Led by: Natural England

The board received the report.

 

Claire Minett (CM) explained that it had been proving difficult to recruit ecological freshwater advisers and that Natural England was on its third round of recruitment.  Catchment Sensitive Farming Officers were less difficult to recruit, although there was a post still vacant.  Only 43% of land use was being picked up by Catchment Sensitive Farming. The board needed to ask how does it get people who aren’t involved to engage? The board needs to make a step change and take a really pro-active approach to encouraging involvement.

 

ES advised that it was vitally important that phosphate reduction as a result of these actions is recorded to help demonstrate the difference that is being made. Capture those benefits and hopefully show a year-on-year on improvement to demonstrate things are working.

 

CM it is very difficult to evaluate the impact of the buffer strip in a field and the impact it has on the river.

 

Merry Albright (MA), highlighted the need to capture the savings and quantify everything that was being done, given that it was being paid for by the public purse. It would also be desirable to quantify retrospective work.

 

Action: CM to circulate latest version of the Catchment sensitive farming evaluation report.

[Action by: CM]

 

ES asked how the board could capture the benefit of the Wye Water Environment Improvement Fund (WEIF) and what was the size of the funding? Also in relation to tree planting, how many were there and over what area were they? GW didn’t have information to hand on this, but would look to obtain it.

 

ES suggested that where natural flood management fits in with the Lugg internal drainage board, the NMB cross reference that with the area engineer there, because there may be a mutual benefit from that as both parties are dealing with the same issue from different ends.

 

ES asked if there was a timeline for publication for Project TARA?

 

GW said no, but would find out as work was ongoing

 

ES asked about phosphate bound in sediment.

 

GW Suggested bringing all of this together as part of the remit of the evidence group of TAG, so that it becomes a partner-led piece.

 

Action: GW to bring information relating to WEIF, Project TARA, tree planting initiatives and phosphate bound in sediment data to the board as part of the Evidence working group remit.

[Action by: GW]

 

ES praised the quarterly reports, the increase in EA officer and resulting increase in visits and enquired about quantifiable results from these visits, what action has been taken and what was the level of compliance?

 

ES stated there was a need for a piece of work on total phosphate versus orthophosphate, as that was where the evidence is taking the board now.

 

GW explained that this was being looked into by the Environment Agency.

 

Fergus O’Brien (FOB) pointed out that a ‘worse-case scenario’ had been used in relation to figures being modelled in relation to orthophosphates.

 

ES pointed out that there was a need for greater public awareness in relation to water temperature. Maybe signage and more public information about the impact of people on the river when the temperature is high?

 

Simon Evans (SE) noted the agencies generally favoured advice and guidance rather than enforcement.

 

GW acknowledged this and explained that enforcement straight away would not always be the best way to engage and that you got the environment that you pay for.

 

SE responded that after two and a half years the agencies were still focusing on advice and guidance, and that there was a lot of frustration, especially from farmers who are doing the right thing.

 

 

Cllr Catrin Maby suggested that advice, guidance and regulation enforcement all work together and that it shouldn’t be a case of one then the other, but that instead they should go hand in hand.

 

RJ expanded on the earlier comment made by GW about getting the environment that you pay for. RJ explained that enforcement was incredibly expensive, officers are taken from normal duties and spend large amounts of time preparing legal papers for cases. The board needed to understand the ‘opportunity cost’ involved in such activity and how funding it could impact funding for alternative work and projects.

 

ES asked GW if every enforcement led to a court case or was there an on-the-spot fine facility? Could the enforcement process be mapped out with an explanation of the problems involved when progressing a case?

 

ACTION ES would like enforcement process mapped out, with an overview of the problems involved in progressing certain cases.

[Action by: GW]

 

HF explained that the new management framework has catchment action plans that would enable the board to take a more geographical approach to what needs to happen. It would be possible to take a hotspots approach to identify where enforcement or advice would be most appropriate and cost effective.

 

Helen Dale (HD) asked if it would be possible for somebody to present evidence, with data that demonstrates the advisory approach hasn’t worked.

 

ES TAG to think on that over coming months.

 

ES had seen the report from Herefordshire Council and wanted to say congratulations on getting the Luston site progressed.

 

ES discussed a report from Natural Resources Wales about visiting pig farms. ES was keen to know the level of compliance and non-compliance.

 

AW said it was useful to know the level of detail the board was after and that they could bring that back next time. The majority of pig farms were ok, although some light follow up action was required in a small number of them. Those plants need to go away and do work on the issues.

 

Action: AW to provide detailed update on pig farm visits.

[Action by: AW]

 

ES was reminded of poultry units with less than 40,000 birds and whether the board has sufficient sight of them and do the agencies really care about them?

 

AW explained that it comes down to prioritising the bigger sites that we are funded to regulate, but if issues with sites with less than 40,000 birds are raised and we have concerns then we will visit them.

 

AW told the board that there were talks to extend the Dairy Project (a specific project on the dairy sector) and this could potentially be expanded to take in poultry, pig and beef.

 

ES sought clarity on NRW position that there is no connection between poultry units and the pollution of the river.

 

AW explained that there was no evidence to suggest direct connection between poultry units and river pollution, but that it was likely poultry farms were a factor. However, AW felt that to focus on a single sector would be a mistake. Pollution was coming from a number of sources, poultry being one of them, but not the only one.

 

Martin Williams (MW) expressed his frustration at having to listen to the same fixated arguments on the same bits and pieces, specifically the focus on chicken farming and poultry units. MW felt there was a need to look at the bigger picture and that the board was destined to fail to achieve its targets for 2027.

 

MW also asked in relation to the NRW report based on data from 2015, if they were going to review that based on more recent data?

 

MW then enquired as to what the aims of the board were and what was the board’s intended finished product and end game? Without saying where it wanted to be in 2030 and 2040 MW couldn’t see what the board was trying to achieve.

 

ES responded that the board could not entirely ignore the chicken farming/poultry unit situation as they were ‘the feathered elephants’ in the room and that they were part of the problem, along with other factors.

 

ES explained that the ‘end game’ of the NMB was to see the river returned to and kept at favourable condition status. ES also explained that the targets were only about phosphate and that the river status was a different matter.

 

CM pointed out that the board looks at a host of figures across the river and that the phosphate target is not the only one. The board needs to take a holistic view of the river and aim for the river to be healthy into the future. Threats and action will move, but there is enough evidence already to know that there are some things that absolutely need doing now.

 

MW asked if there was data on extraction from source?

 

SE explained that the water company had completely transformed how Elan Valley operates, as soon as the flows drop at the lower end they open the taps on the reservoir. SW feared that with some of the agricultural extractions the river would be on its knees.

 

Cllr Charlton, stated that Powys had a problem with chicken farming and that the public perception was that Intensive Poultry Units were responsible for the amounts of phosphates going into the rivers. She did agree with Martin about looking at the whole picture, but didn’t feel chicken farming could or should be ignored.

 

RJ appreciated MW’s frustration, but urged MW to look at what has been achieved, Monmouthshire Council, Powys Council, the Welsh government and a whole host of other bodies have come together to tackle the issue, but no one organisation owns or has responsibility for the work. There is an overwhelming expectation about the work TAG is expected to achieve and this is why RJ has taken forward the idea around the phosphate commission and is looking to develop it into a scrutiny task and finish group. The board needs to work out what to do to change the system and what needs to be done to get a more effective strategy in place on this.

 

RJ urged MW to look at what he had achieved with Farm Herefordshire in terms of phosphate and recognise that there are lots of things the members of the board can do together differently.

 

CM reported the struggle to recruit fresh water ecologists.

 

ES noted an ammonia target in first table, but not in the subsequent table

 

Action: CM to go back and get information and data on ammonia added.

[Action by: CM]

 

MA were the targets redone to line up better with NRW?

 

CM no, not solely they were redone in common with the standard UK monitoring guidance, which dictates that near natural targets should be used. NRW had already been using that methodology, so Natural England was catching up. The guidance was not likely to change again in the near future

 

MA asked if the board would we get an extension because of the methodology changes?

 

CM stated that 2027 was a directive target, but ultimately the goal was to get the river right as quickly as was possible.

 

ES said that she didn’t think anyone was working to a date target and thinking well let’s not bother because we might not hit it.

 

RJ pointed out that the current status of the Wye is unfavourable, but recovering and that this was being reviewed. She asked what evidence there was to support the judgement it was recoverable.

 

CM explained the river was currently being reviewed and that the whole river system and not just phosphates were being evaluated.

 

 

MW said that the board really needed CM to give it a basis, in terms of status, on where the river was and where it was recovering from.

 

CM, responded that what the board needed to focus was how it was going to fix the river, the assessment would not help in achieving that. The review could conclude that there was no change or that it was declining, but that wouldn’t change the actions that needed to be taken.

 

CM stressed that the assessment was not the key, the actions to deliver change were the key.