Tweet
Welsh Government currently have a consultation open regarding 'Nitrate Vulnerable Zones' in Wales. This is your opportunity to respond and provide feedback on the consultation.
Essentially this is about reviewing and (hopefully) changing water pollution created as a result of nitrates from agriculture/farms. The regulations are proposed to be in place and acted upon in 2017.
There's a lot of further reading along with the response section on the following link:
https://consultations.gov.wales/cons...le-zones-wales
To respond; scroll to the 'how to respond' heading. You may download a response form and either email or print and mail your response.
Not sure what to include or say? The following was kindly forwarded to me from Frank Jones of Afonydd Cymru. Just add your name to the top and you're good to go. Or, pass on your own comments and insight, of course.
Consultation Response Form
Your name:
Organisation (if applicable):
email / telephone number:
Your address:
Responses to consultations are likely to be made public, on the internet or in a report. If you would prefer your response to remain anonymous, please tick here:
Consultation questions
1. Do you prefer Option 1 (continuing with discrete NVZ designations), or Option 2 (applying the Action Programme to a ‘Whole Wales’ NVZ designation)?
Option 1 would do little to address the widespread problems that are occurring as a result of agricultural pollution. The paper presented to the NRW board in July this year demonstrated the scale and severity of the ongoing pollution. Most of the severely impacted area of farm pollution lies outside the areas that would be designated under this option.
The “Whole Wales” option 2 would provide a level of control that if effectively enforced would result in extensive improvements to many rivers in Wales. There would be wide benefits in terms of the compliance with WFD standards, improved ecology of rivers including fisheries with the associated economic gain to the rural economy through increased tourism and reduced costs for treating abstracted water for potable supply.
2. Do you agree with the proposal to charge a refundable fee of £250 per appeal?
This would not be required with a Wales wide approach.
3. Do you think cover crops should be included in the Action Programme?
The suitability of fields for arable crops should be the first consideration. Those with high slopes or vulnerable to flooding and soil loss should not be used for arable crops. Huge problems have been caused by the growing of maize, potatoes etc in fields vulnerable to flooding or surface water runoff. In other respects we would support the use of cover crops for arable land because of their stated benefits – reducing nutrient leaching and soil erosion.Support should be given to farmers to prepare maps identify areas at risk as referred to above.
4. If so, have we identified the correct circumstances for their use?
There should be more qualifiers in respect of the risks referred to above. As mentioned above maize should not be planted in the high risk areas and where it is planted further measures such as under sowing and chisel ploughing should be taken to reduce the risk runoff and soil erosion
5. Are the suggested dates appropriate? If not, what dates would you suggest?
Yes the suggested dates are appropriate but may be difficult to monitor and enforce. If this activity was delayed then it could coincide with autumn rains which will cause soil erosion/nutrient leaching problems
6. What actions do you consider should be defined to show compliance?
Prompt action to sow the crop and subsequent management in accordance with best practice. NRW and the Rural Inspectorate should be responsible for determining compliance.
7. Do you think the existing rules on the storage of solid livestock manures sufficient to reduce the risk of pollution?
The rules will reduce the amount of pollution but will not prevent it because uncovered heaps of manure will be subject to leaching. This will inevitably result in the loss of pollutants and nutrients to the soil. In waterlogged conditions in the autumn-spring period there will inevitably be transport of nutrients and pollutants in soil water leading to contamination of surface waters from seepage into land drains and drainage ditches and subsequently to streams and rivers.
8. If not, what additional rules do you think should be established?
The risk of pollution can be reduced through additional controls specifying a maximum size of manure heaps and a requirement to cover them with an impermeable material. Research has demonstrated that covering manure heaps has also been shown to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
The preferred solution would be to require all manure to be held in properly constructed storage areas that are preferably covered together with a system of intercepting and containing any leachate.
9. Should there be a closed period for farmyard manure?
Yes since it is stated that research has determined that significant nitrate leaching can occur under autumn/winter conditions.
10. If so, have we identified the correct circumstances in which a closed period should apply?
The proposed restrictions only apply to arable crops on sandy soils which will be quite a restricted area in Wales. It is stated that the risk of nitrate leaching is much lower on grassland, where the crop uptake is sufficient to reduce the risk to a minimum. Is this actually supported by scientific evidence? One would not expect significant uptake in low temperatures in winter when the grass is dormant.Having differentrules for various types of organic manure and soil type is an over complication. The closed season should apply to all organic manures and soil types.
11. Should the closed period apply to all other organic fertilisers?
The closed period needs to be applied to all other organic fertilizers (inc slurry and poultry manure) with a significant risk of causing nutrient runoff to surface waters. The spreading of slurry in autumn/winter when grass is dormant and soils are usually waterlogged causes substantial nutrient losses to surface waters. We have also witnessed mass mortalities of earthworms that this can cause as a result of ammonia toxicity which will clearly cause damage to soil structure.
12. Do you agree with increases to the nitrogen efficiency standard values used in Nmax or should they remain the same?
The changes appear justified if they are based on sound scientfic evidence.
13. What concerns or benefits do you think increasing the values may raise?
Clearly raising the values will reduce the amount of organic fertilizer to be applied which will reduce the risk of nutrient losses.
14. If you think the values should be increased, what values should be used?
They should be set at the values that are supported by sound scientific evidence.
15. Do you think that the manure values of Schedules 1 and 3 should be updated, where there is sufficient evidence to support that change?
Again yes if it is supported by sound scientific evidence.
16. Do you agree that the current rules on slopes sufficiently address the risks of pollution?
Other factors need to be taken into account see 17 below.
17. If not, why not and what rules do you think should be implemented to address the risk?
Clearly other factors need to be taken account of in determining risk including ground cover, proximity to surface water, weather conditions, soil type and condition and the presence of land drains.Spreading of organic waste under waterlogged soil conditions should not be permitted.
18. Do you agree with the proposal to clarify the wording of the regulations?
The nomenclature is confusing – the ruling that nitrogen fertilizer must not be spread on frozen ground might be taken only to refer to mineral fertilizer. Defra guidance on the matter refers to “manufactured fertiliser or other nitrogen containing materials” which may make it clearer that it includes organic manures/slurries etc. (A glossary of terms in the consultation would have helped and should be included in future guidance etc).
19. Do you agree with the adoption of a whole farm limit?
We would like to see the NVZ rules applied to the whole of Wales which would eliminate the need for rules that apply to farms partly in NVZ areas.
20. If you do, have we identified the correct method of establishing the limit?
21. I you do not agree, do you think an alternative approach should be taken?
22. Do you agree with the proportional approach described for calculating slurry storage?
We would like to see a Wales wide approach to designating NVZ which would remove the need for complicated calculations for calculating slurry storage for farms partly in an NVZ. This would also remove a competitive advantage of farms outside NVZ.
23. If not, how do you propose the rules should be clarified?
A whole Wales approach would result in simpler rules.
24. How do you think the proposed Action Programme changes will impact on the practical management of typical farm enterprises in the new or existing zones?
There will be a need for more investment in farm waste facilities and management. In the current economic situation with the low returns on farm produce financial support should be provided to assist farmers to meet costs. A better, long term solution would be that farmers get a return on their produce that is more in balance with the costs of production that includes the costs of meeting the required environmental standards.In this way costs will be internalized to the industry reducing the requirement for costly and inefficient grant support mechanisms. This would also help to achieve a sustainable agriculture in Wales which should be the goal of the Welsh Government. Currently other sectors such as water supply, fisheries and conservation are picking up the consequences and associated costs of the impacts of agriculture.The action programme will result in a more resilient and sustainable agriculture in Wales.
25. In the future, how should natural resource planning and management be considered as an alternative solution to tackling nitrate pollution?
The text refers to NRW’s powers to implement natural resource management but it is clear that NRW has not been able to effectively administer its existing powers to control farm pollution. This is evident from the extent of failures of WFD objectives caused by agricultural pollution and the level of farm pollution incidents – all detailed in the paper presented to the NRW board in July this year.
NRW needs the backing of Welsh Government and adequate resources to effectively enforce regulations to tackle the agricultural pollution problem. The main problems are caused by those intensive cattle rearing units which do not have adequate waste management infrastructure and deposit huge amounts of slurry at rates on land which causes damage to soils and consequent pollution of surface waters.There is also evidence of slurry being discharged directly to watercourses because of overloaded slurry lagoons.Resources need to be focussed on those units having the highest risk and this needs to be proactive, providing support to farmers to identify problems and the remedial action required. The resource cut backs within NRW have reduced the number of staff engaged in this kind of work. Prosecution should not be the first step but should be used as a deterrent were advice is ignored and remedial action is not undertaken.
Currently there appears to be little enforcement of GAEC standards by the Rural Inspectorate. There are few instances of payments being withheld because of cross compliance failures despite the clear evidence of on going farm pollution.
Effective action needs to be undertaken now to enforce existing regulations before any new regulations are introduced which even if they are proceeded with will take a number of years to come into being. Otherwise we face further deterioration of our rivers.
The Welsh Government needs to demonstrate how the monitoring and enforcement of the new regulations will take place. NRW and the Rural Inspectorate need to be adequately resourced and provided with the direction and support that they need to tackle the problems.
A factor that has not been considered to any extent in the consultation paper is the contribution that agriculture makes to the levels of phosphate in freshwaters and the eutrophication problems that it causes. The purpose of the regulations is of course to reduce nitrate levels but in fact it is phosphate that is the limiting nutrient for algal production in freshwaters (the situation is reversed in marine situations where nitrate is the limiting factor) and it is agriculture that is the maincontributor of phosphate in rural catchments.
Inputs of slurry which contains about 1.2kg of total P per m3 may not be reflected in the amounts of phosphate routinely measured in surface waters because much of it will be deposited/adsorbed into river and lake sediments where it is available for recycling and uptake by algae*1.This is causing excessive growths of algae in rivers and is probably the cause of excessive growths of alga that we observed in the river Tywi (a SAC river) in its middle lower reaches. This issue is also particularly relevant at the present time because of the spread of intensive chicken rearing units. We believe that the phosphate issue needs to be considered alongside that of nitrate and appropriate controls put in place to protect freshwaters. Manure management plans are a requirement of these developments but we do not believe that these are properly scrutinised to ensure that they do not contribute further to the nutrient enrichment problem in our freshwaters. We would like the Welsh Government, planning authorities and NRW to consider this issue and ensure that appropriate controls are put in place.
We believe that Rivers Trusts can play an effective role in working with farmers to identify problems and remedial solutions. Wye and Usk Foundation have demonstrated how this can be achieved through their farm visit programme. River Trusts are in a better position than regulatory authorities to work with farmers and landowners in this way. We would welcome the support of the Welsh Government to expand this role in Wales.
26. We do not believe that this policy affects opportunities for people to use Welsh or treats the language less favourably than English, or that it could be reformulated or revised to have positive effects. If you disagree, we would welcome your comments on this issue.
We don’t disagree.
*1P.J.A. Withers and H.P. Jarvie (2008)Delivery and cycling of phosphorus in rivers: A review. Science of the Total Environment.
Essentially this is about reviewing and (hopefully) changing water pollution created as a result of nitrates from agriculture/farms. The regulations are proposed to be in place and acted upon in 2017.
There's a lot of further reading along with the response section on the following link:
https://consultations.gov.wales/cons...le-zones-wales
To respond; scroll to the 'how to respond' heading. You may download a response form and either email or print and mail your response.
Not sure what to include or say? The following was kindly forwarded to me from Frank Jones of Afonydd Cymru. Just add your name to the top and you're good to go. Or, pass on your own comments and insight, of course.
Consultation Response Form
Your name:
Organisation (if applicable):
email / telephone number:
Your address:
Responses to consultations are likely to be made public, on the internet or in a report. If you would prefer your response to remain anonymous, please tick here:
Consultation questions
1. Do you prefer Option 1 (continuing with discrete NVZ designations), or Option 2 (applying the Action Programme to a ‘Whole Wales’ NVZ designation)?
Option 1 would do little to address the widespread problems that are occurring as a result of agricultural pollution. The paper presented to the NRW board in July this year demonstrated the scale and severity of the ongoing pollution. Most of the severely impacted area of farm pollution lies outside the areas that would be designated under this option.
The “Whole Wales” option 2 would provide a level of control that if effectively enforced would result in extensive improvements to many rivers in Wales. There would be wide benefits in terms of the compliance with WFD standards, improved ecology of rivers including fisheries with the associated economic gain to the rural economy through increased tourism and reduced costs for treating abstracted water for potable supply.
2. Do you agree with the proposal to charge a refundable fee of £250 per appeal?
This would not be required with a Wales wide approach.
3. Do you think cover crops should be included in the Action Programme?
The suitability of fields for arable crops should be the first consideration. Those with high slopes or vulnerable to flooding and soil loss should not be used for arable crops. Huge problems have been caused by the growing of maize, potatoes etc in fields vulnerable to flooding or surface water runoff. In other respects we would support the use of cover crops for arable land because of their stated benefits – reducing nutrient leaching and soil erosion.Support should be given to farmers to prepare maps identify areas at risk as referred to above.
4. If so, have we identified the correct circumstances for their use?
There should be more qualifiers in respect of the risks referred to above. As mentioned above maize should not be planted in the high risk areas and where it is planted further measures such as under sowing and chisel ploughing should be taken to reduce the risk runoff and soil erosion
5. Are the suggested dates appropriate? If not, what dates would you suggest?
Yes the suggested dates are appropriate but may be difficult to monitor and enforce. If this activity was delayed then it could coincide with autumn rains which will cause soil erosion/nutrient leaching problems
6. What actions do you consider should be defined to show compliance?
Prompt action to sow the crop and subsequent management in accordance with best practice. NRW and the Rural Inspectorate should be responsible for determining compliance.
7. Do you think the existing rules on the storage of solid livestock manures sufficient to reduce the risk of pollution?
The rules will reduce the amount of pollution but will not prevent it because uncovered heaps of manure will be subject to leaching. This will inevitably result in the loss of pollutants and nutrients to the soil. In waterlogged conditions in the autumn-spring period there will inevitably be transport of nutrients and pollutants in soil water leading to contamination of surface waters from seepage into land drains and drainage ditches and subsequently to streams and rivers.
8. If not, what additional rules do you think should be established?
The risk of pollution can be reduced through additional controls specifying a maximum size of manure heaps and a requirement to cover them with an impermeable material. Research has demonstrated that covering manure heaps has also been shown to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
The preferred solution would be to require all manure to be held in properly constructed storage areas that are preferably covered together with a system of intercepting and containing any leachate.
9. Should there be a closed period for farmyard manure?
Yes since it is stated that research has determined that significant nitrate leaching can occur under autumn/winter conditions.
10. If so, have we identified the correct circumstances in which a closed period should apply?
The proposed restrictions only apply to arable crops on sandy soils which will be quite a restricted area in Wales. It is stated that the risk of nitrate leaching is much lower on grassland, where the crop uptake is sufficient to reduce the risk to a minimum. Is this actually supported by scientific evidence? One would not expect significant uptake in low temperatures in winter when the grass is dormant.Having differentrules for various types of organic manure and soil type is an over complication. The closed season should apply to all organic manures and soil types.
11. Should the closed period apply to all other organic fertilisers?
The closed period needs to be applied to all other organic fertilizers (inc slurry and poultry manure) with a significant risk of causing nutrient runoff to surface waters. The spreading of slurry in autumn/winter when grass is dormant and soils are usually waterlogged causes substantial nutrient losses to surface waters. We have also witnessed mass mortalities of earthworms that this can cause as a result of ammonia toxicity which will clearly cause damage to soil structure.
12. Do you agree with increases to the nitrogen efficiency standard values used in Nmax or should they remain the same?
The changes appear justified if they are based on sound scientfic evidence.
13. What concerns or benefits do you think increasing the values may raise?
Clearly raising the values will reduce the amount of organic fertilizer to be applied which will reduce the risk of nutrient losses.
14. If you think the values should be increased, what values should be used?
They should be set at the values that are supported by sound scientific evidence.
15. Do you think that the manure values of Schedules 1 and 3 should be updated, where there is sufficient evidence to support that change?
Again yes if it is supported by sound scientific evidence.
16. Do you agree that the current rules on slopes sufficiently address the risks of pollution?
Other factors need to be taken into account see 17 below.
17. If not, why not and what rules do you think should be implemented to address the risk?
Clearly other factors need to be taken account of in determining risk including ground cover, proximity to surface water, weather conditions, soil type and condition and the presence of land drains.Spreading of organic waste under waterlogged soil conditions should not be permitted.
18. Do you agree with the proposal to clarify the wording of the regulations?
The nomenclature is confusing – the ruling that nitrogen fertilizer must not be spread on frozen ground might be taken only to refer to mineral fertilizer. Defra guidance on the matter refers to “manufactured fertiliser or other nitrogen containing materials” which may make it clearer that it includes organic manures/slurries etc. (A glossary of terms in the consultation would have helped and should be included in future guidance etc).
19. Do you agree with the adoption of a whole farm limit?
We would like to see the NVZ rules applied to the whole of Wales which would eliminate the need for rules that apply to farms partly in NVZ areas.
20. If you do, have we identified the correct method of establishing the limit?
21. I you do not agree, do you think an alternative approach should be taken?
22. Do you agree with the proportional approach described for calculating slurry storage?
We would like to see a Wales wide approach to designating NVZ which would remove the need for complicated calculations for calculating slurry storage for farms partly in an NVZ. This would also remove a competitive advantage of farms outside NVZ.
23. If not, how do you propose the rules should be clarified?
A whole Wales approach would result in simpler rules.
24. How do you think the proposed Action Programme changes will impact on the practical management of typical farm enterprises in the new or existing zones?
There will be a need for more investment in farm waste facilities and management. In the current economic situation with the low returns on farm produce financial support should be provided to assist farmers to meet costs. A better, long term solution would be that farmers get a return on their produce that is more in balance with the costs of production that includes the costs of meeting the required environmental standards.In this way costs will be internalized to the industry reducing the requirement for costly and inefficient grant support mechanisms. This would also help to achieve a sustainable agriculture in Wales which should be the goal of the Welsh Government. Currently other sectors such as water supply, fisheries and conservation are picking up the consequences and associated costs of the impacts of agriculture.The action programme will result in a more resilient and sustainable agriculture in Wales.
25. In the future, how should natural resource planning and management be considered as an alternative solution to tackling nitrate pollution?
The text refers to NRW’s powers to implement natural resource management but it is clear that NRW has not been able to effectively administer its existing powers to control farm pollution. This is evident from the extent of failures of WFD objectives caused by agricultural pollution and the level of farm pollution incidents – all detailed in the paper presented to the NRW board in July this year.
NRW needs the backing of Welsh Government and adequate resources to effectively enforce regulations to tackle the agricultural pollution problem. The main problems are caused by those intensive cattle rearing units which do not have adequate waste management infrastructure and deposit huge amounts of slurry at rates on land which causes damage to soils and consequent pollution of surface waters.There is also evidence of slurry being discharged directly to watercourses because of overloaded slurry lagoons.Resources need to be focussed on those units having the highest risk and this needs to be proactive, providing support to farmers to identify problems and the remedial action required. The resource cut backs within NRW have reduced the number of staff engaged in this kind of work. Prosecution should not be the first step but should be used as a deterrent were advice is ignored and remedial action is not undertaken.
Currently there appears to be little enforcement of GAEC standards by the Rural Inspectorate. There are few instances of payments being withheld because of cross compliance failures despite the clear evidence of on going farm pollution.
Effective action needs to be undertaken now to enforce existing regulations before any new regulations are introduced which even if they are proceeded with will take a number of years to come into being. Otherwise we face further deterioration of our rivers.
The Welsh Government needs to demonstrate how the monitoring and enforcement of the new regulations will take place. NRW and the Rural Inspectorate need to be adequately resourced and provided with the direction and support that they need to tackle the problems.
A factor that has not been considered to any extent in the consultation paper is the contribution that agriculture makes to the levels of phosphate in freshwaters and the eutrophication problems that it causes. The purpose of the regulations is of course to reduce nitrate levels but in fact it is phosphate that is the limiting nutrient for algal production in freshwaters (the situation is reversed in marine situations where nitrate is the limiting factor) and it is agriculture that is the maincontributor of phosphate in rural catchments.
Inputs of slurry which contains about 1.2kg of total P per m3 may not be reflected in the amounts of phosphate routinely measured in surface waters because much of it will be deposited/adsorbed into river and lake sediments where it is available for recycling and uptake by algae*1.This is causing excessive growths of algae in rivers and is probably the cause of excessive growths of alga that we observed in the river Tywi (a SAC river) in its middle lower reaches. This issue is also particularly relevant at the present time because of the spread of intensive chicken rearing units. We believe that the phosphate issue needs to be considered alongside that of nitrate and appropriate controls put in place to protect freshwaters. Manure management plans are a requirement of these developments but we do not believe that these are properly scrutinised to ensure that they do not contribute further to the nutrient enrichment problem in our freshwaters. We would like the Welsh Government, planning authorities and NRW to consider this issue and ensure that appropriate controls are put in place.
We believe that Rivers Trusts can play an effective role in working with farmers to identify problems and remedial solutions. Wye and Usk Foundation have demonstrated how this can be achieved through their farm visit programme. River Trusts are in a better position than regulatory authorities to work with farmers and landowners in this way. We would welcome the support of the Welsh Government to expand this role in Wales.
26. We do not believe that this policy affects opportunities for people to use Welsh or treats the language less favourably than English, or that it could be reformulated or revised to have positive effects. If you disagree, we would welcome your comments on this issue.
We don’t disagree.
*1P.J.A. Withers and H.P. Jarvie (2008)Delivery and cycling of phosphorus in rivers: A review. Science of the Total Environment.