Scottish Government

CHAPTER 7 - Consequences of the Proposed Changed

This Chapter has been divided into 3 sections dealing with record keeping requirements, the partial Regulatory Impact Assessment and finally with general comments

Section 7.1 - Record Keeping and Reporting Requirements

Views and comments were sought on:

• revising record-keeping requirements to reflect the proposed changes
• proposal to change the reporting year from 18 December to 1 January each year
• additional actions on which farmers will be required to keep farm records for inspection purposes
• proposed timetable for implementation of measures

Responses received on the first bullet point totalled 28

Responses received on the second bullet point totalled 82 (including 63 signed standard letter-2)

Responses received on the third bullet point totalled 81 (including 63 signed standard letter-2)

Responses received on the forth bullet point totalled 85 (including 63 signed standard letter-2)

Responses included:
11 from agricultural organisations
4 from environmental organisations

Table - Summary of responses

Summary of key points

The need to revise the record-keeping requirements to reflect the proposed changes

(Note: the section > farm risk assessment maps and fertiliser and Manure Management Plans in Chapter 5 also has comments on record keeping)

• While a few accepted the need for revision of record keeping, the majority felt the new proposals were cumbersome or unworkable (eg keep livestock numbers on a daily basis) and would result in additional time and costs to prepare plans without obvious benefit towards reduction in nitrate loss.
• Some alternatives were proposed, as described below; there was a concern that a detailed inventory of purchased fertiliser should not be kept for reasons of fertiliser security.

Additional actions on which farmers will be required to keep farm records for inspection purposes

• There was wide support for record keeping to be simplified particularly if greater compliance were to be achieved.
• While some thought that the records should be designed primarily for farm management and/or farm assurance purposes, SEPA agreed with the proposed list of additional record keeping requirements for inspection purposes.
• It was felt that records should be commensurate with risks in terms of stocking rates and manure type. The need for less onerous requirements, for farms that did not pose a risk of pollution, was reiterated. It was suggested that (for these) the risk assessment map along with actual field applications by date, type and cumulative nitrogen available for each field on a seasonable basis was all that was needed.
• Noting the Government's policy of reducing red tape/bureaucracy, most wanted to avoid administrative duplication by using records designed for other purposes such as PPC, Scottish Quality Cereal and other Assurance scheme records
• Many reiterated the need for a computer programme and training in its use, in order to get to grips with the level of complexity of the new requirements. Most sought an electronic system that was easy to use, tried and tested and freely available before implementation of the changes to the rules.
• There were concerns about the practicalities of some of the requirements such as keeping records on an annual basis where farmers had stocks of chemical fertiliser remaining from previous years or bought when prices are low, and whether it was necessary to complete a full fertiliser and manure management plan every year.
• It was considered that the perceived complex arrangements between SEPA and the Executive for monitoring and enforcement also needed to be clarified. While some questioned the equitable balance between monitoring and inspection of farms inside the NVZs compared with those outside, others commented on the need for enforcement of the Action Programme to fulfil the polluter pays principle.

Proposal to change the reporting year from 18 December to 1 January each year

• Most welcome the proposed change, however several pointed out that for farms without livestock and growing winter crops, recording on 'crop year' basis was easier and accorded with the requirement for the Scottish Quality Cereals Assurance Scheme

Proposed timetable for implementation of measures

• For environmental reasons, some respondents supported the timescale proposed for implementing the measures. However, following comments that introduction of the 170 N kg/ha limit by 31 March 2007 too early, this measure was not introduced on that date.
• The majority considered that the earliest data from which the rules should apply was 1 January 2008 with closed period rules applying from October 2008. Several proposed that the slurry storage requirements should apply from 2010, pointing to the Rural Development Regulations (EC No/698/2005) which provide for a period of 36 months for compliance with community standards became mandatory.

Section 7.2 - Regulatory Impact Assessment

Views and comments were sought on:

• partial Regulatory Impact Assessment - the impact on competition
• partial Regulatory Impact Assessment - impacts on any other services or organisations not listed
• partial Regulatory Impact Assessment - impacts on small farming businesses in the NVZs

Responses received on the first bullet point totalled 102 (including 63 standard letter-2 & 4 standard letter-4)

Responses received on the second bullet point totalled 84 (including 63 standard letter-2)

Responses received on the third bullet point totalled 77 (including 63 standard letter-2)

Responses included:
9 from agricultural organisations
4 from environmental organisations

Table - Summary of responses

Summary of key points

General comments on the Partial Regulatory Impact Assessment

• Some in the environmental sector considered that the Partial Regulatory Impact Assessment ( RIA) focused too much on the impacts on farming without giving sufficient weight to the effects of the proposed measures on the environment. While it provided an indication of direct costs to the agriculture sector, it did not assess the costs and benefits to society for reducing pollution, treating water, as well as costs to tourism, air pollution and climate change. Additionally, SEPA considered that the RIA needed to quantify the benefits from improvements in farms nutrient management through the use of the fertiliser and manure plans, it also considered that the costs indicated for inorganic fertiliser were underestimated while the costs of extra slurry storage had been overstated and but did no take account of less expensive options.

The impact on competition

• Many in the agricultural sector expressed concerns about the impacts of the proposed regulations on the profitability and long term viability of farm businesses particularly at a time when there were increased energy and labour costs but stationary or declining values for meat products and a reduction in available subsidies.

• In particular several commented that while some of the proposed changes were understandable, many -storage, recordkeeping, risk assessment maps, N efficiency measure- were being considered without adequate weight having been given to the time and costs to the farmer. Others noted that the savings incurred by using organic rather than bagged (chemical) fertilisers compared unfavourably against the cost of new storage facilities.
• There was also a feeling that N concentrations in waters did not warrant all the proposed changes to the Action Programme measures. Some suggested that there should be yearly cost/benefit reviews.

• grant aid or financial assistance was requested towards implementing various measures: -

• It was considered that the measures would have a greater impact on livestock farms than arable farms that relied on inorganic fertilisers. Indications were given about the impact on the dairy and the pig production sectors. There was concern that there would be a disproportionate fall in number employed as farm labour particularly in these 2 sectors and that tenant farmers would be worst affected, incurring all the expense of complying with the regulations without benefit from the increased capital value of the farm.

Impacts on any other services or organisations not listed

• Most considered that, because the measures would result in reduced farm output, ancillary trades supplying goods and services to farms in NVZs and those adding value to farm outputs would be affect. In particular it would have the following effects on particular sectors:

Impacts on small farming businesses in the NVZs

• Most considered that the difference was only likely to be one of scale for small businesses. All businesses would be affected because all were operating under the same rules whether they were larger farms with paid labour, or small businesses run by non-salaried farmers.
• There were concerns that many small businesses particularly dairy farms will not be viable without available capital to comply with the costs of proposed requirements, but that banks would not provide money for investments without financial returns.

Additional information on Impacts

From a survey of 49 pig producers, NFUS reported that on average they currently had only 3 month's slurry storage capacity and that increasing the storage would cost them some 7% of their turnover. As a result, 43% indicated that they would cease production if faced with these costs and 20% said they would reduce pig numbers to meet the requirement. (These percentages differed from a survey of 54 members of the Wholesome Pigs Scotland Ltd.)

Udny Dairy Management Group provided details on the consequences that the requirements for greater storage capacity would have on the viability of 7 (29%) of its members and for those that had improved their slurry facilities under earlier schemes. It sought a non-discretionary grant scheme of 75-100% of total costs to upgrade these facilities.

Another survey of 16 farms in the Nithsdale area identified an average of 3 month's storage capacity and an expected average cost of £61,000 for each farm to increase this capacity to 6 months. While it was indicated that 13 farms would consider or cease production, 8 of them would continue if there were a 60% grant aid for slurry storage, similar to the grant available in Northern Ireland.

Section 7.3 - General Comments

Views and comments were sought on:

• The clarity of the amendments in relation to the responsibilities that they assign
• whether or not they are inadequate, adequate or excessive
• additional proposals and comments

There was a total of 181 responses these questions. This total includes 63 standard letter-2; and 4 standard letter-4 responses

Responses included:
13 from agricultural organisations
5 from environmental organisations
2 from other public bodies/organisations

Table - Summary of responses

Summary of key points

Comments on the clarity of the amendments in relation to the responsibilities that they assign

• Most respondents considered that the amendments were clear in relation to the responsibilities which they assign. Some considered that a number of the proposals lacked explanation and scientific backing and some definitions were unclear. A few stated that the proposals were confusing and too complex.

Comments made on whether or not the amendments were inadequate, adequate or excessive

• i nadequate - RSPB and Environment Link consider that the reviewed measures should at this stage have been made stringent enough to comply with Water Directive Framework requirements, including control of phosphorus. They expressed concerns about costs for investment to meet the proposed changes that might prove to be inadequate to meet future more stringent requirements.

• adequate - One respondent felt that, where livestock was a small part of the overall business, the measures appeared reasonable and of no detrimental impact.

• excessive - the majority of respondents (all from the agricultural sector) considered that only a very light degree of control was justified and that the extension of the rules and the treating of each NVZ zone with the same broad sweeping approach would put a huge extra burden on Scottish Agriculture.

Additional comments and Proposals

Many respondents took the opportunity to make additional comments or to reiterate and expand on points made to their earlier responses to particular questions. For the purposes of this analysis, the comments and proposals relating to specific issues have been included in the earlier section to which they refer.

Scientific basis for the measures

• There was general concern that the rationale behind all the measure was not explained and that, in order to gain acceptance from the farming community, the science-base for each needed to be published/augmented with field scale research.

• Some questioned the need for changes to the present rules given the relative immaturity of the water quality monitoring sites. Others seemed to misunderstood the need for NVZ designations to be based on a water catchment basis rather than on localised water quality where the concentration of nitrate was lower. 2 respondents argued that the EU limit of 50mg/l was not based on scientific or medical evidence and Scotland should challenge any Directive based on this limit as not properly founded. ( Note: the research paper attached to these responses dealt with the issue of nitrate and human health.

Balance between environmental and agricultural needs

• The view was expressed that, with global increase in temperature and as water become scarcer, the government needed to take action to prevent its pollution. Scotland had a high incidence of e-coli outbreaks, and one of the ways this could be spread was by contamination by manure and slurries in water supplies.

• While several indicated that they were in favour of improvement to the surrounding environment, they felt that the proposals were unnecessarily restrictive and might be more damaging to the environment than the current approach. Some questioned whether the current rules had been found to be inadequate, considering that there needed to be a longer period of years to monitor adequately and assess their effectiveness. One respondent considered that the proposals would cause a great deal of stress in an industry where there was a high level of suicide.

Proposals

• A number of respondents proposed changes to the definitions of certain terms water courses to include manmade ditches, chemical fertiliser those that were blended by an industrial process, compost to be excluded for the list of 'organic manure'.
• It was proposed that riparian woodland scheme was expanded in the NVZ areas in addition to use of buffer strips near water courses.
• SNH proposed that the installation of farm digesters was encouraged in the NVZs through WRAP (Waste and Resources Action Programme) and under Tier 3 of LMCs. Additionally, it proposed that the Action Programmes should include further sustainable agricultural measures such as retaining stubble during winter months and the promotion of crop rotation.