« Previous | Contents | Next »
Listen
4. DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROPOSED GENERAL BINDING RULES
4.1 The need for rules in relation to land use
Rural land use includes many activities which are in the category of "controlled activities", that is that they pose a potential threat to water quality and must be subject to authorisation.
Substantial quantities of nutrients such as nitrate and phosphate are lost from Scottish soils each year, and substantial quantities of soil are washed into watercourses. These can and do cause undesirable changes in the quality of water in the environment and can have significant ecological impacts. The risks have been recognised for many years, and action has been taken, mostly on a voluntary basis through good practices promoted by education and guidance, to minimise the adverse impacts. However, the persistence of the impacts on water quality indicates that further improvements are needed in environmental management.
In the Characterisation Report in 2005 SEPA estimated that diffuse pollution was resulting in 25% of the rivers in Scotland being at risk of not achieving good ecological status by 2015. Agriculture and forestry were associated with more than half of the rivers that were judged to be at risk from diffuse pollution: the 'Characterisation and impacts analyses required by
article 5 of the Water Framework Directive' Report ( http://www.sepa.org.uk/pdf/publications/wfd/Article_5_Scotland_River_Basin.pdf).
SEPA has undertaken further assessment of the risks to water quality from diffuse pollution (amongst other pressures) since publication in 2005 of the Characterisation Report. The further work will be published in 2007 as the Significant Water Management Issues Report, and it will inform the development of the draft river basin management plans. Diffuse pollution from agriculture is emerging as the most significant pressure affecting Scotland's rivers and groundwaters and as a significant issue in lochs and coastal waters.
The Strategy in December 2005 proposed that there should be a set of GBRs for rural land use, and listed as examples 15 suggested rules, categorised by the following four activities:
Nutrient and manure management
Land management
Pesticides, Sheep Dip and Veterinary Medicines Handling and Use; and
Surface Water Run-off.
Since the consultation, the Executive has extensively modified the list of measures.
4.2 The formulation of proposed rules for rural land use
Following the strategy consultation, the Executive has been in discussion with stakeholders, including SEPA, Forestry Commission Scotland ( FCS), NFU Scotland and Scottish Environment- LINK. Developing a set of General Binding Rules ( GBRs) to be based on existing guidance and best practice measures has been the focus of these discussions.
The measures proposed are largely taken from the PEPFAA Code, the Sheep Dipping code of practice, the Four Point Plan and Good Agricultural and Environmental Condition ( GAEC). The Forests and Water (F&W) Guidelines (4 th edition, 2003) are the main reference for the forestry measures.
As the GBRs are activity-based, each rule or any part of the rule will apply to any sector which undertakes that activity. These sectors will include golf courses, local authorities and ground maintenance contractors. The proposed set of Rules cover all activities associated with rural and recreational land use, not just farming and forestry.
The national GBRs are intended to minimise the risk from activities which pose a threat to the water environment across Scotland. They will represent a minimum standard which all operators will be expected to adhere to, and as such they will provide a common reference point. As they are primarily based on widely accepted standards of good practice, most land managers should already know how to implement them. Compliance should not involve onerous record-keeping or substantial changes to normal practices.
It is envisaged that they will be introduced in advance of the development of River Basin Management Plans as they represent measures that are applicable across Scotland. The Plans may identify the need for local risk-related measures.
4.3 Criteria for developing the GBRs
Keys to the development of a set of national GBRs are the principles that they are proportionate to risk and that they should be applicable across Scotland.
In the drafting of the list we have had regard to:
Efficacy: that following the rule will benefit the water environment and help prevent any further deterioration. The rule has to be applicable across Scotland;
Acceptability: the proposed rules are based on widely agreed standards which follow and build on those of GAEC and on the PEPFAA Code, both of which have already been discussed with interested parties; the measures should be feasible without requiring substantial additional costs; and
Proportionality: the proposed rules are related to the environmental risks, are not unduly onerous, and take account of a variety of public policy objectives.
The Executive in the Forward Strategy for Scottish Agriculture and other statements has made clear its aim of promoting a sustainable farming industry in a healthy environment. Measures to protect the environment will often represent a balance with maintaining farm incomes over such matters as the land-take of a buffer zone. Certain measures to protect water courses may be needed in intensively farmed lowland areas but not be needed in lightly stocked uplands.
In developing the proposed GBRs we have also had regard to other environmental objectives, such as those for soils, wastes, air quality and climate change. Measures to enhance water quality often have positive effects on biodiversity. The GBRs will dovetail with existing regulations aimed at environmental protection.
There is also a balance to be struck between national rules and further controls. The more demanding the national GBRs are the greater the environmental protection. The system is simple; administrative costs are kept to a minimum, and the same rules apply to everyone, but this is at the risk of having rules which are in some places tighter than are needed to give adequate water protection. Where further controls will be required they will be more specifically risk-related, which will mean being more expensive.
A particular example arises with the distances specified in several of the proposed GBRs. In general with diffuse pollution, the risk is greatest closest to the source(s) and diminishes gradually. Thus an increase in the size of protection zones will undoubtedly reduce the risk, but at a cost in the amount of land-take. However, we consider that specific rules with specified distances need to be made, for fairness and clarity; and the distances specified should be appropriate to the risk from the activity. But such rules cannot be the whole answer; there will continue to be a need for good practice, based on the guidance agreed with farming and environmental interests, and the judgement of farmers and other land managers in particular circumstances.
Often taking care of the environmental risks is in line with good business practice; it is in everyone's interest to minimise the losses of nutrients from farm land. In many cases land managers will already be following the good practice formalised in the proposed rules and therefore will not incur material costs in complying with the GBRs. Where a farmer has to change practices, any additional costs should be matched by environmental benefit.
4.4 Where national GBRs prove insufficient
4.4.1 Possible future developments of the regulatory regime
The GBRs proposed in this consultation are intended to be applicable across Scotland. They should therefore represent a basic level of standards of good practice. However, it is expected that in some places they will not be sufficient to bring about the water quality improvements required to achieve good water status.
SEPA has the responsibility to identify the continuing problems, both in terms of pollutants and of the activities giving rise to their discharge. Where in future there is evidence that the national GBRs are not sufficient to prevent diffuse pollution occurring, or are not stringent enough to meet the objectives of the River Basin Management Plan, SEPA will be expected to propose further action related to, and proportionate to, the risks involved.
This opens up the option of different controls being applied to activities in particular areas, in practice likely to be river catchments. This is in line with the risk-based approach of the Water Framework Directive.
There are essentially three methods by which risk-based selective controls could be introduced:
- Catchment/geographical Targeted General Binding Rules
- Registration with set conditions or
- Licensing
4.4.2 Targeted GBRs
Under the first of these options the area to which the new rules were to apply will have to be designated. Since the risk will often be to rivers, it is likely that some of these areas would be the land draining into those rivers. The designations would have to be set out in legislation. There is already an example of rules which have a geographical application in relation to an identified risk; this is the Action Programme for nitrates, which applies in the 4 nitrate vulnerable zones ( NVZs) in Scotland.
In the NVZ Action Programme, which is currently under review, there are restrictions on when slurry and certain other fertilisers may be spread on land. This in turn requires farmers to have a slurry storage capacity that will be more than sufficient for the closed period. This is additional to, and often more demanding than, the general provisions in the PEPFAA Code to avoid spreading slurry in conditions where it is at a high risk of being lost to the water environment. In future, any targeted GBRs would, like the proposed national GBRs, be an integral part of the CAR.
4.4.3 Registration
The second alternative would be to use the provision in the CAR for registration. Registration may be needed for small scale activities which individually pose a small environmental risk but cumulatively can result in environmental harm.
Registration to control diffuse pollution is envisaged where the risk from a particular pollutant or activity to the water environment is high. Registration would involve the signing up to a set of conditions, similar to but more prescriptive than the national GBRs.
An advantage of the registration option is that it would enable site-specific controls to be implemented within the areas where they are required. Where SEPA decides that certain enterprises or activities in a catchment are giving rise to diffuse pollution, it is only those identified that need to be registered. SEPA would thus also have the flexibility to return catchments to 'national' GBR status. In contrast, targeted GBRs (without registration) would have to apply to all enterprises involved in a specified activity in the catchment.
There would be a registration application fee for the operators of such activities. At present there is not an annual charge for registration, but it is likely that there would be an annual subsistence charge to reflect SEPA's costs of monitoring and inspection of the activity.
4.4.4 Licensing
The simple licensing of individual rural land use operations is a possible third option. Licences allow for site-specific conditions to be set to protect the water environment. Licences will be specific to that individual operation and the particular operator.
Application fees also apply to licences and an annual subsistence charge will apply.
Licences on a simple or on a complex basis already apply to other sectors of the economy under the CAR.
The Executive and SEPA are planning to develop, in collaboration with other interested parties, proposals for further control measures in 2007-08. The aim is that any such additional rules will be closely related to the activities and the places which give rise to identified risks.
4.5. GBRs by activity
The proposed GBRs relate to some 7 activities, primarily in agriculture and forestry, which are identified as potential risks to water quality:
1. The storage or application of fertiliser
2. The keeping of livestock
3. The cultivation of land
4. The discharge of surface water
5. The construction of waterbound roads
6. The handling and use of pesticides
7. The operation of sheep dipping facilities
It is proposed that the rules should apply, as GBRs normally do, to any operator carrying out these activities, eg the handling and use of pesticides. However, an operator applying only small amounts, such as up to one litre of pesticide per year, on a non-commercial basis, could be subject to less stringent rules.
The costs and benefits will be set out in a Regulatory Impact Assessment.
Q1. Do you consider a set of national GBRs with the option of further controls in certain areas is the best approach?
Q2. Which of the proposed types of further control measures do you consider would be the most appropriate or effective in achieving an improvement in water quality?
« Previous | Contents | Next »