Humber River Basin Management Plan Response · and livestock manures and greater farming...
Transcript of Humber River Basin Management Plan Response · and livestock manures and greater farming...
1
Joint Consultation response on draft Humber River Basin Management Plan
Introduction
The National Farmers Union (NFU), the Agricultural Industries Confederation (AIC),
the Country Land and Business Association (CLA), and the Crop Protection
Association (CPA) have combined to prepare a joint response for agriculture to
represent the views and concerns of farmers and growers, landowners and related
industries, including specialist agronomists and advisers and manufacturers of
fertilizers, crop protection products and animal feed products. Together we represent
up to 91,000 farm businesses (55,000 NFU and 36,000 CLA), and 300 allied
industries representing inputs to agriculture worth £7 Billion.
While we welcome the opportunity to comment on the emerging plans to deliver
Water Framework Directive (WFD) objectives in the River Basin District (RBD), we
note the Plan is not by any means complete. Topics which are still to be dealt with
include those of particular concern to agriculture, such as Water Protection Zones
(WPZs) and Drinking Water Protected Areas (DrWPAs). In addition, the Plan is at
high level, and deals mainly with delivery mechanisms, not measures. It lacks the
necessary detail for individual stakeholders/farmers to ascertain the measures which
are being proposed for their water bodies.
We believe it is essential that the agricultural industry is given the opportunity for
involvement and consultation on what this will mean for the industry. There would be
little point in consultation on the Plan document and supporting documents if other
key elements proceed without consultation or without the participation the Directive
requires.
Overview
Agriculture has been identified as one of main sectors to deliver WFD objectives. It
is therefore essential that the industry has the opportunity to participate at all stages
of the process, that reduced emissions/impacts already in the pipeline are fully taken
into account, and that recognition is given to what the industry can realistically
deliver. We believe the WFD process to date has fallen short on all of these and that
it is not meeting the needs of agricultural stakeholders. We would make the
following points:
Agriculture can never be a „no-impact‟ activity; some impacts are inevitable.
Many of the easy „wins‟ have already been achieved. It will become increasingly more costly to deliver further improvements, and the value of these improvements to society will progressively lessen as „good status‟ waters become more prevalent.
2
There have been a number of important EU reforms, new regulations and government initiatives, including the decoupling of production from support in the 2003 reform of the CAP and the introduction of cross-compliance, the development of Nitrate Vulnerable Zones (NVZs), and the introduction of stewardship schemes and the England Catchment Sensitive Farming Delivery Initiative (ECSFDI). The agricultural industry has played its role with, for example, the Voluntary Initiative (VI) for pesticides, and its nutrient management plan, „Tried and Tested‟.
Changes have and are continuing to take place within the agricultural industry. For example, there have been very significant reductions in fertiliser consumption over the past 10-20 years, and livestock numbers are forecast to decline further by 2015.
The Plan lacks transparency. We have been unable to find where the Plan takes account of the Business as Usual scenario which should take account of such improvements as those cited above. Few details are given as to the standards used, the methodologies by which the standards have been applied, or the data which has been used. Affected parties need to be able to verify what has been done if they are to have confidence in the River Basin Management Plan (RBMP) process.
There has not been adequate communication or involvement with the industry on important issues, such as the technical basis of the process, and Scenario C2 actions.
Uncertainty in our view has not been given sufficient recognition in the Plan. Before measures can be imposed, there is a need for sufficient confidence to be achieved on a range of issues, including current status, identification of the pressure causing the problem, source apportionment for the pressure, and the cost-effectiveness and proportionality of the measures proposed.
On a wider perspective, it is also important not to lose sight of the role of agriculture
in producing food. This has been acknowledged in the government‟s recent policy
statement, „Future Water‟, which referred to agriculture‟s positive role in “producing
necessary food”. The potential conflicts between this and delivery of environmental
benefits need to be recognised and accounted for. With climate change, population
growth, and the increase in demand as developing countries become more
prosperous, the increasing pressure on food supplies raises the importance of food
security.
We believe it is important that the potential loss of agricultural production to the
national economy should be fully reflected in a national impact assessment.
However, at present, the Plan does not detail the scale of, or the measures which
may be undertaken in, for example, Drinking Water Protected Areas (DrWPAs). It is
not therefore possible to assess the impact on agriculture or agricultural production
3
in the River Basin District (RBD), let alone nationally. Moreover, we understand
there is no intention to update the Plan or its Impact Assessment when the Agency‟s
proposals are finalised. Without this, the overall effect on the agricultural industry
and its sub-sectors will not be identified and assessed. Nor will Ministers‟ will be
able to take informed decisions on the Plan in the knowledge of its likely impact on
the industry or on the economy.
In view of agriculture‟s fundamental role in producing food, it is concerning that the
Plan appears to go beyond what is necessary to achieve compliance with WFD
objectives. We regard this as goldplating. Leaving aside the issue of food security,
the Better Regulation Executive makes clear that any goldplating will need to be
specifically cleared with the Panel for Regulatory Accountability. We have seen
nothing in the Plan to indicate that this has been done.
About the Humber River Basin District.
The predominant land use within the RBD is correctly identified as agriculture, but
the document is too simplistic describing arable on the flood plain and livestock
grazing in the uplands. The Yorkshire and Humber Region is a major agricultural
region in England. Production of commodities, such as wheat, winter and spring
barley, potatoes, sugar beet, oilseed rape, peas and beans and grass in this region
are greater than the regional average (11%) across the nine Government Office
Regions in England. In contrast to England as a whole, sheep dominate the livestock
sector in the region. The Humber City Region alone produces 28% of peas and
beans grown in England, 11% of vegetables grown in England and just under one
third of pigs in England are to be found in the Yorkshire and Humber Region (largely
in the Humber sub-region).
The Midlands catchments within the Humber RBD support a rich and varied
agricultural landscape with diverse farm types due to the variation in topography and
soils. Agricultural income makes a substantial contribution to the national and
regional economy, and many people are employed on farms or related businesses in
the region. From the high hills of the Peak District where livestock production and
dairying produce the majority of the county's gross farming output to the high grade
Nottinghamshire land producing a wide variety of agricultural and horticultural
production., agriculture in the Humber RBD plays an important role in shaping our
landscape and fulfils a major role in terms of the rural economy.
The water environment now
This section sets out our concerns regarding pressures relevant to agriculture and
which bear on the assessments and measures.
4
Nitrate in surface waters and ground water
The extent of surface waters thought to be “at risk” from nitrate is surprising. There are no ecological standards for nitrate in freshwaters, coastal areas at risk of eutrophication are quite limited, and many surface waters are not DrWPAs.
The Plan acknowledges that groundwaters can be affected by long time lags and we believe that the monitoring points will not be reflecting recent trends in agricultural practices.
Nitrate losses from agriculture are now thought to be falling as a result of reductions in total use of nitrogen in both manufactured (chemical) fertilizer and livestock manures and greater farming efficiencies.
Nitrate levels above natural background levels arise unavoidably from farming activity due to the processes involved and we believe this should be reflected in expectations of what is achievable.
We are concerned at the reference to nitrate in drinking water affecting human health. The science has moved on and this political „hype‟ should not be allowed to distort the allocation of the resources available to deliver WFD benefits.
We are surprised at the extent of waters thought to be “at risk” from nitrate is
surprising. The Plan acknowledges that UKTAG has decided not to propose
ecological standards for nitrate in freshwaters. Coastal areas at risk of
eutrophication are quite limited, and many surface waters will not be DrWPAs. We
note the Agency is using “the 50 mg/l the drinking water standard…. to guide action”
(our emphasis) for surface freshwaters and that 43.5% of total river length is
considered “at risk” of not meeting “this threshold”. Humber Annex G, p7
Although 20% of groundwater bodies within the Humber are classed as failing the
Drinking Water Protected Area test (Annex G) it should be recognized that
classification has been based on monitoring of deep boreholes, which can be
affected by long time lags. They will not reflect recent trends in agricultural
practices, and there is a need for monitoring of inputs into the unsaturated zone,
which is necessary to inform decisions on the extent of measures that may be
required.
The approach to DrWPA is of concern, where it appears that the standard for the
Drinking Water Directive of 50 mg/l is being applied at the point of abstraction
without taking account of the treatment regime applied which amounts to gold
plating.
In 2008, Defra reported to the European Commission that 53% of groundwater
monitoring sites in England are below 25 mg/l and 22% exceed 50 mg/l, adding that
most nitrate concentrations are stable or decreasing. For surface water, it reported
5
that 54% of surface water monitoring sites have nitrate levels below 25mg/l, and that
only 9% are above 50 mg/l, and that most sites similarly have nitrate concentrations
that are stable or falling
There is good reason to believe that nitrate losses from agriculture are falling, the
use of nitrogen in manufactured (chemical) fertilizer has fallen by 30% over the 10
years to 2007 (40% over 20 years) livestock numbers have fallen significantly over
the same period, thereby reducing manure output and nitrogen usage in animal
feeds has also fallen (by over 15% since 1999). The Plan acknowledges that further
falls in livestock numbers are expected by 2015.
Farmers are using nitrogen more efficiently and the scope for improving N use
efficiencies from manures in particular is still significant. In the 10 years to 2007, the
quantity of nitrogen used to produce a tonne of crop fell by about 17% for the main
combinable arable crops and up to 50% for root crops. Total N usage on grass fell
by 43% over the same period. Good practice also has an important role in
minimizing nitrate losses, but it is important to recognize that nitrate levels above
natural background levels arise unavoidably from farming activity due to the
processes involved. This should be reflected in expectations of what is achievable.
We are also concerned about the Agency‟s choice of total oxidised nitrogen and
nutrient nitrogen to show its current view of risk to surface waters on the maps in
Annex G when the pressure and risk is described in the text as nitrate. While the
map for groundwater does use nitrate, it shows the pressure from diffuse sources
only. The risk of nitrate pollution from point sources is not addressed, despite the
Agency consenting numerous sewage discharges to groundwater. There is also the
question of what the surface water maps (referred to above) actually represent, since
according to Annex G, compliance for surface water has still to be assessed.
The Agency‟s statement that high concentrations of nitrate in waters used for
drinking can affect human health is concerning. We believe the science has moved
on (J.L‟hirondel, 2002, Addiscott, 2005) and feel it is important that the political „hype‟
attached to nitrates is not allowed to distort the rational appraisal of priorities in
allocating the finite resources available to deliver WFD benefits. We challenge the
Agency to substantiate its statement with current evidence of clearly identified health
hazards relevant to the UK, or to remove this and any other similar references.
Phosphorus in rivers and standing waters
The Plan does not acknowledge recent research carried out for Defra that agricultural sources of phosphate are responsible for much less than had previously been thought and that phosphate loads from STWs pose the most significant risk for eutrophication, even in rural areas.
6
This research also found that the Agency‟s Article 5 Risk Assessment maps and data correlate with the lengths of river „at risk‟ from point P sources in each RBD.
Use of manufactured P fertilisers in agriculture is continuing to decline, and livestock numbers are expected to continue to fall.
Expansion of NVZ designations and the more rigorous Action Programme is expected to reduce phosphate losses
The Plan‟s emphasis on agricultural sources of phosphate is not well supported in
the light of recent evidence. Research for Defra updating sources of phosphorus in
UK waters found that agricultural sources were responsible for much less than
previously thought (White and Hammond, 2006). The data from this study shows
that agriculture was responsible for 34.9% of total phosphorus in the Humber RBD.
The reference in the Humber RBMP indicating that 63.4% of total river length is at
risk from diffuse sources gives the misleading impression that the majority of
phosphorus is from agriculture or other diffuse sources.
White and Hammond also referred to a study in 7 UK catchments by Jarvie et al
(2005), who observed that the risk of eutrophication was largely linked to SRP
concentrations during times of ecological sensitivity when biological activity was at its
highest (phosphorus emissions from agriculture tend not to occur at such times).
They concluded that phosphate loads from sewage treatment works rather than
diffuse agricultural loads posed the most significant risk for eutrophication, even in
rural areas.
At Defra‟s request, White and Hammond also discussed the Agency‟s Article 5 Risk
Assessment maps and data in the light of the updated P source apportionment work.
They concluded that the Agency‟s maps and data “… correlate with the lengths of
river „at risk‟ from point P sources (but not diffuse P sources) in each RBD.” These
findings are not mentioned in Annex G, nor are they apparently taken into account in
the identification of sectors and measures. We believe they should be to allow P
reduction measures to be targeted correctly.
Recent information shows that the use of manufactured P fertilisers in agriculture is
continuing to decline, (reducing more than 45% between 1997 and 2007). This
largely pre-dates the very large increase in price for P fertiliser in 2008, which is
expected to have resulted in further falls in P use, (although they will not yet have
fully impacted on agricultural emissions).
The Plan anticipates a 25% fall in livestock numbers by 2015, which will serve to
reduce pressure on phosphate, and that extension of NVZ controls will also help P
loads. Phosphate loads from animal feeds also continue to decline due to the
adoption of the phytase enzyme which reduces or negates the requirement for
7
dietary supplementation with phosphorous. Of the overall 20% reduction in
phosphorus use in feed since 1999, nutritional improvements alone contribute 50%.
The role of increased NVZ designations and a more stringent Action Programme in
reducing phosphate losses is acknowledged in the Defra NVZ consultation, 2007.
The implications of low P soils is however a concern in relation to its effects on crop
nitrogen use efficiency.
Sediment (rivers and lakes)
There does not therefore appear to be a robust and rational framework to address sediment. No standards have been established, and much of the information is anecdotal.
The Plan appears to be addressing only soil erosion caused by land-based
activities, and ignoring sources such as un-kerbed rural roads which has been
found to be a significant contributor elsewhere in the UK.
It is not clear from the Plan that the „natural‟ level or role of sediment in water bodies
at reference condition or good status is clearly defined or understood. No standards
have been established and much of the information is anecdotal without a robust and
rational framework to address sediment the basis of measures targeted at sediment
is not transparent. Stakeholders need to be clear what the targets are, and how the
measures are to be derived in accordance with the methodology developed for
implementing WFD in the Collaborative Research Programme.
We are very concerned the Plan appears to be addressing only soil erosion caused
by land-based activities. Soil erosion from un-kerbed rural roads has, for example,
become increasingly apparent in recent years and we believe this source is a
significant contributor to sediment loads. It has been found to be the case in
Scotland (12%) and Northern Ireland( 9%) (FWR, 2006) and the figure in England
and Wales would be expected to be higher on account of the much higher population
density (as a proxy for traffic volumes).
8
Other pollutants
Faecal Indicator Organisms
Sources of FIOs in bathing waters are predominantly human.
Agriculture is an identified contributor at a minority of bathing waters, although this will vary regionally.
The Government considers the link to agriculture is not clear
Measures should be assessed for proportionality if going further than the minimum required to achieve compliance with EU standards.
Farmers are subject to food hygiene legislation and the microbiological quality of water is an issue for some growers.
Livestock manures provide a valuable source of nutrients and organic matter to soils,
particularly as supplies of hydrocarbon and mineral reserves used for fertilizer
become increasingly depleted. Recycling of nutrients already in the system is being
promoted as a sustainable and „virtuous‟ activity and is supported by government
policy (like the application of sewage sludge).
We accept that agriculture has a role in contributing to FIOs in bathing waters, but it
is not the main source. Studies have put agriculture‟s contribution at around 30%.
The other sources of FIOs are predominantly human, stemming from sewage works,
storm overflows from combined sewers, unsewered properties or private systems
serving caravan parks and the like. Agriculture is an identified contributor at a
minority of bathing waters according to Defra‟s 2007 consultation.
We accept that bathing waters need to be compliant with EU standards. However, in
assessing actions, we feel it should be recognized that the majority of illnesses are
viral in origin and host specific. Most benefits will therefore accrue from WFD
actions aimed at human sources of FIOs. We believe this should be reflected in the
selection of the most cost effective measures. Measures will need to be subject to
the proportionality test if going further than the minimum required to achieve
compliance with EU bathing water standards.
We note the Government considers that the link to agriculture is not clear
(Government response to revised Bathing Water Directive consultation 2008.) There
has been little development of agricultural measures for addressing levels of FIOs or
experience of applying them. The use of the „last resort‟ WPZ regulatory mechanism
for agriculture would therefore appear inappropriate.
We are concerned that the Plan has not identified agriculture as a sector requiring
water to be of good microbiological quality, as it has for bathing waters and shellfish
waters. Farmers are subject to food hygiene legislation, for example the EU Food
Hygiene Regulation 852/2004. Good quality water is therefore an important issue for
9
farmers and growers, particularly those using water to irrigate ready-to-eat crops
such as salads for direct human consumption. We believe that waters used for
irrigation, particularly in areas where ready- to-eat crops are grown, should be
monitored for FIOs as well bathing and shellfish waters. Agriculture is a legitimate
and licensed water use and we feel the Agency needs to consider policies to protect
waters used for irrigation. Actions could include raising standards for combined
sewer overflows, and routinely notifying irrigation abstractors of relevant pollution
incidents.
Pesticides
Pesticides found in the water environment can derive from other sectors of the economy besides agriculture. Correct identification of the source of pollution is important if measures are to be targeted most cost effectively.
Pesticides are also used to control non-native invasive species which can be a WFD pressure. They are often the only practicable and effective form of control.
Pesticides used in agriculture are not contributing to widespread failure of ecological quality standards, but concentrations of certain pesticides are increasing in some Drinking Water Protected Areas and may be putting Article 7 compliance at risk. Measures taken to address this must be proportionate.
UK Government policy on pesticides is risk reduction, not use reduction.
The Plan recognises that pesticides found in the water environment can derive from
other sectors of the economy besides agriculture as they are also used in a wide
range of sectors, e.g. transport, industry, amenity, recreation and conservation.
Identification of the source of pollution is important to enable identification of the
correct measures and their accurate and therefore cost effective targeting. This is
particularly so where the same active ingredient is used in different sectors. An
example of this is Cypermethrin, which is used as an insecticide in agriculture and
horticulture, for timber treatment, and also as a veterinary medicine (sheep dip).
Measures under the VI for pesticides are applicable only to agricultural/horticultural
pesticide uses, and not to timber treatment or veterinary medicine uses.
An important use of pesticides is to control pressures from non-native invasive
species, particularly where other forms of control are either impracticable or
ineffective. This is the case for the aquatic species, Curly Water Weed and
Australian Swamp Stonecrop, and certain terrestrial species commonly found close
alongside rivers and streams, such as Japanese Knotweed, Himalayan Balsam and
Giant Hogweed. It would be difficult or impossible to achieve GES without the use of
herbicides to control these weeds.
10
We understand that pesticides used in agriculture are not contributing to widespread
failure of ecological quality standards in water, but that concentrations of certain
pesticides are increasing in some Drinking Water Protected Areas and may be
putting Article 7 compliance at risk. However, when considering the proportionality
of measures to address this, the impacts must be considered. For example, if
restrictions are imposed on certain herbicides used on oilseed rape, control of
blackgrass could become almost impossible, resulting in yield losses of about 35%.
Such restrictions could also impact on cereal growing where oilseed rape is used as
a break crop for cleaning blackgrass-infested fields prior to planting with cereals.
Addressing this problem through additional cultivations may give rise to pollution
swapping, for example by increasing nitrate losses („Pesticide Availability‟: HGCA
Research Review 70, 2009).
With regard to measures generally, UK Government policy is risk reduction, not use
reduction. Use reduction is not an objective under the UK National Pesticides
Strategy or the WFD.
Sheep Dip
Sheep dips are veterinary medicines and are regulated by the Veterinary Medicines Agency.
There is very limited choice in active ingredients
Control of sheep scab is essential for the welfare of the animals, for which farmers have legal and cross compliance obligations
Good practice on the part of farmers in their use and disposal of dip is essential and we believe that encouraging this is the appropriate way forward.
A regulatory regime, which recognized the benefits of farmers detoxifying dip before disposal, and reflected this in charges, would contribute to the uptake of this practice.
Sheep dips are veterinary medicines used to control external parasites, including
sheep scab and are regulated by the Veterinary Medicines Agency. There is very
limited choice in active ingredients effective for sheep scab, the most effective being
cypermethrin, which is currently suspended from the market. Cypermethrin-based
dips are potentially more environmentally toxic than the alternative products (organo-
phosphate dips), which could be hazardous to dip operators. At the same time, we
are concerned that it should be recognized that control of sheep scab is essential for
the welfare of the animals. Farmers have legal obligations for animal welfare, also
enforced under cross compliance. Sheep scab is a notifiable disease and infection
can mean restrictions on farmers being able to move, or market their livestock.
11
We do however recognize that sheep dip, if used and disposed of incorrectly, can be
very toxic to aquatic invertebrates and believe that good practice on the part of
farmers in their use and disposal of dip is essential. The industry has led and
promoted, and will continue to promote, the “Stop every Drop” campaign launched in
2006, which provides sheep farmers and dipping contractors with best practice notes
to minimise the risks of water pollution. An Environment Agency survey in 2007
revealed almost half the farmers questioned had heard of the campaign, indicating
that awareness can be increased effectively by such action in a comparatively short
space of time.
Regarding disposal, we believe that a regulatory regime which recognized the
benefits of farmers detoxifying dip before disposal, and reflected this in charges,
would contribute to the uptake of this practice.
Non-agricultural pollution (diffuse and point)
The major source of pollutants such as phosphate, FIOs and sanitary determinands is sewage
Farmers will expect non-agricultural sources of these pollutants to be tackled effectively
Actions to address rural pollution appear to be concentrated on rural land management measures. Improving the performance of small rural sewage works and septic tanks, appears to have been largely overlooked.
Only a small proportion of sewage works are shown on the maps in „What‟s in my backyard‟. We believe these should show all sewage works
We are concerned that agriculture may be expected to take measures where some or all of the costs cannot be recovered, whereas the water industry may only be required to take action where costs can be passed on to customers
The emphasis placed on agriculture in the Plan appears disproportionately large in
relation to its actual contribution. The major source of pollutants such as phosphate,
FIOs and sanitary determinands remains sewage. In the same way that water
companies wish diffuse pollution from agriculture to be addressed, farmers will also
expect non-agricultural sources, both point and diffuse, to be tackled effectively.
We understand that reductions in phosphate emissions from UK STWs achieved
under the Urban Wastewater Treatment Directive (UWWTD) are modest compared
to some EU member states where much higher reductions – up to 90% - have been
achieved. The European Environmental Agency (2005) classifies the UK with
countries discharging 0.35-0.4 kg P/capita/year, whereas 8 other northern EU
countries discharge about 0.1 kg P/capita/year.
We are particularly concerned about smaller treatment works which have been little
affected by the UWWTD in the UK, and we suggest that the costs and benefits of
12
addressing phosphate from smaller works should be re-assessed. Balmer (2006)
reported that the additional cost of operation for phosphorus removal will in many
cases not exceed Euro1-2/capita/year. Given the relatively small size of the world‟s
remaining phosphate resources and the nutrient‟s importance to human life, there
may well be a social value to recovering phosphate from sewage for recycling.
We are concerned that the Plan does not appear to refer to the recent phosphate
source apportionment work at River Basin level carried out for Defra by White and
Hammond (2006). Well-evidenced source apportionment, including on a local
scale, is essential to ensure all parties are willing to acknowledge their respective
contributions. This will require obtaining new information where robust data is not
currently available.
Diffuse rural pollution is not synonymous with the agricultural contribution. For
example, thousands of small rural sewage works and hundreds of thousands of
unsewered properties contribute significantly to phosphorus concentrations in some
rural areas. This has been recognised as a pressure within the River Hull catchment
but no other catchments. Instead we note that actions to address rural pollution
appear to be concentrated on rural land management measures. Improving the
performance of rural sources, such as small rural sewage works and septic tanks,
has been largely overlooked. In addition to this „What‟s in my backyard‟ identifies
only a small proportion of sewage works. We believe that all sewage works should
be shown on these maps so that the public can be properly informed about point
sources of pollution in their areas. Omitting these contributes to the impression that
the contribution of these works is being overlooked.
We are also concerned about an apparent disparity of approach between agriculture
and the water industry, which are both sources of pollution. There appears to be an
expectation that the water industry will only take action where costs can be passed
on to customers (i.e. OFWAT approves the work), whereas agriculture may be
expected to take measures where some or all of the costs cannot be recovered.
Physical modifications
Given the high level of uncertainty, we are concerned that the proposed A/HMWB designations in the Plan may not be sufficient.
Crop production would not be viable in large areas without appropriate water level management. We expect that agriculture will be able to continue to operate with historic water levels maintained to reflect ongoing use.
If measures to alter water levels are proposed, we would expect that they will be subject to full consultation and appeal.
13
The provision under the WFD, which allows water bodies to be designated as
artificial or heavily modified (A/HMWB) where achieving GES would have significant
adverse effects on flood protection and land drainage, is extremely important for
agriculture. Crop production would not be viable in large areas without appropriate
water level management and the Plan fails to recognise the ongoing importance of
land drainage. We would expect that agriculture will be able to continue to operate
with historic water levels maintained to reflect ongoing use and that good ecological
potential may therefore be the appropriate WFD objective.
We also note the Plan recognises that there is currently a lack of detailed evidence
on how hydromorpholgical pressures influence ecology. Given the high level of
uncertainty, it is possible that the proposed A/HMWB designations in the Plan are
not adequate. There has been little consultation with farmers about the type of
measures under consideration and their potential/likely potential adverse impacts on
water levels and farm output.
If measures to alter water levels are proposed, we would expect that they will be
subject to full consultation and appeal and compensation. Farmers have invested
heavily in land drainage infrastructure and associated assets in response to policies
and decisions by previous governments. We believe full account of this should be
taken in the EA‟s consideration of disproportionality and that owners should not be
left with stranded assets.
Abstraction
Abstraction is an important issue for the agricultural sector and the local rural economy in this RBD.
It has a valuable role nationally in reducing imports, particularly of vegetables where UK growers account for more than half of the marketed tonnage.
Irrigation has increasingly become necessary to meet the demands of retailers and processors.
There should be full recognition of the importance of food production in allocating water. Leakage and non-essential domestic use should be addressed in any measures introduced to ensure sustainability.
More security for licences is needed if farmers are to be encouraged to build storage reservoirs.
Abstraction is an important issue for the agricultural sector in this RBD, where it
makes an important contribution to the local rural economy, supporting food
processing and packing businesses as well as farming. The Agency should therefore
ensure that it engages with agricultural stakeholders where they will be affected.
Irrigation has increasingly become necessary to meet the demands of retailers and
processors to achieve quality, consistency of product and maintain supply. It has a
14
valuable role in reducing imports, particularly of vegetables where UK growers
account for more than half of the marketed tonnage. Imports are often from areas of
higher water stress and imply additional carbon emissions.
Security of water supply is a major issue for farmers and we are pleased to see that
the construction of storage reservoirs are to be encouraged under the Plan.
However, without long-term security of abstraction licences (around 20 years,
(Weatherhead et al., 2006)), winter storage reservoirs may not be financially
worthwhile and could even be a „mal-adaptation‟ to climate change, involving
misallocation of scarce resources. More security for licences is therefore an
important component of the action being proposed in the Plan.
Farmers are very concerned that agricultural water use may be subordinated to
public supply. We do not believe that large scale leakage losses by water
companies and non-essential uses by domestic water consumers represent the best
alternative use. Food production should be a higher priority.
England has policies and mechanisms in place to address impacts from abstraction
in the form of CAMS, Restoring Sustainable Abstraction and the Review of
Consents. However, farmers require greater clarity as to whether new or enhanced
actions are being considered under the CAMS as part of this first WFD cycle. There
is very little information in the Plan as to how the problems identified in the CAMS
will be addressed to meet the WFD objectives.
15
CONSULTATION QUESTIONS
Q1. Do you agree with the assessment of problems in water bodies? What
would you change?
Our comments are necessarily general on account of the numbers of water bodies involved, and the lack of clarity in the Plan regarding the data, standards and methodology used.
We welcome the Plan‟s recognition that uncertainty is a very real problem, and that this needs to be reduced before taking action which may be unnecessary.
We are concerned that further classification information not included in consultation draft will be used in the final Plan. We expect there to be further opportunity for comment on assessments once they have been completed to a satisfactory standard.
We believe only data from representative monitoring points should be used for assessments. It is not clear from the Plan whether this is the case.
The „one-out all-out‟ principle results in the quality of the water environment being under-stated.
We have concerns about the „standards‟ apparently being used to classify waters „at risk‟.
We believe that assessment for groundwaters should take account of current trends in inputs (i.e. at the top of the unsaturated zone).
It is not clear that source apportionment has been effectively addressed.
The Agency has not consulted farmers about the importance of land drainage in the assessment of whether water bodies should be designated as A/HMWB.
It is not possible to say whether or not we agree with the assessment of problems in
water bodies. There are many hundreds of these and it would not be practicable to
check them all. In any event, access to the Agency‟s data is not signposted, and the
methodology used to assess the problems is not stated, nor is the Plan always clear
about the standards used. Our comments are therefore general.
What is clear from the RBMP is that the Agency does not always have sufficient
good quality data to make a valid classification with the necessary confidence. We
therefore welcome the Plan‟s recognition that uncertainty is a very real problem, and
that this needs to be reduced before taking action which may be unnecessary and
believe it would be valuable to identify the circumstances where uncertainty is critical
with a view to prioritising investigations and securing further data.
We are concerned about the adequacy of monitoring as monitoring sites used for
nutrient sensitive areas are very thinly spread, with very few located in Yorkshire
catchments. We also note that monitoring sites used for the Urban Wastewater
Treatment Directive (Figure D20) appear identical with those used for all nutrient
16
sensitive areas, from which it appears no additional sites were used for NVZs. We
seriously question the reliability of such sparse monitoring and question whether
sites suitable for UWWTD can be adequate and representative for NVZs without
supplementation.
It is of concern to note that further classification information not included in
consultation draft will be used in the final Plan. Can the Agency clarify the
opportunities it will provide for affected stakeholders to comment on additions it
makes to the Plan which were not in the consultation draft? For example, we
understand that the compliance assessments for surface water DrWPA objectives
have not yet been carried out and that compliance will not be assessed until 2011,
following 2 years of monitoring. We would expect there to be further opportunity for
comment on this, and on other assessments, once they have been completed to a
satisfactory standard.
There are a number of questions about the „no deterioration‟ condition for DrWPAs.
Which parameters are to be monitored? How will stakeholders be given access to
the 2007/2008 data defining the baseline, and the ongoing monitoring data? How
will affected stakeholders be assured of the integrity of water company monitoring
bearing in mind that these profit making bodies may have a financial interest in the
outcome? The process needs to be made more transparent.
It is not clear whether data from representative monitoring points have always been
used, or whether the GQA (General Quality Assessment) network has also been
used. It is clear from the NVZ designation exercise that monitoring points from the
GQA network were often not representative of water bodies, for example, when
close downstream of sewage works. We believe that only monitoring points that are
genuinely representative of water bodies should be used for assessments to be
made with any degree of certainty.
We believe the „one-out all-out‟ principle results in the quality of the water
environment being under-stated. We note the Plan says as much and that many
water bodies fail because of a single pressure. Stakeholders should be informed of
the ongoing record of improvement, perhaps through logging and profiling the
reduction in the number of failing parameters. We do however welcome the Plan‟s
recognition of the importance of the biological status of water bodies and that it is
necessary to verify a problem for this in order to justify action, rather than acting
whenever the supporting physico-chemical elements suggest a problem.
We have already expressed surprise at the extent of surface waters assessed as
being at risk for nitrates and our reasons for this. We are also concerned at the
approach to Drinking Water Protected Areas, where it appears that the Plan
objectives include applying Drinking Water Directive standards to water at the point
17
of abstraction. (Annex D4 states that the first objective [for DrWPAs] will be achieved
“by meeting the standards of the Drinking Water Directive”) This would not seem to
take account of the treatment regime applied (as referred to in Article 7 (2), nor to
reflect the RBP Guidance (Volume 2) which refers to measurement at the point of
abstraction ( para 3.7).
The same Guidance also refers to “standards” for nitrates (and pesticides) from the
Groundwater Daughter Directive (GWDD). It indicates that “failure of these
“standards” will not automatically result in a “poor chemical status” classification but,
rather, act as a trigger for investigation into whether the status objectives (including
the protection of the amenity/environmental functions) of the groundwater body are
being met.”
We also note from Defra‟s 2008 consultation on transposition of the GWDD that
“although it [the GWDD] includes a 50 mg/l “standard” for nitrates ……. [it] respects
the objectives of the Nitrates Directive and the way it operates.” …. and “ does not
therefore include any additional requirements for agricultural sources of nitrates
beyond those already contained in the Nitrates Directive and the WFD.” We are
concerned that the Plan overlooks this and places inappropriate weight on the
GWDD “standards”.
The Plan‟s approach on a number of counts described above appears to go beyond
the minimum needed for compliance with the EU legislation and we believe this
amounts to gold plating.
It seems that despite the recognition that lagged responses are characteristic of
most ground waters, assessment is based on deep borehole monitoring. This
ignores the impact of changes in farming practices in recent decades. We believe
that monitoring at the top of the unsaturated zone would provide information on
current trends and that assessment should take account of this to reduce
uncertainty.
With regard to sources of nitrate in groundwater, it is not clear from the Plan that the
Agency has either addressed, or intends to address, the terms of the licences it
grants for discharges from sewage and water treatment works to „soakaways‟
feeding groundwater. We have already commented that the Plan does not appear
to reflect the recent research carried out for Defra to update source apportionment
for phosphate and that there is disproportionate emphasis on agriculture.
In the case of sediment, there are no UKTAG standards although UKTAG made
“suggestions” as to how assessment might be approached. It is not clear from the
Plan whether these suggestions have been taken up and therefore how the
assessments have been carried out. We therefore are not able to comment.
18
Regarding hydromorphology, farmers have not been consulted on whether their
ongoing (land drainage) use of the water body would be affected by the achievement
of GES. They will obviously have serious concerns if the water body into which their
land drains has not been assessed as being A/HMWB when drainage of their land
would be prejudiced. There may be cases where designations have not been made
because it has been judged that land drainage will not be prejudiced by the
attainment of good status. Given the level of uncertainty which the Agency accepts
is present at this stage, we are concerned about the situation which would arise if
such judgments were incorrect. We wish to be reassured that A/HMWM designation
could be made subsequently if the basis of earlier decisions not to designate were
found to be incorrect.
Q2. Do you agree with the proposed objectives? What would you change?
We agree that the objectives for 2015 will not be achievable for some water bodies and that the use of the exemptions built into the Directive is appropriate, particularly for groundwater given the time lags involved.
We disagree with the target of 2015 for compliance in Protected Areas. We understand that there is no absolute requirement for Protected Areas to comply by 2015 where the original legislation does not specify a date and that a longer period can accordingly be allowed.
We question whether the objective to halve the number of water bodies not at good status by 2021 is realistic in view of the one-out all-out approach.
We believe the Plan goes beyond what is necessary for WFD compliance, which we consider to be goldplating. All goldplating should be avoided.
The objectives of WFD are very ambitious and challenging. We agree that the
objectives for 2015 will not be achievable for some water bodies and that the use of
the exemptions built into the Directive is appropriate. We support the Agency‟s
proposed use of exemptions in view of the uncertainty inherent in much of the
information currently available. We believe the use of exemptions for groundwater is
practically unavoidable given the time lags involved, and that the Plan‟s objective to
achieve good status in all waters by 2027 is unrealistic in respect of some
groundwaters.
However, we disagree with the target of 2015 for compliance in Protected Areas as
there is no absolute requirement for Protected Areas to comply by 2015 where the
original legislation does not specify a date and a longer period can accordingly be
allowed, if for example, it were found to be disproportionately costly to modify an
abstraction licence by 2015 to protect a Natura 2000 site. We feel a longer period
should be allowed as farmers may have made substantial investments in fixed
assets, and foreshortening the period allowed for compliance could reduce their
ability to achieve pay back on their investment. This should be taken account of in
19
the assessment of disproportionality to justify alternative objectives and we would
expect similar considerations to apply in respect of the case of other Protected
Areas.
We question whether the objective to halve the number of water bodies not at good
status by 2021 is realistic in view of the one-out all-out approach. No justification is
provided and on the face of it, this seems an arbitrary form of objective setting. It will
mean that expenditure will be concentrated in the second cycle. We would adopt a
more consistent approach to the workload and cost of delivering improvements over
the second and third cycles.
We do not agree with objectives going beyond what is necessary for WFD
compliance, a challenging objective in itself. We have identified examples which we
consider do go beyond what is necessary and which we regard as goldplating. We
believe all goldplating should be avoided and we cite examples below.
The approach to Drinking Water Protected Areas appears to include applying
Drinking Water Directive standards to water prior to abstraction. If this is correct, it
would seem not to take account of “the treatment regime applied” (as referred to in
Article 7 (2)). Also, we note in Annex G (p7) that although UKTAG has set “no
……standards for nitrate in surface freshwaters”, that “the 50 mg/l drinking water
standard continues to guide action.” in all surface waters.
The objective stated in the Plan to deliver favourable condition in SSSIs to achieve
the UK‟s PSA target, is of concern to us as it is not a requirement to comply with this
target for either with WFD or national legislation. This is a national target, and it
therefore appears to represent goldplating of the already heavy obligations the UK
has accepted under the WFD. We feel that any measures driven by this objective
should be limited to non-regulatory mechanisms.
The objectives for Bathing Waters include going beyond achieving compliance (the
„sufficient‟ category), and includes increasing the number of „good‟ or „excellent‟
status bathing waters “…by taking such realistic and proportionate measures
considered appropriate…”. Not only does this approach constitute goldplating in
relation to compliance with the Directive, but it provides no clarity or transparency for
stakeholders. There is no indication of the criteria by which measures would be
assessed as “realistic and proportionate”, and it is foreseeable that the various
interests involved are likely to take different views as to what is realistic and
proportionate.
Objectives delayed to a later cycle
20
Q3. For some water bodies we have proposed objectives with deadlines after
2021 or a lower overall target. Do you agree with these changes? What would
you change?
We welcome the Plan‟s acknowledgement that achieving WFD objectives in all water bodies is aspirational and that investigations may identify situations where „less stringent objectives‟ are the realistic approach.
The consequences of the acknowledged long lags for most ground waters do not appear to be accepted in setting the objective of achieving good status for all groundwaters by 2027.
We question whether it is helpful to adopt an aim of 100% achievement of good status by 2027 when it appears that this is not realistic and would prefer a more realistic approach to objective setting from the outset.
We welcome the Plan‟s acknowledgement that achieving WFD objectives in all water
bodies is aspirational. While we note the Agency has proposed only extended
timescales at present, we are pleased to note it recognises that its planned
investigations may identify water bodies where „less stringent objectives‟ are the
realistic approach. We note the Plan refers to a slightly different objective for 2027,
namely that, as a priority, there should be no bad status water bodies left by this
date. This seems a more achievable objective and is a rather different aim from
achieving good status in all water bodies by 2027.
While the Plan acknowledges that lagged responses are characteristic of most
ground waters, the logical consequences of this do not always appear to be
accepted in setting objectives. For example, while it is recognised that it can take 50
years or more for pollutants to work through from the surface to the aquifer, the fact
that improvements may take the same time to work through appears to have been
overlooked in the Plan‟s assertion that “we are investing now to meet the long-term
challenge of achieving good status for 100% of groundwaters by 2027”, a mere 18
years away, when only 60% of groundwaters are at present achieving good or
potentially good status. We believe that monitoring at the top of the unsaturated
zone would provide information on current trends and would also help to ensure
measures are justified, cost effective and appropriate.
We question whether it is helpful to adopt an aim of 100% achievement of good
status by 2027 when it appears that this is not realistic. This may lead to
disappointment and criticism when the objective is not achieved. We feel the
Agency should adopt a more realistic approach to objectives from the outset.
“The plan sets out the actions required to meet the objectives. To what extent
do you agree that we have identified the right actions (actions that are
proportionate and feasible)?”
21
Before proceeding to the questions, we would wish to comment on the preamble
(above). By „right‟ actions, the Plan apparently means those which are deemed to
be proportionate and feasible. As we understand it, the proportionality and feasibility
of actions need to be decided at the individual water body level, while an individual
firm‟s affordability is an element of the test for proportionality. It will therefore not be
possible to give a detailed answer as to whether we agree the actions proposed are
the “right” ones.
The process for appraising actions
Q4. We have followed a process to assess (appraise) the actions. This
process is described in detail in Annex E. Do you agree with how we have
done this?
It is not clear to us how measures required for compliance for surface water DrWPAs can be identified in advance of the assessment of compliance itself.
The issue of source apportionment does not appear to be addressed in the process described at Annex E. It is clearly essential that the actions/measures selected are targeted to the correct sources if the objectives are to be achieved.
We welcome the Plan‟s recognition that affordability is an accepted criterion in the assessment of disproportionality. We believe this should be applied at the individual business and water body scale.
The Plan is unclear about the approach it has taken to cost effectiveness analysis.
With regard to the pCEA exercise, we wish to make clear that the industry did not agree the combinations of measures and requested that our reservations should be noted in the pCEA report.
We are not able to comment on the identification and appraisal process for the locally derived M4 measures, since the national criteria used to identify and appraise these are not explained. In light of some of the measures detailed, we have to question the validity of the process by which these measures have been derived.
It is not clear to us how work to identify any additional measures required for
compliance for surface water DrWPAs which is apparently ongoing until September
2009, can be done in advance of the assessment of compliance itself. The
measures should depend on the extent of non-compliance. We therefore request the
opportunity to comment on the outcomes of the work to be completed in September
2009 before measures are implemented.
The issue of source apportionment does not appear to be addressed in the process
described at Annex E, or if it has, not in a manner which is readily apparent to the
22
reader. This issue is very important in the WFD process of selection of measures
since many pressures derive from multiple sources. It is clearly essential that the
actions/measures selected are targeted to the correct sources if the objectives are to
be achieved. The plan must include actions to address non-agricultural sources of
diffuse and point source pollution e.g phosphate and nitrate from rural STWs and
unsewered properties/septic tanks, and phosphate and sediment from un-kerbed
roads.
In this context, we note that the main source of phosphate, from sewage works, has
already been judged to be disproportionate for this cycle for 1800 sewage works in
England and Wales. It appears that this is as a result of a high level appraisal and
that the cost and benefits and tests for disproportionality have not been assessed at
water body level. As this is not a national measure, we are not clear why a high level
appraisal has been used as a basis for decision.
Noting that the main source of phosphate is not to be addressed in the first cycle, it
is questionable whether appreciable benefits can be delivered by addressing smaller
sources.
We note that the stated aim of the appraisal process as described in the Plan is to
avoid incurring unnecessary costs where it is not clear that there is a problem, where
the source of the problem is not clear or where the most cost effective action cannot
yet be determined. It does not appear to include the test for disproportionality, yet
this is what seems to have been applied.
We welcome the Plan‟s recognition that affordabilty is an accepted criterion in the
assessment of disproportionality, but we disagree that this is to be applied at sectoral
level. Our understanding is that it should be applied at individual business and water
body scale.
The Directive refers to making judgements about “the most cost effective
combination of measures”, but the Plan is unclear about the approach it has taken to
cost effectiveness analysis (CEA). The aim of selecting the most cost effective
measures is identified at one point in Annex E, correctly in our view. But at other
points, reference is made to measures which are “cost effective”, such as for M3
measures at Steps 3 and 4 in E.4. We are therefore unclear as to the decision
criterion used for selection of measures. We believe references to “cost effective”
should be amended to “most cost effective”, and the process altered accordingly.
We note that while Annex E.4 recognises that CEA has a role when M3 measures
are under consideration, it is not included when appraising M4 measures. This
appears to be an omission. We feel it should also be applied for M4 measures, as
well as applying it to the combination of measures as indicated by the Directive.
23
With regard to the pCEA exercise, we should point out that the activities of the
agriculture group were foreshortened. We also wish to make clear that the industry
did not agree the combinations of measures. It had many reservations about these
and specifically reserved its position on the pCEA outputs for agriculture, which we
requested should be noted in the pCEA report.
The national criteria used to identify and appraise locally derived the M4 measures
are not explained and we are therefore unable to comment on the identification and
appraisal process. We have doubts about the suitability of some of the measures
aimed at farmers in Annex C.
It is not clear from the Plan which M4 measures were developed with Liaison panels
and those developed by the Agency. However, we are surprised by, and have
serious reservations about some of the measures in Annex E Table 1 (p58), which
are apparently taken from the Agency‟s hydromorphology toolkit. One example is
ceasing maintenance of field drainage systems. Given the fundamental importance
of land drainage to agriculture, and its express recognition as a legitimate activity to
be protected from significant adverse impacts at Article 4.3(a)(iv) of the Directive, we
have to question the validity of the process by which these measures have been
derived. We also have reservations about other measures, such as minimum tillage
and removal of stock, if applied inappropriately.
24
Actions
There are some extra actions that could be put in place if there were more
certainty that they would be effective. These are listed under Scenario C and
we would like to know if you could help make these actions happen.
Q5. What comments do you have on these actions? Are there any actions
that have been missed or any changes you’d propose?
Within the Plan the drivers for action are sometimes given as legislation, and
sometimes by other reasons such as the effect e.g. reduction in sediment.
Legislation is a clear and necessary driver, but other drivers may well be goldplating.
Actions need to be justified in terms of the requirements of the Water Framework
Directive, or other legislation where relevant to the delivery of WFD objectives.
Using RBMPs to deliver other objectives e.g. delivering the PSA target for SSSIs
without an up-front and open debate and evaluation of policy and impact is not
appropriate.
The main list of key Scenario A actions includes actions such as the Agri-
environment/ELS/HLS, the NVZ Action Programme, and the ECSF Delivery
Initiative. However, the Voluntary Initiative for pesticides which is in place across the
RBD is referred to elsewhere in the plan and should be included as a scenario A
measure. There is additional legislation under development independent of WFD but
which will bear on the achievement of WFD objectives. One important example
which relates to pesticides is the Sustainable Use Directive covering for example
sprayer testing and operator training.
Whilst we welcome the confidence shown in the delivery of nutrient management
through agri-environment and the environmental stewardship schemes, it needs to
be made clear that agri environment funding is distributed in a targeted manner and
resource protection is only one of a number of objectives which applicants must
meet with no guarantee of acceptance into the scheme.
Scenario B: The reality is that most actions taken or proposed in agriculture are
being implemented independently of RBMPs, including some specifically intended to
help deliver WFD objectives. Examples are the ECSFDI, and industry initiatives
such as the VI and Tried and Tested. This means that there are few if any actions
affecting agriculture which genuinely fall within Scenario B.
Other than for the VI for pesticides which promotes best practice to minimise any
adverse impact of pesticides in the environment, there does not seem to be mention
of the many other voluntary industry initiatives which are also aimed at good/best
practice e.g. Farm Assurance, Biodiversity and Environmental Training for
(pesticide) Advisors (BETA), FACTS, Stop Every Drop and Tried and Tested, LEAF,
25
Environmental Plan for Dairy Farming etc. The industry has also recently proposed
a Campaign for the Farmed Environment to address biodiversity and resource
protection issues.
The industry‟s preference is for voluntary approaches. We therefore particularly
welcome the support shown for voluntary measures in Annex E. WPZs are intended
by Defra to be a power of last resort, in many cases high quality voluntary
mechanisms can deliver similar outcomes and prove to be more cost beneficial.
The scenario B measure - the creation of tree and woodland buffers adjacent to
water courses to improve water quality and habitat is a very site specific action but
the measure may be acceptable if taken forward on a voluntary basis.
Q6. What comments on Scenario C actions do you have, including any
additional information you can supply about specific actions?
The industry‟s preference is for voluntary measures rather than regulatory ones,
believing that one volunteer is worth 10 pressed men. Regulatory measures are
often inflexible and expensive to enforce, real problems in relation to day to day
agricultural management. There is a need and willingness amongst all industry
partners to work with other stakeholders with the aim of impressing on farmers the
importance of achieving the highest uptake of voluntary measures.
Water Protection Zones (WPZs)
We feel strongly that WPZs should only be used where other suitable measures
have been tried, and have been shown to have failed. The recent Defra consultation
on WPZs states that WPZs are a “last resort” and that “there must be “sufficient
evidence” to justify use of WPZs. It is also appropriate to remember that Defra‟s
choice of WPZs was as part of a package of delivery mechanisms, also comprising
of advice (principally through the ECSFDI) and environmental scheme support. We
do not agree with the statement in Annexes C and E that WPZs will be used where
other mechanisms are considered not likely to work, particularly when they are
based on the results of modelling. Farmers should to be given every opportunity to
resolve problems by other means before a power of last resort is used.
The industry is concerned about the very wide scope of the proposed WPZ power.
We have proposed a „WPZ Charter‟ to provide reassurance to farmers and guidance
as to the circumstances and ways in which WPZ powers will be used. We urge the
Agency to commit to this Charter (Annex A). No details on the proposed WPZs are
included in the Plan as each WPZ will be subject to a separate consultation. Our
comments on the proposed use of WPZs in particular cases will be made in
response to those consultations.
26
Enhanced VI
Enhanced VI measures could be introduced to help achieve WFD objectives where
VI measures are currently insufficient due to insufficient uptake or lack of
understanding. The challenge lies in procuring funding to develop and deliver these
measures. It is also vital that all stakeholders work in a coordinated way to achieve
these measures.
Promoting best practice for use and disposal of sheep dip
The industry supports the adoption of best practice and it is part of the ongoing „Stop
every drop‟ campaign. We believe take up of detoxification treatments could be
improved if there were fewer restrictions and less cost for disposal of detoxified
material. The regulatory regime currently applies the same restrictions – and
charges – to spent dip which has been treated to detoxify it as to the untreated
material.
Discharges from Farm Dumps
This is a legacy issue arising from historic good practice as recommended by the
authorities at the time. We feel farmers should not be held accountable for any costs
involved for following government advice and that this will be key to engaging
farmers in addressing any issues identified. We believe that no work should be
carried out in this area unless a real, rather than perceived, problem is identified.
There are a wider range of key actions in other RBDs. The industry supports the
following for inclusion:
Further extension of the CSF Delivery Initiative
We believe there is scope for a substantial expansion of the DI. The current funding
supports Catchment Officers in 6 catchments in the Humber RBD but only small
parts of some of the larger catchments are being covered at any one time. The
extension of the DI would be in line with the government‟s policy package for
DWPA set out in its response to its consultation on DWPA of Advice plus Scheme
plus WPZs, with the latter as a last resort.
Water Company Catchment Management Schemes(CMSs)
‘We support CMSs where water companies and farmers within a Drinking Water
Protected Area work together to protect or improve water quality as an alternative to
water treatment. This measure is in line with Defra‟s direction to OFWAT in its policy
statement Future Water to approve catchment management schemes which satisfy
appropriate criteria. We understand there are likely to be around 100 such schemes
within the PR09 programme, but the vast majority of these are only investigative
27
(only the United Utilities SCaMP is fully fledged). We believe that a co-operative
approach between the water industry and agriculture offers a constructive approach
to resolving such problems, as exemplified by a number of European projects.
Provision of education and information on soils and pesticides to non-
agricultural land owners
This measure is strongly endorsed by the agricultural industry and could be included
within the Humber RBMP as a positive measure. We would advocate it being
extended to address wider non-agricultural rural diffuse pollution problems such as
septic tanks and rural roads.
Storage for irrigation water
We believe this action should be in Scenario B as it is in the Anglian Plan. Also, if
this measure is to be taken up, abstraction licences need to cover the pay-back
period for the investment.
Other Scenario C actions in Annex C
The scenario C proposal to „Reduce impact from hard bank
reinforcement…..improve connection to the flood plain” will inevitably have an impact
upon land drainage activities‟. Land drainage is recognised as a legitimate activity to
be protected at Article 4.3(a)(iv) of the Directive. Farmers will expect to continue to
manage to historic water levels in order to maintain the productive capacity of their
land. Actions taken to „restore‟ channel habitats can have knock on consequences
for land drainage. Farmers must be consulted at an early stage when developing
proposals so that the impact on food production can be fully investigated, understood
and mitigated before work commences. Agricultural flood defences play a vital role
in ensuring that the productive capacity of high value agricultural land is maintained.
Any proposals must be discussed with landowners at an early stage and can only
proceed on a voluntary basis, in the majority of cases adequate compensation would
be required
Support offered to help deliver WFD
Q7. What support can you offer, such as undertaking any actions or providing
resources, to help deliver more for your environment?
As described above, the industry is already undertaking a range of initiatives which
will contribute to WFD objectives independently of the RBMP. The industry also
28
believes an industry-led Agricultural Liaison Group would be a valuable means of
raising awareness of relevant issues with a view to securing farmer engagement and
„buy in‟. However, before this phase, we would anticipate the Group would require to
be appraised of the Agency‟s evidence necessitating action by the industry. It is
likely that the Group would wish to look at the costs of any measures proposed and
whether these are the most cost effective in particular areas.
Where problems are persistent or unresponsive to other measures, the industry sees
one-to-one advice as an effective means of changing farmer behaviour. Advice
could be delivered by FACTS and BASIS qualified advisers as a reserve option in
such areas. The cost of this would have to be factored into the cost and benefit
analysis, but the evidence is that one-to-one advice is effective. This could involve
the preparation of appropriate managements plans, whether for nutrients, crop
protection or other matters.
There is the potential for further joint work to enhance and extend the VI for
pesticides if funding is available. The Crop Protection Association (CPA) can also
provide knowledge/expertise re best practice in the „Amenity‟ and „Home and
Garden‟ sectors.
Q8. Do you agree with our assessment of how climate change will affect
pressures on the water environment? What would you change?
We do not feel able to accept the findings how climate change will affect pressures on the water environment where they are based on pollution modeling without the results of the research having first been validated.
We are concerned there will be no attempt to take account of climate change in the objectives in the first cycle. We would resist using this analysis to justify taking mandatory measures until climate change has been taken into account in the objectives.
We cannot find any detail of the systematic screening of most of the measures that has reportedly been carried out. The process needs to be transparent and complete and results communicated to stakeholders.
We do not agree that construction of irrigation reservoirs would necessarily be a „no-regrets option‟. This would only be the case if there was security of supply/abstraction licensing.
The approach outlined makes little or no reference to source apportionment. We believe correct targeting is essential to minimise the risk of not meeting the objectives due to climate change.
We note that the European Commission has identified water management as the
priority area for action and that the Common Implementation Strategy is currently
focusing on making the best use of EU water legislation as a vehicle. What this
29
means for assessment of the problem, the objectives to be achieved and the actions
to achieve these is therefore of considerable importance.
The assessment of how climate change will affect pressures on the water
environment appears to be based on research which includes pollution modeling.
We do not know what assumptions and methodologies have been employed, and we
would expect the results to be validated before they are generally applied. We are
therefore unable to accept the findings prior to validation.
We do nevertheless welcome the Plan‟s recognition of the extent of uncertainty, and
note the assessment is only qualitative at this stage.
Much of the content of Annex H concerns the approach proposed by the Agency for
accommodating climate change into the WFD. We have significant issues with this.
While we understand the approach is to consider the change in risk of not achieving
WFD objectives due to climate change, we are concerned there will be no attempt to
take account of climate change in the objectives (or in the assessment of typologies,
reference condition, or monitoring) in the first cycle. If one side of the comparison is
adjusted for climate change and the other is not, this is comparing apples with
oranges, potentially invalidating any conclusions. We would therefore resist using
this analysis to justify taking mandatory measures until climate change has been
taken fully into account in the appraisal, and feel that caution should also be
exercised with the application of other types of measures.
The description of the approach refers to identifying, appraising and adapting
“measures”, and considering the contribution of measures themselves to climate
change. However, we can find little of this in Annex H, with most discussion relating
to broad actions/mechanisms rather than measures (as defined in Annex E for the
purposes of the whole Plan). For example, we cannot find any detail of the
systematic screening of most of the measures that has reportedly been carried out.
If farmers are to have confidence in what is asserted, the process needs to be
transparent and complete and results communicated to stakeholders.
One measure identified for agriculture elsewhere in the Plan is the construction of
irrigation reservoirs. We do not agree that this would necessarily be a „no-regrets
option‟, which the report states is the favoured approach, with screening in place to
ensure that no unfavourable or regrets options are proposed. While this measure
would address an immediate concern with pressure on summer water availability, it
seems to lack any consideration of whether sufficient winter water will be made
available to farmers over the life of the assets to justify construction – risking the
creation of stranded assets, and a misallocation of scarce resources. Research
carried out for the Agency found that the changing reliability of local water resources
was a factor contributing to reluctance to invest in reservoirs, (Knox et al., 2006) and
30
the question has already been raised of whether constructing reservoirs could
sometimes be a „mal-adaptation‟ to climate change if river flows decline
(Weatherhead, UKIA Conference 2007). They may not therefore not necessarily be a
no-regrets measure. Some security of supply/abstraction licensing would appear to
be a necessary corollary of the Plan‟s policy of encouraging the construction of
storage reservoirs.
We note the references to changing codes of practice and would point out that even
best practice in nutrients, FIOs, soil, and pesticides management can be over-ridden
by extreme weather events.
We note from the descriptions of the adaptation option classification that it takes
account of overall worthwhile-ness to society. The approach does not however
appear to recognise that distributional consequences such as affordability are also
legitimate issues for WFD purposes. We therefore question whether the
classification categories have been correctly formulated. Worthwhile-ness to society
is not necessarily synonymous with worthwhile-ness at the business level, as in the
example above, and measures which are not financially worthwhile may not be
effective as an action on the ground. We would therefore reformulate the definitions
of the options to take distributional issues into account.
We also note that some categories describe measures as “cost-effective”. We ask
the Agency to clarify the meaning it is applying to this term in this context. The
report does not always appear to be consistent in respect of the boundary between
measures which it deems are, and are not, “cost-effective”, and also as noted above,
how it differs from the Directive‟s use of the phrase “most cost-effective”
We are also concerned that the approach outlined makes little or no reference to
source apportionment, which should be a key part of the development of PoMs,
which are correctly targeted and minimise the risk of not meeting the objectives due
to climate change. We are therefore concerned about the Plan not apparently
identifying some sources of diffuse pollution, such as roads as a source of sediment
and sewage sludge as a source of nutrients and FIOs. Taken together with the
disproportionate references to agricultural sources of phosphate and FIOs compared
to other sources (see above), we feel it is necessary to emphasise the need for
reliable source apportionment.
We are also surprised at the extent of the references to farming relative to other
sources. Also, in a number of instances, farming is presented so as to appear as
the principal source, with the main source following. While reducing DWPA has its
role to play in helping to meet WFD objectives, the extent of the references to it in
this Annex relative to other sectors seems out of all proportion to its contribution to
problems to be dealt with in PoMs.
31
We question whether the specific reference to silage pits is warranted in this RBD,
where they are very untypical of the main farming systems. We also note nutrients
in bathing waters being brought into the section on FIOs. It is not a standard and
would not appear to be relevant.
We also have a number of comments relating specifically to the pressures identified.
For example, the science referred to in the Annex relating to seasonal increases in
nitrate and phosphate in rivers does not in itself suggest that nutrient levels will be
higher than at present. The effects will be in relation to what the situation would
otherwise be following implementation of basic and supplementary measures. For
the reasons cited above, (which are in line with current evidence cited by Defra), and
the new NVZ Action Plan, we believe that nitrate losses from agriculture are likely to
be trending downwards.
Again for reasons cited above, phosphate from agriculture is also likely to be
trending down. As STWs are also a significant source in this RBD, the risk of WFD
objectives not being achieved because of climate change will also be determined by
reductions in sewage discharges. While further improvements are reportedly planned
to STWs, we note from elsewhere in the Plan that improvements at many small rural
works have already been deemed to be disproportionate and will not take place in
the first cycle at least.
With regard to comments on agricultural abstraction being concentrated in the
summer months, the current text appears to regard all irrigation abstraction as from
surfacewaters in summer. We believe it would be appropriate to differentiate
between groundwater abstraction, winter abstraction for storage, and summer
abstraction from surfacewater.
We welcome the recognition that land take costs could increase such that it is not
the most cost-effective option and suggest that this possibility should be fully
factored into current methodologies and decisions on land take.
We are concerned at some of the information contained in the „Microbiology‟ section.
There is substantial comment on the agricultural contribution, with the implication
that agriculture has a significant impact on beaches and bathing waters. This is not
supported by the information provided by Defra in its 2007 public consultation on
bathing waters which identified no beaches in this RBD as affected by agricultural
inputs.
In a similar vein, we note the suggestion that under the effect of climate change
“increased water temperature may improve and encourage microbial pathogens to
survive and reproduce.” We do not believe relevant human pathogens reproduce in
the environment, and we understand that survival decreases as temperature
increases. Our view tallies with a statement later in Annex H that “the survivability of
32
faecal indicator organisms decreases with elevated temperature.” It would be helpful
to remove conflicting statements, and to check the accuracy of what is stated.
Further comments
Q9. Do you have any other comments on this draft plan that you haven’t
already given?
We have already made comments on the Plan which are not included as part of our
answers to previous questions. Please refer to these, and in particular to the section
headed „Issues for Agriculture‟. We will expand upon the section headed „Overview‟
here.
We have found the consultation documents very challenging. The Plan (including
its annexes) is very long, before taking account to the accompanying documents, the
Strategic Environmental Assessment and the Impact Assessment. The Plan is
confusing. Documents are difficult to navigate, and there is much duplication in the
various annexes, etc.
At 2000 pages or more, it has not been possible to thoroughly appraise the Plan.
Our comments are limited to those parts of the Plan we have been able to address
given the time and resources available. We have not for example been able to
examine the details of the many hundreds of individual water bodies; and it concerns
us that we have found measures which could have a serious impact on agriculture,
such as ceasing maintenance of field drains, tucked away in an addendum to an
annex. There may well be issues of concern that we have not identified at this stage
and we may therefore wish to raise issues at a later date.
We have some fundamental concerns with the lack of transparency of the
consultation‟s approach. No details are given of the standards used, the
methodologies by which the standards have been applied or the data which has
been used. We are asked to accept the Agency‟s findings at face value with no
ready access or signposting to the necessary information to check or understand
what has been done. We do not find this at all acceptable. Affected parties need to
be able to verify and understand what has been done.
We do not believe the issue of uncertainty has been given sufficient recognition.
Before measures can be imposed, there is a need for sufficient confidence to be
achieved on a range of issues, including current status, identification of the pressure
causing the problem, source apportionment for the pressure, and the cost-
effectiveness and proportionality of the measures proposed.
The Plan is not by any means complete. Topics which are still to be dealt with
include those of particular concern to agriculture, such as WPZs and DrWPAS. Since
33
agriculture has been identified as one of the main sectors where improvements are
sought, it is essential that the industry is given the fullest opportunity for participation
as well as consultation on future development of the Plan, the Programme of
Measures and what this will mean for the industry. There is a need for the Agency to
develop and maintain excellent channels of communication with agriculture,
including at national as well as at RBD level. We make this point particularly as
there has already been a lack of consultation on some aspects, for example
Scenario C2 and the technical basis of the Plan process.
We are particularly concerned that the Plan appears to goldplate the WFD‟s
requirements in a number of areas which we have already identified, and it is
possible others may emerge. This contrasts with the statement at p9 of the Impact
Assessment that implementation will not go beyond minimum EU requirements. We
therefore believe the Impact Assessment needs to be reviewed in this respect.
We are also concerned to see that the Plan attributes pollution from rural land
management in part to “fertiliser …. use in excess of crop requirements.” No
evidence is produced in support of this contention. Fertiliser rates reported by the
British Survey of Fertiliser Practice indicates that average applications for most crops
are very close to recommended rates. While we believe that there is always scope
for improvement, we challenge the implication that over-application of fertilisers is a
significant issue for most farm crops. We are concerned that the Plan‟s
misapprehension of the true position is liable to distort the selection of measures.
It is also essential that expectations of what the industry can deliver are realistic.
Agriculture can never be a no-impact activity; some of the impacts are avoidable or
can be mitigated, but some are inevitable. For example, a very experienced and
senior researcher considers that reductions in nitrate leaching brought about through
improvements in agricultural practice are unlikely to exceed 10-20% below current
levels, and that further reductions in leaching would be at the expense of yield.
Many of the easy „wins‟ have already been achieved. As the Agency has recognised,
water quality has shown massive improvements in recent years. Around three
quarters of rivers were at good or excellent quality in 2007 under the old
classification system, whereas under the new stringent WFD system less than a
quarter of water bodies are at good ecological status.
The environmental sensitivity of agriculture in the UK is improving, particularly
following the 2003 reform of the CAP with support decoupled from production and
the introduction of cross-compliance. Many regulatory measures are also already in
place, including IPPC and NVZs. The increasing importance of Pillar 2 funding also
brings environmental benefits through Entry Level and Higher Level Stewardship,
both well taken up by the industry. Initiatives aimed particularly at resource
34
protection have also attracted substantial take-up from the industry. These range
from the government-sponsored England Catchment Sensitive Farming Delivery
Initiative (ECSFDI), to industry ventures including the Voluntary Initiative (VI) for
pesticides), the Environmental Plan for Dairy Farming, FACTS, and BASIS. The
industry has also recently launched a nutrient management plan, Professional
Nutrient Management, and its Campaign for the Farmed Environment.
All these actions, combined with changes taking place within the agricultural industry
such as reductions in fertiliser consumption and livestock numbers, are expected to
deliver important improvements in water quality by 2015. Work published by Defra
in 2007, for example, calculated that reductions in phosphate losses under the 2015
baseline scenario would exceed 40% for the poultry, pig and dairy sectors, 25% for
beef and 13% for arable from 2005 levels. It is concerning that we have been unable
to find where the Plan takes account of such improvements already in the pipeline,
which have been assessed under Defra‟s three projects on „Business as Usual‟ for
agriculture in 2015. The recent extensions in NVZ controls in particular should
contribute to reductions in phosphate emissions.
The NVZ regulations have in the past, and will continue to place a heavy financial
burden on the industry following the introduction of the revised Action Programme.
We believe this should be taken into account in the assessment of proportionality for
agriculture. We note that the RBP Guidance (Volume 2) recognises the scale of
recent investment in environmental improvements is a legitimate consideration (para
10.31).
The same Guidance also recognises that the ability of polluters to pay is a key factor
in the assessment of disproportionate costs (para 10.28). In agriculture, prices are
largely set by international commodity markets or large retailers, and individual
producers have little or no pricing power. Costs cannot therefore usually be passed
on, and the classical „polluter pays principle‟ (PPP) which envisages that pollution
costs are internalized in the cost of the product to the consumer cannot operate in
agriculture. This situation contrasts markedly with that for the water industry, the
other sector which is a major source of nutrients. The water sector benefits from
legislation giving it the right to pass through approved environmental costs in full to
customers.
Defra has recognised in its recent policy statement, „Future Water‟, that it will be
“some time” before PPP can be applied fully in the case of agriculture, adding that in
the meantime solutions still need to be found. It is a key concern for the industry as
to what these solutions will be.
Solutions will need to be proportionate and the Agency will need to recognise that it
will become increasingly more costly for the industry to deliver further improvements,
35
not only in financial terms for individual farm businesses, but also in economic terms
for society. The additional value of further improvements to society will progressively
lessen as „good status‟ waters become more prevalent, and this too will serve to shift
the balance of costs to benefits and overall worthwhile-ness to society.
We believe it is important not to lose sight of the role of agriculture in producing food.
The industry‟s fundamental importance in food production is recognised by the
government in „Future Water‟, describing the positive effects of farmers‟ activities as
“necessary food production”. The potential conflicts between this and the delivery of
environmental benefits need to be recognised and accounted for. With climate
change, population growth, and the increase in demand as developing countries
become more prosperous, the increasing pressure on world food supplies raises the
importance of food security. The issue of climate change is also a driver for UK
production as this will tend to have a lower carbon footprint. We also question
whether it would be socially responsible to adopt an approach to agriculture which
resulted in environmental impacts being exported to other parts of the world though
reductions in UK food production.
36
Specific points of relevance to the Humber River Basin Management Plan only
Main document
Page 17, paragraph 3.5.6. It is not necessarily “excess” nutrients that get washed
into watercourses, it‟s just nutrients. We would like to see the word “excess”
removed.
Page 18, Paragraph 3.5.13. To apply exactly the right amount of nutrient and
pesticide at exactly the right time is almost impossible and requires infinite
prescience, certainly an ability to accurately predict the weather, which is something
beyond the compass of even the Environment Agency. The correct applications can
only be ascertained retrospectively, and it is inevitable that the best predictions of
farmers and advisers will sometimes turn out to be wrong.
P42 comment deleted – marketing temporarily suspended
Page 51, paragraph 7.3.6. The costs of measures drastically underestimate the
costs to agriculture of NVZ action programme and WPZ compliance. In the East
Midlands alone the cost to farmers of building slurry stores will be in the region of
£40 million.
Page 54, paragraph 8.2. Please see our comments on WPZs on page 16.
Page 55, paragraph 8.2. Are farm dumps really an issue in this RBD? Should the EA
spend resources on an issue which has not been flagged up so far as a concern?
Government advice at the time was to crush and bury pesticide containers (see also
comments on this topic at Q6 above).
Page 57, paragraph 8.6. We wonder why proportionality of WPZs is uncertain for
the business sector but there are no such doubts for farms?
Annex B
Page 1068 Idle and Torne catchment. It‟s the River Meden not Medan.
Page 1072 idle and Torne catchment. What does track waste streams mean and
why is it an issue in this catchment?
Page 1074 Idle and Torne catchment. I query the best practice for handling and
storing fertiliser. Is there a particular problem with fertiliser application or storage in
this catchment? If so, the proposed action is fine – if not, it seems like an
unnecessary task.
37
Page 1160, Louth Grimsby and Ancholme catchment. The proposed action of farmer
education on control of agrochemicals may be a good one but only if this is justified
by perceived poor practice in the catchment.
Page 1333, Dove catchment. Are non-native species really an issue or an action for
agriculture and rural land management in this catchment? Agriculture is not
responsible for this.
Annex C
Page 6. The availability of grants issue for farm and other reservoirs on this page is
the same as and duplicates that on page 15.
Page 7. The fertiliser industry is addressing this issue.
Page 8. I‟m not sure that farmer education can be targeted and pro-active if it is
supposed to apply to all land managers in the catchment.
Page 9. Same point as for page 8. Also I don‟t know what the notices and general
binding rules are mentioned on this page. Can these two actions be explained more
simply without the precise legislative backing which makes them meaningless to lay
readers.
Page 11. Sludge regs is a shorthand, I suspect, for compliance with the sewage
sludge matrix. If so, the text should be changed. Reference to site specific notices
should be clarified or removed. To remove all risk to the aquifer farmers would have
to effectively stop farming. I don‟t think this is meant.
Page 12. All the separately listed actions from the NVZ action programme should be
amalgamated under one heading of the NVZ action programme.
Page 14. We would like to add an action to Scenario B on precision farming
technology. Precision farming technology can help farmers to manage crops
precisely and accurately. The use of technology such as GPS and extremely
accurate autosteer can deliver more accurate cultivation, drilling and harvesting
along with the more precise application of fertilisers and crop protection products, so
no overlaps occur and lower volumes of input product are used. Mapping of
variability in the field enables management that is more targeted and tailored
precisely to the conditions, optimising inputs and yield and reducing environmental
impacts. We hope the EA will support the uptake of this technology across the
catchment and help to foster increased usage.