This note summarises the questions arising from the recent NVZ meetings to inform farmers of the proposed changes to the NVZ Action Programme, and outlines the answers given. It is a composite of the questions raised as many questions were repeated at various meetings.
A. General issues
1. Q - When will the consultation be issued?
A - We hope that it will be issued within a month. Thereafter there will be a 3 month consultation period. After the consultation outcome is assessed, measures will be devised and should come into force in December 2006. There will be a transitional period for slurry storage measures, acknowledging that new facilities take time to put in place.
2. Q - Is the forthcoming consultation only about the proposed changes, or can we address any aspect of the existing Action Programme too?
A - The consultation will cover the changes. Comments will also be invited on all aspects of the existing Action Programme.
3. Q - Is this a genuine consultation process?
A - Yes. Comments and suggestions will be considered carefully within the framework of the Directive.
4. Q - It appears that SEERAD are just changing the rules to avoid EU fines. Given the likely costs to industry, why can't we just ignore Europe and accept the fines, surely that would be cheaper?
A - This is not an option. Fines for infraction are considerable and tend to be applied on a daily basis until compliance is achieved. It also needs to be remembered that the UK agreed to the Directive in 1991 and its Action Programmes contain measures to prevent, or at least minimise the risk of, nitrates from agricultural sources polluting the water environment.
5. Q - Is this just gold plating?
A - No, the UK is currently in breach of the Directive by allowing more than the permitted 170kg N loading per hectare from organic manure on grassland. Our legislation requires Scottish Ministers to review, and if necessary, revise the action programme measures at least every 4 years, taking account of available scientific and technical data. Additionally, the provisions embody good practice measures that are in the PEPFAA Code.
6. Q - Why is there not more engagement with the industry to discuss how to allow sufficient flexibility in farming operations?
A - SEERAD has always been willing to engage with the industry to discuss how to do this in the most effective way, for example our discussions with NFUS officials on guidance about application of Autumn N to winter cereals.
7. Q - There is no science to support the reduction to 170 kg N/ha.
A - The reduction to 170 kg N/ha is an inescapable legal requirement that the UK is obliged to implement under the terms of the Nitrates Directive. It is based on the proposition that the risk to the water environment increases substantially with the amount of N.
8. Q - Will a derogation be applied for to allow farmers to use 250 kg N/ha on grassland?
A - Yes, but the EC have made it clear that a derogation will not be considered until the UK has compliant NVZ Action Programmes. Denmark, the Netherlands and Austria have all recently been granted derogations, which come with very strict conditions attached. The derogation is implemented at a farm specific level, and farmers must apply to renew them each year. A derogation will probably only apply to grassland farmers and is unlikely to be of benefit to other producers e.g. pig farmers.
9. Q - Did SEERAD forget to apply for a derogation this year?
A - SEERAD did not forget to apply for a derogation. The European Commission has made it clear that a derogation will not be considered until the UK is compliant with the Directive.
10. Q - Some farmers need a simpler regime for low intensity farming. Can a simplified option be made available?
A - We will consider this, but it is difficult to build flexibility into a simplified regime. Even with a simplified regime some requirements are inescapable. For example, it would not be possible to opt out of a need for record keeping and planning. A simple system would need to satisfy monitoring requirements.
11. Q - What about the rest of the world, are they complying with restrictions to nitrate, we have to compete at world prices?
A - The Nitrates Directive applies across the European Union. The USA and Canada both restrict the application of nitrogen, and New Zealand is currently consulting on measures to control nitrates from agricultural sources.
12. Q - How much nitrate is there in rainfall?
A - There is a small, or low, nitrate content in rainfall (up to approximately 25 kg nitrate/ha) and this is generally offset by the natural leaching process. These natural background inputs are small compared with the loadings which can result from agricultural activities.
B. NVZ designation issues
13. Q - Who decided where to draw the NVZ line?
A - The Scottish Executive drew up the NVZ boundaries. In general the line relates to the catchment area and excludes upland areas. To establish the zones, advice was sought from SEPA on the concentration of nitrate from agricultural sources in the waters, from the British Geological Survey (BGS) on the geology and groundwater aquifers in the catchments and from the Macaulay Institute on agricultural land use within each catchment.
(The consultation does not propose any changes to the NVZ designated areas.)
14. Q - How can you place the same restrictions on different farms when the nitrate levels in the water are clearly different?
A - Each individual sampling point is part of a representative monitoring network. The Action Programme measures are applied across all farms within the NVZs, in line with the legislation, because the nitrate contribution at any one monitoring point will be affected by inputs from a wide area.
15. Q - The difference between two of the sites shows a tenfold difference within a 20 mile distance. Why aren't you looking at why that should be?
A - Where there is a particularly high reading SEPA will notify SEERAD and investigate whether the local sampling point is subject to contamination. As the objective of the Directive and of the measures is to safeguard the water environment, unacceptably high concentrations will need to be investigated further.
16. Q - Surface waters appear to show relatively low nitrate levels in some NVZs. The levels do not appear to be increasing and in some cases there appears to be a minor decrease. Why are you tightening the restrictions?
A - Yes and this is encouraging, but not all surface waters have low concentrations of nitrates and in some the nitrate concentration is showing a slight increase. The concentration of nutrients in river water is often diluted with water from upland areas. It is also important to remember that it is the overall load of nutrients transported by rivers to estuarine and coastal waters which can promote eutrophication. The designations were based on the risks to groundwater and the data shows that several sites breach the limits. Groundwater does not respond as quickly as surface waters to mitigation measures and in some cases it could be decades before there is any response. It is also important to note that groundwater forms the base flow for many rivers during dry periods.
17. Q - Nitrate levels are only a problem in ground water. Could the rise be due to time lag? Will ground water not follow surface water? Why not wait and see whether the situation improves before making changes?
A - There have been small reductions of nitrate in some surface waters, but as yet no indication of a sustained downward trend in concentrations in groundwaters. The relationship between nitrates, soil and water is complex and there is no guarantee that small reductions in surface waters will be reflected in groundwaters. In some deep aquifers there is evidence of a rising trend of nitrate concentrations. The time lag issue is accepted, but there is no evidence to suggest that the problem is under control.
18. Q - Is there any chance of a derogation or special case for Lower Nithsdale NVZ when nitrate levels do not appear very high? Would it be possible to have a longer transition period before farmers must comply, considering costs involved?
A - We recognise that nitrate concentrations in the River Nith and in deeper groundwater are low, but several sites monitored by BGS show concentrations that exceed the Directive's standards. There are no plans at present to treat Lower Nithsdale differently from the other NVZs. However, suggestions may be submitted to the consultation, for example on longer transitional periods.
19. Q - What is your policy for an exit strategy?
A - Nitrate levels in surface and groundwaters are regularly reviewed in line with the Directive using data from a network of sites. NVZ areas are reviewed at least every four years. If N levels in an NVZ reduce such that the Directive's standards are met, we will consider de-designation.
20. Q - Very few boreholes are for drinking water, so why are we worrying?
A - The Nitrates Directive concerns all waters, not just those used for drinking. The loss of nitrate from agricultural sources to the water environment, especially estuaries and coastal waters, is a significant issue and can contribute to or cause eutrophication.
21. Q - There is no justification for the limit of 50 mg NO3/litre.
A - We recognise that there is a debate about the limit. 50 mg nitrate per litre is the limit in the Directive and cannot be changed. The level of 50 mg N03/l is set by the World Health Organisation in its guidelines on drinking water and has been adopted as a European standard. The levels of nitrates need to be controlled for environmental reasons as well as human health.
22. Q - The huge numbers of geese on Loch Leven can produce 15,000 - 27,000 kg manure a day!.
A - We appreciate that there may be significant localised inputs at some sites from wild birds. However, agriculture is by far the biggest contributor in terms of nutrient losses in most catchments.
23. Q -Has the BGS survey been ongoing in Lower Nithsdale?
A- A specific survey was carried out on these sites in 2002; this was repeated two years later, and this confirmed the initial findings. SEPA has been requested to incorporate some of these sites into their monitoring network, and will report the findings at subsequent reviews.
C. Assistance and compensation
24. Q - Will there be a grant scheme?
A - There is no money available for this. We are exploring whether options exist but cannot offer any guarantee.
25. Q - Under the original NVZ grant scheme, storage systems were designed to provide only 3-4 months storage. This was done under the best scientific advice at the time. Farmers are now going to be disadvantaged by previous SEERAD rules if more storage is required. Is there any possibility of grant being extended?
A - We do not expect to be able to extend the previous grant scheme due to EU State Aid rules.
26. Q - Will there be any compensation for farmers who have to reduce their stock numbers in order to meet the new organic N loadings?
A - We will not be able to provide compensation for reductions in stocking rates to comply with the Directive.
D. NVZ guidance
27. Q - Will we get new explanatory notes/farmer guidelines? Will they be more user friendly?
A - We will review and revise the guidelines to reflect the changes and we will make every effort to make them as straightforward as we can.
28. Q - Why is guidance not trialled on farmers?
A - We intend to trial the guidance with stakeholders during this exercise.
29. Q - The NVZ CD ROM does not work.
A - We acknowledge that the CD ROM had distinct limitations and we are currently looking at options for providing a replacement.
E. Closed periods
30. Q - Your figures indicate that most leaching is occurring in Oct/Nov, so why not have a 2 month closed period?
A - We agree that leaching risk diminishes from November on sandy soils, but occurs for longer on heavier soils. We also have to take run-off into account and to incorporate a safety margin. Other EU member states have introduced more stringent requirements.
31. Q - If the figures are low when we have a one month closed period, why are we increasing the closed period?
A - There is evidence that a high amount of leaching occurs when slurry is spread in the autumn. The risk of leaching remains high for a number of months.
32. Q - If you want to stop run off, will it be possible to have the closed period finish earlier if the slurry is incorporated to stop run off?
A - There are no plans for this at the moment, but it will be considered as an option.
33. Q - Will we have to notify Area Offices of instances when we intend to spread slurry under the "exception" rules? What if we intend to use the exceptions and then are unable to do so due to weather conditions? Will penalties apply?
A - There will be no need to notify Area Offices. If weather conditions prevent sowing by the due date we will accept evidence of intent - e.g. evidence of seed purchase.
34. Q - Creation of a 5 month closed period could lead to greater problems as farmers will try to get rid of slurry prior to the start of the closed period.
A - We are currently consulting on the length of the closed period and the quantities and timings of applications which will be allowed. It is important that all manures and slurries are applied in accordance with the PEPFAA Code.
35. Q - Is there not a risk that everyone will apply slurry at the end of the closed period therefore creating a greater risk of leakage?
A - It is important to apply slurry when it is needed as well as when the conditions are right. One of the proposals in the consultation document is a quantitative restriction on the amount of slurry that can be applied in February.
F. Arable issues
36. Q - We should complete the current field trials assessing N requirements for modern cereals varieties before changing the rules?
A - Recommendations will be reviewed in the light of trial results. There is already a great deal of evidence on crop requirements, but these can be updated in the light of any new evidence.
37. Q - Are we to lose the exception for inorganic nitrogen fertiliser application in the autumn?
A - The autumn N arrangements will not be removed at present. The position will be reviewed in the light of trial results.
38. Q - Are more trials being carried out on Winter Barley with regard to optimum nitrogen rates, the autumn nitrogen situation and soil nitrogen testing?
A - There are five winter barley trials in the ground at the moment; these are looking at the effects of autumn nitrogen. From previous trials there has been no evidence of a blanket response to the application of autumn nitrogen to winter cereals.
39. Q - Why is there not more flexibility on the maximum amount of N that can be applied to certain crops? SEERAD is interpreting the SAC recommendations as a statutory limit.
A - SEERAD acknowledges the concern of the industry and we are prepared to listen and to see whether we can incorporate a measure of flexibility. The recommendation system is a process. The result from that process is the N requirement to apply. We must not apply beyond crop requirement, in line with the Directive.
40. Q - Will you look at results of other trials e.g. Scottish Agronomy and TAG?
A - SEERAD will look at all scientifically robust results and seek peer review where appropriate.
41. Q - Are there any changes proposed to the rules for vegetable waste?
A - No.
42. Q - Will you be including recommendations for other crops such as spring wheat, soft fruit and vegetables in new guidance documents?
A - Yes. Recommendations for spring wheat and soft fruit will be provided. Recommendations for vegetables are already available on the SEERAD web site.
43. Q - Why not use the English recommendation system (RB 209) in Scotland ?
A - Fertiliser N rates in RB209 were specifically designed for English conditions and are inappropriate for Scottish conditions in a number of important situations, particularly in relation to soil texture and organic matter. For this reason a separate system developed by SAC applies to Scotland.
44. Q - In some cases farmers are being penalised when the excess over the guideline recommendation is in single figures. Surely this is inappropriate?
A - This will always be liable to happen. A line has to be drawn at some point, and there will always be cases that just exceed it. But SEERAD are willing to discuss exactly where the line needs to be.
45. Q - The residue group following potatoes is higher in Scotland, compared to the guidance used in England . Is this correct and how is it going to be resolved?
A - We will look at concerns that modern potato agronomy results in lower N residues than previously. Under the existing arrangements, we allow flexibility where the potato crop has been particularly high yielding. In these circumstances it may be possible to demonstrate that more nitrogen has been removed in the crop than was applied. Growers taking advantage of this flexibility must retain adequate records to verify yields etc.
46. Q - What about new science? Many farmers are using GPS equipment for N application. How will this be taken into account?
A - We agree that better targeting of fertiliser applications is in everyone's interest, and welcome any new technology that assists in more efficient use of nitrogen fertiliser.
G. Livestock and manure issues
47. Q - Why ban high trajectory slurry spreaders?
A - The spreaders can cause atomisation and drift, potentially leading to air pollution. It may frequently lead to inaccurate spreading. This is a simple modification or adjustment that will improve practice.
48. Q - Can we still store solid pig manure in field middens?
A - Yes. Solid straw-based pig manure can be stored in field middens so long as this is done in line with the NVZ rules.
49. Q - Why can't we spread solid farmyard manure on frosty ground?
A - We are considering allowing straw based manures to be spread on frozen ground in areas shown as low or moderate risk on the RAMS (risk assessment) map.
50. Q - Is the RAMS risk assessment a one-off thing?
A - The RAMS assessment will be normally be a one-off operation, providing a clear indication of risks inherent in spreading slurry over the whole of the farm in the NVZ. But it will need to be reviewed if circumstances change - e.g. if new land is acquired.
51. Q - I have a small battery chicken unit which will be outlawed in 2011, when cages will be banned. I have little or no storage for muck, what are my options as investment in this operation is not an option?
A - Cases like this may have to be looked at on an individual basis, and there may be various management options that can be considered e.g. composting.
52. Q - Should the guidance include more information on incorporation? Delaying incorporation of slurry creates a separate pollution problem, because a greater proportion of N will be lost to the air through volatilisation.
A - There is a balance to be struck between volatilisation and leaching. This is one of the things we need to consider.
53. Q - The PEPFAA Code says that slurry should not be spread on weekends or public holidays. The NVZ regulations will further reduce days available for spreading. Will farmers be allowed to spread on weekends and public holidays in the future?
A - NVZ regulations don't prohibit spreading on weekends and public holidays. However, in the interests of public relations the PEPFAA Code suggests that you should avoid slurry spreading at these times.
54. Q - Is leaching likely to be a problem in the autumn with low N soils which have had a low nitrogen input earlier in the year?
A - There is a high amount of leaching when slurry is applied in the autumn, even when there was low nitrogen input earlier in the year.
55. Q - What about heavy soils? 250 units might not get down to groundwaters, whenever you spread?
A - There is likely to be less leaching on heavy soils, but there is a higher risk of run-off on heavy land. Run-off is one of the factors considered in the consultation document. Identification of low risk areas/heavy soils in the RAMS map may lead to more flexibility.
56. Q - Can dirty water be applied in the closed period for example using low rate irrigation systems?
A - Yes. It will continue to be the case that lightly contaminated dirty water can be applied in closed periods. SEPA recommend that a farm waste management plan is prepared in such circumstances.
H. Cross compliance and related issues
57. Q - We signed up to Single Farm Payments under one set of rules - now you're changing them. Is this fair?
A - The new Action Programme changes will come into effect at the end of 2006, and you will therefore have the option to sign up to them under SFPS 2007.
58. Q - If the recommendations are changed will these be back dated for farmers who have already been docked?
A - We are ruling nothing in or out; this will be looked at along with other issues.
59. Q - If NVZ infringements affect farmers' cross-compliance payments, surely this is discriminationagainst farmers in NVZs?
A - Cross-compliance rules are obligatory for all farmers claiming the Single Farm Payment. The precise rules applying to any business depends on its location and its enterprise mix. Some rules, for example, will apply only to farmers with livestock.