Get documents about "CONSULTATION ON THE TRANSPOSITION OF THE GROUNDWATER DAUGHTER
Document Sample
CONSULTATION ON THE PROPOSED NITRATES
ACTION PROGRAMME REGULATIONS (NORTHERN
IRELAND) 2010
SYNOPSIS OF RESPONSES
Department of the Environment
Department of Agriculture and Rural Development
27 October 2010
1
Contents
1. Introduction
2. Consultation
3. Publication and distribution of consultation
4. Engagement with stakeholders
5. Responses to consultation
6. Issues raised by respondents
ANNEX A - Summary of Comments and Departmental Response
ANNEX B - List of Respondents
Further copies of this report can be obtained as follows:
By writing to:
Dr Fiona Wilson
Department of the Environment
Environmental Policy Division
Water Policy Team
6th Floor
Goodwood House
44-58 May Street
Belfast
BT1 4NN
Telephone:
By Telephone: 028 9025 4726
By Fax: 028 9025 4732
By Text Phone: 028 9054 0642
By E-Mail: fiona.wilson@doeni.gov.uk
This document can also be accessed through the Departments’ website at:
http://www.doeni.gov.uk and http://www.dardni.gov.uk/
2
Introduction
The Nitrates Directive (91/676/EEC) (the Directive) aims to improve water quality by
protecting water against pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural sources. In
particular, it is about promoting better management of livestock manures, chemical
nitrogen fertilisers and other nitrogen-containing materials spread onto land. The Directive
allows Member States to either designate discrete areas of land as Nitrate Vulnerable
Zones (NVZs) or establish an action programme to be applied to the whole territory.
The action programme requires farmers to observe rules to reduce nitrate pollution, and
includes measures concerning livestock manure storage, application of organic and
chemical nitrogen fertiliser to land and limits on the amount of organic and chemical
nitrogen applied to land. In addition, action programmes established under the Directive
are a basic measure within River Basin Management Plans, thus contributing to the
implementation of the Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC).
On 1 January 2007 the Nitrates Action Programme Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2006
(the 2006 NAP Regulations) came into operation in Northern Ireland. These Regulations
set out an action programme applying to all farms across Northern Ireland from that date
and were issued jointly by the Department of the Environment (DOE) and the Department
of Agriculture and Rural Development (DARD). The Directive also requires Members
States to review and, where necessary, revise their action programmes, including
additional measures, at least every four years. The 2006 NAP Regulations must,
therefore, be reviewed and if necessary revised by 31 December 2010.
Following the introduction of the 2006 NAP Regulations (which place a livestock manure
application limit of 170kg Nitrogen per hectare per year), Northern Ireland also
successfully applied for a Derogation allowing farmers who meet certain criteria to apply
up to 250kg Nitrogen per hectare per year (kg N/ha/year) from grazing livestock manures.
The European Commission Decision granting the Derogation also expires on 31
December 2010 and needs to be renewed due to its importance to intensive grassland
farms in Northern Ireland.
3
Scientific Review
Before a Derogation application can be progressed through the European Commission
and the EU Nitrates Committee comprised of representatives of all 27 Member States, an
acceptable action programme must be in place. This pre-requisite determined the need to
commence the review of the 2006 NAP Regulations in autumn 2009.
To provide the necessary scientific evidence for a comprehensive review, a Scientific
Working Group (SWG) chaired by DARD with representation from both Departments and
the Agri-Food and Biosciences Institute (AFBI), was established. Taking account of the
requirements of the Nitrates Directive and the scientific evidence and research, the SWG
put forward proposals for the action programme and the Derogation application for the
period 2011-2014.
A meeting and workshop was held in November 2009 with key stakeholders from the
agricultural industry and environmental non-government organisations (NGOs) to discuss
the initial findings of the review. This provided the opportunity for stakeholders to present
evidence to the SWG of their experiences of the action programme and in support of
improvements they believed may be possible. A summary of the workshop was included
in the final Scientific Review which was submitted to the European Commission on 21
December 2009.
4
Consultation
Following completion of the scientific review and initial engagement with the European
Commission, the Departments jointly published a consultation paper on 4 June 2010 on
proposals to introduce the Nitrates Action Programme Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2010
(2010 NAP Regulations), and revoke the 2006 NAP Regulations. The full text of the
consultation paper is available on the Departments’ websites at: www.doeni.gov.uk and
www.dardni.gov.uk
Comments were invited on the proposals made and issues raised (including a partial
Regulatory Impact Assessment (pRIA)) in the consultation document. The consultation
proposed that the measures in the 2006 NAP Regulations should be carried forward into
the 2010 NAP Regulations with the exception of the revisions summarised below 1 .
1. Interpretation The definition of “steeply sloping land” is amended to mean land which
has an average incline of 20% or more in the case of grassland or 15% or more in the
case of other land.
2. Regulation 6 is amended to include a closed period for spreading of farmyard
manure (FYM) from 31 October until 31 January.
3. Regulation 7(2) (f) is amended to remove the risk clause regarding application of
fertiliser to steeply sloping ground.
4. Regulation 7(4) is amended to increase the spreading distance for the application of
chemical nitrogen fertiliser to 2m from any waterway.
5. Regulations 11(1) and 11(4) are amended to include a requirement for farmers to
manage silage effluent collection and storage facilities to prevent pollution.
6. Regulation 13 is amended so that field storage of FYM, during the closed period for
spreading, is prohibited from 31 December 2012.
7. Regulation 13 is also amended so that the length of time FYM may be stored in a
field, prior to spreading, is reduced from 180 days to 90 days.
8. Regulation 14 in the 2006 NAP Regulations will expire on 31 December 2010. A
new regulation (regulation 14), only permitting the storage of poultry litter in a midden, will
be included in the 2010 NAP Regulations. Therefore, field storage of poultry litter will not
be permitted from 1 January 2011.
1
References to regulations refer to the draft 2010 NAP Regulations
5
9. Regulation 25 is amended to provide clarification on who will be held responsible for
different offences under the Regulations.
10. Tables 1 and 2 of the Schedule are amended to include new values for pig nitrogen
excretion rates and the total nitrogen content of pig slurry respectively.
11. Table 8 of the Schedule is amended to include the standard phosphorus content of
a greater range of agricultural products and feedstuffs for those farms operating under a
Derogation.
12. Table 3 of the Schedule is amended to include new values for poultry solid manure
total nitrogen contents, obtained from the findings of forthcoming research.
The Departments invited responses from a range of organisations and individuals
including MPs, MLAs, local councils, farming and business organisations, environmental
NGOs, academic and professional institutions, and other government departments and
agencies. Over 500 organisations and individuals were contacted directly. The
consultation paper was also published on the Departments’ websites and publicised
through press notices and articles in the farming press.
The consultation period ran from 4 June 2010 to 13 August 2010. Late responses were
accepted up to 25 August 2010.
Engagement with stakeholders
As previously described the Departments held a workshop with stakeholders in November
2009 presenting findings of the scientific review and seeking input from stakeholder
experience of the 2006 NAP Regulations. A further meeting was held in April 2010 to
update stakeholders on progress. It is anticipated that a further meeting with stakeholders
will be arranged in autumn 2010 to discuss the outcome of the consultation process and
any changes to be made to the Regulations in light of the comments received.
The review process is also incorporating Better Regulation principles as recommended by
the Northern Ireland Agri-Food Better Regulation and Simplification Review Report,
published in June 2009. Guidance and training are key factors in the successful
6
implementation of the action programme and to this end the Departments re-established a
Nitrates Guidance Working Group on 11 May 2010. The Working Group, which includes
representatives from the environmental NGOs and the agricultural industry, has been
working in parallel with the consultation process to review and update the guidance in
order to further assist farmers to comply with amended and existing measures.
Responses to consultation
A total of 28 responses to the consultation were received of which 5 provided nil comment
and 22 provided substantive comment. The proposal to carry forward the measures in the
2006 NAP Regulations into the 2010 NAP Regulations was broadly welcomed by
respondents to the consultation. There were, however, a significant number of comments
concerning the detail and extent of the proposed revisions. All comments made during the
consultation process were carefully considered. The following sections provide discussion
on a number of key issues and the Departments’ response.
Further detail of specific comments raised on the proposed Regulations and the
Departments’ response to those comments are set out in Annex A. A list of all
respondents is attached at Annex B.
1. Steeply sloping land
The consultation proposed that the definition of steeply sloping should be amended to
mean land which has an average incline of 15% or more in the case of land other than
grassland and that the risk clause in the 2006 NAP Regulations regarding application
of fertiliser to steeply sloping land would be removed.
The proposal to amend the definition of steeply sloping land other than grassland was
to address the increased risk of erosion and run-off from arable land left bare during
cultivation. The consultation responses did not provide any evidence to the contrary.
The proposal to remove the risk clause was to provide clarity for both farmers and
regulators. The Departments have reviewed the compliance data with the existing
measure and have concluded that this is a very uncommon problem with only one
recorded breach from 1 January 2007.
7
The pRIA estimated that these combined changes would affect 270 ha of arable land at
a total cost of £41k to £110k per annum. There was a lack of data to estimate the
effect on grassland and an assumption was made that such slopes would not receive
fertiliser anyway due to practical constraints with spreading equipment and farming
practice.
A number of respondents were concerned with the proposed amendment to the
definition of steeply sloping land other than grassland and considered that the current
measure was sufficient. A larger number of respondents were particularly concerned
with the removal of the risk clause. These respondents highlighted that this proposed
blanket prohibition on spreading nitrogen fertiliser on all steeply sloping ground, as
opposed to where there is a risk of causing pollution, would have no effect on water
quality and would be overly restrictive. A smaller number of respondents supported
these amendments and particularly welcomed any clarity in relation to risk assessment.
The Departments intend to amend the definition of steeply sloping to mean land which
has an average incline of 15% or more in the case of land other than grassland to
address the higher run-off and erosion risk. The Departments do not, however,
consider that there is justification for removing the risk clause as there is no clear link to
the prevention of water pollution given Northern Ireland’s topography and land use, nor
is there evidence of problems arising from the current measure. The Departments will
however work with stakeholders to review and develop further guidance to provide
greater clarity for farmers on risk assessment.
2. Farmyard manure storage and application
The consultation proposed:
• the inclusion of a closed period for spreading of FYM from 31 October until 31
January;
• the prohibition of the field storage of FYM, during the closed period for spreading
from 31 December 2012; and
• the reduction of the length of time that FYM may be stored in a field, prior to
spreading, from 180 days to 90 days.
The pRIA estimated that there were no direct costs with the introduction of a closed
period for spreading FYM or a reduction in the length of time that it could be stored in a
8
field prior to spreading. However, the prohibition of field storage of FYM during the
closed period was estimated to affect approximately 500 mainly beef and sheep farms
in the Less Favoured Areas at a one-off capital cost in the range £3.5m to £7.5m.
A number of respondents supported these proposals and considered that any issues
raised could be addressed through the development of appropriate storage facilities or
destocking.
A much larger number of respondents opposed these proposed amendments. Some of
these respondents highlighted that FYM accounted for a small percentage of the total
manure applied to land in Northern Ireland and that the current measures were
sufficient to protect water quality. A number of these respondents did however
acknowledge that there is no crop requirement during winter months.
Several respondents highlighted the water protection measures already within the
existing field heap storage requirements. A number of respondents considered that the
longer period for storage in the field was required to allow “breakdown” of the FYM.
A number of respondents were particularly concerned about the ability of farmers to
raise funds in the current economic climate to build middens for FYM, particularly as
most of the farms affected are beef and sheep enterprises where profit margins are
low. Respondents also highlighted that these farmers chose to not avail of the Farm
Nutrient Management Scheme as they were previously allowed to store FYM in field
heaps and advocated that a grant scheme would need to be put in place to assist with
construction of farm storage facilities if a closed period for field storage of FYM is
introduced.
The Departments have reviewed the compliance data and note that there have been
no breaches of the existing controls in relation to the field storage of FYM but several
breaches have been recorded in relation to the collection of run-off from middens. The
Departments also recognise that FYM represents only about 2.6% of the nitrogen
loading from livestock manure in Northern Ireland. The vast majority of cattle, sheep
and pigs are housed on slatted slurry systems rather than FYM and, with a small arable
sector, the supply of straw for bedding material is limited.
Veterinary advice indicates that to reduce certain disease risks, particularly in order to
prevent parasite infection in lambs, FYM requires sufficient time to rot. This is an
important animal health issue on the less intensive sheep farms in Northern Ireland
which use FYM. However, research also shows that the longer manure remains in
9
uncovered field heaps the greater the nutrient loss by leaching and thus more aged
manure has lost a large proportion of its nutrient value.
Based on this evidence the Departments intend to introduce a closed period for
spreading of FYM from 31 October until 31 January as there is little crop requirement
during these months. The first closed period for spreading FYM will begin on 31
October 2011.
The Departments intend to continue to allow the field storage of FYM throughout the
year. The Departments will, however, extend the existing measure concerning FYM
storage to include a requirement not to store field heaps on land that is waterlogged,
flooded or likely to flood. The Departments will also produce more detailed guidance
on the protocol for storage of FYM in field heaps to ensure that farmers are clear on the
measures required to minimise any potential pollution.
The Departments also intend that, on balance, in order to reduce disease risk in sheep
and provide sufficient flexibility for best farming practice in relation to the avoidance of
spreading in adverse weather and ground conditions outside the closed spreading
period, the length of time that FYM may be stored in a field will be 120 days from 31
December 2012.
3. Poultry litter storage
In the consultation paper, the Departments proposed that the field storage of poultry
litter would not be permitted from 1 January 2011 and in the pRIA it was estimated that
45 farms may have to opt to build middens at an estimated one-off total capital cost of
£720k to £1.58m.
A number of respondents to the consultation pointed out that this investment would be
wasted if the proposal for a biomass power plant were to proceed. They also
highlighted that poultry farmers chose not to avail of the Farm Nutrient Management
Scheme for support to construct additional permanent storage facilities as they
expected an off-farm solution in the form of a biomass power plant to be in place. An
alternative to land spreading is the poultry sector’s preferred option and would negate a
need for additional storage facilities. In the current economic climate it is likely to be
difficult for farmers to raise funds for construction of new farm storage facilities and
several respondents advocated that a grant scheme would be needed to assist with
this if the option for field storage is terminated.
10
Several respondents also highlighted the water protection measures already within the
field storage requirements, including the need to cover field heaps with an
impermeable membrane. A number of respondents also highlighted the need for short
term storage in fields on arable farms prior to land spread.
Planning permission was granted for a proposed biomass power plant on 31 August
2010 which is being developed by an industry consortium. The proposed plant will
have the capacity to process 220,000 tonnes of poultry litter per year and there is a
2.5-3 year build programme to put it in place. Leave has been granted to hear a
judicial review in early February 2011 which was lodged by objectors to the scheme.
In early 2010, the authorities in Northern Ireland commissioned a study of the poultry
sector to assess, amongst other things, the future sustainability of the sector and its
environmental impact. The findings of the study indicate that the poultry sector has
market-led potential to expand in future years but there is a clear need to underpin any
future expansion with a sustainable solution to the use of poultry litter.
The Departments established a working group in August 2010 with representatives of
the poultry industry to investigate any viable interim storage solutions or alternative
uses until the biomass power plant is in operation. Industry representatives have been
actively engaged in this process and have explored a range of options including export
to land in the Republic of Ireland or Great Britain, export to further treatment in Great
Britain or the Netherlands or alternative treatment systems. Initial conclusions of this
work indicate that most potential alternative uses are either not available due to lack of
capacity or are cost prohibitive. The industry has also been working with the
Departments to explore alternative storage options and have recently commenced
some on-farm trials over the 2010/11 winter period.
The Departments are committed to helping the poultry sector find a long term
alternative to the storage and, more importantly, the land spreading of poultry litter.
The Departments recognise the recent progress with the biomass power plant proposal
and the willingness of the industry to investigate any viable interim storage solutions.
The Departments therefore intend to retain the current field heap storage measure until
30 September 2011. The Departments will also produce more detailed guidance on
the protocol for storage of poultry litter to ensure that farmers are clear on the
measures required to minimise any potential pollution during the period 1 January to 30
September 2011.
11
The Departments are working with the poultry industry to determine if there is any
water pollution risk from the current poultry litter field heap protocol, and to evaluate a
range of alternative protocols. If these trials demonstrate a risk of water pollution from
the current protocol, then new protocols will be introduced for the period 1 October
2011 until 31 December 2014.
However, if these trials at any time demonstrate a risk of water pollution from
alternative field storage protocols, field storage of poultry litter will be discontinued.
4. Spreading distance from a waterway for chemical fertiliser
The consultation proposed increasing the spreading distance for the application of
chemical nitrogen fertiliser from 1.5 m to 2m from any waterway. The pRIA estimated
that this would affect 1632 ha at a total cost of £180k per year.
A number of respondents supported this proposal on the basis of increased
environmental protection whilst other respondents considered there was no justification
for amending this measure. A number of respondents asked for the scientific
justification for this distance and noted that there had been no breaches of the existing
measure.
The Departments intend to amend this measure to provide increased environmental
protection by increasing the distance between this potentially polluting activity and
waterways.
5. Management of silage effluent
The consultation included a proposal to include a requirement for farmers to manage
silage effluent collection and storage facilities to prevent pollution. The pRIA
anticipated that this would not lead to any additional costs to the agricultural industry.
A number of respondents strongly supported this proposal. A number of other
respondents were strongly opposed to this proposal stating that this was an attempt to
“gold plate” as controls already existed under the Water Order.
Under the Directive there is a requirement to put in place measures to prevent water
pollution by run-off and seepage into groundwater and surface water of liquids
containing livestock manures and effluents from stored plant materials such as silage.
There is already a requirement in the 2006 NAP Regulations to construct and maintain
12
silage effluent storage facilities to prevent water pollution. The Departments, therefore,
intend to amend this measure to also require the management of such facilities to
prevent pollution along with updated guidance.
6. Clarification on the responsible person
The consultation proposed that the NAP be amended to provide clarification on who
will be held responsible for different offences under the Regulations. The pRIA
indicated that there would be no changes to regulatory costs as the proposed
amendment only provided legal clarification.
A number of respondents were opposed to this proposal and considered that only the
controller of the land should be held responsible. These respondents had particular
concerns in relation to Cross Compliance penalties. A number of other respondents
expressed support for the proposed amendments in clarifying who could be held
responsible under the Regulations.
The Departments note that the proposed amendment would only affect those found
guilty of an offence under the Regulations and would not affect responsibility in relation
to direct aid payments as under Cross-Compliance requirements the farm business on
which the offence occurred would be held responsible. The Departments intend to
amend the Regulations to provide this legal clarification.
7. Nitrogen excretion rates
The consultation proposed the revision of pig nitrogen excretion rates, total nitrogen
content for pig slurry and total nitrogen content for solid poultry manures. The pRIA
estimated no additional costs for these changes.
Respondents were generally content with these proposals.
A scientific case to amend the pig nitrogen excretion rates and total nitrogen content for
pig slurry was submitted to the European Commission on 8 April 2010. The
Commission have indicated that they are content with the proposed amendment.
Work is near completion on the scientific case to amend the total nitrogen content for
solid poultry manures and the Departments intend to submit this to the European
Commission before the end of the year.
13
The Departments intend to amend the pig values in the 2010 NAP Regulations and will
amend the poultry manure values in the Regulations during 2011, subject to
consideration of the scientific case by the European Commission.
8. Phosphorus contents of agricultural products and feedstuffs
The consultation proposed the inclusion of standard phosphorus contents for a greater
range of agricultural products and feedstuffs for those farms operating under
derogation. The pRIA estimated no additional costs for these changes.
Only one respondent commented on this proposal and supported the changes.
The Departments propose to make this amendment.
9. Applying manures in February and storage capacity
As stated in the consultation paper the European Commission also expressed ongoing
concerns about the application of manures during February and the adequacy of 22
weeks livestock manure storage capacity if conditions for slurry spreading are not
suitable at the end of the closed period. The Commission particularly want to ensure
that the efficiency of nutrients in manures is maximised through application at the time
of year when plant uptake is greatest.
A number of respondents opposed any change to these measures stating that current
controls were adequate and expressing concern about the impact on farming practice.
Several other respondents highlighted the need to keep these measures under review
in light of research findings and further monitoring.
The Departments will be required to report the findings of ongoing research and
surveys of on-farm practice in relation to the application of manures and fertilisers to
the European Commission in 2012. The Departments will also have to consider if any
further action is required in relation to those practices at that time.
10. Application of chemical nitrogen fertiliser to crops other than grass during the
closed period, on the basis of crop need
As stated in the consultation paper the European Commission also requested that the
Departments provide evidence on the extent of the practice of applying chemical
14
nitrogen fertiliser to crops other than grass between 15 September and 31 January
based on a demonstrable crop requirement between those dates. The Departments
provided the Commission with data indicating that these crops are not common in
Northern Ireland and therefore this practice is very limited.
A number of respondents supported the conclusion that there was no need to amend
this measure as this was a very limited practice in Northern Ireland. They felt any
change would be detrimental to the arable sector and particularly vegetable growers
and that current practice did not impact on water quality.
The Departments do not intend to amend this measure.
11. Derogation
The Derogation Decision expires on 31 December 2010. Northern Ireland must
demonstrate a firm commitment to the European Commission to implement an
acceptable action programme for the period 1 January 2011 to 31 December 2014
before the application for renewal of the Derogation can proceed to a Member State
vote at the EU Nitrates Committee meeting on 23 November 2010. The future
implementation of the Derogation is entirely dependent on this process.
A number of respondents supported the need for the Derogation to be renewed as it is
very important to certain farms in Northern Ireland. If the Derogation is not renewed
those farmers previously operating under the Derogation would have to adjust their
farm operations to meet the 170 kg of nitrogen per hectare per year limit for livestock
manure from 1 January 2011. The pRIA estimated the cost to industry of not renewing
the Derogation to be in the range £1.57 m to £31.6 m per annum (varying from the
number of farms currently operating under the Derogation to the potential estimated
number that could benefit from it).
The Departments can only implement a Derogation process for the period 1 January
2011 to 31 December 2014 subject to the renewal of the European Decision.
12. Water Framework Directive
As stated in the consultation document, under the Programme of Measures for
agriculture in the River Basin Management Plans (RBMPs) there are a number of other
15
existing and proposed measures to reduce phosphorus inputs from agriculture. DARD
has committed to lead on the following actions with support from DOE and AFBI:
• reduction of the phosphorus content of feedstuffs in Northern Ireland and
undertaking a study to assess the reductions in phosphorus and the environmental
benefits in lowering phosphorus levels by the end of 2010:
• ensuring sustainable use of manures with a high phosphorus content, particularly
poultry and pig manures by the end of 2012; and
• production of a report on the current phosphorus budget for Northern Ireland to
support a review of the need to give statutory effect to phosphorus balances.
Two respondents welcomed further discussion on these areas and another was
strongly opposed to any further measures to control phosphorus at farm level.
The European Commission, whilst acknowledging the progress made under the action
programme and the implementation of the Phosphorus (Use in Agriculture) Regulations
(Northern Ireland) 2006 (Phosphorus Regulations), has indicated that it awaits the
findings of these tasks.
The Departments are committed to completing these tasks and reporting under the
Water Framework Directive.
Recommendations
In summary the Departments are recommending the following for the action programme
for the period 2011 to 2014:
• continuation of the measure (with enhanced guidance) allowing the storage of poultry
litter in field heaps until 30 September 2011;
• inclusion of a new temporary storage protocol for poultry litter with enhanced water
protection measures from 1 October 2011 to 31 December 2014, if trials demonstrate a
risk of water pollution from the current protocol (if these trials also demonstrate a risk of
water pollution from the new temporary storage protocols, field storage of poultry litter
will be discontinued);
• amendment of the definition of “steeply sloping land” to mean land which has an
average incline of 15% or more in the case of land other than grassland;
16
• retention of the risk clause regarding application of fertiliser to steeply sloping land with
further guidance on the interpretation of “significant risk”;
• inclusion of a closed period for spreading of FYM from 31 October until 31 January
from 31 October 2011;
• retention of the storage of FYM in field heaps throughout the year with a requirement
not to store field heaps on land that is waterlogged, flooded or likely to flood and more
detailed guidance to ensure that farmers are clear on the measures required to
minimise any potential pollution;
• amendment of the length of time that FYM may be stored in a field to 120 days from 31
December 2012;
• amendment of the spreading distance for the application of chemical nitrogen fertiliser
from 1.5 m to 2 m from any waterway;
• inclusion of a requirement for farmers to manage silage effluent collection and storage
facilities to prevent pollution;
• clarification on who may be held responsible for different offences under the
Regulations;
• amendment of pig nitrogen excretion rates and the total nitrogen content of pig slurry;
• amendment of total nitrogen content for solid poultry manures in 2011, subject to
European Commission consideration of the scientific case once available; and
• inclusion of standard phosphorus contents for a greater range of agricultural products
and feedstuffs for those farms operating under derogation.
In addition, guidance and training will be reviewed and amended as necessary to further
assist farmers to comply with amended and existing measures.
17
ANNEX A
Summary of Comments on Consultation and Departmental Reply
(please see Annex B for list of non-abbreviated names of Respondents)
Departmental reply
Respondent Respondents’ comments
1. Amendment of definition of ‘steeply sloping land’ for arable land from an average incline of 20% to 15% (grassland would continue to
be defined as 20%)
AIC, NIGTA, Nine respondents were opposed to this proposed amendment. In general these This proposal was to address the
Blakiston Houston respondents expressed concern about the impact on Northern Ireland farming increased risk of run-off from arable land
Estates, DUP, LBC, and lack of clarity on the amount of land which would be affected. These left bare during cultivation. Whilst it is not
NBA, NIACA, NIAPA respondents generally considered the current definition to be sufficient and possible to accurately estimate the cost of
and UFU some requested better guidance on slope assessment. amending the definition of steeply sloping
to include arable land between 15% and
20% due to lack of data, it is likely to be
considerably less than the estimated cost
of £41 to £110k per annum in the pRIA for
FWTF, National Four respondents were content with the proposed amendment. One suggested making this amendment in combination
Trust, NIEL and that the specific impact of this change should be included in future monitoring with removal of the risk clause.
RSPB activity. The retention of the risk clause will provide
practical flexibility for farmers and reduce
the area of land where fertiliser application
is restricted.
The Departments propose to amend the
definition of steeply sloping to mean land
which has an average incline of 15% or
more in the case of land other than
grassland.
18
Departmental reply
Respondent Respondents’ comments
2. Removal of risk clause regarding application of fertiliser to steeply sloping ground
AIC, NIGTA, 12 respondents were opposed to or concerned about this proposed The Departments have reviewed the
Blakiston Houston amendment. In general these respondents expressed serious concerns about evidence and do not consider that there is
Estates, R. Blakiston the impact on Northern Ireland farming and highlighted that there appeared to justification for removing the risk clause as
Houston, CNCC, be no apparent link to water pollution. Some respondents highlighted particular there is no clear link to the prevention of
DUP, LBC, NBA, concerns that this change would result in large areas of Northern Ireland water pollution given Northern Ireland’s
NIACA, NIAPA, UFU becoming unproductive due to the inability to add vital nutrients to support topography and land use, nor is there
and YFCU crops and grass. The possibility of land abandonment and possible impacts on evidence of problems arising from the
biodiversity were also raised. In general these respondents considered the current measure. The Departments will
current definition to be sufficient. Some of these respondents also made publish new guidance on the assessment
suggestions to clarify the assessment of risk such as the use of mapping of risk which will provide clarity for
systems and plans. farmers.
FWTF, NIEL, RSPB Four respondents supported this proposal stating concerns regarding the
and UAF assessment and interpretation of ‘risk’ before application of fertiliser. These
respondents considered that the proposal would remove any uncertainties.
3. Closed period for spreading of FYM from 31 October until 31 January
AIC, NIGTA, DUP, Seven respondents did not support the introduction of a closed period for The pRIA estimated that there were no
NIACA, NBA, UFU spreading FYM. Several of these respondents acknowledged there was little direct costs with the introduction of a
and YFCU closed period for spreading FYM. The
crop growth in these months but did not consider there was evidence of a link to
water pollution. Departments intend to introduce a closed
period for spreading of FYM from 31
One of these respondents was opposed to fixed dates for any closed period
October until 31 January as there is little
and in particular believed that this change would impact on cereal producers
crop requirement during these months.
who wish to spread FYM before ploughing for spring cereals and suggested
The first closed period will begin on 31
that the closed period should end on the 1 January.
October 2011.
Two of these respondents were concerned about the need to erect middens for
However the Departments propose to
the spreading closed period.
allow the field storage of FYM to continue
Another one of these respondents was also concerned that sheep farmers during this period and that the length of
19
Departmental reply
Respondent Respondents’ comments
would be forced to apply FYM from February onwards, thereby increasing the time that FYM may be stored in a field will
threat of disease to sheep and lambs. They stated that earlier spreading allows be set at 120 days from 31 December
sufficient rotting of the manure over the winter months permitting sheep to 2012 (see 4 and 5). The latter will provide
graze this land early in the year. They also highlighted that FYM accounts for a sufficient flexibility outside the closed
small percentage of the organic manures spread in Northern Ireland therefore period but will also reduce the risk of water
the continuation of spreading of FYM during the winter months is not likely to pollution.
ever be a significant environmental issue. They also stated that some small
The Departments note the comment in
farms were advised by DARD to clear out houses and spread FYM on a daily
relation to the need to monitor and take
basis when conditions are suitable.
into account current and future rainfall
patterns. To this end, as described in the
FWTF, National Five respondents supported a proposed closed period 31 October to 31 consultation document, the Departments
Trust, NIEL, RSPB, January for spreading FYM on the basis of lack of crop requirement. are committed to an ongoing research
UAF
One of these respondents particularly highlighted the need to monitor and take programme and a survey of on-farm
into account current and potentially changing rainfall patterns. They went on to practice to inform the next review cycle.
state that appropriate balance needs to be struck to ensure closed periods are
as closely aligned to periods of high risk as possible, without creating a
disproportionate need for storage facilities
4. Field storage of FYM, during the closed period for spreading, to be prohibited from 31 December 2012
AIC, NIGTA, 10 respondents opposed this proposed amendment. A number expressed The Departments have reviewed the
Blakiston Houston particular concerns on the impact on current farm practice and the lack of compliance data and note that there have
Estates, DUP, LBC, evidence in relation to the impact on water quality. been no breaches of the existing controls
NIACA, NBA, Sperrin in relation to the field storage of FYM but
Several of these respondents highlighted the water protection measures
Producers’ Co-op, several breaches have been recorded in
already within the existing field heap storage requirements and considered
UFU and YFCU relation to the collection of run-off from
these to be sufficient. A number of respondents considered that the longer
middens. The Departments also recognise
period for storage in the field was required to allow “breakdown” of the FYM.
that FYM represents only a very small
A number of these respondents were particularly concerned about the ability of proportion of livestock manure in Northern
farmers to raise funds in the current economic climate to build middens for Ireland. The vast majority of cattle and
FYM, particularly as most of the farms affected are beef and sheep enterprises pigs are housed on slatted slurry systems
where profit margins are low. Four of these respondents also highlighted that rather than FYM and, with a small arable
20
Departmental reply
Respondent Respondents’ comments
these farmers chose to not avail of the Farm Nutrient Management Scheme as sector, the supply of straw for bedding
they were previously allowed to store FYM in field heaps and advocated that a material is limited.
grant scheme would need to be put in place to assist with construction of farm
The Departments, therefore, propose to
storage facilities if a closed period for field storage of FYM is introduced.
continue to allow the field storage of FYM
One respondent further highlighted that a number of cattle farmers purchased during this period. The Departments will,
slurry separators on the basis that the solid fraction of the separated slurry is however, extend the existing measure
FYM and can be stored in field heaps therefore reducing their overall slurry concerning FYM storage to include a
storage requirements. This respondent considered it unacceptable to change requirement not to store field heaps on
this rule requiring further investment without further grant assistance. This land that is waterlogged, flooded or likely
respondent also suggested that the Departments consider carrying out to flood. The Departments will, also,
research on FYM field heaps in Northern Ireland. produce a more detailed protocol on the
storage of FYM in field heaps to ensure
One respondent highlighted that one alternative would be to reduce stocking
that farmers are clear on the measures
rate which would have a significant reduction in farm incomes which are already
required to minimise any potential
unacceptable. Another respondent proposed that alternative approaches to
pollution.
reduce pollution risk could be developed such as covering field heaps.
The Departments will also review the
FWTF, NIEL, RSPB Four respondents supported the phasing out of the field storage of FYM during outcome of ongoing research being carried
and UAF the winter months. They stated that any issues raised could be addressed out by the Department of the Environment,
through the development of appropriate storage facilities or through destocking. Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) on the
environmental impact of field storage of
solid manures.
5. Length of time FYM may be stored in a field, prior to spreading, to be reduced from 180 days to 90 days
AIC, NIGTA, Nine respondents opposed this proposed amendment. They expressed The pRIA estimated that there were no
Blakiston Houston particular concerns on the impact on current farm practice and the lack of direct costs associated with a reduction in
Estates, DUP, LBC, evidence in relation to the impact on water quality. length of time that FYM can be stored in a
NIACA, NBA, UFU field. The Departments recognise that the
One of these respondents highlighted concerns about possible field damage,
and YFCU length of time that FYM is stored is a
soil compaction; leaching and surface run off, if manure was spread during
balance between a number of factors.
21
Departmental reply
Respondent Respondents’ comments
inappropriate conditions. Research shows that the longer manure
remains in uncovered filed heaps the
Two of these respondents stated that longer storage allows the manure to
greater the nutrient loss by leaching and
compost or breakdown.
thus more aged manure has lost a large
Another one of these respondents proposed that alternative approaches to proportion of its nutrient value.
reduce pollution risk could be developed such as covering field heaps.
However, the Departments also recognise
Another respondent compared the proposed amendment to the current practice that a sufficient length of storage period is
in England, Scotland and Wales. required for reduction of disease risk in
sheep and to provide flexibility for best
NIEL, RSPB and Three respondents supported the increased restriction on the field storage of farming practice, in relation to the
UAF FYM and proposed that all of the issues raised can be addressed through the avoidance of spreading in adverse weather
development of appropriate storage facilities or through destocking. and ground conditions outside the closed
spreading period
The Departments, therefore, propose that
the length of time that FYM may be stored
in a field should be set at 120 days from 31
December 2012.
6. Increase the spreading distance for the application of chemical nitrogen fertiliser to 2m from any waterway
AIC, NIGTA, Seven respondents opposed this proposed amendment and generally stated
The pRIA indicated costs to industry in the
Blakiston Houston that they could not see clear evidence of a link to pollution. One of these
region of £180 k per annum under this
Estates, NIACA, respondents also highlighted that there had been no breaches of the existing
proposed amendment.
NBA, UFU and measure whilst another was concerned about overly strict regulation. One
YFCU respondent was concerned about the impact on farm profitability. The Departments intend to amend this
measure to provide increased
environmental protection by increasing the
NIAPA One respondent stated that the change would not have a major detrimental
distance between spreading chemical
effect on an agricultural business
nitrogen fertiliser and waterways.
National Trust, NIEL, Five respondents supported this proposal stating that it provided additional
RSPB, UAF and environmental protection and brought Northern Ireland in line with a number of
22
Departmental reply
Respondent Respondents’ comments
FWTF EU Member States allowing greater regional comparative analysis of the
environmental impact of this approach. One of these respondents asked for
clarification on any scientific evidence for this figure.
7. Field storage of poultry litter not to be permitted from 1 January 2011
AIC, NIGTA, Ten respondents expressed concern or were opposed to the proposal to not
The pRIA indicated 45 farms would be
Blakiston Houston amend the legislation and therefore end the practice of field storage of poultry
affected by this amendment with one-off
Estates, DUP, Moy litter.
capital costs in the range £720k to £1.58m
Park Limited, NIACA,
Seven of these respondents believed that field heaps should be permitted until (£51k to £111k per annum annualised
NBA, NIAPA, UFU
an off-farm solution is put in place. over a 20-year period with a 3.5%
and YFCU.
discount rate).
Two of these respondents highlighted that poultry farmers chose not to avail of
the Farm Nutrient Management Scheme for support to construct additional Unlike FYM field heaps, the storage of
permanent storage facilities as they expected an off-farm solution to be in place poultry litter in field heaps has always
and another two respondents suggested that a further grant scheme should be been a temporary measure which has
made available. already been extended once.
A number of these respondents stated that investment in storage would be The Departments recognise the recent
wasted if the proposal for a biomass power plant were to proceed. Two of progress with the biomass power plant
these respondents however considered that the proposed biomass power plant proposal and the willingness of the
seemed to be a long way off, and questioned if this was the answer. They also industry to investigate any viable interim
considered that the proposal would also create a significant additional cost to storage solutions. The Departments,
arable farmers who would have to find alternative sources of crop nutrition therefore, intend to retain the current field
and/or invest in more storage heap storage measure until 30 September
2011. The Departments will also produce
One respondent stated that the poultry industry had progressed the alternative
more detailed guidance on the protocol for
to land spreading as quickly as possible and criticised delays in the planning
storage of poultry litter to ensure that
system. They noted that poultry farms tend to be on different production cycles
farmers are clear on the measures
therefore only a percentage of poultry farms would actually be removing litter
required to minimise any potential
from their farms and storing litter at different times reducing any potential
pollution during the period 1 January to 30
environmental impact. They stated that there needs to be some flexibility to
September 2011.
permit field heaps for poultry litter prior to spreading particularly on arable
farms. . They also highlighted that the Assured Chicken Production (ACP) The Departments are working with the
23
Departmental reply
Respondent Respondents’ comments
Farm Quality Assurance Scheme states that litter must be stored at least 1 km poultry industry to determine if there is any
off site for biosecurity purposes. They went on to state that this prevents the water pollution risk from the current poultry
storage of litter on many farms and therefore a satisfactory solution to this litter field heap protocol, and to evaluate a
problem must be found to allow poultry producers to comply with both the ACP range of alternative protocols. If these
codes (compliance is a requirement of the poultry processors) and the Nitrates trials demonstrate a risk of water pollution
Action Programme. from the current protocol, then new
protocols will be introduced for the period
One of these respondents highlighted the importance of the industry to the
1 October 2011 until 31 December 2014.
economy of Northern Ireland and that poultry litter was being increasingly used
as a fertiliser by arable farmers. Another respondent highlighted the additional However, if these trials at any time
cost to arable farmers who would have to find alternative sources of crop demonstrate a risk of water pollution from
nutrition and/or invest in more storage alternative field storage protocols, field
storage of poultry litter will be
Two of these respondents stated that any further measures to remove the
discontinued.
ability to store in field heaps would need to consider alternatives and their cost
implications. The Departments would highlight that the
Regulations already allow for a reduction
One of these respondents believed that the existing measure to cover field
in storage capacity for any livestock
heaps with an impermeable sheet was a practical and low cost alternative to
manures, including poultry litter, going to
banning poultry litter field heaps.
storage elsewhere under rental agreement
Two of these respondents considered that further evidence should be provided or through treatment, recovery or
to show the risk to water quality by leaching from field heaps before further processing under contractual
regulations were imposed on these farmers. In particular these respondents arrangement. The Regulations also
believed that the Departments should provide an accurate phosphorus (P) already allow for those situations were
status of soils in Northern Ireland and encourage those farmers with a low P manures are applied directly to land by
status to import poultry litter. These respondents also considered that more only requiring 26 weeks storage (i.e. not
scientific work was required to show the effect of high or continual applications 52 weeks).
of poultry litter on soils as they believed many soils could benefit from P. They
The need for any further controls on the
also questioned the long term affect of applying less P in herbage yields, animal
application of poultry manure to land will
health and fertility (especially in high yielding dairy herds).
Two respondents requested that consideration be given to amending the 26 be examined in the context of the WFD
weeks storage requirement for poultry farms to take account of the direct export Programme of Measures.
of litter to other farms/facilities
DARD and AFBI have put in place a
One of these respondents also stated that litter is only produced during the comprehensive programme of research in
24
Departmental reply
Respondent Respondents’ comments
closed period for ¼ of their production cycle. This respondent went on to say support of the action programme. The
that the principle issue is that arable farmers who receive litter to spread as a initial findings of this research were
fertiliser do not wish to build storage which may then become redundant if the published as appendix to the Scientific
biomass power plant were to proceed. This respondent asserted that a Review which can be found at
properly constructed and managed field heap would not cause pollution and www.doeni.gov.uk or www.dardni.gov.uk.
highlighted what they considered to be a low rate of non-compliance with the
In particular there are two AFBI projects
current requirements for field heaps. This respondent also pointed out that field
studying minimising phosphorus losses
heaps are generally much smaller in Northern Ireland than in other countries,
such as:
as the heap reflects the size of the field in which it is to be spread.
• Project 0517: The effects of
One of these respondents suggested consideration should be given to the
curtailing P fertiliser inputs on the
storage of field heaps in the short term on agreed sites which would not prove
P status of soils and P losses to
such a significant risk to water quality. They were particularly concerned about
surface runoff and land drainage
the dilemma faced by farmers until an alternative solution to land spreading was
water; or
progressed.
• Project 0351: Interactions between
NIEL, RSPB, UAF Four respondents supported the proposal to end the practice of field storage of the phosphorus content of cattle
and FWTF poultry litter. These respondents shared the European Commission’s concern manure and losses of phosphorus
that the storage of poultry litter in fields provides a concentrated source of in surface runoff following manure
nutrients which are prone to leaching and thus present a significant risk to water applications to grassland.
quality. They were also concerned about the lack of alternatives that had been The first addresses the relationship
brought forward by the industry particularly in light of the approaching end of between phosphorus loss rates and soil
the extension given by the Commission. Three of these respondents were phosphorus status which is fundamental to
concerned that the continued failure to develop a solution could result in developing sustainable phosphorus
significant fines from Europe to the Northern Ireland Executive (which would management for agriculture. The second
ultimately come from the public purse) as well as a heavy environmental price is assessing the benefits of lowering the
through damage caused to local water quality from the enriched phosphorous phosphorus content of dairy diets in terms
status of local soils. One of these respondents recommended that alternatives of reduced phosphorus losses to water
be established now to ensure poultry farmers have time to comply, particularly following manure applications to
given the ongoing expansion of the industry. grassland. Other research examines the
impact of phosphorus levels in diets on
animal health.
25
Departmental reply
Respondent Respondents’ comments
8. Requirement for farmers to manage silage effluent collection and storage facilities to prevent pollution
AIC, NIGTA, YFCU Four respondents considered that current controls under the Water Order were
The Nitrates Directive requires measures
and UFU sufficient and questioned the justification for bringing additional controls with the
to be put in place to prevent water
action programme. Two of these respondents believed this to be “gold-plating”,
pollution by run-off and seepage from
that it would be difficult to define “management” and police fairly.
liquids containing livestock manure and
effluents from stored plant materials such
NIACA and NBA Two respondents highlighted that they believed that in the past DARD – College as silage.
of Agriculture, Food and Rural Enterprise (CAFRE), Countryside Management
There is already a requirement in the 2006
Branch and Grants & Subsidy Branch were successful in encouraging farmers to
NAP Regulations to maintain silage
manage silage effluent and prevent pollution. This encouragement and advice
effluent storage facilities in order to
should continue. They also stated that accurate evidence must be provided that
prevent effluent entering a waterway or
a particular farm is the source of pollution and that NIEA should bring in DARD
underground strata. The revised
staff to provide advice if a pollution incident occurs.
regulation in the 2010 NAP Regulations
will simply extend this to specify that the
NIEL, RSPB, UAF, Five respondents supported this amendment. Three of these respondents went facilities must also be managed so as
DUP and FWTF on to highlight the number and severity of water pollution incidents due to prevent effluent entering a waterway or
inadequate management of silage effluent collection and storage facilities. They underground strata. The partial RIA
noted that while the existing regulation requires farmers to construct and maintain estimated no costs for this revision.
silage effluent storage facilities, that it is important that the Department has the
power to enforce measures and ensure these facilities are managed properly to Guidance on best practice for the
prevent water pollution. These respondents considered this extra care of duty on management of silage effluent is
farmers to manage their facilities to be a simple, inexpensive, yet extremely published in the Code of Good Agricultural
beneficial environmental measure. Another of these respondents stated that Practice for the Prevention of Pollution of
there should be at least 22 weeks storage capacity for silage effluent. Water, Air and Soil. The Departments
intend to expand on this in the reissued
Guidance Booklet for the Requirements of
the Nitrates Action Programme.
Guidance will also be developed for NIEA
inspectors to ensure consistent
enforcement of the regulation, with
emphasis on assessing whether effluent
26
Departmental reply
Respondent Respondents’ comments
has entered a waterway or underground
stratum.
NIEA will undertake enforcement of the
proposed Regulations in accordance with
its published Enforcement and
Prosecution Policy. Enforcement action
taken will be proportionate to the risks
posed to the environment and to the
seriousness of the breach of the law. NIEA
will work proactively with all stakeholders
to promote compliance and will target
resources in relation to the risks posed to
the environment.
9. Clarification on who will be held responsible for different offences under the Regulations
AIC, NIGTA, UFU Four respondents were opposed to this amendment.
The pRIA estimated that there were no
and YFCU
Two of these respondents were concerned that responsibility could be direct costs with the introduction of this
transferred to contractors. Another respondent believed that due to the link with amendment.
Cross Compliance that more than one party could be penalised for any breach.
The Departments note that the proposed
Two of these respondents stated that this was “gold-plating”. amendment would only affect those found
guilty of an offence under the Regulations
CNCC, FWTF, Six respondents supported this amendment. Four of these respondents and would not affect responsibility in
National Trust, NIEL, considered that this would ensure effective enforcement and another stated this relation to direct aid payments as under
RSPB and UAF amendment needed to be supported by an effective and transparent Cross-Compliance requirements the farm
enforcement policy. business on which the offence occurred
would be held responsible.
One of these respondents stated that farmers sometimes come under pressure
from contractors to spread slurry when conditions are not suitable and The Departments intend to amend the
welcomed the amendment as it would mean that contractors could be held Regulations to provide this legal
directly responsible for any pollution they caused. clarification.
27
Departmental reply
Respondent Respondents’ comments
NIAPA One respondent believed that it would be difficult to define who other than the NIEA will undertake enforcement of the
controller should have responsibility for any offences as it is presumed if the proposed Regulations in accordance with
person is carrying out any activity with the permission or under instruction of the its published Enforcement and
controller. They also stated that the owner of facilities used to store livestock Prosecution Policy. Enforcement action
manure and silage effluent may have no connection with the business actually taken will be proportionate to the risks
producing or managing the manure or effluent. posed to the environment and to the
seriousness of the breach of the law. NIEA
will work proactively with all stakeholders
to promote compliance and will target
resources in relation to the risks posed to
the environment.
10. Amendment of Tables 1 and 2 of the Schedule to include new values for pig nitrogen excretion rates and the total nitrogen content of
pig slurry respectively
AIC, Blakiston Eight respondents were content with these proposed amendments. One of The Departments intend to amend the pig
Houston Estates, these respondents raised some queries in relation to apparent discrepancies in values in the 2010 NAP Regulations. The
NBA, NIACA, NIGTA, the calculations detailed in the guidance booklet and workbook. Departments will review the queries in
UFU, YFCU and relation to discrepancies in the
NIAPA. calculations and amend guidance where
appropriate.
11. Amendment of Table 8 of the Schedule to include the standard phosphorus content of a greater range of agricultural products and
feedstuffs
UFU One respondent supported this proposed amendment. The Departments propose to make this
amendment.
12. Consideration to amendment of Table 3 of the Schedule to include new values for poultry solid manure total nitrogen contents, (when
obtained from the findings of forthcoming research)
28
Departmental reply
Respondent Respondents’ comments
Blakiston Houston Six respondents were content with this proposed amendment. One of these The Departments intend to amend the
Estates, NBA, respondents raised some queries in relation to apparent discrepancies in the poultry manure values in the Regulations
NIACA, UFU, YFCU calculations detailed in the guidance booklet and workbook. during 2011 subject to consideration of the
and NIAPA scientific case by the European
Commission. The Departments will review
the queries in relation to discrepancies in
the calculations and amend guidance
where appropriate.
13. Regulatory Impact Assessment – consideration of options
FWTF, National Five respondents supported option 3 to allow a phase-in period for a closed The Departments have noted these
Trust, NIEL, UAF and period for FYM field storage (to be operational from 1 January 2013) and make comments and the RIA will be amended to
RSPB all other proposed amendments operational from 1 January 2011. reflect the Departments’ proposed
amendments post consultation.
Three of these respondents were keen that any amendments or measures
imposed do not increase the financial burden on farmers but emphasised the
importance of ensuring good water quality is achieved. One of these three
respondents also highlighted that they believed that the measures currently
outlined in the consultation document, constituted the minimal requirements to
see an improvement in our freshwater environment and therefore these
proposals should not be weakened in any way.
Another respondent stated that they understood that this approach could come
at significant cost to the farming industry but believed that the phased approach
would give the industry time to adjust. They also stated that if possible,
appropriate funding mechanisms should be provided which will help alleviate
this burden. They also acknowledged that water is a precious resource and
any cost incurred now will ultimately benefit society in the future.
NIACA and NBA Two respondents stated that it was difficult to comment on the pRIA as the
consultation document stated that amendments have to be made and if not
then significant fines will be imposed on the Northern Ireland Executive. They
29
Departmental reply
Respondent Respondents’ comments
went on to state that at the same time many farmers will have to change their
farm policy, invest heavily in storage facilities or reduce stock numbers. They
were concerned that in some areas these additional regulations will lead to
abandonment of the land.
A combination of Options 1 and 3 was proposed by these respondents i.e. only
amend the 2006 NAP Regulations where there is good scientific evidence.
These respondents wanted the facility to renew the derogation to continue.
They also considered that Options 2 and 3 will force farmers to invest in
additional storage or reduce their stock numbers at a time when returns
(especially beef) are falling and all inputs are increasing. They stated that
farmers do not have the capital to build new middens or install collection
facilities for silage effluent unless grant aid is available.
UFU The respondent questioned some of the figures within the pRIA.
In particular, they felt that the economic assessment of the proposed change to
the “steeply sloping land” measure was inaccurate and underestimated the
impact on the local agri-food sector. They considered that the removal of the
“risk clause” would result in significant amounts of land in Northern Ireland
becoming unsuitable for spreading and thus unproductive for local agriculture.
They felt this would force many farmers out of business and would have a
negative impact on all ancillary industries with grave consequences for the
Northern Ireland economy. They also expressed concerns about the eligibility
of this land for claiming Single Farm Payment as without active management it
is likely that scrub etc will encroach on these areas. They thought this would
also have a detrimental impact on biodiversity.
This respondent asserted that beef and sheep farmers could not meet the
additional costs to upgrade or build new storage facilities if the ability to store
FYM in field heaps during the closed period was removed.
This respondent also stated that the introduction of a closed period for
spreading FYM may have an impact on agricultural contractors who only have
limited opportunity for work during the winter months since the introduction of
30
Departmental reply
Respondent Respondents’ comments
the closed period for slurry and chicken litter. They considered that it was,
therefore, inaccurate to state that there are no direct costs associated with any
amendment to this measure.
This respondent was also concerned about the additional costs for the storage
of poultry litter. In particular, they stated that arable farmers who are often
importing litter were unable to apply for the Farm Nutrient Management
Scheme assistance due to a lack of livestock numbers on farm and are now
facing having to potentially make investment in storage facilities for litter if the
ability to store in field heaps is removed. They went on to state that the poultry
sector also faces the problems of locating new facilities in an area which will
allow them to meet the biosecurity requirements for the poultry unit. This
respondent felt that any additional costs on farms are not acceptable to the
industry that is operating in already challenging conditions.
14. Applying manures in February and storage capacity (no amendment proposed in this review)
AIC and NIGTA Two respondents opposed any change to this measure without substantive
The Departments note the varying
evidence and a robust analysis of actual on-farm practice. They stated that it is
concerns of different respondents.
crucial that the opportunity of good soil conditions for slurry spreading in
February is not lost entirely. They noted that the research programme is due to The Nitrates Directive stipulates
produce a final report on the situation in 2012. They considered that the mandatory measures that must be
withdrawal of the option to spread in suitable conditions in February could shift included in all action programmes
the pressure to heavier applications and greater risks of run-off during the including periods when the application of
windows of opportunity for spreading. organic and inorganic fertilisers is
prohibited, often referred to as closed
periods.
Blakiston Houston One respondent stated that they had first hand experience of the levels of
Estates investment and general readjustments made by farmers to prepare for the first The purpose of the closed period is to
round of the Nitrates Action Programme. They believed that an increase in the promote best practice to obtain maximum
period of storage would force many farmers to make further investments or to benefit from nutrients in manures for crop
reduce their stock numbers and that neither would be in line with building the
economic efficiency of the industry. They also highlighted that results to date growth whilst protecting the environment.
show an improvement in water quality and suggested that this is a slow process Organic manures, including slurry, are
31
Departmental reply
Respondent Respondents’ comments
and that further restrictions may not make significant differences. potent sources of nutrients and the closed
period prevents their application to land
FWTF and National Two respondents supported the recommendation that the research programme when the potential for loss of these
Trust should continue to be funded over the next action programme period. One pollutants to water is highest.
particularly stated this should allow for continued monitoring of the impact of the
action programme and to ensure appropriate measures are taken if further In order to comply with the spreading
areas of concern arise. restrictions, the Regulations also require
farmers to put in place sufficient storage
One of these respondents highlighted that available statistics indicate that capacity for livestock manure during the
average winter rainfall is on the increase and scientific research needs to be closed period and in case of periods of
carried out to decide if there is evidence for extending the closed period. They adverse weather and ground conditions
considered that the conditions of the ground in February may suggest that the outside the closed period.
closed period should be extended.
The Departments must ensure that the
NIACA and NBA Two respondents stated that the closed period of 15 weeks and 3 days is specified closed period provides the
covered by the 22 week storage requirement. They considered that the current necessary environmental protection
controls were adequate. One of these respondents also questioned the without unduly disrupting local farming
maximum application rate of 50m³ per hectare (4500 gallons per acre) and the practices. The Departments are
minimum interval of 3 weeks between applications. They felt this was not the committed, therefore, to an ongoing
trend on farms and if applied at this rate could possibly lead to a risk to water programme of research, surveys of on-
pollution. farm practice, collation of compliance data
and water quality monitoring programmes.
NIEL and UAF Two respondents stated that during the consultation on the Nitrates Directive, Surface run-off events are the major
many environmental NGOs expressed concerns on the closed period for the hydrological pathway governing
spreading of chemical fertilisers. They went on to say that the agreed closed phosphorus losses to water and occur
period from 15 September to 31January was decided upon, even though a relatively infrequently. Hence avoiding
period from 1 September to 31 March was scientifically sound and in line with surface manure applications when there is
rainfall patterns. They stated that recent Northern Ireland statistics report an enhanced risk of run-off is a recognised
(2009) published by DOE backs this case up by showing how average winter means of lowering the risk of phosphorus
rainfall is increasing (December-February) and average summer rainfall is loss and was put forward as a justification
decreasing (June-August). It records 1994 as being the wettest winter on for the existing closed period.
record with 40% of the annual rain falling in the winter months. It also records As part of the Scientific Review, AFBI
1995 as the driest with only 15% of annual rainfall falling in the summer presented preliminary results of “a risk of
32
Departmental reply
Respondent Respondents’ comments
months. The United Kingdom Climate Impacts Programme (UKCIP) predicts run-off model” that has been developed
more intense rainfall days in winter and spring. These respondents stated that from data collected at their Hillsborough
there is greater probability that an extreme rainfall event will occur on any given site. The model is based on analysis of the
winter day. These respondents urged DOE to insert climate considerations into soil and weather conditions that will result
policy programmes that will take account of observed present changes and in surface run-off. It assesses whether
future climatic fluctuations so that Water Framework Directive commitments can there is risk of run-off or not and hence is
be met. independent of the amount of manure that
is applied.
RSPB This respondent was pleased that DARD is being proactive in response to As part of a DEFRA-funded project
European Commission’s concerns and would like any findings from further entitled “Pollutant Losses Following
research available before the start of next review to be made public to help Organic Manure Applications in the Month
industry and stakeholder understanding. Following the End of the Closed Period” a
consortium led by ADAS and including
UFU This respondent stated that they had previously highlighted the importance to AFBI will review the evidence for high
local farmers of spreading in February during the 2005/2006 consultation on the phosphorus losses in the month after the
Nitrates Action Programme. They believed these circumstances have not closed period ends across the UK.
changed and that February must be retained for slurry spreading. They The Departments will be required to report
asserted that they have always questioned the use of calendar dates to the findings of ongoing research and
determine farming practices, and that farm work is dictated by weather and surveys of on-farm practice in relation to
ground conditions and with weather patterns continuing to change farming is the application of manures and fertilisers
becoming much more unpredictable. They stated that EU rules must be to the European Commission in 2012.
practical and flexible, otherwise in some instances it will be impossible for
farmers to comply with them. The Departments will also have to
consider if any further action is required in
The respondent questioned the research findings and in particular stated that relation to those practices at that time.
AFBI have carried out this research in a way which does not reflect general
farm practice i.e. AFBI are applying the maximum rate of slurry permissible of
50m3/ha to the research plots which is much higher than normal farm practice
in Northern Ireland.
They stated that the 22 week storage requirement already allows for additional
capacity for when conditions outside the closed period (15.5 weeks) are
unsuitable. They felt farmers had already invested heavily and that it was
inconceivable that the EC would consider changing this storage requirement at
33
Departmental reply
Respondent Respondents’ comments
this time before the current measures have had sufficient time to “bed-in”. They
highlighted that long term water quality trends are showing a decline in nitrates
and phosphorus in the rivers and did not accept that further action was
necessary.
YFCU This respondent stated that it is critical that February does not become a closed
period for spreading FYM as it is essential for early growth to facilitate an early
turnout of livestock. They asserted that the current 22 weeks required storage
already allows for unsuitable conditions
15. Application of chemical nitrogen fertiliser to crops other than grass during the closed period, on the basis of crop need (no
amendment proposed in this review)
AIC, Blakiston Seven respondents supported the conclusion that there was no need to amend The Departments do not intend to amend
Houston Estates, this measure as this was a very limited practice in Northern Ireland. They felt this measure.
NIACA, NBA, UFU, any change would be detrimental to the arable sector and particularly vegetable
YFCU and NIGTA growers and that current practice did not impact on water quality.
16. Derogation
AIC, NIGTA, Eight respondents supported the need for the Derogation to be renewed as it is The Derogation Decision expires on 31
Blakiston Houston very important to certain farms in Northern Ireland. December 2010. Northern Ireland must
Estates, NBA, demonstrate a firm commitment to the
Two of these respondents stated that they fully supported the Departments’
NIACA, NIAPA, UFU European Commission to implement an
application to the European Commission to request a renewal of the Derogation
and YFCU acceptable action programme for the
and of the need to help more farmers to enter into the process.
period 1 January 2011 to 31 December
Four of these respondents stated that advice should be given by NIEA and 2014 before the application for renewal of
more encouragement by DARD to allow intensive grassland farmers to apply the Derogation can proceed to a Member
for derogation. State vote at the EU Nitrates Committee
One of these respondents suggested that the reduction from 322 farmers meeting on 23 November 2010. The
applying in 2008 to 149 in 2010 was due to several reasons including that: future implementation of the Derogation is
34
Departmental reply
Respondent Respondents’ comments
farmers were unaware of their nitrogen loading figure; DARD staff were unsure entirely dependent on this process.
of the benefits of Derogation for intensive cattle farmers; the administration of
The measures included in any Derogation
the recording system in the first year was not sufficiently developed and tested:
including the rate of inspection are laid out
and the over policing on derogation farms (3% of derogated farms compared
in the European Decision which is a
with 1% of all others).
legally binding instrument. These
One of these respondents stated that more producers are willing to import conditions are largely consistent across all
slurry at various times of the year as a source of nutrients for their land, Member State’s Derogation Decisions.
perhaps alleviating the need for Derogation on some intensive businesses. NIEA must therefore apply the inspection
They felt that farmers were becoming more aware of the value of slurry and had regime set out in the Derogation Decision
more understanding of the 170kg limit on their own farm business. They and as required under Cross Compliance.
added, however, that circumstances change and the opportunity for a
The Departments are committed to
Derogation must be available for those who need it. This respondent
ongoing programmes of research,
considered that assistance with gaining a better understanding and knowledge
monitoring and training in support of any
of the operation of a Derogation among farmers would be helpful.
future Derogation.
One respondent stated that no additional measures should be included in any
The Departments also worked with
renewed Derogation. This respondent believed that low uptake of the
stakeholders to review and update
Derogation could be attributed to DARD advice, inappropriate policing of the
guidance workbooks for farmers operating
Derogation measures by NIEA and a lack of understanding by the farming
under a Derogation in 2009/2010. This
community. In particular they felt that there was a heavy handed approach
has greatly improved the rates of
taken when assessing the various records and that minor issues identified in
compliance in 2010, particularly in relation
record keeping will not have a detrimental impact on the environment.
to Fertilisation Accounts. The
Another of these respondents stated that NIEA also need to be more realistic Departments are fully committed to
and understanding when policing the derogation to make it more attractive to continue to improve and revise guidance
farmers. where appropriate.
The Departments can only implement a
Derogation process for the period 1
January 2011 to 31 December 2014
subject to the renewal of the European
Decision.
17. Other issues raised by respondents
35
Departmental reply
Respondent Respondents’ comments
AIC and NIGTA Two respondents noted DARD’s commitment to lead, with support from DOE The Departments will continue to engage
and AFBI, on the following actions and look forward to being involved in the stakeholders as they take forward these
future dialogue: actions under the Water Framework
Directive programme of measures for
• reduction of the phosphorus content of feedstuffs in Northern Ireland
agriculture.
through a study to assess the reductions in phosphorus and the environmental
benefits in lowering phosphorus levels by the end of 2010;
• ensuring sustainable use of manures with a high phosphorus content,
particularly poultry and pig manures, by the end of 2012; and
• production of a report on the current phosphorus budget for Northern
Ireland to support a review of the need to give statutory effect to phosphorus
balances.
R. Blakiston Houston This respondent stated that as we have only recently had restrictions placed on The Departments note this comment.
fertiliser and slurry applications, it will take a number of years before this will
have an effect particularly where eutrophication has occurred.
Geological Survey of This respondent noted that the consultation paper makes reference to the The public consultation document was
Northern Ireland maximum nitrate limit of 50mg/l set in 'the Directive' but does not make supported by the more detailed Scientific
(GSNI) reference to the WFD threshold value of 37.5mg/l which is set as a trigger for Review document. In the Scientific
groundwaters. This respondent believed that if this limit were triggered it would Review nitrate levels in groundwater were
prompt the development of a specific programme of measures to address that assessed by NIEA against a number of
failure, including an intensive action programme within that groundwater body. criteria set out in guidance to the Nitrates
This respondent was concerned that the current lack of any mention of Directive. These criteria included trend
threshold values within the consultation document could be misinterpreted. assessment.
Threshold values under the Groundwater
Daughter Directive (2006/118/EC) are
triggers, such that their exceedence
prompts further investigation to determine
whether the conditions for good status
under the WFD have been met. This does
not necessarily mean that any further
36
Departmental reply
Respondent Respondents’ comments
action will be required by any particular
sector.
National Trust The respondent stated that it is important that the rationale for and significance The Departments are committed to an
of the action programme is effectively communicated both to farmers and the ongoing programme of raising awareness
wider public. They went on to state that while it is important that the financial of the action programme through the
and administrative burden for farmers is kept to a minimum, where there are media and training programmes.
unavoidable additional costs impacts, mechanisms for support need to be
It should be noted that Agri-Environment
identified and directed to areas of highest priority. Existing NI Rural
Schemes cannot pay farmers to comply
Development Programme schemes, e.g. the NI Countryside Management
with legislative requirements.
Scheme, already make a contribution to good environmental management, and
funds may need to be targeted in the future to support farmers to implement the
updated regulations
NBA This respondent stated that Northern Ireland should be regulated the same as All EU countries are required by the
other EU countries and from the evidence they are concerned that Northern Directive to include the same general
Ireland has stricter regulations than other EU Member States. They also stated measures in their action programmes.
that the action programme measures have only been in place for just over 3 Each Member State action programme
years. This respondent suggested that if a stronger advisory campaign had includes measures to address their
been carried out by DARD non-compliance would have be a lot lower. They particular environmental conditions and
also noted that nearly 50% of recorded breaches related to record keeping and issues, and farming practices.
suggested there should be evidence that pollution of waterways took place
All Member States are also required to
rather than insufficient records being kept.
inspect and report breaches of their action
programmes as part of Cross Compliance.
Record keeping is required so that farmers
are able to demonstrate their compliance
with the measures contained within the
action programme, such as adherence to
nitrogen application limits. The
Departments have already kept the
administrative burden on farmers to a
minimum by encouraging use of records
37
Departmental reply
Respondent Respondents’ comments
already retained for other business
purposes and are committed to continuing
to work with the industry to further improve
compliance.
Newry & Mourne This respondent suggested that a decision could be made at a local operational The Nitrates Directive stipulates
District Council departmental level to allow spreading of slurry in small quantities over 7 to 10 mandatory measures that must be
day period during a dry winter period to alleviate some of the continuing storage included in all action programmes
problems faced particularly by small farmers and offset serious storage issues including periods when the application of
that can arise towards the end of the closed period and which then result in the organic and inorganic fertilisers is
mass spreading of slurry in February/March which are relatively wet months. prohibited, often referred to as closed
periods.
The purpose of the closed period is to
promote best practice to obtain maximum
benefit from nutrients in manures for crop
growth whilst protecting the environment.
Organic manures, including slurry, are
potent sources of nutrients and the closed
period prevents their application to land
when the potential for loss of these
pollutants to water is highest.
There may be times during the closed
period when ground conditions are dry.
However, there is little or no crop growth
during these winter months to utilise the
nutrients if manure was applied. This
fundamental fact has been taken into
account in determining the length of the
closed period.
In order to comply with the spreading
38
Departmental reply
Respondent Respondents’ comments
restrictions, the Regulations also require
farmers to put in place sufficient storage
capacity for livestock manure during the
closed period and in case of periods of
adverse weather conditions outside of the
closed period.
To help farmers comply with these storage
requirements DARD introduced the Farm
Nutrient Management Scheme (FNMS).
This scheme provided 60% capital grant
support to farmers for investment in slurry
and manure storage facilities. DARD also
provides advice for farmers on how best to
prevent rainfall entering storage tanks and
therefore maximise storage capacity. In
the Code of Good Agricultural Practice for
the Prevention of Pollution of Water, Air
and Soil, DARD details the steps that can
be taken.
The Departments appreciate the
respondent’s concerns and will continue to
fully engage stakeholders in the
implementation of these obligations.
NIACA and NBA These respondents suggested that whilst NIEA have a range of enforcement NIEA will undertake enforcement of the
Regulations in accordance with its
tools available these should not be their main aim and that they need to be able
published Enforcement and Prosecution
to give sensible advice and guidance. They stated that NIEA inspectors need
Policy. Enforcement action taken will be
to understand the practicalities of farming and take a sensible approach at their
inspections. proportionate to the risks posed to the
environment and to the seriousness of the
These respondents also believed that DARD needs to revise their advisory
breach of the law. NIEA will work
approach to the action programme and overall farm management and that
39
Departmental reply
Respondent Respondents’ comments
DARD staff need to be fully aware of the Regulations as per the guidance proactively with all stakeholders to
booklets. promote compliance and will target
resources in relation to the risks posed to
These respondents stated that there needs to be a consistent approach and
the environment.
that CAFRE can be a great benefit to farmers continuing to educate and advise
them. These respondents felt that there was still a high level of unawareness DARD will continue to provide advice in
amongst farmers, especially in relation to the 170kg N/ha/year limit, the need relation to complying with the Regulations
for Derogation, the need for controller agreements, soil analysis and 22 weeks and overall farm management, including
storage. through provision of training courses at
CAFRE.
The Departments recognise guidance and
training to be key factors in the successful
implementation of the action programme
and to this end the Departments re-
established a Nitrates Guidance Working
Group on 11 May 2010. The Working
Group, which includes representatives
from the environmental NGOs and the
agricultural industry, has been working in
parallel with the consultation process to
review and update the guidance in order
to further assist farmers to comply with
amended and existing measures.
The Departments are fully committed to
raising awareness of the Regulations
through the media and welcome the
ongoing partnership approach with
industry.
NIEL and UAF Two respondents stated that although they are supportive of the total territory The Departments note this concern.
approach under the Nitrates Directive, many areas in Northern Ireland are Environmental vulnerability is already
suffering more from the effects of diffuse pollution than others. They believe taken into consideration as part of the
that nutrient sensitive areas should benefit from an increasingly targeted NIEA risk-based approach to selecting
40
Departmental reply
Respondent Respondents’ comments
approach. farms for Cross Compliance inspections
for the five environmental Statutory
Management Requirements (SMRs).
Northern Ireland Fire This respondent felt that farmers should be encouraged to build any new The Departments note the comment
and Rescue Service storage facilities ‘above ground’ due to health and safety issues associated with regarding below ground storage and are
slurry and FYM storage (including asphyxiation due to toxic/flammable gases happy to include reference to health and
and livestock and human drowning in inadequately protected storage pits). safety risks in future guidance
They also stated that siting and design of temporary storage facilities requires Any new, substantially enlarged or
careful consideration to ensure loss of containment does not endanger persons, reconstructed silage, slurry, or agricultural
public roads or waterways. fuel oil storage on farms must comply with
the siting, construction and maintenance
requirements of the Control of Pollution
(Silage, Slurry and Agricultural Fuel Oil)
Regulations (Northern Ireland), even if the
storage is intended to be temporary.
Sperrin Producers’ This respondent noted that in the introduction of the consultation document it The Departments note the respondent’s
Co-op states ‘Where you disagree with any proposal please provide evidence in concern in the context of the information
support of alternative proposals’ and asked the Departments to provide provided in the synopsis.
evidence that particular changes to the current action programme are
scientifically necessary.
UFU This respondent noted that under the Water Framework Programme of The Departments will continue to engage
Measures for agriculture in the RBMPs there are a number of other existing and stakeholders as they take forward these
proposed measures to reduce phosphorus inputs from agriculture in addition to actions under the WFD programme of
the Phosphorus Regulations. They highlighted that the industry has taken measures for agriculture.
action to reduce phosphorus in livestock diets over the last number of years
and that there is some evidence to suggest that this may be having some
detrimental impacts on livestock. They stated that some local pig farmers have
41
Departmental reply
Respondent Respondents’ comments
observed increased tail-biting and necrosis of the ears in their pig herds and
linked this to phosphorus deficiencies in diets. They stated that the
Departments must consider animal welfare at all times when reviewing
phosphorus in livestock diets, and continue to monitor the impact of the current
phosphorus controls on animal welfare and productivity.
This respondent stated that they have consistently opposed the introduction of
phosphorus balances. They believe that the reduction in the phosphorus
content of livestock feeds and the restrictions introduced on the use of inorganic
fertiliser containing phosphorus should substantially reduce the annual
phosphorus surplus in Northern Ireland. They believe that when coupled with
the implementation of a maximum annual organic nitrogen limit and the
proposed development of an alternative disposal method for poultry litter the
need for individual farm phosphate balances is negated. They questioned the
relationship between an individual farm phosphorus balance and improving
water quality and believed that these would not provide any improvement above
the generic phosphorus control measures which have already been introduced
for feed and fertiliser. This respondent believes that phosphorus balances
would be a “paper exercise” which is complicated and bureaucratic and will be
of little benefit to water quality but has the potential to destroy the pig and
poultry sectors.
UFU This respondent stated that exceptional weather conditions can make it difficult The Nitrates Directive stipulates
to comply with the organic manure spreading closed period. They stated that mandatory measures that must be
there is currently no industry-wide flexibility to deal with exceptional weather included in all action programmes
conditions and this needs to be re-considered. They considered that at some including periods when the application of
stage in the future Northern Ireland may well face very wet weather conditions organic and inorganic fertilisers is
in late Summer and early Autumn meaning that when the closed period begins prohibited, often referred to as closed
on 16 October, farmers won’t physically have been able to get their slurry periods.
spread prior to this date. They stated that more flexibility is therefore needed to
deal with such circumstances The purpose of the closed period is to
promote best practice to obtain maximum
benefit from nutrients in manures for crop
growth whilst protecting the environment.
42
Departmental reply
Respondent Respondents’ comments
Organic manures, including slurry, are
potent sources of nutrients and the closed
period prevents their application to land
when the potential for loss of these
pollutants to water is highest.
In order to comply with the spreading
restrictions, the Regulations also require
farmers to put in place sufficient storage
capacity for livestock manure during the
closed period and in case of periods of
adverse weather conditions outside of the
closed period.
The Departments wish to ensure that the
specified closed period provides the
necessary environmental protection
without unduly disrupting local farming
practices. The Departments are
committed, therefore, to the ongoing
programme of research, surveys of on-
farm practice, collation of compliance data
and water quality monitoring programmes
The Departments will be required to
report the findings of ongoing research
and surveys of on-farm practice in relation
to the application of manures and
fertilisers to the European Commission in
2012 and will have to consider if any
further action is required in relation to
those practices at that time.
UFU This respondent is concerned that there is no guidance for farmers facing Force The Departments note the respondent’s
43
Departmental reply
Respondent Respondents’ comments
Majeure circumstances. They stated that while the current legislation allows for concerns. NIEA intend to provide
Force Majeure there is no system available to advise farmers on how best to guidance for farmers on what they
cope when facing such circumstances. They felt that this results in farmers consider to be Force Majeure, and what
having to make their own decisions to deal with the problem which may action the farmer should take in such
ultimately not be the best outcome for the environment. They feel that there circumstances.
should be more support for farmers in such circumstances
UFU This respondent objected to the practice of NIEA using soil maps to assess soil The Departments note this concern and
type on farm. They have concerns regarding the use of these AFBI soil maps to intend to simplify procedures where
identify soil types as they state that AFBI have advised that these maps are not possible in revised guidance which will be
accurate at field level. They add that these maps are not available to farmers produced in support of the Regulations.
and it is therefore unfair for NIEA to be using them. It is their understanding that
soil maps are not used by those carrying out inspections for this aspect of
Cross-Compliance in Scotland, England and Wales. They feel that NIEA should
take the farmer’s word for the relevant soil types as opposed to using soil maps
in order to assess soil nitrogen status. They state that the system for assessing
crop requirements for crops other than grass needs to be simplified in the next
action programme. They feel this is currently one of the most difficult areas for
farmers seeking to comply with the various controls and action needs to be
taken to simplify this process. They would welcome the opportunity to discuss
this with the Departments and AFBI.
UFU This respondent stated that NIEA must show more flexibility when policing the NIEA will undertake enforcement of the
Regulations on farm as it is apparent in cases where an incident has been proposed Regulations in accordance with
reported that inspectors assume the farmer to be guilty of an offence before any its published Enforcement and
investigation has taken place. They believe that some changes are required on Prosecution Policy. Enforcement action
how rules are interpreted and policed, particularly when assessing the taken will be proportionate to the risks
paperwork for derogated farms. posed to the environment and to the
seriousness of the breach of the law. NIEA
will work proactively with all stakeholders
to promote compliance and will target
resources in relation to the risks posed to
44
Departmental reply
Respondent Respondents’ comments
the environment.
Recording keeping is an important part of
the assessing compliance under the action
programme. The Departments worked
with stakeholders to review and update
guidance workbooks for farmers operating
under a Derogation in 2009/2010. This
has greatly improved the rates of
compliance in 2010, particularly in relation
to Fertilisation Accounts. The
Departments are fully committed to
continue to improve and revise guidance
where appropriate.
UFU This respondent suggested that farms that can demonstrate a level of Membership of, and compliance with, agri-
environmental compliance through participation in other schemes such as the environment schemes is already taken
Farm Quality Assurance Schemes or agri-environment schemes should have a into consideration as part of the risk-based
reduced risk of being chosen for inspection. They also believe that it is approach of NIEA in selecting farms for
unacceptable that some farms can be selected for both Integrated Pollution Cross Compliance inspections. NIEA will
Prevention Control (IPPC) and Nitrates Cross-Compliance inspections. They also consider other schemes were it can
state that IPPC farms are regularly visited and a raft of areas are inspected be demonstrated that this would reduce
included all those under the action programme. They consider this to be a the risk in relation to compliance with the
waste of Government resources. environmental SMRs.
A Cross Compliance inspection for the five
environmental SMRs covers a different
range of requirements than those
examined during an IPPC inspection.
However, where a farm has been selected
for both types of inspections, NIEA will
endeavour to offer the farmer the option to
carry out the inspections simultaneously in
order make efficient use of resources and
45
Departmental reply
Respondent Respondents’ comments
the farmer’s time. In some cases the
farmer may opt to have inspections carried
out separately.
UFU This respondent is concerned that some inspections are carried out late in the The Departments note the concern raised
year therefore causing delays to a farmer’s Single Farm Payment (SFP). and whilst NIEA will endeavour to
minimise the impact on payments to
farmers but inevitably some farms will be
inspected later in the year. NIEA can also
only finalise the selection of farms for
inspection once the list of applicants for
SFP is made available by DARD, which is
in turn reliant on the date for closure for
applications. Under Cross Compliance
rules NIEA can only pre-select up to 25%
before this date and therefore the
inspection programme will always focus in
the latter part of the year.
UFU This respondent supported the continued support from DARD through the The Departments welcome this comment.
CAFRE advisory service to help farmers understand and meet the various
measures.
UFU This respondent suggested that DOE consider changing the legislation The Departments note the respondent’s
including that a breach is only registered if the potential pollutant can enter the concerns but would like to highlight that
waterway (similar to the SSAFO Regulations). Currently if, for example, slurry the aim of the NAP Regulations is to
is spread within 10 m of a waterway a breach could be imposed despite the prevent diffuse pollution of surface and
slurry having to perhaps flow “uphill” or over a barrier. groundwater, as well as point source
pollution. High loadings of nitrogen in the
proximity of a waterway, have the potential
to increase diffuse pollution in that
waterway, or nearby underground strata,
even when slurry may not have directly
46
Departmental reply
Respondent Respondents’ comments
entered the waterway.
It should also be noted that NIEA apply
rules in accordance with their Enforcement
Policy and Cross Compliance Guidance
for Inspectors which allow for
differentiation of the severity of a breach
depending on the impact on waters
UFU This respondent stated that the definition of agricultural area outlined in the The Departments note this comment
current Nitrates Regulations is satisfactory and must not be changed regardless
of the outcome of the SFP eligibility discussions.
47
ANNEX B
List of Respondents
Agricultural Industries’ Confederation (AIC)
R Blakiston Houston
Blakiston Houston Estates Company
Council for Nature Conservation and the Countryside (CNCC)
Countryside Alliance Ireland (CAI)
Democratic Unionist Party (DUP)
Department of Enterprise, Trade & Investment (DETI)
Geological Survey of Northern Ireland (GSNI)
Horticultural Trades Association
Limavady Borough Council (LBC)
Moy Park Limited
National Beef Association (Northern Ireland Region) (NBA)
National Trust
Newry and Mourne District Council
Northern Ireland Agricultural Consultants’ Association (NIACA)
Northern Ireland Agricultural Producers’ Association (NIAPA)
Northern Ireland Environment Link (NIEL)
Northern Ireland Fire and Rescue Service (NIFRS)
Northern Ireland Freshwater Taskforce (FWTF)
Northern Ireland Grain Trade Association (NIGTA)
Northern Ireland Judicial Appointments Commission
Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB)
Royal Town Planning Institute in Northern Ireland (RTPI)
Sperrin Producers’ Co-op
Training for Women Network (TWN)
Ulster Angling Federation (UAF)
Ulster Farmers’ Union (UFU)
Young Farmers’ Clubs of Ulster (YFCU)
48
