UK - Why new slurry rules pose hidden dangers for pig producers
Published:February 16, 2005
Source :National Pig Association
As most pig producers are aware, from this June slurry will be defined as waste - and producers who have more of it than they need will have to ask for permission before they can send it to other farms.
"It's a nonsense," declares NPA chairman Stewart Houston, who will be pressing Defra to agree a generic exemption for the pig sector. In a recent meeting with food and farming minister Lord Whitty he questioned the rationale behind defining an economically important organic product as "waste".
On the face of it the new waste rules will not be onerous because a producer who has more manure then he needs for his own land need only apply for an exemption, and then he can continue to send it to other farms.
But there are three reasons why producers should be concerned about the new waste rules.
The granting of exemptions will be the responsibility of the Environment Agency - which many producers view as a potentially hostile organisation.
With the power to grant - and revoke - exemptions, the agency will get swingeing new powers to police muck-spreading operations.
Some arable farmers who currently receive (and value) slurry from pig farms may conclude it is more trouble than it is worth.
Currently an arable farmer who annoys a neighbour when he spreads slurry would be dealt with through the courts, which might recognise, for instance, that some neighbours are more sensitive than others - perhaps unreasonably so in a country area - to noise and smell.
But under the new rules, when granting an exemption to a pig producer, the Environment Agency will be free to impose conditions that the slurry spreading will not cause a nuisance through smell, or noise or risk to the environment.
Although not unreasonable in themselves, an unduly inflexible interpretation of any of these conditions could mean a producer's exemption being revoked - without reference to the courts - which inevitably would threaten the unit's future.
NPA has recognised that the absurdity of labelling valuable organic matter as waste should be not be blamed on Defra but should be laid at the doors of the European Commission and the European Court of Justice.
It is the European Commission which introduced the Waste Frame Directive and is now threatening action against the UK for not implementing it rigorously enough - which is why the new rules are being introduced.
And the judges sitting in the European Court of Justice have consistently refused to recognise that valuable by-products are not "waste". In successive judgements over recent years they have ruled that products cannot be excluded from the definition of waste just because they have an economic value (as slurry does).
And in their judgements, their lordships have made it difficult for any individual, company, or even country, to challenge their rulings, by insisting that the spirit of the law should be an overriding factor.
In other words, in determining whether waste really is waste, the courts will pay regard to the aim of the Waste Framework Directive "and the need to ensure that its effectiveness is not undermined."
Meanwhile the European Commission is adamant that farming IS covered by the Waste Framework Directive. And to emphasise its point it has threatened the UK with infraction proceedings if it doesn't step into line.
Defra says it has to accept what Brussels says. As a result it is currently consulting on new waste rules for farming, with a view to implementing them in June. Producers who feel strongly about this issue should send their thoughts to Ann Petersson at NPA as soon as possible. The consultation closes March 18, but NPA will need to prepare its case in advance of that date.
Not all producers will be affected by the proposed new muck and slurry rules. Those who apply only to their own land, and don't exceed amounts considered compatible with good agricultural practice, will not need an exemption from the Environment Agency. However they will likely be affected by other aspects of the proposed new rules, which ban burning and the use of farm dumps.
At a recent NPA Producer Group meeting, Dr Diane Mitchell, NFU, said there was considerable concern about the June implementation date of Defra's proposed new waste regulations and farmers were unclear about the impact on their businesses.
"There is also concern about what exactly is waste, and what isn't," she said. A particular issue for pig producers was the proposed limit of 1,250 tonnes on how much slurry could be stored before being spread on the farm, or exported to another farm. "The view is that it is not enough."
East Anglia producer Philip Richardson said calling manure "waste" was illogical. "This is bad law." The NFU, he was told, had fought hard on this issue and had made clear to Defra that manure was not waste, even when it was sent to another farm. However, Defra's view had been that European case law required it to be defined as waste.
"That something should be organic fertiliser on one farm and waste on another is absolutely crackers," said Stewart Houston.
"Anybody on a rented stand-alone unit faces a big problem," said Jon Green.
Philip Richardson reminded the meeting that producers had recently won a battle with the Environment Agency - when it sought to label co-products as waste - on the grounds that co-products could not be waste if producers were willing to pay for them.
The meeting agreed the same rule should apply to muck and slurry. A farmer with a muck-for-straw agreement was effectively buying the muck, which proved it had a value.
As with IPPC, the industry needs to understand the reasoning behind proposed new legislation if it is to challenge it successfully. If producers understand what Brussels is seeking to achieve (and it isn't always immediately apparent) they are better equipped to offer workable alternatives, or at list to know which issues are worth challenging and which are incontrovertibly off-limits.
As has already been explained, the need for an exemption in order to take muck and slurry to another farm may seem little more than a minor irritation, but in fact it has significant ramifications, not least because so much power is vested in the Environment Agency.
Persistent complaints from one unreasonable neighbour could cause the exemption to be withdrawn and this in turn might jeopardise a producer's livelihood. This issue of the Environment Agency's power is not to be taken lightly. It is, effectively judge and jury. The agency says that where it has evidence that an activity does not, or will not, comply with the exemption requirements "it is not obliged to register that activity as exempt."
It should also be noted that the Environment Agency wanted ALL muck to be classified as waste, not just muck that has to be exported to another farm. It was only after Defra's intervention that this interpretation of the European Commission Waste Framework Directive was abandoned.
On the evidence currently available there must be a fear that some pig producers are going to find the new waste laws will scare off arable farmers who currently are delighted to swap surplus straw for yield-boosting slurry and muck.
The indications are that the issuing of an exemption will be more than the formality hinted at in Defra's current consultation. For instance the Environment Agency will require the spreader's name, address and contact numbers and this information may be entered on a public register of exemptions.
It might insist on an analysis of the waste and an estimate of the total quantity to be spread over the next six months. It may want to know about preceding and succeeding crops. And it may want to know the method of application to be used.
These requirements are laid down in Environment Agency guidelines and though it is true that the guidelines are intended to cover the spreading of all wastes, including for instance sewage sludge, it illustrates that producers should not necessarily accept - at this stage - that applying for an exemption will be pain-free.
Indeed some producers might prefer that exemptions were issued by local Defra offices. The rationale for this would be that the government would not be classifying manure as waste unless forced to do so by the European Commission, therefore it must believe that only the lightest touch is necessary, and Defra would be better placed to deliver a light touch.
Given impending infraction proceedings, Defra has to accept that the EC Waste Framework Directive does apply to farming. But it does not believe the directive applies to muck and slurry, when spread for agricultural benefit. Furthermore it has pledged that where controls are necessary, they will be "proportionate to the environmental and human health risk".
Therefore if producers are to challenge any real or perceived heavy-handedness by the Environment Agency, they must first ask themselves: "As an industry, do we always spread responsibly and according to the rules, so as not to cause pollution and not to cause unavoidable offence to others?"
If the answer this question is an unequivocal "Yes" then the industry has grounds for insisting, under Defra's proportionality argument, that a generic exemption be granted to the whole sector.
The industry has to demonstrate that it understands the requirements of the Waste Framework Directive and can consistently meet these requirements without being compelled to do so by heavy policing.
It must show it will spread muck and slurry "without risk to water, air, soil and plants and animals, without causing a nuisance through noise or odours, without adversely affecting the countryside or places of special interest."
