« Previous | Contents | Next »
Listen
3. CURRENT MEASURES FOR THE CONTROL OF DIFFUSE POLLUTION
The problems and associated impacts of diffuse pollution from agriculture/rural land use have been extensively documented. SEPA's characterisation report identified the pressures and impacts on Scottish waters and Custodians of Change amongst others has made recommendations on methods of combating diffuse water pollution from agriculture. This section describes a range of measures that are in place, considered here under the headings of Regulations, Guidance and voluntary action, and Support.
3.1. Current regulations
3.1.1 General
Farming is, like other industries, subject to the general provisions of the Control of Pollution Act 1974; these general provisions are now being superseded by the Controlled Activities Regulations 2005. The regulatory regime is the responsibility of SEPA, and it includes powers in the Anti-Pollution Works Regulations 2003 for SEPA to issue works notices where SEPA has reason to believe that pollution is occurring or might occur if action is not undertaken. In practice most current legislation is effective in relation to point source pollution, but not so useful in preventing or mitigating diffuse pollution.
Most farmers recognise the need for Government to regulate their activities and the essential part that regulation plays in limiting the potentially unwelcome impacts of farming and helping promote a level playing field within the industry. We all share an interest in delivering better results for animal health and welfare, worker safety, food safety and for the environment.
In agriculture the main legislation specific to farming is the Silage, Slurry, and Agricultural Fuel Oil (Scotland) Regulations 2003 (the SSAFO Regulations).
Current legislation also includes
- The Pollution Prevention and Control (Scotland) Regulations 2003
Applicable to certain intensive types of pig or poultry operations.
- The Nitrate Vulnerable Zone ( NVZ) Action Programme Regulations 2003
NVZs cover 14% of Scotland and include much of the arable land of Eastern Scotland
- Groundwater Regulations 1998
Applies to the disposal of waste sheep dip which is subject to authorisation by SEPA and requires inspection once every 4 years.
There is evidence that the SSAFO Regulations have helped reduce substantially the volume and severity of water pollution due to silage effluent or slurry, and the groundwater controls are believed to have helped reduce sheep dip pollution. It is too early to assess the effectiveness of the NVZ measures, many of which came into effect only in the second half of 2003. The Anti-Pollution Works Regulations 2003 and The Groundwater Regulations 1998 will be replaced by the provisions of CAR in April 2006.
The WFD dovetails with, but does not repeal, several other Directives, and it will be necessary to fulfil their requirements in order achieve good ecological status. The proposed regulatory approach also seeks to fulfil the requirements of these Directives. These Directives are listed below:
- The Nitrates Directive
The implications for diffuse pollution are discussed in section 3.1.2.
- Bathing Waters Directive
The quality of Scotland's bathing water is at risk from diffuse pollution containing bacteria from both human and animal sources, which can have serious health consequences. Run-off from agriculture and urban sources can often end up draining into our seas and lochs. The Bathing Waters Directive and the Bathing Waters (Classification) (Scotland) Regulations seek to protect bathers by imposing minimum acceptable quality standards, which we are legally obliged to adhere to. The minimisation of diffuse pollution from agriculture would assist in achieving these standards.
- Shellfish Water Directive
As with Bathing Waters, reducing microbiological contamination from agriculture as well as urban sources will help meet the aims of this Directive.
- Freshwater Fish Directive
Reducing soil, manure and slurry run off will help to meet standards in waters designated under this directive.
3.1.2 The Nitrate Vulnerable Zone ( NVZ) Action Programme
Farmers in the NVZs, which constitute 14% of the land area of Scotland, are required to implement an Action Programme which includes measures designed to protect waters, including groundwater, from nutrients.
Key features of the Action Programme are:
Manure and fertiliser management plans
Restrictions, dependent on weather, season and proximity to water, on the application of chemical "inorganic" fertilisers
Limits on the deposition of organic manure per hectare and thus on the stocking rates
Restrictions, dependent on weather, season and proximity to water, on the spreading of slurry; and (implicitly)
Increased slurry storage capacity.
Farmers in the NVZs are required to keep records of their application of fertilisers. In general the restrictions are designed to prevent the application of nitrogen-containing fertilisers at times and in conditions when they are not well used by a growing crop, for instance when the ground is very wet or in autumn, when there is rarely a requirement for additional N on winter sown cereal crops. Many farmers in Scotland have found the Action Programme less difficult than expected. Indeed many have commented that it has not curtailed their farming plan, and even the record-keeping is not very different from that which they were doing under a quality assurance scheme.
Since manures and many fertilisers also contain phosphates, measures to limit nitrate run-off and leaching will generally help prevent the run-off of phosphates, which is normally an important factor in the eutrophication of freshwaters.
It is widely recognised that increasing the efficiency of the use of nutrients is the key to achieving the control required under the Nitrates Directive consistent with a productive farming industry. Measures in the NVZ Action Programme include restrictions on the periods when spreading of fertilisers or slurry is allowed and/or on the conditions when spreading should not take place, such as when the soil is waterlogged. Such rules are in line with established good practice.
The Nitrates Directive permits different measures in different areas. It envisages that there will be supplementary measures if the basic measures of an Action Programme appear not to be achieving the desired effect.
The Action Programme measures are being reviewed in Scotland and in England and Wales. The Department is currently in discussion with DEFRA and the European Commission regarding future standards and intends to issue a consultation paper early in 2006. In Northern Ireland, the whole territory has been designated under the Nitrates Directive and an Action Programme is being introduced, which includes tighter controls than those in the Scottish Action Programme.
3.1.3 Current regulations: conclusions
It may be noted that anti-pollution legislation is generally aimed at "point sources". The main exception is the Nitrates Action Programme which applies in a substantial proportion of the agricultural area of Scotland; its measures are aimed at diffuse pollution from nutrients. However, there is no comprehensive piece of legislation which targets diffuse pollution. The continuing significance of diffuse pollution pressures is a clear demonstration that there is a need for an approach targeted at diffuse pollution.
3.2 Guidance and voluntary action
3.2.1 Guidance
The Executive has issued guidance, drawn up in consultation with agricultural interests, on minimising diffuse pollution. There are a number of examples of voluntary action led by or involving the active participation of farmers. The Executive supports a range of education and outreach activities, such as the Project Officer in Water Resource Management and the advisory activity delivered by SAC on pollution prevention.
The principal guidance is the Prevention of Environmental Pollution from Agricultural Activities ( PEPFAA) Code. The Executive issued the revised Code in 2005 after detailed consultations. The summarised Do's and Don'ts Guide has been issued to all farmers in Scotland, and the Scottish Agricultural College will be running a number of seminars on the revised Guide. The revised guidance incorporates information on cross-compliance as well as on nitrates and phosphates, previously the subject of a supplementary guidance note. The Code provides advice on aspects of diffuse pollution control, distinguishing which measures are mandatory under statute, which are required under cross-compliance and which are advisory.
The PEPFAA Code is an essential part of the definition of Good Farming Practice ( GFP). Under the Common Agriculture Policy GFP is a condition of eligibility for Pillar 2 payments, such as Less Favoured Area support and agri-environment payments. However from 2007, the cross-compliance requirements for both Pillar 1 and Pillar 2 will be adherence to the Statutory Management Requirements ( SMRs) and to Good Agricultural and Environmental Condition. The protection currently afforded to the water environment through GFP will need to be preserved or enhanced, and this may require new measures where the topics covered are not fully addressed by the SMRs or GAEC.
In consultation with project partner bodies ( NFUS, SAC, SEPAWWF and SNH), the Executive issued the 4 Point Plan for livestock farmers in November 2002 (re-issued in March 2004). The Plan is designed to encourage farmers to minimise diffuse pollution and make effective use of manures and slurries. The Executive has been funding a Project Officer to promote the 4 Point Plan, and several successful workshops have been held with dairy farmers and other livestock farmers. The Scottish Agricultural College also produces a range of technical notes including one on recommendations for fertiliser use.
A Farm Soils Plan, which contains guidance on soils, erosion, nutrient management and protecting water quality and developed by the partnership which delivered the 4 Point Plan mentioned above, is to be published this autumn.
The Executive also issued a Code of Practice on Sheep Dipping in March 2003. The guidance was made to ensure compliance with the Groundwater Regulations, under which SEPA authorises the disposal of waste dip, but it also provides guidance on the whole of the dipping operation.
The Voluntary Initiative, which runs from 2003 to 2006, is managed by the farming industry, supported by the Crop Protection Association. It is designed to promote and encourage good practice in the use of pesticides, including herbicides. Key features are Crop Protection Management Plans, the National Sprayer Testing Scheme and the National Register of Sprayer Operators. The indications are that the scheme is being successful in meeting its targets and securing improvements in the use of crop protection chemicals.
3.2.2 Forestry guidance
The Forestry Commission first produced the Forests and Water Guidelines in 1988, and revisions in 1991, 1993 and 2003 have ensured that the guidance continues to reflect the results of recent research and experience. As with the PEPFAA Code, this is a comprehensive guidance document targeting a well defined audience.
The Forests and Water Guidelines apply equally to the State and private sectors. Forestry grant approvals throughout the UK and felling licences in England, Scotland and Wales are subject to the standards and guidance set out in the Guidelines. Following the Guidelines is also a condition for compliance with EIA Regulations for those forestry activities that are subject to these regulations.
The guidelines have no formal legal status but, in the event of a prosecution, failure to follow the guidelines is likely to affect adversely the position of the forest owner, contractor, or sub-contractor.
3.2.3 Best Management Practices
SEPA is developing Best Management Practice ( BMP) guidance, primarily for farm advisors, but which can also potentially be used by farmers. The guidance consists of three parts:
- Farm Scale Diffuse Pollution Audit - this gives guidance on assessing pollution risks from fields, steadings and management activities including nutrient budgeting and manure management planning.
- Siting and Suitability of BMPs - this gives guidance on diffuse pollution mitigation methods following the treatment train approach, focusing on what BMPs are suitable and where.
- BMP Handbook - this is a comprehensive listing of all BMPs currently in practice, here and abroad.
Research The Executive has recently funded a number of research pilot projects aimed at assessing various ways of controlling diffuse pollution from agriculture. A major project between 2002 and 2004 has been the Farm Pilots Project at a cost of approximately £3m. This aimed to identify pollution mitigation and remediation measures that could be applied to farms where diffuse agricultural pollution was putting bathing waters at risk. The studies were carried out on 48 farms in 4 catchments (Nairn, Sandyhills, Cessnock and Ettrick Bay, Bute), chosen as significant for compliance with the Bathing Waters Directive. The focus was on measures that would prevent or minimise the run-off of faecal organisms to marine water; however, the measures are generally relevant to the prevention of diffuse pollution to freshwaters as well as the sea. The measures were of two main types: field measures in two catchments and steading measures in the other two. Steading measures included examples of the separation of clean from dirty water, enabling the volume of slurry and other dirty water to be dealt with to be kept manageable. The studies have shown that some improvements can usually be made at little cost, but that others, especially the expansion of slurry storage, have substantial costs. It has also been shown that a large proportion of the problem areas within a catchment need to be improved for there to be a significant effect on water quality. A similar study was also undertaken for the Brighouse Bay catchment. Reports for the studies can be found at http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Environment/Water/15561/15068. Further evaluation of the work continues. SEPA also did 2000 farm visits and follow ups in conjunction with the project and achieved good results. Significant improvements have been shown, mostly at costs of less than £5000 per farm, in the control of diffuse pollution. A full report from SEPA is due to be published. Further work is investigating the concept of farm-scale anaerobic digestion (biogas) and aerobic composting as ways of reducing the bacteria content of slurry and farm yard manure before the product is spread on the land. In a £2.8m project, seven biogas plants and 3 composting sheds have been constructed in two small catchments (Saltcoats and Sandyhills). A report is due soon, following which policy implications will be assessed. Currently the potential of farm ponds, reedbeds and other constructed wetlands to treat potentially contaminated water from farm steading areas is being investigated. The advantages of such treatment by natural processes are obvious, and the potential is well known. SEPA with funding from the Executive has constructed 5 farm ponds in 2004-05, and consideration is being given to how they might best be evaluated. This research will enable us to answer questions about how much capacity is required to assure effective results, and what guidance can be given to farmers and advisers on the design, construction and maintenance of farm ponds. |
3.2.4 Related initiatives
In this paper we list briefly only a few of the initiatives taken that involve farmers in voluntary action to secure environmental improvements.
TIBRE - Targeted Inputs for a Better Rural Environment - is an initiative by Scottish Natural Heritage which aims to show that environmentally responsible farming can be compatible with intensive methods and clear business objectives. Many new developments in technology which will improve the business performance of the farm can reduce the risk to the environment that may result from farming:
LEAF - Linking Environment and Farming - a network of farmers, environmentalists, food and agricultural organisations, consumers, government and academics established to develop and promote Integrated Farm Management.
FWAG - Farming and Wildlife Advisory Group, an organisation of local groups which provide farmers and landowners with practical advice on making adjustments to farm operations and enhancing farm features in order to support wildlife, landscape, archaeology, access and other conservation issues while continuing to farm commercially.
Monitor Farms - There are currently 5 monitor farms established or being established in Scotland; they are funded largely by SEERAD and QMS. A monitor farm project is a system of facilitated knowledge and technology transfer in which a group approach is adopted to problem solving. A community of farms participate; the focus is on a 'typical' farm in an area which acts as a source of data for benchmarking. The participating farmers, aided by an independent facilitator, discuss current practices, and devise and suggest alternative management plans and best practice strategies which could be adopted by the Monitor Farm. The effect of the adopted changes can be monitored via the benchmarking data. Feedback shows that Monitor farms have been taken up enthusiastically and have begun to be successful in changing attitudes and practices among participating farms. Enhanced adoption of good environmental practice might be engendered by adopting the Monitor Farms approach.
Farmers have participated in a number of other catchment programmes, for example in the Tweed, Loch Leven and the Aberdeenshire Dee. These have proved the benefits of co-operation and have shown impressive results in protecting and enhancing river water quality.
3.2.5 Guidance: conclusions
The importance of guidance and the voluntary approach is recognised in achieving cost-effective pollution control. There are many examples where voluntary action has achieved water quality benefits over and above what could have been achieved by a regulatory approach alone.
However, although the voluntary approach has the potential to deliver good practice across the farming and forest industries, it cannot be expected to provide the targeted approach that we believe is essential to delivering the required reduction in diffuse pollution.
3.3 Support
3.3.1 Agri-environment schemes and Natural Care
The Scottish Executive has provided support for many years through agri-environment schemes, for instance in the Rural Stewardship Scheme. While many of the measures supported are aimed at the protection of wildlife and the promotion of biodiversity, they also involve the protection of the water environment essential to wildlife. The Executive also supports organic farming through the Organic Aid Scheme to deliver significant biodiversity, pollution control and soil protection benefits associated with organic farming methods. Similarly, SNH's Natural Care scheme is aimed at ecological protection, but often requires commitment to the protection from nutrients or pesticides of watercourses, lochs and coastal waters.
Environmental performance is a specification within the Whole Farm Review Scheme. Under the FarmBASS initiative farmers can call on the expertise of an accredited advisor to point out issues that could be contributing to water pollution on farm land. The advisors in their review reports will recommend, if required, corrective action to meet with current environmental legislation. Where more specialist advice on specific problems is necessary, the farmer should be referred to the relevant organisation.
3.3.2 CAP Reform: Land Management Contracts
The Reform of the Common Agricultural Policy ( CAP), introduced in Scotland with effect from 1 January 2005, gives greater emphasis to environmental objectives, including the protection of the water environment. The Single Farm Payments, by decoupling support from production, will reduce the incentive to maximise output and may thus be expected to result in less intensive farming, particularly where the land is marginal.
A new system of support, Land Management Contracts ( LMCs), is being introduced by SEERAD. LMCs are intended to have social and economic as well as environmental benefits and will consist of three tiers: Tier 1 is the Single Farm Payment and cross-compliance which was introduced this year, Tier 2 is the Menu Scheme which was also introduced this year, and Tier 3, which will replace the Rural Stewardship Scheme and the Organic Aid Scheme, will be introduced in 2007.
Cross-compliance ("Tier 1") includes Statutory Management Requirements, which includes provisions of the Nitrates Directive, and a set of other measures (" GAEC") which farmers are required to follow as a condition of receiving the Single Farm Payment. Cross-compliance thus includes the requirement for the farmer to keep the land in Good Agricultural and Environmental Condition ( GAEC), especially the protection of soil. Among the conditions are that farmers should prevent soil erosion or the run-off of soils and other material to watercourses. As a guideline, farmers are advised to leave a buffer strip of two metres of ground uncultivated and unsprayed next to any watercourse or other living boundary. Farmers should also avoid the compaction or poaching of ground which tends to result in excessive surface water run-off and erosion risk. The GAEC provisions will be reviewed within 4 years.
The LMC Menu Scheme (Tier 2) lists some 17 measures which farmers may adopt and claim payment at set rates provided that certain standards are met.
Three of these measures are directly linked to reducing diffuse pollution. In particular, the Scheme can provide support for a buffer zone, at least 3m wide, but not necessarily in the form of a linear strip. Farmers will be able to claim a contribution to the cost of drawing up and implementing nutrient management planning; this is expected to mean that the application of fertilisers, both natural (such as manure) and artificial, will be better targeted. Farmers will also be able to claim a payment towards the good maintenance of ditches; this measure emphasises the retention of bankside vegetation. Some of the other measures, such as moorland management and the retention of ground cover in winter, are aimed at soil protection, and in doing so should help prevent soils being washed into watercourses.
The Executive is developing proposals for the development of Land Management Contracts under the new Rural Development Regulation. This should include some revision of the Menu Scheme as well as the development of the new Tier 3. Both sets of measures will be financed with the help of modulation, and the level of resources to be made is not yet determined. However, there is clearly scope for the support of farming that aims to manage and enhance water resources.
Several of the existing RSS prescriptions, such as the Creation and Management of Wetland and the Management of Water Margins, are designed to enhance the water environment. Measures that can be standardised, such as ditch maintenance, may be suitable for the Menu Scheme, while measures tailored to meet specific objectives, such as the construction of farm ponds, are more likely to be candidates for Tier 3. Priorities for rural development spending from 2007, including the scope and content of LMCs, will be the subject of a separate consultation in February 2006.
3.3.3 Forestry
Support through the Scottish Forestry Grant Scheme helps woodland owners to achieve good practice. This involves support for the planting of trees and for managing riparian woodlands.
3.3.4 Support: conclusions
The resources for LMCs are limited, and participation by farmers is voluntary. The Reform of the CAP with the development of Land Management Contracts cannot be expected to bring about the scale of reduction of diffuse pollution that will be needed to meet good water standards across all of rural Scotland. Even so, it is hoped that in the revision of Land Management Contracts care will be taken to design measures which provide incentives, and reward farmers, for action to protect the water environment.
Questions
3. What aspects do you consider may require regulation or to be more rigorously controlled using existing powers of enforcement?
4. Do you consider that advice on water pollution risks, within the PEPFAA Code and/or the Forest and Water Guidelines, is effective? If not, what else is required?
5. Which measures to protect watercourses would you wish to see eligible for financial support under the planned Tier 3 of LMCs?
« Previous | Contents | Next »