Supplementary memorandum submitted by
the National Farmers' Union
INTRODUCTION
1. Following our oral evidence session and
that of Defra on 5 March 2008, the NFU wishes to draw some further
points to the Committee's attention. These relate to the designation
of NVZs and to the proposed new Action Programme.
2. A number of issues with Defra's proposals
remain highly controversial. We believe it is essential that Defra
allows sufficient time to deal with the issues carefully and thoroughly,
despite pressure from the Commission to move rapidly. The consequences
for farmers are potentially very serious.
DESIGNATIONS
3. Defra's oral evidence suggested that
the new designation methodology has been agreed (Q71). This is
not correct. The NFU had considerable reservations and our representative
made this clear to Defra at the time (see letter at Annex 1).
4. One major concern is Defra's policy of
designating entire river catchments or subcatchments upstream
of failing monitoring points, including low nitrate areas such
as in the uplands. This approach is not necessary to meet the
Directive's requirements; it was not used in the UK's 1996 designations
and its absence was not challenged by the Commission, even though
other aspects were challenged. This is a straightforward policy
choice on the part of Defra between larger and smaller designations.
Choosing to make larger designations than necessary has major
financial implications for many farmers, and yields little benefit
in nitrate reductions since levels in these "extra"
areas are already in compliance with the Directive.
5. We therefore welcome the Minister's response
to the suggestion that he should review the designation of whole
upstream river catchments (or subcatchments) where he commented
to the effect that excluding low nitrate parts of catchments seemed
common sense (Q64). We agree, and we hope the Committee will encourage
the Minister to act on this.
6. We also have wider concerns about Defra's
tendency towards larger NVZ designations. Before agreeing to the
Nitrates Directive in 1991, the UK government had negotiated opportunities
to reduce the extent of areas to be designated. These opportunities
are detailed in a letter from the then Minister, David Trippier,
to the NFU after political agreement on the Nitrates Directive
was reached at the Environment Council (see Annex 2). Regrettably,
it appears that Defra has chosen not to use the opportunities
detailed by the Minister to moderate the area it intends to designate,
and thus reduce the impact of its NVZ proposals on the farming
community.
7. The question of de-designation was also
raised in oral evidence (Q74). Since some of the existing designations
result from defects in the previous methodology, and the new improved
methodology has identified that such areas do not need to be designated,
we believe it is important to release affected farmers from the
impact of the strengthened Action Programme. The Minister did
not rule out de-designation, and we would encourage him to take
this course to resolve the current injustice.
8. In view of the use of a new methodology
and the much more serious consequences of designation under the
revised Action Programme, we are concerned that all affected farmers
should have the opportunity to appeal against designation. We
welcome the Minister's indication to the Committee that "the
ball is bouncing in that direction". We can see no reason
to deny the opportunity to appeal to any farmer affected by the
new proposals.
ACTION PROGRAMME
9. We share the concern that was expressed
during the Committee's questioning of the Minister that five years
is insufficient time to evaluate the effectiveness of the existing
Action Programme, particularly since about 85% of the existing
designations were only made in 2002 and there have been a bare
five years for the results to work through.
10. Nitrate trends are important when considering
the need for further Action Programme measures because the objective
of the Nitrates Directive is to achieve a declining trend. This
is not just the view of the NFU, but the considered interpretation
applied by Defra. We therefore believe that where nitrate trends
are declining, there is no need to strengthen the Action Programme
measures.
11. We refute the Minister's assertion that
the situation with nitrate levels is getting worse (Q63). The
large majority of NVZ designations involve surfacewater and Defra's
recent consultation documents stated that 77% of surfacewater
monitoring sites showed static or declining trends for the latest
five year period (1999-2004). It is clear that the downward nitrate
trends apparent in official Environment Agency monitoring data
in many rivers go back to at least 1990 and pre-date the introduction
of Nitrates Directive measures in 1998 (see graphs at Annex 3).
They are also evident in catchments without any substantial NVZs
until 2002. Changes in farming practices, including the 40% reduction
in nitrogen fertilizer use since 1987, together with a reduction
in manure applications due to the decline in livestock numbers
and much improved crop management techniques and farmer know-how
will have contributed to these downward trends. The Urban Waste
Water Treatment Directive which deals with emissions (including
nitrate) from larger sewage treatment works is likely to have
contributed to reductions in some areas, but is subject to a similar
timetable to the Nitrates Directive and would not have affected
nitrate levels in the early 1990s.
12. Groundwater reacts more slowly than
surfacewater and the response time of many aquifers is measured
in decades rather than years. Defra accepts this, stating in the
consultation that rising groundwater trends are attributable to
land use 20-50 years ago, or more. Even so, 27% of groundwater
sites are now showing improving trends according to Defra.
13. We have shown our analysis of 15 years
of Environment Agency monitoring data to Defra on a number of
occasions in the past 2½ years, but it has expressed very
limited interest and has given little consideration to data from
longer periods than five years in the recent consultation. At
the same time, it has dismissed five years as too short a period
to obtain reliable results.
14. We welcome Defra's recognition in its
evidence that it has flexibility in applying the Directive's requirements
for the Action Programme, although we consider that Defra is using
the flexibility it is afforded too narrowly. Our regular meetings
with the Commission indicate that the Commission accepts that
nobody can be expected to take actions that are ineffective. However,
the Defra consultation recognizes that closed periods would deliver
only 0.5-1% reductions in nitrate loss, Defra nonetheless proposes
to introduce greatly extended closed periods (and their attendant
high storage costs) in all NVZs. We consider such reductions amount
to no worthwhile or measurable benefit, particularly when gauged
against disbenefits to the environment that are expected to result
(see para 20 below).
15. We also welcome Defra's recognition
in its evidence that closed periods should be used to address
the period when the risk of nitrate loss is greatest (Q105). Again
we have picked up a similar line from the Commission and in particular
a concern about the spreading of slurry in October. We believe
this allows scope for shorter closed periods than the 3-5.5 months
in Defra's proposals, where the longer periods have been justified
by higher rainfall in some areas causing a perceived increase
in the risk of gross water pollution from manure run-off. In Ireland,
shorter closed periods have been adopted, 3.5 months in the north
and 3-3.5 months in the south, whereas it would have been expected
that the closed periods would be longer due to the generally wetter
climate and longer period of run-off risk than in England. The
question arises as to whether Defra is adopting a more rigorous
approach than the respective Irish administrations.
16. The inflexibility of closed periods
compared to the variability of soil conditions from year to year
is a major issue for farmers. There is a substantial risk that
farmers will be unable to utilize the best weather windows to
apply manures without causing soil damage, and making it difficult
for farmers to meet their cross compliance obligations not to
cause soil damage. We therefore believe there is a need for flexibility
in the dates of closed periods according to the circumstances
of the particular year.
17. We remain strongly of the view that
it is illogical for Defra to have decoupled storage requirements
from closed periods in its proposals. This linkage is contained
in the Republic of Ireland's Action Programme, where less storage
is required where the closed period is shorter. The NFU also believes
that influence of soil type on manure spreading opportunities
should be taken into account in the re-coupling of storage with
closed period.
18. The Committee rightly raised the time
farmers are to be allowed to achieve compliance, particularly
with the manure storage requirement. We have always argued that
a longer period is needed than the 2 years Defra proposes due
to the time required for planning and securing financing, obtaining
planning permission, and to allow for the shortage of suitably
skilled construction companies etc. We note Defra concedes in
its evidence that inflation in construction costs can occur when
a regulatory requirement for facilities is introduced, drawing
attention to the experience in Northern Ireland. This inflationary
effect is likely to be much greater when the period for compliance
is shorter
19. The Minister advocated farmers adopting
anaerobic digestion (Q119), but this type of complex project/plant
requires a substantially longer lead time than slurry storage.
If the Minister requires farmers to invest in slurry storage in
the short term, they are less likely to have sufficient funds
to invest in anaerobic digestion in the medium term. A more joined-up
approach is required.
20. We would also ask the Committee to consider
the perverse environmental effects expected as a result of Defra's
proposals. The consultation estimates that ammonia emissions will
be increased by up to 2%, amounting to an extra 5,720t. Defra's
consultation documents cite the costs of ammonia damage of up
to £37,000 per tonne, so the damage costs from the increased
ammonia emissions alone would be up to £212 million per annum.
We are aware of concern amongst researchers that the proposed
manure spreading measures are likely to cause higher levels of
ammonia in rivers leading to exceedence of the ammonia standard
in the Freshwater Fish Directive. We know of no evidence that
nitrate is killing fish under current circumstances as
the Minister suggested (Q92). In addition, the Environment Agency
has expressed concern about additional greenhouse gas emissions
from the revised Action Programme in its response to Defra.
21. We would also ask the Committee to consider
the potential for further impact of the NVZ Action Programme on
the Entry Level Stewardship scheme (ELS). This has already led
to Management Plans being withdrawn from ELS under Commission
pressure as a result of perceived overlap with NVZ Action Programme
requirements. We are concerned that Defra's cover crop requirements
may run a similar risk and impact on the winter stubble option
for wild birds under ELS. We have recommended adopting cover crops
as an ELS option rather than as a requirement of the Action Programme.
This may avoid the risk of interactions.
22. The negative environmental costs, in
addition to the social and economic costs of the revised Action
Programme, appear to make the net benefit for society very questionable.
April 2008
| 
