Questions to the Department for Environment,
Food and Rural Affairs arising from the evidence session of 5
March
The Committee have some further queries in relation
to the Nitrates Inquiry:
1. The scientific basis for the figure of
170 in the 170 kg N/ha limit in the Directive, and the scientific
basis for the figure of 250 in the 250 kg N/ha limit under a derogation
(Q55)
170 kg limit: Our records do not show how or
why the Commission proposed this figure. Records do show that
it was very strongly criticised by a number of member states on
the basis that "the rainfall assumption did not hold good
for all parts of the Community", indicating that rainfall
levels were at least one significant factor in arriving at the
figure. The UK saw the 170 limit as too tight, argued for a much
more differentiated approach to limits but did not win the argument.
250 kg limit for grassland in our domestic Regulations:
There is some anecdotal evidence that this may have derived from
the Water Code of July 1991 where a limit of 250 kg is recommended
to help reduce nutrient losses to water from all land (not just
grassland). Note that this limit in our current Regulations is
not strictly a "derogation" in that we have not gone
through the derogation process set down in the Directive. Ministers
have made a commitment to apply for a derogation from the 170
kg limit which will be established in the revised Regulations.
The derogation limit we seek will be determined by the evidence
we are able to put forward which may or may not support a 250
limit.
2. The reason for the different storage capacity
requirements for pig slurry and poultry manure, compared with
other slurries (Q112)
Difference in pig/poultry and cattle manure
storage requirements:
(a) More out-grazing of cattle, therefore
less manure collected and needing storage.
(b) Cattle more usually on grassland where
there are more opportunities for spreading manure.
It would also be helpful to have clarification
on the following point:
3. In his reply to Q56, Mr Woolas said "we
have never ever had" a four-yearly review. But Defra's consultation
document says: "Reviews of the extent of the NVZs and the
effectiveness of the Action Programme are required by the Nitrates
Directive every four years . . . The Department has just completed
its reviews of NVZs and the Action Programme" (1.26-7) Has
the Department conducted a four-yearly review or not?
Requirement for four-yearly reviews: Our records
do not show how this figure was arrived at, nor do they show that
there was any significant discussion of the review requirements
at the time of Directive negotiations.
Our implementation of the four-yearly review
requirement:
(a) NVZ designations were reviewed in 2001
following a European Court of Justice ruling in 2000 that insufficient
NVZ areas had been designated. A second review was conducted in
2006 to meet the four-yearly review requirement.
(b) The Action Programme was introduced in
1998. A full review was not conducted in 2002 because there was
insufficient data available at the time (the NVZ area was increased
in 2002 from 8% of England to 55%) to enable a meaningful assessment
to be made of the effectiveness of the Programme. The 2006 review
met the four-yearly review requirement to review.
We are aiming to give effect to both reviews
in revised Regulations to be made by the summer recess.
4. Does an anaerobic digester count as a form
of storage capacity under the Action Programme and contribute
to the storage capacity requirement?
The Directive is concerned with the sufficiency
of capacity and does not define requirements as to the form the
storage must take. So, the short answer must be yes. Whether Anaerobic
Digestion could indeed be useful in helping farmers manage the
storage of manures for purposes of the NVZ Action Programme is
another matter; the potential is being considered within the Department
and, I understand, by the agricultural sector itself.
5. In answer to Q88, Ms Nowak said that "Spain,
Italy, UK and Luxembourg currently have action against them by
the Commission"
Prior to the evidence session, I asked Jeroen
Casaer at the European Commission which countries had legal action
outstanding against them in relation to their implementation of
the Directive. He replied this week and said that the UK, Luxembourg
and Spain have action outstanding against them, but his list also
includes Germany, Ireland and Portugal. He said that the case
against Italy had been closed.
Please could you confirm whether Defra agrees
with the list provided by Mr Casaer?
We are not able to say whether we agree or disagree.
The list I provided at the hearing was from my recollection of
a printed list provided to member states at the Nitrates Committee
meeting in mid-February 2008. The corrected transcript of the
hearing notes shows that my memory was not fully accurate in that
I omitted Portugal. A footnote to the printed list states: "For
legal reasons, some proceedings at an early stage cannot be mentioned
in this table". It is possible the Commission has progressed/initiated
proceedings since the meeting in mid-February and this could account
for the differences in the list provided by me and by the Commission.
6. Please could you let me know when Defra
publishes its analysis of the consultation responses?
Expected very soon.
Answers received 20 and 28 March.
| 
