THE PROTECTION OF WATERS AGAINST POLLUTION FROM AGRICULTURE CONSULTATION ON DIFFUSE SOURCES IN ENGLAND

Transcription

1 THE PROTECTION OF WATERS AGAINST POLLUTION FROM AGRICULTURE CONSULTATION ON DIFFUSE SOURCES IN ENGLAND Public Consultation Response from the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds SUMMARY The RSPB wants to see immediate action taken to reduce nutrient surpluses and diffuse pollution at the farm input, land management and land use levels in order to meet England s Water Framework Directive (WFD), Habitats Directive and Birds Directive commitments. We welcome Water Protection Zone (WPZ) regulations as a targeted measure which will fulfil the polluter pays principle. However, we want to see these introduced earlier than the proposed 2012 date. The RSPB believes that the supportive approach proposed in association with WPZs offers poor value for money, has unproven environmental benefit and has no new funding promised for already under-funded initiatives. Furthermore, the RSPB would find it unacceptable if Environmental Stewardship funds were used to stop polluting practices and recommends that supportive measures should always be employed in conjunction with upholding the polluter pays principle. The RSPB recommends the introduction of WPZs within a package of regulatory measures to tackle diffuse pollution from agriculture, in addition to the supportive measures already in place. We want to see targeted WPZs functioning in association with a baseline layer of regulation covering 100% of England and including: NVZ Action Programme General Binding Rules for diffuse pollutants. We want Defra and the Environment Agency to ensure that there is: commitment to enforce new and existing diffuse pollution regulations, willingness to prosecute non-compliance, and adequate resources to ensure enforcement and regulations are effective. The RSPB would like to support Defra in developing the measures to be employed in WPZs, in order to ensure that they maximise multiple benefits for water quality and biodiversity. We believe strongly that measures designed to control diffuse pollution must not have a negative impact on biodiversity. 1

2 INTRODUCTION The RSPB is Europe s largest wildlife charity with over one million members. We manage one of the largest conservation estates in the UK, covering c.137, 000 hectares. Sixty of our reserves are farmed, covering more than 20,000 hectares, with around 170 tenant farmers, and 200 employees. We protect and enhance habitats such as lowland farmland, heather moorland, lowland heath, wet grassland, estuaries and reed beds, and our reserves help to protect 63 of the 77 most rare or threatened breeding birds in the UK. The RSPB is the UK partner of BirdLife International, which is a global Partnership of non-governmental conservation organisations. BirdLife International strives to conserve birds, habitats and global biodiversity, working with people towards sustainability in the use of natural resources. The RSPB works closely with our BirdLife partners on EU agriculture policy issues. The RSPB s vision for agriculture is for sustainable systems of farming that produce adequate supplies of safe, healthy food; protect the natural resources of soil, air and water that farming depends on; help to protect and enhance wildlife and habitats; provide jobs in rural areas and contribute to a diverse rural economy. The RSPB s vision for water is that clean, reliable supplies are available to people and the environment through managing demand, reducing pollution at source, and using sustainable technologies. Diffuse Pollution from Agriculture The problem Increased levels of nutrients are adversely affecting natural and semi-natural habitats in the UK, reducing the diversity of plants and invertebrates in our countryside 1 The RSPB report from which this concluding quote is taken highlighted the impact of eutrophication on habitats and reserves such as the RSPB s Loch of Strathbeg and Ouse Washes reserves. It also found that strong causal links exist, in a number of cases, between nutrient pollution and knock-on effects on the food chain of wildlife, including birds. Declines in the populations of species such as the corncrake, cirl bunting and bittern, are all, in part, due to diffuse nutrient pollution from agriculture. The RSPB believes that there is a significant problem with agricultural emissions to water and that current policies will be insufficient to address the scale of the diffuse pollution problem or fulfil UK Government commitments under the Water Framework Directive (WFD), Habitats Directive and Birds Directive. The Environment Agency have assessed that 50% of rivers (by length) are at risk of failing to meet WFD objectives 1 Force-Feeding the Countryside: the impacts of nutrients on birds and other biodiversity, MacDonald M.A., Densham J.M., Davis R. and Armstrong-Brown S. 2006, RSPB. 2

3 because of diffuse sources of phosphorus 2. Research by the RSPB, WWF and Water UK 3 found that Common Agriculture Policy reform measures, agri-environment and good agriculture practice will have a substantial impact on pollution by phosphorus but is unlikely to be sufficient in achieving WFD standards. The research reported that, In some areas, land-use change may be needed to tackle chronic pollution problems, or protect ecologically sensitive sites or drinking water sources. This could involve taking land out of intensive arable production or significant reductions in livestock numbers. Catchment-Sensitive Farming (CSF) policies should integrate nutrient, silt, pesticide and veterinary medicine management. The RSPB is concerned that diffuse pollution is being addressed in a piecemeal fashion, with a narrow sectoral focus, and in a manner that seeks to limit pollutant transport and minimise local impacts, rather than achieve more sustainable use of resources. Action needed The RSPB believes that the impacts of diffuse pollution on the environment and the economy warrant early action and that any costs associated with this will be outweighed by long-term economic and environmental benefits. We want to see immediate action taken to reduce nutrient surpluses and diffuse pollution at the farm input, land management and land use levels. Priorities include: Enabling and increasing nutrient recycling between farming sectors and replacing inorganic with organic nutrients; Targeting inputs to crop and livestock requirements; Farm scale land-use planning to avoid high-risk practices such as intensive livestock or maize and vegetable growing in vulnerable areas; Creation of riparian and lake protection areas; Application of clear baseline standards by bringing nutrient, soil and pesticide planning into cross compliance and applying Nitrate Vulnerable Zone (NVZ) regulations to 100% of England. The RSPB has long advocated that diffuse pollution from agriculture is tackled with a comprehensive package of measures. The RSPB recommends a combined approach to reducing diffuse pollution from agriculture that is phased over time, is carefully monitored and assesses the value of all potential policy measures, including: Cross compliance Support Incentives and Advice Regulations Fiscal instruments 2 Map of rivers at risk from diffuse source pressures (nutrient phosphorous). Environment Agency. 3 Better Land for Better Water: Scenarios for change Modelling changes in agriculture to improve water quality in England, Shi J., Davis R. and Densham J. 2006, RSPB/WWF/Water UK. 3

4 Regulation and Enforcement The RSPB believes there is a need for regulations to be part of the wider policy package aimed at reducing diffuse pollution and national nutrient surpluses. Appropriate, wellplanned and well-communicated regulation is an important policy tool for encouraging behavioural change. We believe that regulation can be effective and appropriate if targeted at the pollution problem. Targeting can be aimed at small area and limited number of farmers, or specific measures to control target pollutants countrywide. However, we recognise that enforcement of existing regulatory standards is as important as filling gaps in policy with new measures. Defra and the agencies charged with enforcing agricultural regulation must be: committed to enforcement within the context of WFD risk-assessment methods; adequately resourced to uphold their duties; willing to prosecute offenders and to publicise cases of non-compliance. We believe that proper enforcement will send a strong message to farmers that the problem is a serious one, the penalties are significant and action that is needed to reduce the environmental impact of diffuse pollution. Enforcement of existing regulation and the introduction of new regulation where needed in the short term, should be followed in the medium term with strengthened regulation to catch the worst polluters. Regulation should be a used as a raised floor in association with awareness raising, support provision and advice being made available through fresh finances. Risk-based enforcement will reward compliance and should allow peace of mind to those who are making efforts to reduce pollution risk. The RSPB believes that, in setting a strategy for protecting water against pollution from agriculture that will meet the UK s WFD commitments and standards for water quality, Defra needs to be forward thinking and assertive in developing and introducing regulatory measures. Introduction of measures at the most minimal level required is not always the wisest choice, as past experience of this approach in the water sector shows that this can lead to periodic incremental changes to regulation in order to achieve required standards, or, in the worse case, failure to achieve the required standard. An overly tentative approach to regulation has in the past led to further environmental damage and deterioration of water quality, and risk of penalties arising from infraction of EU rules. Progressive strengthening of regulations has been seen with the implementation of the Nitrates Directive in England and has caused increased costs and business change at each step, accusations of gold-plating, and confusion in the farming industry. A well-communicated introduction of regulation at a level equal to the task can allow farmers to achieve compliance and adapt their businesses with the security that further change is not impending in the short-term, and secure the desired environmental outcome. 4

5 GENERAL COMMENTS ON THE CONSULTATION The RSPB welcomes Defra s consultation on protecting waters against pollution from agriculture. In response to Defra s 2003 consultation Developing Measures to Promote Catchment-Sensitive Farming, we called for regulation to control diffuse agricultural sources of pollution. We are pleased that the current proposals include regulatory solutions. We hope that it will be possible to accelerate the final stages of this policy development process, which has experienced multiple delays to this point. The RSPB is very concerned that Defra is not planning to use measures under the proposed Water Protection Zones (WPZs) until We believe that this sends a message, to farmers and the farming industry, that diffuse pollution is not a problem and that mitigation can wait. Defra has been considering action to address phosphorus and sediment pollution since before the previous consultation in A delay of another four years before the introduction of regulation will cause perpetuate impact on habitats and biodiversity. We want to see WPZs used as soon as the legal framework is in place, with designated areas and measures adjusted by 2012 if the River Basin Management Plan process proves that this will be more effective. Whatever the shape of the policy measures or package of measures resulting from this consultation Defra must ensure there is: Proper outcome (environmental) and process monitoring of the policies. Adequate resources for enforcement of the regulations. Commitment to enforce penalties for non-compliance with regulations. Willingness to prosecute offenders and publicise cases in order to act as a deterrent and demonstrate government s serious intention to uphold the legal standards. Extra financial resources if supportive measures are to be part of the package. Clear cross-government working and communication to use WPZ legislation to control other pollutants, where possible. For example, WPZs could potentially be used to tackle pollution from pesticides and veterinary medicines. Defra strategies, such as the National Strategy for Pesticides, would benefit from regulatory measures to control diffuse pollution from pesticides. RESPONSES TO SPECIFIC QUESTIONS Question 1: Do you agree with the three policy packages we have chosen for this consultation? If not please suggest an alternative. At the heart of this consultation lies the proposal to introduce Water Protection Zones (WPZs). We believe that this consultation only provides one piece of the policy jigsaw and also only one piece of the regulatory jigsaw. The proposed WPZs are targeted, specific regulations. We recognise the value of targeted regulation as it fulfils the polluter pays principle, and so that not all farmers are hit by the regulatory burden unnecessarily. However, in response to Defra s consultation Developing Measures to 5

6 Promote Catchment-Sensitive Farming in 2003 the RSPB commented that our support for targeted action must not be seen as a signal that action in priority catchments will in itself be sufficient to address the scale of this major environmental problem. Further action, on a national scale, will be required, and Government should make this explicit when it lays out its plans to address diffuse water pollution from agriculture. This statement holds true for our current support for the WPZ regulation. The Environment Agency has calculated that 87% of rivers (by length) and just under 50% of lakes (by area) are at risk of failing to meet WFD objectives because of diffuse pollution 4. While it is impossible to recast the source statistics into agricultural and nonagricultural sources, the underlying data do indicate diffuse agricultural pollution is a widespread issue requiring action on a scale that would overwhelm the specific and targeted WPZ approach. Such a large area could be covered by generalised baseline regulation, saving the more specific and stronger WPZ regulations for areas where there are acute pollution problems or sensitive receptors. The RSPB believes that there is a need for national baseline regulations to control diffuse pollution. General Binding Rules Targeted regulation does not communicate the importance of the problem and the need for urgent action to all farmers. All farmers need to observe baseline levels of good practice are required throughout England in order for WFD standards to be achieved in the whole of England, in River Basin Districts (RBDs) and in their own catchments. An enforced baseline level of regulation communicates the seriousness of the problem which cannot be ignored as advice and supportive measures can. The RSPB recommends the introduction of a regulatory package of measures to tackle diffuse pollution from agriculture in addition to supportive measures already in place. We want to see the introduction of General Binding Rules (GBRs) under the WFD to set baseline measures of agricultural practice across England. GBRs are an acceptable part of the WFD toolkit which maximise flexibility by being applicable at a range of spacial scales. Figure 1 shows diagramatically how GBRs would fit into a strategy for regulation of farm practice. 4 Surface water bodies at risk from diffuse source pollution pressures. Environment Agency. 6

7 Figure 1: Pyramid of regulation for controlling diffuse pollution WPZs Other Reg s e.g. IPPC New NVZs (100%) GBRs Specificity and detail of the measure 100% 0% 100% Number of farmers Further rationale for the introduction of GBRs is provided in answer to question 3 of this consultation. Economic Instruments The consultation document dismisses the value of economic instruments to reduce diffuse pollution. We believe that a tax on chemical fertilisers and phosphorus in feed could have been a useful addition to the Options in the consultation in order to facilitate rational comparison of the cost and benefit of this policy instrument with the other options. Question 2: Which of the three policy packages do you think should be added to the range of Programme of Measures to tackle diffuse water pollution from agriculture? The RSPB would like to see Option 1 added to the Programme of Measures. Polluter pays principle We welcome WPZs as a valuable, targeted regulatory tool to tackle specific pollution problems and to ensure that the polluter pays. Options 2 and 3 propose the addition of supportive measures to reduce the impact of WPZ regulation. The RSPB would find it unacceptable if Environmental Stewardship funds were used to stop polluting practices and recommends that supportive measures should always be employed in conjunction with upholding the polluter pays principle. If major behaviour or infrastructure change is necessary in order to meet standards under the WFD, transitional support or capital grants could be acceptable under appropriate circumstances. Environmental Stewardship funds are intended to support delivery over and above good practice standards, and should not be diverted. 7

8 Supportive approaches already in place The question asks which of the three policy packages do you think should be added to the range of Programme of Measures to tackle diffuse water pollution from agriculture?. In our opinion, Environmental Stewardship and Defra s England Catchment Sensitive Farming Delivery Initiative (ECSFDI) advisory project are already part of the Programme of Measures that are being utilised in England to tackle diffuse pollution. The RSPB supports both Environmental Stewardship and ECSFDI as projects in themselves. We also recognise the value that they can have towards reducing diffuse pollution and resource protection objectives. In addition, we recognise the value of advice in supporting the understanding and implementation of regulation rather than as a replacement for regulation. We believe it is more appropriate for the role of Environmental Stewardship and the advice programme in tackling diffuse pollution, to be assessed and developed within the existing review proceedures for Environmental Stewardship and the ECSFDI. For example, as part of the current review of Environmental Stewardship we have commented that existing Stewardship options and their targeting must optimise the fulfilment of multiple objectives, one of which is resource protection. Defra must ensure that there is good communication within the Department in order to facilitate this process. Lack of funding The RSPB believes that Options 2 and 3, as set out in the consultation document, suffer from a lack of detail in how a package of support for farmers will be designed or financed. We have calculated that a minimum of 300M is required to deliver biodiversity targets and there is an existing shortfall in overall Environmental Stewardship funding. The consultation document does not indicate whether any new money will be made available from Government for the proposed Enhanced Stewardship Scheme or whether funds will be redistributed to fund resource protection options. The RSPB believes that Government must fulfill its existing funding commitments to Environmental Stewardship before creating an Enhanced Stewardship Scheme. Furthermore, we strongly oppose a redistribution of current Stewardship funds to pay for an Enhanced Scheme at the expense of other agri-environment objectives. Lack of environmental results The RSPB is wary of accepting either the Scheme or Advice elements of the proposal when both the ECSFDI advice project and Environmental Stewardship have yet to demonstrate water quality results. Whilst we believe that, in time, these supportive measures can result in environmental benefit they are as yet unproven and therefore any expansion or adaptation of exisitng initiatives would be too hasty. In particular, the ECSFDI project is currently yet to complete its first 2 year period. This project needs more time, and therefore financial resource, to show environmental and behavioural change in the existing 40 catchments, before any expansion to other catchments. Defra 8

9 must therefore be cautious about including advice as an option before the model has been proven successful. Value for money The consultation documentation shows that the supportive options deliver only slightly higher benefits than the WPZ only Option 1. This is in contrast to the greater costs of implementation, particularly for Option 3. The benefits (Primary effects) of the Advice element are particulary low and do not justify its inclusion. The RSPB believes that while advisory support is an essential element of successful regulation or incentive schemes, there is a limit to what advice can deliver alone. Question 3: If we take forward WPZs, should we consider merging WPZs with NVZs? What are the advantages and disadvantages? The RSPB supports the principle of merging regulations in order to make communication and administration more effective and ultimately create better regulation. However, we do not think it is possible to merge NVZ and WPZ regulations as proposed. Communication The advantage of combining regulations is to present and communicate to the farmer one simplified set of regulations. This can aid farmer understanding of both the evidence and the action required on the ground. Presenting NVZs and WPZs, as proposed, in a single package to farmers will not ease understanding of the problem or the solution. NVZs and WPZs do not sit together easily as NVZs include one action plan for the whole designated area (possible 100% of England) whilst WPZs are localised zones with measures targeted to local problems, situations and practices. Baseline regulations In our response to question 1 of this consultation we proposed that in order to combine action to reduce nitrogen with action to reduce other pollutants (P, sediment etc) government must put the following measures in place: A baseline layer of regulatory measures covering 100% of England and including: o NVZ Action Programme o Baseline diffuse pollution measures introduced as General Binding Rules Targeted WPZs within River Basin Districts The Nitrates Directive remains the driver for reducing diffuse nitrogen pollution. This must be fully complied with and must include an Action Programme. Hand in hand with this regulation can sit a baseline set of rules for all farmers and land managers to follow which aims to reduce diffuse pollutants other than nitrogen. General Binding Rules are a regulatory measure under the WFD which can be used to set baseline regulations for land management. 9

10 A baseline regulatory package for the protection of waters against pollution from agriculture covering 100% of England and which includes the NVZ Action Programme and General Binding Rules will allow effective: communication of the holistic nature of the problem, communication of the need, by all farmers, to do at least a minimum level of land management to reduce diffuse pollution, introduction of basic measures ahead of the 2012 expected date for WPZ introduction, and enforcement of all regulatory land management measures, whether for N, P or pesticides. Specific WPZs (as proposed in the consultation document) allow a higher level of specific measures to be added within RBDs to mitigate specific problems. Figure 1, above shows a proposed structure of how these layers of regulation sit together. The RSPB believes that any merging of regulation must result in, at least, equally strong regulation in order to meet the UK s targets and commitments. Question 4: Do you agree with content of the draft WPZ Guidance at Annex F? If not, please suggest any additions or deletions to the content. The RSPB has the following specific comments relating to numbered paragraphs of the consultation document. Section 3 WPZ Applicability 3.1: The RSPB would welcome clarification that diffuse pesticide pollution might be tackled by WPZs 3.2: WPZs could provide an important tool for tackling Nitrate Pollution, particularly where local conditions heighten the risk of breaching the 50mg/l target 5 or where meeting the ecological objectives of the WFD or Habitats Directive require a lower target to be achieved 6. This should be made explicit in the guidance. Section 4 - Prioritisation 4.1: This seems to say that WPZs will be applied where existing measures will not ensure compliance with WFD objectives. This is subtly different to the opening statement of 4.2 which states WPZs are a tool for areas with the worst agricultural pollution. The word worst is ambiguous. We believe the guidance should stick to language that conveys the importance of meeting clear legal objectives. 5 Although the Nitrates Directive does not set 50mg/l as a target per-se, the inclusion of NVZ s as Protected Areas under the WFD does enshrine this as an objective that must be met by Article 4.2 of the WFD makes it clear that where more than one objective applies to a water body, the most stringent must apply. In the case of some freshwater ecosystems and groundwater dependent terrestrial ecosystems this could mean a limit below 50 mg/l. For groundwater this requirement is reiterated in Annex I(3) of the new Groundwater Directive. 10

11 4.2: The WFD does not provide for action to be prioritised on the basis of costeffectiveness. The cost-effectiveness analysis required by the WFD is a tool for identifying those measures that might be used to tackle a pressure, not whether a measure should or shouldn t be implemented. If the Agency prioritises WPZ designation on the basis outlined in the draft guidance there is a real danger that a considerable number of water bodies will fail to meet WFD objective and the UK will face significant infraction risk. Instead, any delay in taking action must be justified through the exemption tests set out in Article 4 of the WFD with decisions justified on the grounds of disproportionate costs or technical feasibility. Where these tests are met, the reasoning must be set out in the River Basin Management Plan. Section 6 - Supporting information (evidence) Overall, the level of supporting information being sought by the draft guidance is extremely ambitious and potentially costly. As a result, there is a very real danger that the use of WPZs will be defined by limits on resources not the need to tackle diffuse pollution. This is environmentally and legally unacceptable. That said, the RSPB recognises that real world decision making is always resource constrained and it is for this reason we suggest using GBRs to promote a foundation of best practices that WPZs could build upon in specific, high risk, areas. Overall, we would welcome some further clarification as to how the Secretary of State intends to use the information provided to come to decision. For example, will low-cost measures require a lower evidence threshold and how will uncertainty be balanced against environmental, legal and economic consequences of failure to meet WFD objectives? 6.3: Developing a robust source apportionment model on a catchment-by-catchment basis is not a trivial matter and source tracing can be hugely expensive, particularly where it requires isotope analyses (e.g. phosphates). Again, we question whether it will be cost-effective to underpin all measures however simple or cheap, with such detailed research. Section 7 Diffuse Pollution Mitigation Measures 7.3: If necessary the list presented should be amended in light of the ongoing pcea work being undertaken by Defra. 7.4: The RSPB is not familiar with the ADAS measures selection tool. We would hope that this would take on board the latest thinking of the pcea work and illustrate nonmonetised benefits derived from measures e.g. BAP habitat creation, amenity etc. 11

12 COMMENTS ON THE DETAIL OF THE PROPOSALS Water Protection Zones Section 4 We would like to see further clarity concerning how WPZs might be designated and designed to account for different pollutants. For example, a WPZ may be designated because of a phosphorus problem or high levels of sediment export or high pesticide concentrations, but some areas may have more than one problem which must be controlled through land management measures. If these designated pollution problem areas overlap will a larger WPZ be designated and measures designed to control all pollutants, even if one pollutant is not an issue in one part of the WPZ? Alternatively, will different WPZ layers be designated, depending on the pollution problem, with specific measures for each WPZ layer? However, WPZs are designated and designed the RSPB believes that Defra and the EA must apply the precautionary principle and ensure there is no deterioration in water quality in the zone or outside the zone due to movement of polluting practices. Deterioration can lead to infraction under the WFD. Cost Benefits Chapter 5 The analysis, described in paragraph 5.16, removed some measures because they were described as not cost effective. The analysis relied on national averages but when this analysis is done at the catchment scale in River Basin Districts, it will be done at a local scale. Therefore, until that point all measures should remain as potentially cost effective until proven otherwise at the local level and according to local situations. 5.32: The RSPB would like to see the following benefits included in the analysis of the measures on Primary effects: SSSI restoration Dredging less need to dredge if sediment is reduced Hydromorphology due to reduced sedimentation Monitoring There are no proposals, under the WFD, to set sediment standards for water bodies. This is, in part because sediment loss is episodic so routine sampling is unlikely to capture events. Instead, UKTAG have proposed to simply investigate biological failures and act where sediment is seen as the cause. We believe this approach is unacceptable, not least because it implicitly requires deterioration before action is taken. That said we acknowledge the practical difficulty of the routine and/or continuous monitoring of suspended sediment. We believe that the Agency should use a combination of its risk assessment with riverbed sediment analysis to identify where sediment loss is significantly impacting riverbed morphology. 12

13 Annex A Resource Protection Environmental Stewardship Option Uptake Numbers June 07 The table in Annex A does not indicate whether the figures relate to hectarage or number of contracts containing these options. Secondly, and more importantly the options listed are not a comprehensive list of the Environmental Stewardship options which can reduce diffuse pollution of water. For example, ELS options EJ1 and EJ2 are omitted, as are buffer strip options. Furthermore, HLS options focussed on Resource Protection are not included in the list. Annex B Table of Mitigation Measures to Control DWPA The consultation document focuses heavily on the use of the 44 mitigation measures outlined in Annex B. The RSPB would like to participate in more detailed discussion of the proposed measures to control DWPA in the future. This is because we would like to ensure that, when selected and included in WPZs, these 44 measures are not put in place on the ground in a way which compromises other environmental objectives such as biodiversity. We believe strongly that measures designed to control diffuse pollution must not have a negative impact on biodiversity. We would also like to help maximise the benefits of these measures where possible. For example, we would like to highlight the following issues, immediately apparent from review of the list in Annex B. No. 2: Establish cover crops in the autumn Over-winter stubbles are essential stores of seed for the survival of seed eating farmland birds, such as skylark and corn bunting, through the winter. We believe that, in the majority of situations, stubbles (apart from maize stubbles) do not pose a resource protection risk, and in fact may pose lower erosion risk than winter cereal fields. Any cover crop requirement would severely compromise the food sources and survival of a number of farmland birds whose numbers have already markedly declined. No Allow field drainage systems to deteriorate In some cases it can be appropriate and more immediately effective to break or remove drainage systems. This would link well with another measure on the list, to create more wetland habitats (No. 44), as this is an appropriate way of creating new wet features and supplying water to them No Fence off rivers and streams from livestock Fencing off rivers and streams can be an issue for wet grassland nature reserves where good management includes grazing some of the ditch edges to open them up for wader feeding opportunities. This is similarly an issue for some wet grassland on farmland, particularly fields in agri-environment schemes. In this case the RSPB recommends construction of 'enhanced' cattle drinker type features at regular intervals along the 13

14 length of a ditch or stream. These can provides some open, muddy ditch edges which are good for wading birds, such as the lapwing and redshank. No. 42 Establish new hedges We would like to see hedge establishment based on advice in order to optimise resource protection and biodiversity benefit. Hedges planted would cause concern if required in wetland or lowland wet grassland areas because the wading birds which use these habitats prefer wide open fields where hedges can not harbour predators. Regulatory Impact Assessment The final report of the survey of the benefits of the WFD in England and Wales has been presented to the Collaborative Research Programme (CRP). We believe that the Regulatory Impact Assessment (RIA) for the consultation should be updated to incorporate these figures as they represent the most recent and complete work on improvements to water bodies in England and Wales. The study suggests that the benefits in the partial regulatory impact assessment have been underestimated. The results indicate that the value for a 95% improvement in waterbodies (i.e. high quality status) nationally by 2015 for households in England and Wales is 1,020-3,849 million. The present value of these water improvements is billion. Not all of these WFD benefits will result from changes in agricultural practices. However, given that the RIA estimates that between 16-36% of P, 30% of faecal indicators and 75% of sediment entering UK waters are attributable to agriculture, it is likely that a sizeable proportion of the overall WFD benefits would result from a reduction in diffuse pollution from agriculture. As such, the million annual values estimated as an upper bound by the diffuse agriculture RIA, and the present value upper bounds of billion, appear to be greatly underestimated. The RIA includes modelling for a 30% reduction in phosphorus which does not feature in the consultation document. This figure also occurs in the draft WFD impact assessment as part of a second policy option which sees the WFD phased in slowly rather than good quality achieved by We are concerned that Defra is modelling scenarios alternative to meeting WFD standards by We believe that there must be transparency in modelling RIA scenarios and strong rationale for calculations which do not aim to reach WFD standards by RSPB November