Diffuse pollution from Rural Land Use

Diffuse pollution from Rural Land Use RSPB Scotland s response to the Scottish Executive s consultation paper Summary Diffuse water pollution from agriculture is a serious problem. Existing measures which aim to tackle the cause and effects of diffuse pollution are inadequate, and it is clear that a new approach is needed to address this major environmental problem. Water bodies affected by diffuse pollution from silts and excess nutrients become eutrophic with devastating consequences for aquatic biodiversity. Water dependent species and habitats are often of national and international importance in themselves, as well as undermining local businesses benefiting communities. We welcome the consultation by the Scottish Executive on Diffuse Pollution Strategy for Scotland. RSPB Scotland strongly supports parts of the Strategy relating to the introduction of a new regulatory regime, but we believe that more can be achieved with further investment into the provision of supportive elements and a more integrated approach with the developing field of agricultural policies. We believe that there is a scope for further action and recommend measures to strengthen the Scottish Executive proposals. RSPB Scotland recommends a phased approach to implementing a combination of measures, including effective regulation, soil, manure and nutrient planning, better integration with CAP reform and an enhanced design for the new supportive elements. There is a need to convince farmers of the diffuse pollution problem both generally and locally, of their responsibility and of the potential economic benefits of participation in initiatives to reduce it. This could be addressed by including soil and nutrient planning within cross compliance requirements. Information and skills gap can be addressed by the following action: Ensuring that soil and nutrient planning are included within cross compliance requirements, Providing basic pollution management advice to all farms, and Putting in place Catchment Officers in high-risk catchments to prioritise, facilitate and coordinate catchment specific approaches. March 2006

RSPB SCOTLAND The RSPB is a charity with over a million members, working throughout the UK and abroad, researching environmental problems, campaigning for sustainable solutions, managing land for biodiversity and people, providing educational resources and offering conservation advice to central and local government, farmers, landowners and others involved with the countryside. RSPB Scotland aims to promote the conservation of wild birds and their habitats. It is supported by over 74,200 members in Scotland, with a strong membership base in rural areas as well as towns and cities. The RSPB has a long history of involvement with the conservation of the aquatic environment, as well as those land uses which have a significant impact on water quality and quantity, including agriculture and forestry. We promote a holistic approach to land-use and habitat management, which is particularly important for aquatic ecosystems. We believe that sustainable management of agricultural land is essential for wildlife and people. Freshwater ecosystems are an integral part of our natural heritage, both for the wildlife which depends upon them and for their contribution towards the spiritual, cultural and economic well-being of people. The loss of some species of birds on farmland over the last 30 years has led RSPB Scotland to devote considerable resources to developing its expertise in agriculture: Over 50% of our nature reserve land in Scotland is managed through farming; We manage over 62,500 hectares of land in Scotland, having our own in hand operation on the Island of Islay, and over 100 management agreements with farmers and crofters across Scotland; and This practical work is supported by a research programme, advisory and policy work, based at our Scottish headquarters in Edinburgh, and through our staff across Scotland. Much of this operation involves the sustainable management of water resources on or under the nature reserves. 2

INTRODUCTION AND GENERAL COMMENTS Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Scottish Executive s proposals for a Diffuse Pollution Strategy for Scotland. RSPB Scotland is slightly concerned over the limited input from external stakeholders into this Strategy and hope that this process will improve once detailed proposals are being developed. We are concerned that the proposed measures do not go far enough to provide an effective and incentive-based framework to deal with diffuse pollution problem. Recommendations rely heavily on existing measures, which have an unproven track record of uptake and/or effectiveness. Addressing diffuse pollution requires a new and more proactive approach. Action should be taken at farm input, land management and land use levels in areas of proven water diffuse pollution problems. Diffuse pollution problem Many of Scotland s rivers, lochs, coastal and groundwaters are affected by diffuse pollution from agricultural sources. SEPA considers this to be the most significant cause of poor river quality in certain parts of Scotland, and expects it to be the largest cause of water pollution in Scotland by 2010 1. Rivers and waterbodies throughout Scotland have been highly modified by human activities with a major influence on function and water quality. The cultivation of land for food production, and density of cattle stocking, has increased loads of sediment, nutrients and chemicals reaching surface and ground waters. Water bodies affected by diffuse pollution from silts and excess nutrients become eutrophic with devastating consequences for aquatic biodiversity. Water dependent species and habitats are often of national and international importance - many sites are designated as Special Areas of Conservation (SAC), Special Protection Areas (SPA) and Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI). There is also considerable economic cost associated with the clean up of polluted water bodies which are used as public water supplies and for recreational purposes. The most important sources of Nitrogen (N) and Phosphorus (P) in the environment are sewage discharges and agriculture. Sewage inputs of P have, to a degree been reduced over the last twenty years, with a resultant knock-on improvement in water quality. However, nutrient levels in waters remain at ecologically damaging levels, in many places incompatible with international and national law. Addressing diffuse pollution Existing measures which aim to tackle the cause and effects of diffuse pollution problem are inadequate, and it is clear that a new approach is needed to address this major environmental problem. RSPB Scotland therefore welcomes the Executive s proposals for a diffuse pollution strategy for Scotland. We welcome proposals for simple and flexible controls based on the assessment of risk posed to the water environment, which will be selective, proportionate and streamlined. This will substantially reduce the regulatory burden on both regulators and the farming sector. The Water Framework Directive (WFD) requires regulatory measures be based on polluter pays principle, and RSPB Scotland therefore strongly supports parts of the Strategy relating to the introduction of a new regulatory regime and subsequent charging regime. The strategy should aim to prevent pollution, reduce inputs and stop pollutants entering watercourses rather than rely on end of pipe solutions. The polluter (or user) pays principle is based on the principle that those who cause pollution, including the cost of environmental damage, also bear the cost of pollution prevention and clean up costs. We strongly recommend that the Scottish Executive places the polluter pays principle into the heart of the new charging regime. 1 Pressures and Impacts on Scotland s Water Environment, SEPA report, 2004 3

The benefits of the Water Framework Directive The Water Framework Directive (WFD) aims to achieve good ecological status of all the water environment 2 by 2015. The main aims are set out in Article 1: Prevent further deterioration, protect and enhance aquatic ecosystems and, with regard to their water needs, terrestrial ecosystems and wetlands Promote sustainable water use based on a long-term protection of water resources Aim at enhanced protection from reduction in discharge and losses of pollutants Reduce groundwater pollution Contribute to the mitigation of the effects of floods & droughts These are ambitious targets, and farmers, as well as others involved in land management have a key role to play in delivering these objectives. Human activities over the past hundreds of years have resulted in the alteration of aquatic ecology in UK s river and coastal systems. The loss of hundreds of kilometres of riverine systems and associated wetlands over recent decades exacerbates the problem. Naturally functioning wetland systems can soak up pollutants and clean water in the process, as well as acting as natural sponges which absorb flood waters. However, development on floodplains, extensive land drainage and the construction of embankments along rivers to protect agricultural land from flooding all limit the capacity of natural habitats to cope with flood events and pollution. Sedimentation caused by bank erosion and overgrazing and overuse of fertilisers, pesticides and other agricultural practices all impact on the environment, and the species that depend on them. The WFD has a key role to play in delivering improvements through habitat restoration, such as removal of flood defences, and the restoration of backwaters and floodplains to provide better buffering capacity against pollution. River Basin Management Planning and Area Advisory Groups River Basin Planning is an important tool in delivering the objectives of the Water Framework Directive. The Scottish Environment Protection Agency will soon be establishing Area Advisory Groups, which will play an active and leading role in delivering these plans. It is of crucial importance that local farmers groups make an active contribution to this process. This approach is needed in order to achieve a more integrated approach to land management. Climate change impacts A strategy for diffuse pollution should recognise the Scottish Executive s commitment to reducing greenhouse gas emissions in all sectors. Measures for tackling diffuse pollution should be set which will make a significant contribution to cutting emissions particularly targeting nutrient input from fertiliser use. Another of the Executive s climate objectives is to help adapt to those climate impacts arising from past greenhouse gas emissions. Where species and habitats are affected by diffuse pollution this will impact on their ability to adapt to the changing climate resulting in a loss of biodiversity. Therefore the strategy should ensure action to tackle diffuse pollution in important wildlife sites to help improve their condition to a favourable status. Further action will also be necessary to facilitate the 2 Water environment means all rivers, lochs, estuaries and coastal waters up to 3 nautical miles (in Scotland) into the sea, as well as all groundwaters (see WEWS Act 2003). 4

movement and dispersal of those species and habitats which may have to move to more favourable climate zones as the climate changes. This means extending measures to tackle diffuse pollution into the wider countryside including habitat improvements at a landscape and ecosystem level to allow dispersal beyond the currently protected wildlife sites 5

COMMENTS IN RESPONSE TO SPECIFIC QUESTIONS Question 1: Do you agree that we have accurately identified the water quality issues that need to be addressed? If not, why and what supports your views? RSPB Scotland believes that diffuse water pollution from agriculture is a serious problem. There is substantial evidence that agricultural emissions to water represent a serious and widespread environmental problem. Water and ecological quality issues have been assessed by SEPA through its characterisation process, and whilst this information is largely based on estimates and land use modelling, water quality issues will be further defined through the new monitoring programme. Agriculture is currently estimated to account for over 74% of N entering rivers, 54% of P and 88% of soils. Diffuse pollution harms wildlife, results in costs to water customers (as a result of increased treatment of drinking water), and sometimes impairs the tourism and recreational value of many coastal and inland waters. As mentioned in the consultation document, the amount of N and P in the environment has increased substantially over the last one hundred years. Special consideration should be given to areas which are designated by national and international law, and where diffuse pollution is causing a failure in achieving designation objectives. Diffuse pollution has a wide range of impacts on biodiversity, and we feel that the consultation document is weak in describing these and proposing effective ways of addressing them. We would like to see a more proactive approach when dealing with diffuse pollution in Natura 2000 sites, in SSSIs and on priority BAP habitats and species. Examples of diffuse pollution impacts on biodiversity are given below. Diffuse pollution implications for biodiversity and the environment Excess nutrients and silt entering aquatic ecosystems can have severe ecological implications. Enrichment of surface waters by nutrients, particularly nitrogen and phosphorus, can lead to eutrophication, the process by which excessive growth of potentially toxic algae and other plants has adverse effects on water quality and the fragile balance of biodiversity within aquatic habitats. Competitive species are favoured over those adapted to conditions of limited nutrient availability, leading to the local extinction of species and communities adapted to nutrient-poor conditions; for example, evidence is emerging that eutrophied waters, with large masses of surface vegetation affect the distribution of bat species, such as Daubenton s bat, by interfering with echo-location systems. Further evidence suggests that nutrient enrichment is having an impact on aquatic and riparian communities. Silts can change the structure of river habitats by clogging up naturally gravely substrates, making them unsuitable for some fish and insect species. They can also make water turbid and prevent submerged plants from growing. Declines in mayfly populations are considered to be the result of a combination of silt and nutrient pollution, whilst silt deposition in rivers has serious impacts on salmonid fish which lay eggs in gravel. Excessive silt reduces oxygen flow to the eggs and provides a physical barrier to the hatching fry, resulting in serious reductions in breeding success. Other species vulnerable to silt pollution include freshwater pearl mussel and native white-clawed crayfish. The UK Biodiversity Action Plan (UKBAP) and Scottish Biodiversity Strategy 3 focus on a number of priority habitats and species which depend on good quality water. Priority habitats include mesotrophic lakes, rivers, fens, 3 Scotland s Biodiversity; its in your hands. A strategy for the conservation and enhancement of biodiversity in Scotland, Scottish Executive, 2004 6

reedbeds and grazing marsh. Priority species include otter, water vole, medicinal leech, northern blue damselfly, great crested newt, freshwater pearl mussel, vendace, yellow march saxifrage, slender naiad, river jelly lichen, marsh clubmoss and Shetland pondweed. Actions Plans for each of these habitats and species highlight the threat from nutrient enrichment 4. Many areas identified at risk from diffuse pollution are of international and national importance for wildlife. The Scotland River Basin District includes 235 water dependent Special Areas of Conservation 5 (SAC) and Special Protection Areas (SPA) 6. The Solway Tweed RBD includes 36 water dependent SACs and SPAs. Of these, many may not meet the WFD s environmental objectives in their current state. Further the intense pressure of diffuse pollution on some of our most important aquatic habitats and species mean that these sites may fail to meet the favourable condition required by the Habitats and Birds Directives. Similar concerns exist for many SSSIs. Reporting under the Habitats and Birds Directives is due in 2006, and Protected Area objectives for water dependent Natura 2000 sites have been assessed by SNH to determine if there is a risk of failure of objectives. It is essential that sites of national and international importance to wildlife are identified as priority for action. Question 2: Do you consider there are problems not identified? In addition to issues identified in answer to Question 1, we believe that further clarification is required in the following areas: i) Investigating the effects of nutrient loading on biodiversity Increases in nutrient loads are having a demonstrable effect on biological diversity in the UK. The RSPB is concerned about the effect and extent of this pollution on birds and their habitats; the UK s flora, associated with low soil fertility 7 ; internationally and nationally protected sites; and species and habitats, which the Government is committed to protect through the UK Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP). We believe that further research is required to assess the cumulative effects of excess nutrients and silt entering aquatic ecosystems, which can result in severe ecological implications for those water bodies and the water dependent wildlife. Nutrient enrichment is also having an impact on aquatic and riparian communities, with potential consequences for good ecological status under the WFD. ii) Understanding the behaviour of N and P in ecosystems. Action to tackle diffuse pollution from nutrients should address the full range of environmental impacts on both the aquatic and terrestrial environments. This requires a better understanding of the roles of N and P in limiting plant growth and determining ecosystem change. iii) Understanding of ecotoxicity of pesticides also requires further work before the potential dangers of exposure in the aquatic environment can be fully understood, and adequate risk assessments undertaken. In particular, a better understanding of the behaviour, fates and effects of pesticides within functioning ecosystems (as opposed to the laboratory), and of the interaction of different pesticides, is urgently required. 4 UKBAP.org.uk 5 SACs are designated under the Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC) 6 SPAs are designated under the Birds Directive (79/409/EEC) 7 Analysis of Countryside Survey 2000 7

3. What aspects do you consider may require regulation or to be more rigorously controlled using existing powers of enforcement? Existing measures which aim to tackle the cause and effects of diffuse pollution problem are inadequate, and it is clear that a new approach is needed to address this major environmental problem. There is currently no comprehensive piece of legislation which targets diffuse pollution in Scotland. There is limited regulation in certain areas but, generally, measures which aim to address the issue are based on voluntary participation, guidance and support. Various initiatives are in place to help farmers use nutrients more efficiently and reduce the risk and effects of pollution. These aim to encourage better targeting and timing of inorganic and organic fertiliser application, more effective recycling of nutrients in manures and slurries, managing soils to prevent unnecessary run off and erosion, and protecting sensitive water courses using wide buffer strips and farm wetlands. It is important to note that WFD specifically requires the introduction of new basic measures for the control of diffuse pollution: WFD Article 11, 3 Basic measures are the minimum requirements to be complied with and shall consist of: (h) for diffuse sources liable to cause pollution, measures to prevent or control the input of pollutants. Controls may take the form of a requirement for prior regulation such as a prohibition on the entry of pollutants into water, prior authorisation or registration based on general binding rules where such a requirement is not otherwise provided for under Community legislation. These controls shall be periodically reviewed and, where necessary, updated; Evidence suggests that despite existing efforts, the problem remains, and is growing. Take up of schemes, and general awareness and understanding of the problem is low. A number of factors act as policy barriers and, despite the initiatives, there is presently no real imperative for carrying out better management practices. Incentives are generally small, and compliance monitoring is patchy. Regulation is required to ensure the uptake of good practice. In line with the Scottish Executive s proposals, we support the proposed system of regulations to include: National GBRs - the widespread application of good practice, which could be based on e.g. PEPFAA Code Targeted GBRs - applied in certain areas where specific problems occur and where waterbodies are at risk of not achieving Good Ecological Status as a result. Licencing detailed site specific conditions would be developed and applied in areas with persistent problems, in line with polluter pays, where all pollution activities would be controlled. We recommend that special care must be taken when assessing applications for controlled activities taking place in, and in the vicinity of, nationally and international designated protected areas. 4. Do you consider that advice on water pollution risks, within the PEPFAA Code and/or the Forest and Water Guidelines, is effective? If not, what else is required? Existing measures, such as PEPFAA Code and Forest and Water Guidance provide a partially effective means of controlling diffuse pollution. However, this guidance has not been designed in line with WFD requirements, and would therefore require further revision and 8

refinement. These measures would form an effective baseline for a set of national GBRs, as described in later text. For sensitive parts of catchments, UKWAS certification of woodland could provide an important tool in water quality management. The UK Forestry Standard which includes the Forests & Water Guidelines and the Forests & Soil Guidelines - only applies to woodland planting, felling and management operations that are authorised by Forestry Commission Scotland through their grant and felling licence procedures for private forestry, as well as management of the state forest. This means that the positive diffuse pollution prevention measures proscribed by the Forestry Commission (FC), through cross compliance with the UK Forestry Standard, do not apply to any woodland not in receipt of an FC grant or felling licence - such as many farm woodlands - and do not automatically apply to planning consented forestry work. Whilst the Forest and Water Guidance provides an effective and useful tool in addressing diffuse pollution from forestry, the UK Forestry Standard must be applied to all woodlands, not just those in receipt of an FC grant/felling licence or the state forest. This measure therefore requires statutory backing, and would be a suitable template for a national GBR. 5. Which measures to protect watercourses would you wish to see eligible for financial support under the planned Tier 3 of LMCs? It is intended that Tier 3 will be designed to reward more specific, high value benefits, and for activities to be carried out at the appropriate spatial scale - which for priority issues such as diffuse pollution is greater than an individual holding. In contrast to Tier 2, Tier 3 measures will be available on a competitive basis and should lead to environmental, social and economic enhancement - significant environmental or other public benefits must be demonstrated. Measures should aim to promote the creation and management of wetlands including ponds and reedbeds in priority areas. Tier 3 should aim to contribute to flood management on sub catchment level by encouraging land management that for example reduces run-off and improves soil structure (e.g. wet grassland for wintering/breeding waders, inundation grassland). Measures should encourage habitat mosaic and transitional zones between habitats, which are good for species diversity. These include maintaining and restoring habitats such as hedges, banks, ditches, and walls. Our detailed submission to the Scottish Executive s Agricultural Department on tier 3 is given in Annex 1. Tier 3 should provide competitive incentives for priority areas 8 in order to: Encourage catchment level, collaborative applications Target major wetland creation, floodplain restoration and management Measures for enhanced buffer strips (6-15m) Creation and management of coastal wetlands Farm wetlands and ponds 6. Do you agree with the idea of self-audit/environmental checklist of the farm s environmental practice? We agree and support the idea of environmental audit, but it has to be based on sound advice and expert knowledge. As previously mentioned, the awareness of diffuse pollution problem, its causes and impacts is low amongst farmers, and the results of a self-audit could be misleading. Our preferred approach would be advice based audit using external 8 SEPA is currently identifying priority catchments which could form the basis of these areas. 9

auditors. We recognise the financial implications of this measure but believe that public benefits gained from such an approach would outweigh the costs. It is essential that with limited budgets, such audits are first targeted in priority areas and integrated with the development of LMCs. Farm woodlands need to be audited against the UK Forestry Standard. Beyond the UK Forestry Standard, owners of farm woodlands need to be encouraged to meet the higher level UK Woodland Assurance Standard (UKWAS) 9. UKWAS is independently audited and would be likely to require ecological survey and management planning (NB Scottish Executive s commitment at the 2002 World Summit on Sustainable Development 10 to increase UKWAS uptake). 7. We think it is important to help farmers/foresters/land managers understand the likelihood of water pollution from their enterprise. What is most likely to be effective? - Advice/guidance/training/codes of practice/voluntary initiatives etc? - Seminars/farm visits/catchment officers? - Structured auditing? We believe that all of the above are very important. Advice for farmers is crucial in making the synergistic links between agriculture, water policy, and likelihood of water pollution. From this perspective, free advice and employment of Catchment Advisors to fulfil this role is strongly recommended. Despite efforts made to address diffuse pollution from agricultural sources, evidence suggests that there remains a lack of awareness amongst farmers of the scale of the problem, and of their role 11 12. Further, although advice is given by many advisors on pollution mitigation measures, there is a lack of knowledge of their effectiveness. There is a need to convince farmers of the diffuse pollution problem both generally and locally, of their responsibility and of the potential economic benefits of participation in initiatives to reduce it. This could be addressed by including soil and nutrient planning within cross compliance requirements. The existing SEERAD funded farm advisory service is under review and a new scheme needs to be introduced as a requirement of the Farm Advisory Service provisions of the CAP midterm review. A new advisory package is required by 2007. Whilst the EU Farm Advisory System generally relates to Tier 1 (the SFP), the Executive is currently considering its advisory package in the context of the 3 LMC tiers. It is imperative that advice is easily available for all farmers to support the introduction of new rules and the delivery of public goods. Farmers should have access to free advice on nutrient and soil management planning and preparing nutrient budgets, and the provision of public benefits e.g. habitat improvement. In priority areas, face-to-face advice should be available through the appointment of Catchment Advisors. If the UK Forestry Standard were to be fully and properly implemented, combined with advisory support, then it could be an effective mechanism to help farmer/foresters/land managers to understand and tackle water pollution issues. 9 See: www.ukwas.org.uk 10 See: www.ukforestpartnership.org.uk 11 Policy mechanisms for the control of diffuse agricultural pollution with particular reference to grant aid. EN Research Report No. 455, 2002 12 Review of attitudes and awareness in the agriculture industry to diffuse pollution issues, Merrilees & Duncan, 2003 10

8. Do you agree that farming should be subject to a regulatory structure similar to that already planned for other activities under CAR? Yes, we fully agree. The regulatory regime is needed to ensure a nationwide application of good practice. SEPA has the prime role as competent authority for the implementation of WFD measures, and should be the regulator responsible for ensuring compliance with the proposed new set of rules: National GBRs - the widespread application of good practice based on developing BMPs and PEPFAA Codes. Targeted GBRs - applied in certain areas where specific problems occur and where waterbodies are at risk of not achieving Good Ecological Status as a result. SEPA can set conditions through the process of Registration. Licencing detailed site specific conditions would be developed and applied in areas with persistent problems. SEPA should be responsible for determining whether national or targeted GBRs are appropriate in a given area. A GIS based map showing GBR targeting for given aspects of diffuse pollution would be an essential component of such approach. Most of these measures are cost neutral or low cost and are deliberately designed to be a light touch form of regulation meeting the requirement for control but not imposing excessive burdens on farmers. However, the application of licences where activities pose the greatest risk to the water environment is an important element of this system. 9. Do you agree that measures should be introduced as early as possible to enable us to meet WFD targets? Yes, we fully agree. We believe that early introduction of measures will give the operators and regulators enough time to comply with new regulations, and plan the necessary investments to achieve good ecological status by 2015. The development of a GIS based map showing priorities and measures to be taken would be required as a matter of priority. 10. Are you content that there should be GBRs for activities, which contain potentially polluting practices? RSPB Scotland strongly supports this principle, but we advocate that all potentially polluting activities must be covered. This will provide effective way of minimising the likelihood of undertaking a polluting practice. This proposed system of national and targeted GBRs has the potential to significantly reduce diffuse pollution, limiting the amount of nutrients entering waterbodies and resulting in better water quality. GBRs must be developed to deliver effective and comprehensive control of diffuse pollution, be based on best management practice and effectively linked with the development of LMCs and RDR. EU rules governing the use of incentives for the purpose of achieving compliance with environmental regulations need not prove a barrier in providing support for farmers in this context where it can be demonstrated that actions are delivering wider public benefits alongside meeting regulatory objectives. As mentioned previously, the PEPFAA Code provides a sound background from which a set of national GBRs can be developed during 2006. Examples of activities which might be included in National GBRs are given in the Executive s consultation paper. These might include: undertaking a risk assessment for manure and slurry preparing an inorganic fertiliser management plan using buffer strips and no spread zones 11

using certified contractors GAEC soil erosion measures farm plan and / or audit Measures such as controlling livestock access to watercourses would be a suitable targeted GBR and should only be applied where this causes polluting issues. 11. Do you agree that specific problems in at risk catchments should be dealt with through targeted GBRs to be developed in consultation with the industry? We agree with the principle of using targeted GBRs (which require registration) in at risk areas, but strongly recommend that such rules are best developed with active involvement of a wide range of stakeholders, and not only industry representatives. Many areas identified at risk from diffuse pollution are of international and national importance for wildlife. Diffuse pollution is degrading some of our most important aquatic habitats and species which are failing to meet the favourable condition required by Habitats and Birds Directives. Similar concerns exist for many SSSIs. It is essential that sites of national and international importance to wildlife are identified as priority for action and a wide range of statutory and non- statutory agencies are involved in this process. Large amount of expertise lies with the non-government sector and those involved in providing advice to farmers. We would like to see the establishment of a Nutrient Management Steering Group for Scotland in order to oversee and inform the implementation of a new Diffuse Pollution Strategy for Scotland. 12. Do you agree with the proposed approach of combining regulations with the development of guidance, support and the promotion of voluntary action? The RSPB believes that a combined approach to addressing diffuse pollution is the best way forward. As proposed, the approach has to be phased over time and carefully monitored. The RSPB s preferred approach is to combine the following: Soil, manure and nutrient planning to form part of cross compliance regulations and the SFP. Supportive Elements to include: o Advice from a nationwide Farm Advisory Service and Catchment Officers in priority sites o Incentives to help farmers prepare for tougher standards and for particular areas of need o New Regulations as described in answer to question 8 Action should be taken at farm input, land management and land use levels. Proactive measures include enabling and increasing nutrient recycling between farming sectors and replacing inorganic with organic nutrients; targeting inputs to crop and livestock requirements; land use planning to avoid high-risk practices such as intensive livestock or maize and vegetable growing in vulnerable areas; creation of riparian and loch protection areas; and application of clear minimum standards by bringing nutrient, and soil and pesticide plans into cross compliance. There is a need to convince farmers of the diffuse problem both generally and locally, of their responsibility and of the potential economic benefits of participation in initiatives to reduce it. 12

This could be addressed by including soil and nutrient planning within cross compliance requirements. Information and skills gap can be addressed by the following action: ensuring that soil and nutrient planning are included within cross compliance requirements, providing basic pollution management advice to all farms, and putting in place Catchment Officers in high-risk catchments to prioritise, facilitate and coordinate catchment specific approaches. The UK Forestry Standard and the Forests & Water Guidelines need to be a GBR for all woodland and forestry planting, management and felling, including under Tier 2 & 3 agricultural and town & country planning as well as via forestry approval. 13. Do you agree that the proposed GBRs and a suite of supportive measures is the right approach? What should they include? Yes, we agree with this principle, but believe that supportive measures must be developed as described in answer to question 12. There is also considerable scope for combining measures to address diffuse agricultural pollution with measures to deliver other societal benefits, such as protection or enhancement of biodiversity habitats, reducing flood risk, adapting to climate change impacts, and better management of water resources. Research into this area should examine the cost-effectiveness of measures such as farm wetland creation, and landuse change in vulnerable areas of catchments, in the light of the full range of potential benefits they could deliver. Consideration should be given to new technologies, making it easier for farmers to assess the value of manures and slurries, apply them safely and efficiently to the land and to process them in a form that makes them more attractive to reuse. Such technologies often require Government support and investment in research and development programmes before they can become commercially attractive and be brought to the market. 14. How might the proposed approach best be developed? RSPB Scotland proposes that any approach to addressing diffuse pollution is best developed with the involvement of all relevant stakeholders. We therefore propose the establishment of a Nutrient Management Steering Group for Scotland, which will develop, oversee and inform the implementation of a new Diffuse Pollution Strategy for Scotland. SEPA should identify those areas affected by, and at risk from diffuse pollution, as priority areas as a matter of urgency. Priority areas should include all sites of international or national importance for wildlife including SPA, SAC, SSSI which are affected by, or at risk from diffuse pollution. Once these areas are identified, it would be possible to take targeted action (GBRs) in priority catchments. Priority areas identified by SEPA should inform RBMP Programmes of Measures as they develop and should be used as a means of targeting rural development funding through the LMC mechanism. National priorities should be part of the national targeting process, and the areas themselves, or the eventual RBMPs, should inform both the boundaries for, and the content of, LMC regional prioritisation statements. 15. Are there any further factors we need to take into account? There is a need to develop outcome indicators for diffuse pollution, where remedial action may take some time to show effects on ecological health. In order to determine the benefits of the Diffuse Pollution Strategy, all activities, projects and programme of incentives must be adequately monitored and evaluated. This will require: A timetable of commitment to deliver work on the ground. This timetable would consist of the elements of a phased approach. 13

A Nutrient Management Steering Group with representatives from key stakeholders and cross-government representatives to take a lead on the implementation of programmes and report to Ministers. Its remit would be to lead and coordinate the activities of Government departments and other stakeholders and to ensure delivery of the outcomes of Diffuse Pollution Strategy. Full and comprehensive monitoring in order to provide evidence for developing further activities. Continual assessment and evaluation of the impacts in order to: o ensure each project is delivering on its goals and objectives o provide evidence for scaling up and providing good practice indicators 16. How should the Executive work most effectively with the agricultural sector? As mentioned in previous comments, the Scottish Executive must ensure that there is a high level of co-ordination between the implementation of its diffuse pollution strategy and the developments resulting from CAP reform (Land Management Contracts). As part of LMC development, regional prioritisation statements will be constructed, which will highlight social, economic and environmental priorities within the region. Clearly, there must be input on diffuse pollution to these statements, which implies engagement in the structures, which will be in place to set these priorities (as yet unknown). It is also important that all effort is made to integrate key policy areas across the government departments that are relevant to diffuse pollution including agriculture, water, climate change, biodiversity and flooding. 17. Can a similar approach be used for forestry as for agriculture? The UK Forestry Standard and the accompanying Forests & Water Guidelines needs to be implemented fully in agricultural settings (see responses to Qs 4, 6, 7,13). We would like to see agriculture develop an environmentally robust UK Agricultural Standard, beyond the existing GAEC, to mirror the UK Forestry Standard. RSPB Scotland March 2006 14

Annex 1: RSPB submission to Tier 3 of the LMCs. Tier 3 should provide significant competitive incentives for priority areas identified from SEPAs characterisation process and RBMP/LA plans for flood management and SEPA s flood risk maps) and linked to targeted GBRs (beyond basic requirements)/other sources of funding which: - Encourage joint applications at a catchment scale Partnership working in problem areas will deliver greatest benefits. - Encourage the natural functioning of major wetland areas including the restoration and management of riverine and coastal floodplains Large scale applications for the restoration, re-creation and proper management of naturally functioning riverine and coastal wetland areas should be actively encouraged. This would provide additional flood storage, slow down water flow during a flood event, reduce agricultural run-off and contribute to the delivery of biodiversity commitments. Should cover capital works such as blocking drains and re-connecting rivers and floodplains. - Lowering of stock density Lower stock density can significantly reduce the loss of N and P, and removing cattle from pastures in early autumn can lower leaching of N to water courses. Although this is not primarily an enhancement measure, and is in principle suited to Tier 2, the need to target this measure for maximum effectiveness and use of public funding is the rationale for its recommendation under Tier 3. Again, this prescription needs targeting. - Fencing off watercourses and subsequent riparian vegetation management This prescription is suitable as targeted measures in areas with diffuse pollution problem. Fencing off watercourses avoids damage to soils by poaching from cattle. Riparian zones should be managed as per enhanced riparian buffer strips, or wetlands. There are capital costs associated with fencing and high level of targeting means that it is a suitable Tier 3 measure. - Provision of drinking points Where livestock are excluded from watercourses it is necessary to provide alternative drinking supplies. As above, there are capital costs associated with this measure and so there should be a high level of targeting in areas with significant diffuse pollution problem. - In field grass areas Reduce run-off, restrict water movement, protect soils, and contribute to flood management - Enhanced riparian buffer strips Enhanced riparian buffer strips and areas (exceeding 3-5m buffer width) should be promoted in high priority areas, such as intensively managed grasslands (e.g.: dairy farms). 5-20m strips are effective for dealing with pollution, but actively managed wider strips (up to 90m) are of additional value for biodiversity. Enhanced buffer strips should aim to provide additional food resource for birds and insects, located in intensively managed landscapes. This prescription would have primary objective of preventing soil erosion and reducing diffuse pollution/field run-off, but also provide for biodiversity. - Constructed Farm wetlands and farm SUDS Need targeting and subsequent management to maintain performance. 15

- Restoration and creation of native riparian woodlands appears to be missing from the menu scheme, should be targeted for flood risk management (where appropriate means of delivering flood reduction) and diffuse pollution control. It has many benefits for biodiversity, and should follow advice from Forestry Grant Scheme guidance on riparian woodland creation and location. - Improving/extending current prescription for moorland management Current Moorland prescriptions could be extended to include Moorland re-wetting and moorland restoration. This could reduce flooding downstream, reduce sediment loads and protect peat. Moorland restoration should be aimed at moors in poor condition, and must include good soil management. - Prescriptions for wetlands These must be revised to include flood management, collaborative and catchment based work. 16