NVZs THE NFU POSITION
The National Farmers Union of England and Wales has recently put forward its position to DEFRA regarding the implications of the most recent Nitrate Vulnerable Zone (NVZ) proposals

The following paragraphs,which have been taken directly from the NFU response document relate the practical implications of the proposals from a farming and contracting point of view:

Timing restrictions
The restrictions on timing apply only to slurry, poultry manure and liquid sewage sludge spread on sandy or shallow soils. These soils are estimated to cover about 15% of England, or in the region of 15,000 farms.

Such farms must make alternative arrangements, usually to store manures which cannot be applied in this period. In some cases, sufficient storage may already be available, but the normal assumption must be that most farms have not already constructed more storage than they require.

A concern frequently expressed by farmers is that the imposition of a rigid closed period will result in an initial high level of activity on the first available spreading days after that period has ended. This concentrated activity may cause farm odours over significant areas. We are reinforced in our view by the reported experience of conditions in Holland and Denmark. The concern of English farmers is that local residents will be less tolerant of the impact of these odours than the Dutch and Danish public.

Farmers look to the Government to be prepared to justify these effects to the public. An even greater concern is that the closed periods will prevent manures being applied to land at times when there is a generally low risk of run-off problems and shift the application period to times when the risk is greater. Farmers question whether the benefit in terms of nitrate leaching is worthwhile when balanced against the increased risk from applying manures at times when soil moisture deficits have all but disappeared in many areas, and the risk of runoff is correspondingly higher.

Concerns about such issues are greatest in relation to shallow rather than sandy soils, particularly where the underlying rock is effectively impermeable, for example granite. Further storage beyond that required to cover the closed period may be needed to guard against the risk of poor spreading conditions later in the year, incurring further costs.

A further concern is that farmers in wetter areas have few suitable opportunities to apply manures, and this is likely to be the case in increasingly large areas as the wetter winters predicted by climate change models impact more on the UK. The current designations include the wetter areas of the country, unlike the 1996 designations. This means that the inevitable reduction in flexibility which follows from the timing restrictions will pose real problems in large areas which were never affected by the earlier designations.

Application rate restrictions
The reduction from the overall application rate of 250 kg N/ha to 170 kg N/ha which will take place on arable land increases the area required to dispose of a given quantity of manure by 50%.

.The inclusion of manure deposited while grazing on grassland also doubles the area required for animals housed for half the year, for example most cattle. In the existing, generally small NVZs, frequently located in arable areas, the problems arising from these severe restrictions may have been relatively containable (although the full restrictions are not yet in force). By contrast, in the predominantly livestock areas which are now facing designation, problems are likely to be acute in some places.

In the event of the Government being unsuccessful in obtaining the derogation for grassland to allow the rate of 250 kg N/ha (including manure deposited by grazing animals) to be maintained, and a lower rate such as the 170 kg N/ha prescribed by the directive being applied, the severity of the situation will be compounded.

Where the extra land required is available only at times of the year which are more restricted than the land used at present, additional storage will be required. We believe that this situation will arise quite frequently, and that this effect helps to explain the high incidence of storage costs amongst farmers surveyed as part of the Government's investigation of the costs of NVZs two years ago.

What is certain is that the requirement for more land for applying manure will result in much greater quantities of manure being transported by road. This will produce a number of effects, including greater CO2 emissions, more road traffic resulting in greater delays for other road users and an increase in unavoidably odorous manure being transported through built-up and residential areas..

A particular example which has been brought to our attention is that of the large village of Kings Langley in Hertfordshire. Here the only access to and from a significant area of livestock farming is through the village itself, access in other directions being excluded by the M25

. Kings Langley adjoins a number of other residential areas, and the movements of manure through the villages is unlikely to be popular with local residents. This will cause friction between farmers and their neighbours, again for little or no environmental benefit.

Frozen ground
Many farmers have raised concerns about the restrictions on spreading fertiliser and manure on frozen ground, since it is good agricultural practice to reduce the risk of soil damage by 'spreading on a frost'. It is recognised that the risk of runoff is high when ground is frozen to depth in a sustained period of cold weather.

However, the restriction on spreading when the ground has been frozen for more than 12 hours in the preceding 24 is over-restrictive. For example, if the ground starts to freeze at 4 o'clock in the afternoon, spreading is prohibited after 4 o'clock the following morning, whereas many farmers would expect to spread between about 7am and 11 am, and indeed could quite reasonably do so.

Rolling 12-month period for manure applications
We believe the period chosen for applying the manure restriction is unhelpful, and increases difficulty and cost unnecessarily. The effect of the rolling 12 month period approach is to prohibit any further application within 12 months of an application of the full permitted quantity. The need, as we understand it, is to ensure that the manure limit is not exceeded for each crop year. We urge the Government to re-word the control to achieve this. Manure applications to setaside land.

The current setaside rules permit manure applications to setaside land during the period controlled under the setaside regulations where the manure has been produced on the same holding. Manure from other holdings can be applied only outside the controlled period. In view of the difficulties which will arise for farms with surplus manure, and in order to make the arrangements more flexible, we urge the Government to amend the setaside regulations to remove the restriction on storing or applying manure from other holdings.

Tenancy problems:
Tenants have identified a number of matters of concern arising from these proposals. Where landlords are willing to construct storage, rents may rise and tenants will face similar difficulties to owner occupiers in meeting the additional cost burden. However, many tenants face difficulties with landlords who do not wish to invest in storage, or they may be restrained from exporting manures under the terms of their tenancy agreements. This may leave de-stocking as the only option for tenants whose stocking rates already exceed the maximum permitted under the Action Programme. The cost implications of this will be very serious. The alternative is for tenants to run the risk of losing their tenancies..

We are conscious that particular problems will arise for small tenanted farms which depend on high stocking rates for their viability, and whose flexibility is constrained in part by their tenanted status. Such farms are sometimes grouped together, as in county council smallholding estates, compounding the difficulties of moving manure onto other farms..

We ask the Government to consider, in consultation with the industry what help it may be able to offer tenants facing special difficulties of this nature..

Organic farming
Organic farmers will be particularly exposed to the effects of the NVZ regime through their reliance on organic manures for providing fertility. The Government must ensure that its NVZ controls, applied even-handedly to organic and conventional farmers alike, do not threaten the viability of this sector which it has particularly encouraged. Other organic materials applied to land.

Our attention has been drawn to concerns about whether the manure limits would unduly restrict the improvement of land through the addition of compost, seaweed or other materials. Currently, Good Agricultural Practice permits the addition of organic soil improvers containing up to 500 kg N/ha. The use of these materials also contributes to other environmental objectives, such as the improvement of soil quality, the achievement of central government targets for recycling waste in the case of compost, or assisting local government in improving beaches for tourism and avoiding nuisance in the case of seaweed..

Maximum application rates for these materials are not required to be the same as apply to livestock manures under the Nitrates Directive, and the Government will be gold-plating the requirements if it does apply similar restrictions to them. We urge the Government to take a balanced approach, and to recognise the costs which may be imposed on local authorities and others if they are compelled to find alternative outlets for all or part of the quantities of these materials going to agricultural land. For example, the Government may not be aware that local authorities clearing seaweed from beaches receive a substantial financial benefit in being apply to apply this to farmland, as compared to landfill.