 Welcome to the 39th meeting of 2015, the Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee, and remind everyone present to make sure that your mobiles are on silent. We have apologies from Dave Thompson and we've been joined by Chris John Allard as his substitute. We're awaiting the arrival of some others, including Angus MacDonald, who's indicated that he's caught in traffic. Agenda item 1 is a decision on taking business in private, and the first item today is to consider whether to take item 5 consideration of the draft correspondence to the minister on the Paris 2015 COP 21 conference in private. Do members agree? We are agreed. Thank you. Agenda item 2 is subordinate legislation, of which there are several items. The first of which is Snare's Training Scotland Order 2015 SSI 2015-377. Are there any comments about that? There are no comments about it. The Plant Health Import Inspection Fee's Scotland Amendment Regulations 2015 SSI 2015 392. Are there any comments about that? Agenda item 3 is the animal by-product miscellaneous amendment Scotland Regulation 2015 SSI 2015 393. On page 20 of the regulation, I think that I would require some further information from the Government before I was able to support the regulation. The difficulty that I have is the disposal of fish mortalities in Argyll and the cost of it. The note at the bottom of page 20 in the table says, the information of two tables indicates that where companies are landfilling fish farm waste at licensed landfill sites, landfill is the only option in Argyll. They will be able to secure low-cost contracts with more sustainable processes once the landfill prohibition is in place. It is a bit of a cart and a horse in that, if I may mix metaphors. As far as I am aware, there are no alternatives presently available. If the prohibition goes into place and there is no anaerobic possibility, then local businesses will be greatly disadvantaged. I would like to see evidence that that paragraph is actually justifiable. In that case, we have an opportunity to write to the minister because the reporting deadline is the 11th of January, in which case I think we could possibly bring this back before that. No, but with the only next meeting of the church, it was the 16th of December and then the 13th of January. So we are not having a meeting in the first week back? No. Well, we could have, especially if need be. There is information available today. I would be very reluctant to support this because there is simply no evidence in the document that this statement is true. If it may be true, in which case I would be delighted to pass it. I suppose that the issue that I have is a step beyond Mike Russell's point, which is about the availability of anaerobic digestion options. Because it certainly seems that, for some of the farms, it is actually a relatively lower cost than other more harmful missions of disposal. It is really an issue for the cabinet secretary's team, which is what options are going to be available for anaerobic digestion, particularly in those more remote rural areas where economies of scale are always going to be difficult to establish it, I totally get that. Well, the issue in the area that I represent about fresh water smolts, kishorn in Westeros, future disposal option anaerobic digestion, distance in miles 190, the one from Lewis is 200, the distance from north west Slyrnau Nullipulls 435, those are huge distances, but the smolts at kishorn, we're talking about £470 a ton by far and away the greatest amount here in the second list, the overview of future disposal routes. These are huge expenses for very small firms. Surely they need to get some answer about whether, in fact, what's being said, as Mike Russell says, is accurate and indeed to add to that. Before we actually pass this, I think that we should actually get these answers. Yes, just checking as well if you're writing, if all the alternatives are available anywhere else, if there are any ideas of all the alternatives on the one list today. I think that we've captured these points just now, so we're agreed that we will take this at some point, if need be, briefly, as a meeting before the 11th of January. If there is a place where there are answers on this, which are satisfactory, we are fine, but we need to know. We may be able to get some responses before the meeting next week. So we're agreed that at this stage, with regard to the animal buy products that we're writing to the Government about that. The fourth item is the trade in animals and related products Scotland amendment regulation 2015, SSI 2015-401. Any comments about that? It's been pointed out that, yep, no points at all. We're agreed that in those three cases that we're happy to make no recommendations. We'll move on now to agenda item four, which is the sub-ledge again, and it's consideration of S4M, sorry, item three, beg your part. It's the same item. Sub-ledge designation of nitrate vulnerable zones Scotland regulations 2015, SSI 2015-376. Alex Ferguson's lost a motion to annul the instrument, and as is the usual practice in these circumstances, we'll have a brief evidence session first with the Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs, Food and Environment to ask questions and seek clarifications. Alex Ferguson got some questions? Not really very much, so it won't come out when I move my motion to annul. Okay, in that case, we'll ask the Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs opening remarks to me on this. Thank you very much. I'll await the questions and we'll have a debate at that point. Just a brief introduction in that case. As the committee will be aware that this order is in connection with designating nitrate vulnerable zones in Scotland. Under the Nitrate Directive, as part of the action plan that we have to put in place in Scotland under our obligations under that European legislation, we recently changed the methodology in terms of identifying those areas to be designated, and that was broadly welcomed by the industry. The committee may be familiar with the long history of this issue in Scotland, and as a result of changing the methodology in Scotland, we've reduced the area covered from 14 per cent to 10 per cent of the country, and we have been able to take 2,200 farms, either wholly or partially, out of the designations. Albeit, as we're discussing today, there are two areas that are designated as a result of the new methodology, and in terms of the overall review that we have to carry out every few years of the designations. There's one area in Angusdon, and there's one area in the Strumrae Lowlands, which I'm sure that Alex Ferguson is going to speak to. The motion to annul relates to the Strumrae designation as opposed to Angus. We've not really had that many concerns in the Angus area. What I would say, though, is that in Scotland we've taken a very pragmatic approach to the NVZ designations over the years, particularly under recent changes in the past few years. As the industry required, we carried out our review of the methodology that has brought some good news and was welcomed as a positive development by representatives, but it allows us to fulfil our environmental obligations at the same time to tackle diffuse pollution. As it relates to the application of nitrates to farmland, which then runs off into water courses and causes dutification, which in turn creates algae, which is a toxin, and that suffocates other plant life. Therefore, it's very much an interested environment to have these designations where they're appropriate. We're very pragmatic in this country because many other countries have whole territory designations. Therefore, I would be loath to jeopardise the approach that we've taken in Scotland, which has, as I said, resulted in some steps forward in terms of the implications for actual farmers on the grounds, and I would not want to be taking down a road where we have to go down to whole territory designations. I'm not saying that what they said will happen, I'm just saying that's what other countries do, and of course the European Commission understandably watch very closely how we approach things in Scotland. That's the background that I'd like to give to where we are today and why I've put forward these designations. Can I ask one question? Before I actually move my motion, I absolutely welcome the fact that the amount of ground in Scotland that's under this designation is being reduced, and I understand the reasons for doing so. What I have been unable to discover is actual figures that relate to milligrams of nitrates per litre of water before, for instance, the upper nistail that NVZ was put in place, and after. Why is it, as far as I can see, impossible to get these figures? I'm happy to look into supplying—clearly, there won't be time for today's discussion, but I can give you what figures I have, and you can come back to me at that point, and I'll ask colleagues to come in if there's any supplementary figures they can give. I'm sorry, I was referring to the areas that have been taken out of NVZ designations, and why it is so difficult to get the figures for them before the NVZ was put in place, and now that they're coming out. It seems to me to be impossible to get comparative figures for before and after the designation took place. I just want to clarify exactly what figures you're speaking about—figures for— Nitrates—the amount of nitrate in the water of which the main purpose of an NVZ in reducing diffuse pollution is to reduce that figure, as I understand it—to reduce the amount of nitrate in the water. I cannot find figures for existing NVZs that show what those figures are before and after designation. In other words, that is how you monitored the success of an NVZ in the benefit to the environment, surely? Yes, but the new methodology that was put in place clearly allowed us to reassess the designations. We have a threshold that is under the nitrates directive, which is 50 milligrams per litre, and therefore we identify those areas as best we can with the help of the environment agency and others for those areas above that. I am sorry to come back to the synnalol and just use that as an example. There are farms that are at 102 milligrams per litre or 105 and so on, so that is why there is a specific issue in that area. Clearly, in the rest of the country, that threshold determined whether farms or land were designated in the catchment areas. I hear what the cabinet secretary says absolutely, but I still do not understand why it is difficult to find before and after figures pre-designations for NVZs. It cannot be found. If you could write to me about it, I would be more than happy. I am happy to do that. I also have to send you the full analysis of the whole country's designations. I do not know what is coming out of it. You wish to go back to 2003 to look at the figures there. I would like to know the figures for the areas that have been taken out of it. I know that I was on this computer and put it on. That is when the initial was originally designated as 2003, so you looked to compare the 2003 figures and the 2013 figures. That would be useful. Just to clarify, under the new methodology, the water framework directive was introduced in that period. The commission is keen for all countries to integrate the water framework directive and the nitrate directive in their approach. We have taken that approach, so the new methodology runs through about 40 pages and badly sends you a copy, which gives every borehole monitoring figure for the NVZ areas in Scotland. That has been our approach. As the cabinet secretary says, we are now looking at individual groundwater bodies, because before we were looking at the loadings in the catchment rather than individual groundwater bodies, so now we are much more precise as time moves on and we have a much more clearer figure of the actual nitrate problem in that groundwater body. That is what we are looking at now, rather than comparison to the loadings that may be in science moves on, as always. That is fine, but I would appreciate those figures. The argument in this appears to centre around whether, in a Strunroir lowlands area, a voluntary scheme would work and could be supervised. The argument from Alan Bowie in his letter says that considerable expenditure has been undertaken both through SRDP and through individual farmers paying for this, that the department in Strunroir is willing to supervise and that the NFUS believes that there should be a voluntary scheme. You are right to highlight the crux of the debate and concerns of the NFU and others, which is that we should allow this to be a voluntary approach. There have been various inspections and studies of the impact of the voluntary approach, and it is simply not working in the Strunroir lowlands area. For instance, if you look at the Galloway coastal catchment area, which is not just the Strunroir lowlands area, but to give one example of SIPA's inspections, SIPA visited 303 units of which 81.4 per cent to 147 were not compliant already. If this is not even the voluntary approaches, it is compliant with the silage and slurry regulations or the diffuse pollution. Is a catchment area, yes, of 300 farms that were visited? Under the water framework directive, we introduced the programme measures that are based on the PEPFAR code preventing environmental pollution from agricultural activities. I do remember you, Mr Russell, speaking with that in a speech at the SRUC SAC conference a few years ago. We introduced an approach that was based on that code of practice, which was an industry voluntary code in basis, and we introduced general binding rules, which are fairly simple rules. We do not spread manure within 10 metres, etc. As part of our programme measures, we did farm visits on what we call priority catchments. We have done SIPA going out and done these visits, and speaking to farmers and putting them right. No regulation, just keeping them right. Of the general binding rules, as the cabinet secretary said in this Galloway coastal, there was 81 per cent were not compliant with the general binding rules. On Abdi's Cross Scotland, it was about 60 per cent. A convincing argument. If a voluntary scheme has not produced the results that are necessary by legislation, you have to have legislation. That is obvious. I just want to be absolutely clear that the voluntary scheme might have been considered had the outcomes been as high or higher than the regulations, but they are not. Is that the essential way that we are? We very much welcome voluntary schemes, and I congratulate that there have been efforts at a voluntary scheme in recent years, particularly in the Stranarololans. The example that I was given was of a wider survey in the wider area, where even in existing regulations there is not great compliance. In terms of the Stranarololans, I reiterate the comment that I made earlier on, which is in terms of the voluntary approach that has specifically been happening there. The threshold of 50mg per litre in the water courses is way exceeded in 102 and 105 have been recorded, so clearly the voluntary approach is simply not working. In terms of the methodology, we have to take a consistent approach across the country. Those areas are identified for designation just as the 2,200 farms elsewhere in the country were designated as not having or we found that they did not have to be designated under the new methodology, and therefore they are being wholly or partially removed from designation. So it is 2,200 out, 130 in, and 130 in is where the voluntary approach has not worked. There is funding available for those who have to undertake additional work? Yes, there are a couple of ways in which we help farmers. Firstly, there is clearly funding for slurry storage. There are £10 million in the new Scotland rule development programme for that. People who qualify for those who have not applied previously, i.e. if they have already got slurry storage funding for that in the past, they cannot apply to the new scheme, but that is self-evident. Secondly, there is a free advisory service in which we fund the SRUC to provide to farmers affected. So Jim Hume first then, Claudia Cera, Graham Harwick. Thank you very much, convener, and of course good morning to the minister, cabinet secretary, and his colleagues there. It's a bit confusing that, say, 300 ord farms were visited weren't compliant. We're only talking about 130 farms to be added to the NVZ. The paper says only 130 farms, but I would say that that shows a bias there. 130 is still quite a significant number of businesses. The paper also says that there are only a small number of farmers in the NVZ who aren't compliant regarding slurry storage. I think that you're one percent non-compliant. You said that that's from a broader area, and that's from farms that aren't being put in the NVZ. There is a bit of confusion between what you're telling us and what's in our paper, so I'd like some clarification on that. It also states in our paper that there will be a cost-benefit analysis done in 2016 regarding NVZs following the Brian Pack review. I wonder why that wasn't done prior to the recommendation that we have in front of us. Has there been any business impact assessment or economic impact assessment done for the area for the new NVZ farmers? Do you also note that you say that there shall be funding available subject to qualification? Obviously, SRDB funds are limited. You said that there's £10 million. I'd just like to get that clarified if that's absolutely for this area alone. What happens, of course, if it costs £10.5 million, then the later farmer applying may not be able to get any funding, so it's two or three points there that are very helpful to get some clarification on. Sure. There's a number of questions there. Firstly, in no particular order, the £10 million is within the rule development programme for slurry storage that applies to the whole country. Clearly, there will be a scoring mechanism drawn up for that and those NVZ areas will get a higher score when they apply for it, so they're more likely to get the funding in those areas. The 130 farms for those who do not have slurry storage are more likely to get a higher score when they're applying and they're more likely to get the funding to help them. In terms of the 130 figure, what I was trying to do was two things. First, I was given an example of why there's an issue here and I was trying to give an example of the SEPA survey that had been carried out over compliance with existing regulations in the Galway coastal catchment. I gave the results for that, which is 81.4 per cent. We're not compliant with existing regulations that are already there. Then I went on to say that within the Stranraololans, which is the subject of 130 farms and the new designation, I was trying to give examples of how there's evidence that we have a problem there that the voluntary approach is not working, which is obviously why we're designating under the directive. At the same time, there's a lot of farms in Scotland coming out and we have to be consistent with how we apply this across the country. The issue over the action plan and the assessments or the business case or the business costs is probably worth just saying that we have two things we have to do here. We have to review the designations and also we have to publish and revise the action plan every four years. They're out of sync with each other from Europe. Therefore, the designations are being revised just now and hence you've got the order before you for 2016. Then in 2016, we have to revise the actual action plan, which is the overall plan that should involve a whole range of things to do with NVZs, so that will happen next year. If I may convener, I just want to follow up on one part of that, at least before others come in. It states that there's an indication that it's only a small number of farmers in the new NVZs who are yet compliant with regard to slurry. Do you have an indication of what that small number is? Is it 10 per cent? Excuse me, 12 farms. You have an indication. Yes, you know exactly. Out of the 130. Out of the 138. Out of the 138. There's 68 in the Stranarloans and there's 12 farms that do not have adequate slurry. Sorry, you said 12 things and you said 68. There's 68 farms in the Stranarloans in total that's in the NVZ. There's 44, is it not? There's 68. There's some will be partially in the Stranarloans as well, not totally, maybe 44 total, but some of the fringes will have part in and part out of the NVZ. There's 12 of these at the moment of being done. On the point about the 138 units at Galloway Coastal, I'll just clarify something there, it was not just done in the Galloway Coastal, this exercise done across the whole of Scotland. 4,000 farms were visited, SIPA walked 5,000 kilometres of water courses and found 5,000 breaches of the general binding rules under the controlled activity regulations. Did not take any regulation action, advised farmers about what they could do to put that right, but that's just the scale of things where the voluntary approach has not worked through the PEC for code. Claudia Beamish, then Sarah Boyack. Thank you, convener. Convener, could I just clarify at this point in the process, is it questions only or is it comments to be taken into account? That's a question to the stage for asking the Cabinet Secretary to answer with his team about that. The debate takes place in the next item. Right, okay. I was just needed to be put right there, thank you. Does it sense on the order of paper? Good morning, Cabinet Secretary and officials. I think it would be helpful if you could say a little bit more about the support for farmers and the opportunities. Two summers ago, I visited the I-Math Basin and I was very impressed with what SIPA was doing to not only walk the water courses, which Ian Spears has mentioned already, but to look at the opportunities for making improvements. I wonder the degree. It was quite disappointing in previous questioning that the voluntary approach has not worked in some cases. I wonder the degree to which that has worked in other places so that we can look at good practice. If it has to move to a statutory arrangement, which I understand the arguments for, is there ever any opportunity to go back to it being voluntary after that, if things are working well? In terms of what is being encouraged at the moment to help farmers to improve practices, clearly we are encouraging all farmers in Scotland to adopt nutrient management plans. It is in their own interests to do that for good business reasons as well as environmental reasons. Clearly, if we ever got to a stage where all farmers in Scotland had a good nutrient management plan in place and it was working well, then it would not be over-applying nutrients or, in this case, nitrate-based fertilizer or whatever, and therefore they would save themselves money. The run-off would not happen to the same degree into local water courses with the environmental consequences. It is in the interests of farmers to have a nutrient management plan. Many farmers in Scotland have that at the moment. It is also part of that to adopt good practice on farm of when they are spreading slurry and how they are spreading it and so on and so forth. If that were to happen in a greater degree than what happens just now, then, hopefully, we would get under that threshold that is in the naturalist directive. For the next round of reviewing designations in Scotland, more farms could be de-designated. Clearly, the industry welcomed the new methodology, which tried to take a much more pragmatic approach but still science-based. We cannot just support something when it leads to de-designation. If you are applying a methodology, it could lead to new designations as well. In this case, it so happens that many more farms are coming out of de-designation than are being subject to new designations. However, we have to be consistent if we are to do what is right for the environment. We also give assurances to the European Commission so that they do not take a heavy-handed approach with us, for instance asking us to have a whole territory designation. That is why we are taking that approach. Nutrient management plans are something that we are encouraging in the industry. Brian Pack, in his report on the future of agriculture in Scotland, recommended that it was an absolute must that all farmers should have a nutrient management plan. As part of our greening debate in Scotland, we are talking about making that mandatory for farmers to have a very light-touch nutrient management plan, so that they are paying attention to how they can save themselves money and, at the same time, avoid damaging our environment through diffuse pollution. Some of my questions have been answered, but I would like to follow up the question just asked by Claudia Beamish. Minister, you have identified the fact that nutrient management plans actually save money and are actually good for farming businesses. Given that we now have quite substantial experience across Scotland with implementing NVT designations over the years, what are the lessons that you have learned about the obstacles to change? I am very conscious of having talked to NFUS representatives about practical problems and how people see design of requirements as being counterproductive. That is one of the messages that comes back to us. What are the obstacles to change on farm for a farmer in terms of making those changes? Although you say that it is of minimal cost and it brings benefits, all change requires doing things differently. That requires investment, it requires time and it requires effort to change. I think that all of us know that. Can we give a bit about the obstacles to change and what previous experience from NVT designations has helped? You say that there is going to be a two-year transitional review and that there is going to be support for farmers through local workshops. I suppose that the question is what confidence have you got that that is going to help farmers to make a change in a time that is, as we all know, incredibly uncertain for them? Thank you. It is a big question. I would say that you are right in that there are financial challenges facing particularly the dairy sector in many areas that will be affected by NVZs, but that is why there is £10 million of support available in the rural development programme to help with the costs of new slurry storage. In terms of the obstacles for changing behaviour, that is a big question. It is a cultural mindset issue in the industry in that we have tried over the past few years not always successfully to get away with the impression that there are big regulators about to land at the farm gate and impose really tough regulations that are expensive whereas farmers just want to go on farm understandably. That has improved in recent years with the Scottish Environment Protection Agency working more with local farmers to talk through the benefits and understand how it can save costs at the same time. We use less fertilizer, particularly given that costs have been rising in fertilizer over the past few years. There has been a bit of a cultural change. I think that there is still some way to go. We can see that from the statistics that too many farms are still perhaps not taking this seriously enough as an issue in terms of the pollution that has been caused to local water courses. 17 bathing areas in Scotland have of course failed and one of the reasons that is cited for that was agricultural diffuse pollution, so we run off into our bathing areas. Not just because of NDZs, I am not saying that, I am just saying that that is one general cause that is cited. Therefore, land use and agricultural practice has a big role to play in cleaning up our water environment. More and more farmers understand that and are working with SEPA and advisory services that are supplied by the SRUC and others to move forward. The culture is changing but the mindset and cultural issue has been a big obstacle. A layman's question, cabinet secretary. Would it be correct to say that those farmers who have invested in slurry stores already and are doing the right thing will not be disadvantaged by the designation? It would, in fact, be the dozen who have been thumbing their nose at this. It is a good point. I remember having been through this a few years ago when there was a lot of difficult debate at the time of the first round of designations many years ago. I remember that once designations had taken place and many farmers started the record keeping, started to fertilise their management, put in place their new slurry storage. It is actually seen as quite a positive thing to do. Therefore, the backlash perhaps was not as evident as some people predicted. I understand that many farmers prefer the voluntary approach and many farmers prefer not to be told what to do by legislation, but those farmers who have already taken those steps because they are in an area that is designated have generally found it to be something that they can live with and perhaps even beneficial. In practical terms, what would be the difference for those farmers once the area is designated compared to now? What would they have to do that they are not doing at the moment? In terms of record keeping of having to manage their application of fertiliser, there will be closed periods that apply in terms of when they can apply the fertiliser and nitrates. Of course, they require slurry storage as well. As I said, there are periods by which they can spread the slurry and there are regulations around that. To follow on that, thank you convener, but it is the case that there will be some farmers. As far as I know, in the lowland area, it is very few who will be disadvantaged because they have already received SRDP funding. They may be required to increase their slurry storage as a result of the NVZ without access to NVZ funding as it stands. As you rightly said, it is extremely difficult economic times for the industry. I am not sure how they are expected to do that. Currently, there is a great willingness to comply. The NVZ may produce an unwillingness or an inability to do so. Ian wants to make a comment there, so I will let him do that. If they had increased their slurry storage under the current voluntary approach, which has been—I think that I did not cover this—since 2009, the farmers from Aralons have had unlimited access to an SAC adviser and funding for doing slurry stores, etc. If they had increased their slurry store to their herd size at that time because the herd size of slurry stores related to their herd size, they would not have a problem. If they had increased their herd size, they should have increased their slurry storage accordingly, because that is a business decision, I would say. At law, it depends on the supply and demand of those £10 million available. Clearly, we have to determine the criteria of who qualifies those £10 million. I think that most people would think that it is reasonable that those who have not already benefited from the previous SRDP should be first in the queue to get a new support, but I will give a guarantee that I will keep that under review. Should someone have previously applied and has expanded their herd and needs further support and if the demand for the funds allows that to be reviewed, I would review that. I think that Mr Spears is being a little unfair because it can well be the case that part of the improvements that have been made to put up housing to house cattle that were previously kept outdoors. By doing so, you find that you have a little bit of extra capacity, you increase the size of your herd and find that what you had perfectly well put in place with considerable investment could still be improved upon. It would be a great shame if they were excluded from SRDP assistance at this time. I am very grateful for the cabinet secretary's words on that. How many people apply to that? Yes, I understand that. Could I ask what the cost of a slurry store investment actually is? I think that that varies because some people will build huge slurry stores that can cost several hundred thousand pounds and clearly it depends on the size of your herd. Are there any examples that we can think of? There is a great variance because it can vary between either having an actual tower slurry store or putting a lagoon. A lagoon is a much cheaper method of doing. We would put a lagoon which was lying to avoid any infiltration in the soil. That would be the cheapest option. However, as the cabinet secretary says, there are a million gallons of slurry store in the Strunrar Lowlands at the moment, which is a rather large container. Yes. Yes, thank you. Just a pot of information, a read by the maps of the designated areas will be available online. When will we be available online from when? Is the map from the Scottish Government website? The maps online? Yes. That is covered by my scarpet colleagues at Salkton. It is in the process. We are looking to have them online by perhaps in the middle of this month. In the middle of this month? Thank you. Are there no further questions at the moment? In which case we move to agenda item 4. This item is to consider the motion S4M 14793, asking the committee to annul the designation of nitrate vulnerable zones Scotland regulations 2015 draft. The motion will be moved with an opportunity for a formal debate on the SSI, which can procedurally last up to 90 minutes. In practice, most of the issues will have been covered in questions, I hope, in the evidence session. It is a case that the officials cannot now speak in this debate. I invite Alex Ferguson to speak to and move the motion. Thank you, convener. If it takes 90 minutes, it will not be my fault, I promise you. I do seek to annul the instrument and I continue to seek to do so, despite the Q&A session that we have just had. I believe it to be both unnecessary and ill-conceived for reasons that I will clarify, although, if members will bear with me for a few minutes, I need to give a little bit of background before I do so. If there is little repetition in that, I apologise. I recognise that the intention is to create two new NVZs, but, as the cabinet secretary pointed out earlier, my comments relate solely to the STRAMRA lowlands proposal, which is in my constituency and which I know in some detail. It is in reality an area around STRAMRA that contains 44 farms, but I think that it may be 44 farming businesses that may well include a further number of farms, so I am happy to accept that. However, there are 44 farming businesses, as I understand it, in the proposed catchment area of the Pultant and Byrn. Back in 2009, as has already been alluded to, a meeting was organised by SAC Consulting to raise concern among farmers in the STRAMRA area about issues relating to diffuse pollution and how best practice in slurry spreading and storage could considerably reduce the requirement for artificial fertilisers. To cut a very long story short, several follow-up meetings were held. A number of borehole sites were identified, tested and monitored with seepers involvement. In 2010, a baseline questionnaire was carried out to identify the scale of the problem and how it could best be addressed. What that survey highlighted was a serious lack of slurry storage capacity. Less than 5 per cent of the farmers involved had more than six-month storage capacity. The practical implications of that were that slurry was being spread in large quantities at totally unsuitable times, which benefited neither the farmer nor the environment. It was agreed among the farmers involved to do everything possible to address those problems, and the Pultant and Byrn catchment initiative was formed, with three aims of reducing the nutrient load, of sharing best practice and of raising awareness of the rules and regulations pertaining to the spreading of slurry. In January 2011, soil samples were taken from all 66 farms within the initiative area. What that showed up was a considerable lack of lime. That is important because a balanced pH, in other words, having enough lime in the soil, a balanced pH will result in a greatly improved uptake of nitrogen. Therefore, a low pH results in much greater nitrogen being able to leach into the watercourse. That problem has been addressed. However, the main thrust of the initiative, as we have heard, has been to increase slurry storage capacity so that slurry could be spread at the most appropriate times. The result of that has been, with the help of SRDP, prioritisation on diffuse pollution, 44 applications within the catchment having been approved and which are now operational. I would contest some of the figures shown, because I believe that the results have been absolutely—have been nothing less than spectacular. The first sampling back in 2009, and I think that the Cabinet Secretary did allude to this, showed that nitrate levels in the water within that area were 47mg per litre against a maximum under European designation of 50, I think, was the figure quoted. It was very, very close to the limit. By 2014, that level has reduced to 26mg per litre and that level has been maintained this year as well. 43 news stores have been built, giving 32 million gallons of extra storage, with 66 per cent of businesses now having over six months storage capacity, as compared to less than 5 per cent in 2009. 43 of the 44 businesses now have waste management plans with further improvements envisaged. That was something that the Cabinet Secretary referred to as being a benefit of an NVZ. 43 of 44 already have them. Over 30 miles of the Piltanton burn have been fenced off, creating 30 hectares of new water margin, and extra housing has been created for almost 2,000 head of cattle, and the list of benefits goes on. The Cabinet Secretary understandably spoke of doing what is right for the environment, but I do not think that, even in his wildest dreams, he could ask for much more than what has been achieved already in the Piltanton burn catchment. So what is their reward? Their reward appears to be the imposition of an NVZ, which threatens, I think, to undo some of the great work that has been undertaken already through the voluntary initiative. The proposed NVZ is only going to cover two-thirds of the businesses that are involved in the initiative, as two other burn catchments are excluded. By the way, I do accept that there is one borehole out of the—I think it is—eight. The four-thirteen or four-teen that are used in the area shows different results to the extraordinary reduction in levels that have been achieved in the others. That is something that does not need to be investigated and clarified. I accept that entirely, but I do not believe that that relates to the entire area. So the proposed NVZ will cover only two-thirds of the businesses that are involved in the initiative, as two other burn catchments, including the voluntary initiative, are excluded from the NVZ. The NVZ will actually have four different closed periods within it, because of the different soil types in the area. Farmers will not be allowed to put slurry on arable stubble in August onwards—from August onwards, I beg your pardon—a perfectly sensible time to put slurry on that sort of ground, and yet they will be able to spread some of that slurry on grassland in January, which is really not a sensible time to put slurry on ground. There will be huge complexities of—because of the four different closed times, even within individual farms, and that can only lead to monitoring difficulties, I would deign to suggest. It simply does not make sense to have that level of complexity in such a small area. Those different closed periods will also mean that it could be entirely possible that farmers will not be able to empty their storage tanks before the onset of winter, putting, I would suggest, even greater pressure on storage capacity and, therefore, encouraging spreading of slurry at times that are not the most advantageous. January-Febru spreading simply increases soil compaction, particularly in a wet year, and soil compaction just increases diffuse pollution, because the run-off is so much greater. All of that is the exact opposite of what the NVZ is intended to achieve, and yet it will be perfectly legal under the rules. I would contest that those complexities are entirely unnecessary and could be avoided by introducing a single catchment by closed period. I would suggest that it should be extended into October for the whole NVZ, and yet the singular lack of early engagement between affected farmers and department officials when the NVZ was going to be proposed have not even allowed these options to be properly discussed. That is why I say and use the term that the NVZ is being imposed. Convener, in summing up here, the Tantan Burn Catchment Initiative is a massive success story. It is so because it is voluntary, it is bought into by 100% of the businesses involved, and because peer pressure ensures that everyone does the right thing by the environment and by their businesses and the figures back this up, the imposed NVZ will, I would argue, reduce the number of businesses involved by a third, increase the amount of red tape and bureaucracy involved when we are supposed to be reducing it, and introduce a reluctance to adhere to the new rules and regulations, which will take the place of the enthusiastic involvement of the voluntary initiative that has been the hallmark of the last five or six years of the initiative's existence. I think that the proposal is unnecessary complicated, it is ill thought out and it will not improve on the environmental benefits that are already being achieved at this time. I would therefore appeal to the cabinet secretary to at least agree to the NFUS's request that this SSSI be, if nothing else, postponed to allow alternative options to be explored. I am doing so to move the motion in my name. Members wish to make any contribution to this at the moment. I have listened carefully to what my colleague on the committee, Alex Ferguson, has said. There does appear to be a cause for concern, which I have not been able to hear until this time. However, having looked quite closely with SIPA at the EyeMouth Basin, as I highlighted earlier, I did see that it was very difficult to encourage and persuade farmers that the work needed doing, and if it does not sound too patronising at that point in time, it was a shared education process for the farmers involved. I do have a concern that, if we do not proceed with the measures throughout, it will weaken the protection that is given. I recognise very strongly the targeted nature of what is happening in Scotland, which you have highlighted this morning, cabinet secretary. That is very important, and we do not want to jeopardise that in any way. I would like to highlight the issue around that, if something is voluntary and aspects of it are not working, it moves to having to be enforced in a statutory way that that should again have the opportunity to be reviewed, which you have clarified. I think that the finance issue is very important for farmers. I take note of your earlier comments about the review of farmers being able to use the SRDP, and I do think that it is very important if, through no fault of their own, they have installed a certain type of lagoon or tar and then they find that they are going to have to do it differently. For farmers, we always look for simplicity where possible, but that must allow for the risk of diffuse pollution being prevented. It is complex, but at the moment I do not wish to support Alex Ferguson, but I would like those points to be taken into account. Thank you very much, convener. I shall be supporting the motion to anul today. Just briefly, I do not think that we have seen enough of an economic impact assessment done to realise how much of a negative impact this will have on a quite fragile area of south-west Scotland. I am also not convinced that the SRDP money would go far enough to cover all the costs that may occur in that area. Those SRDP grants are competitive and the £10 million is for the whole of Scotland, so I shall be supporting the motion to anul. I certainly listened carefully to Alex Ferguson's reasons for not wanting to support the statutory instrument. It is quite hard for us, because we have to weigh up and balance off the fact that the Scottish Government has obligations under the EU directive to make sure that we tackle the issue of diffuse pollution. I am 110 per cent in support of that, and, like the cabinet secretary, I have followed the debate for more than a decade, and, like him, I have sat on the other side of the fence as well. I think that the job of our committee is to test it and to do it to the best of our ability. What I want to reflect back is that I would like to hear a detailed response to Alex's comments. He has clearly talked to the farmers in the area, and a lot have attempted to take the path of going down the voluntary route and doing the best that they can. There were a couple of things that struck me from his comments. One was about the whole issue of soil management, which, if you are not a farmer or an environmental campaigner, seems incredibly remote from the rest of us, but getting good soil management that works both for farming and for our environmental objectives has to be at the heart of that. I would be interested in the cabinet secretary's response to Alex Ferguson's detailed comments about the impact of the voluntary code. To go back to your initial comments, cabinet secretary, about the fact that 80 per cent of the farms in the area that you have identified were not compliant, and to try to bridge the gap between Alex's comments and the core issue that we need to demonstrate that we are compliant with European regulations. My second point is to go back to the point of the exemplars from the farmers who have changed their practices and who have implemented the measures and the benefits that they have experienced. It is just to tease out that issue about the design of the scheme, because it is something that we regularly hear from farmers that they are trying to do the right by the environment, and the design of their obligations from the Scottish Government cuts across what they are trying to do. For me, that is at the heart of it, to tease that out and the support that farmers will get in making those changes. You talked, cabinet secretary, about a culture shift, but all of us know that, even when you have something beneficial, a culture shift is not just mindsets, but it involves costs and doing things differently. If you do not believe that the culture shift is going to deliver the objective or that you think that there is an alternative way to do it, it is actually quite hard to achieve that. In responding to Alex's motion to another, I think that that is the thing that we need to hear what the benefits are and why you have adopted that approach. To make sure that those farmers that have already made the change are not going to be hit by that, they will continue to get the benefit of having made not just a cultural change, but changes in farming. That is the key thing to identify. That is a debate, because I am very much in favour of using night-rate vulnerable zones to deliver environmental improvements, but we need to take people with us. I echo back to the cabinet secretary that the feedback that we always get from farmers is that they do not like the design of the rules. That discussion that we are having today almost epitomises that there is a clear benefit that will come from action here, but bringing the people who love to implement that action with us is the key test. That is really what we need to hear from the cabinet secretary. It is a proportionate measure and it will work. It does not disbenefit farmers who have already started to do the good thing. How to bring those who have not yet done the right improvements? How will they be brought on board? For me, the crucial issue is the one that I raised the question about. Could this have been done by a voluntary scheme? The cabinet secretary and his officials have made it very clear that the voluntary scheme was not working and was not expected to work, given the circumstances, and that there were resources and are resources available to help those who are affected. Therefore, I have no hesitation in voting for it. However, I accept the point that Sarah Boyack has made forcibly, that the way in which European regulation is explained to those who are affected and implemented requires to improve constantly. I do not think that this is a surprise to the cabinet secretary. He and I have discussed this on many occasions over many years, but it is difficult for people faced with what they see as additional expenditure, which may not produce results any better than the results that they have already invested in. They require to be a much better process to be undertaken. Some of the initiatives that were taken in terms of farm inspections in the early years of this administration might be born in mind so that we can constantly simplify the way in which we work with farmers and work with others to implement necessary regulations. However, I think that it is quite clear that the effort that the Scottish Government has taken to remove from the effect of nitrate-volumel zones is a very large number of farming businesses. Those who remain within it remain within it for good reason and therefore that the regulation is required. Are there any other members who wish to comment at the moment? No. In which case, cabinet secretary, respond to the debate, please. Thank you very much, and I have listened closely to all the contributions. I will do my best to respond to as many as I can. The nitrate directive is designed to protect the water environment from nitrate pollution from agricultural sources, and that is why we are discussing this today. It is a detailed directive, detailed requirements and, of course, we are all aware that the European Commission is vigorous in ensuring compliance. However, in Scotland, as I said previously, we have strived to take a very pragmatic approach to ensure that we meet our EU obligations. However, we must take on board the views of our farming sector at the same time. Through that approach, the area of Scotland designated as NVZ, a natural vulnerable zone, has been no greater than 14 per cent over the years. Unlike, as I said again before, in the opening question-and-answer session, unlike some European countries such as Northern Ireland and many others where the whole territory is designated, not just 14 per cent but 100 per cent. However, the commission expects a scientific approach to evidence and requires all member states to demonstrate a robust methodology on which our designations are based. Indeed, NFU Scotland has previously called for a more scientific approach, and we delivered that in our last review of how we go about the designations in Scotland. In the four-year review of the designated areas carried out in 2013, we developed, through the Scottish Environment Protection Agency, that new methodology. It was developed and agreed with the review panel, which included NFU Scotland, the SRUC, as well as SIPA and Scottish Natural Heritage. That revised methodology has supported a reduction of the overall NVZ area to just now over 10 per cent of Scotland, down from the 14 per cent. Targeting the NVZ regulations are where there is an identified problem of nitrates affecting ground water quality is the approach that we favour. By applying that new methodology, 2,200 farms were fully or partially removed from the designations in February of this year, with 130 farms scheduled for designation from 1 January 2016, provided to you support the order today. I should say that, at the time of those announcements, they were warmly welcomed by a range of stakeholders and the wider industry. However, the new designation relates to the two areas where the natural levels and several monitoring points have shown maximum levels near or in excess of the standards. I appreciate that Alex Ferguson and the NFU Scotland and others have called for a continued voluntary approach to staying in place in the Shunralolans. Since 2009, we have financially supported such actions, however they have not delivered the required improvements against the EU set standards. I listen carefully to Alex Ferguson's concerns and those of others. I would be willing to offer something that we have not really done before, which is that, while we have a national action plan for NVZs, we are able to, to a degree, have a bespoke action plan for local areas, so I would be willing to give a commitment today to go away and look at whether we can introduce a more bespoke action plan for the Shunralolans. I am sure that there is something that we can do there. It still means that we have to abide by the directive, but in terms of the wider action plan and implementation, I would be willing to ask officials to look and see if there is a Shunralolans action plan that could be developed to understand some of the concerns that are expressed by members of the committee. However, it is the fact that looking at the figures, I appreciate that there are a lot of figures in those long documents. If we look at the figures over the areas that have been tested and the areas that have been discussed, of all the areas in looking at the trends projected from the results taken of the natural levels, five of the areas that have been tested, be it the burns or boreholes, showed that five trends over the past three years showed no change in the trend, five showed an improvement and five showed a deterioration. If the areas that have been tested for the natural levels that have been discussed, 50 per cent of those where there has been a change have been a deterioration. The voluntary approach is welcome and I know that many farmers have done good things, but clearly we have to be consistent in how we apply the science and methodology across the country. In this area, we have a situation where 50 per cent of those areas, be it the boreholes or burns, have shown a deterioration and trend over the past few years. I think that we are justified in designating that particular area. Turning to Sarah Boyack's comments, again, we can discuss for hours and I am not going to take up 90 minutes the change in culture and mindset of Scottish agriculture and I have learned a number of lessons over the past few years in his post. Many farmers say to me that they look across the water to Ireland, which has an initiative called Origin Green. They are using that in the international marketplace to market Irish produce and the farming sector behind that and they are leading in that marketing message. I think that the message that they are trying to convey to the rest of the world is that Ireland is greener in terms of agriculture than many other places and therefore people who are looking to buy produce that has been produced sustainably should look to the Irish label and I will leave others to determine whether or not that is justified. The farmers in Scotland are telling me that they are looking at what is happening across the water. I say that that is why we are doing our best to work together to green Scottish agriculture to get the benefits from the marketplace of being greener. We have to walk the walk as well as talk the talk. In terms of the progress that we are making with tackling agricultural diffuse pollution, we have to continue to make that progress and we have to show that we are walking the walk and not just talking the talk. In response to Sarah Boyack, I would say that I think that this is all part of the greening of agricultural debate. What we do has got to be credible, it has got to be consistent, but it has got to be proportionate and pragmatic and I think that this designation is that at the same time. Finally, we did not put forward those designations as part of the overall designations, because we understood that we need to have more transparency over the Strunran lowlands and the area of Angus. That is why we have this order being discussed today and we have had the opportunity to focus on some of the issues around that area of Scotland. What we are doing is the right thing to do to help to tackle diffuse pollution from agriculture in Scotland and to fulfil our obligations under the naturalist directive and to capture all the other benefits that are available for farming businesses and the areas that are affected. I hope that we can work together in the months and years ahead to get to a better place. Once we are in that place, there will be another review of the designations and hopefully we can take different decisions in the times ahead. Alex Ferguson wind up and decide whether you are going to press or withdraw your motion. I thank all members and the cabinet secretary for the part that they have played in the debate. I hope that it is clear that I am not arguing against NVZs and that I am not arguing against the revised methodology that has led to those changes. I am absolutely not. I was very struck by the figures that Mr Spears gave and I think yourself, cabinet secretary, in the testing that was done around the whole Galloway coastal area. Some of the figures that come out of that were quite stark, which to me makes it all the more extraordinary that the proposed NVZ is going to cover a group, a catchment that is doing something about it when, quite clearly, there are an awful lot of others who apparently are not. I contest Mike Russell's view that the voluntary scheme is not working. I like to think that the figures that I gave and the figures that are on the table would show very strongly that it is, to have reduced the overall nitrate load in the water from 47mg per litre to 26mg and stable over the eight sites that the initiative has been constantly monitoring has been done by CEPA—it is not done privately, it is done by CEPA—and that 26mg has been stable over the last two years has to show that something is being done right. I accept that there is one borehole, one site, that shows an opposite effect. However, the fact is that there are three so-called waste water treatment plants in that area. They are not waste water treatment plants, they are sewage tanks, settlement tanks, on which, in wet times—I hate to say it, but Galloway has many wet times—these tanks are Scottish water have permission to allow them to overflow. I do not think that any of that has been taken into account in putting up the scientific background for this NVZ, and yet I think that that is bound to have an impact on some of the sites that are monitored. The cabinet secretary rightly said that any such designation has to be pragmatic and proportionate, but I am a little sad that he did not refer to the four different closed periods that will exist within this NVZ, because they are anything but pragmatic, and I do not think that they are proportionate. He mentioned what is happening in Northern Ireland, and there is a great deal of jealousy from the Peltantynburn catchment initiative of what is happening in Northern Ireland, where I understand that they have a single closed period and that it is extended into October. If that is the sort of thing that can be looked at when the cabinet secretary refers to looking at a more bespoke action plan, and I hugely welcome that commitment to do so. I hope that he will begin that process in the very near future. That is all well and good, but I am afraid that I am not convinced that there is overall almost disbelief by the farmers who have taken part so willingly in the voluntary initiative. Basically, that is being imposed on an area, albeit a small one, that is actively engaged in doing everything that it can to reduce diffuse pollution when there are clearly others who are not. That level of disbelief and non-recognition of what has been done leads me to wish to push my motion to about. The question is then that motion S4M-14793, in the name of Alec Ferguson, be approved. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. Therefore, there will be a division. I would call for those who wish to vote S4M-14793, for the motion S4M-14793, for those who are against to indicate S4M-14793, one, two, three, four, five, six, seven. There will be no abstentions then. The result is that there are two for and seven against. Therefore, the votes being cast, the committee disagrees with the motion proposed by Alec Ferguson just now, and we will indicate this to the Government. We will now make the point that, at the next meeting on 16 December, the committee will consider various pieces of sub-ledge, a draft letter to the SRUC, and consider its work programme and approaches to its legacy report. As agreed earlier, the committee will now move into private session, and I will now close the public part of the meeting and ask for the public gallery to be cleared. We will take a short break before we reconvene in private.