Agenda item

Update from the River Wye Statutory Officers' Group

The update from the River Wye Statutory Officers’ Group (SOG) includes the following attached documents:

·             River Wye SOG: Meeting notes, 18 December 2024

·             River Wye SOG: Meeting slide deck, December 2024 [additional slides may follow]

·             River Wye SOG: Terms of Reference, December 2024

·             Natural England and Environment Agency consideration of Nitrogen targets on the River Wye and Lugg SAC, December 2024

[with Annex 1: Natural England, Definitions of Favourable Condition for designated features of interest]

·             Environment Agency: Wye Management Catchment Inspection Data, 9 November 2024

Minutes:

The key points made included:

 

  1. The Chair noted that, with respect to the number of farm inspections carried out and actions issued, that EA are pivoting somewhat the way in which they are delivering inspections and the consequences of those inspections. It was asked if this is a trend or if this is a one-off.

 

  1. Martin Quine responded that the Agricultural Regulatory team was established in 2021-22. More specialist staff have been created and the new team inspect regulatory compliance of agriculture. Inspections have gone up by 160% on what was done previously. In the future, where some of the worst performing water bodies are identified, there will be a integration of top rivers into planning work.

 

  1. In addition, there are still some actions that require follow-up and there is a targeted approach to follow up on those that are still outstanding.

 

  1. In response to a question about targets, Martin Quine noted that there are around 280 farm inspections for the Wye and farm inspections account for going to farms that have not been inspected previously. When a farm is revisited, it is not classed as a second inspection compared to other permitted sites such as the waste industry which would be counted. It was added that the continued dataset could be provided.

 

  1. In response to a question about the backlog of unresolved farm inspections and when they would be resolved, Martin Quine noted that they would be followed up according to which ones are outstanding. EA have a long list of farms that are ranked according to which ones need to be followed up first.

 

  1. The Chair noted that the task to inspect and regulate and then follow up is a daunting task and that there needs to be a shorter route between identifying a non-compliance, asking for remedial action if necessary, and that action being done.

 

  1. The Phosphate Mitigation Lead added that having an understanding on the types of non-compliance and the severity of non-compliance may be helpful on the farms that are being followed-up.

 

  1. Martin Quine responded that this is feasible to do and that the most commonly occurring non-compliance relates to nutrient planning.

 

  1. In response to a question about whether Natural Resources Wales (NRW) is able to provide equivalent figures, Ann Weedy noted that this is something that NRW could do in the future.

 

  1. The Chair commented on catchment sensitive farming and asked what the targets for take up on recommendations and the number of visits.

 

  1. Emma Johnson (Natural England) noted in terms of targets that NE do not have outcome/output targets for catchment sensitive farming advice. The agreement with Defra is that NE do a certain number of visits.
  2. In terms of how the impact of visits are assessed, it was noted that there is no mechanism in place to do that. There are reports brought out to illustrate the impact that catchment sensitive farming has but it is not on a bespoke area. As it is not compliance, NE do not go back to visit those individuals.

 

  1. In response to a question about how many catchment sensitive farming officers NE have got working in the catchment, Emma Johnosn noted it is the same as before with 4-6 FTE people.

 

  1. Andrew McRobb (Council for Protection of Rural England) asked for definitive data that shows that the money spent is being spent in an effective way with outcomes.

 

  1. In response, Emma Johnson clarified that advice is given to individuals and if that advice is taken up, it is considered what difference is made, but it is not something that is followed up on. The monitoring programme for schemes has been cut back over the years and is not readily/easily available.

 

  1. The Chair proceeded to the paper on nitrogen by NE and EA.

 

  1. Martin Quine confirmed that EA will develop that jointly with NE and will be working with NRW in terms of the one-river approach in terms of both sides of the border. An update will be provided to the Board when available.

 

  1. Emma Johnson added that the condition assessment will look at the factors that are influencing the condition of the river.

 

  1. The Chair proceeded to the document on Favourable Condition status.

 

  1. Emma Johnson clarified that the intention of including the document was to review to the detail around how condition assessments are determined.

 

  1. It was added that the paper was written several years ago and currently a full condition assessment is being undertaken to be completed next year.

 

  1. It was asked what outcome was received from Ofwat in relation to AMP 8.

 

  1. Daniel Humphreys (Dwr Cymru/Welsh Water) confirmed that all objectives outlined in the business plan have been achieved. Currently, efforts are underway to address each component detailed in the approved determination.

 

  1. In response to a question on the timeline on constructed wetland policy, Ann Weedy (NRW) noted that there is a constructed wetland policy that NRW have just published which covers all of Wales.

 

  1. Ethan Hamer (Powys County Council) added that in relation to Powys and the way in which wetlands are being approached as mitigation, it was found that ownership of the wetland is an issue and how permits are applied depending on what their usage is.

 

Supporting documents: