1

Joint Consultation response on draft Humber River Basin Management Plan

Introduction

The National Farmers Union (NFU), the Agricultural Industries Confederation (AIC),

the Country Land and Business Association (CLA), and the Crop Protection

Association (CPA) have combined to prepare a joint response for agriculture to

represent the views and concerns of farmers and growers, landowners and related

industries, including specialist agronomists and advisers and manufacturers of

fertilizers, crop protection products and animal feed products. Together we represent

up to 91,000 farm businesses (55,000 NFU and 36,000 CLA), and 300 allied

industries representing inputs to agriculture worth £7 Billion.

While we welcome the opportunity to comment on the emerging plans to deliver

Water Framework Directive (WFD) objectives in the River Basin District (RBD), we

note the Plan is not by any means complete. Topics which are still to be dealt with

include those of particular concern to agriculture, such as Water Protection Zones

(WPZs) and Drinking Water Protected Areas (DrWPAs). In addition, the Plan is at

high level, and deals mainly with delivery mechanisms, not measures. It lacks the

necessary detail for individual stakeholders/farmers to ascertain the measures which

are being proposed for their water bodies.

We believe it is essential that the agricultural industry is given the opportunity for

involvement and consultation on what this will mean for the industry. There would be

little point in consultation on the Plan document and supporting documents if other

key elements proceed without consultation or without the participation the Directive

requires.

Overview

Agriculture has been identified as one of main sectors to deliver WFD objectives. It

is therefore essential that the industry has the opportunity to participate at all stages

of the process, that reduced emissions/impacts already in the pipeline are fully taken

into account, and that recognition is given to what the industry can realistically

deliver. We believe the WFD process to date has fallen short on all of these and that

it is not meeting the needs of agricultural stakeholders. We would make the

following points:

Agriculture can never be a „no-impact‟ activity; some impacts are inevitable.

Many of the easy „wins‟ have already been achieved. It will become increasingly more costly to deliver further improvements, and the value of these improvements to society will progressively lessen as „good status‟ waters become more prevalent.

2

There have been a number of important EU reforms, new regulations and government initiatives, including the decoupling of production from support in the 2003 reform of the CAP and the introduction of cross-compliance, the development of Nitrate Vulnerable Zones (NVZs), and the introduction of stewardship schemes and the England Catchment Sensitive Farming Delivery Initiative (ECSFDI). The agricultural industry has played its role with, for example, the Voluntary Initiative (VI) for pesticides, and its nutrient management plan, „Tried and Tested‟.

Changes have and are continuing to take place within the agricultural industry. For example, there have been very significant reductions in fertiliser consumption over the past 10-20 years, and livestock numbers are forecast to decline further by 2015.

The Plan lacks transparency. We have been unable to find where the Plan takes account of the Business as Usual scenario which should take account of such improvements as those cited above. Few details are given as to the standards used, the methodologies by which the standards have been applied, or the data which has been used. Affected parties need to be able to verify what has been done if they are to have confidence in the River Basin Management Plan (RBMP) process.

There has not been adequate communication or involvement with the industry on important issues, such as the technical basis of the process, and Scenario C2 actions.

Uncertainty in our view has not been given sufficient recognition in the Plan. Before measures can be imposed, there is a need for sufficient confidence to be achieved on a range of issues, including current status, identification of the pressure causing the problem, source apportionment for the pressure, and the cost-effectiveness and proportionality of the measures proposed.

On a wider perspective, it is also important not to lose sight of the role of agriculture

in producing food. This has been acknowledged in the government‟s recent policy

statement, „Future Water‟, which referred to agriculture‟s positive role in “producing

necessary food”. The potential conflicts between this and delivery of environmental

benefits need to be recognised and accounted for. With climate change, population

growth, and the increase in demand as developing countries become more

prosperous, the increasing pressure on food supplies raises the importance of food

security.

We believe it is important that the potential loss of agricultural production to the

national economy should be fully reflected in a national impact assessment.

However, at present, the Plan does not detail the scale of, or the measures which

may be undertaken in, for example, Drinking Water Protected Areas (DrWPAs). It is

not therefore possible to assess the impact on agriculture or agricultural production

3

in the River Basin District (RBD), let alone nationally. Moreover, we understand

there is no intention to update the Plan or its Impact Assessment when the Agency‟s

proposals are finalised. Without this, the overall effect on the agricultural industry

and its sub-sectors will not be identified and assessed. Nor will Ministers‟ will be

able to take informed decisions on the Plan in the knowledge of its likely impact on

the industry or on the economy.

In view of agriculture‟s fundamental role in producing food, it is concerning that the

Plan appears to go beyond what is necessary to achieve compliance with WFD

objectives. We regard this as goldplating. Leaving aside the issue of food security,

the Better Regulation Executive makes clear that any goldplating will need to be

specifically cleared with the Panel for Regulatory Accountability. We have seen

nothing in the Plan to indicate that this has been done.

About the Humber River Basin District.

The predominant land use within the RBD is correctly identified as agriculture, but

the document is too simplistic describing arable on the flood plain and livestock

grazing in the uplands. The Yorkshire and Humber Region is a major agricultural

region in England. Production of commodities, such as wheat, winter and spring

barley, potatoes, sugar beet, oilseed rape, peas and beans and grass in this region

are greater than the regional average (11%) across the nine Government Office

Regions in England. In contrast to England as a whole, sheep dominate the livestock

sector in the region. The Humber City Region alone produces 28% of peas and

beans grown in England, 11% of vegetables grown in England and just under one

third of pigs in England are to be found in the Yorkshire and Humber Region (largely

in the Humber sub-region).

The Midlands catchments within the Humber RBD support a rich and varied

agricultural landscape with diverse farm types due to the variation in topography and

soils. Agricultural income makes a substantial contribution to the national and

regional economy, and many people are employed on farms or related businesses in

the region. From the high hills of the Peak District where livestock production and

dairying produce the majority of the county's gross farming output to the high grade

Nottinghamshire land producing a wide variety of agricultural and horticultural

production., agriculture in the Humber RBD plays an important role in shaping our

landscape and fulfils a major role in terms of the rural economy.

The water environment now

This section sets out our concerns regarding pressures relevant to agriculture and

which bear on the assessments and measures.

4

Nitrate in surface waters and ground water

The extent of surface waters thought to be “at risk” from nitrate is surprising. There are no ecological standards for nitrate in freshwaters, coastal areas at risk of eutrophication are quite limited, and many surface waters are not DrWPAs.

The Plan acknowledges that groundwaters can be affected by long time lags and we believe that the monitoring points will not be reflecting recent trends in agricultural practices.

Nitrate losses from agriculture are now thought to be falling as a result of reductions in total use of nitrogen in both manufactured (chemical) fertilizer and livestock manures and greater farming efficiencies.

Nitrate levels above natural background levels arise unavoidably from farming activity due to the processes involved and we believe this should be reflected in expectations of what is achievable.

We are concerned at the reference to nitrate in drinking water affecting human health. The science has moved on and this political „hype‟ should not be allowed to distort the allocation of the resources available to deliver WFD benefits.

We are surprised at the extent of waters thought to be “at risk” from nitrate is

surprising. The Plan acknowledges that UKTAG has decided not to propose

ecological standards for nitrate in freshwaters. Coastal areas at risk of

eutrophication are quite limited, and many surface waters will not be DrWPAs. We

note the Agency is using “the 50 mg/l the drinking water standard…. to guide action”

(our emphasis) for surface freshwaters and that 43.5% of total river length is

considered “at risk” of not meeting “this threshold”. Humber Annex G, p7

Although 20% of groundwater bodies within the Humber are classed as failing the

Drinking Water Protected Area test (Annex G) it should be recognized that

classification has been based on monitoring of deep boreholes, which can be

affected by long time lags. They will not reflect recent trends in agricultural

practices, and there is a need for monitoring of inputs into the unsaturated zone,

which is necessary to inform decisions on the extent of measures that may be

required.

The approach to DrWPA is of concern, where it appears that the standard for the

Drinking Water Directive of 50 mg/l is being applied at the point of abstraction

without taking account of the treatment regime applied which amounts to gold

plating.

In 2008, Defra reported to the European Commission that 53% of groundwater

monitoring sites in England are below 25 mg/l and 22% exceed 50 mg/l, adding that

most nitrate concentrations are stable or decreasing. For surface water, it reported

5

that 54% of surface water monitoring sites have nitrate levels below 25mg/l, and that

only 9% are above 50 mg/l, and that most sites similarly have nitrate concentrations

that are stable or falling

There is good reason to believe that nitrate losses from agriculture are falling, the

use of nitrogen in manufactured (chemical) fertilizer has fallen by 30% over the 10

years to 2007 (40% over 20 years) livestock numbers have fallen significantly over

the same period, thereby reducing manure output and nitrogen usage in animal

feeds has also fallen (by over 15% since 1999). The Plan acknowledges that further

falls in livestock numbers are expected by 2015.

Farmers are using nitrogen more efficiently and the scope for improving N use

efficiencies from manures in particular is still significant. In the 10 years to 2007, the

quantity of nitrogen used to produce a tonne of crop fell by about 17% for the main

combinable arable crops and up to 50% for root crops. Total N usage on grass fell

by 43% over the same period. Good practice also has an important role in

minimizing nitrate losses, but it is important to recognize that nitrate levels above

natural background levels arise unavoidably from farming activity due to the

processes involved. This should be reflected in expectations of what is achievable.

We are also concerned about the Agency‟s choice of total oxidised nitrogen and

nutrient nitrogen to show its current view of risk to surface waters on the maps in

Annex G when the pressure and risk is described in the text as nitrate. While the

map for groundwater does use nitrate, it shows the pressure from diffuse sources

only. The risk of nitrate pollution from point sources is not addressed, despite the

Agency consenting numerous sewage discharges to groundwater. There is also the

question of what the surface water maps (referred to above) actually represent, since

according to Annex G, compliance for surface water has still to be assessed.

The Agency‟s statement that high concentrations of nitrate in waters used for

drinking can affect human health is concerning. We believe the science has moved

on (J.L‟hirondel, 2002, Addiscott, 2005) and feel it is important that the political „hype‟

attached to nitrates is not allowed to distort the rational appraisal of priorities in

allocating the finite resources available to deliver WFD benefits. We challenge the

Agency to substantiate its statement with current evidence of clearly identified health

hazards relevant to the UK, or to remove this and any other similar references.

Phosphorus in rivers and standing waters

The Plan does not acknowledge recent research carried out for Defra that agricultural sources of phosphate are responsible for much less than had previously been thought and that phosphate loads from STWs pose the most significant risk for eutrophication, even in rural areas.

6

This research also found that the Agency‟s Article 5 Risk Assessment maps and data correlate with the lengths of river „at risk‟ from point P sources in each RBD.

Use of manufactured P fertilisers in agriculture is continuing to decline, and livestock numbers are expected to continue to fall.

Expansion of NVZ designations and the more rigorous Action Programme is expected to reduce phosphate losses

The Plan‟s emphasis on agricultural sources of phosphate is not well supported in

the light of recent evidence. Research for Defra updating sources of phosphorus in

UK waters found that agricultural sources were responsible for much less than

previously thought (White and Hammond, 2006). The data from this study shows

that agriculture was responsible for 34.9% of total phosphorus in the Humber RBD.

The reference in the Humber RBMP indicating that 63.4% of total river length is at

risk from diffuse sources gives the misleading impression that the majority of

phosphorus is from agriculture or other diffuse sources.

White and Hammond also referred to a study in 7 UK catchments by Jarvie et al

(2005), who observed that the risk of eutrophication was largely linked to SRP

concentrations during times of ecological sensitivity when biological activity was at its

highest (phosphorus emissions from agriculture tend not to occur at such times).

They concluded that phosphate loads from sewage treatment works rather than

diffuse agricultural loads posed the most significant risk for eutrophication, even in

rural areas.

At Defra‟s request, White and Hammond also discussed the Agency‟s Article 5 Risk

Assessment maps and data in the light of the updated P source apportionment work.

They concluded that the Agency‟s maps and data “… correlate with the lengths of

river „at risk‟ from point P sources (but not diffuse P sources) in each RBD.” These

findings are not mentioned in Annex G, nor are they apparently taken into account in

the identification of sectors and measures. We believe they should be to allow P

reduction measures to be targeted correctly.

Recent information shows that the use of manufactured P fertilisers in agriculture is

continuing to decline, (reducing more than 45% between 1997 and 2007). This

largely pre-dates the very large increase in price for P fertiliser in 2008, which is

expected to have resulted in further falls in P use, (although they will not yet have

fully impacted on agricultural emissions).

The Plan anticipates a 25% fall in livestock numbers by 2015, which will serve to

reduce pressure on phosphate, and that extension of NVZ controls will also help P

loads. Phosphate loads from animal feeds also continue to decline due to the

adoption of the phytase enzyme which reduces or negates the requirement for

7

dietary supplementation with phosphorous. Of the overall 20% reduction in

phosphorus use in feed since 1999, nutritional improvements alone contribute 50%.

The role of increased NVZ designations and a more stringent Action Programme in

reducing phosphate losses is acknowledged in the Defra NVZ consultation, 2007.

The implications of low P soils is however a concern in relation to its effects on crop

nitrogen use efficiency.

Sediment (rivers and lakes)

There does not therefore appear to be a robust and rational framework to address sediment. No standards have been established, and much of the information is anecdotal.

The Plan appears to be addressing only soil erosion caused by land-based

activities, and ignoring sources such as un-kerbed rural roads which has been

found to be a significant contributor elsewhere in the UK.

It is not clear from the Plan that the „natural‟ level or role of sediment in water bodies

at reference condition or good status is clearly defined or understood. No standards

have been established and much of the information is anecdotal without a robust and

rational framework to address sediment the basis of measures targeted at sediment

is not transparent. Stakeholders need to be clear what the targets are, and how the

measures are to be derived in accordance with the methodology developed for

implementing WFD in the Collaborative Research Programme.

We are very concerned the Plan appears to be addressing only soil erosion caused

by land-based activities. Soil erosion from un-kerbed rural roads has, for example,

become increasingly apparent in recent years and we believe this source is a

significant contributor to sediment loads. It has been found to be the case in

Scotland (12%) and Northern Ireland( 9%) (FWR, 2006) and the figure in England

and Wales would be expected to be higher on account of the much higher population

density (as a proxy for traffic volumes).

8

Other pollutants

Faecal Indicator Organisms

Sources of FIOs in bathing waters are predominantly human.

Agriculture is an identified contributor at a minority of bathing waters, although this will vary regionally.

The Government considers the link to agriculture is not clear

Measures should be assessed for proportionality if going further than the minimum required to achieve compliance with EU standards.

Farmers are subject to food hygiene legislation and the microbiological quality of water is an issue for some growers.

Livestock manures provide a valuable source of nutrients and organic matter to soils,

particularly as supplies of hydrocarbon and mineral reserves used for fertilizer

become increasingly depleted. Recycling of nutrients already in the system is being

promoted as a sustainable and „virtuous‟ activity and is supported by government

policy (like the application of sewage sludge).

We accept that agriculture has a role in contributing to FIOs in bathing waters, but it

is not the main source. Studies have put agriculture‟s contribution at around 30%.

The other sources of FIOs are predominantly human, stemming from sewage works,

storm overflows from combined sewers, unsewered properties or private systems

serving caravan parks and the like. Agriculture is an identified contributor at a

minority of bathing waters according to Defra‟s 2007 consultation.

We accept that bathing waters need to be compliant with EU standards. However, in

assessing actions, we feel it should be recognized that the majority of illnesses are

viral in origin and host specific. Most benefits will therefore accrue from WFD

actions aimed at human sources of FIOs. We believe this should be reflected in the

selection of the most cost effective measures. Measures will need to be subject to

the proportionality test if going further than the minimum required to achieve

compliance with EU bathing water standards.

We note the Government considers that the link to agriculture is not clear

(Government response to revised Bathing Water Directive consultation 2008.) There

has been little development of agricultural measures for addressing levels of FIOs or

experience of applying them. The use of the „last resort‟ WPZ regulatory mechanism

for agriculture would therefore appear inappropriate.

We are concerned that the Plan has not identified agriculture as a sector requiring

water to be of good microbiological quality, as it has for bathing waters and shellfish

waters. Farmers are subject to food hygiene legislation, for example the EU Food

Hygiene Regulation 852/2004. Good quality water is therefore an important issue for

9

farmers and growers, particularly those using water to irrigate ready-to-eat crops

such as salads for direct human consumption. We believe that waters used for

irrigation, particularly in areas where ready- to-eat crops are grown, should be

monitored for FIOs as well bathing and shellfish waters. Agriculture is a legitimate

and licensed water use and we feel the Agency needs to consider policies to protect

waters used for irrigation. Actions could include raising standards for combined

sewer overflows, and routinely notifying irrigation abstractors of relevant pollution

incidents.

Pesticides

Pesticides found in the water environment can derive from other sectors of the economy besides agriculture. Correct identification of the source of pollution is important if measures are to be targeted most cost effectively.

Pesticides are also used to control non-native invasive species which can be a WFD pressure. They are often the only practicable and effective form of control.

Pesticides used in agriculture are not contributing to widespread failure of ecological quality standards, but concentrations of certain pesticides are increasing in some Drinking Water Protected Areas and may be putting Article 7 compliance at risk. Measures taken to address this must be proportionate.

UK Government policy on pesticides is risk reduction, not use reduction.

The Plan recognises that pesticides found in the water environment can derive from

other sectors of the economy besides agriculture as they are also used in a wide

range of sectors, e.g. transport, industry, amenity, recreation and conservation.

Identification of the source of pollution is important to enable identification of the

correct measures and their accurate and therefore cost effective targeting. This is

particularly so where the same active ingredient is used in different sectors. An

example of this is Cypermethrin, which is used as an insecticide in agriculture and

horticulture, for timber treatment, and also as a veterinary medicine (sheep dip).

Measures under the VI for pesticides are applicable only to agricultural/horticultural

pesticide uses, and not to timber treatment or veterinary medicine uses.

An important use of pesticides is to control pressures from non-native invasive

species, particularly where other forms of control are either impracticable or

ineffective. This is the case for the aquatic species, Curly Water Weed and

Australian Swamp Stonecrop, and certain terrestrial species commonly found close

alongside rivers and streams, such as Japanese Knotweed, Himalayan Balsam and

Giant Hogweed. It would be difficult or impossible to achieve GES without the use of

herbicides to control these weeds.

10

We understand that pesticides used in agriculture are not contributing to widespread

failure of ecological quality standards in water, but that concentrations of certain

pesticides are increasing in some Drinking Water Protected Areas and may be

putting Article 7 compliance at risk. However, when considering the proportionality

of measures to address this, the impacts must be considered. For example, if

restrictions are imposed on certain herbicides used on oilseed rape, control of

blackgrass could become almost impossible, resulting in yield losses of about 35%.

Such restrictions could also impact on cereal growing where oilseed rape is used as

a break crop for cleaning blackgrass-infested fields prior to planting with cereals.

Addressing this problem through additional cultivations may give rise to pollution

swapping, for example by increasing nitrate losses („Pesticide Availability‟: HGCA

Research Review 70, 2009).

With regard to measures generally, UK Government policy is risk reduction, not use

reduction. Use reduction is not an objective under the UK National Pesticides

Strategy or the WFD.

Sheep Dip

Sheep dips are veterinary medicines and are regulated by the Veterinary Medicines Agency.

There is very limited choice in active ingredients

Control of sheep scab is essential for the welfare of the animals, for which farmers have legal and cross compliance obligations

Good practice on the part of farmers in their use and disposal of dip is essential and we believe that encouraging this is the appropriate way forward.

A regulatory regime, which recognized the benefits of farmers detoxifying dip before disposal, and reflected this in charges, would contribute to the uptake of this practice.

Sheep dips are veterinary medicines used to control external parasites, including

sheep scab and are regulated by the Veterinary Medicines Agency. There is very

limited choice in active ingredients effective for sheep scab, the most effective being

cypermethrin, which is currently suspended from the market. Cypermethrin-based

dips are potentially more environmentally toxic than the alternative products (organo-

phosphate dips), which could be hazardous to dip operators. At the same time, we

are concerned that it should be recognized that control of sheep scab is essential for

the welfare of the animals. Farmers have legal obligations for animal welfare, also

enforced under cross compliance. Sheep scab is a notifiable disease and infection

can mean restrictions on farmers being able to move, or market their livestock.

11

We do however recognize that sheep dip, if used and disposed of incorrectly, can be

very toxic to aquatic invertebrates and believe that good practice on the part of

farmers in their use and disposal of dip is essential. The industry has led and

promoted, and will continue to promote, the “Stop every Drop” campaign launched in

2006, which provides sheep farmers and dipping contractors with best practice notes

to minimise the risks of water pollution. An Environment Agency survey in 2007

revealed almost half the farmers questioned had heard of the campaign, indicating

that awareness can be increased effectively by such action in a comparatively short

space of time.

Regarding disposal, we believe that a regulatory regime which recognized the

benefits of farmers detoxifying dip before disposal, and reflected this in charges,

would contribute to the uptake of this practice.

Non-agricultural pollution (diffuse and point)

The major source of pollutants such as phosphate, FIOs and sanitary determinands is sewage

Farmers will expect non-agricultural sources of these pollutants to be tackled effectively

Actions to address rural pollution appear to be concentrated on rural land management measures. Improving the performance of small rural sewage works and septic tanks, appears to have been largely overlooked.

Only a small proportion of sewage works are shown on the maps in „What‟s in my backyard‟. We believe these should show all sewage works

We are concerned that agriculture may be expected to take measures where some or all of the costs cannot be recovered, whereas the water industry may only be required to take action where costs can be passed on to customers

The emphasis placed on agriculture in the Plan appears disproportionately large in

relation to its actual contribution. The major source of pollutants such as phosphate,

FIOs and sanitary determinands remains sewage. In the same way that water

companies wish diffuse pollution from agriculture to be addressed, farmers will also

expect non-agricultural sources, both point and diffuse, to be tackled effectively.

We understand that reductions in phosphate emissions from UK STWs achieved

under the Urban Wastewater Treatment Directive (UWWTD) are modest compared

to some EU member states where much higher reductions – up to 90% - have been

achieved. The European Environmental Agency (2005) classifies the UK with

countries discharging 0.35-0.4 kg P/capita/year, whereas 8 other northern EU

countries discharge about 0.1 kg P/capita/year.

We are particularly concerned about smaller treatment works which have been little

affected by the UWWTD in the UK, and we suggest that the costs and benefits of

12

addressing phosphate from smaller works should be re-assessed. Balmer (2006)

reported that the additional cost of operation for phosphorus removal will in many

cases not exceed Euro1-2/capita/year. Given the relatively small size of the world‟s

remaining phosphate resources and the nutrient‟s importance to human life, there

may well be a social value to recovering phosphate from sewage for recycling.

We are concerned that the Plan does not appear to refer to the recent phosphate

source apportionment work at River Basin level carried out for Defra by White and

Hammond (2006). Well-evidenced source apportionment, including on a local

scale, is essential to ensure all parties are willing to acknowledge their respective

contributions. This will require obtaining new information where robust data is not

currently available.

Diffuse rural pollution is not synonymous with the agricultural contribution. For

example, thousands of small rural sewage works and hundreds of thousands of

unsewered properties contribute significantly to phosphorus concentrations in some

rural areas. This has been recognised as a pressure within the River Hull catchment

but no other catchments. Instead we note that actions to address rural pollution

appear to be concentrated on rural land management measures. Improving the

performance of rural sources, such as small rural sewage works and septic tanks,

has been largely overlooked. In addition to this „What‟s in my backyard‟ identifies

only a small proportion of sewage works. We believe that all sewage works should

be shown on these maps so that the public can be properly informed about point

sources of pollution in their areas. Omitting these contributes to the impression that

the contribution of these works is being overlooked.

We are also concerned about an apparent disparity of approach between agriculture

and the water industry, which are both sources of pollution. There appears to be an

expectation that the water industry will only take action where costs can be passed

on to customers (i.e. OFWAT approves the work), whereas agriculture may be

expected to take measures where some or all of the costs cannot be recovered.

Physical modifications

Given the high level of uncertainty, we are concerned that the proposed A/HMWB designations in the Plan may not be sufficient.

Crop production would not be viable in large areas without appropriate water level management. We expect that agriculture will be able to continue to operate with historic water levels maintained to reflect ongoing use.

If measures to alter water levels are proposed, we would expect that they will be subject to full consultation and appeal.

13

The provision under the WFD, which allows water bodies to be designated as

artificial or heavily modified (A/HMWB) where achieving GES would have significant

adverse effects on flood protection and land drainage, is extremely important for

agriculture. Crop production would not be viable in large areas without appropriate

water level management and the Plan fails to recognise the ongoing importance of

land drainage. We would expect that agriculture will be able to continue to operate

with historic water levels maintained to reflect ongoing use and that good ecological

potential may therefore be the appropriate WFD objective.

We also note the Plan recognises that there is currently a lack of detailed evidence

on how hydromorpholgical pressures influence ecology. Given the high level of

uncertainty, it is possible that the proposed A/HMWB designations in the Plan are

not adequate. There has been little consultation with farmers about the type of

measures under consideration and their potential/likely potential adverse impacts on

water levels and farm output.

If measures to alter water levels are proposed, we would expect that they will be

subject to full consultation and appeal and compensation. Farmers have invested

heavily in land drainage infrastructure and associated assets in response to policies

and decisions by previous governments. We believe full account of this should be

taken in the EA‟s consideration of disproportionality and that owners should not be

left with stranded assets.

Abstraction

Abstraction is an important issue for the agricultural sector and the local rural economy in this RBD.

It has a valuable role nationally in reducing imports, particularly of vegetables where UK growers account for more than half of the marketed tonnage.

Irrigation has increasingly become necessary to meet the demands of retailers and processors.

There should be full recognition of the importance of food production in allocating water. Leakage and non-essential domestic use should be addressed in any measures introduced to ensure sustainability.

More security for licences is needed if farmers are to be encouraged to build storage reservoirs.

Abstraction is an important issue for the agricultural sector in this RBD, where it

makes an important contribution to the local rural economy, supporting food

processing and packing businesses as well as farming. The Agency should therefore

ensure that it engages with agricultural stakeholders where they will be affected.

Irrigation has increasingly become necessary to meet the demands of retailers and

processors to achieve quality, consistency of product and maintain supply. It has a

14

valuable role in reducing imports, particularly of vegetables where UK growers

account for more than half of the marketed tonnage. Imports are often from areas of

higher water stress and imply additional carbon emissions.

Security of water supply is a major issue for farmers and we are pleased to see that

the construction of storage reservoirs are to be encouraged under the Plan.

However, without long-term security of abstraction licences (around 20 years,

(Weatherhead et al., 2006)), winter storage reservoirs may not be financially

worthwhile and could even be a „mal-adaptation‟ to climate change, involving

misallocation of scarce resources. More security for licences is therefore an

important component of the action being proposed in the Plan.

Farmers are very concerned that agricultural water use may be subordinated to

public supply. We do not believe that large scale leakage losses by water

companies and non-essential uses by domestic water consumers represent the best

alternative use. Food production should be a higher priority.

England has policies and mechanisms in place to address impacts from abstraction

in the form of CAMS, Restoring Sustainable Abstraction and the Review of

Consents. However, farmers require greater clarity as to whether new or enhanced

actions are being considered under the CAMS as part of this first WFD cycle. There

is very little information in the Plan as to how the problems identified in the CAMS

will be addressed to meet the WFD objectives.

15

CONSULTATION QUESTIONS

Q1. Do you agree with the assessment of problems in water bodies? What

would you change?

Our comments are necessarily general on account of the numbers of water bodies involved, and the lack of clarity in the Plan regarding the data, standards and methodology used.

We welcome the Plan‟s recognition that uncertainty is a very real problem, and that this needs to be reduced before taking action which may be unnecessary.

We are concerned that further classification information not included in consultation draft will be used in the final Plan. We expect there to be further opportunity for comment on assessments once they have been completed to a satisfactory standard.

We believe only data from representative monitoring points should be used for assessments. It is not clear from the Plan whether this is the case.

The „one-out all-out‟ principle results in the quality of the water environment being under-stated.

We have concerns about the „standards‟ apparently being used to classify waters „at risk‟.

We believe that assessment for groundwaters should take account of current trends in inputs (i.e. at the top of the unsaturated zone).

It is not clear that source apportionment has been effectively addressed.

The Agency has not consulted farmers about the importance of land drainage in the assessment of whether water bodies should be designated as A/HMWB.

It is not possible to say whether or not we agree with the assessment of problems in

water bodies. There are many hundreds of these and it would not be practicable to

check them all. In any event, access to the Agency‟s data is not signposted, and the

methodology used to assess the problems is not stated, nor is the Plan always clear

about the standards used. Our comments are therefore general.

What is clear from the RBMP is that the Agency does not always have sufficient

good quality data to make a valid classification with the necessary confidence. We

therefore welcome the Plan‟s recognition that uncertainty is a very real problem, and

that this needs to be reduced before taking action which may be unnecessary and

believe it would be valuable to identify the circumstances where uncertainty is critical

with a view to prioritising investigations and securing further data.

We are concerned about the adequacy of monitoring as monitoring sites used for

nutrient sensitive areas are very thinly spread, with very few located in Yorkshire

catchments. We also note that monitoring sites used for the Urban Wastewater

Treatment Directive (Figure D20) appear identical with those used for all nutrient

16

sensitive areas, from which it appears no additional sites were used for NVZs. We

seriously question the reliability of such sparse monitoring and question whether

sites suitable for UWWTD can be adequate and representative for NVZs without

supplementation.

It is of concern to note that further classification information not included in

consultation draft will be used in the final Plan. Can the Agency clarify the

opportunities it will provide for affected stakeholders to comment on additions it

makes to the Plan which were not in the consultation draft? For example, we

understand that the compliance assessments for surface water DrWPA objectives

have not yet been carried out and that compliance will not be assessed until 2011,

following 2 years of monitoring. We would expect there to be further opportunity for

comment on this, and on other assessments, once they have been completed to a

satisfactory standard.

There are a number of questions about the „no deterioration‟ condition for DrWPAs.

Which parameters are to be monitored? How will stakeholders be given access to

the 2007/2008 data defining the baseline, and the ongoing monitoring data? How

will affected stakeholders be assured of the integrity of water company monitoring

bearing in mind that these profit making bodies may have a financial interest in the

outcome? The process needs to be made more transparent.

It is not clear whether data from representative monitoring points have always been

used, or whether the GQA (General Quality Assessment) network has also been

used. It is clear from the NVZ designation exercise that monitoring points from the

GQA network were often not representative of water bodies, for example, when

close downstream of sewage works. We believe that only monitoring points that are

genuinely representative of water bodies should be used for assessments to be

made with any degree of certainty.

We believe the „one-out all-out‟ principle results in the quality of the water

environment being under-stated. We note the Plan says as much and that many

water bodies fail because of a single pressure. Stakeholders should be informed of

the ongoing record of improvement, perhaps through logging and profiling the

reduction in the number of failing parameters. We do however welcome the Plan‟s

recognition of the importance of the biological status of water bodies and that it is

necessary to verify a problem for this in order to justify action, rather than acting

whenever the supporting physico-chemical elements suggest a problem.

We have already expressed surprise at the extent of surface waters assessed as

being at risk for nitrates and our reasons for this. We are also concerned at the

approach to Drinking Water Protected Areas, where it appears that the Plan

objectives include applying Drinking Water Directive standards to water at the point

17

of abstraction. (Annex D4 states that the first objective [for DrWPAs] will be achieved

“by meeting the standards of the Drinking Water Directive”) This would not seem to

take account of the treatment regime applied (as referred to in Article 7 (2), nor to

reflect the RBP Guidance (Volume 2) which refers to measurement at the point of

abstraction ( para 3.7).

The same Guidance also refers to “standards” for nitrates (and pesticides) from the

Groundwater Daughter Directive (GWDD). It indicates that “failure of these

“standards” will not automatically result in a “poor chemical status” classification but,

rather, act as a trigger for investigation into whether the status objectives (including

the protection of the amenity/environmental functions) of the groundwater body are

being met.”

We also note from Defra‟s 2008 consultation on transposition of the GWDD that

“although it [the GWDD] includes a 50 mg/l “standard” for nitrates ……. [it] respects

the objectives of the Nitrates Directive and the way it operates.” …. and “ does not

therefore include any additional requirements for agricultural sources of nitrates

beyond those already contained in the Nitrates Directive and the WFD.” We are

concerned that the Plan overlooks this and places inappropriate weight on the

GWDD “standards”.

The Plan‟s approach on a number of counts described above appears to go beyond

the minimum needed for compliance with the EU legislation and we believe this

amounts to gold plating.

It seems that despite the recognition that lagged responses are characteristic of

most ground waters, assessment is based on deep borehole monitoring. This

ignores the impact of changes in farming practices in recent decades. We believe

that monitoring at the top of the unsaturated zone would provide information on

current trends and that assessment should take account of this to reduce

uncertainty.

With regard to sources of nitrate in groundwater, it is not clear from the Plan that the

Agency has either addressed, or intends to address, the terms of the licences it

grants for discharges from sewage and water treatment works to „soakaways‟

feeding groundwater. We have already commented that the Plan does not appear

to reflect the recent research carried out for Defra to update source apportionment

for phosphate and that there is disproportionate emphasis on agriculture.

In the case of sediment, there are no UKTAG standards although UKTAG made

“suggestions” as to how assessment might be approached. It is not clear from the

Plan whether these suggestions have been taken up and therefore how the

assessments have been carried out. We therefore are not able to comment.

18

Regarding hydromorphology, farmers have not been consulted on whether their

ongoing (land drainage) use of the water body would be affected by the achievement

of GES. They will obviously have serious concerns if the water body into which their

land drains has not been assessed as being A/HMWB when drainage of their land

would be prejudiced. There may be cases where designations have not been made

because it has been judged that land drainage will not be prejudiced by the

attainment of good status. Given the level of uncertainty which the Agency accepts

is present at this stage, we are concerned about the situation which would arise if

such judgments were incorrect. We wish to be reassured that A/HMWM designation

could be made subsequently if the basis of earlier decisions not to designate were

found to be incorrect.

Q2. Do you agree with the proposed objectives? What would you change?

We agree that the objectives for 2015 will not be achievable for some water bodies and that the use of the exemptions built into the Directive is appropriate, particularly for groundwater given the time lags involved.

We disagree with the target of 2015 for compliance in Protected Areas. We understand that there is no absolute requirement for Protected Areas to comply by 2015 where the original legislation does not specify a date and that a longer period can accordingly be allowed.

We question whether the objective to halve the number of water bodies not at good status by 2021 is realistic in view of the one-out all-out approach.

We believe the Plan goes beyond what is necessary for WFD compliance, which we consider to be goldplating. All goldplating should be avoided.

The objectives of WFD are very ambitious and challenging. We agree that the

objectives for 2015 will not be achievable for some water bodies and that the use of

the exemptions built into the Directive is appropriate. We support the Agency‟s

proposed use of exemptions in view of the uncertainty inherent in much of the

information currently available. We believe the use of exemptions for groundwater is

practically unavoidable given the time lags involved, and that the Plan‟s objective to

achieve good status in all waters by 2027 is unrealistic in respect of some

groundwaters.

However, we disagree with the target of 2015 for compliance in Protected Areas as

there is no absolute requirement for Protected Areas to comply by 2015 where the

original legislation does not specify a date and a longer period can accordingly be

allowed, if for example, it were found to be disproportionately costly to modify an

abstraction licence by 2015 to protect a Natura 2000 site. We feel a longer period

should be allowed as farmers may have made substantial investments in fixed

assets, and foreshortening the period allowed for compliance could reduce their

ability to achieve pay back on their investment. This should be taken account of in

19

the assessment of disproportionality to justify alternative objectives and we would

expect similar considerations to apply in respect of the case of other Protected

Areas.

We question whether the objective to halve the number of water bodies not at good

status by 2021 is realistic in view of the one-out all-out approach. No justification is

provided and on the face of it, this seems an arbitrary form of objective setting. It will

mean that expenditure will be concentrated in the second cycle. We would adopt a

more consistent approach to the workload and cost of delivering improvements over

the second and third cycles.

We do not agree with objectives going beyond what is necessary for WFD

compliance, a challenging objective in itself. We have identified examples which we

consider do go beyond what is necessary and which we regard as goldplating. We

believe all goldplating should be avoided and we cite examples below.

The approach to Drinking Water Protected Areas appears to include applying

Drinking Water Directive standards to water prior to abstraction. If this is correct, it

would seem not to take account of “the treatment regime applied” (as referred to in

Article 7 (2)). Also, we note in Annex G (p7) that although UKTAG has set “no

……standards for nitrate in surface freshwaters”, that “the 50 mg/l drinking water

standard continues to guide action.” in all surface waters.

The objective stated in the Plan to deliver favourable condition in SSSIs to achieve

the UK‟s PSA target, is of concern to us as it is not a requirement to comply with this

target for either with WFD or national legislation. This is a national target, and it

therefore appears to represent goldplating of the already heavy obligations the UK

has accepted under the WFD. We feel that any measures driven by this objective

should be limited to non-regulatory mechanisms.

The objectives for Bathing Waters include going beyond achieving compliance (the

„sufficient‟ category), and includes increasing the number of „good‟ or „excellent‟

status bathing waters “…by taking such realistic and proportionate measures

considered appropriate…”. Not only does this approach constitute goldplating in

relation to compliance with the Directive, but it provides no clarity or transparency for

stakeholders. There is no indication of the criteria by which measures would be

assessed as “realistic and proportionate”, and it is foreseeable that the various

interests involved are likely to take different views as to what is realistic and

proportionate.

Objectives delayed to a later cycle

20

Q3. For some water bodies we have proposed objectives with deadlines after

2021 or a lower overall target. Do you agree with these changes? What would

you change?

We welcome the Plan‟s acknowledgement that achieving WFD objectives in all water bodies is aspirational and that investigations may identify situations where „less stringent objectives‟ are the realistic approach.

The consequences of the acknowledged long lags for most ground waters do not appear to be accepted in setting the objective of achieving good status for all groundwaters by 2027.

We question whether it is helpful to adopt an aim of 100% achievement of good status by 2027 when it appears that this is not realistic and would prefer a more realistic approach to objective setting from the outset.

We welcome the Plan‟s acknowledgement that achieving WFD objectives in all water

bodies is aspirational. While we note the Agency has proposed only extended

timescales at present, we are pleased to note it recognises that its planned

investigations may identify water bodies where „less stringent objectives‟ are the

realistic approach. We note the Plan refers to a slightly different objective for 2027,

namely that, as a priority, there should be no bad status water bodies left by this

date. This seems a more achievable objective and is a rather different aim from

achieving good status in all water bodies by 2027.

While the Plan acknowledges that lagged responses are characteristic of most

ground waters, the logical consequences of this do not always appear to be

accepted in setting objectives. For example, while it is recognised that it can take 50

years or more for pollutants to work through from the surface to the aquifer, the fact

that improvements may take the same time to work through appears to have been

overlooked in the Plan‟s assertion that “we are investing now to meet the long-term

challenge of achieving good status for 100% of groundwaters by 2027”, a mere 18

years away, when only 60% of groundwaters are at present achieving good or

potentially good status. We believe that monitoring at the top of the unsaturated

zone would provide information on current trends and would also help to ensure

measures are justified, cost effective and appropriate.

We question whether it is helpful to adopt an aim of 100% achievement of good

status by 2027 when it appears that this is not realistic. This may lead to

disappointment and criticism when the objective is not achieved. We feel the

Agency should adopt a more realistic approach to objectives from the outset.

“The plan sets out the actions required to meet the objectives. To what extent

do you agree that we have identified the right actions (actions that are

proportionate and feasible)?”

21

Before proceeding to the questions, we would wish to comment on the preamble

(above). By „right‟ actions, the Plan apparently means those which are deemed to

be proportionate and feasible. As we understand it, the proportionality and feasibility

of actions need to be decided at the individual water body level, while an individual

firm‟s affordability is an element of the test for proportionality. It will therefore not be

possible to give a detailed answer as to whether we agree the actions proposed are

the “right” ones.

The process for appraising actions

Q4. We have followed a process to assess (appraise) the actions. This

process is described in detail in Annex E. Do you agree with how we have

done this?

It is not clear to us how measures required for compliance for surface water DrWPAs can be identified in advance of the assessment of compliance itself.

The issue of source apportionment does not appear to be addressed in the process described at Annex E. It is clearly essential that the actions/measures selected are targeted to the correct sources if the objectives are to be achieved.

We welcome the Plan‟s recognition that affordability is an accepted criterion in the assessment of disproportionality. We believe this should be applied at the individual business and water body scale.

The Plan is unclear about the approach it has taken to cost effectiveness analysis.

With regard to the pCEA exercise, we wish to make clear that the industry did not agree the combinations of measures and requested that our reservations should be noted in the pCEA report.

We are not able to comment on the identification and appraisal process for the locally derived M4 measures, since the national criteria used to identify and appraise these are not explained. In light of some of the measures detailed, we have to question the validity of the process by which these measures have been derived.

It is not clear to us how work to identify any additional measures required for

compliance for surface water DrWPAs which is apparently ongoing until September

2009, can be done in advance of the assessment of compliance itself. The

measures should depend on the extent of non-compliance. We therefore request the

opportunity to comment on the outcomes of the work to be completed in September

2009 before measures are implemented.

The issue of source apportionment does not appear to be addressed in the process

described at Annex E, or if it has, not in a manner which is readily apparent to the

22

reader. This issue is very important in the WFD process of selection of measures

since many pressures derive from multiple sources. It is clearly essential that the

actions/measures selected are targeted to the correct sources if the objectives are to

be achieved. The plan must include actions to address non-agricultural sources of

diffuse and point source pollution e.g phosphate and nitrate from rural STWs and

unsewered properties/septic tanks, and phosphate and sediment from un-kerbed

roads.

In this context, we note that the main source of phosphate, from sewage works, has

already been judged to be disproportionate for this cycle for 1800 sewage works in

England and Wales. It appears that this is as a result of a high level appraisal and

that the cost and benefits and tests for disproportionality have not been assessed at

water body level. As this is not a national measure, we are not clear why a high level

appraisal has been used as a basis for decision.

Noting that the main source of phosphate is not to be addressed in the first cycle, it

is questionable whether appreciable benefits can be delivered by addressing smaller

sources.

We note that the stated aim of the appraisal process as described in the Plan is to

avoid incurring unnecessary costs where it is not clear that there is a problem, where

the source of the problem is not clear or where the most cost effective action cannot

yet be determined. It does not appear to include the test for disproportionality, yet

this is what seems to have been applied.

We welcome the Plan‟s recognition that affordabilty is an accepted criterion in the

assessment of disproportionality, but we disagree that this is to be applied at sectoral

level. Our understanding is that it should be applied at individual business and water

body scale.

The Directive refers to making judgements about “the most cost effective

combination of measures”, but the Plan is unclear about the approach it has taken to

cost effectiveness analysis (CEA). The aim of selecting the most cost effective

measures is identified at one point in Annex E, correctly in our view. But at other

points, reference is made to measures which are “cost effective”, such as for M3

measures at Steps 3 and 4 in E.4. We are therefore unclear as to the decision

criterion used for selection of measures. We believe references to “cost effective”

should be amended to “most cost effective”, and the process altered accordingly.

We note that while Annex E.4 recognises that CEA has a role when M3 measures

are under consideration, it is not included when appraising M4 measures. This

appears to be an omission. We feel it should also be applied for M4 measures, as

well as applying it to the combination of measures as indicated by the Directive.

23

With regard to the pCEA exercise, we should point out that the activities of the

agriculture group were foreshortened. We also wish to make clear that the industry

did not agree the combinations of measures. It had many reservations about these

and specifically reserved its position on the pCEA outputs for agriculture, which we

requested should be noted in the pCEA report.

The national criteria used to identify and appraise locally derived the M4 measures

are not explained and we are therefore unable to comment on the identification and

appraisal process. We have doubts about the suitability of some of the measures

aimed at farmers in Annex C.

It is not clear from the Plan which M4 measures were developed with Liaison panels

and those developed by the Agency. However, we are surprised by, and have

serious reservations about some of the measures in Annex E Table 1 (p58), which

are apparently taken from the Agency‟s hydromorphology toolkit. One example is

ceasing maintenance of field drainage systems. Given the fundamental importance

of land drainage to agriculture, and its express recognition as a legitimate activity to

be protected from significant adverse impacts at Article 4.3(a)(iv) of the Directive, we

have to question the validity of the process by which these measures have been

derived. We also have reservations about other measures, such as minimum tillage

and removal of stock, if applied inappropriately.

24

Actions

There are some extra actions that could be put in place if there were more

certainty that they would be effective. These are listed under Scenario C and

we would like to know if you could help make these actions happen.

Q5. What comments do you have on these actions? Are there any actions

that have been missed or any changes you’d propose?

Within the Plan the drivers for action are sometimes given as legislation, and

sometimes by other reasons such as the effect e.g. reduction in sediment.

Legislation is a clear and necessary driver, but other drivers may well be goldplating.

Actions need to be justified in terms of the requirements of the Water Framework

Directive, or other legislation where relevant to the delivery of WFD objectives.

Using RBMPs to deliver other objectives e.g. delivering the PSA target for SSSIs

without an up-front and open debate and evaluation of policy and impact is not

appropriate.

The main list of key Scenario A actions includes actions such as the Agri-

environment/ELS/HLS, the NVZ Action Programme, and the ECSF Delivery

Initiative. However, the Voluntary Initiative for pesticides which is in place across the

RBD is referred to elsewhere in the plan and should be included as a scenario A

measure. There is additional legislation under development independent of WFD but

which will bear on the achievement of WFD objectives. One important example

which relates to pesticides is the Sustainable Use Directive covering for example

sprayer testing and operator training.

Whilst we welcome the confidence shown in the delivery of nutrient management

through agri-environment and the environmental stewardship schemes, it needs to

be made clear that agri environment funding is distributed in a targeted manner and

resource protection is only one of a number of objectives which applicants must

meet with no guarantee of acceptance into the scheme.

Scenario B: The reality is that most actions taken or proposed in agriculture are

being implemented independently of RBMPs, including some specifically intended to

help deliver WFD objectives. Examples are the ECSFDI, and industry initiatives

such as the VI and Tried and Tested. This means that there are few if any actions

affecting agriculture which genuinely fall within Scenario B.

Other than for the VI for pesticides which promotes best practice to minimise any

adverse impact of pesticides in the environment, there does not seem to be mention

of the many other voluntary industry initiatives which are also aimed at good/best

practice e.g. Farm Assurance, Biodiversity and Environmental Training for

(pesticide) Advisors (BETA), FACTS, Stop Every Drop and Tried and Tested, LEAF,

25

Environmental Plan for Dairy Farming etc. The industry has also recently proposed

a Campaign for the Farmed Environment to address biodiversity and resource

protection issues.

The industry‟s preference is for voluntary approaches. We therefore particularly

welcome the support shown for voluntary measures in Annex E. WPZs are intended

by Defra to be a power of last resort, in many cases high quality voluntary

mechanisms can deliver similar outcomes and prove to be more cost beneficial.

The scenario B measure - the creation of tree and woodland buffers adjacent to

water courses to improve water quality and habitat is a very site specific action but

the measure may be acceptable if taken forward on a voluntary basis.

Q6. What comments on Scenario C actions do you have, including any

additional information you can supply about specific actions?

The industry‟s preference is for voluntary measures rather than regulatory ones,

believing that one volunteer is worth 10 pressed men. Regulatory measures are

often inflexible and expensive to enforce, real problems in relation to day to day

agricultural management. There is a need and willingness amongst all industry

partners to work with other stakeholders with the aim of impressing on farmers the

importance of achieving the highest uptake of voluntary measures.

Water Protection Zones (WPZs)

We feel strongly that WPZs should only be used where other suitable measures

have been tried, and have been shown to have failed. The recent Defra consultation

on WPZs states that WPZs are a “last resort” and that “there must be “sufficient

evidence” to justify use of WPZs. It is also appropriate to remember that Defra‟s

choice of WPZs was as part of a package of delivery mechanisms, also comprising

of advice (principally through the ECSFDI) and environmental scheme support. We

do not agree with the statement in Annexes C and E that WPZs will be used where

other mechanisms are considered not likely to work, particularly when they are

based on the results of modelling. Farmers should to be given every opportunity to

resolve problems by other means before a power of last resort is used.

The industry is concerned about the very wide scope of the proposed WPZ power.

We have proposed a „WPZ Charter‟ to provide reassurance to farmers and guidance

as to the circumstances and ways in which WPZ powers will be used. We urge the

Agency to commit to this Charter (Annex A). No details on the proposed WPZs are

included in the Plan as each WPZ will be subject to a separate consultation. Our

comments on the proposed use of WPZs in particular cases will be made in

response to those consultations.

26

Enhanced VI

Enhanced VI measures could be introduced to help achieve WFD objectives where

VI measures are currently insufficient due to insufficient uptake or lack of

understanding. The challenge lies in procuring funding to develop and deliver these

measures. It is also vital that all stakeholders work in a coordinated way to achieve

these measures.

Promoting best practice for use and disposal of sheep dip

The industry supports the adoption of best practice and it is part of the ongoing „Stop

every drop‟ campaign. We believe take up of detoxification treatments could be

improved if there were fewer restrictions and less cost for disposal of detoxified

material. The regulatory regime currently applies the same restrictions – and

charges – to spent dip which has been treated to detoxify it as to the untreated

material.

Discharges from Farm Dumps

This is a legacy issue arising from historic good practice as recommended by the

authorities at the time. We feel farmers should not be held accountable for any costs

involved for following government advice and that this will be key to engaging

farmers in addressing any issues identified. We believe that no work should be

carried out in this area unless a real, rather than perceived, problem is identified.

There are a wider range of key actions in other RBDs. The industry supports the

following for inclusion:

Further extension of the CSF Delivery Initiative

We believe there is scope for a substantial expansion of the DI. The current funding

supports Catchment Officers in 6 catchments in the Humber RBD but only small

parts of some of the larger catchments are being covered at any one time. The

extension of the DI would be in line with the government‟s policy package for

DWPA set out in its response to its consultation on DWPA of Advice plus Scheme

plus WPZs, with the latter as a last resort.

Water Company Catchment Management Schemes(CMSs)

‘We support CMSs where water companies and farmers within a Drinking Water

Protected Area work together to protect or improve water quality as an alternative to

water treatment. This measure is in line with Defra‟s direction to OFWAT in its policy

statement Future Water to approve catchment management schemes which satisfy

appropriate criteria. We understand there are likely to be around 100 such schemes

within the PR09 programme, but the vast majority of these are only investigative

27

(only the United Utilities SCaMP is fully fledged). We believe that a co-operative

approach between the water industry and agriculture offers a constructive approach

to resolving such problems, as exemplified by a number of European projects.

Provision of education and information on soils and pesticides to non-

agricultural land owners

This measure is strongly endorsed by the agricultural industry and could be included

within the Humber RBMP as a positive measure. We would advocate it being

extended to address wider non-agricultural rural diffuse pollution problems such as

septic tanks and rural roads.

Storage for irrigation water

We believe this action should be in Scenario B as it is in the Anglian Plan. Also, if

this measure is to be taken up, abstraction licences need to cover the pay-back

period for the investment.

Other Scenario C actions in Annex C

The scenario C proposal to „Reduce impact from hard bank

reinforcement…..improve connection to the flood plain” will inevitably have an impact

upon land drainage activities‟. Land drainage is recognised as a legitimate activity to

be protected at Article 4.3(a)(iv) of the Directive. Farmers will expect to continue to

manage to historic water levels in order to maintain the productive capacity of their

land. Actions taken to „restore‟ channel habitats can have knock on consequences

for land drainage. Farmers must be consulted at an early stage when developing

proposals so that the impact on food production can be fully investigated, understood

and mitigated before work commences. Agricultural flood defences play a vital role

in ensuring that the productive capacity of high value agricultural land is maintained.

Any proposals must be discussed with landowners at an early stage and can only

proceed on a voluntary basis, in the majority of cases adequate compensation would

be required

Support offered to help deliver WFD

Q7. What support can you offer, such as undertaking any actions or providing

resources, to help deliver more for your environment?

As described above, the industry is already undertaking a range of initiatives which

will contribute to WFD objectives independently of the RBMP. The industry also

28

believes an industry-led Agricultural Liaison Group would be a valuable means of

raising awareness of relevant issues with a view to securing farmer engagement and

„buy in‟. However, before this phase, we would anticipate the Group would require to

be appraised of the Agency‟s evidence necessitating action by the industry. It is

likely that the Group would wish to look at the costs of any measures proposed and

whether these are the most cost effective in particular areas.

Where problems are persistent or unresponsive to other measures, the industry sees

one-to-one advice as an effective means of changing farmer behaviour. Advice

could be delivered by FACTS and BASIS qualified advisers as a reserve option in

such areas. The cost of this would have to be factored into the cost and benefit

analysis, but the evidence is that one-to-one advice is effective. This could involve

the preparation of appropriate managements plans, whether for nutrients, crop

protection or other matters.

There is the potential for further joint work to enhance and extend the VI for

pesticides if funding is available. The Crop Protection Association (CPA) can also

provide knowledge/expertise re best practice in the „Amenity‟ and „Home and

Garden‟ sectors.

Q8. Do you agree with our assessment of how climate change will affect

pressures on the water environment? What would you change?

We do not feel able to accept the findings how climate change will affect pressures on the water environment where they are based on pollution modeling without the results of the research having first been validated.

We are concerned there will be no attempt to take account of climate change in the objectives in the first cycle. We would resist using this analysis to justify taking mandatory measures until climate change has been taken into account in the objectives.

We cannot find any detail of the systematic screening of most of the measures that has reportedly been carried out. The process needs to be transparent and complete and results communicated to stakeholders.

We do not agree that construction of irrigation reservoirs would necessarily be a „no-regrets option‟. This would only be the case if there was security of supply/abstraction licensing.

The approach outlined makes little or no reference to source apportionment. We believe correct targeting is essential to minimise the risk of not meeting the objectives due to climate change.

We note that the European Commission has identified water management as the

priority area for action and that the Common Implementation Strategy is currently

focusing on making the best use of EU water legislation as a vehicle. What this

29

means for assessment of the problem, the objectives to be achieved and the actions

to achieve these is therefore of considerable importance.

The assessment of how climate change will affect pressures on the water

environment appears to be based on research which includes pollution modeling.

We do not know what assumptions and methodologies have been employed, and we

would expect the results to be validated before they are generally applied. We are

therefore unable to accept the findings prior to validation.

We do nevertheless welcome the Plan‟s recognition of the extent of uncertainty, and

note the assessment is only qualitative at this stage.

Much of the content of Annex H concerns the approach proposed by the Agency for

accommodating climate change into the WFD. We have significant issues with this.

While we understand the approach is to consider the change in risk of not achieving

WFD objectives due to climate change, we are concerned there will be no attempt to

take account of climate change in the objectives (or in the assessment of typologies,

reference condition, or monitoring) in the first cycle. If one side of the comparison is

adjusted for climate change and the other is not, this is comparing apples with

oranges, potentially invalidating any conclusions. We would therefore resist using

this analysis to justify taking mandatory measures until climate change has been

taken fully into account in the appraisal, and feel that caution should also be

exercised with the application of other types of measures.

The description of the approach refers to identifying, appraising and adapting

“measures”, and considering the contribution of measures themselves to climate

change. However, we can find little of this in Annex H, with most discussion relating

to broad actions/mechanisms rather than measures (as defined in Annex E for the

purposes of the whole Plan). For example, we cannot find any detail of the

systematic screening of most of the measures that has reportedly been carried out.

If farmers are to have confidence in what is asserted, the process needs to be

transparent and complete and results communicated to stakeholders.

One measure identified for agriculture elsewhere in the Plan is the construction of

irrigation reservoirs. We do not agree that this would necessarily be a „no-regrets

option‟, which the report states is the favoured approach, with screening in place to

ensure that no unfavourable or regrets options are proposed. While this measure

would address an immediate concern with pressure on summer water availability, it

seems to lack any consideration of whether sufficient winter water will be made

available to farmers over the life of the assets to justify construction – risking the

creation of stranded assets, and a misallocation of scarce resources. Research

carried out for the Agency found that the changing reliability of local water resources

was a factor contributing to reluctance to invest in reservoirs, (Knox et al., 2006) and

30

the question has already been raised of whether constructing reservoirs could

sometimes be a „mal-adaptation‟ to climate change if river flows decline

(Weatherhead, UKIA Conference 2007). They may not therefore not necessarily be a

no-regrets measure. Some security of supply/abstraction licensing would appear to

be a necessary corollary of the Plan‟s policy of encouraging the construction of

storage reservoirs.

We note the references to changing codes of practice and would point out that even

best practice in nutrients, FIOs, soil, and pesticides management can be over-ridden

by extreme weather events.

We note from the descriptions of the adaptation option classification that it takes

account of overall worthwhile-ness to society. The approach does not however

appear to recognise that distributional consequences such as affordability are also

legitimate issues for WFD purposes. We therefore question whether the

classification categories have been correctly formulated. Worthwhile-ness to society

is not necessarily synonymous with worthwhile-ness at the business level, as in the

example above, and measures which are not financially worthwhile may not be

effective as an action on the ground. We would therefore reformulate the definitions

of the options to take distributional issues into account.

We also note that some categories describe measures as “cost-effective”. We ask

the Agency to clarify the meaning it is applying to this term in this context. The

report does not always appear to be consistent in respect of the boundary between

measures which it deems are, and are not, “cost-effective”, and also as noted above,

how it differs from the Directive‟s use of the phrase “most cost-effective”

We are also concerned that the approach outlined makes little or no reference to

source apportionment, which should be a key part of the development of PoMs,

which are correctly targeted and minimise the risk of not meeting the objectives due

to climate change. We are therefore concerned about the Plan not apparently

identifying some sources of diffuse pollution, such as roads as a source of sediment

and sewage sludge as a source of nutrients and FIOs. Taken together with the

disproportionate references to agricultural sources of phosphate and FIOs compared

to other sources (see above), we feel it is necessary to emphasise the need for

reliable source apportionment.

We are also surprised at the extent of the references to farming relative to other

sources. Also, in a number of instances, farming is presented so as to appear as

the principal source, with the main source following. While reducing DWPA has its

role to play in helping to meet WFD objectives, the extent of the references to it in

this Annex relative to other sectors seems out of all proportion to its contribution to

problems to be dealt with in PoMs.

31

We question whether the specific reference to silage pits is warranted in this RBD,

where they are very untypical of the main farming systems. We also note nutrients

in bathing waters being brought into the section on FIOs. It is not a standard and

would not appear to be relevant.

We also have a number of comments relating specifically to the pressures identified.

For example, the science referred to in the Annex relating to seasonal increases in

nitrate and phosphate in rivers does not in itself suggest that nutrient levels will be

higher than at present. The effects will be in relation to what the situation would

otherwise be following implementation of basic and supplementary measures. For

the reasons cited above, (which are in line with current evidence cited by Defra), and

the new NVZ Action Plan, we believe that nitrate losses from agriculture are likely to

be trending downwards.

Again for reasons cited above, phosphate from agriculture is also likely to be

trending down. As STWs are also a significant source in this RBD, the risk of WFD

objectives not being achieved because of climate change will also be determined by

reductions in sewage discharges. While further improvements are reportedly planned

to STWs, we note from elsewhere in the Plan that improvements at many small rural

works have already been deemed to be disproportionate and will not take place in

the first cycle at least.

With regard to comments on agricultural abstraction being concentrated in the

summer months, the current text appears to regard all irrigation abstraction as from

surfacewaters in summer. We believe it would be appropriate to differentiate

between groundwater abstraction, winter abstraction for storage, and summer

abstraction from surfacewater.

We welcome the recognition that land take costs could increase such that it is not

the most cost-effective option and suggest that this possibility should be fully

factored into current methodologies and decisions on land take.

We are concerned at some of the information contained in the „Microbiology‟ section.

There is substantial comment on the agricultural contribution, with the implication

that agriculture has a significant impact on beaches and bathing waters. This is not

supported by the information provided by Defra in its 2007 public consultation on

bathing waters which identified no beaches in this RBD as affected by agricultural

inputs.

In a similar vein, we note the suggestion that under the effect of climate change

“increased water temperature may improve and encourage microbial pathogens to

survive and reproduce.” We do not believe relevant human pathogens reproduce in

the environment, and we understand that survival decreases as temperature

increases. Our view tallies with a statement later in Annex H that “the survivability of

32

faecal indicator organisms decreases with elevated temperature.” It would be helpful

to remove conflicting statements, and to check the accuracy of what is stated.

Further comments

Q9. Do you have any other comments on this draft plan that you haven’t

already given?

We have already made comments on the Plan which are not included as part of our

answers to previous questions. Please refer to these, and in particular to the section

headed „Issues for Agriculture‟. We will expand upon the section headed „Overview‟

here.

We have found the consultation documents very challenging. The Plan (including

its annexes) is very long, before taking account to the accompanying documents, the

Strategic Environmental Assessment and the Impact Assessment. The Plan is

confusing. Documents are difficult to navigate, and there is much duplication in the

various annexes, etc.

At 2000 pages or more, it has not been possible to thoroughly appraise the Plan.

Our comments are limited to those parts of the Plan we have been able to address

given the time and resources available. We have not for example been able to

examine the details of the many hundreds of individual water bodies; and it concerns

us that we have found measures which could have a serious impact on agriculture,

such as ceasing maintenance of field drains, tucked away in an addendum to an

annex. There may well be issues of concern that we have not identified at this stage

and we may therefore wish to raise issues at a later date.

We have some fundamental concerns with the lack of transparency of the

consultation‟s approach. No details are given of the standards used, the

methodologies by which the standards have been applied or the data which has

been used. We are asked to accept the Agency‟s findings at face value with no

ready access or signposting to the necessary information to check or understand

what has been done. We do not find this at all acceptable. Affected parties need to

be able to verify and understand what has been done.

We do not believe the issue of uncertainty has been given sufficient recognition.

Before measures can be imposed, there is a need for sufficient confidence to be

achieved on a range of issues, including current status, identification of the pressure

causing the problem, source apportionment for the pressure, and the cost-

effectiveness and proportionality of the measures proposed.

The Plan is not by any means complete. Topics which are still to be dealt with

include those of particular concern to agriculture, such as WPZs and DrWPAS. Since

33

agriculture has been identified as one of the main sectors where improvements are

sought, it is essential that the industry is given the fullest opportunity for participation

as well as consultation on future development of the Plan, the Programme of

Measures and what this will mean for the industry. There is a need for the Agency to

develop and maintain excellent channels of communication with agriculture,

including at national as well as at RBD level. We make this point particularly as

there has already been a lack of consultation on some aspects, for example

Scenario C2 and the technical basis of the Plan process.

We are particularly concerned that the Plan appears to goldplate the WFD‟s

requirements in a number of areas which we have already identified, and it is

possible others may emerge. This contrasts with the statement at p9 of the Impact

Assessment that implementation will not go beyond minimum EU requirements. We

therefore believe the Impact Assessment needs to be reviewed in this respect.

We are also concerned to see that the Plan attributes pollution from rural land

management in part to “fertiliser …. use in excess of crop requirements.” No

evidence is produced in support of this contention. Fertiliser rates reported by the

British Survey of Fertiliser Practice indicates that average applications for most crops

are very close to recommended rates. While we believe that there is always scope

for improvement, we challenge the implication that over-application of fertilisers is a

significant issue for most farm crops. We are concerned that the Plan‟s

misapprehension of the true position is liable to distort the selection of measures.

It is also essential that expectations of what the industry can deliver are realistic.

Agriculture can never be a no-impact activity; some of the impacts are avoidable or

can be mitigated, but some are inevitable. For example, a very experienced and

senior researcher considers that reductions in nitrate leaching brought about through

improvements in agricultural practice are unlikely to exceed 10-20% below current

levels, and that further reductions in leaching would be at the expense of yield.

Many of the easy „wins‟ have already been achieved. As the Agency has recognised,

water quality has shown massive improvements in recent years. Around three

quarters of rivers were at good or excellent quality in 2007 under the old

classification system, whereas under the new stringent WFD system less than a

quarter of water bodies are at good ecological status.

The environmental sensitivity of agriculture in the UK is improving, particularly

following the 2003 reform of the CAP with support decoupled from production and

the introduction of cross-compliance. Many regulatory measures are also already in

place, including IPPC and NVZs. The increasing importance of Pillar 2 funding also

brings environmental benefits through Entry Level and Higher Level Stewardship,

both well taken up by the industry. Initiatives aimed particularly at resource

34

protection have also attracted substantial take-up from the industry. These range

from the government-sponsored England Catchment Sensitive Farming Delivery

Initiative (ECSFDI), to industry ventures including the Voluntary Initiative (VI) for

pesticides), the Environmental Plan for Dairy Farming, FACTS, and BASIS. The

industry has also recently launched a nutrient management plan, Professional

Nutrient Management, and its Campaign for the Farmed Environment.

All these actions, combined with changes taking place within the agricultural industry

such as reductions in fertiliser consumption and livestock numbers, are expected to

deliver important improvements in water quality by 2015. Work published by Defra

in 2007, for example, calculated that reductions in phosphate losses under the 2015

baseline scenario would exceed 40% for the poultry, pig and dairy sectors, 25% for

beef and 13% for arable from 2005 levels. It is concerning that we have been unable

to find where the Plan takes account of such improvements already in the pipeline,

which have been assessed under Defra‟s three projects on „Business as Usual‟ for

agriculture in 2015. The recent extensions in NVZ controls in particular should

contribute to reductions in phosphate emissions.

The NVZ regulations have in the past, and will continue to place a heavy financial

burden on the industry following the introduction of the revised Action Programme.

We believe this should be taken into account in the assessment of proportionality for

agriculture. We note that the RBP Guidance (Volume 2) recognises the scale of

recent investment in environmental improvements is a legitimate consideration (para

10.31).

The same Guidance also recognises that the ability of polluters to pay is a key factor

in the assessment of disproportionate costs (para 10.28). In agriculture, prices are

largely set by international commodity markets or large retailers, and individual

producers have little or no pricing power. Costs cannot therefore usually be passed

on, and the classical „polluter pays principle‟ (PPP) which envisages that pollution

costs are internalized in the cost of the product to the consumer cannot operate in

agriculture. This situation contrasts markedly with that for the water industry, the

other sector which is a major source of nutrients. The water sector benefits from

legislation giving it the right to pass through approved environmental costs in full to

customers.

Defra has recognised in its recent policy statement, „Future Water‟, that it will be

“some time” before PPP can be applied fully in the case of agriculture, adding that in

the meantime solutions still need to be found. It is a key concern for the industry as

to what these solutions will be.

Solutions will need to be proportionate and the Agency will need to recognise that it

will become increasingly more costly for the industry to deliver further improvements,

35

not only in financial terms for individual farm businesses, but also in economic terms

for society. The additional value of further improvements to society will progressively

lessen as „good status‟ waters become more prevalent, and this too will serve to shift

the balance of costs to benefits and overall worthwhile-ness to society.

We believe it is important not to lose sight of the role of agriculture in producing food.

The industry‟s fundamental importance in food production is recognised by the

government in „Future Water‟, describing the positive effects of farmers‟ activities as

“necessary food production”. The potential conflicts between this and the delivery of

environmental benefits need to be recognised and accounted for. With climate

change, population growth, and the increase in demand as developing countries

become more prosperous, the increasing pressure on world food supplies raises the

importance of food security. The issue of climate change is also a driver for UK

production as this will tend to have a lower carbon footprint. We also question

whether it would be socially responsible to adopt an approach to agriculture which

resulted in environmental impacts being exported to other parts of the world though

reductions in UK food production.

36

Specific points of relevance to the Humber River Basin Management Plan only

Main document

Page 17, paragraph 3.5.6. It is not necessarily “excess” nutrients that get washed

into watercourses, it‟s just nutrients. We would like to see the word “excess”

removed.

Page 18, Paragraph 3.5.13. To apply exactly the right amount of nutrient and

pesticide at exactly the right time is almost impossible and requires infinite

prescience, certainly an ability to accurately predict the weather, which is something

beyond the compass of even the Environment Agency. The correct applications can

only be ascertained retrospectively, and it is inevitable that the best predictions of

farmers and advisers will sometimes turn out to be wrong.

P42 comment deleted – marketing temporarily suspended

Page 51, paragraph 7.3.6. The costs of measures drastically underestimate the

costs to agriculture of NVZ action programme and WPZ compliance. In the East

Midlands alone the cost to farmers of building slurry stores will be in the region of

£40 million.

Page 54, paragraph 8.2. Please see our comments on WPZs on page 16.

Page 55, paragraph 8.2. Are farm dumps really an issue in this RBD? Should the EA

spend resources on an issue which has not been flagged up so far as a concern?

Government advice at the time was to crush and bury pesticide containers (see also

comments on this topic at Q6 above).

Page 57, paragraph 8.6. We wonder why proportionality of WPZs is uncertain for

the business sector but there are no such doubts for farms?

Annex B

Page 1068 Idle and Torne catchment. It‟s the River Meden not Medan.

Page 1072 idle and Torne catchment. What does track waste streams mean and

why is it an issue in this catchment?

Page 1074 Idle and Torne catchment. I query the best practice for handling and

storing fertiliser. Is there a particular problem with fertiliser application or storage in

this catchment? If so, the proposed action is fine – if not, it seems like an

unnecessary task.

37

Page 1160, Louth Grimsby and Ancholme catchment. The proposed action of farmer

education on control of agrochemicals may be a good one but only if this is justified

by perceived poor practice in the catchment.

Page 1333, Dove catchment. Are non-native species really an issue or an action for

agriculture and rural land management in this catchment? Agriculture is not

responsible for this.

Annex C

Page 6. The availability of grants issue for farm and other reservoirs on this page is

the same as and duplicates that on page 15.

Page 7. The fertiliser industry is addressing this issue.

Page 8. I‟m not sure that farmer education can be targeted and pro-active if it is

supposed to apply to all land managers in the catchment.

Page 9. Same point as for page 8. Also I don‟t know what the notices and general

binding rules are mentioned on this page. Can these two actions be explained more

simply without the precise legislative backing which makes them meaningless to lay

readers.

Page 11. Sludge regs is a shorthand, I suspect, for compliance with the sewage

sludge matrix. If so, the text should be changed. Reference to site specific notices

should be clarified or removed. To remove all risk to the aquifer farmers would have

to effectively stop farming. I don‟t think this is meant.

Page 12. All the separately listed actions from the NVZ action programme should be

amalgamated under one heading of the NVZ action programme.

Page 14. We would like to add an action to Scenario B on precision farming

technology. Precision farming technology can help farmers to manage crops

precisely and accurately. The use of technology such as GPS and extremely

accurate autosteer can deliver more accurate cultivation, drilling and harvesting

along with the more precise application of fertilisers and crop protection products, so

no overlaps occur and lower volumes of input product are used. Mapping of

variability in the field enables management that is more targeted and tailored

precisely to the conditions, optimising inputs and yield and reducing environmental

impacts. We hope the EA will support the uptake of this technology across the

catchment and help to foster increased usage.