Dr Hazel Wright, Senior Policy Officer, Farmers’ Union of Wales, Llys Amaeth, Plas Gogerddan,
Aberystwyth, Ceredigion, SY23 3BT
Tel:
Fax:
E-mail:
01970 820820
01970 820821
hazel.wright@fuw.org.uk
Sustainable Land Management Branch
Agriculture and Rural Affairs Division
Welsh Government
Rhodfa Padarn
Llanbadarn Fawr
Aberystwyth
Ceredigion
SY23 3UR
www.wales.gov.uk/consultations
20th November 2015
Dear Sir / Madam,
Review of the Water Resources (Control of Pollution) (Silage, Slurry and Agricultural Fuel
Oil) (Wales) Regulations 2010
Thank you for inviting the Farmers’ Union of Wales to contribute to the above consultation.
Following an internal consultation with its eleven County Branches, the Union submits the following
comments for your consideration.
Question 1
Do you agree that the SSAFO storage calculation method and requirements should be changed to
those as required by the NVZ Regulations?
A proposal to align SSAFO and NVZ storage calculations was made previously in the 2012 Review
of Nitrate Vulnerable Zones in Wales consultation and this proposal was rejected by the FUW 1.
Whilst there is some merit in streamlining the way that the calculations are made, there is concern
that amending the SSAFO regulations to require storage capacity based upon amended NVZ
calculations will result in an increased storage requirement overall.
The consultation states that the requirement for 5 months storage capacity for livestock manure and
6 months for pig and poultry manure will be carried over. However, the consultation goes on to
state that the adoption of the NVZ calculation, which uses different rainfall figures and does not
necessarily need to include lightly fouled water, would mean that, in most cases, a 4 month storage
period calculated by the NVZ storage calculation would require less storage than is currently
required under the existing SSAFO calculation. The existing SSAFO calculation requires a
minimum of 4 months storage capacity.
However, the comparison between 4 months storage capacity under the amended NVZ calculation
and 4 months storage under the existing SAFFO regulation is rather misleading. Under the
proposals, farmers subject to the SSAFO regulation would see an increase from a requirement to
have 4 months storage capacity to between 5 and 6 months storage under the new NVZ calculation.
1
FUW response to the Review of Nitrate Vulnerable Zones in Wales, 20th March 2012
1
Thus, when discussing the impact of this proposal, this is the comparison of storage capacity that
should have been made.
The FUW maintains that there remains a lack of evidence available to support the need for increased
storage requirements outside NVZs and would seek to ensure that aligning the SSAFO and NVZ
storage capacity calculations does not function to place any increased storage capacity requirements
on to farmers residing outside an NVZ. Given that the 2013 regulations saw just 2.3 percent of the
agricultural land in Wales designated as a NVZ, aligning the regulations in this way is
disproportionate if it results in a requirement for increased storage capacity in non-NVZ areas.
Question 2
Do you agree with the changes to the definitions as proposed?
Members had no specific objections to the changes to the definitions as proposed.
Question 3
Are there any other elements of the Regulations that should be clarified or legally defined?
Members noted this section of the consultation and no comments were forthcoming.
Question 4
Do you agree with the proposal to accommodate new technologies and practices in view of the
findings of the CIRIA 126 review?
Members responding to this section of the consultation believed that the finding of the review should
be considered in order to account for new technologies and practices. However, the Union would
seek to ensure that such technological advances are viable, appropriate and do not cause exclusions
elsewhere.
Question 5
Do you agree with the proposal to include rules on the storage of manure in temporary field
heaps?
The Union notes that the storage of manure in temporary field heaps is not currently covered by the
SSAFO regulation. However, given that any possible pollutants resulting from such field heaps are
likely to be retained in the soil or diluted with uncontaminated water, raising SSAFO regulatory
requirements to match that of onerous NVZ regulation is unwarranted.
Amongst the proposals, the Union notes the proposal to ensure that a temporary field site must not
be in a field liable to flooding or becoming waterlogged. Given that the degree to which a field
becomes waterlogged is dependent on factors such as the volume and distribution of rainfall, several
members were concerned that designating fields on the farm that are suitable for temporary field
heaps could become an expensive exercise. The addition of this proposal to areas outside NVZ
zones is therefore disproportionate and the proposal contains no scientific validation for its inclusion
into SSAFO regulation.
The Union also notes the proposal to ensure that a temporary field site must not be located in any
single position for more than 12 consecutive months or located in the same place as an earlier one
constructed within the last two years. Several members commented that the decomposition of
manure heaps was improved if left in one position for more than two years and added that the
resultant compost was of better quality. Members also stated that this proposal would result in an
increased movement of field heaps. Many of these heaps are strategically positioned dependent on
the farm layout and are essential to working farm practise.
2
The Union notes that one justification for increasing SSAFO requirements to match those required
under NVZ regulation is to ‘prevent confusion by a single approach’. Given that the overwhelming
majority of farmers currently reside outside an NVZ area in Wales, this ‘simplification’ process will
inevitably result in more stringent rules being unreasonably and disproportionately applied. The
Union would prefer to see a more tailored and reasonable approach which recognises the different
requirements and needs of these different areas.
Moreover, the present consultation provides no evidence to suggest that differing approaches on the
storage of manure in temporary field heaps would cause confusion and the Union would therefore
seek a more pragmatic approach to this issue.
Question 6
Do you agree with the principle of including constructed wetlands within the SSAFO Regulations
if further evidence becomes available to support this?
Members responding to this section of the consultation agreed with the principle of including
constructed wetlands when further evidence becomes available.
Question 7
Do you agree with the proposal to introduce an inspection and maintenance regime for those
stores which fall under the Regulation 6 exemption?
It is a long-standing position of the FUW that stores which fall under the Regulation 6 exemption
should remain exempt from the SSAFO regulations within the context of this consultation.
Given the reliance on livestock production in Wales, the removal of the exemption would have a
significant effect on existing silage clamps and fuel oil stores which will have significant cost
implications for the entire industry in Wales which would be wholly disproportionate to any
environmental benefits gained. The latter is especially pertinent given that the FUW is unaware of
any significant problems with these older stores.
The proposal not to repeal the exemption for pre-1991 slurry, silage and fuel oil stores acknowledges
the cost implications to the industry in Wales and the need for a risk-based approach to assessing the
condition of these stores.
The Union notes that, in order to ensure that exempt installations are fit for purpose, it is proposed
that a regular assessment regime is a better approach than the removal of the exemption.
The Union notes the preference contained within the present consultation is for the ‘person in control
of the installation’ to be responsible for ‘inspecting and ensuring the condition’. Several members
commented that owners of exempt stores would be responsible for any environmental damage
caused and added that this was sufficient incentive to ensure that those in control of the installation
ensured that it was indeed fit for purpose.
The Union would welcome any move to minimise the financial and administrative burden of
retaining the exemption by providing a more flexible approach to compliance. Given that the
consultation does not provide any guidance on the best practise needed for self-assessment, it
remains difficult to determine the impact of this regime on the farming sector and the FUW would
therefore welcome further discussion on this issue in order to develop a self-assessment protocol
which reduces red tape.
Question 8
3
Should the Regulations specify who should undertake inspections and how they should be
recorded?
See question 7 above.
Question 9
Should it be an offence not to keep a record of inspections?
Members responding to this section of the consultation did not accept the proposal to make it an
offence not to keep a record of inspections.
Question 10
Should the safety zones and silo and slurry store construction standards of the SSAFO
Regulations be incorporated into cross compliance?
All members responding to this section of the consultation strongly opposed the inclusion of SSAFO
regulations pertaining to silo and slurry store construction standards within the cross compliance
regime.
According to the Water Resources (Control of Pollution) (Silage, Slurry and Agricultural Fuel Oil)
(Wales) Regulations 2010 Guidance for Farmers, breaches of the regulations are punishable by a
fine of up to the statutory maximum2 on conviction in a Magistrates’ Court. If the case is heard in the
Crown Court the penalty could be an unlimited fine.
The Union believes that the existing penalty system remains a sufficient disincentive and would add
that no evidence was provided within the present consultation to justify the use of cross compliance
within this context. Indeed, no supporting evidence was provided to prove that the use of cross
compliance would function to reduce future pollution incidents. Given the potential for multiple
penalties for the same offence, the FUW therefore cannot support the proposal to place these
standards of the SSAFO regulations into cross compliance.
Question 11
Do you agree with the proposal to enable enforcement of the SSAFO Regulations through civil
sanctions?
Members did not provide a majority response on this issue.
Question 12
Additional Comments
Members noted the proposal to notify NRW at the design stage of an installation and this represents
an addition notification from the present requirement to notify NRW at least 14 days before an
installation is first used. The Union recognises that this process could function to reduce costly
errors in non-compliance but would seek to ensure that every effort is made to keep the
administration associated with this change to the minimum. Moreover, the FUW believes that if this
additional notification has any associated cost to the farmer, then participation should be on a
voluntary basis only.
Several members commented that new installations must already adhere to existing planning and
building regulations and suggested that, if additional guidance was required, general NRW guidance
could be released to avoid the need to review every planning application and the likely concomitant
rise in financial and administrative burden.
2
At the time of publication of this guidance this was set at £5,000.
4
Several members commented that there was a need to provide financial support to farmers in order
to aid in genuine attempts to improve silage and slurry storage. This is especially pertinent given the
sharp decline in both current and forecasted farm incomes. Several members also commented that
the whole farm improvement nature of the Sustainable Production Grant did not allow for easy
access to funded improvements related only to silage and slurry storage.
I trust the due consideration will be offered to the preceding comments.
Yours sincerely
Dr Hazel Wright
FUW Senior Policy Officer
5