1. WFD and the Scotland Rural Development Programme
Jannette MacDonald
Scottish Environment Protection Agency

2. Pressures, impacts and measures
Agriculture main pressure
Diffuse pollution and morphology
Programme of measures;
Statutory baseline of good practice
Funding - RDP
Risk based implementation;
National awareness raising
Priority catchments – evidence gathering, awareness raising, one to one visits
Partnership – Diffuse Pollution Management Advisory Group
Results
Good evidence base and engagement
Widespread issues but 75% of farmers changing practice at re-visit
HIGH ?
GOOD
MODERATE
RDP
Like any good plan key component is monitoring its success
Simple effective process – focus on baseline – long term cost effect
DP Plan supplement to RBMP. Plan Scotland’s not SEPA’S
First national coordinated strategy…….KEY POINTS from strategy……
GBRs – acceptance, based on good practice, level playing field, all rula land users, allow visits to all land managers – do not rely on voluntary uptake
Guidance………..
SRDP eg measures……problems……………
National awareness raising eg…..pc approach…..SELECTED impact and PA – cover some of S most imp waters……
DPMAG (AAG), membership…….all orgs sing from same hymn sheet
FIRST PLAN PRAGMATIC APPROACH TO COST-EFFECT
POOR
Regs
BAD

3. Justification for inclusion of WFD in RDP spend
Agriculture - major pressure on water environment
RDR priorities include water and soils
WFD (and protected area) objectives
Ministerial RBMP sign-off (RDP key measure)
S Govt objectives
Value of water resource to economy
Added benefits
Measures – who pays?
The Water Framework Directive (WFD)* has set ambitious objectives for good water quality across Europe. Currently adverse impacts from agricultural activities such as diffuse pollution and river channel realignment are the most significant pressures on the water environment in Scotland. The River Basin Management Plans, signed off by Ministers and published in 2009, describe how required improvements will be achieved with an overall aim of 98% of our waters to be in ‘good condition’ by The Scotland Rural Development Programme is one of the key measures identified in these plans.
Achieving the objectives of the WFD contributes to the S Govt’s Greener strategic objective and the associated national outcome ‘We value and enjoy our built and natural environment and protect it and enhance it for future generations’. At a European level the EAFRD recognises the importance of water having it clearly identified as a priority.
Scotland’s rivers, lochs, estuaries and seas are key to the country's welfare, providing resources for water supply and hydropower generation. They are also very important for the economy, supporting successful industries such as salmon farming, shellfish farming, tourism and distilleries. In addition, the water quality improvement options within the SRDP can contribute to a range of other priorities, particularly for biodiversity and climate change mitigation.
*Note the WFD contains within it ‘protected areas’ which include other directives and national legislation including; Nitrates Directive, Bathing Water Directive, Shellfish Directive, national drinking water quality standards and standards relating to Natura 2000 sites.
Polluter
Taxpayer

4. Why do we need to review our current RDP?
Current delivery? Why do we need changes?
All aware of issues but evidence – dp package – with the exception of Ayrshire anticorrelation
Good understanding of why – ADD
Advice private and so measures least hassle most money
But move onto solutions………what info can SEPA provide to help
For SEPA update on work underway……mainly for dp.
Circulated paper from DPMAG focus on key issues. Good agreement NFUS - RSPB

5. Principles – agreed with partners
Water priority
Targeted
Effective measures
Catchment scale collaboration
Advice
Plans
Simple scheme for land managers
Integration
Budget
In particular, we expect applicants to be able to view their holdings via a GIS viewer which will allow them to see all of the parcels in their holdings, their land classification, cover, topography, aerial photography, and all manner of layers as required by the scheme (ie. designated sites, priority catchments, species ranges). This facility should greatly increase the ability of applicants to draft an environmental audit, including a habitat map; which will be a prerequisite to applying for the scheme, and form the basis of that application. Another key assumption is that options shall be targeted to ensure value for money, and the most beneficial options are located in the most appropriate locations. Therefore the identification of the habitats, and the targeting, will restrict the options available to applicants in some areas.
See DPMAG paper – agreement on key principles NFUS to RSPB
History biodiversity
Need targeting to deliver – ideal workld some measures everywhere but need cost-effect
Within these areas – need farmers to work together – challenge in Scotland
Advice – 1:1 expensive but it works – cost-effective
Evidence based measures that deliver MBs
Planning what measures where key
Simple fron tend
Need overlay other priorities- business too – successful farm and environment?
Budget pillar 2

6. Measures – what do we want to fund?
Evidence base and multiple benefits
Source-Pathway-Receptor
E.g. nutrient management, fencing, land use change, buffer strips, constructed farm wetlands, biobeds.
Gaps – wetlands/rural SUDS, forestry, soils and cultivation.
Issues
Position on plans e.g. nutrient budget planning?
Can RDPs deliver for morphology and natural flood management?
Conditions e.g. training
Buffers – variable payment rates?
Payment rates – How to make more attractive – pay for benefits?
What do we want to fund? Simple evidence based measures that deliver as wide benefits as possible
Some good options – buffers, arable reversion, CFWs, but
Issues with current options – low uptake and eg AD same option as manure storage. Future of AD in Scotland? Biobeds zero uptake, arable reversion……
More fundamentally, I don’t know if there is scope to pay for benefits? At the moment it seems to me that the farmer gets paid compensation for the land and for the investment cost of implementing the measures. A scheme that paid for benefits rather compensation would be something like the following:
Basic rate for a diffuse pollution control buffer (rate linked to the productive value of the land within the buffer)
Enhanced rates per additional benefit provided within the buffer (eg restoration of river meanders; creation of riparian wetlands, establishment of native woodland; public footpath)
This would help the left-hand side of the equation.

7. Targeting
Where?
Priority catchments for diffuse pollution and morphology
Natural Flood management
Continue old schemes where needed
Other water pressures?
At risk/no deterioration
Consider multiple benefits
How?
Restrict options to priority areas only
Points, payments rates, advisory focus
Benefits
Greater certainty of delivery
Less chance of refusal due to over application
Risks
May be politically unacceptable
Need high confidence with lines on maps
Risk seen as rewarding bad practice
Lose budget to other less targeted priorities?
Key issue
Pc – confidence in impat and PA
And areras draining to?
PVAs where they overlap
first 14 where SRDP not delivered? Or all? What else is needed in Ayr and Eye?
eg in shellfish water catchments
Learning from successful CMPs, science on measures and SEPA 1:1 can id key issues for successful delivery
Wide agreement but where and how
Need national and regional input
Loch leven eg
Paper for PCCG – recommendations to SG. In line with PC review for 2n plan. Will need to include first 14 because on non delivery
Option restriction now favoured-

8. ‘Right measure right place’ Opportunity mapping and targets
Tay catchment;
800 km buffer strip
20 wetlands
X% steeply sloping land in high risk cropping changed to low risk
= good status
= £s (regional budgets)
Following on from targeting at a national scale – within catchments and farms ‘right measure right place’
Biggest change – DK v good at this. But vol scheme so need to make attractive
Developing tools allow us to is where measures should be placed in the landscape to improve wq and reduce flooding. Could link to SNH habitat connectivity.
Opp mapping needs to be run in all priority areas.
Can we set targets for what we need to achieve wq? DK and Sw they do this.
Now much will reaching WFD objectives cost?

9. = Right measures right place and ‘leverage’
Advisory Service
One to one
Pro-active
Targeted
Plans
Collaboration
= Right measures right place and ‘leverage’
RDR provision/requirement
Eu steer – not what should be done anyway
Advice and planning works – national park eg – leverage. Lunan Lochs 95% coverage
Lack of advisors – need accreditation and training
Type of plan? Wfp – public money? Nut mgmt, RAMS, soils, dp risk
Combine with appropriate plans with any other priority overlays
150 E per farmer
Will vol uptake work? need catchment coordinator
Want GBR compliance before funding – what if no SEPA visits for years?
EU advisory proposals require member states to offer tailored, one-to-one advice to individual farmers on a wide range of cross compliance, climate change, biodiversity, sustainable development and other issues. They also require member states to put delivery of the advisory system out to competitive tender. There is a requirement for a separation between advice and control and to ensure access to advice reflecting the specific situation of the relevant holding.

10. Advisory Service
Farmers notified in priority area and invited to apply
Other priorities within catchment identified
SEPA visit – Water (and other priorities) Plan
Ensures compliance before funding – cost effective
Advisor develops application with farmer based on Water Plan
With regards to your questions  EAW went out onto the farm to gather information for the Water Management Plan (WMP). This included an assessment of the yard and all improved fields on the farm. They also took soil samples while they were out on the farm which were then sent off to a contractor. The Nutrient Management Plan was then produced by a contractor (ADAS won the bid for this).  EAW used qualified environment officers to undertake the farm assessment but employed temporary staff (with in-house training) to assess the fields and take the soil samples. This was a much better use of staff resources.
WQ and C highest priority
The Water Management Plan highlighted any problems on the farm, gave them a level (low Medium High) and recommended options to improve the problem. The NMP highlighted on a summary page the key things the farmer needed to do.
The contract manager (employed by Welsh Government to manage the higher level agreements in Glastir) then took both the WMP and NMP and used these to guide what options should be selected for that farm. Farm visit? Filled out application form?
As I said before if a farm has been identified for being in a WQ area they had to do WQ options.
SEPA role in assessment

11. Water (soils and flooding) scheme?
Targeted pro-active advice
Bespoke measures
Plan as prerequisite
Opportunity mapping,
Collaboration required
Could move up to high priority if case made – collaboration etc
Need to consider on a measure by measure basis
May be measures with potential to deliver outside PCs
Current delivery model – SEPA priorities not very visible. Advisory schematic – no mention of water. Ditto delivery model.
If we had a water scheme what would it look like-initial thoughts
PCs – do we want £s ring fenced? What level of assessment?
Designated sites currently outside delivery model – why – is their potential for the same for water. Do we want it – plus and minus
Agri-env is proposed in level 2 which means PAO scutiny
Water?
Overlay with other priority areas to maximise multiple benefits

12. Budget Shrinking budget Scotland - low RDP spend
Base Pillar 2 budgets on objective criteria?
How much is required for WFD?
Payments for benefits not just income foregone?
Article 31
Balance between priorities?
Scotland receives the lowest rate of RDR spend in the EU. Every effort should be made to address this e.g. by backing calls that Pillar 2 budgets be determined based on objective criteria rather than historic spend and by increasing the allocation to agri-environmental measures. Evidence suggests available budgets will not meet current EU Directive commitments and more support is needed for WFD implementation if objectives are to be met. Cost-effective spend can be achieved by following many of the principles in this paper, targeting being key, and benefits for the wider environment, including biodiversity, climate change and flooding, can be achieved through water quality options.

13. Selling water measures - potential for multiple benefits
Farm and forestry business benefit – efficiency and resource use.
Water quality improvement - socio-economic benefits for Scotland plc
Huge potentail for MBs RBMP ideal vehicle for more integrated catch man
Links to other policies
SSF
Flooding
S Forestry Strategy
CAP reform
Additional benefits for climate change mitigation and adaptation, biodiversity and habitat connectivity, soil quality and natural flood management

14. Thanks