFU does not believe the AP measure
should apply to the whole of England. The extra areas which would
be affected are mainly livestock farming areas, and the revised
AP bears heavily on the sectors concerned. There would therefore
be heavy and un-necessary costs for the industry in extending
the AP to areas which do not have nitrate problems.
20. The Defra argument for a consistent
approach across England ignores the discontinuities which would
occur at the Welsh and Scottish borders. The extra areas which
would be designated in England are largely in the north and west
and have strong similarities to farming systems just across the
borders. Needless competitive disadvantage would be created for
farmers in these areas, since only 3-4% of Wales and 15% of Scotland
are to be designated as NVZ.
QUESTION 5. WHAT
SHOULD BE
THE TIMETABLE
FOR INTRODUCING
ANY CHANGES
IN THE
WAY THE
NITRATES DIRECTIVE
IS IMPLEMENTED?
21. The main timetable issue is how long
farmers should be allowed to construct new slurry storage facilities.
Defra proposes two years, but the NFU believes four years will
be necessary; our reasoning is set out below.
22. Planning permission. Many slurry
stores will require full planning permission. Obtaining this can
be very time consuming, particularly where appeals and re-application
are required. This is more likely to be a problem where public
opposition is involved, which can be expected in situations such
as where a number of farms in the same village all require large
stores. Some local planning authorities may have difficulty meeting
the work load within the normal time frame.
23. Construction and commissioning.
A sizeable part of the two years proposed by Defra will be taken
by arranging finance, designing and obtaining permissions, leaving
much less time for the actual construction or adaptation of an
estimated 5000 stores. Slurry stores have to meet demanding regulatory
construction standards,[2]
so stores would require Environment Agency consent before commissioning
to ensure that it meets the necessary standards. Building them
requires skill, and there are a limited number of suitable firms.
We understand at least some of these are already committed to
work in Ireland and have full order books. Unless the timetable
recognizes the constraints on the capacity of the available skilled
resource, we consider the risks to the quality of the new stores
to be unacceptable.
24. Financing. Capital costs are
estimated typically at £50,000 per farm and around £300
million for the industry. Unlike previous NVZ designations, the
government is offering no financial assistance and is withdrawing
the Agricultural Buildings Allowance which relates to the investment
being off-set against profits for tax purposes. Many livestock
businesses have endured low profitability in recent years, and
may have difficulty in raising finance from outside the business.
If farmers cannot justify the cost of the investment, livestock
numbers may have to be reduced, affecting the viability of businesses,
or businesses may have to be closed to achieve compliance with
the law. These will be difficult decisions and time will be required.
It would be unreasonable for government to place a tight timetable
on this in view of its lack of support for the industry where
other governments are helping their farmers.
QUESTION 6. 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?
25. Defra has prepared assessments of the
costs and the reductions in nitrate resulting from the proposed
AP. The NFU believes Defra has substantially understated some
of the costs. For example, it has taken no account of the 25%
reduction in spring crop yields which would result from the cover
crop requirement, although this is included in one of Defra's
own documents.
26. We have summarized in Table 1 below
our view of the costs, effectiveness and cost-effectiveness based
on Defra's work for the Nitrates Directive and for diffuse pollution,
and on consultants' reports. We have also summarized in Table
2 the main changes we recommend Defra should make to its proposals.
Table 1
NFU ASSESSMENT OF THE COSTS AND EFFECTIVENESS
OF NVZ AP MEASURES PROPOSED BY DEFRA
|
| Cost
| Effectiveness |
Cost-effectiveness |
|
| Whole farm manure nitrogen loading limit |
Very high | Very low
| Very poor |
| Closed period (organic manures) | High
| Very low | Poor
|
| Manure storage | Very high
| Very low | Very poor
|
| Closed period (manufactured nitrogen fertilizers)
| Low | Moderate
| Moderate |
| Crop nitrogen requirement limit | Very low
| High | Good
|
| Spreading locations | Low
| Low-moderate | Fair
|
| Spreading techniques | Low
| Negligible | Nil
|
| Record keeping | Substantial
| — | —
|
| Cover crops | Very high
| High for lighter soils |
Good to poor |
|
Table 2
NFU RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE MAIN CHANGES TO DEFRA'S NVZ
AP PROPOSALS
|
| Whole farm manure nitrogen loading limit |
Make every effort to secure derogation for grassland at 250 kg N/ha.
|
| Closed period (organic manures) | Do not exceed current closed periods, particularly in areas where objectives already being achieved.
|
| Manure storage | Do not exceed current storage requirements, particularly in areas where objectives already being achieved. Do not impose storage requirements unrelated to closed periods.
|
| Closed period (manufactured nitrogen fertilizers)
| Allow organic farmers to meet crop requirement during closed period.
|
| Crop nitrogen requirement limit | Abandon maximum nitrogen limits and do not impose artificially high manure efficiency factors.
|
| Spreading locations | |
| Spreading techniques | |
| Record keeping | Major reduction in proposed bureaucracy needed.
|
| Cover crops | Implement through Environmental Stewardship.
|
|
QUESTION 7. WHAT
ADVICE AND
SUPPORT FARMERS
WILL NEED
FROM DEFRA
TO IMPLEMENT
A REVISED
ACTION PROGRAMME?
27. The NFU believes the advice and support farmers will
need includes:
— A dedicated telephone helpline staffed by
knowledgeable experts.
— A single clear concise guidance booklet and
record keeping proforma that provide all the information necessary
for a farmer to comply.
— Easy to use software version of guidance
booklet compatible with commercial farm systems.
— Workshops and seminars as required to meet
local demand.
— A confidential one-to-one free advice service,
particularly for severely impacted businesses.
— Financial support for capital investment
in slurry storage to match that provided to competitors in Southern
Ireland (up to 80%), Northern Ireland (60%) and Scotland (up to
40%). Failing this, storage requirements must be cut back to make
them affordable.
— Investment in slurry storage and associated
works, a form of environmental protection, to be fully tax deductible.
QUESTION 8. HOW
CAN DEFRA
ENCOURAGE GREATER
ADOPTION OF
ANAEROBIC DIGESTION
AS A
WAY OF
MANAGING MANURE?
28. Slurry storage and anaerobic digestion are seen as
alternatives and may therefore be competing investments. AD plants
are expensive and also take longer to plan and build than slurry
storage, and would not be feasible within Defra's two year proposed
time horizon for slurry storage (they may well take longer than
the four years we recommend). Forcing farmers to spend heavily
on slurry storage now may reduce the likelihood of these farmers
taking up AD.
29. Defra could encourage adoption of AD by:
— Providing temporary exemption from slurry
storage requirements for farmers committing to AD.
— Providing financial guarantees for electricity
generated from AD to underpin the investment, such as the 20 years
provided in Germany where farm AD plants are being established
at a rate of 500 per annum.
— Simplifying the connection and infrastructure
arrangements.
— Reducing the burden of the multiple regulatory
regimes imposed on AD plants.
— Classifying the resulting digestate as mineral
fertiliser.
QUESTION 9. HOW
THE PROPOSED
NEW NITRATES
ACTION PROGRAMME
IS AFFECTING
THOSE WITH
EXISTING ENTRY
LEVEL STEWARDSHIP
AGREEMENTS IN
EXISTING NITRATE
VULNERABLE ZONES
30. We have been in discussion with Defra since it became
clear that the Commission would approve the draft RDPE only if
all reference to management plans was removed from the Environmental
Stewardship scheme. We understand that this decision will impact
on about 2,700 provisional agreement holders and applicants to
Environmental Stewardship.
31. Farmers who have applied for ELS agreements in 2007
have been given provisional agreements which may be changed retrospectively.
There are several interactions between the proposed AP and ELS
which have the potential to affect these provisional agreement
holders, some of which we believe are being addressed. The issues
are:
— The removal of nutrient and manure management
plans from ELS. This is allegedly due to overlap with the requirements
of the Nitrates Directive. In fact the requirements of the Directive
are to plan nitrogen applications—a requirement that is
substantially exceeded by manure and nutrient management plans
under ELS.
— The insertion in Environmental Stewardship
agreements that the AP manure loading limit of 170kg N/ha should
apply. This is duplication within NVZs, and takes no account of
derogations or transitional arrangements which may be obtained.
We are concerned that unqualified this requirement would make
it impossible for the majority of dairy farms to enter Environmental
Stewardship.
— The AP cover cropping proposals conflicted
with ELS agreements to maintain winter stubbles. It appears this
is being addressed, with Defra indicating that winter stubbles
are likely to be acceptable for meeting any cover crop requirement
which is introduced.
We are very disappointed that Defra has conceded the first
two points, unnecessarily as we believe, and created the difficulty
which would have arisen from the third. We welcome the efforts
which are being made to at least partially address these issues,
although we are concerned that unnecessary impacts may remain.
Some agreement holders will have to select alternative options
to achieve the requisite minimum points score or withdraw from
the ELS scheme. We consider Defra could have handled these issues
a great deal better.
January 2008
1
Not printed.
http://www.nfuonline.com/documents/Policy%20Services/Environment/NVZ%20Submission%2020%2012%2007.pdf Back
2
Silage, Slurry and Agricultural Fuel Oil Regulations 1991. Back
| 
