Consultation
Stakeholders were consulted on
Cross Compliance proposals during
the 8 week consultation which ran from 23 May until 18 July.
Over 1000 stakeholders, including
Farmers Unions, Environmental and Lobby Groups and Local
Authorities were sent the consultation document directly via email.
The consultation was also publicised on the Farming connect
e-bulletin, the consultation e-bulletin and Gwlad. It was also
published on the Welsh Government website.
44 written responses to the
consultation were received. A summary of the Welsh Government
response to the consultation and the analysis of the consultation
responses is included at Appendix 2. Changes to proposals for
Cross Compliance in 2015, resulting from the consultation are
detailed in this document.
Competition Assessment
The proposed regulation has been
assessed using the competition filter assessment and the regulation
is unlikely to have a significant detrimental effect on
competition.
Post implementation review
The implementation of the 2015
Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) Cross Compliance and Integrated
and Administrative Control System (IACS) requirements, in Wales,
will be reviewed in 2020 for the next European Commission CAP
programming period. In addition, in the interim, the
Welsh Government intends to review the following areas:
·
The
efficacy of Statutory Management Requirement 1 (SMR 1) will be
reviewed under the 2015 review of The Water Resources (Control of
Pollution) (Silage, Slurry and Agricultural Fuel Oil) (Wales)
Regulations 2010 (SSAFO regulations) for any necessary changes to
be implemented from January 2016.
·
The
Welsh Government will review the accuracy of Historic Environment
Features (HEF) digitised maps for the purposes of Cross Compliance
with a view to extending protection to HEF’s under GAEC 7 by
subsequent amendment to the regulations (post 2015) following
further consultation with stakeholders.
·
The
Welsh Government will review the mapping constraints to designating
Public Rights of Way as a landscape feature with requirements not
to obstruct or deviate. Once these are resolved amend the Cross
Compliance requirements under Good Agricultural and Environmental
Condition 7 (GAEC 7) to include the Public Rights of Way
requirement subject to further consultation with
stakeholders.
GAEC 1a:
Establishment of buffer strips along water
courses
Background and options
Option 1a: Carry
forward the existing provisions currently in operation in Wales
(GAEC O) under the new GAEC 1.
Preferred option: 1a
Existing GEAC O requires
that:
-
Inorganic fertilisers and manufactured fertilisers must not be
applied within 2 metres of a water course;
- Organic
fertilisers (including manures and slurry) must not be applied
within 10 metres of a water course;
- Organic
fertilisers (including manures and slurry) must not be applied
within 50 metres of boreholes, springs and wells.
Since
the retention of GAEC O under GAEC 1 is mandatory, and is there is
no change to the current requirement, there is no impact to
assess.
GAEC 1b:
Supplementary Feeding within 10m of
Watercourses
Background and options
Option 1b
(i): Supplementary feeding is currently prohibited within 10 metres
of surface water; this requirement which currently falls within
GAEC D to be retained within the new GAEC 1.
Option 1b
(ii): Remove the current supplementary feeding requirements.
Preferred
option: 1b (i)
Livestock farmers are currently
prohibited from allowing supplementary feeding within 10 metres of
surface water. This rule is in place to achieve a range of
environmental benefits, in particular for water quality and
biodiversity. However, limiting the extent of land on which
livestock are permitted to receive supplementary feeding does
reduce flexibility for farmers and may concentrate poaching
(damage caused to turf or sward by the feet of livestock)
elsewhere.
Policy option GAEC 1b proposes to retain
this rule. An alternative policy considered here is to remove the
requirements.
Costs and Benefits
Option 1b (i)
Costs
The cost of retaining this
requirement is that farmers lose the small additional flexibility
of being able to feed within 10 m of surface water. This is
an issue of management and no additional costs are likely to be
incurred; as such this is judged to be of negligible cost to
farmers.
Benefits
Summary of benefits: these are
indirect and difficult to quantify. They relate to the avoidance of
the loss of soil through additional poaching of land nearby
watercourses. While small in scale at individual farm level, the
impact of soil erosion might be larger on a national scale.
Option 1b (ii)
Costs
Lifting the restriction on
feeding within 10 m of surface water will slightly increase
pollution of surface water with effects on water management and
biodiversity. The main affected group is the general public
through loss of biodiversity, higher water prices from additional
treatment costs and possible increased flooding and/or additional
river dredging costs from silting of rivers.
Using data on the length of river courses
(Primary and Secondary River classes from DRN (Detailed River
Network)) and land use data, it is calculated that the total length
of watercourse boundary on one side running through pasture in
Wales is 10,141 kilometres, which amounts to 10,141 hectares of
land within 10 metres of the water courses. This is 0.87% of
the total area of grass (under 5 years old and permanent pasture)
in Wales (Welsh Government, 2013). It’s likely that
every farm in Wales would have some surface water.
Preventing supplementary feeding within
10 m of a watercourse reduces the connectivity between the
pollution source (which is the area of poached land around the
feeders) and the receptor which in this case is the
watercourse. This is likely to reduce the amount of
pollution, which is mainly soil and faeces, reaching the water
course.
The environmental benefits of not feeding
within 10 metres of a water course are a very small proportion of
the environmental benefits of a range of measures including fencing
rivers, alternative water supplies and avoiding poaching (including
by feeding practices) discussed below in relation to GAEC 5 to
which the reader is referred.
Benefits
The benefits for farmers in terms of additional flexibility in
supplementary feeding are judged to be negligible. Removing the prohibition on supplementary feeding
within 10 metres of a watercourse allows a slightly larger area of
land on which farmers are permitted to supplementary feed
livestock. In many cases land within 10 metres of a water
course will not be particularly suitable for supplementary feeding
because of being low lying, boggy, remote from access
etc.
Net benefit of the regulation (change)
While it is expected that there would be
a tangible environmental benefit from the continued prohibition of
feeding within 10 m of a watercourse, it is not possible to
quantify this. The retention of this requirement is not
considered to be overly onerous for farmers. Given that the ongoing
cost to farmers of the preferred option will be negligible, the
benefits, which are nearly all public benefits, are likely to
exceed the costs. Supplementary feeding within 10 m of a
watercourse offers flexibility to farmers, with limited monetary
benefit, but can lead to substantive environmental losses to
society.
GAEC 1c:
Pesticide No-spray Zones within 2m of
Watercourses
Background and options
Option 1c (i): The
application of pesticides is to be prohibited within 2 m of a
watercourse. This new requirement will apply in addition to the
current requirements relating to the application of inorganic and
manufactured fertilisers. Implement with derogations for control of
invasive non native plants where permit from NRW has been obtained
as necessary.
Option 1c (ii): No
requirement as outlined in 1c (i).
Preferred option: 1c
(i)
The use of pesticides is central to the
economic efficiency of arable crops and cultivated fodder crops
(organic systems do not use pesticides but are compensated through
price premia). However, pesticides can have adverse impacts on
terrestrial biodiversity and the ecosystem services which they
provide (such as pollination). Moreover, if pesticides reach
watercourses, they can have adverse impacts on water quality and
aquatic biodiversity and can be expensive to; remove.
Policy Option GAEC 1c (i) proposes to ban
the spraying of pesticides within 2 metres of a watercourse with
derogation for the control of invasive non native plants where a
permit from NRW has been obtained as necessary.
Key assumptions
It is assumed that farmers
do not cultivate within 1m of a watercourse due to practical
implications. It is also assumed that extending this
‘buffer’ to 2m will reduce the risks to water quality
and biodiversity.
Costs and benefits
Option 1 c (i)
Costs
The application of pesticide is likely to
affect arable crops and fodder crops. Very little pesticide
is applied to grassland and where chemicals such as herbicides are
applied, it will be possible to leave a 2m untreated strip with
little effect on grass production.
Policy
Option GAEC 7d proposes the requirement to not cultivate on a minimum of
one metre adjacent to a watercourse. The 1 m no-cultivation
protection zone means that the 2m pesticide buffer zone only
reduces the cultivated crop by 1 metre. In carrying out this Impact
Assessment it has been assumed that in practice farmers implement
the 1m no-cultivation rule in fields of all sizes for practical
reasons and hence only 1m will be lost as a result of the 2m
pesticide-free buffers.
For arable crops and cultivated fodder
crops there will be a loss of production, reducing the gross
margin. As it is not practical to crop the strip of land
which receives no pesticide on the basis that crops (such as cereal
crops) grown on field headlands suffer severe weeds challenge and
to try to harvest a crop on this land will lead to problems with
green corn, weed seeds such as cleavers etc. The practical
response is to leave a 2m wide uncultivated margin which will
usually naturally regenerate as grass. This means there will
be a complete loss of crop on this area. However the cost of
growing the crop will be saved and the effective loss is the Gross
Margin after savings in the costs for fieldwork. The 2m
buffer strip will need to be topped (removing tops of weeds to
prevent spread) at least once a year. Occasionally there may
be a problem with weeds if a cover crop is not
established.
ADAS Calculation of lost income from
2m pesticide free strip along water courses
The total area of crops (excluding all
grass) in Wales was 88,862 hectares in June 2011 (Welsh Government,
Welsh Agricultural Statistics 2011) of which 55,066 hectares were
cereals and the largest crop by area was winter wheat at 25,843
hectares.
ADAS has estimated the length of
watercourse field boundaries running through tillage land using DRN
(Detailed River Network) River Classes Primary Rivers, Secondary
Rivers and Lakes (see Appendix 1). From the DRN data, the total
length of watercourse boundaries with tillage land is estimated at
2,122 kilometres. The effective area lost per kilometre of
river from a 2m buffer strip on one side of the watercourse is 0.1
hectares per kilometre, giving a total area of land lost of 212
hectares.
Using winter wheat as the tillage crop
with the highest area to represent all tillage crops (includes all
cereals and combinable crops, maize, roots, other crops for stock
feeding etc.) then the average Gross Margin per hectare is
£776 per hectare (Nix, 2012). Allowing for savings in
the cost of establishment, growing operations and harvesting -
which can be represented by a stubble to stubble contractor’s
cost for cereal growing of about £310 per hectare (Nix,
2012), the net loss is £466 per hectare. The naturally
regenerating margin is likely to need to be topped once per year at
a cost of £27 per hectare (Nix 2012). This gives a
total net cost to the farmer of £493 per hectare, which on
212 hectares which amounts to a loss of £0.1 m per year to
all farmers in Wales (precise calculation
£104,624/year).
The Present Value of this economic loss
over a 5 year period is calculated at £0.474
million.
Summary of costs: The affected group is arable farmers in
Wales who may have additional costs of about £0.1 million per
year.
Benefits
Water Management and Aquatic
Biodiversity
There are 4 major pathways that
pesticides can reach watercourses: it can drift outside of the area
of where it was sprayed, it may leach through the soil, it could be
carried as runoff, or it may be spilled accidentally. All the
pesticides most commonly found in water are ones that are mobile
and persistent. Metaldehyde (a chemical used in the majority of
slug pellets used in agriculture) is the most frequently identified
active substance, listed at 80% of sites impacted by pesticides.
The other active substances occurring most frequently are the
herbicides propyzamide, carbetamide, chlorotoluron, 2, 4-D,
mecoprop-P and MCPA. Studies by the UK government (Defra, 2012)
show that pesticide concentrations exceed those allowable for
drinking water in some samples of river water and
groundwater.
Pesticides are of concern because of
their unacceptability in drinking water, but certain pesticides
such as pyrethroid insecticides, can have devastating effects on
aquatic fauna. Environmental Quality Standards (EQSs) are
concentrations set for individual pesticides above which it may be
toxic to river organisms. Fish and other aquatic biota may be
harmed by pesticide-contaminated water. Application of herbicides
to bodies of water can cause plants to die, diminishing the water's
oxygen and suffocating the fish. Repeated exposure to some
pesticides can cause physiological and behavioural changes in fish
that reduce populations, such as abandonment of nests, decreased
immunity to disease, and increased failure to avoid predators
(Pesticides Forum, 2014).
Approximately 18,000 tonnes of pesticide
was applied in UK in 2012; half of this (by weight and area) was
attributable to wheat crops. In 2007, 6.0% of indicator samples in
England and Wales contained pesticide concentrations above 0.1
μg/l (Maximum Allowable Concentration under EC Drinking Water
Directive); though in Wales this was only about 2%.
Table 1:
shows the effectiveness of various buffer
strip widths in reducing the proportional quantity of pesticide
entry to watercourses. Although the range does vary considerably,
this does suggest that the Option to prevent spraying of pesticides
within 2m of watercourse should help to reduce these effects.
However, watercourses and aquatic and terrestrial species may still
be affected by application to and drift from elsewhere.
Table
1: Reduction in pesticides entering water courses
via surface flow from agriculture
|
Width of buffer strip:
|
1 m
|
3 m
|
6 m
|
|
% pesticide reduction:
|
50-85%
|
45-86%
|
44-86%
|
(Source: Defra 2009 Table B2 page
37)
The most detailed reference on the subject of
pesticide use near watercourses is the Impact Assessment of Changes
to the Cross Compliance carried out by Defra in 2009, which looked
at a number of options for buffer strips. Buffer strips Option 2
was for mandatory implementation of 3 m or 6 m buffer strips next
to water courses on all arable land. This Impact Assessment
produced quantified benefit estimates for 6 m buffers only for air
quality, greenhouse gases (GHG) and phosphorus and sediment
pollution. Total benefits in England were £42-67m per
year. The arable sector in Wales is, however, considerably
smaller. In Wales there are 85,000 hectares of arable land (June 2014 Survey of
Agriculture and Horticulture: Results for Wales), whilst in England
there is 4.8 million hectares of croppable land (Farming Statistics
Final Land Use, Livestock Populations and Agricultural
Workforce
at 1 June 2014 - England.)
No monetary assessments have been made
for the benefits of reducing pesticide pollution in the UK
generically or Wales specifically. Estimates from a contingent
valuation study in Ontario, Canada have been performed indicating
marginal willingness to pay (WTP) in a range of USD 2.37 –
USD 6.26 / household / year in 1993 to reduce pollution of surface
and ground water by agricultural pesticides by 1% (Brethour &
Weersink, 2001). Annual treatment costs in 2011 for pesticide
removal were estimated at £96,000 in the Leam catchment in
Warwickshire which covers 370 km2, and abstracted water
is processed at two treatment works which provide 4.5 million
gallons of drinking water a day for a population of 160,000 people
(Pesticides Forum, 2012).
The combined area of the Western Wales
River Basin District, the Dee River Basin District, and the Welsh
portion of the Severn River Basin District cover 26,100
km2 respectively and provide water for over 2 million
people. Given the monetary benefits realised in England and Canada,
relating to decreased water treatment costs, and the effectiveness
of the intervention as shown in Table 1, there could be material
monetary benefits from implementing this intervention.
However, transferring the benefits of the English and Canadian
studies across to a Welsh scenario is difficult due to the
significant differences between the geographical and land use
contexts. Ontario and Warwickshire have a significantly higher
ratio of arable to pasture than Wales, and this may explain why the
frequency of Welsh pesticide levels exceeding the allowable
threshold is much lower than in England. Moreover, any valuation on
this basis would also over-estimate the value of the intervention
since there are other sources of pesticide
entry.
There is insufficient information to
estimate the value of the benefits of reduced pesticide pollution
resulting from a ban on spraying pesticides within 2 metres of a
watercourse. However, it is possible that benefits might exceed
costs in certain catchments with considerable arable land
use.
Terrestrial
Biodiversity
The excessive use of pesticides is one of
the main causes of the decline of common farmland birds (e.g. corn
bunting, grey partridge and yellowhammer) due to: reduced insect
and seed food supplies; consuming granules or insects and worms
that have consumed pesticides; or through habitat loss. In 2012 the
corn bunting and grey partridge (farmland specialists) had each
declined by approximately 90% relative to 1970 levels. Numbers of
yellowhammer and other farmland specialists have approximately
halved over the same period. Application of pesticides to crops
that are in bloom can also kill bees (20% of the UK cropped area
comprises insect pollinator-dependent crops), particularly
neonicotinoid insecticides and fipronil. Honey bees, the most
common pollinators of commercial field crops across the UK, showed
a 23% decline in Wales between 1985 and 2005, in part due to
pesticides. Frogs and bats are also affected by pesticide use,
along with soil biota.
The same contingent valuation study in
Ontario also produced per household values in a range of USD 2.04
– USD 5.66 for a marginal reduction in pesticide use to
protect a variety of species at 1993 USD values (Brethour &
Weersink, 2001). These values are more transferable as they reflect
societal values rather than geographical ones which are likely to
be similar between Canada and Wales. And, in principle, by reducing
the area available to farmers to spray pesticides, there should be
a corresponding benefit in terrestrial biodiversity. However, with
arable land use in Wales at just 162,000 ha, the 2m buffer
alongside watercourses would represent approximately 212 ha or just
0.16% of this. As such the monetary benefit of this intervention
for terrestrial biodiversity is likely to be negligible.
No allowance has been made in this Impact
Assessment for the small area of land adjacent to water courses
that would receive permits to apply pesticides to control
non-native invasive weeds. These are likely to be for spot
treatment of limited areas.
Summary of benefits: Aquatic
Biodiversity: Reduced pesticide entry to watercourses will reduce
harm to aquatic species. The benefits cannot be monetised but are
likely to exceed the costs. The benefits accrue to the wider
public through improved river ecosystems.
Net benefit of the regulation (change)
The costs and benefits from a 2m
pesticide-free buffer in arable crops in Wales are likely to be
small in scale. However, wider benefits from reduced cultivation
near river courses and a marginal reduction in overall
pesticide use in combination with reduced pesticide concentrations
in water, lowering water treatment costs and decreasing impact on
biodiversity, mean that the aggregate benefits are likely to be
greater than the costs.
GAEC 2a:
Irrigation
Background and options
Option 2a: Carry
forward the existing water irrigation provisions currently in
operation in Wales (GAEC M) under the new GAEC 2.
Preferred option:
2a
The Welsh Government proposal is to carry
forward the existing water irrigation provisions currently in
operation in Wales (GAEC M) under the new GAEC 2.
Since the retention of GAEC M is mandatory, and is there is no
change to the current requirement, there is no impact to
assess.
GAEC 2b:
Irrigation – wording changes
Background and options
Option 2b: GAEC M
wording to be further updated for GAEC 2 to highlight the
importance of irrigation for agricultural purposes as well as
reflect the establishment of Natural Resources Wales (NRW).
Proposed option:
2b
Wording
in the verifiable standards will be updated to reflect the
establishment of NRW. In addition the requirement will be more
specific, the reference to ‘abstraction’ will be
changed to ‘irrigation’ to reflect changes in the EC
requirements. These minor changes have no
regulatory impact.
GAEC 3a:
Groundwater Protection
Background and options
Option 3a: Retain
the current groundwater requirements as already established in GAEC
P as this is a mandatory requirement.
Preferred option:
3a
Prior to 2014, the requirements under
GAEC 3 (Protection of groundwater against pollution) were in SMR 2
(Protection of groundwater against pollution). Following a
change in EC requirements, they were moved to their current
position in GAEC P (Protection of groundwater against
pollution). They will now be moved to new GAEC
3.
There is no change to the requirement and
maintaining the current groundwater requirement is
mandatory, therefore there is no
regulatory impact.
GAEC 4: Minimum
Soil Cover
Background and options
Option
4a: Ensure that erosion does not occur following harvest.
Where land has been harvested with a
combine, forage harvester or mower to comply with GAEC 4, one of
the following must be met at all times between the day after
harvest to the 1st March;
(a)
the stubble of
the harvested crop remains in the land; or
(b)
the land is
prepared as a seedbed for a crop or temporary cover crop within 14
days, and
(i)
the crop, or
temporary cover crop, is sown within a period of 10 days beginning
with the day after final seedbed preparation, or
(ii)
if sowing
within that 10-day period would mean breaching the requirement in
paragraph 9(1), the crop, or temporary cover crop, is sown as soon
as is practicable after it ceases to be waterlogged.
You must protect soil by having a minimum
soil cover except where establishing a cover would conflict with
requirements under GAEC 5.
Preferred option: 4a
This is a mandatory change of
wording from the existing wording of the current GAEC which
requires:
“Where land has been harvested
with a combine harvester, forage harvester or mower, to comply with
requirements, one of the following conditions should be met at all
times between the day after harvest to the 1st
March:
-
stubble of the harvested crop remains in the land
- land
is left with a rough surface following ploughing, discing or tine
cultivation to encourage the infiltration of rain
- land
is sown with a temporary cover crop. If this becomes grazed
out or cultivated during the post-harvest period, a rough surface
must be left as soon as conditions permit
- land
is sown with another crop within 10 days of having been prepared as
a seedbed or as soon as possible if severe weather prevents sowing
in that period”
The main change here is that the second
bulleted point in the current GAEC has been removed to avoid
disallowance and hence there is no longer provision to leave land
with a rough surface after ploughing, discing or cultivation.
This reduces operational flexibility for farmers at harvest since
it prevents field cultivation (for example to partly prepare the
land for sowing) more than 10 days before the next crop will be
sown. This could reduce farmers’ ability to achieve
optimal sowing dates for crops.
Key assumptions
There is an implicit assumption that leaving a rough cultivated
soil surface will lead to additional soil erosion relative to that
associated with working the land in unsuitable conditions (through
no cultivation, establishment of a cover crop or planting within 10
days of cultivation).
Costs and benefits
Option 4a
Costs
To get crops drilled at the optimal time,
one approach would be to get help from contractors to speed up the
operation of going from stubble to drilled crop close to the ideal
time. One way to represent this is to assume that all oilseed
rape in Wales is followed by winter wheat and that assistance from
contractors would be required for 50% of the area with this revised
GAEC in force. The area of oilseed rape in Wales in 2011 was
5,215 hectares so contract help would be needed with 2,608 hectares
at a cost of £60.54 per hectare. This gives a total
cost to farmers per year of £0.158 million (precise
calculation £157,858 per year) or an NPV over five years of
£0.709 million. It is accepted that there will be other
situations than oilseed rape where the revision of this GAEC causes
problems in achieving optimal sowing dates but this
calculation is thought to be a fair representation of the scale of
the problem.
Summary of costs: The group that bears the cost of decreased
flexibility in establishing crops is arable farmers in Wales.
The annual cost is estimated at approx. £0.16 million per
year.
Benefits
i) Removal
of the option to leave land as a rough surface post-harvest after
cultivation
Leaving a rough surface post-tillage is
currently one of four post-harvest options which can be employed to
limit soil degradation with corresponding impacts for soil erosion
and surface water runoff. Removing this option requires farmers to
choose one of the three other options or to take measures to
prevent soil erosion as included in GAEC 5.
ADAS
(2013) ranked post-harvest management options in terms of their
efficacy in reducing soil degradation risk (Table
2). Removal of the rough surface option
could be beneficial for earlier harvested crops. However, for later
harvested crops such as vegetables, potatoes, sugar beet, maize,
and salad crops a switch from rough surfaces to cover crops, next
crop or stubbles could potentially exacerbate soil degradation and
so to mitigate against this. GAEC 4 incorporates the
line: ‘’You must protect
soil by having a minimum soil cover except where establishing a
cover would conflict with requirements under GAEC
5.’’ GAEC 5 also aims to limit soil erosion by
incorporating the line: ‘’To prevent
erosion on late harvested land or on land where a forage or root
crop have been grazed out, if it is not possible to sow a cover
crop, you must put in place appropriate measures to limit soil
erosion.’’
Table
2: Soil Degradation Risk Associated with
Post-Harvest Management
|
Option
|
Risk (Lowest to
Highest)
|
|
Cover crop (sown early autumn)
– good vegetation cover
|
1
|
|
Next crop (sown early autumn)
– good vegetation cover
|
2
|
|
Stubble with additional crop
residue/mulch
|
3
|
|
Stubble – compaction removed
where present
|
4
|
|
Rough surface
|
5
|
|
Stale seedbeds (cultivation sequence
to control weeds)
|
6
|
|
Cover crop (sown post late autumn
harvest)
|
7
|
|
Next crop (sown late autumn)
|
8
|
(Adapted from ADAS, 2013)
The implications of crop choice for
current erosion rates in Wales are estimated in Table
3. This multiplies the known area of crop
cover in Wales with erosion coefficients for these crops
established in Boardman (2013). Even though the later-sown crops
have much higher mean erosion rates, they represent a smaller
component of overall erosion than earlier sown autumn crops, due to
their scale.
Table
3: Erosion Rates Associated with UK Crops in
Wales
|
Crop
|
Mean
Rate (m3/ha/yr)
|
Welsh
Crop Area (ha)
|
Total
erosion (m3/yr)
|
|
Vegetables
|
5.08
|
456
|
2,316
|
|
Potatoes
|
2.53
|
1,705
|
4,314
|
|
Maize
|
4.48
|
12,805
|
57,366
|
|
Total Late Crops
|
|
14,966
|
63,997
|
|
Other Fodder
|
2.1
|
9011
|
18,923
|
|
Rape
|
1.92
|
5215
|
10,013
|
|
Cereals
|
1.8
|
55,066
|
99,119
|
|
Other
|
2.67
|
4,604
|
12,293
|
|
Total Other Crops
|
|
73,896
|
140,347
|
|
Total
|
|
88,862
|
204,344
|
(Adapted from Boardman, 2013; WAG,
2011)
A survey of English farmers (ADAS, 2012)
suggests that 21% favour the rough surface method for cereals,
oilseed rape or grain legumes, whilst 28% favour this method for
potatoes, beet, maize, vegetables, salads, bulbs, and rhizomes. If
these statistics were applied to Wales, and we assume that the loss
of the rough surface method would exacerbate erosion in late autumn
sown crops, but reduce erosion in earlier sown crops, the change
would most likely reduce the c. 29,500 m3/yr of soil loss from
earlier sown crops and increase the 17,900 m3/yr of soil loss from
late autumn harvested crops.
On an overall basis, therefore the change
could potentially be net positive, but it should be stressed that
this does not take into account the relative magnitude of the
change in soil loss due to the change in management regime, only
the ranking. If the increase in erosion from not allowing a rough
surface following late autumn sown crops is proportionately greater
than the benefits accrued from not allowing a rough surface
following earlier sown crops, the result may be neutral or even
negative. Furthermore, the spatial distribution of benefits may not
be even as this will be determined by the location of crops in a
given catchment and the collective decisions of farmers post this
change.
Ideally, this change should be modelled
using bands of effectiveness but in the interest of
proportionality, this has not been done.
Assigning a monetary value to the
benefit is also challenging because the magnitude of actual erosion
reduction cannot be estimated. If this were possible, then the
benefit could be estimated with reference to the total off-farm
costs of erosion from agriculture (£106 million per annum
according to Pretty et al., 2000). In the absence of this
data, no estimate of monetary valuation can be provided.
Summary of benefits: The beneficiaries are the wider public
through reduced soil erosion to rivers resulting in improved
aquatic environments, water quality and reduced silting of
rivers. These benefits cannot be monetised but may exceed the
costs. It is, however, mandatory to remove the rough surface
option.
GAEC 5: Minimum
Land Management Site Specific Conditions to Limit
Erosion
Background and options
Option 5a (i): Overgrazing must be avoided.
Poaching (damage caused to turf or sward by the feet of
livestock) and rutting (damage caused turf or sward by a
vehicle) must not occur to a level which causes soil erosion down
slope or off site (site meaning field) including to watercourses
and roads.
To prevent
erosion on late harvested land or on land
where a forage or
root crop have been grazed out, if it is not possible to sow a
cover crop, you must put in place
appropriate measures to limit soil erosion.
An indicative list of
appropriate measures (grubbing, ditches, sediment fences, etc) will
be included in the guidance.
Option 5a (ii): Only include requirement: ‘Poaching and
rutting must not occur to a level which causes soil erosion down
slope or off site (site meaning field) including to watercourses
and roads.’
Preferred option: 5a (i)
Overgrazing can cause accelerated soil
erosion, which can have a range of environmental and economic
impacts. The existing overgrazing requirements are intended to
limit these impacts. Policy Option GAEC 5 (Option 5a (i)) would
carry these requirements forward whilst policy Option 5a (ii) would
only include outcome-focussed rewording.
Key
assumptions
Assumptions for costing relate to
the length of fencing of rivers required and the number of water
points. There is a high degree of uncertainty over the estimates
used.
Costs and benefits
Option 5a (i)
Costs
The approach to costing is as
follows:
Overgrazing usually occurs where
livestock are stocked at rates that exceed the production/carrying
capacity of the land. It can also be associated with feeding
stations, since supplementary feeding is used to maintain livestock
outside when grazing is insufficient. Sacrifice areas (drier,
level fields, with a grass buffer to protect watercourses, which
are used to over winter stock) are sometimes used to protect a
larger area of grazing from poaching damage. We have also
assumed that overgrazing and poaching issues associated with
livestock access to water courses primarily applies to cattle where
they tread down the banks of watercourses. Unlike sheep,
cattle frequently stand in water for a long time and defecate in
it. For the purposes of this costing exercise, we have also
assumed that it applies to enclosed land and not the open
hill. On the open hill fencing water courses would be
impractical, visually intrusive, interfere with the movement of
hefted sheep and affect walkers. The prevention of
watercourse bank poaching and erosion can be costed as the cost of
additional fencing along water courses plus the cost of providing
alternative water supplies to the livestock.
In addition to a limited amount of
fencing off river banks, avoiding poaching and rutting that leads
to erosion associated with supplementary feeding was costed based
on the time taken to move feeders to an alternative feeding
site.
Cost of erecting fences along water courses
to prevent soil erosion from treading of river banks plus
alternative drinking water supply
The analysis of river length in Appendix 1
gives an estimate of 10,141 kilometres of pasture land boundaries
along rivers. This estimate used Primary Rivers, Secondary Rivers
and Lakes as the DRN River Classes but excludes Tertiary Rivers (as
defined by DRN). In order to estimate the length of river
boundaries which would need to be fenced to keep livestock from
accessing the river, it is necessary to account for the fact that
much of the river boundaries will not be grazed by livestock, are
not accessible or are already fenced. On this basis we have
used a very conservative estimate of the river length which would
need to be fenced of 1% but it should be noted that there is an
absence of any formal data to support it. For the 10,141 kilometres of river bank this results
in an assumption that 101.4 kilometres of fencing is
required.
A three line strained wire fence with
posts 2.7m to 3.5m apart (MAFF, 1992) should prevent cattle from
accessing river banks at a cost of c. £3 per metre
(Nix J, 2012). This amounts to a total capital cost for fencing of
£0.3 million (precise calculation,
£304,200).
In addition to fencing the rivers it is
necessary to provide watering facilities for grazing livestock that
previously drank from the river. Options include pasture pumps,
which allow cattle to pump water for themselves from a river;
drinking bays with a concrete or stone ramp into the river for
livestock access to water without crossing the fence; and drinking
troughs, including the use of hydraulic rams where a mains water
supply is not available.
Pasture pumps were used in this costing
exercise, as they are a cost effective and increasingly common way
to provide water to cattle. One pasture pump can provide sufficient
water for about 15 cattle, which implies that three pasture pumps
are needed at each watering point for 45 cattle. Each pasture pump
costs around £350 to purchase and install (Nix, 2012). If a
typical field is roughly square-shaped and around 4 hectares it
will have a length along a watercourse (assuming one side only) of
200 m. Grazing cattle often have access to four or five
fields, so a watering point (with three pasture pumps) every 500 m
along a river would be sufficient (this assumes access to five
fields, only half of which have an adjacent water course - 5
divided by 2 = 2.5 fields with 200 m of water course per
field). To meet the estimated national water course fencing
requirement (101.4 km) would require the installation of 203 water
points and 608 pasture pumps at a capital cost of £0.2
million (precise calculation £212,958).
A rough approximation of the total
capital investment cost of fences and alternative water supplies is
therefore £0.5 million (precise calculation £517,140).
Using an annual maintenance cost of 2%, this equates to a Present
Value of approx. £0.56 million over 5
years.
The cost of moving
feeders
The main cost of moving feeders is extra
time for the farmer. The feeders may often be moved within
the field in which they are placed. With a little
forethought, stocks of baled hay and silage can be placed so that
there is little extra time involved in placing them into feeders on
a daily basis.
A reasonable assumption is that there are
groups of 45 cattle feeding from four feeders. Moving the
feeders will require a tractor (possibly with a loader) to move the
feeders onto fresh ground by dragging or lifting them. If
this happens 6 times per winter instead of an existing 2 times, and
the time taken is an hour (including any travelling time from the
farm), the cost will be about £20 per hour for the tractor
(110 hp tractor, Nix, J. 2012) and £10 per hour for the
farmer’s labour or £30 in total per feeding station
move. For a feeding station moved an additional 4 times per
year the cost will be £150 per year.
In Wales there were 1.1 million cattle
(precise figure 1,123,449) of all sizes and types in 2013 (Welsh
Government, 2014). The proportion of cattle housed in winter
is very variable. For dairy cattle it would be close to
100%. For suckler cows the proportion would be much
lower. It has been assumed that overall about 80% of cattle
are housed in winter. If the un-housed cattle are in groups
of 45 with four feeders this suggests 4,993 groups of cattle
out-wintered. This gives a total cost for Wales of £0.6
million per year in annual cost (precise calculation
£603,167). This equates to a Present Value of approx.
£2.2 million over 5 years.
The impact
of moving feeders more often may also be that more pasture gets
slightly poached. Where this is permanent pasture it cannot
be reseeded without an EIA (Environmental Impact Assessment).
However, the aim of moving the feeding stations more frequently is
to reduce the amount of serious poaching damage to
grassland.
Summary of costs: The
affected group is farmers who have the additional transitional cost
of fencing rivers and the annual cost of moving feeders more
frequently.
|
COSTS
(£m)
|
Total
Transition
(Constant Price)
Years
|
Average
Annual
(excl. Transition)
(Constant Price)
|
Total Cost
(Present Value)
|
|
Best Estimate
|
0.5
|
0.61
|
2.8
|
Benefits
Soil Management
The primary concern of uncontrolled
grazing is the loss of vegetative cover due to frequent grazing,
trampling or grazing the plants too close to the soil. This
often weakens root systems and exposes and compacts the soil. Soil
degradation increases the risk of soil erosion and nutrient losses
from pastures and can, in turn, pollute surface waters. Sediment
runoff is higher for heavily grazed watersheds (river catchments)
compared to lightly grazed watersheds as vegetation increases
stream bank strength to resist erosion (Bilotta et al.,
2007). Sediment runoff also tends to be higher on steep rather than
gentle slopes; Mwendera et al. (1997) found that slopes exceeding
5.8% are likely to suffer soil erosion even under moderate grazing
pressure.
The Environment Agency estimates that
erosion moves 2.2 m tonnes of arable topsoil each year in England
and Wales (UK NEA, 2011). Large areas of extensive grazing on
seasonally wet vulnerable soils and erosion of steep slopes are
causing reduced productivity in Wales. The total off-farm costs of
erosion from agriculture in the UK have been estimated at around
£106m (Pretty et al., 2000). No estimates have been
made for the Welsh specific costs, and pro-rata transfers may not
be reliable due to differences between English and Welsh terrain
and agricultural land use.
Water Management
Cattle and sheep grazing on heavy
textured (fine textured) soils can change soil structure and
hydrology, increasing flood risk. Rutting can cause soil erosion
and thus the deposition of sediment in ditches and water courses.
Where livestock are allowed to graze close to watercourses, stream
bank or streambed disturbances can occur, leading to bank erosion
and thus sedimentation and silting-up of watercourses, and
typically the watercourse becomes wider and shallower. When soil
and silt is added to a watercourse, this can cover spawning gravel
and smother incubating eggs, reducing fish survival rates. Sediment
on the stream-bed also reduces the range of habitats available for
other organisms, such as invertebrates, to occupy and so reduces
their numbers. Concentrated poaching on the banks of watercourses
can also reduce the provision of marginal vegetation. Fish and
other aquatic species rely on the health of the riparian
(riverside) vegetation as it is an important component of fish
habitat providing cover, shade and food for fish.
Concentrated fouling close to or within
watercourses may also affect water quality, with manure deposited
immediately adjacent to a stream having a much greater influence on
stream bacteria loading than that deposited further away. Livestock
manure contains a number of contaminants, such as ammonium,
nitrates, nutrients (nitrogen, potassium and phosphorous),
pathogens and solids (salt) that degrade water quality and
adversely affect the domestic use of water as they contain
pathogens such as cryptosporidium parvum and E. coli which are a
human health concern (McAllister & Pott, 2012). Aquatic species
may be affected due to eutrophication and subsequent algal blooms
and oxygen-deficient waters; manure is a high oxygen demanding
substance meaning there is less oxygen available for fish and
invertebrates.
Cattle tend to defecate in water when
allowed access (as well as on the land nearby) and are also
responsible for much poaching. Thus the option to locate
supplementary feeding at least 10m away from watercourses should
greatly reduce the likelihood and prevalence of bank erosion,
trampling of riparian vegetation and concentrated manure entering
the watercourses. Aquatic species are extremely vulnerable to
sedimentation and pollution from agricultural land, so the benefit
to biodiversity is significant.
The similar ‘no spread zone’
requirement within 10m of water bodies in England has resulted in
moderate reductions in microbial pathogens in water bodies. This is
important as faecal indicator organisms (FIOs) remain the biggest
cause of failures in water quality in the UK. Though only 3% of
Welsh water bodies failed for chemical quality in 2012, just 36% of
all water bodies in Wales achieved Good Ecological Status. The
incidence of algal blooms per water body in the UK (1990-1999) was
found to be highest in Wales. The benefit to water quality is also
expected to be significant.
There is a considerable literature on
overall economic benefits attributable to water quality
improvements in the UK, and some specific to Wales. For
example:
- Dŵr Cymru spent £67.0m
on treating raw water from watercourses in 2012/13 and £70.2m
in 2013/14 (Dŵr Cymru Cyfyngedig, 2014). These costs would be
increased if the water was of a lower quality as a result of
increased cattle related pollutants.
- Defra's 2007 WT07065 study by the
Institute of Grassland and Environmental Research (Defra, 2009)
highlighted the effects of agricultural pollution on water and
placed values on the costs. The cost to society of each kilo tonne
(kT) of pollutant released from agriculture has then been derived
as: £0.51m to £0.89m per kT of nitrate; £26.16m
to £44.52m per kT of phosphorous; and £0.14m to
£0.22m per kT of sediment (2006-7 prices).
·
Non-market benefits associated with
improvements in water quality in rivers and lakes in England and
Wales in 2009 have also been valued (UK NEA, 2011). The total
benefits of improvement to Good quality status post 2015 were
estimated as follows: current Moderate quality status =
£766.4m/yr.; Poor = £300.1 m/yr.; Bad = £64.8
m/yr.; Not known = £8.8 m/yr. On a per household basis, the
marginal WTP for step wise increments (low to medium, medium to
high) in water quality under the WFD are within the range of
£45-£85 / household / year (Morris & Camino, 2011).
With 1.3 m households in Wales (ONS, 2011), this would suggest that
the Welsh would benefit to the order of £58.5 m -
£110.5 m / yr from such an increment.
Build-up of sediment may also contribute
to localised flooding. The flood related costs of poor agricultural
soil management and breakdown of soil structure have been estimated
by the Environment Agency in 2007 to be in the range of
£29-128 million per year, whilst flood risk to property in
Wales has been estimated in 2008 at £200 million (Environment
Agency Wales, 2008). However, information linking this value to
land management to limit erosion per se was not
available.
Biodiversity
Overgrazing and supplementary feeding can
damage sensitive grassland and other habitats (e.g. blanket bog,
heaths, species rich grassland, native broadleaf woodland and
mires). Grazing directly affects plant communities in several ways,
including the processes of biomass growth, internal allocation of
resources, litter dynamics, recruitment of new plants, and plant
stature/longevity. Grazing indirectly affects competitive
relationships among species, community composition, percent ground
cover, soil development, and successional development of plant
communities. When plants are grazed, there is a die-off of root
material proportional to the amount of foliage removed. In terms of
supplementary feeding, farmers frequently select sheltered
woodlands or hard, dry rocky outcrops with ‘thin’ soils
that are often of ecological interest. Winter feeding away from
buildings, particularly on or adjacent to semi-natural and
sensitive habitats (mentioned above), can result in trampling,
poaching or rutting by vehicles, as well as nutrient enrichment
from concentrated fouling.
Monetised Benefit
In the
absence of a Wales specific economic study on erosion costs, and
with a multiplicity of factors governing soil loss above and beyond
the intervention, there are difficulties in attributing a monetised
value to the specified intervention. A specific estimate of
the benefit has not been made. However, given the significant
economic values associated with soil erosion and water quality in
the UK, this intervention which seeks to address multiple factors
in its causation is likely to have considerable
benefits.
Summary of benefits: There
are benefits in reducing soil erosion into watercourses which will
improve water management and improve aquatic ecosystems.
These benefits cannot be monetised but may exceed the costs of this
measure.
Option 5a (ii)
Costs
In practice soil erosion occurs on all
sloping areas of land under all types of land cover. The
issue here is accelerated soil erosion caused by high levels of
poaching and rutting. This wording is much less specific
about the measures which farmers must take. There is the
implication that only a small proportion of the measures costed
above will be required to eliminate the most extreme examples of
poaching and rutting causing soil erosion. Since these
extreme examples will cause most of the pollution by soil erosion
and involve only a small share of the cost, the cost benefit ratio
will be much improved.
Summary of costs: The revised
rewording would concentrate enforcement on the most pronounced
cases of soil erosion caused by grazing livestock. It is
assumed that the cost would be 20% of Alternative 1.
|
COSTS (£m)
|
Total Transition
(Constant
Prices) Years
|
Average
Annual
(excl. Transition) (Constant Price)
|
Total Cost
(Present Value)
|
|
Best Estimate
|
0.10
|
0.12
|
0.56
|
Benefits
The framework for assessing the benefit
is the same as has been used to assess Option 5 a (i). This means
the same difficulties apply in terms of assessing the value
specific to the intervention. However, as the scope of intervention
is narrower, the expected benefit would also reduce compared to
Option 5a (i).
Summary of benefits: The
benefits of 5a (ii) accrue to the general public through improved
water management and better aquatic ecosystems.
GAEC 6:
Maintenance of Soil Organic Matter Level
Background and options
Option 6a: In taking
an outcome based approach we propose the following requirement:
To comply with GAEC
6 the following requirements must be met:
•
Comply with the Stubble Burning Regulations with no change to
current guidance.
•
Comply with the Heather and Grass Burning Regulations.
•
Comply with the Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations (EIA
Agriculture).
No obligatory Soil
Assessment Record.
Option 6b: Only
include requirement to ‘Comply with the Stubble Burning
Regulations with no change to current guidance.’
Preferred option:
6a
Organic matter is important for soil
fertility, soil carbon, climate change mitigation, soil structure,
and soil biodiversity. As such, organic matter in soils should be
protected. Policy Option 6a includes a suite of proposals to
maintain soil organic matter.
These requirements are currently in Cross
Compliance and so there is no regulatory change. The stubble
burning provision is required as a minimum by EU regulations.
The other two (grass burning and EIA) are UK provisions. As
there is no change in the regulations there is no impact to
assess.
Costs and benefits
Option 6a
Costs
Nil
Benefits
Nil
GAEC 7a:
Retention of landscape features – Scheduled Ancient
Monuments
Background
and options
Option 7a (i): To
retain current protection for Scheduled Ancient Monuments
(SAM’s).
Option 7a (ii):
Remove the current protection for Scheduled Ancient Monuments
(SAM’s).
Preferred option: 7a
(i)
The Welsh Government proposes to retain
current protection for Scheduled Ancient Monuments (SAMs). These
are currently a GAEC F (Scheduled Ancient Monuments) requirement,
but would move to new GAEC 7. This is the Welsh
Government’s main proposal which has been compared against
the option of removing this requirement to protect SAMs under Cross
Compliance.
The main requirements of current GAEC F
are:
·
No work to a Scheduled Ancient Monument may be carried out without
formal consent from Cadw e.g. ploughing, fencing, drainage, track
upgrades etc.
·
Comply with all consent requirements in full
·
Do not destroy or damage a Scheduled Ancient Monument
- Do not damage scheduled historic
features through activities which cause or encourage soil erosion
or ground disturbance on ancient monuments, e.g.:
- overgrazing (also note GAEC B)
- growth of invasive scrub or vegetation
- trampling or poaching
- vehicle tracking, particularly on steep slopes or when ground
conditions are wet
- supplementary feeding (also note GAEC D)
- cultivation encroachment
- storage of equipment, materials and rubbish
Key
assumptions
Removing protection for SAMs from Cross Compliance may lead to
behavioural change among farmers if they perceive that the
likelihood of being penalised is reduced.
Costs and benefits
Option 7a
(i)
There
would be no regulatory impact of maintaining Scheduled Ancient
Monuments in GAEC 7 as there would be no change.
Option 7a (ii)
Costs
The cost of removing the obligation to
protect SAMs from Cross Compliance would be that Cadw would lose
what they regard as a valuable tool to help protect SAMs. As
noted above, outside of Cross Compliance there is legislation
protecting SAMs. However, this requires criminal prosecution
to apply the penalties rather than the simpler administrative
action taken to apply Cross Compliance penalties.
The Cross Compliance protection for SAMs
is found by CADW to be very effective in protecting SAMs.
Farmers tend to take possible Cross Compliance penalties very
seriously, because it involves the possible loss of a proportion of
their main farm subsidies. Criminal prosecution tends to be
seen by farmers as a much more remote possibility. The costs
of this option would be greater damage to SAMs because of the lower
protection they would receive. These are public costs in that
the whole community values these assets.
Over 4,000 SAMs are now recorded in the
Welsh Schedule, the majority of which are found on
farmland.
The removal of the SAMs protection under
Cross-Compliance would not result in a reduced legal level of
protection for these sites which derive their status from the
Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979. However,
it may result in a behavioural shift in farmers to reduce care of
SAMs as legal processes would be more costly for the Welsh
Government and a weaker deterrent than the possible reduction of
subsidies, which is purely administrative. There is no evidence
base to estimate the proportional decrease in the levels of
compliance with the protection of SAMs which would occur if it was
removed from Cross Compliance.
The monetary implications of increased
damage to SAMs are also difficult to evaluate. ECOTEC (2010)
reported that the historic environment is a vitally important
sector of the Welsh economy, supporting over 30,000 jobs (13,000
indirect/induced) and contributing around £1.8 billion
(£950m indirect/induced) in output and £840 million
(£406m indirect/induced) to Wales’s national gross
value added (1.9% of Welsh GVA). Similarly, English Heritage (2010)
found that £1 of investment in the historic environment
generates £1.6 of additional economic activity over a ten
year period.
However,
neither report disaggregates the values associated with SAMs,
Listed Buildings, and Historic Environment Features (HEFs), nor
does it distribute value in terms of the site’s intrinsic
features. Much of the output and GVA (39.3%) in the ECOTEC study
was attributed to the tourism industry which is likely to focus
around certain specific, well-known and well-managed sites with
significant above-ground footprint. The value of the many lesser
known, below-ground sites is more nebulous. Cadw (2011) does use various criteria to assess the
significance of a historic asset which include the evidential
value, the historical value, the aesthetic value, and the communal
value. However, these are not explicitly scored on a rating or
ranked scale, so it is not possible to use this as a basis of
attributing the value calculated by ECOTEC.
Given
this lack of information and the unknown level of compliance
reduction that might occur it is not possible to assign a monetary
estimate to the potential costs which would ensue. However it
is likely that the benefits to farmers of removing the protection
of SAMs from Cross Compliance would be less than the environmental
costs.
Summary of costs: Cadw would lose a useful tool that assists
in the protection of Scheduled Ancient Monuments. There would be
greater damage to these monuments and it would reduce the value
placed on them by the general public.
Benefits
Most SAMs occur on extensively farmed
land such as low intensity grazing. Where land is intensively
farmed, and particularly where it has been ploughed, SAMs have
often been lost in the course of history.
The benefits to farmers of removing SAMs
from Cross Compliance would be small because the protection under
the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979 would
remain. The penalty for causing damage can be an unlimited
fine or two years imprisonment, or both. It is very
unlikely that farmers would deliberately carry out operations that
would render them liable to prosecution. Hence the type of
deliberate land use change that would give a significant financial
benefit to farmers is unlikely. Where problems occur it is
often inadvertent such as farmers causing damage through
over-grazing without realising the consequences for
SAMs.
The total area of SAMs in Wales is 5,959
ha. Of these 5,037 ha are on the three land cover
classifications shown in the table below and the remaining 921 ha
are on other land cover classes such as urban. The 5,037 ha
is made up of the following land cover based on Corine 2006 land
cover data.
Table 4: Land
cover in Wales
|
Type of land cover
|
Area (ha)
|
% of area
|
|
Arable
|
344
|
7
|
|
Pasture
|
2,689
|
53
|
|
Mainly natural
|
2,003
|
40
|
|
Total
(in these land cover classes)
|
5,037
|
100
|
|
Land
in other land cover classes
|
922
|
|
|
Total area of SAMs
|
5.959
|
|
The altitude of the land scheduled
for SAMs is as below.
Table 5: Land
area of SAMs by altitude in Wales
|
Altitude
|
Area (ha)
|
% of area
|
|
<100 m
|
1,654
|
28
|
|
100
– 300 m
|
2,449
|
42
|
|
>
300 m
|
1,746
|
30
|
|
Total
|
5,850
|
|
In the table above it can be seen that a
small area of SAMs has been lost in the process of allocating it by
altitude (5,850 ha compared to 5,929 ha). Approximately 28%
is at altitudes below 100 metres, 42 % between 100 and 300 metres
and 30% at altitudes above 300m.
The consent requirements allow certain
works to be carried out without the need to apply for Scheduled
Monument Consent. (Cadw, 2007). In their guide
“Scheduled Monument Consent”, Annex 1 Class 1,
Agricultural, Horticultural and Forestry, lists operations which
may be done without consent. This allows the carrying out of
operations previously carried out lawfully in the same location and
spot within that location within the period of six years
immediately preceding the date on which works commence but
excluding a number of categories. In the case of ploughed
land, the soil must not be disturbed to a deeper depth than that at
which ploughing has previously been carried out. Other operations
(including the disturbing of soil to more than 30 cm depth on land
other than ploughed land, sub-soiling, drainage, turf removal etc.)
are also excluded. Hence it is currently possible for
scheduled land to be to be in arable cultivation but there are
strict rules which apply to what can be done. If SAMs
were removed from Cross Compliance these other laws to protect them
and the penalties for breaking them would continue to be in force
and hence there is very limited financial benefit for farmers from
the change.
The
financial benefit to farmers of removing the cross compliance
requirement to protect SAMs is negligible.
Summary of benefits: The main beneficiaries would be farmers
who would no longer be at risk of penalties through Cross
Compliance. As there would still be legal penalties for
deliberate damage to SAMs the scope for land use change would be
negligible and thus few other financial benefits would accrue to
farmers.
GAEC 7b:
Retention of Landscape Features – Boundaries and Hedgerow
Maintenance
Background and options
Option 7b: To retain protection for boundaries currently within
GAEC E within the new GAEC 7 and maintain the current closed period
for hedgerow trimming.
Preferred option: 7b
The proposal is to retain
protection for boundaries currently within GAEC E within the new
GAEC 7 and maintain the current closed period for hedgerow trimming
from 1 March to 31 August. It is mandatory to retain the closed
period for hedgerow trimming throughout the bird breeding and
rearing season. Evidence shows that the main bird breeding and
rearing season runs from 1 March to 31 August in Wales. Since the
requirement is not being changed there will be no regulatory
impact.
GAEC 7c: Protection of Landscape Features
– Ponds, Ditches and Field Margins
Background and options
Option 7c: Specific landscape feature provisions currently under
GAEC N will be retained under GAEC 7.
Preferred option: 7c
The Welsh Government proposes to move the
requirement, to protect ponds, ditches and field margins, from the
current GAEC N to the new GAEC 7. To the extent that this
merely changes the location of the rule but does not affect its
substance, there is no impact to assess. Since the retention of
this requirement is mandatory, and there is no change to the
current requirement, there is no impact to assess.
GAEC 7d:
Protection of Landscape Features – No Cultivation Rule
Change
Background and options
Option 7d (i):
Retain traditional boundaries including stone walls, stone-faced
banks, hedges and earth banks, slate fences, and watercourses.
Do not to cultivate
(e.g. ploughing, rotovation, tined, disc harrowing) land within 1
metre of hedges, earth banks and watercourses.
Option 7d (ii):
Remove this requirement entirely from Cross Compliance.
Preferred option 7d:
(i)
The current rule is as follows: Do not
cultivate (e.g. ploughing, rotovation, tined, discs) land within 1
metre of a traditional boundary within fields which are greater
than 2 hectares in size. Traditional boundaries include stone
walls, stone faced banks, hedges, and earth banks, slate fences and
watercourses.
The effect of the change, outlined in
Option 7d (i), is to apply the no cultivation rule to fields below
2 hectares in size. This would affect land on these fields
under all tillage including temporary grass.
Key assumption
The extent to which farmers currently
cultivate within 1 metre of a traditional boundary is not known but
this would be challenging in practical terms. In calculating
the cost of the 2 metre no pesticide buffer zone at GAEC 1c above
it was assumed that farmers would leave a no cultivation distance
of 1 metre on fields below 2 hectares and the same assumption would
apply here. As such we assume there is no economic cost
associated with extending the scope of GAEC 7d to fields below 2
hectares in size.
Costs and benefits
Option 7d (i)
Costs
The potentially affected group is farmers but it is thought
unlikely that they currently cultivate to within 1 metre of
traditional boundaries in fields of less than 2 hectares.
Benefits
Traditional boundaries are valuable
historic and aesthetic landscape features. In addition, some, such
as hedgerows, earth banks, and water courses provide significant
biodiversity benefits.
The processes of cultivation can cause
direct physical damage to these features or indirect damage to
species which rely on them as habitats and ecological corridors.
This can be in the form of physical disturbance, noise, or
biochemical disturbance through pesticides and
fertiliser.
Summary of benefits: The benefits are thought to
be low because cultivation closer than 1 metre from traditional
boundaries is thought to be impractical and uncommon. Any
benefits would accrue to the general public through preservation of
landscape and biodiversity.
Option 7d (ii)
Costs
Removing the requirement may cause low level impact to biodiversity
and the historic environment.
Benefits
Farmers may benefit a little from being allowed to cultivate within
1 metre of hedgerows, earth banks, and
water courses.
Conclusion
If the assumption that farmers rarely
cultivate within 1 metre of traditional field boundaries is correct
then both the costs and the benefits of extending the prohibition
to fields below 2 hectares are close to zero. Where farmers do
cultivate within 1 metre, the value of the loss of benefits is
expected to exceed any returns from cropping.
GAEC 7e:
Protection of Landscape Features – TPOs and Felling
Licences
Background and options
Option 7e (i):
Existing tree preservation and felling provisions are retained.
Option 7e (ii):
Remove existing tree preservation and felling provisions. Only have
requirement to ‘Retain trees in a line, in a group or
isolated.’
Preferred option: 7
e(i)
The Welsh Government propose that
existing tree preservation and felling provisions
currently in GAEC J will be retained in new GAEC 7. This is
not a change in regulation and so there is no regulatory impact to
assess. However, an option under consideration is to remove
existing tree preservation and felling provisions and only have a
requirement to ‘Retain trees in a line, in a group or
isolated.’
The
current GAEC J requires compliance with Tree Preservation Orders
(TPOs) issued by Local Authorities and compliance with Felling
Licence requirements. So this option does not remove the
obligations on farmers in respect of TPOs and Felling
Licences. Failure to obtain a felling Licence, where one is necessary can
lead to prosecution. The maximum fines are £20,000 for
destroying a tree protected by a TPO and up to £2,500 for
anyone who does not completely destroy a tree but has carried out
works without consent.
This change will save some administrative
cost in carrying out compliance checks. It will no longer be
necessary to carry out field checks for breach of TPOs, check that
Felling Licences have been obtained and adhered to or to check that
Restocking Notices or Orders have been adhered to.
Key
assumptions
Taking TPOs and Felling Licences out
of Cross Compliance may reduce the level of compliance through
behavioural change. Removing the TPO and Felling License
specifications within Cross Compliance but adding a requirement to
‘Retain trees in a line, in a group or isolated’ would
potentially bring all trees within the scope of GAEC 7e.
Costs and benefits
Option 7e (i)
Costs
Since Option 7e (i) represents no change to the current
requirement, there is no impact to assess.
Benefits
Since Option 7e (i) represents no change to the current
requirement, there is no impact to assess.
Option 7e (ii)
Costs
There is a considerable evidence base
identifying the economic benefits of woodland (as a whole) and
urban trees (Quine et al., 2011; iTree, 2014). No estimates
have been made as to the economic value of amenity trees within
enclosed farmland. However, they are known to contribute to a range
of ecosystem services with material economic value, including
landscape value, habitat provision (in particular for pollinators),
and functional connectivity (Manning et al.,
2006).
Even if a value could be ascribed to such
trees, it would be difficult to assess the impact of the change
proposed above as removing the TPO and Felling License
specifications within Cross Compliance but adding a requirement to
‘Retain trees in a line, in a group or isolated’ would
potentially bring all trees within the scope of GAEC 7e.
Summary of costs: Any
reduction in protection of trees may affect landscape quality and
biodiversity to the detriment of society.
Benefits
Removal of the requirement would
give a small saving in the administration of Cross Compliance
checks.
GAEC 7f:
Protection of Landscape Features –
SSSIs
Background and options
Option 7f (i):
Retain existing SSSI’s provisions from GAEC K within GAEC 7
with no change to the current guidance.
Option 7f (ii):
Remove existing SSSI’s provisions from GAEC K.
Preferred option: 7f
(ii)
Currently SSSIs are
protected by Cross Compliance under GAEC K. The proposal is
to remove existing SSSI’s provisions from GAEC K as
‘Biological SSSI’s’ will be protected as
environmentally sensitive permanent grassland under the greening
elements of Pillar of the Common Agricultural Policy. SSSI’s will be protected as environmentally
sensitive permanent grassland under the option to extend beyond
those areas designated as SPA’s and SAC’s required for
greening. This would not
remove all penalties for breaking the law, including fines of up to
£20,000 under the Countryside and Rights of Way Act. This
change will save some minor
administrative cost of carrying out checks for Cross
Compliance. These currently check:
·
The activities listed on the operations likely to damage the
special interest (OLDSI) list are not being carried out without
written consent, or under the terms of an SSSI Management
Agreement;
·
That no damage has been caused by any operations;
·
That management notices and restoration orders have been complied
with.
Geological
SSSI’s, currently protected by GAEC K would not be protected
under greening, however protection would remain under the Wildlife
and Countryside Act 1981.
Key
assumptions
Maintaining SSSI provisions within
Cross Compliance serves to encourage farmers to meet their
obligations.
Costs and benefits
Option 7f
(i)
Costs
Since Option 7f (i) represents no change to the current
requirement, there is no impact to assess.
Benefits
Since Option 7f (i) represents no change to the current
requirement, there is no impact to assess.
Option 7f
(ii)
Costs
SSSIs would still retain their protection
under UK legislation, but enforcement would be more expensive as
legal, rather than administrative processes would be incurred. In
addition, another financial incentive to avoid damage to and
conserve SSSIs would be removed. There may therefore be a
behavioural change where fewer farmers comply with the provisions
of the CRWA resulting in a degradation of SSSI quality.
The monetary value of ecosystem services
provided by SSSIs in England and Wales has been assessed through a
WTP study (Christie & Rayment, 2012). Summed values for the
services provided by the current management regime are £42.66
/ household / year, which would equate to a Welsh value of
£55,458,000 / year (at 2010 values).
Evaluating the marginal impact on this
value as a result of a reduction in the protection of SSSIs is not
possible but environmental costs are likely to be higher than any
benefits accruing to farmers from this rule change.
Summary of costs: Society: Removing existing SSSI’s
provisions from GAEC K would not remove all penalties for breaking
the law but might lead to reduced overall condition due to
behavioural change by farmers.
Benefits
The benefits for farmers of removing SSSI
protection from Cross Compliance are very small because the sort of
systematic land use change which would bring financial benefits are
prevented by other legislation protecting SSSIs.
Retaining existing SSSI provisions under
GAEC 7, as proposed in the consultation, could create double
jeopardy when applying sanctions.
Summary of benefits: Removing existing SSSI’s
provisions from GAEC K will save some minor administrative cost of
carrying out checks for Cross Compliance and will prevent the risk
of double jeopardy.
Statutory
Management Requirements (SMRs)
SMRs are mainly existing EU obligations
covering environmental, public health, plant health and animal
health and welfare standards and are not amendable at a national
level. The SMR’s will remain largely unchanged except for the
following mandatory changes:
·
SMRs have been renumbered;
·
Four SMRs (sewage sludge and three relating to animal diseases)
have been deleted and a further one (groundwater) has been changed
to a GAEC requirement.
Further details are in the following table:
|
Current
SMR’s/GAEC
|
2015 SMR/GAEC
|
|
SMR1. Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2
April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds (OJ L 103, 25.4.1979,
p. 1)
Article 3(1), Article 3(2)(b), Article 4(1), (2) and
(4) and Article 5(a), (b) and (d)
|
SMR 2
|
|
SMR2.
Council Directive 80/68/EEC of 17 December 1979 on the protection
of groundwater against pollution caused by certain dangerous
substances (OJ L 20, 26.1.1980, p. 43)
Articles 4 and
5
|
GAEC 3 from 2014
Similar to current arrangements
|
|
SMR3.
Council Directive 86/278/EEC of 12 June 1986 on the protection of
the environment, and in particular of the soil, when sewage sludge
is used in agriculture (OJ L 181, 4.7.1986, p. 6)
Article 3
|
Removed
|
|
SMR4.
Council Directive 91/676/EEC of 12 December 1991 concerning the
protection of waters against pollution caused by nitrates from
agricultural sources (OJ L 375, 31.12.1991, p. 1)
Articles 4 and
5
|
SMR 1
|
|
SMR5.
Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of
natural habitats and of wild flora and fauna (OJ L 206, 22.7.1992,
p. 7)
Article 6 and
Article 13(1)(a)
|
SMR 3
|
|
SMR6.
Council Directive 2008/71/EC of 15 July 2008 on identification and
registration of pigs (OJ L 213, 8.8.2005, p. 31)
Articles 3, 4 and
5
|
Same
|
|
SMR7.
Regulation (EC) No 1760/2000 of the European Parliament and of the
Council of 17 July 2000 establishing a system for the
identification and registration of bovine animals and regarding the
labelling of beef and beef products (OJ L 204, 11.8.2000, p.
1)
Articles 4 and
7
|
Same
|
|
SMR8.
Council Regulation (EC) No 21/2004 of 17 December 2003 establishing
a system for the identification and registration of ovine and
caprine animals (OJ L 5, 9.1.2004, p. 8)
Articles 3, 4 and
5
|
Same
|
|
SMR9. Council Directive 91/414/EEC of 15
July 1991 concerning the placing of plant protection products on
the market (OJ L 230, 19.8.1991, p. 1)
Article 3
|
SMR 10
|
|
SMR10.
Council Directive 96/22/EC of 29 April 1996 concerning the
prohibition on the use in stock farming of certain substances
having a hormonal or thyrostatic action and of beta-agonists (OJ L
125, 23.5.1996, p. 3)
Article 3(a), (b),
(d) and (e) and Articles 4, 5 and 7
|
SMR 5
|
|
SMR11.
Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 of the European Parliament and of the
Council of 28 January 2002 laying down the general principles and
requirements of food law, establishing the European Food Safety
Authority and laying down procedures in matters of food safety (OJ
L 31, 1.2.2002, p. 1)
Articles 14 and 15,
Article 17(1) ( 1 ) and Articles 18, 19 and 20
|
SMR 4
|
|
SMR12.
Regulation (EC) No 999/2001 of the European Parliament and of the
Council of 22 May 2001 laying down rules for the prevention,
control and eradication of certain transmissible spongiform
encephalopathies (OJ L 147, 31.5.2001, p. 1)
Articles 7, 11, 12,
13 and 15
|
SMR 9
|
|
SMR13.
Council Directive 85/511/EEC of 18 November 1985 introducing
Community measures for the control of foot-and-mouth disease (OJ L
315, 26.11.1985, p. 11)
Article 3
|
Removed
|
|
SMR14.
Council Directive 92/119/EEC of 17 December 1992 introducing
general Community measures for the control of certain animal
diseases and specific measures relating to swine vesicular disease
(OJ L 62, 15.3.1993, p. 69)
Article 3
|
Removed
|
|
SMR15.
Council Directive 2000/75/EC of 20 November 2000 laying down
specific provisions for the control and eradication of bluetongue
(OJ L 327, 22.12.2000, p. 74)
Article 3
|
Removed
|
|
SMR16.
Council Directive 91/629/EEC of 19 November 1991 laying down
minimum standards for the protection of calves (OJ L 340,
11.12.1991, p. 28)
Articles 3 and
4
|
SMR 11
|
|
SMR17.
Council Directive 91/630/EEC of 19 November 1991 laying down
minimum standards for the protection of pigs (OJ L 340, 11.12.1991,
p. 33)
Article 3 and
Article 4(1)
|
SMR 12
|
|
SMR18.
Council Directive 98/58/EC of 20 July 1998 concerning the
protection of animals kept for farming purposes (OJ L 221,
8.8.1998, p. 23)
Article 4
|
SMR 13
|
The following SMRs will be implemented
differently to avoid risk of disallowance:
SMR 1a:
Incorporation of SSAFO Waterside Buffer Zones
Background and options
Option SMR 1c (i): Incorporate the buffer zones, as required by the
SSAFO regulations, under SMR 1.
Option SMR 1c (ii): No requirement as outlined in 1c (i).
Preferred option: SMR 1c (i)
Key
assumptions
It is assumed that bringing existing SSAFO requirements for
waterside buffer zones into Cross Compliance will increase
awareness among farmers and improve compliance levels through
behaviour change.
Costs and benefits
Option SMR 1 c (i)
Costs
The
buffer zones, as required by the Water Resources (Control of
Pollution) (Silage, Slurry and Agricultural Fuel Oil) (Wales)
Regulations 2010 (commonly abbreviated as SSAFO regulations), will
be incorporated under SMR 1, as required under the Nitrates
Directive. Welsh Government suggests there is no additional
regulatory impact as this is already a statutory requirement. The
penalties for contravening the SSAFO regulations are up to
£5,000 in a magistrates court or
unlimited in a Crown Court. Hence there is no increase in the
maximum penalty under Cross Compliance.
There could be some small impact of
bringing SSAFO within Cross Compliance if it leads to more
penalties for breaches because it is administratively
simpler than making prosecutions. In addition, a few farmers
could be penalised through Cross Compliance and be prosecuted too,
this would entail a small administrative cost for Welsh
Government.
Summary of costs: Farmers are the main affected group and
may suffer penalties through reduction in the farm subsidies if
non-compliant with SSAFO requirements for waterside buffer
zones.
Benefits
Bringing SSAFO under Cross Compliance could lead to greater
benefits through improved awareness and compliance by the industry.
There could thus be an increase in industry costs and an increase
in benefits, most of which are public benefits which do not accrue
to the industry. Any changes in costs and benefits are very
small and too difficult to quantify.
Summary of benefits: Benefits might accrue to the wider
public through additional protection of ground water. The
benefits cannot be quantified.
Option SMR 1c (ii)
Costs
Benefits
Farmers would not receive penalties through reduction in the farm
subsidies if non-compliant with SSAFO requirements for waterside
buffer zones.
SMR 1b:
Groundwater - Construction Requirements for
Stores
Background and options
Option SMR 1b (i): No requirement to ‘introduce construction
requirements for silage and slurry stores in 2016 for the
protection of groundwater from uncontrolled disposal or discharge
to the environment’.
Option SMR 1b (ii): Retain the current groundwater requirements as
already established in GAEC P as this is a mandatory
requirement.
Preferred option: SMR 1b (ii)
The Welsh Government proposes that they
will introduce into SMR 1 construction requirements for silage and
slurry stores in 2015 for the protection of groundwater from
uncontrolled disposal or discharge to the environment. It is
suggested that there is no additional regulatory impact as this is
an existing statutory requirement. There could be some small
impact of bringing SSAFO within Cross Compliance if it leads to
increased awareness and a perception of increased risk of penalty
for breaches as it is administratively cheaper than making
prosecutions. In addition, a few farmers could be penalised
through Cross Compliance and also be prosecuted. While it
could lead to greater benefits through improved compliance by the
industry, there would also be an increase in associated industry
costs in doing so. The benefits, most of which are public benefits,
do not accrue to the industry. Any changes in costs and benefits
are very small and too difficult to quantify.
In their response to the consultation on
this proposed change to Cross Compliance, the FUW Farmers Union of
Wales) was concerned that the incorporation of the construction
requirements for silage and slurry stores from SSAFO might imply
the loss of the exemption for all stores constructed before 1991
and not substantially modified since. However there
was no proposal or intention to remove this exemption.
Key
assumptions
It is assumed that bringing existing
SSAFO requirements in relation to silage and slurry store
construction into Cross Compliance will increase awareness among
farmers and improve compliance levels through behaviour change.
Costs and benefits
Option SMR
1b (i)
The Welsh Government suggests there
will be no additional regulatory impact as this is already a
statutory requirement under SSAFO. However this option
carries significant risk of disallowance of claims of farm
subsidies from the EU.
Option SMR
1b (ii)
The Welsh Government suggests there
will be no additional regulatory impact as this is already a
statutory requirement under SSAFO. This option is judged to
remove the risk of disallowance of claims of farm subsidies from
the EU.
Costs
A small number of additional
farmers, currently not adhering to SSAFO requirements, could suffer
non-compliance penalties through bringing SSAFO regulations in
relation to silage and slurry store construction into SMR 1 but
this is difficult to quantify. As these farmers are considered to
be already acting illegally, these costs should not be
considered.
Benefits
The main benefit of bringing SSAFO
requirements for silage and slurry store construction into SMR 1 in
NVZs from 2016 is to reduce the risk of disallowance of claims of
farm subsidies from the EU. There may also be some minor
benefit through improved industry compliance with SSAFO.
SMR 11: Food
and Feed Law – TB Testing Non-Compliance
Background and options
Option SMR 11a (i):
Apply an automatic penalty to CAP payments in all cases where a TB
test is overdue by one day or more and not just those who are found
at cross compliance inspection to have an over due TB test.
Option SMR 11a (ii):
Maintain the current system, only penalise at inspection where
breach identified. No admin check for all beneficiaries.
Preferred option 11a
(i)
Testing is an essential part of the
strategy to control bovine tuberculosis (bTB) and takes place
annually throughout Wales and six monthly in the Intensive
Treatment Areas. Since January 2014, farmers who
are found at Cross Compliance inspections to be late with TB tests
attract a penalty against CAP payments as follows.
Table 7: Penalty applied for late TB
tests
|
Degree of lateness of TB
tests
|
Penalty - % of Direct
Payment withheld
|
|
1 day – 3
months
|
1
|
|
3 – 12
months
|
3
|
|
Over 12
months
|
5
|
Source: Welsh Government 2014.
Policy Option SMR 11 a(i) proposes that
from January 2015 the penalties in Table 7 would automatically be
applied to Direct Payments in all cases where a TB test was overdue
by one day or more, not just to those who are found at Cross
Compliance inspections to have an overdue TB test.
Key
assumptions/sensitivities/risks
Maintaining strict TB testing schedules will improve the
effectiveness of this policy at a very marginal level.
Costs and benefits
Option 11a (i)
Costs
In their response to the consultation The
FUW were primarily concerned with broader TB eradication policy
issues such as possible reductions in compensation for animals due
to the introduction of table valuations and the prohibition of
farmers’ action against the TB reservoirs in wildlife,
principally badgers. The CLA were concerned about the
accuracy of administrative data on which automatic penalties would
have to be based. Neither organisation raised cost
implications of ensuring the TB tests take place on time as they
recognise the importance to disease control of timely
testing.
The current system for fixing TB tests is
that farmers are given advance notice by the AHVLA (Animal Health
and Veterinary Laboratories Agency)
when a test is required to be carried out, for example they are
given 4 months’ notice of the date by which the test must be
completed. It is the farmer’s responsibility to arrange
the test with his Official Veterinarian in that window.
The main change here is the increased
penalty through Cross Compliance sanctions which will become
automatic wherever late testing takes place. This change will
make it very expensive for a farmer to be late with a TB test. The
consequence is likely to be near 100% compliance with the testing
regime. The cost to farmers will be the slightly increased
frequency of TB tests – mainly additional labour to gather
stock and assist with the test. Even farmers who
currently get the TB tests done in time are likely to do them
slightly earlier to safeguard against the chance of late testing
penalties.
If Welsh Government (WG) applied the overdue
TB testing administrative check (being notified of every type of
test that went overdue for all customers) WG would have picked up
1260 cross compliance breaches in the first seven months of 2014
compared to 2298 cross compliance breaches in the first seven
months of 2013. In 2013 there was a 30 day tolerance for late TB
testing under Cross Compliance, and no penalty was applied if the
tests were late up to 30 days. From the 1 January 2014, penalties
of one per cent were applied to farmers found at inspection to be
between one day and three months late for their TB test, resulting
in the significant decrease of late tests. In total for 2013 there
were 3,500 overdue TB tests, data for 2014 calendar year is not
available.
Given the 4 month window in which farmers
can get their cattle tested it is hard to maintain that there is
additional cost caused by getting the test done in time.
There will be circumstances when farmers who have made prudent
plans to get their tests done in good time experience force
majeure. These unforeseeable events excusing the farmer
from fulfilment of the requirement to get the TB test carried out
might have to be considered before automatic penalties were
applied. An obvious example would be sudden ill health of the
farmer.
In nearly all cases there is no
additional farmer cost caused by the reinforced sanction to get
bovine TB tests done within the 12 month deadline.
Summary of costs: Farmers and society: There
will be a very small increase in the (private and public) cost of
testing cattle for TB because of marginally more frequent testing.
Other key non-monetised costs by ‘main affected
groups’: Farmers and society: There will be a very small
increase in the (private and public) cost of testing cattle for TB
because of marginally more frequent testing.
Benefits
More frequent testing will in principle
lead to private benefits of less disease in the farmer’s own
herd (through earlier recognition of reactors and avoidance of
spread within the herd) and wider benefits among the local farming
community who will be less at risk from cross infection from
neighbouring herds whose owners are discouraged from letting TB
testing fall overdue.
This is expected to result in benefits to
the cattle industry in Wales through a reduced incidence of
TB. There will also be some savings to the Welsh Government
through reduced compensation costs. The benefits cannot
readily be monetised but are likely to exceed the cost.
Summary of benefits: Farmers and society: The benefits will
accrue initially to individual farmers who have diseased animals
removed from their herds more promptly. There will also be
benefits for neighbouring farmers who have a reduced risk of
cross-infection from herds that are late to test for TB.
There may be a small saving in compensation costs for the Welsh
Government.
Option 11a (ii)
Option 11a (ii) would represent is
no change to the current requirement, so there is no impact to
assess.
References
ADAS (2012). Assessment of the
implementation of the Soil Protection Review 2010 and soil
management practices in England. Report to Defra:
SP1309.
ADAS (2013). Post-Harvest Management for
soil degradation reduction in agricultural soils: methods,
occurrence, costs, and benefits. Report to Defra:
SP1315.
Auditor General for Wales (2014) Glastir,
Wales Audit Office, Cardiff CF11 9LJ
Bain, C.G. et al (2011) IUCN UK
Commission of Inquiry on Peatlands. IUCN UK Peatland Programme,
Edinburgh.
Bilotta,
G.S., Brazier, R.E. and Haygarth, P.M. (2007). The impacts of
grazing animals on the quality of soils, vegetation and surface
waters in intensively managed grasslands. Advances in
Agronomy 94:238-280.
Birnie, R., Smyth, M.A. and Miller, G.
(2013) Developing metrics for the Peatland Carbon Code. LandForm
Research.
Boardman, J. (2013). Soil Erosion in
Britain: Updating the Record. Agriculture 3,
418-442.
Brethour, C. & Weersink, A. (2001).
An economic evaluation of the environmental benefits from pesticide
reduction. Agricultural Economics 25 (2-3),
219-226.
Cadw (2007) Scheduled Monument Consent,
14 pages, Cadw and Welsh Assembly Government, Cardiff, CF15
7QQ.
Cadw (2014) Web site accessed on
13/8/201.
http://cadw.wales.gov.uk/historicenvironment/protection/historiclandscapes/histparkgrdns/?lang=en
CADW (2013) Historic Environment Strategy
for Wales
CADW (2011) Conservation Principles for
the sustainable management of the historic environment in
Wales
Christie, M. & Rayment, M. (2012). An
economic assessment of the ecosystem service benefits derived from
the SSSI biodiversity conservation policy in England and Wales.
Ecosystem Services 1, 70-84.
Christie, M. et al (2011) Economic
Valuation of the Benefits of Ecosystem Services delivered by the UK
Biodiversity Action Plan (Defra Project: NE0112)
Collins,
A.L., Walling, D.E., McMellin, G.K., Zhang, Y., Gray, J.,
McGonigle, D. and Cherrington, R. (2010). A preliminary
investigation of the efficacy of riparian fencing schemes for
reducing contributions from eroding channel banks to the siltation
of salmonid spawning gravels across the south west UK.
Journal of Environmental Management 91:
1341-1349.Defra et al (2014) Agriculture
in the UK
Defra (2012) Observatory monitoring
framework - Indicator DA4: Pesticides in Water
Defra (2009) Impact Assessment of Changes
to the cross compliance Good Agricultural and Environmental
Conditions Standards in England.
Dŵr Cymru Cyfyngedig (2014) Upstream
services methodology and accompanying commentary 2013-14
ECOTEC (2010) Valuing the Welsh Historic
Environment
English Heritage (2010) Heritage Counts
2010: England
Environment Agency Wales (2008) National
Flood Risk Assessment (NaFRA) for Wales
Fuller, R.J., Hinsley, S.A. and Swetnam,
R.D. (2004) the relevance of non-farmland habitats, uncropped areas
and habitat diversity to the conservation of farmland birds. Ibis.
146: 22-31
Holden, J., Chapman, P., Evans, M.,
Hubacek, K., Kay, P., & Warburton, J. (2007). Vulnerability
of Organic Soils in England and Wales. Final technical report
to DEFRA and CCW. DEFRA Project: SP0532; CCW Contract: FC
73-03-2758.
iTree (2014). I-Tree Reports.
Available at https://www.itreetools.org/resources/reports.php.
Line,
D.E. (2003). Changes in a stream’s physical and biological
conditions following livestock exclusion. Transactions of the
ASAE 46: 287-293.
MAFF (1992) Standard Cost
Rates.
Manning, A.D., Fischer, J., &
Lindenmayer, D.B. (2006). Scattered trees are keystone structures
– Implications for conservation. Biological
Conservation 132 (3), 311-321.
McAllister, T.A. & Topp, E. (2012).
Role of livestock in microbiological contamination of water:
Commonly the blame, but not always the cause. Animal
Frontiers 2 (2), 17-27.
Met Office (2010). Changes in the
frequency of extreme rainfall events for selected towns and
cities. Report for Ofwat.
Morris, J. & Camino, M. (2011).
Economic Assessment of Freshwater, Wetland, and Floodplain (FWF)
Ecosystem Services. UK National Ecosystem Assessment, Working
Paper.
Natural England (2013) Higher Level
Stewardship: Environmental Stewardship Handbook. Fourth Edition
– January 2013
Natural Resources Wales (undated) WFD
Acidification Risk Assessment
http://naturalresourceswales.gov.uk/content/docs/pdfs/our-work/Policy-advice-and-guidance/water-situation-report/acidification-risk-assessment-statistics.pdf?lang=en
Natural
Resources Wales (2014) Personal communication, Alan Brown.
Nix J (2012) Farm Management Pocket Book,
43rd Edition.
ONS (Office for National Statistics)
(2011). 2011 Census.
Pesticides Forum (2014) Pesticides in the
UK: The 2013 report on the impacts and sustainable use of
pesticides.
Pollock, C. (2012) Peatlands: Their value
to the local and wider community as fuel, habitat and carbon stores
(the position of Ireland).
Pretty, J.N., Brett, C., Gee, D., Hine,
R.E., et al. (2000). An assessment of the total external
costs of UK agriculture. Agricultural Systems 65,
113-136.
Quine, C., Cahalan, C, Hester, A,
Humphrey, J. et al. (2011). Ch8 Woodlands. In: The UK
National Ecosystem Assessment Technical Report. UK National
Ecosystem Assessment, UNEP-WCMC, Cambridge.
RSPB (2014) Advice for farmers: Scrub
(online). Available from
http://www.rspb.org.uk/ourwork/farming/advice/details.aspx?id=204411
UK NEA (2011) Chapter 20: Status and
Changes in the UK’s Ecosystems and their Services to Society:
Wales
UK NEA (2011) Chapter 22: Economic Values
from Ecosystems
Van der Wal et al. (2011).
Mountains, Moorlands, and Heaths. In: The UK National Ecosystem
Assessment Technical Report. UK National Ecosystem Assessment,
UNEP-WCMC, Cambridge
Welsh Government (2012) Glastir Advanced:
Payment Rates - Management Options
Welsh Government (2012) Payment Rates for
Glastir Advanced Management Options.
Welsh Government (2012) Glastir Advanced
Payment Rates – Capital Works.
Welsh Government (2013) Glastir Advanced
Management Options – Management requirements.
Welsh Government (2014) Farming Facts and
Figures, Wales 2014.
Welsh Government (2014) Minister Clamps
down on late TB testing.
ADAS carried out some GIS analysis to
help with the calculations for GAEC 1 and GAEC 5 – field
boundaries of tillage land and grassland bordering on water course
in Wales. This work used the DRN (Detailed River Network) data
which has a River Type attribute of Primary, Secondary or Tertiary
Rivers. This was cross referenced with the European Corine
land cover 2006 data (100m raster), which is freely available
with the “Arable land” class for the analysis of GAEC 1
and 2 m wide pesticide free field boundaries and
“Pastures” for the managed grassland areas for GAEC 5
and the fencing of river sides to avoid soil erosion and pollution.
In addition to rivers the lake boundary areas were
estimated.
As background, this analysis gives the
following total lengths for rivers and lakes in Wales
Table 8: River
length by DRN River Class in Wales
|
DRN River Class
|
Total length in Wales
(km)
|
|
Primary
rivers
|
7,953
|
|
Secondary
rivers
|
5,897
|
|
Tertiary
rivers
|
41,640
|
|
Lakes
|
458
|
These lengths were compared with the
length of rivers in Wales quoted in other documents. For
example NRW in its WFD river acidification risk assessment gives a
total length of rivers in Wales of 7,152 kilometres. This is
close to the above figure for “Primary
Rivers”.
Analysis for GAEC 1, 2m Pesticide Free
Strips through Tillage Land
Length of boundaries with watercourses
– allows for land on both sides.
Table 9: River
boundary length with agricultural use by DRN River Class -
Arable
|
DRN River Class
|
Length - km
|
|
Primary
rivers
|
1,215
|
|
Secondary
rivers
|
905
|
|
Tertiary
rivers
|
3,257
|
|
Lakes
|
2
|
|
Total
|
5,379
|
Note: Corine land cover class
“arable”.
In carrying out the calculation of the
cost of Cross Compliance, ADAS has used the distances for Primary
Rivers, Secondary Rivers and Lakes. More work is needed to
understand the definitions of these River Classes and which ones
are most appropriately used in the costings.
Analysis for GAEC 5, Fencing rivers to
prevent soil erosion into them by grazing livestock.
Length of boundaries with watercourses
– allows for land on both sides.
Table 10: River
boundary length with agricultural use by DRN River Class -
Pasture
|
DRN River Class
|
Length - km
|
|
Primary
rivers
|
9,348
|
|
Secondary
rivers
|
696
|
|
Tertiary
rivers
|
43,299
|
|
Lakes
|
97
|
|
Total
|
53,440
|
Note: Corine Landover
“pastures”.
Cross Compliance Proposals for 2015
Executive
summary
The Welsh Government recently held a
consultation on its Cross Compliance Proposals for 2015. The
consultation ran from 23 May 2014 to 18 July 2014. 44 written
responses were received to the consultation. A broad spectrum of
interests had submitted responses, from farmers and land managers,
farming organisations and unions to statutory organisations,
anglers, water companies, and environmental organisations and
charities. A Cross Compliance telephone survey and a series of
workshops were also undertaken by ADAS on behalf of the Welsh
Government to identify how Cross Compliance had influenced farmer
behaviour and practice in Wales.
For all questions asked of the consultees the
majority of respondents were largely in support of the Welsh
Government’s Cross Compliance and Good Agricultural and
Environmental Condition (GAEC) proposals for 2015. For Questions
1 and 2 which related to the Welsh Government’s proposals
under GAEC 1: Establishing buffer strips for water courses, around
71% were in agreement with the proposals as presented. For
Questions 3 and 4 which related to GAEC 3: Protection
of Groundwater against pollution, 49% were in agreement with the
proposals, however, 24% of those who expressed an opinion opposed
the proposal.
Questions 5 and 6 centred on the
European Commission’s (EC’s) GAEC Soils requirements
and the Welsh Government’s proposals to carry forward the
majority of existing soil protection provisions including the Soil
Assessment Record, under the new Cross Compliance requirements
covering GAEC 4, 5 and 6 from 2015. The focus however, would be to
prevent soil damage and take a more outcome based approach rather
than the previous focus on process. The Welsh Government’s
proposals also recommended that the current requirements for
supplementary feeding, overgrazing, Environmental Impact Assessment
(Agriculture) and the Heather and Grass Burning Code be located
within these soil GAEC’s. 53% of respondents were in favour
although a minority of 22% were against the proposals.
Questions 7 - 10 related to the Welsh
Government’s proposals for landscape features and actions to
be retained under the new GAEC 7 Retention of Landscape
features. 58% of respondents were in support of the Welsh
Government’s proposals. A significant minority (28%) were
against the proposals presented.
Question 11
related to Food and Feed Law – TB Testing non-compliance. The
Welsh Government proposed that existing rules be strengthened so
that a penalty would be automatically applied to Direct Payments in
all cases where a TB test is overdue by one day or more and not
just to those who are found at Cross Compliance inspections to have
an overdue surveillance (WHT/IA12) TB test. Only 24% of the
respondents agreed with the proposal while a larger number (32%) of
respondents disagreed with the proposal.
Looking to the future, Question 12
considered Public Rights of Way and the opportunities open to
modernise and simplify legislation on Public Rights of Way in
Wales. Within the context of potential future developments 46% of
respondents agreed with the proposal to include the maintenance of
Public Rights of Way under Cross Compliance in Wales. The same
percentage of respondents (46%) did not support the proposal.
Questions 13 – 15 considered the
concept of General Binding Rules (GBRs) and also future proposals
to explore the potential for GBR’s to be developed in
relation to the sustainable management of natural resources in
Wales. 58% of respondents supported the Welsh Government’s
proposals. 31% were against the proposals presented.
Analysis of Responses and Welsh
Government response
Good Agricultural and Environmental Condition (GAEC 1) –
Establishment of buffer strips along watercourses
This section
highlighted the Welsh Government’s proposals to carry forward
the existing provisions currently in operation in Wales (GAEC O)
under the new Cross Compliance GAEC 1 arrangements in 2015 and
retain the requirement to prohibit unsuitable supplementary feeding
within 10 meters of a watercourse.
This section also set
out the Welsh Government’s proposal to incorporate buffer
zones as required by the Water Resources (Control of Pollution)
(Silage, Slurry and Agricultural Fuel Oil) (Wales) Regulations 2010
(SSAFO Regulations) under GAEC 1.
Two questions were
asked:
Question 1: Do you agree with the introduction of the buffer zone
for field silage required by SSAFO regulations for the protection
of water from pollution?
Table 1
Respondents views on Qu. 1
|
|
Number of
respondents
|
% of those expressing
an opinion
|
|
Strongly Agree
|
7
|
23.33%
|
|
Agree
|
14
|
46.67%
|
|
Neither agree nor
disagree
|
6
|
20%
|
|
Disagree
|
2
|
6.67%
|
|
Strongly disagree
|
1
|
3.33%
|
|
Total
|
30
|
|
70%
of respondents agreed or strongly agreed with the proposals. Water
companies and Environmental Bodies felt that the proposal would
assist in preventing diffuse water pollution and would help rivers
achieve ‘Good’ ecological status under the Water
Framework Directive (Directive 2000/60/EC of the European
Parliament).
A
minority of 10% did not support the proposal. Farming Unions raised
concerns over gold plating and the financial impact on farm
businesses, being penalised under Cross Compliance, if they did not
adhere to the requirement.
Welsh Government response
In
line with the Welsh Government’s Working Smarter principles,
our intention is to incorporate the buffer zones under SMR 1, as
required by the SSAFO regulations under the Nitrates Directive. The
requirement, under Cross Compliance, will only apply to farmers
within a Nitrate Vulnerable Zone. Welsh Government will continue to
monitor the impacts on water quality of these measures as
implemented and will extend the provisions if there is evidence
that this is necessary. The requirement will be reviewed as
part of the SSAFO review, with any changes being implemented from
January 2016.
Question
2: Do you agree with the introduction of pesticide application
buffer zones?
Table 2 Respondents views on Qu. 2
|
|
Number of
respondents
|
% of those expressing
an opinion
|
|
Strongly Agree
|
7
|
34.38%
|
|
Agree
|
14
|
37.5%
|
|
Neither agree nor
disagree
|
6
|
18.75%
|
|
Disagree
|
2
|
6.25%
|
|
Strongly disagree
|
1
|
3.13%
|
|
Total
|
32
|
|
72%
of respondents agreed or strongly agreed with the proposals whilst
9% disagreed or strongly disagreed. Supporters of the
proposal cited its importance in tackling diffuse pollution,
reducing customer costs in meeting drinking water quality targets
and improving biodiversity.
Those disagreeing with the proposal requested derogation for
control of non-native species where a pesticide has been approved
for use near water and where Natural Resources Wales (NRW)
permission had been obtained as necessary. They also claimed that
farmers in other EU Member States had access to more plant
protection products (or herbicides), and so this requirement would
mean that Welsh farmers wouldn’t be able to operate on a
level playing field.
Welsh Government response
Following consultation, the Welsh Government intends to prohibit
the application of pesticides within 2 m of a watercourse in
addition to the current requirements relating to the application of
inorganic and manufactured fertilisers. In response to concerns
around control of non-native species, derogation will be permitted
to control invasive non-native plants where a permit from NRW has
been obtained as necessary.
Good
Agricultural and Environmental Condition (GAEC 3) –
Protection of groundwater against pollution.
This
section outlined proposals to retain the current groundwater
provision against pollution under Cross Compliance. It also
outlined proposals, following review of the SSAFO regulations in
2014-2015, to introduce construction requirements for silage and
slurry stores in 2016 for the protection of groundwater from
uncontrolled disposal or discharge to environment.
Two questions were
asked:
Question
3: Do you agree with the principle of including silo and slurry
store construction standards within Cross Compliance?
Table 3
Respondents views on Qu. 3
|
|
Number of
respondents
|
% of those expressing
an opinion
|
|
Strongly Agree
|
7
|
25.93%
|
|
Agree
|
8
|
29.63%
|
|
Neither agree nor
disagree
|
6
|
22.22%
|
|
Disagree
|
3
|
11.11%
|
|
Strongly disagree
|
3
|
11.11%
|
|
Total
|
27
|
|
56% of respondents
believed that such proposals would be beneficial whilst 22% had
concerns over the proposal. Environmental groups felt that
including silo and slurry store construction standards would reduce
the risk of pollution incidents. These standards would also make
farms more resilient to adverse weather and make more efficient use
of nutrients.
Farming
representatives felt that the inclusion of these standards under
Cross Compliance was unnecessary as requirements under the SSAFO
regulations are legally binding. Concerns were raised that farms
would face significant cost in renewing stores for silage, slurry
and oil which would be disproportionate to the environmental
benefit. The requirement would impact on up to 97% of farmed area,
and would provide no capital grant aid. They also recommended that
this option should not be considered until the 2014-2015 review of
the SSAFO regulations in Wales.
Welsh Government
response
In
line with the Welsh Government’s Working Smarter principles,
our intention is to introduce construction requirements for silage
and slurry stores in 2015 into SMR 1, as required by the Nitrates
Directive. The requirement, under Cross Compliance, will only apply
to farmers within a Nitrate Vulnerable Zone. The Welsh Government
will continue to monitor the impacts on water quality of these
measures as implemented and will extend the provisions if there is
evidence that this is necessary. The requirement will be
reviewed as part of the SSAFO review, with any changes being
implemented in January 2016.
Question 4: are there any other requirements that should be added
to this GAEC for the protection of groundwater?
Table 4 Respondents views on Qu. 4
|
|
Number of
respondents
|
% of those expressing
an opinion
|
|
Yes
|
12
|
42.86%
|
|
No opinion
|
9
|
32.14%
|
|
No
|
7
|
25%
|
|
Total
|
28
|
|
43% of respondents
supported the inclusion of SSAFO requirements to protect
groundwater. In addition, suggestions were made in relation to the
better maintenance and operation of septic tanks, the prevention of
the disposal of hazardous or polluting substances/materials into
old mine workings and prevention of diffuse pollution from run-off
of hazardous or polluting substances. Some of the 25% opposing
further requirements recommended that access to information and
guidance on pollution prevention and partnership working was
preferred to further regulation.
Welsh Government response
We
intend to retain the current groundwater requirements as already
established in GAEC P from 2013 as this is a mandatory requirement.
In line with Working Smarter principles, no further requirements
will be added, however, guidance and information on pollution
prevention will be provided. The inclusion of SSAFO requirements
under GAEC 3 will be further considered under the review of the
SSAFO regulations, with any necessary changes to be implemented in
January 2016.
Soils
Overview (GAECs 4, 5 & 6)
This section of the consultation considered the
Welsh Government’s proposals to carry forward the majority of
existing soil protection provisions currently in operation in Wales
(GAEC A), including the Soil Assessment Record, under new Cross
Compliance requirements covering GAEC 4, 5 & 6 from 2015. The
focus, however, would be to prevent soil damage and take a more
outcome based approach rather than the previous focus on process.
The GAECs would be reworded to reflect this.
This section also outlined the Welsh
Government’s proposals that current requirements for
supplementary feeding, overgrazing, Environmental Impact Assessment
(Agriculture) and the Heather and Grass Burning Code would be
included within these soil GAECs.
Two questions were asked:
Question 5: Do you agree with the Welsh Government’s
proposals for meeting the requirements of GAEC 4, 5 & 6?
Table 5 Respondents views on Qu. 5
|
|
Number of
respondents
|
% of those expressing
an opinion
|
|
Strongly Agree
|
5
|
19.23%
|
|
Agree
|
10
|
38.46%
|
|
Neither agree nor
disagree
|
6
|
23.08%
|
|
Disagree
|
4
|
15.38%
|
|
Strongly disagree
|
1
|
3.85%
|
|
Total
|
26
|
|
The majority of
recipients (58%) were broadly in favour of the proposals, whilst
19% disagreed with the proposals. Respondents arguing both
for and against the proposals emphasised that maintaining soils in
good condition was a priority.
Good Agricultural and Environmental Condition (GAEC 4) –
Minimum Soil Cover
Those respondents not
in favour of the proposals for GAEC 4 highlighted concerns that the
requirement could be detrimental to soils (for example compaction
would be caused by travelling on wet soil to sow a cover crop).
They also raised concerns that grazed roots or forage would no
longer be allowable. Concern was also raised that cover crops would
not be eligible as an EFA under greening whilst fallow land would
be eligible.
Welsh Government
response
The Welsh Government
can confirm that land sown with temporary grass or wild bird
seed cover crops or stubble is eligible as a fallow crop and
therefore as an Ecological Focus Area under CAP greening. Concerns
raised over grazed roots or forage have been addressed under GAEC
5.
In response to
concerns raised over the measure being detrimental to soils, the
Welsh Government will allow derogation to ensure Minimum Soil Cover
does not conflict with GAEC 5. The revised wording will read as
follows:
Where land has been harvested with a combine, forage harvester or
mower to comply with GAEC 4, one of the following must be met at
all times between the day after harvest to the 1st March:
·
Stubble of the
harvested crop remains in the land;
·
Land is sown
with a temporary cover crop;
·
Land is sown
with another crop within 10 days of having been
prepared.
You must protect soil by having a minimum soil cover except where
establishing a cover would conflict with requirements under GAEC
5.
Good Agricultural and Environmental Condition (GAEC 5) –
Minimum land management requirements reflecting site specific
conditions to limit erosion
Those respondents not
in favour of the proposed requirement under GAEC 5 opposed the
outcome focused rewording of the current overgrazing requirements.
They also did not support transferring requirements for GAEC B
– Overgrazing or GAEC D – Supplementary
feeding.
Those respondents in
favour of the GAEC 5 proposals felt that supplementary feeding
often led to heavy poaching and erosion in sensitive habitats. Such
respondents highlighted that measures to protect against soil
erosion and compaction would be beneficial in improving water
quality and decreasing flood risk. It was recommended that
loss of habitat condition should be used as an indication of threat
of soil erosion. It was indicated that fencing off of water bodies
can be intrusive in the environment and that softer options such as
electric fences might be better whilst stock are on site.
Welsh Government
response
In light of the consultation
responses, the Welsh Government has modified the wording of this
requirement to ensure that farmers have flexibility in the
practical application of this requirement without decreasing the
protection offered to the environment. In response to the concern
raised that grazed roots or forage would no longer be allowable,
and to protect soils when it is too late in the year for a cover
crop to take, we have included the line:
To prevent erosion on late
harvested land or on land where a forage or root crop have been
grazed out, if it is not possible to sow a cover crop, you must put
in place appropriate measures to limit soil erosion.
The revised wording
will read as follows:
Overgrazing must be avoided. Poaching and rutting must not
occur to a level which causes soil erosion down slope or off site
(site meaning field) including to watercourses and roads.
To prevent erosion on late
harvested land or on land where a forage or root crop have been
grazed out, if it is not possible to sow a cover crop, you must put
in place appropriate measures to limit soil erosion.
An indicative list of
appropriate measures (grubbing, ditches, sediment fences, etc.)
will be included in the guidance.
In response to
concerns raised by stakeholders, the guidance and verifiable
standards will state that a protective layer of vegetation,
sufficient to mitigate against the grazing impact on soils, is
necessary and overgrazing must be avoided.
Question 6: Are there any additional provisions that you believe
could be introduced to protect minimum soil cover?
Table 6 Respondents views on Qu. 6
|
|
Number of
respondents
|
% of those expressing
an opinion
|
|
Yes
|
12
|
48%
|
|
No opinion
|
7
|
28%
|
|
No
|
6
|
24%
|
|
Total
|
25
|
|
48% of respondents to
this question felt additional provisions could be added to protect
soil cover. Suggested provisions include:
·
2m
buffer strips for livestock next to watercourses/livestock
exclusion from water courses;
·
10m
buffer strip for cultivation;
·
Education on
soil management;
·
Rotate
feeding/watering stations at regular (stated) intervals
particularly during winter months;
·
Hedgerow
cover;
·
Tree buffers on
watercourses;
·
Tree belts on
slopes;
·
Naturally
regenerating vegetation as winter cover;
·
Overwinter
stubble to receive no pre or post harvest herbicides;
·
Change grazing
to reduce poaching and soil erosion. This could include mixed
grazing strategies using both sheep and more hardy cattle
breeds.
·
NRW
to monitor soils.
Those respondents not
in favour of additional provisions (24%) cited concerns related to
additional costs and regulatory burden on businesses which would
put them at a disadvantage compared to other EU Member States.
Welsh Government
response
In
light of the responses received, the Welsh Government does not
intend to introduce additional measures to those proposed in the
consultation. However, comments will be taken into account whilst
producing guidance. In response to concerns raised over the new
‘No first plough and no new drainage of organic soil/peat
soils’ requirements, these will be removed from the new GAEC
6. In line with Working Smarter objectives and in response to
concerns raised in the consultation process, we intend to remove
the requirement to keep a Soils Assessment Record. Farmers
will, however, be advised that a Soil Assessment Record could be
used as supporting evidence to lower penalty if a breach of GAEC 6
is found.
In taking an outcome
based approach we intend to implement the following
requirement:
To comply with GAEC 6 the following requirements must be met:
·
Comply with the
Stubble Burning Regulations with no change to current
guidance.
·
Comply with the
Heather and Grass Burning Regulations.
·
Comply with the
Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations (EIA
Agriculture).
No obligatory Soil Assessment Record.
Good Agricultural and Environmental Condition (GAEC 7) –
Retention of Landscape features
This section outlined
the Welsh Government’s proposals for landscape features and
activities to be retained under the new GAEC 7 provision.
Four questions were
asked:
Question 7: Should Cross Compliance be extended to include Historic
Environment Features (HEFs)?
Table 7 Respondents views on Qu. 7
|
|
Number of
respondents
|
% of those expressing
an opinion
|
|
Yes
|
17
|
58.62%
|
|
No opinion
|
4
|
13.79%
|
|
No
|
8
|
27.59%
|
|
Total
|
29
|
|
59% of the
respondents were supportive of protecting HEFs through Cross
Compliance; they highlighted that HEFs are important factors in the
richness, quality and sense of place in our landscape.
28% of respondents
did not support the proposal, citing concerns regarding
restrictions being placed on day-to-day farm management decisions,
health and safety issues relating to traditional buildings and
remnant structures, potential problems with enforcement and
concerns relating to the inaccuracy of HEF mapping.
Welsh Government
response
Taking account of the
responses received and further representations on potential
problems with enforcement and mapping issues, the Welsh Government
has decided not to include HEFs under Cross Compliance from 2015.
We will however review the accuracy of HEF digitised maps for the
purposes of Cross Compliance with a view to extending protection to
HEFs under GAEC 7 by subsequent amendment to the regulations (post
2015), allowing for a further period of consultation with
stakeholders about how this could be practically applied.
Question 8: Given the importance of traditional boundaries to the
historic Welsh landscape, should they be retained regardless of
their condition, except for the purposes of widening existing
access points up to 10 metres to enable machinery and animal
access? If not, can you suggest other criteria to determine what
boundaries should be protected/ retained?
Table 8 Respondents views on Qu. 8
|
|
Number of
respondents
|
% of those expressing
an opinion
|
|
Yes
|
18
|
60%
|
|
No opinion
|
4
|
13.33%
|
|
No
|
8
|
26.67%
|
|
Total
|
30
|
|
60% of respondents
believed that traditional boundaries should be retained regardless
of their condition, except for the purposes of widening access
points for machinery and livestock, whilst 27% did not support the
proposal. Those supporting the proposal cited habitat connectivity,
biodiversity, and historic and cultural value of traditional
boundaries regardless of their condition. Those opposing the
proposal felt that the Welsh landscape is a dynamic changing
environment and that removal of traditional boundaries should be
permissible where replaced elsewhere (offsetting).
Welsh Government
response
Given the importance of traditional boundaries to the historic
Welsh landscape, the Welsh Government will proceed with
implementation of the proposal.
Question 9: Do you agree with the cutting and removal of scrub
proposal?
Table 9 Respondents views on Qu. 9
|
|
Number of
respondents
|
% of those expressing
an opinion
|
|
Strongly Agree
|
3
|
10.71%
|
|
Agree
|
10
|
35.71%
|
|
Neither agree nor
disagree
|
4
|
14.28%
|
|
Disagree
|
7
|
25%
|
|
Strongly disagree
|
4
|
14.29%
|
|
Total
|
28
|
|
46% of respondents to
this question supported the proposal to extend the hedge cutting
and trimming requirements to include scrub. They highlighted that
scrub is an important habitat for nesting birds during the breeding
and rearing season and difficult to check for nesting birds.
39% of respondents
expressed concerns over the proposal, most notably because control
of scrub is an eligibility requirement for the Basic Payment Scheme
and the new requirement might cause confusion amongst farmers.
Concerns were also raised over gold plating and Working
Smarter.
The consultation also proposed to retain the protection for
boundaries currently within GAEC E within the new GAEC 7 and
maintain the current closed period for hedgerow trimming. Some
objected to this proposal citing concerns relating to health and
safety and the removal of the current derogations. Others welcomed
maintaining this requirement but raised concerns around livestock
causing damage to hedges.
Welsh Government
response
Taking account of the responses received and the practical
difficulties surrounding definitions and controllability that this
measure would create, the Welsh Government has decided not to
extend the hedgerow cutting dates to include scrub.
In addition to
maintaining the current closed period for hedge trimming we will be
maintaining current derogations for health and safety reasons,
hedgerow restoration and arable land with sufficient conditions
attached to the derogations to mitigate against any negative impact
to breeding and rearing birds.
Question 10: Do you think further clarification is needed on the
best means to prevent the spread of invasive non-native plants?
Table 10 Respondents views on Qu. 10
|
|
Number of
respondents
|
% of those expressing
an opinion
|
|
Yes
|
23
|
76.67%
|
|
No opinion
|
6
|
20%
|
|
No
|
1
|
3.33%
|
|
Total
|
30
|
|
The vast majority of
respondents (77%) believed that further clarification was needed on
the best means to prevent the spread of invasive non-native plants.
Guidance, in particular, should be provided to ensure easy
recognition of invasive non-native plants and best practice methods
to control and prevent spread. Concerns were raised in relation to
the effort required on adjacent land managed by utility providers
and maintainers of the transport infrastructure. Action by farmers
should be part of a national effort, using an appropriate mix of
regulation, advice and incentives.
The consultation also
outlined the proposal to include the EC’s optional
requirement for avoiding invasive plant species. The consultation
incorporated our intention to include an invasive injurious weeds
requirement as in the present GAEC C. Some respondents raised
concerns relating to the phrase ‘reasonable steps to locate
existing stands of invasive non-native plants’ as they felt
that it was far too open ended. They also raised concerns relating
to the costs farmers would incur as a result of the proposed
measure. Some welcomed the requirement but called for further
resources to tackle invasive non-native plants.
The consultation
highlighted that protecting farmland from under grazing and
abandonment would be a requirement of payment eligibility.
Welsh Government
response
In
light of the responses received the Welsh Government will provide
further clarification and guidance on the best means to prevent the
spread of invasive non-native plants. This will likely be provided
in the Code of Good Agricultural Practice to ensure it is available
to all farmers, not just those in Cross Compliance.
The control of
invasive species requirement is optional under the EC requirements
and control of invasive species will be included in minimum
agricultural activity requirements for the Basic Payment Scheme.
Including this requirement under GAEC would be an unnecessary
duplication and would provide no additional environmental
benefit.
Control of invasive
injurious weeds as in the present GAEC C will not be included in
the new GAEC as we have received advice from the EC that, unless a
species is listed in domestic legislation as an invasive species,
we can not include it under this GAEC.
As proposed in the
consultation, protecting farmland from under grazing and
abandonment will be a requirement of payment eligibility.
FURTHER OPTIONS FOR CROSS COMPLIANCE INCLUSION 2015
This section
highlighted the importance of the Welsh Government TB Eradication
Programme to Welsh farming and for infected animals to be
identified as early as possible in order to minimise the risk of
spread of disease. It also underlined the Welsh Government’s
proposal for existing rules to be strengthened so that from January
2015 a penalty would automatically be applied to Direct Payments in
all cases where a TB test was overdue by one day or more and not
just to those who are found at Cross Compliance inspections to have
an overdue TB test.
One question was
asked:
Question 11: Do you agree that from January 2015, the existing
rules should be further strengthened so that a penalty is
automatically applied to Direct Payments in all cases where a TB
test is overdue by one day or more and not just to those who are
found at Cross Compliance inspections to have an overdue
surveillance (WHT/IA12) TB test?
Table 11 Respondents views on Qu. 11
|
|
Number of
respondents
|
% of those expressing
an opinion
|
|
Strongly Agree
|
1
|
4%
|
|
Agree
|
5
|
20%
|
|
Neither agree nor
disagree
|
11
|
44%
|
|
Disagree
|
4
|
16%
|
|
Strongly disagree
|
4
|
16%
|
|
Total
|
25
|
|
A minority of 24% of
respondents welcomed the proposal for TB testing whilst 32%
disagreed. Respondents from both sides of the argument
supported TB testing as an important biosecurity measure. Those
disagreeing with the automatic penalty application drew attention
to a need for derogations for extenuating circumstances.
Welsh Government
response
Given the importance
of the Welsh Government TB Eradication Programme to the future of
Welsh farming and the need for infected animals to be identified as
early as possible in order to minimise the risk of spread of
disease, the Welsh Government will implement the proposal as
proposed within the consultation.
From 1 January 2015,
a penalty will automatically apply to Basic Payments in all cases
where a TB test is overdue by one day or more and not just to those
who are found at Cross Compliance inspections to have an overdue TB
test.
Article 2.2 of
1306/2013 defines force majeure and exceptional circumstances that
apply to all cross compliance requirements including overdue TB
tests. Guidance on TB late testing exceptional circumstances
protocol will be included in Gwlad articles, farmer fact sheets
(covering all new cross compliance requirements), the updated
‘When the inspector calls guidance’, as well as Basic
Payment Scheme literature. A more detailed Q and A will be provided
to veterinary practices and industry stakeholders so they can help
to raise awareness and encourage TB tests to be arranged on time
and (Animal and Plant Health Agency) APHA correspondence issued in
relation to TB testing will highlight the new requirements.
LOOKING AHEAD – POTENTIAL FUTURE DEVELOPMENTS
This section explored
further future provisions and opportunities for improved
environmental outcomes and sustainable management of natural
resources in Wales. This included ways to modernise and simplify
legislation on public rights of way in Wales for the benefit of
landowners, users and local authorities. The section also
considered the Welsh Government’s proposals to further
explore the potential for General Binding Rules to be developed in
relation to the sustainable management of natural resources.
Four questions were asked:
Public
Rights of Way
Question 12: What are your views on the above potential PRoW
approach?
Table 12 Respondents views on Qu. 12
|
|
Number of
respondents
|
% of those expressing
an opinion
|
|
Strongly Agree
|
10
|
28.57%
|
|
Agree
|
6
|
17.14%
|
|
Neither agree nor
disagree
|
3
|
8.57%
|
|
Disagree
|
7
|
20%
|
|
Strongly disagree
|
9
|
25.71%
|
|
Total
|
35
|
|
Within the context of potential future
developments, 46% of respondents agreed with the proposal to
include, at a future date, the maintenance of Public Rights of Way
under Cross Compliance in Wales. The same percentage (46%)
disagreed with the proposal.
Those agreeing with the proposal highlighted the
following issues:
·
The contribution of walking in Wales
(direct spending to Welsh economy) was estimated at £632
million in 2009;
·
Access to PRoW benefits the general
health of the public;
·
Taxpayers pay for the direct
subsidies to farmers and expect to be able to access public
footpaths
Those disagreeing with the proposal felt that
the requirement to maintain Public Rights of Way should be
implemented as soon as possible. Others disagreeing with the
proposal cited the following concerns:
·
Responsibility
is with Local Authorities and subject to local authority
‘policing’;
·
Such
obligations already exist under Whole Farm Code of
Glastir;
·
Lack of
relevance to keeping land in Good Agricultural and Environmental
Condition
Welsh Government
response
The Welsh Government
intends to review the mapping constraints to designating Public
Rights of Way as a landscape feature (including requirements not to
obstruct or deviate). Once these constraints are resolved an
amendment to the Cross Compliance requirements under GAEC 7 to
include the Public Rights of Way requirement subject will be
considered, subject to further consultation with stakeholders.
General Binding Rules
Question 13: Do you agree with the scope of activity for General
Binding Rules, as suggested above?
Table 13 Respondents views on Qu. 13
|
|
Number of
respondents
|
% of those expressing
an opinion
|
|
Strongly Agree
|
3
|
11.54%
|
|
Agree
|
12
|
46.15%
|
|
Neither agree nor
disagree
|
3
|
11.53%
|
|
Disagree
|
2
|
7.69%
|
|
Strongly disagree
|
6
|
23.08%
|
|
Total
|
26
|
|
The majority (58%) of
respondents agreed with the scope of activity for General Binding
Rules (GBRs) in Wales and believed that GBRs could play an
important role in reducing diffuse pollution, flood risk and soil
loss. Supporters felt that it would be a useful tool in the
regulatory framework to ensure that all land managers adhered to
good practice. This would protect the environment from the
cumulative effects of diffuse pollution. It was felt that, if GBRs
were to be introduced, the current regulatory framework would have
to be reviewed and rationalised to accommodate GBRs and to achieve
Working Smarter objectives.
A significant
minority of 31% of respondents disagreed with the scope of the
activity for GBRs. Those disagreeing with the proposal were opposed
to their introduction and felt that they would add a further layer
of bureaucracy. They also felt that the scope was too broad. Some
felt that more effective enforcement of existing environmental
legislation was necessary with particular concern raised that 1%
inspection for Cross Compliance was insufficient and that
inspections should be targeted to high risk farms, particularly as
a small number of cases give rise to the greatest number of
problems.
Welsh Government
response
As outlined in the
consultation, this is a potential future development which the
Welsh Government will revisit at a later date.
Question 14:
Do you agree that NRW would be the appropriate enforcement body
for General Binding Rules?
Table 14 Respondents views on Qu. 14
|
|
Number of
respondents
|
% of those expressing
an opinion
|
|
Strongly Agree
|
2
|
7.14%
|
|
Agree
|
13
|
46.42%
|
|
Neither agree nor
disagree
|
6
|
21.43%
|
|
Disagree
|
2
|
7.14%
|
|
Strongly disagree
|
5
|
17.86%
|
|
Total
|
28
|
|
The majority of
respondents (54%) believed that NRW should be appointed as the
enforcement body if GBRs were introduced, especially if they
possess sufficient resources. It was recommended that their
introduction should be preceded by a comprehensive public awareness
campaign directed at the relevant stakeholders, and provision of an
NRW advisory service to assist understanding and facilitate
delivery.
25% of respondents
believed that an alternative enforcement body should be appointed.
Concern was conveyed that NRW was a significant landowner which
would constitute a conflict of interest. Some felt that NRW might
be placed in a difficult position if they were acting as an
independent environmental advisor as well as an enforcement body
for WG.
Welsh Government
response
As outlined in the
consultation, this is a potential future development which the
Welsh Government will revisit at a later date.
Question 15: Do you agree that variable monetary penalties would be
an appropriate enforcement mechanism for General Binding Rules?
Table 15 Respondents views on Qu. 15
|
|
Number of
respondents
|
% of those expressing
an opinion
|
|
Strongly Agree
|
5
|
19.23%
|
|
Agree
|
8
|
30.77%
|
|
Neither agree nor
disagree
|
5
|
19.23%
|
|
Disagree
|
4
|
15.38%
|
|
Strongly disagree
|
4
|
15.38%
|
|
Total
|
26
|
|
Half of the
respondents believed that variable monetary penalties would be an
appropriate enforcement mechanism for GBRs. Those in support
felt that variable monetary penalties should be used alongside
appropriate levels of monitoring, enforcement, advice, industry
engagement, guidance and positive action to address breaches of
rules in the long term (for example, a whole farm plan to reduce
risk of pollution/sedimentation of watercourses).
A significant
minority (31%) believed that variable monetary penalties would not
be an appropriate enforcement mechanism; these respondents
disagreed with the principle of introducing GBRs, believing they
would force additional penalties, red tape and administrative
burdens upon the industry.
Welsh Government
response
As outlined in the
consultation, this is a potential future development which the
Welsh Government will revisit at a later date.
Summary table of decisions
|
New GAEC
|
Consultation proposal
|
Maintain as proposed in consultation? Yes/No.
If no, what has changed?
|
|
GAEC 1 - Establishment of buffer strips along
water courses
|
The Welsh Government proposes to carry forward
the existing provisions currently in operation in Wales (GAEC O)
under the new Cross Compliance GAEC 1 arrangements in 2015.
|
Yes.
|
|
We also propose to retain the requirement to
prohibit unsuitable supplementary feeding within 10 meters of a
watercourse under GAEC 1.
|
Yes.
|
|
The buffer zones, as required by the SSAFO
regulations, would be incorporated into GAEC 1. This would include
and address the following:
·
field silage
(that is silage not made in bales or silos, but on open land)
must not be made within 50 meters of a water abstraction point of
any protected water supply source;
·
The
SSAFO Regulations, when re-made in 2010 were modified slightly,
bringing in flexibility for farmers to store slurry within
10m of inland freshwaters or coastal waters, providing they
first agreed precautions in writing with the then Environment
Agency- now NRW;
·
There are
currently no similar arrangements with respect to silage made in
silos, or big bales, or agricultural fuel oil. We are
considering the merits or otherwise of including similar
arrangements to allow flexibility in sites for silage within the
planned revision of SSAFO scheduled for 2014-2015;
·
Widening
flexibility for those farmers who discuss proposals with NRW
embodies ‘Working Smarter’ principles.
|
No. The buffer zones, as required by the SSAFO
regulations to be incorporated under SMR 1 as a minimum. This
requirement will apply to farmers in NVZs only.
|
|
We propose that
the application of pesticides would be prohibited within 2m of a
watercourse in addition to the current requirements relating to the
application of inorganic and manufactured fertilisers.
|
No. As proposed in consultation but with
derogation for control of invasive non native plants where permit
from NRW has been obtained as necessary.
|
|
GAEC 2 - Water irrigation use - compliance and
authorisation procedures
|
The Welsh Government proposes to carry forward
the existing water irrigation provisions currently in operation in
Wales (GAEC M) under new Cross Compliance GAEC 2 arrangements in
2015. Wording of the GAEC provision would be amended to reflect the
importance of irrigation for agricultural purposes as well as
reflect the establishment in Wales of Natural Resources Wales.
|
Yes.
|
|
GAEC 3 - Protection of groundwater against
pollution
|
The Welsh Government proposes to retain the
current groundwater requirements as already established in GAEC P
as this is a mandatory change.
|
Yes.
|
|
We also propose to introduce, following a
review of the SSAFO regulations in 2014-2015, construction
requirements for silage and slurry stores in 2016 for the
protection of groundwater from uncontrolled disposal or discharge
to the environment.
|
No. Place requirement: ‘introduce
construction requirements for silage and slurry stores in
2015’ into SMR 1 to only apply requirement to farmers in
NVZ.
|
|
GAEC 4 - Minimum Soil Cover
|
In taking an outcome based approach we propose
the following rewording of the requirement currently under
GAEC A:
Where land has been harvested with a combine,
forage harvester or mower to comply with GAEC 4 one of the
following must be met at all times between the day after harvest to
the 1st March:
·
Stubble of the
harvested crop remains in the land;
·
Land is sown
with a temporary cover crop;
·
Land is sown
with another crop within 10 days of having been
prepared.
|
No. Additional derogation given:
You must protect soil by having a minimum soil
cover except where establishing a cover would conflict with
requirements under GAEC 5.
|
|
GAEC 5 - Minimum land management site specific
conditions to limit erosion
|
We propose that existing Overgrazing
requirements, currently under GAEC B, would be carried forward into
the new GAEC 5 with no change to current guidance except for the
following outcome focused rewording:
·
Poaching and
rutting must not occur to a level which causes soil erosion down
slope or off site (site meaning field) including to watercourses
and roads;
·
Stock would not
be allowed unrestricted access to watercourses where this leads to
erosion of soil to the watercourse;
·
Do
not allow stock to overgraze, trample and poach the soil where this
causes soil erosion or bankside erosion along
watercourses;
·
Feeding
stations must be relocated prior to trampling causing erosion down
slope or off site.
|
No. Proposal has been simplified:
Overgrazing must be avoided. Poaching and
rutting must not occur to a level which causes soil erosion down
slope or off site (site meaning field) including to watercourses
and roads.
To prevent
erosion on late harvested land or on land where a forage or root
crop have been grazed out, if it is not possible to sow a cover
crop, you must put in place appropriate measures to limit soil
erosion.
An indicative list of
appropriate measures (grubbing, ditches, sediment fences, etc) will
be included in the guidance.
|
|
We propose that the current supplementary
feeding requirements are replaced with a new requirement under GAEC
5.
|
No. Requirement removed as adequately covered
by requirement: ‘Poaching and rutting must not occur to a
level which causes soil erosion down slope or off site (site
meaning field) including to watercourses and roads.’
|
|
|
In taking an outcome based approach we propose
the following requirement:
To comply with GAEC 6 the following
requirements must be met:
·
Comply with the
Stubble Burning Regulations with no change to current
guidance;
·
Comply with the
Heather and Grass Burning Code;
·
Comply with the
Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations (EIA
Agriculture);
·
No
first plough of organic soils/peat soils (defined as soils with an
organic horizon deeper than 40cm);
·
No
new drainage of organic soils/peat soils (defined as soils with an
organic horizon deeper than 40cm).
In order to ensure the Soil Assessment Record
reflects the new structure and also the additional proposed
provisions it would be revised with the inclusion of pictorial
examples identifying risk.
|
No. Removal of the obligation to keep a Soil
Assessment Record and the following requirements have been
removed:
·
No
first plough of organic soils/peat soils (defined as soils with an
organic horizon deeper than 40cm);
·
No
new drainage of organic soils/peat soils (defined as soils with an
organic horizon deeper than 40cm).
In taking an outcome based approach we will
implement the following requirement:
To comply with GAEC 6 the following
requirements must be met:
•
Comply with the Stubble Burning Regulations with no change to
current guidance.
•
Comply with the Heather and Grass Burning Regulations.
•
Comply with the Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations (EIA
Agriculture).
No obligatory Soil Assessment Record.
|
|
GAEC 7 - Retention of landscape features
|
The Welsh Government proposes to retain the
current requirements under GAEC F (Scheduled Ancient
Monuments).
|
Yes.
|
|
Historic Environment
Features
To introduce protection for Historic
Environment Features which have been mapped. Farmers would be
required to:
·
Retain
traditional buildings and remnant structures;
·
Do
not damage any Historic Environment Features identified;
·
Do
not damage or disturb any “Historic Park” or
“Historic Garden” on the Register of Historic Parks and
Gardens.
The
inclusion of HEFs under Cross Compliance would provide a mechanism
for ensuring protection from deliberate damage or
destruction.
|
No. We intend to review the accuracy of HEF
digitised maps for the purposes of Cross Compliance with a view to
potentially extending protection to HEF’s under GAEC 7 by
subsequent amendment to the regulations (post 2015) subject to
further consultation with stakeholders.
|
|
Boundaries
The Welsh Government proposes to retain the
current GAEC E - Boundaries requirements within the new GAEC 7 and
maintain the current closed period for hedgerow trimming.
|
Yes. In addition to maintaining the current
closed period for hedge trimming, officials recommend maintaining
current derogations for health and safety reasons, hedgerow
restoration and arable land.
|
|
Scrub
The Welsh Government proposes to extend the
hedgerow cutting and trimming requirements to include scrub. The
Cross Compliance closed period for scrub removal would also run
from 1 March to 31 August.
For the purposes of this GAEC, scrub is
defined as areas of bramble/briar & gorse which are greater
than 10 x10 meters. Individual scrub areas less than 10 x10
meters can be checked to establish if nesting birds are
present. If nesting birds are found to be present in these
smaller areas of scrub, the scrub should not be removed or cut
until birds have finished nesting, in line with the Wildlife and
Countryside Act 1981.
Exemptions to cut or remove scrub in the
closed period would be considered under the following criteria:
·
issues of human
or animal health or safety;
·
when you need
to control or treat serious causes of harm to plant
health;
·
or
serious pest or weed infestation;
·
where winter
cutting is inappropriate for over-riding environmental reasons, for
example to avoid disturbance to a European protected
species.
|
No. We do not intend to extend current
hedgerow cutting and trimming requirements to include scrub.
|
|
Retention of specific
landscape features
The Welsh
Government proposes to extend the requirement to not cultivate land
within 1 metre of a traditional boundary to all field parcels. The
requirement would read as follows:
Do not cultivate (e.g. ploughing, rotovation,
tined, disc harrowing) land within 1 metre of a traditional
boundary. Traditional boundaries include stone walls, stone-faced
banks, hedges and earth banks, slate fences, and watercourses.
|
No. The requirement not to cultivate within 1
m of stone walls, stone faced banks and slate fences has been
removed. The requirement will be applied to all field
parcels as follows:
Retain traditional boundaries including stone
walls, stone-faced banks, hedges and earth banks, slate fences, and
watercourses.
Do not to cultivate (e.g. ploughing,
rotovation, tined, disc harrowing) land within 1 metre of hedges,
earth banks and watercourses.
|
|
The Welsh Government proposes to carry forward
the existing retention of specific landscape features provisions
currently in operation in Wales (GAEC N) under the new Cross
Compliance GAEC 7 requirements in 2015.
|
Yes.
|
|
Tree Preservation and
Felling
To retain tree preservation and felling
requirements within GAEC 7.
|
Yes.
|
|
Invasive Plant Species
and Under Grazing
The Welsh Government proposes to include the
following requirements for Invasive Plant Species under GAEC 7:
·
Take reasonable
steps to prevent the spread of invasive non-native plants
including: Rhododendron, Giant Hogweed, Japanese Knotweed and
Himalayan Balsam;
·
Take reasonable
steps to locate existing stands of invasive non-native plants and
prevent the movement of soil or plant fragments or seed that would
cause further spread;
·
Control
invasive injurious weeds such as Common Ragwort, Spear Thistle,
Creeping Field Thistle, Broadleaved and Curled Dock and act upon
notices given under the Weeds Act. This requirement is retained as
in the present GAEC C;
·
Requirements to
protect farmland from under grazing and abandonment would be a
requirement of payment eligibility.
|
No. Requirement removed. Invasive species
requirements will be included in minimum agricultural activity
requirements for the Basic Payment Scheme.
Guidance on identifying Invasive Non-Native
plants will be included in the Code of Good Agricultural
Practice.
|
|
Sites of Special
Scientific Interest (SSSIs)
To maintain SSSIs within GAEC 7 with no change
from the current guidance for them.
|
No. Requirement removed. ‘Biological
SSSIs’ will be protected as environmentally sensitive
permanent grassland under the greening elements of Pillar 1 of the Common Agricultural Policy.
|
|
Further Option for
Cross Compliance inclusion 2015
SMR 11: Food and Feed Law – TB Testing
Non-Compliance
|
The existing verifiable standard was amended
from January 2014 so that farmers who were found at Cross
Compliance inspections to be between 1 day and 3 months late in
that calendar year attracted a penalty against CAP payments. The
Welsh Government’s proposal is that this is strengthened so
that from January 2015 a penalty would automatically be
applied to Direct Payments in all cases where a TB test
is overdue by one day or more and not just to those who are found
at Cross Compliance inspections to have an over due TB test.
|
Yes.
|
|
Looking Ahead
Potential Future
Developments
Public Rights of Way (PRoW)
|
Public Rights of
Way
We are looking at ways to modernise and
simplify legislation on public rights of way for the benefit of
landowners, users and local authorities. One of the areas we are
considering for the future is the digitisation of the definitive
maps. Every local authority has digitised working copies of
the maps but the statutory definitive maps remain in hard copy
format. A requirement to standardise maps to a regulated
electronic format should provide more consistent up to date
information for public use of paths across Wales.
In the future, once this is achieved, we would
consider including maintenance of Public Rights of Way under Cross
Compliance in Wales.
|
No. We intend to review the mapping
constraints to designating Public Rights of Way as a landscape
feature with requirements not to obstruct or deviate. Once these
are resolved amend the Cross Compliance requirements under GAEC 7
to include the Public Rights of Way requirement subject to further
consultation with stakeholders.
|
|
General Binding Rules (GBRs)
|
General Binding
Rules
The proposal is to explore further the
potential for General Binding Rules to be developed in relation to
the sustainable management of natural resources. This could, for
example, include establishing General Binding Rules for low-risk
activities which fall within the following areas:
i.
Activities
liable to have an adverse impact on the water environment,
including:
-activities linked to diffuse pollution,
-abstraction of water from the water
environment;
ii.
Activities
liable to impact on flood-risk;
iii.
Activities
liable to have an adverse impact on soil quality;
iv.
Activities
liable to have an adverse impact on biodiversity.
Once the need for a General Binding Rule is
identified and the evidence for taking a proposal forward is
assessed, then further work would be needed to set out the process
and scrutiny requirements that must be met for a General Binding
Rule to be taken forward.
If General Binding Rules were used in the
areas listed above, we propose that Natural Resources Wales would
be the enforcement body, and in addition that NRW may impose
variable monetary penalties for a breach of the rules. These would
be in line with NRW’s existing powers to issue variable
monetary penalties as detailed under the Regulatory Enforcement and
Sanctions Act 2008.
|
As outlined in the consultation, this is a
potential future development which the Welsh Government will
revisit at a later date.
|
