Nitrates
Mrs Rachael Patterson
Department of the Environment
Sustainable
Development Division
River House
48 High Street
Belfast
BT1
2DR
Dear Mrs Patterson Re: Consultation paper:
Nitrates Directive - proposed action programme Thank you for the opportunity
for Council to comment on the above paper. Council is concerned that the approach being proposed in
the Action Programme is short term in response to pressures to properly implement the Nitrates Directive
rather than visionary and long term in the pursuit of real improvement in water quality. What should
really be at issue is the achievement of 'good ecological status' of NI Waters by 2015 in line with
the objectives of the Water Framework Directive (WFD). The pessimistic projections in the Article 5
Characterisation Report regarding achievement of the 2015 targets for NI waters adds urgency to the
implementation of vigorous corrective action. Obviously action has to be taken regarding all adverse
influences on water quality and not solely farm source nutrient enrichment. However this NVZ driven
initiative offers special opportunity in respect of the latter. Council, in general terms, is concerned
that the proposed action programme will not prove effective in delivering the reduction in farm source
nutrient enrichment requisite to achievement of the 2015 targets. This in effect would require a revisiting
of the problem and the introduction of more draconian measures later under the WFD. A more strategic
long term approach will of course require early action by farmers but that should be within a multi
pronged initiative recognising the problems faced by particular sectors and in particular locations
and having regard to soil and climatic variations throughout NI. This approach would, in Council's view,
involve: Science based and technologically supported approved spreading periods. The critical test for
spreading is whether or not conditions are favourable to the (short term) uptake by the crop of the
nutrients applied. Surface runoff potential is clearly the major risk factor but soil temperature is
an important additional aspect affecting microbial breakdown of applied slurry. The unpredictability
of NI climate conditions argues against the use of a pre-determined closed period. To this historic
unpredictability must be added the implications of Climate Change. Against this background Council suggests
that a predictor system (perhaps sub-regional) is required which would allow farmers to be guided as
to when it would be appropriate to spread organic manures. This approach should also serve to remove
the inherent subjectivity involved in the term 'waterlogged'. A possible approach which CNCC would advocate
could be based on specific empirical criteria such as 'accumulated day degrees above that required for
gross growth', from January 1, 'daily soil water deficit (SWD),' accumulated from January 1. These terms
and data could be derived from a network of automatic weather stations (AWS) installed across NI and
telemetred into a central control point, in the same way that streamflow data from numerous river sites
across NI are presently telemetred into Hydebank. The introduction of such a system would be unlikely
to mean that spreading would normally take place earlier than under the present proposals, though such
periods, if they occur, could be picked out and identified for farmers with more confidence than they
are now. In fact in many years clearance would not be possible until into March if not April. A network
of AWSs would allow sub-regionalisation of soil/climate conditions e.g. as between Fermanagh and East
Down. This approach in Council's view would represent a more rational response to real conditions than
a pre-determined statutory period which disregards the uncertainties of soil and weather conditions.
Also that it would perhaps be more readily understood and accepted by farmers. It is the view of CNCC
that provision of high slurry storage capacities beyond the proposed minimum of 5 months is vital particularly
on pig and intensive dairy farms and on farms located on soils with a high risk of surface runoff. We
understand that storage in Denmark is obligatory at a minimum of 9 months which means that the length
of closed period is unimportant and consequently the slurry is regarded as a resource for growing crops
(or some alternative use) rather than having to be put to land at the wrong time. This latter action,
in effect, treats slurry as a waste rather than a resource. The provision of high storage capacities
would have a cost implication and would require time to deliver. However with the longer term objective
of gaining socio-economic benefits from a high quality environment Government should be prepared to
provide a high level of financial (and research/advisory) support to farmers to provide appropriate
storage and to persuade the EC of the case for that support. The requirement for storage and the implied
cost could become less critical if, as is the case in a number of EU countries, slurries were used to
feed Biogas plants. Those slurries could be combined in such plants with other organic waste streams
which no longer can go to landfill thus at one time addressing 2 policies - renewable energy and waste
utilisation. Council urges Government to provide appropriate incentives so that private sector interests
give urgent consideration to Biogas plant development in NI including nutrient stripping as part of
the process, thereby reducing the nutrient loading in the digestate. Response to
QuestionsQ.1 Council notes and accepts the rationale for the closed periods
for chemical fertilisers. Q.2 The Council's preferred approach to closed periods
for organic manure has been set out above. That approach would be more pertinent to when applications
could recommence in late winter/early spring. Council notes and accepts the rationale for non application
in the period October to December. Q.3, Q.4 and Q.5 Council has no comment. Q.6
Phosphorus loss from farmland to water in NI has been accepted as the major farm source contribution
to eutrophication. The long delay in dealing with that problem means that it is virtually impossible
to take effective action within the timeframe now presented by the Nitrates Directive but more critically
by the 2015 Water Framework targets. The compromise approach in the action programme based on a digressive
reduction of the farm level phosphorus surplus to 6kg P/ha/year by 2012 and without an eventual NIL
surplus target allows continuing application of organic P to large areas of farmland with high P indices
where it is not a crop requirement. This farmland will obviously lie in catchments where eutrophication
has been, and remains, a problem. Council recognises the difficulties for farming which a more demanding
approach would present. It however is very concerned about the implications for improvement in water
quality and the image which a transparent failure in NI to deliver the 2015 WFD targets will present.
A good quality environment is not necessarily an objective in its own right - its existence presents
significant opportunities in economic and social terms particularly for a region so dependent on exports,
tourism and inward investment. Q.7 Council has no comment. Section
6 - Q.1 Council has no comment on the implementation dates outlined in Section 6. However its position
on the need for the provision of storage capacity (on certain farms) above the minimum required under
the Nitrates Directive would require a longer timeframe for practical reasons as well as to reflect
the 2015 WFD water quality targets. General points regarding the action programmes1.
It will be most important that species rich areas of land should not be damaged environmentally through
being used as spread lands. In this context the 'demonstrable crop requirement' test should be employed
rigorously. How will the P status and the crop requirement aspects of alternative spread lands be monitored? 2.
It is noted that the limit per farm (whether at 170 Kg/ha or a derogated figure) is to be based on the
full farm size unlike the P balance which is calculated on the 'utilisable agricultural area' (UAA)
which excludes, interalia, rough grazing, bogs and woodland. Council recommends that for consistency
and to better protect vulnerable on-farm habitats the UAA should be used for calculating the N farm
limit. If for legal reasons this is not possible the N limit should be based on the IACS area. 3.
Council is concerned that the provision regarding dirty water may provide a loophole. Dirty water is
in effect to be treated as a waste which can be applied to land at any time of the year. There is no
apparent control on the application methods which presumably means that jetting from roads would be
acceptable if ground is too soft for tractors. Council urges more attention to the dirty water provision
in terms of minimum storage provision, times/methods of application etc. 4.
Council is particularly interested in how compliance with these quite complex Action Programme measures
will be monitored. How will the P Index rating of alternative spread lands be taken and assured? How
will evidence be achieved that slurries in relevant amounts were moved and applied to alternative spread
lands? The risk of 'paper spread lands' is apparent. 5. Council believes that
effective reduction in farm source eutrophication of water will require imaginative and innovative thinking
and action involving cross-departmental and industry co-ordination. It is thus in everyone's interest
to ensure that the environment of NI, in particular its water quality, is brought to and sustained at
a provable high level, thereby underpinning social and economic activities and benefits. Farmers will
require assistance in the form of research support, financial incentives and appropriate advice. Council
urges the provision of such support, inclusive of advice and guidance to agricultural contractors, regarding
implementation of the action programme measures. 6. Council is strongly of
the opinion that WQ monitoring arrangements will have to be enhanced in terms of numbers and siting
of monitoring stations as well as methodology (also allowing for the pending demands of the WFD). This
will be necessary to ensure that short term trend indicators of effectiveness of the AP measures are
available to inform the mandatory periodic review ('at least every 4 years') of the Action Programme..
General Observations1. While the focus of this consultation
is on farm source diffuse nutrient enrichment of NI waters it must not be overlooked that there are
other non-farm contributors to eutrophication. These must also be addressed urgently and robustly if
the WFD 2015 targets are to be met. In this context point source nutrient loss to water has to be meaningfully
dealt with in parallel with that from diffuse sources. 2. Council feels it
appropriate to restate a position it recorded in its 21st May 2004 reply to the NVZ Total Territory
Consultation as follows: 'Meaningful progress to address farm source eutrophication
will require imaginative and innovative thinking and action involving cross-departmental co-ordination.
The problem was not originally of the farmers making. Intensification with greater numbers of animals
being housed reflected Government Policy, and society's wish, for plentiful and cheap food. The systems
introduced to deal with intensive livestock production followed Departmental research and advice. Now
that the farming industry will have to some extent (and within particular sectors) reverse out of those
systems it will require help from Government akin to that used at the inception of the systems i.e.
research, financial support and advice.' In this context Council notes and commends the DARD initiative
in setting up the Expert Group on Alternative Uses of Manures. It is understood that this Group will
explore the feasibility of a range of options, including Biogas, to utilise slurries. It will also explore
other science based proven technologies or treatments to reduce the nutrient (particularly P) loading
of animal slurries. 3. The emphasis in this consultation is on implementation
of the Nitrates Directive to a level acceptable to the European Commission (EC) thus avoiding infraction
procedures. This emphasis occurs in a range of other actions relative to EU environmental Directives
or Regulations. This approach risks giving a false impression of the objective of the exercise implying
that satisfactory implementation of EU requirements, rather than the achievement of a high quality environment
in the interests of Northern Ireland PLC is the objective. Council therefore
recommends that Government urgently engages in and sustains an exercise to clarify to the public the
benefits in socio-economic terms of the achievement of a high quality environment in NI. It
is hoped that the Council's views as outlined above prove to be helpful. Yours
Sincerely
Dr Lucinda Blakiston Houston
Chairman
|
