The Chair welcomed everyone to the meeting and requested that members of the Board briefly introduce themselves, which they did. The Chair explained voting rules and protocol to the attendees.

Apologies for Absence

Apologies were received from: Jamie Audsley, Simon Evans, Steve Hodges

Kate Speke-Adams was substituting for Simon Evans

·         Proposal to accept Martin Williams resignation from the NFU rep role

·         Proposal to accept Sarah Faulkner’s Nomination to the NFU rep role

·         Proposal to accept Martin Williams Nomination to the vacant Farm Herefordshire role

·         Proposal to accept the resignation of Helen Stace from HWT

·         Proposal to accept the nomination of Jamie Audsley from HWT

·         Proposal to accept Martin Williams resignation from the NFU rep role

·         Proposal to accept Sarah Faulkner’s Nomination to the NFU rep role

·         Proposal to accept Martin Williams Nomination to the vacant Farm Herefordshire role

·         Proposal to accept the resignation of Helen Stace from HWT

·         Proposal to accept the nomination of Jamie Audsley from HWT

The Chair made the above proposals and they were all unanimously approved by the board.

Action: A second letter to be sent out on behalf of the Board to DEFRA to request data from its inventory on livestock numbers, specifically the numbers of chickens, in the Herefordshire catchment area. [Action by: RJ)

Recommendation: Chairs of TAG Working Groups to be brought forward by 29 July 2022 [Action by: all of group]

Action: Powys Cllr to provided details of the equivalent to Farm Herefordshire in Powys. [Action by: Cllr Jackie Charlton

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

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]

Action:  ES would like enforcement process mapped out, with an overview of the problems involved in progressing certain cases. [Action by: GW]

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

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

Action: AW to follow up with WPZ proposal response with Welsh Minister. [Action by: AW]

Led by: Chair

The Chair invited the Board to consider and approve the minutes of the previous meeting:

The minutes of the previous meeting on 28^th September 2022 were agreed as a correct and accurate record. 

Matters Arising

The Board considered the actions recorded from the previous meeting:

Action: A second letter to be sent out on behalf of the Board to DEFRA to request data from its inventory on livestock numbers, specifically the numbers of chickens, in the Herefordshire catchment area. [Action by: RJ)

·         Rachael Joy (RJ) suggested Jenny Gamble (JG) should coordinate this. Martin Quine (MQ) to pick up with Jenny Gamble to source figures of tonnage. Merry Albright (MA) explained they have been published but don’t include poultry. Merry Albright provide this link to livestock census:

https://www.gov.uk/government/statistical-data-sets/structure-of-the-livestock-industry-in-england-at-december#full-publication-update-history

·         Kate Speke-Adams (KSA) Explained she was trying to compile figures from Noble, Stonegate and Avara and would try to link back with the British Egg Industry Council.

Recommendation: Chairs of TAG Working Groups to be brought forward by 29 July 2022 [Action by: all of group]

·         Completed

Action: Powys Cllr to provided details of the equivalent to Farm Herefordshire in Powys. [Action by: Cllr Jackie Charlton (JC)

·         JC Couldn’t find equivalent, but Herefordshire and Powys Councils have met jointly to look at the issue and have committed to retaining links at those levels. FUW might have a better idea

·         KSA Part of TAG farm advice working group was to convene a meeting with all relevant organisations and discuss setting up a similar group, it was being pushed forward by a poultry farmer in Rhayader and being progressed by the working group.

Action: Grace Wight 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]

·         Martin Quine (MQ) circulated this information pre-meeting and it was also accessible online.

·         The Chair – Cllr Elissa Swinglehurst (ES) had previously requested Grace Wight (Environment Agency) gather information relating to WEIF, Project Tara and phosphate found in sediment, and requested that this remain on the evidence working group radar.

Action: ES would like enforcement process mapped out, with an overview of the problems involved in progressing certain cases. [Action by: GW]

·         ES suggested taking this through TAG via Regulation working group.

·         Martin Quine stated there is a published process, it’s consistent for the entire EA and we can bring that up through TAG and bring everything to the board that is of key note.

Action: Ann Weedy (AW) to provide detailed update on pig farm visits. [Action by: AW]

·         Update Provided.

Action: Claire Minett (CM) to go back and get information and data on ammonia added. [Action by: CM]

·         CM sent this through.

Action: AW to follow up with WPZ proposal response with Welsh Minister. [Action by: AW]

·         AW Nothing more on this from the Welsh government, but will keep pursuing.

Led by: [Hayley Fleming]

Hayley Fleming (HF) gave a verbal update on the report. The TAG had met on 7^th September and its next meeting was 21^st October. Significant effort had been focused on the working groups and getting those off the ground.

The working groups would cover: evidence, regulation, farm advice, poultry, and innovation and projects. The served two purposes: firstly, to identify projects that would be plugged into the action plan. Secondly^, to identify gaps and issues that were beyond the TAGs ability and to sort out and bring these to the board.

Each working group would have a chair and the aim was to start populating those groups with people to be involved. Partners should contact the boards with nominees for the chairs. The groups would require a good mix of people who would not be afraid to ask hard questions and challenge things.

HF Felt there was value in having a vision for the Wye and what it will be like in 10, 20 and 50 years.

Rachael Joy (RJ) suggested that a vision would be a complex area and the national position was very fluid and unclear on policy at the moment. This would anchor some of the choices available at local level.

RJ also noted that there was existing legislation already in place or being planned.

RJ Noted there would be issues around climate change, the heating of the river and the changing of flow rates, all of which would make creating a vision of the Wye very complex and simply asking people what such a vision would look like could lead to dashed expectations.

RJ Stated that she had asked Clare Dinnis to assist with a related piece of work and understood that Wye and Usk were doing some work in that territory. The board would need a proper policy paper to anchor that debate in.

RJ Some working groups have governance arrangements in place and it’s important that we clarify governance systems for all other work streams, for example the evidence working group.

RJ TAG needed to be ‘light touch’ on areas where there was strong governance and clarify governance in other areas, this would allow TAG to focus in on a lot of the gaps.

RJ Stated that there was a need for TAG to be clear on what the product was, was it a business case, project proposal or piece of advice? What’s the product and what’s the outcome?

ES enquired about funding for the working groups.

RJ Explained that funding went back to resolving the governance issue. If the board was clear on who the lead authority was for each of the work streams, then there could be some accountability for funding and resourcing. Herefordshire and the Wetlands project was given as an example.

CM agreed that clearer governance and clarity on the roles of the leads of working groups was needed.

It was noted that private projects funded by the private sector would fall under the remit of the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 28.

Updates of recent actions and activities undertaken by partners of the board:

1: Natural England

2: Environment Agency

3: Herefordshire Council

4: NRW Update

NATURAL ENGLAND UPDATE

Update taken as read, with no questions from the board.

ENVIRONMENT AGENCY UPDATE

ES Enquired about the impact of the drought period on the Environment Agency.

MQ A lot of resources had been put into the Wye catchment and there had been significant focus on ‘new authorizations’ these were activities that were previous exempt, but now fell into the permitting regime and were licenced.

MQ stated that the EA had continued with its inspection and licensing regimes. It had piloted the use of sondes in the catchment area. These had improved communications and monitoring of river temperature. The sondes would be removed over winter to avoid them being washed away and damaged.

Sarah Faulkner (SF) enquired how seasonal variations could be measured if the sondes weren’t deployed over the Winter?

MQ Explained the risk of the sondes being washed away was high and that winter data was generally less reliable.

KSA asked if orthophosphate and total phosphate were parameters on the EA sondes?

MQ Explained that he sounds were being used for looking at water quality, temperature and PH.

MA, if the sondes don’t measure ortho or total phosphate, how do you measure phosphate?

MQ we can get phosphate readings from the auto samplers (8 in strategic locations).

MA No real-time data?

MQ I’d need to check and confirm.

MA Where does the new data go when it comes through.

MQ We have someone checking sonde data every day, which gives trend data. If we identify a spike in ammonium we can deploy people on the ground to try and locate the source of where that’s coming from.

MA How would we know if phosphate was going up or down?

MQ This issue really relates to funding and availability of equipment, and is perhaps something that could be viewed by the TAG subgroups.

The discussion on the update turned to poultry farming units:

ES how many under 40,000 bird units do you visit

MQ very few at all. General farming and livestock would be a priority.

ES It’s concerning that nobody is looking at them and we don’t know what percentage of birds is contained in the 40,000 units. We’re very unsighted.

MQ take some of these concerns to the sub group/working group.

MA can the EA release the results of its fair share assessment?

MQ we will get back to the board when we’re able to release this information and expect something to be published shortly.

MA the working groups need to know what fair share means in order to carry out their roles effectively.

KSA It’s amazing after years of negative intensive poultry unit stories in the papers, that the EA has seemingly done very little to look into this area. We’re working with Stonegate, Noble and Avara and there are about 50 free range sites within that supply chain. Visits have been quite challenging, because growers have never been told that their infrastructure is potentially causing pollution and they don’t have  ...  view the full minutes text for item 29.

ES asked the board members whether they felt the Farming Rules for Water were fit for purpose and explained that in the catchment we have a principal source of phosphate and an abundance of phosphate rich manure from different agricultural sources. The UK government guidelines include an instruction to the EA not prosecute unless all the voluntary and advisory measures have been exhausted.

The concept of reasonably practical avoidance of excess phosphate application was considered and it was noted that the EA had essentially confirmed that it is essentially not reasonably practical to separate phosphate from the nitrate when they’re combined.

ES since the introduction of the Farming Rules for Water the rate of violations at a national level has increased to 391 recorded breaches in the last financial year 21/22 and over the last two years there were a total of 2053 inspections, 497 violations and not one single prosecution or fine.

ES the Farming Rules for Water are disabled by these guidelines. Option to forbid spreading of phosphate is unfair on those who are using it responsibly.

MA the rules aren’t strong enough. If they were we wouldn’t have pollution.

ES what is required can it be made to work?

MA we need proper enforcement.

JC a lack of resources is a problem. Expectation by public that we’re doing something, but we’re not.

RJ we need farmers to know what they can and can’t do. National policy on enforcement is set nationally but has a reasonableness test set at the farmer level when it would be far more effective at catchment level.

Sarah Faulkner (SF) rather than focus too much on national figures, we should work with the EA locally and discuss how the rules are working in this catchment and seek information from the EA about what they’re finding when they go up farm drives.

Fergus O’Brien (FOB) A regulatory floor is a key to resolving these issues and currently in Wales, legislation focusing on this area is already under discussion.

MQ Farming rules for water, guidance is clear on reasonableness and appropriate measures. Limited resources are a problem and and enforcement is complex. The EA will look at legal resource and scale of impact before deciding if enforcement is practical.

Richard Tyler (RT), not a question of lack of will or resources but the structure of the rules.

RT return to the minister and how they justify turning down the justification for the water protection zone when their chosen mechanism for preventing damage is no longer viable, because the manure can be applied almost anywhere. We can’t carry on pouring phosphate into a system that already has too much in it.

MQ The Secretary of State’s guidance isn’t due for review until 2025, we base our regulatory approach on that.

Soil sampling in the Garren Catchment.

A report on some novel citizen science commissioned by the Wye Salmon Association (WSA) and delivered with help from The Countryside Charity (CPRE).

Led by: Stuart Smith and Gordon Green

Stuart Smith (SS) of the Wye Salmon Association introduced the item and Gordon Green presented a series of slides to the board providing a summary of the report on soil sampling in the Garren Catchment

The Chair and board congratulated Gordon and Chris for their excellent work and presentation.

Tom Tibbits (TT) suggested that if regulation RB209 was being diligently followed, then the situation as outlined in the report would never have arisen. TT felt this demonstrated that the voluntary regulations were not a failsafe way of protecting the catchment.

KSA praised the work, but did urge that care was taking in the methodology being used so as not to undermine the trust that was being built with landowners, many of who were working together with the citizen scientists.

MA stated there was a need for catchment data mapping to aid decision makers.

Helen Dale (HD) noted that the report didn’t necessarily show that the farming rules weren’t fit for purpose, but highlighted that the implementation of the rules and how those rules were regulated need looking at.

Andrew McRobb (AMR) suggested that there was little benefit in just bashing the EA and that it might be helpful if every organisation concerned could write to the Office for Environment Protection, who are an oversight body for the government. They have replaced the European Commission and are there for judicial redress.

Christine Hugh-Jones (CHJ) noted the permitting regime doesn’t account for manure spreading on fields around installations and being in the regime may not be the best way to tackle things.

David Lee (DL said he would contact Farming Connect to establish whether they still offered free soil testing.

MQ we now have a dedicated officer assigned to citizen science.

To provide the opportunity to members of the public attending the meeting to ask questions of the statutory partners.

Led by: All

The Board considered questions frommembers of the public attending the meeting:

Tom Tibbits outlined how he felt the planning application processes were open to exploitation.

Helen Hamilton (HH) asked if the EA could explain the recent spike in ammonium in the Wye?

MQ couldn’t identify spike in ammonium in the river.

HH more attention to permits and new planning permission being given to old sites that are no longer suitable for purpose and a more proactive approach is required.

RJ This is something the cabinet commission will be looking into.

By prior agreement with the Chair.

None

[21 December 2-5pm]

It was confirmed that the date of the next meeting would be 21^st December 2022.