Confusing picture of NVZs from survey

Results of a major survey into groundwater quality in Scotland have revealed large areas of land currently designated as Nitrate Vulnerable Zones (NVZs) actually have less than the permitted levels of nitrates in the water.

This might give NFU Scotland scope to argue that these areas are excluded in the future, according to Andrew Bauer, the union official dealing with this legislation.

Speaking in Perth, Bauer said that maps recently provided by government environment body Sepa highlighted where the problem areas were in relation to nitrate pollution in water.

Currently about 14 per cent of Scotland’s mainland is under the NVZ designation. This includes most of the arable land from Nairn, Banff and Aberdeenshire in the north to the Lothians and Borders in the south. Farmers in these areas have to comply with a range of measures designed to reduce the level of nitrates leaching into watercourses.

The monitoring results from Sepa are designed to show how successful or otherwise the current restrictions are.

With pressure from the European Union to tackle the problem of nitrate pollution mounting, a consultation is currently under way with an additional ten proposals put forward by the Scottish Government to augment the present controls.

The current consultation does not include any review of the area under NVZs, which Bauer said would come later in 2012. It is at that point that arguments on removing some areas will take place.

Looking at the NVZ map, Bauer admitted it threw up a very mixed bag of results, with some inexplicable findings. One area, in Upper Nithsdale, has a site upstream over the limit nitrates but all tests below that were under the permitted level.

In Fife, none of the test areas in the south of the county were over the permitted limit, while in Perth and Angus there were contradictory results within a few miles of each other.

It was a similar mixed bag elsewhere, with some tests showing nitrates well over the permitted levels while some nearby were well under.

If the argument on the designated area is still to come, there was still plenty of fire and dislike of the proposals tightening up existing controls in NVZs.

Raising most anger was what is called the “Nmax proposal”, which limits the amount of nitrogenous fertiliser that can be applied to land in an NVZ. This has already been tested in the Scottish Land Court, with the court coming down on the side of the Borders farmers who felt it unfair that adjoining land was subject to differing standards largely because of the previous history of farming on the land.

Some farmers listening to Bauer thought the appearance of this proposal based on yield records was no more than a revenge call by the government. Others pointed to the problem of taking over a run-down farm with no possibility of raising production through increased fertiliser usage.

NFU vice-president John Picken encouraged everyone to respond to the consultation before 25 June. He pointed to the severe penalties for anyone infringing the rules, but said that he did not want the industry to be hampered by some badly written, inappropriate regulation.