Examination of Witnesses (Questions 100
- 119)
WEDNESDAY 5 MARCH 2008
MR PHIL
WOOLAS MP, MR
CHRIS RYDER
AND MS
MAUREEN NOWAK
Q100 David Taylor: I was with Anne
McIntosh and Winnie and her friends from the National Pig Association
in front of Richmond House yesterday and they had been reading
(not Winnie but the friends!) Maureen Nowak's partial regulatory
impact assessment on the benefits of the changes to closed periods,
not least the type of soil that now is coming under control. They
estimate that the additional storage requirements for the pig
industry alone would cost a minimum of £40 million. That
seems very high cost indeed to obtain what seem to be the relatively
marginal improvements that you have referred to of between half
and 1% in terms of reduction of nitrate levels. Minister or Maureen
Nowak, did you go and see Winnie yesterday and her friends from
the National Pig Association?
Mr Woolas: I am aware of it but
I did not see it.
Q101 David Taylor: But you are aware
of the special position of the pig industry, are you?
Mr Woolas: In relation to?
Q102 David Taylor: The costs that
would be imposed on them for storage that flows from, if I can
use that word, the altered closed periods?
Mr Woolas: Yes, if they were to
be gone ahead with.
Q103 David Taylor: What are you telling
us?
Mr Woolas: I am telling you that
we have not made our minds up yet. The consultation was a proposal
that we put forward as to how we thought the Directive could be
implemented. We have had a significant response to that. We wish
to implement the Directive in a way that is most beneficial. On
the cost point, as I say, I have got a very open mind on that
and I am looking to the representations to form a judgment as
to what is realistic. There is another side of the coin of course,
which is also within my brief, and that is the cost to the water
industry.
Q104 David Taylor: Of course and
we understand that but it is what appears to be quite a slight
improvement of a half of 1% in nitrate levels which does not seem
to square with the substantial capital costs that will be borne
by the pig sector?
Mr Woolas: The cost/benefit of
it in terms of reduction of nitrogen is at the forefront of my
mind.
Q105 David Taylor: Is it not possible—and
this came out of the Committee to which I have referred earlier
on several occasions in January with the Board of Farmers of Leicestershire—to
have much greater flexibility built into the requirements. Farmers
have been farming for generations, they are not fools, they know
their land, they know where it drains, they know the impact that
they are making by their farming methods. Why can they not be
allowed to spread organic manure in what would otherwise be closed
periods where they know that the conditions are suitable, they
know the weather conditions or what has led up to it over the
previous two weeks? Why are they not able to do that?
Ms Nowak: The closed periods that
we put into the proposals were based on the science that we had.
It is a precautionary Directive so you look at where the risk
of nitrate loss is at its greatest and then on either side of
that you determine what dates you will put in for your closed
period. In terms of the storage, we suspect that the calculation
methodology that we have put forward may not have been fully taken
on board. We have gone to some pains to develop a methodology
which we have said to farmers, "You will only be asked to
store what you actually need to store," so the devil is in
the detail.
David Taylor: I am very sorry to interrupt—
Q106 Chairman: Just a minute, David,
just let Ms Nowak explain because it is an important detailed
point.
Ms Nowak: By following through
the calculation methodology that we have set out, a farmer's storage
capacity requirement should only be equivalent to what he actually
needs to store, in other words the times of the year when he is
collecting slurry and he cannot go out and put it on the fields
for whatever reason. The Directive is very clear on the storage
requirement and the Commission has made it clear in open forum
that it sees the storage requirement to be one of the fundamental
tenets of the Directive because if farmers have enough storage
they will not be tempted to just go out simply to empty their
stores, be it a lagoon or a tin tank or whatever, and so on that
basis we said in the calculation we need to make sure that farmers
only store what they need to do. We are looking at reasons, you
are talking about people being able to go out on the ground during
the closed period. If they are going out they should only be going
out because they need to go out for their crops. They should not
be going out simply as an excuse to empty their storage tanks,
which is precisely what the Directive is aiming to prevent.
Chairman: I think we have got that.
Q107 David Taylor: The point I want
to make is a very brief one. You used the phrase that farmers
had not "fully taken on board" the new regulations,
or something close to that. By that do you mean they had not fully
understood what was being suggested or that they did not agree
that it was necessary?
Ms Nowak: It is quite a complicated
calculation and we are not sure that all of them have fully appreciated
the detail.
Q108 David Taylor: Not that they
were not persuaded?
Ms Nowak: I am not sure, they
may not be persuaded either.
Q109 Chairman: Do I understand from
that that you think that if farmers looked at the detail they
might be less worried about the total capacity of storage which
they might be required to have?
Ms Nowak: I think that could be
the case for some of them certainly.
Q110 Paddy Tipping: Could you just
go through that with me a bit more. Perhaps I have got it wrong
but I thought the closed period for spreading on grassland was
three to four months and you are asking dairy farmers for a storage
period of five months and for pig and poultry farmers six months.
That is not a direct equation, is it, you are gold-plating, as
the farmers might put it?
Ms Nowak: I do not think we are
gold-plating because what the Directive says is you must have
storage in excess, and it does not define in excess of course,
of your longest period, so on your farm if you have got several
closed periods you would probably have to go for the longest closed
period and then have in excess of that. Looking in terms of good
farming practice, in most instances it is preferable that fertilisers
be put on in the spring. That is the time when the crops are growing,
generally speaking. There are exceptions and we will be looking
at exceptions because we are trying not to have, as far as possible
within the constraints of the Directive, a one-size-fits-all,
recognising that there needs to be some flexibility. That being
said, if you are going to go towards the spring, which is in good
practice the best time to be going out to spread your manures
and fertilisers, if you think about it, you will need storage
while your animals are in-house for several months, which could
well be three, four or five months, if you are going to go in
the spring, so you will come up to your five or your six, and
can I say that many other Member States have got much longer storage
requirements than we have.
Q111 Paddy Tipping: Sure but let
us just stick with the phrase "in excess". The closed
period is three to four months and you are asking poultry and
pig farmers to have storage facilities for six months. That is
50% in excess. That is a bit much, is it not?
Ms Nowak: The calculation is five
or six months but you still have to go through the calculation
process which could well mean you do not in your particular situation,
bearing in mind we have said we do not want farmers to have storage
capacity more than they actually need, in that particular situation
you could well end up with less than that.
Q112 Paddy Tipping: Let me just ask
you a final question. You say five months for dairy farmers and
six months for poultry and pig farmers. Slurry is slurry. What
is the scientific basis for having one at five months and the
other at six months?
Ms Nowak: I believe the evidence
that we have indicates that for pig and poultry you need it. I
cannot remember off the top of my head what the scientific explanation
was for that so I would have to come back to you.
Paddy Tipping: Could you drop us a note
on that?
Q113 Chairman: Is it about concentration
of the material?
Ms Nowak: I think it is the end
content.
Mr Woolas: It is about time inside
as well.
Chairman: I think that would be helpful.
Roger, cover crops.
Q114 Mr Williams: I think one of
the issues that was covered in the debates was this issue of cover
crops and the necessity to have those during the winter to prevent
nitrate run-off. We heard from the President of the NFU earlier
about the physical difficulties on his farm where he has got very
heavy clay and of planting a cover crop and then having to plough
and get the land ready for sewing in the spring, and indeed on
a nature conservation issue the RSPB actually believe that cover
crops would threaten our ability to reverse the decline in farmland
birds. I think in the debate the Minister did indicate that he
might be rethinking this aspect of the regulation.
Mr Woolas: If I could thank you
for that question and just respond. Obviously this proposal is
for largely arable areas, the east and south as I have caricatured
it, because obviously in those areas the 170kg has little or no
impact. The cover crops measure is not prescribed in the Directive.
It can be a cost-effective way of reducing nitrates loss and we
think it is helpful to us in our conversations to show our intent
to implement the Directive, but we do think that there is some
commonsense flexibility that we can use in this area. As you say,
there are other potential benefits but if I could ask Chris to
comment as well please.
Mr Ryder: I think this is not
one of those measures in our proposal that is prescribed in the
Directive but the Directive does contain a requirement that Member
States shall introduce such additional measures or reinforced
actions that are necessary if it becomes apparent that that is
necessary to meet the Directive's objectives, so in terms of what
we have to do, we have a lot more flexibility in relation to this
proposition. We do think something is necessary in this area to
contribute to the Directive's objectives but as to the detail
we have had a lot of comments on it, so we are carefully considering
what we proposed and considering re-visiting this. I do not think
we are ready yet. As part of our overall response we will come
to this possibly with some alternative suggestions because I think
it is important not just to talk about looking at something differently
but to come forward with what that should be but we are thinking
about that at the moment.
Q115 Mr Williams: Just another question
on figures, I think you say in your regulatory impact assessment
that using cover crops could reduce nitrates by 4 to 7%. How do
you know that? Where is the evidence?
Ms Nowak: Some years ago there
was a programme called the Nitrate Sensitive Areas Scheme and
the evaluation of that, the work that was done under that scheme,
showed cover crops to be one of the more cost-effective ways of
reducing nitrate loss, so there is evidence in various forms.
Q116 Mr Williams: In coming to a
conclusion on this—and I guess a lot of people would like
you to say that there is no need to have cover crops—will
you take into account differences in soil types while coming to
your recommendations for the regulation on this?
Ms Nowak: Yes.
Q117 Chairman: And biodiversity issues?
Ms Nowak: Yes.
Mr Woolas: Yes. I am not suggesting
that this has been done at this Committee's hearings but the debate
has been caricatured by some as farmers on the one hand and people
who like the environment on the other. My experience is that many
farmers want to protect biodiversity as well, and I think this,
properly implemented, is a method by which we can have our cake
and eat it.
Q118 Chairman: Because your Department
puts quite a lot of emphasis in terms of the former PSA sustainability
indicators on farmland birds for example, and there would be a
loss under certain circumstances if cover crops became the norm.
If your analysis of the consultation is going to be sensitive
enough to take that into account, the Committee might find that
reassuring.
Mr Woolas: I would very much like
the Committee's views in its report on that as well, but I argue
with myself on this point given my responsibilities.
Q119 Chairman: I want to wrap up
because I am conscious that there is going to be a rather important
vote in a few moments' time. Colleagues have raised with you,
Minister, the capital costs involved in the investment in new
storage and we heard what you said en passant in terms
of anaerobic digestion. The use of AD systems may be affordable
on the farm but, for example, there is a very big capital cost
in connecting up anaerobic digesters to electricity grids. I appreciate
that your consultation results may well come after the Chancellor
has stood up next week to deliver his Budget, but I think it might
just be helpful for us to ask you the question if when you look
at the impact of potential investment by the farmers you came
to the conclusion that the economic potential, particularly in
sectors like pigs, would make it exceedingly difficult at this
time for the sector to afford the investment, and there might
be some need for help, over and above your observations about
the Rural Development Programme and assistance with anaerobic
digestion (which may not be open to everyone) is this the kind
of thing that Defra as the sponsoring ministry would be prepared
to go to the Treasury and make representations about?
Mr Woolas: We think there is a
great opportunity for the country here in any event. The Nitrates
Directive is giving it a spur, but it is an opportunity and we
have put some resources already into this. Could I please give
you the figures I referred to before on the costs to the water
companies, and therefore the customers and shareholders, of the
additional costs for treating water to meet the drinking water
standards. We estimate that in the period 2005 to 2010 there will
be £288 million of capital costs and £6 million per
year in operating costs to the water industry. That is because
we put nitrates in the water and we pay to take them out. The
figures—and we can debate these—on the potential cost
to the agricultural sector from the proposed ranges on capital
costs for meeting this Directive range from £35.5 million
at the bottom end to £105 million at the top end. If you
step back from that, at a macro level it is bonkers. We are putting
the nitrate in the water; we are paying to take it out; why do
we not pay not to put it in in the first place? That is the theory.
How to do that requires the different sectors that are involved
to come together, and we are of course working on that, and we
have announced on 18 February, in addition to the point that I
made, that we are making available some additional £10 million
from the Environmental Transformation Fund for an anaerobic digestion
demonstration programme which will support the existing series
of demonstration plants that are operating in the different sectors,
and of course local authorities and food waste and other bio-waste
industries, the water industry itself, the agricultural sector,
and indeed the combined heat and power sector are the partners
that we are working towards. I am not saying to the farmers if
any of them are listening, that this is the only answer, but I
think it is a fantastic opportunity. However, we have to create
a market and that is the challenge.
Chairman: I am going to draw proceedings
to a close there and may I thank you, Minister, and your officials
for helping us on that. We will reflect obviously on what you
have said and also on the written evidence that we have received.
Thank you very much for coming before the Committee.
| 
